Sunday, January 24, 2010

Entry #3

Erlwanger's disaster study of Individually Prescribed Instruction, titled "Benny's Conception of Rules and Answers in IPI Mathematics," is a paper examining the IPI system. Erlwanger's paper is in support of having a strong foundation in mathematics, something we would call a relational understanding. Erlwanger explains that Benny would have done much better if he had been able to know why certain answers were correct and which processes truly worked. Erlwanger says that although Benny had a "master of content and skill," he did not have an understanding of concepts. A couple of the flaws in the system contributed to this lack of understanding. The first is that the key has only one correct answer so Benny was led to believe that his answers were correct just not in the correct form. Another flaw is that because the teacher is removed from instruction, evaluation of Benny's processes is missing. Instead of someone being there to see that he is doing something incorrectly and then helping him to fix mistakes, Benny is led to the false assumption that he is doing perfectly fine. The above issues go back to not having an instructor to help Benny, or any student, gain a relational understanding, an understanding where the rules make sense and weren't just made up by some guy who spent his entire life writing math rules.

Erlwanger's study supports the idea that there needs to be sufficient, personal relationships between instructor and student. In Benny's case he was working on his own and did not receive any guidance to correct his errors. I have tutored and helped in many classrooms. Most frequently the teacher asks me to be available to answer questions and just walk around the room to see how everyone is doing. I found that very rarely did students ask for help when they most needed it. As an aid in these classes, I had to learn to recognize the behaviors of the different students and see when they were struggling. This is something that a computer can not do in today's classroom. Only a human can see a look on someone's face and be able to recognize that as being a look of someone in need. Without getting to know each of the students it is difficult to help them progress. Since most students will not seek out help it is necessary for there to be a way for instructors to evaluate work done by students. After this evaluation takes place, it is crucial that the errors are discusses and corrected, otherwise like Benny, a student will believe that everything they have done is correct, because no one has told them otherwise.

5 comments:

  1. The point you make in your second paragraph was a strong argument that was discussed in your first paragraph as well, good job. Your sentences describing the need to have someone personally there to evaluate a students understanding I would have written in one or two sentences. I feel that would make it more concise. But your personal experience made it a very persuasive argument.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I thought that you had a very compelling arguments to support the need for a teacher-student relationship. I agree that teachers need to correct the misconceptions of there students. I agreed with everything you said. The closest thing that I could think of as a critique of your entry was that you may have been able to add another argument to why the relationship is important. I'm not sure you need this argument though, since you have supported the argument in so many different ways, but the argument is that teachers are able to teach any given topic in many different ways. Independant study makes it difficult for students to look at any topic from more than one point of view.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I also agree that teacher-student relationships are vital to truely knowing if a student is understanding mathematics. Computers only know if you are getting right answers. I would have possibly tried to have been a little more concise with my opinions.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You did a nice job summing up the article. I thought you brought up some valid points Erlwanger was trying to make.

    I think you could have tied the first two sentences together better. Why did examining the IPI system lead to a paper that supported relational understanding? I think making that connection would help bring all the first paragraph together.

    By the way, I never ask questions unless I first have enough knowledge of the subject to form an intelligent question. If I'm completely lost, no questions come to mind.

    ReplyDelete