Experiencing Math at Amber Hill

First I would like to congratulate Sharon on a job well done! I really enjoyed the presentation of material in chapter four and the discussions that followed (and of course, the food was great as well!)

Chapter four provided an introduction to the methodologies used in the teaching of mathematics at Amber Hill. Teachers were very traditional in their approaches to the teaching of mathematics- they used short, procedural and closed questions. When students had questions concerning mathematics, teachers would guide them [the students] through questions step by step, posing multiple choice questions that would eventually lead students to the correct answer. The focus of math learning was on the memorization of rules and formulas, not on the understanding of why or how a concept is derived. The teachers were very focused on student success, and believed the methods they employed were the best suited for the students which they taught.

I suspect the teaching methods employed at Amber Hill are present in classrooms throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. As a new teacher, I struggle with trying to understand why we are still using such approaches to the teaching of math, if we know these methods are not appropriate for all students. I would venture to guess that it is largely because we are afraid of change. We are products of our own learning, in that for years ideologies of “practice makes perfect”, and “drill and practice” were stressed as the only way to teach and learn mathematics. I once asked a teacher who had been teaching math for a number of years (in fact he was nearing retirement age), why he used such approaches, to which he responded by stating that that’s the practice he has used for x number of years, and how well his students did on standardized tests. Through discussions with students, they blatantly stated that they didn’t understand the mathematics, they simply knew how to identify key points in questions which would in turn indicate which formulas/rules had to be applied.

On of the questions posed by Sharon, and to some degree Boaler, was “is there a disparity between what we believe as good math teaching and approaches used?” I believe this to be true. There is a constant reminder from department heads, principles, and board officials of the importance of student success on standardized assessments, which in turn becomes the focus of our teaching. We become less concerned with what “works” for students and more concerned with getting the curriculum covered so as to ensure student success on such assessments. As was the case with Amber Hill, we are concerned about student success, so much so that we lose sight of what’s really occurring in our classrooms.

As teachers, we continually need to step back and evaluate our teaching strategies. It is important that our focus is on student learning, as well as student success.