Re: The state of education in the USA.

On Apr 4, 10:59 pm, Tim Norfolk <timsn...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 4, 3:54 pm, tgdenn...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Apr 4, 1:21 pm, Tim Norfolk <timsn...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 4, 11:21�am, tgdenn...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:



An interesting assertion. I have been part of studies involving
technology and its effects in education for about 20 years.

"You have been part of" meaning you were studied or you were a
researcher who published the study?

I have worked on both sides - as the one trying to implement new
ideas, and as the one functioning as a control. I have not bothered to
publish in the area myself.


In many
such experiments, the immediate results showed that with self-selected
students using new technology (say, graphing calculators), the results
in specific courses looked better. Many of those gains did not carry
through to higher-level material, including abstract mathematics
courses, where low-level algebra skills are used less. In addition, as
those same techniques were applied to the general population, the
results always were that the novelty effect wore off, and the
standards declined.

I would be interested in some more detail on these studies. What
courses are you talking about (abstract mathematics)?  I also don't
get what you mean "applying the same techniques to the general
population".

Courses like Discrete Mathematics, Abstract Algebra, Advanced
Calculus, Linear Algebra and the like. Much of what is done there
involves some basic Algebra, with ideas from Calculus and Linear
Algebra. Without an understanding of variables and functions,
initially gained in Algebra I, no student can understand what is going
on. The same is true in any reasonable programming course. The latter
have been poisoned, so my colleagues tell me, by the web, as students
search for code to steal, rather than learning to write it themselves.

Since I don't follow this area closely, you will have to check the
literature yourself. The effect I am talking about is the well-known
one of novelty. When the new graphing calculators appeared, only the
"nerds" wanted one, and signed up for the courses where we tried out
their capabilities. Once they became part of the standard schoolbox,
interest in them wore off, and our students can do less with them than
I can do with pen and paper.


....

It doesn't bother me at all, since I don't expect that a non-
representative sample (SAT takers in the past) is going to predict the
results for the current population. I would be truly surprised if the
results *didn't* have to be re-normed, and down.

That might be true in some cases. But virtually every student in Ohio
who intends to go to higher education takes the ACT, and those
averages have gone down every single time, once the re-norming is
taken into account.

Yes, exactly. And when I took the SAT, the population of students who
intended to go on to higher ed was highly selected, particularly by
test results. As the population of SAT-takers more closely approaches
the general population, it is inevitable that test scores will
diminish.

This despite 60+ years of 'improvements' from the
Colleges of Education. If the life expectancy dropped by 5% every few
years, we'd be hanging doctors from the trees.

Not if, every year, the population they were treating included sicker
and sicker people.



Once again, what you are saying is kind of vague. Can you be more
specific, or perhaps give an online reference to these studies you
keep talking about?

See the above. Without a lot of rote knowledge of basic arithmetic,
algebra becomes hard to follow, no matter what technology is used. In
that case, the underlying ideas of variables and functions become
meaningless, and inapplicable. There is some good evidence that, if
the abstract process engendered by learning algebra (see Piaget) is
not accomplished by a certain age, it will never be acquired. This is
similar to the tragic cases of humans who have never been exposed to
speech by age 8 or so, and do not have the brain connections that make
speech possible - ever.

The mathematical education community awaits your great expertise and
wisdom, but consider the following

1. Mathematics is the only subject to have been consistently taught
for about 2,500 years
2. In mathemaqtics, that which doesn't work is tossed onto the trash
heap, or given only a passing reference as a failed idea, or one
supplanted
3. Euclid's answer to King Ptolemy, who was bored by his lessons
"There is no royal road to geometry (mathematics)".

In short, I have yet to see one single innovation in mathematics
education that left students better prepared for further study. If you
have, let's see your evidence. From my experience, it takes properly-
prepared students with a willingness to work harder than in the non-
science disciplines. If you honestly have the magic bullet, you could
get a bunch of money from Bill Gates, and pretty much every major
corporation, since  most post-graduate management programs include a
screening test of 8th-grade mathematics.


Most people who I have seen complain about mathematics education
weren't good at it, and extrapolate their ineptitude in the subject
(and current success) to 'mathematics is taught wrong', or
'mathematics is useless'. All I generally answer is that most of the
neat technology that they take for granted, including every aspect of
computers, imaging systems (MRI, CAT and PET scans), cell phones, and
modern pharmaceuticals, are only possible because of massive amounts
of mathematical modelling. To take imaging as one example, they seem
to think that the methods were invented by some MD puttering around,
when the truth is that the basic ideas incorporated deep mathematics
and physics, including Fourier transforms, and some incredible
software, the work of teams of mathematicians, physicists and
engineers. My own advisor worked on the first electronic computers,
helping to design the reactors for the Nautilus-class submarines that
kept America safe during the Cold War.

Because the average American takes such things for granted, and even
attacks the 'nerds' in the education system, we have fallen to at best
second place in most technology, and leads to at least some of our
economic woes.

Most people I've had this discussion with who take your position end
up using some version of the same logical fallacy as you do---although
you seem to have thrown in some strawmen along with the traditional
question-begging.

Everything you've said relies on *defining* success as doing the
little rote manipulations and performing the little rote algorithms
that you've been doing and teaching for 30 years. What you've ignored
is that people who *use* mathematics as a tool to develop all the
wonderful tech that you describe (scientists and engineers) use
software to solve their math problems. There's nothing in the courses
you define as 'advanced' and 'abstract' that can't be done with
Mathematica or something similar.

So the proper design of an experiment (a study) would involve
comparing HS graduates who can pass your Algebra I test taught
traditionally with those who have learned to get the same **results**
using software tools. And then we could follow them through their
university careers, perhaps distributing the groups between those
'advanced' courses taught traditionally and those taught using
software tools, and see who picks up on what faster or better.

And then, for those in-demand engineers you are talking about for
example, we could see who gets hired to rebuild our infrastructure and
solar energy plants and so on.

What would happen of course is that the software-users will do better
in all areas except when they are obliged to do something they haven't
learned to do, which is use pencil and paper. And they will be hired
preferentially since they have long experience with the industry-
standard tools of their specialization.

Now, since I've had this discussion before, I'm sure you will say
something along the lines of "but who will write the software?" and
"who will develop the new methods for solving problems?"

The answer is: Not your students. It will be the same tiny fraction
of the population that traditionally gets PhD's in mathematics and
physics and computing and goes on to do advanced research. There is
no shortage of such people; in fact globalization has probably
increased that number. But they probably don't go to your institution
since they all have scholarships to more selective schools.

-tg








.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Sarah Palin- creationist VP candidate?
    ... there will be many high school students ... mathematics is, for whatever reason, necessary for higher learning. ... algebra-free statistics courses have given very poor results, ... is quite bright) was unable to pass high school algebra, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The state of education in the USA.
    ... technology and its effects in education for about 20 years. ... students using new technology, the results ... through to higher-level material, including abstract mathematics ... Linear Algebra and the like. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Courses to take to prepare for graduate school in mathematics? And other advise?
    ... > into graduate school for mathematics and go for my Ph.D. ... > maybe a Masters in mathematics and I'm wondering what courses you think ... > of One Variable and a upper level Linear Algebra ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: U.S. science education lags, study finds
    ... questions recently, in Calculus I, or lower-level courses. ... education than anywhere else I can think of. ... like the median South Korean out-performing 90% of US students. ... Doctorate in Mathematics, responding to your questions would be a ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The state of education in the USA.
    ... technology and its effects in education for about 20 years. ... students using new technology, the results ... through to higher-level material, including abstract mathematics ... Courses like Discrete Mathematics, Abstract Algebra, Advanced ...
    (talk.origins)