Upon reading the title and the first paragraph of
this reading, I predicted that it would discuss the potential avenues that
mathematics research may present itself in, and what said research may produce
or suggest, in terms of pedagogical practice.
I found the response from Pearla Nesher
interesting. She seems to question why
learning mathematics, as a language, should be any more difficult than learning
“ordinary language”. It would appear to
me that one possible reason why learning mathematics as a language is more
difficult than learning English, for example, is because for many people,
speaking/listening, and writing in English is something that we practice almost
all day long. We even use our dominant
to make sense of other “languages” such as mathematics or science. If we were to use mathematics as our primary
language, and learn English and all of our other subjects within the parameters
of the language of math, I would no doubt believe that as a society we would be
much more proficient in it.
Alan Bell discusses how, as teachers, we must
redirect a student’s thought process, if a mistake is being made, immediately,
rather than the next day in order for the child to learn effectively. As I read this, I reflect on my own teaching
practices and how I could implement this strategy into my classroom of 29
students (half of which are grade 4’s and the other half are grade 5’s). In a typical split class, during math class,
I must teach to one group while the other works. Once my instruction is complete with one
group, I will assign some work for them, while I teach to the other group. Due to the nature of this type of class, it
can be very difficult to find time to observe every student’s thought process. Typically, we mark our work the following
day. According to Bell, this may not be
very effective. While I agree that it’s
not ideal, I wonder how his mentioned strategy could be implemented in a split
class.
Hi David,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your post. I did not know that you were teaching in a split class. It should be quite different(!?). I remember the book I read years ago "Back to the Basics" by Jarden et al. where they share their teaching experiences in a combined class including students from various ages. I can't remember the nature of the classroom but they do not have the obligation of the covering the curriculum so their program was pretty flexible. Their teaching (maybe I would say facilitation) was totally driven by students' inquiries. Going back to the article maybe this could be an interesting question for mathematics education research:-)
I agree David that much of this is challenging. Mathematical language has been a topic of conversation at our school for the last 2 years. We have determined the challenge for our school is often the lack on continuity in terminology use, with single strategies being called different things in different grade levels. I believe consistent terminology is key to creating a common mathematical language.
ReplyDeleteAs for your dilemma with your split class, I do believe this raises difficulties with spreading your time around. I believe that sometimes having the students explain their strategies to each other and having built in checks between students is often just as powerful as you checking their work. Perhaps this is something to explore further, although I am sure you already use a form of this in your classroom.
Split classes can be difficult just in terms of having so little time with each group! When I taught in a small alternative high school, I once had a split Math 9/ Math 12 class, both of which included some very reluctant learners. There was never enough time with everybody, and it was hard switching topics back and forth over the course of the 50 minute class session!
ReplyDelete