Slashdot Mirror


Math Textbooks a Textbook Example of Bad Textbooks

theodp writes "Over at Salon, Annie Keeghan does an Upton Sinclair number on the math textbook industry. In recent years, Keeghan explains, math has become the subject du jour due to government initiatives and efforts to raise the rankings of lagging U.S. students. But with state and local budgets constrained, math textbook publishers competing for fewer available dollars are rushing their products to market before their competitors, resulting in product that in many instances is inherently, tragically flawed. Keeghan writes: 'There may be a reason you can't figure out some of those math problems in your son or daughter's math text and it might have nothing at all to do with you. That math homework you're trying to help your child muddle through might include problems with no possible solution. It could be that key information or steps are missing, that the problem involves a concept your child hasn't yet been introduced to, or that the math problem is structurally unsound for a host of other reasons.' The comments on Keeghan's article are also an eye-opener — here's a sample: 'Sales and marketing budgets are astronomical because the expenses pay off more than investments in product. Sadly, most teachers are not curriculum experts and are swayed by the surface pitches. Teachers make the decisions, but are not the users (students) nor are they spending their own money. As a result, products that make their lives easier and that come with free meals and gifts are the most successful.' So, can open source or competitions build better math textbooks?"

49 of 446 comments (clear)

  1. It's not just the textbooks by Vanders · · Score: 5, Informative

    It could be that key information or steps are missing

    Entire exams have been ruined by incorrect questions. Apparently, reading and writing is not a hard requirement for being a mathematician.

    1. Re:It's not just the textbooks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Lectures are extremely inefficient. Just use the same textbooks as 30+ years ago. Pre-university mathematics hasn't changed that much.

      The correct solution would be, of course, to adopt a more left-wing education model. Soviet mathematics education was excellent, because (i) the USSR was interested in academic success as a vehicle to national technological advancement; (ii) it was not tainted by privatised publishers and exam providers desiring quantity over quality. China is following a not entirely dissimilar model, and they're doing kinda OK. Even France, keeping firm the foundations of its Polytechnique model, laughs in the face of America with the quality of its mathematics curriculum.

      Capitalism simply does not deliver good education. There is no profit in a swathe of well-educated people, only the minimum needed to keep remaining consumers in line.

    2. Re:It's not just the textbooks by Chrisq · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It could be that key information or steps are missing

      Entire exams have been ruined by incorrect questions. Apparently, reading and writing is not a hard requirement for being a mathematician.

      It has alaways been like that. I can remember back in the 70s we were given a previous year's GCE A-level paper for homework. There was one question that we all decided was impossible. The teacher agreed, but we had one genius in the class (who later got a full scholarship to Cambridge) who said "Sir there is a solution in terms of sets using number theory" and then wrote some stuff up that none of us understood.

    3. Re:It's not just the textbooks by arpad1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The reason to keep reinventing the wheel is because reinventing the wheel costs lots of money.

      The monopolistic nature of the public education system means that customer demands - the parents - can be ignored. So, we've got a textbook industry that can ignore cost and can ignore efficacy, since their customer is the school district, but can't ignore political fads.

      If you want textbooks to get relentlessly better and relentlessly cheaper then the people who are urgently concerned about the safety and effective education of the kids - parents - have to assume direct control over education.

      That's in the process of happening with the spread of charter schools, vouchers, parental trigger and tax credits but we're only just now getting to the point that those changes are starting to impact education. But another two to three years should see the monopolistic complacency of the public education system shattered as the nature of public education, and the costs of that nature, are more widely understood as they stand in contrast to the alternatives.

      --
      Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
    4. Re:It's not just the textbooks by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Just use the same textbooks as 30+ years ago. Pre-university mathematics hasn't changed that much.

      This is really where the open source model should be shining. If you're buying books to 100,000 students, then really you should be buying the copyright, not paying through the nose for each copy. As an author, I'd happily take a $30K up-front payment to write a textbook and hand over the complete writes to the country's education system. Then can then do a big print run initially, and a smaller run each year to replace ones that wear out. If they need to make corrections, they can print errata pages for the existing copies and just fix them in the new edition so when the old ones wear out they're replaced with ones with the fixes. And, of course, since they own the copyright they can give students PDF versions to keep.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    5. Re:It's not just the textbooks by MadShark · · Score: 5, Informative

      Uggg. I had several teachers in college that wrote their own "textbooks" for their classes(electrical engineering). They were extraordinarily smart individuals, but their writing sucked. They were desperately in need of a technical writer and an editor. The ones that didn't completely suck were not any better than the normal books I had for my other classes.

    6. Re:It's not just the textbooks by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Informative

      This.

      And this

      --
      No sig today...
    7. Re:It's not just the textbooks by medcalf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Capitalism has nothing to do with public education in the US. It's a social-bureaucratic system with curriculum preferences driven by California and Texas.

      --
      -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
    8. Re:It's not just the textbooks by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Lectures are extremely inefficient.

      Just a quote (I'm in a quoting mood today):

      People have now-a-days got a strange opinion that everything should be taught by lectures. Now, I cannot see that lectures can do so much as reading the books from which the lectures are taken. I know nothing that can be best taught by lectures, except where experiments are to be shewn. You may teach chemistry by lectures:-- You might teach the making of shoes by lectures!

      (Dr. Samuel Johnson writing to his friend Boswell)

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    9. Re:It's not just the textbooks by fche · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Capitalism simply does not deliver good education."

      Where exactly is the capitalism in the current education system? Money flows are so disconnected from the ultimate consumers (students), that there exist hardly any market signals.

    10. Re:It's not just the textbooks by Chelloveck · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Lectures are extremely inefficient. Just use the same textbooks as 30+ years ago. Pre-university mathematics hasn't changed that much.

      Actually, it has. A couple years ago my high-school aged son was stuck on a math problem: Plot a linear approximation through a set of points. I didn't remember the exact technique so I looked it up in his textbook. "Step 1: Enter the points into a graphing calculator. Step 2: Press the 'linear regression' button."

      For better or worse, computers and powerful calculators are part of the curriculum. My younger son's Algebra 1 book has frequent "Spreadsheet Activity" and "Graphing Calculator Activity" sidebars.

      Insert generic "In my day..." rant here. You could borrow the one used by my parents when my generation got to use 4-function calculators, or the one used by their parents when they got to use slide rules.

      --
      Chelloveck
      I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
    11. Re:It's not just the textbooks by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The textbook providers are capitalist enterprises. The article correctly points out that their incentives are to do whatever it takes to sell books, not to provide the best possible books.

      The fact that this even affects MATH texts indicates how pervasive and corrupting the process is. Unlike history and science, there is no need for the content to change from decade to decade. We could have optimized math texts long ago.

    12. Re:It's not just the textbooks by laffer1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I had a professor write an economics text book. He barely lectured and used the exact same words as in the book. He couldn't describe anything differently than the book. If you didn't understand the book, he would just say "it's right there in print. You didn't read the book" He failed to accept his book had problems or that not everyone learns the same way.

      it was a terrible class and I was happy to get through it. The entire class was based on a formula. he only defined the variables on the first day of class. Everything was explained by this formula. The trick to the exams was to put in several variations of the formula into a graphing calculator and just run through them. I didn't learn much.

    13. Re:It's not just the textbooks by tmosley · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Government regulation is a feature of fascism (corporations help the government write the regs to suppress competition).

      Lobbying is a feature of fascism (corporations petitioning powerful governments to do their will by interfering with the market in some way).

      Political corruption always exists. The extent to which it effects the people is the same as the extent to which government is allowed to interfere in the markets and in people's private lives.

      Saying that capitalism devolves into fascism is like saying that a clean room devolved into a dirty one. You thus imply the absurd conclusion that in order to keep your room from becoming dirty, you should refrain from cleaning it.

      Thanks for lining out your crappy argument in such a concise manner. Made it very easy to knock down.

    14. Re:It's not just the textbooks by Billly+Gates · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Mod up!

      I substitute taught a few years ago and objectives and curriculum just for a single day is mindboggling. A 1st grade classroom as an example needs to go through 4 objectives per subject 4 times a day. That is 16 lessons in just 6.5 hours! The books need to be in synch with this and explains why you can't use a book from 30 years ago even if the mathmatics are the same.

      No Child Left Behind puts huge requirements. 30 years ago 1st graders were being taught to count to 50, the ABCS and how to put together simple wordss and after that children spent 2 hours a day painting, playing, and cutting shapes out of construction paper.

      Today they are being taught multiplication, juggling (yes it is in some state standards), health, vowel rules with moderate words, etc. It is a pain in the butt and hard on the kids and teachers, but we keep whinning on how American kids are behind the rest of the world so No Child Left Behind is enforcing this. Now just imagine if a state changes the standards again?? Pfft time to through out those 2 million dollars worth of text books and start again!

    15. Re:It's not just the textbooks by Sir_Sri · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is in part because every university has its own programme arrangement, meaning the greatest textbook ever from some other university will only cover half of what is to be covered in your course, or it will cover something in a confusing way.

      At highschool and lower this doesn't need to happen. Everyone, or nearly everyone should be on the same national curriculum, with the same textbooks. That will never happen in some countries though (like the US). You can even leave some of the day/week/month to 'teacher time' where they decide what to cover.

      Unless it's a big class you don't get enough in royalties per book for that to be a particularly good plan. And if it is a big enough class it's important that the textbook fits with whatever the broader strategy of the university is, since you're training a huge portion of the student body with it.

    16. Re:It's not just the textbooks by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Why would they bother? My first book is used by two university courses that I know of, and the income from that would not even be close to making it worth writing the book. Even if you make everyone in a class of 100 buy the book every year, the author's royalty is going to be pretty small. You'd be lucky to make $1,000/year as a result. Given the time required to write the book, this seems like a pretty bad idea.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    17. Re:It's not just the textbooks by LihTox · · Score: 4, Interesting

      To be able to read a mathematics textbook successfully, you have to be able to pace yourself: to read one section at a time, slowly, work through the exercises, and not assume that you understand the material simply because it makes sense. It's a different skill from reading a novel, and many people don't have that skill. A lecture intentionally slows the book's material down to the appropriate pace for students who haven't learned how to read textbooks properly. It is inefficient by *design*.

    18. Re:It's not just the textbooks by dkf · · Score: 3, Informative

      A grand a year is assuming a class of at least about 250 students and all of them buying the book (instead of borrowing it from the library or sharing). And that's for at least a month's worth of work - at the speed most lecturers write it's 2-3 months. Hardly a good return on investment.

      I've been involved with writing a book (admittedly a tech book, not a college book) and given the sheer amount of work involved, I surely was not doing it to get rich. Heck, I wasn't doing to pay my yearly beer bill and I'm a light drinker. (It's certainly nowhere close to what I spend on caffeine!) It's only a tiny proportion of people who can ever earn a basic living from writing books; I don't appear to be one of them either.

      And the grand a year would not last all that long. Books go obsolete and students trade them. Preventing that requires more work, worsening the rate of return...

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
  2. History too by C0R1D4N · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A great book, "Lies My Teacher Told Me" details the history textbook situation which is pretty bad too.

    1. Re:History too by Yetihehe · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's not obligatory reference, but I think it sums it up very nicely: http://xkcd.com/803/. In one episode of myth busters they were making concrete airplanes. Adam made the strangest wing I've ever seen, but I think it could be inspired by such example like in this xkcd strip. And it didn't fly almost at all.

      --
      Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
    2. Re:History too by ChrisMaple · · Score: 3, Informative

      The correct answer is "some airplanes can fly upside down by using a high angle of attack, which overcomes the Bernoulli effect." Note also that even rightside up, most airplanes use some angle of attack.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  3. T'was ever thus by SpinningAround · · Score: 4, Interesting

    'Sales and marketing budgets are astronomical because the expenses pay off more than investments in product.'

    Ah, so textbooks are the same as 'enterprise' software then...

  4. This applies to ALL textbooks by msobkow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This issue is found with all textbooks, and has always been a problem. Even in the 70s and 80s, pretty much every textbook I used in high school and university had mistakes, omissions, and unsolvable chapter-problems.

    The difficulty with learning maths and sciences stems from the fact that they tend to deal with abstract concepts, procedures, and algorithms for performing mathematical calculations. In the age of calculators and instant-gratification web searches, not only aren't students willing to put in the time to learn "how" to do something, they aren't even interested in learning "why" they should do something.

    Instead, they point to their computers and the web as being able to do the work for them, and question the sanity of learning "the old way" of doing things. If the only purpose of an education was to prepare people for the workforce, I'd agree with them -- but the point of an education is to learn how to learn, how to interpret, and how to understand material. An education isn't about the facts taught, but about the learning process that prepares you for a lifetime of learning as you deal with new technologies, products, and ideas during your time on this planet.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:This applies to ALL textbooks by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The solution is simple: use PDFs of public domain textbooks. If you like, order a cheap bound copy of the PDF to be made.

      Basic math hasn't changed much in a century, and there are numerous old textbooks out there that are generally proofread better than modern textbooks. I have found the problems are often better structured and designed as well.

      Sure, there are minor changes in terminology, which any good teacher can address. But we should do this even just to save the backs of young kids -- those old textbooks are small, short, and therefore light to carry, rather than a 700-page glossy book that weighs 10 pounds (why the heck do we need this for math textbooks?).

      When I was in junior high and high school, I picked up a lot of such old textbooks at used book sales for nothing. I think I learned more from them than I did from my actual math classes...

    2. Re:This applies to ALL textbooks by SomeKDEUser · · Score: 5, Interesting

      As a schoolchild, I went through the French system, and people complained that the textbooks changed too often. Which was a legitimate concern, but since the programme and standard were set system-wide, each iteration was, I thought, OK. Basically, it laid out the structure of the year, and gave supplementary material. Oh, and the maths books also had some exercise sets.

      But that was an exception. And the proportion of exercises was small.

      Likewise at university, I got textbooks, which were in the vast majority European in origin. And they were thin, densely packed with equations (or not so thin in the case of fluid mechanics and thermodynamics). And they contained almost no examples or exercises. They were designed as reference books.

      But I also got a couple American textbook. Which were not badly written or wrong. But which were pieces of shit. Because the were huge, and contained stupid amounts of examples and exercises, instead of well-structured matter. On my shelf, I still have -- and consult -- the European ones, the American textbooks: dunno where I put them.

      The author of TFA complains that the books are terribly written an badly copyedited. Sure, they might be. But even if they weren't, they would still be crap. This is because on this continent, people seem not to have understood the most important aspect of knowledge: its structure. The goal should never be that the student can do lots of exercises quickly. It should be that they understand the structure and logic of the subject -- and that, they can do the exercises, sure, but also understand how this subject relates to all the others. And each subject well understood helps in all the others.

      And how knowledge, in general, forms a great overarching structure. Now of course, if you did that, you would never get engineer-creationists: because they would deeply understand that you cannot, in fact, compartmentalise knowledge.

      This is not a "American education is crap" post. it is rather a "American education would in fact be very good" if you guys simply made the effort of respecting theory and structure more.

    3. Re:This applies to ALL textbooks by ChrisMaple · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm fed up with the meme that education is all about learning how to learn (how to interpret, how to understand.) If that's all that 12 or 16 years of schooling provided, we'd have a crowd of illiterate young adults all ready to learn SOMETHING, without the ability to do so because they couldn't read or do math. Such young adults would be useless, because they had no practical knowledge.

      Education is primarily about learning facts: what things are, how they work, how they're connected, how and why they were developed, how to solve problems, what honor consists of, and so forth and so on. "Learning how to learn" and its relatives, though important, is mostly an implicit part of education and requires some, but not a lot, of explicit effort to teach.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    4. Re:This applies to ALL textbooks by bcrowell · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The solution is simple: use PDFs of public domain textbooks. If you like, order a cheap bound copy of the PDF to be made.

      Basic math hasn't changed much in a century, and there are numerous old textbooks out there that are generally proofread better than modern textbooks. I have found the problems are often better structured and designed as well.

      This is a perfectly reasonable idea, but it would require massive legislative change to implement it in K-12 education, and that legislative change isn't going to happen because of lobbying by textbook publishers.

      As a random example, the California Education Code contains the following:

      When adopting instructional materials for use in the schools, governing boards shall include only instructional materials which, in their determination, accurately portray the cultural and racial diversity of our society, including: (a) The contributions of both men and women in all types of roles, including professional, vocational, and executive roles. (b) The role and contributions of Native Americans, African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, Pacific Islanders, European Americans, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans, persons with disabilities, and members of other ethnic and cultural groups to the total development of California and the United States.

      It doesn't specifically say that pictures of kids in a math textbook have to include pictures of kids in wheelchairs, but it's a specific example of the extremely tight regulatory environment for textbooks. Another good example is that state law allows a school to pay $200 for a textbook, but does not allow it to spend $10 at Kinko's to print out a paper copy of a free digital textbook. When Governor Schwarzenegger started his Free Digital Textbook Initiative, one of the big obstacles was the state bureaucracy involved in textbook selection. They tried to streamline the process, but basically the initiative seems to have been a total failure.

      I'm the author of some free online physics textbooks. They're written for the college level, but I have quite a few adoptions from high schools as well. Virtually all of those are from private schools, especially Catholic schools.

      It's certainly true that algebra and calculus don't change very much over time. However, the public education system in my state, including both K-12 and the state college and university systems, has general rules that forbid us from using old textbooks. That makes a lot of sense, as a matter of fact, for physics, history, etc. There is no exception written into these requirements for math. In any case, if you look at the catalog in my sig, you'll see that there is not any shortage of high-quality free textbooks for math that are recent. There's no real need to use old public-domain math books rather than modern, free ones.

    5. Re:This applies to ALL textbooks by martin-boundary · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not in mathematics. I didn't use the third rate designation lightly in this case. American mathematics prior to the 1930s was not world class, whereas Germany from about 1905-1930 was the leading mathematical country in the world, having taken over from France. The French took a particularly severe blow in World War I, because all the young mathematicans were sent to the front to die. After WWI, French mathematics didn't recover until a bunch of students rebelled and learned the new mathematics from the Germans around the 1930s and really started teaching after the second great war. These students became known as the Bourbaki group. By the time of WWII, all the significant work was being done in the US and, separately, in the USSR. This separation broke down only slowly and the mathematical world united around about the 1980s.

  5. Rushing?! For What?! by adamchou · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Its not like Math changes every year. The text book industry and publishers are just ripping students off every year. If they would just publish one edition of their text books, we wouldn't have this problem.

    1. Re:Rushing?! For What?! by Gabrill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      +1.

      There is absolutely no need for the textbooks to be revisioned as often as they are. Each year students are forced to purchase a new presentation of the same subject and material that has been available and defined for decades. I mean really, is there any NEW Calculus 101 research being done within the last 3 decades? Publishers ensure a new purchase every year by revisioning their books with no value updates. I think it amounts to industry abuse.

      The problem is made worse by the rapid evolution of supporting software, hardware, and the operating systems they run on. I can't wait until our computer tools mature enough to be as least as stable, reliable, and long-lived to last through a four-year degree course without putting the user at a disadvantage near the end of the degree.

      --
      Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
    2. Re:Rushing?! For What?! by roothog · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Fair enough, but educational techniques *have* been changing

      Well, if you look at the trend in math, it's pretty clear that the changes have just made math education worse. Maybe what we need to do rather than create new texts and new techniques that don't work is resurrect older techniques and older textbooks that actually seemed to educate.

    3. Re:Rushing?! For What?! by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 4, Interesting

      While pedagogical techniques have changed over the years, basic math hasn't. And old textbooks written, say, more than about 50 years ago, didn't have much "filler" in terms of pedagogical methodology.

      You just have a very brief explanation of definitions and concepts, followed by a set of problems. The pedagogical method is left to the teacher to fill in, as it should be. No necessity for glossy photos of random non-math things or muticultural scenes in a math textbook, as we fill pages and pages with today.

      Perhaps languages are different in this regard, although I have to admit I personally learned more about foreign languages than from any other book after I picked up a comparative grammar of six languages designed for language instruction that was published in the 1860s. The advances is elementary language instruction pedagogy, as far as I can tell, have mostly to do with replacing competent teachers who can speak fluently with lots of recordings that have to be cued to the textbook... which seems like the primary driving force for new editions of language books... but I'm no expert. (I am, however, a certified secondary math and science teacher.)

  6. Obligatory Feynman Writing On Textbooks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Feynman wrote about the problems with textbooks and textbook selection in the 60s. Sadly, I don't think much has changed. It might have gotten worse. I do hope that open source textbooks and book readers might help, eventually, if we can prevent the systems from perpetuating textbooks as revenue generation first and teaching aids second.

  7. Math vs. History by sociocapitalist · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Math perhaps but anything with any political aspect will be fought over, i.e. Texas re-writing history textbooks in an effort to lesson the constitutional barriers of separation of church and state.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/17/AR2010031700560.html
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html

    --
    blindly antisocialist = antisocial
  8. This is a definitely a real problem, but... by kentsta · · Score: 5, Informative

    ....as a former math teacher, I can assure you that teachers rarely get to make the purchasing decisions regarding textbooks. Teachers, even most rookies, can tell when a textbook is bad, but have to use what they are given for the most part. They are free to supplement the curriculum with their own created content, but of course they are expected to mostly teach the state standards with the given textbooks.

    1. Re:This is a definitely a real problem, but... by GIL_Dude · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I came here to say exactly that. I've never seen where a teacher in elementary or secondary schools has been able to select a book. The school itself doesn't generally get to select them either. The books are selected by the school board or their designees (often, in practice, by a group of folks in the school district office). From what I've read here (http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/02/12/182223/texas-textbooks-battle-is-actually-an-american-war) and on other sites, the books selected by the Texas board of education become a de facto standard for many places. I doubt there are many places - at least in the US - where an individual teacher has much voice at all in selecting a textbook for primary education.

  9. How about no textbook at all? by portforward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My son's elementary school uses "Math Investigations" which is part of that "new math". You know, the type that believes that it isn't necessary to learn multiplication tables, or that your really only need to learn a few fractions: 1/2 1/3 1/4 and that is it. Oh yeah, and you shouldn't "stack" numbers while adding. He doesn't have a text book. He only brings home photocopied worksheets.

    I complained to the teacher. They referred me to the principal who referred me to the district's elementary math education supervisor. Long story short, when schools say they want parents involved, they are lying. That is the last thing that they want. They want you to chaperone field trips. They want you to help fund raise. But when you want to actually input on the fundamentals of education, they shut you out. Even though you might have been a physics major and tutor, and brought peer reviewed research sponsored by the Department of Education pointing out that their particular math curricula has students score lower on standardized tests they imply that you don't know what you are talking about.

    1. Re:How about no textbook at all? by rcoxdav · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I would like to disagree with the premise that not learning math facts is not important. As a person who has taught College Algebra to many adult non-traditional plus traditional students, I saw a very large correlation between those that did well and those that had the basic math facts down. The problem is that they may get the algebraic concepts without a problem, but get hung up on the arithmetic, and therefore still do not get problems correct. I know it is a correlation, not a causation, but at least from my observations the fundamentals and knowing the tables are important.

    2. Re:How about no textbook at all? by sourcerror · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I agree that it's best to teach the children first how to multiplication table came to be, however memorising it still has a very real value, otherwise you'll multiply so slow that it'll unfeasible while shopping.

    3. Re:How about no textbook at all? by matt-fu · · Score: 4, Interesting
      It isn't necessary for you to learn multiplication tables.

      For a certain subset of students, it is better to teach them how to figure it out on the fly. But the problem here is that now you are running afoul of the history and civics classes you took which state that everybody is made equal - which, at least when it comes to math, is not the case. Some people are like you, others work best by memorizing formulae and running numbers through them without any further analysis.

  10. Feynman ran into this problem by Nimey · · Score: 4, Informative

    At one point he was invited to sit on the committee that chose which textbooks to use for the California school system. He was unhappy with every single book he reviewed and made copious notes that he brought to the committee meeting.

    It turned out that basically nobody else on the committee bothered doing more than skimming through the books, and in one case a book that hadn't even been written yet got a good score, something like 7 out of ten -- it was part of a 3-book series and it got slightly better scores than the two that were actually available to review!

    PS: It's not "most teachers". Most teachers don't get any input into which books their district (hell, their state[1]) uses. That was a cheap dig, and politically motivated; OP is contemptible.

    [1] Lots of states will just use whatever California uses, or whatever Texas uses.

    --
    Hail Eris, full of mischief...

    E pluribus sanguinem
    1. Re:Feynman ran into this problem by Bobtree · · Score: 3, Informative
  11. Anthro too... by nblender · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My wife used to teach an Intro to Anthropology course (among others) and each year was a new textbook, which she would get a week before class started in Sept. Towards the end of her teaching career, the textbooks were less complete than the previous year and each book came with links to a publisher's website of 'supplemental material' which was the stuff that was missing plus some videos and flash demos... The links were embedded throughout the book. At the end of that school year, the website 'expired' making that textbook useless to be replaced by the current years' textbook and corresponding website. Pure evil.

    In addition, there were lots of errors in the chapters causing my wife to have to spend a great deal of time fact checking each lesson plan against the book.. Eventually, she stopped simply telling the students about the errors and issued a challenge for students to identify the errors in the book, and then next class they would discuss the chapter focusing on the errors... It turned into a great teaching tool while simultaneously demonstrating to students not to believe everything they read.

  12. Re:A Nation of Retards by DarkOx · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As usual its not capitalism at fault its where capitalism and government collide that we have problems. We have private industry producing education materials and and public educational entities that have consistently worked over the past century and half to make sure it is far beyond the reach of accountability to those it serves.

    Private schools in most parts of this nation spending drastically less per student (even when adjust out the cost of special ed for they don't provide) than most public schools. They also achieve consistently better results. Now some of that can be ascribed to their picking their pupils and the usually superior social and economic backgrounds of those pupils; hover it does appear at least on the surface the more ideologically pure capitalist institutions do better with less than the socialized educational services that are provided.

    A fully vertically integrated socialized education system might work well too, but we don't have one of those here in the US to look at; and looking at international ones would only add more difference difficult to control for.

    So once again don't bash capitalism; its not at fault here. You only think that because of leftist propaganda. Clearly the fault lies with the way public education is being run. Its public education that is creating a market for second and third rate educational materials. Capitalists are merely serving that market. They have finite number of customers (public school districts), if those customers demanded different terms, and something better they'd get it. They don't because they be run be the inept; who were trained by the inept before them, and they don't like or want change; and won't have their ideas challenged by outsiders. The who institution of teacher education, license, curriculum development, degree requirements, etc is run like mid evil guild.

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  13. in real life by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Inaccurate, incomplete, contradictory and poorly stated data and questions are par for the course.

    Maybe it's a good thing for students to be exposed to some poorly worded and insoluble problems in their education.

  14. Old soviet math textbooks by ugen · · Score: 4, Informative

    No, this ain't no "in soviet Russia" joke, though it could be I guess.

    The best math textbooks I saw were the old soviet math school textbooks. They had one (1) textbook for a given grade for the entire country. It was the same book, with minimal adaptations and changes year after year. These books covered science without any "added sugar" - and they worked. Of course, none of that exists anymore - but that's a whole another story.

    In any case, this is one field where open source and competition will likely result in more of what we already have. Central planning fails at delivering consumer goods and services, but it worked quite well delivering scientific education.

  15. Nannies one and all by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 3, Interesting

    First off, anyone making comments on college or higher level math in this thread did not RTFA - its about kiddies, not college kids. K-8.

    So why are we even talking about such stupidity? Has the "math" taught to K-8 today suddenly changed from.. 10 years ago? 30? 100? 300? Hmm.. lets see.. add, subtract, multiply, divide. Fractions. Percentages (same thing). "Word" problems. Maybe a touch of very very simple geomentry.

    There is no need for a new mathbook for these kids. In fact, they would probably best be taught by grabbing one which was used in the 1920s or 1950s. Just wondering.. can your grandparents (or in some cases, if alive - great grandparents) add, subtract, multiply and divide? Or were the books and teaching "methods" just so atrocious back then that everybody ended up a dolt? Whats that? test scores ahve declined! Well maybe going back to what was used when the scores were higher might be a better thing to do? When in a hole the first thing to do is stop digging!

    Bottom line: nannyism. school boards ptas publishers state and federal governemnt alll trying to find ways to justify their existence by fucking up what already worked quite well.

  16. Re:First man on the moon, you'll never guess by maxwell+demon · · Score: 3, Funny

    Guess who was the first man on the moon according to one of *my* textbooks (written by a teacher- no, not in the US).

    Louis Armstrong.

    Absolutely brillant.

    And when he stepped on the moon, he said to himself: "What a wonderful world." :-)

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.