On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 4:20 AM, Robert Hansen <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > > This is where that pathological *thing* of yours seems to kick in. Stop > twisting what I have said. I have always said that teaching > math/programming AFTER algebra is a sound option. My message on this is not > scrambled. You scrambled it because that is how you think and how you think > discussions work. > >
OK, fine then. A lot of students finish Algebra in middle school (junior high) and start Geometry in 9th grade. Doesn't matter about the details, only that we seem to agree that algebra can be a prerequisite for the CS-enabled math track with for-credit math courses that I'm talking about.
It would really help though, if that Algebra text they have one or two years before my courses, were CS-friendly e.g. the concept of Function were not just about numeric stuff. We don't want too much "zombie math" too early, as that makes their rescue more difficult.
So apparently you and I are in complete agreement. If Oregon / Cascadia starts offering CS-enabled math courses to high schoolers who've already taken algebra, you won't think that's a "bad thing" like some of the other dweebs on this list. If we use "Mathematics for the Digital Age", which you like, so much the better.
> > > The Litvins don't think "no dots". > > I wasn't talking about after algebra. My language was designed for > mathematics up to and through algebra. After that you have more options. >
I've almost always been talking about "after algebra". You're interested in little kids, like your son. My focus, including my pilots for Saturday Academy, have been teens. Teen-to-adult is my range, and it's easy to fit algebra into that, even assume it's been covered.
I want the Algebra to be CS-friendly though, per the criteria in this thread, and more. There's a fork in the road ahead, where some may continue with the traditional / conventional, computer illiterate math courses we have today. Others will opt for our newer track of CS-enabled math. Still others, the STEM-heads, may try to take both.
>>> 1. Teach math only, no programming. >>> 2. Teach math and work through the numerical exercises. >>> 3. Teach math, SQL, CSS, HTML, OOP, etc. >>> 4. Teach only programming. > >> I notice on 2. you're very careful to not allow "alphanumeric" (vs. >> "numeric") examples.
> That is because my focus was on mathematics, not programming. >
You don't understand that f('a') -> 'A' is a as mathematical as f(1) -> 2.
Remember topology: turning a coffee cup into a donut? That's math too.
Is math all about numbers, numbers and only numbers? No, never was, never will be.
But if you study under certain teachers or stick to certain "math books", you may lose those mental degrees of freedom and end up thinking math is only about "numbers". You'll have been zombified.
You have a knee-jerk (not well thought-out) response to CS-enabled math that shows signs of creeping zombification. You should fight it.
> Using OOP is more about the art of programming. And making analogies > between subroutines and functions will have to wait till the students are > more mature and experienced. That is a good thing. I can't seem to impress > on you that while these analogies make sense to a middle aged python > programmer, they don't to 12 year olds. Your pedagogy is, how they say, > back-ass-wards. >
That's fine. Give me 10th, 11th and 12th graders. That was always the plan. Let 'em finish a conventional algebra course that's CS-friendly, first.
>> Note the Litvins get all the way to RSA. With dot notation. But public >> school kids don't deserve those kinds of courses, is that it? Only the 1% >> get to understand public key cryptography, by edict of...? > > Litvin's course would be great in a public school as long as the students > are prepared to take it. I even told Mr Litvin that when I reviewed the > course. It isn't the type of course I would make mandatory though, unless > you plan on failing a lot of students with other aspirations, for no good > reason. >
Right, not mandatory. Elective. But, drum roll: for math credit, if you *do* take it. You need a minimum of 3 credit years in math to get a high school diploma. I'm saying we need to fork the math we have and pioneer a track that's more geared to the future and less under the thumb of the traditionalists who don't think Unicode has any place in a math class, even though it's a one-to-one mapping and the math symbols are part of it. We'll get into base 16, hex, another topic we've argued about.
>> >>> No one buys that (3) is realistic or pedagogically sound. I would rather >>> you do (4) than (3). >> >> What about (2.5) where we teach math and work through the *alphanumeric* >> exercises, sometimes using dot notation? >> >> That's what the Litvins do, and elsewhere you've said they have a >> quality product. > > Repeating a lie a dozen times doesn't make it not a lie. And why do you do > that anyways? >
There's no lie here, only stuff you agree with. That *is* what the Litvins do an you *have* said it's a quality product.
You just think silly Kirby wants to teach all that stuff to your 11-year-old or people of that age.
The fact that Kirby never said this seems to escape your thinking. You can't help but live in a world of straw men, since you don't have the concentration to actually take in what they're actually saying (apparently).
> > Litvins's course is targeted at accomplished post algebra high school > students. I don't think anyone here doubts the pedagogy of that. >
We're done then. Just don't spoil their chances of later jumping on "my" for-math-credit track by hitting 'em with too much that's CS-unfriendly prior.
They'll be "accomplished" enough on average then. The adults I teach Python to today have no more background than that, in a lot of cases.
> What grade were you thinking about introducing Litvin's ideas? >
To make you happy and end the argument: lets say 11th or 12th grade, after geometry and algebra.