We frequently hear critics argue that U.S. students can’t write well and that there is a “literacy crisis” in the U.S. What is the origin of these discourses? What do they have to do with immigration, national security, and economics? How does the notion that Americans can’t write drive the national push to test writing? Here we explore the history of writing and testing in the U.S., the “science” and technology of testing approaches, and how the rhetoric of assessment impacts the lives of Americans today.

Thursday, March 3, 2011

Public discourse on public discourse

I have been learning about public discourse in education reform in my 474 class and it led me to think about math education specifically. There is much debate, especially communities with high ELL student populations, about the change of math education from the old school version that most of us went through of learning what how to do something with the teacher telling us how to do it, and we practice it (times table cards is a great example) and how there is not too much emphasis on two way communication and discourse. I am sure there are studies on both sides saying one is better than the other, but I personally read a professional journal study that when a teachers ask more questions, and engages the class more the students perform better than teachers who involve less two-way communication. My personal position is that if you are using public discourse to come to a solution to a problem regarding math curriculum, than using it in the actual curriculum would also help to find the solutions to math problems (not to say practice and repetition isn't necessary). So I am wondering what everyone else thinks

Old school repetitive one-way communication in math or the newer discourse way?
Posted by at

2 comments:

Uncle Evil J said...

I feel that this has more to do with individual learning patterns. Some of us benefit from engaging two-way communication; yet, some of us benefit greatly from cut and dry formulaic repetition.

A friend who is an Architectural Engineer can only learn from this one-way communication model. For him, when asked about it, stated: It's easier for me to drill Physics proofs and Mathematical equations into my head and extrapolate more significance from them later, instead of getting too caught up in any one thing.

It would seem that the nature of the subject would have some bearing on the pedagogical style as well. A one-way communication model for something like an art class (Art History being the exception) would not likely hold up to the demands/needs of the student.

March 13, 2011 at 3:43 PM
David T. said...

In terms of math and science, I learn much better when I can use a formula and plug and chug the answer. On the other hand, in my English classes, I prefer the interaction between professor and student because it motivates and in a way even intimidates the students to read and learn the material. For example, when I took English 201, the professor was so intelligent and so relentless that if I didn't read for that day I would regret it by the end of class. My point is that when the teacher has high expectations of their students, the students will/should try harder in order to meet those expectations. The teacher I mentioned didn't care if your hand was raised, he would call on us randomly and I think he would do it purposely to the students who he knew didn't read. He knew that if he embarrassed someone, they would absolutely be prepared the next day. In this way, communication between teachers and students was beneficial.

March 27, 2011 at 7:04 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)