Thanks for sharing. I've never used DeltaMath this way - I write out a list of problems in a progression, but I'm going to consider whether I might want to do this. I would love the boring list of what you do to improve the effectiveness of using DeltaMath in the "traditional" way, including handing out paper.
I find myself really torn here. I'm a huge proponent of peer effects and the power of working together to learn something. I hated IXL when my kids were "learning" on it. I even hated some of the possible better individualized software like Beast Academy online for my kids. Yet I choose to homeschool them. So they kind of get individualized learning that allows them to advance really quickly.
I think many of the practice software programs are the worst of all world. I appreciate you writing this.
I will be stealing this, with DeltaMath or another problem bucket (Wolfram Alpha has a nice problem generator I use sometimes that seems to have similar functionality). I read all the same papers as all the founders of the individual practice platforms, and then used them and have dramatically cooled on the intellectual thrust of the exercise. They are a particular kind of textbook that trades the occasional-fruitless meandering through pages for what you need for the routinely-pigheaded insistence that you need *this, now*, and I find I get much more utility out of much simpler tools with the human being in the room with the kid in the loop.
It's become an article of faith that the two-sigma 'problem' is really about instruction appropriate to skills and thus an enticing automation problem, but my experience trying to shuffle kids through the likes of Math Academy et al. increasingly suggests to me that that's almost none of it. The guardrails that are supposed to demand rigor eventually just aggravate people so much they wander off, and then you're left with a selection effect to explain your huge gains. It's a social thing, I suspect- here is a *person* that models and values success in a domain and values it in *you*, the learner. And that provides a unifying principle with peer effects, too- here is a community where both the social status and the currency of cooperation are in the subject at hand.
Thank you for this. You articulate both a critique and a solution (even if the solution remains challenging). Folks outside of the education world may not realize just how firmly against the grain you are rubbing here.
I’ve seen the same things in my classroom! I always want kids to be to move at their own pace and complete problems perfectly suited for their skill set, but what ends up happening in reality is I’m playing whack a mole trying to keep kids in task. Which means (most) kids aren’t learning and I’m not even teaching!
Thanks for sharing. I've never used DeltaMath this way - I write out a list of problems in a progression, but I'm going to consider whether I might want to do this. I would love the boring list of what you do to improve the effectiveness of using DeltaMath in the "traditional" way, including handing out paper.
I think the most helpful thing might be not overdoing it and keeping the success rate reasonably high.
I find myself really torn here. I'm a huge proponent of peer effects and the power of working together to learn something. I hated IXL when my kids were "learning" on it. I even hated some of the possible better individualized software like Beast Academy online for my kids. Yet I choose to homeschool them. So they kind of get individualized learning that allows them to advance really quickly.
I think many of the practice software programs are the worst of all world. I appreciate you writing this.
Hi Michael, my name is Rachael and I work for DeltaMath. I'm one of the moderators of our official Facebook group here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/327183938709778
We would love to share a link to your article in our FB group! Would we have your permission to do so?
Of course!
Excellent!
I will be stealing this, with DeltaMath or another problem bucket (Wolfram Alpha has a nice problem generator I use sometimes that seems to have similar functionality). I read all the same papers as all the founders of the individual practice platforms, and then used them and have dramatically cooled on the intellectual thrust of the exercise. They are a particular kind of textbook that trades the occasional-fruitless meandering through pages for what you need for the routinely-pigheaded insistence that you need *this, now*, and I find I get much more utility out of much simpler tools with the human being in the room with the kid in the loop.
It's become an article of faith that the two-sigma 'problem' is really about instruction appropriate to skills and thus an enticing automation problem, but my experience trying to shuffle kids through the likes of Math Academy et al. increasingly suggests to me that that's almost none of it. The guardrails that are supposed to demand rigor eventually just aggravate people so much they wander off, and then you're left with a selection effect to explain your huge gains. It's a social thing, I suspect- here is a *person* that models and values success in a domain and values it in *you*, the learner. And that provides a unifying principle with peer effects, too- here is a community where both the social status and the currency of cooperation are in the subject at hand.
Thank you. I teach 7th grade and have a DeltaMath subscription. What a great way to use the platform. It makes so much sense.
Thank you for this. You articulate both a critique and a solution (even if the solution remains challenging). Folks outside of the education world may not realize just how firmly against the grain you are rubbing here.
I’ve seen the same things in my classroom! I always want kids to be to move at their own pace and complete problems perfectly suited for their skill set, but what ends up happening in reality is I’m playing whack a mole trying to keep kids in task. Which means (most) kids aren’t learning and I’m not even teaching!
This was great. Thanks, Michael!