Part one of this post can be found HERE.
[00:19:48] Anna Stokke: The point you made about this paper being used to influence policy for millions of kids, is quite alarming. Okay, so I'm going to say, you know, in Canada when that curriculum I was talking about was adopted and I'm not kidding you that for a while, teachers were told that children could not use standard algorithms in class. They were not to teach them and kids were not to use them, even if they've been taught at home.
The clip above is copied from Anna Stokke’s Tweet dated 28.1.2024. Anna is a math professor and has a podcast that will be useful for all those interested in Math. I have only listened in full to 2 of her podcasts and think it is one of the best podcasts I've heard.
Here is a post on LinkedIn that I have copied verbatim. This comes exactly at a time I have asked an important question - Why is Singapore number 1 in reading for years. Compared with Malaysia which is number 60 out of 81.
Dr.Shalini RatanDr.Shalini Ratan • 1st • 1st Founder & Chief Knowledge Facilitator, NIRVAN Life Sciences.Founder & Chief Knowledge Facilitator, NIRVAN Life Sciences. 1d •
Here is the fourth and final part of Anna Stokke's podcast with Matther Burns.
Anna Stokke:
About some of the education thought leaders, sometimes you could even call them education celebrities, I think. And we see this in both reading and math. Do you think maybe they get caught up in the positive attention that they're receiving and that this may be why they don't step back on the claims they've made, even when it comes to light that there are problems with some of the ideas they promote?
Matthew Burns:
And I think because of that, people telling you that your stuff is so great and people tell you what you say is true, that you sort of start to believe it.
And you get to the point where you can say, “Well, I think it's true. Therefore, it must be.” So I think we researchers need to be more self-critical and self-reflective. We need to recognize “What I'm thinking based on evidence, or is it something I think is true because I think it's true?” So I really challenge other researchers to engage in that level of self-reflection because you can get caught up in it really easily.
My comment:
Wow! Matthew
has put it very well. Do read his excellent response above, again.
This part is quite interesting and I hope that I am not misinterpreting what Anna is saying.
Anna Stokke:
If we immerse kids in books and we make reading fun and we start with meaning and understanding, the reading will just come.
And I hear this sort of thing in math. all the time. So it's sort of like a top-down approach to teaching instead of a bottom-up approach. So in other words, the idea is to start children with problem-solving. They'll get excited about the problem and the foundational skills will just come after that. But as a matter of fact, you can't solve a problem, right, if you don't have the skills to solve the problem if you don't have the foundational skills to do it or the techniques to do it. Does that resonate with you in terms of what happened with reading?
This is a continuation of the podcast by Anna Stokke. (LINK)
Anna Stokke:
Do you see similarities between what happened with reading instruction and what's going on with math instruction?
Matthew Burns:
I do. It's quite analogous, although it's not a complete one-to-one. It's almost like there's a shift in thinking around what constitutes evidence and what constitutes research-based practices. And I think that's cutting across all aspects of teaching and learning…
Here is a transcript of the podcast by Anna Stokke.
She asks many relevant questions and since she is not an ‘expert’ in reading and not selling a reading programme I believe she will read my comments with an open mind.
This podcast is with Dr. Matthew Burns whom she claims is a renowned researcher in the science of reading world.
Here are some extracts and my comments/ questions:
