Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

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


Math Forum » Discussions » Education » math-teach

Topic: New Math: What am I missing?
Replies: 36   Last Post: Mar 8, 2007 1:16 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Michael Paul Goldenberg

Posts: 7,041
From: Ann Arbor, MI
Registered: 12/3/04
Re: New Math: What am I missing?
Posted: Mar 5, 2007 1:11 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Nothing much. I've made the point here repeatedly that folks I spoke
with who actually worked on these projects (e.g., Joe Payne, now
retired from the U of Michigan) say pretty much the same things
regarding "the" New Math. The Dolciani books got there firstest with
the mostest and became for most of the nation "THE New Math." End of
story.

You may be one of the few to actually find out for yourself. I wonder
what impact this experience might have on your thinking about judging
the efficacy of books or methods you have no or very limited
experience with or exposure to. And I use the word "you" more
generally. Imagine if reading a book or teaching from it, or
observing a quality teacher use it were a requirement for those who
want to spout off about the efficacy of the book. Whatever would Paul
Tanner, Wayne Bishop, and a host of other pundits do?

On Mar 5, 2007, at 12:48 PM, Adrian wrote:

> So, in my pursuit of the perfect math program, I stumbled across
> the Gelfand Correspondence Program pretty quickly. Even faster
> than that virtually anyone will quickly find stuff like the
> Singapore Math program or Saxon or whatever. However, not only are
> all the books out of print, but virtually everyone I talk to --
> mathematicians, included -- seem to all know what an abject failure
> New Math was. You cannot even terribly easily acquire and look at
> a representative textbook. Well, I have finally gotten a hold of
> two books: _Geometry_ by Moise and Downs as well as _Modern
> Algebra_ by Allen and Pearson. I guess you never "really" know
> until you actually try to teach your kid out of it, but flipping
> through these books I was immediately impressed by the following
>
> 1) These books are totally doable. They are not as hard as
> Singapore. These are not your standards-based-we're-tired-of-
> dumbed-down-education books -- not that they are dumbed down per se
> -- just that they're not super hard, either, so that normal kids
> can do it.
>
> 2) They cover normal material. It's not like after you get through
> these books you know a whole lot of set theory but still cannot
> factor or something. These books cover the material of high school
> algebra and geometry just fine.
>
> 3) They do include set theory and lots of discussion of logic and
> methods of proof. It is not formal set theory and they aren't
> trying to cover decidability or some such thing. It's just really
> basic stuff like "List the subsets of {a,b,c}." They talk about
> how to use the contrapositive of an implication to prove something
> -- a little bit of p's and q's -- that sort of thing.
>
> It strikes me that this is it. Am I missing something? Because we
> don't do it with books like this in high school, this sort of stuff
> is standard fare for first courses in abstract algebra or
> combinatorics. Is this unteachable? Really? Is this absurdly
> formal? These sorts of characterizations of this material are just
> ridiculous! Do I just have the wrong books? Maybe these aren't
> representative of New Math? Is that what it is?
>
> Also, I have largely associated "New Math" with this University of
> Illinois program that I found back when I first looked into it just
> long enough to find out that even if it was good it was "out of
> production". (So, I just dropped it in favor of other things at
> the time.) The Illinois project was interesting enough in that it
> had some mathematicians in the background, but the main program of
> New Math -- the SMSG -- was not only headed up by a mathematician,
> but a guy that got his PhD from Princeton under Lefschetz! The
> more I am looking into this -- looking at the books and materials
> as well as the people involved -- the more it looks like New Math
> was just mathematics handed down to society by its mathematicians.
> And, through some sort of ridiculous politics it has now fallen so
> out of favor that it is all but disappeared. The MAA keeps records
> on it, though. Do they keep all the "Back to Basics" stuff on
> file? Do you think the "New New Math" will be preserved by th!
> e MAA? And, the MAA still publishes monographs by mathematicians
> for high school students under the banner of the "New Mathematical
> Curriculum". What am I missing here?
>
>



Date Subject Author
3/5/07
Read New Math: What am I missing?
Adrian
3/5/07
Read Re: New Math: What am I missing?
Michael Paul Goldenberg
3/5/07
Read Re: New Math: What am I missing?
Kirby Urner
3/5/07
Read Re: New Math: What am I missing?
Shelley Walsh
3/7/07
Read Re: New Math: What am I missing?
Kirby Urner
3/7/07
Read Re: New Math: What am I missing?
Michael Paul Goldenberg
3/7/07
Read Re: New Math: What am I missing?
Kirby Urner
3/7/07
Read Re: New Math: What am I missing?
Kirby Urner
3/5/07
Read Re: New Math: What am I missing?
Haim
3/5/07
Read Re: New Math: What am I missing?
Michael Paul Goldenberg
3/6/07
Read Re: New Math: What am I missing?
Haim
3/6/07
Read Re: New Math: What am I missing?
Michael Paul Goldenberg
3/6/07
Read Re: New Math: What am I missing?
Haim
3/6/07
Read Re: New Math: What am I missing?
Michael Paul Goldenberg
3/6/07
Read Re: New Math: What am I missing?
Haim
3/6/07
Read Re: New Math: What am I missing?
Louis Talman
3/6/07
Read Re: New Math: What am I missing?
Adrian
3/6/07
Read Re: New Math: What am I missing?
Kirby Urner
3/6/07
Read Re: New Math: What am I missing?
Kirby Urner
3/6/07
Read Re: New Math: What am I missing?
Domenico Rosa
3/7/07
Read Re: New Math: What am I missing?
Adrian
3/7/07
Read Re: New Math: What am I missing?
Michael Paul Goldenberg
3/7/07
Read Re: New Math: What am I missing?
Louis Talman
3/7/07
Read Re: New Math: What am I missing?
Louis Talman
3/7/07
Read Re: New Math: What am I missing?
Gary Tupper
3/7/07
Read Re: New Math: What am I missing?
Domenico Rosa
3/7/07
Read Re: New Math: What am I missing?
Michael Paul Goldenberg
3/8/07
Read Re: New Math: What am I missing?
Domenico Rosa
3/8/07
Read Re: New Math: What am I missing?
Michael Paul Goldenberg
3/8/07
Read Re: New Math: What am I missing?
Kirby Urner
3/8/07
Read Re: New Math: What am I missing?
Michael Paul Goldenberg
3/8/07
Read Re: New Math: What am I missing?
Domenico Rosa
3/8/07
Read Re: New Math: What am I missing?
Michael Paul Goldenberg
3/8/07
Read Re: New Math: What am I missing?
Domenico Rosa
3/7/07
Read Re: New Math: What am I missing?
Greg Matheson
3/7/07
Read Re: New Math: What am I missing?
Greg Matheson
3/7/07
Read Re: New Math: What am I missing?
Greg Matheson

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

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.