I posted the original message, and I couldn't agree more with what you
say. I worked for 5 years at a large education think-tank that supported
districts nationally as they implemented the TERC and other NSF-funded
curricula, I believe fully in the choice that TERC made to focus on
mathematical thinking rather than algorithmic thinking.
However, my question still stands, and I think it's a legitimate
perspective from which to inquire. Things aren't all-or-nothing in our
classrooms, and many good teachers with kids' mathematical thinking in
mind believe that a little more exercise in fluency might help
mathematical thinking, and help kids create meaning "from the inside." If
you find that confusing, I'd be happy to discuss more (perhaps offline?).
So ... If you're supplementing TERC, please don't hesitate to write. I
could use your help.
All best,
Terry
A forum for independent school educators <ISED-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> writes:
>This is a fairly common concern, usually rooted in insecurity on the part
>of teachers or parents.
>
>However, with all due respect, the concern about "lagging behind teaching
>standard algorithms and math facts" is not a responsible quest for
>"balance," but an assault on student learning and mathematical thinking.
>
>Numerous studies and researchers such as Constance Kamii demonstrate that
>when children are "taught" algorithms they are often deprived of actual
>mathematical understanding. The quest for speed is silly and potentially
>destructive. How fast is fast enough? Why does thinking and problem
>solving need to be quick?
>
>Piaget teaches us that it is the teacher's job to create contexts in
>which children correct themselves from the inside. There is scarce
>evidence, if any at all, that drilling math facts or less constructivist
>approaches to math curricula and pedagogy are more successful than what
>your school is already doing.
>
>I would suggest that your school have more patience and support teachers
>in using the TERC materials with greater confidence rather than undermine
>student learning.
>
>Gary Stager, Ph.D.
>
>On May 25, 2010, at 11:49 AM, Terry Dash wrote:
>
>> Hi -
>>
>> This question is intended for elementary schools using TERC's
>> Investigations mathematics curriculum -
>>
>> The Pike School uses TERC in grades K-5. We like the program's
>> constructivist approach but know that it lags behind in areas such as
>> teaching standard algorithms and math facts/fluency. We are therefore
>> looking into activities that supplement TERC in these areas.
>>
>> If you are currently using TERC and you are supplementing in the areas
>of
>> standard algorithms or math facts/fluency...
>>
>> * What supplementary materials are you using? Did you develop these
>> materials yourselves, or are they publicly available?
>>
>> * How do you use the materials? (10 minutes/day? weekly? in some units
>> only?)
>>
>> * If you are using software or online resources as part of your
>> supplementary materials, what sites are you using?
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>> Terry
>>
>> . . .
>> Terry Dash
>> Director of Technology
>> Pike School
>> 34 Sunset Rock Road
>> Andover, MA 01810
>> 978.409.6623
>>
>>
>> [ For info on ISED-L see
>https://www.gds.org/podium/default.aspx?t=128874 ]
>> Submissions to ISED-L are released under a creative commons,
>attribution, non-commercial, share-alike license.
>> RSS Feed, http://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?RSS&L=ISED-L
>
>[ For info on ISED-L see https://www.gds.org/podium/default.aspx?t=128874
>]
>Submissions to ISED-L are released under a creative commons, attribution,
>non-commercial, share-alike license.
>RSS Feed, http://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?RSS&L=ISED-L
>
[ For info on ISED-L see https://www.gds.org/podium/default.aspx?t=128874 ]
Submissions to ISED-L are released under a creative commons, attribution, non-commercial, share-alike license.
RSS Feed, http://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?RSS&L=ISED-L
