08 Sep 10
Originally posted by MelanerpesI'm sure there is some tendency toward stasis, but often not enough. Take the experiment on "whole language", which is quite effective with symbolic languages, but quite hopeless with alphabetic ones.
I wonder, of all the educational activities that schools do -- what percentage is based on the results of scientific research showing that this is the best way to teach things -- and what percentage is based on merely "doing things the way we've always done them"?
Ok, if some academic wants to try out some new age educational dream, but wouldn't it be a good idea to make it a limited trial run.
08 Sep 10
Originally posted by MelanerpesThe problem is that each "program" (such as reading program or math program) claims to be research-based. Lots of people claim to be presenting "the best way." Some of it even makes sense, until you see it in action. Por ejemplo:
I wonder, of all the educational activities that schools do -- what percentage is based on the results of scientific research showing that this is the best way to teach things -- and what percentage is based on merely "doing things the way we've always done them"?
Our new math program includes a component at the beginning of each lesson called an Interactive something or other, that more often than not includes manipulatives. Because a teacher recently retired, I was gifted with MANY extra manipulatives, which meant that each of my students could do the hands-on portion. They loved it. They played with "money" to count money and make change. They used place value blocks over and over again for different skills and concepts. And yet ...
...no more than two or three were capable on any given day of making the leap from the manipulatives to the abstract. They were no nearer to understanding how to make change than last year's students were, nor any better at any of the other skills. To them, it was just playing with toy money or blocks. Still, using manipulatives is new to them and maybe eventually it'll click.
The other problem is that there is a difference between teaching for long-term retention and teaching for high-stakes test regurgitation. Often times one must choose between "best practices" and high-stakes tests.
08 Sep 10
2 edits
Originally posted by pawnhandlerIt seems that the minority of people in any society posess the facility for sustained abstract thinking, and relatively few at a high level. So the results you report are not surprising.
The problem is that each "program" (such as reading program or math program) claims to be research-based. Lots of people claim to be presenting "the best way." Some of it even makes sense, until you see it in action. Por ejemplo:
Our new math program includes a component at the beginning of each lesson called an Interactive something or other, that gitation. Often times one must choose between "best practices" and high-stakes tests.
It may therfore be best to teach 'manipulative' assisted maths as a basic skill, and to concentrate on teaching absract maths to those who are able to benefit from it.
08 Sep 10
Originally posted by pawnhandlerThe problem is that just because something is "research-based" doesn't mean it's an effective program. It's important that the program is based on GOOD research that uses sound methodologies -- and it's important that someone doesn't take legitimate research and then overreach and jump to all sorts of unwarranted conclusions that go way beyond the scope of the original research -- and even with a sound program, its important that the educators understand the proper way to implement the program.
The problem is that each "program" (such as reading program or math program) claims to be research-based. Lots of people claim to be presenting "the best way." Some of it even makes sense, until you see it in action. Por ejemplo:
Our new math program includes a component at the beginning of each lesson called an Interactive something or other, that ...[text shortened]... gitation. Often times one must choose between "best practices" and high-stakes tests.
Another important thing is that no two learners are alike -- something that works well in general might not work well for every specific person -- in the same way that a given medication might work better for some patients than others. Just as a doctor needs to make adjustments until he or she finds the treatment that works best for a given patient, a teachers need to be able to adapt the program to find what works best for a given learner.
08 Sep 10
Originally posted by MelanerpesI was a teacher for seven year and it seemed to me that you have both factors: teachers only do what they have always done and misinformation on what works.
I wonder, of all the educational activities that schools do -- what percentage is based on the results of scientific research showing that this is the best way to teach things -- and what percentage is based on merely "doing things the way we've always done them"?
One problem with studies is that they are condition specific. For example, based on a study done in small classes with double periods in Iowa I was told that although it might be harder with single periods and bigger classes and inner city kids, I should teach a certain way. It is ineffective to do things that is not possible.
Yet, i agree that is important to try new things that work. I do not believe a one size fit all national solution is likely. Probably localy developed method would be best.
08 Sep 10
I think it would be more important that we demand a certain level of competancy before we throw even more at them. In the US most schools practice social promotion. This means that what a kid does during the year doesn't matter. If the kid gets passed up through the school with their peers. You keep kids the same age together because you don't want a 16 year old in 5th grade.
The result is that kids don't care. Why should they? Kids who screw around all the time and never do anything end up in the same place as kids who try. The kids disrupting class are allowed to stay in the classroom making it difficult to teach, so the general population falls behind. Since everybody is functioning at a lower level, you simply teach where the kids are while training them to answer certain kinds of questions that they are likely to see on Standardized Tests.
By the time they get to high school teachers are left with the problem of finding ways to train low skilled kids to pass Standardized Tests. For math we use graphing calculators. You can to see what an exponential function looks like, just make sure you type it in right and hit the graph button. Want to solve and equation? Put the left side of the equation in y1 and the right side in y2 and use the intersect button. Of course you still have to teach them things like how to adjust the viewing window, but now we are teaching how to use a Calculator, not mathematical concepts.
09 Sep 10
Originally posted by Sartor ResartusTeaching Music and Chess offer demonstrable benefits in academic achievement by almost all who participate, even though a small minority will ever be working musicians or master level chess players.
It seems that the minority of people in any society posess the facility for sustained abstract thinking, and relatively few at a high level. So the results you report are not surprising.
It may therfore be best to teach 'manipulative' assisted maths as a basic skill, and to concentrate on teaching absract maths to those who are able to benefit from it.