Robert Hansen (RH) posted May 14, 2014 4:31 AM (http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=9462326} - GSC's remarks interspersed: > > On May 13, 2014, at 2:15 PM, GS Chandy > <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > > No. That is NOT what Lou Talman is pointing out. > > Professor Talman is, in fact, pointing out that you > > are 'a funny guy'. > > Lou has a PhD and I think he is capable of telling us > what is so great about money ducks in place of actual > math classes. > Indeed Professor Talman has a Ph.D., and INDEED he is entirely capable of telling us the things he wishes to tell us! I must sincerely apologise to him for the presumptuousness of my suggestion "That is NOT what Lou Talman is pointing out". I do observe that it's not just the Ph.D. providing value to his ideas: Professor Talman has something worth saying, and he takes pains to say it clearly. This is an admirable characteristic that we should all try to emulate (whether we have earned Ph.D.s or not).
Side-bar: +++++ This is, I believe, a characteristic quite apart from any 'expertise' we may claim in any field (though it is believed that training in mathematics as well as in computer science both do engender this characteristic).
I have often wondered how it is that you, Robert Hansen, do not seem to have developed this characteristic despite your claimed 'expertise' in both these fields.
I do know that my 'habit' of constructing structural models on issues of interest - the result of systematically using the OPMS approach in most things I do or think about - has significantly enhanced this characteristic in me. +++++
To revert: as to the value of 'money ducks' and the like to help students learn math, I reserve my opinion on that. I have viewed the videos and I didn't think a great deal of them: IMHO, the videos were not very effective vis-a-vis teaching students some math topics.
However, I do believe Dan Meyer is not incorrect in trying, by way of his blog, to help math teachers liven up their math classes in various ways. I recall that, when I was once utterly bored by what was going on in my school math classes, it was an English teacher who convinced me that there was plenty of interesting stuff in math: he managed "to pique my curiosity", so to speak, along with my interest, by showing me the wonders of Mobius strips and stuff.
After that, I was convinced that math could indeed be interesting and I then learned how to "peak my efforts", so to speak, to try and understand the lessons within the boring bits that had been 'turning me off'. The heart of the matter was that my interest had to be stimulated.
It's early days yet, the lesson is still being learned by the educational system that
"getting students interested in what they're learning in math WOULD CONTRIBUTE TO SIGNIFICANTLY TO the effectiveness of their learning".
Maria Montessori did that successfully (at primary school levels) over a century ago - but the educational system as a whole doesn't seem to have learned the lesson yet.
I'm fairly sure that the emphasis on PUSHING and GOADING students to learn math has a great deal to do with the relative failure thus far of the 'math education system'.
Likewise, on a parallel but related track, it's also early days yet in the long, LONG process of the educational system learning that there are a great many connections between mathematics and computer sciences and between computer sciences - and then learning how to show those connections to the 'primary stakeholders' in the educational system, the students.
'Learning' seems to be a very difficult thing to do indeed for any entrenched human-made system.
To contrast, EVERY child knows "how to learn", more or less intuitively: all he or she requires is *effective* ENCOURAGEMENT from the people guiding him or her - it's a profound lesson that our educational systems apparently have not yet learned. It would not be inordinately difficult or expensive to ensure - within just a few years - that students do not generally leave school 'fearing and/or loating math', which is today's general situation, alas. (In fact, I claim that 'money and effort costs' could both be significantly reduced in our educational systems if they'd only seek "to learn as a child does". See attachment). > > And actually, I am a quite serious guy, which will > become more apparent going forward. > > Bob Hansen > You may well be "quite a serious guy" as you claim to be. I don't dispute that at all.
However, I believe you alas weren't a very *effective guy* when you went about plastering with worthless 30-foot PERT Charts all the walls of the halls and corridors of the office(s?) in which you worked, when you had become enamoured by the Management 'Sciences' discipline of 'Project Management' (which is in fact something that mainly leads to 'project mismanagement'. That, apparently, was a lesson that you learned only after you had put up a great many worthless PERT Charts in the offices where you worked!)
GSC ("Still Shoveling! Not PUSHING!! Not GOADING!!!" - but maybe "poking with a stick", just a wee bit)