Slashdot Mirror
Making Science and Math Kid Friendly?
mtspim asks: "I work for a non-profit organization that creates interactive math and science curriculum materials for kids and their instructors. Even though we have seen kids learn difficult topic more easily by using a computational approach to learning, most instructors are reluctant to introduce these new ways of thinking into their curriculum. What do Slashdot users think are the best ways to help revitalize math and science programs in our schools, or should we stick to the old conventional methods to learning?"
I remember a way to get a lot of people interested in subjects back in the day was to offer some sort of reward for successful completion. It made people more apt to try hard in a subject when they could get something on the far side. Just my $.02
Usually when we teach or do stuff we try to be as efficient and simple as possible yet with math this is not the case. We currently teach math as "problem solving". We teach it by having people solve pointless problems which they will never face and never remember the solutions for unless they are one of the rare people who actually enjoy solving problems and who actually enjoy working through calculations.
I enjoy computer work, but if I were to teach computers assuming everyone who uses one enjoys it as much as I do, I'd make everyone learn C, everyone learn the linux commandline, and everyone learn what every single component in the computer does.
Look, we all can't like the same things and in my opinion schools should focus more on the math that matters in life. Statistics, Addition and Subtraction, perhaps even some logic and discrete math. All which are more useful to the common man than calculus, algebra, geometry (perhaps some people do need geometry)
Basic math and basic english should be the primary goals of school. The other classes are simply a complete waste of time and only harm a person by preventing them from doing as well as they would have done if they focused on the basics.
The math we actually use in life should not be decided by the math experts, it should be decided by surveys which the government should conduct. Once we find out the math people use most in daily life that should be what we teach in school. If we want to learn any other math then we specialize in math and learn it in college or in AP math.
The problem with the school system is we expect a jack of all trades, as if a human can be good at every subject. In reality only several thousand go to Harvard, Yale or MIT, the rest go state schools, community college, or they never go to college at all. The majority of people simply don't need the math and never will go to a college or have a job which requires it. Statistics, working with money, and logic are the only types of math people use. Discrete math may also be useful for scientific or technical fields involving computers.
People don't exist to serve systems, systems exist to serve people.
That isn't the problem, to be honest.
Math and science *ARE* kid-friendly, and kids ARE science and math friendly. Inherently. You ever seen a six month old exploring her world, seeing what things feel like, taste like, what she can do with her hands? That's the seed of science, right there.
The problem is, science *TEACHERS* are not kid-friendly. Most of them, no matter how compassionate and pro-children they believe they are, are inherently vicious and sadistic people. They can't recognize this fact, of course, and neither can any of the other adults - but just ask an 8 year old sometime.
-Hentai [in vita non pacem est]
I am confused by this topic as well. when i was a kid in the70's i routinely watched PBS and saw all the science and math shows that were on and they were readily understandable. even though they were advanced topics.
The first thing that needs to be done to revitalize math and science learning is to remove the stigmas associated with it. These stigmas were not present to the degree they are today in the 50's and 60's. This is one of the reasons that we were able to pull of some amazing feats (such as the space program in the 60's and the microprocessors in the 70's) during those times.
:-)
Good point! I think that more important than any computational or non-computational tool, the key is motivation! It seems to me that kids learn easier with software tools because it's "cool" (as opposed to a boring class taught by a guy writing on a blackboard). But then, why is the class boring? This is an important point: after computers become very common and are not "exciting" anymore, will we have to find another way to trick students into liking math?
Just my 0.2... And I'm not really sure I believe what I just said.
I think if the teacher actually cares about the students as individuals, cares about the math and science, and cares about whether the students learn it, then the teacher will do a good job and find a way to get the students to learn.
So I'd say it's more-or-less hopeless in the current society with the current unionized system.
There's money to be made pretending to care though.
Sorry to say this, but as much as I appreciate the effort to make the teaching of subjects in school easier, and for that matter more cost effective, school systems are largely ignoring their own research into providing effective instruction.
Schools are attempting to save money by doing such things as making classes 2 or even 4 hours long, so that the teachers for those classes can do other things on days that they no longer need to teach that class (usually taking classes themselves, or using those days for "inservice" work.)
This flies in the face of several decades of research that shows that instruction should be provided in 15 min blocks, and classes should not be more than 60 min long without breaks. Additionally if a student is ill one day, they loose a minimum of a week's worth of instruction in that class if that four hour block is all that is held on that course for the week. Missing that much material can easily make the difference between an A and an F in a course.
Yes. All of this is being done as part of cost cutting measures, and with a goal of meeting the "No Child Left Behind" mandate. The effect however is closer to "No Child Able To Keep Up".
Standardized test scores are going down, schools are loosing funding as a result, and some are even being forced to close their doors. Granted when they close their doors, the cost of that school goes to Zero. Supposedly that was not the intent however.
-Rusty
You never know...
Children's Television Workshop, the producers of "Sesame Street", used to have other shows as well.
- "The Electric Company" was a spinoff for kids who had just outgrown the muppets of Seasame Street, but still had more to learn. It was basically the same kind of show, but leaned just a little older.
- "3-2-1 Contact" was the science spinoff for middle school students. It presented some grade-level appropriate documentaries, followed by The Bloodhound Gang using those concepts to solve mysteries.
- "Square One Televison" was the math spinoff, presenting skits, catoons, music videos, and games that all math concepts for grade school students.
However, all of those shows have since faded off of PBS, and CTW has now even taken on the name of Sesame Workshop which more-or-less indicates that they don't intend on ever expanding beyond Seasame Street again...
The entire PBS Kids lineup seems to have taken a turn for the younger, with babby-level shows like Teletubbies and Barney lining up with Seasame Street and still-timeless episodes of Mr. Rogers's Neighborhood. Shows aimed at middle schoolers have fallen off the board altogether... and I see that as a problem.
Many parents put their 1-3 year olds in front of a television and it permanently rewires their brain to process information faster. This can be good if the children are pursuing a future in media, sports, or interactive electronics. It also makes it more difficult for them to sit down and read a book or focus on things that don't provide much feedback. As a result, we give them drugs to help them concentrate, but that's not the answer.
There are two easy solutions. One is to prevent the stimulus from affecting them at such a young age, which would help them to focus on traditional book and pen studies. The other way is to allow them to watch tv and create new interactive curriculums to not necessarily compete with television and internet, but to embrace it. After all, we are becoming more connected in this world, and the young minds rewired for the digital age may fare better in a world with ever increasing information overload.
The problem is, science *TEACHERS* are not kid-friendly.
And why
I come from a country where the teachers are just as bad, probably worse. The difference is, in that country Engineers, Doctors and Mathematicians are regarded as the best members of society whereas businessmen, athletes and entertainers are just average people. That is motivation enough to make kids learn math and science well. Of course, good teachers and good motivation would be best, but cultural motivation is the biggest factor.
"Instruction is seldom of much efficacy except in those few instances where it is almost entirely superfluous." --Gibbon I went far in school, specializing in math and physics. I give my teachers a lot of credit, but I had to extract everything from them. I think there's nothing teachers can do to help poor students. I think methodology is a dead end.
What ever happned to outnumbered, and number munchers, and other cool learning games i played as a kid? Make more games like those, i remember fighting to play them!
Excatly. We know that while traditional methods work for many, other children (often the most creative children) struggle with them. I struggled with academics all my life until someone pointed out that I was a visual learner and that I should draw pictures to understand concepts once I started using pictures and flash cards regularly, my grades went way up.
Yeah, I guess I'm funny like that.
Steven Pinker had some interesting things to say about learning math in one of is books (probably The Blank Slate, but maybe How the Mind Works). I'll try to regurgitate what I remember.
Mathematics is not natural. Children are natural learners of language - they pick it up as easily as breathing. Mathematics is not like that - we didn't evolve an innate facility with complex math like we did with complex language. We have to work at it. (Well, 99% of us do). Teching math the same way as teaching English is not likely to work well. With math, you need repetition and lots of examples until the students feel comfortable with each concept.
Math is relentlessly cumulative. If you don't master arithmetic, you will struggle with algebra. If you didn't grasp algebra, you're going to be lost with calculus. And so on.
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
Throw away computers - bring back times-tables and logs - make people *think* again. Nick
On one hand, I agree with that, but there's a whole question of "marketing" math to kids.
Computers break the monotony of math classes, and that's essential as kids become more and more accustomed to high-stimulus activities like TV and video games.
The problem with math is that, before you get to anything interesting (like Calculus), you've already got to have a huge background knowledge. And, take it from me (6 university-level math courses later), the only way to do that is practice. Doing homework problems. Boring as sin, but essential - if you do all your homework, you should expect an A+ in the course.
So, what's needed is a way to make simple homework problems interesting, so that the student sticks with it.
That's a nearly impossible task.
I think math is one of those courses which requires a hugely good teacher or professor. A bad one will turn you right off the subject and make you dread doing the homework. A good teacher or professor will make the class interesting and be fun and friendly enough that you'll feel guilty if you don't do all your homework.
That was always the best motivator for me to get good math marks - liking the teacher enough that I wanted to do well for him.
Which is shit, because you're dependent on the quality of the teacher rather than internal motivation.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
To be defined as a whiz kid you had to have learned to read and do math earlier. Guess what, earlier does not mean you'll develop into a smarter individual as an adult. Kids who pick up on stuff earlier should get extra attention?! So what about the genius who is in a regular class who may not have picked up on things early but then surpasses everyone in class later on like during highschool?
The problem with the current system you mention is that everything depends on how well you do in the first few grades. This decides what track you go on and you'll usually stay on that track because there is almost no mobility off of this track until college.
Why should we favor one track over the other? The track system does not track intelligence it tracks development. Child A learned to read earlier than Child B, but Child A may never learn to read as well. Child B may learn math way later than Child A, but Child B may someday be a genius while Child A may simply be a kid who learned stuff early.
A lot of scientists including Einstien did not learn early, they were late in development. The only important thing is how far you develop not so much how quickly. There is currently no test to figure out how far a person will develop, we only can figure out the rate of speed.
People don't exist to serve systems, systems exist to serve people.
.... to develop educational software that could take a person from basic math (k-8 level) through algebra and on to calculus and beyond.
Most kids don't learn well from chalk-and-talk lectures that seem to begin at ever younger ages in our teach-to-the-test school system.
My ideal math system would be for anyone who needs a little bit more structure than simply reading a book by themselves can provide, whether they want to pursue a single topic or a general march through maths.
What I'm thinking of is a program that would do everything from assessing the starting level to suggesting further areas to explore in various applied topics. You would have to be very careful not to incorporate any kind of prorietary testing or content, but there are tons of older and classic math texts to mine that are already in the public domain.
This would solve some of the problems with math instruction by non-mathematicians. Think about kids in space. How did they learn math in children's science fiction of the early space age? Some kind of software that customized instruction for each learner.
What I envision is something like the best of Stanford's EPGY math courseware without the Math Races (or you could opt in for math drill if you like). One of the beauties of the EPGY math program is that it is multi-threaded. You can move ahead in areas that are strengths and catch up on other things that need more work.
I've been looking at commercial packages, especially those designed for homeschooling and I'm not finding anything as user friendly as what I have in mind. It would also provide multiple starting points and paths through the material. Say a kid (or adult) gets interested in trajectories as a result of hearing about potato launchers, or from reading Backyard Ballistics or another Ballistics website. A math newbie of whatever age would have to get through at least early algebra. Some people could start right in and play with simulations or be directed to local groups with launch-related activities. (Hmmm...hopefully not groups on some homeland security watch list...) Links in the system would bring them back to the goal topic of interest from time to time to see their progress, or would send them on to other areas.
Another feature of this program would be to incorporate the potential for multiple styles of learning. Also, once a concept was grasped, mindless repetition would not be needed in the form of worksheets and drill. Instead, you could move right along to the application of the concept.
Certain paths could follow the content outline for things like AP calculus, providing equivalent instruction to a good AP math course in a traditional classroom. Those craving external assessment (or trying to save money on college tuition) could then take a test and prove to the world that they had conquered AP Calculus.
I'm thinking that Python might be a useful starting place...any ideas?
My other idea is to have a city-wide or national or global math problem of the day, with the radio anchors yukking it up about possible solutions the same way they talk about the weekend's new movies. Problems could be on different levels, something to intrigue a different group each day.
I disagree. It is not practical to teach a subject with method 1 that reaches 50% of the class, then present the material again with method 2 that reaches 25% of the class, then method 3 ... etc. The onus should be on the student to use the best method. Now, they could be given guidance. Maybe there should be a dedicated group of people who determine the best learning strategy for a given student. Then, they could show the student how to adapt the method to the class, rather than each instructor adapting the class to the (multiple) methods.
I'm in college right now, so high school was not so long ago (feels like a long time, hehe).
I had a teacher for pre-calc (i.e. trig) and AP calc that was just amazing. I think the first technique that he got right was that he ran it more like a workshop than a traditional lecture. The days pretty much alternated between a lecture day and then an in-class "homework workshop." Through this, the kids who were learning at a slower pace would be able to ask the teacher and those around them for help, whereas the kids who picked up the ideas quickly could experiment with their own ideas.
Furthermore, we covered some decently advanced topics. I remember doing the Binomial Theorem, rotations and translations of conics, DeMoivre's theorem, and a bunch of others that I can't quite place right now.
I don't know if I lived in a community where the water was different or if it was the class that did it, but everyone in there really desired to learn. I think it might've been the combination of giving us some fairly difficult material along with allowing us free time to experiment with it. Most kids aren't going to try things out on their own time because they have more fun things to do: by giving them that time in class you give them that time. And it doesn't really impact on the material because you don't have to review things as much or slow down.
I've had some kid-friendly teachers. They played their parts well, putting up a wall of immaturity that the kids related to. One teacher, Mr. Cosmano, would mess up his experiements on purpose to make them explode or bubble over or otherwise amuse the students enough to hold the class' attention. He'd go over with us what went wrong, and the more knowledgeable kids would pick his experiment apart. It gave the class the opportunity to criticize him, but gave him the the opportunity to dump huge amounts of information in our heads when we were most vulnerable to it.
I think this type of thing is why "Beakman's World" and "Bill Nye the Science Guy" are popular, because they give the audience something besides an otherwise sterile subject to focus on. It would be good for more teachers to learn such techniques.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
I just tell them:
"even if you do not use this in your job, this material exercises your brain. it helps you to think so you can cut through the garbage in the world and see what is really going on. by working at this, you will not be held hostage to the great manipulators in the world because you will have the thought processes in place that allow you to see that those people, groups, and companies are just giving you a bunch of lies"
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
At least in my state, math education is turning away from what I consider math and towards a few (but growing) number of techniques to memorize. Witness schools' emphasis on how many students take AP calculus and then take the AP test. In elementary schools you're absolutely right. Teachers didn't have to learn much math for their major and didn't like having to do that.
I'm secondary ed. and I had to major in math. Because that was what I wanted. I would love to be able to teach in the way you describe but the "business stakeholders" in the state Ed. department have a different vision. It's called Standardized-test-o-vision.
Teachers don't make all that many policy decisions.
RaviWhen the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
Realize that we're all different. Not everyone will learn and understand math and science really well. Just let them off the hook to do some other more practical handson job, and make sure they never reach a position of power in the scoiety, this includes the power you have as a voter.
The country I was talking about is Iran. But I don't think you want to move there.
I agree wholehartedly. Some of the best teachers I have ever had, as well as some of the worst, were science an math teachers.
And what separated the best from the worst? The ones who knew the subject. Students can tell if you(as a teacher) are teaching from reading 2 chapters ahead in the text. The teachers who were renouned in my Highschool were those who never had to look at the book. They were those who you could ask any question in the subject matter - even if it wasn't in the book - and they had a meaningful and correct answer for you. They were the science teachers who had Graduate level Textbooks on their classroom shelves that they could point you to for more information and as a citation. And this was in highschool.
Beyond a wealth of knowledge, they were the teachers who worked to make sure you learned. By this I don't mean coddling students. I mean that their tests actually tested knoledge that you gained. Their tests were not "preparing" you for the Regents(NYS State test for High School Students), they were encompassing the course - which by the end, never tought the regents, but you would know enough to pass the regents easily. We(students) all thought the regents were a joke after a year with one of these stellar teachers, and their tests.
These teachers are also those who during highschool begin to adopt more and more of a college teaching method. Believe me, it helps you when you get to college. Now(years after I graduated HS) many of those elective courses that were pretty hard, are worth college credit at the local Community college, and that credit transfers to most all colleges. To show I'm not pulling this out of my butt, the credit is accepted at such NYS colleges as Cornell University, Rochester Institute of technology, and of course schools like Buffalo State College and SUNY Binghamton. At my old highschool, my sister is taking enough of these courses to graduate highschool with 30+ College Credits, transferable to all the above colleges and many more.
The highschool teachers that can teach those courses well enough to get college credit and make the state exams a breeze for the students are distinguished by their knowledge of the subject matter. It's the one trait they all share. Many teachers learn to teach, but now adays I feel that far too many don't learn WHAT they are teaching.
Once we find out the math people use most in daily life that should be what we teach in school. If we want to learn any other math then we specialize in math and learn it in college or in AP math.
I'm an Engineer, the math I use most is Statistics. I rarely use calculus, does that mean I should not have learned calculus, vector calc, liner algebra? No, I needed those things to understand fundamentally the science I use on a daily basis. The equations I learned in school are basically discriptions of what happens in processes and systems I work with. Understanding and solving those complex integrals and differentials in school gave me insight and lets me understand my experiments and processes.
And complex math is not just the domain of engineering/science. Economics uses algebra and calculus to essentially break things down into simple math equations. Using a math equation is a good way to describe complex systems in business, nature, etc. and can give better perspective and predictions.
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
For the 9th Grade Proficiency Tests (which students are required to pass in order to graduate in Ohio), our students in higher-level classes take it early in 8th grade so they get it out of the way and can focus on college prep, honors and AP classes. Our high school in particular has a ton of activities and sports, from Honor Society to Wildelife Ambassadors, from a bible club to a step team (which is particularly popular). We even hold LAN parties in the cafeteria once a month. Our school certainly isn't perfect - by definition, no school can meet all the individual needs of every student; you'd need one teacher per student - but we do try to get every student involved in some way past just being another body in a seat. We even started making a list of all of our students and passing it around from teacher to teacher to find out who's involved in what activity, and see if there's any way we can reach kids who aren't involved. You'd be surprised, but this is generally the case at most schools, it's just that some schools are more successful and effective than others.
I agree that teachers aren't sadistic. Some teachers care about the education process. Almost none care about students as individuals.
Again, I have to call bullshit on this one too. Until you go through teacher training and have to put up with the infinite amount of paperwork, the unreasonable (and unfunded) demands of out-of-touch legislators, and experiences with parents that range from wonderful to strange to threatening, and all of these things outside of dealing with students, you simply can't make a statement like that with any degree of accuracy. Believe it or not, the vast majority of teachers I've met get into education because they care about kids. Fifteen, twenty, thirty years down the line, that original reason for getting into education tends to fade, but the really great teachers are able to keep it going and use their experience and expertise to truly master their craft. I can easily list many, many examples of our teachers caring about students as individuals; I'm sure similar things happen at schools all over the country, but we usually only hear about negative incidents on the news like shootings and drug busts and teachers fooling around with students, primarily because those things grab more viewers than "Local Teacher Gives Poor Students Rides Home After School So They Can Participate In After-School Activities." Two teachers bought one of our students a winter jacket because he had to walk about 2.5 miles to school every morning, but stuff like that doesn't (and won't) make the news.
If you're concerned about students getting more personal interaction, I would encourage you to stop by and volunteer at your local school and help out. Nearly every school needs help, even the ones that are financially well-off. Some of them have non-profit volunteer groups that come in and work one-on-one with kids; we have a group with us called City Conquest that will do anything from running copies for teachers to talking to kids with problems in private or even doing presentations in class. Immediately after the September 11th attacks, their group was called to New York to help out, and when they came back, they did presentations to social studies classes about how they helped.
Either way, it's one thing to claim that no teachers care about students as individuals, but it's another thing to go into a school and try to make a difference.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Gandhi
IMO, your school/education system has several problems :
* treating kids like adults. Stop doing that. Also, do not worry so much about their 'self esteem'. That has to be earned. You should not have to worry about telling a kid that 2+2 is not 5 because you might hurt their self esteem. So, tell those psychiatrists to get lost.
* teach your kids to respect the teachers. basically, punish them everytime the talk trash, call teachers retards or behave with an attitude. In real world they will face consequences.
* yeah, teach them that brains are a good thing, and kids with brains should be respected. It's nto dumb football players and the footballer who nails the most girls who should respect. teach them that the world was built by engineers, not footballers., and that it's doctors who save people from illness, not some punk rock star, and and that it's scientists who discover new things, not junkies.
* teach kids that evenings are for homework, not for watching the gyrations of some teen rock star.
* uniforms in school. and no makeup.
once all this is done, then the ground will be clear for teaching kids about math and science. If not, wonder why other countries have more science and math grads.