http://tinyurl.com/6c38e8k

Check and mate.

Why are there only two choices between “direct instruction” and “unguided instruction”? It’s not surprising to me that “pure discovery learning” doesn’t yield a ton of fruit by itself. That doesn’t mean throw it out altogether.

If there were one best way to teach every student, we’d already be doing that, and there would be a lot less debate about how and what to teach…!

Hi, I’m a pre-service math education students and recently saw this post that referenced the physics of angry birds.

I recently had the opportunity to create a mathematics lesson introducing students to piecewise functions using Angry Birds and Geogebra.

The students had three geogebra files, one for each bird, with an image of the bird’s flight path. The students made graphs to represent the flight paths of the red bird, yellow bird, and blue bird. They were introduced to the notion of a piecewise function after completing the graph for the yellow bird and then were asked to find, graph, and write down their piecewise functions in the proper form for the blue bird.

The lesson plan, worksheet, and materials used can be found on my class website: http://nardinitech.weebly.com/tech-project.html

I received some feedback from my classmates and teacher on how to improve it but i would love to get some feedback from actual teachers on the lesson and how to improve it.

Thanks!

The anonymous “Jay” links to the totally vacuous paper “Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching” [Kirschner et al. (2006)] and then states “Check and Mate,” evidently with regard to Frank Noschese’s criticism of the Kahn Academy and his support of Modeling at his website http://bit.ly/mSiJ4f .

Anyone who thinks s(he) can even Check, let alone Mate, with that paper must be woefully ignorant of the literature – see e.g., Hmelo-Silver et al. (2007), Kuhn (2007), Schmidt et al. (2007), and Tobias & Duffy (2009).

Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Honorary Member, Curmudgeon Lodge of Deventer, The Netherlands
President, PEdants for Definitive Academic References which Recognize the
Invention of the Internet (PEDARRII)
rrhake@earthlink.net
http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake
http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi
http://HakesEdStuff.blogspot.com
http://iub.academia.edu/RichardHake

REFERENCES [All URL’s shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 30 Sept. 2011.]

Hmelo-Silver, C.E., R.G. Duncan, and C.A. Chinn. 2007. “Scaffolding and Achievement in Problem-Based and Inquiry Learning: A Response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006),” Educational Psychologist 42(2): 99-107; online as a 96 kB pdf at http://bit.ly/aKUD5s.

Kirschner, P.A., J. Sweller, & R.E. Clark. 2006. “Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching.” Educational Psychologist 41(2): 75-86; online as a 176 kB pdf at http://bit.ly/duJVG4 .

Kuhn, D. 2007. “Is Direct Instruction an Answer to the Right Question?” Educational Psychologist 42(2): 109-113; online as a 56 kB pdf at http://bit.ly/ekxUvD (56 kB).

Schmidt, H.G., S.M.M. Loyens, T. van Gog, & F. Paas. 2007. “Problem-Based Learning is Compatible with Human Cognitive Architecture: Commentary on Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006),” Educational Psychologist 42(2): 91-97; online as a 72 kB pdf at http://bit.ly/9uwVc8.

Tobias, Sigmund & T.M. Duffy. 2009. “Constructivist Instruction: Success or Failure?” Routledge, publisher’s information at http://bit.ly/doVuHS. Amazon.com information at http://amzn.to/nybW9F. Note the searchable “Look Inside” feature.