Back to main page.

Comments

Well, I don't quite know what to make of Elizabeth Duffrin's explanation. It sounds like she is pushing for less teacher instruction and more opportunities for children to "construct" their own methods. Am I reading this incorrectly?

-- CarolynMorgan - 25 Jul 2005

Carolyn,

I thought the same thing. It sort of turned around and became very pro-NCTM, but in a strange way. While there is plenty of discussion and exploration, I don't recall the Singaporean teachers being facilitators in any way.

Liping Ma talks a lot about how the Chinese teachers handle manipulatives and alternative ways of doing things. The teacher runs the show always, according to her.

It was also strange how Duffrin mentions that the US curriculum is a "mile wide and an inch deep" and then calls for spending more time on subjects (I guess to get the depth,) but neglects to mention that the Chinese teach half as many subjects. You can certainly spend more time on basics when you cut out the other stuff.

At least that is what I think of when I think of the opposite of "mile wide, inch deep." I think less subjects, taught longer and better.

-- SusanS - 26 Jul 2005

It's definitely fewer subjects, in more depth.

I'm wondering.....where is my list of subjects taught in our schools versus Singapore or Japanese schools. Hmm.

I think it's one of the CA studies linked to on NYC Hold.

The difference was huge.

I don't take the constructivist 'tinges' in this article particularly seriously. If you look, she wrote this article back in 1998, when the math wars weren't quite as well-known as they are today. (They're not well-known now, either. It's amazing to be involved in a Total War no one's ever heard of!)

Stigler's work was initially interpreted as supporting a constructivist approach, and my feeling is that he didn't instantly see that this was going to be a bad thing. I shouldn't speak for him (we knew him as an acquaintance at UCLA & liked him very much); that's just the impression I get from reading through various articles.

At some point the anti-fuzzies directly confronted him, asking him whether Japanese teaching was or was not inquiry-based.

I believe he said 'no,' but my impression is that he didn't want to be dragged into the fight.

Nevertheless, my sense is that he said, pretty clearly, that Japanese teachers aren't 'guides on the side.'

This is where the NCTM folks constantly outsmart us non-NCTM types: they claim the high ground very effectively.

Stigler was criticizing the almost exclusive focus on procedural teaching of maths in the U.S. & NCTM promotes itself as conceptual, not procedural.....so we're left with making lame arguments about 'not throwing out the baby with the bathwater.'

-- CatherineJohnson - 26 Jul 2005

Wayne Wickelgren's main objection to constructivism, aside from the fact that all knowledge is constructed whether someone tells it to you or you figure it out on your own, is that it eats up way too much time to keep American kids on the same track as the rest of the world.

I'll get that posted up front at some point.

Are you guys having trouble posting??

I'm getting error messages.

-- CatherineJohnson - 26 Jul 2005

%META:FIELD{name="TopicType"