leigh2@unibase.UUCP (Leigh Calnek) (02/24/88)
I am a newcommermer to the network, and am excited about the opportunity for educators at all levels to participate in such a discussion. As an educator with responsibilities at the K-12 level, I seem to detect a note of superiority expressed in many of the postings where they relate to the lower echelons of the education system. This is not surprising to me in that I have always noted that the K-12 system was not held in high regard by educators from post secondary institutions. There are some things that we need to remember however when we criticize our education system. In the first instance, we seem too quick to forget that western society has embraced a philosophy of universal education, at least for the population at the K-12 level. We forget the implications of this kind of philosophy, especially when we don't have to implement it. I would suggest that if we were to apply that same philosophy to the post secondary level, we would have at least an equivalent number of concerns about that system. Please recognize the benefits which come from only having to accept the top 10-15% of the population, and the problems which must be present when you try to address the needs of the other 85-90%. Remember when you criticize the teacher at the K-12 level, and his methods, that this teacher is a product of your system as well, and if we are unhappy about what happens in those K-12 institutions, some introspection on your part may be well advised. I do not want to suggest for a moment that all is well in the K-12 sector....but let's keep the problem in perspective and recognize the magnitude of the issues involved in attempting to educate an entire population. How would post secondary institutions be different if they were required to accept ALL who presented themselves? If they were subject to close scrutiny at the community level? If social pressure prohibited a failure rate of less than 10%? If 52% of the student population came from broken homes and for the most part that population was still trying to figure out who they were and what was their purpose in life? I would suggest that most of these issues do not need to be addressed by the post secondary institutions, and indeed if they were, we would have most of the same kinds of concerns that we currently express about the K-12 system. My experience has all been in Canada, but I suspect that some reasonable parallels can be drawn.
ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) (02/27/88)
In article <73@unibase.UUCP>, leigh2@unibase.UUCP (Leigh Calnek) writes: > As an educator with responsibilities at the K-12 level, I I'm not from North America. What's "K-12"? > In the first instance, > we seem too quick to forget that western society has > embraced a philosophy of universal education, at least for > the population at the K-12 level. The phrase back home used to be "free, universal, and compulsory". Might be interesting to discuss this, or would that be talk.politics? > How would post > secondary institutions be different if they were required to > accept ALL who presented themselves? If they were subject > to close scrutiny at the community level? If social > pressure prohibited a failure rate of less than 10%? If 52% > of the student population came from broken homes and for the > most part that population was still trying to figure out who > they were and what was their purpose in life? What proportion of people who *seek* tertiary education are denied it? Does anyone have any figures to show that the proportion of tertiary students from broken homes is significantly different than the proportion of primary students from such homes? (Careful how you measure it, of course: the older the student, the longer his parents have had to break up.) As for "who am I, what is my purpose?", are you really suggesting that 18-year-olds don't ask questions like that? What evidence is there that the distribution of ``ability'' across the children who are now taught is significantly different from the distribution of ``ability'' across the children who used to be taught before? I'm sure such figures exist, this is a request for references. But "Don't blame us, we now teach ALL the children" won't wash. They were teaching ALL the children before my parents' time.
jec@nesac2.UUCP (John Carter ATLN SADM) (02/28/88)
In article <73@unibase.UUCP>, leigh2@unibase.UUCP (Leigh Calnek) writes:
[article has been edited]
]
] As an educator with responsibilities at the K-12 level, I
] seem to detect a note of superiority expressed in many of
] the postings where they relate to the lower echelons of the
] education system. This is not surprising to me in that I
] have always noted that the K-12 system was not held in high
] regard by educators from post secondary institutions.
]
] There are some things that we need to remember however when
] we criticize our education system. In the first instance,
] we seem too quick to forget that western society has
] embraced a philosophy of universal education, at least for
] the population at the K-12 level.
Free education, free transportation, free/reduced cost meals,
special facilities for children with special needs (including
elevators for those in wheelchairs), special programs for
exceptional children (exceptional can range from those with learning
disabililties to the 'gifted' children that are working at a level
well beyond their school placement and need challenging courses).
] We forget the
] implications of this kind of philosophy, especially when we
] don't have to implement it. I would suggest that if we were
] to apply that same philosophy to the post secondary level,
] we would have at least an equivalent number of concerns
] about that system. Please recognize the benefits which come
] from only having to accept the top 10-15% of the population,
] and the problems which must be present when you try to
] address the needs of the other 85-90%. Remember when you
] criticize the teacher at the K-12 level, and his methods,
] that this teacher is a product of your system as well, and
] if we are unhappy about what happens in those K-12
] institutions, some introspection on your part may be well
] advised.
Just how good is the education provided a prospective teacher in any
given college/university? Is it both broad and in depth? Does it
cover handling a child with dyslexia, one that's hungry for food,
one that's starved for affection, one that's abused by parents, one
that's on drugs/alcohol, one that's pregnant? Now that the teacher
has the attention of the class, was there also time for the teacher to
learn to be an educator while in college?
]
] I do not want to suggest for a moment that all is well in
] the K-12 sector....but let's keep the problem in perspective
] and recognize the magnitude of the issues involved in
] attempting to educate an entire population. How would post
] secondary institutions be different if they were required to
] accept ALL who presented themselves? If they were subject
] to close scrutiny at the community level? If social
] pressure prohibited a failure rate of less than 10%?
My daughter will enter Georgia Tech aa a freshman in engineering
this fall - the 'failure rate' of freshman engineers is typically
greater than 50%. And even though Tech is a 'public' institution,
it's not FREE ($2200/qtr if living on campus).
How would you react to paying tuition directly to a 'public' school
and then finding that your child had failed? Was it the teacher(s),
the child, the system, the parents or some other cause?
My children attended a church affiliated kindergarten, but
their 1-12 education has been entirely in the public system. The
county we're in is consistently in the top 5 in the state, and the
high school my daughter is attending, although not the largest or
newest, is among the best in the state (four National Merit
semi-finalists this year, and all of them are now finalists - how
many public schools of any size can match that?)
] If 52%
] of the student population came from broken homes
The area here is growing, and there are a lot of short term job
assignments (two years or so) for the 'rising young executives'.
This frequently means that both parents work, and that there are
many stresses on the family.
My daughter was the only child in her fifth grade class whose parents
weren't both working full time. (Makes it very difficult to get parents
to help with any school function, especially field trips. Would you take
a day off so your child could visit the China exhibit at the High Museum?)
She was also in the odd 20% of the class who lived with both
original parents.
] and for the
] most part that population was still trying to figure out who
] they were and what was their purpose in life?
Our kids find 'who am I?' a difficult question, and entirely too
many of them try the quick way out - three kids that my kids know
personally have attempted suicide in the past year. Thanks to quick
action by parents and the miracles of modern medicine (including a
helipad at the hospital) two of them were not successful. There
have been numerous suicide attempts among the middle and high school
students, and 10 have succeeded in the past two years (ONE county).
Why?
Too much pressure from their parents about school. (From a
conversation with one of the kids who wasn't successful.)
Too little response by parents to the kids' needs for some real
attention.
# comment on the above
# When my 13 year old daughter tells me a girl friend doesn't understand
# how she can talk to me about 'going with' someone - because the
# friend's father gets all upset if she mentions it - I think perhaps
# some parents just don't listen to what the kids say (or what they
# mean). For those who need it, 'going with' usually translates to
# who is likely to call whom on the phone or be invited to a mixed
# birthday party (ages 10-13) or who might meet whom at the movies or
# at the Friday night social sponsored by one of the local churches
# (ages 12-14). ** This is subject to local variations ** and is only
# valid for the group of kids I know from school/church involvement.
Too much concern over grades and not enough concern for education.
(there is a difference).
] I would
] suggest that most of these issues do not need to be
] addressed by the post secondary institutions, and indeed if
] they were, we would have most of the same kinds of concerns
] that we currently express about the K-12 system.
]
] My experience has all been in Canada, but I suspect that
] some reasonable parallels can be drawn.
My experience is in the US, as a parent, PTA member/officer, church
volunteer, camp counselor.
The opinions are my own - my company deals in communications and
education, but not at the K-12 level.
C programming or UNIX school, anyone?
--
USnail: John Carter, AT&T, Atlanta RWC, 3001 Cobb Parkway, Atlanta GA 30339
Video: ...ihnp4!cuea2!ltuxa!ll1!nesac2!jec Voice: 404+951-4642
(The above views are my very own. How dare you question them? :-)
elg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green) (02/29/88)
in article <73@unibase.UUCP>, leigh2@unibase.UUCP (Leigh Calnek) says: > As an educator with responsibilities at the K-12 level, I > seem to detect a note of superiority expressed in many of > the postings where they relate to the lower echelons of the > education system. No, it's just that we finished bashing colleges last week, and moved on :-). > we seem too quick to forget that western society has > embraced a philosophy of universal education, at least for > the population at the K-12 level. Universal need not equal low quality, if we insure that high ability people have access to the teachers needed to develop their talents. Unfortunately, in Europe and (maybe) Canada, such an approach is decried as "elitism". I can understand that, to some extent... in Britain, at least, the lower class/poor people were forced to go to shoddy public-supported schools because of economic pressures, while the upper classes went to "exclusive" "elite" schools. Maybe some backlash was inevitable. But still, even here in the U.S., support for the gifted/talented student often is negligible until high school, after which time it's too late for many things. For example, the local school system's gifted/talented program for elementary schools consists of a single school teacher, who teaches mostly something called "cognitive studies" that's supposed to teach students "how to think". In my conversations with local school students, they seem to think it's mostly just a way of getting out of class for awhile (note the class=boring, dull, something to get out of attitude -- and these are extremely intelligent students, need a score of 150 on a standard IQ test to be classed as "gifted and talented" in this area). None of them feel that it's anything more than a joke. Nope, they don't get any more science than other students. Nope, they don't get any more math than other students. Until they reach high school, when they're expected to take Algebra and Geometry instead of "Consumer Math". Meanwhile, I remember a conversation I had with a Syrian student back in 1982. His government sent him to an "elite" school. He'd had two years of Calculus by the 9th grade. Of course, the average Syrian is lucky to be taught how to read. No "supermarket" schooling there. But surely we're advanced enough to have both? > address the needs of the other 85-90%. Remember when you > criticize the teacher at the K-12 level, and his methods, > that this teacher is a product of your system as well, and > if we are unhappy about what happens in those K-12 > institutions, some introspection on your part may be well > advised. Didn't I see that discusion two weeks ago? :-) > secondary institutions be different if they were required to > accept ALL who presented themselves? If they were subject > to close scrutiny at the community level? Sounds like a typical public state university. In Louisiana, at least, the state is under court order by the Justice Department. Under the terms of the consent decree, state schools are forbidden to turn away students who have a high school degree or GED, regardless of ACT/SAT scores, and they must provide remedial courses for the low scorers, to do the job that high schools should have done. The Justice Department simply noticed that test scores were effectively segregating the state university system, via a very simple mechanism -- black/poor students are not being given the education necessary for them to succeed at the college level, without remedial schooling to catch them up to where high school should have brought them. The black universities provided that remedial schooling. The white universities rejected the applicants. Presto, instant segregation. Chango, court order slapped on the state forbidding that practice. Note that these students apparently are motivated (they applied for college, didn't they?) and want to succeed. But because of the poor state of our inner city schools, they were not given the schooling they needed, despite being motivated. It is a nation-wide disaster, the throwing away of much-needed talent, and a national disgrace. -- Eric Lee Green elg@usl.CSNET Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 {cbosgd,ihnp4}!killer!elg Lafayette, LA 70509 Come on, girl, I ain't looking for no fight/You ain't no beauty, but hey you're alright/And I just need someone to love/tonight
windley@iris.ucdavis.edu (Phil Windley) (03/01/88)
What does this discussion have to do with comp.edu? I thought that this group was more specific than a general education group. Comp.edu suggests to me a blending of CS and Education issues. like how do we teach CS and how do we use computers to teach. AM I way out in left field here? Does comp refer to some education term I'm not familiar with and not really to computers as I suspected it does ;-) ? Phil Windley Robotics Research Lab University of California, Davis
870158a@aucs.UUCP (Benjamin Armstrong) (03/02/88)
In article <1266@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>, windley@iris.ucdavis.edu (Phil Windley) writes: > What does this discussion have to do with comp.edu? I thought that this > group was more specific than a general education group. Comp.edu suggests > to me a blending of CS and Education issues. like how do we teach CS and > how do we use computers to teach. AM I way out in left field here? Does > comp refer to some education term I'm not familiar with and not really to > computers as I suspected it does ;-) ? Take a look around. Is there any other newsgroup in which such discussions would be appropriate? I haven't seen one yet. Maybe there should be one. -- _______________________________________________________________________________ Ben Armstrong at Acadia University, Wolfville N.S. UUCP: {uunet|watmath|utai|garfield|mnetor}!dalcs!aucs!870158a BITNET: 870158a@Acadia INTERNET: 870158a@ACADIA.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
elg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green) (03/04/88)
in article <1266@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>, windley@iris.ucdavis.edu (Phil Windley) says: > group was more specific than a general education group. Comp.edu suggests > to me a blending of CS and Education issues. like how do we teach CS and > how do we use computers to teach. AM I way out in left field here? Does I recently (~ 2 months ago) reposted some articles about declining enrollments in Engineering, CS, mathematics, and other mathematical-related subjects, and concerns on the part of various parties that the trend would not reverse no matter how much we pay our engineers. Reason: most people who graduate from high school can barely add, much less do the sort of mathematics required for success in a technical field. Walk into a freshman CS class at a middle-echelon state university. Count the students. Divide by 10. That's how many will remain, after the rest fail Calculus four times. Right now, the only reason we have professors in Engineering fields is because of a trade imbalance of yet another kind -- we have more foreign-born professors than native-born professors, by a factor of more than 2 to 1. If those people go home, we're in deep sh*t. -- Eric Lee Green elg@usl.CSNET A flickering swirling veil of motion {cbosgd,ihnp4}!killer!elg a vision, from the corner of your eye Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 ghosts, haunting you, everywhere you go Lafayette, LA 70509 ghosts, the ghosts of dreams that have died.
tlh@cs.purdue.EDU (Thomas L. Hausmann) (03/05/88)
In article <3560@killer.UUCP>, elg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green) writes: > in article <1266@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>, windley@iris.ucdavis.edu (Phil Windley) says: > > group was more specific than a general education group. Comp.edu suggests > > to me a blending of CS and Education issues. like how do we teach CS and > > how do we use computers to teach. AM I way out in left field here? Does > > I recently (~ 2 months ago) reposted some articles about declining enrollments > in Engineering, CS, mathematics, and other mathematical-related subjects, and > concerns on the part of various parties that the trend would not reverse no > matter how much we pay our engineers. Reason: most people who graduate from > high school can barely add, much less do the sort of mathematics required for > success in a technical field. Walk into a freshman CS class at a > middle-echelon state university. Count the students. Divide by 10. That's how > many will remain, after the rest fail Calculus four times. Eric perhaps s t r e t c h e s things a bit but he is essentially correct. At my undergraduate institution, most CS students washed out because of poor reasoning skills and mathematical abilities. (Almost) every class I took for the first two years (excluding Intro Psych, Intro Soc, [no digs intended, even Soc majors say intro Soc is a trivial class.]) about one third of the students failed outright. These are courses like Calc I-III, Physics I-III, and beginning CS courses. For most of us reading comp.edu we are well aware of this problem. What we could be searching for is a solution or at least some ideas for change. Old ideas include: making certain math courses required through grade 10 as opposed to grade 8, passing standard tests prior to graduation, requiring more math courses for ed majors, etc. -Tom > > -- > Eric Lee Green elg@usl.CSNET A flickering swirling veil of motion ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Hausmann Dept. of Computer Sciences Purdue University tlh@mordred.cs.purdue.edu | My ideas? There has never been an original ...!purdue!tlh | thought since Plato.
elg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green) (03/06/88)
in article <3435@medusa.cs.purdue.edu>, tlh@cs.purdue.EDU (Thomas L. Hausmann) says: > In article <3560@killer.UUCP>, elg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green) writes: >> matter how much we pay our engineers. Reason: most people who graduate from >> high school can barely add, much less do the sort of mathematics required for >> success in a technical field. Walk into a freshman CS class at a >> middle-echelon state university. Count the students. Divide by 10. That's how >> many will remain, after the rest fail Calculus four times. > > Eric perhaps s t r e t c h e s things a bit but he is essentially correct. > At my undergraduate institution, most CS students washed out because of poor > reasoning skills and mathematical abilities. (Almost) every class I took for > the first two years (excluding Intro Psych, Intro Soc, [no digs intended, > even Soc majors say intro Soc is a trivial class.]) about one third of the > students failed outright. These are courses like Calc I-III, Physics I-III, > and beginning CS courses. > > For most of us reading comp.edu we are well aware of this problem. What we > could be searching for is a solution or at least some ideas for change. About stretching: Note that Purdue is not a public-supported state university, and is not under court order to accept anybody who walks through the doors. Out of 400 freshmen who declare their major as Computer Science, 40 is a reasonable number to expect to graduate at the large public university that I attended. Note, however, that probably 150 or more of those change their major to "soft" subjects such as business administration, communications, etc. The other big kicker, besides mathematical abilities, was reasoning skills. Even the robot metaphor (Karel & friends) wouldn't help some of the people that I saw. Even the "giving house directions" metaphor didn't work, sometimes. If some of those people had been giving me directions on how to get to their house, I would have ended up in Mamou (a fate worse than nowhere!). Sometimes I think Mssrs Pournelle and Niven were right ("Evolution reverses with the onset of civilization"). Bad enough that we're all becoming blind as bats, and a huge percentage of the population explodes in sneezing fits near ragweed. At which point images arise of the typical citizen of the year 2600, complete with seeing-eye dog and respirator mask. But is our collective IQ heading for the cellar, too? But other times, I'm more optimistic. "Just poor education". At which the educational establishment howls, but.... if you look at it from my viewpoint ("concerned citizen & parent"), "We give them more money than they got 50 years ago, more training, better tools, and what results did we get?" If I hire someone to dig a well, I expect them to do it. I don't expect them to moan and groan because the field isn't level and the going's a little rocky and so on and so forth. They're there to do a job. If they don't, out the door they go, and don't expect a paycheck. When I hear teacher groups moaning and groaning about those same unlevel fields and rocky strata (lack of societal support for education, the breakup of the family structure, etc.), as an excuse for not doing the job that we the people hired them for, I tend to have the same knee-jerk response. -- Eric Lee Green elg@usl.CSNET Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 {cbosgd,ihnp4}!killer!elg Lafayette, LA 70509
tlh@cs.purdue.EDU (Thomas L. Hausmann) (03/07/88)
In article <3596@killer.UUCP>, elg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green) writes: > in article <3435@medusa.cs.purdue.edu>, tlh@cs.purdue.EDU (Thomas L. Hausmann) says: > > In article <3560@killer.UUCP>, elg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green) writes: > >> matter how much we pay our engineers. Reason: most people who graduate from > >> high school can barely add, much less do the sort of mathematics required for > >> success in a technical field. Walk into a freshman CS class at a > >> middle-echelon state university. Count the students. Divide by 10. That's how > >> many will remain, after the rest fail Calculus four times. > > > > Eric perhaps s t r e t c h e s things a bit but he is essentially correct. > > At my undergraduate institution, most CS students washed out because of poor > > reasoning skills and mathematical abilities. (Almost) every class I took for > > the first two years (excluding Intro Psych, Intro Soc, [no digs intended, > > even Soc majors say intro Soc is a trivial class.]) about one third of the > > students failed outright. These are courses like Calc I-III, Physics I-III, > > and beginning CS courses. > > > > For most of us reading comp.edu we are well aware of this problem. What we > > could be searching for is a solution or at least some ideas for change. > > About stretching: Note that Purdue is not a public-supported state university, > and is not under court order to accept anybody who walks through the doors. > Out of 400 freshmen who declare their major as Computer Science, 40 is a > reasonable number to expect to graduate at the large public university that I > attended. Purdue *is* a public university (in West Lafayette, Indiana.) A Hoosier grad student (read native to Indiana) who picked up his degree last year told me that it is Indiana law that any Indiana high school graduate be admitted to either IU or Purdue if they apply. Disclaimer: this sounds unlikely to me, every university has minimum standards. When I related my above experiences, Eric, I specifically referred to my undergraduate institution. You may recall (from last years personal correspondence with you) this was a reasonably selective public liberal arts school in Minnesota. I have no problems with students washing out of any program, that is the way the system works. In fact, my experience is that about 10 percent made it (like you.) However, if I am not mistaken there has been some article about "Predicting the Success of Freshmen CS Students" in a CACM within the last two(?) years. The data collected (hence the conclusions drawn) may be a bit dated now (I'll explain below) but that will give us a basis to discuss from OTHER than our own un-verifiable thumb-nail guesses. [I say that the data is dated because it is from time before CS courses became established in Minnesota high schools and I am extrapolating to include Indiana, where the data for the report was collected (I think). When you read the report, you will see that the numbers today, may be different.] > [Some of Eric's stuff deleted] > Sometimes I think Mssrs Pournelle and Niven were right ("Evolution reverses > with the onset of civilization"). Bad enough that we're all becoming blind as > bats, and a huge percentage of the population explodes in sneezing fits near > ragweed. At which point images arise of the typical citizen of the year 2600, > complete with seeing-eye dog and respirator mask. But is our collective IQ > heading for the cellar, too? No. > But other times, I'm more optimistic. Good. > "Just poor education". High attrition rates are related mostly to misconceptions about what is required of people in a given discipline. >At which the > educational establishment howls, but.... if you look at it from my viewpoint > ("concerned citizen & parent"), "We give them more money than they got 50 > years ago, more training, better tools, and what results did we get?" > ... > When I hear teacher groups moaning and > groaning about those same unlevel fields and rocky strata (lack of societal > support for education, the breakup of the family structure, etc.), as an > excuse for not doing the job that we the people hired them for, I tend to have > the same knee-jerk response. To say it is entirely the teachers fault that children are not learning oversimplifies the problem. > Eric Lee Green elg@usl.CSNET Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 > {cbosgd,ihnp4}!killer!elg Lafayette, LA 70509 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Hausmann R.A. Dept. of Computer Sciences Purdue University tlh@mordred.cs.purdue.edu | My ideas? There has never been an original ...!purdue!tlh | thought since Plato.
870158a@aucs.UUCP (Benjamin Armstrong) (03/25/88)
In article <3435@medusa.cs.purdue.edu>, tlh@cs.purdue.EDU (Thomas L. Hausmann) writes: >For most of us reading comp.edu we are well aware of this problem. What we >could be searching for is a solution or at least some ideas for change. >Old ideas include: making certain math courses required through grade 10 >as opposed to grade 8, passing standard tests prior to graduation, requiring >more math courses for ed majors, etc. The old ideas don't sit very well with me. By grade eight most of the damage is already done. Students simply hate mathematics, and even the ones who don't are bored to death with it. All of the "math is fun" crap that I got in late grade school and early junior high never did anything for me. Very few of my teachers or the writers of the curriculi they were using knew anything about motivation. Does anyone know anything about motivation for that matter? Why is it that so very many people end up hating math? Take the case of my brother Chris who is currently the computer specialist in a fledgling language institute. When he was in early grade school he was put in a couple of experimental schools where he learned mathematics under the Montessorri (sp?) Method. He enjoyed it and excelled at it. As soon as he was put into the public school system, his interest declined and so did his grades. By junior high he was frustrated with math and believed himself incapable of doing well in it. He avoided science courses all through high school and by the time he reached university, the only science course he took was an introductory computer science course for non-computer science majors the primary objective of which was to teach Pascal. He failed that course. By this point Chris was completely turned of to math and computers and, in general, wary of "high-tech" things. A couple of years ago, however, Chris started working at the International Language Institute in Halifax as an editor. It was here that his first positive encounters with computers took place. Chris learned very quickly and in a matter of time he was doing everything on the computer: page layout, maintaining a dial-up service for clients and translators, management of the office LAN, software evaluation and purchasing... He was never incapable of comprehending computers and would have shown his aptitude much earlier if he had been provided with the proper environment. (Incidentally, Chris's SAT scores for the sciences were excellent despite his lack of success in his courses.) Now, in my case, I did well enough in mathematics throughout high school, but for me, the lack of stimulation in the earlier grades had a different effect. I was bored out of my skull, so I never did any homework. My speed of computation suffered considerably. To date, I still find myself struggling with very basic things such as dividing or subtracting. I understand mathematical concepts just fine and survived honours math in high school pretty well, all things considered. But now, in my second year of an Honours Computer Science degree, I am looking for ways to avoid taking Calculus because I'm afraid I will not do well enough in it for an Honours program. Most of my friends who took honours level science courses in high school found them under-stimulating. Making math mandatory in high school will not help matters. That's a band-aid solution to a problem which starts in the very beginning, in early grade school. Some of my friends who are now in the arts tell me that they cannot multiply fractions or solve algebraic problems and also, not surprisingly, that they hate and/or fear mathematics. Why? These are not stupid people. How many people go through life believing themselves to be "dumb" when it comes to the sciences when actually they are victims of poor quality education? I challenge the whole system. People learn in different ways at different rates, yet I have found our schools to be inflexible, not providing stimulating material for students who excel, and not finding effective motivators for those who take longer either. When will we see it begin to happen? I am thrilled by the potential computers have as motivators for children and adults alike. I am dismayed, however, when I see how far we have yet to come in using computers in education. It seems that attempts have been made to dress up the old curriculi in CAI software, but maybe what we really need is to find new ways of teaching math and the sciences which exploit our new tools more effectively and which result in more captivating and motivating lessons. -- Ben Armstrong at Acadia University, Wolfville N.S. UUCP: {uunet|watmath|utai|garfield|mnetor}!dalcs!aucs!870158a | In quest of BITNET: 870158a@Acadia | a cure for INTERNET: 870158a@ACADIA.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU | technophobia...
tlh@cs.purdue.EDU (Thomas L. Hausmann) (03/26/88)
In article <1005@aucs.UUCP>, 870158a@aucs.UUCP (Benjamin Armstrong) writes: >In article <3435@medusa.cs.purdue.edu>, tlh@cs.purdue.EDU (Thomas L. Hausmann) writes: >>Old ideas include: making certain math courses required through grade 10 >>as opposed to grade 8, passing standard tests prior to graduation, requiring >>more math courses for ed majors, etc. > The old ideas don't sit very well with me. By grade eight most of the damage > is already done. As it has been discussed before...you are right in saying that most damage has been done by grade 8. That is what I meant by more math courses for education majors. Educators that are math-phobic in our elementary schools have the potential for great harm. > ... But now, in my second year > of an Honours Computer Science degree, I am looking for ways to avoid > taking Calculus because I'm afraid I will not do well enough in it for > an Honours program. Why should you be avoiding a course (or course sequence) that would enable you to become a better computer scientist? Math is very important throughout a CS major. Which is why I double majored. In graduate school, a very significant portion of my courses rely on my math background, not to mention research. > Most of my friends who took honours level science courses in high school found > them under-stimulating. Making math mandatory in high school will not help > matters. I disagree. In my elementary years, my class always had the same teacher. (A different one each year.) The difference in our educations began in later junior high when some students were no longer taking math courses. And when we bacame seniors, it was decided that *all* students would have at least one course in grades 9-12. So "consumer math" was invented and the students who had not taken math for a few years had to struggle. > > Some of my friends who are now in the arts tell me that they cannot multiply > fractions or solve algebraic problems and also, not surprisingly, that > they hate and/or fear mathematics. Why? These are not stupid people. How > many people go through life believing themselves to be "dumb" when it comes to > the sciences when actually they are victims of poor quality education? Or are victims of their own fear of failing. You cannot always attribute ignorance to "poor quality education" If your friends did not take higher math courses where skills with fractions become commonly used, then it is their own fault for not taking those courses. > I challenge the whole system. People learn in different ways at different > rates, yet I have found our schools to be inflexible, not providing stimulating > material for students who excel, and not finding effective motivators for those > who take longer either. When will we see it begin to happen? When someone has a better idea (that works...) > > ... but maybe what we really need is > to find new ways of teaching math and the sciences which exploit our new > tools more effectively ... Amen. > Ben Armstrong -Tom .^.^. Tom Hausmann . O O . tlh@mordred.cs.purdue.edu ( ARPA ) . v . ...!purdue!tlh ( UUCP ) / | | \ ./ \. "Whooo do ya think you're foolin' " ______mm.mm_____ \_/
870158a@aucs.UUCP (Benjamin Armstrong) (03/31/88)
In article <3635@medusa.cs.purdue.edu>, tlh@cs.purdue.EDU (Thomas L. Hausmann) writes: > Or are victims of their own fear of failing. You cannot always attribute > ignorance to "poor quality education" If your friends did not take higher > math courses where skills with fractions become commonly used, then it is > their own fault for not taking those courses. A particular friend of mine (whom I had in mind when I suggested that the quality of education is at fault) said that she did take math courses in which she learned to manipulate fractions. However, she never really understood what she was doing at the time despite the fact that her marks were above the average for her class. She never retained what she learned because her school made it easy for her to pass her math courses without actually learning anything. I believe that this may be more common in math courses than many educators are aware. What happens is the student will not be motivated to explore the subject and become familiar with the basic concepts which are being taught if she can get by without them. I encountered the same problem in my honours high school math courses. I often did not need to do anything more than study for the tests the night before in order to get a good mark, and by the end of high school a lot of what I had "learned" was lost. The difference is that in the case of my friend, she was being taught material which didn't motivate her because of her fear and dislike of math; in my case I was not motivated because I did not deem it worthwhile to put effort into the courses if I could get by without it. I now regret my apathy in high school but am asking myself whether I am completely to blame. After talking to others about their experiences with mathematics in school I am lead to believe that the schools are, for whatever reasons, not adequately equipped to motivate mathematics students. As for my avoidance of calculus, I am sure that I will overcome my apprehension and take it for the reasons you have stated. The fact remains, however: I do not look forward to the experience and I don't believe I should be feeling this way considering that in other respects I am quite a capable student and fledgling computer scientist. No thanks to the schools for letting me get by so far with so little and for dulling my appetite for mathematics. > -Tom Benjamin. -- Ben Armstrong at Acadia University, Wolfville N.S. UUCP: {uunet|watmath|utai|garfield|mnetor}!dalcs!aucs!870158a | In quest of BITNET: 870158a@Acadia | a cure for INTERNET: 870158a@ACADIA.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU | technophobia...
leigh@unibase.UUCP (Leigh Calnek) (04/05/88)
I sense that there are many differences between how we approach similar problems between Canada and the U.S. In Saskatchewan, students would appear to be in math courses over a longer grade span than in the U.S. Our school system graduates students after 12 years, and we regard grades 10-12 as high school. To illustrate my point about greater retention, the following table shows our provincial grade population and enrolment figures. Grade Total Enrol Algebra Gen.Math. Geom-Trig Calculus ====== =========== ========= ========= ========= ======== 10 14,798 12,943 888 7,845 11 13,786 11,291 840 5,197 12 14,174 10,161 645 7,014 1,289 Students who are enrolled in the Algebra course may not enroll in the General Math program. Also, students who are enrolled in the Calculus or Geom-Trig programs are also found in the Algebra course. As you can see, over 70% of our senior grade enroll in some kind of math program. One reason for this relates to our requirements for graduation, which requires a math or science to be completed at the grade 11 or 12 level. This is not meant to suggest that our graduating students would necessarily better math skills, for this set of statistics does nothing to describe the 25% of the student population that fails to graduate from grade 12. In addition, it would be safe to suggest that the recipients of our students are not fully satisfied with the math skills of students on exiting of the school system. The Kindergarten (pre-grade 1) to grade 12 (ie K-12 system) is constantly under fire for students exiting with "poor" skills, and most frequently the criticism points to a perceived inadequacy to use basic math skills. I feel there is some considerable room for discussion regarding any expectation we may have that all students should be able to develop competency in all or any subject. Educators at all grade levels find students who challenge their abilities beyond our capacity to deliver....that is to say we find students that are incapable of learning what we are teaching. This is true of teachers in the primary grades and it is true of teachers at the university level. The sign of the true teacher is that upon recognition of the problem, a variety of approaches are tried hoping to find one which will allow the student to master the necessary concepts. We do no favours for ourselves or others to suggest the problem lie in the earlier education experience. Teachers at all levels need to be able to respond to the skills level brought by the students, and work with them from that point. A good education system is one which is constantly reviewing its needs and products, seeking alternative strategies and approaches to improve its product and retain its student population. In Saskatchewan, we have begun implementation of a new strategy for attempting to educate our students. It combines the concept of a "core curriculum" (content and processes in major curriculum areas) for all students with that of "common essential learnings" (concepts and processes common to all subject areas) to address some of the problems we all recognize exist in an education system. The mobilization and "re-tooling" of 10,000 teachers looms as a major task in the successful implementation of this "new" approach. The exciting aspect is that educators at all levels are prepared to "give it a try". I will try to provide some further information pertaining to the new thrust in Saskatchewan over the coming months. ------------------------ uunet!mcl!unibase!leigh Leigh Calenk 3002 Harding St. Regina, Sask. Canada S4V 0Y4 phone: home (306)789-9007 bus. (306)787-9448