Deprecated: __autoload() is deprecated, use spl_autoload_register() instead in /home3/reasonan/public_html/wp-includes/compat.php on line 502

Deprecated: Array and string offset access syntax with curly braces is deprecated in /home3/reasonan/public_html/wp-content/plugins/jetpack/modules/shortcodes.php on line 98

Deprecated: Array and string offset access syntax with curly braces is deprecated in /home3/reasonan/public_html/wp-content/plugins/jetpack/modules/shortcodes.php on line 130

Deprecated: Unparenthesized `a ? b : c ? d : e` is deprecated. Use either `(a ? b : c) ? d : e` or `a ? b : (c ? d : e)` in /home3/reasonan/public_html/wp-content/plugins/jetpack/modules/shortcodes/soundcloud.php on line 167

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /home3/reasonan/public_html/wp-includes/load.php on line 649

Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type bool in /home3/reasonan/public_html/wp-includes/theme.php on line 2246

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /home3/reasonan/public_html/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4371

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /home3/reasonan/public_html/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4371

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /home3/reasonan/public_html/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4371

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /home3/reasonan/public_html/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4371

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /home3/reasonan/public_html/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4371

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /home3/reasonan/public_html/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4371

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home3/reasonan/public_html/wp-includes/compat.php:502) in /home3/reasonan/public_html/wp-includes/feed-rss2-comments.php on line 8
Comments on: Teaching Ability and Content Knowledge http://reasonandwonder.com/teaching-ability-and-content-knowledge/ Better through reflection Mon, 13 Sep 2021 11:29:14 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.8.24 By: Susan Jones http://reasonandwonder.com/teaching-ability-and-content-knowledge/#comment-9640 Fri, 25 Jun 2021 14:07:07 +0000 http://reasonandwonder.com/?p=4060#comment-9640 I’d want to know why a person had whatever level of content knowledge vs. pedagogical skills.
I also think that *here* content is a much bigger issue. So many people don’t have it and are afraid of it, including teachers.

]]> By: Professional Development: What should it look like? – Thinking Mathematically http://reasonandwonder.com/teaching-ability-and-content-knowledge/#comment-8102 Sun, 26 Mar 2017 20:07:08 +0000 http://reasonandwonder.com/?p=4060#comment-8102 […] few weeks ago Michael Fenton asked in on his blog this […]

]]> By: Mark Chubb http://reasonandwonder.com/teaching-ability-and-content-knowledge/#comment-8079 Sat, 18 Mar 2017 22:20:25 +0000 http://reasonandwonder.com/?p=4060#comment-8079 Math content knowledge is important… but Math Knowledge for Teaching is what is the most important! Debra Ball has been explaining this for quite a long time, but basically this is where content knowledge meets pedagogy. David Wees shared this image explaining the features of her work:
https://davidwees.com/sites/default/files/screen_shot_2014-09-27_at_8.26.33_pm.png

Let’s take multiplication for a minute. Knowledge of multiplication facts or the process of multiplying efficiently without the ability to help others isn’t helpful. On the other hand, having great classroom control, knowledge of having great classroom discourse, knowing what to say to those who struggle so they still believe in themselves… without understanding how multiplication develops over time or which models to share, or what contexts and numbers might be appropriate… that might actually be just as bad.

In my first scenario, students that are already good at math might do well because they might be able to pick up on what the teacher is talking about. In the second scenario, I think again only those who are already good at math will be helped.

Hopefully we will continue to learn more about the developmental nature of mathematics (deepen our content knowledge) and discuss the pedagogical moves we make as we do so.

While saying this… I think far more teachers are willing to delve into pedagogical conversations than content ones. Yet, deepening our math knowledge for teaching requires us to go really deep into our content. So, if I were to place a stance on one side or the other, I would have to say that the best way to deepen BOTH is to talk more about the content we are teaching!

]]> By: mwiernicki http://reasonandwonder.com/teaching-ability-and-content-knowledge/#comment-8077 Wed, 15 Mar 2017 15:20:54 +0000 http://reasonandwonder.com/?p=4060#comment-8077 Great question and discussion. I’m not sure this is answerable. Teaching is so fluid. We constantly bounce back an forth between content and pedagogy throughout a given day. Taking one over the other is a difficult pill to swallow. That said, I’m chewing on this more and more and I’ve come to the conclusion that It’s hard to think of pedagogy without content, but I can work on math content without thinking about pedagogy. So, I’d give an edge to pedagogy (not sure how to quantify it). Still chewing…

]]> By: Scott Miller (@smiller229) http://reasonandwonder.com/teaching-ability-and-content-knowledge/#comment-8076 Wed, 15 Mar 2017 03:43:51 +0000 http://reasonandwonder.com/?p=4060#comment-8076 I am digging the terrific discussion. Thank you to all who have contributed their thoughts and reasoning. I am at 65% teaching ability and 35% content knowledge. I am continually searching, learning, collaborating, and working to improve my teaching ability so that I can better design learning experiences for my students. My content knowledge has increased by teaching and learning from colleagues. This increase in content knowledge is a means to an end to better engage my students and improve teaching ability. Like Dave posted, I encourage you to raise the question with your students and other teachers. The discussion is facinating to listen to.

]]> By: mathnerdjet http://reasonandwonder.com/teaching-ability-and-content-knowledge/#comment-8074 Tue, 14 Mar 2017 02:25:21 +0000 http://reasonandwonder.com/?p=4060#comment-8074 This came up in a dept heads meeting today. My initial thought was they go hand in hand. But one teacher said that he thinks content knowledge must come first. After all, how can you develop classroom practice if you have nothing to teach. Being confident of content knowledge then frees one up to work on classroom practice, develop relationships with students, etc. So now I see it like mortgage payments. You pay a lot of interest at the beginning (content knowledge) and then you get to pay more and more of the principle (classroom practice).

]]> By: Nomadic Teacher http://reasonandwonder.com/teaching-ability-and-content-knowledge/#comment-8073 Sun, 12 Mar 2017 20:18:56 +0000 http://reasonandwonder.com/?p=4060#comment-8073 I don’t think you can have one without the other. I also think this goes for many subjects. Deep content knowledge is vital. Knowing the structure of mathematics, the connections and the relationships between concepts is vital. I was a math major and was good at math until college, then I just survived. I could do math. But, my content knowledge is extremely strong now because I have learned the structures and progressions of mathematics. That could be considered having a deep pedagogical understanding or a deep content understanding. I have seen so many elementary teachers who have structures in place for teaching math: 3-acts, 5 practices, number talks, claim-support-question, complex instruction, but without the deep structural understandings; they don’t notice the intricacies of student thinking and know how to connect and help students build on that. I also see the same thing in high school. Teachers can do the math, but don’t necessarily think deeply about the progression of learning and relationships and connections and also have fewer “teaching strategies”. I don’t know where it falls: pedagogy or content, but to me it is a mix, lets call it a deep “contentogy” or “pedatent” that is the most vital: structure, connections, relationships, and progressions. To be effective you need a deep understanding of both.

]]> By: Sarah Giek (@sgiekAHS) http://reasonandwonder.com/teaching-ability-and-content-knowledge/#comment-8072 Sun, 12 Mar 2017 17:47:27 +0000 http://reasonandwonder.com/?p=4060#comment-8072 I read this post a few days ago and let the question sit in the back of my mind. And then this afternoon, as I was working on a Desmos activity, I had a thought I usually have – ‘I should run this by my colleague and see what insights she can offer. She’s really good with Desmos activities and has stronger content knowledge with this particular topic. I’m sure she’ll have some good suggestions for me.’ And then this post floated back to the forefront of my mind. The great thing about teaching is that we don’t have to be experts (i.e. 100%) at either pedagogy or content knowledge. If we’re lucky, we can surround ourselves with teachers who can balance out our areas of weakness to become stronger together. So regardless of what percentages we bring to the table, I think the important thing is that we support each other to strive to be 100% in both areas.

]]> By: mathycathy http://reasonandwonder.com/teaching-ability-and-content-knowledge/#comment-8071 Sun, 12 Mar 2017 16:29:45 +0000 http://reasonandwonder.com/?p=4060#comment-8071 This has been an amazing read!

Ignoring the 5 bazillion variables here 🙂 I’m going to say 50% teaching ability and 50% content knowledge.

Ponderings:
Does the original question here imply an assumption that all teachers are “equal”… or that the teachers to whom these percentages apply all start at some common “baseline”? Of course, we teachers are NOT all the same… and thank goodness! How boring would THAT be!?!?

Teachers vary the same way our students vary, in our strengths and weaknesses, both with teaching ability and content knowledge. I don’t see these percentages as fixed in the “now”. Rather, I see these percentages as teacher learning goals. If we strive to improve in each of these two areas with equal emphasis over time, we aim to be our best selves… because the best teachers never stop being learners.

Sure, we all show up to our first classroom experiences with some sort of foundational pedagogical skill set and some content knowledge, but these understandings don’t remain fixed for long. Teaching is such an on-the-job-training profession! And again… we’re all different.

None of us will ever arrive at some ideal understanding of our content or of pedagogy.

There is always room to grow, and neither of these two teaching areas is less important than or more important than the other.

]]> By: goldenoj http://reasonandwonder.com/teaching-ability-and-content-knowledge/#comment-8069 Sun, 12 Mar 2017 02:06:33 +0000 http://reasonandwonder.com/?p=4060#comment-8069 Love this discussion. I’m more on the teaching side. Like if someone read Tracy’s book and “got it”, I’d be happy to let them have a go. Getting it for me is understanding what math understanding looks and feels like. I’d be much happier with a 2nd grade teacher who knew what place value understanding looks like than if the same teacher was procedural with place value and an A calculus student. Know the practices or process standards for a good start. The key if content is an issue is a willingness to learn along with the students.

I’m curious what you meant by teaching ability. I think people have been interpreting it like pedagogy or pedagogical content knowledge, but I’m not sure that’s what you meant.

]]>