On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 7:21 PM, Edward Cherlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 6:03 PM, Edward Cherlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 10:52 PM, Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>>> Unfortunately, the cold hard facts don't support the ideas. >>>> In study after study, including the largest educational study >>>> ever done, the ideas have been proven to fail. >>> >>> Links or it never happened, Albert. I have asked you over and over >>> what your evidence is, and you have never yet replied. >> >> I did, at least twice. > > Not in a form I recognized as such. Make a page on one of the Wikis > for your evidence. > >> Search the mailing list archives if >> you need to. (on laptop.org I believe, not sugarlabs.org) > > What would I search for, and in which list? Searching for
I forgot about lo-res.org, where the post resides. http://lists.lo-res.org/pipermail/its.an.education.project/2008-July/001361.html I gave you **three** links. Please read them all. Note that it is directly a follow-up to you. I'm 99% sure that you got your own copy. > "Can I get you to agree that all children > must memorize traditional arithmetic methods long before getting > any exposure to vector calculus? Can I get you to agree that > constructionism does not work for teaching math? ... > The answers to your questions are > > * No, children can grasp the concepts of vectors, calculus, and vector > calculus visually without any arithmetic. (You are confusing geometric > vectors with their numeric representations.) That sounds like a Math Appreciation course. It's a lot like a Music Appreciation course: an easy "A", and you don't really have to learn how to do the Math/Music. Superficial understanding is not of great value. > * No, none of us agrees that Constructionism does not work for teaching math. So you are OK with this: http://mathematicallycorrect.com/ml1.htm More: http://mathematicallycorrect.com/nychold.htm > You have not named or linked to your alleged study. So, again, links > or it never happened. Maybe it's still in your inbox. _______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) [email protected] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
