Robert Hansen (RH) posted Oct 11, 2012 12:15 AM [in response to GSC's http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=7903584] (GSC's remarks Interspersed): > > As I recall, you don't have a curriculum. > As you should - but evidently do not - recall, there is a significant difference between the words "curriculum" and "system" (apart from the way they are spelt). You've done (and probably overdone) "curriculum" splendidly - entirely leaving out "system", in particular the very concept of 'system to enable learning'. As for trying to tweak the system "to enable *effective* learning" - to hell with that! > >Your > "system" consists of asking the student "What can you > do to learn better?" and creating some action items. > Nope. See any post of mine. It consists of asking ALL stakeholders well-designed 'trigger questions' about what their intents might be. This includes teachers, and quite importantly, the STUDENTS as well. The teacher will come out with his or her intent for "teaching the curriculum" - from the student, we obtain useful pointers about what it may take him or her to learn *effectively*. (Other stakeholders are also involved, but let's leave them out for the moment). Then we put it all together, to try and discover just how to create a 'system' that will enable:
a) the teacher to teach *effectively*; b) the student to learn *effectively*. (The word *effectively* is key).
There is a significant difference between "teaching" and "learning", which you probably would do well to be aware of. Both should be done *effectively*, in order to enable true learning. > > So, i grew up in a trailer with 7 people (2 adults > and 4 siblings). There was no "learning environment" > at home, except that I learned I will never live in a > trailer again. > You are evidently exceptional, RH. For exceptional students we would need to learn how to develop effective 'learning environments' and 'systems' to enable them to learn effectively. In a system such as would develop from what I propose, they will then learn better, even, than they do exceptionally today.
The problem is NOT at all (at first sight, at least), the exceptional students. Check out the number of students in any school, in any class, who come out fearing or loathing math, in fact hating the idea of 'learning' itself - a sizable bit of that deriving from their fear and loathing of math. [I understand, however, that the many schools for "exceptional children" are nowhere near as effective as they should be]. > >What would the action items be in that > situation? The immediate action items, not the "when > I turn 18" action items, like "join the army". > See above, for two 'action items'. There would surely be others, but these two will do for the moment. > > So, let's suppose you turn the crank on OPMS and come > up with some action items. That doesn't change the > curriculum I posted, does it? > 1) OPMS is not an engine or a machine on which you "turn the crank" and it churns out ... whatever.
2) As noted, the "curriculum" you posted is not a "system". It is a "curriculum". As a "curriculum", it is probably adequate, though we would have to check out how much the students actually learn. (That could help create a "system").
GSC ("Still Shoveling Away!" - with apologies if due to Barry Garelick for any tedium caused; and with the humble suggestion that the obvious way to avoid such tedium is simply to refrain from opening any message purported to originate from GSC)