What I do know is that when I was an evaluator of educational
software for K-12 mathematics for McGraw-Hill, we had a spectrum.
At one end of the spectrum were the "electronic page turners"
which were basically jazzed up textbooks with a little hypertext
(hot links to a glossary etc.).
At the other end of the spectrum were more open ended packages
which provided a "learning environment" with which students
could exercise their imaginations and tendencies to explore.
Seymour Papert's 'Logo', packages providing gizmos for assembling
contraptions (logic gates, Rube Goldberg devices) fit this
paradigm.
As with any spectrum, you had a lot of gradations in between
these extremes, but our sense at McGraw-Hill at the time was
that 'page turners' were 'a dime a dozen' and we were opposed
to mass-publishing more than a very few of these (we had a
couple, because the market was there) on philosophical grounds.
'Myst' and 'Riven' are other examples of commerically successful
products that, while not about specific math topics per se,
demonstrate what I mean by "open ended" and conducive to
exploration.
It's very tempting to sit kids down in front of electronic text-
books and consider that an advance, but the promise of computers
is sold way short in this scenario, as is the promise of our eager
and naturally curious young minds.
I've used computers with TAG (talented and gifted) kids here in
Oregon. Most younger kids burn out on Apple 2e Logo. Some of
the arcade style games that nevertheless required thinking, logic
(so-called brain teasers) perhaps with some elements of a
'twitch game' (i.e. raw hand eye coordination) were among the
most popular (I forget the titles -- this was several years ago),
and I think helpful reinforcing some concepts (the job of the
teacher to figure out which, and make the links).
For older kids, I found 'SimCity' and that genre a useful experience,
with the flow-chart in the back showing how all these parameters
intereffect one another (arrows interconnecting all the boxes,
outputs to inputs). That's the same kind of thinking that goes
on in global modeling (going back to Forrester et al at MIT) and
is highly worth imparting in the context of a mathematics course.
My overall assessment of the educational picture right now is that
front liner teachers are being worked to the bone by bureaucratic
taskmasters pushing "standards" in lieu of actually trying to
rescope the whole curriculum to take computers and technology
properly into account in a way that really takes full advantage
of their potentials. This curious fixation on "graphing
calculators" (vs. bona fide computers -- far easier to program)
is a symptom of this "stuck in the mud" situation.
If my Math Makeover Campaign of 1998 (well underway) continues
to make inroads, teachers will get more opportunities to escape
from their classrooms for hands-on trainings that go way beyond
hyping "business as usual" textbooks (rehashed "new editions"
of the same lame-brain materials) with their software "add ons".
The Math Makeover isn't called that by everybody -- my Pacific
Northwest affiliates are high tech venturers with surplus to burn,
and our approach tends to be too unconventional for the more
strait-laced. However, the new mathematics TV program airing
on PBS starting April 8 in most broadcast areas (USA) should help
give our stone (already rolling) yet more downhill momentum.
The key word is "relevance" -- making math matter (because if
you learn basic principles, you can really make stuff fly).
Kirby
Curriculum writer
4D Solutions
Relevant background reading:
http://www.inetarena.com/~pdx4d/ocn/
http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d/mathsummit.html
http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d/mathcenter.html
At 09:14 PM 8/27/70 -0500, you wrote:
>I teach gifted 2nd-6th in a school district that is considering
>implementation of the direct instruction teaching method. For math,
>the series is called "Connecting Math Concepts." Does anyone have
>experience using this method with above-average and/or gifted
>students? Any research that I have found has dealt with the program's
>success with at-risk students and at-risk school districts; they do
>not provide any information or data about its impact on students who
>are succeeding. What I have learned about the program worries me, but
>I don't wish to fight without facts on which to base my fight.
>email to: kramsey@pop.pitt.edu
****************************************************************************
* To post to the list: email mathedcc@archives.math.utk.edu *
* To unsubscribe, send mail to: majordomo@archives.math.utk.edu *
* In the mail message, enter ONLY the words: unsubscribe mathedcc *
* Words in the Subject: line are NOT processed! *
* Archives at http://archives.math.utk.edu/hypermail/mathedcc/ *
****************************************************************************