Comments on: New idea: Teach students to understand math http://www.joannejacobs.com/2008/08/new-idea-teach-students-to-understand-math/ Thinking and Linking by Joanne Jacobs Fri, 10 Feb 2012 11:52:13 +0000 hourly 1 By: Wolf 359 Vet http://www.joannejacobs.com/2008/08/new-idea-teach-students-to-understand-math/#comment-38981 Wolf 359 Vet Thu, 21 Aug 2008 14:39:55 +0000 http://joannejacobs.com/?p=5763#comment-38981 Great! Now we can finally pass Uzbekistan in international Math & Science competitions. Wait... The Uzbeks are still in the minor leagues, you say? Great! Now we can finally pass Uzbekistan in international Math & Science competitions. Wait… The Uzbeks are still in the minor leagues, you say?

]]> By: pm http://www.joannejacobs.com/2008/08/new-idea-teach-students-to-understand-math/#comment-38980 pm Thu, 21 Aug 2008 04:11:10 +0000 http://joannejacobs.com/?p=5763#comment-38980 Clearly it was new for them. Clearly it was new for them.

]]> By: rory http://www.joannejacobs.com/2008/08/new-idea-teach-students-to-understand-math/#comment-38979 rory Wed, 20 Aug 2008 21:47:30 +0000 http://joannejacobs.com/?p=5763#comment-38979 It's almost the same thing as having firemen discover that spraying water on fires puts them out. It’s almost the same thing as having firemen discover that spraying water on fires puts them out.

]]> By: Brian Rude http://www.joannejacobs.com/2008/08/new-idea-teach-students-to-understand-math/#comment-38978 Brian Rude Wed, 20 Aug 2008 18:00:56 +0000 http://joannejacobs.com/?p=5763#comment-38978 I don't like to argue with success, but when the explanation given for this success is so shallow, we have to ask questions. Is the success real, or could we be getting the results of measurement by a different yardstick than last year? Can we look to NAEP results to confirm this success, or is that not applicable? I'm not sure how these things work. And if the success is real, we have to ask why. The author of the newspaper article is, I presume, a newspaper reporter, and maybe that excuses the shallowness. We are left guessing, so I have a few guesses. When it comes to math one may be forgiven for pointing an accusing finger at the NCTM. Their Standards of 2000 are long on idealistic rhetoric, but short on the nitty gritty of actually teaching math. In particular they downplay practice. I developed that idea in an article on my website, <a href="http://www.brianrude.com/disagr.htm" rel="nofollow"> http://www.brianrude.com/disagr.htm </a>. Is it possible that until this year the Nashville Schools were so invested in in NCTM's version of teaching math that common sense teaching actually seems new to them? If so, that's sad. Another possibility is that someone in the Nashville school math hierarchy is a super salesman. Personal attention, enthusiasm, and good salesmanship sometimes can do wonders. Maybe there's an unsung hero not identified in the newspaper article. Or maybe that unsung hero is not a super salesman so much as an analyst. Perhaps he or she figured out something important, but perhaps subtle, that was being done wrong, and somehow managed to change it. Another possibility is that there is some change in some rules that makes a big difference. Maybe it's discipline related. Maybe they found a way to get rid of a few hopelessly disruptive students (and possibly a few bad teachers). That could make a world of difference. Most of the possibilities I come up with involve changing bad past practices, not developing new and better practices. This brings up an issue that I think is important. The educational world is not good at describing, much less analyzing or understanding, normal, conventional, common sense teaching. As a result we are left guessing again and again. As usual I have developed this idea to some degree. Here’s a link: <a href="http://www.brianrude.com/lackdes.htm" rel="nofollow"> http://www.brianrude.com/lackdes.htm </a>. I don’t like to argue with success, but when the explanation given for this success is so shallow, we have to ask questions. Is the success real, or could we be getting the results of measurement by a different yardstick than last year? Can we look to NAEP results to confirm this success, or is that not applicable? I’m not sure how these things work.

And if the success is real, we have to ask why. The author of the newspaper article is, I presume, a newspaper reporter, and maybe that excuses the shallowness. We are left guessing, so I have a few guesses.

When it comes to math one may be forgiven for pointing an accusing finger at the NCTM. Their Standards of 2000 are long on idealistic rhetoric, but short on the nitty gritty of actually teaching math. In particular they downplay practice. I developed that idea in an article on my website, http://www.brianrude.com/disagr.htm . Is it possible that until this year the Nashville Schools were so invested in in NCTM’s version of teaching math that common sense teaching actually seems new to them? If so, that’s sad.

Another possibility is that someone in the Nashville school math hierarchy is a super salesman. Personal attention, enthusiasm, and good salesmanship sometimes can do wonders. Maybe there’s an unsung hero not identified in the newspaper article.

Or maybe that unsung hero is not a super salesman so much as an analyst. Perhaps he or she figured out something important, but perhaps subtle, that was being done wrong, and somehow managed to change it.

Another possibility is that there is some change in some rules that makes a big difference. Maybe it’s discipline related. Maybe they found a way to get rid of a few hopelessly disruptive students (and possibly a few bad teachers). That could make a world of difference.

Most of the possibilities I come up with involve changing bad past practices, not developing new and better practices. This brings up an issue that I think is important. The educational world is not good at describing, much less analyzing or understanding, normal, conventional, common sense teaching. As a result we are left guessing again and again. As usual I have developed this idea to some degree. Here’s a link: http://www.brianrude.com/lackdes.htm .

]]> By: Rob http://www.joannejacobs.com/2008/08/new-idea-teach-students-to-understand-math/#comment-38977 Rob Wed, 20 Aug 2008 16:35:43 +0000 http://joannejacobs.com/?p=5763#comment-38977 I would abbreviate the headline to this: New Idea: Teach Students I would abbreviate the headline to this:

New Idea: Teach Students

]]> By: lu-lu http://www.joannejacobs.com/2008/08/new-idea-teach-students-to-understand-math/#comment-38976 lu-lu Wed, 20 Aug 2008 16:09:21 +0000 http://joannejacobs.com/?p=5763#comment-38976 This is great. My church has a program tutoring local kids. In our first year we found that, although we started off with a lot of high school students, we ended up with mostly elementary and middle school kids. Based on our experiences, we came to the conclusion that they kept coming because we could help them. The high school students, on the other hand, were so lost that nothing we could do in 1.5 hours/week was going to help. The kids were all in algebra and most couldn't do simple arithmetic, negative numbers, inequalities (greater/less than), etc. They were badly in need of remedial tutoring, but were so fixed on 'getting through their homework' with no understanding of it that it would take a systematic program to get them caught up. This is great. My church has a program tutoring local kids. In our first year we found that, although we started off with a lot of high school students, we ended up with mostly elementary and middle school kids. Based on our experiences, we came to the conclusion that they kept coming because we could help them. The high school students, on the other hand, were so lost that nothing we could do in 1.5 hours/week was going to help. The kids were all in algebra and most couldn’t do simple arithmetic, negative numbers, inequalities (greater/less than), etc. They were badly in need of remedial tutoring, but were so fixed on ‘getting through their homework’ with no understanding of it that it would take a systematic program to get them caught up.

]]> By: ricki http://www.joannejacobs.com/2008/08/new-idea-teach-students-to-understand-math/#comment-38975 ricki Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:15:39 +0000 http://joannejacobs.com/?p=5763#comment-38975 Gee, that's kind of how I learned math, back in the good old days. And I can actually DO math as an adult. Let's hope no one comes whining to the principal that their kid is being "picked on" because he or she was "pulled for tutoring." Gee, that’s kind of how I learned math, back in the good old days. And I can actually DO math as an adult.

Let’s hope no one comes whining to the principal that their kid is being “picked on” because he or she was “pulled for tutoring.”

]]> By: John Dewey http://www.joannejacobs.com/2008/08/new-idea-teach-students-to-understand-math/#comment-38974 John Dewey Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:03:23 +0000 http://joannejacobs.com/?p=5763#comment-38974 As far as edu-trends go, let's let the educrats think the idea came from them. It might actually gain some traction. As far as edu-trends go, let’s let the educrats think the idea came from them. It might actually gain some traction.

]]> By: Reality Czech http://www.joannejacobs.com/2008/08/new-idea-teach-students-to-understand-math/#comment-38973 Reality Czech Wed, 20 Aug 2008 13:56:37 +0000 http://joannejacobs.com/?p=5763#comment-38973 So they found that determining where the students' knowledge leaves off, and starting from there with direct instruction, leads to better learning. Who'd a thunk it? So they found that determining where the students’ knowledge leaves off, and starting from there with direct instruction, leads to better learning.

Who’d a thunk it?

]]>