Ds expected to “help” another pupil with work in class

[LostFrog]

Ds is 9 years old, just started Year 5, first year of new school (middle school system here).

He tells me that when he has finished his own work in class, he is required to help a boy who sits next to him. This happens every single lesson, and he says that the boy is reluctant to work, won’t write anything, gives up quickly and mutters all the time that he doesn’t get it, etc. From asking around, this seems to be the standard on every table in the class - there is one or two pupils who are “learning mentors” who have to teach the less able ones.

Is this a) normal, and b) reasonable? It’s not like ds volunteered for this role. If he has finished, Shouldn’t he be offered an extension task whilst the teacher or TA (there is one, I checked) help the ones who are struggling? I have emailed the teacher to ask them to clarify what’s expected, but has anyone else come across this?

@Horst, absolutely!😄

@Horst

Flogging the same thing over and over again for deeper meaning kills it. School killed my love and enjoyment of reading by year 5 I hated it with a passion. Books just became a boring thing for learning a topic not loving a topic or truly engaging. They where used for skim reading to find what I needed.

I didn’t pick up a book for pleasure again until I was 26.

Anyone else get “greater good” from hot fuzz feelings over deeper meaning and mastery

Flogging the same thing over and over again wood definitely kill any joy for the subject. That’s exactly why we don’t do it - it’s inactive, it teaches memory skills but little else.

What we do is take a concept (in this example, telling the time) and look at how we can use it to apply other areas of knowledge. So we would learn to tell the time, but also use the clock face when we look at fractions, or times tables and so on.

I dont understand the greater good jibe, but I promise you, this isn’t groundbreaking stuff. It’s active learning and knowledge building, that’s it. It’s the very basis of teaching.

*would

But that’s still flogging it. A clock is a clock, half is a half I don’t need to study clocks again to know what a half is.

Not all children learn the same way yet we teach them all the same way.

@Horst

But that’s still flogging it. A clock is a clock, half is a half I don’t need to study clocks again to know what a half is.

Not all children learn the same way yet we teach them all the same way.

That’s also not true, we don’t teach them all the same way. Look up maths strategies as the perfect example of the masses of different ways we teach.

You might know what a half is. Does every six year old? Does every adult make the connection between ‘6’ on a clock meaning ‘half of twelve’ or 1/2?

I’ve asked loads of people on this thread to give me a better way of teaching, can you suggest one that would work better?

I believe studies have shown that teaching someone to do something actually improves the proficiency and confidence of the person teaching.

I can understand that your son feels quite dispirited because the child he is helping doesn't seem that engaged and is having difficulty understanding. Perhaps if you commend him for being kind and helpful to someone who is struggling, he might feel better about it.

However, I think the teacher should pick up on the fact that this arrangement isn't entirely successful, and be more careful in checking what is happening.

I do think that sometimes your son should be given extension work and not always be expected to help the boy who is struggling.

What we do is take a concept (in this example, telling the time) and look at how we can use it to apply other areas of knowledge. So we would learn to tell the time, but also use the clock face when we look at fractions, or times tables and so on.

The only indispensable reason to teach a child how to read an analogue clock is to give a child a feel for the passage of time, and even this is a fruitless task since a feel for this is partly a function of physical brain development.

You didn't mention geometry as a reason to teach clock reading, but it is actually the only mathematically relevant area for using the clock face, though even there it requires adaptation for complete relevance. Each minute = 6 degrees, the circle has 360 degrees, angles are represented visually by the two hands, and can be calculated, etc. This is the only area where the clock face functions within a system. In every other area it is an adjunct, a detour, and an example of various concepts with limited applicability.

There are many better ways to directly approach fractions, five times tables, and the concept of numbers simultaneously holding varying values.

Cuisenaire rods and other manipulatives that are specifically designed for their purpose convey those concepts much better. The clock face has distinct limitations in terms of relevance to clear thought, reason, and the wide world of numbers. It's a closed system operating with a numerical limit of 60.

We live in a base 10 world. At best, the clock as a teaching tool can reinforce other concepts in the base 10 system - five times tables, the fact that a whole can be divided into ever smaller parts (but even this has limited value and clocks are not the only way to show this - cake, pie, but above all actual math manipulatives work too). You are hoping to develop the faculty of logic here, to teach a general rule that can be applied, not teach tricks.

If you are trying to provide a foundation for future concepts, you need to make sure the example you are working with has no limitations and that your examples will be relevant within the base 10 system. Place value, the multiplication operation, and fractions are only partly shown by a clock. It's an everyday concept, not a scientific concept or a system.

As mathematical examples, cake and pie and other foods (and dividing up the clock face) refer to sharing or dividing - they present the idea of fractions as a partition. That's fine as far as it goes - it's a basic, everyday concept, but it has to be subsumed into the general system and enlarged in order to have relevance and move the student forward.

There are cognitive issues involved with irrational numbers, not just why the fractions are getting smaller but the numbers are getting bigger, but the idea of the whole as 1 vs a measurement of 1 unit within the whole. What is one third of a tape measuring 1.3m? What is one quarter of a tape measuring 1.3m? The meaning of the notation must be addressed. A tape measuring 1.3m with the 33cm increments marked and the 1m point highlighted would work better.

Teaching is only useful when it moves ahead of development.

@mathanxiety

What we do is take a concept (in this example, telling the time) and look at how we can use it to apply other areas of knowledge. So we would learn to tell the time, but also use the clock face when we look at fractions, or times tables and so on.

The only indispensable reason to teach a child how to read an analogue clock is to give a child a feel for the passage of time, and even this is a fruitless task since a feel for this is partly a function of physical brain development.

You didn't mention geometry as a reason to teach clock reading, but it is actually the only mathematically relevant area for using the clock face, though even there it requires adaptation for complete relevance. Each minute = 6 degrees, the circle has 360 degrees, angles are represented visually by the two hands, and can be calculated, etc. This is the only area where the clock face functions within a system. In every other area it is an adjunct, a detour, and an example of various concepts with limited applicability.

There are many better ways to directly approach fractions, five times tables, and the concept of numbers simultaneously holding varying values.

Cuisenaire rods and other manipulatives that are specifically designed for their purpose convey those concepts much better. The clock face has distinct limitations in terms of relevance to clear thought, reason, and the wide world of numbers. It's a closed system operating with a numerical limit of 60.

We live in a base 10 world. At best, the clock as a teaching tool can reinforce other concepts in the base 10 system - five times tables, the fact that a whole can be divided into ever smaller parts (but even this has limited value and clocks are not the only way to show this - cake, pie, but above all actual math manipulatives work too). You are hoping to develop the faculty of logic here, to teach a general rule that can be applied, not teach tricks.

If you are trying to provide a foundation for future concepts, you need to make sure the example you are working with has no limitations and that your examples will be relevant within the base 10 system. Place value, the multiplication operation, and fractions are only partly shown by a clock. It's an everyday concept, not a scientific concept or a system.

As mathematical examples, cake and pie and other foods (and dividing up the clock face) refer to sharing or dividing - they present the idea of fractions as a partition. That's fine as far as it goes - it's a basic, everyday concept, but it has to be subsumed into the general system and enlarged in order to have relevance and move the student forward.

There are cognitive issues involved with irrational numbers, not just why the fractions are getting smaller but the numbers are getting bigger, but the idea of the whole as 1 vs a measurement of 1 unit within the whole. What is one third of a tape measuring 1.3m? What is one quarter of a tape measuring 1.3m? The meaning of the notation must be addressed. A tape measuring 1.3m with the 33cm increments marked and the 1m point highlighted would work better.

Teaching is only useful when it moves ahead of development.

I’m not sure where you got the idea that teaching is only showing them a clock face, and in fact, we already do everything outlined in your post, as I suspect you’re already aware, you didn’t invent maths tools!

Geometry is not the only reason to use a clock face, I already outlined what else we use it for above.

Thanks so much for your post, I enjoyed reading it.

I've just explained in some detail why the clock face is really only suitable as a tool for intro to geometry and also why using nit as a foundation for anything else is problematic.

I’m not sure where you got the idea that teaching is only showing them a clock face
Can you please show me where I stated that or implied that? I ask because that assertion of yours is baffling me.

@mathanxiety

I've just explained in some detail why the clock face is really only suitable as a tool for intro to geometry and also why using nit as a foundation for anything else is problematic.

I’m not sure where you got the idea that teaching is only showing them a clock face
Can you please show me where I stated that or implied that? I ask because that assertion of yours is baffling me.

I've just explained in some detail why the clock face is really only suitable as a tool for intro to geometry and also why using nit as a foundation for anything else is problematic

Yes, but you were wrong. A clock face easily splits up into fractions. So we can use it for that.

I said it because your whole post was about the clock face. I’m going to have to ask you mathanxiety - what is it you want from me? You’ve been away googling some basic maths ideas and presented it like you’ve got some incredible insight to teaching - you don’t. You should have spent that time looking at learning theories, that would give you a much better understanding of what we do in a classroom.

@mathanxiety

I've just explained in some detail why the clock face is really only suitable as a tool for intro to geometry and also why using nit as a foundation for anything else is problematic.

I’m not sure where you got the idea that teaching is only showing them a clock face
Can you please show me where I stated that or implied that? I ask because that assertion of yours is baffling me.

And also when you said ‘clocks are not the only way to show this’. Thanks for your input.