CGI and ICM Moving forward…

Michael Kamen Southwestern University Debbie Junk The University of Texas at Austin

ICM and CGI: Overview Driven by conceptual goals Investigation –teacher selected materials –Record data/observation Colloquium –Consensus of facts –Creative dramatics Application Driven by children’s thinking Problem Solving –Teachers selected problem –Students solve in ways that make sense to them Discussion –Strategy sharing –Analyzing strategies –Justification, generalization

History Developed as Instructional model in the 50’s by Brenda Lansdown Applied Vygotskian theory to the model (Lansdown, Blackwood, & Brandwein, 1971) Further developed and model units written by George Tokieda Experimental study (Carpenter et al, 1989) –Professional development –Compare classrooms –Student achievement Teachers’ Knowledge and Beliefs of Students’ Knowledge (ibid; Fennema et al,1993, 1996) –Teachers who knew more about their students’ thinking had students achievement highly and positively correlated to that knowledge

Major Beliefs About Learning Knowledge is socially constructed Link between language and learning Children proceed through levels of understanding Instructional decisions should be based on children’s understanding of selected concepts Knowledge is constructed Developmental stages can be identified: –Direct modeling>counting> >facts -- “stages” are flexible Instructional decisions should be based on children’s thinking

Instructional Model Present problem Children solve in their own ways Teacher listens to explanations Strategies are discussed Connections are made to extend/deepen understandings Planning - Select Concepts - Select Materials Investigation - Present Task - Documentation (e.g. Data Charts) Colloquium - Children agree on facts

Instructional Model (cont) Colloquium –Creative Dramatics –Mini lectures –Questions –Design further inquiry Closure –Apply concepts –Authentic Informal and formal assessment of children’s strategies Instructional decisions are made –based on children’s thinking and –hierarchy of problems types and strategies also informs decisions

Grounded in Children’s Thinking In both programs teacher actions, and responses are closely intertwined with what children say and do. Abby’s Strategy:

Role of Discourse

Key part of current research Teachers push to extend children’s thinking… How children participate in discussion and the role of the teacher… Vygotsky: language and thought enable each other Children negotiate explanations and language to explain what they see and discover

Tension Between Child and Subject: Two Basic Models Child’s Understanding Content TEACHER EXPLAINS Content Child’s Understanding TEACHER EXTENDS Main teaching tools: Demos & Models Practice Main teaching tools: Problematic Situations Inquiry Tasks Discussions

Moving Forward = 10 Balance and integration Lessoning Pedagogical disconnect ?? Each model lays the foundation for the other. I-CM: Research on the achievement needs to be done. CGI: Majority of studies are in whole number operations and this need to be expanded.

Scaling Issues Neither CGI or I-CM translate well into a curriculum. Professional development is needed to implement with fidelity. Widespread adoption runs a risk of loosing the emergent quality of classrooms that work (not a cookie-cutter model, not a quick fix). Teachers need to take time to learn how to adopt these models of instruction.

Learning from strengths I-CM as an instructional model more pronounced CGI as a framework for interpreting each child’s thinking Scaling up,increasing participation Research opportunities

Current Efforts CGI: UTexas math methods are taught the problem types and strategies. Methods text (Van de Walle) supports CGI approach, Teacher’s Development Group heading up dissemination of workshops I-CM: Although not widely used,recent research currently supports its major tenets--