kitchen table math, the sequel: Barry on Math Panel statement

Sunday, March 18, 2007

Barry on Math Panel statement

from the preliminary report:

Of course, teaching in very few classrooms would be characterized by the extremes of these philosophies. In reality, there is a mixing of approaches to instruction in the classroom, perhaps with one predominating.

Barry's comment:

I found the passage that Instructivist quoted rather jarring and wrote the following comment to Tyrrel Flawn, the Exec. Dir of the National Math Panel. The comment is now part of the public comments:

I am concerned with the last two sentences of the second paragraph. The statement that extremes of either type of these philosophies are not used exclusively in classrooms and that actually both types are mixed implies that there is no problem. To suggest that the inquiry-based philosophy has had no effect because it has not been used in its pure form, or because it is mixed with direct instruction is a specious argument and conveniently sidesteps an extremely significant issue.

The problem is more complex than characterized by these last two sentences. First of all, there are degrees of discovery or inquiry-based learning. There is general agreement within the psychological community that knowledge is ultimately constructed by the learner in order to be absorbed. But such construction can occur with passive type learning (i.e., direct instruction) just as it can with hands-on activities (discovery learning). Thus all types of learning is discovery oriented, and one has to look at the gradations of discovery learning. Some types have minimal guidance, and other types rely on structured guidance such as that found in textbooks such as Singapore, Saxon, or Dolciani.

There are a host of math programs being used, however, that are informed by constructivist theory of the minimal guidance variety, such as Investigations in Number, Data and Space; Everyday Math, Connected Math, IMP, Core Plus, and Math Trailblazers. Some of these programs such as Investigations, Trailblazers and Everyday Math, do not have textbooks. Teachers who must teach from such programs are unwittingly conducted discovery-based classes by virtue of how the program is put together. Students are often not given enough prior information before being presented with a problem that they must solve in group work, leading to inefficient solutions.

Furthermore such programs typically do not teach to mastery since students will be exposed again next year to the same topic through “spiraling.” The "spiraling" concept is picked up by other texts and programs, which then engenders the use of discovery in classrooms, since mastery is no longer as pertinent as it once was. The last two sentences would seem to ignore the highjacking of math programs going on because of the increasing pervasiveness of the inquiry-based philosophy.

I would hope that consideration is given to better characterizing the discussion of inquiry-based learning versus direct instruction.

14 comments:

Instructivist said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Instructivist said...

"There is general agreement within the psychological community that knowledge is ultimately constructed by the learner in order to be absorbed."

I think it would represent a giant step forward in the educational enterprise if words like "construction" and "construct" were banned or declared declassé. Perhaps the psychological community can handle it, but the educational community certainly can't. Apart from being pretentious, it's too amorphous and lends itself too readily to absurdity. This in a community that is prone to absurdity.

One of the absurdities is the belief that "construction" can and should take place without external input. Hence no explicit instruction and textbooks allowed.

If the rather trivial psychological point needs to be made, the educational community would be better off to repeat that knowledge is ultimately processed or digested or the like by the learner in order to be absorbed. The digestion analogy is not too taxing. Food needs to be taken in in order to be digested. Even the educational community can understand that. With "construction", the educational community erroneously wants digestion without food intake.

"But such construction can occur with passive type learning (i.e., direct instruction) just as it can with hands-on activities (discovery learning)."

Ideally, direct instruction is interactive, not passive-type learning at all.

Catherine Johnson said...

knowledge is ultimately processed or digested or the like by the learner in order to be absorbed

I agree.

Also, DI should be intensely active --- I'll have to try to find that great DI professional development workshop I posted on the old site.

The presenter had a figure for the number of questions a DI teacher has to ask per lecture hour.

It was huge.

The goal of "core" DI (i.e. DI in caps) is intense engagement of the student with the teacher.

Anonymous said...

Great job. I totally missed that.

Trailblazers does have a textbook, however. I don't know if you can edit anything.

It's very colorful with lots of pictures.

I found the section where Wu was trying to pin down how estimation was going to be used very interesting. That was around pg 105 or 106.

Catherine Johnson said...

Which document are you talking about?

The one I downloaded was only 16 pages -- did I miss a whole long document?

sheesh

Catherine Johnson said...

The fact that TRAILBLAZERS has a textbook was one of the reasons my district chose it.

Going in, they said they have to have a constructivist book, it had to have math facts, AND it had to have a textbook.

Anonymous said...

The Math Panel one I downloaded from here was around 182 pages.

Wait, were you talking to me?

Instructivist said...

I accidentally created another slogan for KTM:

Constructivists want digestion without food intake.

The idea here is that construction is the equivalent of food digestion. But since construction is a nebulous term, educationists get thrown off and falsely believe that digestion encompasses food intake and thus there is no need for food intake. And then a whole, huge and monstrous edifice is built on that single misconception.

Barry Garelick said...

"But such construction can occur with passive type learning (i.e., direct instruction) just as it can with hands-on activities (discovery learning)." Ideally, direct instruction is interactive, not passive-type learning at all.

I do my best, folks but I ain't perfect as many people enjoy pointing out.

The word "construction" as Instructivist points out is misleading. "Active interpretation" or "processing" would indeed be better. So even in so-called "passive" learning situations (and I chose that word purposely because it is used by educationists in a derisive manner) there is active learning going on.

Barry Garelick said...

For the record, I received a reply from Tyrrell Flawn to whom I addressed my comment. She writes:


Thank you for your ongoing interest in the National Math Panel. Your concern about the language of two sentences in the first section of the Preliminary Report has been shared with the Chair and Vice Chair of the Panel. The research question of inquiry-based learning versus direct instruction is currently being studied by the Instructional Practices task group of the Panel. I expect they will have more to say about this important topic in the final report. You are also welcome to provide comment on this question either by registering to speak at one of the national meetings or in writing to me or Jennifer Graban at jennifer.graban@ed.gov. All written comments are shared with the Panel on a regular basis. Any scientific evidence you can provide on this topic would be particulary useful for the Panel.

Again, we appreciate your following the Panel's progress and hope we will have the opportunity to meet you at a future meeting.


I did provide her PDF's of about six peer-reviewed research studies (five of them empirical) on the problems associated with minimally guided discovery-learning. She said she will provide those with the subcommittee that is looking at instructional methods.

Instructivist said...

It's good to have a direct line to the centers of power and being heard.

"I did provide her PDF's of about six peer-reviewed research studies (five of them empirical) on the problems associated with minimally guided discovery-learning."

You must share with the KTM panel. I suspect one covers all bases in the title and the other is three strikes...

Instructivist said...

Which task group deals with textbooks?

Task Groups
Conceptual Knowledge and Skills

Skip Fennell, Chair
Liping Ma
Wilfried Schmid
Larry Faulkner
Sandra Stotsky

Learning Processes

David Geary, Chair
Valerie Reyna
Wade Boykin
Bob Siegler
Dan Berch, ex officio

Instructional Practices

Russell Gersten, Chair
Vern Williams
Camilla Benbow
Tom Loveless
Diane Jones, ex officio
Dr. Joan Ferrini-Mundy

Teachers

Deborah Ball, Chair
Nancy Ichinaga
Hung-Hsi Wu
Jim Simons
Russ Whitehurst, ex officio
Ray Simon, ex officio

I recommend a separate textbook task force.

Barry Garelick said...

It's good to have a direct line to the centers of power and being heard.

Everyone has that direct line. Ms Flawn has her email listed on the NMP web site and they encourage public comment. I encourage everyone on KTM to submit comments as you feel the need to. Otherwise we end just end up preaching to each other.

As far as a textbook task force, I think that falls under "Instructional Practices". That might be a good comment to make to Ms Flawn, though, to ensure that they do look at textbook issues.

Catherine Johnson said...

We should all submit comments.

I'll get this comment posted up front tomorrow (or Barry, if you have time -- pull it up front!)