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.
This is the next great comedy set-piece format, a true rival to the knock-knock joke.