T2T || FAQ || Ask T2T || Teachers' Lounge || Browse || Search || Thanks || About T2T
View entire discussion
[<< prev] [ next >>]
From: Joe Green <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: Teacher2Teacher Public Discussion Date: 2007102518:05:44 Subject: AM - the good, bad and ugly The concept of AM is brilliant - personalize the delivery of content to its intened user. This is the same track medicine and other disciplines are following - how to personalize treatments, drugs, dosage, etc., to the individual instead of taking a one-size-fits-all approach, which is just what the traditional style of teaching math is - a one-size-fits-all approach. The teacher may think they are reaching all students, but some are out in la-la land. AM really is a paradigm shift in teaching. One complaint a middle school principal had was, "I don't want a machine teaching the kids - I want a teacher teaching the kids". A parent in this forum complained that having a kid sit in front of a computer all period is not going to help his math scores. Both these complaints rest on basic misconceptions. The teacher still does the teaching - first with 10-15 minute mini-lessons, then with personalized, small group instruction. The computer takes care of all the drudgery of teaching -scoring, ranking, compiling, etc. The teacher can then do the fun stuff. The real strength of AM is that it allows the teacher to get almost immediate feedback on where each student stands. No more waiting 'til midterms to see who bombs out. The instructor can evaluate, with a glance at the "Assignment Book", exactly what each kid "gets", and doesn't get. Then, with small group instruction, they can target each kids weakness. It's really like an instructional smart bomb - specific instruction precisely targeted at very kids who need it - instead of broadcasting the same information to the whole class, many of whom already get it and are bored to tears by the repitition. The students actually spend very little time in front of a computer scanning theer answers in. Most of the time is spent working on practices custom generated to target their weaknesses, with the rest of the time spent in classroom or small group instruction. But the program is a synergistic application; if all the pieces are in place - hardware, software, and motivated teacher - then it can work wonders. But if the chain breaks at any link, traditional instruction is probably better and more reliable. Using AM "just a little", or "just on Thursdays" doesn't seem to work. It's a complete package, and a teacher should jump in with both feet and commit to it, or save himself or herself (and his students) a bunch of heartache, frustration and wasted time.
Math Forum Home || The Math Library || Quick Reference || Math Forum Search