Reply #4: Investigations is the most powerful math program I ever taught.

[LWolf]

It's inquiry-based math. There's nothing fuzzy about it, but it really does approach math differently than a traditional program does.

It builds a deep, wide foundation of number sense. Traditional math doesn't, to say the least.

With Investigations, students learn many ways to approach or solve the same problem. They learn plenty of mental math strategies. It's true that traditional methods aren't always included.

Guess what? I taught them anyway. In a curriculum designed around finding and using all the ways that make sense and work, traditional methods can be included.

It's true that it doesn't focus on fact memorization. I did that anyway. About 2-3 minutes out of every 90 minute math period; by the time students left 3rd grade they knew all their addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division "facts."

It did take longer than the more usual 45 minutes to an hour a day. Inquiry generally does.

Here are some anecdotes from my experience:

I always hated traditional math programs and wanted something better. In earlier years, I used replacement units, mostly Marilyn Burns' stuff whenever it fit, and loved it. The problem was, there were never enough of them to get rid of the text book entirely. So I got another replacement unit from TERC. It was a stand-alone piece from Investigations. I liked it so much that I used my classroom supply money to purchase a Teacher's manual for the 2nd grade curriculum; no workbooks needed. that year, I was so impressed that I got my boss to buy the 3rd grade for me too, since I was looping with my students.

By the end of 2nd grade, my students had the highest math scores in my school. By the end of 3rd grade, the highest in the district. Every year I taught using Investigations produced the same results. My principal was impressed enough to purchase a unit for every grade level as "replacements," since it wasn't our adopted text, and to encourage teachers to use it. Some did, and their kids excelled. Many teachers were actually intimidated by it, since it didn't fit the way they were used to doing things, and required more depth and breadth than they'd ever experienced.

The biggest problem was that the 4th grade teachers were frustrated, since the students coming from my room already knew how to do everything in the 4th grade math book, and they'd never actually cracked a text book since the workbook they used in 1st grade.

The last year that I taught in that district, my class was visited by a district delegation of school board members and our superintendent. They happened to stop in during math, and were floored by the discussion they heard going on; at that point, I was doing very little. Present them with a challenging problem, let them discuss ways to approach it, then let them try, and come forward with proofs. I only needed to manage the time, and occasionally redirect them with a question or two.

During the five years that I got to work with Investigations, I learned more about the math behind the facts and procedures than I did all the way through college.

Anything that is "different than I did it when I was a kid" is automatically suspect in American communities. It's true that too many parents can't "help" their kids with the math in this program. Too many parents don't have the foundation in number sense to do so.

It's also true that many teachers are too literal. If the TM or the trainer doesn't tell them to teach regrouping or to memorize facts, they figure that they can't, or don't need, to do it.

Finally, much of the biggest protest usually comes from the more conservative members of the community. The "back to basics" folks, to whom basics means the lowest common denominator.

I wish the district my grandson attends used Investigations.

For more on the people who developed Investigations, check out TERC:

http://www.terc.edu/