Teaching to the exam ruining math?

[testing]

http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200910/backpage.cfm

Found this through a friend who reads the physics journal on and off.

To summarize as I read it the demand for testing has force mathematical concepts onto younger children who in essence learn it to get good scores on an arbitrary test and the meaning and concepts and the application is lost.

Thoughts?

Yeah... as a mother of young children, I find that so much teaching is out of context, (i.e., just facts without any real-world or imaginary applications... facts just rattling around by themselves...) It's often inappropriate for young children, and demands things of them they are not developmentally or intellectually ready to do, and worst of all, can just drain all love of learning out of them.

Also, frankly, it sounds like a lot of math teachers at the middle school and high school level aren't that good at math, if you can believe this article.

 

[On my own path]

Well I guess you could argue that they're encouraging more in depth thinking by having a total lack of it.

You can tell it's tailored to one type though by the total lack of context to most of the questions.

I suppose, deducing the concept behind it did deepen my appreciation of Mathematics and it was an interesting puzzle to solve and with respect to your second statement, the lack of context is really annoying and in certain cases I believe that some examination boards are not to fond of answers that delve to deeply into the contexts

 

[bamf]

Students are taught to learn with rote knowledge so they 'know' everything well when the test comes up. They regurgitate the facts, and forget them as soon as school goes on break. The schools get their test results back, and they look decent on paper. What the idiots setting up the plans (state and federal government) don't realize is that these numbers are bascially meaningless as soon as the students get out of school. They forget almost everything. They should give the students the exact same test when they come back to school in the fall. It would be eye opening to see how far the test scores drop from the spring time.

All of this educational testing and bullshit curriculum standards (like 4 years of english, math, science, and social studies in high school) is justified as keeping our students in par with their forgien peers. Too bad the only thing it's generating is numbers. Numbers that the politicians tote around to stroke their egos and say 'look how well our students are advancing'. The fact of the matter is, it's only hurting the kids. Kids lose interest in school and learning. Teachers pass students on who are ready so their school can keep funding (and so the teachers can keep a job), and students go to college without an understanding of what will be expected. The ones that don't go to college have a rude awakening when they go out into the work force. They've been used to having things handded to them in school. They also missed out on important classes like personal finace or leadership classes in high school, because they were busy filling requirements that would have no benefit for them.

Education is so messed up right now

(and NAI was 100% correct in his statement)

 

[smiffy]

It's designed around Sensors in general (85% of the population). SJs just happen to be the majority in most educational institutions, up to 2/3rds of teachers, so they naturally cater to other SJs better.

Makes me wonder if the difference between most regular and honors students in high school was the N/S divide. That could be an interesting study.

nope I don't think so, alot of N's end up in science which can be maths based, in my opinion that doesn't add up. I haven't meant an unacademic N type yet!

 

[Kavalan]

an interesting tidbit from my own education so I don't know how well it holds up in the grand scheme:

In my General chemistry class 3 years ago we were taught about electron orbitals and how they have different energy levels. It was all arbitrarily described BUT they said the reason it is being explained that way is because the actual numbers and reasons are derived from quantum mechanics and the higher order math that goes with it. Even in the quantum class part were taught as arbitrary solely for the insane amount of time and mathematical computations required.(once again we were told this explicitly)

Would implying of use be at worst a step in the right direction?

 

[Reon]

So, question. It seems that the general consensus in this thread is that the education system that we have is not working (some more than others...) however, how should we go about changing our education system from one where rote knowledge reigns supreme to one that endows the schools with creative environments that students actually want to learn in? (separate question entirely, but what about the students who don't honestly like school? Should we force everyone through pre-calculus if that person is pretty damn sure he is going to be an author? Seems kinda unfair.)

 

[Kavalan]

the problem is there is no one-size-fits-all answer to the problem. As an example the underfunding at my towns schools is different than that of an inner city and also the reasons for struggling students can be very drastic as well. If anything a system that allows for college students doing the student teaching need to be more versed in these issues. The most experienced teachers garnered the most respect when I was going through school and the younger teachers tended to be hardliners that rubbed everyone the wrong way.

Food for thought

 

[Introspiritual]

nope I don't think so, alot of N's end up in science which can be maths based, in my opinion that doesn't add up. I haven't meant an unacademic N type yet!

Ok, let me clarify:

In the US, at the university level, you likely have a higher percentage of Ns due to the requirements of the degree. At the K-12 level, you probably have on average 65% SJs, 25% NFs, and the remainder made up of SPs (coaches) and NTs (math/science).

 

[Reon]

Ok, let me clarify:

In the US, at the university level, you likely have a higher percentage of Ns due to the requirements of the degree. At the K-12 level, you probably have on average 65% SJs, 25% NFs, and the remainder made up of SPs (coaches) and NTs (math/science).

I'm not following, you suspect that they're at more NFs than the combination of SPs and NTs? (Not to mention that you don't think SJs and NFs hold those positions either?)

 

[Afrelen]

Actually the worst offence in education is far simpler than that and is one that most seem oblivious to.

Education teaches you what others did, how others solved their problems... it fails singularly to equip you to solve problems. That is the context they lack and the reason why you get so many academics with no real world value or common sense.

Actually I think the simpler problem is that we force people to become educated who never will and never have wanted to be.

 

[Tzesarel]

I don't know much about the American education system, and according to the article and information I've read here it's very different than in Denmark. I'd just like to share my view:

I believe there are several levels of learning, but the most important thing to learn... is how to learn. To master learning. It is for example an essential requirement that you know how to put 2 and 2 together, and take 2 from 2 (sorry I don't know the English mathematical terms that well), to be able to solve equations. I haven't read any research into personality types, and most effective ways of learning. But I know of two different types;

There are those who learn with pictures; for example by doing assignments... by being given a problem, they learn how to solve the problem (learning equations by having to solve equations themselves). - This is how I learn most effectively.

Then there are those who learn with words (or whatever it could be called), for example by listening to a teacher explaining something while writing on the board, going through a certain subject etc. etc..

I think the system we have in my school is very effective, though it could use some improvements it does ensure that everyone can learn, no mather who you are. There is the general teaching in class every day, with the teacher there to help and whatever way it's built up on (depending on the curricula that the teacher builds the teaching from). Besides that there are frequent projects on subjects, and during the years it takes theres also one large project where you get to choose your own subject completely (I chose the golden section in math, and ultimately learned loads in those weeks).

 

[Siamese cat]

I had an opportunity to see some math tests for high school in California when I was visiting eight years ago and I'd say that that was quite different than tests I had in my school. I'm comparing the same math sections, and I wouldn't say that yours was easier but it did fit some odd pattern and what was more strange to me then is that guy whose test I came up with showed me that he first got several papers with same problems, just different numbers, and that it was only thing that he had to practice. I don't know if that is a real picture of your educational system, I believe that it needs reform and that it's all more complicated that I've pictured it (system in my country, although completely different that what I've seen of yours desperately needs reforming too).

I used to tutor math, physics and some electronics classes and main problem I had with students is that they basically had no learning skills whatsoever. It's not that they don't have talent for science subjects (I truly believe that everyone can learn anything if puts his mind to it), it's just that when faced with science problems they don't know where to start. And I wouldn't say that that's just the school system fault, there is something with parents who think that they don't have to spend quality time with their children, do interesting things with them and guide them to realize that they can learn and achieve everything they set their mind to.

And I did understand math only after I went to University but before that I had a great teacher in high school who made learning math so interesting without going into applications of math we were learning. There is something in people who are born to teach, they can make even most boring subjects sound great.

 

[corvidae]

The problem with math/science education, imo, is that there are so few qualified math/science teachers. Teachers don't make nearly enough money, and teachers colleges are among the least rigorous graduate schools in terms of admissions requirements. This means that many m/s teachers didn't major, or even minor, in the subject they teach.

My RA, for example, is a philosophy/polysci double major, planning to teach. There's a philosophy 101 class, which is a watered down version of intro to logic (phil 201), which is a watered down version of discrete math (cs205). Among the science departments, and even the philosophy department, phil201 is a joke, let alone phil101. One semester of phil201 covers the same material as cs205. Yet my RA says phil101 was one of the hardest courses she took. Granted, if she teaches elementary school, she will not teach propositional logic. And she's not unintelligent by any stretch of the imagination. But this is just an example of the type of people that generally become teachers.

It's hard to find someone with a m/s degree willing to take a 50% paycut to work as a teacher instead of in a corporate environment. My calculus teacher literally got an engineering job offer that was double his teacher salary, even after tenure and whatnot.

It seems to me that too many people go into teaching because they majored in something "impractical" like sociology or literature, and couldn't find a job. Because of this, universities can get away with inadequately funding teachers colleges.

 

[bamf]

Just come to Michigan. We have rigorous demands for anyone who will be receiving a teaching certificate. My program requires 8 semesters of Teaching Education classes, and a major/minor of which are the only subjects we'll be legally certified to teach. There is also an entire year of student teaching required after graduation before being certified to teach. Not only that, but in the state of Michigan all teachers are required to 'continue their education' throughout their careers. That means each year every teacher in the state of Michigan has to take a certain number of university certified credit hours in order to retain their teaching certificate, along with retesting which is required every few years.

Of course, this might also explain why Michigan educated teachers are in high demand across the nation. We have some of the top Education colleges across the nation, with University of Michigan, and Michigan State University in the near top of almost every list. Central and Western Michigan universities make it on a number of the lists as well.

 

[Barnabas]

this couldn't have been forther off from my education. Most teachers taught the way they wanted to and it never seemed to work against my N, only to calsses forced me to use my ST, ROTC and Amer. Hist. Hon.. In those cases i bite the bullet and learned more from it.

Maybe i'm lucky but I've always held a view of 85% to 15%, it's almost always the student and almost never the teacher.

 

[DefectiveCreative]

Maybe i'm lucky but I've always held a view of 85% to 15%, it's almost always the student and almost never the teacher.

It's not the teachers or the students, it's the system. It attempts to homogenise the learning process and in doing so completely strangles the individual approaches to learning of both students and teachers that are so necessary for real learning to take place.

Besides, the truth is that the school system isn't broken at all, it's doing exactly what it was always designed to do, and very effectively at that. The problem is is that it was never designed to produce free thinking and intelligent individuals who are self-reliant and well-versed in their chosen subjects, it was explicitly designed from day one to produce mindless, dependent wage slaves.

Here are some essays by John Taylor Gatto on the issue:

Why Schools Don't Educate:
http://www.naturalchild.org/guest/john_gatto.html

Against School:
http://www.wesjones.com/gatto1.htm

Institutional Schooling Must be Destroyed:
http://www.school-survival.net/articles/school/history/Institutional_schooling_must_be_destroyed.php

The Tyranny of Compulsory Schooling:
http://www.school-survival.net/articles/school/history/The_tyranny_of_compulsory_schooling.php

The Public School Nightmare:
http://www.diablovalleyschool.org/nightmare.shtml

I also recommend reading the views of John Holt and Grace Llewellyn for more reasons on why a self-directed approach to learning (or "un-schooling" as it's also known) would be a far better replacement for the insult to human intelligence and free-thought that we have now.

 

[Shai Gar]

Xander, and everyone else who agrees with him in an as eloquent a manner, please help me form The Order.

 

[testing]

Here are some essays by John Taylor Gatto on the issue:

Why Schools Don't Educate:
http://www.naturalchild.org/guest/john_gatto.html

Against School:
http://www.wesjones.com/gatto1.htm

Institutional Schooling Must be Destroyed:
http://www.school-survival.net/articles/school/history/Institutional_schooling_must_be_destroyed.php

The Tyranny of Compulsory Schooling:
http://www.school-survival.net/articles/school/history/The_tyranny_of_compulsory_schooling.php

The Public School Nightmare:
http://www.diablovalleyschool.org/nightmare.shtml

I also recommend reading the views of John Holt and Grace Llewellyn for more reasons on why a self-directed approach to learning (or "un-schooling" as it's also known) would be a far better replacement for the insult to human intelligence and free-thought that we have now.

I John Taylor Gotto, and John Holt.

Now I must go read those articles, and also find a commune in which to live, without the necessity of earning money, so I can homeschool my kids. Would also need a few excellent mathematicians, engineers, and musicians to shore up my weakest areas of knowledge. Sigh.

 

[Norton]

I've always been good at math. I guess I'm naive, though, because I just don't see why so many people have so much difficulty learning math and why so few teachers are good at teaching it. There seems to be a lot of angst associated with math. What's the big mystery surrounding math?

 

[Kavalan]

I've always been good at math. I guess I'm naive, though, because I just don't see why so many people have so much difficulty learning math and why so few teachers are good at teaching it. There seems to be a lot of angst associated with math. What's the big mystery surrounding math?

There exists a system that thinks that teaching the framework of higher order math is a good thing to middle school and high school students.

Simply put Mathematics in a vacuum is simply pushing numbers around and in such system it is never known the point is. This was my problem after finishing up calculus I in HS. The fact that at this point most higher math is created/used in the sciences and what I did in high school had a "purpose" in such systems would have kept me more interested knowing that the spherical harmonics which are trig functions that define molecular orbitals than just doing random trigonometric integration.