Posts
"Chalk and talk is a dirty expression in the high schools. Kids are supposed to sit in groups and discover answers themselves. They are supposed to explain the work to each other. I have found that this does not work. Often the work they put on the board is wrong. Kids cross out their correct answers to copy what someone else has done. After all, if it is on the board, it must be correct. Even when the work is correct, it is often illegible."
"Group work does have a place, just not in the classroom."
Read the entire Pissed Off teacher's post here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
32 comments:
no!
please don't!
don't go over there!
i slightly lost it in the comments section
Well, now you have piqued my curiosity and I feel almost compelled to go over there! : )
Born and bred in the briar patch, B'rer Fox; born and bred in the briar patch!
Sherry Fraser, one of the people in charge of IMP (the program that gave us the famous 'haybaler problem') testified at the National Math Advisory Panel some months ago. Here's an excerpt from what she said, relating to teachers at front of room and actually providing instruction to students:
"How many of you remember your high school algebra? Close your eyes and imagine your algebra class. Do you see students sitting in rows, listening to a teacher at the front of the room, writing on the chalkboard and demonstrating how to solve problems? Do you remember how boring and mindless it was? Research has shown this type of instruction to be largely
ineffective. Too many mathematics classes have not prepared students to use mathematics, to be real problem-solvers, both in the math classroom and beyond as critical analyzers of their world.
"Unfortunately my experience and probably most of yours is what we refer to today as the "good old days." This was when students knew what was expected of them, did exactly as they were told, and learned arithmetic and algebra
through direct instruction of rules and procedures. Some of us could add, subtract, multiply, and divide quickly. But many of us just never understood when to use these algorithms, why we might want to use them, how they worked, or what they were good for."
Sherry did not provide the reference(s) for the research that she claimed supported her statement. I'll write her and ask her for it. I know she'll reply. She seems nice.
"Some of us could add, subtract, multiply, and divide quickly. But many of us just never understood when to use these algorithms, why we might want to use them, how they worked, or what they were good for."
What I can't quite figure out is how being unable to add, subtract, multiply, and divide quickly would make it easier for the students to understand when and why to use (or perhaps to get somebody competent to use?) the same algorithms.
Could you ask her that question at the same time?
I just helped a bunch of ESL students do their algebra word problems by bar modelling.
The teacher who had been previously trying to help them (in vain, because apparently he couldn't even do the problems himself) commented: "That's very useful for visualising. It's far more concrete than x's and y's." [He wasn't a teacher who taught their class, but I found it interesting that a man so advanced in years, and presumably wisdom, would struggle himself to solve Algebra I and II word problems.]
But it seemed apparent that before this, that it had never occurred to my school's teachers that they could use bar models to help set up the algebra. In fact, with what I did, I completely circumvented all the x's and y's and gave the answer in terms of the people's names given (e.g. Paul's share is Rosa's share + 14)
Just like in Singapore's PSLE. This should be common sense. I mean, teaching in everyday terms before introducing abstract unknowns that aren't even variables should be common sense. But why is it when I google "Everyday Math" and "bar model", the first result is your blog? (and not say, their website? i.e. apparently teaching using everyday terms is apparently not in Everyday Math. Irony++)
But also apparently, my school has never actively sought (or besought) students to volunteer as tutors, especially since the ESL kids need it so much (given that their instructors seem incapable of assisting them in subjects not dealing with English).
Chalk and talk? Perhaps not .... but you definitely need student participation somewhere.
Heh, a bit of a caveat to my last sentence: apparently I've misinterpreted "chalk and talk". I thought chalk and talk was where the kids did the chalking before proceeding to talk amongst themselves ... now I feel a bit silly.
"Do you remember how boring and mindless it was?"
I remember reading that. She had me all the way up to that point. Yes, we sat in rows and worked problems and the teacher taught.
But I loved it! How was that boring and mindless? I was doing difficult problems, but I knew what I was doing. It all worked. It was the most beautiful experience I'd ever had in math up to that point in my life.
I felt so bad for Sherry. Mindless and boring? Maybe if you were passing notes to the girl next to you.
Did Sherry Fraser really say that in front of the math panel? ... a couple of months ago? ... with a straight face? This sounds so 2000.
I always find it amazing that kids can have so much rote knowledge of arithmetic, algebra, geometry and even calculus, but still have no clue what to do with it, except, perhaps, to major in engineering in college. No linkage strikes again, and another great example of critical thinking from an expert in the process.
"It was the most beautiful experience I'd ever had in math up to that point in my life."
You constructed knowledge from "chalk and talk"? Imagine!
"I always find it amazing that kids can have so much rote knowledge of arithmetic, algebra, geometry and even calculus, but still have no clue what to do with it, except, perhaps, to major in engineering in college."
Linguistics! Rate of change of a language!
Well not really. I myself have a hard time connecting calculus to my intended primary major, linguistics (my secondary major will probably be physics-related).
Close your eyes and imagine your algebra class. Do you see students sitting in rows, listening to a teacher at the front of the room, writing on the chalkboard and demonstrating how to solve problems?
OK, I'm doing that.....and I remember sitting in rows, half-listening to a teacher at the front of the room, while I read a copy of Gone with the Wind secreted inside my math textbook.
Mrs. Schwartz
That was the teacher.
Told me to put the book away.
The paperback, not the math book.
So really, isn't Shelly Fraser correct?
Wouldn't I have been ENGAGED and RIVETED BY MATH if I'd been sitting in a group of my peers?
No chance I and a group of my peers might have gotten off-topic, right?
this was when students knew what was expected of them
wow!
This must be why Irvington is so darn high-performing (except for those mean-lowering black and Hispanic kids, of course).
nobody here knows what's expected of him
also, nobody here know what a grade of (for example) 29/40 means on a DBQ, although we do know it's a 2
when I google "Everyday Math" and "bar model", the first result is your blog?
I feel proud
Mindless and boring? Maybe if you were passing notes to the girl next to you.
Yeah, well, I WAS passing notes to the girl next to me, and I still wasn't "mindless and bored."
I liked school just fine, and I liked math just fine.
I learned what they taught (which wasn't nearly enough, but that's a story for another day), I have been able to use what I learned for my entire adult life, and while, yes, I had & have fragmented knowledge, when I read the famous Liping Ma fraction question, I could do it.
The Liping Ma question, given to 22 U.S. K-5 math teachers, iirc, was:
Write a word problem requiring the student to divide 1 3/4 by 1/2.
I still remember the word problem I wrote.
A family has two dogs, each of whom eats half a can of dog food at each meal. Only 1 3/4 cans are left; how many servings is that?
Took me about 5 seconds to construct this word problem, 30 years after my last "traditional" math course.
Well, I don't remember passing notes (I'm sure I did!), but, as witnessed by the occasional joke or limerick I post from time to time on KTM (old habits die hard), I'm quite sure I attempted to interject humor from time to time.
And yet, I still managed to learn enough math in high school (the old-fashioned way, with a teacher working problems on the board as examples) to take two semesters of Calculus in college.
I probably didn't spend a lot of time, if any, passing notes. (I did spend plenty of time, in K-5, talking to my neighbor.)
I spent what I now consider to be an inordinate amount of time, or tried to, reading paperbacks hidden inside textbooks.
"Wouldn't I have been ENGAGED and RIVETED BY MATH if I'd been sitting in a group of my peers?"
You can always trade-off learning for fun. If you redefine math, then you can skip the learning and go right to fun. Kids might like math, but they won't be going into engineering. They haven't figured out a way to get a free lunch.
Catherine, my daughter's math teacher greets her at the door to the room to collect her reading books before class.
oh that's funny!
i did a HUGE amount of secret reading in my classes
You can always trade-off learning for fun.
I was joking!
I would not have been any more ENGAGED and RIVETED BY MATH sitting in a peer group than I was sitting in class reading GWTW
AND, as I say, I liked math just fine, and always have.
Actually, maybe that's a clue.
Instead of peer groups and hands-on, real-world activities, hand out bestsellers and tell the kids to read in math class when they get bored.
I shouldn't be saying I spent huge amounts of time reading books in class --- I don't remember.
I do remember being told to put my book away and pay attention, so I know it happened some...
The idea that any kind of class has to be riveting is simply not true.
It IS true that it's good to put some emotional "oomph" into a class. Haven't read the TREDNS article yet, but that's what they find.
I'm sure the article is going to say that because "emotional memory" is stronger than nonemotional memory (this is not a term, btw), it's good for teachers to inject some energy, excitement, etc.
That made perfect sense to me, because that's what I **always** do. If I'm teaching anything, I'm in a state of open excitement about the subject matter.
Ed says, too, that his good student comments always talk about the fact that he's obviously into the subject matter. True of other professors, too.
Here in Irvington, we have a fantastic Latin Department -- unheralded by the administration, but beloved by parents & students.
What do we parents constantly hear about the Latin Department?
We hear that it is run by a woman who is a complete fanatic about Latin, who lives, eats, breathes, drinks, and sleeps Latin.
This is always cited as a reason to take the course, always.
I think that, from a CogSci point of view, one reason people believe that teachers-who-love-their-subject are better than teachers who appear removed from their subject is that the energy of an enthusiastic person is "contagious" (this is a term used on social psych research) and therefore sparks an emotional attaches emotional tags to the content you're learning.
One last thing.
A friend told me that her son, who was in my Singapore Math class & who I "tutored" a bit (when he went into 6th grade Phase 4 math) tells his mom that the thing he likes about me is "Catherine's so excited about math."
Apparently he was tickled by the fact that when he first met me I was crazy for Singapore Math; then, the next time we met again, I was onto my Russian Math thing.....
This kid, who has a real knack for math, but who was disaffected because of the way it was being taught, tuned back into math entirely because of the little Singapore Math class. (You know, the class the administration shut down. That class.)
His mom says the class gave him the "spark."
Catherine--I think you are "spot on" about how effective teachers are when they love their subject matter, and manage to convey that enthusiasm to their students. Sometimes this is done through the sheer thoroughness of their preparation; the business tax professor at my law school was a favorite because he was just so good at teaching (he was also a practicing attorney, and a bona fide expert); I think he somehow managed to convey to his students how much he enjoyed the subject matter, which is not necessarily that easy to do when the subject is tax law.
I remember a great chalk and talk teacher from high school. It was magical watching him demonstrate soluitons. I always loved math, but it was not easy for me. First I learned by watching, then I learned by doing. Now I understand. I teach my students to understand what they are looking for. There is just too much time wasted when they are left to tehir own devices.
Catherine--I think you are "spot on" about how effective teachers are when they love their subject matter, and manage to convey that enthusiasm to their students.
Another reason why elementary school teachers who "don't like math" or "aren't very good at math" simply SHOULD NOT teach math.
Post a Comment