What is effective professional development? Why this topic of inquiry? I, like other classmates, had some difficulty settling on a topic. I made a list of the issues in mathematics teaching that were critical to me. As I looked at the list trying to prioritize and choose what was most important I realized that what I was really trying to get at was how can we help teachers change, to engage, to use new methods and approaches?
To teach mathematics for understanding is not an easy undertaking if one wants to be truly effective. There are many hurdles to clear when you are changing your teaching approach. Teachers who continue to rely on direct instruction may feel they are teaching the curriculum outcomes but they are not focusing on how students will make sense of what they are trying to teach.
Some of the barriers that come between a teacher and their willingness to change include ( but are not limited too: time, understanding, beliefs, knowledge, dispositions and work load.
-teachers already spend countless unpaid overtime hours, planning, correcting, assessing, committee work etc.
-Teachers themselves are struggling with understanding the concepts they are to teach.
- the changes to assessment standards are huge
In fact, they are being bombarded with so many new issues that have identified as necessary components of teaching mathematics for understanding they become overwhelmed and shut down.
Experience and research has led me to believe that mathematics must be taught using inquiry-based methods. I have learned that teachers who are interested in making the change from traditional teaching approaches to the reform are required to obtain new pedagogical, mathematical, and professional knowledge.
At its root change is based in belief, a teacher's beliefs about math are what will influence her/his instructional decisions. To change beliefs requires a lot of work and most teachers are working hard as it is. For me its as author Maya Angelou said "When you know better you do better". For teachers to know better they must be engaged as learners. They must be helped and supported and if the support for change is not given, we will continue to see a stubborn resistance to real change in the mathematics instruction currently used in many Newfoundland and Labrador classrooms.
This is where professional development is needed. However, the usual professional development leaves something to be desired in terms of affecting change. According to Ball and Cohen, (1999) "research indicates that professional development sessions are often "intellectually superficial, disconnected from deep issues of curriculum and learning, fragmented and non-cumulative". Ball and Cohen also say that PD sessions provide little opportunity for teachers to develop deep, flexible, conceptual understanding of mathematics. So I am off on my journey to find out what makes effective professional development and the surrounding issues that make this so difficult to receive.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Math Musings
As I read through articles I hope will be helpful with my inquiry project I am often struck by what I find. Recently I read "Improving Mathematics Instruction through Classroom-Based Inquiry", Ebby,Ottinger and Silver, (Teaching Children Mathematics, October 2007) Some of what I found as I read, made me think about Phoenix Park and the concerns I have already expressed in previous discussions (blog and class). To understand what I mean I think I should explain the basics of what I read.
The article describes "a university mathematics educator's efforts to support teachers in adopting a stance of critique and inquiry by developing a teacher research community" Ebby designed a course that would give teachers the opportunity to work together, research ideas and make their classrooms served as the site for inquiry into their own teaching practices.In one of the examples discussed the teacher involved discovered she was thinking wrongly about equity. She thought equity was all about allowing students total choice in all things. She based her thinking on what she had learned from Making Sense: Teaching and Learning Mathematics with Understanding ( Hiebert et al. 1997)which said that 'equity entails the assumption that all children can learn mathematics, as well as the assumption that each student must have the opportunity to learn mathematics with understanding" The teacher took this to mean that she must allow her students the choice of working together or alone and so took a hands off approach in her first cycle of inquiry. Over time she found that the students needed more 'explicit guidance' about how to work collaboratively and communicate with one another.
This is a point I raised in the last class, we expect students to work together in partners or groups and explore a problem without having shown them how. Some students may exhibit these skills naturally as part of their innate inquisitive nature, for others, the quality of learning could only be enhanced by knowledge of how communicate thinking with one another. It is true that I may not yet know everything about the preparation process the Phoenix Park teachers went through in developing the curriculum and tasks for students. I wonder if they too thought incorrectly about equity. Their hands off approach to the on or off task behaviours of students may indicate they thought students needed to be given total power of choice. Would direct guidance on how to communicate and work with these open-ended projects have benefited those students who didn't engage in this type of learning. Would their collaboration skills improved to the point where the students themselves came to value the usefulness of working this way? It will be interesting to find out.
The article describes "a university mathematics educator's efforts to support teachers in adopting a stance of critique and inquiry by developing a teacher research community" Ebby designed a course that would give teachers the opportunity to work together, research ideas and make their classrooms served as the site for inquiry into their own teaching practices.In one of the examples discussed the teacher involved discovered she was thinking wrongly about equity. She thought equity was all about allowing students total choice in all things. She based her thinking on what she had learned from Making Sense: Teaching and Learning Mathematics with Understanding ( Hiebert et al. 1997)which said that 'equity entails the assumption that all children can learn mathematics, as well as the assumption that each student must have the opportunity to learn mathematics with understanding" The teacher took this to mean that she must allow her students the choice of working together or alone and so took a hands off approach in her first cycle of inquiry. Over time she found that the students needed more 'explicit guidance' about how to work collaboratively and communicate with one another.
This is a point I raised in the last class, we expect students to work together in partners or groups and explore a problem without having shown them how. Some students may exhibit these skills naturally as part of their innate inquisitive nature, for others, the quality of learning could only be enhanced by knowledge of how communicate thinking with one another. It is true that I may not yet know everything about the preparation process the Phoenix Park teachers went through in developing the curriculum and tasks for students. I wonder if they too thought incorrectly about equity. Their hands off approach to the on or off task behaviours of students may indicate they thought students needed to be given total power of choice. Would direct guidance on how to communicate and work with these open-ended projects have benefited those students who didn't engage in this type of learning. Would their collaboration skills improved to the point where the students themselves came to value the usefulness of working this way? It will be interesting to find out.
Chapter 6 - Finding Out What They Could Do.
Scott( sorry for name mix up), you certainly had an interesting chapter to deal with. The findings that you presented helped bring together issues raised by the previous two chapters. You did a good job of highlighting the statistics in this chapter and helping me make sense of what Boaler found. Great Job, enjoyed it a lot!
As I said above, I found this chapter so very interesting. The fundamental differences between AH and PP that were exposed by Boaler certainly helped delineate what is good and what is not in mathematics education. It was helpful to me as a questioner of " what does this looks like?"(inquiry based learning, as was raised by Terri-Lynn last Thursday. Boaler's activities were designed to "require students to combine and use different areas of mathematics together", and the activities did. Students were not always successful in completing these activities and consequently showed they couldn't combine math areas because the understanding of those areas and their connections to one another had not been made/learned.
When students made 'nonsensical answers' such as a roof's angle being 200 degrees. They demonstrated what I call 'non-attending thinking'. It is obvious in this book and my own experience that students usually do not stop to ask ... does my answer make sense? More than that though they don't have that inner circuitry, that instinctual sense about math that would even cause them to pause or to think they need ask questions. Questions don't pop up because in their minds, math is not about thinking it is about doing.
Another point of interest for me were the differences in the results for year 9 students compared to year 8. There has to be a connection between the improvement and the length of time the students at PP had been involved in this kind of learning. Prior to year 8 their experiences in mathematics classrooms were essentially the same as the students in Amber Hill. More proof, to my mind at least, that inquiry or project-based learning works!
As I stated in class, although perhaps not very coherently, I have some concerns about Phoenix Parks approach. I want to make it clear that I think Phoenix Parks methods to be far superior to Amber Hills. My concern is not about the curriculum and teaching methods. It is regarding the loopholes I see in the programs structure or framework. Specifically, I am speaking about the lack of teacher redirection when students are completely off task and with the lack of organization of student written work. I am questioning whether or it would be beneficial to have some standard for student attending to tasks in order to promote their involvement with the mathematics at hand. Further to that thought, I wonder if the PP teachers can even determine if there are areas of content that have not been covered at all. I do understand the need to build an atmosphere of openness and trust so that students will continue to explore, inquire, question, and contend with the solution to a problem. As for organization of written record of work, its as Dr. Stordy pointed the other night,assessment is not just about what the students put down on paper. Still I wonder how one could sort through the mess of papers to find out what the students recorded and what if anything the written record says about that students needs. I'm sure the answers to some of this will become clearer as we progress through the book. Obviously something informs the project formation by teachers, it is possible my questions come from my limited experience with these methods and that these concerns are really not valid at all. We'll see!
As I said above, I found this chapter so very interesting. The fundamental differences between AH and PP that were exposed by Boaler certainly helped delineate what is good and what is not in mathematics education. It was helpful to me as a questioner of " what does this looks like?"(inquiry based learning, as was raised by Terri-Lynn last Thursday. Boaler's activities were designed to "require students to combine and use different areas of mathematics together", and the activities did. Students were not always successful in completing these activities and consequently showed they couldn't combine math areas because the understanding of those areas and their connections to one another had not been made/learned.
When students made 'nonsensical answers' such as a roof's angle being 200 degrees. They demonstrated what I call 'non-attending thinking'. It is obvious in this book and my own experience that students usually do not stop to ask ... does my answer make sense? More than that though they don't have that inner circuitry, that instinctual sense about math that would even cause them to pause or to think they need ask questions. Questions don't pop up because in their minds, math is not about thinking it is about doing.
Another point of interest for me were the differences in the results for year 9 students compared to year 8. There has to be a connection between the improvement and the length of time the students at PP had been involved in this kind of learning. Prior to year 8 their experiences in mathematics classrooms were essentially the same as the students in Amber Hill. More proof, to my mind at least, that inquiry or project-based learning works!
As I stated in class, although perhaps not very coherently, I have some concerns about Phoenix Parks approach. I want to make it clear that I think Phoenix Parks methods to be far superior to Amber Hills. My concern is not about the curriculum and teaching methods. It is regarding the loopholes I see in the programs structure or framework. Specifically, I am speaking about the lack of teacher redirection when students are completely off task and with the lack of organization of student written work. I am questioning whether or it would be beneficial to have some standard for student attending to tasks in order to promote their involvement with the mathematics at hand. Further to that thought, I wonder if the PP teachers can even determine if there are areas of content that have not been covered at all. I do understand the need to build an atmosphere of openness and trust so that students will continue to explore, inquire, question, and contend with the solution to a problem. As for organization of written record of work, its as Dr. Stordy pointed the other night,assessment is not just about what the students put down on paper. Still I wonder how one could sort through the mess of papers to find out what the students recorded and what if anything the written record says about that students needs. I'm sure the answers to some of this will become clearer as we progress through the book. Obviously something informs the project formation by teachers, it is possible my questions come from my limited experience with these methods and that these concerns are really not valid at all. We'll see!
Michelle 's Presentation
I just realized that in my blog on chapter 5 I hadn't extended congratulations to Michelle on a job well done! Your presentation was wonderful, it was clear and concise it helped us track and make sense of what was said in the chapter. Good on you... as the British would say! ... or is that Australian? , never mind, still applies. Sorry for being tardy with comments!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
