Teach Effectively!

In “Building A Better Teacher,” Elizabeth Green presents cases personifying two perspectives on teaching effectively—one we often hear referred to as “classroom management” and the other regularly called “good content.” She uses Doug Lemov and Deborah Ball, respectively, as her exemplars of the cases.

Professor Ball, dean of the University of Michigan’s school of education, is widely noted for her studies of teachers’ content knowledge in mathematics. Mr. Lemov, a consultant and promoter of charter schools, has a forth-coming book documenting concepts about teaching practices that span content areas.
Continue reading ‘Sorta building a better teacher, maybe’

Zig Engelmann, progenitor of Direct Instruction (DI), has posted a video of a talk he gave earlier this month. The presentation is an explication of the underlying principles of DI, “Theory of Direct Instruction.”

In the presentation (video below the jump), Mr. Engelmann shows some of his chops from his undergraduate degree in philosophy. He starts with philosophers’ fundamental arguments and shows how those correspond (or don’t) with learning and teaching concepts. For example, as he works through John Stuart Mills’ five methods of induction from A System of Logic, he makes clear how each would apply to teaching. I suspect that this particular sequence will show many people why DI instruction (the examples used in the scripts, not the teaching behavior) is structured the way it is.
Continue reading ‘Engelmann explains’

Joanne Jacobs covered a story about a professional development consultant advising a teacher to dodge a question about whether introducing calculators will hinder students’ acquisition of basic computation skills. There’s video! With transcription by Wayne Bishop, one of Teach Effectively’s Much Admired Folx, the inanity of the consultant’s response becomes quite clear. If the presenter wasn’t so serious, it’d be humorous, sort of like a parody.

Link to Ms. Jacob’s post.

After the recent posting of another Weapon of Math Destruction cartoon, I wondered how many I’d linked to from Teach Effectively, so I checked. There’ve been only seven posts. Here’s a set of links to those posts (in reverse chronological order; fifo):

1. Math cartoons
2. ‘Nother weapon
3. WMD on calculators
4. Bad math brain
5. WMD on constructivist math
6. WMD on FT
7. Math murdered

Of course, one can go directly to the source, Weapons of Math Destruction (by Oak Norton and Bob Bonham), and see all of them.

One of the folks at the Access Center wrote to me a while ago to promote its Web presence. There are some free resources available, and some readers might find them instructive.

The Access Center: Improving Outcomes for All Students k-8 (www.k8accesscenter.org), [is] a federally funded national technical assistance center. I am taking this time to introduce you to our free resources. Our resources focus on core content areas – language arts, math, and science – as well as on instructional and learning strategies to provide students with disabilities access to rigorous academic content. We have a series of professional development modules and information briefs that are available on our Web site as well as on a CD-ROM, if requested.
Continue reading ‘Access Center materials’

Yep, those folks at “Weapons of Math Destruction” apparently do not find constructivist approaches to teaching arithmetic and mathematics palatable. In this cartoon, the school administrators have crossed out practice and skills and a parent is responding by preparing to (ahem) regurgitate or recovering from having regurgitated.

Follow this link to get to the full site where you can explore at your leisure.

Singapore Math was featured in an article by Mitchell Landsberg on the front of the Web site of the Los Angeles (CA, US) Times on 9 March 2008. To introduce his case study of the success of Singapore math, Mr. Landsberg used a clever bar-math-like lead:

Here’s a little math problem:

In 2005, just 45% of the fifth-graders at Ramona Elementary School in Hollywood scored at grade level on a standardized state test. In 2006, that figure rose to 76%. What was the difference?

If you answered 31 percentage points, you are correct. You could also express it as a 69% increase.

But there is another, more intriguing answer: The difference between the two years may have been Singapore math.

On it’s face, Singapore Math looks appealing. It has multiple strengths: teaching students algorithms; integrated and multiple repetitions; low reading load; etc. What it doesn’t really have is clear and powerful research support; in their synthesis of research on effective programs in elementary mathematics, Bob Slavin and Cynthia Lake could not find strong studies examining the effects of Singapore Math. We—educators concerned with providing effective instruction for students—need those studies.

Link to Mr. Landsberg’s article. Link to the review by Professors Slavin and Lake. Learn more about Singapore Math from a study by Alan Ginsberg and colleagues.

Among the many reporters covering the story, John Hechinger of the Wall Street Journal wrote that a US federal advisory panel will soon release a report that is supposed to put to rest contentious disagreement about the teaching of arithmetic and mathematics in our schools. Some have likened the pending report to another report on reading issued by the National Reading Panel at the turn of the millennium.

A presidential panel, warning that a “broken” system of mathematics education threatens U.S. pre-eminence, says it has found the fix: A laserlike focus on the essentials.

The National Mathematics Advisory Panel, appointed by President Bush in 2006, is expected to urge the nation’s teachers to promote “quick and effortless” recall of arithmetic facts in early grades, mastery of fractions in middle school, and rigorous algebra courses in high school or even earlier. Targeting such key elements of math would mark a sharp departure from the diverse priorities that now govern teaching of the subject in U.S. public schools.

Link to Mr. Hechinger’s article.