U.S. science education lags, study finds
bullpup
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14945518/
Boikat
--
"I reject your reality, and substitute my own"
-Adam Savage, Mythbusters-
Desertphile
bullpup wrote:
> Curriculum, teachers faulted for teaching too simplistically
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14945518/
"'Any grown-up who can read can teach middle school general sciences,'
said Mara Cohen [.]"
However, in the USA not just "any 'grown-up'" (I assume she means
"adult") is allowed to teach in "middle schools." One is required to
have various certifications.
Shirin
As a School Board member for a small district in California, I'll just
weigh in here with this: I truly wish that more college professors in
America would encourage Math majors and Science majors to go into K-12
public education, at least for some period of time in their career.
We are trying very hard to ensure that our students are being taught by
well-qualified teachers, those who are well-versed in their subjects,
and it is REALLY difficult to find Science (and Math) teachers for the
Middle School who know their subject in any depth.
And at the Elementary level, well, let's just say that my daughter was
taught that the defining attribute of mammals was that they didn't lay
eggs. She came home very puzzled, and after doing some research,
started a weeks' long fight with her teacher, who refused to be
convinced. (The Principal finally had to mediate--my daughter left
class and marched down to the Principal's office, she was so annoyed.)
My son has also been taught in elementary that it is incorrect to
divide an odd integer by two because "There is no answer to that
problem." Remainder? Fraction? You'll learn it next year?
For all that we cry out that American education is not producing
scientifically literate graduates, it would be wonderful if some
scientifically proficient educators could step into the classrooms to
get these kids the in-depth education they need.
Shirin
Jenny6833A
>
> As a School Board member for a small district in California, I'll just
> weigh in here with this: I truly wish that more college professors in
> America would encourage Math majors and Science majors to go into K-12
> public education, at least for some period of time in their career.
You may have identified your own problem. You need people who
understand and have expertise in math and science, yet you're seeking
only math and science majors. Math and science majors are not the only
ones with the requisite qualifications.
> We are trying very hard to ensure that our students are being taught by
> well-qualified teachers, those who are well-versed in their subjects,
> and it is REALLY difficult to find Science (and Math) teachers for the
> Middle School who know their subject in any depth.
Now you're doing a bit better.
> And at the Elementary level, <snip>
> For all that we cry out that American education is not producing
> scientifically literate graduates, it would be wonderful if some
> scientifically proficient educators could step into the classrooms to
> get these kids the in-depth education they need.
Now you want 'scientifically proficient _educators_.';
I'm far from sure that you have a firm grasp on what you need or even
on what you want.
>
> Shirin
:-)
Jenny
Josh Miles
She probably means that any literate adult is *capable* of teaching
middle school science. Unfortunately, she's probably right.
Shirin
Jenny6833A wrote:
> Shirin wrote:
> >
> > As a School Board member for a small district in California, I'll just
> > weigh in here with this: I truly wish that more college professors in
> > America would encourage Math majors and Science majors to go into K-12
> > public education, at least for some period of time in their career.
>
> You may have identified your own problem. You need people who
> understand and have expertise in math and science, yet you're seeking
> only math and science majors. Math and science majors are not the only
> ones with the requisite qualifications.
No, I'm NOT seeking only Math or Science majors.
I am asking for College professors to encourage MORE of them to go into
the teaching profession. You do not have to have majored in Art History
to be an excellent Art History teacher. Many Art History majors would
be terrible educators.
I am simply saying that if the country truly feels as if it is
suffering from a lack of scientific literacy, then facilities dedicated
to higher education should be part of the overall solution.
> > We are trying very hard to ensure that our students are being taught by
> > well-qualified teachers, those who are well-versed in their subjects,
> > and it is REALLY difficult to find Science (and Math) teachers for the
> > Middle School who know their subject in any depth.
>
> Now you're doing a bit better.
Thank you.
>
> > And at the Elementary level, <snip>
>
> > For all that we cry out that American education is not producing
> > scientifically literate graduates, it would be wonderful if some
> > scientifically proficient educators could step into the classrooms to
> > get these kids the in-depth education they need.
>
> Now you want 'scientifically proficient _educators_.';
Umm. Yes. I want people proficient in the subjects they teach to be
teaching the subjects they teach. Most multi-subject certificated
teachers (in general, the ones at the elementary level) do not enjoy
teaching math, and many do not do it well. Many teach science
incorrectly, because they themselves are a product of the same system
which is churning out this generation of scientifically illiterate
students.
> I'm far from sure that you have a firm grasp on what you need or even
> on what you want.
Have you spent much time looking closely at the science standards for
most states? Have you spent much time looking closely at testing,
achivement, proficiency, and long-term success? Have you spent much
time looking at the manner in which the States and the Federal Gov't
fund education?
I may not have a "firm grasp" on all of the above, but in this one
area, I would say that a large percentage of dedicated, well-trained
science educators, ones who are aware of the nuances of their field,
would be a benefit to the public education system.
> >
> > Shirin
>
> :-)
>
> Jenny
Shirin
Cabbage
Shirin wrote:
> And at the Elementary level, well, let's just say that my daughter was
> taught that the defining attribute of mammals was that they didn't lay
> eggs. She came home very puzzled, and after doing some research,
> started a weeks' long fight with her teacher, who refused to be
> convinced. (The Principal finally had to mediate--my daughter left
> class and marched down to the Principal's office, she was so annoyed.)
> My son has also been taught in elementary that it is incorrect to
> divide an odd integer by two because "There is no answer to that
> problem." Remainder? Fraction? You'll learn it next year?
>
> For all that we cry out that American education is not producing
> scientifically literate graduates, it would be wonderful if some
> scientifically proficient educators could step into the classrooms to
> get these kids the in-depth education they need.
>
************
My fourth grade son was taught science by the method of memorized
definitions. Asked on a test what a mammal was, he wrote the
definition. He then added that a whale was a mammal, explaining why.
The teacher crossed off this addition, using red ink and exclamation
marks. Apparently this teacher felt it necessary to
discourage students who applied the knowledge being imparted,
and that it was inappropriate to do more than the minimum required.
Luckily, my son has a PhD scientist for a father, so we could giggle
at how silly the teacher was. Most of the rest of the class was not
so fortunate.
This teacher is now the principal of the school.
Gotta go,
Cabbage
topmind
anyhow. Asia has made educated brains into a cheap commodity, doing to
education what Henry Ford did to car manufacture: crank them out in the
mass.
I've seen what the biz lobbyists did to my profession WRT offshoring
and visa workers. If the right wingers continue the
free-trade-free-fall, then I don't recommend anybody persue science if
money is their main goal.
I like science, but don't recommend it as a career to anyone unless
they are satisified with monk-like wages.
-T-
tgde...@earthlink.net
Well, one problem is that you have not defined what that in-depth
education is. If you know what it is, then you can train people to
teach it---like teaching to the typical standardized test in No Child
Left To Think---I mean 'Behind'.
People who say this kind of stuff tend to be stuck with the school
model that they grew up with, and don't understand how much knowledge
and the practice of knowledge-based activities has changed. There is
less of a problem than you think, and more of a problem than you
understand.
-tg
> Shirin
topmind
tgdenn...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> Well, one problem is that you have not defined what that in-depth
> education is. If you know what it is, then you can train people to
> teach it---like teaching to the typical standardized test in No Child
> Left To Think---I mean 'Behind'.
>
> People who say this kind of stuff tend to be stuck with the school
> model that they grew up with, and don't understand how much knowledge
> and the practice of knowledge-based activities has changed. There is
> less of a problem than you think, and more of a problem than you
> understand.
>
> -tg
>
>
Agreed. Part of the problem is that the US's comparative advantage is
at odds with "fixed" curriculum. For good or bad, we specialize in
change. Yet, the surveys compare us to countries that do primarily
factory and manufacturing work which probably requires more physical
science and math. Descrete math and probability seems more applicable
these days in the US, but the entrenched "physites" won't budge, making
these courses college-level instead of primary.
-T-
Jenny6833A
> Jenny6833A wrote:
> > Shirin wrote:
> > >
> > > As a School Board member for a small district in California, I'll just
> > > weigh in here with this: I truly wish that more college professors in
> > > America would encourage Math majors and Science majors to go into K-12
> > > public education, at least for some period of time in their career.
> >
> > You may have identified your own problem. You need people who
> > understand and have expertise in math and science, yet you're seeking
> > only math and science majors. Math and science majors are not the only
> > ones with the requisite qualifications.
>
> No, I'm NOT seeking only Math or Science majors.
>
> I am asking for College professors to encourage MORE of them to go into
> the teaching profession.
But you're making no mention, for example, of all those engineering
majors who take math in the math department, physics in the physics
department, chemistry in the chemistry department -- usually taking the
best grades in those courses away from the majors -- then _also_ take
all the practical application courses that solidify and drive home the
uses of thereof -- thus making them better able to show middle school
and high school students what all of this stuff is really good for.
Why not ask College professors to encourage MORE of _them_ to go into
the teaching profession?
<snip art history>
> I am simply saying that if the country truly feels as if it is
> suffering from a lack of scientific literacy, then facilities dedicated
> to higher education should be part of the overall solution.
Fine, so long as you concentrate on getting people with the right
knowledge instead of getting hung up on a specific subset of the many
applicable degrees.
> > > We are trying very hard to ensure that our students are being taught by
> > > well-qualified teachers, those who are well-versed in their subjects,
> > > and it is REALLY difficult to find Science (and Math) teachers for the
> > > Middle School who know their subject in any depth.
> >
> > Now you're doing a bit better.
>
> Thank you.
Hey, you got off "Math majors and Science majors" and started talking
about requisite knowledge.
> > > And at the Elementary level, <snip>
> >
> > > For all that we cry out that American education is not producing
> > > scientifically literate graduates, it would be wonderful if some
> > > scientifically proficient educators could step into the classrooms to
> > > get these kids the in-depth education they need.
> >
> > Now you want 'scientifically proficient _educators_.';
>
> Umm. Yes. I want people proficient in the subjects they teach to be
> teaching the subjects they teach. Most multi-subject certificated
> teachers (in general, the ones at the elementary level) do not enjoy
> teaching math, and many do not do it well. Many teach science
> incorrectly, because they themselves are a product of the same system
> which is churning out this generation of scientifically illiterate
> students.
But do good teachers have to be 'educators'? Deservedly or not, that
term is a big turn-off to most of the kind of people you want.
> > I'm far from sure that you have a firm grasp on what you need or even
> > on what you want.
>
> Have you spent much time looking closely at the science standards for
> most states? Have you spent much time looking closely at testing,
> achivement, proficiency, and long-term success? Have you spent much
> time looking at the manner in which the States and the Federal Gov't
> fund education?
Is any of that relevant to this discussion? I thought you were
interested in getting people with the requisite knowledge and expertise
"to go into K-12 public education, at least for some period of time in
their career."
> I may not have a "firm grasp" on all of the above, but in this one
> area, I would say that a large percentage of dedicated, well-trained
> science educators, ones who are aware of the nuances of their field,
> would be a benefit to the public education system.
There you go again! Do you want "dedicated, well-trained science
educators" (whatever 'science educator' may mean) who happen to have a
bit more subject knowledge than most? Or do you want mathematicians,
physicists, and (here we go) engineers, etc who know the subject matter
cold and have actually applied it, who know their chosen speciality
areas, have achieved some success in them, and can learn other fields
and anything else they need to know -- on their own and without
breaking a sweat?
:-)
Jenny
Mujin
Jenny...@aol.com says...
When they apply, mathematicians, physicists, biologists and chemists
who "know the subject matter cold and have actually applied it" jump
to the top of the list in nearly every competition for science
teachiing jobs, but if they can't give evidence they know how to
actually *teach* what they know either through training or experience
they don't get the job. Period.
I have no idea what your background is like, but your comments seem
to read like those of someone who has never actually taught in a
classroom. I was a classroom teacher for some years before going
back to graduate school and now that I'm out of the teaching game
(not entirely) I've noticed a disturbing fact: I have never spoken to
anyone who was not a teacher who actually knows what goes into
classroom teaching.
Knowing your subject inside and out doesn't make you capable of
teaching it.
Being a good teacher doesn't automatically give you the knowledge you
need to teach.
This is the problem in a nutshell.
Too many people who would make excellent teachers of science because
of their depth of knowledge and enthusiasm for the subject are *not*
teachers because silly aphorisms like "those who can, do; those who
can't, teach" lead people to think that teaching - especially at the
elementary school level - is a waste of their expertise when in fact
it's a very hard skill to learn (I suspect you'd break more than a
sweat - I've seen a biochemistry PhD break down in tears over the
frustration of trying to teach 14 year olds) and might well be more
rewarding than the usual careers in their field. In their defence,
however, I have also known one or two knowledgable and enthusiastic
experts whose spirits were crushed by the bureaucracy of modern
education and the resistance of their colleagues to new ideas.
It's hard - damn hard! - to get highly educated science teachers and
keep them, first because so few highly educated science types become
teachers, and second because so few of those who do can stay
motivated in the face of a systemic disinterest in supporting them.
It doesn't help when people make comments which imply that anyone who
knows something can teach it. It's not true and belittles the
classroom skills really good teachers normally take a decade or more
developing.
>
> :-)
>
> Jenny
>
>
Gordon Hill
Jenny6833A wrote:
> Shirin wrote:
> > Jenny6833A wrote:
> > > Shirin wrote:
> > > >
> > > > As a School Board member for a small district in California, I'll just
> > > > weigh in here with this: I truly wish that more college professors in
> > > > America would encourage Math majors and Science majors to go into K-12
> > > > public education, at least for some period of time in their career.
> > >
> > > You may have identified your own problem. You need people who
> > > understand and have expertise in math and science, yet you're seeking
> > > only math and science majors. Math and science majors are not the only
> > > ones with the requisite qualifications.
> >
> > No, I'm NOT seeking only Math or Science majors.
> >
> > I am asking for College professors to encourage MORE of them to go into
> > the teaching profession.
>
> But you're making no mention, for example, of all those engineering
> majors who take math in the math department, physics in the physics
> department, chemistry in the chemistry department -- usually taking the
> best grades in those courses away from the majors -- then _also_ take
> all the practical application courses that solidify and drive home the
> uses of thereof -- thus making them better able to show middle school
> and high school students what all of this stuff is really good for.
>
> Why not ask College professors to encourage MORE of _them_ to go into
> the teaching profession?
Shirin, Are you aware of the people who apply for science and math
positions who are never interviewed?
I applied to teach in a large school system where I had been working as
a sub in math and science (I have twenty semester hours of math over
the state requirement for high school and am three hours shy of the
state science minimum for high school) and was never interviewed. When
I asked the Human Resources why my application had not led to one
interview I was told, "Oh, you have to contact the school principals
because they don't check who has applied unless they have no other
aplicants."
Oh well. I don't think I should have to fight my way in to a middle
school faculty.
Hope your school administrators are looking for teachers with the best
qualifications, not their buddies or buddies spouses, which is what I
saw too often where I was.
Shirin
Yes, and it's terrible.
> I applied to teach in a large school system where I had been working as
> a sub in math and science (I have twenty semester hours of math over
> the state requirement for high school and am three hours shy of the
> state science minimum for high school) and was never interviewed. <snip>
>
> I don't think I should have to fight my way in to a middle
> school faculty.
I completely agree.
>
> Hope your school administrators are looking for teachers with the best
> qualifications, not their buddies or buddies spouses, which is what I
> saw too often where I was.
I see it here too. We are having to really impress upon staff the need
for excellent teachers if we want to graduate excellent students. And
those excellent teachers/staff/adminsitrators are not always realated
to the ones we currently have.
>
> > <snip art history>
> >
> > > I am simply saying that if the country truly feels as if it is
> > > suffering from a lack of scientific literacy, then facilities dedicated
> > > to higher education should be part of the overall solution.
> >
> > Fine, so long as you concentrate on getting people with the right
> > knowledge instead of getting hung up on a specific subset of the many
> > applicable degrees.
Agreed.
I don't think I'm hung up on any particular degree--I chose Math and
Science as an example, but am perfectly happy to include Chemistry,
Physics, Engineering, Architectural Drafting, etc.
> >
> > > > > We are trying very hard to ensure that our students are being taught by
> > > > > well-qualified teachers, those who are well-versed in their subjects,
> > > > > and it is REALLY difficult to find Science (and Math) teachers for the
> > > > > Middle School who know their subject in any depth.
> > > >
> > > > Now you're doing a bit better.
> > >
> > > Thank you.
> >
> > Hey, you got off "Math majors and Science majors" and started talking
> > about requisite knowledge.
> >
> > > > > And at the Elementary level, <snip>
> > > >
> > > > > For all that we cry out that American education is not producing
> > > > > scientifically literate graduates, it would be wonderful if some
> > > > > scientifically proficient educators could step into the classrooms to
> > > > > get these kids the in-depth education they need.
> > > >
> > > > Now you want 'scientifically proficient _educators_.';
> > >
> > > Umm. Yes. I want people proficient in the subjects they teach to be
> > > teaching the subjects they teach. Most multi-subject certificated
> > > teachers (in general, the ones at the elementary level) do not enjoy
> > > teaching math, and many do not do it well. Many teach science
> > > incorrectly, because they themselves are a product of the same system
> > > which is churning out this generation of scientifically illiterate
> > > students.
> > But do good teachers have to be 'educators'? Deservedly or not, that
> > term is a big turn-off to most of the kind of people you want.
Teachers works, educators works, I'm not that hung up on the actual
term.
> > > > I'm far from sure that you have a firm grasp on what you need or even
> > > > on what you want.
> > >
> > > Have you spent much time looking closely at the science standards for
> > > most states? Have you spent much time looking closely at testing,
> > > achivement, proficiency, and long-term success? Have you spent much
> > > time looking at the manner in which the States and the Federal Gov't
> > > fund education?
> >
> > Is any of that relevant to this discussion? I thought you were
> > interested in getting people with the requisite knowledge and expertise
> > "to go into K-12 public education, at least for some period of time in
> > their career."
No. It's not immediately relevant. I brought it up only because a lot
of the junk handed down from the top (NCLB, for example) defines what
achievement is, legally, or what a "highly qualified teacher" is,
legally. In trying to get the best person in the classroom, we often
bump into some of those issues, and I find it frustrating. But, no,
it's not an integral part of the discussion.
> >
> > > I may not have a "firm grasp" on all of the above, but in this one
> > > area, I would say that a large percentage of dedicated, well-trained
> > > science educators, ones who are aware of the nuances of their field,
> > > would be a benefit to the public education system.
> >
> > There you go again! Do you want "dedicated, well-trained science
> > educators" (whatever 'science educator' may mean) who happen to have a
> > bit more subject knowledge than most? Or do you want mathematicians,
> > physicists, and (here we go) engineers, etc who know the subject matter
> > cold and have actually applied it, who know their chosen speciality
> > areas, have achieved some success in them, and can learn other fields
> > and anything else they need to know -- on their own and without
> > breaking a sweat?
> > :-)
> >
> > Jenny
Shirin
Shirin
Jenny6833A wrote:
> Shirin wrote:
> > Jenny6833A wrote:
> > > Shirin wrote:
> > > >
> > > > As a School Board member for a small district in California, I'll just
> > > > weigh in here with this: I truly wish that more college professors in
> > > > America would encourage Math majors and Science majors to go into K-12
> > > > public education, at least for some period of time in their career.
> > >
> > > You may have identified your own problem. You need people who
> > > understand and have expertise in math and science, yet you're seeking
> > > only math and science majors. Math and science majors are not the only
> > > ones with the requisite qualifications.
> >
> > No, I'm NOT seeking only Math or Science majors.
> >
> > I am asking for College professors to encourage MORE of them to go into
> > the teaching profession.
>
> But you're making no mention, for example, of all those engineering
> majors who take math in the math department, physics in the physics
> department, chemistry in the chemistry department -- usually taking the
> best grades in those courses away from the majors -- then _also_ take
> all the practical application courses that solidify and drive home the
> uses of thereof -- thus making them better able to show middle school
> and high school students what all of this stuff is really good for.
>
> Why not ask College professors to encourage MORE of _them_ to go into
> the teaching profession?
I think all of the above would be excellent. I used Math and Science in
my original post, but I actually think having engineers in the
classroom would be fantastic. They have to, as a part of their work,
explain to lay people what they are doing and why.
So, I'll go on record as asking Engineering professors to encourage
their students to consider teaching in the K-12 system for at least
part of their career. ;-)
> <snip art history>
>
> > I am simply saying that if the country truly feels as if it is
> > suffering from a lack of scientific literacy, then facilities dedicated
> > to higher education should be part of the overall solution.
>
> Fine, so long as you concentrate on getting people with the right
> knowledge instead of getting hung up on a specific subset of the many
> applicable degrees.
Not trying to limit the discussion to a specific subset of degrees at
all.
<snip>
>
> Hey, you got off "Math majors and Science majors" and started talking
> about requisite knowledge.
OK. Glad that helped.
>
> > > > And at the Elementary level, <snip>
> > >
> > > > For all that we cry out that American education is not producing
> > > > scientifically literate graduates, it would be wonderful if some
> > > > scientifically proficient educators could step into the classrooms to
> > > > get these kids the in-depth education they need.
> > >
> > > Now you want 'scientifically proficient _educators_.';
> >
> > Umm. Yes. I want people proficient in the subjects they teach to be
> > teaching the subjects they teach. Most multi-subject certificated
> > teachers (in general, the ones at the elementary level) do not enjoy
> > teaching math, and many do not do it well. Many teach science
> > incorrectly, because they themselves are a product of the same system
> > which is churning out this generation of scientifically illiterate
> > students.
>
> But do good teachers have to be 'educators'? Deservedly or not, that
> term is a big turn-off to most of the kind of people you want.
I'm not sure where this is going. I'd like teachers to be able to be
well-versed in their subject. It is my experience that this is less of
a problem at the High School level, although the problem exists. The
article from the OP talked about Middle School Science education being
simplistic. In my point of view, a lot of that simplitic method of
teaching Science (and I expanded the topic to include Math in the
Elementary grades) comes from *some* teachers not being well-versed in
the subject.
I'm not sure if calling them teachers or educators is really important
to the point above. The teachers in my district often prefer to be
called educators, as being called teachers seems to call up some bad
feelings about Teacher's Unions in our District. So I guess it's just a
cultural thing.
>
> > > I'm far from sure that you have a firm grasp on what you need or even
> > > on what you want.
> >
> > Have you spent much time looking closely at the science standards for
> > most states? Have you spent much time looking closely at testing,
> > achivement, proficiency, and long-term success? Have you spent much
> > time looking at the manner in which the States and the Federal Gov't
> > fund education?
>
> Is any of that relevant to this discussion? I thought you were
> interested in getting people with the requisite knowledge and expertise
> "to go into K-12 public education, at least for some period of time in
> their career."
>
> > I may not have a "firm grasp" on all of the above, but in this one
> > area, I would say that a large percentage of dedicated, well-trained
> > science educators, ones who are aware of the nuances of their field,
> > would be a benefit to the public education system.
>
> There you go again! Do you want "dedicated, well-trained science
> educators" (whatever 'science educator' may mean) who happen to have a
> bit more subject knowledge than most? Or do you want mathematicians,
> physicists, and (here we go) engineers, etc who know the subject matter
> cold and have actually applied it, who know their chosen speciality
> areas, have achieved some success in them, and can learn other fields
> and anything else they need to know -- on their own and without
> breaking a sweat?
I'd prefer the latter. And I'd call the latter a dedicated well-trained
teacher any day of the week. Know any who'd like a job? ;-)
> :-)
>
> Jenny
Shirin
Mark VandeWettering
On 2006-09-23, topmind <top...@technologist.com> wrote:
> WHO CARES?! Science cannot be our comparative competitive advantage
> anyhow. Asia has made educated brains into a cheap commodity, doing to
> education what Henry Ford did to car manufacture: crank them out in the
> mass.
Is there some inherent advantage that these Asian people have that
all us poor naturalized American's can't do?
> I've seen what the biz lobbyists did to my profession WRT
> offshoring and visa workers. If the right wingers continue the
> free-trade-free-fall, then I don't recommend anybody persue science if
> money is their main goal.
The alternative being, what precisely?
> I like science, but don't recommend it as a career to anyone unless
> they are satisified with monk-like wages.
It's good that you don't recommend it as a career, since you don't know
what it is.
Mark
> -T-
Shirin
Yes.
>
> I have no idea what your background is like, but your comments seem
> to read like those of someone who has never actually taught in a
> classroom. I was a classroom teacher for some years before going
> back to graduate school and now that I'm out of the teaching game
> (not entirely) I've noticed a disturbing fact: I have never spoken to
> anyone who was not a teacher who actually knows what goes into
> classroom teaching.
I have never been in a classroom teaching, and I think I'd be terrible
at it.
I'm pretty aware of my own faults.
I'm also in fairly constant communication with teachers throughout my
District who are constantly frustrated by their jobs, the lack of
support, the paucity of coherent textbooks, and the lack of familial
support given to them by parents of underachieving kids. Classroom
teachers are amazing people.
>
> Knowing your subject inside and out doesn't make you capable of
> teaching it.
I agree. I used to teach horseback riding. I was not good at it. (I
ride well, but translating that into words was very difficult.)
>
> Being a good teacher doesn't automatically give you the knowledge you
> need to teach.
Yep.
>
> This is the problem in a nutshell.
Agreed.
>
> Too many people who would make excellent teachers of science because
> of their depth of knowledge and enthusiasm for the subject are *not*
> teachers because silly aphorisms like "those who can, do; those who
> can't, teach" lead people to think that teaching - especially at the
> elementary school level - is a waste of their expertise when in fact
> it's a very hard skill to learn (I suspect you'd break more than a
> sweat - I've seen a biochemistry PhD break down in tears over the
> frustration of trying to teach 14 year olds) and might well be more
> rewarding than the usual careers in their field.
Classroom management would make me crazy. I can barely tolerate
attending a field trip. And aphorisms really have no place in any
important discussion. (Is that an aphorism in itself? I think it might
be. I apologize).
>In their defence,
> however, I have also known one or two knowledgable and enthusiastic
> experts whose spirits were crushed by the bureaucracy of modern
> education and the resistance of their colleagues to new ideas.
I agree. I've seen the same thing. The last one who left made me cry in
frustration at the way he was treated.
> It's hard - damn hard! - to get highly educated science teachers and
> keep them, first because so few highly educated science types become
> teachers, and second because so few of those who do can stay
> motivated in the face of a systemic disinterest in supporting them.
>
> It doesn't help when people make comments which imply that anyone who
> knows something can teach it. It's not true and belittles the
> classroom skills really good teachers normally take a decade or more
> developing.
I really hope that wasn't what I was saying. If in any way my comments
can be interpreted as belittling classroom skills, I heartily
apologize. I thank my childrens' teachers as often as I can remember to
do so.
There are EXCELLENT teachers in ths classroom who absolutely believe
that mammals cannot lay eggs. That lack of knowledge on their part is
not their fault.
Teaching is NOT simply a rote skill, like assembling an IKEA bookshelf,
or one which can be taught in a semester or by attending a single
conference. If I implied that, I apologize.
Shirin
Gordon Hill
BTW, I have twenty years of teaching experience in
technology--technical school and computer seminars--and enjoy every
hour in the classroom.
In my experience, limited as it is, the failure is in the school
administrations not knowing what good knowledge is in math and science.
If the school administrators can't identify the knowledgable, their
selection of good teachers is damaging.
I worked as an in-class ESE (Exceptional Student Education (those who
are behind grade level, but close enough to be mainstreamed) substitute
for several months and ached to watch excellent teachers assigned to
math classes where their teaching prowess could not overcome their
ignorance of mathematics. It is as devastating to the students as
assigning me to teach English.
Everyone loses. The teachers, knowing they can teach, believe their
lack of knowledge is unimportant or agree to do so for an invali reason
(the good teachers who know their knowledge expertise refuse to accept
assignment whrer they will fail). The good students tune out. The
poor students don't know the difference. The administration staffing
documents show they have their "sums right" which the school board uses
to show that all is well in the system.
The solution is everyone's responsibility--school board,
administration, parents, media, et. al.--including me. I did nothing
because I decided to move 2,000 miles cross country and that is more of
commute than I want.
Please understand this is not a complaint, rather a recognition of the
problem and the fact that the solution lies in many places.
Good luck in meeting your challenges.
Gordon Hill
Shirin
Cabbage wrote:
> Luckily, my son has a PhD scientist for a father, so we could giggle
> at how silly the teacher was. Most of the rest of the class was not
> so fortunate.
>
> This teacher is now the principal of the school.
Gah. Sorry to hear that. Shirin
Shirin
Gordon Hill wrote:
>
> BTW, I have twenty years of teaching experience in
> technology--technical school and computer seminars--and enjoy every
> hour in the classroom.
>
> In my experience, limited as it is, the failure is in the school
> administrations not knowing what good knowledge is in math and science.
> If the school administrators can't identify the knowledgable, their
> selection of good teachers is damaging.
YES!!! Ding Ding Ding!
And I, as a School Board Member, am supposed to approve those
selections. It all comes in as a recommendation from Personnel, I have
no further background material, and I simply have to hope that this
person's the best for the job.
That's why we're left talking about systemic change--which is really
time-consuming and unwieldy.
>
> I worked as an in-class ESE (Exceptional Student Education (those who
> are behind grade level, but close enough to be mainstreamed) substitute
> for several months and ached to watch excellent teachers assigned to
> math classes where their teaching prowess could not overcome their
> ignorance of mathematics. It is as devastating to the students as
> assigning me to teach English.
>
> Everyone loses. The teachers, knowing they can teach, believe their
> lack of knowledge is unimportant or agree to do so for an invali reason
> (the good teachers who know their knowledge expertise refuse to accept
> assignment whrer they will fail). The good students tune out. The
> poor students don't know the difference. The administration staffing
> documents show they have their "sums right" which the school board uses
> to show that all is well in the system.
>
> The solution is everyone's responsibility--school board,
> administration, parents, media, et. al.--including me. I did nothing
> because I decided to move 2,000 miles cross country and that is more of
> commute than I want.
>
> Please understand this is not a complaint, rather a recognition of the
> problem and the fact that the solution lies in many places.
And it's an excellent summary of the types of problems I see before us.
The Fed's aren't helping with all of their reliance on standardized
testing, which serves to reinforce the idea that it doesn't matter
who's in front of the class, as long as it's a breathing adult who has
also passed a series of tests.
>
> Good luck in meeting your challenges.
>
> Gordon Hill
Thank you, Gordon. Good luck in meeting yours.
Shirin
Perplexed in Peoria
"Mujin" <umwi...@seesee.umanitoba.ca> wrote in message news:MPG.1f7f855d8...@news.cc.umanitoba.ca...
I haven't looked at recent statistics, but I seem to recall reading once
that starting salaries for college grads majoring in math, science, and
engineering are higher than those for English Lit, History, or Psychology
majors. Quite a bit higher. Something like $10K. So, a question for
Shirin. Does your school district match this differential? Do you pay, say,
$5K more to a beginning math teacher than to a beginning English teacher?
Do the union contracts allow this? Would the union leadership be willing
to alter the contract in this direction the next time it is negotiated?
Also for Shirin: You say you want math nerds to devote a few years of
their career to teaching. Does this mean that they have to take a
certain number of education courses in college? Take these courses
instead of what? Instead of the technical courses they need to get a
job in their 'real' profession? I suspect that the career path you
are asking professors to recommend is going to mean these people become
so far off-track in their professional development that it is going to
cost them an average of $10K per year for the rest of their professional
lives. Are the intangible rewards of teaching that significant?
Good points. It sounds like you are saying that an Education degree
and a desire to teach are not enough. There are also some intangible
skills that not everyone has, and which you don't know you have or don't
have without actually trying your hand at teaching. I suspect that it
is also true that those intangible rewards of being a teacher are something
that appeal to some people and leave other people indifferent. And, again
you don't know what kind of person you are until you try it.
All of which leads me to suggest that what you really need to do, Shirin,
is to do the same thing that industry does - offer internships and jobs
in work-study programs to people while they are still in college and
have not yet decided on a career path.
> It's hard - damn hard! - to get highly educated science teachers and
> keep them, first because so few highly educated science types become
> teachers, and second because so few of those who do can stay
> motivated in the face of a systemic disinterest in supporting them.
And assuming this is more than anecdotal complaining, it sounds like
another thing that Shirin needs to address in his own district. A
question, Shirin: Have you interviewed the qualified science teachers in
your district who decide to leave to find out *why* they are leaving?
Have you interviewed math and science majors to find out why they are
not considering teaching as a career stage?
> It doesn't help when people make comments which imply that anyone who
> knows something can teach it. It's not true and belittles the
> classroom skills really good teachers normally take a decade or more
> developing.
Well, if Mujin is right about "a decade or more", then Shirin's whole
idea of qualified people spending a few years teaching is all wet.
Gordon Hill
Shirin wrote:
> Gordon Hill wrote:
>
> >
> > BTW, I have twenty years of teaching experience in
> > technology--technical school and computer seminars--and enjoy every
> > hour in the classroom.
> >
> > In my experience, limited as it is, the failure is in the school
> > administrations not knowing what good knowledge is in math and science.
> > If the school administrators can't identify the knowledgable, their
> > selection of good teachers is damaging.
>
> YES!!! Ding Ding Ding!
>
> And I, as a School Board Member, am supposed to approve those
> selections. It all comes in as a recommendation from Personnel, I have
> no further background material, and I simply have to hope that this
> person's the best for the job.
>
> That's why we're left talking about systemic change--which is really
> time-consuming and unwieldy.
It's not an easy problem to solve, but the industrial solution is to
gather wide ranging opinions in specific areas. Unaware of your school
system's size and resources available I suspect there is subject matter
expert available to you.
The best jobs I have been hired to hold are those where I was
interviewed, extensively, by a range of people who seemed to have an
indeterminate need to know regqrding my qualifications. In retrospect
the information gained included my subject matter expertise, ability to
deal with a variety of people, ability to think on my feet, ability to
tolerate a seemingly irrational process (which can be criticaql in
today's educational system).
Before I forget, thank you for serving your community on the school
board. It is a role for which I am ill suited. Mine is to teach,
directly and indirectly.
> >
> > I worked as an in-class ESE (Exceptional Student Education (those who
> > are behind grade level, but close enough to be mainstreamed) substitute
> > for several months and ached to watch excellent teachers assigned to
> > math classes where their teaching prowess could not overcome their
> > ignorance of mathematics. It is as devastating to the students as
> > assigning me to teach English.
> >
> > Everyone loses. The teachers, knowing they can teach, believe their
> > lack of knowledge is unimportant or agree to do so for an invali reason
> > (the good teachers who know their knowledge expertise refuse to accept
> > assignment whrer they will fail). The good students tune out. The
> > poor students don't know the difference. The administration staffing
> > documents show they have their "sums right" which the school board uses
> > to show that all is well in the system.
> >
> > The solution is everyone's responsibility--school board,
> > administration, parents, media, et. al.--including me. I did nothing
> > because I decided to move 2,000 miles cross country and that is more of
> > commute than I want.
> >
> > Please understand this is not a complaint, rather a recognition of the
> > problem and the fact that the solution lies in many places.
>
> And it's an excellent summary of the types of problems I see before us.
> The Fed's aren't helping with all of their reliance on standardized
> testing, which serves to reinforce the idea that it doesn't matter
> who's in front of the class, as long as it's a breathing adult who has
> also passed a series of tests.
While I agree with the need for appropriate standardized testing, I
disagree with the seeming emphasis on rote learning. It was
inappropriate in the fifties and is moreso today with the knowledge
expansion we are experiencing.
What is being left out--or limited--are the skills to find needed
information and critical thinking processes, which math and science
demand.
Several years ago an Assistant Dean of my alma mater, an engineering
school, met me for coffee (he bought) under the guise of seeking my
advise (I think he was trolling for a contribution, which I did every
year anyway). In that time he informed me that fewer than fifteen
percent of engineering graduates found themselves in engineering jobs,
but nearly all of them were in vocations which required quantitative
problem solving as a major part of their work.
For me, this struck a fundamental chord; however, as one who is model
addicted and terminally analytical, I was the perfect engineering
student.
> > Good luck in meeting your challenges.
> >
> > Gordon Hill
>
> Thank you, Gordon. Good luck in meeting yours.
>
> Shirin
I'm on the downslope now, taking a sabatical until December when I will
decide what to do next.
Gordon
topmind
> ["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
> On 2006-09-23, topmind <top...@technologist.com> wrote:
> > WHO CARES?! Science cannot be our comparative competitive advantage
> > anyhow. Asia has made educated brains into a cheap commodity, doing to
> > education what Henry Ford did to car manufacture: crank them out in the
> > mass.
>
> Is there some inherent advantage that these Asian people have that
> all us poor naturalized American's can't do?
Lower cost of living, lower cost of education. When evaluating one's
career options, sci/tech is far less attractive in the US, business and
law having far more options in comparison, especially as one builds up
experience.
>
> > I've seen what the biz lobbyists did to my profession WRT
> > offshoring and visa workers. If the right wingers continue the
> > free-trade-free-fall, then I don't recommend anybody persue science if
> > money is their main goal.
>
> The alternative being, what precisely?
Don't run huge trade deficits and don't let boatloads visa workers in.
>
> > I like science, but don't recommend it as a career to anyone unless
> > they are satisified with monk-like wages.
>
> It's good that you don't recommend it as a career, since you don't know
> what it is.
Appearently you don't either, or else you could provide a solid
definition not tied to fuzzy subjective wiggle words. Any chimp can
claim they know it, but only a smart person could turn it into a usable
algorithm. You fit the chimp.
>
> Mark
>
-T-
Jenny6833A
>
> When they apply, mathematicians, physicists, biologists and chemists
> who "know the subject matter cold and have actually applied it" jump
> to the top of the list in nearly every competition for science
Good.
> ... but if they can't give evidence they know how to
> actually *teach* what they know either through training or experience
> they don't get the job. Period.
I'm questioning the wisdom of that.
> I have no idea what your background is like, but your comments seem
> to read like those of someone who has never actually taught in a
> classroom. I was a classroom teacher for some years before going
> back to graduate school and now that I'm out of the teaching game
> (not entirely) I've noticed a disturbing fact: I have never spoken to
> anyone who was not a teacher who actually knows what goes into
> classroom teaching.
Let's see. Literacy tutoring of both adults and elementary kids.
Extensive tutoring of middle school and high school students in
English, math, and science. Teaching GED classes to military
personnel. University teaching (senior and fifth year students) in
various computer-related courses. However, I've never worked full time
as a middle or high school classroom teacher.
> Knowing your subject inside and out doesn't make you capable of
> teaching it.
Duh.
> Being a good teacher doesn't automatically give you the knowledge you
> need to teach.
Duh.
> This is the problem in a nutshell.
Not really. See below.
> Too many people who would make excellent teachers of science because
> of their depth of knowledge and enthusiasm for the subject are *not*
> teachers because silly aphorisms like "those who can, do; those who
> can't, teach" lead people to think that teaching - especially at the
> elementary school level - is a waste of their expertise when in fact
> it's a very hard skill to learn (I suspect you'd break more than a
> sweat - I've seen a biochemistry PhD break down in tears over the
> frustration of trying to teach 14 year olds) and might well be more
> rewarding than the usual careers in their field. In their defence,
> however, I have also known one or two knowledgable and enthusiastic
> experts whose spirits were crushed by the bureaucracy of modern
> education and the resistance of their colleagues to new ideas.
How does any of that relate to anything I've said?
> It's hard - damn hard! - to get highly educated science teachers and
> keep them, first because so few highly educated science types become
> teachers, and second because so few of those who do can stay
> motivated in the face of a systemic disinterest in supporting them.
The 'education' folks have a lot of fixing of the system to do. I
haven't suggested otherwise.
> It doesn't help when people make comments which imply that anyone who
> knows something can teach it.
Not anyone can, but many can.
> It's not true and belittles the
> classroom skills really good teachers normally take a decade or more
> developing.
I don't doubt that it takes a decade to become a "really good teacher."
That means that no teachers are "really good" during their first nine
years and many never become "really good." A not-yet-really-good
teacher with heavy subject expertise would be a hell of an improvement
over many of those teaching now.
That's the point you miss in your highly simplistic pseudo-analysis.
:-)
Jenny
Bob LeChevalier
>["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
>On 2006-09-23, topmind <top...@technologist.com> wrote:
>> WHO CARES?! Science cannot be our comparative competitive advantage
>> anyhow. Asia has made educated brains into a cheap commodity, doing to
>> education what Henry Ford did to car manufacture: crank them out in the
>> mass.
>
>Is there some inherent advantage that these Asian people have that
>all us poor naturalized American's can't do?
They have cultures that place relatively little value on individualism
or privacy (and in some cases freedom), and a great deal on personal
honor. They also probably pay scientists much more than most other
professions, so as to make it a more attractive profession. China
also has more than 4 times our population, so they don't have to work
as hard to outproduce us in any manpower challenge.
On the other hand, our advantages are individualism, privacy, freedom,
creativity, and little concern for honor if instead we win, get fame
and MAKE MONEY FAST!!!.
lojbab
Mujin
shir...@earthlink.net says...
I was under the impression I was replying to Jenny - and a quick look
at attributions and the passages I actually responded to says so to.
I haven't anything against your description of your school district's
situation.
Kermit
topmind wrote:
> WHO CARES?! Science cannot be our comparative competitive advantage
> anyhow. Asia has made educated brains into a cheap commodity, doing to
> education what Henry Ford did to car manufacture: crank them out in the
> mass.
Are you saying that educating people well for less money is bad?
>
> I've seen what the biz lobbyists did to my profession WRT offshoring
> and visa workers. If the right wingers continue the
> free-trade-free-fall, then I don't recommend anybody persue science if
> money is their main goal.
I'm not sure many people pursue science with money as their main goal.
I am appalled at the thought that anyone might have money as life's
main goal. One is likely, after all, to spend most of one's waking
moments as an adult doing one's vocation.
>
> I like science, but don't recommend it as a career to anyone unless
> they are satisified with monk-like wages.
How about recommending it to people who like to do science?
>
> -T-
Kermit
Kermit
topmind wrote:
> Mark VandeWettering wrote:
> > ["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
> > On 2006-09-23, topmind <top...@technologist.com> wrote:
> > > WHO CARES?! Science cannot be our comparative competitive advantage
> > > anyhow. Asia has made educated brains into a cheap commodity, doing to
> > > education what Henry Ford did to car manufacture: crank them out in the
> > > mass.
> >
> > Is there some inherent advantage that these Asian people have that
> > all us poor naturalized American's can't do?
>
> Lower cost of living, lower cost of education. When evaluating one's
> career options, sci/tech is far less attractive in the US, business and
> law having far more options in comparison, especially as one builds up
> experience.
Why would someone inclined to do science select a career as different
as law for the sake of money? That's a *horrible way to live one's life
(unless, of course, one is also suited to do law).
>
> >
> > > I've seen what the biz lobbyists did to my profession WRT
> > > offshoring and visa workers. If the right wingers continue the
> > > free-trade-free-fall, then I don't recommend anybody persue science if
> > > money is their main goal.
> >
> > The alternative being, what precisely?
>
> Don't run huge trade deficits and don't let boatloads visa workers in.
Without sufficient engineers, programmers, and scientists, the
technical development will move to where they are. My daughter says
she's willing to speak whatever language is necessary to follow the
science.
Lawyers and businessmen do not generate wealth. Bucky Fuller's
definition of wealth works for me: "Energy, and the ability to use it."
That means technology. Sure, we need a business infrastructure of
sorts, but without the drugs, the computers, the medical treatments,
the entertainment technology, the spaceships, the new oil rigs and
nanotech - without all of this, the business people have nothing to
work with.
Anybody else here think America's problem is that we don't have enough
lawyers?
>
> >
> > > I like science, but don't recommend it as a career to anyone unless
> > > they are satisified with monk-like wages.
> >
> > It's good that you don't recommend it as a career, since you don't know
> > what it is.
>
> Appearently you don't either, or else you could provide a solid
> definition not tied to fuzzy subjective wiggle words. Any chimp can
> claim they know it, but only a smart person could turn it into a usable
> algorithm. You fit the chimp.
Only flexible rules and definitions can be successfully applied to the
very complex, very real, world. Flexibility is where it's at, and a
good programmer would know that.
I'm a network administrator. One morning I might be explaining to a
user how to configure her office programs while figuring out what she
really needs, then I might have to dig thru the logs on one of the UNIX
servers to look for the source of an intermittent problem, then code a
script to pick up some files via ftp routinely and drop them in a
windows directory because the boss thought a windows application looked
cool when the salesdroid explained it to him. Then fix a printer, read
up on the latest browser exploits, and track down what a worker on the
floor means when he says "the printer doesn't work".
You have to remember the goals. Science is an cumulative methodology
for figuring out how the world works, in the most reliable ways
possible. Trying to define it more precisely than that might mean that
you give up the opportunity to use a new method.
My job is to keep the network working, and all the users and hardware
on it, for a reasonable price. Defining it precisely with an algorthm
would be laughably confining.
>
> >
> > Mark
> >
>
> -T-
topmind
Kermit wrote:
> topmind wrote:
> > Mark VandeWettering wrote:
> > > ["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
> > > On 2006-09-23, topmind <top...@technologist.com> wrote:
> > > > WHO CARES?! Science cannot be our comparative competitive advantage
> > > > anyhow. Asia has made educated brains into a cheap commodity, doing to
> > > > education what Henry Ford did to car manufacture: crank them out in the
> > > > mass.
> > >
> > > Is there some inherent advantage that these Asian people have that
> > > all us poor naturalized American's can't do?
> >
> > Lower cost of living, lower cost of education. When evaluating one's
> > career options, sci/tech is far less attractive in the US, business and
> > law having far more options in comparison, especially as one builds up
> > experience.
>
> Why would someone inclined to do science select a career as different
> as law for the sake of money? That's a *horrible way to live one's life
> (unless, of course, one is also suited to do law).
If you are at the very top, this indeed may make sense, but for a
rank-and-file student, competing with cheap 3rd-world engineers is NOT
the way to the American Dream.
> > > > I've seen what the biz lobbyists did to my profession WRT
> > > > offshoring and visa workers. If the right wingers continue the
> > > > free-trade-free-fall, then I don't recommend anybody persue science if
> > > > money is their main goal.
> > >
> > > The alternative being, what precisely?
> >
> > Don't run huge trade deficits and don't let boatloads visa workers in.
>
> Without sufficient engineers, programmers, and scientists, the
> technical development will move to where they are. My daughter says
> she's willing to speak whatever language is necessary to follow the
> science.
Meaning money. There may be opportunities in say India, but because of
differences in cost of living and exchange rates, it may be more
lucrative to work in the US, and then retire in India with the nest
egg.
>
> Lawyers and businessmen do not generate wealth. Bucky Fuller's
> definition of wealth works for me: "Energy, and the ability to use it."
> That means technology.
My observation is that those who make the big bucks off of inventions
are NOT the original inventors, but those who can make the inventions
into business opportunities the fastest (sometimes called
"exploitation"). Thus, the innovation could happen in India, yet the
wealth from it could flow to a firm in another country that can turn it
into a business opportunity via clever marketing or packaging.
Further, you seem to think that poeple should pick dead-end jobs as a
sacrifice for the country. If you want more US students to persue sci
and tech, then make sure the pay is not pulled down by cheap labor. If
sci-tech becomes like jury duty, nobody will show up.
> Sure, we need a business infrastructure of
> sorts, but without the drugs, the computers, the medical treatments,
> the entertainment technology, the spaceships, the new oil rigs and
> nanotech - without all of this, the business people have nothing to
> work with.
>
> Anybody else here think America's problem is that we don't have enough
> lawyers?
Who knows, we may be suing profits out of other countries.
> > > > I like science, but don't recommend it as a career to anyone unless
> > > > they are satisified with monk-like wages.
> > >
> > > It's good that you don't recommend it as a career, since you don't know
> > > what it is.
> >
> > Appearently you don't either, or else you could provide a solid
> > definition not tied to fuzzy subjective wiggle words. Any chimp can
> > claim they know it, but only a smart person could turn it into a usable
> > algorithm. You fit the chimp.
>
> Only flexible rules and definitions can be successfully applied to the
> very complex, very real, world. Flexibility is where it's at, and a
> good programmer would know that.
Yes, but the computer will likely choke on any final product that lacks
precision or contains inconistencies.
Besides, flexibility does not settle arguments.
>
> I'm a network administrator. One morning I might be explaining to a
> user how to configure her office programs while figuring out what she
> really needs, then I might have to dig thru the logs on one of the UNIX
> servers to look for the source of an intermittent problem, then code a
> script to pick up some files via ftp routinely and drop them in a
> windows directory because the boss thought a windows application looked
> cool when the salesdroid explained it to him. Then fix a printer, read
> up on the latest browser exploits, and track down what a worker on the
> floor means when he says "the printer doesn't work".
>
> You have to remember the goals. Science is an cumulative methodology
> for figuring out how the world works, in the most reliable ways
> possible. Trying to define it more precisely than that might mean that
> you give up the opportunity to use a new method.
A new method such as DNA sifting?
>
> My job is to keep the network working, and all the users and hardware
> on it, for a reasonable price. Defining it precisely with an algorthm
> would be laughably confining.
Precision is not always cheap. But IF it is needed to solve a problem,
there often is no substitute. Sure, we could vote, but that is not
what science is about.
Voting is often a shortcut around rigor, but not a perfect replacement,
just an economical one in some cases.
-T-
topmind
> topmind wrote:
> > WHO CARES?! Science cannot be our comparative competitive advantage
> > anyhow. Asia has made educated brains into a cheap commodity, doing to
> > education what Henry Ford did to car manufacture: crank them out in the
> > mass.
>
> Are you saying that educating people well for less money is bad?
No, I am only saying it does not make sense to spend education effort
in the US on specialties that are no longer our comparative advantage.
It is comparable to teaching manufacturing.
>
> >
> > I've seen what the biz lobbyists did to my profession WRT offshoring
> > and visa workers. If the right wingers continue the
> > free-trade-free-fall, then I don't recommend anybody persue science if
> > money is their main goal.
>
> I'm not sure many people pursue science with money as their main goal.
True. However, those who want money are being mislead.
> I am appalled at the thought that anyone might have money as life's
> main goal. One is likely, after all, to spend most of one's waking
> moments as an adult doing one's vocation.
A lot of people like money so they can buy big houses, snow-mobiles,
Euro vacations, snorkling equipment, etc. I am just the messenger.
If you want *more* students to pay attention to sci-tech, you need to
give them an incentive. The supply of science-for-love-only students
is more or less fixed.
>
> >
> > I like science, but don't recommend it as a career to anyone unless
> > they are satisified with monk-like wages.
>
> How about recommending it to people who like to do science?
They will learn on their own. You don't need a teacher to learn. Used
science books are cheaper than a meal via the internet. I got Date's
classic relational database book for a mere $5.00 (true it was one
revision old, but that makes only a minor diff.)
-T-
racqu...@gmail.com
<wett...@attbi.com> wrote:
>["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
>On 2006-09-23, topmind <top...@technologist.com> wrote:
>> WHO CARES?! Science cannot be our comparative competitive advantage
>> anyhow. Asia has made educated brains into a cheap commodity, doing to
>> education what Henry Ford did to car manufacture: crank them out in the
>> mass.
>
>Is there some inherent advantage that these Asian people have that
>all us poor naturalized American's can't do?
Not that we can't do, but at least two significant advantages:
Firstly there are four times as many people in China than in the US,
almost that many in India,, about one-third our population in Japan,
etc. The second advantage is cultural - The learned person is honored
and revered in most/all the asian cultures. In the US, s/he is a
nerd, absentminded, and an object of humor.
That said, we continue to do well in international physics
competitions, for example.
tgde...@earthlink.net
Reading through various other posts, my initial comment stands: What's
the goal?
I tend to agree that probability (understanding statistical reasoning,
really) is a very important topic. I would gladly see all math classes
eliminated in favor of having kids discuss various real-world
stuff---political polls, disease rates and so on---every semester to
get a sense of what the numbers are really saying. But that's because I
can articulate a goal for 'education', which is to have citizens who
can make informed decisions.
You seem to have considered goals, which most critics of education
don't. You also seem to consider the thing which is absent from most
such discussions---what's best for the student, or what suits them. The
best solution to this in my opinion is the really old-fashioned idea of
general education---having lots of different exposures so that kids can
find their own way. This means sports and art and all those activities
that people love to denigrate, but that provide avenues for developing
the desire and skills for learning.
BTW, I've had the debate about what gets taught in math courses with
people who teach math and the brick imprints are still there on my
forehead. I don't know how these things *ever* change---we should be
thankful that it *only* takes a couple of generations.
-tg
> -T-
wvantwiller
news:1159036150....@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:
> bullpup wrote:
>> Curriculum, teachers faulted for teaching too simplistically
>>
>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14945518/
>
> "'Any grown-up who can read can teach middle school general sciences,'
> said Mara Cohen [.]"
>
> However, in the USA not just "any 'grown-up'" (I assume she means
> "adult") is allowed to teach in "middle schools." One is required to
> have various certifications.
>
And, the ones who are good in the technical aspects can earn a lot more
when they finally find a place to apply them in the business world.
One local schoold district hereabouts took an enormous hit when a local
industrial site started expanding, and any teacher with a good education in
something beyond just knowing the mechanics of teaching was hired as
technical writers, etc. at many thousands above their teaching salaries.
Quite frankly, anyone with a good fundamental education in a science/tech
area who also has the ability to be a good 'teacher' can usually find a
much more interesting and financially rewarding career in industry. Good
'teaching' skills are just as important in a career in the business world.
.
Mujin
Jenny...@aol.com says...
> Mujin wrote:
> >
> > When they apply, mathematicians, physicists, biologists and chemists
> > who "know the subject matter cold and have actually applied it" jump
> > to the top of the list in nearly every competition for science
> > teachiing jobs ,,,
>
> Good.
>
> > ... but if they can't give evidence they know how to
> > actually *teach* what they know either through training or experience
> > they don't get the job. Period.
>
> I'm questioning the wisdom of that.
I know you are. The point is that someone with a deep knowledge of
their subject but none of the skills necessary to impart that
knowledge to a room full of children can actually do more harm than
good. Obviously someone with all the teaching skills and none of the
knowledge is just as bad - that's why *both* are important to those
who do the hiring, and sometimes they're forced to compromise and
choose a teacher who has less knowledge but more classroom
experience.
>
> > I have no idea what your background is like, but your comments seem
> > to read like those of someone who has never actually taught in a
> > classroom. I was a classroom teacher for some years before going
> > back to graduate school and now that I'm out of the teaching game
> > (not entirely) I've noticed a disturbing fact: I have never spoken to
> > anyone who was not a teacher who actually knows what goes into
> > classroom teaching.
>
> Let's see. Literacy tutoring of both adults and elementary kids.
> Extensive tutoring of middle school and high school students in
> English, math, and science. Teaching GED classes to military
> personnel. University teaching (senior and fifth year students) in
> various computer-related courses. However, I've never worked full time
> as a middle or high school classroom teacher.
>
> > Knowing your subject inside and out doesn't make you capable of
> > teaching it.
>
> Duh.
>
> > Being a good teacher doesn't automatically give you the knowledge you
> > need to teach.
>
> Duh.
>
> > This is the problem in a nutshell.
If these things are so obvious to you that you feel the need to be
sophomoric, why did you disregard them in your original post?
>
> Not really. See below.
>
> > Too many people who would make excellent teachers of science because
> > of their depth of knowledge and enthusiasm for the subject are *not*
> > teachers because silly aphorisms like "those who can, do; those who
> > can't, teach" lead people to think that teaching - especially at the
> > elementary school level - is a waste of their expertise when in fact
> > it's a very hard skill to learn (I suspect you'd break more than a
> > sweat - I've seen a biochemistry PhD break down in tears over the
> > frustration of trying to teach 14 year olds) and might well be more
> > rewarding than the usual careers in their field. In their defence,
> > however, I have also known one or two knowledgable and enthusiastic
> > experts whose spirits were crushed by the bureaucracy of modern
> > education and the resistance of their colleagues to new ideas.
>
> How does any of that relate to anything I've said?
You implied that people with high qualifications in science are not
hired to teach in schools; in fact people with high qualifications
simply don't apply for a variety of reasons including the wide
perception that teaching is somehow an inferior profession and
therefore a waste of one's education.
>
> > It's hard - damn hard! - to get highly educated science teachers and
> > keep them, first because so few highly educated science types become
> > teachers, and second because so few of those who do can stay
> > motivated in the face of a systemic disinterest in supporting them.
>
> The 'education' folks have a lot of fixing of the system to do. I
> haven't suggested otherwise.
>
> > It doesn't help when people make comments which imply that anyone who
> > knows something can teach it.
>
> Not anyone can, but many can.
Very few people can teach their area of expertise to children well
right out of the starting gate, and I would expect that many of those
who can't will give up for one reason or another before they can.
How do you propose determining who can and who can't? Trial and
error? Obviously this wouldn't work - you can't have a constant
stream of experts spending 6-10 months mangling the job until you
finally come across someone who both knows stuff and can teach it.
That's why administrators look for a combination of teaching
experience/training and subject-area knowledge.
>
> > It's not true and belittles the
> > classroom skills really good teachers normally take a decade or more
> > developing.
>
> I don't doubt that it takes a decade to become a "really good teacher."
> That means that no teachers are "really good" during their first nine
> years and many never become "really good." A not-yet-really-good
> teacher with heavy subject expertise would be a hell of an improvement
> over many of those teaching now.
And an OK teacher with moderate subject expertise is immensely better
than someone with heavy subject expertise who doesn't know how to
teach - the former can fill in the gaps in his or her knowledge
through professional development (either personal or formal) and
rapidly become a good or even great teacher while the latter might
well spend half of the first year trying to figure out how to keep
the class under control, the next half of the year trying to figure
out how to explain the material to children in a way that gets to
most of them all at once, and the next few years trying to figure out
how to present the material in a way that engages their attention
while achieving educational goals. Meanwhile year after year of
students suffer while the teacher tries to teach him/herself basic
skills other teachers got in their training, which almost certainly
included practical classroom time and structured feedback from
experienced teachers. *Then* our expert can move on to becoming a
"really good teacher"
The fact is that while advanced high school courses definitely need
experts, the majority of science classes don't require expert-level
knowledge nearly so much as they need people who can do a good job
teaching the required curriculum. Would schools like to have both?
Absolutely! But given a choice between one or the other, they're
forced by practicalities to choose the teacher with adequate subject-
area knowledge over the expert who might not be able to teach.
That's the point *you* miss in your highly simplistic pseudo-
Desertphile
Cabbage wrote:
> Shirin wrote:
>
> > And at the Elementary level, well, let's just say that my daughter was
> > taught that the defining attribute of mammals was that they didn't lay
> > eggs. She came home very puzzled, and after doing some research,
> > started a weeks' long fight with her teacher, who refused to be
> > convinced. (The Principal finally had to mediate--my daughter left
> > class and marched down to the Principal's office, she was so annoyed.)
> > My son has also been taught in elementary that it is incorrect to
> > divide an odd integer by two because "There is no answer to that
> > problem." Remainder? Fraction? You'll learn it next year?
> >
> > For all that we cry out that American education is not producing
> > scientifically literate graduates, it would be wonderful if some
> > scientifically proficient educators could step into the classrooms to
> > get these kids the in-depth education they need.
> >
> My fourth grade son was taught science by the method of memorized
> definitions. Asked on a test what a mammal was, he wrote the
> definition. He then added that a whale was a mammal, explaining why.
> The teacher crossed off this addition, using red ink and exclamation
> marks. Apparently this teacher felt it necessary to
> discourage students who applied the knowledge being imparted,
> and that it was inappropriate to do more than the minimum required.
>
> Luckily, my son has a PhD scientist for a father, so we could giggle
> at how silly the teacher was. Most of the rest of the class was not
> so fortunate.
>
> This teacher is now the principal of the school.
Good gods. That's.... that's..... er, there is no single word to
describe such a crime. I suppose one may be thankful the teacher did
not write in a few Bible verses as well.
In 1977 there were still schools in Nevada that taught Creationism in
science class. It would not surprise me in the least if that still
occurs.
Desertphile
> When they apply, mathematicians, physicists, biologists and chemists
> who "know the subject matter cold and have actually applied it" jump
> to the top of the list in nearly every competition for science
> teachiing jobs, but if they can't give evidence they know how to
> actually *teach* what they know either through training or experience
> they don't get the job. Period.
That is an excellent point. I wonder if USA educators have a method of
determining who has teaching skills and do does not; I fear they may
not.
In celestial navigation, one calculates two positions, one based upon
actual celestial observations and the other based on what we one
observe if one was at a known geographic position: the difference
between the two allows one to plot a fix. When I was in a classroom
learning how to navigate via sextant, several of the students were
baffled at why we had to perform two sight reductions---- it was very
obvious to the teacher, so he didn't think to explain it. And this is
an excellent teacher, with more than twenty years of teaching
experience (and a hell of a lot of boating experience).
It is exactly as you pointed out above: a teacher can know celestial
mechanics, and why apparent motion of the planets and stars, Sol and
Luna, will yield one's geographic position if used properly.... but
imparting that knowledge is an additional skill.
Mujin
deser...@hotmail.com says...
> Mujin wrote:
>
> > When they apply, mathematicians, physicists, biologists and chemists
> > who "know the subject matter cold and have actually applied it" jump
> > to the top of the list in nearly every competition for science
> > teachiing jobs, but if they can't give evidence they know how to
> > actually *teach* what they know either through training or experience
> > they don't get the job. Period.
>
> That is an excellent point. I wonder if USA educators have a method of
> determining who has teaching skills and do does not; I fear they may
> not.
There's really only one way for a prospective employer to find out if
an applicant has teaching skills: references. This is why newly
minted teachers have such a hard time finding work in districts where
there is actually competition for jobs - the only references they can
offer are those stemming from their practicum, which represents a
very limited sample of their abilities. The more contact the referee
has with the applicant, the better - thus references from previous
teaching jobs are preferred. Unfortunately, even this system
sometimes doesn't work the way we hope.
Shirin
> "Mujin" <umwi...@seesee.umanitoba.ca> wrote in message news:MPG.1f7f855d8...@news.cc.umanitoba.ca...
> > In article <1159053855.6...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> > Jenny...@aol.com says...
> > > Shirin wrote:
> > > > Jenny6833A wrote:
> > > > > Shirin wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As a School Board member for a small district in California, I'll just
> > > > > > weigh in here with this: I truly wish that more college professors in
> > > > > > America would encourage Math majors and Science majors to go into K-12
> > > > > > public education, at least for some period of time in their career.
> > >
> > > But you're making no mention, for example, of all those engineering
> > > majors who take math in the math department, physics in the physics
> > > department, chemistry in the chemistry department -- usually taking the
> > > best grades in those courses away from the majors -- then _also_ take
> > > all the practical application courses that solidify and drive home the
> > > uses of thereof -- thus making them better able to show middle school
> > > and high school students what all of this stuff is really good for.
> > >
> > > Why not ask College professors to encourage MORE of _them_ to go into
> > > the teaching profession?
>
> I haven't looked at recent statistics, but I seem to recall reading once
> that starting salaries for college grads majoring in math, science, and
> engineering are higher than those for English Lit, History, or Psychology
> majors. Quite a bit higher. Something like $10K. So, a question for
> Shirin. Does your school district match this differential? Do you pay, say,
> $5K more to a beginning math teacher than to a beginning English teacher?
Yes--I'm not sure if it's directly 5K, but it's more than starting
scale if we express a need for them.
> Do the union contracts allow this?
Yes.
>Would the union leadership be willing
> to alter the contract in this direction the next time it is negotiated?
Our Union Leadership is just as interested in getting excellent
teachers into the district as are the rest of the staff. The Union is
interested in supporting excellent educators/teachers, not just blobs
at the front of the class.
>
> Also for Shirin: You say you want math nerds to devote a few years of
> their career to teaching. <snip lots of good questions> Are the intangible rewards of teaching that significant?
I'd like their college professors to discuss the possibility with them.
And I'm slightly perturbed at the use of nerds--but that's just me. I'm
not sure if the intangible rewards are enough for everyone. But I do
know that the Feds and the State of California are not in any way
helping me to reimburse teachers at a competitive rate to private
industry. Local donations only go so far. My hands are tied on that
one until the voters throughout the country demand competitive wages.
Until then, intangible rewards have to suffice.
<snip lots>
> > It's hard - damn hard! - to get highly educated science teachers and
> > keep them, first because so few highly educated science types become
> > teachers, and second because so few of those who do can stay
> > motivated in the face of a systemic disinterest in supporting them.
>
> And assuming this is more than anecdotal complaining, it sounds like
> another thing that Shirin needs to address in his own district.
Actually, I'm a woman ;-)
> A question, Shirin: Have you interviewed the qualified science teachers in
> your district who decide to leave to find out *why* they are leaving?
Some, if I can get a hold of them before they've left the county. A lot
of them leave for better paying jobs in the private sector.
> Have you interviewed math and science majors to find out why they are
> not considering teaching as a career stage?
No, I haven't. I'm pretty engaged with this district now. Once I retire
from the School Board, I may very well start visiting campuses to talk
to professors and students. Right now I just don't have the time.
>
> > It doesn't help when people make comments which imply that anyone who
> > knows something can teach it. It's not true and belittles the
> > classroom skills really good teachers normally take a decade or more
> > developing.
>
> Well, if Mujin is right about "a decade or more", then Shirin's whole
> idea of qualified people spending a few years teaching is all wet.
I made the suggestion that professors encourage their students to spend
at least part of their career teaching. I hope most college graduates
would have a lengthy and satisfying career. The reason I worded it this
way is that many people are horrified at idea of "wasting" their
university education on teaching in a public school. Many people are
willing to do things for a shorter period of time--some become truly
engaged in the atmosphere, some don't. If we could get a few more in,
then I don't see it as all wet.
And I'm not the only one saying this, by the way. I'm not quite that
radical.
Shirin
Shirin
Mujin wrote:
> In article <1159060355.1...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> shir...@earthlink.net says...
> >
> > Mujin wrote:
> > > In article <1159053855.6...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> > > Jenny...@aol.com says...
> > > > Shirin wrote:
> > > > > Jenny6833A wrote:
> > > > > > Shirin wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As a School Board member for a small district in California, I'll just
> > > > > > > weigh in here with this: I truly wish that more college professors in
> > > > > > > America would encourage Math majors and Science majors to go into K-12
> > > > > > > public education, at least for some period of time in their career.
> > > > > >
> >
> > I really hope that wasn't what I was saying. If in any way my comments
> > can be interpreted as belittling classroom skills, I heartily
> > apologize. I thank my childrens' teachers as often as I can remember to
> > do so.
>
> I was under the impression I was replying to Jenny - and a quick look
> at attributions and the passages I actually responded to says so to.
> I haven't anything against your description of your school district's
> situation.
Sorry--missed that you were talking to Jenny. :redfaced:
Shirin
Noelie S. Alito
Alright, five minutes in Timeout to think about what
you've just done! <points to chair in corner>
Noelie
--
"Parents aren't interested in _justice_.
Parents are interested in *peace* and *quiet*!" --Bill Cosby
Pubkeybreaker
Mark VandeWettering wrote:
> ["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
> On 2006-09-23, topmind <top...@technologist.com> wrote:
> > WHO CARES?! Science cannot be our comparative competitive advantage
> > anyhow. Asia has made educated brains into a cheap commodity, doing to
> > education what Henry Ford did to car manufacture: crank them out in the
> > mass.
>
> Is there some inherent advantage that these Asian people have that
> all us poor naturalized American's can't do?
Yes. They are motivated to learn.
he...@hotmail.com
certified to instruct chemistry but also teaches life and general
sciences.
Statements such as this, regarding science education, do more to hurt
science education than help. . . and probably one of the reasons, if
people truly believe this nonsensical statement, that the U.S. is
lagging in science education. Science educators need to be trained in
multiple areas of the discipline of science; biochemistry, physics,
meteorology, plant physiology, and several other areas to fully give
students a well-rounded viewpoint of science. NOT just any 'grown-up'
is trained in any or all of these areas and could never provide
adequate science training. Only teachers/educators who have studied
each of these subjects are capable of providing a good science
education.
tgde...@earthlink.net
I tried to elicit a response earlier about goals, and I will try again
in a different way:
My professor suggested that I might like to try teaching. I would like
to apply for a job in your district. Can you tell me what you expect of
me? Can you tell me how I will be evaluated as to my performance?
-tg
Gordon Hill
tgde...@earthlink.net wrote:
> topmind wrote:
> > tgdenn...@earthlink.net wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Well, one problem is that you have not defined what that in-depth
> > > education is. If you know what it is, then you can train people to
> > > teach it---like teaching to the typical standardized test in No Child
> > > Left To Think---I mean 'Behind'.
> > >
> > > People who say this kind of stuff tend to be stuck with the school
> > model that they grew up with, and don't understand how much
knowledge
> > > and the practice of knowledge-based activities has changed. There is
> > > less of a problem than you think, and more of a problem than you
> > > understand.
> > >
> > > -tg
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Agreed. Part of the problem is that the US's comparative advantage is
> > at odds with "fixed" curriculum. For good or bad, we specialize in
> > change. Yet, the surveys compare us to countries that do primarily
> > factory and manufacturing work which probably requires more physical
> > science and math. Descrete math and probability seems more applicable
> > these days in the US, but the entrenched "physites" won't budge, making
> > these courses college-level instead of primary.
> >
>
> Reading through various other posts, my initial comment stands: What's
> the goal?
The goals are many: logical thinking, mathematical skill, developing a
learning discipline and more.
> I tend to agree that probability (understanding statistical reasoning,
> really) is a very important topic.
I am unfamiliar with statictical reasoning. If you mean critical
reasoning--sometimes called critical thinking or critical problem
solving--that need is essential in every other course one takes. The
old three "R's"--reading, writing, arithmetic--are fundamental skills
to which I would add speaking, but these aren't an education, they are
the tools of learning and communicating.
Knowledge is the goal, balanced knowledge, wisdom, is the ideal. It's
a matter of creating a learning environment where every student has the
opportunity and encouragement to learn according to their talents and
desires.
> I would gladly see all math classes
> eliminated in favor of having kids discuss various real-world
> stuff---political polls, disease rates and so on---every semester to
> get a sense of what the numbers are really saying. But that's because I
> can articulate a goal for 'education', which is to have citizens who
> can make informed decisions.
Without math classes, where will they learn math? How will they be
able to understand the news of the day which speaks of averges if they
don't know what an average is?
How will they figure their taxes?
> You seem to have considered goals, which most critics of education
> don't. You also seem to consider the thing which is absent from most
> such discussions---what's best for the student, or what suits them. The
> best solution to this in my opinion is the really old-fashioned idea of
> general education---having lots of different exposures so that kids can
> find their own way. This means sports and art and all those activities
> that people love to denigrate, but that provide avenues for developing
> the desire and skills for learning.
> BTW, I've had the debate about what gets taught in math courses with
> people who teach math and the brick imprints are still there on my
> forehead. I don't know how these things *ever* change---we should be
> thankful that it *only* takes a couple of generations.
Wish you were more specific here. I have taught math as both teacher
and tutor. Math doesn't change, but approaches to it do, and the
successful approaches vary with every student.
GH
Noone Inparticular
Shirin wrote:
> Desertphile wrote:
> > bullpup wrote:
> > > Curriculum, teachers faulted for teaching too simplistically
> > >
> > > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14945518/
> >
> > "'Any grown-up who can read can teach middle school general sciences,'
> > said Mara Cohen [.]"
> >
> > However, in the USA not just "any 'grown-up'" (I assume she means
> > "adult") is allowed to teach in "middle schools." One is required to
> > have various certifications.
>
> weigh in here with this: I truly wish that more college professors in
> America would encourage Math majors and Science majors to go into K-12
> public education, at least for some period of time in their career.
>
> well-qualified teachers, those who are well-versed in their subjects,
> and it is REALLY difficult to find Science (and Math) teachers for the
> Middle School who know their subject in any depth.
>
> taught that the defining attribute of mammals was that they didn't lay
> eggs. She came home very puzzled, and after doing some research,
> started a weeks' long fight with her teacher, who refused to be
> convinced. (The Principal finally had to mediate--my daughter left
> class and marched down to the Principal's office, she was so annoyed.)
> My son has also been taught in elementary that it is incorrect to
> divide an odd integer by two because "There is no answer to that
> problem." Remainder? Fraction? You'll learn it next year?
>
> For all that we cry out that American education is not producing
> scientifically literate graduates, it would be wonderful if some
> scientifically proficient educators could step into the classrooms to
> get these kids the in-depth education they need.
You're a skool board member? Then you're one of the people at fault for
the mess we find ourselves in. You want qualified people to go into the
teaching profession?
PAY THEM AN APPROPRIATE SALARY.
That simple, really. I come from a long line of public skool teachers.
My father, mother, two uncles, three great uncles, both grandmas. All
teachers. No way was I going to be one, no matter how much it appealed
to me. I didn't want to struggle my whole life, as my parents did, just
to pay the rent.
After getting my UG degree I had a decision to make; grad school and
the private sector (or University level) or grad school and a teacher's
certificate. It was a no-brainer.
>
> Shirin
tgde...@earthlink.net
Well first,
GH:
> Knowledge is the goal, balanced knowledge, wisdom, is the ideal. It's
> a matter of creating a learning environment where every student has the
> opportunity and encouragement to learn according to their talents and
> desires.
sounds a lot like
tg:
>>You also seem to consider the thing which is absent from most
> > such discussions---what's best for the student, or what suits them. The
> > best solution to this in my opinion is the really old-fashioned idea of
> > general education---having lots of different exposures so that kids can
> > find their own way. This means sports and art and all those activities
> > that people love to denigrate, but that provide avenues for developing
> > the desire and skills for learning.
so our general goals are pretty close.
But you seem to have skimmed over
tg:
> > I would gladly see all math classes
> > eliminated in favor of having kids discuss various real-world
> > stuff---political polls, disease rates and so on---every semester to
> > get a sense of what the numbers are really saying.
when you ask
GH:
> Without math classes, where will they learn math? How will they be
> able to understand the news of the day which speaks of averges if they
> don't know what an average is?
Now to
> Wish you were more specific here. I have taught math as both teacher
> and tutor. Math doesn't change, but approaches to it do, and the
> successful approaches vary with every student.
When you ask "how will they figure their taxes", you provide an
excellent case. They will use TurboTax, or a calculator to do their
'figuring', or pay some service to do it. Can you really think of
examples where the skills taught in traditional math courses through
algebra and calculus are useful to any average citizen? Assume that we
don't have a complete breakdown of civilization so symbolic programs or
calculators are still working.
-tg
> GH
Gordon Hill
My guess is that school teachers are paid in part on their command of
the English language, including spelling and grammar, but mainly based
on the amount taxpayers allow them to be paid by the school board
members they elect.
In case you have forgotten, school teacher salaries are determined by
who the voters elect, just as the direction the U. S. takes in foreigh
affairs is determined by the voters who determine how the electoral
college votes for President.
It's the voters who get the credit and blame. Part of the problem is
that they were educated in a failing system; therefore, are prone to
the fantasies many candidates spin; e.g., "I'll cut taxes and spend
more on education."
Noone Inparticular
Of course I have not forgotten. Yes, yes,yes, we get the leaders we
deserve. But there's a reason they're called "leaders". We are in our
current FP mess because we were led there.
Board members have to work with the budget approved by voters, that's
true. And in many localities they are given impossible choices.
Nevertheless they control the purse strings. And they set policy.
Including those which determine teachers salaries.
>
> It's the voters who get the credit and blame. Part of the problem is
> that they were educated in a failing system; therefore, are prone to
> the fantasies many candidates spin; e.g., "I'll cut taxes and spend
> more on education."
'tis true, 'tis true 'tis pity and pity 'tis 'tis true.
Shirin
Perhaps. I am also trying to address the mess we find ourselves in. So
are voters, politicians, teachers, parents, and just about everyone
else. It is a public system, after all.
>You want qualified people to go into the teaching profession?
>
> PAY THEM AN APPROPRIATE SALARY.
Within the law, I can't. I don't get nearly enough money sent to my
district from State and Federal coffers to pay teachers close to what
they deserve. Furthermore, I am legally bound to keep the District
solvent.
Shirin
If you are applying for a job in my District, you would have to either
have a CA teaching credential or be enrolled in courses in order to
earn a teaching credential.
If you are applying for a job as an Elementary level teacher, then you
can be expected to teach a class of 20 students (K-3) or 33 students
(4-5) in all subjects. If you are a less experienced teacher, or one
earning a credential, you would be partnered with a teacher mentor, who
would meet with you outside of class to go over lesson plans, discuss
techniques in classroom management, or to brainstorm solutions to
individual student issues. You would be evaluated by your mentor and
your principal on how your class performs and how you approach various
challenges throughout the year. Part of that evaluation will also take
into consideration how innovative you are and how much you understand
and incorporate CA standards into your innovations.
If you are applying for a job as a Secondary Level teacher, you will be
responsible for 145 students per day in a single subject. Evaluation is
much the same.
I'm not sure that answers your questions regarding goals at all. But
I'll try this:
The goal for each District, where the District sees its students going,
is built upon CA education standards. CA Districts try to build a
"Mission Statement" (which can be just as silly an useless as any other
corporate mission statement) and are required to present a "Strategic
Plan" as to how we will accomplish various goals. As with other
required documents, some are useful, some are rote, many are
wholeheartedly ignored. We are trying very hard to have a useful and
flexible Strategic Plan--but that's also a hard thing to keep a hold of
as the Board makeup changes via election every two years.
In general, we try to hire teachers who demonstrate dedication to the
task at hand, and a certain flexibility in their classroom style so as
to incorporate the different ways students learn. Whether the teacher
is able to do that comes out in the evaluations, which are meant to be
a lengthy multi-level procedure.
Shirin
Shirin
OK, well then. This is wrong in so many ways...but here's one: you have
to be able to understand whether the answer on the LED screen is
reasonable. I have ever mis-typed a problem into my calculator. When I
look at the screen it becomes obvious that I have the wrong answer, but
only because I have enough knowledge of Math to have expected a
reasonable answer.
>Can you really think of
> examples where the skills taught in traditional math courses through
> algebra and calculus are useful to any average citizen?
Understanding rates of change? Finding an unknown quantity?
Understanding unit conversion (meter, square meter, cubic meter)? Uh,
yeah, I use algebra a LOT in my daily life. And if you're a game
designer, an engineer, a doctor, a mechanic, a SCUBA diver, a fish-tank
hobbiest, or a variety of other avocations, you'd need a basis of at
least algebra to get through through the day. Calculus certainly for
the first five.
>Assume that we
> don't have a complete breakdown of civilization so symbolic programs or
> calculators are still working.
>
Are you being facetious? I'd like to understand what I'm doing while
I"m doing it, not just relying on what someone else told me, or on what
sequence of keys to push will give me the right answer.
Shirin
Codeb...@bigsecret.com
bullpup wrote:
> Curriculum, teachers faulted for teaching too simplistically
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14945518/
>
>
> --
> "I reject your reality, and substitute my own"
> -Adam Savage, Mythbusters-
Ah, those infaillible studies...
Gordon Hill
I was not suggesting you had forgotten, only that it is important to
remember, as Pogo Possum said, "We have met the enemy and it is us."
They were elected because they misrepresented their intentions or
because the voters cast their ballot for honest intentions which damage
the system or other reasons I can't think of at the moment.
> Board members have to work with the budget approved by voters, that's
> true. And in many localities they are given impossible choices.
> Nevertheless they control the purse strings. And they set policy.
> Including those which determine teachers salaries.
They also must meet unfunded state and federal mandates or lose other
state and federal funds. If the voters, especially parents, wanted
teachers psid well, they would demand it at every level. While teacher
pay is low, the greatest downer for the teachers I know is the "busy
work" that not only does nothing to help them teach, it eats away time
they could use to prepare and evaluate student performance.
It is not an easy problem, but the first step in solving it lies with
voters, parents in particular.
Gordon Hill
Indeed. If there is no math curriculum in school who would code the
TurboTax, who would design anything to be manufactured, how would a
craftsman figure the area or volume needed to do a job?
How would the people you would hire to do the work know how?
How would anyone become an engineer or scientist? What would our world
be like without them?
> >Can you really think of
> > examples where the skills taught in traditional math courses through
> > algebra and calculus are useful to any average citizen?
>
> Understanding rates of change? Finding an unknown quantity?
> Understanding unit conversion (meter, square meter, cubic meter)? Uh,
> yeah, I use algebra a LOT in my daily life. And if you're a game
> designer, an engineer, a doctor, a mechanic, a SCUBA diver, a fish-tank
> hobbiest, or a variety of other avocations, you'd need a basis of at
> least algebra to get through through the day. Calculus certainly for
> the first five.
See above... calculating areas, volumes, balancing a checkbook,
understanding what a decimal point means.
> >Assume that we
> > don't have a complete breakdown of civilization so symbolic programs or
> > calculators are still working.
> >
>
> Are you being facetious? I'd like to understand what I'm doing while
> I"m doing it, not just relying on what someone else told me, or on what
> sequence of keys to push will give me the right answer.
I didn't see a grin and don't know who it is, but I met a middle school
assistant principal who sounded the same... shudder...
Gene Ward Smith
tgde...@earthlink.net wrote:
> I tend to agree that probability (understanding statistical reasoning,
> really) is a very important topic. I would gladly see all math classes
> eliminated in favor of having kids discuss various real-world
> stuff---political polls, disease rates and so on---every semester to
> get a sense of what the numbers are really saying.
I would gladly see all English courses replaced with Television
Appreciation, all geography courses with World Soccer Analysis, and all
history courses with Introduction to Civilization IV. That way we could
have some kind of homogenity in the pig-ignorant nitwits your method
will produce.
> But that's because I
> can articulate a goal for 'education', which is to have citizens who
> can make informed decisions.
No, it's becauase you are so effing stupid you can't see that to
understand stuff like disease rates or polling data you must understand
the relevant mathematics *first*. How in hell do you expect to teach
probability and statistics without any math in it?
> BTW, I've had the debate about what gets taught in math courses with
> people who teach math and the brick imprints are still there on my
> forehead. I don't know how these things *ever* change---we should be
> thankful that it *only* takes a couple of generations.
That brick was probably a calculus textbook. One of the things wrong
with how mathematics gets taught is that baboons like you create bloat
and confusion by overloading the coursework with a zillion applications
the students can't understand, because not enough time was spent
teaching the basics.
topmind
Because it pays off more in their countries compared to alternatives.
A US student looking at the options will not find sci and tech very
promising, especially over the longer run, and with offshoring
breathing down their backs.
-T-
Timberwoof
"Gene Ward Smith" <genewa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> tgde...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> > I tend to agree that probability (understanding statistical reasoning,
> > really) is a very important topic. I would gladly see all math classes
> > eliminated in favor of having kids discuss various real-world
> > stuff---political polls, disease rates and so on---every semester to
> > get a sense of what the numbers are really saying.
>
> I would gladly see all English courses replaced with Television
> Appreciation, all geography courses with World Soccer Analysis, and all
> history courses with Introduction to Civilization IV. That way we could
> have some kind of homogenity in the pig-ignorant nitwits your method
> will produce.
>
> > But that's because I
> > can articulate a goal for 'education', which is to have citizens who
> > can make informed decisions.
>
> No, it's becauase you are so effing stupid you can't see that to
> understand stuff like disease rates or polling data you must understand
> the relevant mathematics *first*. How in hell do you expect to teach
> probability and statistics without any math in it?
I once saw on TV a kind of math competition for high school kids. At one
point there were a bunch of kids on bleacher stands, in four equal
sections. Kids on tree of the sections had blue T-shirts; kids in one
section had red. (A few were out of place here and there, but that just
added to the fun.) The question was, "How many of the people in the
stands are wearing blue T-shirts?" The answers were 50%, 66%, 75%, and
99%. One of the contestants, an inner-city kid, answered 99%. Everybody
else answered 75% ... and went on to the next question.
Well, yeah ... the overwhelming majority of the kids in the stands were
wearing blue t-shirts. That's 99%, right?
That example illustrates the area where statistics, estimation, and math
meet. That one kid didn't have his basic math down. That'll be too bad
when he gets fleeced in some drug deal...
> > BTW, I've had the debate about what gets taught in math courses with
> > people who teach math and the brick imprints are still there on my
> > forehead. I don't know how these things *ever* change---we should be
> > thankful that it *only* takes a couple of generations.
>
> That brick was probably a calculus textbook. One of the things wrong
> with how mathematics gets taught is that baboons like you create bloat
> and confusion by overloading the coursework with a zillion applications
> the students can't understand, because not enough time was spent
> teaching the basics.
Part of the problem, I think, is that the mass-production method of
teaching math ignores that different people think in different ways. I
always sucked at calculus, and only now do I begin to get it (whilst
reading Weinberg's big book). But in college, I grokked senior-level
finite math and all the calculus wizards were asking me for help. But
you have to have calculus to be a CS major... }: (
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all.
phlip
can't even differentiate.
tgde...@earthlink.net
For Gordon and Shirin,
Thanks for not insulting me outright like the other folks. And I'm not
that middle-school principal. But you didn't really answer my question
beyond a bit of hand-waving.
If you use algebra all the time, it should be easy to give an example.
I don't mean that you *know* that some process can be characterized by
a formula, I mean that you are manipulating an expression into a more
useful form. I'll let you do this question over, OK?
In general, you've given replies which demonstrate that you are
thinking about how you were taught rather than what the world is like
today. Look, I suspect we are approximate contemporaries, and I
appreciate all the same stuff that you do, but it doesn't mean that it
is the appropriate stuff going forward. There are *grammar checkers*
for chrissake. There's Mathematica. There's google-ing and Wikipedia.
When you ask "how will we get engineers and so on", the answer is
"probably in a different way than when you were going through the
system". That's what we need to think about, rather than convincing
potential doctoral candidates to lead children in reciting
multiplication tables.
-tg
John Gilmer
> No, I am only saying it does not make sense to spend education effort
> in the US on specialties that are no longer our comparative advantage.
>
> It is comparable to teaching manufacturing.
OK.
So, WTF should we teach the little darlings?
EMWTK
>
tgde...@earthlink.net
Gene Ward Smith wrote:
> tgde...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> > I tend to agree that probability (understanding statistical reasoning,
> > really) is a very important topic. I would gladly see all math classes
> > eliminated in favor of having kids discuss various real-world
> > stuff---political polls, disease rates and so on---every semester to
> > get a sense of what the numbers are really saying.
>
> I would gladly see all English courses replaced with Television
> Appreciation, all geography courses with World Soccer Analysis, and all
> history courses with Introduction to Civilization IV. That way we could
> have some kind of homogenity in the pig-ignorant nitwits your method
> will produce.
>
I would also supply spell-checkers for people like yourself. There, I
did the childish insult thing---once is enough for me but obviously not
for you.
I would indeed like to have time spent on television---specifically in
discussing advertising techniques, so kids can grow up at least a
little resistant to mind control. But that would be politically
incorrect these days, so it isn't going to happen.
> > But that's because I
> > can articulate a goal for 'education', which is to have citizens who
> > can make informed decisions.
>
> No, it's becauase you are so effing stupid you can't see that to
> understand stuff like disease rates or polling data you must understand
> the relevant mathematics *first*. How in hell do you expect to teach
> probability and statistics without any math in it?
*
It might also be useful to teach about things like informal fallacies
in logic. I didn't say that we should teach statistics and probability
without mathematics, since they are mathematics. I said "statistical
reasoning", or interpretation.
Can you give a concrete example of what you mean when you say "relevant
mathematics"? Here we are talking about this rigorous precise business
and so far I've had only vague replies.
>
> > BTW, I've had the debate about what gets taught in math courses with
> > people who teach math and the brick imprints are still there on my
> > forehead. I don't know how these things *ever* change---we should be
> > thankful that it *only* takes a couple of generations.
>
> That brick was probably a calculus textbook. One of the things wrong
> with how mathematics gets taught is that baboons like you create bloat
> and confusion by overloading the coursework with a zillion applications
> the students can't understand, because not enough time was spent
> teaching the basics.
I don't know what this means at all. It is true that most people who
have trouble with calculus actually have trouble with algebra in the
sense of manipulation. Depending on the thrust of the course, there
may also be a problem with concepts involving limits and functions. But
there's no need to do the manipulations since we have software for that
purpose. And, to remind everyone, I'm talking about the typical
citizen, who doesn't get anywhere close to calculus.
-tg
Gordon Hill
Implicit in your question is the suggestion that education should
include coursework that has pragmatic application. On this I
completely, wholly, totally disagree. Education is about expanding
knowledge in many areas so a child can discover... discover what they
don't know, discover what they want to know, discover what they don't
want to know, but most of all discover what they can't be happy without
knowing. when, and if, this last discovery is made, the teacher is
less important than the availability of resources.
But school isn't where the important learning occurs. That happens
outside the classroom. The "formula" isn't what's important, it's
problem solving and critical thinking that a person needs.
Algebra isn't the issue. That's one element of math. The huge problem
I saw in middle school was with arithemetic. Kids who couldn't add 5 +
7 without using a calculator or their fingers. Now it's not important
that you know 5 + 7 = 12 if all you're going to add is 5 + 7, but when
you have to add a long string of numbers, it matters.
> In general, you've given replies which demonstrate that you are
> thinking about how you were taught rather than what the world is like
> today. Look, I suspect we are approximate contemporaries, and I
> appreciate all the same stuff that you do, but it doesn't mean that it
> is the appropriate stuff going forward...
It's not about method, its about knowledge. The work being done to
advance teaching is beyond everything I learned fifty years ago in
"educational psychology", but learning is still the issue, the
expansion of knowledge, not the same knowledge we learned then, but the
"learning to learn". While a person's brain, mainly memory, is a
container holding knowledge born of experience to be used on recall,
the brain must select and process it to solve a problem, think through
a difficult issue.
It's the ability to know what we know, know what we don't know, then
find what we need and use a process to solve the problem, resolve the
issue. subject and method are important peripheral issues.
> ...There are *grammar checkers*
> for chrissake. There's Mathematica. There's google-ing and Wikipedia.
Who cares if they can't form an idea or define the problem
mathematically?
> When you ask "how will we get engineers and so on", the answer is
> "probably in a different way than when you were going through the
> system".
What ways? Do you have an approach? Professional educators do. Or
are you willing to strip the present system of existing classes, not
replacing them, letting chance solve any problems that arise?
The well taught math class doesn't look like a math class, it's a
problem solving class where math is the tool.
> That's what we need to think about, rather than convincing
> potential doctoral candidates to lead children in reciting
> multiplication tables.
You opened your response with, "Thanks for not insulting me outright
like the other folks." The above statement prompts a reaction which
would lead to an insult. What does this have to do with anything? In
all my experience, which is less than a professional teacher, I have
never seen this.
What I have seen, however, and often, are very personable people who
love children creating a learning environment where every area of
learning is encouraged, excepting math, an area with which the teacher
is unfamiliar. Also, math teachers with no training in teaching math
as a subject to be learned only their experience from poor math
teachers and no math teaching tutor to guide them.
Our views of what is needed differ as do our views of what is actually
happening in the classroom.
The issue is creating schools where children can experience a rich
variety of subjects, learning the basics so they can think and resolve
issues. There are basic tools needed for this and math is one.
Is there a single subject in school that doesn't require math?
Shirin
I did give examples. I'm sorry that you're unable to see them as
examples of real life topics but merely as handwaving.
I needed to buy carpet for our house. It's a real life algebra problem.
I cannot spend more than X number of dollars, I do not, off the top of
my head, know the square footage of my house, so how do I figure out
what kind of carpet to buy given the four hundred choices shown to me
in the showroom? It's algebra, and I figured out how what price range
of carpet I could afford to install using paper, a pencil, and a tape
measure.
If you rely a calculator or a computer program, you have to Understand
the problem _before_ you input the numbers.
>
> In general, you've given replies which demonstrate that you are
> thinking about how you were taught rather than what the world is like
> today. Look, I suspect we are approximate contemporaries, and I
> appreciate all the same stuff that you do, but it doesn't mean that it
> is the appropriate stuff going forward. There are *grammar checkers*
> for chrissake. There's Mathematica. There's google-ing and Wikipedia.
I can't rely on Google or Wikipedia in my work. They are not
sufficiently reliable sources, and much of what I research is not
immediately googlable.
>
> When you ask "how will we get engineers and so on", the answer is
> "probably in a different way than when you were going through the
> system". That's what we need to think about, rather than convincing
> potential doctoral candidates to lead children in reciting
> multiplication tables.
Please stop exagerating. Not every Science major (Biology, Chemistry,
{Math,} Physics, etc.) is automatically a potential doctoral candidate.
None of my three children have ever sat in a classroom reciting
multiplication tables. Neither did I.
People like to pretend that this scenario is common in the public
school system only when they wish to send shudders up the backs of
their listeners. There hasn't been a class reciting in unison, seated
at their desks all facing front, for generations.
I have not yet insulted you, as it is not my form to do so. On the
other hand, if you refuse to see that at least algebra is alive and
well in your daily existence, then I'm not sure what benefit there is
in debating what is the best way to educate young children in Math and
Science. Tis a shame. (Calculus is all around you as well; I'm pity you
that you cannot see it either.)
Shirin
Michael Press
<1159277968.2...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
tgde...@earthlink.net wrote:
> I would indeed like to have time spent on television---specifically in
> discussing advertising techniques, so kids can grow up at least a
> little resistant to mind control. But that would be politically
> incorrect these days, so it isn't going to happen.
Unnecessary. Teach proofs. When a student can write
correct proofs it is because he can criticize his own work
productively, setting aside his emotional reactions to
finding that he has made mistakes. Then he can delineate
lapses in presentations by others, and identify appeals to
his feelings.
--
Michael Press
tgde...@earthlink.net
Gordon Hill wrote:
> tgde...@earthlink.net wrote:
> > Gordon Hill wrote:
> > > Shirin wrote:
> > > > tgde...@earthlink.net wrote:
> > > > > Gordon Hill wrote:
> > > > > > tgde...@earthlink.net wrote:
> > > > > > > topmind wrote:
> > > > > > > > tgdenn...@earthlink.net wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
<snip>
Gordon,
I know you guys mean well but you are demonstrating why this is so
difficult---why people deride 'education' and 'education courses' and
'educators'. There's lots of high-flown rhetoric about learning to
learn and learning to think and all that. But here you are complaining
that kids can't add up long lists of numbers. What I'm challenging you
to do is to demonstrate *why that matters*. If methods don't matter,
and a calculator is a method, where's the harm? Why not count on your
fingers? I thought the point was knowing how to set up the problem.
-tg
tgde...@earthlink.net
Proofs? Of what? If you discuss rhetorical tricks you have to discuss
them as contrasted to logical reasoning, if that's what you're getting
at.
-tg
> --
> Michael Press
Herman Rubin
Gene Ward Smith <genewa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>tgde...@earthlink.net wrote:
>> I tend to agree that probability (understanding statistical reasoning,
>> really) is a very important topic. I would gladly see all math classes
>> eliminated in favor of having kids discuss various real-world
>> stuff---political polls, disease rates and so on---every semester to
>> get a sense of what the numbers are really saying.
>I would gladly see all English courses replaced with Television
>Appreciation, all geography courses with World Soccer Analysis, and all
>history courses with Introduction to Civilization IV. That way we could
>have some kind of homogenity in the pig-ignorant nitwits your method
>will produce.
>> But that's because I
>> can articulate a goal for 'education', which is to have citizens who
>> can make informed decisions.
>No, it's becauase you are so effing stupid you can't see that to
>understand stuff like disease rates or polling data you must understand
>the relevant mathematics *first*. How in hell do you expect to teach
>probability and statistics without any math in it?
You are SOOOO right! I have been teaching graduate
students now for more than 50 years, and helping people
with using statistics for more than 60. It is worse
than you say.
People who have taken beginning statistics courses are
may be in worse shape than those have not. They have
learned how to do STATISTICAL COMPUTING. That means
that they can take data and run it through a computer
program, whether or not that is appropriate. Now try
to teach them the underlying concepts.
However, those who have learned the concepts of probability
and decision theory can formulate their problems so they
can be answered if someone knows how to answer them, or can
figure it out. If they cannot, the statistical methods
learned in the beginning courses are inappropriate.
Now get it across to people ling tgdenning and others like
him, including the educationists and most teachers, that
one needs to learn basic concepts instead of how to carry
out routine instructions which may or not be relevant like
a zombie. The numbers are saying something, but it is very
much the case that what they are saying requires considerable
understanding to really know what they are saying.
>> BTW, I've had the debate about what gets taught in math courses with
>> people who teach math and the brick imprints are still there on my
>> forehead. I don't know how these things *ever* change---we should be
>> thankful that it *only* takes a couple of generations.
>That brick was probably a calculus textbook. One of the things wrong
>with how mathematics gets taught is that baboons like you create bloat
>and confusion by overloading the coursework with a zillion applications
>the students can't understand, because not enough time was spent
>teaching the basics.
Euclid's students understood what a limit was, although
they could not formulate it. Likewise, they understood
the "Riemann" integral, although they could rarely
calculate it. Today's students might be able to formulate
it by memory, but they are unlikely to understand these.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Shirin
tgde...@earthlink.net wrote:
> Gordon Hill wrote:
> > tgde...@earthlink.net wrote:
> > > Gordon Hill wrote:
> > > > Shirin wrote:
> > > > > tgde...@earthlink.net wrote:
> > > > > > Gordon Hill wrote:
> > > > > > > tgde...@earthlink.net wrote:
> > > > > > > > topmind wrote:
> > > > > > > > > tgdenn...@earthlink.net wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
>
> <snip>
>
> > But school isn't where the important learning occurs. That happens
> > outside the classroom. The "formula" isn't what's important, it's
> > problem solving and critical thinking that a person needs.
>
> Gordon,
>
> I know you guys mean well [snip]
I cannot believe that I'm responding to this. (And no, I'm not Gordon.)
Perhaps this thread is an example of why I became attracted to serving
on the Governing Board of an educational institution; the level of
ignorance here is disheartening.
Gordon has been talking about his experiences in the classroom. I have
been talking about an overarching view of how *I* think colleges and
universities could help public schools produce better educated
students. Yet after four or five responses, you're beginning to
contradict yourself and are beginning to get abrasive: "high-flown
rhetoric", etc.
> Gordon,
>
> I know you guys mean well but you are demonstrating why this is so
> difficult---why people deride 'education' and 'education courses' and
> 'educators'.
People deride education? Whoa. That's scary.
What are your interests? Philosophy, Religion? Did you learn those at
some point? Are interested in learning more? Do you want more people to
learn _how_ to program computers so that you can blindly rely upon
those programs' output?
You wrote:
>There's lots of high-flown rhetoric about learning to
> learn and learning to think and all that. But here you are complaining
> that kids can't add up long lists of numbers.
Gordon demonstrated that without a base knowledge (which you insist is
unecessary since we will all soon rely completely on calculators to
make our decisions for us), students cannot have the tools available to
confidently apply any methods.
You originally brought up the importance of real world applications as
being much more important than base knowledge. Gordon thinks both are
important.
You wrote:
> What I'm challenging you to do is to demonstrate *why that matters*.
I want people to understand the world they live in.
If my doctor tells me that a new drug has come on the market, one that
will cure all diseases which affect point two percent of the population
fighting cancer, and that the only side effect of the drug is that my
left ear will fall off, should I take the drug? Can I plug that
question into a calculator?
(I wouldn't take the drug, by the way, since I'm very likely not to
fall into the point two percent of the population which will be
affected by those cancers. I like my left ear just where it is. It
holds my glasses up.)
>If methods don't matter, and a calculator is a method, where's the harm?
Proper application of methods is important. A calculator is a tool, not
a method. (Can you not see this?) The harm to society is multifold if
people cannot understand that a tool used incorrectly, or used without
knowledge, is likely to bring about the wrong result.
You wrote:
> Why not count on your fingers? I thought the point was knowing how to set up the problem.
I only have ten fingers.
And yes, the point is *exactly* that you had better know how to set up
the problem. That requires a) a knowledge of a multitude of methods
available to solve the problem at hand, b) some discernment of which of
the available methods are likely to result in a proper answer, and c) a
knowledge of the tools at hand (arthimetic, calculators, logical
proofs) so that you can use the tools properly.
However, in past posts you have derided broad-based education as being
unecessary because we will all just plug problems into the calculator.
You have asked us to describe long-range goals for education. (Which we
did) Further, you asked that Gordon and I provide real world examples
where Algebra is at all useful. (Which we did) You indicated that
knowledge of Algebra was useless, since we will all rely upon TurbTax,
Google, and Wikipedia to solve our problems.
Yet, now you reverse yourself to say that the only real issue is in
knowing how to set up the problem to begin with, which is exactly where
Gordon and I began this farrago with you.
I simply hate posters who say, "Well, I can't stand this anymore, so
I'm taking my ball and going home." On the other hand, I cannot figure
out what it is you think education is (memorization of techniques?),
and I cannot figure out how you'd like it to be better (show me an
example of...). I truly believe that most of the problem I'm having
with our discussion regarding education in America is that you are not
particularly well educated.
Take care, and please make sure that your calculator's batteries never
run down,
Shirin
Herman Rubin
>Gene Ward Smith wrote:
>> tgde...@earthlink.net wrote:
>> > I tend to agree that probability (understanding statistical reasoning,
>> > really) is a very important topic. I would gladly see all math classes
>> > eliminated in favor of having kids discuss various real-world
>> > stuff---political polls, disease rates and so on---every semester to
>> > get a sense of what the numbers are really saying.
>> I would gladly see all English courses replaced with Television
>> Appreciation, all geography courses with World Soccer Analysis, and all
>> history courses with Introduction to Civilization IV. That way we could
>> have some kind of homogenity in the pig-ignorant nitwits your method
>> will produce.
>I would also supply spell-checkers for people like yourself. There, I
>did the childish insult thing---once is enough for me but obviously not
>for you.
One spelling error and you are complaining?
>I would indeed like to have time spent on television---specifically in
>discussing advertising techniques, so kids can grow up at least a
>little resistant to mind control. But that would be politically
>incorrect these days, so it isn't going to happen.
There is far more indoctrination in the current English
classes than on TV. That on TV is easier to resist, as
there are no schoolteachers giving grades to emphasize
the messages.
>> > But that's because I
>> > can articulate a goal for 'education', which is to have citizens who
>> > can make informed decisions.
If they are to be able to make informed decisions, they
will need to be able to use logic and mathematical notation.
The mathematical analog of writing sentences and short
paragraphs is formulating problems in symbols, not in
solving them.
But they also need to know physical and political
geography, the development of Western civilization
from before the ancient Sumerians and Egyptians to
the present time, enough chemistry that they can
understand the structure of a molecule including
biological ones, enough physics that they can
understand what is going on with planets and stars.
They need to be able to understand that putting a
man on the moon involved no new science, and that
"curing cancer" may even be an impossibility; other
than bacterial, viral, and deficiency diseases,
which have been cured at all?
They need to understand enough probability and
decision theory that they can make medical decisions
intelligently, with the aid of computers, given the
best probability information the medical people can
supply, and to understand that the decision on the
balance between safety and effectiveness, except where
putlic health is involved, must come from them, not
a government regulatory body.
This is not coming close to happening now. Crude
statistics can be worse than useless.
I definitely agree about the overemphasis on manipulation;
they should have a SMALL amount, with no time limit. But
what they are getting now is ONLY manipulation, and few
faculty members have the courage to insist they learn what
limits and derivatives are. They also need to learn the
5000 year old general concept of integral, and learn that
the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus states that two things
which look unrelated are equal.
>-tg
tgde...@earthlink.net
If you are going to say that you are disagreeing with me, it might help
if you would pay attention to what I said. I'm talking about teaching
citizens (not grad students) to understand the implications of
information that comes to them in the form that we describe as
statistics. I am arguing *against* teaching people to do mechanical
manipulations in general.
Since you are an actual expert, maybe you could contribute some
examples of what you mean by basic concepts. I would be delighted if
people even could recognize the various ways in which income
distribution numbers can be presented for political purposes.
-tg
Gordon Hill
Sorry this reply took so long. I'm having intermittent INET problems.
Shirin responded from his viewpoint as well and I decided to reply
independently.
> I know you guys mean well but you are demonstrating why this is so
> difficult---why people deride 'education' and 'education courses' and
> 'educators'....
This response begs for an emotional response. Everyone means well.
Are you are suggesting we are uninformed, hence incapable of reasoning
this through?
> ...There's lots of high-flown rhetoric about learning to
> learn and learning to think and all that...
High flown rhetoric? Another suggestion that we have abandoned reason.
> ...But here you are complaining
> that kids can't add up long lists of numbers....
That is not my concern. My problem is that if kids don't know how to
add, subtract, multiply and divide positive and negative numbers... if
they don't understand what it really means when they say 3 x 4 =
12--not that they have memorized it, but that they visualize it, it has
meaning--then all the math education in the world is worthless. Not
teaching math because it is taught improperly is a poorer alternative
than teaching math correctly.
> ...What I'm challenging you
> to do is to demonstrate *why that matters*. If methods don't matter,
> and a calculator is a method, where's the harm? Why not count on your
> fingers? I thought the point was knowing how to set up the problem.
If you do not know how to add, subtract, multiply and divide, how can
you set up a problem. Then there are negative numbers, which some kids
get and others don't, right away.
As for counting on their fingers, that's okay, but I have a problem
when they are in the eighth grade, counting 3 + 4 on their fingers.
Michael Press
<1159286786....@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
tgde...@earthlink.net wrote:
A course in Euclidean geometry where the student studies
proofs of propositions and learns to write detailed proofs
of propositions. He learns to tackle a problem, understand
the problem, research it (search his textbook for clues to
the solution), create the solution, and write a detailed
account of the proof. He learns to think for himself,
generate coherent accounts of his thinking, and open
himself to his own lapses.
--
Michael Press
William Hughes
Or he learns to hate geometry, and is confirmed in his
opinion that math is a useless torture with no application
(by learning to parrot a few proofs he may pass the course).
In general, I find the idea of teaching an arcane or
useless dicipline in the hopes of instilling general
reasoning capablities a bad idea. Students are usually
very poor at abstracting out the relevent ideas and
applying them in other areas (and those that can
do this usually already know the relevent ideas).
Teach Latin because you think that knowledge of
Latin is useful, not because "teaching Latin teaches
children how to think".
I too find the attempt to teach applications without
the requisite theoretical grounding a recipe for,
if not disaster, graduates with very limited abilities.
However, teaching pure theory will not work.
If the students don't see some purpose they
will not apply themselves. For most students
this purpose must be some concrete application.
(If you have a student who is satisfied with
theory only, give him a few good text books
and send him to a corner to read).
-William Hughes
allencox....@gmail.com
math for the sake of learning math would also need to disregard
literature, art, and anything without an application to eating or
sleeping. Check out "A Mathematicians Apology".
Herman Rubin
<tgde...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >tgde...@earthlink.net wrote:
The basic concepts are that of probability and expectation,
and the idea of risk as a function of the state of nature
and the probability distribution of results given that
state of nature. Then it is necessary to integrate this
over a measure on states of nature.
Probability is NOT relative frequency, although this gave
rise to it. Given a sequence of events which are independent
(which is a precise probabilistic term, and not the logical
term with the same name) and all with the same probability,
the relative frequency converges to the probability SLOWLY.
It would take quite a bit to flesh this out. Understanding
of the concepts definitely requires an understanding of
mathematical notation and algebra, and would be at least
very hard without the idea of limit. I can give a presentation
of all of it without calculus, but it would be a fair-sized
article at least.
Herman Rubin
William Hughes <wpih...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Unless a strong course in logic has been taught instead,
the geometry course is the introduction to real mathematics.
When I managed to convince the teacher that I knew first-
year algebra, I was hesitant to take geometry, as I knew
nothing about it, and I would be starting a month late.
Ah, this was real mathematics! Not learning facts and
formulas, or even the simple algebraic notation, but
getting into proofs. The present "intuitive" geometry
courses teach no mathematical concepts, and just turn
the students into zombies.
>I too find the attempt to teach applications without
>the requisite theoretical grounding a recipe for,
>if not disaster, graduates with very limited abilities.
>However, teaching pure theory will not work.
>If the students don't see some purpose they
>will not apply themselves. For most students
>this purpose must be some concrete application.
>(If you have a student who is satisfied with
>theory only, give him a few good text books
>and send him to a corner to read).
It may take more than that to understand the concepts.
The texts do a poor job of this, and it takes someone
who already understands them to see that they are
learned, unless the student is one of the few who
somehow has managed to figure out how to distinguish
concepts from mere generalizations of special cases.
I still do not feel I understand analytic function
theory. I know how the objects work, and that, at
least at this time, the domain must be the complex
numbers. I know how to prove the theorems and to
use the results. But what is the concept?
This talent, alas, seems to be rare.
Bob Pease
"Herman Rubin" <hru...@stat.purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:efcks7$2u...@odds.stat.purdue.edu...
As I see it ( having taught Math at levles grade seven through @00 grad
level, and in computer school to adults with below third grade math
skills)::
Mathematics consists essentially of three different skills
1. Computaion (Being able to perform algorithms when presented wth them)
2. Reckoning ( Numeracy, estmation. )
3 Analysis ( the rest)
Unfortunatly JQ Public has some of the first, liittle of the second, and
none of the third.
There seems to be a belief that #1 1and #2 are all that's needed,
These two are necessary, but by no means sufficient conditions.
Analysis is essentially a VERBAL skill, and with a general shortchanging of
students in all areas of mental development. it is difficult for analysis to
develop. yet alone to prosper. ,
" I can't DO word problems" means that somehow verbal skills have not been
well ennough developed to cross over into analysis."
My 3.14 cents worth
RJ Pease
Michael Press
<1159316964....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"William Hughes" <wpih...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Nobody has to do it. The course can be offered, and taught
well to those who want to apply themselves and exercise
their powers of thought. You have mistaken me for someone
who intends to impose his views on others.
--
Michael Press
William Hughes
Nope. I have suggested that teaching a course for the
sole purpose of instilling reasoning ability is a bad idea.
It does not matter whether or not students are forced to
take it. [Here you are naive. Such a course is likely to
be made a prerequisite for all sorts of things]
The few students who will not be turned off math by this
course are not the ones you need to reach. And in
any case why Euclidean geometry? Why not introductory
analysis or number theory. You can do just as much teaching
of proof methods and the results are not sterile.
-William Hughes
William Hughes
Nope. I have suggested that teaching a course for the
sole purpose of instilling reasoning ability is a bad idea.
It does not matter whether or not students are forced to
take it. [Here you are naive. Such a course is likely to
be made a prerequisite for all sorts of things]
The few students who will not be turned off math by this
course are not the ones you need to reach. And in
any case why Euclidean geometry? Why not introductory
analysis or number theory. You can do just as much teaching
of proof methods and the results are not sterile.
-William Hughes
> --
> Michael Press
tgde...@earthlink.net
Good. But we don't treat it that way, which is one of the points I am
trying to make by raising the issue. Indeed, we cut art and literature
and so on so that we can have students practice mechanical
manipulations. Is there a standardized test graduation requirement for
art in your state?
-tg
tgde...@earthlink.net
> "Herman Rubin" <hru...@stat.purdue.edu> wrote in message
> news:efcks7$2u...@odds.stat.purdue.edu...
> > In article <1159316964....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> > William Hughes <wpih...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Michael Press wrote:
> > >> In article
> > >> <1159286786....@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> > >> tgde...@earthlink.net wrote:
> >
> > >> > Michael Press wrote:
> > >> > > In article
> > >> > > <1159277968.2...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> > >> > > tgde...@earthlink.net wrote:
> >
...
> >
>
> As I see it ( having taught Math at levles grade seven through @00 grad
> level, and in computer school to adults with below third grade math
> skills)::
>
> Mathematics consists essentially of three different skills
>
> 1. Computaion (Being able to perform algorithms when presented wth them)
> 2. Reckoning ( Numeracy, estmation. )
> 3 Analysis ( the rest)
>
> Unfortunatly JQ Public has some of the first, liittle of the second, and
> none of the third.
>
> There seems to be a belief that #1 1and #2 are all that's needed,
>
> These two are necessary, but by no means sufficient conditions.
>
> Analysis is essentially a VERBAL skill, and with a general shortchanging of
> students in all areas of mental development. it is difficult for analysis to
> develop. yet alone to prosper. ,
>
> " I can't DO word problems" means that somehow verbal skills have not been
> well ennough developed to cross over into analysis."
>
Excellent. If you take it a step further, doesn't it make sense to
spend time on verbal skills instead of 1 and 2, since they are
mechanical acts better done by a machine?
Could you comment on how general this understanding about verbal skills
is among your colleagues?
-tg
Bob Pease
<tgde...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1159353247.9...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Bob Pease wrote:
>
> > >
> >
> > As I see it ( having taught Math at leves grade seven through 500 grad
> > level, and in computer school to adults with below third grade math
> > skills)::
> >
> > Mathematics consists essentially of three different skills
> >
> > 1. Computaion (Being able to perform algorithms when presented wth them)
> > 2. Reckoning ( Numeracy, estmation. )
> > 3 Analysis ( the rest)
> >
> > Unfortunatly JQ Public has some of the first, liittle of the second, and
> > none of the third.
> >
> > There seems to be a belief that #1 1and #2 are all that's needed,
> >
> > These two are necessary, but by no means sufficient conditions.
> >
> > Analysis is essentially a VERBAL skill, and with a general shortchanging
of
> > students in all areas of mental development. it is difficult for
analysis to
> > develop. yet alone to prosper. ,
> >
> > " I can't DO word problems" means that somehow verbal skills have not
been
> > well ennough developed to cross over into analysis."
> >
>
> Excellent. If you take it a step further, doesn't it make sense to
> spend time on verbal skills instead of 1 and 2, since they are
> mechanical acts better done by a machine?
>
> Could you comment on how general this understanding about verbal skills
> is among your colleagues?
>
> -tg
>
My colleagues have not. in general been Academic Professors, but Secondary
and Comunity College teachers.
I' afraid that the vast majority of them have not considered the issue.
I'm sure that the majority of them think that analysis as some kind of a
gift that, in general is for the advanced student and is kind of an "Icing
on the cake".
They are too busy trying to justify "D" level work as "B " ot "A"
In order to be successful in this level of the education system it is
necessary to produce
the illusion to the student of achievement rather than learning.
Sometimes there is overlap
As Department Chair at a High School, I got a form letter from University
of Northern Colorado , sent out to almost all high schools in the area.
It contained a list of students who had tested out as needing remedial
skills before they could take courses in the regular Math curriculum.
Some of the students had actully Taken "Calculus " but had all aken at laest
ALG II to get into college.
They expressed regret that the grades given did not show any competence ,
and suggested that it was the responsiblity of the Secondary schools not to
miisrepreent the background of colege-bound students.
One of the Questions I used to ask prospective Teachers at our High School
Was to prove that 2 + 2 = 4
Although I expected that the majority could not do that, I generally got
raised eyebrows, and a declaration that it was a basic fact and did not
need proof . or could not BE proven .
I finally had to stop asking the question
The typical approach at most levels , including many "Specialized " "Math"
courses at the University level, is simply to get the student to memorize
examples from the text, and test them on basic skills, definitions and
clones of the text questions.
Problems requiring analysis are usually met with complaints that that
particular moterial wasn't "Covered" in class.
At many Community Colleges, Math 121 ( College Algebra and Trig) is
considered a "Cutting" Couurse
There is a 50 to 60 % rate of drop-out or failure because standards are
enforced.
Students who have gotten a "B" or better usually are prepared for Calculus.
Math 121 instructors who grossly inflate grades are assigned to other
courses.
This really does keep the time in Calcuus for learning Basic or
Clone-Problem approan down to a minimum.
I guess that's about 4*PI cents worth
Bob Pease
tgde...@earthlink.net
Gordon, if you detect some frustration in my language, this kind of
statement is the source,
What *does* it really mean??
And when you say below that
> If you do not know how to add, subtract, multiply and divide, how can
> you set up a problem.
My question is "why not?". What does one have to do with the other?
And then there's
> As for counting on their fingers, that's okay, but I have a problem
> when they are in the eighth grade, counting 3 + 4 on their fingers.
Yes, you've made that clear, but *why*? How is counting on one's
fingers conceptually different from anything else? What do you think
goes on in a person's head when they do addition?
I'd really like to hear how you approach these questions when you think
about teaching. So far, my perception is that your practices are
inconsistent with your philosophy.
-tg
Gordon Hill
2+4X6-3/2+6-7=?
>
> And then there's
>
> > As for counting on their fingers, that's okay, but I have a problem
> > when they are in the eighth grade, counting 3 + 4 on their fingers.
>
> Yes, you've made that clear, but *why*? How is counting on one's
> fingers conceptually different from anything else? What do you think
> goes on in a person's head when they do addition?
While I am against timed testing, I think problem solution time is
important. It has to do with productivity which has a bearing on cost
which establishes the extent to which an operation is effective.
> I'd really like to hear how you approach these questions when you think
> about teaching. So far, my perception is that your practices are
> inconsistent with your philosophy.
Whatever that means.
Michael Press
<1159353247.9...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
tgde...@earthlink.net wrote:
> Bob Pease wrote:
[...]
> > Mathematics consists essentially of three different skills
> >
> > 1. Computaion (Being able to perform algorithms when presented wth them)
> > 2. Reckoning ( Numeracy, estmation. )
> > 3 Analysis ( the rest)
> >
> > Unfortunatly JQ Public has some of the first, liittle of the second, and
> > none of the third.
> >
> > There seems to be a belief that #1 1and #2 are all that's needed,
> >
> > These two are necessary, but by no means sufficient conditions.
> >
> > Analysis is essentially a VERBAL skill, and with a general shortchanging of
> > students in all areas of mental development. it is difficult for analysis to
> > develop. yet alone to prosper. ,
> >
> > " I can't DO word problems" means that somehow verbal skills have not been
> > well ennough developed to cross over into analysis."
> >
>
> Excellent. If you take it a step further, doesn't it make sense to
> spend time on verbal skills instead of 1 and 2, since they are
> mechanical acts better done by a machine?
Who will teach the machines? How will the populace at
large learn to use the machine effectively; e.g. recognize
an anomalous result?
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
<1159336822.5...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"William Hughes" <wpih...@hotmail.com> wrote:
There are students who need to be reached. I have met
adult women competent in areas outside the technical who
said they liked secondary school geometry.
> And in
> any case why Euclidean geometry? Why not introductory
> analysis or number theory. You can do just as much teaching
> of proof methods and the results are not sterile.
First, Euclidean geometry is not empty. The theorems are
used pervasively in subsequent mathematics.
Second, I offered Euclidean geometry as an _example_ of a
course where someone can be first offered real mathematics
to do.
Third, Euclidean geometry contains propositions of
intrinsic interest.
Fourth, you fall into the trap of thinking that students
must be `motivated'; as in persuaded to do something by
holding out the benfits. When someone says to me `Why do I
have to study ABC? It does not make sense. I want to do
XYZ.' I tell them that if I could convey to them _why_
they should do ABC, then they would not have to slog
through a year of hard labor doing the exercises finding
out. No athlete asks why he must run around the track.
Actually, students do not like being coddled and fobbed
off with ersatz learning. They resent it and act on their
resentment.
--
Michael Press
Herman Rubin
>> Bob Pease wrote:
[...]
>Michael Press
There will be plenty to produce the machine algorithms,
Your last sentence is a killer; if they do not
understand the concepts, they are likely to "press
the wrong buttons". The great bulk of those who
use statistical packages are of this type; they
select a procedure which has some similarity to
the problem, like a rectangular table, and use
a procedure set up for rectangular tables with
certain assumptions. If the table is that of an
additive model with independent errors with the
same variance, an analysis of variance is the
appropriate procedure. If instead it is a table
of counts, that procedure is definitely inappropriate.
The only way I can see around this is to teach them
the concepts, so they will at least recognize the
type of problem. As for recognizing an anomalous
result, this is quite unlikely to happen. The
statistical computer consulting service sent someone
to me, claiming that the program was inadequate, and
gave poor results. Alas, his data was quite compatible
with those poor results, and I pointed out to him why.
I do not think he was happy, but at least he was able
to see that he did not have enough data to get better
results.
Another example is the engineer who simplifies his
differential equation to one he can solve. It takes
considerable knowledge and skill to know when that
simplification is appropriate, and I would not
expect that someone who took undergraduate mathematics
only would be likely to be in such a position.
William Hughes
So, why do you say those students need or needed to
be reached? Did the fact that they took geometry mean
that they were reached?
> > And in
> > any case why Euclidean geometry? Why not introductory
> > analysis or number theory. You can do just as much teaching
> > of proof methods and the results are not sterile.
>
> First, Euclidean geometry is not empty. The theorems are
> used pervasively in subsequent mathematics.
>
Really. I have never used them. I have used the theorems
from introductory analysis and algebra many many times.
In what branch of mathematics do you use the theorems
of Euclidean geometry?
> Second, I offered Euclidean geometry as an _example_ of a
> course where someone can be first offered real mathematics
> to do.
>
And I replied with two examples, where someone could not
only be "first offered real mathematics", but would also
learn something much more useful than Euclidean geometry.
To my mind the fact that you chose as your example something
with little or no application is very telling.
> Third, Euclidean geometry contains propositions of
> intrinsic interest.
>
Again so do introductory analysis and number theory.
The point is that anyone who finds the propositions of
Euclidean geometry of intrinsic interest will
also find introductory analysis and number theory of
intrinsic interest.
Euclidean geometry has nothing going for it but
tradition.
> Fourth, you fall into the trap of thinking that students
> must be `motivated'; as in persuaded to do something by
> holding out the benfits.
This is only rational. If there are no benefits to
doing something, why do it?
> When someone says to me `Why do I
> have to study ABC? It does not make sense. I want to do
> XYZ.' I tell them that if I could convey to them _why_
> they should do ABC, then they would not have to slog
> through a year of hard labor doing the exercises finding
> out. No athlete asks why he must run around the track.
>
Nope. An athlete can see the rewards
for being good at athletics. An athlete can see the connection
between running around the track and excelling in athletics.
The rewards for being good in mathematics are longer
term and partially offset by short term disadvantages.
The student cannot see the conection between doing
the slog work and excelling at mathematics.
Telling the student, this may hurt, but its for your own
good, is not very satisfying.
> Actually, students do not like being coddled and fobbed
> off with ersatz learning. They resent it and act on their
> resentment.
>
True, but teaching a subject that has applications and
pointing out what the applications are, is hardly
coddling or fobbing off.
- William Hughes
tgde...@earthlink.net
Gordon Hill wrote:
> tgde...@earthlink.net wrote:
> > Gordon Hill wrote:
> > > tgde...@earthlink.net wrote:
> > > > Gordon Hill wrote:
> > > > > tgde...@earthlink.net wrote:
> > > > > > Gordon Hill wrote:
> > > > > > > Shirin wrote:
> > > > > > > > tgde...@earthlink.net wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Gordon Hill wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > tgde...@earthlink.net wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > topmind wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > tgdenn...@earthlink.net wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > >
Here's the point:
If you give a student the problem you describe, then what you are
asking them to do is follow an algorithm---perform certain operations
in a certain order. You seem to call this "understanding". But since
computer software can perform the same algorithm, you would then have
to say that the computer 'understands' the same thing as the student.
What makes sense to me is having students learn to do things that
computers *can't* do, since computers do what they *can* do so much
faster and more accurately than humans. When people introduce terms
like 'understanding' and 'critical thinking', they should be able to
differentiate those from "memorization" and "following algorithms".
What computers can't do is translate either direct experience (as in an
experiment,) or a verbal description. into the mathematical notation
that describes an algorithm. While some might argue that much of such
activity involves recognizing known patterns anyway, that's a deeper
philosophical question than is necessary for this discussion.
Although there's an effort to address this issue among some math
educators (I've helped design what are basically little physics
experiments for this kind of curriculum,) there is still an enormous
amount of inertia. People have a hard time recognizing or admitting to
themselves that 98% of what everyone spent all those years learning
(through calculus, finite math, statistics, whatever) has nothing to do
with understanding and everything to do with utilizing brains because
we didn't have microprocessors.
-tg
Gordon Hill
topmind
John Gilmer wrote:
> > No, I am only saying it does not make sense to spend education effort
> > in the US on specialties that are no longer our comparative advantage.
> >
> > It is comparable to teaching manufacturing.
>
> OK.
>
> So, WTF should we teach the little darlings?
Research skills *actually* used in growing fields, and teach them or
concepts based on them. Our education has to be as nimble as our
economy has to be, because as soon as something becomes a commodity
idea, it shifts to lower-wage countries. Change is our comparative
advantage, not technology itself because the laws of physics are
identical in Lowwagenstan as here.
>
> EMWTK
> >
-T-
John Gilmer
> Research skills *actually* used in growing fields, and teach them or
> concepts based on them. Our education has to be as nimble as our
> economy has to be, because as soon as something becomes a commodity
> idea, it shifts to lower-wage countries.
Sorry, but I just don't think a government run education system can be
"nimble" enough enough to get new skills into the workplace in time to skim
all the cream before India and China take up the slack.
tgde...@earthlink.net
Public education should produce educable people. You are correct if you
think that there's incredible inertia in education, but you are
incorrect in thinking that the private sector will achieve that goal.
People who can read and do research and use whatever tools are
available can specialize at some point in their lives. But people who
start out specialized simply contribute to the inertia since change is
against their interests. The private sector is driven towards
specialization by market forces.
How about if public education means that the public supplies every kid
with software and on-line references and maybe laptops and an ISP? Of
course, this idea will be condemned by both right and left in the
education debate, but what else is new?
-tg
John Gilmer
> Public education should produce educable people. You are correct if you
> think that there's incredible inertia in education, but you are
> incorrect in thinking that the private sector will achieve that goal.
What's the "private sector" as far as you are concerned?
Home education? Church/Religious Schools? Fancy private schools? Seems
to me these have all outperformed the "public section" by most metrics.
>
> People who can read and do research and use whatever tools are
> available can specialize at some point in their lives. But people who
> start out specialized simply contribute to the inertia since change is
> against their interests.
Huh? Are you saying that the public schools should concentrate on provided
a good BASIC classical education (3 R's type)? That doesn't require them
to be "nimble" but just "sound" and solid.
>The private sector is driven towards
> specialization by market forces.
Yep! But new markets are just about never anticipated by governments (or
their schools). Even when schools specialize (as with biomedical or CS or
whatever)
>
> How about if public education means that the public supplies every kid
> with software and on-line references and maybe laptops and an ISP? Of
> course, this idea will be condemned by both right and left in the
> education debate, but what else is new?
What makes you think either the "right" or "left" would oppose this? The
government possesses a vast knowledge base.
A cheap ISP cost $10/month. Most homes of educatable kids already have a
computer. The "people" have already taken care of themselves.
Are you suggesting that "public educaton" stop at the point when the little
darlings know how to read and compute and they educate themselves with their
home computers and lap tops?
>
> -tg
>
Herman Rubin
<tgde...@earthlink.net> wrote:
This will not be condemned by the libertarians, or in fact
almost anyone who feels that learning is more important than
socialization and athletic teams, with the corresponding
athletic scholarships.
I have stated that I would like to see "distance" classes,
which are not included in the above. There is a point in
discussions with equals, and there does need to be the
possibility of having things clarified. And those of
lesser intelligence in a given area MAY need classes to
be able to understand.
tgde...@earthlink.net
My comments relate to what I've been discussing previously in this
thread, and a different one about public education, and obviously
aren't clear.
Public education should provide the basic tools to function in society,
but I don't think that the basic tools now are the same as they were 50
years ago.
I find handwringing about spellcheckers and calculators truly silly, so
if that's what you mean by the three r's then no. When I talk about
giving kids hardware and software I mean that these are the modern
equivalent of the 3 r's. Just think how much still gets spent on
(useless and heavy) textbooks; surely we could spring for enough to
level the playing field a bit in technology. I'm sure you know that all
the words and pictures in all the textbooks a child uses from k-12
could fit on a few discs, as you also know that there's still a large
gap in technology access for many.
So, for example, If you believe that carrying out algorithms with
mathematical symbols is one of the basic tools we're talking about, and
there is technology that can do it, then provide that and have the
student learn how to use it. But it becomes their property, just as if
they had learned to do the mechanical manipulations themselves.
I don't think schools should be eliminated at all. The little darlings
(of which you were possibly one once yourself) will probably still need
a little guidance to spend their time wisely. I also see value in
socialization and sports and art and music and all those silly
activities, since they are avenues for motivation and for learning how
to learn.
So yes I would say solid and steady in the sense that you figure out
the 'basic tool' package every few years through consensus among the
various interests in society. But I do mean few years, like 10, not 50.
As an aside, how you can post on TO about what a great job those
religious schools are doing is beyond me. That's a perfect illustration
of the market doing a bad job because it narrows focus to get market
share. I would object equally to a school that starts focusing on math
and science too early, of course.
The right objections would be that providing everyone with e.g. an
encyclopedia or spreadsheet would reduce the opportunity to sell them
one at a non-bulk price, and the left objection would be because the
academic guild system would be threatened.
Too long, sorry, but you asked.
-tg
John Gilmer
>
> My comments relate to what I've been discussing previously in this
> thread, and a different one about public education, and obviously
> aren't clear.
>
> Public education should provide the basic tools to function in society,
> but I don't think that the basic tools now are the same as they were 50
> years ago.
>
> I find handwringing about spellcheckers and calculators truly silly, so
> if that's what you mean by the three r's then no.
Regardless of how many computers and calculators are floating about in the
environment kids still NEED the 3Rs.
Folks who know the 3Rs have no problem learning how to use calculators or
computers.
There may be some utility is requiring kids to learn to type on the QWERTY
keyboard (it ain't going to go away) but to waste resources teaching kids
WORD or any word processor beyond a simple line editor is silly.
A typist can who wants/needs to learn a word processor program can pick up
the basics in a few minutes.
My in-laws are in their 70s. My MIL learned how to type when a teen. Her
kids finally convinced her to "try" a computer about a year ago. She
picked up what she needed very quickly.
The only reason to teach kids WORD is to help Micro$oft have a larger
captive market.
>When I talk about
> giving kids hardware and software I mean that these are the modern
> equivalent of the 3 r's. Just think how much still gets spent on
> (useless and heavy) textbooks; surely we could spring for enough to
> level the playing field a bit in technology.
The 3Rs don't demand much in the way of textbooks.
In the "bad old days" text books were much smaller and had MUCH less
graphics than today's stuff. Three textbooks from the 50's would weigh
about as much as a laptop.
Computers just aren't necessary for an education either then or now.
Kids/adults who are well grounded in the basics (3Rs) will take up the "high
tech" tools like a duck take to water when they have a true need.
>I'm sure you know that all
> the words and pictures in all the textbooks a child uses from k-12
> could fit on a few discs, as you also know that there's still a large
> gap in technology access for many.
So? To master the 3Rs you don't need much in the way of "pictures."
>
> So, for example, If you believe that carrying out algorithms with
> mathematical symbols is one of the basic tools we're talking about, and
> there is technology that can do it, then provide that and have the
> student learn how to use it. But it becomes their property, just as if
> they had learned to do the mechanical manipulations themselves.
Again, the "high tech" solution can be mastered quickly if a particular
person actually needs it.
I suggest to you than a kid who learns Algebra only with a text book, a
teacher, pencil, and paper will be able to solve problems years from now.
The kid who had to master a TI-83 (or whatever the "latest and greatest" is
today) as part of his Algebra class will have stuffed his head with
information that only has to do with his particular calculator. In a few
years that information is completely useless.
>
> I don't think schools should be eliminated at all. The little darlings
> (of which you were possibly one once yourself) will probably still need
> a little guidance to spend their time wisely. I also see value in
> socialization and sports and art and music and all those silly
> activities, since they are avenues for motivation and for learning how
> to learn.
Gosh! Why learn music when you can just play a MP3 file on your PC or run
a MIDI file through your electronic keyboard?
>
> So yes I would say solid and steady in the sense that you figure out
> the 'basic tool' package every few years through consensus among the
> various interests in society. But I do mean few years, like 10, not 50.
Well, my point and my belief is that "hi tech" changes so quickly that it
just should NOT be taught in the public schools. Whether a particular
application or set of applications is more efficient at teaching "the
basics" than the "classic" approach then let it justify itself only on that
basis. But to think that it will benefit a kid who loses computer access
for a few years while a new operating environment comes about is nonsense.
>
>
> As an aside, how you can post on TO about what a great job those
> religious schools are doing is beyond me.
From my observation they do an "OK" job compared to your basic "white bread"
public school with typical middle class students. They are not more
oriented toward providing a good education to the truly bright kids ("Mensa
Smart") than the public systems. They easily beat the "inner city" schools
and some poor rural schools and that's where you see the most support for
them. They also do a fair job on "troubled" kids that the public system
tends to just keep expelling.
>That's a perfect illustration
> of the market doing a bad job because it narrows focus to get market
> share. I would object equally to a school that starts focusing on math
> and science too early, of course.
What's wrong with early math? Kids should be taught Algebra and Calculus
as soon as possible. (And not "pre-algebra or pre-calculus"). Ditto for
plane and solid geometry and trig. It makes sense to give them as much
math as possible so that they can be taught "real" science rather than
"cute" science.
>
> The right objections would be that providing everyone with e.g. an
> encyclopedia or spreadsheet would reduce the opportunity to sell them
> one at a non-bulk price, and the left objection would be because the
> academic guild system would be threatened.
I believe the kids would benefit more from a "hard copy" encyclopedia at
home or in the classroom than two computers with any software you can
imagine.
>
topmind
But the private sector is only more efficient if the results are fairly
easy to verify. It is kind of like medical care: do we want economic
darwism to determine the correct medical treatment? Written tests are
of limited use. By the time the knowledge is commodity enough to make
tests, it is already 3rd-world-able.
It would probably take a combination of organizations and approaches.
Plus, a combo prepares students for an unpredictable multifaceted
world.
-T-