Now What?

This is the fourth course I have completed online towards my degree thus far. Each previous course leading up this one, I have noticed a particular phenomenon that occurs in the online postings once, maybe twice per term. As we are all teachers attempting to better ourselves as educators through higher education, we regularly tend to share opinions on many of the major issues we currently face in education. Often the general consensus on any debate involves open-mindedness, balance, and whatever is best for the student. The discussion forum bursts with agreement and support. It seems that point has now arrived in this course as well.

Let me be clear when I say that in no way am I implying a negative “here we go again” attitude toward this situation. In fact, I think the fact that the majority of us are on the same wavelength only exemplifies our passion to become better teachers for our students, and that what impedes us are often barriers of the external nature. In other words, we know what needs to be done but are in on position to do it.

It’s probably safe to say that as of now, most everyone in the course would agree on certain aspects of Boaler’s study. Phoenix Park students were taught in a guided discovery-based environment, viewed math as exploratory and adaptable, saw no difference between school math and real world math, and were able to adapt their mathematical knowledge to new situations. They were active in their learning and active users of mathematics. Conversely, Amber Hill students were taught in a traditional, instruction-based environment, viewed math as inflexible and inert, saw school math and real world math as two separate entities, and could make little use of their mathematical knowledge outside of the classroom opting instead to rely on inventing their own methods. They were rule followers and passive receivers of mathematics. With that, we all acknowledge that there were successes and failure in both schools, and that one instructional approach will never suit the needs of every student in the classroom.

When I get to this point in an online course where it seems a harmony has been reached, I remind myself to take a step back and think about why I am a part of this discussion in the first place and ask myself some key questions. What does all this mean for my ‘daily grind’? How do I get better? How does this make me a better teacher? What can I do right away, in the classroom tomorrow?

Researchers are becoming increasingly aware that knowledge cannot be separated from the environment in which it was acquired (Greeno & MMAP, 1998, as cited in Boaler, 2002). If we want students to solve real world mathematics problems with discourse, we must provide them with opportunities for classroom discussion. If we want them to be able to work collaboratively on an inquiry, we must give them opportunities for group work. These are things that can be done relatively easily in the classroom to enhance the learning experiences of all students.

Up until now our main interest of comparison between the two schools has been the instructional methods and students’ achievement in, and perceptions of mathematics. With the focus narrowing on the issues of gender and ability grouping in the coming weeks, it almost feels as if I should try and wrap things up into some kind of a “pre-conclusion” of my thoughts on Boaler’s study. The only thing that comes to mind is to offer a variety of instructional approaches through a variety of social contexts to maximize student learning. Pay attention to each individual student’s strengths and needs, and cater my instruction to the dynamics of the classroom. It may sound complicated, but in the end it’s just good teaching.

Boaler, J. (2002). Experiencing school mathematics: traditional and reform approaches to teaching and their impact on student learning. Malwah (NJ): L. Erlbaum. 

Greeno, J.G., & MMAP. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning and research. American Psychologist, 53(1), 5-26.