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 » sci.math.* » sci.math.independent

Topic: Maths pedagaogy
Replies: 57   Last Post: Mar 21, 2013 9:47 PM

Advanced Search

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

Posts: 10,226
Registered: 7/15/05
Re: Maths pedagaogy
Posted: Mar 17, 2013 2:56 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Kaba wrote:
>pepstein5@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Maths texts and lectures often refer to observations as being
>>"easy to check", "trivial" or "obvious."

>
>I find two extreme situations for why someone uses such weasel
>words.
>
>1) The writer is an expert, and is bored of going around the
>same argument for himself for the thousandth time. The claim is
>probably correct.
>
>2) The writer is a novice, and does not have the energy to go
>into details which detract him from the main point he is trying
>to make. There is a high risk of the claim being incorrect, or
>of that the claim is correct, but has a tedious proof.


(3) The writer is a wise, experienced teacher who has a clear
understanding of his likely readership and knows which lemmas
would be trivial for his readers to prove, and

* While the author needs the statement as a lemma, it's offered
to the reader as an easy exercise.

* To set the expected level of difficulty of the text by omitting
trivialities (which would be less trivial if the reader was less
experienced or less able).

* (repeating from (2)), doesn't want to detract from the main
points by watering it down with trivial details.

>I'll concentrate on the type 1 writers; the type 2 writers
>hopefully improve on their writing as time passes.
>
>Speaking of books in particular, whose main purpose is to teach,
>one quality metric for me is to count the density of weasel words
>in the text.


Better metrics are:

* The readability and elegance of the writing.

* Intelligent, natural choices for notation and terminology.

* The right motivation for key concepts.

* A well chosen mix exercises, some easy, some medium, some
challenging, chosen so that working through most the
exercises builds the students' power over the subject and
confirms their mastery of the concepts.

* Clear, well-worded proofs, not cluttered with trivial details,
and with the key parts said "just right".

>An unfortunate example is Lang's Algebra, where everything is
>obvious, easy and trivial. This is almost always contradictory.
>If it really is trivial, then why not write it down;


Why not offer it as an in-place exercise for the reader?

>it should take about the same space as stating it trivial.

Right, but Lang expects the readers to participate.

Just like some math teachers who, when teaching lessons, ask
(mostly) easy questions as they go along. This serves a dual
purpose. Firstly, it reassures the teacher that the students
are "with it". Secondly, it gives the students an opportunity
to be part of the development. Most of the questions should
be easy ones with quick answers, so as not to slow down the
lesson too much.

>If it takes more than a few sentences, then it is not trivial.

Unless those sentence flow in a trivial way. But I agree, most
of such omitted proofs should be of the kind for which the
student should be able to do it mostly in their heads, with at
most a few lines of math written on the side.

In your indictment of Lang's Algebra, let's see some examples.
Show us statements from that text for which, assuming the
student

* has the assumed prerequisites for the text

* has successfully understood (and done exercises to prove
it) for the material up to that point in the text

have proofs left to the reader, but which, in your opinion,
would actually not be trivial for the average reader, as
qualified above.

quasi


Date Subject Author
3/17/13
Read Maths pedagaogy
Paul
3/17/13
Read Re: Maths pedagaogy
David C. Ullrich
3/17/13
Read Re: Maths pedagaogy
Paul
3/17/13
Read Re: Maths pedagaogy
David C. Ullrich
3/17/13
Read Re: Maths pedagaogy
Paul
3/18/13
Read Re: Maths pedagaogy
David C. Ullrich
3/18/13
Read Re: Maths pedagaogy
Paul
3/18/13
Read Re: Maths pedagaogy
David C. Ullrich
3/18/13
Read Re: Maths pedagaogy
William Elliot
3/18/13
Read Re: Maths pedagaogy
Paul
3/18/13
Read Re: Maths pedagaogy
Frederick Williams
3/18/13
Read Re: Maths pedagaogy
Paul
3/18/13
Read Re: Maths pedagaogy
Frederick Williams
3/18/13
Read Re: Maths pedagaogy
Frederick Williams
3/18/13
Read Re: Maths pedagaogy
Paul
3/18/13
Read Re: Maths pedagaogy
Frederick Williams
3/19/13
Read Re: Maths pedagaogy
David Bernier
3/18/13
Read Re: Maths pedagaogy
Frederick Williams
3/18/13
Read Re: Maths pedagaogy
William Elliot
3/17/13
Read Re: Maths pedagaogy
Kaba
3/17/13
Read Re: Maths pedagaogy
Frederick Williams
3/17/13
Read Re: Maths pedagaogy
David C. Ullrich
3/18/13
Read Re: Maths pedagaogy
Kaba
3/17/13
Read Re: Maths pedagaogy
quasi
3/17/13
Read Re: Maths pedagaogy
Kaba
3/18/13
Read Re: Maths pedagaogy
quasi
3/18/13
Read Re: Maths pedagaogy
Kaba
3/19/13
Read Re: Maths pedagaogy
quasi
3/19/13
Read Re: Maths pedagaogy
Frederick Williams
3/19/13
Read Re: Maths pedagaogy
Paul
3/19/13
Read Re: Maths pedagaogy
David C. Ullrich
3/19/13
Read Re: Maths pedagaogy
Frederick Williams
3/19/13
Read Re: Maths pedagaogy
fom
3/20/13
Read Re: Maths pedagaogy
David C. Ullrich
3/20/13
Read Re: Maths pedagaogy
Paul
3/20/13
Read Re: Maths pedagaogy
fom
3/19/13
Read Re: Maths pedagaogy
Paul
3/20/13
Read Re: Maths pedagaogy
Herman Rubin
3/20/13
Read Re: Maths pedagaogy
Brian Q. Hutchings
3/21/13
Read Re: Maths pedagaogy
Herman Rubin
3/20/13
Read Re: Maths pedagaogy
Paul
3/21/13
Read Re: Maths pedagaogy
Herman Rubin
3/21/13
Read Re: Maths pedagaogy
fom
3/19/13
Read Re: Maths pedagaogy
quasi
3/19/13
Read Re: Maths pedagaogy
Frederick Williams
3/20/13
Read Re: Maths pedagaogy
Paul
3/20/13
Read Re: Maths pedagaogy
Herman Rubin
3/18/13
Read Re: Maths pedagaogy
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
3/20/13
Read Re: Maths pedagaogy
Brian Q. Hutchings
3/17/13
Read Re: Maths pedagaogy
fom
3/17/13
Read Re: Maths pedagaogy
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
3/18/13
Read Re: Maths pedagaogy
Frederick Williams
3/21/13
Read Re: Maths pedagaogy
Jesse F. Hughes
3/21/13
Read Re: Maths pedagaogy
fom
3/21/13
Read Re: Maths pedagaogy
Kaba
3/21/13
Read Re: Maths pedagaogy
fom
3/21/13
Read Re: Maths pedagaogy
fom
3/18/13
Read Re: Maths pedagaogy
grei

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.