Here is my teaching statement that have worked on in different courses. It is coming together nicely. But, it will be a constantly evolving document. As of Fall 2020, here it is.
My core belief about teaching mathematics is that all students can learn. A myth exists in our culture that only some people are “math people” (Anderson et al., 2018, p. 2). I feel compelled to show students, pre-service teachers, and veteran teachers that anyone can learn math at levels to which they aspire. To combat this pervasive myth, I believe in creating communities of learning for students through which they engage in actively doing mathematics (Breunig, 2017), develop growth mindsets (Dweck, 2006) that allow them to succeed through productive struggle, and learn self-assessment as a tool to monitor and cultivate their own learning (Schoenfeld, 2016). Relationships surround every teaching action I take. I aim to develop skills within my students that will enhance their abilities to collaborate with others and consider their differences as assets. When I make a decision for instruction or assessment, I will consider how to enhance the relationships I have with my students to show to them that I appreciate their unique contributions to the class and that I value their futures. Time investment in student relationships, building trust, and understanding students interests are crucial to successful teaching (Bain, 2004).
Students in my classes will not be passive recipients of knowledge. As a facilitator of their learning, I will develop high-quality, standards-aligned open tasks for students that allow all students to collaborate and support each other’s learning as they investigate and apply the course content. I want my students to experience success and to lessen their fears about their own abilities (Brookfield, 2015). When students connect through intentional discourse and social interactions in a safe, critical learning environment, they can contribute with their own strengths and identify weaknesses for which they need support. And, with collaborative group interactions, students can assist each other by both lifting those who are struggling and enhancing the abilities of those who are advancing by challenging them to express and engage in concepts in a variety of ways (Bain, 2004; Gee, 2000). Students learn best when they have choice in how and when they participate (Dysarz, 2018). Therefore, I am committed to varying my teaching methods and representations to increase participations and be prepared for diversity of students experiences and preferences (Zeff, 2007). By creating supportive, collaborative, and dynamic classrooms, more students will have access to opportunities to learn and engage in the content so that their experiences will be more equitable. Students’ levels of engagement and depth of critical thinking will allow me to assess how well I am developing future teachers and learners.
I believe that all students can learn and I maintain a growth mindset perspective for my students. When students say “I can’t do this,” my response will be akin to Carol Dweck (2010) as “you can’t do this yet!” My teaching choices stem from a developmental perspective (Pratt, 2002). Through patience and constructivist teaching, regardless of students’ initial academic abilities and backgrounds, my objective for students to understand that intelligence is malleable and they can develop confidence in their own abilities. Students learn when they believe that their intelligence can grow, they have positive learning identities, and they accept struggle as a means to restructure their brain until they make connections that lead to learning (Dweck, 2017). My role will be to model a growth mindset and productive struggle while helping students identify when they can shift their mindset and persevere through academic challenges. Also, the tasks I choose for my classroom will feature appropriate levels of rigor and continuous formative assessment, focused on the process of scaffolded learning toward higher-order cognitive thinking (Nilson, 2016), and allowing flexibility to draw contributions from each student (Schunk, 2012). Formative assessment will provide me valuable useful guidance to continuously support learning with actionable feedback for my students. Accuracy in solving problems will come as a result of the skills students develop when students shift to growth mindsets, embrace productive struggle, and feel comfortable to make mistakes in order to deepen understanding (Boaler, 2013). These practices will create a more equitable learning environment for students because my classrooms will be focused on students first as I increase their self-efficacy and motivation to think critically. In order to judge my own abilities as a teacher in regards to students’ mindsets, I will actively listen to their dialogue to gauge confidence and self-efficacy but also grow my relationships with them to understand my students’ beliefs in their capacities to learn.
In terms of mathematics and mathematics teacher education, students learn best when they are metacognitive (Fuson et al., 2005). If students are able to assess their own abilities, regardless of where they are on the spectrum of mathematics performance, they will be preparing themselves to take the next steps in problem solving and construct their own knowledge (Jaramillo, 1996). I will serve as students’ mentor in metacognition by posing probing questions, showing patience to allow students to process at their own speed and reflect on their thinking, and challenging students to justify and explain their ideas. I will be able to measure their metacognitive growth through modeling and interpreting how my students think, then adjusting or innovating my practices according to their needs. My classrooms will not be answer-focused but instead, focused on developing learners by changing the way they think about their own learning and therefore become more advanced in their own intellectual abilities.
Ultimately, I am developing future teachers and it is imperative that I model hope in the futures of all learners. The content I teach to pre-service mathematics teachers is important and it is necessary that my curriculum aligns with standards for teacher preparation, that it is sequenced logically, that course criteria are clear, and learning outcomes rigorous, relevant, and measurable. I do not discount these cognitive outcomes as it is essential that pre-service teachers can properly utilize standards to synthesize and adapt lessons. However, these cognitive outcomes must be balanced with social and affective outcomes (Nilson, 2016). In training teachers for the classroom, I must model empathy and valuing differences in order to showcase the importance that they also employ such emotions as teachers. Further, through my instruction, I will teach my students to work well with and assess each other, and remain open-minded when engaging in classroom discourse. These social behaviors will be applicable to their future careers when they are working in schools with other teachers, staff, and parents.
As I believe that all students can learn, I am certain that I can learn more about how students learn. Through my own collaboration with other educators, research processes, and idea development, I maintain a growth mindset for my own capacity to understand how students learn and how my instructional choices will contribute to the field of mathematics education. The feedback that I receive from students and colleague will create perpetual opportunities to learn more about my own teaching practices and iteratively adjust my teaching actions to better serve students.
References
Anderson, R. K., Boaler, J., & Dieckmann, J. A. (2018). Achieving elusive teacher change through challenging myths about learning: a blended approach. Education Sciences, 8(98). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8030098
Bain, K. (2004). What the best college teachers do. Harvard University Press.
Boaler, J. (2013). Ability and mathematics: The mindset revolution that is reshaping education. Forum, 55(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/forum.2013.55.1.143
Breunig, M. (2017). Experientially learning and teaching in a student-directed classroom. Journal of Experiential Education, 40(3), 213-230.
Brookfield, S. D. (2015). The skillful teacher: On technique, trust, and responsiveness in the classroom. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success (1st ed.). Random House.
Dweck, C. S. (2010). Mind-sets and equitable education. Principal Leadership, 10(5), 26-29.
Dweck, C. S. (2017). The journey to children’s mindsets – and beyond. Child Development Perspectives, 11(2), 139-144. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12225
Dysarz, K. (2018). Checking in: Are math assignments measuring up? Equity in Motion. https://edtrust.org/resource/checking-in-are-mathematics-assignments-measuring-up/
Fuson, K., Kalchman, M. & Bransford, J. (2005). Mathematical understanding: An introduction. In National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on How People Learn, A Targeted Report for Teachers, How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the classroom (pp. 217-256). National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/10126.
Gee, J. P. (2000). Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. Review of Research in Education, 25(99). https//www.doi.org/10.2307/1167322
Jaramillo, J. A. (1996). Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory and contributions to the development of constructivist curricula. Education-Indianapolis, 117(1), 133-140.
Nilson, L. B. (2016). Teaching at its best: A research-basedresource for college instructors (4th ed.). https://public.ebookcentral.proquest.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=4567495
Pratt, D. (2002). One size fits all? New directions for adult and continuing education (pp. 5-5.)
Wiley Publication.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (2016). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense making in mathematics. Journal of Education, 196(2), 1-38. https://doi.org/10.1177/002205741619600202
Schunk, D. (2012). Constructivism. In Learning theories: An educational perspective (6th ed.) 228-277). Pearson.
Zeff, R. (2007). Universal design across the curriculum. New Directions for Higher Education, 2007(137), 27-44. https://www.doi.org/10.1002/he.244