As part of my "teaching math" class, we need to write a weekly post reflecting on the topics covered in class for that week. This post will cover my thoughts on the Ontario math curriculum and will be of most value to those in the teaching profession.
In class this week we talked about the Ontario math curriculum. At the beginning of the class, our instructor put up links to some recent news articles regarding how the powers that be in Ontario are planning on revising the math curriculum right from K-12, and how they are planning to change the report cards. After reading the article on the curriculum revision, I must say I felt both happy and frustrated. More on that in a moment.
During the class, we did a group activity involving the high school math curriculum. We focused on a few courses including Grade 10 Academic, Grade 11 Workplace, and Grade 12 Data Management to name a few. The activity involved writing down all the verbs (like determine, solve, etc.) and tools (like software, graph paper, etc.) mentioned in the curriculum. This activity required us to read through the curriculum and gave us all an idea of the overview of each course.
After considering the high school curriculum and remembering some past tutoring experience I've had with high school kids, I got to thinking about the curriculum in general; more specifically the elementary curriculum, since the elementary curriculum is what prepares students to take on high school. I'm not as familiar with the specifics of the elementary math curriculum, but I have a general idea of what it's all about.
The article I read stated that EQAO (the standardized test in Ontario) scores have been quite bad in math, particularly at the grade 6 level. The question of course is whether there is a flaw in the curriculum, or whether there is a flaw in the test itself. In all honesty, it's probably a little of both, but I lean more towards the curriculum being the problem.
I went through elementary school from the mid 1980s to the mid 1990s, and, as such, I was taught math very traditionally through drills. We would learn the adding algorithm and then apply it through plenty of worksheet practice. Likewise, we were instructed to memorize the times tables from 1x1 right up to 12x12. Unfortunately, when they revamped the curriculum in the late 90s, from what I understand, a lot of these basic fundamental drills were removed.
The curriculum focused more on problem solving, helping students to construct their own knowledge, and how math could be applied in the real world. Helpful, yes, but without the background of consistent practice (and memorization) of the basics, how will students be able to focus on more complicated concepts? In fact, Robbie Case, a famous researcher in the field of cognitive child development found that memorization actually allows the brain to free up capacity for other tasks (Case, 1992).
My 8 year old son is in grade 3, and yesterday he came home telling me he didn't understand what they did in math class. They were doing adding of 3 digit numbers (which he can do the traditional way with no problems), but they were using an open number line to show the addition.
Here's an example of what that looks like:
I took a look at this and thought, "Wow, that's unnecessarily complicated." I went through the concept with my son and, while he did understand it, I think he felt like me. I believe that, like me, my son learns better through algorithms and formulas than alternate strategies.
I became concerned that not enough emphasis was being put on the concrete algorithm of adding, so I actually had a good chat with his teacher today about the curriculum. I know she has to follow it, but I just wanted her thoughts. She reassured me that students are taught both the algorithm and the other strategies, and she also brought up a good point. Apart from sometimes being more practical when you're standing in the grocery store and needing to add things together without a paper, pencil, or calculator, alternate strategies are also a way that students can check their answers.
Having said all that, after reading the article I was happy that the curriculum is going to be revised. I'm hoping that the new curriculum will add back in some of the pure math drills that were taken out (and especially memorization of times tables), while still keeping alternate, practical strategies. However, I'm also frustrated that my son will go through much of elementary school without these drills (curriculum takes a long time to revise). I will continue to supplement his math learning with drills at home (much to his chagrin I'm sure 🙂).
Anyway, those are my thoughts. Please feel free to chime in with your own thoughts.
References:
http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/ontarios-math-scores-started-declining-as-kids-took-the-new-curriculum-according-to-eqao-data
https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/wynne-ontario-math-curriculum-changes/article36192881/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&
Case, R. (1992). The Mind's Staircase: Exploring the Conceptual Underpinnings of Children's Thought and Knowledge. (pp. 32-33) Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
Your observations on EQAO tend to follow what most educators believe, but I would like to put forward another idea. I do not believe that there is an over riding issue with either the curriculum or the test itself, the problem is the assessment assumes that all the students writing the test have had the opportunity to learn and master the curriculum of the appropriate grade level. This is not the case. Many of the students are on a modified curriculum and are working below grade level. How can you assess Grade 6 math for a student working at Grade 4 on one strand and Grade 3 for another and perhaps, Grade 6 on a third. The test will only have meaning when it is given to students who have completed the curriculum for whatever grade it is intended. The only true commonality these students share is their grade. If you want to assess master of curriculum in a grade, perhaps the students need to repeat grades until that is achieved. Standardised testing has to be applied to standardised outcomes. We do not have that.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment Roger. That's a really interesting viewpoint - I've never thought of it that way before! I think you might be on to something.
Delete