Grouping Student according
to their cooperation (will to learn)
Grouping students according to abilities, and if not, their cooperation
(!) in their own education is out of style. Instead instructor are
required to teach multilevel classrooms with an engaging style and
engaging content. Mathematical skills and concepts can be employed
in many different directions. The general development of
critical thinking and problem solving skills provides a principle to
follow in but not to dominate instruction. Some students in
leaving school early, earlier than desired, might be kept in school by
concrete examples of mathematics in society - cost of living, cost of
credit and business or shopkeeper arithmetic. Where as for others
who plan to continue in school, those concrete examples may be too
early. The KISS principle is not applied to mathematics
education. Yet it should be.
One way to keep mathematics education focused and even it shorten it, so
that too many topics do not overwhelm learning and teaching, is to
emphasis the full mastery of arithmetic, logic, algebra, geometry, trig
and eventually functions required by a first course in calculus, and to
give exercises that illustrate or suggest the utility the required skills
in society and technical trades. Courses given before calculus
should not be overfilled with topics with topic that may come after
a first course in calculus. No context will please all, but keeping
the context simple and teaching at a high level, the least amount of
mathematics needed for entry into calculus might lessen the pain and be
more effective.
Food for thought: The one-size-fits-all criticism of direct
instruction in mathematics course design could be a criticism of
the removal of streaming or the grouping of students by their level of
cooperation in school with education. Without streaming and without
focus, requiring longer and longer periods of education could be a form
of imprisonment. While we hope that constructivist advocates can
provide methods or activities, applications and situations, to
engage all students in class, regardless of their knowledge or skill
level, the one-size-fits-all method today of keeping students of the same
age, but at multiple levels of ability, is a criticism that can be
applied to the end of streaming. Streaming should return if only to
separate the students who value education from those who do not.
Students 14 to 18 who want to work should be allowed, and given a voucher
for the completion of high school leaving requirements later, when they
have the time and will, when hormones have subsided. The
foregoing is food for thought, not a prescription.
|
|