The pattern which connects: teacher education and ecological understanding April 22, 2012
Posted by Editor21C in Directions in Education, Early Childhood Education, Engaging Learning Environments, Primary Education, Secondary Education, Teacher and Adult Education.add a comment
from Dr David Wright
It is a necessary truth that as the context of education changes education systems must also change (Kalantzis & Cope, 2008). This includes teacher education systems. With scientific evidence foreshadowing significant developments in human-environmental relationships (see for example Costanza, Graumlich & Steffen, 2011), teacher education systems need to respond. This is more than an ‘environmental’ problem. It is our collective problem. In this respect Orr (1992, 2004) puts the case for a new core competency: ‘ecological literacy’. Orr describes ecological literacy as a ‘quality of mind that seeks out connections’ and says it is the opposite of the ‘specialisation and narrowness characteristic of most education’ (1992:92). How can a divergent ‘quality of mind’ be learned? How can it be taught?
Questions about ecology and consciousness are not new. They go back to the pre-Socratics. Heraclitus observed, “no man ever steps in the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he’s not the same man” (Allen 1966). This brings issues of nature, experience and understanding together very succinctly. What is new is the breadth and depth of contemporary insight into the world we experience – ‘the river’ – and the relationship between the world we experience and the way we understand and respond to that experience – ‘the man’. Inevitably, education is a part of any such response. In this respect, Thomas Berry’s argument, in his foreword to Edmund O’Sullivan’s (1999) treatise on the transformation required for an emerging ‘ecozioc’ era, is worth citing;
Every profession and occupation of humans must establish itself within the integral functioning of the planet. The earth is the primary teacher in economics, in medicine, in law, in religion. Earth is the primary educator. Ecology is not a part of economics. Economics is an extension of ecology (xiv).
Similarly, Saylan & Blumstein (2011) call for “a full integration of environmental education in a form that inspires practical and critical re-evaluation of education as a whole” (3). Other writers, for example Judson (2010), suggest that such inspiration can be furthered by reference to ‘ecological’ rather than ‘environmental’ learning. “Ecological education emphasises the symbiotic relationship between human beings and nature” (10). It refuses to allow the environment to be considered separate from human kind.
How can teacher education and professional learning contribute to ecological understanding? Contemporary politics tells this is a troubling area for learning. Diverse responses emerge, often very passionately; diverse agendas govern responses. If education – and teacher education in particular – is to engage in this field how can it position itself? Can we we identify models of practice worthy of admiration? Are there glimpses of inspiration that can lead us toward meaningful change, as a consequence of critical, ecological understanding? What forms does the required pedagogy take if amelioration is to occur?
II
At 9.30 each morning Kindergarten, Year 1 and Year 2 students at K…… School, a small independent non-systemic school in Sydney’s Blue Mountains, gather with their teachers and those parents who have lingered after the morning drop-off and join in what can be seen as an elegantly designed example of ecological pedagogy.
Standing in a circle all sing and recite a series of poems that, in turn, acknowledge the new day, evoke respect for all students, situate the learning in a physical environment comprising animals and plants and look forward to a rewarding day of interactive learning. This opening constructs a shared experience. Situated at the beginning of the day, it constructs a platform for the future. It uses rhythm and emotion. It uses movement and group action. It seeks to connect directly with the values that motivate students in their relationships with the world around them. It is ritual learning that anticipates and supports the learning that will follow. It begins with a short song.
The bush is dancing in a ray of sunshine, / the birds and animals are all at play, / the world is breathing with the sound of daytime, / wake up, welcome the day. / Wake up (CLAP, CLAP), everybody wake up (CLAP, CLAP), wake up, welcome the day
This is followed by a poem, recited by all, that extends these sentiments. It begins,
Good morning dear earth, good morning dear sun, / good morning dear stones and flowers everyone, / good morning to beasties and birds in the tree, / good morning to you and good morning to me…
The third element, a song performed with movement and often in rounds, celebrates those present. It begins,
Circle of friends I love, let me tell you how I feel / You have given me such pleasure, circle round again…
This is followed by another brief poem, a minute of quiet and, a third poem beginning,
Down is the earth and up is the sky, here are my friends and here am I.
The final element is a ritual ‘Good morning’ sung in turn by each staff member and a ritual ‘Good bye’ sung to all parents still present. Parents then shuffle from the room waving goodbye and blowing kisses. The staff take command and the day moves on.
This simple ritual can be seen as a form of an education that Gregory Bateson (1979) bemoaned the absence of. He referred to it as “the pattern which connects”:
The pattern which connects: Why do schools teach almost nothing of the pattern which connects? … What’s wrong with them? What pattern connects the crab to the lobster and the orchid to the primrose and all four of them to me? And me to you? And all six of us to the amoeba in one direction and to the back-ward schizophrenic in another? (Bateson 1979:8).
The link between an understanding of connectedness and processes of learning lies in the ways in which both ecological understanding and pedagogy draw on an applied appreciation of the construction and communication of relationships. It is through an appreciation of patterns in relationships that students are able to experience themselves in relation to learning subject matter. It is here that a depth of learning resides.
The commencing ritual at K….. School is a brief few minutes in an extended school day. From the point of view of an outsider who has observed this ritual, it introduces values and attitudes to the young children present. It requires teachers to model those values and attitudes. It is not an attempt to instil behaviours or provide solutions. It indicates and communicates an approach to learning, developed over time that contributes to the identity and orientation of the school. It is an attempt to draw children into connectedness with each other and the world beyond, and thereby a sense of belonging.
The design of an ecological education goes beyond acknowledging the complexity of interconnected life. It requires reflection upon the assumptions that inform educational practice. Saylan & Blumstein (2011) argue, “change is not only possible but within reach if all of us begin to look at the problems differently and accept the collective and individual responsibilities required” (xii). Not all commentators exhibit the same confidence. Spratt & Sutton (2008) argue,
All countries, no matter what their political system… will struggle to achieve the needed change unless they engage their communities in a deliberative process to learn about the… issue (265).
If these questions are to be addressed meaningfully in educational policy and practice, they need to be addressed meaningfully in teacher education and professional learning. Ecological literacy challenges long held assumptions about educational practice. New generations of educators cannot be encouraged to limit and compartmentalise knowledge and practice in traditional ways. Change is an experience we encounter together. Our fellow teachers and students, our children and our grandchildren are our responsibility, just as we are theirs.
References: Allen, R.E. (1966) Greek philosophy: Thales to Aristotle. New York: Free Press. Bateson, G. (1972) Steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Ballantine Books. Bateson, G. (1979) Mind and nature. New York: Bantam Books. Costanza, Graumlich & Steffen (eds) (2011) Sustainability or collapse: An integrated history and future of people on Earth. Cambridge Mass: MIT Press. Harries-Jones, P. (1995) A recursive vision: Ecological understanding and Gregory Bateson. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Judson, G. (2010) A new approach to ecological education. New York, Peter Lang. Kalantzis & Cope (2008) New learning. Port Melbourne, Vic: Cambridge University Press. Orr, D. (1992) Ecological literacy. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Orr, D. (2004) Earth in mind. Washington: Island Press. O’Sullivan, E. (1999) Transformative learning. London. Zed Books. O’Sullivan, E. & Taylor, M. (2004) Learning towards an ecological consciousness. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Saylan, C. & Blumstein, D.T. (2011) The failure of environmental education. Berkeley, University of California Press. Spratt, D. & Sutton, P. (2008) Climate code red. Melbourne, Scribe.
David Wright is a Senior Lecturer in education and social ecology in the School of Education at the University of Western Sydney, Australia. His research interests lie in the overlapping fields of cognition, embodiment, performance, creativity, learning and systems thinking. He approaches this work through the lens of Social Ecology, which looks at the relationships that facilitate understanding.
Like this:
I need some support! Mentoring in 21st century schools. November 13, 2011
Posted by Editor21C in Early Childhood Education, Educational Leadership, Primary Education, Secondary Education, Teacher and Adult Education.add a comment
from Dr Maggie Clarke
In her first post, Maggie Clarke positions mentoring for teachers in a new light by focussing on the collaborative nature of schools and how new models and processes of mentoring need to be explored.
Can you remember your first day as a teacher? I clearly recall being told as I was given my classes, “let me know if you have any problems” and that was my support! Teaching can be an isolating profession where you are left on your own to get on with your teaching in your classroom. What many of us craved in our early teaching careers was someone who could be a “shepherding hand” who could help us in our workplace knowledge, our classroom practice and professional relationships. Emerging more recently in schools is the introduction of these ‘shepherding hands’, in the form of mentors. Mentoring is not a new concept but it has not been fully implemented in the teaching profession, unlike many other professions. If mentoring practices are evident in some schools, the models and types of mentoring have changed little over the last thirty years. In the schools of the 21st century there is a need to provide mentoring that is collegial and is based on a mutual relationship.
Raza and Mosca (2002) in their research explored ideas of changing employee-organisation relations. They posited that the ‘new age employee’ expects to be treated in a more equitable manner than previous generations. They believe that contemporary organizations need to provide opportunities for employees to have feedback on their progress and “proper tools to assist them achieve their goals” (p.2). Organisations, in an attempt to provide these opportunities, are turning to mentoring as one means of providing professional learning for their employees. Increasingly, managers in organisations are seeing mentoring as an important source of professional learning for less experienced employees. Many organisations are recognising that facilitation and support of a mentoring process is an effective strategy to build the organisation.
Over time there has been a plethora of definitions of mentoring and often these definitions have been defined in terms of the type or form of mentoring. Usually, mentoring has been defined in terms of either informal or formal mentoring. Mentoring can be recognised by the type of relationship that is evident in each mentoring process. It can be a formal or an informal relationship and within these boundaries the relationship can be reciprocal or non-reciprocal. It is the construct of the development of the relationships that is important in 21st century schools.
Formal mentoring relationships are generally designed for a predetermined length of time and are usually of short duration. Many managers implement formal mentoring programs as a strategy to induct new employees into their organisation (Douglas & McCauley, 1997). Within these programs the protégé is allocated to a mentor by the management of the organisation and usually, there is little or no involvement of staff in the selection process of matching the mentor and protégé by either party. These programs are purposefully developed, monitored and evaluated by the management in terms of expectations and goal attainment. There is an inequality of status in this relationship with communication often being one-way. The mentor directs and drives the communication down to the protégé with little opportunity for the protégé to have input or respond to the communication from the mentor. The one-way communication in formal mentoring can result in the protégé being unable to ‘connect’ with the mentor. This type of mentoring is probably one that some teachers have experienced in their own employment situations.
Informal mentoring relationships, on the other hand, are spontaneously formed through people getting to know each other in the work environment. The relationship is usually voluntary and is often based on mutual professional identity and respect. The relationship is of a more personal nature and while communication can often flow from the mentor to the protégé, it takes place in a more informal manner. This informality is derived from the fact that the management of the organisation does not initiate the relationship but rather the relationship often forms through social contexts such as meetings ‘over coffee’. The communication in this relationship is more relaxed and has little structure.
Evidence from the literature indicates that there are fewer limitations in informal mentoring than formal mentoring. The two major areas of difference between formal and informal mentoring are in the levels of career guidance and psychosocial support. Informal mentors usually provide a higher level of coaching and increase the protégé’s visibility in the organisation. They also provide counselling, social interaction, role modelling and friendship.
The co-mentoring relationship has been a development reported in the literature in the last ten years (Jipson & Paley, 2000; Mullen, 2000; Kochan & Trimble, 2000; McGuire & Reger, 2003). Terms such as “mutual mentoring” (Fritzberg & Alemayehu, 2004), ‘reciprocal mentoring” (Gabriel & Kaufield, 2007) and “synergistic mentoring” (Goodwin, 2004) are used interchangeably in the literature to describe the practice of co-mentoring. Co-mentoring recognises the contribution that each person brings to the relationship and is based on reciprocal benefit. In this relationship the status of each person is equal and the communication pathway is one of reciprocity with each person mutually benefiting from the relationship. What is important in this type of mentoring relationship is that the relationship is of mutual benefit.
As our experiences with mentoring develops and evolves in contemporary workplaces so too will the types of mentoring processes change and develop. A new model of mentoring that involves informal and co-mentoring experiences has emerged in the research. Clarke (2004) reported on a layered model of mentoring that involves three stages. These stages are:
- collegial friendship
- informal mentoring and
- co-mentoring.
This model is a new conceptualisation of mentoring and portrays mentoring as a series of overlapping experiences. This layered model does not conform to any previously documented form of mentoring. It is a new way of thinking which recognises the contribution each person brings to the mentoring relationship, and is based on reciprocal benefit. The process is not contrived by the organisation but develops somewhat serendipitously between the mentor and in essence, this approach to mentoring recognises the significance of friendship, the contributions and equal status of each involved and the mutual benefit inherent in such a partnership. It emphasises that personal, professional relationships form a vital part of mentoring.
Mentoring approaches vary and can have their place in different contexts and although many organisations use formal mentoring programs to achieve organisational and individual goals, it is evident that more informal mentoring practices such as a layered model of mentoring can achieve extraordinary professional development and growth. Organisations should set themselves the challenge to explore new styles and forms of mentoring that are conducive to the 21st century workplace!
References: Clarke, M. (2004). Reconceptualising mentoring: Reflections by an early career researcher. Issues in Educational Research, 14(2), 121-143. Douglas, C., & McCauley, C. (1997). A survey on the use of formal developmental relationships in organisations. Issues and Observations, 17(1B 2), 6-9. Fritzberg, G.J. and Alemayehu, A. (2004). Mutual mentoring: Co-narrating an educative friendship between an education professor and an urban youth. The Urban Review, 36(4), 293-308. Gabriel, M.A. and Kaufield, K.J. (2008). Reciprocal mentorship: an effective support for online instructors. Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnerships in Learning, 16(3), 311-327. Goodwin, L. (2004). A synergistic approach to Faculty mentoring. Journal of Faculty Development, 19(3), 145-152. Jipson, J., and Paley, N. (2000). Because no one gets there alone: Collaboration as co-mentoring. Theory into Practice, 39(1), 36-42. Kochan, F. and Trimble, S. (2000). From mentoring to co-mentoring: Establishing collaborative relationships. Theory into Practice, 39(1), 20-28. McQuire, G., & Reger, J. (2003). Feminist co-mentoring: A model for academic professional development. NSWA Journal, Spring, 15. Mullen, C. (2000). Constructing co-mentoring partnerships: Walkways we must travel. Theory into Practice, 39(1), 4-11. Raza, A & Mosca, J. (2002). The new age employee: An exploration of changing employee-organisation relations. Public personnel Management 31(2) 187-201.
Maggie Clarke is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Education at the University of Western Sydney, Australia. Her research interests are in professional learning particularly related to the practices of mentoring and reflective practice. Her research on mentoring has been acknowledged through publications in a number of published international and national journals.
Building communities of practice: Opportunities for pre-service and early career teacher professional learning October 31, 2011
Posted by Editor21C in Early Childhood Education, Engaging Learning Environments, Primary Education, Teacher and Adult Education.add a comment
from Denise Fraser
In her first post, Denise Fraser examines the ‘communities of practice’ model of professional learning which successfully builds the understandings of students teachers and their supervisors in early childhood settings.
The move from pre-service teacher to graduate teacher can be daunting for many entering the profession of teaching. Understanding the realities and complexities of work as a teaching professional takes time; however many early career teachers don’t have that time – they are expected to hit the ground running, taking responsibility for a class or group of children very quickly after graduation. The transition, as described by Flores and Day (2006, cited in Mantei & Kervin, 2011), is ‘sudden and sometimes dramatic’. For some the challenge is too great and they leave the profession before they really begin their career (Johnson, Down, Le Cornu, Peters, Sullivan,Pearce & Hunter 2010). How best can we support pre-service and early career teachers as they learn the craft of teaching?
Research indicates a number of areas in which early career teachers in the school sector struggle. These include areas such as understanding the culture of teaching – the realities versus the ideological motivation to become teachers, as well as the structures that dampen enthusiasm and creativity; and grappling with the knowledge, skills and dispositions needed to meet the demands of the classroom and in particular classroom management and a lack of induction and ongoing mentoring (Johnson et al, 2010; Mantei & Kervin, 2011). While the development of Professional Teaching Standards in NSW (NSW Institute of Teachers, 2005), which aims to enhance the ongoing development of teachers, is a positive move for early career teachers in the school environment, there is a need to ensure that any professional development undertaken by such teachers is contextualised and that there is adequate support to make the links from theory to classroom practice. In the early childhood sector, issues for early career teachers are similar to their counterparts in the school sector. While teacher accreditation is yet to be addressed by government in the early childhood sector, the introduction of the Early Years Learning Framework (DEEWR, 2009) has been a step in the right direction in articulating early childhood pedagogy. Despite this, professional development opportunities for this group of teachers are often fragmented and for many early career teachers there may be very limited access to appropriate mentors to support them as they learn their craft.
A growing body of research supports the use of learning circles (Collay, Dunlap, Enloe & GagnonJr, 1998; Johnson et al, 2010; Mantei & Kervin, 2011;Mackey & Evans, 2011) or the development of professional learning communities (Pella, 2011) as a means of supporting the ongoing learning and development of teachers. So what are these learning circles or professional learning communities and how can we use them to advantage for both pre-service and early career teachers?
The learning circles concept emanates from the social theory of learning posited by Lave & Wenger (1991) and more recently the situated learning theory described by Lave (1996). In this theory, learning is a situated process that occurs as individuals engage or participate in social interactions in a community of practice. The learning circles model draws small groups of teachers “together intentionally for the purpose of supporting each other in the process of learning”( Collay, Dunlap, Enloe & Gagnon Jr, 1998, p.2). Teachers or pre-service teachers, or a combination of both, meet on a regular basis to discuss issues, ideas, research and practice matters. The topics are chosen and agreed to by the participants or may be set in advance. The group that meets needs to build a sense of trust and openness with one another so that all members feel comfortable with sharing their experiences and ideas. This can take some time and so is ideally suited to those in a workplace or place of study where individuals build those relationships over time.
The learning circles process allows the opportunity to negotiate new meanings and to realign competence based on engagement with others and exchange of understandings of similar experiences ( Pella, 2011). Research findings indicate positive outcomes for learning when these methods are employed, for example Pella (2011, p113) reports that “participants experienced transformations in their perspectives and pedagogy” as a result of the sharing of experiences and knowledge. Likewise in Mantei and Kervin’s research (2011) participants were able to identify with one another and could see a shared journey in developing their professional identities.
Learning circles suit models of teaching and learning where students are expected to be involved in and take responsibility for their own learning as well as to share rather than hoard knowledge – a heutagogical approach (Hase & Kenyon, 2000). Teacher education programs provide an ideal site for learning circles as such circles provide the opportunity for students to share their growing understandings and to develop their reflective skills. The reflective process is supported in a non- threatening environment that supports learning and development. In schools and early childhood communities learning circles offer opportunities for that same reflection and a sharing of experiences. Undertaken regularly and with specific topics generated by members of the group learning circles support the early career teachers to explore research and its application to practice and adjust pedagogy accordingly.
The learning circles concept can be enhanced when partnerships are built between universities and school or early childhood settings and opportunities are developed for joint learning circles to take place. In this case pre-service teachers can learn from the practical wisdom of current teachers while teachers can gain more up to date knowledge of current research and thinking about practice. In the 21st century, with its ever changing technologies, opportunities for this form of collaboration and learning are increasing. Connected classrooms, facebook, as well as online discussion sites provide opportunities for teachers to share their culture and practice with those who are beginning the journey. It shouldn’t matter whether the meeting is physical or virtual, what is important is that a community of practice develops and supports the learning of all involved.
Our forays into this building of learning communities for pre-service and early career teachers is in its early stages but there is a good future if there is a recognition that professional development is an ongoing process which requires social engagement to explore ideas, discuss dilemmas and share experiences. Building a community of learners through the use of learning circles is one way of supporting and developing pre-service and early career teachers so that they continue to learn and develop and become great teachers.
References: Collay, M., Dunlap, D., Enloe, W. & Gagnon, G.W.Jr (1998). Learning Circles: Creating Conditions for Professional Development. Thousand Oaks, California. Corwin Press Inc. Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations (2009). The Early Year Learning Framework for Australia. Commonwealth of Australia. Flores, M.A. & Day, C. (2006). Contexts which shape and reshape new teachers’ identities. A multi-perspective study cited in J. Mantei & L. Kervin (2011) Turning into teacher before our eyes. The development of professional identity through professional dialogue. Australian Journal of Teacher Education. Vol 36. Iss 1 p. 1-17. Hase, S. & Kenyon, C. (2000). From androgogy to heutagogy. Retrieved on 5/9/11 from http://ultibase.rmit.edu.au/Articles/dec00/hase2.htm. Johnson,B., Down,b., Le Cornu, R., Peters,J., Sullivan, A., Pearce, J. & Hunter, J. (2010). Conditions that support early career teacher resilience. Refereed paper presented at the Australian Teacher Education Association Conference, 4th-7th July, Townsville, Qld. Mantei, J.& Kervin, l. (2011). Turning into teachers before our eyes. The development of professional identity through professional dialogue. Australian Journal of Teacher Education. Vol 36. Iss 1 p. 1-17. Mackey, J. & Evans, T. (2011). Interconnecting networks of practice for professional learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. Vol 12.3. March. NSW Institute of Teachers (2005). Professional Teaching Standards. Retrieved 5/9/11 from http://www.nswteachers.nsw.edu.au/Main-Professional-Teaching-Standards/. Pella, S. (2011). A situative perspective on developing writing pedagogy in a teacher professional learning community. Teacher Education Quarterly. Winter . p.107 – 125.
Denise Fraser is a Lecturer in early childhood education in the School of Education at the University of Western Sydney. She coordinates professional experiences for early childhood programs and has a strong interest in the quality of relationships and learning developed at the centre-school-university interface.
“I do Maths for fun…..what do you do?” October 16, 2011
Posted by Editor21C in Engaging Learning Environments, Primary Education, Teacher and Adult Education, Uncategorized.add a comment
from Karen McDaid
Karen McDaid reflects upon negative attitudes to mathematics which are all too common in our adult population, and on the need for new teachers to present positive messages about mathematics to the children they teach.
Recently, while attending a function, I was asked by a very charming lady what I did for a living. This is not an unusual way of initiating conversations with a new acquaintance, and for most people, it is a pleasant way of commencing a friendly discourse. However, the problem lies not in my response to the question… but in the questioner’s reaction to my response. When my new acquaintance discovered that I taught mathematics, the conversation rapidly developed a negative downturn….. ‘Oh, I hated maths at school…. I was never any good at it, just didn’t get it…… I couldn’t work out when I was ever going to use it in real life!’ My newly acquainted friend then proceeded to sympathise with my terrible plight as a teacher of the dreaded “M” word and endowed me with declarations of empathy and compassion. Unfortunately, this is an occurrence that I regularly experience and have resolved myself to accepting – that it is extraordinary to find someone who liked mathematics at school even amongst the education students that I currently teach and who will eventually be responsible for teaching and promoting mathematics to our next generations. In all honesty, I am a proud and passionate teacher, the fact that my favourite subject is mathematics is secondary, and I refuse to be embarrassed by my love for a discipline which is both pragmatic and intrinsically beautiful.
As a teacher in mathematics education I am keenly interested in the attitudes of my tertiary students (future primary school teachers) towards mathematics, mainly because it is my responsibility to encourage their commitment to learning and their success in a subject that some may feel anxious about. Each semester I begin my first lecture by asking the students to think about what their favourite subject was while they were at school; what was it about that subject that they loved? How did they feel when doing anything to do with that subject? I then ask them to discuss with the students next to them what their feelings about Mathematics are; this usually generates great murmurings around the lecture theatre, unfortunately not always positive. Hembree (1990) suggested that maths anxiety in pre-service teachers is higher than for any other subject major undertaken at university level and a more recent study conducted by Haylock (2001) concurred with these findings. Studies conducted by Bursal and Paznokas (2006) carried out with pre-service teachers who exhibited high levels of maths anxiety have shown that anxiety often transfers into the classroom, and show a link between their (in)ability to teach the subject with confidence. On the other hand the primary teachers whose attitudes were inclined more positively towards maths stated that this was due to positive teacher attitudes at the tertiary level and support and, encouragement to ask why and explore alternatives as well as realisation that mathematics can be useful and has a purpose.
I believe that personal judgments about mathematics arise from several issues. These include beliefs about the nature of mathematics; beliefs about the learning and teaching of mathematics; learning experiences as a mathematics student at school; parental attitudes towards mathematics and teacher preparation programs. These often silent notions that have been developed over time are frequently linked with our school experiences and can guide our actions and our attitudes in a manner that can be productive or destructive. Although I’m not ancient, my own school experience was that of repetition, rote learning of tables and red ‘crosses’ or ‘ticks’ on a page full of formal algorithms. Not forgetting the individual, quiet work where speaking to another student meant you were rewarded with a hundred totally unproductive lines like ‘I must not speak in class’. It wasn’t until high school that I found my passion for mathematics. Miss Gallen in Year 11 ignited and fostered my inquisitive nature and changed my belief that mathematics is a specialised domain and only those that are clever at mathematics can succeed.
During discussions in tutorial groups students often say that that success or failure in mathematics is attributable to a person’s ability and that effort has little effect on accomplishments, when in actual fact I consider that the opposite is the case. It may be that it is a person’s perception about their mathematical abilities and not their actual ability that stops them being risk takers and learners in mathematics. I tell my students that Novak Djokovic didn’t get to be the number one tennis player in the world by watching Wimbledon; he became good because he practised and to be good at mathematics requires practise, not just question after question but practise in thinking mathematically. But no matter what I might say, unfortunately for many prospective primary school teachers their negative memory of school mathematics may have created a cycle of anxiety which can influence their attitudes towards mathematics at tertiary level. My fear is that these high levels of anxiety towards mathematics may be inadvertently passed on to their students when they begin teaching. On the other hand, teachers who exhibit a positive attitude, have good content knowledge and use sound pedagogical practices are more likely to foster a positive attitude towards mathematics in their primary school students.
As a teacher I see myself as an educational guide, a motivator, mentor and hopefully someone who can encourage our pre-service teachers to develop a positive attitude towards mathematics and mathematics teaching. I consider the role of a teacher to be an incredibly important responsibility and I firmly believe that my attitude, passion and love of mathematics can have a profound effect on the students that I teach. With this in mind, I remind myself of the lady that I met who had such a negative view of mathematics and I wonder whether any of her teachers had exhibited a positive attitude or whether they had simply taught the procedures and expected her to ‘get it’. For our future teachers, they should become ambassadors of mathematics, constantly extolling its beauty and creativity, and while I encourage them to promote it in their roles as future teachers, I must also remind myself to promote this beautiful subject with the people that I meet instead of being mildly embarrassed about my love of mathematics when in company.
References: Bursal, M. & Paznokas, L. (2006). Mathematics anxiety and preservice elementary teachers’ confidence to teach mathematics and science. School Science and Mathematics 106(4) 173-80. Haylock, D. (2001). Mathematics explained for primary teachers London: Paul Chapman. Hembree, R. (1990). The nature, effects and relief of mathematics anxiety. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21, 33-4.
Karen McDaid is a Lecturer in mathematics education in the School of Education at the University of Western Sydney, Australia. She teaches in our Master of Teaching (Primary) program.
