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