Bob Grossman wrote:
Allen Esterson wrote:
This "traditional" approach to the teaching of mathematics in schools is
not only, I believe, more effective than the constructivist approach, it
is also far less time-consuming, enabling considerably more material
to be
covered.
I had similar opinions until this summer when a colleague suggested I
read some of the work of Magdalene Lampert. I was convinced that if I
had her for an elementary math teacher I would have been far better
off. I recommend her article "Knowing, Doing, and Teaching
Multiplication," Cognition and Instruction, 1986, 3(4) 305-342, or
book Teaching Problems and the Problems of Teaching, (2001) Yale
University Press. I'm not totally sure she considers herself a
"constructivist" teacher but I was impressed by how much deeper an
understanding of math processes her students got in comparison to the
algorithms I was forced to memorize as the "only true way" to do
arithmetic.
There are always a few great teachers. Employing the methods they employ
won't necessarily work with the vast masses of teachers hired in public
schools across the nation (and the world). What is needed are tried and
true methods that will work well with the whole spectrum of teachers
(and students). The constructivist method seems to be failing badly in
the school district featured in the article, even with students whose
parrents are mathematically sophisticated. That's got to be a bad sign
for virtually everywhere else..
Regards,
--
Christopher D. Green
Department of Psychology
York University
Toronto, ON M3J 1P3
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.yorku.ca/christo
Office: 416-736-5115 ext. 66164
Fax: 416-736-5814
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
