Numbers Wars: School Battles Heat Up Again in the Traditional versus Reform-Math Debate

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Yes.

Good. So did I. I haven't had any fellows in my class that succeeded with the rote and rigor approach. I did have a lot of them, though, that had the capability to understand concepts and work on that basis.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Good. So did I. I haven't had any fellows in my class that succeeded with the rote and rigor approach. I did have a lot of them, though, that had the capability to understand concepts and work on that basis.

The ones that applied themselves succeeded. The ones that stressed and gave up didn't. Simple as that.

[Ali G. 37]

And you base this on what? You can have all the aptitude in the world, and if you don't do the exercises, you won't learn mathematics. It is more mental drill than anything else. You have to develop those neural pathways in the grey matter.

Rubbish. Math investigation is a modern approach to maths, it has been developed based on practical research. That status quo of remembering maths tables clearly does not work, hence:

Edited February 20, 2010 by Booyah

[Ali G. 37]

The ones that applied themselves succeeded. The ones that stressed and gave up didn't. Simple as that.

Interesting because one of my friends missed half the lectures yet scored the second highest in the class. And I'm talking about engineer level mathematics here.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Rubbish. Math investigation is a different approach to maths, it has been developed based on practical research. That status quo of remembering maths tables clearly does not work, hence:

There's that gnat again.

[Ali G. 37]

There's that gnat again.

Dude, who are you trying to fool here?

First off, if you had any business worth talking about, you would have mentioned it by now. Just saying... Now, when I see you say you studied maths in college, I have to laugh at your utter BS.

Edited February 20, 2010 by Booyah

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Interesting because one of my friends missed half the lectures yet scored the second highest in the class. And I'm talking about engineer level mathematics here.

As both an engineer, and a mathematician, I tell can you: You are full of ######!

[Ali G. 37]

As both an engineer, and a mathematician, I tell can you: You are full of ######!

Heck, why not say you are a brain surgeon. No offense but you certainly don't respond like one.

[Jenn! 918]

One learns math through rote and rigor. Reducing it to a series of concepts won't work. This is just another sign of schools dumbing down to the lowest denominator. Perhaps if they stop parking tenured rejects in the math and science departments of our high schools, the kids might actually learn something.

Take a very basic example....speaking of the lowest common denominator, a child can usually learn the mechanics of adding fractions without too much difficulty. If they've memorized their multiplication tables, they can probably even do it fairly quickly. But if they don't fundamentally understand what it is they are doing, what good is it? They won't be able to apply the skills later on in their acadmic careers to algebraic concepts and beyond. I once had a twelfth grade student that didn't understand what a fraction was, or its relationship to division. Try teaching IB calculus to a student like that.

Now the OP didn't really get into specifics and I imagine some of this "new math" is airy fairy BS. But I just don't agree that all you need to excel at Math is some discipline and a good memory. Sure, that's a part of it, but it takes a deeper understanding to make it practical.

Edited February 20, 2010 by Jenn!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

My stepson is in 3rd grade this year and started out learning his multiplication tables. Although I'm sure the teacher explained to him and the class that multiplication is simply column addition, the whole thing seemed so foreign to him and a bit overwhelming. Of course, memorization was critical in passing the timed tests, but I think that my explaining to him its relation to addition helped him to grasp it better. He's now onto division with a decimal point and is doing really well. Word problems are the biggest challenge now.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Take a very basic example....speaking of the lowest common denominator, a child can usually learn the mechanics of adding fractions without too much difficulty. If they've memorized their multiplication tables, they can probably even do it fairly quickly. But if they don't fundamentally understand what it is they are doing, what good is it? They won't be able to apply the skills later on in their acadmic careers to algebraic concepts and beyond. I once had a twelfth grade student that didn't understand what a fraction was, or its relationship to division. Try teaching IB calculus to a student like that.

Now the OP didn't really get into specifics and I imagine some of this "new math" is airy fairy BS. But I just don't agree that all you need to excel at Math is some discipline and a good memory. Sure, that's a part of it, but it takes a deeper understanding to make it practical.

There is a good part that is insight, yes. Even doing the multiplication tables, students will see patterns, and that is another purpose for the exercise, not just the memorization. Still, as in Computer Science, what the teacher is trying to do is help the student develop a box of tools, that he or she can use to solve a variety of problems. Mathematics is a series of layers, built one upon the other. To use a worn out analogy, you are trying to build an adequate foundation in elementary and secondary education. The methods used to teach kids today, the concept of "Whole Math", is like putting a roof on the shed, before the walls are even built.

Edited February 20, 2010 by Lone Ranger

[one...two...tree 2,762]

There is a good part that is insight, yes. Even doing the multiplication tables, students will see patterns, and that is another purpose for the exercise, not just the memorization. Still, as in Computer Science, what the teacher is trying to do is help the student develop a box of tools, that he or she can use to solve a variety of problems. Mathematics is a series of layers, built one upon the other. To use a worn out analogy, you are trying to build an adequate foundation in elementary and secondary education. The methods used to teach kids today, the concept of "Whole Math", is like putting a roof on the shed, before the walls are even built.

I agree with that. For me as a student, it was important for me to have at least a basic understanding of the process. And FWIW, I started out as a Math major in college (was planning to teach), but ended up following my interests in Art.

[Niels Bohr 72]

#######?

The reason why they made a calculator in the first place is to help with simplifying complex trig functions, integrals, and differentials equations. NTCM needs to consider that forgeting to teach the fundamental of not using a calculator is essential to understand how to manipulate complex mathematics in physics, chemistry, or biology.

So, you know the formula for the Newton's Laws of motion. However, suppose if you have an object traveling on a bank with an incline plane of 20 degree at 40 mph. What is the force applied to the object? Basically, it's not quite a plug and chug equation, you still need to manipulate it. Without the basic knowledge of manipulating fractions, these kids are getting dumb.

[Ali G. 37]

First you need to understand what and how this type of mathematics works.

Here is a PDF for parents that discusses exactly how the mathematics process works. As I said, our local school districts went through these shenanigans a while back and have had this in place for years now; with a number of our schools ranking as one of the best performing in the entire country.

http://investigations.scottforesman.com/pdfs/parentpage.pdf

Edited February 23, 2010 by Booyah

[Jenn! 918]

There's a lot of value to programs like that, but what I see often is that teachers don't get the proper training to implement it. It's a lot easier to teach rote mathematics than it is to teach this investigative approach.

I went to Catholic school for elementary and it was all rote. I think there were some nuns that didn't even really understand what it was that they were teaching (I remember being sent to clap erasers outside when I would try to correct them).