Re: Sixth grade science teaching
- From: Nancy Norton <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 21:52:03 -0600
Ferrous Patella wrote:
> news:dgqf7o$216$11@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx by Paul J Gans:
>
>
>>BruceW <LevelOneDiag@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Robert Grumbine wrote:
>>>
>>>>Roger Coppock <rcoppock@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>[snip] What a difference Sputnik made!
>>>>
>>>>Indeed. Probably the single biggest disaster in the
>>>>history of US education was our response to Sputnik.
>>
>>>Why was education's response to Sputnik a disaster?
>>
>>Because it got rid of techniques for teaching math,
>>physics, and chemistry that more or less worked and
>>replaced them by all sorts of new wizz-bang notions
>>(like 'new math') that didn't work.
>>
>>A lot of idiots had their hands in it. My favorite
>>is that one should NOT memorize a multiplication
>>table. One should *reason* out the answer to a
>>multiplication problem.
>>
>>Another was teaching set theory to young kids as
>>a basis for arithmetic. It is, actually, but kids
>>have to learn how to compute. They can learn nice
>>theory later.
>
>
> My public school education was during the height of the "Moon Race" and
> this description does not jive with my experience the New Math. For two
> years, I had a weekly timed multiplication test and (since I failed it
> every time, mostly due to dyslixea) had to copy out the times table
> weekly. Still, I am the best in my house a multiplication (spouse-pre to
> early Sputnik elem edu., science PhD, child-currently in school, 99%ile on
> ITBS) The only time I got credit for process over results was one question
> in a physics class (I had just leart how to solve multiple equations using
> a math analysis matrix and applied it to a test question. Got the sign
> wrong but the prof was impressed enough to give me full credit.)
>
> As far as Set Theory goes, I never remember it being taught in elementary
> school as having anything to do arithmetic. It is however the second most
> useful thing I learnt in math class (and apply on a daily basis when data
> mining.)
>
> I think most of the gripes about New Math are based on antidotal evidence
> by people who were/are not in the trenches of early math education.
>
As another one who was in elementary school during the "New Math" era, I
agree. I memorized math tables, too (although, I was always good at
memorization, so it wasn't a horror for me). Getting the right answer
was always as important, or more important, than understanding "why".
>
>>In physics the notion was to no longer teach them
>>things in an authoritarian way, using the occasional
>>experiment to demonstrate that what the teacher said
>>was true. Instead the quaint notion that you could
>>have kids do experiments and "deduce" things from
>>them.
>
>
> Again the former would be a lot closer description to my experience.
>
Me too. Our labs in science classes (not just physics) were almost
always very cut and dried "do it exactly this way and get exactly this
result" sorts of things and there was lots of lecture time. When my
husband (then my boyfriend) dared to suggest a better way of doing an
experiment in physics class, it went over like a lead balloon, even
though the teacher's approach had clearly come up with the wrong answer.
.
- References:
- Sixth grade science teaching
- From: Robert Grumbine
- Re: Sixth grade science teaching
- From: Roger Coppock
- Sixth grade science teaching
- Prev by Date: Re: POTM: human lungs: second best
- Next by Date: Re: The truth about the ACLU
- Previous by thread: Re: Sixth grade science teaching
- Next by thread: Re: Sixth grade science teaching
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
