I wrote the message below before reading Stephen Blacks 18 January posting, which Ill respond to separately.
Reference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr1qee-bTZI Re the TERC approach to teaching elementary mathematics: One of the arguments against the "standard" methods (aka "traditional" methods) is that they involve learning by rote. Or more specifically here, as M. J. McDermott says on the YouTube clip in relation to multiplication and division, it is argued that "the standard method does not teach place values". But the problem lies not with the methods but with the teaching. With good teaching the sequence should be (1) understanding plus method (2) practice (3) learning by rote. Or better still, there should ideally be no "learning by rote" in elementary mathematics, the *practice* should suffice to make the method familiar. Then it becomes automatic so that the next stage of the subject can tackled. Now of course many kids wont master the topic (for a variety of reasons) but if the standard method is taught they will at least be able to use it and be in a position to move on to the next stage. A perspicacious critique of TERC is provided by Bill Quirk at http://wgquirk.com/TERCSV.html http://wgquirk.com/TERC.html Quirk writes: >The National Science Foundation is now spending millions to promote implementation of the TERC program. School Boards find it difficult to say no. They rationalize: "it's just a different way to teach elementary math, and the NSF backs it, so how bad can it be?" This program is very bad because it omits standard computational methods, standard formulas, and standard terminology. TERC says most of this is now obsolete, due to the power of $5 calculators. They claim their program moves "beyond arithmetic" to offer "significant math," including important ideas from probability, statistics, 3-D geometry, and number theory. >But math is a vertically-structured knowledge domain. Learning more advanced math isn't possible without first mastering traditional pencil-and-paper arithmetic. This truth is clearly demonstrated by the shallow details of the TERC fifth grade program. Their most advanced "Investigations" offer probability without multiplying fractions, statistics without the arithmetic mean, 3-D geometry without formulas for volume, and number theory without prime numbers.< The essence here is in Quirk's statement: "But math is a vertically-structured knowledge domain." It is only by *automating* lower stages of the process of developing their mathematical knowledge that students can have the facility to confidently tackle higher levels. Implicit in this process should be that, ideally, understanding precedes the automating stage. The rationale behind TERC is explained here: About Us: http://www.terc.edu/newsroom/901.html The Quest for Mathematical Equity If you read on youll see that a lot of emphasis is placed on "relevance". I think a lot of nonsense is talked about this kind of "relevance" in education. A 2005 Royal Society report on Science, Engineering and Technology (SET) shows that, in terms of pre-University qualifications (A levels), the highest achieving students in SET subjects in the UK are of Chinese extraction, followed closely by those of Indian extraction. They achieve close to twice the success of students categorised as "white". Clearly students with Chinese and Indian backgrounds have not had to have mathematics, or any other subject, made "relevant" to their ethnic background to enable them to succeed. http://www.royalsociety.ac.uk/downloaddoc.asp?id=1774 Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London http://www.esterson.org/ --- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
