Alberta Moving Ahead With 21st Century Learning

overthere · January 9, 2015

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.

+1

Learning times tables is required as a basis for employing the discovery method. but only insofar as a student is capable of learning via the discovery method.. The times table is a basic math tool tool, a great timesaver. And it is far from a 'rote' method, it applies a discipline and logic that are invaluable and indispensable in l;earning higher math concepts. Math is a layered, logical construct where one idea follows another. Knowing times tables is not different much than understanding pi, or the Pythagorean Theorem of right triangles. It is a tool that saves much time and applies often to higher learning.

I would compare knowing times tables in math to knowing the alphabet for reading. It is not the entirety, but an essential building block for more learning.

And that is why experienced teachers in Alberta still teach times tables in Grade 3.

bush_cheney2004 · January 9, 2015

....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?

There are circumstances and applications where faster, rote memorization is not only more useful, but critical because more time is not an option. Also, based on my experience with younger retail point-of-sale cashiers, I am not convinced they have mastered concepts or basic mathematical relationships any better, and in some cases their "math" skills are much worse.

overthere · January 9, 2015

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.

That is seriously old school.

I had counters done this spring and the estimator used a laser templating system that was quick and astonishingly accurate. This was in a complex kitchen where none of the corners were square and the walls had the usual waves There was no manual measurement or angle calculation involved, except in the computer and AutoCad systems he used. Once the program has calculated the five counters required, it figured the best use of the stone slabs in inventory via WiFI, calculated a plan to use the least stone and displayed it. He forwarded it to me then and there to my computer, where I blew it up, reviewed and signed off. He then emailed the cut plan to their shop where it was cut using CNC technology. The degree of accuracy was amazing. the counters fit like they had been poured rather than cut.. I don't think he had a tape measure with him. No paper at all.

On Guard for Thee · January 9, 2015

I would be interested to know how the guy who couldn't calculate the counter tops was taught math in the first place. It tends to sound like a lack of basic understanding that seems to show with the newer style of teaching. I'm no carpenter so I would leave it to others to install the counters but I'd have no trouble grabbing a tape measure and working out the numbers, and I'm "old school". Speaking of interesting technology though, I was down to a place in Oregon to test fly a kit plane that is made there. Also had a tour of the factory and they have a plasma type machine where you go to a computer, tell it what size a sheet of aluminum you have on the table and how many of which parts you need and hit enter. The calculations are done and then the computer sends the "robot" to get the appropriate tool and those parts are cut out, with the minimum amount of waste, while you go for coffee. And the plane flew quite nicely as well.

bush_cheney2004 · January 9, 2015

The funny thing is that coordinate measuring machines (CMM), geometric templates/tolerancing, CAD software, and CNC machines were developed by people who learned math the old fashioned way...complete with rote memorization of times tables!

Mighty AC · January 9, 2015

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.

It was just a recent example illustrating the difference between understanding and memorized outcomes. It was also meant to show that our assessments aren't always testing for aptitude in the way we think they are.

Mighty AC · January 9, 2015

There are circumstances and applications where faster, rote memorization is not only more useful, but critical because more time is not an option. Also, based on my experience with younger retail point-of-sale cashiers, I am not convinced they have mastered concepts or basic mathematical relationships any better, and in some cases their "math" skills are much worse.

Memorized information is a good thing, if attained through frequent interaction with problems. However, simple rote memorization isn't a very good strategy for attaining information. I agree that there are many cashiers (young and old) that have poor basic math skills. However, this criticism of younger generations has been a constant for centuries.

bush_cheney2004 · January 9, 2015

Memorized information is a good thing, if attained through frequent interaction with problems. However, simple rote memorization isn't a very good strategy for attaining information.

I disagree, as there are many basic constants and relationships that support calculations and resulting information for real life problem solving

(e.g. like Pi (π), metric-english conversions, etc.) without the aid of calculators or other references. I would agree that memorization of logarithms is not required !

socialist · January 9, 2015

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

Thanks for taking the bait. Here; read this from a math education expert.

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2014/06/08/university-of-alberta-math-education-expert-says-discovery-math-is-not-to-blame-for-falling-test-scores

And so people say I'm fair, here is the side I disagree with.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/02/28/does-discovery-learning-prepare-alberta-students-for-the-21st-century-or-will-it-toss-out-a-top-tier-education-system/

socialist · January 9, 2015

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.

Old PCT, you have no clue what you are talking about. You know nothing about modern public education, yet you come across as some expert, which you are far from. You are clueless about the teaching of math and continue to embarrass yourself. Have you ever seen discovery, 21st century teaching in an actual public classroom?

Educate yourself already.

http://education.penelopetrunk.com/2012/08/16/5-reasons-why-you-dont-need-to-teach-math/

Edited January 10, 2015 by socialist

socialist · January 9, 2015

Here is a math resource that is awesome. The problem many of you have is that you do not understand the difference between arithmetic and mathematics. 2+2 is arithmetic. Deep understanding of the subject, even through a social justice lens is a benefit for all society.

Have a look at this. A teacher resource for linking math and social justice - See more at: https://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/reports/math-matters#sthash.Es0rT048.dpuf

https://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/reports/math-matters

socialist · January 10, 2015

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.

You want kids to be bored in math class because that's the way you did it. Again, you need to understand 21st century education. Collaboration is important. Not sitting in rows memorizing ridiculous times tables being bored out of your mind.

Educate yourself.

http://www.mathgoodies.com/articles/social_injustice.html

Ash74 · January 10, 2015

Ok than. I am asking. Why do the students in Quebec rank higher than the rest of Canada when it comes to math skills?

Quebec is sticking to the old school way of teaching and it seems to be getting students better marks. I do understand that testing is an joke, proves nothing, is a waste of time,etc,etc but the students in Quebec are showing a better understanding of math than with this 21st century learning thing

socialist · January 10, 2015

Ok than. I am asking. Why do the students in Quebec rank higher than the rest of Canada when it comes to math skills?

Quebec is sticking to the old school way of teaching and it seems to be getting students better marks. I do understand that testing is an joke, proves nothing, is a waste of time,etc,etc but the students in Quebec are showing a better understanding of math than with this 21st century learning thing

You have no idea what this 21st century learning thin is. None.

Ash74 · January 10, 2015

You have no idea what this 21st century learning thin is. None.

You have no idea how to explain an opinion.

On Guard for Thee · January 10, 2015

Old PCT, you have no clue what you are talking about. You know nothing about modern public education, yet you come across as some expert, which you are far from. You are clueless about the teaching of math and continue to embarrass yourself. Have you ever seen discovery, 21st century teaching in an actual public classroom?

Educate yourself already.

http://education.penelopetrunk.com/2012/08/16/5-reasons-why-you-dont-need-to-teach-math/

I think we know who is embarrassing themselves. I thought teachers were supposed to be somewhat open minded.

Ash74 · January 10, 2015

I think we know who is embarrassing themselves. I thought teachers were supposed to be somewhat open minded.

He is not a teacher. I am guessing OCD with his cult like worship of the 21st learning curriculum. My step brother is schizophrenic and is the same way with the bible.

socialist · January 10, 2015

He is not a teacher. I am guessing OCD with his cult like worship of the 21st learning curriculum. My step brother is schizophrenic and is the same way with the bible.

So you need to resort to insults? It will make no difference to me. I am an educator and understand the industry. You don't.

Edited January 10, 2015 by socialist

Ash74 · January 10, 2015

And still you do not explain your point.

On Guard for Thee · January 10, 2015

He is not a teacher. I am guessing OCD with his cult like worship of the 21st learning curriculum. My step brother is schizophrenic and is the same way with the bible.

Yes I have yet to see a lot of proof that shows the "old" way was so wrong and the new so much better. I know my times table, don't even need a calculator to know 6 8's are 48. I can also understand such things as a "par sec" which is a way of determining the distance of a heavenly body based on trig. One is rote, the other is conceptualization. I learned it all a long time ago. I also have been looking around for a link to a CBC radio interview from a while back between two educators discussing this very issue which was very interesting. If I find it I'll post it.

Ash74 · January 10, 2015

Actually I really don't have a problem with the concept of 21st century learning but I believe it has some holes that need filled to make it a better program

Bob Macadoo · January 10, 2015

Actually I really don't have a problem with the concept of 21st century learning but I believe it has some holes that need filled to make it a better program

This is exactly what's going on in the classrooms everyday......universities running observation evaluations of each new and recently new technique. Providing analysis, review and discussion with teachers, principals, and policy makers. You all really think they just drop this manual on the table named "NOT the Old Fart Way" and fait complit?

Don't listen to the above ramblings/insults......its an organic process......observations that kids are bad at math today is because kids are bad at math . I can find a 50 y.o. cashier who can't make change the same as a 18 y.o. Guess who I have less respect for, the one who just started in the workforce or the one who most likely done the same the job for the last quarter century?

Today's kids who are getting this math are developing some of the most cutting edge technology and letting us take the evolutionary jumps we'll need to survive damage caused by each previous generation. Some kids don't get it (like my oldest) where I have to coach alot and others are able to use it for what it is. My youngest is 7 years younger and performs above my oldest and at that grade level.

Michael Hardner · January 10, 2015

Actually I really don't have a problem with the concept of 21st century learning but I believe it has some holes that need filled to make it a better program

Here's something: my teacher acquaintances tell me that experimental education practices are NOT properly tested, and are too susceptible to group-think, fads and so on.

I agree with you that some of the 21st century learning makes sense, and maybe even that some practices can't really be tested anyway. Group learning and individual learning are both important to me, social learning and learning of facts and research methods are all important. Parents have to be accounted to, as well as the general public to a lesser degree.

What holes do you see as needing filling ?

Michael Hardner · January 10, 2015

This is exactly what's going on in the classrooms everyday......universities running observation evaluations of each new and recently new technique. Providing analysis, review and discussion with teachers, principals, and policy makers. You all really think they just drop this manual on the table named "NOT the Old Fart Way" and fait complit?

As I posted above, I have teacher acquaintances that say that the new methods are only tested in ways that induce confirmation bias. I'm not denying the truth of what you wrote, just identifying this aspect of the topic as something that would be interesting to explore here.

And... part of testing, piloting and eventually implementing new education programs is defining a series of "publics" (or stakeholders if you prefer) that could be informed, or polled for feedback as to their thoughts.

socialist · January 10, 2015

As I posted above, I have teacher acquaintances that say that the new methods are only tested in ways that induce confirmation bias. I'm not denying the truth of what you wrote, just identifying this aspect of the topic as something that would be interesting to explore here.

And... part of testing, piloting and eventually implementing new education programs is defining a series of "publics" (or stakeholders if you prefer) that could be informed, or polled for feedback as to their thoughts.

Any educational research that I've been introduced to through ProD sessions is always very sound. I'm not sure what you are talking about here.