I did much research in this respect expect under the banner of "math" for my dissertation. Elaine is so right about the appeal of progressive methods if students are given a chance to experience it in action. Yet changing teaching practice is not as easy as it might sound. Within the math literature, the argument is that traditional methods are entrenched because that is what was modeled throughout the majority of our learning years. To break with that model is like trying to learn a new way to chew food. Even if you try it a new way you tend to go back to the one you know best. (Bad metaphor--I know--we don't really need to learn a new way to chew food--I just have a cavity right now so I can only think about teeth). In the US, our math focus (yes, quite researched) is procedural, step-by-step instruction. Certainly there are some that do otherwise, but the overwhelming majority still teach math this way, even in advanced classes.
In Japan, math and science instruction has undergone quite a transformation. While essentially it can often "look" the same from the outside (students at desk, teacher at board), the actual presentation can be revolutionary. It is based on the idea that problem-solving (and math concepts) is the core of math thinking and that students need to participate in that kind of math thinking on a regular (almost half of the time) basis. Review, challenge, differentiation--all can be built right into the math lesson. The other half of lessons are for vocab and practice, with some procedural instruction thrown in there. How did their teachers make this change? One--SLOWLY and with PATIENCE. they did not go through 20 different professional development "programs" with new "curriculum" every decade. Quite the reverse. They work in teacher teams on lessons--called lesson study. Together they develop learning goals--including one for the content and one for student learning behavior ( persistance, or questioning, or such). Then they design a lesson--one teacher carries it out while the others take down observations on students--then they meet and revise the lesson and do it again until they feel they achieved the learning results and behaviors they were aiming for. (Maybe 1-2 lessons get revised in a school year!) In Japan, they devote much, if not all, of professional development to this process. Teachers claim (and having experienced a small taste--I agree) that though the process seems slow--they grow exponentially from it. The one lesson influences all future lessons. Plus they learn about other lessons and learnings from their colleagues. TWO, their educational system has supported this type of change. It has meant redesigning textbooks to slow down the learning (their math textbooks are the size of our workbooks), redesigning lesson formats to open them up to inquiry (not really a seven-step thing) and arranging national standards that reflect value-laden goals like: students will "appreciate" the complexity of living organism and will express "curiosity" about how living systems interact. (Aren't those rockin' standards? Puts the heart right back into the learning...) THREE, they have found that this method helped traditional-style teachers to truly change, but because young teachers grew up with this sort of instruction--it is quite natural to them and not such a change at all. I find it all quite fascinating and I have come to believe if we do not involve practicing teachers in a more thoughtful, deep form of inquiry in their professional development, all the education classes in preservice training (no matter how good) will be for naught. I teach a math methods course for a local college and as I let those poor students go out into the world, I know all my lessons will not matter a hill-o-beans once they are handed a 300lb. textbook and given a pacing guide that ignores real learning in favor of coverage. Plus, they will then receive countless hours of professional development from either the textbook company (argh) or from some well-meaning consultant that does not realize the teachers need to be "thinking" not hearing. I wish, I wish, I wish....what would it take for us to become more patient and thoughtful about educational change? I now hate pendulums. Bonita California, Gr.5 > I teach new teachers as well as older "newer" teachers in our reading > methods courses. Here's what I believe. I believe that when we as > university instructors present student- centered, interactive methods > rather than the more traditional, "stand and deliver", transmission > approaches, our students find the more progressive methods appealing _______________________________________________ Mosaic mailing list Mosaic@literacyworkshop.org To unsubscribe or modify your membership please go to http://literacyworkshop.org/mailman/options/mosaic_literacyworkshop.org. Search the MOSAIC archives at http://snipurl.com/MosaicArchive.
