4 ms·

Great. Teach kids some rote manipulations. Things they will have forgotten if they later stumble upon some math. Or will have to relearn in college math. Will

by jonsen 9y ago

Great. Teach kids some rote manipulations. Things they will have forgotten if they later stumble upon some math. Or will have to relearn in college math. Will the same mistake happen with the learning to code in school movement? Or will there be a sensible connection between abstract computer science and high school coding?

noxToken 9y ago
I think the learning to code movement is a general waste of time. Sure, offer them the class if the child is interested, but shoveling kids through a mandatory Scratch or Python course? Are we really supposed to believe that the ability to create Pong in Python is time better spent than something like auto skills? Computer literacy (not just how to use the Office suite) and very basic IT (passwords, security culture, generalized troubleshooting, basic networking, etc.) would take a child much further as a general purpose class. Think about every time a family member has called and complained that they've lost internet connectivity. It turns out they unplugged something or flipped a hardware switch. Teaching students these basic parts of troubleshooting would be a boon.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
kurthr 9y ago
I agree that as shown these are wrote abstractions and without motivation, and I wouldn't see their use. It's much easier (for me) to initially learn some wrote rules for solving a problem (algebraic manipulation of Reals) based on examples. Then this Group discussion could be used to show that there was something more general. Then you need to show that the generalization is useful... somewhere? However, it is difficult to motivate even simple algebra (word problems anyone?) in high-school as something other than a game (and perhaps that's enough). It's when moving to the next level (e.g. analytic geometry with sin/cos) where complex numbers are useful. There you could show usefully that there are 2 different systems of math (Groups) and that algebra that allows the sqrt(-1)=i have different solutions than in the reals. Linear algebra and matrix inversion are another case where the introduction of group theory might make sense... and that you can create more generic versions of commutativity/inverses etc. I think you can get from linear algebra to the linkage between LFSRs (Linear Feedback Shift Registers) and their characteristic polynomials by showing the groups are the same, but that's almost certainly college level. The step from there to using it to solve a physical problem in Chemistry (e.g. for IR Spectroscopy) or Materials (e.g. X-ray crystalography) is the next step. You get familiar with one thing (or see physical analogies) and then step to the next, but showing utility and providing intuition along the way is important to most. For some people it's all just a game. I find those people are best at the math... they don't need physical motivation or purpose.

by jonsen 9y ago

noxToken 9y ago

I think the learning to code movement is a general waste of time. Sure, offer them the class if the child is interested, but shoveling kids through a mandatory Scratch or Python course? Are we really supposed to believe that the ability to create Pong in Python is time better spent than something like auto skills? Computer literacy (not just how to use the Office suite) and very basic IT (passwords, security culture, generalized troubleshooting, basic networking, etc.) would take a child much further as a general purpose class. Think about every time a family member has called and complained that they've lost internet connectivity. It turns out they unplugged something or flipped a hardware switch. Teaching students these basic parts of troubleshooting would be a boon.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

kurthr 9y ago

I agree that as shown these are wrote abstractions and without motivation, and I wouldn't see their use. It's much easier (for me) to initially learn some wrote rules for solving a problem (algebraic manipulation of Reals) based on examples. Then this Group discussion could be used to show that there was something more general. Then you need to show that the generalization is useful... somewhere? However, it is difficult to motivate even simple algebra (word problems anyone?) in high-school as something other than a game (and perhaps that's enough). It's when moving to the next level (e.g. analytic geometry with sin/cos) where complex numbers are useful. There you could show usefully that there are 2 different systems of math (Groups) and that algebra that allows the sqrt(-1)=i have different solutions than in the reals. Linear algebra and matrix inversion are another case where the introduction of group theory might make sense... and that you can create more generic versions of commutativity/inverses etc. I think you can get from linear algebra to the linkage between LFSRs (Linear Feedback Shift Registers) and their characteristic polynomials by showing the groups are the same, but that's almost certainly college level. The step from there to using it to solve a physical problem in Chemistry (e.g. for IR Spectroscopy) or Materials (e.g. X-ray crystalography) is the next step. You get familiar with one thing (or see physical analogies) and then step to the next, but showing utility and providing intuition along the way is important to most. For some people it's all just a game. I find those people are best at the math... they don't need physical motivation or purpose.