Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
NCTM or The Math Forum.
|
|
|
|
Re: meaningful standards (fwd)
Posted:
May 30, 1995 9:38 AM
|
|
Gary Martin asks in his last post:
>You endorse the statement:
> Only problem I have is that I don't think working
>from the specific problem to the general skill works as well.
>What am I missing? How can one develop a general "skill" without
>experiencing specific, particular situations and problems from which a
>generalization can be drawn?
Gary...I guess what I meant was....how can you find the volume of the
following rectangular solid (having w=3, l=4, h=5.3) if you don't first know
how to multiply? I'm sure most of us agree that in the second grade we were
taught the multiplication tables before any need to know such knowledge was
ever introduced. Later....applications were developed to show us why we
needed to know multiplication (as in the volume of a solid etc). I like to
teach my trigonometry kids what the definition of sine is BEFORE I ask them
to find the sine of 30 degrees and certainly prior to asking them to solve
any triangular problems involving sun's shadows and heights of trees etc.
I do understand the desire at times to introduce an interesting problem that
get the kids interested....and then you show them the basic skills needed to
solve the interesting problem....however, I don't really believe we are using
our time most beneficially when we throw out a difficult (challenging,
interesting) problem and then let the kids "work" on it. Yes, discovery MAY
happen and this would be very nice....but since I have my students for 90
days during the entire year, I have to think that teaching a skill and then
letting the kids use that skill on an interesting, challenging problem is the
best policy given the educational constraints most of us are under.
Harvey Becker
|
|
|
|
