In December staff from ITE providers gathered in London for the \u2018Teaching Mathematics for Mastery\u2019 conference, jointly organised by the Universities\u2019 Council for the Education of Teachers (UCET), the National Centre for Excellence in the Teaching of Mathematics (NCETM) and the National Association of School-Based Teacher Trainers (NASBTT).<\/p>\n
Speakers from NCETM presented information on what trainee teachers need to know and understand about teaching for mastery, while ITE providers\u2019 shared approaches for embedding teaching for mastery within ITE programmes.\u00a0 The role of Maths Hubs working in partnership with ITE providers was also presented.<\/p>\n
The mastery of mathematics is the desired outcome for all pupils, so that learners develop a deep, long-term, secure and adaptable understanding of the subject.<\/p>\n
This is in line with the vision of the 2014 national curriculum for mathematics with the aims that all<\/em> pupils:<\/p>\n The expectation is that the majority of pupils will move through the national curriculum programmes of study at broadly the same pace but those who are not sufficiently fluent with earlier material should consolidate their understanding, including through additional practice, before moving on.<\/p>\n The content and principles underpinning the new mathematics curriculum reflect those found in high performing education systems internationally, particularly those of east and south-east Asian countries such as Singapore, Japan, South Korea and<\/p>\n China. Though there are many differences between the education systems of England and those of east and south-east Asia, the suggestion is that we learn from the mastery approach to teaching commonly followed in these countries.<\/p>\n Principles of Teaching Maths for Mastery<\/strong><\/p>\n The approach based on mastery is characterised by certain principles:<\/p>\n Pupils will have developed mastery when they demonstrate:<\/p>\n There\u2019s nothing particularly new about this but the widespread use of the word \u2018mastery\u2019 in relation to mathematics teaching and mathematics learning is relatively new.\u00a0 Some of the implications of implementing and embedding teaching for mastery approaches to teaching mathematics are also new and have required some schools and ITE providers to make changes to their practice.<\/p>\n Reviewing Practice – Meeting the needs of all pupils<\/strong><\/p>\n One of the changes requires a shift away from labelling pupils as \u2018high ability\u2019 or \u2018low ability\u2019.\u00a0 NCETM\u2019s Director, Charlie Stripp states, \u201cit may well be the case that one of the most common ways we use differentiation in primary school mathematics\u2026 has had, and continues to have, a very negative effect on the mathematical attainment of our children at primary school and throughout their education.\u201d<\/p>\n Standard approaches to differentiation commonly used in primary school maths lessons involve some children being identified as \u2018mathematically weak\u2019 and being taught a reduced curriculum with \u2018easier\u2019 work to do, whilst others are identified as \u2018mathematically able\u2019 and given extension tasks.\u00a0 Stripp argues that terms such as \u2018weaker\u2019 and \u2018able\u2019 are subjective, and imply that children\u2019s ability in maths is fixed and this may be very damaging in several ways:<\/p>\n For the children identified as \u2018mathematically weak\u2019:<\/p>\n For the children identified as \u2018mathematically able\u2019:<\/p>\n In the mastery approach teachers reinforce an expectation that all pupils are capable of achieving high standards in mathematics.\u00a0 The large majority of pupils progress through the curriculum content at the same pace. Differentiation is achieved by emphasising deep knowledge and through individual support and intervention. The use of whole class teaching is a move away from giving pupils different tasks. Teachers who employ a mastery approach to teaching mathematics do not differentiate their maths teaching by restricting the mathematics that \u2018weaker\u2019 children experience, whilst encouraging \u2018able\u2019 children to \u2018get ahead\u2019 through extension tasks. Instead, teachers employing a mastery approach expose almost all of the children to the same curriculum content at the same pace, providing differentiation by offering rapid support and intervention to address each individual pupil\u2019s needs. Teachers use precise questioning in class to test conceptual and procedural knowledge, and assess pupils regularly to identify those requiring intervention so that all pupils keep up.\u00a0 This requires time for the teacher to think carefully about the concepts \u2013 to choose questions for conceptual reasons and carefully prepare models and representations which support generalisation.<\/p>\n In the early primary years, the amount of mathematical topics handled in class is reduced, but more time is spent dealing with each topic, so that early understanding is cemented. Teaching is underpinned by methodical curriculum design and supported by carefully crafted lessons and resources to foster deep conceptual and procedural knowledge.\u00a0 Practice and consolidation play a central role. Carefully designed variation within this builds fluency and understanding of underlying mathematical concepts in tandem.<\/p>\n Implications for ITE Providers<\/strong><\/p>\n The widespread implementation of mastery within ITE will bring with it challenges that providers will need to overcome.\u00a0 These include the need to develop providers\u2019 and partnership schools\u2019 understanding of the principles of mastery.<\/p>\n There exist influences within Primary Education that shape teachers\u2019 current practice which may need to be challenged.\u00a0 The way in which the National Numeracy Strategy was interpreted by some led to many schools rigidly teaching one hour maths lessons, utilising a 3-part lesson structure.\u00a0 Often lessons consist of teacher explanation followed by pupil practice (completing worksheets containing routine problems).\u00a0 There is often a low level of teacher-pupil interaction within the lesson.\u00a0 A further challenge is that teachers are familiar with assessment through levels (and sub levels) and are not yet certain of assessment without levels.<\/p>\n Trainee teachers will need opportunities to embed the principles of mastery, but schools may resist this.\u00a0 The challenge is to change established attitudes held by teachers, to enable them and trainees to teach in a mastery way, even though many have not experienced mastery.\u00a0 Some school-based trainers may also have fixed ability thinking and practices.\u00a0 This mindset will also need to be challenged.\u00a0 Solutions to these challenges may include continuing professional development in the form of school-based training for mentors, \u2018Teaching for Mastery\u2019 events and involvement in Maths Hub projects.\u00a0 In the North East region, Maths Hubs include the Great North Maths Hub and the Archimedes NE Maths Hub.<\/p>\n For further information follow the link to:<\/p>\n https:\/\/www.ncetm.org.uk\/resources\/47230<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n A presentation to teachers on teaching for mastery by Debbie Morgan NCETM Director for Primary, December 2015<\/p>\n https:\/\/www.ncetm.org.uk\/resources\/48432<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\n In December staff from ITE providers gathered in London for the \u2018Teaching Mathematics for Mastery\u2019 conference, jointly organised by the Universities\u2019 Council for the Education of Teachers (UCET), the National Centre for Excellence in the Teaching of Mathematics (NCETM) and … Continue reading \n
\n
\n
\n
\n