The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Basic maths: the brutal reality > Comments

Basic maths: the brutal reality : Comments

By Rhonda Farkota, published 31/8/2005

Dr Rhonda Farkota argues mathematics teaching, like literacy, could benefit from a methodical

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
I wonder if Dr Rhonda Farkota can kill and prep a chicken for the table.
Posted by Kenny, Wednesday, 31 August 2005 10:00:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I was unimpressed by the SMH articles, and I have concerns with Dr Farkota's article as well.

No-one, to my mind, has actually been able to articulate what is a good education. Fit for what purpose? What should a school be like? Is an industrial age, learning factory model the most effective way to educate children today?

We are dominated by syllabus outcomes imposed in a top-down mode; we have teachers who are, more-and-more, being treated as unskilled workers who can only be trusted to teach these externally imposed syllabuses, where "explicit instruction" mandates what and how something will be taught; and there little concomitant upskilling of teachers to *understand* the *why* for teaching in that way.

I recognise that many of my erstwhile colleagues are more like tradespersons than "professionals", but I would argue that organisations like ACER, state and federal departments of education, and the Board of Studies have pushed the de-skilling as a form of control.

What does *real* learning look like? What are the real outcomes we should be pursuing?
Posted by jimoctec, Wednesday, 31 August 2005 10:32:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hard to disagree with what Rhonda Farkota says about the need for some teacher-directed learning to be incorporated with the student-directed learning of numeracy and mathematics. There are unquestionably some elements of numeracy and maths which are unfashionably unsusceptible to a heuristic learning approach. They need to be taught to students by someone who knows the points which are most likely to cause confusion to the learner. And then they need to be practised for mastery. Only then will they be ready to use for some discovery learning.
I'm not too convinced, however, that the "highly effective, research-based, teacher-directed programs out there, requiring no preparation and no mathematical expertise to implement" wouldn't be a bit more effective if they were administered by a good teacher who DID have a bit of mathematical expertise. Dr. Farkota seems to fall for the trap of thinking that anybody can be a good teacher of primary and junior secondary maths. She's not the only one. Most secondary school administrators, when faced with the job of finding someone to teach a junior maths class, are quite happy to subscribe to this view. It is this attitude that causes the situation her article describes to worsen.
Train and employ and PAY excellent young graduates to teach maths at junior secondary levels if you want to stop the bleeding.
Ajax
Posted by aJAX, Wednesday, 31 August 2005 11:18:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What is going on in this silly article? I completed my HSC 4 yrs ago and can assure you that the best way of learning Maths is to actually do it. Solve as many problems as you possibly can. Screw teacher/student directed nonsense, the best teachers I ever had gave me worksheet after worksheet. I used to refuse worksheets that included silly drawings which were so obviously pathetic attempts to 'encourage' you or make math 'fun'. Good teachers also let you work ahead of the other students. Feeling better or more intelligent than other students works wonders for the young mind.
Posted by strayan, Wednesday, 31 August 2005 9:09:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My only experience as a teacher has been at University, but I still employed the basic method strayan recommends, lots of problems. It worked well in my education at every level and it let me know who in my classes "got it" and who struggled. When I went to those who struggled, we could work through several problems, so they could organise the ideas in their minds for all the problems, not just one or two.

Understanding and being comfortable with maths is crucial to being comfortable with science. Understanding science and maths will be critical to the worlds future because there are lots of big decisions that have to be made on a popular level that involve science and maths. Issues regarding the environment, the economy, energy and resources all require understanding maths. If the issues are not understood at a popular level, the politicians will not react and we will continue on with business as usual. The result will be further degradation of the environment, depletion of resources and hard times for the economy.

I hope these new efforts will be successful in improving the standard of maths education, for all of our sakes.
Posted by ericc, Friday, 2 September 2005 8:46:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Another issue to consider is that if you like History or English in High School or University, the best job you can usually get is as a teacher. If you like Maths and Science there are some higher paying and more prestigous jobs. That means that the best people in History and English are teaching, but the best people in Science and Maths are not.

The best people then rise to be principals and top executives and take their expertise in English and History with them. When there are curriculum problems or special methods are needed to improve History and English teaching, the school executive have the answers. When there are problems teaching Maths and Science the top executive is not as well prepared. The same may also be true of the University Lecturers teaching education. If the Lecturers are more familiar with English and History they will be more comfortable describing methods for teahcing those subjects rather than maths.

The teachers unions and probably the public in general, won't allow maths and science teachers to be paid more or have other incentives offered, than other teachers. That means that it is harder to attract good maths and science teachers.

This logic would not seem to affect primary school teachers who must teach all subjects, but it may be that the same bias that may exist through the whole system also impacts primary school teachers.
Posted by ericc, Friday, 2 September 2005 9:13:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ericc,

What you said makes sense - Science and Maths teachers should probably be paid more - but it will never happen because of the teachers federation.

there are far too many opportunities for science and maths graduates whereas many HSIE and English teachers fall into teaching, that has been my experience with both my teachers at high school and the people I know who are now teachers.

I mean why would you teach high school chemistry when you can earn 70,000 straight out of uni at BHP?

What is it about paying peanuts?

t.u.s.
Posted by the usual suspect, Friday, 2 September 2005 2:01:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I’m not certain that someone would need high qualifications in Maths to be able to teach maths to primary or even secondary school children, but someone would have to be a good teacher of maths.

I have worked in a number of factories, where a new station operator would be trained by an existing operator. Quite often a proficient operator would not make the best trainer, (ie. although they were proficient at carrying out the required tasks, they could not explain those tasks very well to the new recruit). And vice versa, where an operator who was not so sufficient at carrying out tasks, could be quite good at explaining those tasks to the new operator.

In the school area, the ability to teach maths would be the primary requirement, not having high qualifications in maths.

However, having said that, the teacher would still have to have an intrinsic interest in maths to be able to teach it well. I am not sure that this is occurring. About 4 out of 5 teachers in the primary school system are female, and a growing number in the secondary school system as well, and they may / may not have much interest in maths.

The following is from a March edition of Times magazine, with a cover story of “The Maths Myth”.

% of women in positions in the top 50 US research departments :-
Sociology 36%
Psychology 34%
Political Science 24% etc
.
.
Mathematics 8%
Mech. Engineering 7%
Physics 7 % etc

I don’t know how much interest many female teachers in our current system have in maths, science etc.
Posted by Timkins, Friday, 2 September 2005 3:06:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
On re-reading my post, I may have sounded a bit patronising to people who currently teach maths and science.

I did not mean to say they were monkeys being paid peanuts but rather that too attract extra people to the profession, maybe a pay rise is in order, rather than losing these talented people to industry.

On Timkins point about ability to teach and proficiency in maths/science. I agree.

Some maths teachers who are whizzes with maths can find it hard to explain it to students who are not coming from the same level. One of the best teachers I had, had systems for explaining things in easy language and steps because that is how she had to learn it.

t.u.s
Posted by the usual suspect, Friday, 2 September 2005 4:08:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with "The Usual Suspect" as well as strayan.
I just left school last year, and I'm in University now. I completed my schooling in Queensland, and let me tell you the mathematics "scheme" is terrible.

For those of you who don't know about it, it is this:
There are a number of "Objectives" you must demostrate while solving a problem. These can include such things as "Showing an understanding of a problem" or "demonstrating the ability to break down a problem". Some of them are even more vague than that. What is worse, each question is given a grade, not a mark.

Not only that, many teachers don't explain very well (probably because they don't really understand themselves). Not only that, they don't prescribe the most effective tool in math - Practice! You need to practice many questions, and many different kind of questions.

In Singapore, they have a great level of math amongst their children, and it's all due to practice. Asians and White people are just as smart as each other. What is needed is a big thick book stuffed with many questions for each and every child. That should solve the problem.
Posted by The Thieving Magpie, Friday, 2 September 2005 10:54:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Thieving Magpie
The situation of maths in education would just be another example of attempts to convert the whole education system into one of “soft science”

"I knew the answer, just couldn't understand the question"

An exercise in maths ( a “hard science”, that requires a definite answer to a given problem) is converted into an exercise in English (a “soft science”, where there can be much talk about it, but no definite answer need be given)

Gender and feminisation of the education system has much to do with it. There is variation within a gender, and also overlap between the genders, but in general terms, the male brain is more spatially orientated and goal orientated. When presented with a problem, males will want to try and solve the problem, with minimal talk.

The female brain is more verbally orientated, and less goal orientated. When presented with a problem, females will want to talk about the problem, share experiences and feelings, with minimal desire to solve the problem.

This is why women are much more likely to become involved in areas such as psychology, sociology (“soft sciences”), then they are to become involved in areas such as maths, engineering (“hard sciences”).

This feminisation of education into a “soft science” system advantages girls, disadvantages boys, but I also think it disadvantages Australian industry.

Companies will employ some people to be “arms and legs”, (eg manual labour type jobs), but they also employ other people to solve problems (eg engineers, programmers, managers etc). If the education system is converted into a “soft science” system, it is not training people to solve problems, and few companies will employ someone just to talk about a problem. Companies want people who can solve problems, not just talk about them.

Business will want 1 + 1 = 2
Not 1 + 1 = 2, after many hours have been spent talking about it in a group session.
Posted by Timkins, Saturday, 3 September 2005 10:51:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Timkins, your gender theory is about a soft as the theories you seek to critisize.

This has got nothing to do to with the difference between the male and female brain Timkins.

It's about a system which is scared off by the very thought of practice. When my parents sent me to piano lessons when I was 6, I learnt very quickly that if you wanted to learn anything, you actually had to practice - carry the 1 - and I realised the same applied to any area of learning.

At school I needed a hard grade. I needed an percentage mark and I needed it to seperate me from the other students who had obviously done no practice. I needed to move on, but the system wouldn't let me. I will never forgive the system for that.
Posted by strayan, Saturday, 3 September 2005 4:02:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Strayan,
People have to practice anything to become good at it, but I would think there has been a move away from mental thinking towards verbal expression within education.

That does advantage young girls (who are generally more advanced in verbal expression than boys at the same age, while boys are generally more advanced at spatial type exercises) Even at an older age, women will tend to choose areas that require much verbal communication (eg sociology) over areas requiring more mental thinking (eg maths)

With an imbalance of females to males in many areas of the education system, (eg the primary school system) I believe the system is being converted into a system that requires more verbal type exercises, rather than thinking type exercises. (ie “soft science” as compared to “hard science”)

I’ve experienced this system myself when doing a statistics exam a few years ago. I knew the statistics, but the questions on the paper were worded in such a way that they could be interpreted in 10 different ways. The exam was not on statistics, but on interpretation of English
Posted by Timkins, Sunday, 4 September 2005 11:01:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Thieving Magpies comments are most important. They show clearly the pathetic condition of school Maths and a justified contempt for what passes for Maths in schools. Maths is in part a set of tools, hence practice is essential. But children are not trained to become proficient either in Arithmetic in primary schooling or algebra (the gateway to higher mathematics) in lower secondary schooling. That outcome is inevitable because the various state Boards of Study (for TTM the Queensland Studies Authority)produces syllabi that poorly define what is to be studied and contain handwaving non-numerate 'assessment' systems. Because ALL schools have to follow Board syllabi it follows that no improvement can occur until the Boards are compelled to write syllabi/assessments that emphasise the importance of Maths as a tool and assessment systems that are not based on 'on balance judgements'. Until syllabi meet the criteria of being defined, validated and reliable then both maths and the numerical sciences can never improve.
Posted by eyejaw, Monday, 5 September 2005 2:15:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy