Math Education: An Inconvenient Truth
Posted on 13 October 2008 by admin
M.J. McDermott is speaking about the current state of math education, as a private citizen . KCPQ does not endorse this video.
Math Education: An Inconvenient Truth
Duration : 0:15:25
Tags | An, Education, Inconvenient, Math, Truth
Honestly, I don’t …
Honestly, I don’t see the problem with it. That’s what I use everday. Seems like a natural evolution from cluster to algebra as well.
Except for divisions. The standard algorithm is exactly the same thing as the cluster technique, except in an orderly way so as to know what to do each time. (ie: find the
He’s 9, and …
He’s 9, and home-schooled.
This is kid …
This is kid material .
.. really, I’ve …
.. really, I’ve always found it easier to teach the traditional method… how olds your son?
The TURK methods I …
The TURK methods I believe actually have some merit. They make use of algebraic laws that make calculation easier when you don’t have a pen and paper around.
Other than that I believe your absolutely right.
i agree the cluster …
i agree the cluster method encourages thinking more than learning the algorith just as it is
I showed the video …
I showed the video to my son. I don’t see what you mean at all. He liked the table method, but after some practice, he’s making real headway with cluster problems. The down-side to it is that he can do a lot of the cluster math in his head; when he does it wrong, I have no idea where he went wrong.
On top of that, he HATES the traditional method.
try teaching a kid …
try teaching a kid those other methods… and you’ll see what I mean.
They don’t look …
They don’t look more complex to me. To a kid who isn’t familiar with ANY method, these are fine substitutions. On top of that, their mechanism is different… I think the cluster problems are great for learning; you can use simple things you know to learn and solve more complex things.
It takes some time to learn and understand, but it could be much more beneficial than the standard methods.
but they are not …
but they are not doing that, they are showing more complex ways of working out the same simple problem.
Agreed, and …
Agreed, and well-put. I don’t care how it’s done, as long as our kids are skilled enough to solve the problems… The more algorithms they have to choose out of their toolbox, the better.
Meanwhile, the rest …
Meanwhile, the rest of the world teaches a variety of methods on more complex problems, shakes out the bugs, uses calculators to solve simple problems, and their kids grow up to use effective tools and be productive, while ours are stuck in the last century.
The method doesn’t really matter. We should be teaching kids how to figure things out, work out bugs, and learn how to learn… otherwise, they’re stuck in tomorrow’s world, only knowing how to do what we taught them today.
that’s what …
that’s what learning mathematics is about anyway right? Learn *ALL* the basics / facts about it, instead of being narrow-minded and only instructing half the facts instead of all the facts and methods. some students maybe not get it on their own or never TRY to investigate it on their own for that matter.
Yes, I realize that …
Yes, I realize that, I never said it was too complex to learn. I was only pointing out that the line method has always been dependable and easiest to learn – teachers so still start with that method at least, before anything else. Or perhaps display all three and let the student decide which one is easiest for him/her to use.
Problem with adding …
Problem with adding in new methods is that you are gambling with the kids future… only change something if it no longer works, else you will being dealing with the 10 or so years where people will be playing around trying to get rid off all the “bugs” in the new teaching system.
Lattice is basic. …
Lattice is basic. It is still multiplication – just not cross multiplication.
When all you have …
When all you have is pen and scrap paper and you are in a store trying to figure out whether you should or shouldn’t buy something… quadricular sheets aren’t readily available. Drawing a lattice is.
Schools in the …
Schools in the Houston area use similar approaches to teaching math. Little thought goes into what they’re doing with the numbers and especially heavy reliance upon calculators.
I’m 22, I was taught math by a private school. I wasn’t even ALLOWED a calculator in fifth grade. I’m watching my yougest sister and brother go through high school, and they can’t even do long division or multi-digit multiplication. And rather than trying to teach them, their teacher tells them to just use a calculator!
Understood, but my …
Understood, but my position is that we should move beyond what a calculator can do and focus on teaching kids to solve problems that they’re more likely to need to solve, rather than something a calculator can do… Perhaps none of these methods are “better” (although I believe they do have merit in their own ways), but I am all for teaching a variety of new methods and attempting to change in the name of progress.
they are all wrong. …
they are all wrong. mathematics isn’t about training children to be human calculators, it’s about creative problem solving. all of these algorithms are just as brainless as using an electronic calculator, and will never get children excited about patterns, logic or creative reasoning.
the mathematics education curriculum in this country is a total failure. google “Lockhart’s Lament” for a dissection of the problem.
Its more of “lets …
Its more of “lets not try and fix a system that isnt broken”, not something new.
This lady is …
This lady is talking about elementary school where basics are learnt. Basics are like the base of a house. If you don’t have them your house will grumble. If you have strong base of a house then you can build much much bigger and stronger house.
Thank god I live in Finland where the education standards are high and stuff like this is not accepted.
She has an idea. …
She has an idea. It’s not a bad one, but the idiot part comes in when she’s decided to take sides on a weak point. She also seems a bit stuck in the past. I’ll buy the argument “Let’s not teach anything new because it’s not better”, but I won’t buy “Let’s not teach anything new because us adults won’t understand it.”.
I agree with the …
I agree with the paragraph you read from “Everyday Mathematics”. As a professional who works with math every day, if I can’t do it in my head, I use a calculator or write a program to solve it. Otherwise, I need to answer for my wasted productivity. Students should move on past your traditionalist views and understand how to arrange today’s larger problems so they can be solved efficiently in today’s world, rather than learning the manual time-wasting methods of last century.
Teaching a child …
Teaching a child math and expecting them to build a grid to line up numbers is like using a crutch to walk. Math SHOULD be hard that’s how we learn but the method we use should be as simple as possible and applicable in all cases. Easing up on curriculum standards in fields like math, science and even language is a road to failure for both the students and those responsible for teaching them.