[Ohiogift] new study of elementary math instruction

[Gifted and Talented in Ohio Discussion List]

Friends:

Below is a link to and excerpt from a story on a study of effective methods for teaching math to first-grade students.  This is followed by a set of links to various versions of the study itself and finally by my own comment.

Margaret


"Right and wrong methods for teaching first graders who struggle with math" from the "Education by the Numbers" blog on the Hechinger Report website:

http://educationbythenumbers.org/content/kumon-worksheet-style-drilling-might-effective-little-kids-struggle-math_1564/

[From the Blog post]  
"First grade teachers facing a class full of students struggling with math were more likely to turn to music, movement, and manipulative toys to get their frustrated kids engaged, finds a new study in the journal Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. Yet researchers found these techniques did not help—and in some cases hindered—learning for the students having the most difficulty.

Pennsylvania State University researchers Paul L. Morgan and Steve Maczuga and George Farkas of the University of California, Irvine analyzed the use of different types of instruction by 1st grade mathematics teachers, including teacher-directed instruction, such as explicit explanations and practice drills; student-centered, such as small-group projects and open problem-solving; and strategies intended to ground math in real life, such as manipulative toys, calculators, music, and movement activities....Children with learning disabilities tend to benefit from instruction that is explicit and teacher directed, guided and modeled and also has lots of opportunities for practice."


Study: 

Paul L. Morgan, The Pennsylvania State University
George Farkas, University of California, Irvine
Steve Maczuga, The Pennsylvania State University

Which Instructional Practices Most Help First-Grade Students With and Without Mathematics Difficulties?

Published online first in:
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis
June 25, 2014

Youtube presentation by co-author Paul L. Morgan (worth the time):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCAzLGSZ6aM#t=22

News release: 
http://www.aera.net/Newsroom/NewsReleasesandStatements/StudyTeachersMoreLikelytoUseIneffectiveInstructionWhenTeachingStudentswithMathematicsDifficulties/tabid/15561/Default.aspx

Abstract:
http://epa.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/06/20/0162373714536608

Full Text:

http://epa.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/06/20/0162373714536608.full



Margaret comments: in a very influential book entitled "Keeping Track" published in 1985, Jeannie Oakes claimed that tracking was inherently unfair because educators made biased decisions about the instructional practices that would be best for students in different tracks. Oakes's claims were entirely based on personal observation--she made no effort to look at achievement data.  Oakes argued that the instruction in the lower tracks was arbitrarily limited in content and variety of techniques.  Readers assumed (along with Oakes herself) that the instructional techniques used by teachers should be similar for all groups of students and the observation of different teaching styles for different groups was in itself proof of unfair treatment.  However, research has shown that this is not necessarily the case.  Several studies found that so-called "direct instruction" methods were effective in helping students learn to read and were especially effective with struggling students. ( The University of Oregon was involved in one of these research projects, as chronicled by the Association for Direct Instruction http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~adiep/ft/151toc.htm ) 

 The current study, based on the NCES records of 13,393 first grade students, has also found that direct instruction and repetition are more effective with struggling first-grade math students than more fashionable inductive or "student-centered" approaches--whereas both approaches were found to be equally effective with average students. 

If it is confirmed, this finding undermines the argument that using different instructional methods with different groups of students is in itself evidence of unjust, ineffective or inequitable teaching.  

Surprisingly, the authors of this study also found that teachers were more likely to use "student-centered" approaches with their struggling students. Perhaps this is the result of claims by education activists that "student-centered" instruction is "better". 

This study is the start, not the end of the conversation.  It clearly shows the potential value of collecting more information about the achievement gains of students in different ability groups, and not assuming that one size fits all in education.  It should also be read in together with another recent set of studies carried out in Chicago based on a very large database which have found that skill-based ability grouping increased overall learning in algebra and recommended special training in classroom management for teachers in charge of lower-achieving students. 
  
https://ccsr.uchicago.edu/publications/skill-based-sorting-era-college-prep-all-costs-and-benefits

Finally, if different pedagogical methods are in fact effective for different sorts of students, we may also question whether moving supposedly "effective" teachers around to increase equity will actually benefit student learning.   


Margaret




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osu.edu/pipermail/ohiogift/attachments/20140801/a835ea78/attachment.html>