Contributors: Corinne Angier, Jane Goodland, Colin Jackson, Hilary Povey, Pete Wright
The reading group is for those wishing to engage with research literature on TMSJ and discuss its relevance to practice. The fifth online reading group meeting took place on 15th November 2023. We chose to discuss the 2022 paper: Progressive pedagogies made visible: Implications for equitable mathematics teaching (open access).
We began by breaking into smaller groups to discuss the following questions:
– How would you describe the pedagogical strategies you use in the classroom? Do you consider them to be progressive or traditional? How do you understand the difference?
– The paper offers some strategies for making progressive pedagogies visible. What strategies, if any, do you use for making your pedagogical strategies visible to learners? Why do you do this?
– The paper argues that making pedagogical strategies visible is important for social justice. What do you see as being the connection?
– The paper refers to ‘collective agency’ (page 39, first paragraph). What do you understand by this? Why might it be important in a classroom aiming for social justice?
We were joined for the second half of the meeting by all three co-authors, Pete Wright, Alba Fejzo and Tiago Carvalho, who helped facilitate a thought-provoking discussion of the issues raised in the paper, prompted by questions and comments from the groups.
Here are some reflections on the paper and the meeting from those who attended …
Colin Jackson (Chair)
The third question attendees were asked to consider was whether the argument in the paper that making pedagogical strategies visible is important for social justice. I first came across this idea in a chapter by Peter Gates in the book Debates about Mathematics Education when I was looking for thought provoking ideas for my first-year mathematics teacher education students. These students would most probably have been in the top achievers in mathematics and the pedagogical strategies used by their teachers would most likely not have been an issue for them. But they needed to be introduced to the issue as the pedagogy we were encouraging them to use when they became teachers was certainly going to be problematic for many of their students.
We tried to model the pedagogies in the way we taught the mathematics which was part of the course although I personally mainly taught on the mathematics education modules. Sometimes we would make this explicit to the students. In particular modules I would stop what I was doing and try to engage the students in thinking about why I was doing what I was doing. However, I don’t think at that stage we, as a team, made the implications for social justice explicit. From the experiences of the authors it would seem that it would have been helpful if we had.
Hilary Povey (Co-chair)
One of the preparatory questions posed for the reading group meeting was:
The paper refers to ‘collective agency’ (page 39, first paragraph). What do you understand by this? Why might it be important in a classroom aiming for social justice?
There was the beginning of some discussion about this question during the meeting. It seemed that the consensus was that, yes, it sounded as though it would be important in a classroom aiming for social justice – but many of us were uncertain about quite what we would mean by ‘collective agency’ and unsure how we would recognise it. I haven’t got much further in my thinking about this but it seems to me that a prerequisite for establishing collective agency is going to be that the classroom is a place of “relational equity” where relationships are based on equal value, mutual trust and goodwill, typically built up over time.
But for collective agency to exist in the mathematics classroom, as opposed, simply, to collective respect and mutuality, there has to be a specifically epistemological element present because the purpose of being there is to develop knowing about and within mathematics. Thus, it seems to me, collective agency in the classroom occurs when the participants are acting together to create knowledge and a shared knowing. This might happen through “yarning”, that is, ‘the habit of sharing insights in an honest and respectful manner, learning from each other in a safe place, giving time for listening and thus building collaborative relationships in the learning group’ (Watson, 2022, p.5). In this way, sense-making becomes collaborative.
Watson, Anne (2022) Care in mathematics education. Mathematics teaching, 283, 5-6.
Jane Goodland (maths teacher and PhD student)
I really enjoyed reading this paper because it made me think about something I hadn’t considered before. As a teacher I do try and use alternative pedagogies and sometimes I give the students brief reasons why I am using them, but it has never occurred to me to give the students time to reflect on why these pedagogies are useful. This is something I would really like to try. In particular I often try and get the students to do discussion activities (e.g. talking points), and they can be reluctant to have a meaningful discussion, and I wonder whether spending time getting them to think about why these discussions are useful might help them to feel more engaged in the activity.
Corinne Angier
There was a huge amount to think about in the paper and our discussions added to the complexity as people made connections with their experiences. Looking at the things I scribbled down I can see lots of different issues emerging all of which I hope to do a lot more thinking, reading and talking about.
The notion of ‘collective agency’ was new to me as an idea in mathematics education. It raised a lot of questions. Is it possible to have collective agency without first having individual agency? Is collective agency something that can be said to exist or is it something that is exercised? When young people resist a teacher’s purposes in the classroom are they demonstrating a collective agency? What kinds of mathematics activity might foster or demonstrate collective agency? (How) might such experiences develop an understanding of solidarity that could transfer to activity outside the classroom?
I suppose because of where I am in my own studies and what I am aware of in schools I found myself tracing backwards from the pedagogies the teachers were using to the messages these gave young people about what mathematics is. The boxing up and model solution strategies suggest maths is about collaborative problem solving which fits with the idea of developing collective agency. I wondered how much the final agreement on a ‘best’ solution might undercut the message that different approaches are valued.
I really liked the card sort activity. I have tried similar things in my own practice as a school teacher and as a teacher educator with varying degrees of success. I think part of the power of such a strategy lies paradoxically in the relinquishing of power by the teacher who is essentially showing the cards in their hand. It is almost the opposite of a ‘because I say so/the exam demands it/it’s the school rules’ approach. What I am not sure about is how easy it is to join that practice up with a conception of mathematics itself as something which is humanly, openly and collaboratively imagined.
Pete Wright (first author)
This was a really valuable experience for me as one of the authors of the paper. It was great to hear the level of interest that our paper sparked in readers and the stimulating discussions that it prompted. I was particularly interested in the discussions around ‘collective agency’ and whether this was dependent on students first developing ‘individual agency’. This is an area I am keen to pursue in my future research.
The Teaching Maths for Social Justice Network 