I gave some more thought to the notion that there is one answer in math. I ran into this same gut feeling last year, when I took Math for Elementary Education at Shoreline Community College as part of my academic breadth requirement for this program. And I remembered how I felt after taking that class, in which we used manipulatives and talked about why we borrow and carry, etc.—NONE of which were part of my own math education in the 1970s and 1980s. I gained a greater appreciation for the whys of math, even though I seem to be hard-wired to just get the answer rather than worry about the reason behind the question. Now that I’m student-teaching, I will have to approach math from this inquiry perspective, and while it is not part of my instinct (with math, anyway), I will continue to push myself to think that way. Taking this class simultaneously with my student teaching will genuinely help.
My last math class in public k-8 education involved copying from the board, taking tests, and correcting our own tests. I might want to add I detested this class, learned nothing, and still resent the teacher leaving me ill prepared for math in high school. It was in college, with an instructor who was passionate about his field, that I reengaged and actually enjoyed or learned any new math concepts past the seventh grade level. Having experienced both ends of the teaching spectrum, disengaged teacher and passionate teacher, I believe that I can say we do have the ability to make or break student engagement. Utilizing inguiry models, manipulatives, and real world applications is definatley going to reach more students. The diversity of our teaching methods should match the diversity of our learners. I believe creating as many different ways to experience the material, the better chance we have of reaching and teaching all students.
ReplyDelete