10252013, 09:04 AM



Location: Massapequa Park
3,172 posts, read 6,136,970 times
Reputation: 1364


Quote:
Originally Posted by Forest_Hills_Daddy
/\/\
The point of revamping the curriculum is to better prepare students for careers in science and engineering. This is something that the proponents of CC math keep ignoring. Nobody is saying there is nothing good about it. But it just will not prepare kids for careers in science and engineering.
Even if the CC math will improve average scores, it does not provide better preparation for such careers. You can have general population that can debate a word problem better, or calculate change in their heads. That does not make them ready to study science and engineering.
If you want to produce more good scientists and engineers, you should emulate what successful scientists and engineers are doing. Which is why I bring up again  Look at the foreign students enrolling in Standford and MIT grad school. How do they study math? It's no coincidence they come from the countries that regularly top the math olympiad.
You'll have to search really hard to find something globally noteworthy that Singapore has accomplished in math and the sciences/engineering. No math olympiads won. Nothing of great significance coming out of its universities. No Amgen, no HP, no IBM, no DEC. That's the truth about Singapore. It's a decent country, no doubt. But dominant in math in science? No. So why is America trying to emulate it?

Ok, #1, you keep stating the same thing over and over again. You were asked what changes should be made to the curriculum. You said "emulate the countries that regularly top the math olympiad". So what countries and what methods of teaching?
#2 Singapore is about the size of Minnesota (population 1/50th of the US). It was practically a thirdworld country 50 years ago that has transformed into a booming emerging market (commonly referred to as one of the 4 "Asian Tigers"). They even surpassed the US in GPD per capita recently :
https://www.google.com/search?q=gpd+...pita+singapore
It makes no sense to compare Singapore to US multinational corporations, US Universities and olympiad winners..Most of which which were established decades ago in the 1900s, even as far back as the 1800s.
Last edited by Pequaman; 10252013 at 09:15 AM..

10252013, 09:26 AM



7,134 posts, read 10,320,353 times
Reputation: 3073


Quote:
Originally Posted by Pequaman
Ok, #1, you keep stating the same thing over and over again. You were asked what changes should be made to the curriculum. You said "emulate the countries that regularly top the math olympiad". So what countries and what methods of teaching?

Teach math the way it is taught to those foreign students who make it to American graduate science and engineering programs, and to those who in math olympiads. Use the same syllabus, the same rigor when it comes to quizzes and tests. We want to educate more scientists and engineers, right? That is your general population.
Now if the goal is not to educate more scientists and engineers, then you have a case for CC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pequaman
#2 Singapore is about the size of Minnesota (population 1/50th of the US). It was practically a thirdworld country 50 years ago that has transformed into a booming emerging market (commonly referred to as one of the 4 "Asian Tigers"). They even surpassed the US in GPD per capita recently :
https://www.google.com/search?q=gpd+per+capita+singapore
It makes no sense to compare Singapore to US multinational corporations, US Universities and olympiad winners..Most of which which were established decades ago in the 1900s, even as far back as the 1800s.

You took it the wrong way. This is not a dig against Singapore. The point is their accomplishments in science and engineering are modest at best. I don't care if it is a smaller and younger country. How is the fact that they are an "Asian Tiger" lead us to produce more good engineers? Shouldn't America emulate the ones who ARE excellent in math and science?

10252013, 09:55 AM



855 posts, read 1,623,719 times
Reputation: 416


Is anyone familiar with the methods used to teach math, in the countries that produce accomplished math olympians?

10252013, 10:20 AM



7,134 posts, read 10,320,353 times
Reputation: 3073


I am. Syllabus is pretty straightforward. 60%/70% mechanics (equations, proving, etc.), 40%/30% word problems. Heavy use of chalkboards and scratch paper. Representatives to math olympiad as well as candidates for higher learning in engineering simply take a more advanced version of the syllabus (ie, equations that require more steps, next grade topics etc.). Nothing fancy like "Write an addition story" (its cute though!).

10252013, 10:27 AM



883 posts, read 3,378,724 times
Reputation: 396


Quote:
Originally Posted by Galicia#1
Is anyone familiar with the methods used to teach math, in the countries that produce accomplished math olympians?

I haven't heard of any alternative methods yet from the posters critizing Singapore math...by the way many math experts and top math professors are very proSingapore math. A math professor at Stamford has been very outspoken about the issue, praising Singapore math while being highly critical about the way math was previously taught in the US.

10252013, 10:28 AM



Location: Massapequa Park
3,172 posts, read 6,136,970 times
Reputation: 1364


Quote:
Originally Posted by Galicia#1
Is anyone familiar with the methods used to teach math, in the countries that produce accomplished math olympians?

I looked up some of the more recent IMO notables. Germany, Bulgaria, Russia, Japan (which FH_Daddy said wasn't on there), Romania, Hong Kong, Serbia. The 2 I found from the US, one was homeschooled from 3rd grade on, the other I believe grew up early on in China and Germany. How sad is that from the most advanced, developed country of 310 million+ people.
I believe China and Hong Kong use abacus math. Japan's methods I mentioned earlier. Not sure of the others.
Last edited by Pequaman; 10252013 at 10:37 AM..

10252013, 10:41 AM



7,134 posts, read 10,320,353 times
Reputation: 3073


/\/\
Pequa, what year and how many times did Japan top it? Hong Kong?
Answer  Never.

10252013, 10:43 AM



7,134 posts, read 10,320,353 times
Reputation: 3073


Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeygorilla
I haven't heard of any alternative methods yet from the posters critizing Singapore math...by the way many math experts and top math professors are very proSingapore math. A math professor at Stamford has been very outspoken about the issue, praising Singapore math while being highly critical about the way math was previously taught in the US.

See my post #154.

10252013, 11:26 AM



Location: Little Babylon
4,570 posts, read 7,988,194 times
Reputation: 2057


Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeygorilla
I haven't heard of any alternative methods yet from the posters critizing Singapore math...by the way many math experts and top math professors are very proSingapore math. A math professor at Stamford has been very outspoken about the issue, praising Singapore math while being highly critical about the way math was previously taught in the US.

And not all math professors at Stamford agree with Professor Boaler.
Oh the joys of academics gone wild makes me nostalgic for my days writing peer review software and the shenanigans they would do to discredit each other.
Jo Boaler’s Railside Study: The Schools, Identified. (Kind of.)  educationrealist
Please take with a grain of salt as this is from the interweb, but it's not a bad summary of the findings. (Use at own risk)
Quote:
Boaler provides Year 3 data and clearly indicates that the students are juniors in 2003. The freshman algebra scores are not from her cohort. So why is she using this data as evidence of how great the program was? Shouldn’t she be using Algebra II data?
I went back two years to see what algebra scores were like, and discovered San Lorenzo High School (Railside) had fewer than ten freshmen taking algebra—in fact, the school has no math subjectspecific scores at all. The other two schools did have freshmen algebra classes. So what, exactly, was Boaler comparing?
Milgram et al cover all of this in greater detail, and they also cover the other big red neon warning I see: if San Lorenzo High, which didn’t track, put all of its freshmen in algebra, while Greendale and Hilltop put their midto lower ability students in Algebra while the top freshmen took Geometry and Algebra II, then Boaler should not assert that San Lorenzo High is outperforming the other two schools based on freshman Algebra scores.
Of course, since she’s using the scores from the wrong cohort, she didn’t really demonstrate that the studied cohort from San Lorenzo HS outperformed the other two schools in the CST to begin with.

ftp://math.stanford.edu/pub/papers/m...sversion3.pdf
And something more in Prof. Boaler's favor.
Stanford professor goes public on attacks over her math education research  Inside Higher Ed

10252013, 11:31 AM



7,134 posts, read 10,320,353 times
Reputation: 3073


Prof. Boaler should try working in the Stanford or Berkeley admissions office.

Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: Citydata.com.

