Wayne, I think it has been well established that 'Reform Math' is just the Socratic Method, sans a Socrates or any reasonable facsimile. It would appear Moore was a fine Socratic substitution.
On 04/05/2013 09:12 PM, Wayne Bishop wrote: > Implied concession or not... > > I am reminded of Paul Halmos's great "automathography", /I Want to Be > a Mathematician/ on the Moore Method, often equated with the math > avoidance of so-called "reform math". Nothing could be further from > the truth. Attached (sorry for the crude scan) are a couple of pages > that summarize his approach to mathematics instruction clear down to > first-year Calculus where he was, at least for some students, highly > effective. A personal friend now deceased, eventually became a > well-known seminary professor (Berkeley Union and then a permanent > Visiting Distinguished Professor here at Fuller after his retirement) > who started his life with a very strong bachelor's degree in physics > from UT Austin with calculus from R. L. Moore. He was so impressed > that he credited Moore with his start as a top-notch academic > researcher and maintained a lifelong correspondence with Moore. > > As you can see, he was nothing close to the "not a sage on the stage > but a guide on the side" wishful thinking but, in Halmos's words, "his > personality dominated the room". Only a very special kind of person > can carry it off and don't try it without the "security blanket" of > tenure. The one tenure-track assistant professor who tried it at our > campus was very lucky (only on special appeal to the dean) to not have > had the following year be deemed his terminal year rather than another > year toward eventual tenure. En masse complaints to the chair during > the quarter followed by record-low student evaluations at the end of > the course. Note the familiar cliché, "I hear, I forget; I see, I > remember; I do, I understand." It's all in what you mean by "doing". > Moore meant the real thing; not some phony imitation. I have heard > that in advanced topology classes he went even further than Halmos > describes; he gave the words different names so that students couldn't > "cheat" even if they wanted to. They would have to understand the > subject well enough to know how to read conventional books for proofs > of his list of statements to be proved by students independently. > > I never had the privilege of watching R.L. Moore at work, as did > Halmos, but I did see U Chicago's Paul Sally run a demo class of his > exceptional precollegiate class for Chicago-area students. A wonder > to watch and no doubt who was fully in charge every minute. > Amazingly, Everyday Math evolved from that but only after the ed-types > took over and chased Sally, the original NSF grant PI, out entirely. > > Wayne > > At 01:31 PM 4/5/2013, Greg Goodknight wrote: >> By the generally accepted Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies, I recognize >> Dr. Bishop as the clear winner after this forfeit performed by Chandy. >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law> >> >> >> On 04/03/2013 08:06 PM, GS Chandy wrote: >>> Wayne Bishop posted Apr 2, 2013 10:39 AM (the full post pasted >>> below my signature for referenc): >>>> That's right. Objective evidence be damned; full speed >ahead. >>>> Wayne >>> Remarkable: >>> >>> 1. I do not find evidence in support of your claim ("Objective >>> evidence be damned; full speed ahead") in Richard Hake's original post. >>> >>> 2. I do find evidence of such an attitude ("Objective evidence be >>> damned: full speed ahead") in your post. >>> >>> I believe the above approach is more or less in line with the >>> recommendations of the well known "PRINCIPLES OF PROPAGANDA" >>> expounded by Josef Goebbels (see, for instance: >>> http://www.psywarrior.com/Goebbels.html). >>> >>> >>> GSC >>> ("Still Shoveling!") >>> Wayne Bishop posted Apr 2, 2013 10:39 AM: >>>> That's right. Objective evidence be damned; full speed >ahead. >>>> Wayne >>>> At 07:29 PM 4/1/2013, Richard Hake wrote: >>>>> Some subscribers to Math-Teach might be interested in a recent >>>>> essay "Re: Direct Instruction rocks: Or does it?" [Hake (2013b)]. >>>>> The abstract reads: >>>>> >>>>> ************************************************** >>>>> ABSTRACT: The conclusion of my response "Direct Instruction rocks: >>>>> Or does it?" [Hake (2013a)] at < http://bit.ly/10k3iN3 > to David >>>>> Klahr's (2012) "Inquiry Science rocks: Or does it?" at < >>>>> http://bit.ly/WmqHMj > is (see the complete post for the references): >>>>> "A. Klahr's (2012) Fig. 1 histogram and the research of Chen & >>>>> Klahr (1999) and Klahr & Nigam (2004) suggest that if one's goal >>>>> is the enhancement of a process skill such as the "Control of >>>>> Variables Strategy" (CVS) among elementary-school students then >>>>> (s)he should probably consider utilizing Klahr's >>>>> direct-instruction-like "Training-Probe (TP)" pedagogy rather than >>>>> discovery-learning-like "No Training - No Probe (NTNP)" method >>>>> with near zero teacher guidance. >>>>> >>>>> B. Hake's (2012) Fig. 1 [histogram taken Hake (1998a)], its >>>>> corroboration by others listed in Hake (2008), and the high >>>>> positive correlation of post-test conceptual FCI and >>>>> problem-solving MB tests, suggest that if one's goal is the >>>>> enhancement of conceptual understanding and problem-solving >>>>> ability among high-school or undergraduate students then (s)he >>>>> should probably consider utilizing discovery-learning-like >>>>> "Interactive Engagement" pedagogy rather than >>>>> direct-instruction-like 'Traditional' pedagogy." >>>>> ************************************************** >>>>> To access the complete 11 kB post please click on < >>>>> http://yhoo.it/10qf8Wa <http://yhoo.it/10qf8Wa>>. >>>>> >>>>> Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University >>>>> Links to Articles: < http://bit.ly/a6M5y0 > >>>>> Links to Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs: < >>>>> http://bit.ly/9nGd3M > >>>>> Academia: < http://bit.ly/a8ixxm > >>>>> Blog: < http://bit.ly/9yGsXh > >>>>> GooglePlus: < http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE > >>>>> Google Scholar < http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3 > >>>>> Twitter: < http://bit.ly/juvd52 > >>>>> Facebook: < http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm <http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm>> >>>>> REFERENCES [URL's shortened by <http://bit.ly/> and >accessed on >>>>> 01April 2013.] >>>>> Hake, R.R. 2013a. "Direct Instruction rocks: Or does it?" APS News >>>>> 22(4), April, online at < http://bit.ly/10k3iN3 >. [Response to >>>>> Klahr (2012).] >>>>> Hake, R.R. 2013b. "Re: Direct Instruction rocks: Or does it?" >>>>> online on the OPEN Net-Gold archives at < http://yhoo.it/10qf8Wa >>>>> <http://yhoo.it/10qf8Wa>>. Post of 01 April 16:00 -0700 to >>>>> Net-Gold, AERA-K, and AERA-L. Evidently due to a change in >>>>> LISTSERV software AERA-K and AERA-L no longer carry *HOT* Links >>>>> such as those on Net-Gold! The abstract and link to the complete >>>>> post are being transmitted to several discussion lists and are on >>>>> my blog "Hake'sEdStuff" at < http://bit.ly/179X5bA > with a >>>>> provision for comments. >>>>> >>>>> Klahr, D. 2012. "Inquiry Science rocks: Or does it?" APS News >>>>> 21(11), December; online at < http://bit.ly/WmqHMj >.