You're an Idiot Dialogues

Over the years, I’ve posted on Twitter a number of dialogues between a fictitious math reformer, and a somewhat fictitious “me”. The initial statements by the “reformer” character are inspired by actual utterances I’ve found on Twitter. Here are a few of the dialogues done in the past few months.

Reformer: With just-in-time learning, we review middle school concepts when teaching HS math.

Me: It's like throwing them in a pool and reviewing how to swim when they barely learned how in the 1st place.

R: You're an idiot.

***

Reformer: What is the one thing you do that works to help Ss feel like they belong in your math classroom?

Me: I give them the instruction they need to solve math problems they thought they couldn't do.

R: You're an idiot.

***

Reformer: What math understanding looks like is important for people to know.

Me: Right! Particularly when it prevents students from moving on when they're ready and getting hung up on every step and nuance of a concept.

R: You're an idiot.

***

Reformer: Students who say "carry the one" show lack of understanding. It's carry the 10, or 100, etc.

Me: When auto engineers want to stop a car they step on the brakes rather than explaining how brake systems work.

R: You're an idiot.

***

Reformer: The teacher’s job is not to remove struggle, but rather to help students develop good habits of productive struggle.

Me: Struggling to perfect one's breast stroke is not the same as struggling to keep from drowning.

R: You're an idiot.

***

Reformer: Tech isn’t pedagogy in itself. But what it can do is help you build a more student-centered classroom and learning community.

Me: How's that been working out over the last 3 decades?

R: You're an idiot.

***

Reformer: Worked examples are effective when there is some "discovery" via self-explanation. Step-by-step instruction means students aren't thinking.

Me: Isn't that how you learned?

R: You're an idiot.

***

Reformer: I don’t break problems into little pieces and question students through them bit by bit. If I explain a concept I make my explanation as clear and concise as possible.

Me: You're never wrong are you?

R: You're an idiot.

***

Reformer: I'm not so much concerned with evidence-BASED math practice as I am evidence-INFORMED practices.

Me: Which gives you a nice out for ignoring what works well.

R: You're an idiot.

***

Reformer: Explicit instruction and worked examples are important in learning math. Me: Glad to hear you say that.

R: Essential for problem-based and inquiry-based student centered activities.

Me: Your definitions are a bit off.

***

R: You're an idiot.

Reformer: In advocating for “memorization of math facts,” you overlook the brain’s power to forget.

Me: Which calculators help the brain to do.

***

R: You're an idiot.

Reformer: You seem to ignore the neuroscience behind the push for teaching for conceptual understanding as well as the big picture goal of math instruction.

Me: We do teach conceptual understanding. We just don't obsess over it.

***

R: You're an idiot.

Reformer: Memorization and algorithmic procedures are not foundations for conceptual math. In many cases, they form obstacles that prevent many students from experiencing meaningful math.

Me: How did you learn it, then?

R: You're an idiot.

***

Reformer: Instead of teaching a specific procedure, get Ss to see the relationship between division and fractions. Then leverage their understanding to devise their own algorithms.

Me: I'll stick with teaching a specific procedure.

R: You're an idiot.

***

Reformer: More student voice and less teacher voice. More collaboration and less students working individually.

Me: Excellent recipe for disaster.

R: You're an idiot.

***

Reformer: How about an inquiry-based math curriculum that takes the Standards for Mathematical Practice seriously?

Me: How about taking explicit instruction, scaffolded worked examples, and procedures seriously?

R: You're an idiot.