Date: Nov 26, 2012 1:59 AM
Author: GS Chandy
Subject: Re: [math-learn] Brightness Versus Intelligence. / Eastern Versus<br> Western learning

Robert Hansen (RH) posted  Nov 25, 2012 11:48 PM (GSC's remarks interspersed):
>
> On Nov 25, 2012, at 4:01 AM, "Clyde Greeno @ MALEI"
> <greeno@malei.org> wrote:
>

> > Hansen-type pursuits/dialog are only peripheral to
> scientific efforts. However, if Hansen (and company)
> are interested in some samples of research that is
> not "lacking":

> >
> http://arapaho.nsuok.edu/~okar-maa/news/okarproceeding
> s/OKAR-2005/clgreeno-part2.html

> >
> http://arapaho.nsuok.edu/~okar-maa/news/okarproceeding
> s/OKAR-2005/clgreeno-part1.html

> >
> http://arapaho.nsuok.edu/~okar-maa/news/okarproceedin
> gs/OKAR-2007/2007OKARMAA_U&L-Limits.htm
>
> These are hypotheses, not research. Everyone starts
> with these.
>

I did not study - but did glance through, with considerable interest - all three documents linked through by Clyde Greeno, and found them to be very useful 'initiating documents' on the respective subjects of research:

1) MATHEMATICAL-SYLLABUS METHODS FOR OPTIMIZING INSTRUCTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS: THE MATHEMATICAL INTEGRITY CRITERION

2) VECTOR ALGEBRAIC THEORY OF ARITHMETIC: Part 1

3) MATHEMATICS AS COMMON SENSE: UPPER AND LOWER LIMITS FOR FUNCTIONS

As to whether they are "Hypotheses, NOT research", as claimed by RH, I make no judgement as I am not adequately qualified in 'education research' to make any such judgement.

To my mind, they are extremely interesting; Mr (Dr?) Greeno certainly makes gives some sound arguments for his theses - and they deserve to be adequately studied by those who are qualified to do serious study on such work. As noted, I am not so qualified - and I believe that RH is as poorly qualified as I am to make any such judgement as he has done.

It would be most useful for us all to recall the old saw: "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread" before we rush to make fools of ourselves with such judgements that smack of ignorance and ineptitude.
>
> What I have asked for and that you have not supplied
> are actual curriculums and students of those
> curriculums, beyond a 5 minute video or two. For all
> of your theorizing of what a curriculum is, should
> be, or should not be, you don't actually have one.
>

I observe that (in my opinion) Dr Greeno's papers are significantly more qualified to stand as examples of 'research' on the propositions put forth than are the claims that Mr Hansen has made, the instances that he has put before us, for example:

a) "I create whole ontologies with my friends (over a beer or two) as a casual afternoon's entertainment". [Words or ideas to that effect].

b) "I was always the best in my class".

c) "My teachers seldom called me to the board".

GSC
("Still Shoveling Away! - with apologies if due to Barry Garelick for any tedium caused; and with the observation that the SIMPLE way to avoid any such tedium is to refrain from opening any messages purported to originate from GSC).
> > Currently, MALEI's R&D efforts are focused on
> finding realistic and effective, non-curricular ways
> of mathematically salvaging educationally
> disadvantaged adults, youth, schools, and
> communities.
>
> You mean students that are failing mathematics,
> correct?
>
> Bob Hansen