| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"Dom" |
| Date: |
05 Dec 2007 09:22:47 AM |
| Object: |
Pseudo-education marches on |
The abject failure of "math reform" is demonstrated not only by the
PISA results, but even more so by the mushrooming college enrollments
in remedial math courses. As long as pseudo-educators are in charge--
and as long as junk books continue to be written, published, and
adopted--the pseudo-education of American students will continue
unabated.
=============================
courant.com/news/education/hc-science1205.artdec05,0,7504648.story
U.S. Students Lag In Science, Math On International Test
Washington Post
December 5, 2007
WASHINGTON --
American teenagers have less mastery of science and mathematics than
peers in many industrialized nations, according to scores on a major
international exam released Tuesday.
Education experts say results of the 2006 Program for International
Student Assessment highlight the need for changes in classrooms and in
the federal No Child Left Behind law. The average science score of
U.S. 15-year-olds lagged that of students in 16 of 30 countries in the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a Paris-based
group that represents the world's richest countries. U.S. students
were further behind in math, trailing counterparts in 23 countries.
"How are our children going to be able to compete with the children of
the world? The answer is not well," said former Colorado Gov. Roy
Romer, who is chairman of Strong American Schools, a nonpartisan group
seeking to make education prominent in the 2008 presidential election.
The PISA test, given every three years, measures the ability of 15-
year-olds to answer math and science problems. About 400,000 students,
including 5,600 in the United States, took the 2006 exam.
There is also a reading portion, but the results for U.S. students
were thrown out because the tests were printed incorrectly.
Students in Finland earned top scores in science and math. Mexico was
at the bottom of the pack.
The PISA results underscore concern in some quarters that too few U.S.
students are prepared to become engineers, scientists and physicians
and that the nation may lose ground to economic competitors.
An expert panel appointed last year by President Bush is preparing to
recommend ways to improve public school math instruction, with a focus
on algebra.
PISA, first administered in 2000, covers reading, math and science,
but each time the test is given it focuses in depth on one subject.
Last year's exam spotlighted science.
The ranking of U.S. students in math and science is about the same as
it was in 2003.
.
|
|
| User: "Katie" |
|
| Title: Re: Pseudo-education marches on |
09 Dec 2007 01:09:42 PM |
|
|
On Dec 5, 9:22 am, Dom <DR...@teikyopost.edu> wrote:
The abject failure of "math reform" is demonstrated not only by the
PISA results, but even more so by the mushrooming college enrollments
in remedial math courses. As long as pseudo-educators are in charge--
and as long as junk books continue to be written, published, and
adopted--the pseudo-education of American students will continue
unabated.
=============================
courant.com/news/education/hc-science1205.artdec05,0,7504648.story
U.S. Students Lag In Science, Math On International Test
Washington Post
December 5, 2007
WASHINGTON --
American teenagers have less mastery of science and mathematics than
peers in many industrialized nations, according to scores on a major
international exam released Tuesday.
Education experts say results of the 2006 Program for International
Student Assessment highlight the need for changes in classrooms and in
the federal No Child Left Behind law. The average science score of
U.S. 15-year-olds lagged that of students in 16 of 30 countries in the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a Paris-based
group that represents the world's richest countries. U.S. students
were further behind in math, trailing counterparts in 23 countries.
"How are our children going to be able to compete with the children of
the world? The answer is not well," said former Colorado Gov. Roy
Romer, who is chairman of Strong American Schools, a nonpartisan group
seeking to make education prominent in the 2008 presidential election.
The PISA test, given every three years, measures the ability of 15-
year-olds to answer math and science problems. About 400,000 students,
including 5,600 in the United States, took the 2006 exam.
There is also a reading portion, but the results for U.S. students
were thrown out because the tests were printed incorrectly.
Students in Finland earned top scores in science and math. Mexico was
at the bottom of the pack.
The PISA results underscore concern in some quarters that too few U.S.
students are prepared to become engineers, scientists and physicians
and that the nation may lose ground to economic competitors.
An expert panel appointed last year by President Bush is preparing to
recommend ways to improve public school math instruction, with a focus
on algebra.
PISA, first administered in 2000, covers reading, math and science,
but each time the test is given it focuses in depth on one subject.
Last year's exam spotlighted science.
The ranking of U.S. students in math and science is about the same as
it was in 2003.
Where does the assumption come from that all teachers teach math using
reform methods? And how long do you assume that they have been
teaching in this way? It is my understanding that no national math
curriculum or standards are mandated by the federal government.
Reform math has evolved considerably since it was first introduced.
The math curriculum in my school district in Madison, WI requires that
elementary teachers have an in-depth understanding of mathematics
including algebra, geometry and problem solving. Teachers pose story
problems to students and students use their understanding of numbers
(at whichever level they may be working) to answer the questions.
Then the teacher uses the reasoning that the students use to answer
the question and shows the students how to represent it on paper. As
students practice doing various problem types, they discover
mathematical truths in a way that makes sense to each student
individually. With this deep understanding of the relationships among
numbers, rote memorization of algorithms is not necessary. Not only
do students develop an understanding of mathematical truths, they
learn reasoning and problem solving skills; skills that are more
valuable to engineers and doctors than the ability to compute an
algorithm. We have calculators for that! In order to become globally
competitive once again, the United States does not need its workers to
simply follow directions and fill out worksheets; it needs critical
thinkers, problem solvers and innovators. Effective reform math
education is necessary if we ever want our students to become
competitive globally.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AngleWyrm" |
|
| Title: Re: Pseudo-education marches on |
13 Dec 2007 06:05:07 AM |
|
|
"Katie" <km_1220@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bf2272c1-4957-47c2-be4c-ac5a4c61f19d@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 5, 9:22 am, Dom <DR...@teikyopost.edu> wrote:
With this deep understanding of the relationships among
numbers, rote memorization of algorithms is not necessary. Not only
do students develop an understanding of mathematical truths, they
learn reasoning and problem solving skills; skills that are more
valuable to engineers and doctors than the ability to compute an
algorithm. We have calculators for that!
One cannot develop a deeper understanding without some requisite rote
memorization. Being able to do multiplication without becoming side-tracked
in the process of figuring out how to do do multiplication, is a requisite
part of the thinking environment, in which a person can consider better
quality thoughts.
Calculators are great, until the operator bounces a keypress, and gets a
number off by ten times what it should be. Someone attempting to reason
through a process should be able to go "wait, that can't be right," simply
because they understand that 6xxx times 4xx is going to be around 24xxxxx.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Herman Rubin" |
|
| Title: Re: Pseudo-education marches on |
13 Dec 2007 12:16:10 PM |
|
|
In article <ou-dnfP9U_gfgvzanZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@comcast.com>,
AngleWyrm <anglewyrm@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Katie" <km_1220@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bf2272c1-4957-47c2-be4c-ac5a4c61f19d@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 5, 9:22 am, Dom <DR...@teikyopost.edu> wrote:
With this deep understanding of the relationships among
numbers, rote memorization of algorithms is not necessary. Not only
do students develop an understanding of mathematical truths, they
learn reasoning and problem solving skills; skills that are more
valuable to engineers and doctors than the ability to compute an
algorithm. We have calculators for that!
One cannot develop a deeper understanding without some requisite rote
memorization.
Some will be needed to even be able to discuss.
Being able to do multiplication without becoming side-tracked
in the process of figuring out how to do do multiplication, is a requisite
part of the thinking environment, in which a person can consider better
quality thoughts.
Base 10 arithmetic operations are not needed to
understand. Anyone is likely to memorize a fair amount
without deliberately trying. At one time, I considered
trying to memorize the products of the integers form 1 to
100, and gave it up as too much to memorize. BTW, I can
do these products mentally.
Knowing SOME of it is enough; the touted Chisenbop method
of multiplication only has products by 2 and 5 memorized;
the rest are deduced by using the distributive law, and
using the trivial multiplication by 10.
BTW, I would have children construct addition and
multiplication tables themselves from principles, so
they can understand what is going on. Memorizing
them does nothing for this.
Calculators are great, until the operator bounces a keypress, and gets a
number off by ten times what it should be. Someone attempting to reason
through a process should be able to go "wait, that can't be right," simply
because they understand that 6xxx times 4xx is going to be around 24xxxxx.
They are no more likely to do this if they do the
calculations by hand. I have graded enough service
course papers to know this. Incidentally, in your
example, how about 34xxxxx? This is a possible
result.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
.
|
|
|
| User: "AngleWyrm" |
|
| Title: Re: Pseudo-education marches on |
13 Dec 2007 04:45:15 PM |
|
|
"Herman Rubin" <hrubin@odds.stat.purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:fjrsta$6ea@odds.stat.purdue.edu...
In article <ou-dnfP9U_gfgvzanZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@comcast.com>,
AngleWyrm <anglewyrm@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Katie" <km_1220@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bf2272c1-4957-47c2-be4c-ac5a4c61f19d@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 5, 9:22 am, Dom <DR...@teikyopost.edu> wrote:
Knowing SOME of it is enough; the touted Chisenbop method
of multiplication only has products by 2 and 5 memorized;
the rest are deduced by using the distributive law, and
using the trivial multiplication by 10.
I saw someone use Chisenbop to divide by subtracting off multiples, and it
was impressively quick. I use it regularly to add up numbers, but haven't
studied it beyond just increment/decrement by one. However, it seems to me
that memorized products would have to contain all the prime numbers 2,3,5
and 7 in order to be complete.
number off by ten times what it should be. Someone attempting to reason
through a process should be able to go "wait, that can't be right," simply
because they understand that 6xxx times 4xx is going to be around 24xxxxx.
They are no more likely to do this if they do the
calculations by hand. I have graded enough service
course papers to know this. Incidentally, in your
example, how about 34xxxxx? This is a possible
result.
6 times 4 is 24. I don't need to think about it, or use a calculator to
verify it -- it is built into me via repetition in my youth. I also know
that 4 times 6 is 24, and while the digits are the same, the layout of a
problem may make one or the other more obvious, or even more suitable to a
given task.
How is 34xxxxx a possible result?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Barb Knox" |
|
| Title: Re: Pseudo-education marches on |
13 Dec 2007 06:15:31 PM |
|
|
In article <DYqdnQQiwa8WKPzanZ2dnUVZ_oKhnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"AngleWyrm" <anglewyrm@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Herman Rubin" <hrubin@odds.stat.purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:fjrsta$6ea@odds.stat.purdue.edu...
In article <ou-dnfP9U_gfgvzanZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@comcast.com>,
AngleWyrm <anglewyrm@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Katie" <km_1220@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bf2272c1-4957-47c2-be4c-ac5a4c61f19d@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 5, 9:22 am, Dom <DR...@teikyopost.edu> wrote:
Knowing SOME of it is enough; the touted Chisenbop method
of multiplication only has products by 2 and 5 memorized;
the rest are deduced by using the distributive law, and
using the trivial multiplication by 10.
I saw someone use Chisenbop to divide by subtracting off multiples, and it
was impressively quick. I use it regularly to add up numbers, but haven't
studied it beyond just increment/decrement by one. However, it seems to me
that memorized products would have to contain all the prime numbers 2,3,5
and 7 in order to be complete.
number off by ten times what it should be. Someone attempting to reason
through a process should be able to go "wait, that can't be right," simply
because they understand that 6xxx times 4xx is going to be around 24xxxxx.
They are no more likely to do this if they do the
calculations by hand. I have graded enough service
course papers to know this. Incidentally, in your
example, how about 34xxxxx? This is a possible
result.
6 times 4 is 24. I don't need to think about it, or use a calculator to
verify it -- it is built into me via repetition in my youth. I also know
that 4 times 6 is 24, and while the digits are the same, the layout of a
problem may make one or the other more obvious, or even more suitable to a
given task.
How is 34xxxxx a possible result?
E.g., 6999 x 499 is slightly less than 7000 x 500 = 3500000.
--
---------------------------
| BBB b \ Barbara at LivingHistory stop co stop uk
| B B aa rrr b |
| BBB a a r bbb | Quidquid latine dictum sit,
| B B a a r b b | altum viditur.
| BBB aa a r bbb |
-----------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Herman Rubin" |
|
| Title: Re: Pseudo-education marches on |
10 Dec 2007 03:38:42 PM |
|
|
In article <bf2272c1-4957-47c2-be4c-ac5a4c61f19d@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Katie <km_1220@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 5, 9:22 am, Dom <DR...@teikyopost.edu> wrote:
..................
Where does the assumption come from that all teachers teach math using
reform methods? And how long do you assume that they have been
teaching in this way? It is my understanding that no national math
curriculum or standards are mandated by the federal government.
Reform math has evolved considerably since it was first introduced.
The math curriculum in my school district in Madison, WI requires that
elementary teachers have an in-depth understanding of mathematics
including algebra, geometry and problem solving.
With algebra, problem solving is trivial.
Does the geometry include the usual "Euclid" material?
Most high school geometry classes are now the dumbed-down
computational and "intuitive" ideas; the most important
part of the classical Euclid course was understanding
proofs. Unless teachers can use proofs at all things
they teach, including integers, they cannot be doing
mathematics properly.
Teachers pose story
problems to students and students use their understanding of numbers
(at whichever level they may be working) to answer the questions.
It is clear from this sentence that YOU do not understand
numbers. It is not necessary to be able to calculate to
understand them.
Then the teacher uses the reasoning that the students use to answer
the question and shows the students how to represent it on paper. As
students practice doing various problem types, they discover
mathematical truths in a way that makes sense to each student
individually.
It is a sad fact they they do not get anything other than a
computational understanding. There are several intuitions
for numbers, but none of them require the ability to
calculate; this only makes for speed. And if basic algebra,
which is that a variable can stand for anything, is done
early, only the one rule of substitution needs to be used
to solve the variety of word problems used.
With this deep understanding of the relationships among
numbers, rote memorization of algorithms is not necessary. Not only
do students develop an understanding of mathematical truths, they
learn reasoning and problem solving skills; skills that are more
valuable to engineers and doctors than the ability to compute an
algorithm.
The reasoning and problem solving can be completely taught
at the primary school level; it cannot be learned by cases,
but the principles are easy to understand if taught, and
as history shows, impossible for even the great men of
mathematics to get on their own.
We have calculators for that! In order to become globally
competitive once again, the United States does not need its workers to
simply follow directions and fill out worksheets; it needs critical
thinkers, problem solvers and innovators. Effective reform math
education is necessary if we ever want our students to become
competitive globally.
For critical thinkers, we need logic; it can be taught.
For problem solvers, we need problem formulators. If one
understands the concepts, formulation of most problems is
simply a matter of using algebraic formulation to translate
the real-world problem into a mathematical problem. The
answer to the mathematical problem may be trivial, or may
require a good mathematician to carry out. In that case,
they need to call upon the mathematician.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dom" |
|
| Title: Re: Pseudo-education marches on |
11 Dec 2007 10:11:06 PM |
|
|
On Dec 9, 2:09 pm, Katie <km_1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 5, 9:22 am, Dom <DR...@teikyopost.edu> wrote:
The abject failure of "math reform" is demonstrated not only by the
PISA results, but even more so by the mushrooming college enrollments
in remedial math courses. As long as pseudo-educators are in charge--
and as long as junk books continue to be written, published, and
adopted--the pseudo-education of American students will continue
unabated.
=============================
courant.com/news/education/hc-science1205.artdec05,0,7504648.story
U.S. Students Lag In Science, Math On International Test
Washington Post
December 5, 2007
[snip]
Where does the assumption come from that all teachers teach math using
reform methods? And how long do you assume that they have been
teaching in this way? It is my understanding that no national math
curriculum or standards are mandated by the federal government.
Reform math has evolved considerably since it was first introduced.
The math curriculum in my school district in Madison, WI requires that
elementary teachers have an in-depth understanding of mathematics
including algebra, geometry and problem solving. Teachers pose story
problems to students and students use their understanding of numbers
(at whichever level they may be working) to answer the questions.
Then the teacher uses the reasoning that the students use to answer
the question and shows the students how to represent it on paper. As
students practice doing various problem types, they discover
mathematical truths in a way that makes sense to each student
individually. With this deep understanding of the relationships among
numbers, rote memorization of algorithms is not necessary. Not only
do students develop an understanding of mathematical truths, they
learn reasoning and problem solving skills; skills that are more
valuable to engineers and doctors than the ability to compute an
algorithm. We have calculators for that! In order to become globally
competitive once again, the United States does not need its workers to
simply follow directions and fill out worksheets; it needs critical
thinkers, problem solvers and innovators. Effective reform math
education is necessary if we ever want our students to become
competitive globally.
The promoters of "reform math" talk a good game, but the grim reality
is quite different. Connecticut has been at the forefront of promoting
"reform math," and I have not see a shred of evidence concerning the
"deep understanding" that students are supposedly acquiring. I have
seen significant evidence of:
1. The stunted minds that are caused by the early and inappropriate
use of calculators, with the result that many students cannot do the
simplest mental calculations.
2. The inability of students to write down what they are doing in a
sequence of logical steps, as opposed to mindlessly punching keys in
their calculators and writing the last number that is displayed, which
is often completely absurd.
3. The enormous difficulty that many students have with simple word
problems, and with multi-step problems.
By the way, my criticism is not with teachers but with the
professional "reformers" who have fleeced hundreds of millions of
dollars from various Foundations in order to produce and promote
assorted rubbish--and with the "curriculum specialists" and "directors
of instruction" who have abetted these "reformers."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Pseudo-education marches on |
12 Dec 2007 04:34:09 AM |
|
|
Dom <DRosa@teikyopost.edu> wrote:
1. The stunted minds that are caused by the early and inappropriate
use of calculators, with the result that many students cannot do the
simplest mental calculations.
I'd like to see your evidence that there was ever an era when "many
students cannot do the simplest mental calculations".
2. The inability of students to write down what they are doing in a
sequence of logical steps,
I'd like to see your evidence that there was ever an era when most
students could "write down what they are doing in a sequence of
logical steps".
as opposed to mindlessly punching keys in their calculators
.... or adding machines in an earlier era
and writing the last number that is displayed, which is often completely absurd.
They've never been given the idea that the numbers have anything to do
with the real world, so they don't have any practical basis to
evaluate their results. Of course mathematics wants them to have a
mathematical basis, but I'd like to see your evidence that there was
ever an era when most students could reason mathematically.
3. The enormous difficulty that many students have with simple word
problems,
A reading comprehension problem and not a math problem. Kids don't
read with the precision mindset needed to translate encoded math
problems into real math problems. There is no especial evidence that
they ever did.
The "simple word problems" given today are harder than those given in
"the goode olde days".
and with multi-step problems.
I'd like to see your evidence that there was ever an era when most
students could do multi-step problems.
By the way, my criticism is not with teachers but with the
professional "reformers" who have fleeced hundreds of millions of
dollars from various Foundations in order to produce and promote
assorted rubbish
No - in order to achieve the unachievable - having all kids develop
mathematical minds, and mathematical reasoning skills that aren't
particularly useful outside of math class until adulthood. That goal
is politically driven, and more irrational than the methods being
tried to achieve it.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
