"Herman Rubin" <hrubin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:g5q5un$22ve@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In article <DJKdnTbdRZZdv-PV4p2dnAA@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> Larry Hewitt <larryhewi@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>"Herman Rubin" <hrubin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>news:g5ktm1$ff6@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> In article <S7KdnaLb2Jyk3eDV4p2dnAA@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>>> Larry Hewitt <larryhewi@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>>>"toto" <scarecrow@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>news:vm9q7458hu8s1mc50ecv6kl07pri6c0k9e@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 12:53:54 -0400, "Larry Hewitt"
>>>>> <larryhewi@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>>>>>And that, as you note, geometry is the "formal" math class,
requiring
>>>>>>more
>>>>>>rigor in answering questions?
>
>>>>> Except that in many schools in order to get kids to pass geometry,
the
>>>>> schools are using *informal geometry* without rigorous proofs.
>
>>>>> See:
>>>>> http://hsfs2.ortn.edu/MYSCHOOL/WJONES/infgeom.htm
>
>>>>> Informal Geometry is a standards-based, Euclidean geometry course
>>>>> which meets the criteria for the state's geometry curriculum. The
>>>>> major difference between Informal Geometry and Geometry AB is the
>>>>> amount of formal proofs that are written in this curriculum. There
>>>>> are more hands-on activities and more real-life geometry problems
>>>>> versus abstract problem solving.
>
> Knowing teachers and students, the amount of formal proofs goes
> down to almost nothing, and the amount of it learned by students
> is likely to be absolute zero even if it is there.
>
>
>>>>> Having taught this course in a Chicago Public High School, I can
tell
>>>>> you that it is not a college prep course and that while some of the
>>>>> concepts are taught, much of the course is dumbed down. There were
no
>>>>> formal proofs with statements and reasons in our course. There were
>>>>> some informal proofs in paragraph form which in many ways was harder
>>>>> for the students to understand. My dd called this course *geometry
>>>>> for stones* and she called Conceptual Physics (physics without math)
>>>>> *physics for trees.*
>
> And I must strongly accuse the college admissions offices,
> in their rush to get more students, being willing to accept
> geometry for stones and physics for trees. These students,
> if the term can be used for such, lower the standards of the
> college courses, as good student evaluations are now needed
> for tenure, and often even for promotion of a tenured associate
> professor to full professor.
>
>
>>>>I know of no distrcit where geometry is intended to be a college prep
>>>>course.
>
> It was before WWII, and it should be now. This includes for
> those not going into mathematical subjects; it is unfortunate
> that our politicians and judges have no idea what a formal
> proof is, and what an inductive proof (NOT a proof by induction)
> is; the latter is what is used in decisions where the facts are
> in dispute.
>
>
>>> The main value of the geometry course is to give an understanding
>>> of proofs. The rest is of much less value than one would think.
>
>
>>Nope.
>
>>The main value of secondary geometry is to get students to hink
spacially.
>
> This does not occur by giving names and formulas.
>
>>Look, this will go nowhere.
>
>>Here's achallenge for you.
>
>>Got into a 9th grade calssroom.
>
>>Teach the kids.
>
> If they understand English, it might still be possible.
>
>>Try to get the averaage 15 yr old to understadn and comply with the
rules
>>of formal proofs.
>
> Average, average, average. Students of different ability
> MUST be taught differently; not accepting this is denying
> the well-established fact that people are different.
>
>>Try to get a 16 yr old to understand number theory.
>
> This might be much easier.
>
>>Or, if you'ld rather, pick a lower grade and start them off "right".
>
> I have posted here, many times, that the time to teach about
> variables is when they can read a little and make symbols.
> It is part of language; restricted to mathematics, it loses
> its simplicity.
>
>>Let us know how it went.
>
> Do you think the educationists would let me try?
>
Absolutely. No question.
YOu have impeccable credentials, and there are enough experimental
programs,
charter schools, private schools, and the like _begging_ for teachers you
would be snapped up in a heartbeat.
Larry
> --
> This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
> are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
> Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
> hrubin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
|
