7 ms·

there is definitely two distinct intelligences. one that relies on knowledge and memorization and one in reason. Much of math is taught the knowledge way, simil

there is definitely two distinct intelligences. one that relies on knowledge and memorization and one in reason. Much of math is taught the knowledge way, similiar to history or biology, and a certain type of person excels at this. However, a different set excel at the reasoning approach. i don't think one approach can teach all people howeverZ

CogitoCogito 9y ago
It's definitely true that there is no one size fits all. It's unfortunate that we can't truly tailor learning individually in a class setting (well maybe technology can successfully change this, but I still don't think it's the case). When teaching one on one it is much easier to quickly hone in on a specific student's difficulty, but rarely are you afforded the opportunity. Also I don't want anyone to think that I believe that rote learning is bad per se. Memorizing basic steps is extremely important. That is what allows you to focus on the important aspects of a problem as opposed to the details. For example, you would be a fool to try to learn German grammar before you get a good enough base of vocabulary. In fact, I think one of the best first steps when learning something new is really memorizing the basics well. However, I come from the perspective that rote learning has been overdone. Most people come through their math education and never leave that learning style. That is what I find unfortunate and wish were different.
bluGill 9y ago
You cannot be the type that relies on reason alone. You need a large set of facts to reason from. I don't need 2+2=4 - I could reason it out from first principals (where did I get them from?). However when I'm solving a larger problem it helps to know that 2+2=4 without having to figure it out or put it in a calculator. This is why all arguments fail to hold weight with me. You cannot have just one. You have to have facts to reason from, and you have to have reasoning ability to use those facts with. Now I will grant that you can have facts alone. They won't do you any good but you can have them. We can argue about which facts in particular are worth knowing (do you need to know cursive), since there is only so much time in a lifetime to learn facts eventually you need to choose to not learn some facts. It means you cannot reason from those facts, but some facts are not as useful as others. 2+2=4 is a universal fact that should be early on the list of facts to know (bushmen would disagree - it isn't useful to their world). Where was the battle of Bunker hill fought - useless in Australia, part of our shared cultural heritage in the US.

CogitoCogito 9y ago

It's definitely true that there is no one size fits all. It's unfortunate that we can't truly tailor learning individually in a class setting (well maybe technology can successfully change this, but I still don't think it's the case). When teaching one on one it is much easier to quickly hone in on a specific student's difficulty, but rarely are you afforded the opportunity. Also I don't want anyone to think that I believe that rote learning is bad per se. Memorizing basic steps is extremely important. That is what allows you to focus on the important aspects of a problem as opposed to the details. For example, you would be a fool to try to learn German grammar before you get a good enough base of vocabulary. In fact, I think one of the best first steps when learning something new is really memorizing the basics well. However, I come from the perspective that rote learning has been overdone. Most people come through their math education and never leave that learning style. That is what I find unfortunate and wish were different.

bluGill 9y ago

You cannot be the type that relies on reason alone. You need a large set of facts to reason from. I don't need 2+2=4 - I could reason it out from first principals (where did I get them from?). However when I'm solving a larger problem it helps to know that 2+2=4 without having to figure it out or put it in a calculator. This is why all arguments fail to hold weight with me. You cannot have just one. You have to have facts to reason from, and you have to have reasoning ability to use those facts with. Now I will grant that you can have facts alone. They won't do you any good but you can have them. We can argue about which facts in particular are worth knowing (do you need to know cursive), since there is only so much time in a lifetime to learn facts eventually you need to choose to not learn some facts. It means you cannot reason from those facts, but some facts are not as useful as others. 2+2=4 is a universal fact that should be early on the list of facts to know (bushmen would disagree - it isn't useful to their world). Where was the battle of Bunker hill fought - useless in Australia, part of our shared cultural heritage in the US.