Actually, I think that being skeptical is a very good idea when it comes to educational 'fads' (although being a 'fad' doesn't necessarily mean being brand new) and I meant the 'grudgingly nuanced' business as being a rather positive turn. I also think it has gone both ways, by the way. Further, I personally think some things to think about are the Singapore modeling (among a host of others) and, quite frankly, I would have no qualms about 'directing' others to take a closer look. There is some intriguing stuff coming out of Hungary, by the way. And, yes, skepticism is in order.
I was trained as many science/math types to be somewhat obnoxiously critical. It took quite a while for me to just listen (I don't mean blindly believe) and extract kernels that I might somehow use. I am willing to admit there might be instances where the chances are slight, but, oddly, it has been less often than I had expected. However, that is my experience. You try things out as a teacher (at least, I do), some you realize - and the kids, of course, let you know - are really dumb. Others aren't. But that is my view of teaching.
On Jan 27, 2012, at 1:31 AM, Timotha Trigg wrote:
> Ed Wall spoke of "grudgingly nuanced" skepticism of IE. I think the > skepticism might be less grudging if those promoting IE took a less extreme > position, particularly given their reluctance (inability?) to post links to > the actual research requested by Bob Hansen and others. Decades > (centuries?) of failed education fads leave many of us understandably > skeptical about calls to do what sounds like throwing the baby out with the > bath water. (The old "evolution, not revolution" thing again.) > > Considering John Clement's periodic claim that U.S. students "don't have > proportional reasoning," I have little doubt that we should (and could) make > improvements. Personally, I think Singapore bar modeling does a nice job of > addressing this, but I don't have research to back that up, and I'm not > going to direct John Clement (or anyone else) to undertake the needed > research to establish the relative merits of "traditional" vs. IE vs. > Singapore Math wrt proportional reasoning. > > I'm sure there are some kernels of truth in the IE pitch, but color me > highly skeptical that it is the golden bullet it is promoted to be. > > Timotha > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Ed Wall" <email@example.com> > Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 11:23 PM > To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> > Subject: Re: [math-learn] FCI and CCI in China #2 > >> I've been reading this conversation as it has progressed and thought I'd >> make a comment or so and put forth a speculation. >> >> I think I read Bob Hansen as saying he'd like to see some correlation of >> traditional 'success' (and while I believe he has some candidates in mind >> for this term, they seem to be up for debate) with the interesting results >> Jerry has noted. However, I really am doubtful much of anything will >> necessarily convince those who don't want to be convinced. Further, I >> rather doubt that those who don't want to be convince are going to take >> John up on reading and trying. However, strangely enough I am starting to >> see sort of a Kuhnian paradigm surfacing with regards a number of folks >> who were randomly anti. There is still skepticism but it has become >> grudgingly nuanced. >> >> I've been thinking about some related matters for some time under the >> guise of what is often termed 'studying.' My remembrances of the halcyon >> days of physics or calculus education that Bob is referring to is that >> 'motivation' was, in a sense, visible in one's performace of studying. My >> past and current remembrances of 'foreign' students is that this is part >> and parcel of them also. With this in mind, some work by Ericson and FS >> Ellett, 2002, Education Policy Analysis Archives might be relevant >> (whether you read or not is up to you - smile). They look at all this >> studying (more or less at the collegiate level) and construct a >> hierarchical typology of those who engage in studying ranging from the >> student who values an intellectual discipline for its own sake (out of >> love, one might say) to those students who study an intellectual >> discipline for ?strongly external? reasons (the possibility of garnering, >> one might say, big bucks). In between, among other possibilities, are >> those who, for instance, orient strongly towards some career choice. They >> note that it is very difficult to tell from outward performance who is >> what or where. Nothing very earthshaking here although they argue the >> situation - which was never populated heavily at the upper levels - has >> moved rapidly downward. I do know that when I talk to the high scoring AP >> Calculus student a very very few of them are, before, after, and during, >> little interested in calculus, per se. They take calculus to satisfy >> requirements, get into Engineering, etc. This isn't bad, by the way and, >> as I mentioned, traditional measures of performance don't distinguish >> within the hierarchy. However, how about intellectual 'love' for calculus >> (smile). It seems that along the way to developing an 'affection' for >> calculus, you might need or might find it useful to develop a sort of >> intellectual intimacy, a sort of conceptual understanding. Perhaps the CCI >> and similar others measure such intimacy (smile) and the beginning of what >> has been termed internal motivation (which many believe is a bit more long >> termed than external). >> >> Ed Wall > > > > ------------------------------------ > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > >