Comments

Thanks for the link to the Math Trailblazers info. I thought TERC headed the list for sheer stupidity. What always amazes me is when these nimrods actually put their philosophy in writing. The link you have leads to a tutorial on Math Trailblazers which contains these tidbits:

"Early emphasis on problem solving. Students first approach the basic facts as problems to be solved rather than as facts to be memorized. Students invent their own strategies to solve these problems or learn appropriate strategies from others through class discussion. Students’ natural strategies, especially counting strategies, are explicitly encouraged. In this way, students learn that math is more than memorizing facts and rules that “you either get or you don’t.”

MY COMMENT: Right, and they learn that to add 6 + 9, you go back to first principles each and every time you want to know the answer. So instead of 6 + 9 become a fact, it becomes a problem to be solved each and every time. The world then becomes a much more difficult place than they ever imagined it could be. If they didn't hate math before going into the program, they will certainly hate it coming out.

"• De-emphasis of rote work. Fluency with the math facts is an important component of any student’s mathematical learning. Research has shown that an overemphasis on memorization and the frequent administration of timed tests is counterproductive. Both of these can produce undesirable results (Isaacs and Carroll, 1999; Van de Walle, 2001; National Research Council, 2001). We encourage the use of strategies to find facts, ..."

MY COMMENT: Research has shown. I hate the phrase. At least they cite the research. Isaacs and Carroll, both on the payroll of Everyday Mathematics, what you'd really call independent researchers. Neither of them mathematicians. Their "research" amounts to cites of previously published papers that contain opinions and references to other research, which when you finally track it down, ultimately comes down to work that Constance Kamii did in a rural section of Alabama, amongst dirt poor students who did not exactly constitute a representative student sample. But try telling Isaacs and Carroll that.

-- BarryGarelick - 29 Jun 2005

Right, and they learn that to add 6 + 9, you go back to first principles each and every time you want to know the answer. So instead of 6 + 9 become a fact, it becomes a problem to be solved each and every time.

I found that little TRAILBLAZERS PLAYLET astonishing.

This appears in the 5th grade book.

I wish I could remember which 'math wars' article it was where the dad asked his 7th grade daughter (I think she was in the 7th grade) 'do you know what 8 x 7 is?' and she said, 'No, but I can figure it out.'

-- CatherineJohnson - 29 Jun 2005

At least they cite the research. Isaacs and Carroll, both on the payroll of Everyday Mathematics, what you'd really call independent researchers. Neither of them mathematicians. Their "research" amounts to cites of previously published papers that contain opinions and references to other research, which when you finally track it down, ultimately comes down to work that Constance Kamii did in a rural section of Alabama, amongst dirt poor students who did not exactly constitute a representative student sample.

We need to be keeping track of that stuff.

We need a page on the anthropology of math ed researchers.

Remember Hillary's 'enemies chart' that Sid Blumenthal made up for her?

People went nuts about that, and of course it was a VERY BAD thing to let leak to the public, but OTOH graphic organizers are all the rage in English language arts these days.

We need a flow chart of fuzzy-math researchers.

I can post it on KTM.

-- CatherineJohnson - 29 Jun 2005

That would take a major effort but might be worth it. Take one or two papers that Andy Isaacs likes to cite, for example, and then run down all the cites therein. And then run down the cites in that paper. There will probably be some circular citations, some citation of opinions, and maybe one or two real studies, like Kamii's if you can call those studies.

-- BarryGarelick - 29 Jun 2005

Take one or two papers that Andy Isaacs likes to cite, for example, and then run down all the cites therein. And then run down the cites in that paper. There will probably be some circular citations, some citation of opinions, and maybe one or two real studies, like Kamii's if you can call those studies.

I wonder if there's some way to work on this as a group project?

We could certainly have a wiki page devoted to it...but I'm thinking how it would work.

At first, all we'd need would be the various names & how & where they appear in other people's papers.

Ultimately the idea would be a VISUAL REPRESENTATION (make a list!) that hits home the fact that this is a very small world of 'log-rollers.'

-- CatherineJohnson - 29 Jun 2005

There are citation databases for scientific articles, in which you could track these things down (citeseer being the main one). Of course, ed research isn't science (meow).

Are there citation databases for other fields?

-- CarolynJohnston - 29 Jun 2005