In Math Cram Sessions, Solving for Why • Hacker News Board

Re: In Math Cram Sessions, Solving for Why

#51

Post by jnbiche » Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 5:56 PM UTC

kaitai wrote: post #42

threatofrain wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's so much misinformation on the Common Core that many people don't realize how much of a modest adjustment it was from before. Another way of summarizing the changes made by the Common Core, aside from your note that it focuses more on why, is that it advances the math curriculum by about half a year.

There is indeed so much misinformation! People should read the standards themselves, and also differentiate between the Common Core standards and the curricula being sold to districts.

Reading through the actual Common Core standard was what convinced me that it was a step in the right direction. It's clear that a lot of careful thought went into the Common Core math standards.

If you've got a child, I'd highly recommend reading through the standards in both math and ELA. They're well done, particularly the math.

Re: In Math Cram Sessions, Solving for Why

#52

Post by jnbiche » Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 6:02 PM UTC

saagarjha wrote: post #35

unpythonic wrote: post #22

As much as the Common Core standards are criticized here in California, I have to say that the emphasis on the "why" behind every operation is really fantastic. It's usually in the last section of each homework, but it provides a good discussion point when going over the homework each night. Asking students to answer questions like the following are easy to zip through, but they provide a good place to pause and find…

> As much as the Common Core standards are criticized here in California, I have to say that the emphasis on the "why" behind every operation is really fantastic. The one reason why I dislike Common Core is that this kind of explanation get quickly become tedious if you already understand what’s going on and it’s “obvious” to you. And many teachers seem to like to use this section as an excuse to waste their students…

> The one reason why I dislike Common Core is that this kind of explanation get quickly become tedious if you already understand what’s going on and it’s “obvious” to you.

If that's the case, then it sounds like your child needs to be in a higher level math course. If they're already at the top, then I don't think having to explain in detail the "why" behind concepts will be a net negative for your child.

Learning how to explain a concept simply and succinctly is critical to most modern knowledge-based jobs.

Just curious, have you read all the way through the Common Core math standards? Most of the people I know in technical and engineering professions who have read completely through it (and not just a single section or grade level), come out with a lot of respect for the standards.

Re: In Math Cram Sessions, Solving for Why

#53

Post by tesin » Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 6:12 PM UTC

saagarjha wrote: post #31

tesin wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that just a matter of chicken and the egg timing tautology? The parents are well educated presumably because they went to good schools.

No, I think you’re getting the relation backwards. Many parents who were well educated have the opportunities to send their children to good schools, regardless of whether they went to a good school themselves, because they realize that it makes it easier to be well educated there.

How would someone be well educated at a bad school? I feel like that loses any reasonable definition of good.

Re: In Math Cram Sessions, Solving for Why

#54

Post by tesin » Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 6:13 PM UTC

gaius wrote: post #21

tesin wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that just a matter of chicken and the egg timing tautology? The parents are well educated presumably because they went to good schools.

Not necessarily - many parents highly value education and encourage their kids despite and/or because they don’t have much themselves. Recent immigrants are a good example of this phenomenon.

I don't disagree with that statement, but rb808 specifically cited "well educated parents".

Re: In Math Cram Sessions, Solving for Why

#55

Post by ssivark » Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 6:16 PM UTC

j2kun wrote: post #49

> Or why his first-generation ABC (“American-born Chinese”) children were more interested in sports or the humanities than studying fractions and common denominators. This could have just as easily been written: "Or why his first-generation ABC children were more interested in putting a ball in a hoop and learning languages that nobody speaks anymore than in noticing and thinking about the patterns and structure in t…

More importantly, it gives the reader a keen insight into the father's perspective -- which the author is trying to convey, and not many people would be familiar with.

Re: In Math Cram Sessions, Solving for Why

#56

Post by somethingroma » Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 6:17 PM UTC

Koshkin wrote: post #50

somethingroma wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand what you're saying or objecting to. Incase this is what you mean: remembering the multiplication table is the antithesis of multiplying in ones head.

> remembering the multiplication table is the antithesis of multiplying in ones head But it's not! Because in order to be able to multiply numbers in your head efficiently you must remember the multiplication table.

No. By definition remembering an answer is not the same as doing.

Additionally my experience tells me otherwise.

Re: In Math Cram Sessions, Solving for Why

#57

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 6:26 PM UTC

Koshkin wrote: post #50

somethingroma wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand what you're saying or objecting to. Incase this is what you mean: remembering the multiplication table is the antithesis of multiplying in ones head.

> remembering the multiplication table is the antithesis of multiplying in ones head But it's not! Because in order to be able to multiply numbers in your head efficiently you must remember the multiplication table.

[deleted]

Re: In Math Cram Sessions, Solving for Why

#58

Post by saagarjha » Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 6:43 PM UTC

tesin wrote: post #53

saagarjha wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I think you’re getting the relation backwards. Many parents who were well educated have the opportunities to send their children to good schools, regardless of whether they went to a good school themselves, because they realize that it makes it easier to be well educated there.

How would someone be well educated at a bad school? I feel like that loses any reasonable definition of good.

A school's "rating" is merely an average of the quality of education students there receive. It's entirely possible to "get lucky" and have an exceptional teacher or participate in an optional extracurricular that helps them learn more than their peers. And, of course, there's also the chance that the student did well despite going to a bad school, by self-studying.

Re: In Math Cram Sessions, Solving for Why

#59

Post by kurthr » Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 7:02 PM UTC

ivansavz wrote: post #8

Yeah, private tutoring is the best. The custom, just-in-time curriculum that a tutor can prepare is the most efficient way to learn. I think equally important is the transmission of a relaxed, exploratory attitude towards the STEM subjects. When a learner sees their teacher take on positive attitudes towards complexity, they too develop this attitude and can go on to solve problems on their own. Unfortunately, this t…

I think this transference of attitude is a really insightful model for teaching. One of the other methods I've seen used (especially for math) is treating problems like a game. There is a joy in solving even difficult problems, that you can teach gradually with the right feedback... and learn.

Re: In Math Cram Sessions, Solving for Why

#60

Post by tsumnia » Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 7:26 PM UTC

chrisweekly wrote: post #13

ivansavz wrote: post #8

Yeah, private tutoring is the best. The custom, just-in-time curriculum that a tutor can prepare is the most efficient way to learn. I think equally important is the transmission of a relaxed, exploratory attitude towards the STEM subjects. When a learner sees their teacher take on positive attitudes towards complexity, they too develop this attitude and can go on to solve problems on their own. Unfortunately, this t…

Great post. FWIW in discussing this topic I've heard and now adopted the term "(in)numerate" vs "STEM-(il)literate" -- though the latter might be intended to be broader in scope?

As Zeebrommer mentioned, I'd steer clear of this thinking. Carol Dweck's entire research has been on "fixed" and "growth" mindsets, and their impact on people's performance. Instructors that believe someone is or is not an "X person" have a negative impact on students. That is, if I believe in the idea that there are STEM-illiterate and STEM-literature people, why should I both helping someone who is STEM-illiterate?

Instead, adopting a growth mindset, that while one may not know something now, with time and effort they can gain understanding is much more powerful. As I've argued in other threads, this may include doing things that are frustrating or otherwise "not fun" to establish grit/perseverance.

Think of it this way, when you were a baby, you were "spoon"-illiterate. If you parents decided you're just "not a spoon person", you would be raised not knowing how to use a tool everyone else thinks is easy. If you grew up never using a spoon, and it became a requirement for future career advancement - you might become frustrated because you were taught you "were not a spoon person" instead of "I need to learn how to spoon!"