When asked in class to count grains of sand I immediately thought, there is no way I would be able to solve this problem. I soon realized that it was not the answer itself that the professor was concerned with, but the process. This was the first time that I was forced to think that it is not the answer that is important, but it is the logic you use and the process. In class I really enjoyed the idea of doing math problems with more than one answer or more than one way to get the answer. I will definitely be using this method in my own math class. It was interesting to see the different ways in coming up with the answer ‘five’. The possibilities were endless.
This class caused me to immediately think of an observation day in a grade three classroom. While in the class, I was excited to see actual problem solvers taken place in the classroom. When doing the problem solvers the students had to write their strategy in solving the math problems, their workings and their answers. I really liked the idea of this, unfortunately I did not agree with how the teacher taught the mathematics. I felt she never allowed the students enough time to solve the problems themselves, and I didn’t feel her explanation of the problems were clear and felt many students were being left behind and not really understanding what was going on. This was a substitute teacher, and I felt she was more concerned with getting the work completed rather than an actual understanding going on with the students. She also never accepted different ways in solving a problem. A student solved a problem with subtraction and she said it was the wrong way because he should have used addition. When correcting the problem solvers of individual students, I could tell the students did not understand how they came to the answers and comments were made on their sheets that subtraction can be used but it was the wrong way to get the answer.
This teacher appeared to view mathematics as using numbers to get an answer. The product was what was important and if you practice them enough you will understand. Process and meaning appeared to be neglected .Also given the teacher was a supply teacher, time became an issue of having all tasks completed. The substitute teacher didn’t have the time to follow the student to see where their thinking may have been going.
This class caused me to immediately think of an observation day in a grade three classroom. While in the class, I was excited to see actual problem solvers taken place in the classroom. When doing the problem solvers the students had to write their strategy in solving the math problems, their workings and their answers. I really liked the idea of this, unfortunately I did not agree with how the teacher taught the mathematics. I felt she never allowed the students enough time to solve the problems themselves, and I didn’t feel her explanation of the problems were clear and felt many students were being left behind and not really understanding what was going on. This was a substitute teacher, and I felt she was more concerned with getting the work completed rather than an actual understanding going on with the students. She also never accepted different ways in solving a problem. A student solved a problem with subtraction and she said it was the wrong way because he should have used addition. When correcting the problem solvers of individual students, I could tell the students did not understand how they came to the answers and comments were made on their sheets that subtraction can be used but it was the wrong way to get the answer.
This teacher appeared to view mathematics as using numbers to get an answer. The product was what was important and if you practice them enough you will understand. Process and meaning appeared to be neglected .Also given the teacher was a supply teacher, time became an issue of having all tasks completed. The substitute teacher didn’t have the time to follow the student to see where their thinking may have been going.
No comments:
Post a Comment