<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.5730.11" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY> <DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=750580317-30042009>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.</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=750580317-30042009></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=750580317-30042009>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.  </SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=750580317-30042009></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=750580317-30042009>Is the education system there for:</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=750580317-30042009></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=750580317-30042009>1. The 13-20% that absolutely need well sequenced, explicit instruction (think special ed)</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=750580317-30042009>2. The 40-60% that may not be as motivated, they are not the brightest bulbs, and/or may require some direct instruction</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=750580317-30042009>3. The 20% that can learn if they are put in a closet (AKA Closet Kids).  Very smart - 1 trial learners</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=750580317-30042009></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=750580317-30042009>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.</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=750580317-30042009></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=750580317-30042009>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.</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=750580317-30042009></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=750580317-30042009>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".  </SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=750580317-30042009></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=750580317-30042009>DI has a bunch of research based tools to ensure students get it:</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=750580317-30042009></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=750580317-30042009>1. Is the pacing correct (too fast, too slow)</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=750580317-30042009>2. Is the sequence correct (don't assume kids have prerequisite knowledge - ensure your teaching roadmap is valid)</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=750580317-30042009>3. Do you have good classroom management where there is no wasted time in transitions, rules are understood and practiced, and kids feel safe</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=750580317-30042009>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"</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=750580317-30042009>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).</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=750580317-30042009></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=750580317-30042009>Well what do you know, computer programs can do all that.</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=750580317-30042009></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=750580317-30042009>-Kathy</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=750580317-30042009></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=750580317-30042009></SPAN></FONT> </DIV><BR> <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left> <HR tabIndex=-1> <FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> iaep-bounces@lists.sugarlabs.org [mailto:iaep-bounces@lists.sugarlabs.org] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Caroline Meeks<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, April 30, 2009 9:38 AM<BR><B>To:</B> Kathy Pusztavari<BR><B>Cc:</B> iaep@lists.sugarlabs.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [IAEP] maths instruction<BR></FONT><BR></DIV> <DIV></DIV>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.<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>The more I learn about learning theory the more I see it as mix and match, not black and white.<BR><BR> <DIV class=gmail_quote>On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Kathy Pusztavari <SPAN dir=ltr><<A href="mailto:kathy@kathyandcalvin.com">kathy@kathyandcalvin.com</A>></SPAN> wrote:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid">Bloom's Taxonomy reminds me of committees that never get anything done in<BR>the Life of Brian.<BR><BR>Direct Instruction reminds me of the people that get in there and get the<BR>job done.<BR><BR>Here is the Direct Instruction guide:<BR><BR><A href="http://www.zigsite.com/PDFs/rubric.pdf" target=_blank>http://www.zigsite.com/PDFs/rubric.pdf</A><BR> <DIV class=im><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: Maria Droujkova [mailto:<A href="mailto:droujkova@gmail.com">droujkova@gmail.com</A>]<BR>Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 7:48 AM<BR>To: Kathy Pusztavari<BR>Cc: <A href="mailto:iaep@lists.sugarlabs.org">iaep@lists.sugarlabs.org</A><BR></DIV> <DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV class=h5>Subject: Re: [IAEP] maths instruction<BR><BR>On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Kathy Pusztavari<BR><<A href="mailto:kathy@kathyandcalvin.com">kathy@kathyandcalvin.com</A>> wrote:<BR>> I'm of the direct instruction camp.  If skills and concepts are not<BR>> build upon each other correctly, you will get kids that either learn a<BR>> concept wrong (then they have to unlearn it) or fail and then feel<BR>> like they are stupid.  Having a kid with autism, I've seen both.<BR>> Unfortunately, I've seen both with typical kids or even smart ones under<BR>poor teaching practices.<BR>> This is especially true for teaching reading - Project Follow Through<BR>> showed that direct instruction was by far the most effective in teaching<BR>period.<BR>><BR>> What I'm suggesting is taking effective practices and putting them in<BR>> a computer model.  Using short videos or whatever (flash like<BR>> animation) to teach concepts.<BR><BR>Strongly systematic approach is a good general principle for sciences and<BR>math. In my mind, the strength of computers is in helping kids tinker,<BR>construct, interact with microworlds and with each other, remix, tag, and<BR>otherwise be active. Learning happens through doing.<BR>Nobody learns anything deeply enough the first time they are exposed;<BR>understanding keeps growing and growing through time, as learners are<BR>ACTIVELY DOING something related to that concept.<BR><BR>In math in particular, you need to have a very healthy balance of all levels<BR>of learning activities (see Bloom's Digital Taxonomy<BR><A href="http://edorigami.wikispaces.com/Bloom%27s+Digital+Taxonomy" target=_blank>http://edorigami.wikispaces.com/Bloom%27s+Digital+Taxonomy</A>), which computers<BR>definitely can support. Good math learning software should combine three<BR>things: the ability to create your own mathematical objects in scaffolded<BR>environments (with videos or animations that can be a part of scaffolding);<BR>the ability to share these objects with other learners in your local<BR>community of practice; and tools for connecting these "example spaces" or<BR>"lesson environments" with mathematics at large, including other topics and<BR>past traditions of doing math and other local communities - that is, with<BR>larger communities of mathematical practices.<BR><BR><BR><BR>--<BR>Cheers,<BR>MariaD<BR><BR>Make math your own, to make your own math.<BR><BR><A href="http://www.naturalmath.com" target=_blank>http://www.naturalmath.com</A> social math site <A href="http://www.phenixsolutions.com" target=_blank>http://www.phenixsolutions.com</A><BR>empowering our innovations<BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)<BR><A href="mailto:IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org">IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org</A><BR><A href="http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep" target=_blank>http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep</A><BR></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR><BR clear=all><BR>-- <BR>Caroline Meeks<BR>Solution Grove<BR>Caroline@SolutionGrove.com<BR><BR>617-500-3488 - Office<BR>505-213-3268 - Fax<BR></BODY></HTML>