This opinion piece by Dr Aoibhinn Ní Shúilleabháin is well worth a read. It appears in this weekend's edition of The Irish Times.
Reading it I found myself asking what would the late Dominican priests Canice Murphy and John O'Gorman, both mathematics teachers, have to say about it; I imagine they would be in agreement. As a non-mathematician, I thought her comment that 'handpicked opinions appeared in drafts and input from some members was consistently ignore'. Ní Shúilleabháin has to be complimented for her observation and courage in saying it.
Such practice is not exclusive to the NCCA.
As a child in Mayo, I found it fascinating to look at the dark night sky and see light travelling through time from far-flung stars to our tiny planet. I chose to study theoretical physics at university, not because I was the best in class at maths, but because I wanted to learn more about how mathematics explains the world around us. It was a challenging but rewarding degree, which instilled in me a love of the rigour, abstraction and creativity associated with the subject of mathematics.
Game theory, quantum mechanics and modelling traffic flow were all interesting parts of our studies that we grappled with, collaborated on and, eventually, mastered. Most of my classmates are now leaders in global finance and markets, with others spearheading research on gravitational waves. Our Leaving Certificate studies were just the first step on our mathematical journeys but gave us a flavour of the challenge and endeavour we might enjoy in further study.
As a secondary-school teacher, and now teacher educator, I try to ensure all children will have the opportunity to enjoy learning mathematics and see the value of the subject that is so prevalent and important in many aspects of life. Although only a handful might choose to continue their direct study of the subject, most learners entering further or higher education will continue doing mathematics. Others may never write another mathematical equation after secondary school, but they will use their mathematical knowledge and numeracy skills in all aspects of life, from calculating the best energy rates to managing colleagues’ work schedules. Having a mathematically literate society is an important part of empowering people to engage in democratic processes through calling out inaccurate claims and questioning data.
Levels of mathematical achievement correlate with higher incomes in later life but, unfortunately, not all learners have the opportunity to study mathematics at higher level. Schools that are designated as socioeconomically disadvantaged, or Deis, are significantly less likely to offer higher-level maths than non-Deis schools. With 25 bonus points available for those studying higher level, this inequity locks many young people out of further and higher education.
Worryingly, mathematics education in Ireland also seems to exacerbate a gender gap. Historically, girls were as likely as boys to achieve top marks in the subject, but since the curriculum reform of 2012 girls are less likely to achieve a H1 than boys. A similar gap does not exist with the Junior Cycle and work done by the Society of Actuaries of Ireland suggests the Leaving Cert maths exam favours students with more practised spatial-reasoning and problem-solving skills, strengthened through subjects such as applied mathematics (which is studied by twice as many boys as girls). This is not a problem with girls; it’s a problem in how we construct and assess our mathematics curriculum.
It was a privilege to be invited to contribute to a review of the Leaving Certificate mathematics curriculum by the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA) and I looked forward to working with colleagues to design a syllabus that would allow all young people, of all levels of achievement, to develop the knowledge and skills that would benefit their futures.
Conversations within the NCCA group were collegial and professional, with a shared objective in designing curricula that would work for students. While there were disagreements of opinion, these were professional, respectful and constructive. Unfortunately, group decisions were not always recorded, handpicked opinions appeared in drafts and input from some members was consistently ignored.
The potential to design an additional assessment component that would allow students to think more deeply and communicate their mathematical understanding in creative ways was wasted. Decision- making processes were opaque and I found the structures of work to be flawed in design, governance and output. I do not believe these draft curricula serve the mathematical or numeracy needs of students sitting foundation or ordinary level and, even though Ireland already underserves high-achieving students, this proposed curriculum will not enhance student learning at higher level.
While errors in a draft curriculum can be amended, the fact that corrections from separate group members were consistently ignored points to a systems- design issue. Teachers and pedagogy experts are, and should be, involved in curriculum design, as is common practice around the world. Where Ireland differs is the formalised and constant involvement of subject-matter experts. Across the globe research academics and representatives of subject associations are consistently involved in curriculum drafting. This ensures secondary-school subjects can evolve to incorporate new knowledge and skills, engaging young people in subjects that are relevant and that prepare them for an ever-changing world.
A structure for curriculum design that maintains content coherence, makes evidence-informed decisions and supports teachers to translate this to the classroom is necessary. A dilution of such subject expertise in our current system may be why our biology curricula have, in a time of biodiversity crisis, dramatically less plant-based science, why our agricultural science curricula have little mention of forestry, or why academics resigned from the chemistry and construction study groups.
Mathematics is a human endeavour, continually developed and expanded through international collaboration, characterised by rigour, abstraction and proof. In a world where machines increasingly perform routine procedures for us, the value of mathematics in teaching students to reason, abstract, interrogate assumptions, construct arguments and determine whether conclusions are justified becomes more important. Unfortunately, these skills are precisely the aspects of mathematics that the draft curricula are eroding.
Had I studied one of the proposed curricula, it is unlikely I would have continued to do mathematics at third level. Considering another curriculum review may not happen for 15 years, I worry these curricula will discourage students from pursuing Stem.
Our children and young people deserve to learn in ways that are equitable and prepare them for their futures. I believe our current systems of curriculum reform are failing them. In an age where disciplinary knowledge and trusted experience are more necessary than ever, a systems review of how we design and incorporate subject-matter expertise, alongside important pedagogy and teaching practice, is required.
Dr Aoibhinn Ní Shúilleabháin is associate professor of mathematics education at DCU
No comments:
Post a Comment