There are many advantages in Warrington's method of teaching math. One of the advantages is that students learn to associate the problem with real life situation. For example when the students gave examples of the a candy bar being divided or a pie shared among friends. This method of teaching makes students use what they already know to solve problems. Another advantage is that students learn to make logical leaps of understanding on there own. for example, when one of Warrington's students used equivalent ratios to make a problem easier to solve. This is something that will help students for the rest of there life when they are not dependent on a teacher to solve the problem for them.
I also think that there are many disadvantages as well to Warrington's teaching style. One of those disadvantages is that many of the students could be riding on the coat tails of the ones that really understand the topic. Meaning, several students who were struggling may have nodded there heads in agreement with the students who were passionate about their answers, without really understanding it for themselves. Also it is clear from the article that these students already understood fraction and many other mathematical concepts. I don't think this style of teaching would work for all subjects. It would be difficult to introduce new material and not let the students see patterns of how it works.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with your assessment of the advantages. Warrington's instruction seems to equip students with the type of understanding and competence that would allow them to use mathematics in their lives. I also agree with your first disadvantage, that perhaps some of the students were not understanding or working to understand. However, this is true in almost every classroom no matter what instructional approach is being used. Do you think the lack of engagement under this type of instruction is worse than under the type of instruction that focuses only on rules and procedures?
ReplyDeleteAs for your last disadvantage, I disagree that some topics can't be taught this way. The reason I say this is because this is the only way that some teachers teach. In fact, in Japan, this is the way that they begin every unit in K-8 mathematics instruction. Students are required to use what they already know to solve problems they don't already know how to solve. So I think it's possible to teach any topic this way.
I completely agree that some of the students may find it easy to ride on the coat tails of others. That is a problem that the teacher would have to constantly look out for.
ReplyDeleteI thought I agreed with the last point you made, then I read Dr Seibert's response...but I still kind of find a hard time beleiving that students who haven't learned this way their whole lives can suddenly switch to learning everything this way. If this is the fact then we need to start weeding out the old teaching from like kindergarten and start working up the new teaching from there...It's just a thought though.
I agree that Warrington's style of teaching definitely does make the students use what they already know to solve a problem. I agree that this is an advantage because students should make more connections in their mind between different types of mathematics this way.
ReplyDeleteI would possibly include that not ever giving a student the right answer, thus them never being completely positive that they are right, may cause students to fall behind.
Your blog was very well written and it was easy for me to read through and understand your thought process. I like that you mentioned how this type of learning in a classroom will be useful to the students for the rest of their lives when they don't have a teacher to tell them what to do. Perhaps you could have given more examples from the article to support the disadvantages you stated. Overall, you did a great job.
ReplyDeleteI liked your phase "logical leaps of understanding." :) I agree that kids are able to think for themselves and figure things out on their own in Warrington's type of classroom setting. In a normal classroom setting, students more or less just take what they are given and are not given the opportunity to truly think on their own. An interesting point you made was that you didn't think this method of teaching will work for all subject. I think you might be correct about that. My only suggestion is that you might want to double check your grammar before you publish your post (it will help with "scholarly tone" ;) ).
ReplyDelete