Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » Education » math-teach

Topic: Professional Standards VI (10/29)
Replies: 0  

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List  
Ronald A Ward

Posts: 298
Registered: 12/4/04
Professional Standards VI (10/29)
Posted: Oct 29, 1995 11:04 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

This is the sixth in the series of questions, concerns, and issues
related to NCTM's 1991 "Professional Standards for Teaching Mathematics"
and the second in the set of "Standards for the Evaluation of the
Teaching of Mathematics." Today we will focus on pages 88-103, Standards
4 and 5. Because all questions in the series are numbered consecutively
for reference purposes, I'll begin with number 55. [If you have missed
any of the earlier questions and want them, just contact me directly and
I will forward them to you]

Ron Ward/Western Washington U/Bellingham, WA 98225
ronaward@henson.cc.wwu.edu

55. If you plan to use these standards as a framework to design or
modify an observation instrument, you might want to ask yourself which of
these standards (or parts of them) require a focus on the teacher, on
individual students, on groups of students.

56. Standard 4: "Mathematical Concepts, Procedures, and
Connections"--The primary emphasis in this standard is clearly content,
and one could discuss any of the bulleted items with benefit. I am
particularly interested in the evidence that the teacher "demonstrates a
sound knowledge of mathematical concepts and procedures" and "represents
mathematics as a network of interconnected concepts and procedures." To
what extent do you think it is necessary for a teacher to understand such
things as the nature of a mathematical concept [a logical construct],
relational understanding [as opposed to instrumental understanding], the
role of cognitive schema, reflective thought, and constructivism to meet
this standard?

57. You might want to think about the CONNECTION between these
evaluation standards and the first set of standards we discussed (pages
19-67). Also the CONNECTION to the original Curriculum
Standards--especially #4 on "Mathematical Conncections," and the original
Evaluation Standards--especially # 4-10 on student assessment, which
discuss much of the same content, process and disposition matter. If you
add all these ideas to the specific CONNECTIONS mentioned in this
current standard, you should have an extensive "web" of related ideas.

58. I don't know if the authors intended the vignettes to serve as a
"built-in addenda series" for the Professional Standards, but that is how
they appear to me. As you go thru these evaluation standards, you should
observe that some vignettes model teacher self-assessment while others
suggest patterns of involvement for mentor teachers, peer assessors,
colleagues as conferees, and so on. Perhaps some of you could share an
evaluation model that is used in your school or district.

59. I am particularly interested in the nature of the teacher-evaluation
role of any math supervisor, math coordinator, or math consultant in your
district. Sometimes these postions involve no evaluation and sometimes,
especially in "merit" school districts, their involvement is extensive.
Also, to what extent are there individuals evaluating your teaching who have
little or no background in mathematics?

60. Standard 5: "Mathematics as Problem Solving, Reasoning, and
Communication"--The bulleted items in this standard make it clear that
the teacher does not simply "facilitate" but rather has an important
role to "model and demonstrate"--you will also find this emphasis in
other standards in this evaluation series. How do you BALANCE this
modeling role with the facilitating or orchestrating role?

61. Do you see "parallel roles" in Standards 4 and 5 for tasks and discourse?

62. I am interested particularly in what may be a subtle difference or
just an unintended wording difference in one of the bulleted items.
Instead of saying "models and emphasizes mathematical reasoning" they say
"demonstrates and emphasizes THE ROLE OF mathematical reasoning." Do
you see these as being different and the wording intentional?

63. I note that there is a recognition here that assessment should
determine whether teachers and students are involved in appropriate
activities OVER TIME. Does your district provide for longitudinal
teacher evaluation by individuals as opposed to "one-shot" evaluation?

64. Would anyone care to comment on the meaning of this statement? "The
very essence of studying mathematics is itself an exercise in exploring,
conjecturing, examining, and testing--all aspects of problem solving."
And how is that related to assessment?

65. It is very easy to get carried away by the content or process ideas
themselves in these standards. So, note that in the "elaboration" text,
from time to time, the authors provide specific statements about what the
assessment should focus on in a particular area. It might be helpful to
cull these statements into a smaller subgroup, especially if you are
creating or modifying an evaluation instrument.

66. I notice that from time to time there are statements that clearly
relate to issues that have been discussed on the NCTM listserve;for
example, "The notion of communication emphasized in this standard cannot
be fully realized in a lecture-oriented lesson or when students'
responses are limited to short answers to lower-order questions." :)

67. I think there are good reasons for reading the vignettes carefully
and critically. For example, in vignette 5.2, the peer mentor teacher
"Doug Walker" makes a suggestion intended to help the teacher "Louise
Knight." In my judgement, the adoption of his suggestion will result in
the loss of something very valuable which was present in her original
lesson plan. Do you see what it is?

That's all for this week folks. Please feel free to select one [or
more] of these items that interests you and comment to the listserve
about it. Or raise other questions, concerns, or issues of your own.
Our purpose is to encourage everyone to read thru these standards--a
little at a time so you can still work at your job!--and to provide a
forum for their discussion with colleagues.






Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.