Do you think that a certain curriculum makes a child "smarter"....

[Dixie]

I have enjoyed reading this thread. Thank you!

 

Dixie

[Donna A.]

There are many pages of responses here which I've not read, but in answer to your original question, I don't believe that ANY curriculum will make your child "smarter" if you aren't there teaching it, being involved, and KNOWING your children. :)

[Stacy in NJ]

I think as parents, particularly homeschooling parents, we want to believe that what we're doing can make our children smarter. But, in reality, a large part of how well our children do, at least academically, is not in our hands. A large part of IQ is genetic, the nature in the nature vs. nurture question. IQ has a significant impact on outcome. The two most important componets to outcome are IQ and culture (culturing being the mores and habits of the family).

 

A specific curriculum cannot make a child smarter. A supportive, demanding, enriching environment can help a child reach his or her full potential.

[Nan in Mass]

I think probably the original poster didn't really mean this way around. I think she probably was thinking of the nurture part and looking at it the other way around. As homeschoolers, most of us are afraid that we will hinder our childen from reaching their full potential by not picking the right curriculum or homeschooling style or whatever. It isn't that we are taking their nature and selecting a form of nurturing that will add to it; it is more a matter of taking their nature and selecting a form of nurturing that won't lower them from that.

 

I don't know about the rest of you, but I have the sort of children that are capable of learning to write well (as an example), probably wouldn't teach themselves to write well if left to their own devices. Therefore, I am stuck having to find a way to teach them. Part of that consists of not making them hate writing. Part of it is teaching them to do it even if they don't feel like it. Part of it is convincing them that they do need to learn to do it. Part of it is doing it every day, setting aside enough time to practise. Part of it is making them do enough of it that the whole process speeds up enough that they can actually get enough practice to become good at it. Part of it is showing them how to go about it (the curriculum part). And part of it is giving them appropriate feedback (why so many people outsource the writing). If I fail to do any of those, then my children won't wind up being able to write as well as they were born able to write.

 

Go through that process for each and every thing we want our children to be able to do as adults, add in the things our children want to be able to do, and the things society wants them to be able to do, and you have a very large task indeed. It is no wonder that most parents prefer to have some help: church, school system, scouts, sports, relatives, friends, and so forth.

 

I think it does matter which method you pick. Learning style, speed, level... I have found, among other things, that my children generally need more practice than most curriculums include. Therefore, I have to adjust. Some curriculums are easy to adjust, and some aren't. I have found that my children need help taking the details and putting them together into a big picture, therefore, my children need methods and books that make it easy for me to help them do this. My children have trouble picking out the main points of a book and need practise with that. My children do better with books that are heavily illustrated. My children do better if they do a mix of projects and drawing and writing, rather than just writing. We are bad at memorizing, so a curriculum that requires lots of memorization is going to be very slow and not go well. LOL The authors of TWTM recommend curriculum and methods that is easy for me to adapt and customize to my particular children's interests and brain wiring. (Their separation of skills and content make this easier.) Another person's child might be good at the things mine aren't and might need different customization, or might (unimaginable to my family) be able to use a standard curriculum unaltered.

 

I guess, in the end, it comes down to what resources I have available. An experienced private tutor (or tutors) would definately do a better job than I, but I can't afford one. The public school would do a better job at some things, but do so much worse with others that it wouldn't be worth it. I can't afford private school, which might or might not be better, overall. I only have enough resources to outsource some individual parts, and there is a limit to what is available in my immediate area. I am probably doing the best I can under the circumstances. And it seems to be ok. Have my children lived up to their potential in everthing? No. But they are probably going to be ok with what I am managing to provide them with.

 

Bottom line: There are so many variables that affect a child's education that it is impossible to say that this or that curriculum or method is the best for everyone. However, some curriculums and methods work better in a home environment and are easier to adapt to a particular child's interests and abilities.

 

-Nan

[violin69]

I think that it is finding what works to bring all that smartness out of the dc. Whatever that is may differ from child to child, family to family...

[Perry]

Well, yes.

 

There were a number of studies demonstrating that the use of Direct Instruction raised children's IQs, with the largest gains in lower IQ kids.

 

From Sponsor Findings From Project Follow Through:

 

 

· Significant gains in IQ are found, which are largely maintained through third grade. Students entering the program with IQ's over 111 do not lose during the Follow Through years, though one might expect some repeated regression phenomena. The low-IQ children, on the other hand, display appreciable gains, even after the entry IQ has been corrected for regression artifact. Students with IQ's below 71 gain 17 points in the entering kindergarten sample and 9.4 points in the entering first-grade sample; gains for the children entering with IQ's in the 71-90 range are 15.6 and 9.2, respectively (Gersten, Becker, Heiry & White, 1984).

 

 

So I do think that there is pretty good evidence that what is taught, and how it is taught, can make someone "smarter".

[Nan in Mass]

So could direct instruction be summed up as considering each child and his capabilities, choosing a goal for that child, deciding what small steps you need to reach that goal, making sure each step is achievable by that child, and then, keeping in mind exactly what it is you want the child to do next so you can give clear directions, working patiently with the child until he achieves each step, not forgetting to review often enough that the child doesn't forget the previous steps and not forgetting to keep the child informed in a positive sort of way of his progress so he stays motivated?

[Perry]

So could direct instruction be summed up as considering each child and his capabilities, choosing a goal for that child, deciding what small steps you need to reach that goal, making sure each step is achievable by that child, and then, keeping in mind exactly what it is you want the child to do next so you can give clear directions, working patiently with the child until he achieves each step, not forgetting to review often enough that the child doesn't forget the previous steps and not forgetting to keep the child informed in a positive sort of way of his progress so he stays motivated?

 

 

The Project Follow Through studies examined Direct Instruction (big D big I), not to be confused with direct instruction. Here are some descriptions:

 

 

Direct Instruction

Direct Instruction (DI) is an instructional method that is focused on systematic curriculum design and skillful implementation of a prescribed behavioral script....

The DISTAR (Direct Instruction System for Teaching Arithmetic and Reading) program gained prominence during Project Follow Through (1967-1995), the largest federally funded experiment in public education.

 

 

Features of DI include:

 

• Explicit, systematic instruction based on scripted lesson plans.

• Ability grouping. Students are grouped and re-grouped based on their rate of progress through the program.

• Emphasis on pace and efficiency of instruction. DI programs are meant to accelerate student progress; therefore, lessons are designed to bring students to mastery as quickly as possible.

• Frequent assessment. Curriculum-based assessments help place students in ability groups and identify students who require additional intervention.

• Embedded professional development/coaching. DI programs may be implemented as stand-alone interventions or as part of a schoolwide reform effort. In both instances, the program developers recommend careful monitoring and coaching of the program in order to ensure a high fidelity of implementation.

 

 

vs. direct instruction

 

 

direct instruction is a general term for the explicit teaching of a skill-set using lectures or demonstrations of the material, rather than exploratory models such as inquiry-based learning.

This method is often contrasted with tutorials, participatory laboratory classes, discussion, recitation, seminars, workshops, observation, case study, active learning, practica or internships. Usually it involves some explication of the skill or subject matter to be taught and may or may not include an opportunity for student participation or individual practice. Some direct instruction is usually part of other methodologies, such as athletic coaching....

 

This form of instruction is often contrasted with discovery learning (Tuovinen, & Sweller,1999). While many support discovery learning, because they feel students learn better if they "learn by doing," there is little empirical evidence to support this claim, quite the contrary in fact (Tuovinen and Sweller, 1999). Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006) suggest that fifty years of empirical data does not support those using these unguided methods of instruction.

 

 

 

An example of DI you might be familiar with is How to Teach Your Child to Read in 100 Easy Lessons, by Zig Englemann, one of the founders of DI.

[Strawberry Queen]

Wow that's a great definition of direct instruction Nan. I think that consistency and how we interact with our children is crucial to their being well educated. If I only do math for 6 months of the year, I'm not likely to progress very well. If it is done consistently, then the brain has more opportunities to make progress.

 

I do think it is possible to raise intelligence through a rich family experience. One book I read was Magic Trees of The Mind. It has been years since I read it, but the author said that there were many things to stimulate sparks in the brain. For instance family A going to the cabin every year for vacation vs. family B going to a different location each year for holiday(different not expensive). The children in family B would have more connections made in their brain because our brains are stimulated by new things.

 

I'm not saying that intelligence is everything. But it's really handy to be able to work with kids who can pick up things more easily than ones that you have to constantly teach the same thing to each day. I spent a week when I was student teaching trying to teach a child to write his name-1/2 way through gr.1. It took a whole week to get him to do this, but he forgot by the next week. This was all that the child worked on for that week. If it was possible to do activities with that child to raise his intelligence, then he would have had a much easier time learning basic skills throughout his schooling.

[Nan in Mass]

I don't happen to be familiar with that one (two of mine learned at school, and one learned early at his insistance using a method I made up on the spur of the moment in desperation and then continued to use because it was working fine GRIN). Do you have any other examples? (I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything. I'm just curious and I am ALWAYS trying to improve my teaching.)

[Nan in Mass]

Are there higher level curriculums that use this?

It seems like one of the disadvantages could be that the material isn't very interesting if presented this way? Does it assume that the child is willing? It seems like it might be more difficult to apply at a higher level in a way that would help the student stay engaged? It seems like there are many discussions about whether an AP biology test, for example, does or does not do a good job of assessing what a child knows about biology. Or maybe the discussions are really about whether the exams test the right body of material? Perhaps this method has built into it the assumption that teaching to the test is a good thing? (Put that way, it has unintentional negative connotations. I just am inexperienced with this sort of terminology.) AP exams are less controvertial than say, my state's MCAS. What about NY state's regent exams? I guess what I'm trying to say is that at a higher level, is it possible to assess learning frequently without interfering with the learning itself? Is it possible to assess the learning while still allowing the child some choice as to material's content or form?

-Nan

[Spy Car]

I'd be very slow to extrapolate a University of Oregon study finding that a University of Oregon model (Direct Instruction) lead to better test scores in institutional schools to mean this is "the best" educational model for home educators and their children. Especially when the alternatives are the kinds of extremely ideological modalities "Schools of Education" are so fond of inventing.

 

It is no surprise to me if you "teach to the test" that school children will far out perform children who are told to figure thing out through their own "discovery". Very unsurprising.

 

But I don't think think these are our only options. It is quite possible, and extremely efficacious, to combine the best of "Direct Instruction" with other creative ways to stimulate our children's thought processes. A discovery method and a direct method don't have to be in opposition to one another.

 

If you teach, then you challenge them to think, then you teach, then you challenge them to think, and so on, you'll wind up with a far more analytical thinker that if it is an education by "scripted lesson plans". That's my belief.

 

Bill

Edited March 31, 2009 by Spy Car

[ElizabethB]

I'd be very slow to extrapolate a University of Oregon study finding that a University of Oregon model (Direct Instruction) lead to better test scores in institutional schools to mean this is "the best" educational model for home educators and their children. Especially when the alternatives are the kinds of extremely ideological modalities "Schools of Education" are so fond of inventing.

 

It is no surprise to me if you "teach to the test" that school children will far out perform children who are told to figure thing out through their own "discovery". Very unsurprising.

 

But I don't think think these are our only options. It is quite possible, and extremely efficacious, to combine the best of "Direct Instruction" with other creative ways to stimulate our children's thought processes. A discovery method and a direct method don't have to be in opposition to one another.

 

If you teach, then you challenge them to think, then you teach, then you challenge them to think, and so on, you'll wind up with a far more analytical thinker that if it is an education by "scripted lesson plans". That's my belief.

 

Bill

:iagree:

 

I like the model described in Liping Ma's "Knowing and Teaching Elementary Math" with the best teachers (usually Chinese, but a few American), where they do teach the skills in a logical incremental manner but are willing to spend time on interesting tangents and tie them in when they have time and someone brings something up.

 

My dad was a very good math teacher, he was able to describe something 3 or 4 different ways until you got it. That was another characteristic described in Ma's book.

 

Edit: however, I don't think it is all "teach to the test." For example, kids that get 100 EZ lessons in school actually learn to read, kids taught with sight words/balanced literacy and/or whole language discovery based type of learning do not learn to read, for the most part. That being said, I would not teach that way. In fact, I don't teach that way, even when I'm teaching to a large group. There is direct instruction going on, but there is some flexibility, and we build in games for excitement.

Edited March 31, 2009 by ElizabethB

[ElizabethB]

The curriculum you use to teach children to read can make a difference. If we're talking the difference between OPG vs. PP or something else comprehensive with less than a dozen sight words, there is no difference. But if you're talking the programs used in most schools which teach some phonics, but not all phonics, and 220 Dolch Sight Words, you will have more children fail to learn to read well. And, the further you get towards whole word methods on the "balanced literacy" plan, the worse the outcome.

 

Here is a quote from Sally Shaywitz's "Overcoming Dyslexia, A New and Complete Science-Based Program for Reading Problems at Any Level" p. 261:

 

"In one Tallahassee, Florida, elementary school where such a program [scientifically proven prevention and early intervention programs] was implemented, the percentage of struggling readers dropped eightfold--from 31.8 percent to 3.7 percent."

[nmoira]

I'd be very slow to extrapolate a University of Oregon study finding that a University of Oregon model (Direct Instruction) lead to better test scores in institutional schools to mean this is "the best" educational model for home educators and their children. Especially when the alternatives are the kinds of extremely ideological modalities "Schools of Education" are so fond of inventing.

:iagree:

DI is most effective (in terms of raising test scores) when used with groups with a high percentage of at risk children. This type of instruction does not rely on or assume any background knowledge on the part of the child. However, persevering in the face of a relative lack of background knowledge is hardly a typical homeschooling situation.

[Spy Car]

:iagree:

 

I like the model described in Liping Ma's "Knowing and Teaching Elementary Math" with the best teachers (usually Chinese, but a few American), where they do teach the skills in a logical incremental manner but are willing to spend time on interesting tangents and tie them in when they have time and someone brings something up.

 

My dad was a very good math teacher, he was able to describe something 3 or 4 different ways until you got it. That was another characteristic described in Ma's book.

 

Edit: however, I don't think it is all "teach to the test." For example, kids that get 100 EZ lessons in school actually learn to read, kids taught with sight words/balanced literacy and/or whole language discovery based type of learning do not learn to read, for the most part. That being said, I would not teach that way. In fact, I don't teach that way, even when I'm teaching to a large group. This is direct instruction going on, but there is some flexibility, and we build in games for excitement.

 

Liping Ma's book was very inspirational to me, and has deeply influenced the way I'm attempting to teach math to my son.

 

Like your dad, I'm trying my utmost to present concepts in many different ways. And to explain some things "directly" and let other things fall into what I might call "directed discovery". And sometimes to let him work things things on his own. And I could not be more pleased with the facility and ease with which he is able to understand numbers and mathematical concepts at such a young age (4.7).

 

I also didn't mean to imply any criticism of 100 EZ lessons, as I'm not familiar with this work (expect by reputation on these boards, which is almost always highly positive).

 

Oddly, being one who was often drawn to the "Humanities" in school, I'm finding that I'm feeling most confident about teaching math, and aside from our great read-alouds and inspiring a love of good books (no small thing), I'm far less convinced that I have discovered the best method of teaching phonics and reading. Not that he isn't making steady progress, but its not due to any especially inspiring teaching on my part.

 

Bill

[ElizabethB]

Oddly, being one who was often drawn to the "Humanities" in school, I'm finding that I'm feeling most confident about teaching math, and aside from our great read-alouds and inspiring a love of good books (no small thing), I'm far less convinced that I have discovered the best method of teaching phonics and reading. Not that he isn't making steady progress, but its not due to any especially inspiring teaching on my part.

 

Bill

 

Oddly, I started math tutoring before phonics tutoring and am a good tutor for Algebra through Calculus, but I do a much better job of teaching beginning reading than beginning math. I'm reading up about basic math and trying out new things and getting better. I learned basic math very easily, my daughter doesn't for many things. I had no idea until I got several math books and read Liping Ma that there were different ways to teach basic math concepts or that it was necessary.

 

I would try my phonics concentration game and Webster's Speller. You have to persevere with the syllables for a while before you get the benefits. When Webster's Speller was used in the schools, the students did not need basic readers, but went directly from reading/spelling instruction to reading out of the KJV or Geneva Bible (both written at a high school grade level.)

 

You can make the syllables fun, just laugh hysterically at the funnier sounding ones (it's contagious when they laugh!) and do them on a white board and/or with magnetic letters to make them more fun.

 

This is the kind of thing first graders were reading after learning syllables (later on, they did develop some interim readers instead of moving directly to real books):

 

Now, if you will try to re-mem-ber what I have told you a-bout these si-lent let-ters, I think you will be able to read ver-y well, in a short time; and I suppose you will be ver-y glad when you are a-ble to read pret-ty stories in books.

 

The si-lent let-ters which are used in spell-ing ma-ny words are ver-y puz-zling to lit-tle boys and girls, when they are learn-ing to read; but I hope that the good lit-tle boy or girl who is now read-ing this les-son will try ver-y hard to rec-ol-lect how all the words are spelt; and that the teach-er will re-quire ev-e-ry pu-pil to be a-ble to spell ev-e-ry word that is read. By so doing, the pu-pil will learn to read much fast-er, and in a short time hard words will cease to trou-ble him....

 

When in the night I sleep-less lie,

My soul with heav-en-ly thoughts sup-ply ;

Let no ill dreams dis-turb my rest,

No pow-ers of dark-ness me mo-lest.

 

May I at last in end-less day

For-ev-er chase dark sleep a-way,

And hymns Di-vine with an-gels sing --

Glo-ry to thee, e-ter-nal King !

Edited March 31, 2009 by ElizabethB

[Perry]

I'd be very slow to extrapolate a University of Oregon study finding that a University of Oregon model (Direct Instruction) lead to better test scores........

 

There are numerous studies that all show essentially the same thing- very large effect sizes and large gains in mean IQ. There's nothing wrong with studying your own product as long as the results are replicated and verified, as they have been in this case.

 

 

........in institutional schools to mean this is "the best" educational model for home educators and their children.

 

I agree. DI seems to work best in urban districts with high levels of poverty, and for kids who are at the lower end of the IQ scale.

 

 

If you teach, then you challenge them to think, then you teach, then you challenge them to think, and so on, you'll wind up with a far more analytical thinker that if it is an education by "scripted lesson plans". That's my belief.

 

It's a common misconception that DI doesn't teach kids to "think". I used SRA Reasoning and Writing (a scripted DI program) with my son who has some learning issues. It is a fantastic program, and really helped him organize his ideas and figure out how to approach a problem and think through it logically. Here is a description of the program.

 

That said, the DI programs I am most familiar with are focused on skill acquisition (reading, spelling, arithmetic, writing and grammar) rather than content area, and those skills really are a prerequisite to good "thinking".

 

I would NOT use a scripted program with my girls, who learn quickly and easily. I also wouldn't use anything scripted past elementary school. I don't even know if there are any DI materials for secondary students, aside from some remedial programs. And I wouldn't want to use DI for history, science, or lit, where discussion and exploration are critical. But as far as I know, DI was never really intended for that.

Bill

.

[Perry]

I'd be very slow to extrapolate a University of Oregon study finding that a University of Oregon model (Direct Instruction) lead to better test scores in institutional schools to mean this is "the best" educational model for home educators and their children. Especially when the alternatives are the kinds of extremely ideological modalities "Schools of Education" are so fond of inventing.

 

It is no surprise to me if you "teach to the test" that school children will far out perform children who are told to figure thing out through their own "discovery". Very unsurprising.

 

But I don't think think these are our only options. It is quite possible, and extremely efficacious, to combine the best of "Direct Instruction" with other creative ways to stimulate our children's thought processes. A discovery method and a direct method don't have to be in opposition to one another.

 

If you teach, then you challenge them to think, then you teach, then you challenge them to think, and so on, you'll wind up with a far more analytical thinker that if it is an education by "scripted lesson plans". That's my belief.

 

Bill

 

 

Also, I just wanted to reiterate that my original comments were intended to show that curriculum CAN have effects on IQ, and that what we teach and how does matter. I was getting the impression from some of the comments that intelligence can't be changed, and I just don't agree with that.

[Perry]

Are there higher level curriculums that use this?

It seems like one of the disadvantages could be that the material isn't very interesting if presented this way? Does it assume that the child is willing? It seems like it might be more difficult to apply at a higher level in a way that would help the student stay engaged? It seems like there are many discussions about whether an AP biology test, for example, does or does not do a good job of assessing what a child knows about biology. Or maybe the discussions are really about whether the exams test the right body of material? Perhaps this method has built into it the assumption that teaching to the test is a good thing? (Put that way, it has unintentional negative connotations. I just am inexperienced with this sort of terminology.) AP exams are less controvertial than say, my state's MCAS. What about NY state's regent exams? I guess what I'm trying to say is that at a higher level, is it possible to assess learning frequently without interfering with the learning itself? Is it possible to assess the learning while still allowing the child some choice as to material's content or form?

-Nan

 

Well, I personally wouldn't want to use DI with any kid past elementary school unless it was for remediation. And I wouldn't use it for youngers unless there was a learning issue. I do think the DI studies have raised some important issues about how schools can use curricula to raise IQ scores, but I don't really think it applies much to homeschooling individuals.

[Spy Car]

Perry, our local schools have moved to what I believe is a DI style reading program (correct me if I'm wrong) called "Open Court". And the test scores have improved dramatically. So I'm not an "enemy" of using what works, especially with disadvantaged children and less-than-great teachers.

 

But I also believe brain connections can be built at an early age by challenging a child to really think critically. And that while "skill acquisition" can help a child think critically later, that thinking "critically" now can aid both skill acquisition and critical thinking in the future. And I may be woefully wrong about concerns DI style teaching isn't aiming to provoke critical thought.

 

Ultimately what I'm saying is that it appears to me that educational methods move in fads, often swinging from one extreme to another. School children are often the victims of these swings. And even when the methods are utilitarian in providing the great good for the greatest number, there will always be children who might have particular needs and done better with a different approach. And that's where home educators have a distinct advantage in tailoring our teaching to our children's needs.

 

But I doubt we have any disagreements on that front.

 

Bill

[Perry]

Perry, our local schools have moved to what I believe is a DI style reading program (correct me if I'm wrong) called "Open Court". And the test scores have improved dramatically. So I'm not an "enemy" of using what works, especially with disadvantaged children and less-than-great teachers.

 

But I also believe brain connections can be built at an early age by challenging a child to really think critically. And that while "skill acquisition" can help a child think critically later, that thinking "critically" now can aid both skill acquisition and critical thinking in the future. And I may be woefully wrong about concerns DI style teaching isn't aiming to provoke critical thought.

 

Ultimately what I'm saying is that it appears to me that educational methods move in fads, often swinging from one extreme to another. School children are often the victims of these swings. And even when the methods are utilitarian in providing the great good for the greatest number, there will always be children who might have particular needs and done better with a different approach. And that's where home educators have a distinct advantage in tailoring our teaching to our children's needs.

 

But I doubt we have any disagreements on that front.

 

Bill

 

I agree with everything you've said. But I believe that most kids who are struggling in school aren't having problems "thinking", rather they haven't been properly taught to read, write, and do basic math. If the schools did those things better, they'd get much, much farther with the "critical thinking" they are so fond of teaching. It's been shown that the great majority of kids in SpEd (something like 80%) are there only because they haven't been taught to read properly.

 

I agree with you about the fads. Unfortunately, schools historically have chosen curricula and methodologies based not on what works, but on ideology. I personally think it is a national disgrace that high quality, effective instruction is withheld from kids because of the ideology of schools of education.

 

Have you read any ED Hirsch? I highly recommend "The Schools We Need and Why We Don't Have Them".

 

Off my soapbox now.

[Nan in Mass]

I started out being curious about DI because the longer I homeschool, the more I realize that I can teach skills better if I have a clear idea of what exactly I want to teach, and then break it down into small steps. Then when it looked like DI was something different, I was curious because it looked like it solved some of the problems of trying to help disadvantaged children in large groups.

 

So it looks like it works because it takes teacher variations out of the equation and breaks the job down into managable portions? Mediocre or inexperienced teachers can use lessons designed by experts, and nobody has to teach a large number of students who are all at different levels, and nobody gets accidentally left behind?

[Perry]

I know. I'm sorry.

My curiosity derailed the post. I started out being curious about DI because the longer I homeschool, the more I realize that I can teach skills better if I have a clear idea of what exactly I want to teach, and then break it down into small steps. Then when it looked like DI was something different, I was curious because it looked like it solved some of the problems of trying to help disadvantaged children in large groups.

 

So it looks like it works because it takes teacher variations out of the equation and breaks the job down into managable portions? Mediocre or inexperienced teachers can use lessons designed by experts, and nobody has to teach a large number of students who are all at different levels, and nobody gets accidentally left behind?

 

No problem- I was just worried it was morphing into a suggestion that I thought we should all be using DI, which wasn't my intention at all.

 

I do agree with your second paragraph, but I think there's more to it than that. The teacher factors and ability grouping are important, but the program design itself is also a large factor in its effectiveness. Here is another description of DI.

 

The goal of DI is to "do more in less time"—accelerating student learning by carefully controlling the features of curriculum design and instructional delivery. There are three main components to the design and delivery of DI programs. These include: (a) program design, (b) organization of instruction, and © teacher/student interactions (see Marchand-Martella, Slocum, & Martella, 2004 for further details).

Program design relates to (a) careful content analysis that promotes generalization (teaching the "big ideas" of instruction); (b) clear communication (the "wording of instruction" as well as how instruction is sequenced and examples are introduced); © clear instructional formats (specifies what teachers are to do/say and what responses students should produce); (d) sequencing of skills (prerequisites are taught before a strategy is taught; easy skills are taught before more difficult skills; strategies/information likely to be confused are separated; instances consistent with a rule are taught before exceptions); and (e) track organization (activity sequences are targeted that teach skills over multiple lessons to ensure firm responding).

Organization of instruction centers on (a) instructional grouping (using flexible skill grouping as compared to "tracking"); (b) instructional time (increasing academic learning time—the time students are engaged with high success rates); and © continuous assessment (providing ongoing in-program assessments to inform instructional practice).

Teacher-student interactions include (a) active student participation (increasing opportunities for students to respond and receive feedback); (b) unison responding (increasing students' responding by having them chorally respond); © signals (providing a cue to evoke unison oral responses); (d) pacing (promoting active student engagement with brisk teacher pacing); (e) teaching to mastery (ensuring firm responding over time); (f) error corrections (minimizing student errors by carefully sequencing instruction; when errors do occur, using careful error correction procedures—model, lead, test, retest); and (g) motivation (enhancing motivation through high levels of student success).

DI includes programs in reading (Corrective Reading, Reading Mastery, Reading Mastery Plus, Horizons, Funnix, Teach Your Child to Read in 100 Easy Lessons, and Journeys), mathematics (Connecting Math Concepts, DISTAR Arithmetic, Corrective Mathematics, as well as various videodisc and videotape programs), writing (Basic Writing Skills, Expressive Writing, Reasoning and Writing, and Cursive Writing), spelling (Spelling Through Morphographs, Spelling Mastery, and Surefire Way to Better Spelling), language (Language for Learning, Language for Thinking, and Language for Writing), and content areas including history (Understanding U.S. History), chemistry/earth science/life sciences (videodisc/videotape programs), and science facts (Your World of Facts).

[Spy Car]

Also, I just wanted to reiterate that my original comments were intended to show that curriculum CAN have effects on IQ, and that what we teach and how does matter. I was getting the impression from some of the comments that intelligence can't be changed, and I just don't agree with that.

 

I'm also of the opinion that "raw intelligence" can be changed. There is far too much evidence showing how mental stimulation leads to dendritic connections being made in the brain for me to doubt it. And conversely, how much die-back there can be with under-stimulation and under-use.

 

So particularly in the early years, I like the idea of mixing in a fair amount of activities that I believe present new challenges of the sort that really requires critical thought.

 

For one small sake of example. Many months back (shortly after he'd turned four) my son encountered a "problem" in the the Mathematics Enrichment Programme materials, it had a picture of 6 identical sail-boats. Each boat was comprised of 3 parts: a sail, a flag. and a hull. The student was asked to use red, green, and yellow pens and while using each color on every ship, to make them all "different".

 

I thought (wrongly) there was no way he could accomplish this feat. But I watched him really concentrate and think it through, and he did it. I saw this as "brain-stretching". And it made me desirous of keeping this sort of challenging mental work in the mix. And I believe it is paying huge dividends.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

I agree with everything you've said. But I believe that most kids who are struggling in school aren't having problems "thinking", rather they haven't been properly taught to read, write, and do basic math. If the schools did those things better, they'd get much, much farther with the "critical thinking" they are so fond of teaching. It's been shown that the great majority of kids in SpEd (something like 80%) are there only because they haven't been taught to read properly.

 

I agree with you about the fads. Unfortunately, schools historically have chosen curricula and methodologies based not on what works, but on ideology. I personally think it is a national disgrace that high quality, effective instruction is withheld from kids because of the ideology of schools of education.

 

Have you read any ED Hirsch? I highly recommend "The Schools We Need and Why We Don't Have Them".

 

Off my soapbox now.

 

I have read Hirsch. And you and I are alike in deploring educational choices being made on the basis of "educational ideology".

 

After reading your next post about DI, I'm coming to the realization that one of my favorite resources (the afore-mentioned MEP) has a "lesson plan" component (designed for school room use) that sounds not dissimilar to the goals of DI.

 

Bill

[Nan in Mass]

Ok, I think I got most of that, but I don't understand what track organization and instructional grouping are? This sounds rather like the discussion of how math is taught in Japan (maybe from a post this fall?). Some of it definately rings a bell. One of the main reasons I've stuck with NEM math, despite its problems, is that it presents the math well in each chapter. It has examples that eliminate most of the ambiguities. My children are particularly prone to interpret words differently than the textbook author meant them to be interpreted, and in math, even a little bit of misinterpreting can lead to large misconceptions. NEM nips these in the bud, saving me much grief. I have to watch my children like hawks or they go astray with things like the nuances of vocabulary words, science concepts, or whatever. It isn't that they are wrong. If they explain, I can always see that the words could indeed have meant that. Don't ask me why I know they didn't and they don't. Maybe it is something to do with being homeschooled? It seems like perhaps those scripts could work the same way, reflecting the writer's experience with how things can be misinterpreted.

[momto2Cs]

It depends on the parent's teaching style and involvement, and the child's natural aptitude. I recall the Colfax family's children were the first homeschoolers to attend IVY league schools well before TWTM, IEW, or progym writing programs back in the early 90's. So, I do not think a specific curricula increases or produces smarter children; however, methodology, parent-child relationship along with temperament, and a lot of sweat & possible tears do play a major role.

 

:iagree:

 

Weren't the Colfaxes basically unschoolers in a lot of ways, letting their kids completely learn at their own rates and with their own interests in mind? so I don't think it is the curriculum as much as it is the parent-child relationship, how avaliable you make learning, nurturing your child's skills, etc.

[Perry]

Ok, I think I got most of that, but I don't understand what track organization and instructional grouping are? This sounds rather like the discussion of how math is taught in Japan (maybe from a post this fall?). Some of it definately rings a bell. One of the main reasons I've stuck with NEM math, despite its problems, is that it presents the math well in each chapter. It has examples that eliminate most of the ambiguities. My children are particularly prone to interpret words differently than the textbook author meant them to be interpreted, and in math, even a little bit of misinterpreting can lead to large misconceptions. NEM nips these in the bud, saving me much grief. I have to watch my children like hawks or they go astray with things like the nuances of vocabulary words, science concepts, or whatever. It isn't that they are wrong. If they explain, I can always see that the words could indeed have meant that. Don't ask me why I know they didn't and they don't. Maybe it is something to do with being homeschooled? It seems like perhaps those scripts could work the same way, reflecting the writer's experience with how things can be misinterpreted.

 

I think track organization refers to the continual reinforcement of previously learned concepts. Here is an explanation:

 

Direct Instruction programs are organized in “tracks.†Tracks are sequences of activities that introduce a skill, then develop and expand the skill across multiple lessons.

There are numerous advantages to designing programs in tracks. Student attention is better maintained because they do not work on a single skill for an extended period of time; instead lessons are made up of relatively short exercises that address a variety of skills. Difficult tasks are interspersed among easier ones. Newly introduced tasks are mixed in with well-practiced ones. Each lesson includes a variety of skills, formats, and difficulty levels.

 

 

Instructional grouping refers to flexible ability groups. Kids are arranged in small groups but may move between groups often depending on how they are doing. They are also grouped by subject, so they could be in a high achieving group in math, and a lower group in reading. (They don't call them high and low, of course. I don't know what they call them.)

 

I think you've identified one of the real strengths of the DI programs. They are continually tested and revised, so weak areas are improved and misunderstandings corrected. Also, when kids make mistakes they are discovered and corrected immediately. IME, that's one of the most powerful tools I have when working with my kids.

[sarahv]

The curriculum that is used in a child's education is far too overrated, I believe. It is the teacher who influences the child, not the curriculum. If the student is given a book, workbook or otherwise, and told to learn it for himself, he will flounder for lack of a teacher. Those who have negative experiences with ACE, CLE, or Lifepacs can attest to this. I had a fine experience with 13 years of ACE, but I was not left without a teacher.

 

We are all products of our life experiences, but the way we think must be largely attributed to our parents. How highly educated we end up is because of our parents teaching, or lack of it.

 

I believe strongly that parents teach their children, no matter where they send them to school. My dad taught me grammar and how to write. If fact, I find that much of my education is very similar to WTM even though I have never had a great books course, and did not learn Latin. This is because my dad was classically trained in a Lutheran boarding school in the 50's where he was required to learn Latin and Logic, among other classical subjects, in High School. He passed on to us, his children, enough of his classical training just by helping with our homework.

 

I've known people who attributed their poor educations to ACE, but then I've know people to graduate with PhD's (and at least one of the PhD's was a Harvard grad) who had a lifetime of PACE's.

 

Teachers are the ones who bear the responsibility for a child's good education, and parents are the first, and the most influential, teachers.

 

Does curriculum choice matter? Probably more to the teacher than the student. (I know that many on these forums would hotly debate that statement, but it is not my intention to start a different topic. My only point is that a teacher cares very much about how the material is presented, and so will research curriculum late into the night--yes, that is why I am here :lol:--but the student just goes to school and learns what is presented to him. Do you think he goes home and says, "Man, I wish my teacher would use a different curriculum for me, I'm just not getting it!". Of course not, he just wants to be successful in the material that's been presented. The material has no idea if he's "gotten it", it is the teacher who makes sure the dots have been connected and the concepts are understood; therefore, the teacher is the one who cares more about the curriculum than the student.)

 

Does a curriculum make a child smarter? No, because the curriculum doesn't teach.

[Nan in Mass]

I see. Saxon is tracked like this. So is NEM, for that matter, but very differently. I found that dictation worked much better if I watched as the children wrote and corrected them immediately. I liked the individualized math cart I had for 2-5th grade because of its pretest and posttest system. My respect for curriculum writers has gone way up (and down in too many cases) since I started homeschooling. I had no idea that the wording was so important until I had to teach my own children. And one last thought: the principal of our elementary school said that teaching reading wasn't particularly tricky, that most children caught on sooner or later, but that it was important to find a good math program because that was more difficult to teach well.

Edited April 1, 2009 by Nan in Mass

[Nan in Mass]

I think maybe the reason people here think curriculum matters is that, most of us not being professional teachers, if the curriculum isn't easy for the teacher to understand and use with her particular children, the child winds up not learning as much, leading to the child (at least mine GRIN) being frustrated and unhappy. The child may not say, "I wish you would use a different curriculum" but he might say, "Why doesn't the book say what it means? That explanation was a bad one, very unclear. Why aren't the questions written more clearly? How was I supposed to know that when the book didn't tell me?" So I agree that the curriculum matters to the teacher, but I don't think you are accounting for the weakness of some of us as teachers, for our inability to interpret and teach using a bad curriculum, when you say that it doesn't matter that much to the student?

 

I agree wholeheartedly that it matters to the teacher. I learned math from my father, too. My 8th grade math teacher told him that I wasn't getting it in class and he was going to have to help me. My father took that seriously and sat down to do my math homework with me almost every day, all through high school. He taught me the way he had been taught in engineering school. I think I had those Dolciani math books (much beloved by the mathy mums on the high school board) so the curriculum was excellent as well. Anyway, when I went to pick a math curriculum for my children (Saxon obviously wasn't working for them because it chopped the math into such small pieces that they couldn't understand it and I couldn't put it back together for them), I picked Singapore because it taught math the way my father had taught me (bar diagrams).

 

Perhaps my own experience has been unusual, though. I'm begining to think that either I am a horrible teacher, or my children are unusually difficult to teach, with their bad memories and their ability to see multiple meanings.

 

-Nan

[katemary63]

Why would there be such a difference?

 

Genetics?

I hate to say it, but I think genetics plays the biggest part of all. I didn't used to think this. Not until I had my son. He is the spitting image of my BROTHER! He walks the same, talks the same, thinks the same, says the same things, has the same interests and "issues", has made many of the same mistakes. It is like they are living the same life only 25 years apart. And I am talking about many characteristics that you wouldn't think were genetic! We know they are because they are so different from what my husband and I modeled but exactly like my brother! In my son's case, it had been nature winning over nurture all the way! My husband and I have come to the conclusion that we can almost make predictions about DS based on what we know about my brother. It is eerie!

And guess what? They grew up entirely differently and my son had little to no exposure to my brother. He has NO IDEA how much like his uncle he is. I was estranged from my brother during DS's childhood and for the last 5 years we have lived in a different state. I sometimes call my mom to tell her something DS has said or done JUST because I know she'll get a kick out of it because my brother said or did the same thing years before. Freaks her out! BTW: I've been accidentally calling DS by brother's name since he was a boy.

Finally, my DH said, "How did you end up giving birth to your own brother?" I HAVE NO IDEA! All I can say is, "Genetics!"

I know this is kinda off topic, but the point is, I now believe that genetics plays a much bigger part in a lot of things then I once did. Of course, the right material, environment and opportunities are important to maximize potential. But all the material and opportunities in the world can not entirely overcome an individual's genetic propensities.

[sarahv]

I totally agree about genetics. However, as a child grows, they grow in knowledge and understanding about the world around them with exposure to many different experiences. So genetics is the starting point, but education and experiences develop the genetic code into a completely unique individual. I want my kids to experience many aspects of life, both practical and educational, so that they can go into adulthood with a good understanding of how the world around them works, as well as the ability to make good decisions based on knowledge.

 

Teachers will find a curriculum that best presents the material in a way that is 1. familiar 2. in their personal style and 3. best fits into their philosophy of education. When the curriculum is chosen, it could be used to teach any child. Each child will receive the information in a different way, and so the teacher must adapt the material for each student. This is partially why teaching a whole classroom in a lockstep way is so challenging; in fact, I would venture to say, impossible.

 

A teacher must know a subject so thoroughly as to be able to explain it to a student in as many ways as is needed. A teacher must have good knowledge of the child's personality and learning style in order to present the material in a way that will be well-received by the child. In this way, I can see how kids may prefer different materials over others, but I don't see this as the hingepin to educational success. No material is a perfect fit for an individual, but the teacher is the key for ultimate success.

 

I've heard the concept, "Teach the child, not the curriculum". That is good advice.

 

Being well educated is a matter of personal opinion. I have my idea of a well-educated person, others will have theirs. However, being smart is something you're either born with, or not. :tongue_smilie:

[Perry]

.

Edited April 1, 2009 by Perry

[Andrew Kern]

If she is seeking a cure for cancer, I hope she spends time on great books. It's the creativity of an Einstein that we need to find those cures. That's why Einstein said:

 

If you want to raise a smart child, read fairy tales.

If you want to raise a smarter child, read more fairy tales.

[Nan in Mass]

What a fabulous quote!