Posts
Assuming this article is correct, I would say the panel report will net out as a good day for TERC & c. and a bad day for the science of teaching.
The group said it could find no "high-quality" research backing either traditional or reform math instruction. The draft report calls a rigid adherence to either method "misguided" and says understanding, which is the priority of reform teachers, and computation skills, emphasized by traditionalists, are "mutually supported."
Number one: there is a massive body of research showing that direct instruction is effective while discovery learning is not. (pdf file)
Number two: "Rigid adherence" to the "method" of direct instruction isn't rigid adherence. The whole point of direct instruction and precision teaching is to respond directly, rapidly, and flexibly to the actual, living, breathing students before you. This is why direct instructionists and precision teachers spend so much time taking data.
Number three: yet again instructivists are defined as "traditionalists" who obsess over "computation skills."
It's as if the only math that exists in the known universe is K-5 arithmetic.
[note: Concerned Parent thinks the report may not be as grim as I'm thinking - I hope she's right.]
7 comments:
Of course, I'm not happy about the lack of credibility granted to the research behind the science of teacing. I suspect this proved too hot to handle and in the interest of having some positive effect, they sidestepped. Not an ideal situation but I'm hoping that there are some positives.
*Focus on "critical topics" common in high performing countries (Singapore, etc.)
*The importance of mastering the computational foundations as a prelude to conceptual understanding
*Emphasis on material needed for mastery of algebra, particularly fractions
*Limiting the topics for each grade with a laserlike focus on the essentials
I don't see it as a field day for TERC and friends if only because these curricula are anti-mastery and extremely unfocused. They are the opposite of what the panel seems to be recommending. If I were the publisher of TERC and Everyday Math, I'd be worried.
I'm sure you're right... I'm being overly optimistic. Wishing something doesn't make it so. I hate when that happens.
Well my hope now is that the article slightly misstated the "fought to a draw" aspect of the panel's recommendations.
Maybe they just said that there's no high-quality research supporting specific curricula.
If they're really going to make a statement as sweeping as "no high quality research" supporting direct instruction over constructivism, that would be extremely bad.
If they're really going to make a statement as sweeping as "no high quality research" supporting direct instruction over constructivism, that would be extremely bad.
Not to mention factually inaccurate.
The importance of mastering the computational foundations as a prelude to conceptual understanding
That's excellent!
Schmidt said that when it comes to math, top-performing nations have clear definitions of what children should learn and when they should learn it. In the United States, by contrast, students face a dizzying patchwork of math topics given to them at haphazard points in their school careers.
Too many algebra courses, Schmidt said, are watered-down math under that course title.
"We seem to operate by the philosophy that you cover everything everywhere because then somehow, somebody will learn something somewhere," Schmidt said. "You end up with lack of focus, you end up with no real rigor, and clearly there is a lack of coherence."
Plain Dealer
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1204709539137420.xml&coll=2&thispage=2
"The National Mathematics Advisory Panel is expected to call for the following 'critical foundations' or benchmarks for U.S. school children."
I want to see required benchmark grade-level tests. I don't want to see vague foundations.
Post a Comment