Teaching
An interesting article about teaching that showed up on my Facebook news feed (facebook as a new source is also a fascinating topic, but that is a different discussion):
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/magazine/07Teachers-t.html
I feel like the article spends a good deal of time not saying much, but when it does make a point, that point is usually interesting. One quote that particularly jumped out at me:
"It’s one thing to know that 307 minus 168 equals 139; it is another thing to be able understand why a third grader might think that 261 is the right answer. Mathematicians need to understand a problem only for themselves; math teachers need both to know the math and to know how 30 different minds might understand (or misunderstand) it. Then they need to take each mind from not getting it to mastery. And they need to do this in 45 minutes or less. This was neither pure content knowledge nor what educators call pedagogical knowledge, a set of facts independent of subject matter, like Lemov’s techniques. It was a different animal altogether."
I have lots of thoughts about this and the rest of the article, but have not figured out how to organize/articulate them. I would love to hear any comments you guys have :-)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/magazine/07Teachers-t.html
I feel like the article spends a good deal of time not saying much, but when it does make a point, that point is usually interesting. One quote that particularly jumped out at me:
"It’s one thing to know that 307 minus 168 equals 139; it is another thing to be able understand why a third grader might think that 261 is the right answer. Mathematicians need to understand a problem only for themselves; math teachers need both to know the math and to know how 30 different minds might understand (or misunderstand) it. Then they need to take each mind from not getting it to mastery. And they need to do this in 45 minutes or less. This was neither pure content knowledge nor what educators call pedagogical knowledge, a set of facts independent of subject matter, like Lemov’s techniques. It was a different animal altogether."
I have lots of thoughts about this and the rest of the article, but have not figured out how to organize/articulate them. I would love to hear any comments you guys have :-)