[deleted]
Math education: It’s not about numbers, it’s about learning how to think
291–300 of 343 posts
Re: Math education: It’s not about numbers, it’s about learning how to think
#292Earlier quoted context omitted.
You couldn't finish your tests in high school, but you're good at math? Have you ever been evaluated for test anxiety? https://www.adaa.org/living-with-anxiety/children/test-anxie... There's no shame in it (although high schoolers can be assholes), and it can help your school accommodate your needs eg extra time to take your exams.
I've never been evaluated but I don't think test anxiety fits in my case - the speed issue was only ever in math / physics. My accuracy on the questions I got to was very high, I just couldn't go fast enough to complete enough questions. Same deal on SAT type math papers too.
Different tests challenge people differently. It may be that you only needed an accommodation in computationally heavy exams.*
Truthfully, my mention of accommodations isn't for you--I'm assuming you're out of high school already and you've found a professional niche that works for you. I mention test anxiety and the professional workarounds for high schoolers or their parents.
*) This is actually moving well beyond my expertise. I know about the existence of test anxiety, and I've accommodated students with it.
A brief consult with Dr. Google surfaced some clinically recommended accommodations that probably would have helped you. Sorry I don't have a time machine!
http://www.2enewsletter.com/article_2013_05_slow_processing....
This one's my favorite: "Reducing the number of tasks required to demonstrate competence (such as 5 math problems instead of 25)"
Re: Math education: It’s not about numbers, it’s about learning how to think
#293Maybe I'm wrong, but I have always believed that if you want people to be good at math, it's their first years of education which are important, not the last ones. In other worlds, push for STEM should be present in kindergartens and elementary schools. By the time people go to high school it is to late. I never had any problems with math until I went to university, so I was merely a passive observer of everyday stru…
> Maybe I'm wrong, but I have always believed that if you want people to be good at math, it's their first years of education which are important, not the last ones. In other worlds, push for STEM should be present in kindergartens and elementary schools. By the time people go to high school it is to late. I indeed believe you are wrong. I started getting interested in STEM when I was 16 and now have a masters in mat…
way I see it, the comment is in writing and at least a bit creative. Its hard to separate language from math and higher learning. Now, psychology is even mor important with regards to learning. In that sense, keep a positive attitude ;)
Re: Math education: It’s not about numbers, it’s about learning how to think
#294Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Maybe I'm wrong, but I have always believed that if you want people to be good at math, it's their first years of education which are important, not the last ones. In other worlds, push for STEM should be present in kindergartens and elementary schools. By the time people go to high school it is to late. I indeed believe you are wrong. I started getting interested in STEM when I was 16 and now have a masters in mat…
First, 16 is still pretty young. Second, just because you didn't have STEM hobbies when you were young doesn't mean you weren't given the framework to excel at STEM. It's not "you learn math or you don't", rather the argument is "you develop the framework for mathematical thinking or you don't". For what it's worth I also did better with literature and history than math when I was young. Also, I struggled to pass Cal…
> First, 16 is still pretty young.
Depends on what we are talking about. The post I was responding to was talking about "the first years of education" and with 16, we are way past that.
Re: Math education: It’s not about numbers, it’s about learning how to think
#295Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Maybe I'm wrong, but I have always believed that if you want people to be good at math, it's their first years of education which are important, not the last ones. In other worlds, push for STEM should be present in kindergartens and elementary schools. By the time people go to high school it is to late. I indeed believe you are wrong. I started getting interested in STEM when I was 16 and now have a masters in mat…
> Honestly, the whole "you need to get them when they are young" idea never convinced me very much. It's never too late to learn a thing and often you need a certain age to actually appreciate something. You don't have to be a childhood prodigy to be good at something. While starting early is neither necessary nor sufficient for success, the question should be: do the benefits of starting early outweigh risks? Like t…
I find that a pretty strange approach to parenting. IMO you should optimize for happiness of your child, not for carefully manipulating them into the path you laid out for them. My perception of a good parent is to encourage your child to discover and pursue their own passions, even if they contradict yours. You can open doors, but they need to walk through it by themselves. YMMV.
Re: Math education: It’s not about numbers, it’s about learning how to think
#296Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Maybe I'm wrong, but I have always believed that if you want people to be good at math, it's their first years of education which are important, not the last ones. In other worlds, push for STEM should be present in kindergartens and elementary schools. By the time people go to high school it is to late. I indeed believe you are wrong. I started getting interested in STEM when I was 16 and now have a masters in mat…
Are you also suggesting that we shouldn't teach kids to read until they are in high school and decide they are interested?
No, I'm suggesting that we shouldn't push for kindergarten kids to read and analyze Shakespeare, because reading is so important (and in the process de-emphasize other subjects). I'm saying that the level of math education happening early (though I can only speak for my home country) is fine, just like the level of reading education happening in the early years is fine. It is completely okay to only reach Calculus and math as a structural science in your late teens and believing that you can teach that widely to kindergarten kids just doesn't work out particularly well for anyone.
Re: Math education: It’s not about numbers, it’s about learning how to think
#297Earlier quoted context omitted.
Henri Poincaré once said: "Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things" I know the temptation is great to give lots of examples while teaching math, but you get the risk of only teaching little examples to students and not the abstract vision that math education demands. Take your quadratic equations, it's all nice to demonstrate how coefficients shape the plot. But when you start talking about…
As a counterpoint to that, I flat-out despised abstract Math until I got to college precisely because I found it useless. At best I knew I was probably going into engineering in college and I'd been told "engineers use calculus". That was my sole motivation to learn anything about abstract math, and it was pretty bad. It didn't help that the "examples" given in class were mundane toy problems (ex: "how long will this…
If you have 45 minutes, watch this talk: http://blog.mrmeyer.com/2016/nctm16-beyond-relevance-real-wo...
Re: Math education: It’s not about numbers, it’s about learning how to think
#298This part really resonates with me as well: "You read all the time, right? We constantly have to read. If you're not someone who picks up a book, you have to read menus, you've got to read traffic signs, you've got to read instructions, you've got to read subtitles -- all sorts of things. But how often do you have to do any sort of complicated problem-solving with mathematics? The average person, not too often." From…
I wanted to quote this passage for another reason -- it seems like you're agreeing with it, but I completely disagree with it, especially this:
> But how often do you have to do any sort of complicated problem-solving with mathematics?
There are a LOT of chances to do that kind of complicated problem solving, especially if you're shopping or comparison shopping on your own. It's not that people don't have the chances, it's that people avoid the work involved in doing those kinds of comparisons.
Re: Math education: It’s not about numbers, it’s about learning how to think
#299A couple of years ago I did the Introduction to Mathematical Thinking course on Coursera [1]. Even though I found it hard, I enjoyed it and learned a lot, and I feel I got some insight into mathematical though processes. Recommended.
Re: Math education: It’s not about numbers, it’s about learning how to think
#300Is there any other subject that is given as much leeway for its abysmal pedagogical failures?
"Economics, it's not about learning how money and markets work, it's about learning how to think."
"Art, it's not about learning about aesthetics, style, or technique, it's about learning how to think."
"French, it's not about learning how to speak another language, it's..."
Math has a problem, and it's because the math curriculum is a pile of dull, abstract cart-before-the-horse idiocy posing as discipline.