KCPQ meteorologist M.J. McDermott's exposé of the terrible math curricula. After viewing this 15 minute presentation, it is easy to see why so many kids today have big trouble with math.
Thursday, May 08, 2008
Math Education: An Inconvenient Truth
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Absolutely beyond belief. I realized that stupid ideas were being floated in math and that a whole crowd of fools in the country's English departments were developing an addiction to the whole language method (developed by shrinks) but I had no idea that it'd gotten this bad. I'm no old hand at math... I have troubles conceptualizing it and other related things. But, dangit, I know all the basic rules from when teachers had a clue about how to teach them. I know the standard division and multiplication algorithms cold and understand problem order (parethesis, exponents, multiplication, division, addition, subtraction) and related things.
This is quite simply insane and could only come out of an unholy combination of teacher's unions (to enforce orthodoxy) and out-of-touch educational theorists. It's horrible, when you think about it, that those two forces are sabotaging the most critical components of education: the ability to read, the ability to write and mathematics. Lacking any one of these three basics cripples your ability to function... and they're the components of education that're under fire from these fools. It explains quite aptly why we have an electorate and rising generation that look blankly at you when you start talking about the mathematics (or logic, the natural derivitive of math) of an idea.
Somebody needs to stop 'em. But who can?
Keith, the only thing I kow of that can stop them will be to spread this far and wide and get parents and others to demand an end to it.
Ofcourse, voting in Politicians that will oppose this will help, but first, we ned to wake people up and give children back to the parents.
I wholeheartedly agree. Efficient change happens from the bottom up, much as effective education policy does.
Busting the unions would help too but let's take one thing at a time.
I actually loved some of the methods they were using.
They seemed to invoke thought about the mathematical process, instead of just having kids perform algorithms.
The cluster method encouraged the student to really think about numbers, and how they work. It seemed like it would be really good practice, for learning to estimate. But this alone, would leave the student at a disadvantage.
But didn't the same math book also cover the partial products method?
I really liked the partial products method.
It was very similar to the standard algorithm we learned, but did a better job of showing what was really going on, mathematically.
Perhaps this, with some cluster methodology in the "challenge" section.
People do have different learning styles.
A larger majority do better with algorithm (formula) first, concept later.
A minority do better with concept first, and then discovery of algorithm through the concept.
(I am in this minority).
So my guess is, that these teaching theories were developed by someone who was more of a concept first learner themselves, yet failed to realize that they were in the minority.
In college, almost all of the math and science classes were taught concept first, discovery of algorithm through concept, and then use of algorithm.
But I think that the watered down non math/science major math and science involves more just learning an algorithm, and then applying it.
Hey Cim-Cam returns in Washington State
and Oregon Again. Anyone surprised. I was fighting CIM-CAM CRAPback in 1994. I had a Teacher at a Community
College back in 1980 that had to use a Calculator
to do problem solving(He could not do mental Arithmetic
in his head) and this was 1980. Notice retailers
use more and more hand held scanners, and stationary
scanners. No need to use or know Mental Arithmetic so they say.
Your change comes right out of a machine,Cashiers don't need to count
up in there head anymore. Alot of retailers were behind CIM-CAM.
PS: What I think was left off this video was "WHY" read those other 2 books.
I'll tell you WHYYYYYYYYY. If your stupid you end up
depending on the government and voting for Democrats.
If your self reliant you tend to vote Republican.
Doesn't surprise me that there still dumbing down kids younger then
5TH grade. Pull your kids out of the Public Schools.
PPS: Eileen even to work at HP there's no need
to stop teaching math in schools the traditional
way. SOFTWARE can still be written
with conventional Standards.Oh and HP was one company that liked CIM-CAM.
I hate to break it to you, Eileen, but the whole point of an algorithm is simplification. In fact, one of the most basic things that you learn in algebra and other variable-related mathematics is to reduce an equation down to its simplest terms. The algorithms that are traditional do that; these new teaching theories do not.
You're probably right... these overly complicated methods were probably designed by someone who decided that the extreme minority's favored style should be made standard. Science works by concept to algorithm because the equation to determine molecular weight means nothing unless you understand what a molecule is. However, there is no concept in mathematics until you get into numeral theory which is somewhere above calculus. That someone was able to integrate a useless idea into mathematical education, one that leaves students without the basic tools to do math, is a testament to the efficiency of the union-controlled educational bureaucracy. If the idea had any merit, it would have already been discovered long before now since educated people have been considering the science of math for over 2000 years.
Keith,
So now you don't think I know what an algorithm is, or what its purpose is. Interesting.
It makes me wonder if you understood anything I said, or how you possibly came to this conclusion.
(You have no idea what my degree is in, or what my profession is, do you?).
The method I preferred, for teaching the masses, is an algorithm. Not necessarily the old one, but the partial products method.
I see this as a slight improvement on the more common algorithm.
Conceptually it is not really any different, it just clearly writes out more of the logic, which might not be obvious to some students.
Starting with this, and then later short-cutting to the more common one is not a bad approach.
Learning more theory, as algorithms are being taught, is a good thing.
The lattice method was no more useful than a calculator, as far as teaching how the math works, to grade school kids. It should be saved for high school, where the student should figure out why it works.
As far as the World Tour, and US Tour, that should be a geography class.
Learning to use a calculator should be taught, but not as a substitute for manual math.
Klatu,
I don't recall arguing for not teaching algorithmic math.
I just see some merit in these other methods, when used to supplement.
I would not use either of those two texts exclusively. (One I might use for Geography class).
Your argument is that a Community college teacher could not do mental arithmetic?
I thought the cluster method was invoking the very kind of thought one would use when doing mental arithmetic.
Cluster math is very similar to what I have been doing in my head for years.
When I was in 3rd or 4th grade, I memorized about 1/3 of my multiplication tables, and then did the others in my head, starting with the closest one I had memorized, and mentally adding or subtracting from that point.
Klatu,
How math is taught in the schools, has little to do with how HP writes software. The software is mostly written overseas, where they teach the old fashioned algorithmic math.
Trust me, the quality is not higher than when it was written in the US.
(But this has very little to do with how we are taught math, and much more to do with a cost model that goes for the cheapest labor pool.)
I didn't say that, as an impartial reading of my comments would prove. I reiterated the purpose of an algorithm because it's the most siccinct proof that the traditional method is the best. As to your degree and profession, I find that it makes no difference to me whether you're a math PHD, a shoe-in for the world's teacher of the year, or the VP of sales for Merck. How is your profession relevant to our discussion? How are your educational attainments relevant?
So... a lengthy and complicated amalgamation of addition, multiplication, and educated guesswork is better than a simple vertical addition problem. The theory of multiplication is easy: this many groups of this many objects equals that many total objects. Takes 3 seconds to teach and is totally uncomplicated. The traditional algorithm takes more time to teach but is similarly uncomplicated and quite fast when you're adept with it.
Actually, partial products and lattice method should be reserved for numeral theory when you're no longer trying to teach students how to do math but are rather teaching students about the theories of numbers and mathematical systems, a class that isn't useful in general education. The frank and simple truth of the matter is that partial products and lattice method make a math student reliant on technological shortcuts and stymie their own skills and intellect. It's a form of disservice to students to indulge in an education bureaucrat's pipe dreams.
And, if I may inquire, what does the World Tour and US Tour have to do with anything? We're not talking about golf or whatever you're referring to.
Keith,
The US Tour and World Tour, were mentioned, as the curriculum in one of the math books mentioned in the video.
How much of the video did you watch.
Your conclusion that you needed to tell me what an algorithm was (in a rather condescending way, as if I had indicated I didn't get it), is the reason I asked if you knew what my degree was in, or what my profession is.
You perception of my ability to understand this concept, is the only relevance here.
Because I like the idea of teaching theory, and having that lead to deriving the algorithm, as a SUBSET of the curriculum; in no way indicates I don't know what an algorithm is, or what its purpose is.
The Lattice method is not new, it is actually very old. It showed up in one of the earliest arithmetic instructions books known.
What makes the standard one we all learned, superior.
Is it superior because we learned it?
I believe it originally showed up in the same early book as the lattice method.
Funny thing is, the reason I don't care for the lattice method, is because I don't think it shows theory. As a pure algorithm, it is rather elegant.
I still think that for the combination of some theory, with a clear algorithm, that the partial products method is best.
If you think about it, how much does it really differ from the standard method we all learned.
It is the same thing, but with each step clearly written out.
What is wrong with starting with this, and then after it is mastered, shortcutting it to the more standard method?
You know what reiteration is, right? Repetition of a mutually recognized fact to make a point? There's a difference between that and hitting someone over the head with a fact because you think they're ignorant.
It's superior because it's simple; Ockham's Razor, more or less.
Waste of time to teach that which is either unneccessary or unneeded. A more complex, lengthy, and counterintuitive method of achieving the same result diverts attention from the education that's neccessary. There's also a singificant hazard in teaching too much; if you only need one method to achieve something in the most effective and efficient way possible, learning two other methods, neither one as good as the first, is a waste of time. Speaking of a waste of time, what use is theory to a 1st-grader learning how to do standard stacked multiplication?
By the by... since you threw it in as if it was important to the discussion, what IS your education and profession?
I did watch all of it... you capitalized your references so I thought you were referring to something really specific like the US Tour in golf as opposed to a section of a book.
eileen said: I just see some merit in these other methods, when used to supplement.
Klatu said: So you liked how the ladie on the video became "CONFUSED" right from the start. We don't need the supplement eileen "THOSE 2 BOOKS".
It didn't surprise me when she said most kids became confused.
Oh and EILEEN HP was on the list along with practically the whole HIGH TECH Industry pushing the failed CIM-CAM. No wonder Silicon Valley are all Democrats. Lets dum down the kids. Eileen kids need to learn first Mental Math 6x8=48 in there heads , then use a computer or calculator not the other way around.
Eileen said: When I was in 3rd or 4th grade, I memorized about 1/3 of my multiplication tables, and then did the others in my head.
Klatu said: Yea Mental Math,
Alot of that stopped with CIM-CAM
and now 2 more confusing needless books in Washington State.Just get out those calculators and Mac or PC'S. THEY'LL DO IT FOR UM.
Personally I'd like to see a SEQUAL to this video on the "WHY".
And oh yea its Political.
Post a Comment