Digital Diversions: Keeping the Focus on the Art of Teaching in the Mathematics Classroom

Childhood Education, 2005 by Griffin, John C

Senator Glenn's committee analyzed the state of mathematics and science education in U.S. classrooms and concluded, "The most powerful instrument for change, and therefore the place to begin, lies at the very core of education-with teaching itself" (p. 5). To provide students with superior teachers is "not simply a matter of preparation; it depends just as much-or even more-on sustained high-quality professional development" (p. 5). Senator Glenn recognized that high-quality teaching demands a "deep knowledge of subject matter"; however, he also emphasized the human aspects of our profession. He commented:

High quality teaching allows for, recognizes, and builds on differences in the learning styles and abilities of students. It has the deepest respect for students as persons; it corrects without squelching; it builds on strengths rather than trying to stamp out weaknesses, (p. 22)

Technology was mentioned only once in this report. Senator Glenn stated:

To keep its edge, high-quality teaching must be continually reshaped by the institutional structures that support it, i.e. by professional development, continuing education, the effective use of technology, and recognition and rewards, [italics added]

There is a distinct difference between focusing on the tools of teaching and focusing on the art of teaching. Charlotte Danielson, author of Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching (1996), states, "Instructional materials are not, in themselves, engaging or unengaging, rather, it is a teacher's and students' use of the materials that is the determinant" (p. 97). Yet many schools and districts invest enormous sums of money in the implements of teaching rather than in the people using them.

I am not suggesting that we abandon our investment in digital hardware, as such a move would be foolhardy. However, it would appear that teachers and students alike would be well-served if we invested similar resources in coming to understand ourselves and our students. And where might we begin this reflective process? I suggest that we begin with the work of Albert Bandura.

Albert Bandura, a prominent psychologist from Stanford University, pioneered social cognitive theory and the notion of self-efficacy that emanates from it. Self-efficacy refers to the self-beliefs that we all possess that determine our degree of confidence in our ability to competently perform some task. Simply put, self-efficacy influences whether we see ourselves as strong and capable or weak and incompetent. Self-efficacy beliefs permeate every facet of our lives.

Consider, for instance, the emotions that percolate when we contemplate giving a speech to a large audience. For many of us, this task is not merely daunting-it's terrifying. We see ourselves failing in front of our peers, of collapsing on stage in a spasm of stage fright. These feelings arise from a belief that we are not capable of speaking competently. Regardless of whether these beliefs are based on real or imaginary events, they paralyze us. This is self-efficacy at work. In Bandura's words, "The inability to exert influence over things that adversely affect one's life breeds apprehension, apathy and despair" (1997, p. 2).