Let me answer these two situations in the last paragraph first. First of all, candidates should be clear about the scoring points of mathematics courses. The first point is the guidance of new knowledge, and the knowledge points should be made clear. For example, in the music score class just now, it is not necessary to know the music score, but to understand the meaning of the music score, how the music score came from and what it stands for. If you can understand this, then no matter how you explain and design exercises, you can derive more exercises related to reality, instead of simply listing a bunch of scores for students to know. The second point is that teaching should be guided, which is why mathematics is more difficult for other subjects, because we accept indoctrination learning. For example, if you multiply a decimal by an integer, you will stand upright, so you can work it out. They are all mechanical memories, but in order to meet the new curriculum standards, you must somehow make the examiner feel that students have consciously found a vertical way through thinking under your guidance. For example, you can say that students have previewed it. Or students can discuss the column vertical method through the migration of integer multiplication, and then the next explanation, you only need to call the decimal point, and the rest can be practiced by students according to integer multiplication. This not only reduces the language explanation, but also highlights the students' autonomous learning.
Besides, what about math? Let's start with the introduction. The introduction methods commonly used in math class are reviewing old knowledge and questioning method. For example, if you multiply the scores of this course, you can work out a practical application problem. The first question is to multiply the decimals learned in the last lesson into integers. The second question is to change the conditions and guide students to list the decimal times and introduce new lessons. Next, teach a new lesson, which can be discussed by students first, or problems such as finding the area can be measured by students, and various methods can be discussed, such as piecing together figures and drawing squares. Don't talk about methods directly! Be sure to walk around and think about what students have and what parts of new knowledge students can get through thinking. Next, don't design too many exercises, but supplement the focus of this lesson and pay attention to the expansion of knowledge. For example, we have learned to multiply a decimal by an integer and a decimal by a decimal, so let the students summarize themselves according to the law and multiply them by two or even three decimal places. At this time, we should pay attention to how to evaluate students' wrong answers. Or some courses can adopt game method and competition method, such as the size of scores, let students bring digital cards, and teachers shout slogans to let everyone line up. Finally, there is the homework link, which is generally an open topic or some hierarchical exercises for students to do selectively according to their own abilities. Although it is the last step of the trial, don't take it lightly, and don't ask the first question hastily after class. For general applications, such as area and volume, a surface with smaller surface area, such as a reservoir, can be designed for students to calculate, and it can also lead to exercises in the next lesson.
I believe that through the above explanation, everyone can basically understand the skills of trying to teach mathematics. Of course, listening to theory is part of it. The most important thing is to practice more and master the context of knowledge points before and after, so as to grasp the position of each section. Then, master all kinds of skills of trial teaching, and design targeted teaching methods for each class, rather than a universal template. Almighty is incompetent, everyone is the same, and you are buried with it.