Short answer: no. You pointed to one major issue. I’ve only seen IXL in the last few years so I can’t speak for other platforms, but the program doesn’t work that well even when used faithfully. The “compass” telling kids what to work on isn’t very accurate, it’s prone to spending time on less important topics, it tends to think students have learned a skill too quickly and move on, and it doesn’t do spaced practice well.

]]>Good stuff, thank you sir!

One more, only if u got a sec.

In your experience, does IXL type intervention mostly resolve strugglers who lack procedural fluency?

The randomized “real life” trials of, say, Khan, Dreambox, Zearn….tend to show that 80% of kids simply reject the instruction of teachers to do the work. So the RCTs have near zero effect.

[Typically, a marketing person will then pull out the 20% of kids who DID use the online tool as intended, and since that subset did make gains, focus on just those kids as the public message].

But I haven’t seen similar evaluations of edtech that just works on procedural fluency. Where the outcome variable of interest is….increased speed/accuracy of “the basics.”

]]>You’d get a huge mix. First, I don’t love the “math progressive” label — while that exists in the academic and online worlds it’s not a very helpful label for a regular teacher. There are lots of IM teachers who thoughtfully supplement with fluency work. There are lots of traditional teachers who don’t support fluency effectively.

The calculator response is common, especially with the broader discourse of “everyone has a calculator in their pocket” and “21st century skills” pushed by education leaders. Anecdotally I think a lot of elementary/middle school leaders who haven’t taught math push this angle.

The other two definitely exist, but I often see more specific responses — suggesting more number talks, etc.

And then another one — which is probably the most common — is to just put kids who are struggling in math on a computer program that “meets them on their level” (IXL, i-Ready) for 30 minutes a day or something.

]]>Let’s imagine a 7th grader who had, say, Illustrative Math in Grade 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

Still can’t multiply 3 x 7. Now what?

Would math progressives say:

a. “Let’s do even MORE conceptual to cure this problem.”

Or

b. “Okay, you’ve satisfied the condition. Conceptual at least was presented. Hasn’t worked, kid is confused. Now you are free to help kids memorize 2*3 and 3*2 and 6/3.”

Or

c. “Nah, just have them use a calculator.”

]]>Thanks for providing your list; it matches up with mine fairly well ðŸ™‚ I did run into an AI-grader. It’s just beginning to grow but you might want to take a look: https://onenoteschool.com/another-ai-post-but-about-math/

]]>