[IAEP] maths instruction

[Caroline Meeks]

We read a book in my class this semester: "The New Taxonomy of Educational
Objectives" by Marzoano and Kendall.  Its an attempt to update Blooms
Taxonomy.  Lots of good stuff in there but still has a committee feel to it.

However, taxonomy is more about what you teach and pedagogy is about how.  I
really haven't run into anyone who doesn't think there is a "time to teach"
that is some belief in direct instruction.

Right now I'm reading "Studio Learning" and even in art studio classes
direct instruction, lectures and demonstrations, have a role.  The
difference is how the information is tied to student work. In a studio class
you use the information taught immediately.

The more I learn about learning theory the more I see it as mix and match,
not black and white.

On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Kathy Pusztavari <kathy at kathyandcalvin.com
> wrote:

> Bloom's Taxonomy reminds me of committees that never get anything done in
> the Life of Brian.
>
> Direct Instruction reminds me of the people that get in there and get the
> job done.
>
> Here is the Direct Instruction guide:
>
> http://www.zigsite.com/PDFs/rubric.pdf
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Maria Droujkova [mailto:droujkova at gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 7:48 AM
> To: Kathy Pusztavari
> Cc: iaep at lists.sugarlabs.org
> Subject: Re: [IAEP] maths instruction
>
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Kathy Pusztavari
> <kathy at kathyandcalvin.com> wrote:
> > I'm of the direct instruction camp.  If skills and concepts are not
> > build upon each other correctly, you will get kids that either learn a
> > concept wrong (then they have to unlearn it) or fail and then feel
> > like they are stupid.  Having a kid with autism, I've seen both.
> > Unfortunately, I've seen both with typical kids or even smart ones under
> poor teaching practices.
> > This is especially true for teaching reading - Project Follow Through
> > showed that direct instruction was by far the most effective in teaching
> period.
> >
> > What I'm suggesting is taking effective practices and putting them in
> > a computer model.  Using short videos or whatever (flash like
> > animation) to teach concepts.
>
> Strongly systematic approach is a good general principle for sciences and
> math. In my mind, the strength of computers is in helping kids tinker,
> construct, interact with microworlds and with each other, remix, tag, and
> otherwise be active. Learning happens through doing.
> Nobody learns anything deeply enough the first time they are exposed;
> understanding keeps growing and growing through time, as learners are
> ACTIVELY DOING something related to that concept.
>
> In math in particular, you need to have a very healthy balance of all
> levels
> of learning activities (see Bloom's Digital Taxonomy
> http://edorigami.wikispaces.com/Bloom%27s+Digital+Taxonomy), which
> computers
> definitely can support. Good math learning software should combine three
> things: the ability to create your own mathematical objects in scaffolded
> environments (with videos or animations that can be a part of scaffolding);
> the ability to share these objects with other learners in your local
> community of practice; and tools for connecting these "example spaces" or
> "lesson environments" with mathematics at large, including other topics and
> past traditions of doing math and other local communities - that is, with
> larger communities of mathematical practices.
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
> MariaD
>
> Make math your own, to make your own math.
>
> http://www.naturalmath.com social math site http://www.phenixsolutions.com
> empowering our innovations
>
> _______________________________________________
> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
> IAEP at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
>



-- 
Caroline Meeks
Solution Grove
Caroline at SolutionGrove.com

617-500-3488 - Office
505-213-3268 - Fax
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/attachments/20090430/349fdc63/attachment.htm