http://www.makingmathreal.org/
I just finished the 2-day, 14-hour introduction:
http://www.makingmathreal.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=38&Itemid=57
My brain is either fried or overloaded. Lots more sympathy for kids whose learning styles aren't supported in the classroom.
[Aside: hush!--already about the "learning styles". I agree that lots of the edu-babble about learning styles is content-free. However -- I sat, listened, and wrote for 120-minute blocks, about a subject that I am deeply committed to. I'm an adult with a well-honed capacity for taking in new information by listening, and retaining new information by writing. By minute 90, I was overloaded. You go shadow your kid throughout her school day and see how well you could keep up. /Aside]
Making Math Real (MMR) isn't a math curriculum, it is a specific, structured approach to math instruction.
A good analogy is:
Orton-Gillingham approaches to reading = MMR approach to arithmetic and mathematics.
The training is expensive.
Question: Is it worth it?
Answer: If your district is using Everyday Math (or other purely constructivist math curricula), it is definitely worth it to offset the fog of confusion EDM engenders in many kids, with or without LDs.
It may also be less expensive in the long run than putting your kids in Kumon, Sylvan, or other after-school remediation/tutoring programs.
Here's a description from the MMR website:
Multisensory structured methodologies deliver all instruction via the three processing modalities: visual, auditory and kinesthetic-motoric. Students who are struggling experience processing difficulties in either one or more of these processing modalities. Best instructional practices require linking all incoming information across the three channels to maximize successful processing.
Structured curriculum means starting with the simplest elemental foundation and building developmentally in an incremental and systematic progression from the concrete to the abstract. The most powerful aspect of a multisensory structured program is that each current activity and lesson builds the essential developmental tools for success at the next level thereby reaching the full diversity of learning styles and educational needs in all classrooms.Schwablearning.com was a great source of discussion and information -sharing for non-standard kids. Here are links to previous discussions of Making Math Real on the parent-to-parent board (listed in chronological order):
- http://www.schwablearning.org/message_boards/view_d iscussion.aspx?thread=3601
- http://www.schwablearning.org/message_boards/view_d iscussion.aspx?thread=4982
- http://www.schwablearning.org/message_boards/view_d iscussion.aspx?thread=15320
- http://www.schwablearning.org/message_boards/view_discussion.aspx?thread=18313
- http://www.schwablearning.org/message_boards/view_d iscussion.aspx?thread=19498
- http://www.schwablearning.org/message_boards/view_d iscussion.aspx?thread=24091
- http://www.schwablearning.org/message_boards/view_d iscussion.aspx?thread=25871
BTW #1: , as part of the class, I am now "bombproof" on my 13 multiplication facts, thanks to the "nine lines". I'd lay it all out for you now...but I am totally used up, cognitively.
And actually, I'm kind of appreciative of that experience -- because, for some of our kids, they are "totally used up, cognitively" before the end of the school day. That doesn't happen so often for us as adults.
BTW #2 -- being "cognitively tapped-out" is why I think homework in k-3 is
Supplement Everyday Math? Does it eliminate spiraling mastery, EM's fundamental premise? Schools can't get through a large percentage of EM as it is. What more do they eliminate to get time for this program?
ReplyDeleteMultisensory Math?
"Making Math Real is an innovative, fun, hands-on method of teaching and learning math that integrates key cognitive development within every lesson and activity."
Ugh! I'll pass. Oops. There's the problem. I can't.
The problem isn't learning styles. It's low expectations and bad curricula. This isn't an issue of pedagogy. It's an issue of common sense, competence, content, and mastery.
"You go shadow your kid throughout her school day and see how well you could keep up."
Is this like a preemptive strike? I could keep up, thank you, and I would probably be much more pissed off than I am now.
Start with Singapore Math. Then we can talk about common sense techniques for making sure no students slip through the cracks for whatever reason, sensory or otherwise.
Ouch...that was harsh. I don't think Liz was suggesting that MMR could possibly fix the myriad shortcomings of EM.
ReplyDeleteInstead, maybe she's suggesting that MMR is something to consider for desperate parents shouldered -- against their will -- with a crummy curriculum like EM, (and perhaps with kids who have learning disabilities such as dyslexia, which programs like Orton-Gillingham address).
I've read all of Liz's past comments and posts, and based on those, it should be clear that she's one of the good guys. Anger about EM is understandable, but it should be aimed at the school boards and teachers who continue to support that curriculum (and others like it) -- not at the parents who are doing their best to help their kids get by.
Cheryl vT in Singapore
P.S. Liz, I totally relate with your "totally used up, cognitively" comment. Kids who struggle with learning issues (like my son, who's preposterously dyslexic) expend an enormous amount of mental energy to get through work that "normal" kids find easy. Pile a ridiculous curriculum like EM on top of that, and I can only imagine....
".. maybe she's suggesting that MMR is something to consider for desperate parents shouldered -- against their will -- with a crummy curriculum like EM,.."
ReplyDeleteOK, but that's not what MMR says.
"Making Math Real is a comprehensive professional development program for all parents, educators and educational institutions."
All. They don't qualify this.
"... pre-K through calculus. ..."
"Anger about EM is understandable, but it should be aimed at the school boards and teachers who continue to support that curriculum (and others like it) -- not at the parents who are doing their best to help their kids get by."
You misunderstand. My great skepticism is directed at MMR, not parents or Everyday Math (in this case).
"Making Math Real builds development by training educators and parents to help students create their own mental pictures, thereby reducing reliance on memory. Students are successful because they see and understand what they are doing rather than memorize a rote procedure."
This is vague and meaningless and all too typical of fuzzy math.
"*Multisensory structured methodologies deliver all instruction via the three processing modalities: visual, auditory and kinesthetic-motoric."
The problem with this approach, if you believe in it at all, is that they try to apply all techniques on all kids. They don't separate kids into their different processing modality groups. My son memorizes very easily. Where is his modality group. Apparently, that's not a legal modality.
"Making Math Real, the premier multisensory* structured** mathematics program, provides the most effective comprehensive professional development and support materials to supplement any math curriculum for the entire educational community. Making Math Real's mission, in providing access to best practices, is working together with teachers, administrators and families, to ensure that students receive the highest quality education possible."
What's with all of the asteriks?
Supplement ANY math curriculum? How do they do that? The reader doesn't have a clue. How can that be done without using up extra time, for ANY curriculum?
"best practices"?
"the highest quality education possible"?
If the program has any value whatsoever, they don't need to resort to this sort of hyperbole. Perhaps "9 Lines" is a valuable approach for some kids, but you don't get something for nothing. In many cases failure to master the basics has more to do with whether the school forces the issue or not, not learning styles.
If MMR proposes approaches that can be used to support kids who have difficulty with other approaches to learning, then I have no issues. However, if they recommend replacing other approaches because these are "best practices", then they have to do a much better job of proving their case.
I didn't take offense at what steveh wrote. Parents saddled with EM have every right to be enraged.
ReplyDeleteCheryl said,
Instead, maybe she's suggesting that MMR is something to consider for desperate parents shouldered -- against their will -- with a crummy curriculum like EM, (and perhaps with kids who have learning disabilities such as dyslexia, which programs like Orton-Gillingham address).
Yes, that is what I was suggesting.
I realize now that I assumed that the readers of KTM would know what the Orton-Gillingham approach was all about. Oops. Sorry.
"Multi-sensory" teaching didn't arise out of the "multiple intelligences" theory -- it far predates it.
Here's a brief history of the Orton-Gillingham approach, from an O-G program in Canada:
Dr. Samuel Torrey Orton and his colleagues began using multisensory techniques in the mid-1920's at the mobile mental health clinic he directed in Iowa. Orton was influenced by the kinesthetic method described by Grace Fernald and Helen Keller. He suggested that kinesthetic-tactile reinforcement of visual and auditory associations could correct the tendency of reversing letters and transposing the sequence of letters while reading and writing. Students who reverse b and d are taught to use consistent, different strokes in forming each letter. For example, students make the vertical line before drawing the circle in printing the letter b; they form the circle before drawing the vertical line in printing the letter d.
Anna Gillingham and Bessie Stillman based their original 1936 teaching manual for the "alphabetic method" on Dr. Orton's theories. They combined multisensory techniques with teaching the structure of written English, including the sounds (phonemes), meaning units (morphemes such as prefixes, suffixes, and roots) and common spelling rules. The phrase "Orton-Gillingham approach methodology" refers to the structured, sequential, multisensory techniques established by Dr. Orton and Ms. Gillingham and their colleagues.
Here are the hallmarks or principles of the O-G approach
*Teaching is diagnostic and prescriptive, not rote.
*Teaching is direct and explicit
*O-G teachers have a deep understanding of th nature of human language, the mechanisms involved in learning, and the language learning process in individuals.
*Both teaching and learning are multisensory--instruction and responses are auditory, visual, and kinesthetic-motoric.
*Teaching is structured, sequential and cumulative, with practice and review to automaticity.
*Students learn about the history of the language and study the many generalizations and rules that govern the structure of language. Students think rather than making guesses.
*Because previously taught material is constantly reviewed and new material is introduced systematically, the student experiences a high degree of success in every lesson and gains confidence as well as skill.
Here's a course outline for an Orton-Gillingham training so that you can see what it is about.
Here's the link to the Academy of Orton-Gillingham
The Making Math Real approach seems to follow many of the O-G hallmarks (translated to math).
In the overview course, there was also some discussion of how to analyze the textbooks your [child/school/district] had adopted to avoid some of the text's ...erm..adverse features. That bit is covered in more depth in the summer institute.
The participants in the course ranged from a woman who is in charge of the adult ed. program at San Quentin, to several parents, to a number of classroom teachers to future educational therapists (like me).
The issue of maintaining focus over time is certainly real, and a major problem with block schedules and other fads. I know my (college-age) students start to fade out at about 45 minutes. It was a problem when I taught upper division inorganic in a 75 minute period. I could really go quickly in the last 30 minutes, because they gave up trying to understand or ask questions and just wrote down whatever I did, figuring they'd work it out later. Those were junior and senior chemistry majors, so I can't imagine it is better for K-12 students!
ReplyDeleteOf course, that's part of what direct instruction avoids, by breaking up the day into manageable lessons, and is also one of the excuses for endless projects.
"Parents saddled with EM have every right to be enraged."
ReplyDeleteMy son is not saddled with EM anymore, thankfully. My purpose on this blog is not about self-interest, and my criticisms are not misdirected.
The issue is what, exactly, is MMR and how does it get attached (?) to another curriculum? You can't tell that by reading their site. Second, is this an approach that is prescribed for all or for some? It appears that it's for all, at all levels. Also, is MMR designed to make the best of a lousy situation or curriculum? No, it says that:
"Making Math Real's mission, in providing access to best practices, is working together with teachers, administrators and families, to ensure that students receive the highest quality education possible."
Marketing hype.
"Here are the hallmarks or principles of the O-G approach
*Teaching is diagnostic and prescriptive, not rote.
*Teaching is direct and explicit"
I would say that these are hallmarks of a good education, period. How does MMR change a curriculum that is not this by using supplementation, without slowing it down?
You don't get "the highest quality education possible" doing this. As far as I can tell, the MMR product is targeting a supplementation demand in the industry. Schools would rather add in some sort of supplementation or teacher training rather than switch to something that is fundamentally better, like Singapore Math.
Techniques like O-G should be in the toolbox of all ed school graduates, along with anything else that might help kids learn, like memorization. Many of these tools can be used to fix or mitigate the effects of bad curricula, but the "highest quality education possible" is not possible unless you start with a good curriculum.
MMR cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. It also appears that it trades time for mastery. Mastery is good, and slower is better than bad, but not all kids require slow. When a curriculum is bad, it might seem that kids need to slow down. What it might actually mean is that they need a better curriculum. The problem isn't necessarily with a child's "modality" of learning. It could be the "modality" of teaching. It seems like MMR appeals to a school's need to blame the kids.
I know this is a late comment on this topic but after reading about Making Math Real here I decided to order the overview DVD from their website to learn more. I liked it. I would love to see the teachers in my children's school be trained in it.
ReplyDeleteWhat I noticed is that yes those warm fuzzy words are used to describe MMR, ie 'learning styles', 'right and left brain learning', 'multisensory learning' that so many people here dislike, BUT in actual practice it is incremental, with each lesson building on the previous, and is taught to mastery and fluency before moving on, unlike the fuzzy math programs that we don't care for.
The real goal of MMR is to teach teachers an effective way to teach math concepts, regardless of whatever curriculum they happen to be using. And really if a teacher is good enough at teaching math and knows what to teach and how to teach it, do they even need a boxed curriculum? The curriculum ends up being extra practice in what has already been taught.
I fully agree that we need better math programs in the schools and that programs such as EM should just disappear. But a teacher who understands how to teach math will be more effective period. Whether they are using a poor curriculum or a good one. I would argue that a teacher who doesn't know how to teach math could even mess up a good curriculum, or at least not be as effective as they could be. Certainly teachers and parents would prefer a good curriculum to a poor one. Too many teachers do not have enough training in the teaching of math to even realize that they are using a poor curriculum. So that's what MMR is, teacher training.
And yes, when you have a whole classroom of kids being taught to mastery and fluency you run into the problem of different learning speeds. BUT that doesn't mean you give up trying to teach everyone to mastery. That's when it's time to convince teachers and administrators of the value of ability grouping.
What I really liked about MMR is that it teaches teachers to teach math concepts in a specific way, in a specific order, emphasizing specific words to use, but doesn't use a script. I think that this is important because many, many teachers DESPISE scripted curriculum. It makes them feel like they can't be trusted to teach well. The last time my mother-in-law, a retired teacher, was visiting she was telling me how much she hated it when her school 'forced' her to teach using Direct Instruction. She said the teachers were all in open rebellion. This scriptless approach is more likely to win over teachers and from all accounts teachers enjoy MMR. That is half the battle in getting a program adopted, teacher perception. If you get the teachers to buy in on it, then you have a much better chance of getting the school administrators to buy in on it also.
I see MMR as being almost in disguise. It might look all warm and fuzzy on the outside. That will just make it easier for warm and fuzzy school districts to pay to have their teachers trained in this program.
But it really teaches teachers how to teach math in a very specific, incremental way. The way that math should be taught. None of this spiraling, barely covering the topic each time, stuff. And I think that when teachers have been trained in effective math practices, they will be better able to distinguish between poor and good curriculum and hopefully be vocal enough to convince the school administrators to adopt better programs.
Just my thoughts
I've also done the overview and thought well of it, though I didn't have the cognitive overload issue at all. That may be because of my O-G training and that, because of that, I've worked together some of the concrete- semi-concrete - semi-abstract - concrete pathways with some concepts already. I did get overloaded with the man's ego and that he seemed to think that all predecessors were awful and didn't work because of a, b, and c, which of course his methods address completely.
ReplyDeleteThere really isn't much warm-fuzzy stuff involved, and it tackles a huge issue that I see in teaching every day: students are taught Math as if they were already completely fluent in the language. This addresses developing that language in fun and fascinating ways. I have absolutely stolen the idea of making math dramatic -- those positive and negative integers are NOT on the same team! His metaphors and stories are well connected to the math, too, as opposed to the assorted random mnemonics tossed at students *and* many of the explanations that *do* connect to meaning... for the teacher... but are assorted symbolic manipulations to the students.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the Orton Gillingham method, we have found it to be an effective pedagogical tool.
ReplyDeleteHey, Miss Liz, this is that crazy ass usethebrainsgodgiveyou, or Rose. Do you still see this method as most helpful in teaching LD (shorthand, for lack of a better anacronym for now) kids math??
ReplyDeleteMy son wants to be an engineer, and he is dyscalculaic. I looked for a tutor, but most are reading. Do you have something good for dysgraphia??
Poor kid. He had a label of autism, but he said the curriculum bullied him. I kinda got that he was learning disabled by that comment, and although he's 18, it's never too late to learn.
I know you are very busy. Just give me what you got time for.
Thanks, Rose
This http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DQFbQWyOdw&feature=related inspired me today.
Oh, hell, never mind. I can't afford to go to California.
ReplyDeleteYou know of a Wal-mart version?
ReplyDeleteThanks for Sharing this useful information with us. Hope you are keep sharing this types of information regularly.
Math Tutoring Orton Gillingham for Dyslexia