Engaging Maths

In recent times the debates about ‘best practice’ in education have intensified, leading to frustration and emotive reactions from some, and resulting in confusion amongst teachers about how mathematics should be taught in primary/elementary and secondary classrooms. Arguments involving terms such as ‘explicit teaching’, ‘explicit instruction’, and ‘direct instruction’ being used without clear definitions have not helped. Similarly, teaching approaches such as inquiry-based learning have been mischaracterised and even confused with the use of problem-solving approaches (that happen to be central to the teaching of mathematics).

Evidence-based Mathematics Education

Reports that have used a narrow and often outdated, inappropriate range of research as evidence to support a particular stance and an ‘evidence-based approach’ to teaching have influenced some schools and systems to react by promoting a ‘one size fits all’ pedagogy across all subject areas and across all school contexts. This is problematic. As Dylan Wiliam proposes, “almost everything works somewhere, and nothing works everywhere” (p. 137, 2019). In addition, it is inappropriate to suggest that practices that might work well in one subject area will work across all subject areas. The teaching of mathematics is very different to the teaching of English/literacy or the humanities.

By now it might be obvious that I several concerns about the current situation. Firstly, if we want teaching practice to be driven by ‘evidence’, we need to draw on a range of evidence rather than ‘cherry picking’ evidence that supports only one narrow point of view. We also need to consider whether something that worked within a control trial or within a qualitative study would work in any school or classroom and under any circumstance. Then there’s the question of whether teachers should be told how to teach based on what others consider ‘best evidence’, or whether they should rely on their professional judgement alone. I believe that as professionals, teachers should access research and then use their professional judgement. That is, using professional judgement that acknowledges the research evidence. Professional judgement alone is not enough, and neither is a sole reliance on research evidence.

We All Want the Same Thing

Another major concern is that the pedagogy debates are far removed from classrooms, occurring amongst leaders and academics rather than including those at the coalface of teaching. That is, practicing teachers who recognise that each classroom has a rich diversity of learners who deserve the very best education and who work hard every day to help their students learn. Those involved in arguments that promote a dichotomous view of teaching practice have lost sight of the fact that we all want what is best for the students in our classrooms, therefore we must work together.

Not only do we want students to learn, but we also want them to love learning, to be engaged (Attard, 2014), and to achieve academic success. We must also consider whose idea of success we are striving to achieve. Is it success in world rankings? Success in NAPLAN?  Or is it success based on the individual student’s need to achieve to the best of his or her ability? Success looks different for each student and is very much dependent on each individual’s life context.

What should we be focusing on?

Arguably, all sides of the pedagogy debates are well-intentioned and aimed at improving student outcomes, and developing consistencies within and across schools. However, we need to ensure that consistency does not equate to scripted lessons and a formulaic, teacher-centred approach to the teaching of mathematics. Rather, we should be aiming for a consistency in the quality of our teaching.  If a school does need to begin the journey of developing consistency by prescribing a specific text, program, or structure, this should just be the first step in a multi-stepped approach, and not viewed as a solution.

We must focus on ways to build the capacity of teachers to be able to draw upon a ‘pedagogical toolbox’, ensuring they’re able to respond to their learners with the right content, in the right way, at the right time. Teachers’ pedagogical toolboxes should include a range of strategies that are responsive to student needs within a structure that also includes a range of explicit teaching strategies. We need teachers to recognise that there is no ‘best practice’, only effective practices for the here and now.  

Underpinning that pedagogical toolbox is mathematics content knowledge, which can be challenging in primary/elementary schools where teachers are mostly generalist. Systems and schools must provide opportunities for all teachers to develop their mathematics content knowledge, regardless of what age or stage they are teaching. Opportunities to do and to talk about mathematics with colleagues are critical in building confidence amongst teachers who have low self-efficacy or anxiety in relation to their own mathematical abilities.

Regardless of whether we are leading or teaching, we must become critical consumers of educational research. Ask the hard questions. Who conducted the research or who wrote the report? What are their credentials? Can the research be applied here? Will it result in improvement in this context? Is there other evidence that this will work? I cannot emphasise enough the importance of being critical, particularly when it comes to the quality of mathematics education.

Finally, we cannot afford to ignore student engagement, as this will result in people continuing to claim “I hate maths” because of the ways they experienced mathematics at school.

Attard, C. (2014). “I don’t like it, I don’t love it, but I do it and I don’t mind”: Introducing a framework for engagement with mathematics. Curriculum Perspectives, 34, 1–14.

Wiliam, D. (2019). Some reflections on the role of evidence in improving education. Educational Research and Evaluation, 25(1–2), 127–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2019.1617993