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: Progressive Education at Its Best
Replies: 64   Last Post: Jul 5, 2007 9:13 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: Progressive Education at Its Best
Posted: Jul 2, 2007 9:20 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply


On Jul 2, 2007, at 8:51 PM, Greg Goodknight wrote:

>
>>> Better late than never.
>>
>> Well, I don't know about you, Greggie, but calculators were rather
>> pricey when I was in my early 20s. By the late 1970s, a scientific
>> calculator was affordable, so I got one.

> And what science were you studying then?

I was taking a stats course in early '78, then a two-course sequence
in the clinical psychology department (taught by a guy from
statistics). The first was a more thorough version of the basic
course I'd taken the year before. The second was on research design.
We used a book by Box, Hunter, & Hunter that drew mostly from
industrial examples, making it a bit rough for most, if not all, of
the students.

>
>> It's impossible for you not to be snide, I know, but you say the
>> most ignorant things trying to be clever, it's really remarkable.
>> The above is a good example, of course, but what follows is even
>> better.

>
> By the mid 70's even nice HP's were affordable, but the liberal
> arts types generally didn't bother with them.


At that particular juncture, my funds and my needs were modest.
>
> Before getting the HP, there was the Pickett log-log that I still
> have, hanging on the wall above my computer.. You see, those of us
> getting Science degrees in the sciences actually had to crunch
> numbers on a regular basis, and spending $150 for a calculator was
> a reasonable expenditure. Before then, it was do the heavy lifting
> and then borrow an HP-35/45/55 from an early adopter with more cash
> than I had, and at least at my school, they were lent freely.
>
> However, even in 1972 the overpriced HP-35 was significantly
> cheaper than the trumpet I bought in 1970.


I''m sure that's hugely interesting to someone. But my point is that
your "late than never" crack was both gratuitous and stupid.
>
>>>> In any case, what are your thoughts about the recommendation
>>>> about "guess and check" as an approach here, with or without the
>>>> calculator as a tool?

>>> ahhh, it was "guess and check" that was to be the gotcha.
>>
>> Right, Greggie. I read Wayne's mind and KNEW he would point to the
>> web site he did (even though I'd never been to that site before.
>> Then, cleverly, I "trapped" him by asking his opinion.

> C'mon, your disingenuity is showing. This was always meant to be
> all about "guess and check", wasn't it?


Do you shoot or smoke your narcotics of choice? It never crossed my
mind. Had Wayne not pointed us to the site he did, I doubt the
question would have arisen. But then, if you check back to what
started the whole square root algorithm topic, he mentioned that his
approach used estimation skills. Since I know from experience with
students and teachers that estimation skills are at best
unpredictable for many, I then posted a method that didn't depend on
that. It's generated the usual silence. I think it's got a lot of
interest because it continues the generalization some of us (at least
those interested in teacher education, pedagogy, etc.) would like to
see teachers (and their students) make about how the operations of
multiplication and division build on addition and subtraction,
respectively, and the standard algorithms "compress" the process
through the use of place value. The algorithm I posted does the same
thing.

>
>>
>> Are you the densest, most asinine putz in California, or does that
>> title belong to some other ignoramus in the MC/HOLD camp.

> Well, I wonder if that meets the standard of Drexel's use policies.
> Any guesses?


You're pathetic.
>
>>> How is that "guess and check" different from the guess and check
>>> inherent in long division?

>>
>> Did I say it was? Did I say it wasn't? I just asked Wayne (you
>> aren't secretly the same guy, perchance, or has he contracted you
>> and Ed to answer for him?) what he thought. You understand the
>> words "what are your thoughts on" don't you?

> Once again, Mike, you can't control the list.

No duh!

> Once you put something out, just anyone can jump in, and all too
> often does. Do you see yourself in that sentence?


Do you see yourself in the toilet?
> Tell you what, you keep out of any thread that doesn't specifically
> invite you, and I'll be happy to do the same. Deal?


Who told you to stay out? I simply asked: a) are you now an official
spokesperson for Wayne? and b) do you understand what I asked him?
Apparently the answer to the latter is "no" and I don't really care
at all about the former. Of course you get to reply to everything I
post. You get to be as big of a schumuck as you choose to be. And
then you get to complain about my behavior, raise childish questions
about Drexel's use policies (tried to have me banned yet?), etc. The
word "hypocrite" was made for you and your ilk.

What you don't do is talk about the math. Or the teaching of it. And
that's all I was trying to do. Wayne opened a topic that interests
me. Sadly, neither you, nor Ed, nor even Wayne himself seems
interested in discussing it. That's obviously your choice, but it
does speak to why this list is mostly worthless as a source for
teachers and teacher educators. There are other lists, of course, and
I post to the ones that interest me. Perhaps you do, too.
>
>>>
>>> Can you see how that is different than the "guess and check" used
>>> as a substitute for symbolic manipulation in the fuzzier algebra
>>> curricula, which is the "guess and check" that is roundly (and
>>> fairly) criticized by the MC/HOLD crowd?

>>
>> You mean, do I understand that the mindless RANDOM guessing
>> process you folks invented to substitute for the same thoughtful
>> process that problem solvers have used for centuries, is NOT the
>> actual one reformers advocate? Yes, I do. It's sad, even pathetic
>> that you folks can't deal with reality. You probably could
>> actually do some good if you were to offer constructive criticism
>> that didn't depend entirely or nearly so on distortion,
>> exaggeration, straw men of your own invention, and outright lies
>> and fantasies. Everyone would benefit. But you can't or won't.

> I'll put that down as yes, the "guess and check" of the sqrt()
> method and long division are essentially similar, arithmetic
> estimations, and entirely different than the "guess and check" of
> many NCTMish algebra treatments that substitute for symbolic
> algebraic manipulations, but Mikey just can't handle that.


I'm sorry I won't concede your lies as truths. How unreasonable of
me, isn't it? Again, you have no interest in discussing the math,
just in being a douche. Your right as an American, of course.
>
> I have seen thoughtless and mind numbing successive approximation
> lessons using the calculator, seemingly designed to maximize button
> pushing, and it was in a curricula you've defended, Mike.


Since I don't defend any curriculum, but instead try to find their
good points (for possible use) and bad, offer criticisms from a
constructive perspective to their authors when it seems appropriate
to do so, and neither prescribe nor proscribe any particular program
(and if I did, I'd represent no one but myself in so doing), you're
basically talking through your hat. I'm not a fan of what I've seen
of Saxon. I have no firm opinion on Singapore Math, but am skeptical
that it (or anything) would be a panacea. I remain of the opinion
that teachers and teaching matter more than books, but since
according to Ed, that's not of any interest to him or Wayne, and
apparently not to you, either, I guess that when I try to reach
people on here who might have been drawn by the NAME of the list in
the hopes that there would be talk about . . . . teaching
math!!! . . . well, I just have to live with the jackals.

As for what a lesson is designed for, that can only be judged by
looking at how it was written. As to how it was implemented, that's a
related but separate question. I realize those sort of distinctions
aren't useful when your goal is to smash and burn, so don't bother
thinking about them.
>
>> That's why I fight you and always will.
> Ahh, so the making nice really was a feint, in bad faith. Not that
> there was any doubt.


Did I "make nice" to you, Greg? I don't recall being that dense. My
inquiry was to Wayne. It still is. As you told me so pointedly above,
you were free to jump in and did. That doesn't mean my inquiry
extended to you or my tone in asking Wayne a civil question apply to
my distaste in dealing with you.

All your talk of feints and ploys and traps and secret motivations is
an inescapable consequence of the way the self-proclaimed math
warriors have approached this whole thing. But since you keep coming
here, you really don't have much basis to bitch at me. You obviously
get a great deal from your silly dueling. Talking or trying to talk
about the teaching and learning of mathematics isn't it, however.


>
> -Greg
>
>
>
>



Date Subject Author
6/30/07
Read Progressive Education at Its Best
Bishop, Wayne
6/30/07
Read Re: Progressive Education at Its Best
Michael Paul Goldenberg
6/30/07
Read Re: Progressive Education at Its Best
Bishop, Wayne
6/30/07
Read Re: Progressive Education at Its Best
Michael Paul Goldenberg
6/30/07
Read Re: Progressive Education at Its Best
Haim
6/30/07
Read Re: Progressive Education at Its Best
Michael Paul Goldenberg
6/30/07
Read Re: Progressive Education at Its Best
Haim
6/30/07
Read Re: Progressive Education at Its Best
Michael Paul Goldenberg
7/1/07
Read Re: Progressive Education at Its Best
Haim
7/1/07
Read Re: Progressive Education at Its Best
Michael Paul Goldenberg
7/1/07
Read Re: Progressive Education at Its Best
Haim
7/1/07
Read Re: Progressive Education at Its Best
Michael Paul Goldenberg
7/1/07
Read Re: Progressive Education at Its Best
Greg Goodknight
7/1/07
Read Re: Progressive Education at Its Best
Bishop, Wayne
7/1/07
Read Re: Progressive Education at Its Best
Michael Paul Goldenberg
7/1/07
Read Re: Progressive Education at Its Best
Michael Paul Goldenberg
7/2/07
Read Re: Progressive Education at Its Best
Haim
7/1/07
Read Re: Progressive Education at Its Best
Haim
7/1/07
Read Re: Progressive Education at Its Best
Michael Paul Goldenberg
7/1/07
Read Re: Progressive Education at Its Best
Greg Matheson
7/1/07
Read Re: Progressive Education at Its Best
Haim
7/1/07
Read Re: Progressive Education at Its Best
Michael Paul Goldenberg
7/1/07
Read Re: Progressive Education at Its Best
Greg Goodknight
7/1/07
Read Re: Progressive Education at Its Best
Michael Paul Goldenberg
7/2/07
Read Re: Progressive Education at Its Best
Greg Goodknight
7/2/07
Read Re: Progressive Education at Its Best
Michael Paul Goldenberg
7/2/07
Read Re: Progressive Education at Its Best
Bishop, Wayne
7/2/07
Read Re: Progressive Education at Its Best
Michael Paul Goldenberg
7/2/07
Read Re: Progressive Education at Its Best
Greg Goodknight
7/2/07
Read Re: Progressive Education at Its Best
Michael Paul Goldenberg
7/2/07
Read Re: Progressive Education at Its Best
Greg Goodknight
7/2/07
Read Re: Progressive Education at Its Best
Michael Paul Goldenberg
7/3/07
Read Re: Progressive Education at Its Best
Greg Goodknight
7/3/07
Read Re: Progressive Education at Its Best
Haim
7/3/07
Read Re: Progressive Education at Its Best
Michael Paul Goldenberg
7/3/07
Read Re: Progressive Education at Its Best
Greg Goodknight
7/3/07
Read Re: Progressive Education at Its Best
Michael Paul Goldenberg
7/3/07
Read Re: Progressive Education at Its Best
Greg Goodknight
7/3/07
Read Re: Progressive Education at Its Best
Michael Paul Goldenberg
7/3/07
Read Re: Progressive Education at Its Best
Haim
7/3/07
Read Re: Progressive Education at Its Best
Michael Paul Goldenberg
7/3/07
Read Re: Progressive Education at Its Best
Haim
7/3/07
Read Re: Progressive Education at Its Best
Haim
7/3/07
Read Re: Progressive Education at Its Best
Haim
7/3/07
Read Re: Progressive Education at Its Best
Michael Paul Goldenberg
7/4/07
Read Re: Progressive Education at Its Best
Haim
7/4/07
Read Re: Progressive Education at Its Best
Michael Paul Goldenberg
7/4/07
Read Re: Progressive Education at Its Best
Haim
7/4/07
Read Re: Progressive Education at Its Best
Michael Paul Goldenberg
7/4/07
Read Re: Progressive Education at Its Best
Haim
7/4/07
Read Re: Progressive Education at Its Best
Richard Strausz
7/4/07
Read Re: Progressive Education at Its Best
Michael Paul Goldenberg
7/4/07
Read Re: Progressive Education at Its Best
Anna Roys
7/4/07
Read Re: Progressive Education at Its Best
Jim Wysocki
7/4/07
Read Re: Progressive Education at Its Best
Anna Roys
7/4/07
Read Re: Progressive Education at Its Best
Michael Paul Goldenberg
7/5/07
Read Re: Progressive Education at Its Best
Anna Roys
7/4/07
Read Re: Progressive Education at Its Best
Michael Paul Goldenberg
7/4/07
Read Re: Progressive Education at Its Best
Haim
7/4/07
Read Re: Progressive Education at Its Best
Michael Paul Goldenberg
7/3/07
Read Re: Progressive Education at Its Best
Greg Goodknight
7/3/07
Read Re: Progressive Education at Its Best
Haim
7/3/07
Read Re: Progressive Education at Its Best
Michael Paul Goldenberg
7/2/07
Read Re: Progressive Education at Its Best
Haim
7/2/07
Read Re: Progressive Education at Its Best
Michael Paul Goldenberg

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.