Prev: Maximum number of linearly independent vectors
Next: POPCORN PSYCHOLOGY
From: Herman Rubin on 3 Sep 2009 16:07
In article <NdOdnRDiLZOjYQPXRVn_vwA(a)comporium.net>,
Larry Hewitt <larryhewi(a)comporium.net> wrote:
>Herman Rubin wrote:
>> In article <b0us9514ghh62dare144hhvh7ckfombpl1(a)4ax.com>,
>> Bob LeChevalier <lojbab(a)lojban.org> wrote:
>>> Dom <DRosa(a)teikyopost.edu> wrote:
>>>> On Aug 28, 3:41pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...(a)lojban.org> wrote:
>>>>> Dom <DR...(a)teikyopost.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Unfortunately, the people in charge were not the teachers but the NSF
>>>>>>>> and other organizations that funded E.G. Begle's
>>>>>>>> School Mathematics Study Group (SMSG)--a disaster from which the U.S.
>>>>>>>> has yet to recover.

>>>>>>> No. The people in charge were the school boards and state textbook
>>>>>>> agencies.

>>>>>> May I suggest that you read the article posted at:

>>>>>> http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?forumID=206&threadID=483954

>>>>> "the Mathematics Department approximately six years ago introduced
>>>>> modern math into its high school program"

>> Modern math? The teachers do not understand math;
>> just facts and algorithms.

>>>>> "Mr. Edward Bond, Director of the Mathematics Department, consulted
>>>>> with Superintendent Arigo L. LaTanzi concerning the problems inherent
>>>>> in the transition from traditional math to the new program"

>>>>> "In this coming September the Mathematics Department hopes to
>>>>> introduce the new mathematics course of study to grades 3 to 6."

>>>>> I see no mention of the NSF or other organizations that funded SMSG.
>>>>> In this case the decision was made by "the Mathematics Department",
>>>>> which in most schools would mean the teachers. Context however
>>>>> suggests that this is a district level math department, and thus was
>>>>> operating under the authority of the school board, as I said.

>> Few high school mathematics teachers, and almost no elementary
>> school teachers, have any understanding of mathematics. Ability
>> at arithmetic does not help to any extent, if at all.


>>>> A message posted by Ralph A. Raimi at:

>>>> http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?forumID=206&threadID=478108

>>>> contains various references that may provide information about the
>>>> extensive role of the NSF in funding and promoting SMSG.

>>> If I wanted to subscribe to mathforum, I would already have done so.

>>> Likely, if you had convinced them, you wouldn't feel the urge to post
>>> here.

>>> You made a claim, and then your support for that claim turned out to
>>> be your own posting, a posting which said more or less the same thing
>>> that I had said.

>>> That NSF funded and promoted SMSG is of course irrelevant. The
>>> question was who were the people who were in charge of adopting
>>> textbooks and curricula. In pretty much all cases, they were school
>>> boards and textbook agencies. In some cases, teachers and former
>>> teachers were probably consulted (sometimes the textbooks themselves
>>> are written by such teachers).

>> Where are those who understand mathematics involved in these
>> decisions? They have volunteered, but the schools will have
>> nothing to do with those without education degrees, who claim
>> to know how to teach what they have no understanding of.


>I have experience with textbook selection in 3 states, most formally
>with South Carolina where as a math undergraduate I was part of a team
>analyzing textbooks for the state. My graduate advisor was a consultant
>for a text publisher, and I worked a little with him on text development
> by interviewing officials in 2 other states.

>In all 3 states texts are vetted by "experts" in the subject, that is
>math professors do math, history history, and so on. No text not written
>by an "expert" on the subject --- a phd in the field --- ever made it to
>consideration.

There are a large number of PhD's who scholars in the
field would not consider knowledgeable, and the standards
keep going down from the levels they reached a half
century ago.

Few PhD's in "mathematical education" would qualify for
a PhD in a good mathematics department.

>The primary consideration for a textbook was whether or not it
>accurately addressed the state mandated curriculum requirements for the
>subject. (These requirements were defined by experts in the subject, not
>bureaucrats or educationists, whatever they are).Secondarily were the
>aesthetics of the text --- clearness of writing, examples, readability,
>and lastly teachers' aids like overheads.

See the above. Reseach mathematicians, the ones who
understand the subject, are NOT consulted.

Forget the esthetics. The texts used in good high schools
in the period before and just after WWII do not really
teach the concepts, but they are at least presented. The
old "Euclid" style geometry books had essentially NO
prerequisites; algebra is not a prerequisite, as the Greeks
did not know algebra.

One topic which USED to be taught in high school is induction;
nobody can understand the integers without it. Euclid did use
a form of induction, although without mathematical notation,
he could not use the modern form. It belongs with the early
understanding of the counting numbers, which are not strings of
decimal digits, although that is one REPRESENTATION of them.

>We undergrads would select many, many random examples and problems from
>the text and check them for accuracy and completeness.

Being able to solve problems by the use of algorithms does
not seem to help in understanding, but hinders. The great
bulk of the problems can be done by machines; they have no
intelligence, but their programs tell them how to grind
through the problems. Intelligence does not require this
knowledge; one can derive the methods.

Also, in grading a problem, and it should be a long problem
with many steps, are the steps graded, or the answer?

>Math professors double checked our work and rated the texts on aesthetics.

So what?

>Three texts were recommended to the state for consideration, and the
>final decision was based on costs and, frankly, political
>considerations. But *all* recommended texts had been vetted by experts
>before any political or cost decisions were made.

As I said before, what experts? How many recognized researchers
in mathematics, NOT "mathematics education", have been consulted?

A head of a high school mathematics department said he used to
ask his candidated for faculty positions to prove that 2+2=4.
Not only could they not prove it, but they could not understand
why such a question could be raised. Anyone who understands
the counting numbers can understand it, and should be able to
come up with a proof; this includes first grade teachers of
arithmetic.

Can they do this? If not, they should learn basic mathematics;
it does not start with doing arithmetic, but with the understanding
of what it means.


--
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(a)stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
From: Dom on 3 Sep 2009 16:15
On Sep 2, 6:04 pm, hru...(a)odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote:
> In article <b0us9514ghh62dare144hhvh7ckfomb...(a)4ax.com>,
> Bob LeChevalier  <loj...(a)lojban.org> wrote:
>
> >Dom <DR...(a)teikyopost.edu> wrote:
> >>On Aug 28, 3:41pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...(a)lojban.org> wrote:
> >>> Dom <DR...(a)teikyopost.edu> wrote:
> >>> >> >Unfortunately, the people in charge were not the teachers but the NSF
> >>> >> >and other organizations that funded E.G. Begle's
> >>> >> >School Mathematics Study Group (SMSG)--a disaster from which the U.S.
> >>> >> >has yet to recover.
> >>> >> No. The people in charge were the school boards and state textbook
> >>> >> agencies.
> >>> >May I suggest that you read the article posted at:
> >>> >http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?forumID=206&threadID=483954
> >>> "the Mathematics Department approximately six years ago introduced
> >>> modern math into its high school program"
>
> Modern math?  The teachers do not understand math;
> just facts and algorithms.

"Modern math" referred to the SMSG "new math," as incorporated in the
books co-authored by Mary P. Dolciani, which demolished the
traditional college preparatory mathematics curriculum; just as
"reform math" refers to all the rubbish that has been promoted during
the past 20 years.
From: Dom on 3 Sep 2009 16:30
On Sep 2, 4:52 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...(a)lojban.org> wrote:
> Dom <DR...(a)teikyopost.edu> wrote:
[snip]

> >A message posted by Ralph A. Raimi at:
>
> >http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?forumID=206&threadID=478108
>
> >contains various references that may provide information about the
> >extensive role of the NSF in funding and promoting SMSG.
[snip]

> That NSF funded and promoted SMSG is of course irrelevant.  The
> question was who were the people who were in charge of adopting
> textbooks and curricula.  In pretty much all cases, they were school
> boards and textbook agencies.  In some cases, teachers and former
> teachers were probably consulted (sometimes the textbooks themselves
> are written by such teachers).

The NSF-funded promoters played a key role in the demise of the
traditional mathematics curriculum in the U.S. One such promoter made
several visits to our 7th-grade math class in fall 1960. Despite his
pitches about "new math," sets, and subsets, our teacher didn't buy
it. Two years later, our 64-year-old Algebra I teacher refused to
adopt a "new math" book and taught us a traditional course. After she
retired the next year, the Dolciani book was adopted.
From: Bob LeChevalier on 4 Sep 2009 07:40
Dom <DRosa(a)teikyopost.edu> wrote:

>On Sep 2, 4:52�pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...(a)lojban.org> wrote:
>> Dom <DR...(a)teikyopost.edu> wrote:
>[snip]
>
>> >A message posted by Ralph A. Raimi at:
>>
>> >http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?forumID=206&threadID=478108
>>
>> >contains various references that may provide information about the
>> >extensive role of the NSF in funding and promoting SMSG.
>[snip]
>
>> That NSF funded and promoted SMSG is of course irrelevant. �The
>> question was who were the people who were in charge of adopting
>> textbooks and curricula. �In pretty much all cases, they were school
>> boards and textbook agencies. �In some cases, teachers and former
>> teachers were probably consulted (sometimes the textbooks themselves
>> are written by such teachers).
>
>The NSF-funded promoters played a key role in the demise of the
>traditional mathematics curriculum in the U.S.

[yawn]

Textbook salesmen attempt to sell textbooks. So what?

>One such promoter made
>several visits to our 7th-grade math class in fall 1960. Despite his
>pitches about "new math," sets, and subsets, our teacher didn't buy
>it. Two years later, our 64-year-old Algebra I teacher refused to
>adopt a "new math" book and taught us a traditional course.

Sounds like the teachers did have the say in the matter.

>After she retired the next year, the Dolciani book was adopted.

Presumably by a new teacher who CHOSE to adopt the book, since you
have demonstrated that the choice of textbook was up to the teacher in
the prior years. That you disagree with the new teacher's decision
does not mean that the teacher did not make the decision.

lojbab
---
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
lojbab(a)lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
From: Michael Stemper on 4 Sep 2009 13:49
In article <132943ff-b1e1-4c3c-9182-617eb24a6c0a(a)38g2000yqr.googlegroups.com>, Dom <DRosa(a)teikyopost.edu> writes:
>On Sep 2, 4:52=A0pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...(a)lojban.org> wrote:
>> Dom <DR...(a)teikyopost.edu> wrote:

>The NSF-funded promoters played a key role in the demise of the
>traditional mathematics curriculum in the U.S. One such promoter made
>several visits to our 7th-grade math class in fall 1960. Despite his
>pitches about "new math," sets, and subsets, our teacher didn't buy
>it.

So, if you hadn't learned about sets by seventh grade, when did you
learn about them?

--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
COFFEE.SYS not found. Abort, Retry, Fail?
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Maximum number of linearly independent vectors
Next: POPCORN PSYCHOLOGY