building research and development partnerships between schools and higher education

21
1 Building research and development partnerships between schools and Higher Education Brian Hudson, University of Sussex Sheila Henderson and Alison Hudson University of Dundee TEPE 2015 University of Dundee 15 May 2015

Upload: brian-hudson

Post on 20-Jul-2015

205 views

Category:

Education


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Building research and development partnerships between schools and Higher Education

1

Building research and development partnerships between schools and Higher

Education

Brian Hudson, University of Sussex

Sheila Henderson and Alison HudsonUniversity of Dundee

TEPE 2015University of Dundee

15 May 2015

Page 2: Building research and development partnerships between schools and Higher Education

2

Structure of presentation

Background context to the DMTPC project

Design of the Masters course of study and approach to support for the professional learning community

Research design, research questions and methods

Findings and reflections

Policy implications

Impact potential

Page 3: Building research and development partnerships between schools and Higher Education

3

Developing Mathematical Thinking in the Primary Classroom (DMTPC) Project

Funded by the Scottish Government (2010-12)

‘Curriculum for Excellence’ Partnership development of a Masters level course for teachers

Technology enhanced blended learning approach.

Piloted with a group of 24 practising primary teachers from Dundee, Fife, Angus and Perth & Kinross LEAs.

Page 4: Building research and development partnerships between schools and Higher Education

4

Design of the course of study

19 September 2011 Online module opens

24 September 2011 Workshop 1 10:00 – 16:00

26 October 2011 Twilight session 1 16:30 – 19:30

7 December 2011 Twilight session 2 16:30 – 19:30

4 February 2012 Workshop 2 10:00 – 16:00

23 April 2012 Assignment submission

Page 5: Building research and development partnerships between schools and Higher Education

5

Outline structure: three key questions, key texts and an action research project Key questions

What is mathematics? What is mathematical thinking? What is good mathematics teaching?

Key texts Joe Boaler (2009) The Elephant in the Classroom John Mason et al. (2010) Thinking Mathematically – it’s

OK to get stuck!

Action research plan and project as the module assignment

Page 6: Building research and development partnerships between schools and Higher Education

Open Collective Cycle

6

Page 7: Building research and development partnerships between schools and Higher Education

Teachers’ responses to reading “The Elephant in the Classroom’ Very powerful responses to reading Jo Boaler’s book:

The elephant, or the common idea that is extremely harmful to children, is the belief that success in mathematics is a sign of general intelligence and that some people can do maths and some can’t … In many maths classrooms a very narrow subject is taught to children, that is nothing like the maths of the world or the maths that mathematicians use. This narrow subject involves copying methods that teachers demonstrate and reproducing them accurately over and over again … this narrow subject is not mathematics, it is a strange mutated version of the subject that is taught in schools.

7

Page 8: Building research and development partnerships between schools and Higher Education

8

Design research framework

Page 9: Building research and development partnerships between schools and Higher Education

9

Research questions

1. What are the teachers’ perceptions concerning their levels of confidence and competence in relation to teaching mathematics?

2. What are the teachers’ perceptions concerning their attitudes and beliefs in relation to mathematics as a subject?

3. What are the teachers’ expectations of the impact on pupil learning arising from this course of study?

4. How do these perceptions and expectations change as a result of participating in this course of study?

Page 10: Building research and development partnerships between schools and Higher Education

10

Methods and data sources Pre-trial survey of the teachers’ perceptions (n=26)

Pre-trial interviews with a sample of participants (n=4)

Post-trial interviews with a sample of participants (n=4)

Post-trial survey of the teachers’ perceptions (n=15)

Action research reports from teachers (n=10)

Online discussion forum

Page 11: Building research and development partnerships between schools and Higher Education

Findings from the research study Highlight the way the course had a transformational and

emancipatory impact on these teachers concerning their levels of confidence and competence in relation to teaching mathematics.

They also highlight ways in which the ‘framing’ of particular aspects of the curriculum had an oppressive impact on learners in the ways that suppressed creativity and limited the exercise of learner autonomy.

Furthermore, they highlight the ways in which a number of these teachers had experienced mathematics as a school subject in very negative ways, involving high levels of ‘symbolic violence’ and of being ‘labelled’.

Hudson, Henderson and Hudson (2015)11

Page 12: Building research and development partnerships between schools and Higher Education

Findings from one teacher’s action research study involving a topic based approach

Findings from this study highlight the ways in which the children actively engaged in the class activity and also how the topic-based approach made the mathematics more widely accessible and led to an evolution in the development of mathematical thinking for all.

(Hudson, 2015a)

12John’s drawings of the River Amazon (left)

and the River Tay (right)

Page 13: Building research and development partnerships between schools and Higher Education

Reflections on the nature of school mathematics The key readings challenged widely held views about the

nature of mathematics and provided support for the development of active and participatory teaching methods.

Boaler (2009) refers to a narrow subject which involves copying methods that teachers demonstrate and reproducing them over and over again which she argues is not mathematics but rather which is “a strange mutated version of the subject” that is taught in schools.

This process of ‘mutation’ reflects the process of didactic transposition, which changes the mathematical knowledge profoundly and leads to the epistemic quality of the subject becoming degraded.

13

Page 14: Building research and development partnerships between schools and Higher Education

Reflections on the nature of school mathematics We describe this mutated or degraded version of

mathematics as mathematical fundamentalism and as being of low epistemic quality. It is characterised by a view of maths as infallible, authoritarian, dogmatic, absolutist, irrefutable and certain and which involves rule following of strict procedures and right or wrong answers.

We contrast this with mathematical fallibilism and high epistemic quality involving a view of maths as fallible, refutable and uncertain and which promotes critical thinking, creative reasoning, the generation of multiple solutions and learning from errors and mistakes.

Hudson, Henderson and Hudson (2015)

14

Page 15: Building research and development partnerships between schools and Higher Education

Reflections on the nature of the joint activity in the professional learning community Essentially this provided an opportunity for the course

participants to engage in a collective process of didactic analysis.

The course experience invoked very powerful responses amongst this group of teachers. In particular there was a strong sense of empathy developed with Boaler’s (2009) challenge to the idea that some people can do maths and that others can’t. There was also a strong association with Boaler’s ideas of ‘mutated mathematics’.

Subsequent discussions reflected a strong sense of questioning of purpose in terms of the What and Why questions of didactical analysis.

Hudson (2015b) 15

Page 16: Building research and development partnerships between schools and Higher Education

Policy implications in relation to Mathematics Specialist Teachers Policy implications point towards the value of the

Mathematics Specialist Teacher (MaST) approach in England, which informed the development of this project.

The recommendation made in the Williams Review report (2008) was that ‘there should be at least one Mathematics Specialist in each primary school, in post within 10 years, with deep mathematical subject and pedagogical knowledge, making appropriate arrangements for small and rural schools.’

Independent Review of Mathematics Teaching in Early Years Settings and Primary Schools in England by Sir Peter Williams in 2008

16

Page 17: Building research and development partnerships between schools and Higher Education

Policy implications in relation to support for professional learning communities This project clearly demonstrated the value of an ‘Open

Collective Cycle’ model of professional learning community “in which clusters of schools work collaboratively on curriculum design and development projects together with external resource people who might be from universities and resource centres such as museums, science centres or art galleries, for example.” (Huberman, 1995)

The project also clearly demonstrated the potential of Technology Enhanced Learning for creating the conditions for an open, participatory and connected learning community engaged in joint activity with the common purpose of developing mathematical thinking in the Primary classroom.

17

Page 18: Building research and development partnerships between schools and Higher Education

Exploring the potential for uncovering and documenting research impact

Potential approaches to uncovering and documenting further impact on teachers and pupils involved in this and subsequent courses.

Impact is defined as an effect on, change or benefit to the economy, society, culture, public policy or service, health, the environment or quality of life, beyond academia.

Impact is evaluated according to its ‘reach and significance’ (REF 2014)

For discussion.

18

Page 19: Building research and development partnerships between schools and Higher Education

19

References (i) Boaler, J. (2009) The Elephant in the Classroom. London:

Souvenir Press Ltd.

Hudson, B., Henderson, S. and Hudson, A., (2015) Developing Mathematical Thinking in the Primary Classroom: Liberating Teachers and Students as Learners of Mathematics, Journal of Curriculum Studies, Vol. 47, Issue 3, 374-398. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2014.979233

Hudson, B. (2015a) Butterflies and Moths in the Amazon: Developing Mathematical Thinking through the Rainforest, Education and Didactique, Vol. 9, Issue 1. (In press)

Page 20: Building research and development partnerships between schools and Higher Education

References (ii) Hudson, B. (2015b) Epistemology and Methodology of Curriculum:

Didactics. In D. Wyse, L. Hayward and J. Pandya (Eds.) SAGE Handbook of Curriculum, Pedagogy and Assessment, Sage Publications. (In press)

Hudson, B. (2012) Aiming for e-Learning Sustainability: Transforming Conceptions of Teachers’ Professional e-Learning, Educational Technology, 52, 2, 30-34.

Huberman, M. (1995) Networks that Alter Teaching: Conceptualizations, Exchanges and Experiments, Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 1, 2, 193-211.

Mason, J., Burton, L. and Stacey, K. (2010) Thinking Mathematically, Harlow: Prentice Hall.

20

Page 21: Building research and development partnerships between schools and Higher Education

21

Thank you for your attention

Further detail aboutDeveloping Mathematical Thinking in the Primary Classroom

is available at: http://blog.dundee.ac.uk/mathematical-thinking/

To access these slides go to:http://www.slideshare.net/brianghudson