From: elg@elgamy.jpunix.com (Eric Lee Green)
Date: 25 Jan 93 21:27:25 CDT
Newsgroups: sci.math,misc.education
Subject: Re: Why algebra and what is important?
Distribution: world
Organization: Eric's Amiga 2000 @ Home

From article <1993Jan23.204816.9469@ncar.ucar.edu>, by jweiss@ra.cgd.ucar.edu (Jeffrey Weiss):
> For me the important distinction is how one teaches the basics.  I
> have taught math in every elementary grade, partly through a wonderful
> program called Project SEED.  Their technique is to do advanced
> conceptual mathematics.  But, as Eric points out, this does require
> that the kids do basic arithmetic.  I see no contradiction in this,
> since it motivates the students to do, and thus learn, basic
> arithmetic.  For example, one curriculum used with 4-6th graders dealt
> with a new (for them) binary operation, exponentiation.  This of
> course requries that they multiply, and the kids were very eager to
> multiply long strings of number to find, say, 4^10, since it had a
> context where they cared about the answer.

Interesting. This sort of relates to how I originally taught the concept of
"multiplication". I came up with all sorts of different types of problems
and asked the children to write "multiplication sentences" that would tell
us how to find the answer. For example, "Five cars go to the tire store one
afternoon. Each car needs four new tires. How many tires does the tire
store sell that afternoon?". The answer, of course, being "4*5". I also
drew squares and rectangles, four cans of beans with thirty beans in each
can, etc. I don't know how much of this the kids "got". But so it goes.

Moving onward, I didn't spend a whole lot of time drilling the
multiplication tables. That didn't work with me, and I doubt it would work
with most of my students. Instead, I put the chart on the wall, and plunged
right into doing multi-digit multiplication problems. I'm hoping that
they'll eventually get it down to the point where they no longer have to
look at the chart on the wall.

However, I readily admit that I am just learning how to teach math. I am by
no means a master teacher. I know what direction I want to move in, but I'm
definitely still learning how to get there.


> I like an analogy with carpentry.  Our current math teaching is like
> giving someone a pile of nails and wood, making them drive nails for a
> few years until they learn to do it perfectly, and only then letting
> them do something interesting, i.e. build something.  How boring!  I

The math book spent a whole 9 lessons on drilling basic multiplication
facts. *I* was bored just LOOKING at that. I refused to do it. I knew from
my own background that it was possible to memorize most of those things
with little tricks and from just plain using them, so I'm primarily
providing a ton of application problems, mainly set problems and geometric
problems since one of my kids has serious language difficulties, two have
problems reading, and one of the kids with reading problems also has some
language problems.

> think its much better to let them build something fun (and kids do
> find conceptual math fun, if taught right) even if its a little
> rickety because they are not great at driving nails.  In the process
> they not only learn the basics, but learn why they should care about
> the basics.

I just wish that I had the *TIME* to dive into conceptual math.
Unfortunately, the materials the school board provides me aren't up to that
sort of task, and I'm already working 10-hour days just providing a basic
by-the-book education so I'm not going to develop my own materials. Do you
know of any good kits or other such materials which would be useful? If so,
I'll order them for next year out of my supplies budget (I cannot, alas,
get it for this year -- my predecessor already spent all of my classroom's
funds for this year).

--
 Eric Lee Green  elg@elgamy.jpunix.com   Dodson Elementary
 (713) 664-6446                             Houston, TX
                "Kids are kids, no matter what"
Newsgroups: sci.math