Richard Hake posted Apr 16, 2013 3:08 AM: > > Some subscribers to Math-Teach might be interested in > a recent post > "R.L. Moore - Pioneer of Math Education Reform" [Hake > (2013)]. The > abstract reads: > > ************************************************ > ABSTRACT: Contrary to the misrepresentation of the > "Moore Method" > <http://bit.ly/LElQzB> by direct instructionist Wayne > Bishop at > <http://bit.ly/qvnOIa>, I excerpt ten commentaries > demonstrating that > the Moore Method is, in fact, (a) an example of "math > education > reform ," and (b) taught by a "guide on the side." > <snip - the remainder of Professor Haky's document appears below my signature>
1. I am not a math teacher (though I do have some experience in helping a couple of students overcome their 'fear-loathing' of math, brought on by earlier, incompetent teaching of math).
2. I have not taught a math class via the "Moore Method". I therefore cannot and do not claim to be an expert on the 'Moore Method'.
I must emphasise that I've NOT done an adequately detailed study on the 'Moore Method' - either its mechanics or its utility. I am therefore not taking a call at all on the actual utility of the 'Moore Method' to teaching (either for school math for the purpose of 'math education reform' or for 'advanced math' classes where Professor Moore had employed it).
3. It strikes me, on the basis of the above background, that Richard Hake's claims are justified that the 'Moore Method' has little semblance with the 'direct instruction' processes' promoted by Professor Wayne Bishop. In fact, at least one of the documents provided by Professor Wayne Bishop himself appears to confound his own claims (see "How to Teach" - the document is extremely difficult to read, but it does appear to contradict Professor Bishop's arguments).
4. In order to arrive at the conclusion of No. 3 above, I have in addition looked at (but not adequately studied or synthesised) the following documentation:
At this point, I got somewhat tired of the exercise and decided to call it quits, as I had given more than sufficient attention to it.
It does, however, appear that Professor Bishop is 'blowing smoke'. [I must emphasize that I do not know enough about the 'Moore Method' to make this judgement authoritatively - it is, at this time, only my impression].