Search Teachers.Net
Math Teachers Chatboard
NEW POSTS ALL POSTS SUBMIT POST


(608 Subscribers)


Childcare   Preschool   Kindergarten   Elementary   First Grade   Second Grade   Third Grade   Fourth Grade   Fifth Grade   Middle School   High School   College

4Blocks   Art   Building Blocks   Computers   ESL/Language   Games   Geography   Health   History   Literature   Math   Music   Physical Education   Reading/Writing   Science   Special Education   Social Studies

AL   AK   AZ   AR   CA   CO   CT   DE   DC   FL   GA   HI   ID   IL   IN   IA   KS   KY   LA    ME   MD   MA   MI   MN   MS   MO   MT   NE   NV   NH   NJ   NM   NY   NC   ND   OH   OK   OR   PA   RI   SC   SD   TN   TX   UT   VT   VA   WA   WV   WI   WY

Teacher Recipes



    Re: Beyond pemdas
    Posted by: Burt on 6/24/09

    I agree with much of what has been written in this tread.
    One thing I don’t agree with is that the United States is
    not behind other industrialized countries in math
    education. We are behind, we have a problem.

    Has anyone read The Teaching Gap by Stigler and Hiebert?
    It describes the results of a video study of a carefully
    chosen random sample of classrooms in three countries: the
    United States, Japan, and Germany. It was part of the
    Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS).
    What struck the team of researchers was that each country
    had a theme, or cultural approach to teaching. The image
    of teaching in Germany was “developing advanced
    procedures;” in Japan it was “structured problem solving;”
    in the United States it was “learning terms and practicing
    procedures.” One math educator on the team said that in
    Japan, the students engage in mathematics and the teacher
    mediates; in Germany, the teacher owns the mathematics and
    parcels it out to students, giving facts and explanations
    at the right time; in the United States, there is
    interaction between teacher and students, but he couldn’t
    find the mathematics. He didn’t see any real math in
    memorizing terms and procedures.

    We have a cultural mindset that thinks of math in terms of
    procedures and calculating an answer and not in
    understanding mathematical concepts and relationships. As
    Stigler and Hiebert point out, we aren’t even aware of
    this mindset. It was in studying classroom teaching in
    different countries that they realized this cultural
    tendency existed.

    The TIMSS video study also showed how difficult it is to
    break the pattern. About 70% of the teachers said they
    were implementing reforms such as those published by the
    NCTM, and they pointed to places in the video where they
    were doing so. When the researchers looked at the video,
    they found only surface changes; the lessons were still
    consistent with the image of memorizing definitions and
    practicing procedures. In fact, in many cases the
    teachers’ actions were worse than what they might have
    done otherwise.

    It is such a part of our way of thinking that we don’t see
    it. Here is an example: multiplication is repeated
    addition. Is that the concept or the calculation
    procedure? Do we differentiate between the concept and the
    calculation procedure? Mathematician Keith Devlin has a
    blog for the Mathematical Association of America called
    Devlin’s Angle at http://www.maa.org/devlin/devangle.html.
    His June 2008 post was titled, “It ain’t no repeated
    addition.” He got a lot of pushback from teachers. His
    next two posts were on the same subject, which was very
    unusual for him.

    Even the NCTM sample lessons teach multiplication as
    repeated addition. Yet their own research companion book
    warns against doing so. Devlin quotes that book:
    Thompson and Saldanha's article Fractions and
    Multiplicative Reasoning, in Kilpatrick, Martin, and
    Schifter (Eds.), A Research Companion to Principles and
    Standards for School Mathematics, pp. 95-113, published by
    the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2003.
    They say (page 103):

    [...] multiplication is not the same as repeated addition.
    [...] One may engage in repeated addition to evaluate the
    result of multiplying, but envisioning adding some amount
    repeatedly cannot support conceptualizations of
    multiplication. [...] Generally, most students do not see
    proportionality in multiplication.

    The authors go on to acknowledge (lament?) that a lot of
    instructors continue to perpetuate the problem:

    In fact, a large amount of curriculum and instruction has
    the explicit aim that students understand multiplication
    as a process of adding the same number repeatedly. But an
    extensive research literature documents how "repeated
    addition" conceptions become limiting and problematic for
    students having them (de Corte, Verschaffel, & Van
    Coillie, 1988; Fischbein et al., 1985; Greer, 1988b;
    Harel, Behr, Post, & Lesh, 1994; Luke, 1988).

    So it is a problem. We need to make a special effort to
    differentiate concepts from procedures, and not to think
    only in terms of procedures


    Share This Post | Report This Post
    Next Post >>

    Posts on this thread, including this one

  • Back to the PEMDAS question, 6/22/09, by DD.
  • Re: Back to the PEMDAS question, 6/22/09, by Cindy.
  • Re: Back to the PEMDAS question, 6/22/09, by algie2.
  • Re: Back to the PEMDAS question, 6/22/09, by Jo.
  • Re: Back to the PEMDAS question, 6/22/09, by Terrence.
  • Re: Back to the PEMDAS question, 6/22/09, by Jo to Terrence.
  • Re: Back to the PEMDAS question, 6/22/09, by algie2.
  • Re: Back to the PEMDAS question, 6/22/09, by Jo.
  • Re: Back to the PEMDAS question, 6/23/09, by I may get flamed for this but . . . .
  • Re: Back to the PEMDAS question, 6/23/09, by DD to Algie2.
  • Re: Back to the PEMDAS question, 6/23/09, by Terrence.
  • Re: Beyond pemdas, 6/23/09, by Cindy.
  • Re: Beyond pemdas/THANKS, 6/23/09, by DD.
  • Re: Beyond pemdas/THANKS, 6/23/09, by Terrence.
  • Re: Back to the PEMDAS question to JO, 6/23/09, by algie2.
  • Re: Back to the PEMDAS question to algie2, 6/23/09, by Jo.
  • Re: Beyond pemdas, 6/24/09, by Burt.
  • Re: LOVE YOUR POST, DD! (Re: Beyond pemdas) and . . ., 6/24/09, by thanks for sharing the blog.
  • Re: Beyond pemdas, 6/24/09, by Cindy.
  • Re: Beyond pemdas, 6/24/09, by Burt.
  • Re: Beyond pemdas Thanks Burt, 6/24/09, by Cindy.

     
     

You are on the MATH CHATBOARD:   LATEST POSTS   ALL POSTS   SUBMIT POST

 
Google
 
Web Teachers.Net
Click here
  Site Map: Home Search Teaching Jobs Classifieds Lesson Plans Contacts PR Advertise
  © 1996 - 2009. All Rights Reserved. Please review our Terms of Use, Mission Statement, and Privacy Policy.