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: Why?
Replies: 52   Last Post: Oct 30, 2012 9:38 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: 1,783
Registered: 11/29/05
Re: Why?
Posted: Oct 27, 2012 3:08 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Robert Hansen <bob@rsccore.com> wrote:

> It is the same fallacy. Gattegno saw the mathematics in colored rods, he had a PhD in mathematics. His students saw a game. And note, I have given Cuisenaire rods a whirl. They were influential in helping me see this fallacy. During the "activity" I recognized that a key element was missing. Mathematics. Hasta la vista colored rods.
>


I wouldn't dismiss someone's lifework so quickly on the basis of
giving these rods "a whirl". Did you use any of his texts to go with
them?

http://www.amazon.com/The-Primary-Mathematics-Lessons-Gattegno/dp/3844311564

I'm not a veteran teacher of this "Algebra First" curriculum either; I
learned about it through Ian Benson, author of the above book. He was
thinking Python might have a bigger role in early math teaching in the
UK. This was pre Raspberry Pi, another UK based initiative wherein
Python features.

Ian frequents Stanford and should be known to Milgram at least. He
also knows Fernando Flores and Terry Winograd.

>>
>> You may scoff at the idea, but remember the human brain is capable of
>> mastering complete human languages at that age.

>
> And the obvious conclusion is that mathematics and language are very different beasts.
>


You're quick to jump to conclusions I notice.

>>
>> I don't think we really know what humans are capable of, given
>> intelligently designed learning materials.

>
> We know what they are capable of. I don't know of any subject that has been more thoroughly tested than math. I think what you mean is that we don't know if a curriculum can be improved. At this point, the biggest improvement (overwhelmingly) appears to be to drop the pretense that it can be improved. That is my conclusion after studying dozens of curriculums and classes and noting which students make it into the "club" and which do not.
>
> Bob Hansen


Who is "We" in the above first sentence.

I don't think in Newton's day people envisaged 17 year olds learning
his Calculus at such a tender age.

Programming computers was not originally envisioned as child-friendly
activity either. Now there's Scratch from MIT.

The curriculum is not a static entity and indeed there is not just one
curriculum.

E.g. Some are using the Litvins' book this academic school year,
others are just thinking about it.

Some are using Sage to learn calculus right now today, others don't
know what I'm talking about (http://www.sagemath.org/help-video.html)

[ I'm not a big Sage user myself, nor do I use the Litvins' book in my
Martian Math classes with teens. I do use VPython (vpython.org). ]

You've reached the comfortable conclusion that you're right about
everything math-teach related, at least that much is obvious.

Hardening of the mental arteries is symptomatic of adulthood, I realize.

That's probably why some try to get to Algebra earlier, before it's too late.

Kirby


Date Subject Author
10/23/12
Read Why?
Robert Hansen
10/23/12
Read Re: Why?
Haim
10/23/12
Read Re: Why?
Clyde Greeno
10/23/12
Read Re: Why?
Dave L. Renfro
10/23/12
Read Re: Why?
Paul A. Tanner III
10/23/12
Read Re: Why?
Robert Hansen
10/23/12
Read Re: Why?
Paul A. Tanner III
10/23/12
Read Re: Why?
Robert Hansen
10/24/12
Read Re: Why?
Paul A. Tanner III
10/24/12
Read Re: Why?
Robert Hansen
10/24/12
Read Re: Why?
Paul A. Tanner III
10/24/12
Read Re: Why?
Robert Hansen
10/24/12
Read Re: Why?
Paul A. Tanner III
10/24/12
Read Re: Why?
Robert Hansen
10/24/12
Read Re: Why?
Paul A. Tanner III
10/24/12
Read Re: Why?
Robert Hansen
10/24/12
Read Re: Why?
Paul A. Tanner III
10/25/12
Read Re: Why?
Robert Hansen
10/25/12
Read Re: Why?
Louis Talman
10/26/12
Read Re: Why?
Wayne Bishop
10/25/12
Read Re: Why?
Paul A. Tanner III
10/27/12
Read Re: Why?
kirby urner
10/27/12
Read Re: Why?
Robert Hansen
10/27/12
Read Re: Why?
kirby urner
10/25/12
Read Re: Why?
Robert Hansen
10/25/12
Read Re: Why?
Paul A. Tanner III
10/23/12
Read Re: Why?
Jonathan Crabtree
10/25/12
Read Re: Why?
Robert Hansen
10/24/12
Read Re: Why?
GS Chandy
10/26/12
Read Re: Why?
Wayne Bishop
10/26/12
Read Re: Why?
Robert Hansen
10/27/12
Read Re: Why?
Paul A. Tanner III
10/27/12
Read Re: Why?
Robert Hansen
10/27/12
Read Re: Why?
Paul A. Tanner III
10/27/12
Read Re: Why?
Robert Hansen
10/27/12
Read Re: Why?
kirby urner
10/28/12
Read Re: Why?
Paul A. Tanner III
10/28/12
Read Re: Why?
Robert Hansen
10/28/12
Read Re: Why?
Paul A. Tanner III
10/27/12
Read Re: Why?
Wayne Bishop
10/29/12
Read Re: Why?
Joe Niederberger
10/29/12
Read Re: Why?
Joe Niederberger
10/29/12
Read Re: Why?
Robert Hansen
10/30/12
Read Re: Why?
Louis Talman
10/30/12
Read Re: Why?
Robert Hansen
10/30/12
Read Re: Why?
Paul A. Tanner III
10/30/12
Read Re: Why?
Louis Talman
10/30/12
Read Re: Why?
Robert Hansen
10/30/12
Read Re: Why?
Louis Talman
10/30/12
Read Re: Why?
Robert Hansen
10/30/12
Read Re: Why?
Louis Talman
10/30/12
Read Re: Why?
Clyde Greeno @ MALEI
10/30/12
Read Re: Why?
kirby urner

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.