On 05/07/2013 05:02 PM, kirby urner wrote: > Wayne's response is predictable: that this isn't math and > testing scores suffer.
What he actually wrote was "Let's see those mathematics competency tests." If it meets or exceeds the results of a competently taught, recognizable math class, let's embrace it as math.
Or in other words, if it's as effective, there should be an objective way to show its effectiveness, like a nationally normed test. It isn't perfect, but it's better than a puff piece in the local paper. Until shown to be effective, and not just as a remedial tool, let's not call it "math".
> Likewise, a student good at math > will scoff at how long it's taking her peers to grok the > concept of "angle". You've gotta use a saw to remember? > Yeah right. > > However, if we take away the labels and look at hours in a > day, learning to saw is productive, and has elements of > being trusted more like an adult, allowed to use tools that > may do inadvertent damage, especially to one's self. > Cooking? Same thing. You're working with chemicals, > substances, and using heat (the stove, fire). > > Lets call that gross and fine motor skills training,
Those were traditionally called "woodshop" and "home ec". At my junior high, there was also metal shop, and electric shop. None of those classes, despite requiring some below grade level math to be competent, were called math.
> or > how about "scouting". We may scoff at a "math class" > where they go to all the trouble to visit rugged terrain > and then have the students geocache (treasure hunt) using > instruments. Not only is it a long drive, it's physically > demanding. What has this to do with math? Math isn't > gym.
Orienteering is likewise not math.
All of the above classes also require some below grade level language skills, listening, speaking, reading and comprehension, and probably contain more language than math. Why not call them English?
PS I recall being energized by metalshop (students did everything but pour molten aluminum into the sandcasting molds, it was very cool) and electric shop in the 8th grade. Great stuff. Very probably helped me on the path towards physics and engineering. Shop classes are sadly not given the respect they deserve.
> > But we took the labels off, are just looking at handing on > the culture. Mathematicians who aren't good with saws and > don't have the physical stamina to climb out of a snowed > in valley might be a dime a dozen, but thanks to "scouting" > we don't plan to continue this level of neglect for the > whole person. > > However, I continue to share Wayne's concern they won't > move quickly or lightly enough among concepts and fail to > connect enough dots. If they hike 10 miles, "wasting" a > day on fitness, I'll want some immersive astronomy teaching > machine at the far end. dxyz/dt is in orbits. We keep > the math high level but "impure" because, as believers in > STEM, we're not believers in "pure". STEM is STEM. > > God forbid that scouting get in the way of those wishing > to learn quickly. Ten year olds are capable of doing some > serious programming, we know that. STEM teachers who > don't program will likewise be a thing of the past. > > Mathematics in theater? Yes. The humanities are not > unimportant all of a sudden. Yet I'm thinking a serious > STEAM can cover them, adding that A, I say for Anthro- > pology, they say for Art. Whatever. Anthropoids. Humans. > We get the humanities back in through the A word. > > > Kirby