You may want to use Jo Boaler's longitudinal study of two British poor neighborhood schools, one using procedural math and another project-based math. Kids in the project school did significantly better on standardized tests, and had higher-than-national passing rate (which is incredible given low socioeconomic status). There is a lot of various statistics there, including the fact that project-based learning removed the gender gap. I can send you a review of the book I just did for a grant. While not directly about constructionism, the practices and ideals, as described, are very close.
Reference: Boaler, J. (2002). Experiencing School Mathematics: Traditional and Reform Approaches To Teaching and Their Impact on Student Learning, Revised and Expanded Edition (Rev Enl.). Lawrence Erlbaum. Cheers, Maria Droujkova http://www.naturalmath.com Make math your own, to make your own math. On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 12:51 PM, Yamandu Ploskonka <yamap...@gmail.com>wrote: > I have received an inquiry on implementing constructionism from a high > official in the Bolivian government. > > Since my opinion may be biased :-), I request you help us with clear, > simple and please objective answers (no vapor-stuff), if at all possible > > 1) How do constructionist pupils do on standardized tests, such as > University entrance exams. (please inform about other demographic > situations besides children of highly trained scholars - most Bolivian > kids do not fit THAT bracket, alas) > > 2) How do they do with usual classroom tests, especially in the > University. > Core question is, are alumni of constructionism better, or at least > competitive there? What evidence do we have to prove this? > > 3) Is there any evidence (objective, unbiased) as to the impact of > constructionism in education? The big maybe here is further impact on > development, yes ? (I may be mistaken here, please correct) > > 4) any other solid, statistically valid data supporting constructionism > > Please avoid treatises - I will be presenting this this week, and if > anyone would volunteer, it may be possible to put you directly in touch > with this official and/or his staff. It is, or should be widely known > that I see the current conctructionist stance within OLPC and Sugar as a > misguided, feel-good attempt that is bound to do more harm to most kids > than good compared to what could be achieved with a solid > curricular-content approach, but I honestly would be happier I were > mistaken, if determined by solid evidence. > I looooove constructionism, it just doesn't seem to me to be what kids > need, and all in all, I wish it worked, but I cannot prove it does for > most kids. I am certain, but cannot prove either, that it does work > within classrooms with highly trained teachers, or for gifted kids, or > when there is a lot of educated support from home, in any case not a > basis to adopt it for a country like Bolivia. > > Yama > _______________________________________________ > IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) > IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep >
_______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep