Ed Schools: Help or Hindrance?

“Evidence indicates that the traditional or teacher-centered approaches are more effective in helping students achieve academic goals than the learner-centered or “progressive” approaches.” -- George K. Cunningham

Wow, he actually said it.

George K. Cunningham's paper, Education Schools: Helping or Hindering Potential Teachers? is significant and if you're a parent, educator, or administrator it's worth your time. I promise.

If you're an education school student, please, please read it. Challenge the establishment, question authority, and dare to take the road less traveled. Come on, be a rebel and turn in an ed school research project about Project Follow Through, direct instruction, or precision teaching! Just think of it as retro-chic.

While Cunningham examines the University of North Carolina in his January 2008 paper for the Pope Center for Higher Education Policy, it is clear that education schools across the nation are entrenched in the same progressive/constructivist rhetoric he frowns upon. As a result, this rhetoric rules the day in most public school classrooms and our children are paying dearly for it.

“This advocacy of rhetoric as opposed to practical learning leads education students into realms far afield from normal education as most people understand it. It leaves precious little time to teach reading, writing, and arithmetic.”

I posted lots more about it here. Instructivist commented how enormously important Cunningham's paper is. I certainly agree.

Mixed messages

I was pondering the disconnect between two very recent "news items".

On the one hand, everyone is gushing about the improvements in math scores on the 2007 National Assessment of Educational Progress. I'm reading about it everywhere, it seems. On the other hand, the U.S. is sitting out the Advanced TIMSS which is designed to show how our advanced students compare to those in other countries. Strangely enough, I'm NOT reading about that everywhere.

It seems we've managed to raise the floor (every so slightly) while letting the ceiling come crashing down. I guess that puts "good enough" somewhere in the middle.

Apparently, the goal is mediocrity. Based on those parameters, I'd say we're right on track.

Cross-posted at Mindless Math Mutterings.

Scholarships for STEM

How about this for an incentive to hit the math books?

Major in one of the STEM disciplines (science, technology, engineering or mathematics) and receive a full college scholarship. This is one of the provisions proposed by Senator Max Baucus of Montana as part of the Education Competiveness Act. This scholarship would apply to ANY university and Senator Baucus even proposes to cover tuition and other expenses like books, student fees and school supplies too.

Sounds like a sweet deal. So, what's the catch? Upon completion of a STEM degree, graduates must "work or teach" for four years in a related field. Small price to pay for a full ride, don't you think?

Parents do all kinds of crazy things to prepare their children for athletic scholarships. Maybe this will create the incentive to do a better job of preparing our children for careers in the STEM disciplines. In fact, being a math nerd just might become as cool as being a jock.

Cross posted here.

What is Reasoned Discovery?

I was reading the Glenn Commission report, published almost seven years ago, and was struck with how things haven’t changed-- at least not for the better anyway. It’s probably not an exaggeration to say that the state of math and science education has actually have gotten much worse. I rambled on about it a bit here.

As I read the report I came across a reference to “reasoned discovery” and had to pause and attempt to understand what the authors meant by this term. I got this nagging feeling that they didn't mean it in the constructivist definition of "discovery" per se.

This term only appears once in the entire report in this particular passage:

In Japan, by contrast, closely supervised, collaborative work among students is the norm. Teachers begin by presenting students with a mathematics problem employing principles they have not yet learned. They then work alone or in small groups to devise a solution. After a few minutes, students are called on to present their answers; the whole class works through the problems and solutions, uncovering the related mathematical concepts and reasoning. The students learn through reasoned discovery, not lecture alone.

The first thing I did was google “reasoned discovery” assuming I’d find so many articles that I’d have to do some serious sifting. That’s not what happened at all. I found some references to reasoned discovery in some scientific articles and research but I struggled to find a clear definition of it as a type of discovery.

So why the adjective, "reasoned"?

I don’t believe “discovery” in the implementation carried out by most proponents of constructivism is what the Glenn Commission authors were referring to when they articulated “reasoned discovery”. I think that they had a very specific idea in mind and chose their words very carefully. In another passage they referred to “mathematics as the language of scientific reasoning” which suggests that they used the adjective “reasoned” to distinguish it from “discovery” in and of itself.

By dissecting the passage, I tried to come to a better understanding of what these 25 collaborators had in mind.

1. The collaborative work is closely supervised. The teacher plays an active role in the learning.
2. The group presents the answer after only “a few minutes”. There is no prolonged “struggle”.
3. Immediately thereafter, the whole class works through the problems and solutions presumably under the careful direction of a teacher “uncovering the related mathematical concepts and reasoning.”
4. The students “learn through reasoned discovery, not lecture alone” which means that lecture (direct instruction) is a tandem component and is assumed to be part of the teaching/learning process.

After staying up and thinking about this for much too long, I'm still wondering what “reasoned discovery” means.

from Mindless Math Mutterings

I know a lot of you have already seen this, but I wanted to get a link up here.

This is one of my favorite MMM posts so far:

Math as a Foreign Language

You learn [a foreign] language by listening to others speak, by looking words up in the dictionary, by learning the rules of grammar and then memorizing the “irregular” applications that break all those rules. Finally, you are able to communicate with others in this new language and the more often you do so, and the more challenging the conversations become, the more you grow in your ability to communicate.

You can always tell who had the benefit of a good foundation through formal instruction (grammar, syntax, pronunciation, vocabulary) and who just "picked it up" informally, on their own and without academic support. The latter tend to be more limited in the range and depth of communication in that foreign language. There is a limit to what they are able to accomplish with the "tools" in the "toolbox" so to speak. Those with the strong foundation move through their discipline with ease, with confidence and with mastery. I think the same applies to many other disciplines be it ballet, basketball, the violin or dare I say, mathematics?

Yes, learning math is much like learning a language. When you master the basics through diligence, perseverance, and the benefit of good instruction, one day without realizing it, you’ve opened the door to a whole new world.

Beautiful.

parents making trouble

over at Mindless Math Mutterings.....