Lately, I have been a part of many discussions around the need for rotary math in our system. A colleague of mine, Gina, suggested I take a look at a webcast by Dr. Deborah Ball found on Curriculum Resources Canada (CSC) website, curriculum.org.
Dr. Ball argues that being an affective math educator is not necessarily dependent on knowing higher mathematics, but rather, it is dependent on knowing the level of math that you teach deeply. The webcast is definitely worth checking out. Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching with Dr. Deborah Loewenberg Ball.
Posts
Thinking Thursday: Anatole France
3 days ago
Hi Leslie,
ReplyDeleteI agree that the webcast is well worth the listen. It still kind of begs the question - whether you are talking about Mathematical knowledge or Math Content Knowledge for teaching - would a rotary system help students by assigning them to teachers with that knowledge and avoid assigning them to teachers that don't?
Hi Ross,
ReplyDeleteI'm thinking math content knowledge for teaching is the spirit of the video. I think she is saying that teachers do not require a university degree or even university courses within math to be effective. They do need to be able to understand the concept (and its development) enough to ask the appropriate questions to guide student learning though.
What challenges me about the video is that she recommends that teachers think about "big ideas" that won't only apply to the grade level they are teaching but instead, will hold true forever. (Example from the video: what does it mean to be even?) Does this require a deeper understanding of the body of math than being referred to in the video?
I believe teachers who are committed to delving into the mathematics they teach can handle the responsibility of teaching math. I'm putting it out there...rotary is not necessary.