Forums

/ Subjects / Mathematics

weebecka:

seren_dipity:

This site has existed for around ten years without the dubious input of weebecka and with only a little wisdom and wit she might have had much more successful discussion on here.  ...and, if only she listened to other posters, she might still manage that.

 

Yes, you're right.  Please could someone give me some links to some of the really vibrant discussions about the psychology of maths education.

I'll happily read them and learn from them.

Lots of you here are really paranoid.  I was only having a go at Autisuk because he's behaving like a t0zzer. I wasn't having a go at the rest of you.

Honestly.  Fixed mindset thinking or what?

 

brookes:

I'm curious/concerned about your motives for contributing when your posting style (rightly or wrongly) stirs up so much annoyance. (You were posting last night at about 11pm and again before 6am this morning). I'm sure if you were to write a little less and read a little more your contributions would be warmly welcomed and people would be more receptive to what you have to say.

I have young kids and its nearly christmas and they're up.  It's a bit dull at times.

I like a good conversation.

Okay I'll shut up today and look forward to reading the coversation about Carol Dweck provided by others. Have a good conversation.  Make my christmas! xx

 If I could add a little...

Weebecka can post what she likes and when she likes. It is really up to us if we wish to read it or comment on it.

The fact of the matter is that, as far as I can see, her last teaching post was at Ehenside ( where I believe she was HoD ) and the school got absolutely blasted by Ofsted as failing its pupils.

And that was the polite version. Who knows what they really thought of the place. 

She also has no real knowledge of teaching. The odd lesson here and there in Jordan, where she describes the teachers as extremely sharp in their analyses of her lessons ( sorry weebecka, but some of us have spent a long time teaching and assessing teaching in the Middle East, and we have direct experience of Jordanian, Syrian, Egyptian and Palestinian teaching methodologies. To describe them as antiquated would be doing them a favour. Chalk and talk is the standard teaching method out there irrespective of the subject ).  

One can spout whatever educational theory one likes, yet if independent assessment has found ones teaching to be really not up to scratch, then one loses all right to lecture others on the efficacy of their methodology.

To a very large extent, teaching is experiential knowledge, so it is very difficult to take at face value the advice of someone who has very little.

Once one decides that most of what she is saying is lifted from educational publications, then her post stop being annoying and start becoming curiousities in their own right. They are, essentially, dumbed down versions of the originals so it is easier to just go to the originals and read what was said there.

weebecka:

seren_dipity:

This site has existed for around ten years without the dubious input of weebecka and with only a little wisdom and wit she might have had much more successful discussion on here.  ...and, if only she listened to other posters, she might still manage that.

 

Yes, you're right.  Please could someone give me some links to some of the really vibrant discussions about the psychology of maths education.

You're deliberately misconstruing my post.

Maybe there is such a discussion on a past thread, maybe there isn't.  There are, however, 6790 discussions according to the information at the top of the maths forum - almost all of which managed fine without your nonsensical notion of "facilitation".

Even though there was a major cull of the opinion forum there are still over THIRTY THOUSAND discussions on that forum...which, although some are utter twaddle, ALL managed to be conducted without your fabulous "facilitation".

If, instead of arriving like some sort of forum guru, you had simply opted to participate in discussions without setting yourself up as some sort of superior poster it is unlikely that you would have attracted the almost universal negativity you are experiencing.

The ridiculousness of your suggestion that there is some sort of right wing conspiracy behind the responses you've had is proof, if any were needed, of your ignorance of the posters with whom you are posting.  The fact that you seem genuinely to believe that you're doing us all a favour is proof, if any were needed, of your arrogance.

It may well be that you had opinions and experiences that would have been interesting to discuss but by cloaking them in unjustifiable superiority you've misunderstood your audience and THAT is a cardinal sin for any sort of communicator.

Knowing and understanding your audience is the single most important thing any of us needs to do if we are to be successful communicators, whether that is in our classrooms, in front of an audience of our peers, making speeches, negotiating with employers, participating in policy making , representing peers or just posting on forums.  The ability to adapt our communication style according to the audience with whom we are communicating is also crucial. These are skills in which you are sadly lacking and your arrogance precludes you from recognising it.

Superb Karvol.

Becka...on Etheside..(which I have bolded just if you miss/avoid it)

What strategies were being used in terms of T&L (teaching and learning) at the time Ofsted were there?

Were they changed in light of them coming? changed after the feedback or did the school/teachers just get 'unlucky'?

Is it since then you have put in your high ability students with the low ability students in year 9? or was that (expert differentiation) done for that purpose?

Ps, Could you not change the dates of your employment on your profile before answering the question please?

If you feel uneasy in responding I will happily PM you as that seems to be the way it goes. Thanks in advance