The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » Education » math-teach

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Re: A boy wonder from the 1780s shows us where school maths gets it
wrong (2nd attempt)

Replies: 1   Last Post: Jan 27, 2017 4:13 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
kirby urner

Posts: 3,690
Registered: 11/29/05
Re: A boy wonder from the 1780s shows us where school maths gets it
wrong (2nd attempt)

Posted: Jan 27, 2017 4:13 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply
att1.html (3.0 K)

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Joe Niederberger <
> > wrote:
> I first saw it presented like this:
> 1 + 2 + 3 + ... + 100
> 100 + 99 + 98 + ... + 1
> - ---------------------------
> 101 + 101 + 101 + ... + 101
> (completion of the thought left to the reader.)

That one, and another diagrammatic proof the two consecutive triangular
numbers = a square number are included in Oregon Curriculum Network
materials: (scroll down)

OCN is light-years ahead of anything Pearson, in the integration of
secondary school mathematics with learning to code.

Currently "computer science" is deemed a separate subject so that math
teachers, already suffering from lack of relevance issues, are told not to
improve their courses in ways that might overstep the boundary, i.e. stick
to your TI calculators and stop whining.

Computer science, on the other hand, is free to cannibalize math for
topics, is encouraged to do so. Looks like CS curriculum might be eating
the math curriculum's lunch in the name of bridging the digital divide.

I've suggest a different way of dividing turf, keeping it all mathematics
(the M in STEM) and have CS help build the "lambda track" next to the
already well-developed "delta track" (pre-calc / calc).

That seems a little more sensible than CS versus Math as separate subjects,
but I'm not expecting wide adoption of any alternatives so long as top-down
testing enforces the conquering paradigm.

On that score, we notice the fading importance of polyhedrons in commonly
adopted curricula, despite their centrality in organic chemistry and
crystallography ala Linus Pauling:

I think one reason for that is any more contemporary approach would need to
include some newer material that math teachers may prefer to leave to other
departments to cover (such as CS).

The Oregon Curriculum Network web pages contain more details.


Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.