Re: [IAEP] food for thought...
OK, not even wrong. That sounds like an awful lot of potential.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/File:Bbrot225x225x24.PNG
; )
https://lateral-exponential.notnil.org/
On 28 August 2011 16:12, moku...@earthtreasury.org wrote:
Sorry, Sean, but as Wolfgang Pauli used to say, Not even wrong.
On Thu, August 25, 2011 6:19 pm, Sean Linton wrote:
Perhaps recently the culture of mathematics education, at least since
Newton's *Principia *
Euclid's Elements, please. Principia is a book of physics, not math, and
you are late by two millennia. Newton's full title is Mathematical
Principles of Natural Philosophy.
has been just that, *principles* handed down
a perceived hierarchy, from a *prince*. May be based on
genuinely useful descriptions and definitions, but as the Garfunkel
article
in the NYTimes suggests not really reflective of the pan-archy in which
we
find ourselves today, where many types of mathematical skill set need to
be
acknowledged for our inter-networked society.
See
http://replacingtextbooks.wordpress.com/2011/07/28/what-do-mathematicians-and-scientists-do-all-day/
A better mathematics education might involve less abstract reasoning,
but
also generally less heralding by teachers of untestable *principles* to
students who are not yet equipped to decide for themselves. Let the
children
decide in what way a mathematical concept is a useful description by
building implicitly ('abstract', 'reason', 'energy', . . . concepts
which
bind things together; *Ratio Legis*) from the ground up, *Ã * la
Bronowski's
*The Ascent of Man *for example.
No thank you. A fine expositor, Bronowski, but not for primary school
children. Jean Piaget is your man for unraveling how children come to form
mathematical ideas. Hint: Not like grownups, and even less as grownups
imagine.
Describe before you prescribe . . . or
ascribe to George Bush a *principle* of *punishing failure* to pass
standard tests?
???
See http://samanthadouglas.wordpress.com/2011/07/28/give-100-percent/
Who or what was Math anyway that ¡ all the children in the world !
really
need to be doing his home work every night?
???
Sour grapes?
What mean all these mysteries to me
Whose life is full of indices and surds?
x²+7x+53
= 11/3
Lewis Carroll, A Tangled Tale
; D
;{Þ}}}
...Euclid alone
Has looked on beauty bare. Fortunate they,
Who though once only, and then but far away
Have heard her massive sandal set on stone.
Edna St. Vincent Millay
XO
Sean
On 26 August 2011 09:19, Steve Thomas sthom...@gosargon.com wrote:
Alan,
Okay, I'll bite, I can see how you believe the standard curriculum is
way
off, but what part of their proposed solution do you disagree with and
where
do you see as the preferred paths?
In particular in the article they state *Science and math were
originally
discovered together, and they are best learned together now. which I
assume
you agree with based on past writings.*
I can see how you might disagree that learning Latin has no value (I
have
learned a lot from attempting to learn smalltalk).
My fear in what the authors suggest is that the real world problems
will
be like what I saw in 1902 textbook Algebra Text by
Milne
http://books.google.com/books?id=DhU4MAAJprintsec=frontcoverdq=inauthor:%22William+James+Milne%22hl=enei=27VWTvfzIqjd0QGLo6DRDAsa=Xoi=book_resultct=book-preview-linkresnum=5ved=0CEEQuwUwBA#v=onepageqf=false
which I found in an ice cream shop on Cape Cod (I only go to the best
ice cream shoppes ;) The book was filled with real world problems
(and
little visualizations or age appropriate concrete tasks/objects kids
could
relate to) for ex:
[image:
books?id=DhU4MAAJpg=PA356img=1zoom=3hl=ensig=ACfU3U1k1CWXvlkhypODoZuTWebG14bH1Qci=93%2C458%2C873%2C105edge=0]
I look forward to your response, the destruction of my existing beliefs
and
being freed to learn :)
Stephen
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Alan Kay alan.n...@yahoo.com wrote:
Hi Walter
As with a number of other issues in education, I strongly disagree with
both of the main opposing sides. Both the standard curriculum, and
these
guys, are way off IMO.
Cheers,
Alan
--
*From:* Walter Bender walter.ben...@gmail.com
*To:* iaep iaep@lists.sugarlabs.org
*Sent:* Thursday, August 25, 2011 9:47 AM
*Subject:* [IAEP] food for thought...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/25/opinion/how-to-fix-our-math-education.html?_r=1ref=opinion
-walter
--
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
Re: [IAEP] food for thought...
Sorry, Sean, but as Wolfgang Pauli used to say, Not even wrong.
On Thu, August 25, 2011 6:19 pm, Sean Linton wrote:
Perhaps recently the culture of mathematics education, at least since
Newton's *Principia *
Euclid's Elements, please. Principia is a book of physics, not math, and
you are late by two millennia. Newton's full title is Mathematical
Principles of Natural Philosophy.
has been just that, *principles* handed down
a perceived hierarchy, from a *prince*. May be based on
genuinely useful descriptions and definitions, but as the Garfunkel
article
in the NYTimes suggests not really reflective of the pan-archy in which we
find ourselves today, where many types of mathematical skill set need to
be
acknowledged for our inter-networked society.
See
http://replacingtextbooks.wordpress.com/2011/07/28/what-do-mathematicians-and-scientists-do-all-day/
A better mathematics education might involve less abstract reasoning,
but
also generally less heralding by teachers of untestable *principles* to
students who are not yet equipped to decide for themselves. Let the
children
decide in what way a mathematical concept is a useful description by
building implicitly ('abstract', 'reason', 'energy', . . . concepts which
bind things together; *Ratio Legis*) from the ground up, *Ã * la
Bronowski's
*The Ascent of Man *for example.
No thank you. A fine expositor, Bronowski, but not for primary school
children. Jean Piaget is your man for unraveling how children come to form
mathematical ideas. Hint: Not like grownups, and even less as grownups
imagine.
Describe before you prescribe . . . or
ascribe to George Bush a *principle* of *punishing failure* to pass
standard tests?
???
See http://samanthadouglas.wordpress.com/2011/07/28/give-100-percent/
Who or what was Math anyway that ¡ all the children in the world ! really
need to be doing his home work every night?
???
Sour grapes?
What mean all these mysteries to me
Whose life is full of indices and surds?
x²+7x+53
= 11/3
Lewis Carroll, A Tangled Tale
; D
;{Þ}}}
...Euclid alone
Has looked on beauty bare. Fortunate they,
Who though once only, and then but far away
Have heard her massive sandal set on stone.
Edna St. Vincent Millay
XO
Sean
On 26 August 2011 09:19, Steve Thomas sthom...@gosargon.com wrote:
Alan,
Okay, I'll bite, I can see how you believe the standard curriculum is
way
off, but what part of their proposed solution do you disagree with and
where
do you see as the preferred paths?
In particular in the article they state *Science and math were
originally
discovered together, and they are best learned together now. which I
assume
you agree with based on past writings.*
I can see how you might disagree that learning Latin has no value (I
have
learned a lot from attempting to learn smalltalk).
My fear in what the authors suggest is that the real world problems
will
be like what I saw in 1902 textbook Algebra Text by
Milnehttp://books.google.com/books?id=DhU4MAAJprintsec=frontcoverdq=inauthor:%22William+James+Milne%22hl=enei=27VWTvfzIqjd0QGLo6DRDAsa=Xoi=book_resultct=book-preview-linkresnum=5ved=0CEEQuwUwBA#v=onepageqf=false
which I found in an ice cream shop on Cape Cod (I only go to the best
ice cream shoppes ;) The book was filled with real world problems
(and
little visualizations or age appropriate concrete tasks/objects kids
could
relate to) for ex:
[image:
books?id=DhU4MAAJpg=PA356img=1zoom=3hl=ensig=ACfU3U1k1CWXvlkhypODoZuTWebG14bH1Qci=93%2C458%2C873%2C105edge=0]
I look forward to your response, the destruction of my existing beliefs
and
being freed to learn :)
Stephen
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Alan Kay alan.n...@yahoo.com wrote:
Hi Walter
As with a number of other issues in education, I strongly disagree with
both of the main opposing sides. Both the standard curriculum, and
these
guys, are way off IMO.
Cheers,
Alan
--
*From:* Walter Bender walter.ben...@gmail.com
*To:* iaep iaep@lists.sugarlabs.org
*Sent:* Thursday, August 25, 2011 9:47 AM
*Subject:* [IAEP] food for thought...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/25/opinion/how-to-fix-our-math-education.html?_r=1ref=opinion
-walter
--
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http
Re: [IAEP] food for thought...
of The senses are on fire with the fires of Greed, Hatred, and Delusion. Fire Sermon Sutta aka kleptocracy (which argues for nothing in schools but job training), racism (which argues against fairness and for every kind of invidious distinction), and bigotry (which argues for lies). One of the big differences between training and real education is that real education involves depth, flexibility understanding, multiple points of view from which to regard ideas*and*skills. Let's go to neutral ground for a moment and pick music. Part of playing is training, and one can learn how to play pieces with skills just derived from training. But a good real education in music involves an immense amount more -- this shows up in many ways, including in the quality of playing. Training isn't nearly enough. One of the practical reasons we need to care about children really learning how to think about a wide variety of topics is not for jobs -- though this certainly will help most of the time -- but because we are a republic that has vested the ultimate powers in the hands of the people via a form of democracy. As envisioned by Jefferson and others who invented our system, the voting citizens have to be invested with sufficient discretion to wield these ultimate powers. And as Jefferson said, ... if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. Most Americans have missed real education so badly that they are not even aware of the idea of learning to be able to be citizens. In order to do this, the primary goal of public education in the US is supposed to be raising much more than a simple majority of the population to be in and understand the important discourse of our time. This is deeply serious stuff. Back to mathematics. It is a plural because math is the process of being able to make and use maths to help think and reckon. I disagree with the math traditionalists for a variety of reasons -- including what they teach, how they teach, etc. This rarely even touches any kind of mathematical thinking. Seymour Papert, who was a very good mathematician, advocated inventing mathematics suited for children's minds that children could get deeply fluent in (for many reasons and in many ways), and that embodied and taught deep thinking in general. I have similar feelings about why science is important in general education. In the large, science is humanity's best invention so far of how to think better than our brains want to (cf Francis Bacon, etc.) Its heuristics and processes are the most important ones for all of us to internalize because they help us make sense of the muddle our brains have created over the last 200,000 years. Its relationships to our ways of representing (maths are among the most powerful) help us sort out what it means when we make claims about us and our environment. If we put this together with what citizens need to be able to do, and with what real science has brought us in new more powerful ways to think about important ideas, then what we should be pushing for is the inventions of ways for children to look at and do real mathematics and real science that result in musicians of ideas as better citizens and parents (and I'll be they will do OK finding work too). Garfunkel and Mumford miss what is important here to an embarrassing depth, and I'm not sure that there is enough substance in what they do say to be worth criticizing further. Best wishes, Alan From: Steve Thomas sthom...@gosargon.com To: Alan Kay alan.n...@yahoo.com Cc: Walter Bender walter.ben...@gmail.com; iaep iaep@lists.sugarlabs.org Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 2:19 PM Subject: Re: [IAEP] food for thought... Alan, Okay, I'll bite, I can see how you believe the standard curriculum is way off, but what part of their proposed solution do you disagree with and where do you see as the preferred paths? In particular in the article they state Science and math were originally discovered together, and they are best learned together now. which I assume you agree with based on past writings. I can see how you might disagree that learning Latin has no value (I have learned a lot from attempting to learn smalltalk). My fear in what the authors suggest is that the real world problems will be like what I saw in 1902 textbook Algebra Text by Milne which I found in an ice cream shop on Cape Cod (I only go to the best ice cream shoppes ;) The book was filled with real world problems (and little visualizations or age appropriate concrete tasks/objects kids could relate to) for ex: I look forward to your response, the destruction of my existing beliefs and being freed to learn :) Stephen On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Alan Kay alan.n...@yahoo.com wrote: Hi Walter As with a number of other issues
[IAEP] food for thought...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/25/opinion/how-to-fix-our-math-education.html?_r=1ref=opinion -walter -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs http://www.sugarlabs.org ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] food for thought...
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Walter Bender walter.ben...@gmail.comwrote: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/25/opinion/how-to-fix-our-math-education.html?_r=1ref=opinion Excellent point of view. Thanks for sharing this. Mathematicians in charge of the schools and universities maths departments usually argue that we cannot teach newer math concepts to students that have not studied all the algebra and calculus that comes before. They say that all that background is needed to properly achieve higher ideas without turning them into poetry. I agree in that point, a math object is nothing in itself if not accurately defined, not accurate, but is it a problem if your are not going to devote your life to maths? Concepts, structures and procedures for handling complexity simpler abstract ways than reality is -in my point of view- the value of math in education.. Emphazising rigour in detriment of including newer and more difficult topics is the actual choice, at least in Uruguay I -as a teacher- really would prefer being allowed to discuss interesting math ideas than forcing people to built a hard and difficult construction that leaves people out of any of the maths in use in the last 100 years and not loving the subject in most of the cases. - This kind of changes will not start in little places like uruguay, so please go ahead and good luck!! ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] food for thought...
Hi Walter As with a number of other issues in education, I strongly disagree with both of the main opposing sides. Both the standard curriculum, and these guys, are way off IMO. Cheers, Alan From: Walter Bender walter.ben...@gmail.com To: iaep iaep@lists.sugarlabs.org Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 9:47 AM Subject: [IAEP] food for thought... http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/25/opinion/how-to-fix-our-math-education.html?_r=1ref=opinion -walter -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs http://www.sugarlabs.org ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] food for thought...
Alan, Okay, I'll bite, I can see how you believe the standard curriculum is way off, but what part of their proposed solution do you disagree with and where do you see as the preferred paths? In particular in the article they state *Science and math were originally discovered together, and they are best learned together now. which I assume you agree with based on past writings.* I can see how you might disagree that learning Latin has no value (I have learned a lot from attempting to learn smalltalk). My fear in what the authors suggest is that the real world problems will be like what I saw in 1902 textbook Algebra Text by Milnehttp://books.google.com/books?id=DhU4MAAJprintsec=frontcoverdq=inauthor:%22William+James+Milne%22hl=enei=27VWTvfzIqjd0QGLo6DRDAsa=Xoi=book_resultct=book-preview-linkresnum=5ved=0CEEQuwUwBA#v=onepageqf=false which I found in an ice cream shop on Cape Cod (I only go to the best ice cream shoppes ;) The book was filled with real world problems (and little visualizations or age appropriate concrete tasks/objects kids could relate to) for ex: [image: books?id=DhU4MAAJpg=PA356img=1zoom=3hl=ensig=ACfU3U1k1CWXvlkhypODoZuTWebG14bH1Qci=93%2C458%2C873%2C105edge=0] I look forward to your response, the destruction of my existing beliefs and being freed to learn :) Stephen On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Alan Kay alan.n...@yahoo.com wrote: Hi Walter As with a number of other issues in education, I strongly disagree with both of the main opposing sides. Both the standard curriculum, and these guys, are way off IMO. Cheers, Alan -- *From:* Walter Bender walter.ben...@gmail.com *To:* iaep iaep@lists.sugarlabs.org *Sent:* Thursday, August 25, 2011 9:47 AM *Subject:* [IAEP] food for thought... http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/25/opinion/how-to-fix-our-math-education.html?_r=1ref=opinion -walter -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs http://www.sugarlabs.org ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] food for thought...
Perhaps recently the culture of mathematics education, at least since
Newton's *Principia *has been just that, *principles* handed down
a perceived hierarchy, from a *prince*. May be based on
genuinely useful descriptions and definitions, but as the Garfunkel article
in the NYTimes suggests not really reflective of the pan-archy in which we
find ourselves today, where many types of mathematical skill set need to be
acknowledged for our inter-networked society.
A better mathematics education might involve less abstract reasoning, but
also generally less heralding by teachers of untestable *principles* to
students who are not yet equipped to decide for themselves. Let the children
decide in what way a mathematical concept is a useful description by
building implicitly ('abstract', 'reason', 'energy', . . . concepts which
bind things together; *Ratio Legis*) from the ground up, *à* la Bronowski's
*The Ascent of Man *for example. Describe before you prescribe . . . or
ascribe to George Bush a *principle* of *punishing failure* to pass standard
tests?
Who or what was Math anyway that ¡ all the children in the world ! really
need to be doing his home work every night?
; D
XO
Sean
On 26 August 2011 09:19, Steve Thomas sthom...@gosargon.com wrote:
Alan,
Okay, I'll bite, I can see how you believe the standard curriculum is way
off, but what part of their proposed solution do you disagree with and where
do you see as the preferred paths?
In particular in the article they state *Science and math were originally
discovered together, and they are best learned together now. which I assume
you agree with based on past writings.*
I can see how you might disagree that learning Latin has no value (I have
learned a lot from attempting to learn smalltalk).
My fear in what the authors suggest is that the real world problems will
be like what I saw in 1902 textbook Algebra Text by
Milnehttp://books.google.com/books?id=DhU4MAAJprintsec=frontcoverdq=inauthor:%22William+James+Milne%22hl=enei=27VWTvfzIqjd0QGLo6DRDAsa=Xoi=book_resultct=book-preview-linkresnum=5ved=0CEEQuwUwBA#v=onepageqf=false
which I found in an ice cream shop on Cape Cod (I only go to the best
ice cream shoppes ;) The book was filled with real world problems (and
little visualizations or age appropriate concrete tasks/objects kids could
relate to) for ex:
[image:
books?id=DhU4MAAJpg=PA356img=1zoom=3hl=ensig=ACfU3U1k1CWXvlkhypODoZuTWebG14bH1Qci=93%2C458%2C873%2C105edge=0]
I look forward to your response, the destruction of my existing beliefs and
being freed to learn :)
Stephen
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Alan Kay alan.n...@yahoo.com wrote:
Hi Walter
As with a number of other issues in education, I strongly disagree with
both of the main opposing sides. Both the standard curriculum, and these
guys, are way off IMO.
Cheers,
Alan
--
*From:* Walter Bender walter.ben...@gmail.com
*To:* iaep iaep@lists.sugarlabs.org
*Sent:* Thursday, August 25, 2011 9:47 AM
*Subject:* [IAEP] food for thought...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/25/opinion/how-to-fix-our-math-education.html?_r=1ref=opinion
-walter
--
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] food for thought...
On Thu, August 25, 2011 4:38 pm, Alan Kay wrote: Hi Walter As with a number of other issues in education, I strongly disagree with both of the main opposing sides. I just looked at the linked article. AH!! NO, MAKE IT STOP!! Both the standard curriculum, and these guys, are way off IMO. In the epistemology of Wolfgang Pauli, Not even wrong. Here is part of my idea. * http://replacingtextbooks.wordpress.com/2011/08/15/define-textbooks/ * http://replacingtextbooks.wordpress.com/2011/07/28/what-do-mathematicians-and-scientists-do-all-day/ Cheers, Alan So when are we going to get together, Alan, and make something useful for our millions of children? From: Walter Bender walter.ben...@gmail.com To: iaep iaep@lists.sugarlabs.org Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 9:47 AM Subject: [IAEP] food for thought... http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/25/opinion/how-to-fix-our-math-education.html?_r=1ref=opinion -walter -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs http://www.sugarlabs.org ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep -- Edward Mokurai (#40664;#38647;/#2343;#2352;#2381;#2350;#2350;#2375;#2328;#2358;#2348;#2381;#2342;#2327;#2352;#2381;#2332;/#1583;#1726;#1585;#1605;#1605;#1740;#1711;#1726;#1588;#1576;#1583;#1711;#1585; #1580;) Cherlin Silent Thunder is my name, and Children are my nation. The Cosmos is my dwelling place, the Truth my destination. http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Replacing_Textbooks ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] food for thought...
I can't speak for Alan, but I found their examples of unnecessary math to have a lot of value in succeeding in any of those real-world / science disciplines. In particular, this quote: How often do most adults encounter a situation in which they need to solve a quadratic equation? Do they need to know what constitutes a group of transformations or a complex number? This reminds me of the rare homeschooling parents who say their kids will learn algebra if they need it ( http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Parenting/unschooling-homeschooling-book-tests-classes/story?id=10410867 ). Suppose you wanted to know something like - how far can I hit this baseball, and how fast do I need to hit it for it to pass over a fence. Without basic algebra, you don't know it's even possible to solve these problems. And even if you can guarantee you're going into writing and don't need to know math, how often do engineers need to know what a simile or a preposition are? Education is not on a need-to-know basis. Regards, Nick Doiron On Thu, August 25, 2011 5:19 pm, Steve Thomas wrote: Alan, Okay, I'll bite, I can see how you believe the standard curriculum is way off, but what part of their proposed solution do you disagree with and where do you see as the preferred paths? In particular in the article they state *Science and math were originally discovered together, and they are best learned together now. which I assume you agree with based on past writings.* I can see how you might disagree that learning Latin has no value (I have learned a lot from attempting to learn smalltalk). My fear in what the authors suggest is that the real world problems will be like what I saw in 1902 textbook Algebra Text by Milnehttp://books.google.com/books?id=DhU4MAAJprintsec=frontcoverd q=inauthor:%22William+James+Milne%22hl=enei=27VWTvfzIqjd0QGLo6DRDAsa=X oi=book_resultct=book-preview-linkresnum=5ved=0CEEQuwUwBA#v=onepageq f=false which I found in an ice cream shop on Cape Cod (I only go to the best ice cream shoppes ;) The book was filled with real world problems (and little visualizations or age appropriate concrete tasks/objects kids could relate to) for ex: [image: books?id=DhU4MAAJpg=PA356img=1zoom=3hl=ensig=ACfU3U1k1CWXvlkhypOD oZuTWebG14bH1Qci=93%2C458%2C873%2C105edge=0] I look forward to your response, the destruction of my existing beliefs and being freed to learn :) Stephen On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Alan Kay alan.n...@yahoo.com wrote: Hi Walter As with a number of other issues in education, I strongly disagree with both of the main opposing sides. Both the standard curriculum, and these guys, are way off IMO. Cheers, Alan -- *From:* Walter Bender walter.ben...@gmail.com *To:* iaep iaep@lists.sugarlabs.org *Sent:* Thursday, August 25, 2011 9:47 AM *Subject:* [IAEP] food for thought... http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/25/opinion/how-to-fix-our-math-education .html?_r=1ref=opinion -walter -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs http://www.sugarlabs.org ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] food for thought...
Hi Steve -- The line you quote -- Science and math were originally discovered together, and they are best learned together now -- is pretty much the only thing I agree with. They seem to be unaware of the irony of using a false parallel (between traditional math and Latin) to defend their position. I hope they would be aware of this as a bad argument if it were in a mathematical context, and one wonders why they can't see it as nonsense in prose. One of the big differences between training and real education is that real education involves depth, flexibility understanding, multiple points of view from which to regard ideas*and*skills. Let's go to neutral ground for a moment and pick music. Part of playing is training, and one can learn how to play pieces with skills just derived from training. But a good real education in music involves an immense amount more -- this shows up in many ways, including in the quality of playing. Training isn't nearly enough. One of the practical reasons we need to care about children really learning how to think about a wide variety of topics is not for jobs -- though this certainly will help most of the time -- but because we are a republic that has vested the ultimate powers in the hands of the people via a form of democracy. As envisioned by Jefferson and others who invented our system, the voting citizens have to be invested with sufficient discretion to wield these ultimate powers. And as Jefferson said, ... if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. Most Americans have missed real education so badly that they are not even aware of the idea of learning to be able to be citizens. In order to do this, the primary goal of public education in the US is supposed to be raising much more than a simple majority of the population to be in and understand the important discourse of our time. This is deeply serious stuff. Back to mathematics. It is a plural because math is the process of being able to make and use maths to help think and reckon. I disagree with the math traditionalists for a variety of reasons -- including what they teach, how they teach, etc. This rarely even touches any kind of mathematical thinking. Seymour Papert, who was a very good mathematician, advocated inventing mathematics suited for children's minds that children could get deeply fluent in (for many reasons and in many ways), and that embodied and taught deep thinking in general. I have similar feelings about why science is important in general education. In the large, science is humanity's best invention so far of how to think better than our brains want to (cf Francis Bacon, etc.) Its heuristics and processes are the most important ones for all of us to internalize because they help us make sense of the muddle our brains have created over the last 200,000 years. Its relationships to our ways of representing (maths are among the most powerful) help us sort out what it means when we make claims about us and our environment. If we put this together with what citizens need to be able to do, and with what real science has brought us in new more powerful ways to think about important ideas, then what we should be pushing for is the inventions of ways for children to look at and do real mathematics and real science that result in musicians of ideas as better citizens and parents (and I'll be they will do OK finding work too). Garfunkel and Mumford miss what is important here to an embarrassing depth, and I'm not sure that there is enough substance in what they do say to be worth criticizing further. Best wishes, Alan From: Steve Thomas sthom...@gosargon.com To: Alan Kay alan.n...@yahoo.com Cc: Walter Bender walter.ben...@gmail.com; iaep iaep@lists.sugarlabs.org Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 2:19 PM Subject: Re: [IAEP] food for thought... Alan, Okay, I'll bite, I can see how you believe the standard curriculum is way off, but what part of their proposed solution do you disagree with and where do you see as the preferred paths? In particular in the article they state Science and math were originally discovered together, and they are best learned together now. which I assume you agree with based on past writings. I can see how you might disagree that learning Latin has no value (I have learned a lot from attempting to learn smalltalk). My fear in what the authors suggest is that the real world problems will be like what I saw in 1902 textbook Algebra Text by Milne which I found in an ice cream shop on Cape Cod (I only go to the best ice cream shoppes ;) The book was filled with real world problems (and little visualizations or age appropriate concrete tasks/objects kids could relate to) for ex: I look forward to your response, the destruction of my existing
