Category Archives: Inquiry

As a teacher, I am against the use of percentages and letter grades in assessing student work. Especially in the subject of mathematics, a student needs a complete foundation to take his or her mathematics education further. A 65% of a course is not a complete foundation and in the future, they are bound to hit a roadblock in their understanding. And I think this is how the classroom is formatted. We accept to let students move on without the strong foundations for future success. I think we are doing students an injustice. Instead of issuing grades that allow for incomplete understanding, teachers can instead ask for revision, provide more help and as a result, develop their students to become well rounded in mathematics. I am not sure how practical this would be as teachers need to cover a lot of content and cant afford weaker students to fall behind. Not to mention, this would put a lot more work and stress on those student that already stress over math.

As a student of mathematics, I feel the opposite. Students have busy lives and do not want to spend any more time on studying than they have to. If there was a subject that I didn’t feel strong in, I would much rather receive an adequate grade and move on than have to revise and spend more time on work that I already struggle with. And then for subjects that I excel at, I enjoy receiving the praise of a good grade. There is pride in a good grade. By taking away that grade, you may take away from the motivation that students have.

I understand the stresses that are put on students from grades and the labels they imposed. Students who receive bad grades will start to believe that that’s their intelligence level for that subject or in most drastic ways, maybe they may associate it with their worth.

What’s interesting to think about is how it could affect student’s social relations. Students are trying to find their self-identity and grades could possibly play an important role in determining where they fit in. I can’t help but relate to the feeling of being are not as smart as others and not feeling a part of a group. I wonder how extreme of an affect grades can be on a student’s personality. Can they lead students who get poor grades to identify with the stereotypical poor student and fulfill those personality traits?

Follow

There has been a recent debate in BC education that has received attention in the public eye. It has been over the use current progressive pedagogies of mathematics in BC schools. A few educators have been adapting what is known as discovery-based learning in their mathematics classroom (click here for my practice of discovery-based learning) in recent years. The logic behind this instructional strategy is to emphasize student understand by having them explore the math concepts behind behind the problems that they work on. In the traditional direct instruction method, students are encouraged to rope memorize things like their multiplication tables or algorithms for long division. Students may be able to achieve these skills to a mastery level but still not completely understand the mathematics they are doing. Under direct instruction, students simply follow the algorithms or procedures that the teachers does in a lecture format and try their best to memorize and regurgitate the steps involved. Advocates for discovery-based learning question how much students are truly learning from this form of instruction. They argue that students benefit more from having deeper understanding of the mathematics they do and be able to interpret their results or catch any mistakes that they make.

However, this practice isn’t without its critics. In a recent report by the C.D. Howe Institute, Canadian students’ math performance in international exams has been declining between 2003 and 2012. Report author Anna Stokke, an associate profesor at the University of Winnipeg, blames this decline on recent progressive pedagogies such as discovery-based learning. Stokke has called discovery-based learning methods ineffective She says teachers should base 80% of their math classes on direct instruction and the other 20% can be spent on problem-solving and hands on learning. She claims to base her findings on international and domestic evidence. Under this claim, discovery-based approaches lead to students feeling insecure in their math knowledge because their teacher isn’t showing them the correct methods. (Click here for Anna Stokke’s commentary).

Dr. Stokke’s commentary has gained a following within BC’s public arena as attention grown through news reports and teacher forums. Even parents have taken an active role in the controversy as parents from North Saanich have formed a petition against discovery-based learning model.

On the flipped side, there are still progressive educators endorsing the student-centred approach. Susan Gerofsky, an assistant professor with UBC’s Faculty of Education, responded to the report by debunking the suggestion that our math education is in a “crisis.” Canada’s math scores are still achieving at a high level with BC amongst the highest in Canada. Gerofsky believes that teachers should not rely on just one teaching strategy but rather use everything possible to help reach every student’s potential.

Michael Pruner, a leading high school teacher for problem-based learning,  has been using this form of instruction for the past 3 years. He says he has found that the direct-instruction model is success for students who can follow along with lecture style presentation. However, for those students that don’t quite keep up with this style suffer. Through problem- and discovery-based learning, students are active and thinking in the process of problem solving. With this instruction design, Pruner is able to assess student learning as students work through problems. Pruner says the most obvious result of his transition to a discovery-based approach is that ‘kids of having more fun in (his) class, enjoying working on problems, [and] they have more confidence.”

You can find Gerofsky’s and Pruner’s interview on CBC radio here.

As a new math teacher, the theory behind discovery-based learning resonates with me. Too often do I question students deeper understanding of math concepts.  Through discovery-based learning, the teacher doesn’t do the thinking for the students; students are pushed to make an effort themselves. In my opinion, this is more important than memorizing algorithms and will serve my students better with their future.

Please check out my experience of implementing discovery-based learning in my mathematics classroom.

Follow

Student should be able demonstrate their discovery in a method that best serves their strengths and how they interpret their findings. I have supported this philosophy in math units with discovery-based learning as the theme, and provided multiple options for students to demonstrate their learning. The difficulty with this philosophy is that it is not time-effective with the current curriculum. In the future, I hope to develop my profession to a level where I can further encourage inquiry- and discovery-based learning, and provide multiple options for students to demonstrate their learning, while managing effective use of time.

Follow