More misleading information by someone who knows nothing about these curricula. For Bruce math is memorizing facts meaninglessly. Bruce: if you only knew how much our "best" college students don't know due to the traditional mathematics teaching that permeates the US. Your ignorance will help keep up behind in math (where we've always been).
i agree with you, sleeper. the standard algorithms should be taught for the sake of having that skill, but IMO arithmetic should NOT be confused for math. arithmetic is not a great metric for problem solving, and in fact, is the antithesis of it: all you do is apply an algorithm and "turn the gears."
if there's one trend i've seen in my college math and engineering education, it's that the answers don't matter so much as the processes involved--most (if not all) college professors would agree
I'm not sure what you mean by "math," but learning arithmetic can and should be connected to later mathematics. How many students fail to see the connections between algebra and arithmetic? Almost all college students that I work with. Arithmetic can be a bridge toward higher mathematics if ideas are developed. It certainly has been for my children.
maybe i was being a bit rhetorical, but i mean that arithmetic is not in any way the central component of math, as we are led to believe in elementary school. i've taken 4 semesters of rigorous advanced mathematics (beyond integral calculus) and in excess of 10 engineering and physics courses applying those concepts at a top university. almost every professor has made explicit mention of the unimportance of arithmetic computation and the importance of knowing WHY we do things.
(continued) in real life, we can look up the formulas--but try as we might, we can never "look up" the insight and problem solving of intelligent and creative human thought. simple example: the exam that accredits Professional Engineers (and allows them to approve designs, work in government, etc.) allows calculators and is open book.
i am not saying that "new math" is the way to go, but at the same time, algorithmic teaching (or the style that McDermott supports) is at least as inadequate.
McDermott is quite misleading in the video. She focuses on the procedures that are taught and not how they are taught. As you note, these textbooks focus on reasoning and sense making. This is something that folks like McDermott don't want to discuss. Instead the focus is on the superficial. "New Math" is a term from the 60s, so using this term is quite misleading.
The Everyday Mathematics manual said that mastery is not a good use of classroom time and that when it get's too tough, a student can use a calculator. China, India, and Europe are already running circles around us mathematically and now kids are being taught to think to the exclusion of mastery. They need both so that when they accidentally type a wrong number in the calculator, they will know that the answer is unreasonable.
The Everyday Mathematics manual said that mastery is not a good use of classroom time and that when it get's too tough, a student can use a calculator. China, India, and Europe are already running circles around us mathematically and now kids are being taught to think to the exclusion of mastery. They need both so that when they accidentally type a wrong number in the calculator, they will know that the answer is unreasonable.
The goal is not to just learn the process, but learn why these algorithms work and when they work. However, this has not been the focus of mathematics in the US (though it is in other countries). Through learning arithmetic, students can learn why procedures work and develop mathematical reasoning.
i agree that an algorithmic approach to mathematics is appropriate and necessary *but only so long as* there is a deep underlying understanding and intuitive *sense* of why it is the way it is. one or the other is not sufficient for sound mathematics or problem solving. it seems as though the two methods we are discussing straddle this idea.
on that note, maybe there's also something to be said for the importance of having an intuitive "sense for numbers"...not just how they interact on a simple level (i.e. arithmetic) but what they mean, the things they imply, how they "look and feel" etc. treating numbers as more-abstract entities goes a long way in not only making math education more powerful, but more fun and meaning. newer math methods are not disciplined enough for this, and the older are not abstact enough.
The Everyday Mathematics manual said that mastery is not a good use of classroom time and that when it get's too tough, a student can use a calculator. China, India, and Europe are already running circles around us mathematically and now kids are being taught to think to the exclusion of mastery. They need both so that when they accidentally type a wrong number in the calculator, they will know that the answer is unreasonable.
As a teacher educator I've come to realize if Investigations is not working, it is often either 1. lack of professional development of teachers, or 2. teachers with beliefs similar to BruceDeltrickPrice who roll their eyes during professional development. Some KNOW it won't work so they pretty much set their students up for failure & in the end can say, "See, I told you it wouldn't work." School districts don't give programs time to show success. Talk about a vicious cycle!
It is. Unfortunately, we see little willingness for small, sustained change in education. Everyone wants changes that demonstrates quick results. Thus, we return to what we've always done.
u dont realize kids can't do it cause they're taught to monkey the formulas without truly understanding the realness and the concepts. at this point, i'd say anything than the current system is better. yes lets teach the standard algorithm more. the lack of it is what's causing all these problems. get a grip on reality.
(The big shock for me the past year was to realize that New New Math programs are so much like Whole Word. Another flawed approach where failure is always the kid's fault or the family's fault. I looked at all this from another direction in "Why Don't Public Schools Do A Better Job?")
"The sickest part of the scam is the claim that kids who can't do the simplest arithmetic
are learning to "think about" math..."
Amen. Thank you for saying it. Please consider adding that if the child is failing EM, the onus lies not with the pedagogy of the program, but with the teachers who supposedly can't teach it the EM way, or blaming the parents for not practicing "math facts" at home. It's not the program's fault after all (heavy sarcasm inserted here). What a flimflam.
More misleading information by someone who knows nothing about these curricula. For Bruce math is memorizing facts meaninglessly. Bruce: if you only knew how much our "best" college students don't know due to the traditional mathematics teaching that permeates the US. Your ignorance will help keep up behind in math (where we've always been).
sleeper2345 2 years ago
i agree with you, sleeper. the standard algorithms should be taught for the sake of having that skill, but IMO arithmetic should NOT be confused for math. arithmetic is not a great metric for problem solving, and in fact, is the antithesis of it: all you do is apply an algorithm and "turn the gears."
if there's one trend i've seen in my college math and engineering education, it's that the answers don't matter so much as the processes involved--most (if not all) college professors would agree
twentyflights 2 years ago
I'm not sure what you mean by "math," but learning arithmetic can and should be connected to later mathematics. How many students fail to see the connections between algebra and arithmetic? Almost all college students that I work with. Arithmetic can be a bridge toward higher mathematics if ideas are developed. It certainly has been for my children.
sleeper2345 2 years ago
maybe i was being a bit rhetorical, but i mean that arithmetic is not in any way the central component of math, as we are led to believe in elementary school. i've taken 4 semesters of rigorous advanced mathematics (beyond integral calculus) and in excess of 10 engineering and physics courses applying those concepts at a top university. almost every professor has made explicit mention of the unimportance of arithmetic computation and the importance of knowing WHY we do things.
twentyflights 2 years ago
(continued) in real life, we can look up the formulas--but try as we might, we can never "look up" the insight and problem solving of intelligent and creative human thought. simple example: the exam that accredits Professional Engineers (and allows them to approve designs, work in government, etc.) allows calculators and is open book.
i am not saying that "new math" is the way to go, but at the same time, algorithmic teaching (or the style that McDermott supports) is at least as inadequate.
twentyflights 2 years ago
McDermott is quite misleading in the video. She focuses on the procedures that are taught and not how they are taught. As you note, these textbooks focus on reasoning and sense making. This is something that folks like McDermott don't want to discuss. Instead the focus is on the superficial. "New Math" is a term from the 60s, so using this term is quite misleading.
sleeper2345 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sleeper2345
The Everyday Mathematics manual said that mastery is not a good use of classroom time and that when it get's too tough, a student can use a calculator. China, India, and Europe are already running circles around us mathematically and now kids are being taught to think to the exclusion of mastery. They need both so that when they accidentally type a wrong number in the calculator, they will know that the answer is unreasonable.
MarkKronenbergNYC 1 year ago
@sleeper2345
The Everyday Mathematics manual said that mastery is not a good use of classroom time and that when it get's too tough, a student can use a calculator. China, India, and Europe are already running circles around us mathematically and now kids are being taught to think to the exclusion of mastery. They need both so that when they accidentally type a wrong number in the calculator, they will know that the answer is unreasonable.
MarkKronenbergNYC 1 year ago
The goal is not to just learn the process, but learn why these algorithms work and when they work. However, this has not been the focus of mathematics in the US (though it is in other countries). Through learning arithmetic, students can learn why procedures work and develop mathematical reasoning.
sleeper2345 2 years ago
i agree that an algorithmic approach to mathematics is appropriate and necessary *but only so long as* there is a deep underlying understanding and intuitive *sense* of why it is the way it is. one or the other is not sufficient for sound mathematics or problem solving. it seems as though the two methods we are discussing straddle this idea.
twentyflights 2 years ago
on that note, maybe there's also something to be said for the importance of having an intuitive "sense for numbers"...not just how they interact on a simple level (i.e. arithmetic) but what they mean, the things they imply, how they "look and feel" etc. treating numbers as more-abstract entities goes a long way in not only making math education more powerful, but more fun and meaning. newer math methods are not disciplined enough for this, and the older are not abstact enough.
twentyflights 2 years ago
@sleeper2345
The Everyday Mathematics manual said that mastery is not a good use of classroom time and that when it get's too tough, a student can use a calculator. China, India, and Europe are already running circles around us mathematically and now kids are being taught to think to the exclusion of mastery. They need both so that when they accidentally type a wrong number in the calculator, they will know that the answer is unreasonable.
MarkKronenbergNYC 1 year ago
As a teacher educator I've come to realize if Investigations is not working, it is often either 1. lack of professional development of teachers, or 2. teachers with beliefs similar to BruceDeltrickPrice who roll their eyes during professional development. Some KNOW it won't work so they pretty much set their students up for failure & in the end can say, "See, I told you it wouldn't work." School districts don't give programs time to show success. Talk about a vicious cycle!
213HM 2 years ago
It is. Unfortunately, we see little willingness for small, sustained change in education. Everyone wants changes that demonstrates quick results. Thus, we return to what we've always done.
sleeper2345 2 years ago
So you are telling us if you want it to work you need to have faith in it?
Not so self-evident after all, you will admit?
alleyghost 2 years ago
u dont realize kids can't do it cause they're taught to monkey the formulas without truly understanding the realness and the concepts. at this point, i'd say anything than the current system is better. yes lets teach the standard algorithm more. the lack of it is what's causing all these problems. get a grip on reality.
gwho 3 years ago
Thanks. You said it very well.
(The big shock for me the past year was to realize that New New Math programs are so much like Whole Word. Another flawed approach where failure is always the kid's fault or the family's fault. I looked at all this from another direction in "Why Don't Public Schools Do A Better Job?")
BruceDeitrickPrice 3 years ago
"The sickest part of the scam is the claim that kids who can't do the simplest arithmetic
are learning to "think about" math..."
Amen. Thank you for saying it. Please consider adding that if the child is failing EM, the onus lies not with the pedagogy of the program, but with the teachers who supposedly can't teach it the EM way, or blaming the parents for not practicing "math facts" at home. It's not the program's fault after all (heavy sarcasm inserted here). What a flimflam.
cebdark 3 years ago