Educational Update

The National Mathematics Advisory Panel has just released their final report for 2008. The report was produced under a contract from the U.S. Department of Education. The Panel was established under Presidential Executive Order 13398 in April of 2006 and upon completion of this report, the Advisory Panel has been terminated.

Section 1 of this report states:

"Policy. To help keep America competitive, support American talent and creativity, encourage innovation throughout the American economy, and help State, local, territorial, and tribal governments give the Nation's children and youth the education they need to succeed. It shall be the policy of the United States to foster greater knowledge of and improved performance in mathematics among American students."

Section 2 Establishes the Panel and states the Panel Mission. So, for mathematics education in our country, this document is pretty important. The recommendations of the Panel will determine what the U.S. Department of Education needs to place emphasis on for research in mathematics education and will influence government mathematics education funding.

Chapter 7: Instructional Practices addresses the role of technology in mathematics instruction and learning. The Panel reviewed 11 studies that met the Panel's rigorous criteria. (The criteria is given in the subcommittee draft report also available online.)

I have several issues with this section.

1. The main issue being the fact that only 1 of the 11 studies is less than 20 years old. That is just ridiculous. Technology in mathematics instruction and learning 20 years ago was so very different than today if it even existed in classrooms at all! The report goes on to make claims that use of calculators in classrooms has not shown improvement on student learning gains. Calculator use 20 years ago would have consisted of addition, multiplication, subtraction, and division. Calculator functionality and classroom usage today is drastically different from 20 years ago. To report on technology in the classroom from over 20 years ago is just preposterous.
2. The Panel then addresses computer use in the classroom. The Panel reports: "The available research is insufficient for identifying the factors that influence the effectiveness of instructional software under conventional circumstances." Okay, good. The Panel recognizes their research was not conclusive. But why didn't the Panel review more recent studies? I guess I must read the criteria.
3. The Panel recommends that high-quality computer-assisted instruction (CAI) drill and practice, implemented with fidelity, be considered as a useful tool in developing students’ automaticity (i.e., fast, accurate, and effortless performance on computation), freeing working memory so that attention can be directed to the more complicated aspects of complex tasks. So computers should be used as glorified computation devices? Why can't computers assist in students' learning of complex tasks? (Answer: they can and we've seen it.)
   

Yarg!!!

[[Note: Various people in related fields are reviewing the report. One such person is an adviser to the Mathematics Education Center where I work.]]

Colin Confusion

I have a thing for Colin Firth. A good friend of mine has a thing for Colin Farrell. And we both think the other is nuts. Anyway, there is always confusion when we decide to see a “Colin movie”. It ends up boiling down to a movie with either "your Colin" or "my Colin" for clarification purposes of course.

Anyway, Saturday was pretty grim, weather-wise. So when my friend asked if I wanted to see a Colin movie, I said yes; thinking of course we would be seeing a movie with Colin Farrell, i.e. In Bruges which is on the list of movies I want to see; so it was okay. So off we went to the playhouse. When we got there, a movie poster outside revealed a different Colin, my Colin!

“It’s Colin Firth!” I replied with excitement. I’ve been waiting for Mamma Mia! to be released but I had forgotten about this movie, Then She Found Me also starring Helen Hunt, whom I really like, Matthew Broderick, who will always be Ferris Bueller to me, and Bette Midler.

I really loved the movie. And not just because of the eye candy. :) It was Helen Hunt’s directorial debut. It was a comedic drama about the life of a 39-year-old woman who gets married in the opening scene only to have her life turned upside down. There were certain parts that made me cringe but there was a real-ness to it many movies attempt to provide and fail at. I laughed at parts and it was a real joy to watch the characters develop. And the little life insights that movies often try to provide were more believable and entertaining in this film than in most. Given the chance I would see it again. (This time it might just be for the eye candy). :)