Observing a Math Lesson
Running head: Observing Math Instruction
Observing Math Instruction
Grand Canyon University: EED-364
Essay
A standard in mathematics provides, at the very least, is a baseline or outline to loosely adhere to during the school year. They are at the most though, designed to curricular goals and guidance for the math curriculum (Ferrini-Mundy, 2000). The direction of the future of math standards is equally important. The NCTM is focusing on having every state adhere to the same standards. Traditional teaching and learning is now taking a backseat to an updated common-core driven era because the old ways are dated for the dynamic of today’s classroom.
The big difference between a baseline and goal is the minimum requirement and the maximum success rate you are aiming for as a teacher. Just having standards in a classroom and pushing through each lesson to achieve the notion that you made it through each standard produce a sub-par learning experience. There should be goals, not just for getting through standards, but an actual standard of learning each standard. A certain percentage of students should be able to demonstrate a mediocre to high capability of quality work for each standard. Formative and summative assessments could be used to analyze when it is time to move to the next standard.
The separation of standards by state requirements show a difference in in the challenge the standards uphold from state-to-state (GreatSchools). After the NCLB Act of 2002, states were held accountable for the test scores, and even more than scores, the progress of their students. States submit their standards and questions for approval. There was a gap however in the quality of questions from each state. The NCTM is trying to find a happy medium for this. Forty-nine states now have adapted or at least begin implementing the new subject matter standards in mathematics (Ferrini-Mundy, 2000).
Classrooms are no longer made of just
Observing Math Instruction
Grand Canyon University: EED-364
Essay
A standard in mathematics provides, at the very least, is a baseline or outline to loosely adhere to during the school year. They are at the most though, designed to curricular goals and guidance for the math curriculum (Ferrini-Mundy, 2000). The direction of the future of math standards is equally important. The NCTM is focusing on having every state adhere to the same standards. Traditional teaching and learning is now taking a backseat to an updated common-core driven era because the old ways are dated for the dynamic of today’s classroom.
The big difference between a baseline and goal is the minimum requirement and the maximum success rate you are aiming for as a teacher. Just having standards in a classroom and pushing through each lesson to achieve the notion that you made it through each standard produce a sub-par learning experience. There should be goals, not just for getting through standards, but an actual standard of learning each standard. A certain percentage of students should be able to demonstrate a mediocre to high capability of quality work for each standard. Formative and summative assessments could be used to analyze when it is time to move to the next standard.
The separation of standards by state requirements show a difference in in the challenge the standards uphold from state-to-state (GreatSchools). After the NCLB Act of 2002, states were held accountable for the test scores, and even more than scores, the progress of their students. States submit their standards and questions for approval. There was a gap however in the quality of questions from each state. The NCTM is trying to find a happy medium for this. Forty-nine states now have adapted or at least begin implementing the new subject matter standards in mathematics (Ferrini-Mundy, 2000).
Classrooms are no longer made of just