Does anyone else hate “discovery methods?”

[drjuliadc]

I also hate Socratic questioning as a teaching method.  If I’m learning something I just want to be given the information, not figure it out myself.

It did occur to me that I might just be intellectually lazy. I wouldn’t be mad at you if you told me that. I have really thick skin. I just want to know the truth, even if it hurts.

It could also be that I was never taught that way and I am just not used to it. I tend to be very good at academics, but I’m really a boss at rote memorization and not as stellar at problem solving. Maybe it uses the parts of my brain that aren’t as optimal.

I wouldn’t mind hearing from people who love it either. You don’t have to agree with me.

[Little Green Leaves]

What a cool question. I like the discovery method when it's genuine -- when I'm truly left free to explore and come up with my own ideas.

I think socratic questioning is often done badly. It can easily be used as a rhetorical device, a power play. Yeah, I use it sometimes with my kids, but it's not my favorite. My favorite is when we're figuring things out together, or when I'm helping them get somewhere. 

[Carol in Cal.]

I think that teaching using the discovery method is much harder than the conveying of facts method.

With the discovery method you’re trying to lay the groundwork for the student to discover things for himself, and you have to be both very clear on what those things are and very determined to grease that discovery pathway without revealing the material.

I don’t learn well with the Socratic method, because I tend not to build information from it into a unified whole.  That is the same reason that Saxon would not have been a good system for me—I would figure out the little increments but not truly integrate all of the information.  But I know that others are different, and that is great.

However, the discovery method is the main way that I do my autodidact stuff, and it works very well.

[Not_a_Number]

I love both, lol. Although Socratic questioning does sometimes lead to power struggles.

I haven't found the being given the information leads to the brain being connected in the right way, somehow. To integrate mathematical ideas, you actually do have to work through them yourself. Having learned some mathematical ideas well and some badly, the integrated ones are retained in a much better way.

Unlike @Little Green Leaves, I don't think you need to be entirely free to explore for a discovery method to work. It took humanity quite a while to start using the number zero, lol... people aren't that fast at figuring out crucial ideas when left to meander. I like guided discovery, but I also like it to be at a level that's not extremely frustrating. 

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Carol in Cal. said:

That is the same reason that Saxon would not have been a good system for me—I would figure out the little increments but not truly integrate all of the information.  But I know that others are different, and that is great.

That's interesting that we both used the word "integrate" independently 🙂 . That's really how I think of building mathematical knowledge -- as an integration of all the important ideas. 

[Carol in Cal.]

1 minute ago, Not_a_Number said:

That's interesting that we both used the word "integrate" independently 🙂 . That's really how I think of building mathematical knowledge -- as an integration of all the important ideas. 

Actually, we used it in two different ways.  I was talking about integrating the material into an overall body of knowledge.  With those incremental methods, I tend to learn the little bits of information but never really pull them all together.  

Your use of the term is for something that I call engaging with the material.  That means (to me) actually practicing and being able to apply it.  

That is one of the big issues with math and science learning.  You can’t just learn it or learn about it.  You have to be able to apply it.  Until it is a tool, it’s not truly learned.  (A fact that is apparently lost on many, many teachers.)

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Carol in Cal. said:

Actually, we used it in two different ways.  I was talking about integrating the material into an overall body of knowledge.  With those incremental methods, I tend to learn the little bits of information but never really pull them all together.  

Your use of the term is for something that I call engaging with the material.  That means (to me) actually practicing and being able to apply it.  

That is one of the big issues with math and science learning.  You can’t just learn it or learn about it.  You have to be able to apply it.  Until it is a tool, it’s not truly learned.  (A fact that is apparently lost on many, many teachers.)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think meant the same thing as you. I mean that I've found that everything fits better into the overall picture if we do discovery. Otherwise, I wind up seeing kids who have a lot of "black boxes" -- things they can use, but they don't know why. Formulas, algorithms, etc. 

[Carol in Cal.]

Just now, Not_a_Number said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think meant the same thing as you. I mean that I've found that everything fits better into the overall picture if we do discovery. Otherwise, I wind up seeing kids who have a lot of "black boxes" -- things they can use, but they don't know why. Formulas, algorithms, etc. 

No, one is knowing, like being able to parrot the material, and the other is facility, being able to use it.

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, Carol in Cal. said:

No, one is knowing, like being able to parrot the material, and the other is facility, being able to use it.

I'm extremely confused. I don't even think about parroting of material as a goal in math. Were you talking about facility or the ability to parrot it? 

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, kand said:

I tried AOPS with each other them when they hit that level, and all rejected it and wanted something that directly taught them what to do.

I seem to be on a mission to point out that AoPS is NOT the only way to do discovery method. They do a very frustration-heavy discovery method. It would not work for my highly gifted 8 year old, because she doesn't love hard problems. However, we do math purely as discovery. More as discovery than AoPS. I just target it at her level, not above. 

[Carol in Cal.]

5 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I'm extremely confused. I don't even think about parroting of material as a goal in math. Were you talking about facility or the ability to parrot it? 

You know what?  This is really not that important.  Let’s drop it and carry on.

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Carol in Cal. said:

You know what?  This is really not that important.  Let’s drop it and carry on.

Sure! Sorry, I just thought it was interesting we used the same word. I didn't realize we used it differently! 

[lulalu]

I like discovery methods. It helps to own the learning. I think learning is able to stick much better after "discovery" afterwards I usually have ds reteach me or explain what was discovered. 

For us we are able to make discovery more like playing. We have used it for math (Miquon) and science. Reading books and talking about them leads us to discover parts of a story, and then we play games where we use those same things to make a story. 

Some subjects I find are much more needing direct instruction. Phonics, spelling rules for example. And then I also think there can be too much discovery. Sometimes you need to just do some reading to understand what others have already discovered. 

[Hunter]

I think "classical homeschooling" gives us permission to delay a lot of trendy methods until the rhetoric stage, which starts somewhere from 9th to 11th grade depending on which author you are following. By that stage, students are dual enrolled, self-educating, and old enough to be seeking out mentors on their own. 

If a gifted child is ready and interested in lots of rhetoric type learning earlier, they are often also precocious about gaining the attention of mentors. It gets a bit tricky for some of us that have had disabled and socially delayed and awkward students that are also highly gifted students and intellectually curious. Moms and teachers are just human. Covid doesn't turn doctors and nurses into immune machines; and needy students do not turn moms and teachers into superheroes. Caregivers remain human despite the needs of the people they are responsible for.

 

 

 

[Shoeless]

Ha, well, I really like both discovery method of learning and Socratic questioning.  Rote memorization feels dull and suffocating to me.  Discovery and Socratic method work best for my kiddo because he's a curious guy and always asking "why?".  I really enjoy the conversations we have about the books we read.  The other day, we were discussing the code of Hammurabi and whether certain laws were fair.  I started with straight forward examples of laws that kiddo thought were "fair", and then asked what kiddo thought about more nuanced.  Is it ok to steal? What if your family is starving and you need the food? Should all theft be punished equally? 

When we still had in person chess lessons, kiddo's coach taught with the Socratic method. It helped kiddo to start considering different solutions and approaches.

[Not_a_Number]

3 hours ago, MissLemon said:

Ha, well, I really like both discovery method of learning and Socratic questioning.  Rote memorization feels dull and suffocating to me.  Discovery and Socratic method work best for my kiddo because he's a curious guy and always asking "why?".  I really enjoy the conversations we have about the books we read.  The other day, we were discussing the code of Hammurabi and whether certain laws were fair.  I started with straight forward examples of laws that kiddo thought were "fair", and then asked what kiddo thought about more nuanced.  Is it ok to steal? What if your family is starving and you need the food? Should all theft be punished equally? 

When we still had in person chess lessons, kiddo's coach taught with the Socratic method. It helped kiddo to start considering different solutions and approaches.

That’s us, too. We’re all discovery, often Socratic.

[almondbutterandjelly]

Me!  I hate being forced to discover stuff.  Just tell me, I'm busy.  I think people who think that "one way" is the only way to teach have not much imagination.  And personally, as a student, I didn't mind Socratic questions, but my dd, whose brain works very differently from mine, thought it was stupid.  She is a deep thinker, and doesn't need extra help or heavy-handed questions to think deeply about stuff.  But if it works for you, good for you.

[Junie]

I do not like the discovery method for subjects where there is one correct answer.  So, for math, just tell me how to do it and let's move on.  For history, just tell me what happened.

However, for literature exploration or for discussing history themes or science where you can change the variables and watch a different outcome -- I think it makes sense and it can be a good way to learn.

[Not_a_Number]

3 minutes ago, Junie said:

I do not like the discovery method for subjects where there is one correct answer.  So, for math, just tell me how to do it and let's move on. 

There’s one correct answer but many correct methods 😉 . I don’t know anyone who’s really fluent with math and mathematical thinking who always does things the same way.

[Junie]

3 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

There’s one correct answer but many correct methods 😉 . I don’t know anyone who’s really fluent with math and mathematical thinking who always does things the same way.

I ended up with a really poor algebra foundation because of this.  My 9th grade algebra teacher would explain a problem with a few examples.  Just as I was starting to grasp the concept, she would show how to do the problem another way and I would get confused.  This happened over and over all year, and I just had a really, really hard time.

I think the discovery method can work, just that it doesn't for some people (e.g., me).

[Not_a_Number]

3 minutes ago, Junie said:

I ended up with a really poor algebra foundation because of this.  My 9th grade algebra teacher would explain a problem with a few examples.  Just as I was starting to grasp the concept, she would show how to do the problem another way and I would get confused.  This happened over and over all year, and I just had a really, really hard time.

Yeah, I actually agree with you. I prefer teaching whatever method makes sense to the kid first, then sticking to it. It’s just that I let that method be the one that they figured out first, so they have some ownership.

Once it’s automated, though, we branch out. That’s how you integrate all the ideas.

Edited November 13, 2020 by Not_a_Number

[daijobu]

8 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

There’s one correct answer but many correct methods 😉 . I don’t know anyone who’s really fluent with math and mathematical thinking who always does things the same way.

When I solve a problem 2 different ways my running joke with my students is we either got the right answer...or we got the same wrong answer in 2 different ways!  

[daijobu]

@drjuliadc:  You aren't alone in your skepticism of the discovery method:  https://debunker.club/2015/06/05/discovery-learning-is-not-effective/

I used AoPS with my kids, but not in a discovery method style.  We worked through the problems together, but I didn't force my kids to try solve the problems on their own.  It just isn't very efficient, IMO.  

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, daijobu said:

@drjuliadc:  You aren't alone in your skepticism of the discovery method:  https://debunker.club/2015/06/05/discovery-learning-is-not-effective/

So, I do NOT believe in minimally guided approaches and think those are a huge bust. However, I do in fact work via discovery, in the sense that I don't think I've ever given DD8 an identity before she's figured it out in quite a few examples herself. That requires guided discovery, which is a different kind of beast than AoPS-style learning (although I've been trying to remake their online precalc in that style.) In my opinion, it's much more effective both than banging your head against the wall and direct instruction.

[Not_a_Number]

@daijobu: OK, I swear I haven't read this literature, but a quote from their cited papers: 

"Finally, in a study by Gagne and Brown (1961), students learned to derive formulas and solve series sum problems such as how to compute the sum of “1, 3, 5, 7, 9. . . .” and write the corresponding formula. Students learned by pure discovery, guided discovery, or expository methods. Although guided discovery required the most learning time, it resulted in the best performance on solving transfer problems." 

Yep. Guided discovery. That's what I've always called what I do totally independently. 

[Clemsondana]

My older does AoPS mostly independently, but I think he kind of looks ahead at explanations and doesn't do it as pure discovery...actually, he does Life of Fred in parallel so I know that he has often seen the concepts before so he's not doing it purely as discovery.  I think that's the only reason he's been willing to continue with it, because otherwise the inefficiency would bother him.  We started the program before I really understood how it worked and how much he values efficiency, but we stumbled on an approach that gives him challenge without wasting too much time.  

In college, I had a chemistry lab that was supposed to be based on 'discovery' and 'cooperative learning', where we learned chemistry through designing labs and doing them.  It was a nightmare because without sufficient scaffolding we had no clue what we were doing.  I've since seen labs done such that the student follows a scripted lab one week and then the next week chooses a variable to modify, which seems a much better approach.  Faculty forget that they are able to design experiments because they actually know stuff - both the subject and how experiments in that field are done. 

I do, however, like classes that involve active thinking incorporated even within lecture.  For instance, when we start with 'parts of the cell' I'll say that I need to draw a cell, so what do I start with?  That establishes that first we need a boundary, at which point I talk about membranes and cell walls.  Then I ask what else a cell needs to do, and they might answer something about eating, so we talk about energy organells, or maybe endocytosis.  So, it's thinking, but not discovering.  I mean, people win Nobel prizes for things like discovering the structure of DNA, so I think it's better to tell my students rather than assuming that they're going to do it on their own.  

[EKS]

I think that discovery when done well is an extremely powerful way to learn.  Unfortunately, it can take a tremendous amount of time, and in situations where the teacher is unable to monitor what students are actually "discovering," it can actually make things worse.  As a compromise, I prefer guided discovery, where there are built in checks on what students are learning and discovery methods are balanced with direct instruction to facilitate reasonable pacing.

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, EKS said:

I think that discovery when done well is an extremely powerful way to learn.  Unfortunately, it can take a tremendous amount of time, and in situations where the teacher is unable to monitor what students are actually "discovering," it can actually make things worse.  As a compromise, I prefer guided discovery, where there are built in checks on what students are learning and discovery methods are balanced with direct instruction to facilitate reasonable pacing.

Yep. Exactly. Guided discovery is by far my preferred teaching method. And it really works well one-on-one. It's what makes DD8's mathematical education so successful. 

[Mrs. Tharp]

I hate discovery methods.  Because it's so trendy, I've tried it a few times, but it never worked. It came across like I was withholding information; my sons were always asking, "Why don't you just show me?" It also seems like a strong interest in the subject matter is necessary. My kids mostly didn't care enough to rediscover basic concepts in science or already knew about them through independent reading. One of my sons is sitting next to me now and pointed out that you would never teach someone to drive a car using this method. "If you show them how the car works beforehand, you're going to have fewer wrecked cars than if you said, "Here's a car. See if you can rediscover how to drive it."

[Not_a_Number]

3 minutes ago, Mrs. Tharp said:

One of my sons is sitting next to me now and pointed out that you would never teach someone to drive a car using this method. "If you show them how the car works beforehand, you're going to have fewer wrecked cars than if you said, "Here's a car. See if you can rediscover how to drive it."

Well, that's because some things don't really HAVE anything worth discovering. A car only has a few pieces and you can see how they all work together by showing. Same thing with phonics -- it's silly to discover it, because there are only so many things happening, and mostly they need to memorize it. 

But what does it even mean to show someone how to do something like "add"? There are tons of ways to add numbers. If you think there's ONE way, you're missing most of the picture. 

What DOES make sense to me is to have a single definition of addition (putting together numbers, or combining numbers, I'm not picky -- whatever makes sense to the kid), and then letting them use that definition. You aren't withholding anything. You're telling them what to do. They just have a choice about HOW to do it. 

Edited November 14, 2020 by Not_a_Number

[Mrs. Tharp]

A car has only a few pieces? A car doesn't have anything worth discovering?  I think mechanics might disagree with you, especially now that they need to use computers for diagnostics.

There are many ways to add, but the vast majority aren't particularly efficient. Why is it of value to know about them all, unless the student is particularly interested? If the student wants to learn using that method, than full speed ahead. Otherwise, I think it's inefficient and frustrating for everybody. If someone wants knowledge about the best, or quickest, or most efficient way to do something, they should be given it. If they don't want to have to figure out how to do something from scratch, that's okay too.

 

[Not_a_Number]

4 minutes ago, Mrs. Tharp said:

A car has only a few pieces? A car doesn't have anything worth discovering?  I think mechanics might disagree with you, especially now that they need to use computers for diagnostics.

Well, it has lots of pieces, obviously, but if all you're ever going to do is DRIVE it, then you don't need to know much. 

But if you're going to be a mechanic, then I would expect you to spend quite a lot of time tinkering with the inside of a car. I would be pretty unhappy if the only things my mechanic knew how to do were the specific motions his teacher showed him. A mechanic needs to have "played" with the inside of a car themselves. In fact, most mechanically-minded people report having done lots of both guided and unguided discovery. They took apart other appliances. They tried to put them back together. They tinkered and figured out the connections between things. That's what made them good with mechanical objects. 

 

4 minutes ago, Mrs. Tharp said:

There are many ways to add, but the vast majority aren't particularly efficient.

Actually, different methods are efficient in different situations. I pretty much never add using the standard algorithm nowadays, because I almost always add in my head. And the standard algorithm is a huge pain in my head. 

 

4 minutes ago, Mrs. Tharp said:

Why is it of value to know about them all, unless the student is particularly interested? If the student wants to learn using that method, than full speed ahead. Otherwise, I think it's inefficient and frustrating for everybody. If someone wants knowledge about the best, or quickest, or most efficient way to do something, they should be given it. If they don't want to have to figure out how to do something from scratch, that's okay too.

There really ISN'T a single efficient method. That's the point. And the more time you spend thinking that there IS, the further you get away from the radically simple idea that adding is simply putting numbers together, and that you can do it however you feel like it, as long as you are in fact putting numbers together. 

[bookbard]

The problem with relying wholly on direct instruction is that it limits a learner to what the teacher has decided to present. It becomes very narrow for both teacher and student, and perpetuates the idea of 'one answer'. History doesn't have one answer to why ww1 was started. Even in maths, the answer depends on where you're coming from. I really value flexible thinking and I don't think direct instruction encourages that, at all. 

 

The other difficulty is that the key to learning is interest. You remember what you're interested in. You tend to have in depth knowledge of the things you find interesting. That's why I feel it's really important to provide time for a child to follow their own interests, look things up for themselves, and turn those interests into whatever output they choose. 

 

I think people struggle when they hope for direct instruction output ("child will complete 10 sums with 90% accuracy") and discovery learning methods ("here are some blocks!"). If you want to do discovery method, let go of the expectations. Conversely, if you truly want a particular outcome, own it, and work out how to get there, rather than getting frustrated that the kids are in a different place than you'd hoped.

I bang on about Lori Pickert's book, Project Based Homeschooling, but it's a good one for understanding interest-led learning. Interestingly, her husband still taught her boys maths directly, with daily lessons. 

 

[Mrs. Tharp]

1 hour ago, Not_a_Number said:

Well, it has lots of pieces, obviously, but if all you're ever going to do is DRIVE it, then you don't need to know much. 

But if you're going to be a mechanic, then I would expect you to spend quite a lot of time tinkering with the inside of a car. I would be pretty unhappy if the only things my mechanic knew how to do were the specific motions his teacher showed him. A mechanic needs to have "played" with the inside of a car themselves. In fact, most mechanically-minded people report having done lots of both guided and unguided discovery. They took apart other appliances. They tried to put them back together. They tinkered and figured out the connections between things. That's what made them good with mechanical objects. 

 

Actually, different methods are efficient in different situations. I pretty much never add using the standard algorithm nowadays, because I almost always add in my head. And the standard algorithm is a huge pain in my head. 

 

There really ISN'T a single efficient method. That's the point. And the more time you spend thinking that there IS, the further you get away from the radically simple idea that adding is simply putting numbers together, and that you can do it however you feel like it, as long as you are in fact putting numbers together. 

Yes, but my point was, that the example was ineffective in the context in which it was mentioned. If you are going to drive a car, then you need to know the norms of the road and how to drive the car without breaking or crashing it. This is not conducive to the discovery method because of the risk of injury/death and property damage. That was my point, that discovery learning can do more harm than good depending on the circumstances, which dovetails with my next point,

27 minutes ago, bookbard said:

The problem with relying wholly on direct instruction is that it limits a learner to what the teacher has decided to present. It becomes very narrow for both teacher and student, and perpetuates the idea of 'one answer'. History doesn't have one answer to why ww1 was started. Even in maths, the answer depends on where you're coming from. I really value flexible thinking and I don't think direct instruction encourages that, at all. 

 

 

 

Which is that I disagree that the discovery method is appropriate for beginners.  There are many ways to do math and many ways to look at history. I disagree that it is a good idea to present this to a true beginner, someone with zero exposure to the discipline. I would argue that someone who is just learning the basics of math or history should be taught in one way, until they've achieved some mastery in the basics, before looking at different ways of doing it. I mean, there's a reason theories of knowledge in history is not an introductory class in college. It's because the faculty want students to obtain a good content knowledge of the subject first, by taking basic history classes. They understand that, as experts, they approach history differently than a student beginning a course of study. To use another example, it's great when people who want to be mechanics tinker with cars, but for most, it will never be enough to replace a formal course of study, taught by a master mechanic. I totally agree that different ways should be taught, just not right away. I've found that introducing too many choices too soon to be both confusing and overwhelming to my kids, and a real impediment to learning.

Additionally, it's fine to discuss this in theory, but reality will always be bounded by constraints. Lack of interest, lack of time, and the necessity of specific learning goals in certain subjects, such as Driver's Ed., will limit the amount of time spent in "discovery". The level of interest will be crucial, since many people won't be motivated to explore a subject unless they have a preexisting interest in it.

I find it telling that Lori Pickert embraced project-based homeschooling enough to write a book about it, but that her husband wasn't willing to leave math to chance. No theory of education is one-size-fits-all; everything needs to be modified to fit the child and the circumstances. I think discovery learning is fine under certain circumstances, particularly when no one is relying on a specific outcome or is working within a specific time frame. Otherwise, it's problematic. Also, a tail-end observation here, I really, really don't think it works well in core subjects for kids with learning disabilities. That observation is from experience of my own and other's families. 

[Not_a_Number]

3 minutes ago, Mrs. Tharp said:

I find it telling that Lori Pickert embraced project-based homeschooling enough to write a book about it, but that her husband wasn't willing to leave math to chance. No theory of education is one-size-fits-all; everything needs to be modified to fit the child and the circumstances. I think discovery learning is fine under certain circumstances, particularly when no one is relying on a specific outcome or is working within a specific time frame. Otherwise, it's problematic.

I'm wondering if we're talking at cross-purposes here 🙂 . What do you think of as discovery-based mathematical learning? Would you mind giving me an example? 

Edited November 14, 2020 by Not_a_Number

[Mrs. Tharp]

A method in which kids are frequently asked to explain why they are doing what they are doing, there are lots of open ended activities, and learning through play is emphasized. Practice is deemphasized. I remember one such program regularly asking my six year old to explain, in writing, why 2 and 3 made 5.

Is that enough, or do you want something more specific?

[Not_a_Number]

2 minutes ago, Mrs. Tharp said:

A method in which kids are frequently asked to explain why they are doing what they are doing, there are lots of open ended activities, and learning through play is emphasized. Practice is deemphasized. I remember one such program regularly asking my six year old to explain, in writing, why 2 and 3 made 5.

Making 6 year olds explain ANYTHING in writing sounds criminal, lol. 

 

Quote

Is that enough, or do you want something more specific?

That's enough, I think. However, I don't think all of those are necessary for discovery-based learning. Out of those, I like making kids explain things (although not in writing at age 6), I do not like open-ended activities, and I don't deemphasize practice in any way. 

What program was this, if I may ask? It sounds silly. 

Edited November 14, 2020 by Not_a_Number

[Matryoshka]

23 hours ago, EKS said:

I think that discovery when done well is an extremely powerful way to learn.  Unfortunately, it can take a tremendous amount of time, and in situations where the teacher is unable to monitor what students are actually "discovering," it can actually make things worse.  As a compromise, I prefer guided discovery, where there are built in checks on what students are learning and discovery methods are balanced with direct instruction to facilitate reasonable pacing.

This.  I'm tutoring some kids from public schools, and it's driving me crazy how in the name of 'discovery!' and 'immersion!' (aka 'discovery method for learning foreign languages'), they never give kids any idea what the heck they're even supposed to be learning!  I ask them what they're learning in school, and they have no idea.  They're lost in the woods.  I've found I have to do detective work, ask them about specific assignments, what the teacher is doing, and then reverse-engineer what the goal is likely to be.

But I also think kids get way more out of learning when they puzzle things out and figure things out for themselves, rather than 'do it this way, and repeat' - actually, that kind of suffers from the exact same problem - what the heck are we really learning, and how does it fit in to the larger picture?

So I try to make sure that I'm explicit about what we're learning and why we're learning it - and name it, connect things to the big picture, at the same time guiding them through solving the problems themselves so they see the logic and have ownership.

[Not_a_Number]

13 minutes ago, Matryoshka said:

This.  I'm tutoring some kids from public schools, and it's driving me crazy how in the name of 'discovery!' and 'immersion!' (aka 'discovery method for learning foreign languages'), they never give kids any idea what the heck they're even supposed to be learning!  I ask them what they're learning in school, and they have no idea.  They're lost in the woods.  I've found I have to do detective work, ask them about specific assignments, what the teacher is doing, and then reverse-engineer what the goal is likely to be.

I think there are lots of math programs like that, too. I know that Jo Boaler's stuff is pretty trendy right now (and being used in the Bay Area), and from what I've seen, it's all highly undirected and unlikely to result in actual learning. 

 

13 minutes ago, Matryoshka said:

But I also think kids get way more out of learning when they puzzle things out and figure things out for themselves, rather than 'do it this way, and repeat' - actually, that kind of suffers from the exact same problem - what the heck are we really learning, and how does it fit in to the larger picture?

So I try to make sure that I'm explicit about what we're learning and why we're learning it - and name it, connect things to the big picture, at the same time guiding them through solving the problems themselves so they see the logic and have ownership.

Yeah, this is what we do as well. And we largely do it for every subject. We've certainly done it for both math and languages, with good results. But it's all quite directed. 

This is a FASCINATING thread, @drjuliadc! Thank you for starting it. It's really interesting to hear what people mean by "discovery learning." 

[Matryoshka]

1 minute ago, Not_a_Number said:

I think there are lots of math programs like that, too. I know that Jo Boaler's stuff is pretty trendy right now (and being used in the Bay Area), and from what I've seen, it's all highly undirected and unlikely to result in actual learning. 

 

Yeah, this is what we do as well. And we largely do it for every subject. We've certainly done it for both math and languages, with good results. But it's all quite directed. 

This is a FASCINATING thread, @drjuliadc! Thank you for starting it. It's really interesting to hear what people mean by "discovery learning." 

Yeah, it seems by 'discovery' in schools they mean throw stuff at the kids and have them figure it out, and often the teachers have no actual clue themselves, and the kids are redirected to 'follow the directions on the worksheet' whether it's matrix multiplication (or whatever it's called) or circling some part of speech in a sentence.

I'm mostly teaching languages now, and am teaching English grammar to some middle schoolers.  One of them keeps commenting on how the way I teach grammar is a lot like math (he likes math).  

[Not_a_Number]

5 minutes ago, Matryoshka said:

Yeah, it seems by 'discovery' in schools they mean throw stuff at the kids and have them figure it out, and often the teachers have no actual clue themselves, and the kids are redirected to 'follow the directions on the worksheet' whether it's matrix multiplication (or whatever it's called) or circling some part of speech in a sentence.

Yeah, that doesn't work. I think it took people thousands of years to even figure out place value, lol. Kids aren't going to discover all of math by themselves without guidance. 

 

5 minutes ago, Matryoshka said:

I'm mostly teaching languages now, and am teaching English grammar to some middle schoolers.  One of them keeps commenting on how the way I teach grammar is a lot like math (he likes math).  

How do you teach grammar? I haven't done much grammar with DD8 yet. 

[Matryoshka]

1 minute ago, Not_a_Number said:

Yeah, that doesn't work. I think it took people thousands of years to even figure out place value, lol. Kids aren't going to discover all of math by themselves without guidance. 

 

How do you teach grammar? I haven't done much grammar with DD8 yet. 

I didn't either at 8.  At that point, it was Grammar Rock (oh, man, I can still sing all the songs. I may sing them to the middle schoolers.   Since you are both much younger than I am and from another country, you may not know whereof I speak, but they are awesome.  Played between Saturday morning cartoon commercials in the 1970s), and MadLibs and just talking about stuff.  

I didn't do a grammar 'program' with my older kids till they were in 5th.  I've kind of come up with a method that combines various materials that I really like, but I'm not sure this is the thread to go into that much detail about it!  I don't do diagramming, but there is a ton of analysis.  My mantra: almost no word in English has an inherent part of speech; you must determine first what function the word is performing in the sentence.  Although I may not always say it in those words, lol.  So I also never have kids memorize which words 'are' which part of speech, because, really, that isn't a thing.

[Mrs. Tharp]

1 hour ago, Not_a_Number said:

Making 6 year olds explain ANYTHING in writing sounds criminal, lol. 

 

That's enough, I think. However, I don't think all of those are necessary for discovery-based learning. Out of those, I like making kids explain things (although not in writing at age 6), I do not like open-ended activities, and I don't deemphasize practice in any way. 

What program was this, if I may ask? It sounds silly. 

Haha, not silly at all. That heinous example came from Everyday Math.

That said, the boys also hated many homeschool math programs far superior to EM that emphasized more discovery/conceptual learning.

[Not_a_Number]

37 minutes ago, Mrs. Tharp said:

Haha, not silly at all. That heinous example came from Everyday Math.

That said, the boys also hated many homeschool math programs far superior to EM that emphasized more discovery/conceptual learning.

Which ones did you try? 🙂 I’m genuinely curious!

[Porridge]

4 hours ago, Matryoshka said:

So I try to make sure that I'm explicit about what we're learning and why we're learning it - and name it, connect things to the big picture, at the same time guiding them through solving the problems themselves so they see the logic and have ownership.

I think this is what 8 refers to —  prelection. 

[Matryoshka]

3 minutes ago, JHLWTM said:

I think this is what 8 refers to —  prelection. 

I'd never heard that word before, so I looked it up - the only definition I found (in multiple places) was:  A public lecture or reading, especially delivered at a college or university.

I'm guessing that's not what you're referring to here, lol?  Did 8 adopt and redefine this term, or is this from some other pedagogy?  What would be a proper definition for what you're meaning by that term?  (I mean, I think I get the gist, but I'd rather not start to bandy about terms with only a "I think I sorta know what you're getting at" level of understanding 😉 )

[Mrs. Tharp]

4 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

Which ones did you try? 🙂 I’m genuinely curious!

Off the top of my head: Beast Academy, Math in Focus, Math U See, and Jacobs Geometry.

[drjuliadc]

You all know a lot more about discovery methods than I do. I have only one exposure to it and that is as a student at a neurology seminar years after graduating from chiropractic school. I hated the teacher and class but he was so well regarded and had the most beautiful South African accent.

It was many years before I realized why I hated it so much. He kept asking questions.  I was so pissed he was wasting my time. I was thinking, “Why is he asking me questions? I’m paying money to learn something.”  Haha. So your comments on inefficiency hit home to me. I hadn’t even heard of discovery methods and didn’t really know at that time what the Socratic method was.

I think my problem with it is that I don’t infer well. I don’t read between the lines AT ALL. I have to be explicitly taught things. I think it is my problem as a student rather than any problem with the method. Everyone else loved that teacher.

I have one son like that. He had an off the chart score in phonetic decoding at the beginning of first grade but between 1st and 2nd grade reading comprehension. I really wondered why there was a discrepancy and I asked about possibilities here.

When Covidschooling came, I found out why. I would have him read a book on 1-3 grade level and go through any words afterward that I thought might be difficult. He didn’t know any of them. His 3rd grade brother knew all of them. One word that his brother didn’t quite know, he said he figured it out by the rest of the sentence.  My 1st grade son couldn’t do that AT ALL. I just had to tell him what every difficult word meant.

It was a valuable thing I learned by teaching them myself. I had no idea one son’s vocabulary was that good and no idea the other’s was so bad.

 

[Not_a_Number]

1 hour ago, drjuliadc said:

I think my problem with it is that I don’t infer well. I don’t read between the lines AT ALL. I have to be explicitly taught things. I think it is my problem as a student rather than any problem with the method. Everyone else loved that teacher.

So, interestingly, I haven’t found I need to require inferring ability the way I teach. I always do give enough information to figure out a question easily.

[Mrs. Tharp]

 

1 hour ago, drjuliadc said:

You all know a lot more about discovery methods than I do. I have only one exposure to it and that is as a student at a neurology seminar years after graduating from chiropractic school. I hated the teacher and class but he was so well regarded and had the most beautiful South African accent.

It was many years before I realized why I hated it so much. He kept asking questions.  I was so pissed he was wasting my time. I was thinking, “Why is he asking me questions? I’m paying money to learn something.”  Haha. So your comments on inefficiency hit home to me. I hadn’t even heard of discovery methods and didn’t really know at that time what the Socratic method was.

I think my problem with it is that I don’t infer well. I don’t read between the lines AT ALL. I have to be explicitly taught things. I think it is my problem as a student rather than any problem with the method. Everyone else loved that teacher.

I have one son like that. He had an off the chart score in phonetic decoding at the beginning of first grade but between 1st and 2nd grade reading comprehension. I really wondered why there was a discrepancy and I asked about possibilities here.

When Covidschooling came, I found out why. I would have him read a book on 1-3 grade level and go through any words afterward that I thought might be difficult. He didn’t know any of them. His 3rd grade brother knew all of them. One word that his brother didn’t quite know, he said he figured it out by the rest of the sentence.  My 1st grade son couldn’t do that AT ALL. I just had to tell him what every difficult word meant.

It was a valuable thing I learned by teaching them myself. I had no idea one son’s vocabulary was that good and no idea the other’s was so bad.

 

Yeah, my issue with it from a ps perspective is that the method will leave behind everyone with difficulties inferring, which includes many neurodiverse folks, ESL kids and people who just need a concrete presentation. In effect, it is biased in favor of those who excel at abstract thinking and who have outstanding EF skills. The method is terrible news for educators who try to narrow the achievement gap, since minorities, the poor, and the neurodiverse traditionally struggle more with these skills.