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

[Ali G. 37]

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).

Yes this is true. It does take training to get teachers up to scratch with this new approach of teaching maths but I think it's worth it for the country and students. Especially in a country with dwindling maths scores, where kids are clearly not interested in just doing maths repetition.

Catholic Schools have come a long way. I know in Aus, they are renowned for their education performance, as they now hire some of the best teachers. Of course over there it's a different story, as funding is attached to the student, and follows them, to any school of their parent's choice.

Edited February 23, 2010 by Booyah

[Peikko 1,575]

Pure maths is all about concepts, applied maths accuracy. Neils is correct though, the mechanics of maths problems are better solved by machines, some problems can only be solved by them, computers these days but humans are best at appliying the context to the concepts.

[Ali G. 37]

Pure maths is all about concepts, applied maths accuracy. Neils is correct though, the mechanics of maths problems are better solved by machines, some problems can only be solved by them, computers these days but humans are best at appliying the context to the concepts.

Hence why it's better to learn how to apply the maths in real world scenarios than just maths repetition. The technology to crunch the numbers is there, why not use it. Math Investigations teachers kids to actually think about the maths problem.

It's the equivalent of teaching an apprentice to build without any tools, just because. The reality is that the tools are there, therefore, they should learn how to best use these tools. This also frees up time for teaching a greater depth in quality and the reason why something is constructed a certain way.

Edited February 23, 2010 by Booyah

[Peikko 1,575]

I agree. My kid is good at math despite the way it is taught, not because of it. That is sad, because he could be really good at it. I know the problem, but I do not have the math skills to take on teaching him myself.

[Ali G. 37]

The four major points of this mathematics approach is to:

• to offer students meaningful mathematical problems

• to emphasize depth in mathematical thinking rather than superficial exposure to a series of fragmented topics

• to communicate mathematics content and pedagogy to teachers

• to substantially expand the pool of mathematically literate students

[Ali G. 37]

I agree. My kid is good at math despite the way it is taught, not because of it. That is sad, because he could be really good at it. I know the problem, but I do not have the math skills to take on teaching him myself.

It happened to me, I got so bored of repetition and just solving equations for the sake of passing a test that I became turned off from mathematics. I was more interested in the why and how to apply the maths. Under math investigations, I'd be given the chance to apply the mathematics in a real world scenario and learn why we use a particular method or formula. Furthermore, rather than wasting time trying to find where a decimal was misplaced, the mundane calculations can be processed using technology, allowing the student to actually focus on learning.

Edited February 23, 2010 by Booyah

[Niels Bohr 72]

I wonder how future computer engineer will build calculators if they don't understand how to perform Taylor Series, Maclaurian Series, Laplace Transforms, etc...

Or, how to build faster ALUs if they don't understand the basics arithmetic. Building a divider by zero circuit is weird enough. Or, better yet. Solving a linear curcuit system that has various RC configuration or RLC configuations where using KVL and KCL is essential which further requiring the use of mechanics of math from elementary school.

I think the dwindling of scores is attributed to that every teacher or community makes people think of a stereotypical nerd. And that a nerd is someone who is weak, made fun of, used...etc...

[Ali G. 37]

I wonder how future computer engineer will build calculators if they don't understand how to perform Taylor Series, Maclaurian Series, Laplace Transforms, etc...

Or, how to build faster ALUs if they don't understand the basics arithmetic. Building a divider by zero circuit is weird enough. Or, better yet. Solving a linear curcuit system that has various RC configuration or RLC configuations where using KVL and KCL is essential which further requiring the use of mechanics of math from elementary school.

I think the dwindling of scores is attributed to that every teacher or community makes people think of a stereotypical nerd. And that a nerd is someone who is weak, made fun of, used...etc...

How many students will do anything relating to or requiring such maths in the future? We are also talking about the early levels of school here. Not the senior years or college, where what you are saying is required and brings back memories..

You cannot build an education system centered around the 3% of students who will end up engineers. Furthermore, that is why maths is deemed nerdy and boring, rather than fun and exciting.

Edited February 23, 2010 by Booyah

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I wonder how future computer engineer will build calculators if they don't understand how to perform Taylor Series, Maclaurian Series, Laplace Transforms, etc...

Or, how to build faster ALUs if they don't understand the basics arithmetic. Building a divider by zero circuit is weird enough. Or, better yet. Solving a linear curcuit system that has various RC configuration or RLC configuations where using KVL and KCL is essential which further requiring the use of mechanics of math from elementary school.

I think the dwindling of scores is attributed to that every teacher or community makes people think of a stereotypical nerd. And that a nerd is someone who is weak, made fun of, used...etc...

I noticed many engineers relying on proforma sheets, rather than take the time to understand the process behind the calculations. I like to have some magnitude of the number I am looking for, before I make the calculations. They take the result, and run with it, often to catastrophic failure. There seems to be a dumbing down of science and engineering across the board.

My own niece is sharp as a tack, but she is lost without her laptop. She is a math major, and can't even do long division.

Edited February 23, 2010 by Lone Ranger

[Niels Bohr 72]

Hey, whoever invented the smith chart is a genius. However, when they rely on it too much to find the reflection point inside a transimission line they don't really know how to troubleshoot a problem if it occurs. Instead, they replace the transmission line or components with a new one. This could be costly, it depends. However, if one knows the parameters of obtaining the reflection of the impedence, they can gauge their intuition to fix the problem without costing a penny to replace any pieces.

I noticed many engineers relying on proforma sheets, rather than take the time to understand the process behind the calculations. I like to have some magnitude of the number I am looking for, before I make the calculations. They take the result, and run with it, often to catastrophic failure. There seems to be a dumbing down of science and engineering across the board.

My own niece is sharp as a tack, but she is lost without her laptop. She is a math major, and can't even do long division.

Edited February 23, 2010 by Niels Bohr