Posts
This is from the 1996 New Jersey Math Framework, which Joseph G. (Joe) Rosenstein reportedly had a hand in writing:
"The widespread availability of computing and calculating technology has given us the opportunity to reconceive the role of computation and numerical operations in our third and fourth grade mathematics programs. Traditionally, tremendous amounts of time were spent at these levels helping children to develop proficiency and accuracy with paper-and-pencil procedures. Now, adults needing to perform calculations quickly and accurately have electronic tools that are both more accurate and more efficient than those procedures. "
The 1996 NJ Framework also says this:
"The major shift in the curriculum that will take place in this realm, therefore, is one away from drill and practice of paper-and-pencil procedures with symbols and toward real-world applications of operations, wise choices of appropriate computational strategies, andintegration of the numerical operations with other components of the mathematics curriculum."
Thanks Joe! This is why I've got my kids in Kumon.
and from Anonymous:
Hey Joe .. you forgot to mention your NSF grant money ...
Its why I got my kids in Kumon too.
Ed took one look at Rosenstein's homepage and said, "He's deadwood."
That he is. Any scholar who stopped doing scholary research in 1982 is deadwood. What astounds me — what should astound all of us — is that Rosenstein publicly proclaims his deadwoodery on his webpage.
We need public disclosure of grants and consultation fees.
I don't object to professors collecting consulting fees from publishers (at least I don't think I do); I don't object to professors winning grants from the NSF-EHR, though I wish they wouldn't.
But we need disclosure. Joseph (Joe) Rosenstein's webpage should include an accounting of all grants and fees awarded him for study and advocacy of K-12 educational programs.
Joseph G. (Joe) Rosenstein homepage
Joseph G. (Joe) Rosenstein at ktm-2
thanks, Joe
2 comments:
Now, adults needing to perform calculations quickly and accurately have electronic tools that are both more accurate and more efficient than those procedures.
Why is that constructivist are only concerned about efficiency when it relates to calculators?
Why are they so anti-efficiency when it comes to pencil and paper computation?
Used properly, calculators should make math more difficult, not less. Instead of focusing on data sets that have only 5 numbers, they can ask the students to find the average of 50 numbers. They are so concerned about real-world examples, but they don't have the kids work with lots of numbers.
This is what happened for me when calculators took over sliderules in college. The techniques we learned became much more complicated and required many more calculations. However, in lower schools, calculators are used to avoid work.
When you get to algebra, one can use a graphing calculator. It may be a nice tool to quickly see shape changes in varying lines, parabolas and ellipses, but they are avoiding the development of symbolic algebraic manipulation skills. What happens if the calculator (black box program) can't do the job?
This is math for students who won't have a technical career when they grow up. The problem is that using this approach in the early grades guarantees that the students won't have a technical career.
Post a Comment