Results - Comments
As mentioned previously, the survey was designed to facilitate quantitative
analysis of the responses to questions posed. The information from the
Comments section, however, needed to be analyzed differently. Educators Helen
Thomas and Don Soucy prepared documents summarizing the information. Their
findings showed a high level of similarity; the researchers identified common
themes. The most prominent of these themes are discussed here.
The theme of greatest concern to teachers was resources. It was clear that many
respondents felt student textual resources were inadequate. Although none of
the current student texts was highly praised, Interactions was strongly criticized.
Elementary teachers strongly disliked the student texts. They felt the texts were
not user-friendly for them or their students. They were deemed to be highly
abstract, and not developmentally appropriate. In addition, a large number of
teachers felt the texts lack basic skill development opportunities. Teachers also
noted the mathematics within the texts is so deeply imbedded within either the
English or French language that mathematical ideas are often lost. For teachers,
an additional reason the texts were deemed to be inadequate was they do not
correspond well with the outcomes specified within the curriculum. Teachers
repeatedly complained that the time required to prepare mathematics lessons is
excessive. The time required to find or develop materials that correspond to the
curriculum outcomes, that are readable, and that provide the practice required is
immense. When the additional demands of differentiation and exceptional
students were added in, teachers reported feeling overwhelmed. The following
comments illustrate these points.
It literally takes hours to prepare lessons - the time investment is
unbelievable.
The reading level and degree of expected understanding, in many cases,
is developmentally inappropriate.
This province needs to invest in a better textbook.
What is needed is an all inclusive, comprehensive textbook
I love teaching math (even though its not my area of expertise), but I think
we need a new text.
How did you learn to ride a bike? Practice, right! Well that s how students
need to learn to do math.
I spend about $500-$1000 on supplementary material so that I can
attempt to reach the multi-levels of ability within a single grade.
Generally, the responses with regard to the mathematics curriculum and related
support documents were favourable. However, teachers were very concerned
with the number of required outcomes. Given the time available to address the
number of outcomes, teachers expressed an inability to ensure students
conceptual understanding.
There are too many outcomes. We are doing a little of everything, but
nothing very well or in depth.
Students need practice and time to make connections.
When talking to colleagues, everybody says they cannot finish the
curriculum and they are behind in their mapping. If this is happening
everywhere, why is it not taken into consideration?
Too much material, too little time.
I feel that we as teachers are required to teach a course that covers more
than the average students are capable of handling in one year.
The third major concern voiced within the comment section was student
readiness. This theme links closely with the preceding one. The perception was
that much of the problem with regard to grade level appropriateness of the
curricular material was not with the quality of the material, but rather the quantity.
Teachers stated that many of their students simply were not ready to learn the
prescribed material because they had not developed the prerequisite knowledge
and skills. Further, they said that the missing knowledge and lacking skills
should not be blamed on the preceding teachers or on the students themselves,
but rather on the insufficient time available for the knowledge and skill
development required. In the introductory page of his report, researcher Don
Soucy described this effect in the following way.
In the survey, the warnings are heard from the earliest grade levels. The
teachers do not try to hide it: They often cannot give the students the
foundation needed for future math success. And, the early grade
teachers predict, the problem will only be compounded. Without
fundamental numeracy skills, students are headed for increasing
difficulties in the math of later grades.
Sure enough, when we hear from the teachers in those later grades, they
tell us their colleagues in K to 3 are right.
Students have to learn so much many end up learning very little. With
the rush to get through all the outcomes, there is no time for mastery, and
certainly no time to let students get the basic skills they missed in earlier
grades. The result? Students get caught in a slide that tumbles them
further and further behind.
Teachers referred to this slide in a number of different ways.
The external assessments keep me focused on covering the curriculum,
but perhaps to the detriment of those who cannot keep up.
Unfortunately, I see how many students are behind because they have
missed concepts over the years.
In order to cover all outcomes we have to move forward at a pace that
leaves the majority of the students behind, without foundations and
completely frustrated.
Although the outcomes may be appropriate by the theoretical standards
set, the reality is many students are arriving in high school having
significant gaps in understanding.
Typical class 31 students — 6 working at least 3 years below grade level. 5
working 2-3 years below grade level. 10 just barely coping with course
requirements, 6 comfortable with requirements and 2 excelling — the other
2 are such severe behaviour problems I can t figure out where they would
be working if they were working HELP!
Although a number of questions had been posed within the survey on in-services
and other training opportunities, teachers still often commented on the value of
and need for such professional development activities. The aspect of
mathematics education expressed most positively in the Comments section was
an appreciation of the math mentor program. Numerous teachers indicated that
while they were doing the best they could with their current understandings, they
expressed an interest in expanding their knowledge and skill base:
It seems there was a big push for the curriculum when it came out,
meaning a lot of in-service for teachers. Now, it is hard to find summer
institutes that are valuable to our teaching.
I would love to have more workshops. It helps tremendously.
In-service is not being carried out during school hours, but rather during
after school, supper hours, summers. Other workers are not expected to
train on their time off or pay for the extra training.
I feel math mentors have been an amazing asset to math teachers.
The math mentor program is an excellent program that should continue.
The help and support has been excellent.
Finally, teachers commented they were grateful to have the opportunity to voice
their opinions. Many offered thanks and communicated relief their expertise was
being consulted. In addition, many expressed hope the information gathered
would lead to substantive changes in mathematics programs.
I thank you for giving me a voice.
Thank you for expecting/requesting our input!! Too often becoming a
rarity!!
I hope that educator s opinions will be taken seriously.
I believe it can be righted if feedback is digested and acted upon and not just
collected and stored. This opportunity has given me hope. Thank you.