American Innumeracy

[garbon]

It's a sound education theory. Because you've never heard it, doesn't mean it wasn't applied to you, and that you didn't benefit from it.

No I'm pretty sure I've heard of that shit and suffered the horrors of it. I think the lack of multimedia presentations is less of a problem than the fact that many children are lazy fucks who don't really want to be in school.

[merithyn]

Meri, when I posted about there being resources available and putting time and effort into learning, you said that you had devoted time and effort to learning math.  But I don't think you realized that I was referring to doing independent reading and studying, because you're still talking about teaching methods, which really don't apply to you putting the time and effort into something to become self-taught.

That statement was meant for Berkut and the theory of teaching it differently. As for my own studies, you're mistaken. I've worked at it on my own, with a tutor (my ex-husband, who also never understood why I couldn't "get" it), and in a class. I've struggled with this deficit for a very long time and have worked hard to overcome it. The theory behind why math works eludes me.

[merithyn]

It's a sound education theory. Because you've never heard it, doesn't mean it wasn't applied to you, and that you didn't benefit from it.

No I'm pretty sure I've heard of that shit and suffered the horrors of it. I think the lack of multimedia presentations is less of a problem than the fact that many children are lazy fucks who don't really want to be in school.

Different subject. And because you disliked it, doesn't mean that it didn't work for others. The point of classroom teaching is to reach all of the kids, not just one or two.

[Brazen]

Though multimedia maths might help some kids who have difficulties with the basics understand it as it triggers different parts of the brain, it doesn't explain the fact that standards were higher when we used log tables and calculators were banned from exams.

[merithyn]

Though multimedia maths might help some kids who have difficulties with the basics understand it as it triggers different parts of the brain, it doesn't explain the fact that standards were higher when we used log tables and calculators were banned from exams.

Agreed. Elementary and Middle School math education is abysmal. We took on the task of teaching Riley her multiplication tables as she didn't really have to know them in class.

[garbon]

Different subject. And because you disliked it, doesn't mean that it didn't work for others. The point of classroom teaching is to reach all of the kids, not just one or two.

Glad to see you are a proponent that this theory is the correct way of teaching.

[crazy canuck]

I don't believe that most people can't learn it. I do believe, however, that the way it's taught makes a huge difference in a person's ability to grasp the concepts. And I do believe that there are those with an innate ability that others may lack. Not just in math, but in other subjects as well.

You are contradicting yourself. I thought you were talking about some students understanding traditional teaching methods better then others and that teaching methods need to be adapted to meet the needs of those that dont.  I can understand that logic.

Where you lose me entirely is your argument that there is some innate ability that makes people not be able to understand math.  Math is just logic.  You are really making the argument that a lot of people are just innately stupid.

[DGuller]

Maybe ability to get math is just a result of some chance development of the brain at a really young age.

More likely it is the chance development of a person actually learning the basics and then building from there.

I was a C student in math until my high school basketball coach informed me that I needed to pull up my grades to keep playing.  I studied for the next test and got close to 100%.  Everyone is different obviosly but I really hate the excuse that a person cant learn math because their brain isnt wired that way.

I don't think getting good grades in math courses is all there is to it.  You can certainly improve your math test scores with more work.  Russians and Asians in general are much better at math mainly because math is drilled so much harder there.

What I'm not sure about is the abstract thinking part (which I think is the essence of "getting math").  You can get your good grades in math without ever learning to think abstractly, at least up to a certain point.  However, it's certainly a lot easier to do well in math if you're predisposed to think abstractly. 

Is abstract thinking just a talent given to some and not others, or is it a skill that math develops?  I don't know.

[merithyn]

I don't believe that most people can't learn it. I do believe, however, that the way it's taught makes a huge difference in a person's ability to grasp the concepts. And I do believe that there are those with an innate ability that others may lack. Not just in math, but in other subjects as well.

You are contradicting yourself. I thought you were talking about some students understanding traditional teaching methods better then others and that teaching methods need to be adapted to meet the needs of those that dont.  I can understand that logic.

I am.

Where you lose me entirely is your argument that there is some innate ability that makes people not be able to understand math.  Math is just logic.  You are really making the argument that a lot of people are just innately stupid.

An innate ability makes it easier for someone to understand a subject. That doesn't mean that those without it can't learn it; only that it is harder and may take a different way of teaching it for them to fully understand. And math is not just logic. As I said, my logic scores on standardized tests are usually my highest, but my math scores are the lowest. Logic is logic; math is math.

[Brazen]

Though there's little application for trigonometry for most careers, applied maths would be a big help. Whether it's cheaper to buy 8 beers for £7 from the supermarket, or 6 beers for £5 from the corner store, to give an example I used only this morning

[merithyn]

I don't think getting good grades in math courses is all there is to it.  You can certainly improve your math test scores with more work.  Russians and Asians in general are much better at math mainly because math is drilled so much harder there.

What I'm not sure about is the abstract thinking part (which I think is the essence of "getting math").  You can get your good grades in math without ever learning to think abstractly, at least up to a certain point.  However, it's certainly a lot easier to do well in math if you're predisposed to think abstractly. 

Is abstract thinking just a talent given to some and not others, or is it a skill that math develops?  I don't know.

I got an A in my math class last year, but walked away feeling as though I'd learned nothing. Rote memorization is not learning. And if I don't understand the why (i.e. the abstract thinking part), I don't feel as though I've learned it. The difficult part is getting someone to understand that THAT is what I'm hoping to learn, not the "how to apply a formula to a problem".

[Berkut]

Jake is in 4th grade now, and he certainly seems to "get" math. The curriculum, from what I have seen, is very good. A mix of "new" math concepts with a heavy emphasis on problem solving and teaching skills on how to think about problems mathematically, combined with a solid chunk of needed foundational memorization, like learning multiplication tables (up to 14x14 no less). Jake is very much like me - he picks it up quickly, but does not like it because he is lazy. However, you can tell he is good at it, because he can attack problems from different directions very well.

Similar, in fact, to how they are teaching reading - a lot of emphasis on skills (how to sound out a word, how to derive meaning from context, etc., etc) combined with a considerable amount of solid repetition. Melanie (in 1st grade) brings home a couple dozen "sight words" at a time on flash cards - basically you are expected to be able to know all these words "on sight", rather than having to actually read them, so every night we go over her sight words, leave out the ones she does not know pretty much instantly, and go over those again. Once she can get through a set of them without pausing, we send them back to school and the teacher sends another batch.

So far I have been extremely pleased with both kids educations - they have had either excellent (most), very good (one), or only competent (one) teachers so far. Melanie does not pick things up nearly as quickly as her brother though, although she seems more willing to work at it than he is.

[merithyn]

Jake is in 4th grade now, and he certainly seems to "get" math. The curriculum, from what I have seen, is very good. A mix of "new" math concepts with a heavy emphasis on problem solving and teaching skills on how to think about problems mathematically, combined with a solid chunk of needed foundational memorization, like learning multiplication tables (up to 14x14 no less). Jake is very much like me - he picks it up quickly, but does not like it because he is lazy. However, you can tell he is good at it, because he can attack problems from different directions very well.

Similar, in fact, to how they are teaching reading - a lot of emphasis on skills (how to sound out a word, how to derive meaning from context, etc., etc) combined with a considerable amount of solid repetition. Melanie (in 1st grade) brings home a couple dozen "sight words" at a time on flash cards - basically you are expected to be able to know all these words "on sight", rather than having to actually read them, so every night we go over her sight words, leave out the ones she does not know pretty much instantly, and go over those again. Once she can get through a set of them without pausing, we send them back to school and the teacher sends another batch.

So far I have been extremely pleased with both kids educations - they have had either excellent (most), very good (one), or only competent (one) teachers so far. Melanie does not pick things up nearly as quickly as her brother though, although she seems more willing to work at it than he is.

It sounds like a solid foundation for both of them.

Riley struggles a bit more than the boys did, too, but she's in a much harder curriculum than they were in. She, of all of my kids, is the only one that's been challenged every year, with the teachers pushing her to her potential, rather than allowing her to lag behind with the less capable students.

[ulmont]

My understanding of Trig is that it's the building block to Calculus, which is actually what's used in those fields. In other words, you learn the theory in Trig and the application in Calc. If I'm mistaken, I again blame my 10th-grade math teacher.

While this is a bit late, now, blame your 10th-grade math teacher.  I was taught trigonometry both in physics and in math.  The physics version was very concrete, and directed towards triangle-based problem solving; the math version was more abstract, and directed towards interesting circle properties.  Really, though, calculus is a different idea based solely on limits (as noted by dguller).

[grumbler]

I suspect that every time in the past when X% of the students fail their math assessment test, and we change the test, or change the teaching to address those X%, we end up fucking the 100-X% who did NOT fail the damn test or assessment.

And that just feeds on itself - this idea that if only we had the right system, why, *everyone* can succeed! And if *everyone* is NOT succeeding, we had better change the system to cater more and more and more to the lowest performers.

And now we wonder why more and more people think it is a-ok to fail at math in any practical sense.

I suspect that you have made all of this up.  None of it bears any resemblance to teaching and learning success as I know it.  I suspect, though, that you knew this when you made it up.