La Condessa Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 Just found this linked on another website. A fascinating read. . . http://www.maa.org/devlin/LockhartsLament.pdf I thought of Bill many times. But it leaves me asking the question, how could I possibly provide an understanding like that to my children when I don't understand it myself? I knew that I wanted a curriculum that taught the whys of math, which I never learned, but this goes so far beyond that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snickerdoodle Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 I seem to remember this being discussed at some point. Yes. Here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snickerdoodle Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 Whoops. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean in Newcastle Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 I seem to remember this being discussed at some point. Yes. Here. I read the comments on this linked thread and was relieved to see that other people's impressions matched up with my own! It does sound lovely. And I don't disagree that you need to know the whys behind math or learn to play with it. But - the whole let's learn math through discovery thing - well, it made me think of Everyday Math and that's not a good thing to think about! As a musician and as someone who likes to dabble in art, I can say that I can't play with music or paint and appreciate it without learning some of the rules and techniques of both. It doesn't have to be dry. But you do need a foundation to build on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wapiti Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 (edited) I seem to remember this being discussed at some point. Yes. Here. Thanks for the link to this old thread - I needed it today. (It seems to me there may be another one someplace... here) What I'd really like is a discussion contrasting the fuzzy math discovery approach with the AoPS discovery approach, which would seem to be night and day. You can read Rusczyk's articles on problem solving here and here, though I don't know of an article in which he explains, specifically, how his books do this, other than perhaps the notes in the front of the book. He really breaks down the discovery into itty bitty pieces, and from my layman perspective, I think his teaching leans toward pure math as opposed to fuzzy math - can anyone comment? I know Rusczyk writes and teaches for a niche (high-performing math students) but I often wonder what would happen if his approach were applied to a more general student population. Edited October 1, 2011 by wapiti Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La Condessa Posted October 1, 2011 Author Share Posted October 1, 2011 Oh, sorry, I missed those threads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GingerPoppy Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 Just read the whole article. Thanks! A lot of food for thought. It made me happy, because when I teach math, I do focus a lot on the beauty and wonder of how and why math works like it does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.