Wayne Bishop's ridiculous response posted below my signature.
Kindly note that I had never claimed that Moore's Method involved implementation by him at the K-6 math level. Kindly do read more carefully in order not to get caught up in lies.
Wayne Bishop posted Apr 19, 2013 2:05 AM: > I certainly agree with one aspect of your post, you > do not know > enough of the actual implementation of the Moore > Method by Moore > himself. It certainly was not K-6 mathematics > education under the > guidance of teachers for whom mathematics was the > subject most to be > avoided whenever possible which is too often the case > in US public > education, especially low socioeconomic schools. The > same can be > said for Polya, often quoted by "reform > math"advocates, in support of > their pet thinking and advocacy. The reality was > that one of the > seminal meetings contextualizing directions for SMSG > (School > Mathematics Study Group, the best of the New Math > curricula) was at > Stanford where Polya spoke persuasively, but not > successfully, > against what was underway. I have attached a much > better copy of the > entire chapter on teaching in Halmos's book that I > recommend enthusiastically. > > Wayne > > At 02:19 AM 4/18/2013, GS Chandy wrote: > >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> > > > >I observe: > > > >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 have read a fair bit about the 'Moore Method' - > some of the > >documentation provided by Richard Hake (see below my > signature) as > >well as the documentation provided by provided Wayne > Bishop (see: > >http://mathforum.org/kb/servlet/JiveServlet/download/ > 206-2447655-8894695-822386/Halmos%20on%20The%20Moore%2 > 0Method.pdf > >and > >http://mathforum.org/kb/servlet/JiveServlet/download/ > 206-2447655-8894695-822385/att1.html > >). Also some further documentation on the 'Moore > Method' that I > >sought out and checked through (some of which is > listed below). > > > >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: > > > >i) Wikipedia "Moore Method" - > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore_method > > > >ii) "Creativity in Mathematics, Inquiry-Based > Learning (IBL) and the > >Moore Method (a set of 16 videos) presented by David > Garrigus - > >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLVTV-vXJBg > > > >iii) "A Quick-Start Guide to the Moore Method" > (Author's name not > >provided - > http://legacyrlmoore.org/reference/quick_start-3.pdf > ) > > > >iv) The Genesis of the Moore Method, by David E. > Zitarelli, Temple > >University, > >https://math.temple.edu/~zit/Zitarelli/Genesis%20Midw > est.pdf (This > >is one of the documents on Richard Hake's list, > below). > > > >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]. > > > >GSC > >The remainder of Professor Hake's document: > > > > > > The commentators > > > are: > > > > > > 1. Keith Devlin 1999) in "The Greatest Math > Teacher > > > Ever" part 1 at > > > <http://bit.ly/12GYCSR> and part 2 at > > > <http://bit.ly/17pBWdu>. > > > > > > 2. Educational Achievement Foundation's (2006) "A > > > Quick-Start Guide > > > to the Moore Method" at <http://bit.ly/ZvQZly> > > > > > > 3. Paul Halmos in "The Problem of Learning to > Teach" > > > (Halmos, Moise, > > > & Piranian, 1975) at <http://bit.ly/12BgyOP>. > > > > > > 4. F. Burton Jones (1977) in "The Moore method" > at > > > <http://bit.ly/17nyIaB>. > > > > > > 5. Albert C. Lewis (1999) in "Reform and > Tradition in > > > Mathematics > > > Education: The Example of R.L. Moore" at > > > <http://bit.ly/YbjUoy>. > > > > > > 6. G. Edgar Parker (1992) "Getting More from > Moore" > > > at <http://bit.ly/YbmaMI>. > > > > > > 7. The MAA review of "The Moore Method: A Pathway > to > > > Learner-Centered > > > Instruction" [Coppin, Mahavier, May, & G.E. > Parker > > > (2009)] at > > > <http://bit.ly/LEdug3>. > > > > > > 8. "Discovery Learning Project" at the University > of > > > Texas (2013) at > > > <http://bit.ly/12FqZEW>. > > > > > > 9. Lucille S. Whyburn (1970) "Student oriented > > > teaching-The Moore > > > Method" at <http://bit.ly/YNS5X4>. > > > > > > 10. David Zitarelli (2004) in "The origin and > early > > > impact of the > > > Moore Method" at <http://bit.ly/149JYIJ>. > > > ************************************************ > > > > > > To access the complete 54 kB post please click on > > > <http://yhoo.it/132baYU>. > > > > > > 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> > > > > > > REFERENCES [URL shortened by <http://bit.ly/> and > > > accessed on 14 April 2013.] > > > > > > Hake, R.R. 2013. "R.L. Moore - Pioneer of Math > > > Education Reform," > > > online on the OPEN Net-Gold archives at > > > <http://yhoo.it/132baYU>.. > > > Post of 14 Apr 2013 15:57:26 -0700 to AERA-L and > > > Net-Gold. The > > > abstract and link to the complete post were > > > transmitted to several > > > discussion lists and are on my blog > "Hake'sEdStuff" > > > at > > > <http://bit.ly/XLLYE2> with a provision for > comments.