I am at a loss for words

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Theben
Apples and oranges. Either way they are only writing the paper, and still have to figure out what to write. The calc does their work for them, so there's no understanding of why a*b=c. I never used a calculator in school, although back then (80s) some kids were using them.

Nonsense. Before calculators, we memorized multiplication tables and were taught the mechanics of doing calculations. Neither of those things teach you why a*b=c. And calculations are the "mechanics" of mathematics, just as spelling and grammar are the "mechanics" of writing. Mind you, I'm old fashioned enough to object to calculators in school, too (and don't even get me started on allowing calculator use during the SAT); but if we object to a machine telling a kid what 36*21 is, then why shouldn't we object to a machine telling a kid that "occasional" only has one "s," or when to use "who" and when to use "whom."

[LordShiva]

Apples and oranges.

[Kuciwalker]

Certainly the US doesn't have any problem producing students with superb math skills. MIT, Cal Tech, and CMU (take a bow, Kuci!)

Incidentally, I'm a math major, so this is particularly appropriate

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by LordShiva
Apples and oranges.

Not when elementary-school writing instruction is as much concerned with teaching correct grammar and spelling as higher-level writing techniques.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Xorbon
Are Indians cheaper than calculators?

Yes.

[Xorbon]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly

I'm curious -- would you make the same argument for a word-processing program? I actually don't know of any schoolchildren, at any age, who are still required to write out their homework by hand; my daughter was required to type on her work on a computer starting in the 6th grade. Arguably, students' mastery of penmanship, grammar, and spelling all suffer from having the word-processing crutch to lean on. Yet, while I see this argument about calculators all the time, nobody seems riled up about word processing.

That's a very good point. Hand-written reports and essays don't look as nice as ones done on a word processor, but they do a far better job at teaching kids spelling - especially when you have programs with auto-correct features. As far as grammar goes, I don't see it as being as much of a problem, as long as that's not auto-corrected as well. I think kids could still learn grammar while using a word processor.

Penmanship is another good point. I'm afraid in another 10 years or so, the majority will have the writing skills of a medical doctor.

[Andemagne]

Re: Re: I am at a loss for words

Originally posted by LordShiva
Srsly? Were you CBSE?

what is CBSE? Central Board of Secondary Education?

[LordShiva]

Yes

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Soltz
I'm a fossil who learned by the old algorithm method but I can see the reasoning behind the cluster method and that it could be helpful for many people.

The part that I don't understand is why are they trying to teach geography in a math textbook. Our Canadian system is similar. I looked at my son's math book and much of it looked like it belonged in a social studies class!

That's because math is very hard for some people to understand without context; and beyond that, many kids don't want to learn it because they think it's pointless. Understanding the context not only teaches them why math matters, and helps some kids learn it better, but it also helps teach social sciences and problem solving skills. That's one of the better movements in the mathematics field in the last few decades...

[Xorbon]

Context is a good tool to help childern learn math. It simultaneously helps kids picture math problems, and shows why math is useful and/or important. However, it's important to separate the math from the other subjects for purposes of testing. Otherwise, it makes it more difficult (for the teacher) to determine if a child is having trouble with the math, or with the rest.

Having said that, it seems kind of alien to me to mix two subjects together like the way Soltz describes. When I learned math, it was separate from my other courses. We still used realistic examples for problem solving, but we didn't learn math at the same time, in the same class as the other subjects. In the courses where we did use math, such as physics, the math we used was math we had already learned. It worked for me, but then math comes naturally to me.

I would have to see a sample of one of these 'crossbred' textbooks before I make full judgement.

[Aabraxan]

Wow, both on the video about the math textbooks and the one about the kids learning math with abacuses (is that the right plural?). Wow, but for totally different reasons.

I don't think children should be using calculators for their math homework that early. It's been a while since high school, but if I remember those years correctly, we weren't allowed to use calculators until at least trig and maybe calculus. And if I recall, graphing calculators were never allowed. Frankly, I think school children need to master basic math before they're allowed to use calculators at all. They need to be able to recognize when they've hit the wrong button. It also seems like there are a lot of basic calculations (& approximations) in this world that they should learn to do without a calculator. Like, "How long will it take to get there?" "Well, let's see: it's 400 miles and we can probably average 60 miles an hour, so that's what, just under 7 hours, plus, oh, an hour for pit stops and food, . . . call it 8 hours for good measure."

As for word-processors: I'm an old fogey and don't think children should be using word-processors and spell checkers, at least not during the period when spelling and grammar are skills yet to be mastered. While penmanship appears to be growing less important in the days of email and printed letters, grammar and spelling are important skills to master. Auto-correct and spell checkers just don't cut it.

One of the things that struck me in the first video is that the lady in the video, while doing the newfangled methods of math, relied on "Well, I know that 6*30=180," for example. Well, that's well and good, but what do these curricula teach the children about how to get to that point?