One way, or Another, We're Gonna Get It

                Many people have several things they excel at, some more than others. Canadians use the four main math operations every single day, but most people don’t do it the same. Maybe they were taught different, maybe they figured out different ways to do their subtraction, addition, division and multiplication in their own way. In the past, our math curriculum as based on several different rules, the same can be said about teaching and using the four math operations. But if everyone is different, wouldn’t it make sense to provide students with alternative ways to learn and do math?

                Students often struggle with the real world practicality of the math they learn; the common notion is “why am I learning all of this stuff? I’m never going to use it again.” In recent years, educators have focused on creating real-world exercises and problems for students to do, in order to show them that math is everywhere, and they will use it every day. The phenomenon of incorporating open questions into math is crucial to sparking students imagination, and can be used a great teaching tool at any grade level. But what about the basics, the foundations to all math taught early on in students education, isn’t that all the same? If everyone is different, would showing them one way suffice all students? Should we as educators just aim to “suffice” or should we show them many ways and let them develop their own tactics?

Mihallov, D. (2010, May 12). Concrete Math. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/2dLekvP

                What educators ought to do is allow students to build their own foundations early on, believing in the idea that students will be able to develop their own algorithms for the four operations after they have identified the “facts” of math. Educators must first start with having students realize the crucial facts within math operations, specifically the multiplication and addition time tables. Within these facts, educators can highlight key facts, useful facts that will allow students to build a base for their procedures and algorithms. Students must start with the facts, then begin to build their knowledge about the various relationships within the operations, supported by the educators guidance.

                An example of learning the facts, then building onto them would be realization of the commonalities within the multiplication table. If students know that 2 x 3 = 6, then it is possible for them to estimate what 20 x 30 would be. Knowing the simple facts is crucial for a student’s future to build onto their understanding within the four operations. It is important to acknowledge that the age where we as educators rewarded the speed at which students learn and complete the facts is gone. Educators must now focus on being flexible when it comes to students learning the facts, and teaching them about the inter-relations. Too often in the past, students memorized sets of number combinations without really understanding them.

                The future of math is based on educators commitment to showing students all the tools and letting them pick which ones they want to use. Student’s don’t have to use every tactic their teacher shows them, as well as they do not need to use the same procedure forever. Students will often leave behind things they have learned because they do not need them anymore or because they have realized or been shown another way to do it. The image below shows a procedure that helps students add large numbers without the use of a device. The tactic is often called “skip counting”, and is based on the students knowing that a number like 332 can also be shown as 300 + 30 + 2.

                The purpose of this post was to shed light on the fact that math is not the only subject that has rigid rules to follow, it too should be fluid and allow for all students to be able to learn their way and with a better pace. Educators must allow students to do what they feel most comfortable with when it comes to the development of various algorithms and procedures. Educators must take this in stride, so they can show all students that math is sensible, useful and do-able. 

Welcoming a New Math

Unpleasant.

 That is the word I would chose to describe not only how I would view my math experience in primary and secondary school, but it was also how I would describe how I felt when I learned I would be taking a math course in teachers college. “I'm going to be teaching geography, why do I have to learn how to teach math?” is what I was thinking. After two weeks in my math course, I quickly learned that this course is not what I thought it was, and teaching math is not going to be what I thought it was.

                There is a shift happening with how we are teaching students in Ontario and across Canada about math, changes for the good. In general, there seems to be profound focus on how educators are teaching their students math in regards to how their students learn best. I often felt behind the curve while in math class. In secondary school I recall on the struggles I had, most of which I can now relate to how I was being taught math, not the math itself. I am ecstatic to learn that math in Ontario is being shifted towards a more co-operative learning experience between teachers and students. I am even more excited that I will be learning and involved in this shift.

                When it comes down to it, teaching math is being shifted from a primarily “fixed mindset” to what is known as a “growth mind set”. What this means is that math teachers are being asked to think outside the box, or the text book, in order to get their students to learn math in a more tangible, real-world way. A main way educators can do this is focus on more problem solving based activities, questions and exercises that make math more sense, increase mathematical dialogue between students, while promoting more challenging questions and the development and use of a student’s own judgement.

Anderson, M. (2010, March 31). Math Manipulatives. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/2df2GpB

                A key idea that was outlined in the second week of the math class was the use of manipulatives in math. Before, manipulatives in math were mostly associated with struggling students, but that is no longer the case. A Growth Mind Set empowers the use of manipulatives for all levels of student learning as they can create more understanding and student engagement in the classroom.

                Another key idea is that some students and people are inherently bad at math, while some are great at it. This belief is often supported by many and can be routinely seen throughout the media. I was one of those students; I placed the blame on my math class struggles on the thought that I did not get the math “gene”. However, most people’s negative view on math can be broken down to the way they were taught math, a way that did not spark imagination and engagement, a way that would often leave students behind.

                As educators, we must leave behind the way we were taught math in order to develop a better understanding of how our students want to learn, and what the best way for them to learn. Math can be fun and engaging, but only if the teacher makes it that way. 

             The main goal of this blog is to educate the readers about how teaching math is changing, highlighting new ideas that facilitate a Growth Mind Set towards math instruction and learning by ways of useful tips and educational write ups centered around numerous math processes  for students K-8.