Re: Are teachers really so unwilling to learn?

[Barret Dolph <white129@ms7.hinet.net>]

bickiia@earlham.edu wrote:

> "Spurling, Shannon " <shannon@more.net> wrote:
> >I just thought I would chime in here, because I work with a lot of
> >teachers, and I see some of the same things. I think teachers are
> >underpaid for what they do no matter where you go in the world. What I
>
> >find is that teachers and the public in general lack some of the basic
>
> >concepts behind how computers are organized. I'm not talking about
> >understanding binary or hexadecimal, but more of the abstract concepts
>
> >of tree's and dependencies.
>
> Yes, I think a lot of the important issues aren't even specifically
> related to computers.  They are notions of representation and
> organization a lot of the time, and those notions are hardly
> computer-specific.  But I don't know if many people actually view the
> world that way unless they are challenged to in some way.  Or, at least,
> the people who do view the world that way end up finding their calling
> in computers... :-P
>
> >IP addressing, LAN, and WAN setup all make extensive use of set theory.
>
> >I learned lots of this in grade school, as I'm sure most every one else
>
> >did, but I also had to take discrete math at the University as a degree
>
> >requirement.
>
> Of all the mathematical notions taught to people, it seems the abstract
> ones are the ones the fewest undrestand or grasp at a useful level.  The
> degree to which that stuff was even taught has varied a lot in the
> recent past, as well.  Before New Math, I don't think anyone got much of
> the abstract before college.  New Math had some great mathematical
> principles, but lasted only a few years before there was a big reaction
> against it, and once again people were learning their arithmetic and
> stupid geometry theorems (well, they wouldn't be so stupid if the logic
> behind them was taught as well...)  Now math curriculums seem to be
> slowly approaching New Math again, but there's threats from people who
> want Standards, Back to the Basics, Minimal Proficiency, and all that.
>
> And teachers come from all these backgrounds.  My impression is that
> most of them -- even those trained to teach math -- haven't been taught
> many concepts at a deeper level during college (if they stuck to the
> education track).  Outside of the US, I really don't have any idea what
> it's like (though I'd be quite curious, if anyone has thoughts).

As far as Asia goes the math teaching is better than the US but with a fatal
flaw. That is, logic is much  worse. Simply put, if in the US the level of
mathematical knowledge is 6 and  3 is the level of mathematical knowledge
used after schooling here the knowledge is 9 and the level used is 1.

>
>
> So, do we reteach the basic concepts of math?  Do we consider the
> computer a chance to make these abstract concepts concrete for once, so
> teachers (and students, I suppose :) can actually learn these concepts?
> Should we start pulling out some math curriculum and trying to integrate
> its ideas into computer curriculum?  Hmm... I'll have to think about it
> more.
>

I cannot say this will work. In high school I loved physics but got into
trouble because I hadn't taken calculus. True, my math teacher was very poor
at teaching but learning math through science didn't work very well.

For general math teaching you may ask Hilaire who is on this list. He is
quite modest about his teaching but his thinking about teaching math and
geometry is way beyond most teachers.

>
>   -- Ian
begin:vcard 
n:Dolph;S. Barret
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://www.angelfire.com/on/WhiteHorse/index.html
org:White Horse English Development Center
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:white129@ms7.hinet.net
title:Headmaster
x-mozilla-cpt:;-1
fn:S. Barret Dolph
end:vcard