By Brad

May 11, 2008 2:45 PM | Link to this

It is a fundamental failing of educational theory if an experiment on college students affects the teaching methods for young children. Seven-year-olds interact with the world very differently from 19-year-olds.

By Mary

April 30, 2008 1:34 PM | Link to this

Laura, I agree with everything in your statement about the pressure for classroom teachers to entertain. I also agree with the concept that learning can be fun. However, something we apparently do not agree on is that schools and colleges help perpetuate that “you owe us edutainment” concept with school sponsored/education subsidized proms and a smorgasbord of after school and weekend activities. Education institutions seem to have lost their focus on their task at hand moreso than an ADHD student in the classroom.

By David

April 29, 2008 8:49 PM | Link to this

The idea that math is anything besides math is silly. The use of manipulatives helps add to the fun factor and for younger kids does help fit some learning styles. Some people try to critique that the same old math from the 1910 is taught today which is a really dumb statement. Math and counting and understanding patterns of such in same haven’t changed. Math has been applied in even more ways than in the 1910 math era however. Much of this is an attempt to cater to the idea of various learning styles. However math is math—it doesn’t know a learning style.

By Laura

April 29, 2008 7:29 PM | Link to this

Old Prof said it with the last two sentences of his post. Teachers are told repeatedly that they have to “make learning fun, exciting. We have to entertain students. If I wanted to be an entertainer, I would have chosen a different major. I’m not saying teachers can’t make some things fun. Just not everything. And sometimes, just as when most of us were in school, we have to “just do it.”

By Oldprof

April 29, 2008 8:54 AM | Link to this

In my decades in education, I’ve seen dozens of these “innovations” (Stuart Brand: “Innovation means throwing away what works”). Programmed learning, videolectures, eye training, see-and-say, multimedia, contract grading, behaviorism, click counters. All were presented as the “magic bullet” that would solve so many problems; all failed, and wound up either discarded altogether or occupying a different function than their originators imagined. I guess this new failure is a surprise only to those who haven’t kept eyes open around education for very long. Bottom line; sometimes, the only way to get a job done is to buckle down and do it even tho’ it’s boring. We need to teach THAT to our students, not amuse them all the time.

By Concerned Mom of 3

April 29, 2008 3:03 AM | Link to this

I think there is so much more to math instruction than learning to add and subtract numbers… To me, math is great content to teach kids how to use logic to find different ways to understand things in their world. Good math instruction offers kids the opportunity to think of ways to organize and classify information. They have to find similarities and differences in things they touch and see. They have to think about the relationships between diffferent things. (Larger, smaller, curved, angled, less than, more than, etc.) I think math instruction should include the basic methods AND the hands on methods. All kids learn in different ways. What works for one child may not work for another. When teaching math,I think teachers have to use a blend of both methods… Thats just my opinion. I hope the researchers include some data that compares a classroom that utilizes a blend of the old methods and the new methods.

By Color me not surprised

April 29, 2008 12:51 AM | Link to this

Not surprised in the least. The problem is bridging between the concrete act of using the manipulatives and getting the deeper mathematical meaning. Most students have hey love playing with the balls or blocks, but don’t want to do the next part, which usually involves doing some writing and reflecting on what’s going on. Look, manipulatives work for some kids, not for others. Learning symbolically works for some kids, not for others. The key is for the teacher to find ways to reach both of these kinds of kids (and the dozens of other learning styles). It’s just another example of how education swings back and forth. Remember New Math? It worked for some kids too. Bottom line, ONE WAY WON’T WORK FOR EVERYONE!

By Laura

April 28, 2008 10:30 PM | Link to this

It figures. Teachers have been saying for years that manipulatives are not the complete answer. For years, the only thing supervisors wanted to see was that a teacher was using manipulatives, manipulatives and manipulatives. Then when the students couldn’t pass a test because there were no manipulatives to use, and they had little experience with paper and pencil, no one listened. Why does the answer always have to be all or nothing? The other side of the coin is that math books are written so that manipulatives are all but required in order to follow the mandated program. What happens when they manipulatives aren’t available. As noted, manipulatives are very expensive. DPS hasn’t been supplying them for a long time. And not because they knew they wouldn’t help. Teachers are just expected to purchase them.

By Maryl

April 28, 2008 10:17 PM | Link to this

This appears to present math instruction as an either or problem - real world or abstract rules. I think good math istruction can incorporate both simultaneously. One of my favorite math classes in engineering school was applied differential equations. Integrals and differentiation rules were taught along with real world applications. Algebra word problems with trains, etc were also relaxing like a good sudoku puzzle. Some people swear by the effectiveness of Montessori methods that stress real world and manipulation,particularly for young students. Differing students learn and respond differently. At some point students should be dealing both with real world and abstract rules. Engineers routinely do both with their math applications.

By Katie

April 28, 2008 9:13 PM | Link to this

As with so many aspects of education, balance is the key. Manipulatives can help students understand the concept, rather than the formula. However, most students need practice in skills.As a math teacher, the goal should be two-fold: the students should not only be able to perform computations, but should understand the why’s and how’s of the operations.