(no subject)
Sep. 2nd, 2009 11:20 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ocelotI've been reading a lot about math curriculums recently.
Everyday Math, the curriculum chosen by our school district, and an example of what is referred to as "new new math" or "fuzzy math", is highly criticized. It's a spiral curriculum, meaning concepts are taught in short bursts, quickly moving from one topic to the next but revisiting the same concepts over and over, with no expectation that the child understand the concept at any particular point as it will be revisited in the future (whereas more traditional math curriculums are mastery-based - you master one topic before moving on to the next). It emphasizes teaching "mathematical thinking" and different ways of doing things over rote memorization of formula. Algebraic and other more advanced concepts are integrated from the start. There is a heavy emphasis on classroom teaching over textbook teaching - kids have a workbook, but no textbook with examples.
Common criticism is that it moves way too fast from one subject to the next to the point of distraction, doesn't teach concepts thoroughly, that kids don't actually learn how to do basic math, and that the parents are unable to help with homework due to differences from the way they were taught. Apparently tutors do great business in areas that adopt this curriculum.
Mathematics Enhancement Programme is a curriculum used in Great Britain (and amongst the homeschooling community in the US, as the entire 1-12 curriculum is available for free online). It's a spiral curriculum, meaning concepts are taught in short bursts, quickly moving from one topic to the next but revisiting the same concepts over and over, with no expectation that the child understand the concept at any particular point as it will be revisited in the future (whereas more traditional math curriculums are mastery-based - you master one topic before moving on to the next). It emphasizes teaching "mathematical thinking" and different ways of doing things over rote memorization of formula. Algebraic and other more advanced concepts are integrated from the start. There is a heavy emphasis on classroom teaching over textbook teaching - kids have a workbook, but no textbook with examples.
It seems to be nearly universally loved. I can find very little criticism of it. The worst seems to be "not for us" or "The teaching takes too much effort." It's based on how math is taught in many high-ranking countries.
This intrigues me. Is it simply because it isn't as widely distributed? If it were being adopted across the US, would there be a huge outcry as with Everyday Math? Or is it because USians are whiners and Brits aren't? Is it because Everyday Math is flashy (actually, it's not really that much, especially compared to textbooks for other subjects), and MEP isn't, and there's backlash against flash? Or are they actually a legitimate example of effective vs. ineffective implementation of a concept?
An interesting note I ran across in my reading is that California started switching to the new mathematic framework, which was the forbearer of "fuzzy math", started in 1992, influencing textbook choices and teaching methods (heavy reliance on calculators, for instance). That's the point where I started having increasing trouble with math. I don't know if there's a relation, as there were other factors involved that definitely had a negative effect. But I am now curious if there was any relation.
Another point of research: the appropriateness (or lack thereof) of "fuzzy math" in teaching kids with autism.
Everyday Math, the curriculum chosen by our school district, and an example of what is referred to as "new new math" or "fuzzy math", is highly criticized. It's a spiral curriculum, meaning concepts are taught in short bursts, quickly moving from one topic to the next but revisiting the same concepts over and over, with no expectation that the child understand the concept at any particular point as it will be revisited in the future (whereas more traditional math curriculums are mastery-based - you master one topic before moving on to the next). It emphasizes teaching "mathematical thinking" and different ways of doing things over rote memorization of formula. Algebraic and other more advanced concepts are integrated from the start. There is a heavy emphasis on classroom teaching over textbook teaching - kids have a workbook, but no textbook with examples.
Common criticism is that it moves way too fast from one subject to the next to the point of distraction, doesn't teach concepts thoroughly, that kids don't actually learn how to do basic math, and that the parents are unable to help with homework due to differences from the way they were taught. Apparently tutors do great business in areas that adopt this curriculum.
Mathematics Enhancement Programme is a curriculum used in Great Britain (and amongst the homeschooling community in the US, as the entire 1-12 curriculum is available for free online). It's a spiral curriculum, meaning concepts are taught in short bursts, quickly moving from one topic to the next but revisiting the same concepts over and over, with no expectation that the child understand the concept at any particular point as it will be revisited in the future (whereas more traditional math curriculums are mastery-based - you master one topic before moving on to the next). It emphasizes teaching "mathematical thinking" and different ways of doing things over rote memorization of formula. Algebraic and other more advanced concepts are integrated from the start. There is a heavy emphasis on classroom teaching over textbook teaching - kids have a workbook, but no textbook with examples.
It seems to be nearly universally loved. I can find very little criticism of it. The worst seems to be "not for us" or "The teaching takes too much effort." It's based on how math is taught in many high-ranking countries.
This intrigues me. Is it simply because it isn't as widely distributed? If it were being adopted across the US, would there be a huge outcry as with Everyday Math? Or is it because USians are whiners and Brits aren't? Is it because Everyday Math is flashy (actually, it's not really that much, especially compared to textbooks for other subjects), and MEP isn't, and there's backlash against flash? Or are they actually a legitimate example of effective vs. ineffective implementation of a concept?
An interesting note I ran across in my reading is that California started switching to the new mathematic framework, which was the forbearer of "fuzzy math", started in 1992, influencing textbook choices and teaching methods (heavy reliance on calculators, for instance). That's the point where I started having increasing trouble with math. I don't know if there's a relation, as there were other factors involved that definitely had a negative effect. But I am now curious if there was any relation.
Another point of research: the appropriateness (or lack thereof) of "fuzzy math" in teaching kids with autism.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-09-07 06:24 am (UTC)Story Of The World, by the author of The Well-Trained Mind, is supposedly appropriately engaging, but questionably accurate and unclear on the division between myth and actual happenings, and all the Christians say it isn't Christian enough and all the Non-Christians say it's too Christian. And I'm just not sure that's a good answer.
So many of the kid history/science books (including the Usbourne World History which I guess is recommended in WTM) are in the format where there's about 50 little snippets of vaguely connected text on the page, and those drive me up the freaking wall as read-alouds. I want a narrative. And I don't have time to go figuring it all out myself.
A Child's History of the World looks ok, but I think it's Euro-centric.
Which I guess means I'm stuck with figuring it out myself. Ah well. (Or, I suppose, finding a reading list someone else has already made)
no subject
Date: 2009-09-08 07:57 pm (UTC)