One thing I have noticed at "math night", the coffees at Corl Street,
and the comments at the May 4 Board meeting is that just about all the
teachers and administrators who prefer Investigations justify it by
saying that this approach "makes math fun".
I have two reactions to this. The first is that this sort of
justification implies that math is inherently not fun. Nobody would
marvel at a new invention that "makes amusement parks fun", but
something that "makes haircuts fun" would be a real innovation. It is
certainly possible to make math boring, and maybe a very long time ago
educators did that by drilling kids without any attention to concepts,
but that is no longer the case. The alternatives to Investigations
that I hope we eventually consider, like Singapore and Saxon, build
conceptual understanding, are far from mindless drilling, and kids
like them.
My second reaction was summed up by a parent at the last Corl Street
coffee, who said something like "It's okay if my kids have a little
less fun if it means that they gain a better understanding of the
math." (Sorry if I have garbled this; maybe that parent can correct
me if I am misquoting him). I couldn't agree with this more; if my
kids have to slog their way through a dozen practice problems
occasionally to make sure they have mastery of a concept or an
algorithm, they can take it. I doubt that any of us would say that
our kids aren't getting enough fun.
There is a good article in this week's New Yorker about how delaying
self-gratification correlates with academic achievement. Here's a key
paragraph:
Angela Lee Duckworth, an assistant professor of psychology at the
University of Pennsylvania, is leading the program. She first grew
interested in the subject after working as a high-school math teacher.
“For the most part, it was an incredibly frustrating experience,” she
says. “I gradually became convinced that trying to teach a teen-ager
algebra when they don’t have self-control is a pretty futile
exercise.” And so, at the age of thirty-two, Duckworth decided to
become a psychologist. One of her main research projects looked at the
relationship between self-control and grade-point average. She found
that the ability to delay gratification—eighth graders were given a
choice between a dollar right away or two dollars the following week—
was a far better predictor of academic performance than I.Q. She said
that her study shows that “intelligence is really important, but it’s
still not as important as self-control.”
( Full article at
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/05/18/090518fa_fact_lehrer
)