Yes, you did manipulatives, but you are attempting something after the
psychological and behavioral aspects of continually not understanding
have set in. You are then expecting them to do something that many
mature adults cannot do, step back and open their mind to really give
a something more than a half hearted try. And I can see from your
message that you are frustrated by their attitude. I wansn't trying
to imply that YOU were doing something wrong. It is that the system
your current students worked under was rarely one of help those who
are struggling by using different methods. It is still the case in
many schools now. If they get help it is more of the same. I hope
you didn't take my post as personal.

Also, children used to have more hands-on activities involving math.
Some was in school, some at home. Counting, measuring, building, etc
was a major part of younger grades. These activities increased basic
math skills and number sense. Many of these things have gone by the
wayside with the way society has changed AND school does less and less
of these in order to try to teach math at a higher level in a younger
grade.

So, I do believe there is a large number of kids that could do better
in math if given the appropriate foundation. Not all kids need the
same amount to build this foundation, but those who need it, need it.

I also agree that not all students will be capable of AP Calculus by
their senior year, but there is a good percentage that can't get
through Algebra and Geometery. Typically, these kids have struggled
from the start trying to learn math the way it is taught.

I didn't mean to imply that at your level you could fix the problem if
the problem was with so many of the basics and took years to make.
On 6/22/09, algie2 wrote:
> Actually, I did use hands on manipulatives along with chalkboard
> explanations. I already told you the reaction: but we've been doing
> this since middle school!
>
> I agree that there are a vast variety of learning styles. I agree
> that some kids are so frustrated with math by the time they get to
> high school that they just turn off. However, I disagree that every
> high school age kid out there can achieve mastery. I'm not saying
> it's always the fault of the student. Some are trying very hard but
> they may not be developmentally ready or they may just lack the
> innate math intelligence.
>
> Just as I have taken skiing lessons every winter for decades and can
> hardly call myself a skier, some people (especially adolescents) will
> not *master* this stuff at this time no matter how you teach them.
> Sure, they may understand the hands-on lesson while you are doing it
> but it doesn't "click" to the point that they can then apply what
> they have learned.
>
> So my point is we shouldn't denigrate a particular teaching strategy
> (the acronym P E MD AS for example) just because it doesn't work for
> some kids.
>
> And do we really have a whole population of crumbling math students?
> This suggests that students had better math foundation in the past.
> But past math teaching relied much much more on "chalk and talk"
> followed by paper and pencil practice and rarely on hand-on
> manipulation.

Share This Post | Report This Post

Next Post >>

Posts on this thread, including this one