Forums

/ Subjects / Mathematics

Karvol:

( That  is an example of an ad hominem fallacy )

This is like the scene in To Kill A Mockingbird where Atticus Finch is using all the clear evidence that Tom Robinson didn't assault the girl, and bgy1mm and weebecka are the backwoods hicks looking for a lynching...

I do find it kind of ironic that bgy1mm is trying to tell Karvol about logic - it's like being in an INSET session on BrainGym - pseudoscientific gurus telling trained professionals how to deliver their lesson.

weebecka:

Now DM, I know I'm losing because it's blindingly obvious that Karvol (and many others) either can't or won't have any insight into this.

You are not losing per se, you are just highlighting how some believe they are experts when in reality its merely yet another point of view that can be equally challenged.

I apologise that somebody (can't remember who) suggested you may not even have QTS...I don't agree with what you have said (99% of the time) but I feel thats a little out of order to sugest you must not even be in the profession.

weebecka:

 

Right.  Got to go to Wilkos.

With all the snow this week, don't hold your breath when you are in the shovel department.

wrldtrvlr123:

Quite enjoying the discussion. Math is certainly not my area of expertise so I am always interested in discussions that delve into theory and best practices. At risk of being called a traitor by one of my countrymen (looks around nervously), I am always astounded by the high level of technical discussion that goes on here between primary and secondary school teachers. I was just perusing the comparable US version of TES and was very much left cold by threads like Making Fractions Fun, Looking for Christmans Math Worksheets and Ipad Math Apps??? To be fair, there was an interesting post about  a lesson involving slope and handicap ramps.

In any case, I certainly admire Weebecka's perseverance around here. I did take a peek at one of her discussions on ATM and the facilitation seemed to go much smoother with those posters. I think you lot just don't have the knack for it.

I don't have much to offer the discussion. The closest I have come to teaching full math classes was my last US position. I had 9 fairly challenging SPED students at 4 different grade levels and 9 different ability levels (from a little behind grade level to woefully behind grade level). I did face the dilemma of trying to expose them to grade level concepts while also attempting to help them improve their deficits in computation and basic math facts. Some of them did show interest and a fair amount of aptitude in certain areas of the math curriculum such as geometry, but even there the gaps in their basic math skills made it difficult for them to be able to truly engage with the higher level skills/concepts. I would end up providing them with multiplication charts and even number lines just so we could work through material on area, order of operations and angles.

I did have some success in engaging the students, getting them accustomed to working on computation, utilizing activities to reinforce concepts we had learned (e.g. Ordered Pairs Battleship) and most made modest gains on mastering math facts, etc., but on the whole I felt I didn't exactly  cover myself with glory in achieving a healthy balance of attaining grade level content standards and reducing basic skills deficits.

Thanks for the well structured post.

I for one know I have a pretty tight schedule to get through a SOW in any given year.

As much as I would like to 'explore' non of this is really tested in the UK and its a case of weighing up what progress is.

Oftsed (the powers that be) seem to think its all about exploring yet must never read the exam papers dished out at the end of every year.

If every lesson was fun/wizzy and creative, I would not cover the basics and so many miss the basics,

When they are tested on PLTS/problem solving and the like then I will be more inclined to teach it...when they are dealt a paper full of either context poor or basic alogrithms i think 'why bother?' as the SLT are all about the numbers.

Basic skills win IMO and as much as I hate to say it, training some to pass tests.

Give me 2 more lessons with each class a week and a more favourable means of examining then the big furry die and sandpit will be dragged into my room.

Ya know, I was thinking of the old 'weebles' commercial as well but you beat me to it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U45lggf2OkM&NR=1

weebecka:

  I'm not covering anything up - I think in the first thread here I was very clear that I'd been HOD in a small school.  I've not been misrepresenting things. 

I'm not suggesting you're covering anything up, merely that your experiences to date would appear to be at odds with the grandoise claims you have been making on many threads.

The teaching of "your classes" and your experiences with them have been the cornerstone of many of your arguments on here and yet it would appear that you haven't been in a position of any longevity (bar your initial school) for that to be a credible standpoint.

Additionally, combining the very small nature of the cohort about whom you wax lyrically would with the lack of longevity means I am rather dubious of your tales and that they should be held up as some sort of panacea.

(That said, your profile error/omissions relating to your last three roles - see below - and your reluctance to divulge your relationship with MMU does make we wonder!). 

weebecka:

If you don't want to meet me, stop having a go because I can't give the level of detail you want here, so it's pointless.  Yes my CV is slighty fragmented, but there are sensible and appropriate reasons for that.

I'm not having a go, merely asking for justification/evidence of your teaching career against which it would be possible to place your grandoise claims and judging by your replies to date, I'm afraid I think none has been forthcoming.

weebecka:

Heaven knows why on earth you think my profile is incorrect.  It's far more detailed and open than anyone else here and it's just as it is.  Again, it's just totally inappropriate to write things like that.  If there's one specific thing that doesn't seem right then mention it, or better still PM me so that it doesn't spam up the thread and I can reassure you.

On your profile your last three roles (Southfield to West lakes) span from Sept 06 to July 09, a period of 35 months, yet the total months noted by yourself for these three roles total 47 months.

Any explanation for this?

weebecka:

I'm not looking to win an argument with you based on my back-record MathsMA or to overwhelm you with my credibility.  My resume isn't there to do that, just give people an idea of my range of experience so I don't have to start from scratch whenever someone new joins the discussion.  On most forums you're required to provide this sort of stuff because discussion is so much easier if you just click on a poster to get a good idea of 'where they're coming from'. 

I don't think there is any argument to be won, this forum is for sharing ideas and expressing opinions, to which everyone has a right to hold and espouse. I personally just don't find you a credible advocate, particularly when viewed against your very high opinion of yourself and your experiences, along with your rather poor image you portray on here (along with espousing a number of poor strategies in these threads).

Of course it may all be down to your inability to communicate with your peers on this medium (or the majority of us who find you tiresome and somewhat outlandish could be the real villains!!), but that really is no excuse given your current role and sector within which you work.

Just wanted to bring this forward from an earlier post for two reasons:

1. a few people have been asking for clear examples of the kind of thing I do which they could use.  This is a starter which goes right through secondary school.  If it does nothing else it gives students a clear picture of what reciprocals are very early.  

It should fit with anyone's teaching, but I would ask you to try and create a challenging environment around the answers - why?  are you sure? and allow no 'because I used the trick' answers.

 2. Because I'm going to refer to it when I try and answer another post.

weebecka:

I write two things on the board (they could be quantities, algebraic expressions, pictures, functions, whatever) and tell them to sum, difference, product and quotient them.  1 mark for each correct answer if they can picture/explain how they got it.  Half a mark if they get it right but have used a mathematical trick they can't explain.  But, crucially, a whole mark if they get very close but can't quite get there but can explain what they did. Also a whole mark if it's just undoable and they can explain why.

One of the first hurdles is - are their 5 potential marks or 6?  What does difference actually mean?  We lean into the confusion here to become aware of the 'haziness' and arbitrary nature of language.  Then we get on with trying to picture our maths.  And the students begin to invent, to be creative.  The come up with new and original ways of picturing and explaining things, which they have to teach to each other (use a snowballing structure at least some of the time). This is one activity I use regularly to help create a climate where students are always challenging mathematical explanations so that they deeply understand them.