[IAEP] maths instruction

[Kathy Pusztavari]

The problem is that people do not understand Direct Instruction (DI as in
SRA curriculum or curriculum that follows the DI Rubric).  Direct
Instruction INCLUDES lectures (with choral responding to ensure students are
engaged), small groups, activities, projects, etc.  In using Direct
Instruction, students use the information taught immediately, then concepts
are built on top of each other or built to more difficult levels.  In
addition, you don't learn a concept then never see it again - you see it for
a while because you want to maintain learned items.
 
Constructivism wants the child to discover a concept.  Have you seen this in
action?  About 40-60% of the kids don't get it and end up feeling stupid.
And that is why I cried for 2 weeks in my student teaching - I knew these
kids could get it but they were never taught in a way that they could GET
IT.  
 
Is the education system there for:
 
1. The 13-20% that absolutely need well sequenced, explicit instruction
(think special ed)
2. The 40-60% that may not be as motivated, they are not the brightest
bulbs, and/or may require some direct instruction
3. The 20% that can learn if they are put in a closet (AKA Closet Kids).
Very smart - 1 trial learners
 
The reason to computerize is that you are now able to differentiate
instruction.  You can reach all kids at their speed and level.  If you think
about it, it is the best reason to have Sugar used to develop curriculum
rather than just a bunch of activities that are a hit or miss on some
state/country's standards.
 
BTW, I was just informed that the state of Oregon has licensed me as a
pre-school though 8th grade teacher.  Not sure if that is a good thing for
Oregon or not ;)  If you don't know, Oregon is very much so a constructivist
state.  And we have the biggest Direct Instruction conference in the world
here every year.  The irony of it.
 
I'm not against constructivism.  I'm just against it be used as the first
line of teaching.  It allows a teacher to blame the student for not
understanding.  When you do DI, it really is the fault of the teacher for
not helping the student "get it".  
 
DI has a bunch of research based tools to ensure students get it:
 
1. Is the pacing correct (too fast, too slow)
2. Is the sequence correct (don't assume kids have prerequisite knowledge -
ensure your teaching roadmap is valid)
3. Do you have good classroom management where there is no wasted time in
transitions, rules are understood and practiced, and kids feel safe
4. Is the information presented in an interesting way.  Even though we have
scripts, we need to also understand what is being taught & why, the
direction the teaching is going, and how to act or "punch it up"
5. Ensure that students get small bits of teaching in 3-4 various tracks of
information.  In other words, don't spend 1 hour teaching fractions.  Teach
a fraction concept for 10 minutes, work a little on math facts (5 min), work
on estimations (10 min), and one other track.  This is one day's worth of
math.  Mix and match but they thread in a sequencial manner (think roadmap).
 
Well what do you know, computer programs can do all that.
 
-Kathy
 
 

  _____  

From: iaep-bounces at lists.sugarlabs.org
[mailto:iaep-bounces at lists.sugarlabs.org] On Behalf Of Caroline Meeks
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 9:38 AM
To: Kathy Pusztavari
Cc: iaep at lists.sugarlabs.org
Subject: Re: [IAEP] maths instruction


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/20090430/8ca95843/attachment-0001.htm