Well said Barry. Peter Liljedahl has made a fortune off the backs of unsuspecting teachers and students for a while now in BC. He has, in fact, become the BC equivalent of the Boaler movement, which is causing incredible harm to our children everywhere. Have shared this to the WISE Math BC Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100064392832083
Have there been any controlled studies of student math learning outcomes using Liljedahl's approach? One of my concerns is that the problem-solving that takes place in "Thinking Classrooms" seems to be very time-consuming. It would likely come at the cost of learning and mastering new math content. I've conducted a few literature searches, but so far I can't find much in the way of evidence. LeSage et. al (2021) report some promising findings with "Thinking Classrooms" at the University level ( https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1319959 ). Would love to know if there's been any serious research done at the secondary level. I'm skeptical that the "Thinking Classrooms" approach is beneficial -- and indeed, I suspect it may be harmful for weaker students -- but I could be convinced otherwise if there is evidence for it.
As a kid, I really liked doing "puzzle" problems like the die example that Liljedahl gives. Looking back though, I didn't learn a ton from them; I mean, they're puzzles, and while people might learn a thing or two from a crossword, but it's a pretty bad way to learn. I suppose I derived some formulas and tricks for doing things, but my time would have probably been better spent being taught those tricks and formulas (or better tricks and formulas than the naive and short-sighted ones that I'd figure out myself), so that I could puzzle over more important, or at least more interesting, problems.
I think there is room for puzzle-type problems in math education. Maybe it should be more of an extracurricular thing like chess clubs.
Well said Barry. Peter Liljedahl has made a fortune off the backs of unsuspecting teachers and students for a while now in BC. He has, in fact, become the BC equivalent of the Boaler movement, which is causing incredible harm to our children everywhere. Have shared this to the WISE Math BC Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100064392832083
Have there been any controlled studies of student math learning outcomes using Liljedahl's approach? One of my concerns is that the problem-solving that takes place in "Thinking Classrooms" seems to be very time-consuming. It would likely come at the cost of learning and mastering new math content. I've conducted a few literature searches, but so far I can't find much in the way of evidence. LeSage et. al (2021) report some promising findings with "Thinking Classrooms" at the University level ( https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1319959 ). Would love to know if there's been any serious research done at the secondary level. I'm skeptical that the "Thinking Classrooms" approach is beneficial -- and indeed, I suspect it may be harmful for weaker students -- but I could be convinced otherwise if there is evidence for it.
As a kid, I really liked doing "puzzle" problems like the die example that Liljedahl gives. Looking back though, I didn't learn a ton from them; I mean, they're puzzles, and while people might learn a thing or two from a crossword, but it's a pretty bad way to learn. I suppose I derived some formulas and tricks for doing things, but my time would have probably been better spent being taught those tricks and formulas (or better tricks and formulas than the naive and short-sighted ones that I'd figure out myself), so that I could puzzle over more important, or at least more interesting, problems.
I think there is room for puzzle-type problems in math education. Maybe it should be more of an extracurricular thing like chess clubs.