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?"
It's always about making *science* and *math* kid-friendly.
Has anyone ever tried making the *kids* science and math-friendly?
Are you sure this is the right question to be asking Slashdotters, many of whom found both topics plenty kid friendly already?
I honestly think that the more different teaching concepts that are used within the same classroom, the better chance a student will connect with at least one that actually makes them grasp the concept.
It's instructors who rely on only one presentation technique all year who connect with only the students who respond to that technique, and end up having no way to bring the ones who get lost back into the fold.
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. Being labeled a 'geek' and being ostracized by other students does little to make other 'normal' students want to learn science and math. The sad thing is that it starts young (8 years old).
When I was in public schools, I had the benefit of being identified in the high-performer category because I had actually learned a lot from of math from watching PBS programs such as Square One Television, and my mother had taught me to read before my first day of kindergarden unlike any other member of my class.
As more and more resources are being allocated to "special ed" for those who underperform because such spending is mandatory under various laws, I notice that the programs for the overperformers are being cut back repeatedly because they are strictly optional. I wonder how many future whiz-kids we're losing to the fact that they're getting bored in too-dumb-for-them mainstream classes and therefore goofing off with their extra time instead of being given work that's at their actual mental level rather than their age's level.
I'm in highschool right now. At my highschool, and when I was in middle school, they were introducting a lot of the classes "hands on" learning programs. I learn nothing from these, they are basically busy work that you do without writing anything. The best way to learn something is just to read it out of the book. Someday, once we have created a society of idiots,MAYBE we'll see the mistake in these new BS methods of learning. But some how, I doubt it...
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.
...to visualize as much as possible. When I teach math (I tutor college level math) I find it helpful to keep the attention of the student as keep them interested to visually verify any concept I can. For example when teaching solving triangles I visually measure off the angles and demonstrate that they all add to 180 degrees. Also teaching the pythagorean(sp?) theorum is helped by getting out a ruler and proving that in fact A^2 + B^2 = C^2 without just saying it's so.
My $.02
SW
I ran into this with writing, and it made a large difference. For most of my elementary years, I dreaded writing essays. Every time one was assigned, the teacher explained it like I was being given a chore of some sort.
Then, a little later in my schooling (fifth grade) someone asked me to write something outside of school unrelated to any assignments and I discovered I like writing. Since then, I was never bothered by essays. A similar thing applied to reading for me, and still does to some extent.
I'm naturally a writer and reader, but the point is still important to remember: Never tell kids work is going to be hard, they will believe you.
I found most students who do poorly in higher math don't even know their multiplication tables.
for (i = 0; i < ALL_CHICKS_I_KNOW; i++) { ask_out(); if (get_laid) break; }
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.
Furthermore the foundation site speaks of "reform" not improvement. If you base your offering on the position that standard education is faulty don't expect open arms.
So in my opinion you'd be better off with some solid research and an attempt to work with teachers as opposed to fixing them.
I'm a theoretical physicist, so I'd like to think I have some appreciation of mathematics. That being said, I couldn't care less whether the average Joe has long division and square root extraction drummed into his head. It's irrelevant whether people are able to carry out these operations by hand. What's important is to develop "number sense", of the type described by authors such as Paulos and Dewdney. An appreciation of how large and small quantities are, concepts like probability and exponential growth, etc. The actual operations can be done with a calculator; what matters is whether you know what to do with them.
I teach Math and Science to ESE students. I find with my students that the problem is holding their attention long enough to transfer meaningful information. Typically I try to use manipulatives and audio-visual aids. This allows them to process the information on several different levels. Honestly, I think the "old" ways that were used were inferior to what we use today. The problem with kids learning today aren't the methods though, but the tremendous amount of distractions. Also, and I hate to state such an obvious fact, parents MUST be involved.
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.
People need to realize that most kids don't have a desire to learn these things, and most teachers don't have a desire to teach. Kids go because it's publicly funded babysitting, teachers go to get paid. At some point grades become relevant, and kids learn to do whatever it is they have to do to pass the classes. When it becomes necessary to accomplish some goal, the material will be learned.
If we did, for some reason, decide to make an point of 'teaching' our kids, by somehow giving them a real reason to learn and the teachers a real reason to teach, it'd be amazing the knowledge that could be imparted. I don't see any reason why a 10 year old cant do calculus, other than they're "not prepared yet."
Better "curriculum materials" aren't the answer. I don't know what the answer is, but it should somehow involve rewarding kids for learning and rewarding teachers for teaching, which just doesn't happen in our current system.
Fact: The real numbers can be extended with the addition of the imaginary number i, equal to sqr-rt(-1). Numbers of the form x+iy, where x and y are both real, are called complex numbers, which also form a field.
Child: That is soo cool!
Never gonna happen.
1) As they get older... there should be a math stream for kids who are good at math, a science stream for people who are good at science, and one of each for people who are just not good at either. Really, there are people like that, and putting them in the same class with the really smart kids just discourages them from continuing. Happens to grade 9s at my highschool all the time.
2) This is more the case for math, but there should be an emphasis on investigating real things out there. In some book somewhere the lesson on circumference of a circle is taught with an activity involving cookies. Showing kids how their math applies to real life (instead of a boring jumble of numbers and symbols) will help to keep them interested in it.
3)In Science: More labs and investigations. I don't know how this is with other school systems, but I find in mine we do a very limited number of labs and a lot of sitting and listening in science classes. This may work wonders for visual and auditory learners, but for people who learn by doing (I'm one of them), there's nothing I like more than breaking out the lab equipment and doing the lab. This also ties to my second point - you can see how these things apply in real life.
There are many more points, I'm sure, but these are just three quick ones off the top of my head.
Join the Empire! http://www.empirereborn.net/
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.
Sock Puppet 1: "Hello there, Mr. Function. How are you doing today?"
Sock Puppet 2: "Not so good... I'm kind of scared."
1: "Why is that?"
2: "Well, I've heard that there's a derive operator running around here somewhere."
1: "Oh, is that so?"
2: "Yes, and I'm just a constant function, if anyone derives me, I'm zero!"
1: "Ha! But I don't have to worry about that!"
2: "Why not?"
1: "I'm the exponential function e^x. You can derive me all you want, it doesn't hurt me at all!"
Sock Puppet 3: "Hello there. I'm the partial derivative with respect to y!"
or maybe just a root...
...not the other way around.
Most math and science teachers (US Elementary & High School) do not have degrees in Math or Science.
The problem is that it is very tough to get talented teachers to remain teaching. Moving into the private sector is much more profitable.
We need to overhaul the system so that Mathematicians and Scientists want to be teachers...
Looking up figures on a table != *thinking* - certainly no more so than using a computer to compute answers does. The idea should be to focus on the concepts behind the computation, and computers do have a lot of potential when it comes to introducing concepts.
Treat it as such.
Too often I see teacher after teacher who treats math with disdain and as something you can just memorize a few techniques and have down cold.
These are the kids I see shake with fear when they have to synthesize to answer a problem... in an Advanced Engineering Mathematics course in college.
Teach it as if it were a language--through immersion; by teaching fundamental concepts and then building on those (rather than our current backwards system); and teach the rules before you teach the exceptions, special cases, and other things of that nature (e.g., how did you learn how to take the determinate of a matrix?). Teach application--teaching them about matrices is pretty much worthless unless you talk to them about systems of linear equations. Force them to apply this language in situations outside of the ones that you have taught.
Deemphasize memorization and emphasize understanding--Don't make them memorize trigonometric rules, teach them Euler's Equation and about imaginary numbers.
Respect the students ability to learn mathematics. E. B. White said the following: "No one can write decently who is distrustful of the reader's intelligence, or whose attitude is patronizing." This is a fundamentally true statement that applies to teaching--if the teachers hate the subject and don't know it all that well themselves, then they aren't going to trust the students ability to learn it.
Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
When I was younger I used to watch Bill Nye, Beakman's World, and Newton's Apple. I loved these shows and they were the first things to spark my interest in science and technology. These shows stand out because they are both entertaining and educational (the dreaded edutainment :) ). They kept my interest because they used humor to help teach. Note, all those shows are aimed at different age people, yet I enjoyed them throughout my elementary school years.
Now that I am in high school, I still think entertaining, funny videos are a great way to learn. The more sexual innuendos, the better. For example, thanks to the World of Chemistry video series, I'll never forget that pv=nrt. Hell, my brother won't ever forget because I have talked about it so much. Here is what happens: They are describing the gas laws and say how pv=nrt or, to help you remember it, "pervnert." Then they cut to a clip of a guy in a trench coat walking down the street. He approaches a women, "Excuse me miss." He flings open his trench coat wearing only a sign saying pv=nrt over his genetalia. As he makes a twirling motion with his pelvis, the woman shrieks and runs away. Now I'll never forget that equation. There are also sexual innuendos and hidden jokes in the series, which really keeps your attention. I imagine this would immensely help those that don't enjoy chemistry.
In conclusion: funny videos that keep kids' attention work wonders. Suit the videos to the age group.
"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.
If a teacher can't teach up to a standard, then they should be removed.
Under the current conditions, we won't have any teachers left. We might just have to outsource our kids to India for them to get a decent education.
What?
I swear, school districts have gone nuts over calculators. For some reason, teachers have got the nutty idea that it is more important for kids to understand the concept than it is for them to do the problem. I have personal experiance with school districts that have special calculator math books to teach kids how to use one. Sorry, if a kid knows how to do math, a calculator is pretty easy to figure out.
I have substituted in Algebra classes where kids didn't trust the provided answer key to a test because I didn't use a calculator to figure out the answers.
Teaching a kid about a math concept and then having them use a calculator to get the answers is like trying to teach a kid to read and have a computer read the story to them. It's insane. Working problems by hand helps fix the concept in the head and lets the wheels turn and discover new concepts on their own.
If you want to make a real difference, teach the teachers how to take math and algebra topics and apply them to the real world. Especially with algebra, the trick is to teach them take the principles being taught and figure out how to use them for the rest of their lives. It is a silly trick, but my High School Math teacher taught all his classes how to multiply two 2-digit numbers together in our heads using a simple algebra trick. for example 25*83= 2075. It takes a little practice but it is the same technique as figuring out (ax+cy)(bx+dy) (hint FOIL)
The best science teachers I ever had used the text books as a guide to helping us explore our world and see the lessons being taught in our everyday life.
In my opinion, the problem with science and math education, especially at the middle/secondary education level is the way we train teachers. They spend 4 year of college being taught education theory and taking some science/math on the side. So we end up with a bunch of people who believe anyone can teach anything that happen to know a little science or math, but with no depth. The correct approach would be have them spend most of their college careers getting science and math degrees and minoring in education. I wouldn't get rid of the student teacher program, I think that is actually the only worthwhile experiance an education major gets in four years of college. Just change the emphasis on their class structure. (would probably apply to any High School level teaching job for that matter)
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.
While I have certainly not visited all secondary education centers in the united states, having looked at various textbooks and talked to many of my peers in college has given me some insight into the scientific education process.
I must say that I am utterly disturbed by the conceptual poverty of pre-collegiate science education. The emphasis in many classrooms is on learning facts about the universe, rather than learning the methods which all us to obtain these facts, and understanding of what we see around us. Names of constellations, plant phyla, and obscure scientists help one "understand" science in the same way that memorizing the name of every Pope helps you "understand" history. In reality, science is about methodology and critical thinking moreso than anything else, and honestly it is that part of science education that truely benefits people in their everyday lives.
At my high school, we had a course called "reading" which was manditory for 7th and 8th graders (it was a junior/senior HS). My mother almost had me removed from the course because it was such an egregious waste of time... It was supposed to "encourage" people to read by forcing unimaginitve drivel down their throats rather than allowing them to explore books for themselves. Rather than spend 10% of my time at school on this nonsense, I owuld have much preferred a class for everyone in critical thinking.
Imagine how exciting such a class could be. Instead of spending time reading boring textbooks or doing busywork, the class would be given real-life problems to solve collaboratively. Also, it would be taught how to reason about arguments presented in scientific, political, and social arenas by disecting and debating current event topics. Throw in a dash of formal logic, and an emphesis on participation and thinking rather than getting points for giving teh answer the teacher wanted, and I think we'd have a real winner.
I believe that such a class would help science education more than spicing up material, or adding yet more pictures to the textbooks. More importantly, I believe that this kind of class would be much more generally useful to people in their everday lives. I believe that teaching people to make more rational decisions is good both socially and economically, and will allow people to be better citizens. Also it might cause people to take less of what the President/CNN/NY Times/Popular Science says as truth.
Maybe someone out there managed to take a class like this. If so, perhaps you could share your experience?
Cheers,
Justin Wick
He didn't say take the tools away from the industry workers and scientists, but you probably knew that and just wanted to be an ass.
Teaching is an inefficient process if you are measuring your progress by technological progress, which you are implying with your broken argument.
He's saying teach the subject to the kid on the mechanistic level. Using a slide rule is an enlightening experience. Far more so than is a calculator, and it gives you an immediate graphical sense of what you are doing.
mefus
In Open Society, GPL Software frees YOU!
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.
I would fully support such a move as being cruel to be kind. You shouldn't be using a computer or even a calculator until you have a good enough idea of how to use your own brain.
I was one of the last people to do the non-calculator version of the O-level mathematics exam, and we learned little tricks involving finding common factors and cancelling out that calculator users never need to bother with. I even used to add up order forms in my head when we used paper forms {I have since written some software to computerise it} and would never have dreamed of using a calculator.
All the computer is really good for is the last step of solving a mathematical problem. It can't ever manage the first step, which is actually expressing the problem in mathematical terms in the first place.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Making Math and Science kid friendly? Call me a curmudgeon, but that's a lost cause.
If you're not a prodigy, Math is difficult. Science is difficult. So what? Work hard and you'll get it eventually. Yes, its essential to have well designed curricula and competent teachers, but I think the primary problem facing educators today is the attitude of kids. A lot of them just aren't willing to put in the effort to learn. Why? Lots of reasons, but I'd say the biggest one is that affluence breeds complacency. Give kids a kick in the butt and they'll learn just fine.
You are confusing two fundamentally different issues.
The computer is a *tool*, it is not a substitute for thinking unless it is used as such. Look at the Rosetta Stone language software--it is possible to develop programs to aid students in learning just about any subject. It is when that tool is used *inappropriately* that there is a problem.
When I took Calculus II Honors in college I had a lab associated with it where we learned how to use Mathematica. This was not to be used in lieu of thinking, but to further our learning, as a check to our by-hand work, and so that we could visualize certain key aspects of the subject matter.
Don't throw computers out, figure out how to use them in the context of learning the material.
Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
Interesting that you should portray problem solving as something people never have to face. I think most people have to solve problems every day. Even when you suggest that the math topics taught in schools be decided by a survey, this is itself a math problem, one that has to be carefully formulated and solved and the solution analyzed from multiple perspectives in order to properly interpret the results. So I wouldn't write off the problem-solving approach just yet.
There are three basic problems with the idea of using "only types of math people use":
1. Who gets to decide who "people" are, and who gets to decide what I "need" to know? Who is it that has the right to decide this, for me or for my kid? If the majority of people don't use Calculus, and therefore we stop teaching it or the concepts that lead up to it, how do we know we aren't short-changing kids who could do great things with it? We should think very carefully before vesting someone with the power to decide for us what is useful and what isn't, and therefore what will be taught in school or not. (Yes, I'm aware that this is actually the current situation in public schools. That's why I'm not too keen on public schools.)
2. This line of thinking becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy -- we stop teaching trigonometry, for instance, and so there are no longer any people who know how to use trig, and therefore nobody around to think that it's useful. But this doesn't imply that trig isn't useful. It just means that we've made ourselves too ignorant to notice.
3. Don't forget that education doesn't exist merely for pragmatic reasons. We don't restrict our learning only to what "people need to know". Education also allows us to apprehend beauty in all its forms, enlarge our ways of thinking, and make connections between different areas of study. Education is literally "leading out" -- in this case leading out of ignorance -- not just 12-16 years of job training.
Force-feeding memorization is the quickest way to end the technological dominance of the United States. If you do not believe me, travel the world and ask "What country produces the best engineers?". (I said engineers, not computer scientists, there is a difference.) I'll promise you, over half the time the reponse will be the US. The reason for this? American students generally know how to think, but this is changing for the worse.
Over-Memorization will produce better test scores, but worse educated students. I can get any computer to memorize a log table, but I cannot teach a computer what it means. If I teach a personwhat a log table means, they can go look up the values when they need them, or they can generate one themselves.
Okay, I feel better now, flame away.
Simple. Make the information relevant.
For example, instead of teaching ratios in proportion, have students scale a cookie recipe to feed the entire class. Then have them make the cookies (off the top of my head; don't whinge about lilltle kids and hot ovens). Figure batting averages in gym class. Predict the max altitude of a water rocket.
From personal experience, I didn't appreciate algebra (polynomials in particular) until I studied calculus. Up until that point it didn't help me accomplish anything than arithmetic did.
I tend to think that someone should start at the goal of the task -- say, build a model rocket and predict its performance --and work backwards. Let the students build one without instruction in such a way that they are bound fail and the only way to succeed is to actually .... learn. I know, it's been done but it's often the exception rather than the rule. When was the last time you had several labs before your first lecture? Why bother with a dry boring lecture in the first place?
"Where's my other sock?" - A. Einstein
Simply pay kids who get good grades a stipend. Each A should be worth say, $50. If I were paid like this, I'd have stopped playing video games and tried to get all As on my report card. Problem is we don't want to invest money in schools, we would prefer to pay military officers. This is not a country of intellectuals, this is a nation of warriors. Nerds/Intellectuals are considered losers in school, and our culture makes outcasts of these people while offering no support for them.
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 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's called GRADES.
And NOT BEING LEFT BACK A YEAR.
Also, BEING ABLE TO GRADUATE.
Oh, wait- I forgot we no longer grade children- it might hurt their egos. And then there's SOcial Promotion.
You are downloading some torren and you have leeched 764 megabytes and seeded 432.
How many megabytes before it's even?
What are your leech/seed ratio?
As a 14-year-old boy, I think this subject is very interesting from several points of view. I have to admit I rather disagree when it is said kids are math- and science-friendly, but then as has been said it is not surprising that the situation has turned out this way when you consider the sad culture the moronic majority of the population is plunging the country into here in France -- having seen several previous comments, I see the situation is not so different in America either. For example, in my class, a lot of the children are drawn to the idiotic reality TV shows (we even have a Celebrity Farm, a show in which one is able to view celebrities living in a farm and vote one out each week) and the teenagers seem to find the boring lives of others more interesting than theirs ever could be. This truely is sad, but this said group of people is the same which doesn't bother working much at school. Now I have not done a psychology major so I am not in the best position to ponder on how this crash in TV quality has affected childrens' work so much, but I would think this is due to a generalisation and banalisation of this moronic culture, developing into a way of life: doing nothing while watching TV to see others doing nothing. I would say that this tendancy to slack off has affected how the said children tend to percieve other activities in life, schoolwork included. I am pretty sure if one was to exclude children from watching such trash on television, they would not have such a tendancy to do nothing and not use their brain actively as is happening now.
In my opinion, math and science are already kid-friendly. It is just a case of the children being voluntary to approach these subjects in an optimistic way, something which is becoming rarer and rarer these days as the kids are becoming progressively less math- and science-friendly, as I said in the first paragraph. Any child willing to enhance his or her knowledge on these topics can do so easily, as I think there are an infinite number of resources suited to their capabilities which are available to them. In my case, for example, I was pushed to improve my math skills when I got interested in more serious programming (as I have currently started learning C++, which I find somewhat more interesting than just placing controls on a form as I did with Delphi). Of course, I am not omitting the fact that the motivation of the teacher can change everything in the stance of children towards math, but if we cannot change much, let alone anything, in the educational system, then the responsibility of changing the childrens' stance towards these topics rests in the hands of the parents; the latter can do so much more to get their children to be motivated in the instruction of math and science, and for example a good start is to raise the children in the omission of the wave of "crap" television -- but without an excess of tendancy towards elitism, which could get the children rejected at school. I believe parents should show the children at the youngest age how fun math and science can be, how vast these topics are and how important they are later on.
Math and science are already kid-friendly -- I think the balance has to reside on the other side, by having the children be math- and science-friendly; I believe that for this, kids have to understand the value of these subjects as soon as they can, and for the most part I should think the responsibility of having the children understand this is first and foremost in the parents' hands.
"Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely unintentional side effect" -- Linus Torval
I think the topic you are dancing around is:
Stop glamorizing the politican, sports player and musician, on orders of magnitude over the scientist, engineer and general tinkerer.
[You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
Crummy textbooks and the prima donnas in charge of education. I teach beginning and intermediate algebra at a community college. The (terrible) books we use do not have the old four-place tables of square and cube roots. It is the policy of the math department (over which I have zero influence) that the students are not allowed to use calculators. So, they are confused about these mysterious numbers, and rightly so. Just how big is sqrt(1359) anyway? They had no idea. I taught them how to extract a square root the long way, using pencil and paper. Some of them appreciated it and told me it made sense. They now had a way to concretize these symbols into decimal form. I mentioned this to my supervisor. She said that it was a waste of our valuable class time to teach the method. They didn't need to know it.
So, to summarize, the books are liberally sprinkled with radicals, but the students are not given tables of the values, nor are they to be shown the method to compute them, nor are they allowed to use calculators to compute them. But they are expected to formally manipulate them. What a wonderful state of affairs.
Alas, my favorite subject gets watered down some more.
If someone had made me learn C, how to use a command line, and how a computer works, I'd be eternally grateful. As it is, I don't have the time right now to teach myself or find someone who can, so I'll remain ignorant. Which is too bad, because I can think of nifty things I'd like to try if I had that knowledge, but that opportunity is denied me, because I'm lacking in the basic knowledge. That's what school is about: first, give them the basics in everything, or at least enough of a taste to present them with an idea of what can be done. Then, more in-depth training allows them to go further with what they find interesting.
If the majority of people don't need math, the majority of people also don't need to read literature or learn to write an analytical essay...they'll never ever have to do that in their jobs. But, we teach them that because of the underlying concept of critical thinking and analysis, which is also a major part of math: reading story problems and distilling that text into equations that sum up the situation, for example. It's a different flavor of application and uses a different specific skill set, but it is the same thing.
Brief tangent: I'm reminded of CS Lewis' Narnia book The Horse and His Boy, in which the land of the Calormenes is described as a place where instead of essays, students are taught to tell stories, which is a far better idea because, as the author says, everyone always wants to hear stories, but as far as I know, no one ever wants to read the essays...
And as for problem solving, life is a problem. Math points out (or should, at least) that usually several different methods exist for approaching and solving a problem, and all eventually arrive at an answer, albeit with different amounts of effort along the way and some with interesting side effects too. I think that's a lesson more applicable to life than how to write a haiku.
Many of them are. The problem I see is twofold. First, a child may end up seeing all schooling as being a special sort of jail and all authority as being idiots, which will probably hurt them a great deal once they get to university and this often isn't true. Second, a child will associate "learning" with school, and be turned off from enormous swaths of interesting, useful, and enjoyable material simply because it's mandatory in school. I agree that the lessons I cite are often correct, but they can be learned "too much".
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
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 think many in the school system today forget that learning math changes you in a way that language and other classes just don't do. Through abstraction, math changes the way you tackle problems in your daily life, amongst other things. The concrete problem you're trying to solve might be directly useless for your future life, however indirectly it might help you a lot.
At least that's my take on it.
Talk about buzz kill.
The problem is, kids today think the world owes them something. Teachers aren't people who are trying to educate them and motivate them and prepare them for the real world; they're people who are trying to hold them back and 'cramp their style'. When a student is told that doing something is wrong, and then the student gets punished for doing it, it's never a matter of 'oh, shoot, i did something wrong and i got caught doing it' -- it's always 'ugh, this fucking sucks, this is bull shit, i don't have to put up with this'.
I hate to sound like a fascist or something, but rewards don't work with kids today. They're too 'punk' for rewards. What schools need is discipline. I don't mean dress codes and other 'pre-emptive' kinds of discipline that everybody seems to like -- those just hurt the people who aren't jerks. I mean real-world, reactionary discipline. When you do something wrong in the real world, you're generally get punished by being fired or fined or jailed. School should be the same way. When you call a teacher a 'fucking retard', you shouldn't just get an unexcused absence for that period. You should get a detention, and if you don't serve that detention, you should get suspended. If you destroy school property, you should be fully expected to pay for every last dime of it. Et cetera. :/
There are many groups out there looking for ways to integrate technology into the classroom to grab the students attention. I work for The Concord Consortium, a non profit company that supports a number of NSF and DOE projects that find different ways to help students learn. We have written opensource java software to help students visualize genetics, molecules, and math; we study HOW students learn; we spawned off an OnLine Virtaul HighSchool which is now it's own organization with 6000 students; and we are always looking forward for new ways to keep students interested and learning.
We are working with PBS on a professional development project aimed at improving Algebra content knowledge and teaching practices.
On a different note, Maine a few years back initiated the Maine Laptop program, where every year every school in Maine gets laptop's for all of its 7th grade students. Technicaly in 5 years time all Middle and High School students will have computers.
-Ben
-=Down Syndrome in Maine
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
Exactly! Most of the comments in this thread talk about teaching methods, good/bad teachers, etc. Although good teachers a great, this ignores what I think is the fundamental problem -
It is the student's responsibility to learn.
Kids do not understand that they have to take responsibility for thier own education. If they don't understand something they blame the teacher, instead of taking the time to learn it. I know several teenage girls that think they are not very good at math. They get C's in high school level math classes and say its just because they aren't good at it. If they took half the time studying for math as they do shopping for clothes, they would understand the concepts ten times better and have As.
Standardized tests are bullshit and you know it, otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned problems that exist with the SAT.
The problem with test, test, test is that you wind up with children who don't know how to think, but how to memorize and regurgitate on command. Brains are not widgets that you can put together on an assembly line with a "one size fits all" curriculum.
Educate yourself. A great place to start is a book called "Insult To Intelligence" by Frank Smith. The ISBN on the book is 0877958270. Anyone who cares about the current sad state of education needs to take a look at it. It's out of print now but can still be found at used book sites and at Amazon Marketplace.
Actually there is some splendid information in the book about how not to write educational software. I suggest the fellow who wrote the initial question for "ask Slashdot" should give it a read.
I won't even dignify the rest of your post with any further comment, except to say that the lesson plans that teachers are forced to teach from nowadays in the US are imposed on them from On High (ultimately from the Department of Education) and are almost without exception soul-sucking programmatic crap that neither teaches nor enlightens nor fosters a love of reading. Google for Open Court Reading sometime. This is but one example of the shit that is being forced on school districts across America. Then consider yourself lucky that you are out of school now.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
As a college student now I'm going to respond to this. One of the "punishments" we had in junior high school was "in school suspension" which meant spending all day in basically detention. A lot of kids enjoyed it more than class, so that's not much of a punishment.
In my opinion, the problem is a) classes are boring for most kids (even me, someone who loves to learn). If you're gonna teach to the middle, the top will be bored out of the minds and the bottom will be confused as hell. I don't know if tracking works better but in elementary school I always LOVED my enrichment class because it was fun and challenging and all my friends in it loved it also. b) academic stuff isn't "cool". It's cool to know every sports statistic about your favorite team and watch every sports game, but it's not cool to know anything about physics/math theories. This is a societal problem, until it's acceptable for someone to be interested in math/science and not be labelled as a nerd/dork/dweeb there wont be much interest in math/science by normal kids. The only people from my high school who were actually openly into learning about math/science were people in my math research class who were also two-sport varsity ATHLETES and could get away w/ it w/out being made fun of and labelled a dork.
I think the biggest problem is a) though. The classes are really confusing for a lot of people and too easy for those who truly understand it. Not to sound like an ass but I spent the first month of my AP physics course beating Super Mario brothers on my calculator. Why? Because it was more interesting than listening to my prof drone on and on explaining something I had understood for over a week. I still managed to get 100 on more than half of the exams so there was no incentive for me to pay attention.
Laslty, (this should probably be c) most people see no need to know physics/abstract algebra/topology because they don't see how it's applied. They don't understand that they're being taught how to think and that that's what's most important. And honestly, it often has no use because (in my inexperienced opinion) we don't live in a world that often requires critical thinking. Many jobs are designed to require the list amount of thinking possible so as to be easily picked up by the largest number of people.
A few thoughts:
1. The concept of number that most math teachers use is less sophisticated than, say, those of Chinese math teachers (see Jo Boaler's work for more on that). So, how you delimit the subject matters (and, for that matter, our students in the US consistently score highly on creativity in math).
2. The idea that math and science are poorly taught is part of a cultural move to demonize teachers. The challenges to our performance scores in schools are vast (decline of family structure, negative influence of pop culture, rise of drug use over past 50 years, immigration, etc.). Despite this, the best indicator of achievement NAEP (congressionally funded assessment) says that schools are doing slightly better now than they were 30 years ago. This doesn't mean that schools are great, simply that we should be careful about how we frame the conversation (making good schools better vs. fixing/saving/destroying 'bad' schools and shitty teachers).
3. That said, there are lots of ways that teaching and learning could be more powerful, meaningful, and fun. Here's a few in no order:
-let teachers observe each other more to foster a dialogue about good teaching (done often in Asia).
-encourage multiple approaches to the subject.
-de-emphasize the purpose of standardized tests (not that we shouldn't have them, but if the stakes were lower they could measure how students were learning without dictating what they were learning)
-allow students to explore interesting projects in the discipline. This can foster an approach where students are encouraged to think like a professional scientist or mathematician, rather than a plain old person asked to memorize the great discoveries of the ages (this is Jerome Bruner's main point).
4. Finally, to directly answer the question, the reader is directed to check out the work of IRL (Institutes for Research on Learning). Especially the MMAP project. This is a group that came up with approaches for improving math based on a fairly sophisticated social theory of learning (generally, situated cognition), and they produced interesting materials for assessment as well as computer games for learning, etc. IRL closed down a few years ago, but I'm sure their work is still available.
Those that _want_ to learn science and math.
Screw the rest - they can go into management.
While I completely agree on a), I think your solution to b) isn't quite right. There's no reason why math/science needs to be made less nerdy, kids just need to realize there's NOTHING wrong with being a "nerd/dork/dweeb" - there are plenty of us around, so it isn't like they have to be all alone(Slashdot is certainly proof of that). The thing that's terrible about being a nerd for a high school student is that the people making fun of them have convinced them its a bad thing - all that's necessary is for the nerds to realize that their way of thinking and acting is no less valid than anyone else's. Once people realize the "geek" label just bounces off you (or can be taken as a compliment, even), they often stop using it and start thinking of you as a real person. To bring this back to the topic at hand, that also allows those who are only held back by the societal pressure (those who are intersted in math/science, but don't want anyone to know that they are) to "come out of the closet" as it were, because they see there's nothing bad about it.
Perhaps teachers have a problem with introducing this technology into their curriculums because they are perceptive of the very real threat which technology in the classroom presents to them. Schools across the country are continually laying off teachers; in my school district positions are constantly being cut (including the district's affirmative action director), but somehow there was money for a shitload of new DVD players and P4s this year. New technology can be great and useful, but it is only a tool and there will always need to be teachers to use it. As long as funding is too low to give teachers anything but shitty salaries (or fire them), it will continue to be a bizarre choice to invest significant amounts of school budget money in technology.B) There's no easy answer here. The best I can think of is to try to change the atmosphere one person at a time. My parents did this for me.
C) I have no idea. I liked Physics partly because it let us apply math to concrete things (like point masses ;-)).