Alberta Moving Ahead With 21st Century Learning

[socialist]

To my surprise the Alberta PC party is moving ahead with Inspiring Education which is a strong focus on 21st Century Skills. This is a great development.

But, of course there are naysayers; people who don't understand 21 century education. Worksheets and memorizing of facts is no longer the focus (thank goodness). Too many people are stuck in the 50s and 60s.

Just for those of you who think I am biased I will post an opposing argument to Inspiring Education. I disagree 100% with this article. Yes, 100%.

http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/2015/01/04/213073/

[Michael Hardner]

I didn't make it through the whole article, but he seems to have a point even if you agree that the system needs to serve the bulk of average students out there.

[socialist]

I didn't make it through the whole article, but he seems to have a point even if you agree that the system needs to serve the bulk of average students out there.

You mean the author of the article has a point? Also, it's a she , not a he.

The main point is that traditional learning is a relic. If you see a teacher that organizes his or her class in straight rows, where the educator directly instructs, then you have just seen an educator using old, damaging methods of teaching. Learners need to sit in groups and collaborate. Educators are learning facilitators.

Edited January 7, 2015 by socialist

[Keepitsimple]

The author touches on a point that has always greatly concerned me about math "discovery learning". I've always intuitively felt that "rote" learning of math tables at a young age and the spacial undrerstanding of distance/measurements at a young age - are important building blocks for the young brain. As such, it's more than what or how we learn - it's about the early fundamental development of the brain.

When the curriculum no longer expects a student to learn and master specific sets of skills and knowledge by certain grade levels, the harsh, scientific reality is that the best-before dates on the neuronal synapses will only reduce a student’s capacity for future learning. And without foundational knowledge and skills committed to long-term memory, the ability to process new information for critical thinking and problem-solving is invariably hindered.

Edited January 7, 2015 by Keepitsimple

[Michael Hardner]

You mean the author of the article has a point? Also, it's a she , not a he.

The main point is that traditional learning is a relic. If you see a teacher that organizes his or her class in straight rows, where the educator directly instructs, then you have just seen an educator using old, damaging methods of teaching. Learners need to sit in groups and collaborate. Educators are learning facilitators.

Yes, the author of the article. You should respond to the author's points not just reject the author because they're against change.

[GostHacked]

Imagine if we gave discovery driving lessons to new drivers.

[AngusThermopyle]

You should respond to the author's points not just reject the author because they're against change.

I believe you overstate the authors position when you say she is against change. My take on this is that the author is against change for the sake of change. It appears to me that she is against change that is useless or detrimental. Not against change as such when shown or proven to be beneficial. She raises some very good points. I did read the entire thing, perhaps you should too.

[overthere]

Here is the bottom line about learning/teaching practices in Alberta.

Experienced and competent teachers adjust their teaching practices to the individual student, not to the latest whim of Alberta Education. One size does not fit all, which is true of every generation of children.

In other words: nothing has changed. They stick with what works to help students learn

[GostHacked]

I believe you overstate the authors position when you say she is against change. My take on this is that the author is against change for the sake of change. It appears to me that she is against change that is useless or detrimental. Not against change as such when shown or proven to be beneficial. She raises some very good points. I did read the entire thing, perhaps you should too.

That's what I got out of it as well. This approach has been used in the US and has had some major push back by parents.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/whos-failing-math-the-system/article14112165/

What’s gone wrong isn’t a mystery. For the past decade and more, school systems across the country have been performing a vast experiment on your children. They have discarded “rote” learning in favour of “discovery,” a process by which students are supposed to come up with their own solutions to the mysteries of arithmetic. There’s ample evidence that this approach leaves millions of kids (to say nothing of their parents) baffled and confused, and it is being abandoned in large parts of the United States. This has not deterred legions of Canadian education theorists and consultants from pressing on. Perhaps they’re secretly in league with Kumon and Sylvan to drum up business.

When it comes to math this really sums up my thoughts on discovery learning.

That may be efficient, but it’s hopelessly uncreative. With “discovery” math, kids are encouraged to reinvent the wheel by, say, starting on the left, adding the thousands, then the hundreds, then the tens and ones, and adding them all up at the end. Then they have to write a story about how they got the answer. Needless to say, this takes a whole lot longer.

The trouble is that math is built on fundamentals. If you miss a building block, you’re likely to become progressively confused. To make things worse, the current practice of social promotion – moving kids from grade to grade even if they’re hopelessly at sea – guarantees that armies of youngsters whose parents can’t afford Kumon will be left in the dark. So much for equality in education.

When college professors are sounding the alarm that new university students have not been taught the basics, then everything else fails.

For years, math professors at our leading universities have been telling elementary and high-school educators that their methods don’t work. But the educators and the teachers’ colleges have refused to listen. After all, what do the professors know? They’re just math geeks. They have no idea how to teach children. As a consequence, there is now an almost total disconnect between the math that’s taught in most schools and the math that students need in university or the real world in order to succeed. It’s notable that educators in Eastern Europe and Asia, in particular, are astounded by what they’ve seen happening in North America.

[poochy]

Just one more example of the progressive mantra, it's new, it's different, it must be better! Even when there is no actual reason to believe it so, and they couldn't care less about this reality because like in everything else they do their ideology overrides any semblance of rational thought.

[socialist]

Just one more example of the progressive mantra, it's new, it's different, it must be better! Even when there is no actual reason to believe it so, and they couldn't care less about this reality because like in everything else they do their ideology overrides any semblance of rational thought.

Memorizing the times tables by rote is not learning. Learners need to understand why 8 x 6 = 48. When kids learn multiple strategies for solving a problem they gain understanding. That's something the old-fashioned worksheets and rote people fail to grasp. 21st Century Skills do not involve rote memory.

[overthere]

Memorizing the times tables by rote is not learning. Learners need to understand why 8 x 6 = 48. When kids learn multiple strategies for solving a problem they gain understanding. That's something the old-fashioned worksheets and rote people fail to grasp. 21st Century Skills do not involve rote memory.

Yet ironically you have memorized the same old rote mantra, the one you repeat over and over.

Or do you have another learning strategy to learn it every day?

[GostHacked]

Memorizing the times tables by rote is not learning. Learners need to understand why 8 x 6 = 48. When kids learn multiple strategies for solving a problem they gain understanding. That's something the old-fashioned worksheets and rote people fail to grasp. 21st Century Skills do not involve rote memory.

It's because you have 8 groups of 6 items. And there are two ways to solve it. 8x6, or 6x8, no matter still equals 48.

How would you approach teaching 6x8? Please show your work.

[AngusThermopyle]

How would you approach teaching 6x8? Please show your work.

That's easy! He'd pull out his phone and then demonstrate how its all the result of social injustice and part of a Neo-Lib agenda.

[GostHacked]

That's easy! He'd pull out his phone and then demonstrate how its all the result of social injustice and part of a Neo-Lib agenda.

So, no hope for the children then? Did anything stop to think of them for ONCE?

[jacee]

Memorizing the times tables by rote is not learning. Learners need to understand why 8 x 6 = 48. When kids learn multiple strategies for solving a problem they gain understanding.

For learning, yes.

That's something the old-fashioned worksheets and rote people fail to grasp. 21st Century Skills do not involve rote memory.

Once understood and learned, memory is important.

Speed of remembering is important.

No harm in memorizing at that point.

.

[On Guard for Thee]

Memorizing the times tables by rote is not learning. Learners need to understand why 8 x 6 = 48. When kids learn multiple strategies for solving a problem they gain understanding. That's something the old-fashioned worksheets and rote people fail to grasp. 21st Century Skills do not involve rote memory.

Memorizing the times table is a handy tool. It is learning and I don't see any reason to spend a lot of time intellectualizing over it. Apparently the so called new learning style ends up churning kids out of college who can't even for a proper sentence. Or do you reckon grammar is a waste of time as well?

[Guest]

Memorizing the times tables by rote is not learning. Learners need to understand why 8 x 6 = 48. When kids learn multiple strategies for solving a problem they gain understanding. That's something the old-fashioned worksheets and rote people fail to grasp. 21st Century Skills do not involve rote memory.

Once you've taught them why 8 x 6 = 48, do you then go on to teach them why 7 x 9 = 63, and 10 x 8 =80, etc?

What if you miss one? Say, 4 x 12 = 48. Do they have to go through life not knowing why?

Don't you think that teaching them why 8 x 6 = 48 then teaching them the times table might save some? Time, I mean.

[Mighty AC]

Memorizing the times table is a handy tool. It is learning and I don't see any reason to spend a lot of time intellectualizing over it.

Once understood and learned, memory is important.

Speed of remembering is important.

No harm in memorizing at that point.

There is no harm if the memorization was developed through regular use; however, the old format of simply drilling the times tables is absurd. Teaching kids to understand math concepts is far more beneficial than having them memorize numbers.

I had a counter top installed recently and the experience fits this topic. Apparently, the size and angle necessary for my kitchen isn't standard and the salesman/estimator couldn't calculate the dimensions and necessary cut angles. I did the math for him and he was blown away that I could figure it out. However, I was blown away that he had memorized the dimensions and angles for 30 to 50 common scenarios.

His memorized numbers allow him to quickly churn out the correct answers most of the time, however, he has no idea why the numbers work. On a standardized test his memorized information would likely allow him to answer several of the trig questions more quickly than I could...though I would get them all correct if given enough time. His score on a timed test could potentially be higher than mine, yet his understanding is incomplete and less useful. So are our standardized tests actually measuring what we want them to?

[On Guard for Thee]

There is no harm if the memorization was developed through regular use; however, the old format of simply drilling the times tables is absurd. Teaching kids to understand math concepts is far more beneficial than having them memorize numbers.

I had a counter top installed recently and the experience fits this topic. Apparently, the size and angle necessary for my kitchen isn't standard and the salesman/estimator couldn't calculate the dimensions and necessary cut angles. I did the math for him and he was blown away that I could figure it out. However, I was blown away that he had memorized the dimensions and angles for 30 to 50 common scenarios.

His memorized numbers allow him to quickly churn out the correct answers most of the time, however, he has no idea why the numbers work. On a standardized test his memorized information would likely allow him to answer several of the trig questions more quickly than I could...though I would get them all correct if given enough time. His score on a timed test could potentially be higher than mine, yet his understanding is incomplete and less useful. So are our standardized tests actually measuring what we want them to?

That's interesting and I am not a teacher so I certainly can't speak professionally. I did grow up back in the day when you did learn the times table and such but I don't see for example 6 x 8 = 48 as just something I learned by rote, even though I guess I did. In that same era math class I learned about area and angles and volume which of course you can't learn by rote, you have to learn how to measure and compute. I feel quite comfortable with my knowledge of math, mind you my career has required me to use numbers a lot, but I also think I can form a sentence, put the punctuation where it needs to go, and make a sentence flow. I do a little bit of side work taking certain blog inputs and correcting the grammar and punctuation and you get a few bucks when you send them back corrected. It's surprising the number of one's I have seen that come from obviously mature trades people who have a knowledge of their work but can't string a sentence together very well. It's beer money for me, but it makes me wonder what is going on in schools nowadays.

[socialist]

That's interesting and I am not a teacher so I certainly can't speak professionally. I did grow up back in the day when you did learn the times table and such but I don't see for example 6 x 8 = 48 as just something I learned by rote, even though I guess I did. In that same era math class I learned about area and angles and volume which of course you can't learn by rote, you have to learn how to measure and compute. I feel quite comfortable with my knowledge of math, mind you my career has required me to use numbers a lot, but I also think I can form a sentence, put the punctuation where it needs to go, and make a sentence flow. I do a little bit of side work taking certain blog inputs and correcting the grammar and punctuation and you get a few bucks when you send them back corrected. It's surprising the number of one's I have seen that come from obviously mature trades people who have a knowledge of their work but can't string a sentence together very well. It's beer money for me, but it makes me wonder what is going on in schools nowadays.

These might give you some more understanding of discovery math. It gets a bad rap because people don't understand the system. Reading the comments after the article makes me realize how out of touch most people are.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/03/27/robyn-urback-ontarios-itty-bitty-steps-toward-better-math-education/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/provinces-stick-with-discovery-math-despite-back-to-basics-push/article16250862/

http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/2014/01/26/the-great-canadian-math-debate-pt-7-memorizing-the-times-tables-is-damaging-to-your-childs-mind-says-discovery-math-researcher/

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-math-equals-trouble-education-expert-says-1.1058161

http://www.scpie.org/updated-outcry-from-alberta-educators-over-flawed-discovery-math-curriculum/

[GostHacked]

I am more concerned with getting the proper answer via math. Understanding the concept is great and should be taught as part of the math skills, but if you cannot get the right answer, you'll discover you cannot get a job if that job requires math skills.

Also Socialist, why do you pot articles that always conflict with your stance?

Every single article points to the same results that 'discovery learning' is a complete failure when dealing with maths.

2+2 is 4, also 2x2=4. Why? Does this really need a deep explanation or zen like understanding? No It's basic stuff. Discovery method may work when dealing with complex formulas but for the basics, there is no need to relearn or rediscover anything. The basics of math have already been understood for centuries. The sooner a student understands that the sooner they can move on to more complex math scenarios.

Even if you break down 8x6 into parts. (2x4)x(2x3) still equals 48. That is not using discovery method, that is using the basic understanding of math to begin with. Also the way things are formulated have a method. You do the work in the brackets first before multiplying the two total numbers. Doing it any other way and getting something other than 48 is simply wrong.

[Pct2017]

At the end of the day, the argument for whatever style of education that students are provided by teachers, er educators, should always be results oriented. Does the current system produce young adults who are capable of performing basic math and are able to string together a cohesive sentence and paragraph. Unfortunately, teachers like Young Socialist (OK, let's pretend he is actually a teacher, er educator) are process driven. Results mean little to them.

The other thing that is troubling about this entire argument regarding the style of arithmetic that is taught is that we are talking about a couple of months in the life of a grade 4 student. Why is it so inconceivable to some that if a teacher simply puts her head down and plugs through the times tables for a very short timespan, that she has set up her class for success in future math endeavours. Yes, it is numbingly boring to both teach and learn the times tables but I cannot see any other basic set of life skills that could have more impact on the future of the students than the simple learning of arithmetic at this age.

[Big Guy]

Different children have different learning processes. The experienced teacher can identify the most appropriate method for the child and apply that in their techniques. To assume that children all learn in the same manner is an arrogant and mistaken route to follow. Ask any experienced teacher.

[Pct2017]

There is no harm if the memorization was developed through regular use; however, the old format of simply drilling the times tables is absurd. Teaching kids to understand math concepts is far more beneficial than having them memorize numbers.

I had a counter top installed recently and the experience fits this topic. Apparently, the size and angle necessary for my kitchen isn't standard and the salesman/estimator couldn't calculate the dimensions and necessary cut angles. I did the math for him and he was blown away that I could figure it out. However, I was blown away that he had memorized the dimensions and angles for 30 to 50 common scenarios.

His memorized numbers allow him to quickly churn out the correct answers most of the time, however, he has no idea why the numbers work. On a standardized test his memorized information would likely allow him to answer several of the trig questions more quickly than I could...though I would get them all correct if given enough time. His score on a timed test could potentially be higher than mine, yet his understanding is incomplete and less useful. So are our standardized tests actually measuring what we want them to?

Slight problem with your argument. If you are old enough to be buying counter tops for your home, then you are probably too old to have been taught basic arithmetic in grade four any other way but rote memorization.