Talk:New Math

message: I removed: "The U.S. experience does seem in retrospect to have the hallmarks of a moral panic.", as it is original opinion.  If it is verifiably seen now as moral panic, it needs substantiating (that people believe it, not the belief itself!). Grayum 10:50, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  discussion 

message: I am not convinced that the text is entirely mathematically correct. The third verse (which covers the tens place calculation of 342 - 173) starts with
:From the three you then use one
:To make ten ones...
Doesn't Lehrer here make ten tens? Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm reminded of the old joke, there are 10 people that can understand binary, those that can, those that cannot and those that don't care.Wzrd1 (talk) 23:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lehrer's song 

message: Back when I was teaching myself New Math with a "Cyclo-Teacher" in the '70s and '80s, I didn't know it had a name. Some of us only recognize New Math when we see those little set-theory diagrams. Does anyone have one that could be legitimately uploaded and used? --Lawikitejana 21:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where can we get pictures? 

message: Does anyone know more about him? I have a both a calculus book and a differential equations book that he wrote. I liked his books for his heavy historical, biographical, and philosophical approach to mathematics. It is rare to find a "literate" mathematician; although, it appears that he is tainted by antisemitism? Comments anyone?--Lance talk 09:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Professor George F. Simmons  

message: In "The New New Math" section, the phrase "increase mathematical power for all students by creating frameworks which set world-class standards of what all students must know and be able to do" is repeated.  I'd like to fix this up but I'm not quite sure how best to. Robert K S 13:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repetition 

message: Unless there is serious objection, I will work up a separate New New Math article. There is, imo, no continuity between New Math and New New Math, aside from the similar names. Jd2718 23:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely no objection here. There should not be a "New New Math" section in this article since, as you say, there is no relationship between the Math Wars of the 1990s and the New Math. I'm not sure you need a new article entitled "New New Math." The current article on the "Math Wars" is sufficient. There is also coverage of the Math Wars in other articles. What it is doing here in an article on an educational phenomenon of the 1960s is a mystery to me. If you do not move this section soon, I will probably just delete it.--seberle (talk) 02:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: well "new math" however was a commonly used term to distinguish those newer textbooks and curriculas from the conventional/pre 1990s ones.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[new new math|New New Math]] 

message: I would like to say that I was taught the New Math in Arizona in the 1970s (1971-1976). I can't add this because it is anecdotal and subjective, but perhaps there are sources that show that the pedagogy had a long afterlife in US Elementary schools? Saudade7 03:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it was covered in Pennsylvania from the mid-late 1960's through to at least 1980, when I graduated. Removal disadvantaged kids graduating that wanted to go into IT, where non-base-10 math is the norm, not to mention sets and subsets concepts applying to silly minor things like Active Directory Resultant Sets of Policies.Wzrd1 (talk) 23:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: 1970s?

message: Reference 1 does not mention axiomatic set theory at all (words like “axiom”, “zf”, “logic” etc. are not mentioned) --Chricho ∀ (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: what????  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.107.83.210 (talk) 22:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I haved removed the claim. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 12:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Axiomatic Set Theory 

message: This page is definitely in need of work.  One of the reforms in "New Math" -- which is actually even mentioned in the Tom Lehrer song! -- is the introduction of the concepts of "borrowing" and "carrying" to addition and subtraction problems.
   
  This is not so. I learned these methods well before New Math was taught anywhere. 
This *stuck* as a pedagogical technique.  The way arithmetic was taught before appears genuinely bizarre to anyone who went to school from the 1960s onwards, to the point where I can't even describe it.
So some of the changes from the "new math" period were dropped, but others were permanent.
Needs a balanced treatment by someone who knows the pedagogical history.
24.59.161.166 (talk) 04:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Gotta give, despite the dated entry, the valid point on the concept of "borrowing and carrying", which my WWII era educated parents fully understood and were able to teach. They got to then try to grasp sets and subsets, anything beyond base-10, etc. In hindsight, I emphasize with them, but do grasp novel concepts far better than they were educated to be able to do.Wzrd1 (talk) 23:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parts of "New Math" are still used routinely 

message: This section doesn't seem to support itself with citations, and the claims of hat isn't taught seems contrary to what seems to be taught?  There's no citation to what is taught today.  174.62.68.53 (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern Exercises 

message: New Mathematics or New Math was a brief, dramatic change in the way mathematics was taught in American grade schools, and to a lesser extent in European countries, during the 1960s.. I had New Math in eighth grade c. 1963. Since this is mere anecdote, I guess it has no probative value herein, but the blanket statement should still be modified.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.249.146.8 (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  elementary school only?? 

message: This number of hyperlinks seems pointless to the article, and misleading in some points. Is it okay to remove the stupid ones?
90.174.167.118 (talk) 06:29, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive hyperlinking 

message: Shouldn't there be some linkage to Common Core Math, given the similarity in traditionalist opposition to both New Math and CC? I'm not sure how it could be expressed, though. SpareSimian (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The New Math was a historical international phenomenon, though particularly important in the U.S.. There was certainly opposition to the New Math's attack on traditional topics, but I'm not sure it all came from "traditionalists". Many who agreed the American curriculum needed changing (such as Feynman, who is quoted in the Wikipedia article) also felt the New Math was the wrong way to do it. Today, there is opposition from both traditionalists and reformers against the Common Core. So a claim that opposition in either case was/is particularly "traditionalist" would need some references. --seberle (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

text: As near as I've ascertained, it's an objection to any mathematical concept beyond "one, two and many" math. Traditionalist objections are basically objections from rote memorization, which is decidedly odd, given their rejection also of anything complex enough to make a nuclear weapon, while thoroughly embracing said weapons. Odd period, to put it mildly, but growing up during the trailing edge of it... It's just odd. Upside was, Nineteen Eighty-Four was required reading, which eventually was gifted reading four our children. Downside, parents ill equipped to help their kids out with math homework assignments.Wzrd1 (talk) 23:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common Core 

message: "The name is commonly given to a set of teaching practices introduced in the U.S. shortly after the Sputnik crisis, in order to boost science education and mathematical skill in the population, so that the technological threat of Soviet engineers, reputedly highly skilled mathematicians, could be met."
engineers \neq mathematicians. there are mathematicians who focus on applied mathematics/engineering problems and I am sure there are rare  engineers who do 'mathematics' but by and large the two are very separate disciplines. engineers focus on applying previously known mathematics and science to 'real world' problems. key features of engineering involve building things in well posed, goal oriented contexts with clear motivation. mathematicians do math, sometimes just for math's sake, and sometimes in the context of applied problems. very few engineers go around proving theorems about an infinitely-differentiable hypergraph whose elements are Lebesgue-measurable varieties endowed with the atomic measure (I made that up it is arbitrary jargon) and few mathematicians design and build bridges. 
this section should be say something like 
"so that the technological threat of Soviet engineers could be met." (preferred).
or 
"so that the technological threat of Soviet engineers, reputedly highly quantitatively skilled, could be met." even this is redundant. any good engineer worth his salt is quantitively skilled...
As it stands now, the section reads to a mathematician like saying "so that the legal threat of Soviet lawyers, reputedly highly skilled poets, could be met."
both professions use the english language like both mathematicians and engineers use math, but they just ain't the same.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovelobster (talk • contribs) 03:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You might be right. However, keep in mind that the article is not directly about Soviet engineers and mathematicians, but rather the public perception of them at that time. This article needs a bit more development of the historical forces behind the New Math, and more references to support the brief overview in the article. Some good references could guide us to make this sentence more accurate. seberle (talk) 08:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

text: "Mathematicians" should not be so narrowly defined as to suggest that Soviet engineers were not "reputedly highly skilled mathematicians." All forms of error communication coding (Reed-Solomon, BCH, Golay, Turbo, LDPC) make use of abstract algebraic techniques to solve an engineering problem. The code inventors are generally considered mathematicians, and are published in engineering journals. The namesakes of the Reed-Solomon code are Irving Reed and Gustave Solomon, each with a wikipedia article immediately stating that the person is a mathematician and engineer. Each received a Ph.D. in mathematics (CalTech and MIT, respectively), and awards from leading engineering societies. Similar things are true of Golay, Berlekamp, and other pioneers in the field. Note that this field (error correction coding) uses precisely the topics covered by "New Math." I realize the underlying math topics are centuries old and discovered by more pure mathematicians, but certainly the point that engineering can be advanced by highly skilled mathematician-engineers is valid.SigProcEngineer (talk) 06:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Both fail to consider, public policy isn't decided entirely by the populace, but by the leadership and their perceptions. Also, what was considered a mathematician in that era vs more modern times is also a fair bit blurred. Show me a modern mathematician that wouldn't be called a programmer back in the mid to late 1960's to '70's, as an example, while engineers and physicists today would equally be considered mathematicians back then and now, defer to mathematicians in some portions of their own theories. Nothing can be "pure", as the universe operates upon mathematics and well, "God doesn't play dice with the universe" has been disproved by thoroughly loaded dice.  ;)  Wzrd1 (talk) 23:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  common misunderstanding 

message: This section should be relabled "influence" or "legacy" as it does not illustrate proponents for or potential benefits of new math. There should also be a proper praises/benefits/advantages section to balance against the criticisms/disadvantage section. There is a lot of criticism and negative bias toward this subject and it would be nice to counterbalance with some actual purported advantages for the sake of keeping the article free of bias.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.42.145.183 (talk) 14:09, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Praises 

message: I am a bit outside my domain of expertise, but I have some doubts about the section on Enduring_Legacy, which currently reads as follows:
::The New Math is often described as a short-lived movement with no lasting influence on current teaching practice. For better and for worse, that's not the case. One example concerns the introduction of the field axioms. Understanding the ways in which an arithmetic formula can be reordered helps students solve mental arithmetic problems such as 3+18+7 by recognizing that the problem can be reordered as 18+(3+7) and recognizing numbers whose sum is ten. (If the problem were 3−18+7, the grouping of operations would have to be considered more carefully before reordering, because subtraction isn't commutative.) On the other hand, the words "commutative" and "associative" are hard to remember, hard to spell, and therefore intimidating. But they are still sometimes taught, in part because the use of New Math textbooks was much more common than the provision of New Math teacher preparation workshops. Traditional teachers can add "commutative" to the weekly spelling list without actually giving students challenges in which the Commutative Law is helpful.
::The style of work in modern elementary mathematics lessons is very heavily influenced by the New Math. Organizing the classroom space into table groups of (generally) four to six students facing each other rather than facing front was a New Math innovation. The use of manipulatives (physical blocks of wood or plastic that can be combined to illustrate ideas about quantity and shape, such as Cuisenaire rods) didn't start with the New Math, but it wasn't until the New Math popularized their use that they became universal. Publishers of current curricula provide manipulatives in table kits.[3] [4]
::Another enduring result of the New Math has been the willingness of teachers and curriculum developers to use arithmetic algorithms other than the ones used in the 19th Century. Those algorithms were designed to minimize the number of steps needed for an experienced adult to carry out a calculation. But in the 21st Century all but the simplest computations are done by machine. Educators still have children do arithmetic, because some practical experience is necessary to understand the mathematical ideas. But they invent algorithms that are easier to understand, rather than faster to carry out.
Citations from secondary sources are needed discussing this enduring legacy and the many claims made in this section. --seberle (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enduring Legacy section 

message: : Topics introduced in the New Math include set theory, modular arithmetic, algebraic inequalities, bases other than 10, matrices, symbolic logic, Boolean algebra, and abstract algebra.
To me, that statement comprises my early 70's memories of New Math. I have no recollection of discovery learning methods.
I was frustrated as a 12 year old wondering about the justification for having to learn some of that, especially the "bases other than 10", likewise gradians and radians.
Then I got a math degree.
But, when I studied electrical engineering and then an embedded systems developer, applicability of set theory, modular arithmetic, algebraic inequalities, bases other than 10, matrices, symbolic logic, Boolean algebra, and abstract algebra, all became abundantly clear; especially in the context of the development of digital systems, then, integrated circuits, then computers and the software that controls them; all being the foundation of military and economic advancements from the 50s on.
I was rather surprised to see that this was not particularly covered in the article, but my perspective may not be relevant or accurate.
IveGoneAway (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This article could definitely use some more work. I agree that the topics you listed seem to be those most commonly associated with the New Math, and that I have never come across a reference to discovery learning being associated with New Math. Your personal experience sounds like the experience of many. What in particular were you surprised not to see covered in the article? --seberle (talk) 07:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: New Math wasn't just a reaction to Sputnik: it was also a rejection of current pedagogic developments. Specifically, educators felt that Math had no relevance, and should be de-emphasized or removed from the primary curriculum.  After all, your 3rd Grade teacher had never, in her entire life, used any mathematics more complex than addition and subtraction: why should she be wasting her student's time with long division? In reaction to the well-established push to make schooling more relevant by removing Math, mathematicians, engineers and scientists examined the math they were actually doing, and recommended moving that into the primary curriculum (replacing or extending what had been originally clerical/business/spreadsheet math). In retrospect, it's interesting to see that statistics wasn't nearly as important then as it is now.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.243.156 (talk) 00:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

text: Well, was educated in New Math, prepared me for IT work later in life and well, earlier and much later, helped me with those whole rads and grads in guiding indirect fire to rather unpleasant people, who were about to hurt a lot of really pleasant people. As for the IP editor claiming statistics aren't as important then as now, crypto required statistical precision - always, as has nuclear physics and well, health care in general and especially public health, it's always been important, you conflate perception of importance with actual importance. Which equates a witch doctor with a medical doctor as full peers.Wzrd1 (talk) 00:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electrical and Digital Engineering 

message: This article makes prominent claims that New Math was inspired by the Sputnik crisis and concern that Soviet engineers were, by reputation, better at math than their US counterparts. These claims appear to be unsupported by any reliable published source. I see no in-line citation to allow independent verification of these claims. No other explanation is offered as to the origin of New Math - just Sputnik and concerns about the mathematical skills of Soviet engineers!
When people dislike something, and dislike it with a passion, many are easily recruited to any simple ideology that discredits that something by linking it to something else that is undeniably objectionable. I can well imagine that parents and teachers who objected to the New Math would be attracted to the notion that it had been invented by silly politicians and misguided educators who were motivated by a desire to recruit school children to the task of helping the US overhaul the Soviets in the space race, or worse still the arms race.
Whether or not the New Math was in any significant way spawned by east-west rivalries or the Sputnik crisis, and whether or not Wikipedia should report it in this way, should be determined solely by the quality of the sources provided to allow us to independently verify what is stated in the article. Even if evidence can be found of a minority view that New Math might be related to Sputnik, Wikipedia avoids giving undue weight to minor points of view. If no reliable published source can be provided, this aspect of the article should be regarded as someone's original research, and erased. Dolphin (t) 05:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: A week has passed with no User responding to my comments above. I will amend the article to remove the unsourced claim that New Math was inspired solely by the Sputnik crisis and concern that it showed US engineers and scientists were inferior to their Soviet counterparts, especially in fields including math. If a User subsequently finds a reliable published source to support this claim they are welcome to add the claim, and an in-line citation, to the article. Dolphin (t) 10:18, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: As one that grew up in the era after Sputnik, it spurred the effort enough to gain momentum that was slowly building, as both digital computers were gaining momentum and the non-base-10 math, sets and subsets also gaining due to ill preparation of students for modern college educations and to add an odd number to the coupling of both, statistical analysis was and remains critical in modern life, from anything from general physics, such as electronics, through figuring out how a thermonuclear device operates and balancing electrical loads on a modern power grid during a geomagnetic storm (to add in a quite recent non-event, due to the successfully managed otherwise hot mess).Wzrd1 (talk) 00:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

text: I also grew up in the era right after Sputnik and it was always "common knowledge," that the space race had spurred on the New Math. It is possible that this was a false assumption, but I would find it suprising that there are not any references refuting, confirming, or at least mentioning this idea. Before simply deleting this information, try attaching a "citation needed" tag first. --seberle (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Math inspired by east-west rivalry?