New Math, Fun Math
Last night I went to a lecture by Dr. Seymour Papert, entitled "A new look for math education in the digital age: Instead of making kids learn the (useless) math they hate, make a (useful) math they love." It was a really fun talk, and I'm glad that I got a chance to meet somebody who is such an innovative thinker in mathematics, computer science, and education.
For those of you not familiar with Dr. Papert, he is the man behind the Logo programming language and LEGO Mindstorms. He is also well known for his work at the MIT AI Lab (with Prof. Marvin Minsky) and at the MIT Media Lab. You can (and should) read more about him at his site.
One of the most interesting and most important concepts that Dr. Papert discussed was that educators should use computer technology to completely revolutionize and re-invent the mathematics curriculum. In American schools, children are taught concepts in pure mathematics first, and are only introduced to its applications later on in their education, usually in high school or even college. Dr. Papert proposes that we start out by teaching kids the applications first - engineering, computer science, physics - and let them learn the mathematics that they require in order to solve these complex problems in the process. After all, that is the logical order of discovery. Most of the early great concepts in mathematics were discovered in just that way - we need to build this pyramid, we need to predict the next solar eclipse, and so on.
I will try to find time to write about this some more on here, as these ideas are really the foundation of my entire graduate academic career. And, if anyone cares to send me an invite for any upcoming talks on this subject, I will gladly make the trip to Cambridge. But in the meantime, you are all very much encouraged to go read some of Dr. Papert's articles (some more here) and books.
16 Comments:
Irina, you have no idea how cool that is! I wish I could have attended. You are probably too young to relate, but I was essentially raised on LOGO. That little turtle is the foundation of my entire career in mathematics and engineering.
Hmm . .. . i always cringe whenever i hear people talk about revolutionizing the math and science curriculum. i mean, it's great to be all out of the box and up in the head and all, but you're talking about a generation of kids who can't add, subtract, multiply or divide . .. . and now you have someone talking about teaching them how to move a turtle across a screen? The only thing i learned from logo is that computers can make pretty pictures if you type in the numbers and symbols your teacher tells you to.
I just can't get excited about that kind of a revolution . . .
You are a successful (Ivy League educated) engineer, so obviously someone did something right in the course of your early education.
But it is true that teachers don't use technology correctly. There are undoubtedly many instances where the teacher writes on the board "type in FORWARD 100" and that becomes an exercise in following directions. In his talk, Dr. Papert equated that to strapping a jet engine onto a horse and buggy to make it go faster.
Obvously, that is not the idea. The idea is to create new problems, (a new math) to teach to children. And I think that computational math is the way to go. Give kids the tools and a problem that will interest them and they will arrive at addition, multiplication, and even at Calculus and probability theory in that context.
"we need to predict the next solar eclipse". Hmm. Obviously some arcane use of the word "need" with which I am unfamiliar. :)
Having taught Math and English for 30+ years in high school, Papert is so dead on. If English were taught as Math is, you'd never read books, never write anything creative, just parse grammatical constructions and listen to Gecko complain that kids don't know the conditional past perfect tense as they should. Piffle.
Irina, I am glad you got to hear Dr. Papert speak, as I am a big fan of his work. And you are right on, with all this stuff, you know I am in perpetual agreement with you on all non-baseball related topics. :)
As someone who has taught kids for over 30 years, I just want to offer this: kids are not stupid, they are very smart. There is no need to simplify or dumb down the material, because they appreciate and enjoy the complex.
Since I'm only capable of commentary in the form of links:
NY Times: 'Innovative' Math, but Can You Count?
uhclem: yes, it is a good thing that English is not taught like math. if so, we might have a country of illiterates as well.
I believe I was trying to point out the failure of the current vision for math cirriculum. We obviously differ on our views of how to correct the problem. I would prefer a return to something that is known to work.
Irina, I didn't mean to offend. I have many friends that are teachers, conversed with them about their new learning techniques, and am scared. I'll look forward to your research to ease my worries.
gecko makes a good point. but i like to think big, and it's sad when the school system underestimates these kids. we should teach them the basics but we should also teach them the great big important cool stuff too.
Uh, Mr. Gecko, what is the system that is known to work? I don't think such a system exists across broad populations.
The main problem is convincing students to be active in their education instead of specators. For some, it is learning the theory behind multiplication; how it is just addition repeated.
Is that best represented as a grid of boxes that they can draw and count? Or as a multiplication table they can memorize? Or as a series of plain old addition problems? It varies.
And just how LOGO inspires some to go and create in a virtual world with a turtle, that same little turtle could intimidate those that fear the unknown. Mr. Gecko - how do you face the world each day with such fears nested so deep in your psyche?
Must teach them to fish, not give them fish. LOGO, along with basic number theory and geometry is one avenue. But the deeper problem, is getting the kids interested in the topic in the first place. If they're interested, they'll learn anything.
If they're not hungry or think that food is free or unnecessary to live, they'll never care about fish in the first place.
oh my . . . you people seem to enjoy making things personal. come back when you can separate personal jabs from intellectual and productive discussion.
Here here. Please, construct a productive comment, Mr. Gecko.
Actually, what should be done is encouraging Ms. Irina, regardless of whether one truly agrees with her current approach, because she has a true, deep passion that is infectious. To get cliche - if she could pass that on to just one student...
Perhaps instead of "I just can't get excited about that kind of a revolution . . ." one could say - "It will take a bit of work to get me excited about that kind of revolution...but I'm ready to start when you are." could support Ms. Irina in the uphill battle of education that she is tackling, Mr. Gecko.
Or do you think doing no research (have you read the article yet even?) and shooting people's ideas and passions down is more productive?
Irina: It will take a bit of work to get me excited about that kind of revolution...but I'm ready to start when you are.
Jim Bob: I think instead of shooting irina down, i'll shoot you down . . . Dick Cheney Style . . . Fear that!
legal disclaimer: just kidding about the dick cheney thing.
Gecko makes some good points, and I tend to agree with people that I know and like offline anyway. So... group hug.
I agree completely with your views. Our students only know a technology world so we need to find ways to connect with them using the technology.
While composing my comments to your post, I decided to expand on my views in "If you Always Do What You've Always Done..." on my blog.
I like your views and have subscribed to your blog.
Me too.
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-1WKFWL8yaa9ItbRheiQGyjQ5tK4oR7FNVKA-?cq=1&p=24
And Gecko is an okay guy.
Post a Comment
<< Home