What’s a solution to the problems with traditional math instruction? Flipping the power hierarchy. Students belong at the top where they take ownership of their learning, leading to increased motivation and authentic buy-in.
In my first ten years of teaching at East Kentwood High School, the #1 most diverse school in the state of Michigan, I was mostly teaching math the same way I learned it in high school—teacher lectures, students take notes, and then students practice. I spent hours carefully crafting my Power Points and fill-in-the-blank notes to perfectly align with the textbook. My goal for each lesson was to take the math content that I knew so well and to transfer that knowledge to my students.
In particular, I vividly remember a Geometry lesson where I was introducing all the new vocabulary that students would need to understand circles. I was clicking away on the computer and students were scribbling down notes to keep up, when Jose Rodriguez raised his hand, and before I even had a chance to call on him, he blurted out:
“Yo Wilcox, why do we have to listen to you when we can just get all this right out of the book?”
And honestly, I didn’t really have a good answer for him. This forced me to think about my own role as a teacher in a math classroom. Was it simply to take all the math knowledge that I have and try to figure out how to pass it on to my students? Am I the sole holder of all the mathematical knowledge or is a textbook also sufficient? Is this teaching model even what learning mathematics is actually about?
After much reflection, I decided that the lecture-based instructional model for teaching mathematics has some embedded assumptions that are worth examining:
- Role of the Teacher: The teacher is the owner of all mathematical knowledge.
- Role of the Student: Passively receive the knowledge and expertise from the teacher.
- Definition of Success: Students can mimic the language and procedures that the teacher models for students.
Taken together, these assumptions lead to a power hierarchy where the teacher is constantly in the position of power. The teacher is the one that knows the math content that students need. The teacher is the one making decisions about best ways to transfer this knowledge. And in the end, the teacher is the one who is going to assess whether or not the student learned what they should have.
There are many examples of similar power hierarchies that exist in modern culture, many of which disadvantage those people who are not in the position of power. There is workplace discrimination that results in men having more opportunities and higher pay than women. There are healthcare barriers that prevent low-income families from equitable access. There are laws that exist that prevent the LGBTQ population from marriage and adoption opportunities.
There are also many policies and practices that exist in the current educational system that clearly disadvantage our non-white students. This is well documented when it comes to issues like school funding inequalities, school disciplinary practices, and eurocentric curriculum. The issue that doesn’t often get mentioned that I think Jose is exposing here is that we need to think more about how we are teaching math. The teacher lecturing at the front of the room creates a power hierarchy that has been created by an educational system that was created by mostly white teachers and administrators. The traditional lecture-style model of instruction for teaching mathematics disempowers students, which disproportionately has a negative effect on non-white students.
I believe the solution to this problem is about flipping the assumptions. Instead of the teacher being the one who delivers mathematical knowledge, they become the facilitator for the student creation of understanding. Instead of the student being a passive consumer, they become an active participant in the discovery and discussion of mathematics. And instead of trying to get students to memorize and copy the moves of the teacher, we get students to think and reason mathematically.
Put simply, we need to create a student-centered classroom. The real flip here is with the power hierarchy. Students belong at the top. In this scenario, students take ownership of their learning, leading to increased motivation and authentic buy-in.
This idea of a student-centered classroom is not a new one, and it has taken on many different names over the past thirty years: constructivism, discovery-based learning, project-based learning, cooperative learning, and many more. In the complex Venn Diagram of all of these movements, the idea that is consistent through all of these instructional models is that students are doing more of the work. Students are actively engaging in the thinking and doing of mathematics, putting them in the position of power.
What if we were able to implement this shift on a large scale? Would it create more equality in educational outcomes for white and non-white students? Would it lead to more diversity in the STEM workforce?