Math Education: A University View

MrPotatoesLatkie Says:

Feb 10, 2008 - Obviously, some professors think differently.There is a big difference between calculators and, algorithms. One is done with a machine doing the thinking and, the other give your mind a much bigger stake in the matter. You may not understand the concept at first(or for awhile) but you can do the problem! That's a start. You never get that start with the calculator.

nohoist Says:

Feb 14, 2008 - Great framing of the problem, but lousy solutions. The the only solution is a Public (Yes US government)best in practice free math learning center online. MIT is trying a open courseware approach, but in its infancy. I have seen one excellent example on youtube. On youtube search "Geometry of Circles" select presentation by youtube user INMC.

montipellier Says:

Mar 3, 2008 - Cliff nice video. Although, GPA doesnt neccesarily correlate to higher intelligence. High schools have been gradulally inflating their grades over time.

noursa Says:

Mar 5, 2008 - Reform Math focuses on understanding, traditional math is more about memorizing procedures. Int'l evaluations and college assessment tests are based on the traditional method: Focus on knowledge of procedures and formulas, not understanding, so no wonder scores are gonna decline. If I teach Joe how to dig a hole and teach Bill why we should dig a hole, then ask both to dig a hole, surely Joe will get a higher score. But that says nothing about who's better off and more useful to society today.

Sharpsight51 Says:

Mar 13, 2008 - I think you're missing the point.Understanding underlying principles is great insofar as it helps you actually do mathematics. Being able to understand, in a vague sense, arithmetic is useless if you can't consistently and efficiently do calculations... working with numbers is a requisite to studying more advanced subjects in mathematics, sciences, social sciences, and many other disciplines.You need to be able to dig a hole to build a foundation, which is needed to build a house.

Sharpsight51 Says:

Mar 13, 2008 - I think you're missing the point.Understanding underlying principles is great insofar as it helps you actually do mathematics. Being able to understand, in a vague sense, arithmetic is useless if you can't consistently and efficiently do calculations... working with numbers is a requisite to studying more advanced subjects in mathematics, sciences, social sciences, and many other disciplines.You need to be able to dig a hole to build a foundation, which is needed to build a house.

Sharpsight51 Says:

Mar 13, 2008 - I think you're missing the point.Understanding underlying principles is great insofar as it helps you actually do mathematics. Being able to understand, in a vague sense, arithmetic is useless if you can't consistently and efficiently do calculations... working with numbers is a requisite to studying more advanced subjects in mathematics, sciences, social sciences, and many other disciplines.You need to be able to dig a hole to build a foundation, which is needed to build a house.

noursa Says:

Mar 14, 2008 - Yes, I agree that we still need to be able to dig holes. However, the point is that in today's world, we don't need to use a shovel anymore (ie: 'traditional' math procedures) aswe can do things very efficiently by using an earth auger for example (ir: calculator, computer).

roll2996 Says:

Mar 14, 2008 - Ordinary Japanese have a high math proficiency. How are they taught math - BY ROTE! The Kumon method teaches rote and mastery. You aren't allowed to progress in Kumon until you reach mastery.

marty177 Says:

Mar 16, 2008 - A report has just come out called 'The Final Report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel', which was commissioned by the President to look at Math Ed in the US. The report said that it looked at 11 studies that said there was "limited or no impact" of calculators on improving conceptual development or problem solving abilities. It also said 10 of the 11 reports were over 20 years old. That means only 1 report has come out since 1987! We need more reseacrch before we know for sure!

cialis4you Says:

Mar 23, 2008 - however, as I have replied else where: once we teach kids the logic and reasoning, teach them the most efficient way possible. What your saying suggests that math kids didn't know how to think before, and that this will teach kids how to think (thus making them more useful to society to quote you). However, given the number of technological advancements related to math over the years, I hardly see this as a problem.

LastRegard102 Says:

Mar 24, 2008 - τћіѕ іѕпτ ƒаκє арраяєпτℓч іƒ υ сорч раѕτє τћіѕ τо τєп рєорℓє іп τћє ηєχτ τєп міпυτєѕ чоυ шіℓℓ ћаνє τћє вєѕτ đач оƒ чоυя ℓіƒє τомояяош чоυ шіℓℓ єіτћєя gєτ а κіѕѕ оя вє аѕκєđ оυτ вυτ іƒ чоυ вяєаκ τћіѕ сћаіп υ шіℓℓ ѕєє а ℓіττℓє đєаđ gіяℓ іп чоυя яоом τопіgћτ

Metalrulessix Says:

Apr 1, 2008 - I had to watch this for extra credit in algebra...I didnt understand this in the first place, And I dont understand it now.... : (

danthemainman1 Says:

Apr 6, 2008 - The old test likely was based around the prior math curriculum. If I teach one method but give an examination based around a second method, then the person trained with the first method will do poorly on an examination based on the second method. That says nothing at all about the validity of the second method. I'd have to see additional evidence that cannot be attributed to a difference of methods to believe it. It may just be that UW's admission standards fell, too. Too many factors at hand.

vzteacher Says:

May 21, 2008 - As a teacher that is currently using Everyday Math, I ask that ypu please give the program some time. When my school first implemented EM, the first year was a challenge for all of us. It was quite different from any program that we had used before, therefore it took some time for all of us (teachers, students, & parents) to get used to it. Now, 7 years later, we LOVE it!! The kids "get" math more than they ever did before & our math scores prove it! Please be patient...it DOES get better!

sasuke305QB Says:

May 22, 2008 - hey you are shopping and find the same shirt at two different stores. One store is selling the shirt $26.99 and the other store is selling the shirt for 10% off the original price of $30. Which is the better buy?

1234567rahul Says:

May 25, 2008 - The store selling the shirt for $26.99 is cheaper by one cent.

EZincomeDaily Says:

Jul 4, 2008 - interesting, thanks for the video.

EndCredulity Says:

Jul 8, 2008 - vzteacher, asking to "give the program some time" is unconscionable as kids are being crippled while the "experiment" continues. Why we need to experiment when the rest of the world has found what works is beyond me. I guess the purpose is to employ those American academics who are paid to tinker and tamper.I have no doubt your students' scores are great in Everyday Math tests. At issue are the rest of the world's test scores.They are eating our kids for breakfast, while we play Experiment.

teleutube Says:

Jul 19, 2008 - 'applied' math solution:A. The store's closer to your home :0It's not practical to save a penny.

siuwahchan Says:

Aug 26, 2008 - 100% agreed. the purpose of Everyday Math is another way to dumb down our children!

INTORCIA86 Says:

Aug 31, 2008 - I don't think it is a problem of just Washington State.I think it is a worldwide problem...

ridgebackollie Says:

Sep 7, 2008 - One of the many reasons why we homeschool!

MarylandJuly89 Says:

Oct 7, 2008 - i suck at math, but i try to practice everyday because I want to get better

blackberryjuice1 Says:

Oct 9, 2008 - nope. just an american problem. we iz stoopid.