The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » Education » math-teach

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Re: Direct Instruction rocks: Or does it?
Replies: 4   Last Post: Apr 7, 2013 2:05 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Greg Goodknight

Posts: 1,233
Registered: 12/6/04
Re: Direct Instruction rocks: Or does it?
Posted: Apr 7, 2013 2:05 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply
att1.html (11.8 K)

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.
>> <>
>> 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:
>>> 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 < > to David
>>>>> Klahr's (2012) "Inquiry Science rocks: Or does it?" at <
>>>>> > 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 <
>>>>> <>>.
>>>>> Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
>>>>> Links to Articles: < >
>>>>> Links to Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs: <
>>>>> >
>>>>> Academia: < >
>>>>> Blog: < >
>>>>> GooglePlus: < >
>>>>> Google Scholar < >
>>>>> Twitter: < >
>>>>> Facebook: < <>>
>>>>> REFERENCES [URL's shortened by <> and >accessed on
>>>>> 01April 2013.]
>>>>> Hake, R.R. 2013a. "Direct Instruction rocks: Or does it?" APS News
>>>>> 22(4), April, online at < >. [Response to
>>>>> Klahr (2012).]
>>>>> Hake, R.R. 2013b. "Re: Direct Instruction rocks: Or does it?"
>>>>> online on the OPEN Net-Gold archives at <
>>>>> <>>. 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 < > with a
>>>>> provision for comments.
>>>>> Klahr, D. 2012. "Inquiry Science rocks: Or does it?" APS News
>>>>> 21(11), December; online at < >.

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.