|
0 members (),
302
guests, and
42
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2017
Posts: 40
Junior Member
|
OP
Junior Member
Joined: Nov 2017
Posts: 40 |
Hi again, all.
I've been working hard to get appropriate math education for my 9 yo 3rd grade son and so far haven't been very successful. Jo Boaler is very much getting in my way. The district math supervisor loves Boaler and thinks everything she says is gold.
Can anyone direct me to research that disproves her theories/recommendations? Or that's directly counter to it? I searched the forum and found some discussion of Boaler, but nothing specifically about research disproving her arguments.
I suspect that even if I de-throne Boaler, there will be resistance to modifying my son's education, but I know I won't get anywhere if I can't find a valid research that argues against her opinions.
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,261 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,261 Likes: 8 |
In a perfect world, the onus would be on Jo Boaler to prove her theories... rather than use our classrooms full of children as lab rats for her experimentation. Unfortunately (and un-scientifically) Jo Boaler does not appear to provide sources for her theories/claims. Be that as it may, the following barely begins to scratch the surface, but might help a bit? 1) Serving Students with Exceptional Promise March 9, 2018 STEM Network Working group ... a video by Jo Boaler has caused some to question the importance of identifying gifted students. This is a response from the NAGC STEM Network Working Group. 2) Research That Supports the Need for and Benefits of Gifted EducationSally M. Reis March 2, 2008 12-page PDF file, linked from the aforementioned article on the NAGC website.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2017
Posts: 40
Junior Member
|
|
OP
Junior Member
Joined: Nov 2017
Posts: 40 |
aeh,
thank you! i actually found the third one, but wasn't sure if it was valid, and quite honestly it didn't make a lot of sense to me. i might need to read it through in parts instead of at once.
that first one is really clear, though. i don't know how much weight it will add to my arguments but it's worth a try.
echofuzz
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2017
Posts: 40
Junior Member
|
|
OP
Junior Member
Joined: Nov 2017
Posts: 40 |
indigo,
thank you. i came across both of those today and downloaded them. i'll give them a read tonight.
the math supervisor is big on the NCTM and not so much fond of the NAGC. oddly she's been a gifted teacher and developed math curriculum for gifted classes. i guess she's changed her mind, though.
echofuzz
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2018
Posts: 114
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2018
Posts: 114 |
Boaler's response to the above "paper": https://web.stanford.edu/~joboaler/ Milgram and Bishop attempted aggressively to identify my research subjects – schools and students that had been promised confidentiality for their protection, consistent with fundamental research study principles. Identifying human research subjects is contrary to university policy and federal law. Yet Bishop contacted numerous school district officials, including principals, and pressured them to disclose whether they were subjects of my study. Among other tactics, he threatened to take legal action against them. Two of the people concerned contacted Stanford University and sent details of Bishop’s communication with them. In letters to Stanford they stated that Bishop had been “unprofessional, demanding, condescending, dishonest” and “verbally aggressive”.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,261 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,261 Likes: 8 |
Thank you, aeh. I will read-and-cogitate. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,261 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,261 Likes: 8 |
... not so much fond of the NAGC... I find that, like most organizations, NAGC can be philosophically inconsistent.
Not to hijack your thread... ! IMO, one of the most objectionable and offensive statements published by NAGC is the denial of the existence of any kids born gifted. Are Children Born Gifted?
...
No child is born gifted — only with the potential for giftedness
...
parents create responsive environments that allow their children to develop their potential to the fullest — that is, to create giftedness A few thoughts: 1. This assertion is dismissive and invalidating. Affrontive. 2. Some parents may find that they've given birth to an infant who is noticeably advanced, alert, responsive, and remarkably different from other newborn infants, with different needs: "gifted." 3. 1st item on NAGC's list of Common Characteristics of Gifted Individuals is: Unusual alertness, even in infancy. 4. Developing a child's potential to the fullest is NOT "creating giftedness."5. While all children may have gifts and talents, not all children are "gifted." 6. A nurturing, responsive environment may begin in utero. The fetus is a sentient being. 7. Articles on fetal development and intelligence may be found online. "Any kind of drug use -- running the gamut from caffeine to heroin -- has the potential to limit the later intellectual development of the unborn child," Shawn K. Acheson, PhD, tells WebMD.
While the evidence is most clear-cut for alcohol, pregnant women should avoid all drugs, says Acheson, an assistant professor of psychology at Western Carolina University in Cullowhee, N.C.
"It's commonsense stuff, but I still see incredibly intelligent pregnant women who should know better continuing to smoke," she says. ...the prenatal auditory environment modulates the neural responsiveness of fetuses ... Back to the discussion of research contradicting Jo Boaler's assertions...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,035
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,035 |
It should really be "while some children are born gifted the giftedness can be forced underground by teachers and parents who provide non responsive, non stimulating environments stressing complained and achievement testing".
Oh well. The scary thing is the adoration of Jo Boaler has actually improved some aspects of maths education in NZ. Ds11 would have loved them to accept Jo Bowler's ideas on speed drill the year before he was drilled to death one day a week rather than the year after.
Last edited by puffin; 03/06/19 10:02 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,261 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,261 Likes: 8 |
It should really be "while some children are born gifted the giftedness can be forced underground by teachers and parents who provide non responsive, non stimulating environments stressing compliance and achievement testing". Well said. The scary thing is the adoration of Jo Boaler has actually improved some aspects of maths education in NZ
...
speed drill
... Yes, there is good and bad and everything. AKA: - Even a broken clock is right twice a day. - Eat the fish and throw away the bones. If anyone has not yet read the content at the links posted upthread by aeh... I highly recommend them.
|
|
|
|
|
