kitchen table math, the sequel: division the EM way!!!

kitchen table math, the sequel: division the EM way!!!

Monday, May 21, 2007

division the EM way!!!

11 comments:

Anonymous said...: Is Tom Lehrer still alive?; May 21, 2007 at 5:23 PM
Anonymous said...: How many problems like that are completed in an hour?

There's no way I could get my pencil-phobic 5th grader to do all that more than once. This must be a conspiracy between the beer companies (what a parent needs to get through the homework) and Texas Instruments (what I'd end up handing the kid); May 21, 2007 at 5:28 PM
Catherine Johnson said...: There are a zillion Tom Lehrer clips on YouTube, including one very funny one of a young guy lip synching!; May 21, 2007 at 5:46 PM
Catherine Johnson said...: I think Barry should go into the Tom Lehrer business.; May 21, 2007 at 5:46 PM
Unknown said...: It's unfortunate that the answer they "got" using the traditional method is incorrect.

5,536 / 82 = 67.51219 . . .; May 21, 2007 at 7:10 PM
Anonymous said...: The folks who post this garbage (to YouTube, I mean) are just parrots. It really makes me sad and sick that cogent arguments against discovery mathematics--built over lifetimes of hard work and research--are simply filtered down to Judge Judy-ist-type sensationalist (and completely exaggerated, I might add) hamburger like this video. I won't deny the positive effect it has on the unknowing, but it also has the effect of keeping them in the dark.; May 21, 2007 at 7:39 PM
SteveH said...: "...but it also has the effect of keeping them in the dark."

It doesn't keep them in the dark. It gets their attention. The question is whether viewers move on to the next level. Some won't, but that's not the fault of the video.

I've commented before that parents need to move on to the next level, but it's more difficult to do that. Discussions and arguments float around on a vague or general level where almost anything can sound good. Many people don't know enough math to make the transition to a more detailed argument.

Also, the argument is not just about discovery versus direct instruction, it has to do with content, mastery, and grade-level expectations, especially in grades 5-7, which is well beyond the study of the basic algorithms. Many educators think that only a few kids can handle algebra in 8th grade. Other schools offer the more rigorous courses, but don't provide a proper path to get there.; May 21, 2007 at 8:03 PM
Catherine Johnson said...: Ed and I have been talking about "disciplinary knowledge."

This is EXTREMELY difficult to talk about.

It's not just that one needs "knowledge," it's that one needs "disciplinary knowledge."

There's a reason the disciplines are called disciplines; they discipline the mind within a field of knowledge and a particular methodology.

At the K-12 level, an interdisciplinary approach turns all content into the equivalent of a college bull session (don't know what the contemporary term for this is) or a newspaper editorial.; May 22, 2007 at 5:32 AM
Unknown said...: Disciplinary knowledge is indeed difficult to communicate.

My view--about content presentation both in schools and in media--is pretty close to "give 'em the truth (the whole truth, to the best of your ability) and see what happens."

But this view isn't a media-savvy one. I suppose I'll never understand it.; May 22, 2007 at 7:30 AM
Anonymous said...: The other problem for me re: disciplinary knowledge is that I'm the ultimate "skills" person; my entire career is about lifelong learning, learning to learn, looking it up on the internet, etc.

So while I perceive the difference between a disciplinary specialist and a nonfiction writer,.... I haven't (yet) figured out how to convey this difference to people who haven't thought about it.

This is another exasperating element of life in K-12. As a science writer I simply take it for granted that A SCIENTIST KNOWS MORE ABOUT SCIENCE THAN I DO.

AND: this doesn't mean that I know nothing. There are plenty of times, working with a researcher, where I "see" something in his work that he doesn't see himself. I bring "value-added" to a writing project.

One of my editors, at Simon & Schuster, told me a couple of years ago that she wanted me on a particular project because she wanted to "run it through your brain."

Well, running a major scientist's work through my brain is probably a good idea if I do say so myself. What comes out is richer.

THAT DOESN'T MAKE ME A SCIENTIST.

It makes me an experienced (and perhaps, at this point, expert) writer.

WHY CAN'T EDUCATORS BE EXPERT EDUCATORS AND DROP THE CONCEIT THAT THEY ARE DISCIPLINARY EXPERTS?

This is my question.; May 23, 2007 at 6:28 AM
Unknown said...: In other words, "Those who can . . ."

It's not THAT simple, is it?; May 25, 2007 at 11:33 PM

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)