Full article:

open.substack.com/pub/unstoppa...

Coming tomorrow.

open.substack.com/pub/unstoppa...

open.substack.com/pub/unstoppa...

Pity the poor teacher, because students characteristics are not significant than teachers or schools

This is almost certainly true in general, but equally we have the proof points to know that it’s not true that teachers cannot make a substantial difference to outcomes.

Another way is to go here:

unstoppablelearning.substack.com/leaderboard

And then you should get a unique referral link you can use. People don't have to pay to subscribe - they can subscribe for free, and from three people onwards you get X months of free access to paid content.

This is the thing that’s been on my mind for 11 years now.

@douglemov.bsky.social's work transformed most of my teaching practice and classroom interactions, but the one thing it never helped me with was ‘how to teach…’ anything, in maths.

Valuable. Necessary. But not sufficient.

One of the most fascinating things any this, is that it’s exactly how language learning works in Engelmann’s Theory of Instruction. It feels like this is pointing towards sins fundamental truth.

Agreed. It will come to deal with it.

For eg. Attached.

This is the part I’m up to, so I haven’t written more than this introduction yet.

Hopefully you can see the intention though: sections of exercises that are wholly dedicated to firming up on the bits you were saying kids struggle with.

Page 25 for the map analogy

It's here

atm.org.uk/write/mediau...

I'll attach a few of my thoughts on what I thought he got wrong, though, from a yet to be published book. I'm thinking of tweaking the final line to 'what then why.'

and add up to most kids feeling like constant failures in maths.

I also think he’s right to say that we spend virtually no time at all on parts of maths like asking good questions, modelling, and interpreting the output of the model (attached.)

Where our views diverge, is that I still believe we

And then shortly after, probably in the same lesson for this one, the explanation for why it works.

I don't know whether this is the best possible explanation, but it was my attempt to make sense of the calculator method.

what I think 'what then why' can look like for something like a calculator method.

First, 'the what,' with a bit of preamble up front (not sure if it makes sense without everything that's come before, but erred on the side of including it here.)

(non-calculator methods will be given a lot of dedicated attention at the end.)

Then the beauty of a calculator approach is two-fold:

1) there is a lot of structure and meaning in the form of each calculator expression (attached)

2) you can 'answer a question' by producing the expression without

Even ChatGPT gets it.

First, overtise (reveal the secrets.)

Then, covertise (make the 1 secret again.)

EBI it included 1x in that second line under Step 7.

Today’s home page from ‘X’

•⁠ ⁠ad
•⁠ ⁠⁠ad
•⁠ ⁠⁠musk
•⁠ ⁠⁠alt right post
•⁠ ⁠⁠musk
•⁠ ⁠⁠random post
•⁠ ⁠⁠musk

🤷‍♂️

A few people are following me now, so I thought I should post something at least.

So here’s something I popped on Twitter recently, in response to a post there.

“Too many people think times tables are just about multiplication. Topic in this resource is factorising into a single bracket.”