Stories From The Field: Learning Mathematical Modelling with Desmos

 Karen Oliver

One of my teaching colleagues, Karen Oliver,  just showed me what she has been doing with  Desmos Classroom Activities and graphing linear equations. I was very impressed with their system.

 

Let Karen explain what she did in her class:

Other Online Mathematics Applications Like This

 

 

 

 

WALT and WILF the Easy and Rigorous Way

The QCAA has already developed the basis for WALT and WILF within the senior syllabus standards and P-10 Australian Curriculum elaborations; with cognitions and qualities for each standard A-E. Why not use them!

For example:

Cognitions are highlighted in yellow and discriminating qualities are highlighted in blue.

These standards can be used in formative assessment by modifying them to add quantity and content dimensions. In the example below, I have added the quantity of content that I am looking for.

I have students set goals and track their learning by highlighting these scales.

What about Higher Order Thinking Standards?

Analysis

You probably could still add a content/quantity descriptor, for Analysis, as the standards are usually of the form:

Health Education

However, if you do want to provide more rigor, then I suggest aligning the skill of Analysis to Marzano’s Taxonomy. In this case Analysis increases in complexity from Matching at the bottom end to Specifying at the top.

[Adapted from The New Taxonomy (Marzano and Kendall, 2007) and Marzano Taxonomy – Thinking Processes with Design Verbs ]

So, using this, to be proficient with a score of 3 or at standard, students can Match or Classify. To score a 3.5, students could Generalize and Specifying could score a 4. Therefore, a student Proficiency scale for Health Education, becomes:

Evaluation

This is an example Proficiency Scale for the Learning Goal “I can EVALUATE..” Notice how it ‘climbs’ up Bloom’s taxonomy almost exactly.

This assessment criterion for English is not too bad as it too recognised that a poor evaluation is closer to an explanation or analysis. Most just use the qualifier discerning or thorough evaluation.

I would value add to your existing criteria by adding:

2 = explain/identify

3= evaluation

3.5 = justify decisions

4 = make recommendations

Design/Create

This thinking skill tends to be wide and deep and this is reflected in the range of standards across subjects:

English

Ancient History

Biology

So, leave these as is or use simpler language. You can then increase students’ familiarity and understanding of these by unpacking them and providing tangible examples.

How to use them

I develop these at the beginning of a topic and then just point to the place in the criteria sheet that relates to a lesson or learning activity. At the end of a unit, these also become my marking criteria (front-loaded assessment).

I have students set goals and track their learning by highlighting these scales (self feedback). I also use them when conferencing with students (feedback) and students can use them for peer feedback.

This is one I have used recently: WALT-WILF