Homework Reading:
Battleground Schools
One thing stands out to me is the traditional and stereotypic assumption
about people who like mathematics. Under
this assumption, only nerds, absentminded professors etc. who are “unable to
cope with human interactions” will study mathematics (p.393). Granted, some extremely intelligent people
are so frantic about mathematics that they choose to interact with numbers over
human. However, most of the
mathematicians or people who are fond of math have no problem communicating or
interacting with other people. They are not living isolated in another planet
but having family and children just you and me.
Look at our math cohort, our professor and classmates are not only enthusiastic
about math, but also enjoy the interactions with each other. Every class, we are fully engaged in
conversations on arts, society, environment etc. All these conversations require the
participants to be very compassionate and passionate. Aren’t we best exemplifying that people who
love math also love life?
Second point I want to make is the benefit of experimental and inquiry
learning over instructional learning.
For experimental learning, there are lots of uncertainty and challenge
to teachers and professors. We as teachers cannot plan everything ahead before
classes start. Things could go wrong and we could lose control of the class. What shall we do under this type of pressure? Is second plan sufficient enough to remediate
the damage? Will I lose my credits in
front of my students? These worrying
coincide with the concept of instructional leaning where obedience and
authority are expected.
As soon as I read the section of The New Math, one thing drew my
attention right away was the political influence over mathematics. If we allow math or any science subject to
serve for political purpose only, it is dangerous. The human history has many to say about
tragic events happened in the past when scientific invention was at the hands
of political driven politicians. The
implementation of New Math program in my opinion is totally invalid. The brain capacity of a child at secondary
school level is not sufficient enough to comprehend those university level
mathematical concepts and his logical thinking skill is not yet fully developed. Not to deny there are math geniuses, most of
the teenagers cannot absorb such complex and abstract mathematical concepts. They might lose interest on math which is
detrimental to their future learning process.
Reference
Mathison, Sandra & Ross, E Wayne. (2008). Battleground Schools.
Hi, Ivy.
ReplyDeleteThere are some points where I agree with you and some points where I disagree. I really resonated with your comment about having a back-up plan and being concerned about structure when using an inquiry-based approach. I think that's a place where it's very important to have solid subject knowledge so that you can address the emergent curriculum as students explore in ways you might not have initially planned for.
A place where I disagree is on your assessment of the capability of secondary school students. I agree that New Math didn't deliver on its goals, but I don't think that we should lay the blame on the capacity of students. I believe that teaching the "why" behind the "how" is crucial for long term understanding in all students. More importantly, perhaps, I think that teaching without that explanation is far more likely to cause students to lose interest.
Hi Jacob,
ReplyDeleteYes, teaching style will affect student's learning outcome for sure. We as teacher candidates are trying to learn and adapt the best teaching pedagogies to help our students to reach their potential. However, like I said while there are genius out there in learning mathematics, most of the students with average intelligence don't have the brain capacity to adapt super complicated math problems, that's why we always want to deconstruct our thinking in teaching and try to use vocabulary as simple as possible to help the students understand the materials.