I had thought to make this a WitCH. I figured, however, that a WitCH here would go the same way as the previous, David and Kaye WitCH; people would look, would be swamped by the swamp and, understandably, would simply crawl back to firm ground. So, this time, I’ll try to bribe people into doing some work: the best comment wins a prize.
Yesterday, the AAMT released a position paper, on Pedagogy in Mathematics. It begins with a summary:
Our Position:
No single pedagogical approach can meet the needs of every mathematics learner. Effective mathematics teaching relies on a range of intentional and high-quality practices that can be tailored to specific contexts, learners and purposes. This position paper advocates for a flexible approach to mathematics pedagogy that empowers school leaders, decision-makers and teachers to make informed professional judgements. School leaders and decision-makers are instrumental in fostering cultures that equip, support, and empower teachers to make thoughtful and informed pedagogical choices. Teachers are encouraged to develop and deploy a diverse repertoire of strategies, grounded in both research and practical insights, to create responsive mathematics learning environments for all students.
AAMT’s position is then spelled out in the subsequent three thousand words.
Allan WMMC Dougan appears to be “proud” of AAMT’s position paper. Catherine “The Engager” Attard appears to be “proud” of AAMT’s position paper. And, No Ideology Amie appears to be “proud” of AAMT’s position paper. Is anybody else so impressed with AAMT’s position paper. Can anybody else discern any purpose for, or even any substance to, AAMT’s position paper?
That, then, is the competition question:*
What, in the clearest and most substantive words, is AAMT’s position on pedagogy in mathematics.
Note that you do not have to argue the merits (or demerits) of AAMT’s position, although you may wish to do so. Your task is simply (?) to explain what AAMT’s position is.
The winner will receive their choice of a signed copy of either A Dingo Ate My Math Book or Putting Two and Two Together.** Good luck.
*) For previous, finished, competitions, see here. There is also the MERGA competition, which I had forgotten about and which kind of petered out, and the ATSI competition, which no one took seriously (although I intended it to be). Maybe I’ll announce winners to one or both of those, too, when this new competition is done.
**) Allan and Catherine and Amie and other AAMT people are eligible to enter, since, if anything, they would appear to be at a disadvantage.
AAMT’s position appears to be a heavily floral summary of John Hattie’s research summary as expressed in Visible Learning and Visible Learning – the sequel. Roughly it is align your intention, teaching methods, tasks, feedback, assessment in a way that maximises the chance that a student in your class will achieve at their best. That is, the position is not really about mathematics pedagogy particularly. At least that is how it seemed to me.
Well, I like your one sentence a lot more that AAMT’s hundred sentences, but I still don’t see how it amounts to a “position” beyond don’t be a thoughtless twat.
“Different strokes for different folks.”
Who’d have thought it? You mean school kids aren’t all clones of each other? Goodness gracious me.
AAMT’s position on maths pedagogy?
Essentially: just like so many troubled Facebook relationship statuses “It’s complicated.”
After pages of stating the obvious
—students learn differently, teachers should use various strategies, and research matters but isn’t everything—
we’re left with the groundbreaking insight that good teaching requires professional judgement. Who knew?
AAMT’s grand revelation: teaching maths is nuanced, students aren’t identical robots, and teachers should think critically.
Just like florals in spring in the devil wears prada…
Groundbreaking.
After wading through all that, one can only hope their next paper tackles other deep mysteries—like whether water is wet.
How can one use three thousand words to pronounce these truisms, even if one wished to?
One line I found that sums up the paper perfectly:
‘This position paper was motivated by recent debates and discussions surrounding pedagogy in mathematics education, reflecting the growing need to clarify and support effective teaching practices in this vital area’
I am not convinced the AAMT know what ‘clarify’ means if this is their attempt
Similarly, I love the Framework for Action section for providing ‘concrete steps’ for supporting mathematics education – before giving the most waffling and uninspiring dot pointed recommendations for how to promote their unclear pedagogy in mathematics. The steps seem to be made of paper rather than concrete
On a slightly unrelated note, I’ve been having a (fairly one-sided) war with the Victorian DET over the Mathematics Lesson Plans (available on ARC) and this paper essentially read as a ringing endorsement of their awful, non-mathematical lesson plans – without explicitly mentioning it, of course.
Oh, God. I don’t know what MLPs are, but they sound bad. Do you want to give me some details and/or a link (either in a comment or by email)? I’ll take a look.
Hey, Marty! As requested, below is the link
https://arc.educationapps.vic.gov.au/learning/sites/lesson-plans?searchTerm=*&filter=RESYearLevels%3A7&filter=RESYearLevels%3A8
They are extremely painful. I’ve only had a cursory glance at the primary school ones (as my focus is secondary education)
Thanks, Fox. I’ll take a look, and probably put up a separate post, even if just a “what is this?” post. But can you say in outline what the “war” is about? Is someone mandating or quasi-mandating the use of these lesson plans? Are the lesson plans intrinsically bad, or overly managerial or something?
Again, I’m happy to chat offline if you’d prefer (in which case just email me).
I have had a quick look at the lesson plans for secondary students (Years 7, 8). I am teaching some of this material at present. I see the lesson plans as materials that a teacher can download and use now. They are not ground breaking but they are OK, and I assume that they are free. However, I am not convinced that teaching by power-point and videos is the way to go, although it is very common.
Teaching by powerpoint is the exact opposite of the way to go.
No need for prizes. I am not a lucky person. However, I would like to comment and ask another question about school reform proposals:
How are teachers going to deal with 25-45 students in a classroom and give each one of them individual attention? I used to have 3 (15 to 17 year olds) or 5 (11 to 14 year olds) classes in the morning and in the afternoon. In a calm day I would have about 30 students inside each class. That meant at least having taught in a day 6 x 30 (180) or 10 x 30 (300) students. In a busy day it would be around 40 students in each classroom, and teaching about 240 or 400 students.
Individual attention (private teachers) only happens to aristocratic students. The “princes and princesses” of the upper class. Today some of these rich students go to very posh schools, but these are regular schools with fewer atudents per class, with classical subjects, classical curriculums, and everything classical in a school. What curriculum reformers propose is only good for the poor to stay poor and get screwed. As a mathematics teacher at middle and working class schools (11+ year olds), I didn’t even know my students’ names! These reformers have never been teachers, not even in posh schools.
A long time ago, Zoltan Dienes proposed that the only possible way to deal with individual diferences in classrooms is to use multiple representations/ways of comunicating mathematical concepts.
Do not believe it? No? Yet the truth is, still, out there.
Solange, you’re just not sufficiently practised at differentiation. Let me dig up some pamphlets for you.
Please explain what do you mean by differentiation. There are different meanings of the word. Does it mean “pedagogical” practice of separating the students by different habilities, levels, knowlege, or whaever?
It means pretending that you can teach many children at greatly different levels and with greatly different intellectual abilities all at the same time in the one classroom. I was being sarcastic.
I read it. I regretted reading it. To summarize 3 kilowords of waffle, I take inspiration from philosopher Gump:
Pedagogy is as pedagogy does.
Jesus. You actually read it? I tried and gave up.
Yes, I read it. I figured that, in order to conjure a one-liner, I needed to be ‘informed’. I instantly realised that no human could possibly be informed after reading it.
It’s what’s *not* in the statement that is interesting. Gone are the clear, confident declarations that we should make student-led inquiry and problem solving the basis of lesson design. So different from the positions of the last forty years. Now the advice is that “maybe some of that other stuff we didn’t like very much might work, but we can’t bring ourselves to say that, so read the research yourself and make up your own mind”. The section titled “Clear Explanations” has interesting “new” language that echoes the explicit teaching narrative, but dares not speak its name. I note the statement advises us to do our own research but does not point at any critical pieces of research or guidance. We are truly on our own.
Thanks, Edward. Yes, this gels with the line Fox quoted in their first comment.
It all feels like a defensive action, a conscious retreat from the inquiry babble that AAMT, and all maths ed associations, have been throat-shoving for decades. But, with no solid ground upon which to defend themselves, all they can seemingly retreat to is a kiloworded swamp.
Most succinctly put, the AAMT‘s position is that it does not have a position on pedagogy.
How can they use 3000 words to say it? Do they *think* they are saying something more than that?
The real question is why they produced it at all. Presumably there is some political reason. And of course in the modern world lots of words are a great replacement for any action. Also committees are very good at producing long documents. It took me a long time in the public service to realise that you could often summarise Many many pages of documents in a couple of sentences.
I agree with Solange. The pernicious notion that teachers are somehow supposed to meet the needs of individual learners makes it even harder to survive.
Greetings, and huh?