Mon 1 Feb 2010
Response to “PSU Math Professor’s Oppose Investigations”
Posted by Tia under Blog
[7] Comments
What I read
http://wheresthemathbellingham.blogspot.com/2010/02/penn-state-math-professors-oppose.html#comment-form
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20094052/pdf/20094052.pdf
There are three issues to address: How Investigations is taught, the meaning of constructing ones own learning, and being mindful of how to move forward in a solutions-oriented way. I hope that members of your group can run some focus groups and invite members of the school community to participate.
Let me begin by saying that I am neither for nor against Investigations as the best math curriculum to teach. However, it is important to understand how Investigations works. Its authors intended it to be a resource as well as a textbook for teachers so they could get professional development in along with preparing for class. This is important to note, because many elementary school teachers find math to be their most challenging subject. In theory this is a great idea, but to teach Investigations well, you have to read the entire book unit you will be teaching, figure out the main concepts and then adapt it to your methods. Then, as with any subject textbook, supplemental materials are a must. Who has the time?! The problem with Investigations as I see it, is the practice ends up being very different from the theory.
My second item of contention is the misuse and misunderstanding of what it means to construct ones own knowledge. In the open letter from the PSU professors you reference in your blog, it states: “This program is based on the highly controversial idea that one bypass basic techniques when teaching mathematics, that the students will themselves discover mathematical truth, while the teacher only plays the role of a facilitator.” Well, yes, it is a highly controversial idea because educators understand it in different ways. We as an education community must come up with a “standard” definition or we will continually argue about issues we later discover we actually agree upon. To me, constructing knowledge is based on the idea that when the brain receives new input, it attempts to understand it by processing it against all the other information it already has. We sometimes call these “making connections.” A teacher, when guiding a classroom of learners will activate background knowledge, create an environment where students do activities, journal, discuss, compare, reflect and defend. In such an environment though the teacher leads them all the way up to the new concept, the “ah-ha” moment will be something they own. A true success that builds self-confidence.
Finally, I have read the study you refer to and Investigations falls neither at the top nor at the bottom of the program studies (Please see comment below). This does nothing to convince me that it is a poor or unreasonable math program as you infer. Furthermore, the study was done only with 1st graders. In the Investigations program, a strong conceptual foundation is built first and in later grades more efficient methods are learned. It doesn’t surprise me that, based on one test to assess their learning, that the first graders learning Investigations didn’t score at the top. In my opinion, the open-minded and solutions-oriented way to move forward, is to work on finding studies, facts, etc. on a program that is worthwhile. Instead of urging the school district to abandon what is already in place, why don’t you take advantage of this opportunity to get a professional research organization in your schools and have them conduct studies. Any of you who are teachers have most likely had training like I did on research methods and you could, working together, conduct your own study so long as its results are uncompromised. I think it’s time that we all step up and take more action in regards to our local schools as well as our school districts and school boards. I sure don’t see anyone else out there who is more capable of improving our schools than you, teachers, parents, staff, principals and concerned citizens. So, my advice, find a better alternative and present it to your school board and the mayor and your school district. Do the work for them and compare the curriculum, show the data and they will have no choice.
All the best, -Tia-
Check out the parent blog:
The Math UnderGround: Seattle & Washington State
And it does align with washington state standards very well. No one curriculum aligns 100%. Investigations aligns well. It is a stretch to say it aligns poorly.
Investigations was on the recommended list on the state review, just not at the very top. It scored well in reviews. It has been used with success by many schools. It has never been meant to be used as the one and only math curriculum in any classroom. Any teacher who is using investigations alone is failing their students. I taught with this program in Seattle Public Schools and we also used Saxon math as a supplement. Saxon math was too rudimentary to enable the students to fully comprehend mathematical thinking and concepts. But it did help them to memorize and use the standard algorithms.
Now, I am not teaching but my child is in first grade in Bellingham schools and I am as pleased as punch in her math learning. She is learning so much about how numbers relate to life and mathematical problem solving and thinking. Her teachers use mainly Investigations but they also supplement with other products. They are excellent teachers. They are happy with Investigations, and for good reason. It is an excellent product.
Children need to be able to be fluent in math and there are many ways of teaching it. In my experience, this means using a variety of math products. But there is no reason Investigations cannot be the main curriculum product used in Bellingham schools. Bhammer and his blog have been on a negative rant about Investigations for more than a year. I have never understood why he does not put his time and energy into his classroom at Happy Valley elementary, learning more ways to successfully implement and supplement Investigations, rather than spending his time writing all this negativeness about it.
But thank you, Tia, for pointing out the truth.
You can always tell an expert! Thanks for contbirtuing.
I don’t think Investigations should be used anywhere as the core math curriculum. As a supplemental program it has some value, but it is an especially poor fit for schools in Washington State. As far as the PSU professors are concerned others from Harvard, Stanford and Michigan State have shared the same concerns. Conceptual understanding is important, but procedural fluency is essential too. Investigations does not produce computational efficiency because the authors oppose teaching standard algorithms. It’s a fatal flaw in their elementary math program.
bhammer, thank you for your comments. I very much want to stimulate discussion in the math community because I feel that we are failing our kids in teaching them math. I don’t know what the right direction to go is. You are right that Investigations had the lowest test score results. I guess I inserted my own bias against tests when I made my comment. What I was remembering from reading the study last summer is that there were multiple factors including Saxon Math teachers spending substantially more time on math and the study so far being just among first grade teachers, but you’re absolutely right, I remembered what I wanted to remember. Maybe what you are saying in your post is not that Investigations as a curriculum isn’t unreasonable but because it doesn’t align with WA state standards it is unreasonable? Anyway, thanks for reading!
Using Investigations to teach math is like using Whole Language to teach reading.
When it comes to educating kids, I’ll take research and data over pedagogy any day of the week. The bottom line is simple. Investigations does not align well with Washington’s math standards. It does not teach efficient procedures that have been used by mathematicians for over a thousand years. Moreover student achievement has declined as a result of its deficiencies, and the achievement gap has widened.
You claim that Investigations “falls neither at the top nor the bottom” of the IES study on curriculum effects. The only way you can believe that is if you haven’t read the study. After all the main finding was, “Student math achievement was significantly higher in schools assigned to Math Expressions and Saxon, than in schools assigned to Investigations and SFAW.” It really doesn’t get any more clear than that.
But if that isn’t compelling enough then just look at the book “Visible Learning” by John Hattie. He analyzed over 50,000 studies on achievement and compiled them in one place. What did he find? That inquiry based programs like Investigations are less effective than those that include teacher directed instruction. That’s exactly why the Fulton County SD in Georgia recently dumped TERC, it’s not because they didn’t understand how it works. Rather it’s because it didn’t work, and student performance was suffering.