Who deserves a seat at the table?

From ProCon.or

When it comes to discussions about issues in education, I would like to think I interact with an educated mind. It is important for me to try to understand different points of view without necessarily adopting them, and I hope that everyone engaged in the discussion will do the same. This was tested last week as I interacted with a Canadian mathematician involved in a group interested in influencing education policy in his country (some of the interaction can be seen here).

The exchange came about because one of his colleagues recently published a commentary focusing on improving math scores in Canada. What to Do about Canada's Declining Test Scores offers three recommendations but I was most interested in the first piece of "advice":

As a rule of thumb, teachers should be encouraged to follow an 80/20 rule, favouring direct instructional techniques over discovery-based instructional techniques. 

The rationale provided includes references to multiple studies that support the use of direct instruction. However, the commentary ignores any research that disagrees with the premise that direct instruction is the most effective method of teaching.

In trying to understand the perspective of this group of mathematicians, I got this regarding the use of qualitative research:

This stance reminds me of my brief time in debate during high school, where people disparaged the source rather than addressing the content. I don't like debates like this because they focus on producing winners and losers instead of solutions. Ignoring an entire branch of education research is limiting, especially if you want input into making decisions about education.

Which brings me back to the question, "Who deserves a seat at the table?" I would say everyone does (although, people who engage in antisocial behavior ought to have it pointed out, and if it continues be shown the door). Extending the metaphor a bit, this does not mean that cooks ought to feel obliged to try to meet every guests' suggestion about the meal or its preparation. While some guests may have more expertise than others in cooking, the cooks are the experts on their own kitchen and their own skills. The cooks need to decide what advice to take. Certainly, this might result in some unhappy guests, but it is likely impossible to satisfy everyone given that the table is open to all.

The same goes for teachers. Too many outside "experts" are telling teachers what ought to be going on in their classroom. Whether the experts are saying discovery-based or direct instruction, teachers ought to remember Hattie's (2012) overall findings:

The remarkable feature of the evidence is that the greatest effects on student learning occur when teachers become learners of their own teaching, and when students become their own teachers. (p. 14)

Therefore, I encourage teachers and students to think of themselves as researchers - experimenting to determine what is and isn't working to foster learning and why. It should be noted that numbers on a test do not provide enough data to answer these questions.

The Hattie quote comes early in the text. In regards to the remainder of the book, or any other advice related to classroom instruction, I would suggest teachers heed Aristotle - feel free to entertain the research/recommendations of others but do not accept them if they won't improve the teaching and learning in your classroom.

What does the research really say? (Math Edition)

The American Educational Research Association (AERA) recently published a study, Which Instructional Practices Most Help First-Grade Students With and Without Mathematics Difficulties?, that caught the attention of several media sources. Many of these sources misrepresented the research with headlines like:

• Here's How Not to Teach First-Grade Math
• Drill, Baby, Drill? Study Finds Worksheets, Practice Improve Math Skills More than Fun Stuff

Other outlets were truer to the research:

• Explicit Instructions Works Best for Struggling Math Students
• Music, Manipulative Are Fun, But Basics Best for Struggling Math Students

However, these pieces still ignore some of the nuances of the research. To his credit, one of the author adds some perspective in this short video.

Still, achievement in mathematics needs to be defined. From the paper:

We used the ECLS- K’s Mathematics Test to estimate children’s mathematics achievement. ... The test was based on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)’s specifications. (p. 6)

If your idea of mathematical achievement is simply scoring well on a standardized-test, then direct instruction probably is the most efficient way to prepare students to achieve. 

For example, when putting together a piece of furniture from IKEA, it makes sense to follow the directions provided explicitly. Why would I explore assembling our coffee table when the directions provide step-by-step instructions on how to achieve my desired outcome? How else can I be sure that my table will look exactly like the one I ordered?

Item Number: 801.762.84

And, therefore, like every other IKEA coffee table, 801.762.84.

But what if I want something unique? In this case, the directions might not apply (or even exist). My stepson made this coffee table for us out of a part of a tree that was from my childhood home. It is one of my most prized possessions.

Now, he is a talented woodworker who can (and has) put together a lot of furniture using directions. When he wants or needs to be creative, however, he can be. For me, that is true achievement.

We need to apply the same approach to teaching mathematics. Focusing solely on achievement based on content assessed through a standardized-test misses an important element of mathematical ability - thinking beyond what can be explicitly taught. Dr. Yong Zhao does a good job of addressing this disconnect in this post. So I leave you with this:

Source

What does the research say? It depends on what one is looking to achieve.

Update (7/4/14): And now an example related to teaching language arts has surfaced.