Feedback and Control
A lot of commercial basal textbook publishers present a "Guided Practice" section after every concept that is introduced.
The following, for example, is from Houghton Mifflin's 2005 math series in a Grade 5 lesson on prime factorization:
Essentially, these sections serve as brief checks on what and how much students learned from the instruction on the concept. The idea is for teachers to guide students through this section--correcting errors and assessing learning--so that students can move on to "Independent Practice," which tends to be lengthier and involve more complexity.
Regardless of how a teacher approaches these exercises with her class, it is difficult and time-consuming to assess and correct 15-20 students' work, such that every student walks into Independent Practice on a solid footing.
So, is there a way to improve on Guided Practice structurally? Is there room here for an architecture of control, which can make Guided Practice live up to its name?
The following, for example, is from Houghton Mifflin's 2005 math series in a Grade 5 lesson on prime factorization:
Essentially, these sections serve as brief checks on what and how much students learned from the instruction on the concept. The idea is for teachers to guide students through this section--correcting errors and assessing learning--so that students can move on to "Independent Practice," which tends to be lengthier and involve more complexity.
Regardless of how a teacher approaches these exercises with her class, it is difficult and time-consuming to assess and correct 15-20 students' work, such that every student walks into Independent Practice on a solid footing.
So, is there a way to improve on Guided Practice structurally? Is there room here for an architecture of control, which can make Guided Practice live up to its name?
Labels: textbooks