Hi David --
At 05:29 PM 11/23/2007, David Corking wrote:
It was not my intention earlier
in this thread to challenge the work
of Viewpoints.
I certainly didn't take it that way - in part because we claim almost
nothing. What we have been interested in is whether 90% of the children
we've worked with -- taught by a teacher, not by us -- gain real fluency
in what we are trying to teach them. We found that it took 3 years to
introduce each new curriculum element (as described in my last
post).
Instead I wanted to get a
foothold into understanding
how the powerful 'progressive' and 'back to basics' movements could
be
rationally compared with alternatives.
I disagree with the simplistic versions of both of these. If
"progressive" means what it meant long ago - "Dewey
education" - then I am very much in favor of what he was trying to
do and what he wrote about. If "back to basics" means
"Bennet or E.D. Hirsh", then I'm very much in disagreement with
what they are trying to do, and their general view of
"education".
Subjects like real math and real science, with a goal to help children
get fluent, are best assessed by real mathematicians and real scientists.
Separate issues are: what parts of the real stuff should be taught to
children, how should the teaching be done, etc. This is very important in
its own right - recall the very bad choices made by real mathematicians
when they chose set theory, numerals as short-hand for polynomials, etc.
during the "new math" debacle. This is why Seymour Papert was
so impressive -- he was that rarity, a first class mathematician who both
cared about and understood important principles of how children think. He
chose real math that was both deep and in rhythm with how children think
about relationships.
Thank you for taking my question
as a provocation
I didn't
- it is very
illuminating to read the work of Rose, Kay et al justified from this
perspective.
I need to confess now that I have read 'Mindstorms' but not yet
'Powerful Ideas' - does the book address whether or not there is a
'Hawthorne effect' in the trials?
"Powerful Ideas" is written to help teachers teach a dozen or
so projects in real math and real science, using Etoys. It makes no
claims and leaves a tiny bit of philosophy to the Afterword.
http://www.vpri.org/pdf/human_condition.pdf
In other words, could
simply the
intensive attention of all involved, coupled with the novelty,
willingness to persevere for the second and third year, and the
involvement of real subject matter experts, have been sufficient in
itself to produce a fluency result that is well above acceptable
threshold?
Schools should be all about the Hawthorne Effect. The ones that aren't
should be closed.
I think you misunderstood one part of my description of the process. The
3 years is with the same teacher but with three different groups of
children. Each group deals with the materials and process for the same
amount of time.
The other part of your question wasn't asked or answered by what we did
(since we wanted the children to express the math and science they
learned in terms of working Etoy models). That's what we tried to do, and
that's what we assessed.
If the "it takes 3 years" story seems reasonable to you, then
imagine what it would take to do a real longitudinal transfer experiment
using control groups (about 7 years). We have never been able to find a
funder that is willing to fund what it really takes.
Is it provable(*) that the
student creation of computer
models, for example, is a necessary condition of learning 'real
math'
fluency?
It's provable that it isn't (people have been learning "real
math fluency" for thousands of years without computers). The
important thing (Papert again) is what math and when? Computers make a
huge difference here for pretty much everyone. Also, see the Afterword in
the book for what science learning is really about (hint: computers are
not at all required, but they allow more rich choices in the world of the
child).
I've used many analogies to music in the past. You don't need musical
instruments to teach music, they just help (and in no small part because
there are lots of different kinds). A child who is not that interesting
in singing might be very interested in learning the guitar, one that is
not interested in guitar might be interested in a sax, etc. Different
learners need lots of different entry points. Computers can provide many
different entry points, and can be the medium for the kinds of
mathematics that science uses. A pretty good combination.
* By 'provable', I mean:
"could a future experiment be designed to
prove my assertion, or, even better, could a reasoned argument prove
my assertion?"
No. But something might be done with a goal of more than 90% fluency --
computers could almost be indispensable here ...
Further, but perhaps drifting
off topic for squeakland, is it provable
that 'back to basics' and 'progressivism' are equally as
inadequate?
I said above that the simplistic versions of both are quite wrongheaded
in my opinion. If you don't understand mathematics, then it doesn't
matter what your educational persuasion might be -- the odds are greatly
in favor that it will be quite misinterpreted.
Or is the poor performance of
public education in some countries a
consequence, not of the learning theory nor curriculum, but caused
by
the 'received wisdom' not being applied properly, or even some
external factors, such as low resources, attitudes to authority, or
the currently fashionable complaint of students' learning styles not
being catered for?
If you like multiple choice tests, then (e) all of the above.
Cheers,
Alan
----------
David