Therefore, students learn a lot both in class and at home where they interact with their physical space. Therefore, a cognitive approach to teaching is crucial to inspire students to understand the practicality of mathematics by associating their learning experiences with the real physical world. Secondly, it is crucial to understand that different students learn differently due to the background influence (Dalton and Smith, 1986). Thus, it is crucial to understand the learning abilities of each learner and to define ways to curb the challenges that might arise amongst them.The following activity aims at helping year 1 students learn how to recognize different shapes of geometry and to associate these shapes with real objects that they often see in their day to day activities. Therefore, the lesson is interactive as well as engaging for the students and the teacher.Next, flash card of different shapes will be shown to the learners and they will be required to identify different shapes. The learner writes down the name of the shape in their exercise book as each card is shown.After that, the children are will be provided with a cutting knife to cut as many shapes from a cutting paper as they can remember. The learner is expected to at least cut out basic or common geometrical shapes.In this main activity, the student will be required to identify objects that they say in their daily activities and cite their shapes. The students will go out and identify various objects in the environment around them and then list their shapes. For this activity, the students will be grouped in fours.In this session, the learners will be expected to have an interactive session in which each group presents objects that they observed in the outdoor activity. The groups with unique objects (those that other groups did not identify) will be awarded the title of “the heroes of the day”The value of this activity is to use both a theoretical and practical approach in introducing mathematics for first year learners of the national primary curriculum. The theoretical approach of the study aims at introducing geometrical shapes to the learners. At their age, learners have the ability to listen and communicate simple words that they can easily pronounce (Van Heuvelen, 1991). Therefore, they are able to pronounce the names of each shape at a time. Introducing basic shapes
Alibali, M. 2006. Does visual scaffolding facilitate students’ mathematics learning? Evidence from early algebra. http://ies.ed.gov/funding/grantsearch/details.asp?ID=54
Berk, L. E., & Winsler, A. 1995. Scaffolding Childrens Learning: Vygotsky and Early Childhood Education. NAEYC Research into Practice Series. Volume 7. National Association for the Education of Young Children, 1509 16th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036-1426 (NAEYC catalog# 146).
Booth, M. 1993. Students historical thinking and the national history curriculum in England. Theory & Research in Social Education, 21(2), 105-127.
Bruner, J. S. 1960. On learning mathematics. The Mathematics Teacher, 610-619.
Bruner, J. 1980. Jerome Bruner. A history of psychology in autobiography, 7.
Brown, M., Askew, M., Baker, D., Denvir, H., & Millett, A. 1998. Is the national numeracy strategy research‐based?. British Journal of Educational Studies, 46(4), 362-385.
Dalton, J., and Smith, D. 1986. Extending children’s special abilities: Strategies for primary classrooms. http://www.teachers.ash.org.au/researchskills/dalton.htm
Dennen, V. P. 2004. Cognitive apprenticeship in educational practice: Research on scaffolding, modeling, mentoring, and coaching as instructional strategies. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (2nd ed.), (p. 815). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Donato, R. 1994. Collective scaffolding in second language learning. Vygotskian approaches to second language research, 33456.
Franson, C. 1999. Mainstreaming learners of English as an additional language: The class teachers perspective. Language Culture and Curriculum, 12(1), 59-71.
Hogan, K., and Pressley, M. 1997. Scaffolding student learning: Instructional approaches and issues. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
Jaworski, B. 2006. Theory and practice in mathematics teaching development: Critical inquiry as a mode of learning in teaching. Journal of mathematics teacher education, 9 (2), 187-211.
Korthagen, F. A., & Kessels, J. P. 1999. Linking theory and practice: Changing the pedagogy of teacher education. Educational researcher, 28(4), 4-17.
Piaget, J., & Cook, M. T. 1952. The origins of intelligence in children.
Piaget, J. 2013. The construction of reality in the child (Vol. 82). Routledge.
Piper, C. 2005. Teaching with Technology What is scaffolding? <http://www1.chapman.edu/univcoll/faculty/piper/2042/graphorg.htm>
Richardson, V. 1997. Constructivist teaching and teacher education: Theory and practice. Constructivist teacher education: Building a world of new understandings, 3-14.
Silberman, M. 1996. Active Learning: 101 Strategies To Teach Any Subject. Prentice-Hall, Des Moines, IA 50336-1071.
Smith, A. E. 1991. A National Curriculum in England.
Stipek, D. J., Givvin, K. B., Salmon, J. M., & MacGyvers, V. L. 2001. Teachers’ beliefs and practices related to mathematics instruction. Teaching and teacher education, 17 (2), 213-226.
Turnbull, A. P. 1995. Exceptional lives: Special education in todays schools. Merrill/Prentice Hall, Order Department, 200 Old Tappan Rd., Old Tappan, NJ 07675..
Van Heuvelen, A. 1991. Learning to think like a physicist: A review of research-based instructional strategies. American Journal of Physics, 59 (10), 891-897.
Zeichner, K. M. 1987. Preparing reflective teachers: An overview of instructional strategies which have been employed in preservice teacher education. International Journal of Educational Research, 11 (5), 565-575.
Please type your essay title, choose your document type, enter your email and we send you essay samples