A few thoughts on mathematics and school mathematics
I've been increasingly frustrated with the way mathematics is taught in school- both in my school and by the attitudes of some of the people on my course.
Most, if not all school mathematics courses are structured as a series of disconnected, discrete chunks of information. My teacher explained this to me as being because you can't expect kids who aren't interested in maths anyway to focus on one topic for long. My response to that is that we should give them maths which does interest them, not break the curriculum down into bits and pieces and spoon-feed it to them. I try to use a lot of open questions (tell me five things about this triangle...), because anybody has a chance to make a valuable contribution. My school is actually very good in that our new head of maths is moving away from this approach to what she calls a 'hub' system, where connections between different areas of maths and the rest of the curriculum/real world are the empahsis, but at the moment that's only implemented for GCSE-age kids (14-16).
What pisses me off (yup, still anti-authority) is the way teachers make almost sickeningly PC statements about 'inclusion' and then say things like 'oh, I couldn't give that work to a bottom set because they aren't able enough'. One of the (33) 'Standards' we trainees need to meet to become Qualified Teachers is (quite rightly) to have high expectations of all learners. I think giving dumbed-down work that never lets kids in the bottom sets think for themselves fails to do that.
Call me idealistic if you will, make cynical comments if you wish, but I really believe these kids can do a lot more maths and have a lot more fun in maths class. ANYONE can think. As my tutor at uni very aptly said, they have all learned how to speak English, they all have brains with billions of active neurons. Personally, I think there's no difference in intelligence or ability between the kids in the bottom sets and those in the top sets, but there are enormous socially constructed differences. Look at the top sets in my school and you find middle-class kids many of whose parents expect them to do well at maths and who are, as a result, confident in their abilities. I was one of them. Look at the bottom sets and you find a lot of kids who are just as bright, but who have never been encouraged or who have become demoralised by being consistently placed in 'low-ability' groups. The teaching style and content given to bottom sets generally doesn't make connections or pose problems in the same way as to the kids in higher groups, and as a result the prophecy that these kids don't do well is fulfilled.
The government has produced some great documents saying similar things and promoting active teaching approaches, but these seem often to be shoved away in school resource cupboards or only used for kids who are judged to be more able at maths. Basically, I think the teaching of numeracy and mathematics gets confused, and the expectation is that these children will dislike maths and struggle with it. The question is, how to turn that around? And why do teachers not bother at the moment?
Most, if not all school mathematics courses are structured as a series of disconnected, discrete chunks of information. My teacher explained this to me as being because you can't expect kids who aren't interested in maths anyway to focus on one topic for long. My response to that is that we should give them maths which does interest them, not break the curriculum down into bits and pieces and spoon-feed it to them. I try to use a lot of open questions (tell me five things about this triangle...), because anybody has a chance to make a valuable contribution. My school is actually very good in that our new head of maths is moving away from this approach to what she calls a 'hub' system, where connections between different areas of maths and the rest of the curriculum/real world are the empahsis, but at the moment that's only implemented for GCSE-age kids (14-16).
What pisses me off (yup, still anti-authority) is the way teachers make almost sickeningly PC statements about 'inclusion' and then say things like 'oh, I couldn't give that work to a bottom set because they aren't able enough'. One of the (33) 'Standards' we trainees need to meet to become Qualified Teachers is (quite rightly) to have high expectations of all learners. I think giving dumbed-down work that never lets kids in the bottom sets think for themselves fails to do that.
Call me idealistic if you will, make cynical comments if you wish, but I really believe these kids can do a lot more maths and have a lot more fun in maths class. ANYONE can think. As my tutor at uni very aptly said, they have all learned how to speak English, they all have brains with billions of active neurons. Personally, I think there's no difference in intelligence or ability between the kids in the bottom sets and those in the top sets, but there are enormous socially constructed differences. Look at the top sets in my school and you find middle-class kids many of whose parents expect them to do well at maths and who are, as a result, confident in their abilities. I was one of them. Look at the bottom sets and you find a lot of kids who are just as bright, but who have never been encouraged or who have become demoralised by being consistently placed in 'low-ability' groups. The teaching style and content given to bottom sets generally doesn't make connections or pose problems in the same way as to the kids in higher groups, and as a result the prophecy that these kids don't do well is fulfilled.
The government has produced some great documents saying similar things and promoting active teaching approaches, but these seem often to be shoved away in school resource cupboards or only used for kids who are judged to be more able at maths. Basically, I think the teaching of numeracy and mathematics gets confused, and the expectation is that these children will dislike maths and struggle with it. The question is, how to turn that around? And why do teachers not bother at the moment?