|
|
|
|
|
|
by gpm
1661 days ago
|
|
|
And if we were any good at teaching math we would just naturally go with it from there, "algebra" wouldn't even be a subject, it would just be something you do by default as teachers first replaced _ with x (hopefully before you even got too used to _), and then started making the equations gradually more complex. "Solving linear equations with multiple variables", "solving quadratic equations", "solving polynomials", etc. Those are things you really need to teach as a distinct concept. Algebra is just the language, introduced in a pedagogically sound way you wouldn't even realize you were learning it. |
|
|
Even "new math" is too rote/heavy on memorization of process. And not enough patterns/puzzles/games/etc.
We need to find a way that the math content can be interesting for 80% of the room, and provide competition where there's multiple axes of success and multiple ways to stand out. Then you get everyone in the room really trying.
Instead, what happens is this: we start with curriculum that is very algorithm-heavy, taught by elementary teachers who generally do not love math. Half of the kids struggle with the rote-heavy workload and fall behind, and it becomes a frantic effort to try and drill steps into kids' heads who just hate it more and more. For a lot of the class, this is very painful and zero-sum, and it's only fear of what the teacher will say to parents that generates any effort.
[Note, I do think there is a point around 3rd grade developmentally where it makes sense to drill some arithmetic processes, and around 8th-9th grade to drill some algebraic process... but algebraic ideas can come in well before that time and hopefully be taught in a way that makes them interesting].