technology

Was Professional Development the Missing Piece?

Admin1 Comment

This is part 4 in my series about the impact of technology on education. The previous post regarding research was profound. If you would like to read the whole series, you can start with Part 1, which provides an overview before subsequent posts dive deeper into the nuances.

What if the problem was never the tool, but the lack of sustained support? Or support from the onset?

For years, classrooms have been flooded with platforms, programs, and promises. New tools arrive with excitement, urgency, and often good intentions. Teachers are (sometimes) trained briefly, then sent back to their classrooms to “make it work.” Sometimes there is no training, and expected to “make it work”. When outcomes fall short, frustration follows. Fingers point in every direction.

But perhaps the most honest explanation is also the least controversial: we asked educators to transform instruction without giving them the time, space, or support to truly learn how to do so.

One-Time PD vs. Sustained Learning

Most teachers recognize this pattern immediately.

A new tool is introduced. There’s a short training – here’s what it does, here’s where to click – and then: Go use it. Sometimes there’s follow-up, but it’s often months later and/or focused narrowly on features, not instruction. Other times, PD becomes so repetitive that it feels disconnected from classroom reality.

The spacing matters, just like it matters with our students. When training sessions are too far apart, teachers naturally fill in the gaps themselves. They figure out what works (and what doesn’t) through trial, error, and time; often without a shared pedagogical vision guiding those decisions.

Add to that the reality that many schools roll out multiple new tools or curriculum adoptions at once, sometimes with little dedicated time at the start of the year to learn them deeply. And sometimes there’s too much information coming at the beginning of the school year. The result isn’t resistance, it’s overload.

There has to be a better way.

Pedagogy Must Come First: We Can’t Pretend the Clock Rewinds

In theory, most educators agree: pedagogy should come before platforms, curricula, and pacing.

In practice, that train has already left the station long ago.

Teachers are knee-deep in platforms that were adopted years ago. Pedagogy often became secondary, not because educators didn’t care, but because survival required learning to manage the tool with students in the classroom in real time before reflecting on how it shaped instruction.

So the question isn’t Should pedagogy come first?
It’s How do we re-center pedagogy now, given where we are?

One possible answer isn’t adding more tools, but pressing pause. Limiting new adoptions. Creating space for a pedagogical reset using the platforms already in place. Asking not What else do we need? But how can we use what we have better? Or how can I use what is already available? How will it help me/my students?

This isn’t easy. It can feel overwhelming. But if the goal is student thinking, understanding, and transfer, not just task completion or student compliance, then the work is necessary.

What Meaningful Tech PD Actually Looks Like

I know, this is a loaded question. We want it, we know we need it, but are often loath to attend, myself included. This is especially true when it’s district-provided. Why is that? (That was more of a question to myself, no sarcasm, just a real thought/question)

If professional development is meant to change classroom practice, it must be manageable, relevant, and immediately useful.

That starts with focus. If a district introduces three new tools, meaningful PD might center on just one—and even then, on one or two high-leverage instructional uses, not every feature. Depth matters more than breadth. I’m a fan of showing how it is relevant to you, right now.

PD also needs to be differentiated. Some teachers are ready to explore advanced applications. Others need a strong foundation. Meeting teachers where they are isn’t a luxury; it’s how learning works. The trick is to do this well. I’m not sure what the answer is, but I know it should be a goal.

And perhaps most importantly: teachers need to be able to use what they learn immediately. I am passionate about this point. If something isn’t implemented within a week, it often never will. This isn’t a failure of commitment; it’s the reality of teaching in a system filled with mandates, assessments, and competing priorities.

Ongoing support matters too. Not once a semester. Not when schedules allow. Consistent coaching, collaboration, and feedback help teachers refine their practice at a pace that feels sustainable rather than rushed.

Teachers invest in what moves their students forward. When the impact is visible, the motivation follows.

The Cost of Not Investing in Teacher Learning

When professional learning is shallow or fragmented, classrooms tend to drift toward extremes. Again, this isn’t a criticism of teachers; it’s a reality.

In some cases, technology becomes a digital babysitter, students consume, click, and complete without deep thinking. That’s the compliance factor. In others, technology is avoided altogether. Of the two, opting out may be the more responsible choice, but it still leaves potential untapped.

A middle ground exists.

When teachers are supported in learning how and why to use tools, technology can amplify good pedagogy rather than replace it. Tools that provide immediate feedback, surface misconceptions, or help analyze student thinking, like Snorkl or Wayground, can lighten the instructional load while keeping learning active and visible. I know I keep bringing up these two tools. They are ones I have available in my district. There are other tools that achieve the same things.

But even the best tools can’t compensate for a lack of investment in teacher learning.

A Shared Responsibility

This isn’t about blame. We are where we are, and reflection is necessary.

Teachers didn’t ask for constant change without time to adapt. Administrators didn’t design systems to overwhelm. Policymakers didn’t intend to sideline pedagogy. Everyone involved is operating within constraints and doing what they feel is best.

But if we want classrooms where students think, explain, and truly understand, then professional learning can’t be an afterthought. It has to be central to how we implement change.

Teachers and students deserve better than “I have to do this.”
We’ve tried that. It doesn’t work. It’s time we try something different.

So, my question to you is, if professional development were designed around learning rather than compliance, what would change, for teachers, for students, and for the system as a whole?

Coming Next:
If professional learning is the bridge between research and practice, the final question remains: what does balance actually look like in real classrooms? In the next post, we’ll step back to examine what sustainable, thoughtful technology integration can, and should, feel like for teachers and students.

Consumption vs. Production: What Do We Actually Mean?

Admin1 Comment

This post is part of a series exploring how technology, pedagogy, and system-level decisions shape classroom learning. In this entry, the focus shifts to a distinction that often gets overlooked: the difference between students consuming information and producing understanding. Previous Post

When conversations about technology in classrooms come up, they often sound like this:
“Kids are on screens too much.”
“Students don’t think like they used to.”
“Technology has ruined learning.”

These statements reflect genuine concern, but they don’t dig deep enough. The problem is not technology itself. The problem is how students are asked to engage with learning when technology is involved.

To move this conversation forward, especially with the general public, we need a shared language. One of the most important distinctions we can make is between consumption and production.

What Is Consumption?

When I talk about consumption, I’m referring primarily to passive learning experiences. These are activities where students receive information or interact with content in limited ways, often without having to explain or construct their thinking.

Examples include:

  • Watching a video and answering surface-level questions
  • Clicking through digital practice or assessments
  • Playing educational games that reward speed or completion
  • Navigating programs where the main task is selecting answers

Consumption isn’t inherently bad. Students need exposure, modeling, and opportunities to practice skills. The issue arises when consumption becomes the default – especially because technology makes it easy to assign, track, and justify. And with the load on teachers’ plates, it is understandable.

Students can look busy. They can even look engaged. But that doesn’t always mean learning is happening.

Engagement Is Not the Same as Learning

A student can be entertained, compliant, or focused on a screen without deeply understanding the content. Learning requires effort. It requires retrieval, reasoning, explanation, and sometimes productive struggle.

This is where production matters and why it’s crucial.

What Is Production?

Production-based learning asks students to create something that makes their thinking visible.

That “something” might be:

  • A written explanation
  • A visual model or representation
  • A verbal explanation
  • A collaborative document
  • A screencast or short video

For example:

  • A student creates a short video explaining how to add two-digit numbers using expanded form
  • Students read, collaborate on shared notes, and write synthesized paragraphs (such as in a Cyber Sandwich)
  • Students explain why a strategy works, not just apply it

These tasks require more than clicking through DOK 1-type questions. Students must organize ideas, make decisions, and communicate clearly.

And contrary to popular belief, production does not always require more time.

Production Doesn’t Mean More Work

Many teachers already build production into their classrooms, often without labeling it that way:

  • Asking students to explain answers to a partner
  • Requiring written justification
  • Having students represent ideas visually

These are small shifts, not massive overhauls.

Technology can support this work, but only when it’s used intentionally. Which leads to a critical question educators must constantly ask:

How is this technology enhancing the learning goal?

Not:

“I have this tool, now how can I use it?”

That distinction is subtle but powerful. I admit, there were times when I asked myself, “How can I use this tool?”

Revisiting an Old Idea: SAMR

Years ago, many educators used the SAMR model (Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, Redefinition) to think about technology integration. Over time, I’ve noticed it has faded from conversation, but its central idea still matters: technology should enhance or transform learning, not simply digitize existing tasks.

But frameworks alone don’t change practice.

For many teachers, there is little time or support to deeply learn new pedagogy alongside new tools. Professional learning is often brief, optional, or disconnected from classroom realities. Teachers are expected to “innovate” while managing full classrooms, mandates, and shifting expectations.

As in the early Chromebook rollout, teachers are once again left to figure it out on their own.

The Reality Teachers Are Working In

This conversation cannot happen without acknowledging the conditions teachers work under.

Teachers navigate:

  • District-adopted programs and initiatives
  • Pacing guides and curriculum mandates
  • State testing and accountability pressures
  • Constant shifts in platforms and expectations

At the same time, teachers are frequently blamed for:

  • Low student motivation
  • Declining reading levels
  • Weak math fluency
  • Poor reasoning skills

Teachers have students for six to seven hours a day. They do not control screen time outside of school. They cannot undo every societal influence within a single classroom.

Yet they are often expected to do precisely that.

Understanding consumption versus production is not about criticizing teachers’ choices. It’s about recognizing that many of those choices are/were made within tight constraints, often without the time or support needed to explore better alternatives.

Technology as an Enhancer, Not a Requirement

Production does not require technology. In many cases, paper and pencil work beautifully. Research consistently supports the cognitive benefits of writing and drawing by hand.

Take MathReps as an example. I often prefer students to write their thinking on paper or use plastic sleeves with whiteboard markers. Writing, revising, and representing ideas physically supports understanding.

Once students are familiar with the routine, technology can enhance the experience.

Tools like Snorkl allow students to demonstrate and explain their thinking while receiving immediate feedback. Used intentionally, perhaps a few times a week, it can amplify learning rather than replace it.

The goal still remains the same:

  • Show your thinking
  • Explain your reasoning
  • Make understanding visible

Technology is one pathway, not the destination.

Starting With the Right Question

Whether using technology or not, the most important question is always:

What is the learning goal?

Only then should we ask:

  • Can technology enhance this?
  • Does it deepen thinking or just speed things up?
  • Are students producing, or merely responding?

Consumption and production are not enemies. Both have a place. But when consumption dominates, we risk mistaking activity for understanding.

As we continue navigating teaching in a digital age, the challenge is not choosing between technology and tradition. It’s choosing practices that can meld the two.

I leave you with this question:

When you think about the learning experiences students spend the most time on, inside or outside the classroom, would you describe them as primarily consumptive or productive? And what slight shift might move the balance? If you see balance already, what does it look like?

Coming next: Post 3 explores what learning science really says about technology and student thinking without hype or oversimplification.

When Technology Entered the Classroom, What Did We Lose Along the Way?

Admin2 Comments

Technology was introduced into classrooms with the promise of innovation, access, and equity. Chromebooks became commonplace, and suddenly every student had a screen. On paper, it looked like progress.

What rarely came with those devices, however, was a shared vision for how technology should support learning.

Years later, many educators and families are noticing something unsettling. Teachers are detecting declines in certain skills: critical thinking, problem-solving, perseverance, a sense of wonder, and even basic fluency, such as memorizing math facts or understanding procedures deeply.

This is not a claim rooted in blame or panic.
It’s a reflection grounded in lived classroom experience.

And it’s critical to say this clearly: teachers did not cause this shift.

Teachers Were Put in a No-Win Situation

When Chromebooks were first rolled out, many teachers were handed powerful tools with minimal training, limited pedagogical guidance, and enormous expectations. The message was often implicit: Use the technology. Figure it out.

What followed was predictable.

Most available tools at the time were consumption-based:

  • Students practiced skills through programs
  • Computer-generated assessments
  • “Learning” games
  • Watch videos and click through content

These tools promised efficiency, and in some ways, they delivered. Teachers could quickly gather data, assign differentiated work, and manage classrooms stretched thin by increasing demands and limited time.

For many teachers, this wasn’t laziness or lack of creativity.
It was survival, as they were told to use technology, follow pacing guides, differentiate, improve test scores, etc.

When Consumption Became the Default

Photo by Ryutaro Tsukata on Pexels.com

Over time, consumption-based technology became mainstream. Students spent more time interacting with screens and less time explaining their thinking, constructing arguments, or grappling productively with struggle.

This matters because consumption alone does not build deep understanding.

Selecting an answer is not the same as defending one.
Completing digital practice is not the same as reasoning.
Engagement is not the same as learning.

Still, teachers used these tools because they were what districts purchased, what schedules allowed, what was expected, and what, if any, professional development supported.

Arguments for the Opposite Can Be Made

Some teachers pushed against this trend. I was one of them. This was a luxury and an interest for me.

Technology has always interested me, and I had the time, energy, and inclination to learn how pedagogy and technology could work together. I gravitated toward production-based uses of technology: students explaining, creating, representing, and discussing their thinking.

When tools like Prodigy became popular, many teachers saw motivation and engagement. I saw more game than practice and chose not to use it. Instead, I decided to use programs like Fog Stone Isle to help build capacity with fractions. That doesn’t make one choice morally superior; it highlights how context, interests, and capacity shape decisions.

Many teachers did see value in those tools for their students. And for those teachers, it made complete sense. There are times when consumption-based technology is appropriate and works. As teachers, we do what we feel works best for our students.

The Larger Systemic Issue

The deeper issue isn’t about individual tools. It’s about a system that often invests in products instead of practices.

Districts and lawmakers frequently purchase or mandate programs, platforms, and devices without funding the time and training teachers need to use them well. Pedagogies like HyperDocs and EduProtocols emphasize student production and thinking, but learning them is often left entirely to individual teachers.

And teachers already carry an impossible load.

Technology changes yearly. Research evolves. Expectations increase. Teachers are asked to adapt constantly, often without sustained professional learning or structural support.

When systems fail to lead with pedagogy, companies fill the gap. Many tools genuinely aim to help, but convenience can quietly override cognitive demand if we aren’t careful.

What Research Actually Tells Us (And What It Doesn’t)

To be clear: there is no definitive research proving that technology has caused a universal decline in student skills. What we do have is:

  • Research showing that active learning and retrieval are more effective than passive consumption
  • Cognitive science emphasizing the importance of productive struggle, explanation, and practice
  • Multimedia learning research (like Richard Mayer’s work) demonstrating that technology must be intentionally designed to support learning, not overload it
  • Large-scale assessments (such as PISA and NAEP) showing stagnation or uneven growth, which educators interpret through classroom experience

What teachers are reporting should not be dismissed, but it should be understood as contextual, nuanced, and systemically influenced, not a simple cause-and-effect story.

Moving Forward: Balance, Not Backlash

This is not a call to remove technology from classrooms.

It’s a call to use it differently.

Production-based strategies don’t have to be complex. They can start small:

  • Choice boards instead of one-size-fits-all programs
  • Students explaining their thinking orally or visually
  • Simple routines that prioritize reasoning over speed

These changes can be technology-based or not technology-based. For example, explaining thinking can be done in a class setting, in groups, or with the use of tools like Snorkl.

Frameworks like MathReps and EduProtocols offer powerful examples, but they are not mandates. They are models. Entry points. Proof that technology can amplify thinking when pedagogy leads the way.

A Message to the Public and to Decision Makers

Teaching today is not the same as “when you were in school.”
Technology has changed. Research has evolved. Students’ needs are different.

Educators are not resisting change; they are navigating it in real time.

If we want technology to improve learning, then teachers need more than devices. They need time, training, and trust. Districts and lawmakers must invest not just in tools, but in the pedagogy that makes those tools meaningful. And all of this needs to be done without adding more to teachers’ plates.

The goal isn’t balance sheets or dashboards. It’s thinking.

And the question we should all be asking is not whether technology belongs in classrooms, but whether we are brave enough to demand that it truly serves learning and teachers are put in a position of power, not left scrambling to figure it all out.

This has been a subject that has been weighing on me heavily lately. I think this will be the beginning of a series. I would love to hear your thoughts. I am not here to persuade anyone one way or another, but rather have open discussions on where, as a community, educators, parents, districts, and policymakers, we can do better.

Magic School AI

Image AdminLeave a comment

The world of AI tools is vast and ever-evolving. Amongst the sea of options, one particular tool has caught my attention: Magic School. With a focus on teachers and schools, it offers a unique approach that sets it apart from the rest. Its comprehensive range of categories opens up exciting possibilities for integrating AI into different educational contexts. The best part? It comes in both a free and paid version, tailored to suit varying needs. Allow me to share an image of its advantages from their official website. Get ready to dive into a world of innovative possibilities!

Compare subscription options for Magic School

On the home page, you will find 66 different categories. Some examples of these categories include Math Spiral Review, Standards Unpacker, Sentence Starters, Text Leveler, and IEP Generator, among many others. As I was curious, I decided to take a closer look at the Standards Unpacker category. What caught my attention was the fact that it addresses the specific skills that students need to succeed, provides clear Learning Targets, and summarizes the standard. However, I found the Instruction and Assessment Plan section to be somewhat vague. Nevertheless, one interesting aspect is that you can go back to the tool and use that initial plan as a starting point to create a more detailed and thorough plan.

Standard: 5.NBT.A.1

Break Down Standard:

Skills: Recognizing place value in multi-digit numbers
Knowledge: Understanding how the value of a digit changes as it moves to the left or right in a number
Concepts: Place value, base-ten number system, positional notation

Define Expectations:
In this standard, 5th-grade students are expected to understand the concept of place value in multi-digit numbers. They should recognize that each digit in a number has a specific value determined by its position. Additionally, they should understand that the value of a digit in one place is 10 times greater than its value in the place to its right, and 1/10 of what it represents in the place to its left.

Formulate Learning Targets:
By the end of this standard, students should be able to:

-Identify the place value of digits in multi-digit numbers.
-Determine the value of a digit based on its position within a number.
-Describe the relationship between the value of a digit and its position.

Instruction and Assessment Strategies:
Use manipulatives, such as base-ten blocks, to help students visualize and understand the concept of place value.
Provide opportunities for students to explore and compare the values of digits in different positions within a number.
Use number lines and number charts to reinforce the concept and relationship of place value.
Engage students in problem-solving activities that require them to apply their understanding of place value.
Assess students' understanding through quizzes, worksheets, and real-life problem-solving tasks that involve place value.

Summarize:
In this standard, 5th-grade students are expected to develop a deep understanding of place value in multi-digit numbers. They should be able to recognize the value of each digit based on its position within the number and understand the relationship of each digit to its neighboring digits. Instructional strategies such as hands-on manipulatives, visual aids, and problem-solving activities can help students master this concept. Assessment strategies should include both formal and informal methods to gauge students' understanding and application of place value.

From my brief exploration, I believe that this tool has the potential to greatly assist teachers in working more efficiently. It eliminates the need for teachers to come up with learning objectives, develop grading criteria, and design lesson plans. Although AI should not replace all of a teacher’s work, it can certainly assist them in the more demanding tasks. Teachers will still have the ability to review and customize the generated outputs to suit their specific requirements. Overall, I am optimistic about the potential of this tool.

Check-In with Flipgrid

Image AdminLeave a comment

Last week I went back to Michigan due to a family emergency. I didn’t think I was going to be out of the classroom, but as it turned out I was. I was out for an entire week. The week AFTER Spring Break. Not great timing especially since I was out the two days before Spring Break. I knew I had to tone set with my students. Some would be thrown off by my absence.

Ms. N's Message on FlipgridThe question became: How am I going to communicate with my students? At first, I thought about doing videos on YouTube. Easy enough. I could record on my phone and upload. Then, after talking to a friend, I decided that Flipgrid was a better option. I could keep it private AND use the students’ names. I wanted to remind O to clean up, remind A to do work and not surf the web, and give shout outs to those who I was sure were doing the right thing. This worked out well. I was in contact with the sub and could customize my message each day. The kids really enjoyed it and LOVED hearing their names in the morning.

How fortunate that we live in this time where we can connect with our students from thousands of miles away.

What the Tests Don’t Show

AdminLeave a comment

I have a student this year that I am in awe of. I want to be like her when I grow up. She is a true testament to growth-mindset. She is my go-to person for most tech questions. She is the rare 5th-grader who uses technology in meaningful ways in her spare time. My student, L, is a role model to both students and adults.

pexels-photo-733856.jpegYes, I realize I’m waxing on about L and here’s why. L has run our school’s daily news all year – which is a news broadcast. She films, edits, and most recently, been in front of the camera. When I’m having issues with a computer/tablet she’s the first person I consult and she usually has the solution. She uses her phone as if it were a mini computer: downloading Google Classroom, working on assignments at home, using Raz-Kids, and other programs to help her succeed. She has helped her family to download and set up educational apps (on their phones) to help them be connected to Class Dojo and learn a new language. She ‘texts’ me via Google Hangouts (her school account) to ask school-related questions or just tell me that she’ll be out the next day.

I’m sure you’re thinking that’s impressive for a 5th-grader, but not swoon-worthy. THIS is where her story begins to show how amazing she is. If we only look at her statistics – test scores, socioeconomic status, home language, etc – we would miss everything!

L is a second (maybe third) language learner. Her family speaks a dialect from the Oaxaca region in Mexico and Spanish. She qualifies for free/reduced lunch.  She was hit by a car last year while riding her bike (no helmet) and still suffers from some brain swelling which has impacted her memory, vision (not drastically), and headaches. She continues to go to the doctor for her injuries. L has an IEP for learning differences. The IEP was in place before the accident. See, you’re impressed now, aren’t you?

So, while some tests can help guide us, they don’t measure the most important things about our students. They don’t tell their stories and it’s those stories that truly help us connect with our students and serve their needs. Without the personal relationships we build with our students, how could we ever build them up? How could we see their potential and set them on a path to success? How could we do our jobs? If only the test-crazy people would understand that a child is so much more than a silly test.

Back To School Night

AdminLeave a comment

Last night was Back to School Night. We have it the night before school starts. I like it this way. It helps to alleviate a lot of anxiety for both teachers and students – and I’d suspect some parents too.

Facetime Back to SchoolI’m no stranger to Back to School Night. I’ve done them for over 20 years. However, last night I had a first. And the nerd in me was so excited! A mom came to me with her phone explaining that the father couldn’t be there but wanted to participate. She had him on Facetime! We were able to introduce ourselves, talk for a bit, and have a ‘regular’ Back to School Night!

It’s the little things that make us happy. Being able to stay connected to parents is so important. I’m glad dad was able to ‘attend’. It make everyone’s night!

Google Classroom – Personal Accounts

Admin1 Comment

So I received this today in my inbox!

Screen Shot 2017-03-28 at 5.49.59 PM A few days ago I wrote about Google Classroom and Personal Accounts. I applied for early access and was granted it today! The nerd in me is super geeked.

This is a game changer for me. First of all, I enjoy sharing my knowledge of Google Classroom with the masses. Secondly, a friend and I thought about created classes that people could take to become more proficient in technology use in the classroom. THIS is the perfect tool to get that going.

I can’t wait to see what uses others come up with.

Working WITH Technology

AdminLeave a comment

This school year has had its ups and downs. One of the ‘Ups’ were my students’ State Reports. We used Google Maps to accomplish the same task that use to take 10 type written pages. I still maintain, no one wants to read a 10 page report – let alone 47? Yeah, much happier with the Maps idea. As we went through it, I saw ways to improve; and will implement those changes next year.

Then there were the ‘Downs’. Yeah, some of those made me want to pound my head against a brick wall. My ‘Road To the Revolution’ project. I thought I was soooo brilliant. Not so much! I will attempt it again next year, but will make several changes. Then, there are the downers that I have little to no control over. One that popped up throughout the year, were the ones where teachers and/admin wanted to block/ban sites. (This is where my head hangs low, before I hit a wall) Banning/blocking is NOT the answer. As with anything, education is. We not only need to educate our students, but we need to educate the teachers.

The answer is to teach our teachers HOW to work with technology. We need to show teachers and students what it means to integrate technology. When students are doing research; provide a list of acceptable sites,create a custom search engine via Google, and teach students HOW to search. Typing ‘What is the state flower of Maine?’ is not an efficient search. These are tools that students, and teachers, need. It is a district’s responsibility to provide the training so that quality instruction can occur. Far too often, a district thinks that giving a classroom a set of computers will be the answer, but it’s not. What ends up happening – more often than I care to think about – is that the computer becomes a babysitter, time filler, or dust collector.

I understand the need to block certain sites – like the super bad ones (remember: I’m coming from an elementary perspective). But in general, I am an advocate of keeping the sites open. Yes, students will push the limits. Yes, they will try to find inappropriate pictures, videos, whatever. But it’s our job to guide them along the path.

Teachers need to work WITH technology. We need to use the inappropriate searches as teachable moments. We need to monitor, walk around, give students the tools to be successful. Will we catch everything? No. But my teachers didn’t catch all the notes and things I tried to get away with, and I came out fine – mostly.

Fractions and Recipes

AdminLeave a comment

Students WorkingCombining a fractions lesson and recipes is a natural combination. It connects the real world with a student’s learning. For the past month or so, my students have been learning about fractions: what they are, adding, subtracting, and multiplying them. Combine that with a teacher who is easily board with the norm, and you get a FANTASTIC lesson. One in which students ASK, “Can we work on our Recipe Project now?” Yes, students wanting to learn and were engaged.

What did we do? Well, we found some recipes. Okay, actually I found them in a cookbook that I had, from when I was a kid. They definitely weren’t the most healthy, but they were kids’ cookbooks, and worked well. I went through and found several recipes that involved fractions. Some had 2 fractions, others had 5 or more and included mixed numbers. Our student teacher handed out the recipes. Because there were various difficulties with the recipes, this allows the teacher to differentiate based on a student’s ability. The students were allowed to work together, but must hand in his/her own paper. The students had to: list the original ingredients, double the original recipe, cut the original recipe in half, and then make exactly 28 servings – one for each student, the student teacher, and myself. This took a few days. Fortunately, I do have a student teacher in my room so we were both able to filter around and help struggling students. Once they were done with the math portion, they had to create a presentation to show off to the class – and put in their ePortfolios.

We worked on this project for 3 or 4 days, including polishing the presentations. Each day the students would ask, “Can we work on our Recipe Project now?” Even the most reluctant, insecure math student was completely engaged. There were students strewn throughout the classroom at desks, under desks, and sprawled out on the floor. One group of boys worked outside to create a cardboard oven for their presentation. Other students chose to use Animoto and Google Presentation. They projected their ‘work in progress’ presentations on a big screen TV to get input from others. The room was so engaged and buzzing with creativity and learning, I HAD to call my principal down to see. He was impressed, and began asking the students questions about fractions, their algorithms, and gave suggestions for their presentations. The lesson was such a hit, my students told the other 5th grade teacher that she HAD to do it with her class, because it was so much fun. My students were happy to hear that her students had begun the project too.

Presentations will be next week. I admit, this was so much fun and worthwhile, that I am on the hunt for more lessons like this. Anything I can do to engage my students, I will. THIS is what Common Core is about: the four C’s. And this lesson had them all! Here is the lesson: Adjust a Recipe

This group will be incorporating an Animoto video into their presentation. Last week, they were practicing what they were going to say along with their video.

Yes, I found the lesson online. It is my belief that there is a plethora of information, lessons, and ideas out there. I do not need to reinvent the wheel. I am thankful to all who FREELY share. In turn, I FREELY share what I have found, my knowledge, and lessons I create. We are all here to help one another, and to help our students learn.