Reflecting on my Inquiry Project
During this course, I feel like I only started to delve into a very wide field within mathematics education.
A lot of things came up, from my starting point "Why do kids dislike math class so strongly? Why do adults dislike the idea of even having to do math?" I was genuinely curious about what was driving this social force against math.
It led me to read into motivation, fixed mindsets, growth mindsets, myths of math people and genetics, gender, indicators of success, assessment, reputation, social conformity. So many things affect what a child thinks about math class. But not all of these things were equal.
Plenty of writing has been written on mindsets and motivation. Society is shifting toward adopting a better attitude about math class.
But then, math class wasn't shifting to adopt a better attitude about students. And this was something that I started to run with during my inquiry.
I was certainly interested in issues of gender and representation in classrooms. But I was interested in that in a broader sense than just math class. I was interested in assessment, but again, that extended beyond just math education.
Then I read Paul Lockhart's paper. A Mathematician's Lament. It was radical and raw and new but widely read in the math community. It was not obscure by any means. But it was asking questions that no one really seemed to care to think about, let alone answer.
And that's where my inquiry started to go. I began to question not how math was taught in schools, but instead WHAT math is taught in schools, and whether it should be at all.
I don't disagree that a child is better off knowing shortcuts to calculate things in their head than not. I can't prescribe electronic calculators (smartphones), as the future of arithmetic. But I also believe that someone being beat over the head with long division to the point that they have mathematical trauma and a bad case of math-phobia is not great. That person should be left alone to use their calculator that will always be within arms reach if they need it.
There are not "math people" and "non-math people." But there are people who had a safe and supportive experience in math and those who didn't. Should the curriculum really be the same for all of them? Should we be making it mandatory that every student in every high school in BC be fed the same diet of math concepts? I have a degree in math and the only time I talk about trigonometry is when I discuss high school math with students and peers.
In light of all these ideas, my inquiry is moving in a slightly different direction as I head into the new year:
My new guiding questions are focused on - Should math be a mandatory subject? Should math education ignore the aesthetic and creative side of the subject? Why don't people know that it exists?
A lot of things came up, from my starting point "Why do kids dislike math class so strongly? Why do adults dislike the idea of even having to do math?" I was genuinely curious about what was driving this social force against math.
It led me to read into motivation, fixed mindsets, growth mindsets, myths of math people and genetics, gender, indicators of success, assessment, reputation, social conformity. So many things affect what a child thinks about math class. But not all of these things were equal.
Plenty of writing has been written on mindsets and motivation. Society is shifting toward adopting a better attitude about math class.
But then, math class wasn't shifting to adopt a better attitude about students. And this was something that I started to run with during my inquiry.
I was certainly interested in issues of gender and representation in classrooms. But I was interested in that in a broader sense than just math class. I was interested in assessment, but again, that extended beyond just math education.
Then I read Paul Lockhart's paper. A Mathematician's Lament. It was radical and raw and new but widely read in the math community. It was not obscure by any means. But it was asking questions that no one really seemed to care to think about, let alone answer.
And that's where my inquiry started to go. I began to question not how math was taught in schools, but instead WHAT math is taught in schools, and whether it should be at all.
I don't disagree that a child is better off knowing shortcuts to calculate things in their head than not. I can't prescribe electronic calculators (smartphones), as the future of arithmetic. But I also believe that someone being beat over the head with long division to the point that they have mathematical trauma and a bad case of math-phobia is not great. That person should be left alone to use their calculator that will always be within arms reach if they need it.
There are not "math people" and "non-math people." But there are people who had a safe and supportive experience in math and those who didn't. Should the curriculum really be the same for all of them? Should we be making it mandatory that every student in every high school in BC be fed the same diet of math concepts? I have a degree in math and the only time I talk about trigonometry is when I discuss high school math with students and peers.
In light of all these ideas, my inquiry is moving in a slightly different direction as I head into the new year:
My new guiding questions are focused on - Should math be a mandatory subject? Should math education ignore the aesthetic and creative side of the subject? Why don't people know that it exists?
Comments
Post a Comment