How to get on the bottom of the list for Education, and stay there.

[The Backlash Cometh]

Truly unbelievable. Look at what they're introducing in the school curriculum, and how it's being done.

At issue is a curriculum called inquiry math, which has made its way across the country over the past decade -- often met with opposition from teachers and parents.

Detractors call it "fuzzy math." That's because teachers do not explain formulas and methods for solving problems, but instead prompt students to work in small groups to "inquire" and come up with them on their own.

As one teacher, Michelle Stephan, often tells her students at Lawton Chiles Middle School: "I am not going to answer 'How do you do this?'ƒ|" That's up to the students to figure out.

Some parents and teachers say this approach wastes time, crowds out other topics that should be studied and leaves some kids in the dark.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/education/orl-seminole-inquiry-math-092509,0,5885838.story

[Sanity Claws]

1. It is a waste of time

These formulae were not discovered overnight. How do they expect grade school students to figure out what it took many years of learning by the mathematical elite to figure out?

[Turbineguy]

5. Waste of time?

That depends. If you want to make sure kids are ignorant and unable to think critically, it's just the ticket.

Then when they grow up a bit and are confused you can drill your dogma into them.

[Sanity Claws]

8. You need to know basic information

before you can figure things out.
That is what I'm criticizing.
I'm all for critical thinking but you need the tools first.

[Turbineguy]

9. +1

[The Backlash Cometh]

11. This method will work for some, and fail for others.

For example, someone who can see multiplication in their heads, understand the concept of four rows across and five down means twenty, may be ready for something more advanced, like add an "0" and see what happens. But a child who had trouble visualizing the whole row and columns thing may get totally lost, and lose interest in the entire process.

[no_hypocrisy]

2. The very essence of algebra and geometry is analysis, problem-solving, and logic.

These principles are being undermined with "inquiry math". The kids lack the experience and technique to figure out by themselves what formula is needed.

[LWolf]

16. No. Those are the exact skills that are enhanced

with inquiry-based education.

The process of inquiry requires analysis, problem-solving, and logic.

[The Backlash Cometh]

20. If they didn't have math anxiety before, they'll surely have it now when

everyone around the table things you're dumb for not getting it.

[LWolf]

21. That's not the way it works.

At least, not if it is done well.

It doesn't matter whether you are teaching through inquiry, or traditional methods.

If your students are afraid to try, to take academic risks, because someone will think they are "dumb," then the intellectual environment in the classroom has not been developed properly.

That is an important, but separate, issue.

[The Backlash Cometh]

30. I would like to think things have changed since my time.

But, I wonder how they determine if someone is ready to graduate to the next grade? I mean, shouldn't it be apparent when high numbers of children start flunking?

[LWolf]

31. The same way we determine if someone is ready to move on

using traditional methods.

Are you thinking that there is no grading, or that their mastery of concepts is not assessed?

I'm not sure what you are picturing.

Of course, retention isn't supported by research for most failing students. And moving ahead, especially in math, without mastering necessary concepts and skills, is not very effective, either. Better than retention, but still not effective. Our system fails to provide a 3rd option for those who need more time. I'd like to see that change.

[Robb]

3. This looks like an excellent idea

...that takes MASSIVELY good teachers, who can really engage the students and get them going, to pull off.

If a teacher just lets it run without jumping in when students get left out, it's clearly a recipe for disaster.

[The Backlash Cometh]

13. I'm thinking that a substitute teacher came up with the idea.

[LWolf]

17. That's a point.

It DOES require training and skill to be effective.

When done well, though, it blows traditional math instruction right out of the water.

[rurallib]

4. re-invent the wheel math or maybe creation math

sounds like a half baked idea to me.

[Turbineguy]

6. Or as a friend would put it:

"Re-inventing the flat tire."

[Lyric]

7. And here is what will ACTUALLY end up happening:

Student group can't figure the answers out.

One student goes home and asks parents.

Parents tell them the formula (via memory, or Google, or whatever.)

Student brings formula back to group.

Group gets answers right.

Basically, the same exact thing that would have happened if the teacher had just told them the damned formula to begin with, except instead of it taking 15 minutes of class time, it takes a couple of days of waiting for the parents to provide the answer and send it back to school. I think that providing the basic formula and then giving students word problems (in which THEY have to figure out what numbers to plug in where) would be a lot more effective at teaching critical thinking while maximizing the efficiency of classroom time.

But hey, I'm just a stupid college student from the generation that apparently has no critical thinking skills. What do I know?

:eyes:

[LWolf]

18. Inquiry-based instruction is

not about group work. Some things happen in groups, but done correctly, students aren't left to figure things out themselves, in a group or not.

I'm sure you are not a "stupid college student."

I'm also sure you aren't educated about how inquiry-based instruction really works.

It DOES take longer.

Just as it takes longer to do labs in a science class than it does to read your probable results out of a textbook, or have a teacher tell you.

[FarCenter]

10. Some students will benefit -- If they are as talented as Carl Friedrich Gauss

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Friedrich_Gauss

Another famous story, and one that has evolved in the telling, has it that in primary school his teacher, J.G. Büttner, tried to occupy pupils by making them add a list of integers. The young Gauss reputedly produced the correct answer within seconds, to the astonishment of his teacher and his assistant Martin Bartels. Gauss' presumed method, which supposes the list of numbers was from 1 to 100, was to realize that pairwise addition of terms from opposite ends of the list yielded identical intermediate sums: 1 + 100 = 101, 2 + 99 = 101, 3 + 98 = 101, and so on, for a total sum of 50 × 101 = 5050 (see arithmetic series and summation). However whilst the method works, the incident itself is probably apocryphal<6>; some, such as Joseph Rotman in his book A first course in Abstract Algebra, question whether it ever happened.

Others will benefit by having math explained to them, instead of having to recapitulate the discoveries of several centuries of mathematicians.

[BlooInBloo]

14. I found that my leading the class through a good process of discovery works well...

Certainly leaving them on their own in the forest isn't going to result in the kids finding the mathematical promised land.

But, for example, with things like the quadratic formula, leading the kids interactively through the discovery process for the formula (aka "completing the square") was very helpful to them.

A tour on their own through mathland is stupid. But a guided, interactive tour can be very good.

[BlooInBloo]

12. Haven't education majors already gotten us to the bottom?

[LWolf]

19. There's the "education major" thing again.

You really have a hard-on for education majors.

Of course, every state licenses teachers differently.

In the large state I got MY license in, there is no "education major" until you get to graduate work.

You do your undergraduate work in something else; a single subject or liberal arts.

Then you test to prove subject matter competency.

You do your graduate work in education.

You do your internship.

Then you do more testing for subject matter and pedagogical competency.

Then you get a teaching license.

[BlooInBloo]

22. Oooh! Graduate work! Then they must be our best and brightest!

Or... not so much.

Out of 50 graduate fields tracked by the GRE people, the various educational fields comprise 10 of them. Out of those 10 shots at the bullseye, here are the averages by test section:

Verbal average ranking: 39th (out of 50)
Quantitative average ranking: 40th (out of 50)
Writing section average ranking: 30th (out of 50)

It's not *all* bad news, however. Education majors did benefit GREATLY by the GRE itself getting dumbed-down by the replacement of the analytical reasoning section with the writing sample. The last time I looked at this, some years back, it was by far their worst section. Maybe they'll keep dumbing the GRE down, so that education majors can improve even MORE! lol!

And let me guess: The judges for subject matter competency are.... other education majors, right? I can't foresee ANY problems with *that*! :rofl:

http://www.ncsu.edu/chass/philo/GRE%20Scores%20by%20Intended%20Graduate%20Major.htm

[LWolf]

23. Subject matter competency tests,

until recently, were PRAXIS exams from ETS, and scored by ETS.

The same folks that the GRE comes from.

Some still are. I did another this summer, to prove, yet again, that I am "highly qualified."

My current state uses some other tests as well, which I didn't take, because I'd already proved subject matter competency with degrees and Praxis exams.

To be clear, are you saying that teachers should not have to study the history of education, psychological measurement, past and current theory, research, legislation, and practices as part of their education?

That anyone with any degree, without any background or training in actual teaching, should be able to get a teaching license?

[BlooInBloo]

26. To be clear, the teachers we currently have are dim, on average. I want smarter teachers...

It should come as no shock that we raise crop after crop of idiots when those teaching them are scarcely any brighter. Ex nihilo, nihil fit.

EDIT: I can perfectly well understand, of course, why current teachers would not want smarter teachers on average. They'd be out of a job.

[LWolf]

27. I haven't found that to be true.

On average.

I have worked, in my 26 years in public education, 2 states, large and small districts and large and small schools, with some that were not as sharp as I thought they should be.

Definitely a minority, though.

I've worked with more who were limited in instructional methodology. I attribute that to a few things:

1. The structure of the current system is limiting, and there is no substantive support for stepping away from the regular routine. Instead, the system is increasingly authoritarian, with scripted curriculum and, in some places, my former district one, even bulletin boards standardized. There is less and less professional discretion in the classroom.

2. The profession attracts people who were successful in the status quo, and who therefore tend to continue that status quo. Changing the structure of the system itself would help address that.

3. Teaching is a low-paying job, relative to the time, education, and expense invested to earn the license, and then to maintain the license. Offer better pay and more supportive working conditions, and more of the best and brightest will be attracted to the profession.

Still, most of the teachers I've worked with in my 2+ decades have been intelligent, well-educated, caring, hard-working people.

[BlooInBloo]

28. Of course you haven't.

[LWolf]

29. Of course I haven't.

And if it were so, on average, I would have.

[BlooInBloo]

33. If you could recognize them as such, yes.

[LWolf]

35. And, of course, I can. nt

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[XemaSab]

42. I heard a wild theory a few years ago:

The theory is that back in the day, the smartest women went into teaching because there really weren't many other options open. Now the smartest women become doctors or lawyers or whatever, and the people who go into teaching are not the brightest bulbs. YMMV.

[BlooInBloo]

43. Yep. And everybody knows it. Other graduate departments laugh at education majors...

I know we did, in both the grad math and grad philosophy departments I was in. Hell - we laughed at them more than we did at litcrit people.

Those people in "math education" - they were simply hilarious.

It stops being funny when you realize those people are creating little versions of themselves. And we're paying them to do it.

[ulysses]

52. in a way, it's a relief to know

that you're still here, flailing away at this one, long-dead horse. :D

[LWolf]

15. Some parents and teachers say one thing, some another about math instruction.

This teacher loves inquiry-based teaching for all subjects, including math. Of course, I was trained in it.

I taught inquiry based math to 2nd - 6th graders for a decade (I looped with my classes for 2 years, and moved from 2nd/3rd grade to 5th/6th grade during that time.)

It wasn't a district policy or district adoption. My district, and the rest of my school, used standard, traditional text books and methods. I didn't use a text book. I used inquiry, deviating from district text with the approval of my principal, who believed I was qualified enough to do so. :D

I started with a group of 2nd graders that I looped to 3rd. I was impressed with their growth, so I continued on into 3rd grade. At the end of 2nd grade, all students scored well on the mandated standardized tests. At the end of 3rd grade, my class had the highest scores in math for our LARGE (25 schools, 25,000 or so students)district.

I did the same with the next group of 2nd graders. Their scores blew the district away at the end of 2nd grade. (California does, or at least did then, test 2nd grade.) And again in 3rd grade. And again, with another round of 2nd and 3rd graders.

At this point, my principal asked other teachers who were interested to use inquiry-based math, and provided them with resources and training to do so. Not many wanted to; it was intimidating to them. But a few did, and began to see big growth.

Also at this point, I moved to teach a 5th/6th loop. I got the same results with them, and with another round of 5th/6th graders after them. They always had higher test scores than the rest of the district who were taught traditionally. I always attributed it to the fact that we put number sense and concepts first, and rote memorization and procedures second. They memorized. They mastered CA math standards, which has them memorizing multiplication and division facts by 3rd grade. They mastered rote procedures like long division. In 3rd grade. They also knew, though, multiple ways to solve any problem, and didn't have to rely on rote procedures.

That first year, though...the group of 3rd graders I'd sent on to 4th grade? Their 4th grade teacher didn't know what to do with them, because they already knew how to do everything in the 4th grade math text book.

Even though they hadn't seen a text book since first grade.

That teacher didn't want to risk stepping away from the text. I mentored her, and got her through the year. I took some of the more advanced students in with my 5th graders (her students from the previous year.) Those 4th graders dealt with what we were doing in 5th grade easily, and were quickly at the top of the class.

"Inquiry math" is not the least bit "fuzzy." If it is, it's not being used or taught correctly. That's half of the protest, right there. Trying to implement an inquiry-based curriculum without adequate training, or a basic understanding of the whole process and point. I did spend more time on math: about 70 - 90 minutes a day. It requires higher level thinking and discussing, and more time trying, testing, and proving. It certainly paid off. Many of those 2nd and 3rd graders who were with me for "inquiry math" ended up taking a bus to the closest high school for math in 8th grade, because they'd already mastered all of the districts K-8 math "curriculum" in the form of traditional tests and teaching.

The other half of the protest comes from adults, parents and teachers both, who still rely themselves on rote memorization and procedures, who are moved out of their comfort zone when something isn't taught the way they learned.

I don't teach math any more. When I moved out of state, I got a job teaching language arts and history. I am often appalled at what my 6th - 8th graders cannot do; even though I don't teach it, we still use math in class sometimes. And my 6th-8th graders cannot do the simple mental math that my 3rd graders could. They are taught with traditional texts and traditional math instruction.

How to get on the bottom of math education, and stay there? Stick to traditional textbooks and instruction.

How to move to the top? Implement inquiry-based instruction, done well.

[XemaSab]

44. Good post

:)

[LWolf]

45. Why, thank you.

[anonymous171]

24. Man, math "teachers" come up with shit like this all the time.

[Nikki Stone1]

25. Like so-called "whole language" techniques: the hunt and peck methods of education.

Time for home schooling.

[LWolf]

34. While it's nothing like "whole language,"

the war between the traditionalists and the non-traditionalists in mathematics instruction IS similar to the whole-language/phonics wars.

Which are totally bogus.

First, you need an accurate understanding of what "whole language" actually is. Then you need to realize that good reading instruction uses both phonics and what too many people perceive to be "whole language." It goes from part to whole, and it goes from whole to part. That's actually the "whole" part. It does it all.

For math? Inquiry-based instruction done well is superior to traditional methods. That doesn't mean that learning facts and procedures are left behind.

Just like "whole language" doesn't, done correctly, leave phonics behind.

Both "wars" are really about, not reading or math instruction, but something else. They are both about thinking skills. There is a bigger focus on higher level thinking and comprehension with whole language, because reading is first about making meaning. There is a bigger focus on number concept and problem solving ability with inquiry based math.

"Back to basics" is about rote, low-level learning. Keeping the masses obediently bubbling in the answers, and votes, the way they are told to. Keeping the masses waiting for some media talking head to tell them what to think.

Of course, whole-language or phonics, inquiry-based, traditional, or some other math, instruction done well gets better results than instruction done poorly, or incompletely.

Often, an organized move from one methodology or another does not include adequate training and understanding, which leads to poorly implemented reform.

[Odin2005]

38. One-size-fits-all shit is bad, period.

For example, anything fundamentally based on working in groups and "whole-to-part" is a slap in the face to people with Asperger's Syndrome, like myself. My brain fundamentally works in a part-to-whole way

[LWolf]

46. You are correct. One-size-fits-all is bad, period.

Thanks for making my point.

That's why "part to whole" or "whole to part" ONLY is less effective, since you chose that example.

I worked with an aspie for a few years that only DID "whole to part." He hated breaking things down.

I have an aspie in my class currently who prefers to work with parts, but has a difficult time making a whole out of those parts. That's where I come in. My job. ;)

That's why the "whole language vs phonics" wars are so ridiculous.

That's why the "traditional vs new," or "low-level rote learning vs inquiry" wars are also ridiculous.

They are based on invalid assumptions.

[Nikki Stone1]

41. It took 2000 years from Euclidean geometry to the discovery of calculus

And we expect kids to reinvent the wheel (which they don't have to) in 4 years of high school math?

BULLSHIT.

The whole point of a culture is the ability to pass on what we know so the scholars of the future can go beyond it, not having to spend years recreating the discovery of old knowledge.

[LWolf]

47. Who asked them to reinvent anything?

I don't think you understand the foundations or practices of inquiry-based instruction.

[Nikki Stone1]

50. The method asks the students to "figure out" the formulas without help from the teacher

What happens if they don't "figure it out"? The teacher in the OP is not going to help them. Most humans could not "figure it out." That's why the great mathematicians are few and far between.

I do understand the foundations and practices of inquiry-based instruction and I think they are misguided. Even the term "inquiry-based instruction" is a misnomer.

[LWolf]

51. No, it doesn't.

I'm not sure where you are getting your assumptions, but they are incorrect.

I got my training in inquiry-based education from the IBO.

Where did you get yours?

[rucky]

32. I've taught it for 5th graders.

Mixed with the standard approach, it's a nice diversion for the students and teaches them to think about why they're doing what they're doing.

[FormerDittoHead]

48. I'd think it would be a good exercise mixed in with traditional as well.

Math is an abstract. The way we understand math is not what math IS, it's our abstraction of what it is.

(some) Computers solve multiplication problems by repetitive addition. Putting aside efficiency, it will give you the same answer.

When I started algebra, I was told that there was no such thing as subtraction, but the addition of negative numbers.

Different concept, same result.

So I think it's a pretty good idea to teach kids that the solution of a math problem isn't fitting it into pre-built formula / method. It's entirely possible to find different ways to solve a problem, and exploring those different ways, seeing that there ARE different ways, is quite useful.

But as you've said, it wouldn't be a FULL curriculum, rather, an exercise to be mixed in with traditional rote learning.

[Odin2005]

37. Another craptacular idea from the "brilliant" minds of education majors.

Proves my point that schools are the fist victims of sociologists and ideologues looking for guinea pigs to use for testing the latest fad and for social engineering.

[Joe the Liberal]

39. That just sounds like laziness.....

the teacher doesn't have to teach, and group work in the classroom isn't all that great. 9 times out of 10 one kid ends up doing all the work for the whole group and a lot of times kids get paired up with other classmates they don't know too well.

And when they get paired up with kids they do know, such as close friends, they end up slacking off and using the group time to talk about other things.

This doesn't sound like a good idea, having the teacher actually teach the subject matter and helping kids individually produces better results, imo.

[lolly]

49. Agree

Group work shouldn't be used to get kids to teach other kids, which, despite the denials, is what is going on in this sort of thing (one kid finally "gets" the trick that the teacher wants them to know, then explains it to the rest).

Group work in small doses with a clearly defined task can help reinforce or put into practice a concept they've been taught, but they shouldn't have to play "Everybody work together and try to guess what I want."

LAUSD lost about 10 years worth of students with a similar "MATHLAND" program that my older daughters were subjected to. Math scores kept declining, and they pointed to everything they could think of to blame (TV, bad parents, computers . . .), then finally dropped the whole math-by-guessing approach.

One big problem with these approaches to math--the bright kids, especially those from homes where education is a priority, will do fine. Parents will buy their kids real math workbooks, explain to them how to add and subtract and work with decimals and whatnot. Kids who are weak in math aptitude and have parents who aren't able and/or willing to pick up the slack will be hopelessly lost and will never build the basic skills they need to move on to higher math.

[LWolf]

53. WHAT sounds like laziness?

What is it about inquiry that leads you to believe that there is little or no instruction, or that it's all about group work?

Those are both misconceptions.

[Poll_Blind]

40. Our children should be able to stand on the shoulders of giants.

My child does not need to know how to make those particular tools. Give him the tools and let him work with them. There is something to the idea of keeping children curious about the world around them. But I am convinced this is not it.

Not by a long shot.

PB