Ed Wall
Posts:
837
Registered:
12/3/04
|
|
Re: [math-learn] FCI and CCI in China #2
Posted:
Jan 27, 2012 2:51 AM
|
|
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.
Ed Wall
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" <ewall@umich.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 11:23 PM
> To: <math-learn@yahoogroups.com>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/math-learn/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/math-learn/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
math-learn-digest@yahoogroups.com
math-learn-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
math-learn-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
|
