>I would suggest to Frank that he not bother to read the >literature on this question unless as a curious interest >in what "the literature" means in professional education.
And always there is, in this forum, the elliptical reference to "The Literature" but rarely (ever?) a citation or even a substantive quote or paraphrase from said literature. Odd that, in this forum, "The Literature" seems never to inform the discussion.
>As for Keith Devlin being "loony,"
A case in point. So Devlin thinks that iterated addition is a problem, but he does not say specifically what should be done. Indeed, he does not make much of a case for their being problem, in the first place. Yes, he offers a hypothesis, but nothing more. No details of what to do, instead. No studies of having tried it one way and then another, to see how students develop.
Off-hand, I would say the closest anyone has ever come to teaching field theory to elementary school students was the "New Math" effort of the 1960's. Ralph Raimi makes the case that New Math never was implemented correctly, and I suppose he is right. My point is that it never could have been implemented correctly since our teacher corp is not capable of teaching field theory. The New Math never could have been anything but a disaster, and the venerable Professor Keith Devlin wants to do it all over again. Or so it seems.
Haim Unashamedly White and Unapologetically Jewish