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
»
mathteach
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




Re: A boy wonder from the 1780s shows us where school maths gets it wrong (2nd attempt)
Posted:
Jan 27, 2017 4:13 PM



On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Joe Niederberger <niederberger@comcast.net > > 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:
http://4dsolutions.net/ocn/numeracy0.html (scroll down)
OCN is lightyears 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.
https://medium.com/@kirbyurner/theplightofhighschoolmathteachersc0faf0a6efe6
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 welldeveloped "delta track" (precalc / calc).
https://youtu.be/eTDH7m4vEiM
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 topdown 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:
https://flic.kr/p/R1hhCf https://flic.kr/p/RzNbsg
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.
Kirby



