tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post5639566357719827185..comments2024-03-30T00:09:27.602+13:00Comments on Not PC: Standards? What standards? [updated]Peter Cresswellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-43743446789841921582009-11-20T13:37:33.248+13:002009-11-20T13:37:33.248+13:00Peter, I'm guessing you, like me, studied &quo...Peter, I'm guessing you, like me, studied "New Maths" at school. Remember all those Venn diagrams. I don't know when NZ finally got rid of it.<br />In your updated post, I think Brad Thompson is refering to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathland" rel="nofollow">Mathland</a> program, which was scrapped in 2007.<br /> <br />So why is everything in the US so "god-darned" political, even teaching maths. The argument raging there at the moment between "traditional" and "modified" maths education seems to be, as usual, between conservative and progressive groups. But it reflects a deeper philosophical divide between logical-positivists (behaviourists) and constructivists.<br /> <br />Thompson states: <i>"... constructivism whole-math proponents claim that all knowledge -- including mathematical knowledge -- is arbitrarily constructed."</i>. In theory, constructivism does imply that, but in practice it does not.<br /><br />Let's take two concepts that derive from a constructivist approach: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Solve_It" rel="nofollow">Problem-solving</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metacognition" rel="nofollow">Metacognition</a>. <br />Here is a link to a big 100 page pdf on why these two concepts are considered integral to Maths education. I'm only asking you to read the first few pages. <br /><a href="http://gse.berkeley.edu/faculty/ahschoenfeld/Schoenfeld_MathThinking.pdf" rel="nofollow">Problem Solving, Metacognition, and Sense-Making in Mathematics</a>, by Alan H. Schoenfeld.<br />It sounds very reasonable to me, and now consider the 'guess-and-check' method referred to by Thompson. It is not applicable to flying a plane, but it is valid in other situations where one is trying to solve a problem. <br />"Just take a punt... Shhht that's wrong... But close... Hmmmm... What about this? ... ". <br /><br />Of course there is the problem of measurability. How can you objectively rate how well a student is doing. The tide is still a bit out on that. But the traditional way of teaching, just feed in information and test the results is hopefully gone for good.Monsieurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-84698570390236679552009-11-19T13:53:25.289+13:002009-11-19T13:53:25.289+13:00I applaud your research, Monsieur, and while Lilli...I applaud your research, Monsieur, and while Lilliard is usually very good, she's frankly either out of her depth here philosophically, or is vainly trying to sell Montessori to mainstream educationalists who believe all the horse shit.<br /><br />In other words, that looks to me like she's saying, "Look you guys, Montessori is one of you!"<br /><br />Why she would want to do that is another question altogether.Peter Cresswellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-61061352509490596792009-11-19T13:34:10.343+13:002009-11-19T13:34:10.343+13:00Please read page 10 (Why Poor Models Stick) of 1
A...Please read page 10 (Why Poor Models Stick) of <a href="http://www.montessori-science.org/Montessori-Genius/Lillard_Montessori_Science_Genius_Ch1.pdf" rel="nofollow">1<br />Angeline Lillard - Montessori: The Science behind the Genius</a> from the montessori-science.org site.Monsieurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-36559114605817377872009-11-19T12:51:14.485+13:002009-11-19T12:51:14.485+13:00Well, no she hasn't, and no it's not.
Chi...Well, no she hasn't, and no it's not.<br /><br />Children in a Montessori classroom do not "construct their own knowledge" -- they do not "theoretically construct knowledge" to explain things they don't understand, and nor do they socially construct knowledge as part of an "artifact" of a group.<br /><br />This is just horse shit.Peter Cresswellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-5623078618541493742009-11-19T12:34:59.561+13:002009-11-19T12:34:59.561+13:00I'm suggesting that "constructivism"...I'm suggesting that "constructivism" is not how Sandra Stotsky depicts it. You must know this because it is the basis of the Montessori method.Monsieurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-43882550192262339212009-11-19T12:27:32.540+13:002009-11-19T12:27:32.540+13:00@Monsieur: Let me say it again: "I'm sugg...@Monsieur: Let me say it again: "I'm suggesting that the opposition to change there is for similar reasons to the opposition here..."<br /><br />Or are you suggesting the same flaccid bullshit <i>doesn't</i> exist in the teachers colleges here?Peter Cresswellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-49710508776814280992009-11-19T12:18:58.640+13:002009-11-19T12:18:58.640+13:00The US has had
standards-based testing for decade...The US has had <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics_education_in_the_United_States" rel="nofollow"><br />standards-based testing for decades</a>. <br />Finland's approach seems to work well.Monsieurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-11322450831221277272009-11-19T12:03:47.414+13:002009-11-19T12:03:47.414+13:00@PC: I'm sorry for mistaking the authors, you&...@PC: I'm sorry for mistaking the authors, you're quotations were not attributed well.Monsieurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-55464537374291257672009-11-19T11:43:00.415+13:002009-11-19T11:43:00.415+13:00@Monsieur, there's a problem with your reading...@Monsieur, there's a problem with your reading comprehension.<br /><br />First of all, I'm suggesting that the opposition to change there is for similar reasons to the opposition here: that we already have here is the failed system.<br /><br />Second of all, it's not Hicks who wrote the article, it's Sandra Stotsky.<br /><br />Third of all . . . oh I give up. If you can't even get the basic words right, what's the point of discussing the buzzwords.Peter Cresswellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-55944943053585932009-11-19T11:29:56.818+13:002009-11-19T11:29:56.818+13:00Why adopt US's approach to mathematics educati...Why adopt US's approach to mathematics education, when it's failing?<br />P.S. I think Hicks has confused <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_(learning_theory)" rel="nofollow">Constructivism</a> with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_constructionism" rel="nofollow">Social Constructivism</a>.Monsieurnoreply@blogger.com