Talk:Connected Mathematics

message: I have used this book and it teaches you NOTHING about math! The algebra ISN'T algebra. And it is VERY confusing, skipping many elements essential to understanding algebra, geometry, fractions, etc.  Try to avoid using this book. Use Saxon Math, it's the greatest math book EVER!
I agree wholeheartedly Mathnerd314 01:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

message: "...but texts such as CM seek to make all students successful. Instead of only presenting facts and methods, CM seeks to engage the student's interest in numbers..."
Sounds pretty POV to me. Mathnerd314 01:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huh?! 

message: I don't understand this term, is it related to mathematics in general, or is it a term used mostly in the US?
User:Tass-AJ 10:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moose 

message: I reverted edits by Bachcell because they did not appear to return the content to its original state before vandalism. It is not clear what iteration of the article this refers to. It's not a problem to revise the content, although it is not clear this is what occurred.  It is also problematic because the article had been tagged with original research/unverified claims and this was removed in what Bachcell described as reverting. So, I reverted it to return it to a prior form. It seems like a good idea to update the article, but the version before the one that presently appears does not reflect the issues others, myself included, found with the page. I am happy to discuss this on my talk page.  Kearnsdm (talk) 05:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting Edits 

message: What a biased article!
In response to an earlier comment, the texts do matter quite a bit, because elementary school teachers generally don't know how to teach math at all on their own and they do what the text says.  Don't blame a text's shortcomings on teachers.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.9.66.82 (talk) 07:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What a biased article! 

message: I undid the anonymous edits replacing the initial Research section with a poorly formatted summary of WWC conclusions. WWC is not an absolute standard. Including WWC's opinion is quite valid and might be helpful, but the WWC should not be the only research source mentioned. Integrating the differing conclusions would be best, something along the lines of "Studies A and B found this, but the WWC found fault with these studies". A simple citation of WWC's conclusions is very misleading without interpretation for readers not familiar with the WWC. In particular, readers should know that nearly all curricula, both standards-based and traditional, have been faulted for having little or no "valid" research (by WWC's controversial standards), nor have almost any curricula (standards-based or traditional) been found to have large effects at the elementary and middle school levels. It is easy and misleading to imply criticism of almost any curriculum (standards-based or traditional) by noting WWC's disapproval of the current state of research. It should also be noted that not everyone agrees with the WWC's methods and conclusions. These caveats should be included to give a balanced NPOV view of the debate over Connected Mathematics in a well-written paragraph or two. --seberle (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Research 

message: In many places, this seems to be written by advocates of the teaching method. It uses marketese and phrases such as "what parents do not understand." Someone needs to add a "bias warning" to the page. I don't normally edit on Wikipedia, so I don't know how that is done, but if anyone here has rights to do that, it would be a good add.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.36.138 (talk) 14:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased writing