Is Discovery Learning a Bust?

Is Discovery Learning a Bust, and

Has PWC Blown it By Embracing Discovery Learning?

Several years ago Prince William County Schools (PWCS) adopted a mathematics program called Investigations in Number, Data, and Space as it’s elementary math program.  PWCS is currently pushing Connected Mathematics into the Middle Schools.  Both of these programs are based on an instructional philosophy which concludes that students’ learn best when they discover knowledge on their own – a philosophy which is commonly referred to as discovery, or constructivist, learning.

The current trend in extending the tenets of discovery learning to mathematics can be traced back, to an extent,  works published in the 60’s.   Researchers noted that children learn things easily outside of school when they discover it themselves, while learning in a school environment takes a lot of effort and work.   They theorized that if schools duplicated the “outside of school” environment, students would learn more in less time with better retention and greater depth of understanding.

Whole Language was one of the offshoots of this approach to learning.  After years of suffering the reading wars, Congress commissioned studies to determine how children learn to read.  The results of those studies brought about the more balanced reading instruction we see today where phonics is one of the pillars on which a sound reading program rests.

Now we find ourselves in the midst of the Math Wars, with PWC on the front lines.  Several Years ago the National Institutes of Child Health convened  studies to ascertain how children learn math and what contributes to math learning disabilities.  One such study is currently in it’s 6th year and has reported some of it’s conclusions. Dr Dave Geary recently published an article, based on those studies, (see here) in which he concluded that some things, like talking and walking, are inherent biological functions which humans are genetically designed to develop, while other functions, like reading and math, aren’t inherent and are needed only because society demands them.

Geary’s research indicates that these non-inherent functions (which he refers to as biologically secondary knowledge) aren’t learned the same way that inherent functions are learned; that discovery and self learning, the primary means by which children learn to talk and walk aren’t the most effective means of teaching children to read or write or understand and perform mathematical calculations.

Geary’s study concludes that math and science instructional programs need to include direct instruction and practice if we want our children to learn math and science.

Yet in the fall PWCS will be officially extending it’s discovery based math program to 5th grade and officials in PWCS are working diligently to unofficially implement it’s discovery based math program, Connected Math, in the middle schools.  You have to wonder why the county would continue these programs, when the evidence suggests that these programs, while engaging to our children, don’t actually teach them math.

__________________________________________________________

With thanks to Elizabeth Carson of NYC HOLD and Dan Dempsey of The Math Underground for bringing this research to my attention.

Omen’s of impending doom

Has PWC set it’s schools on a course for failure?

To answer that question one need only look to the Elementary mathematics program – Investigations.  You see, the philosophy Investigations follows – reform math – has failed miserably in state after state.  By selecting Investigations for elementary students and pushing Connected Math in the Middle Schools, PWC is setting our children up for failure just like the children in Washington and California were set up by their school divisions.

This Article, from the Spokesman Review, discusses how reform math failed students in Washington and how parents and the State Legislature are working to take control back from the schools.

Perhaps it’s time for a state-wide effort to toughen our standards of learning and get rid of these fuzzy curricula once and for all.

Connected Math’s bogus studies

As with Investigations, it appears that the numerous studies demonstrating middle school student achievement when taught under the CMP approach are bogus.

This study, completed by the US Department of Education, found that of the 22 studies conducted on CMP, 19 had so many flaws that they didn’t meet their standards for reliability. The other 3 met the standards but with reservations.

Of the 3 remaining, semi-valid studies, the results were inconclusive. Students taught under CMP underperformed their peers taught under a more traditional program when assessed by the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS), exceeded their peers when assessed by the Mass. Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS), and equaled their peers when assessed by the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS).

What is Traditional Math?

Because there has been so much discussion about a traditional math track in PWC schools, we thought it might be useful to take a step back and discuss just what traditional math is – especially in lieu of the misconceptions and misrepresentations being batted about.

Let’s start with some of the misconceptions about traditional math programs that we’ve been hearing.

Connected Math in PWC Middle Schools?

Connected Mathematics (known as Connected Math) is Investigations middle school “cousin”, and, according to reports from Middle School teachers throughout the county, it’s coming to a middle school near you.

Middle school teachers have reported to us that they have been given full sets of the Connected Math teachers materials (which retail at $333.44 per set) and instructed by school officials in the math department to begin using Connected Math as a supplement to their lessons now so that they will be prepared for the Investigation’s students when they arrive in Middle School two years from now.

Like Investigations, Connected Math follows the constructivist method of instruction and is not recommended by the state DOE for use in Grade 6 or 8, though it is approved for use in Grade 7. Additionally, Connected Math was not approved for use as a primary text by the PWC school board when it selected textbooks in 2005. Connected Math, in my opinion, is just as bad if not worse, than Investigations (more on that in a later post).