WTM vs the Bluedorns RE math

[Hunter]

Some time in the late 1800s, there was a big backlash against grammar stage children learning advanced vocabulary, memorizing and reciting. I think they went too far. I'm specifically looking at the older math texts from before this backlash, and they remind me of currently popular Latin teaching methods–lots of chanting of tables.

 

For years I had not taken sides on the late 1800's debates on teaching addition and subtraction of large numbers vs multiplication and division of small numbers first. I've realized that the addition and subtraction of large numbers first method works better with Dorothy Sayers methods. I've decided to go with the method that best works with recitations and copywork and language based lessons–addition and subtraction of large numbers first.

 

I think the Grube's based curricula work better with non-Dorothy Sayers based methods, such as CM.

 

I think a lot of people are teaching math in contrast to the way they teach other subjects, and the way they believe children learn. There is a current thread on O-G phonics and Dorothy Sayers philosophy of child learning. Same thing–people are teaching phonics differently than their main educational philosophy.

 

I don't think I'm such a hard nosed believer in the benefits of young children as parrots, but the parrot methods are cheaper to teach. They need fewer and smaller books.

[happybeachbum]

It might be that -- trying to come up with a compromise, for children who are in a classroom environment.   But I think it's also related to her being heavily influenced by Pestalozzi.   As I understand it, he was the first pedagogue to make math a main part (maybe even the main part) of the elementary curriculum.  

 

His reasons were different from the ones that are given today.  It wasn't because he thought it was necessary to start the children early so that they could do calculations in daily life, or so that it would be easier for them to learn advanced math later on.  And he certainly wasn't intending to prepare them for "STEM careers," which scarcely existed at the time.   He was going more by theories about what types of learning were most appropriate for developing young children's minds.   

 

Pestalozzi's ideas were very popular right around the time when mass education was being developed in Europe and North America.  He also influenced other famous pedagogues, such as Froebel, the inventor of kindergarten.   As a result, pretty much all mainstream schools, and a lot of alternative ones, take this early emphasis on math for granted. The 19th century American common school approaches such as Grube's, Ray's, etc., all follow more or less from his ideas.

 

Montessori was even more of an admirer of Pestalozzi than most other people were, so she put an especially high priority on introducing small children to math, and developed the materials to do this.   It seems as if her methods are better than many of the others.  But the more I learn about this, the less I'm sure that the whole endeavor is really necessary, or even beneficial.  

 

In contrast to this trend, traditional classically-oriented systems of education, and many of today's advocates of "delayed formal math" (which, as the Bluedorns rightly point out, isn't "delayed" at all by historical standards), put a much heavier emphasis on verbal skills in the early years.   Depending on the particular system, oral reading and listening, memorization, recitation, paraphrasing, conversation, copywork, and foreign language study could all be part of this.   For those who saw the arts of language (i.e., the trivium) as the foundation of learning, it wouldn't make much sense to take time and energy away from these activities, to teach more advanced mathematics than the children needed in their daily lives.  

 

By the way, my impression is that Montessori's original method also had a lot of rich verbal content, but for some reason -- trouble adapting it to different countries?  lack of literary culture among the teachers?  not enough time to cover it all? -- most schools and teacher training programs tended to neglect that area, so it's ended up pretty unbalanced.  But maybe it was already somewhat unbalanced to begin with.  IDK.

 

Especially when you look at Aristotle's curriculum which delayed arithmetic until age 15

 

[happybeachbum]

http://www.triviumpursuit.com/articles/research_on_teaching_math.php I always find things like this interesting.  People tend to assume something has always been there or done a certain way, because that's what we are used to and see in the present.

[BlsdMama]

I don't sit and create problems, nor do I spend tons of time creating extra experiences.  We incorporate numbers and math talk into everyday life, occasionally play games--and mostly just wait to introduce more formal math at a time when the kids brains are more mature and they pick up the concepts quickly (what they haven't figured out already).

 

It's not a matter of making sure I cover everything that would be covered in a primary grade math program without using  program, it's a matter of living life, letting kids grow, focusing on other priorities--then when the kids are nine or ten pulling out the formal math program and going from there. 

 

Yes.

 

This response makes me feel all happy and warm towards you. ;)