In
Herbal-Eisenmann's paper "Examining the Voice of Mathematics
Textbook" she discusses how a teachers's classroom discourse can limit
student learning experiences, and how the language used in textbooks
"manifests particular ideological views in mathematics education." Reading how Herbal-Eisenmann dissected
the language of textbooks and how that positions the locus of authority was
fascinating and gave rise to a wealth of questions in my own practice. In particular interest were the use of
imperatives in giving exact directing instructions to the student: “make a
graph,” “draw a straight line,” “explain
your reasoning.” Also of interest was
the use of pronouns and the absence of the author’s voice, almost as if the
textbook were an omniciescent power, a decree from an unknown.
I have been teaching high school
mathematics for the last five years in the setting of a small classroom (with
5-10 students) or one-on-one. Working in a highly supported school
environment I realize, after reading this article, that I never assign my students
to read through a textbook. If they have troubles with course material
then I will direct them to the wealth of resources we have on hand, namely my
colleagues who's job it is to support students with exactly this issue. This
article makes me question my own discourse with my students, and how this is
similar or different to what Herbal-Eisenmann describes in her paper. Being permitted a wealth of time to work with
students, I often take a slower, more exploratory approach to learning. My use of pronouns would differ, obviously,
from a textbook, as I am a very real voice in the students learning, not a
non-corporeal textbook, and I try to focus on asking ‘how’ questions instead of
directing students with imperatives. This personal pedagogic ideology, however,
as Herbal-Eisenmann suggests, may certainly be limiting students’ learning in
some aspects. What do you think?
This is actually really interesting and something I have not given much thought to before. In my own experience, I would also agree that we seem to be drifting away from using textbooks in the classroom. Many instructors I know (and I've done this myself) make up notes on their own to be handed out to students. The argument in favour of this is we can save student's money in not having to buy texts (not relevant in the public school system, granted) and we can explain things slower, exactly as we'd like, picking and choosing topics to include rather than inundating the class with a giant book's worth of material that might not be all relevant. I have also read drafts of a colleague's textbook-in-progress and certainly felt the voice was much friendlier than a typical text - but perhaps this is because the text evolved from detailed notes he made for a class he was teaching. I'd be interested to hear more about this article.
ReplyDeleteIf you're interested in teaching math without any language, check this out:
ReplyDeletehttp://youtu.be/2VLje8QRrwg
One aspect of language that interests me is my choice of words when encouraging a student. I try to choose words like "growing", "developing", "becoming skilled", "tapping into potential. I try to avoid words like "talented", "smart" and "gifted". I could discuss the reasons for my choice of words, but then I'd be writing another essay. Suffice it to say research is emerging that so-called "talented" kids don't respond well to failure.
These are great new forays into textbook-less teaching, and/or more attentiveness to the discourse of materials and classroom interactions. I would say though, as a linguist and genre theorist, that it is very difficult (or more likely impossible) to 'escape' from the norms of a genre like 'the mathematics textbook' if you're writing a textbook. Genres do change over time nonetheless, and they are open to parody or an ironic approach (think about Bill Nye the Science Guy and his TV show, for example).
ReplyDelete