I disagree with you, LJ.
If you're coming across new material in middle school, then
it's unlikely that you really have the necessary deep
understanding of the material required to give students
insight instead of just the ability to memorize formulas.
Teaching Language Arts is different from teaching math. Math
is a ladder for many many concepts. If you aren't careful
with the order of mastery, then you sow confusion instead of
understanding. If you can't do anything but follow the book,
then you should be replaced by a television. If you can't
provide relevant additional insight when facing certain
concepts, then what makes you a good math teacher?
As a person who has mastered the material, I can still have
sympathy and understanding for what students struggle with,
why they struggle with it, and how to help them overcome that
confusion.
If you didn't learn mastery of math in school, it's highly
unlikely that you ever will. All the professional development
in the world will not provide you with content knowledge, the
content knowledge that you MUST HAVE in order to teach it.
I don't mean to be attacking you personally, so please don't
take it as such. I feel very strongly that a mastery of the
subject is required to teach it.
On 4/20/08, LJ wrote:
> 1) I was ALWAYS a good math student in school but have not
> had a math course in many years, and, even after taking
> the two courses mentioned above, there are still items in
> the practice material that I did not know;
What does it mean that you were a good math student? If you
forget concepts once the exam has passed, then how much did
you learn? I'm not saying that you didn't learn to be good at
the game of school, but it seems like you've missed the point
of math.
> 2) I am not a
> good memorizer and have to really work at formulas and
> such; just because I cannot do "mental math" easily does
> not mean that I do not understand math;
There's lots that I've forgotten, but since I reached mastery,
picking up stuff that I haven't seen in 20 years takes no time
at all, and most of it I can re-derive.
> 4)my experiences over many years as both a
> student and a teacher have shown me that many people who
> are REALLY good at something do not make good teachers;
Simply being good at the subject doesn't guarantee the ability
to teach. However, being bad at the subject does strongly
correlate with an inability to explain it.
> they don't understand the difficulties some people have
> learning certain materials. So, if you are not the most
> natural math whiz, it doesn't mean you won't be a good
> teacher.
> Teaching ANY subject has more to do with being
> flexible, caring, and motivated to learn the material, to
> try something different when things aren't working for a
> student, and to keep the students interested;
If you're so motivated to learn the material, then why haven't
you done so yet? You've spent 16 years in school, and the
subject that you're "motivated to learn" hasn't sunk in yet?
When will it?
> 5) some
> people are not good test takers (I am one). As many
> educators can tell you, passing a test does not determine
> whether or not you will be a good teacher or even that you
> are great at that subject
There are bad exams that don't test knowledge of a subject;
They can be 'passed' with just good test-taking skills, some
common sense, and a good calculator. The PRAXIS isn't one of
them. You need to have a broad and deep understanding of the
subject matter to be able to pass it. There aren't easy
shortcuts, just as there aren't easy shortcuts to genuine
understanding of any subject.
Have a great Sunday, but please go teach something other than
math.
Pragmatic
1996 - 2008. All Rights Reserved. Please review our