3 ms·

Just like JavaScript isn’t real programming, eh? I’m not perfect at this, but am trying to get better at not telling others what is “real” programming or math

by ahuth 8y ago

Just like JavaScript isn’t real programming, eh? I’m not perfect at this, but am trying to get better at not telling others what is “real” programming or math or OO or anything.

romwell 8y ago
No, not at all. More taking programming quizzes and never writing a single piece of code on your own ever isn't programming.
- ahuth 8y ago
  That's fair. Are you saying that because the author studied but never practiced, he/she may not have a great insight into what practicing math would be like? I think I understand what you're saying, and thanks for clarifying.
  - romwell 8y ago
    Yes, that's the point. The problem is that the way math is taught is quite perverse: one can be learning about math, and never get to do it! "Math isn't for me", "The truth is, math didn’t move me.", etc. - I wish I had a dollar every time I heard that. Imagine someone saying "Meat isn't for me, it just didn't move me, and I'll never have it again" after having a tofu burger. That's what it sounds like.
    - usrusr 8y ago
      That doing you are referring to, how is it related to advancing the state of the art? Does it only happen on the forefront or is rediscovery just fine? If it's the former, then everything up to that point must be a cruel grind to compress millennia of discovery into less than a lifetime. Curriculums usually follow the historical development of their sub-field, just skipping the dead ends. So in theory, at any point in time you could remove the books with the spoilers, lock up the classroom and let the students rediscover on their own. That might confer the excitement, but it would be glacial. So you add a teacher, to nudge the students into the direction of the fastest path. That quickly turns into full-on spoilers and students are left with watching someone reenact discovery at break-neck speed. Is there any place in the world that teaches math in a different way? The idea is sound, faithful execution impossible. That being said, the author was studying applied mathematics. It's kind of their job to not get excited and instead ask the boring question of "how will I ever use this in real life".
      - rocqua 8y ago
        I've found some of the feeling of doing original math without actually discovering new things by 'skipping a level'. That is, either taking an advanced course or trying to understand an article that is 'above your level'. This will force you to study material at your level, but now with a purpose. When you try to understand a proof, it is because you really want to get the intuition of the proof to apply it somewhere else.
      - romwell 8y ago
        >That doing you are referring to, how is it related to advancing the state of the art? It's related in the following way: if you are advancing the state of the art, you are really doing mathematics. The converse is not true, there are many ways to do math without advancing the state of the art. >So in theory, at any point in time you could remove the books with the spoilers, lock up the classroom and let the students rediscover on their own. That might confer the excitement, but it would be glacial. Essentially, yes! What you described is called Inquiry-Based Learning [1][2], and is a very well established (and woefully underutilized) educational practice. You are correct that on the surface, it appears that IBL is slow. However, I would argue that students learn more in the same timespan. Why? Simply put, you don't measure a house by the number of bricks. A shed you build on your own is a house, but a pile of bricks accumulated over 10 years is not. Perhaps a student who understands the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and the notion of limits has learned more Calculus than the one who has learned 100 ad-hoc symbolic integration techniques. It's a travesty that today's education emphasizes the latter. >So you add a teacher, to nudge the students into the direction of the fastest path. That quickly turns into full-on spoilers... ...and it really doesn't have to be this way. >Is there any place in the world that teaches math in a different way? Yes, the US. In some places. Personally, my spouse designed and taught an IBL university-level math course; it's something that exists and is (very slowly) spreading. >That being said, the author was studying applied mathematics. It's kind of their job to not get excited and instead ask the boring question of "how will I ever use this in real life". True, but the applied mathematicians I've seen still have a lot of fun with it. That's my complaint - that the author didn't get to enjoy the kind of math he was doing. I don't think that it's because his math was applied. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquiry-based_learning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquiry-based_learning [2] https://www.edutopia.org/blog/what-heck-inquiry-based-learning-heather-wolpert-gawron https://www.edutopia.org/blog/what-heck-inquiry-based-learni...

by ahuth 8y ago

Just like JavaScript isn’t real programming, eh? I’m not perfect at this, but am trying to get better at not telling others what is “real” programming or math or OO or anything.

romwell 8y ago

No, not at all. More taking programming quizzes and never writing a single piece of code on your own ever isn't programming.

ahuth 8y ago
That's fair. Are you saying that because the author studied but never practiced, he/she may not have a great insight into what practicing math would be like? I think I understand what you're saying, and thanks for clarifying.
- romwell 8y ago
  Yes, that's the point. The problem is that the way math is taught is quite perverse: one can be learning about math, and never get to do it! "Math isn't for me", "The truth is, math didn’t move me.", etc. - I wish I had a dollar every time I heard that. Imagine someone saying "Meat isn't for me, it just didn't move me, and I'll never have it again" after having a tofu burger. That's what it sounds like.
  - usrusr 8y ago
    That doing you are referring to, how is it related to advancing the state of the art? Does it only happen on the forefront or is rediscovery just fine? If it's the former, then everything up to that point must be a cruel grind to compress millennia of discovery into less than a lifetime. Curriculums usually follow the historical development of their sub-field, just skipping the dead ends. So in theory, at any point in time you could remove the books with the spoilers, lock up the classroom and let the students rediscover on their own. That might confer the excitement, but it would be glacial. So you add a teacher, to nudge the students into the direction of the fastest path. That quickly turns into full-on spoilers and students are left with watching someone reenact discovery at break-neck speed. Is there any place in the world that teaches math in a different way? The idea is sound, faithful execution impossible. That being said, the author was studying applied mathematics. It's kind of their job to not get excited and instead ask the boring question of "how will I ever use this in real life".
    - rocqua 8y ago
      I've found some of the feeling of doing original math without actually discovering new things by 'skipping a level'. That is, either taking an advanced course or trying to understand an article that is 'above your level'. This will force you to study material at your level, but now with a purpose. When you try to understand a proof, it is because you really want to get the intuition of the proof to apply it somewhere else.
    - romwell 8y ago
      >That doing you are referring to, how is it related to advancing the state of the art? It's related in the following way: if you are advancing the state of the art, you are really doing mathematics. The converse is not true, there are many ways to do math without advancing the state of the art. >So in theory, at any point in time you could remove the books with the spoilers, lock up the classroom and let the students rediscover on their own. That might confer the excitement, but it would be glacial. Essentially, yes! What you described is called Inquiry-Based Learning [1][2], and is a very well established (and woefully underutilized) educational practice. You are correct that on the surface, it appears that IBL is slow. However, I would argue that students learn more in the same timespan. Why? Simply put, you don't measure a house by the number of bricks. A shed you build on your own is a house, but a pile of bricks accumulated over 10 years is not. Perhaps a student who understands the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and the notion of limits has learned more Calculus than the one who has learned 100 ad-hoc symbolic integration techniques. It's a travesty that today's education emphasizes the latter. >So you add a teacher, to nudge the students into the direction of the fastest path. That quickly turns into full-on spoilers... ...and it really doesn't have to be this way. >Is there any place in the world that teaches math in a different way? Yes, the US. In some places. Personally, my spouse designed and taught an IBL university-level math course; it's something that exists and is (very slowly) spreading. >That being said, the author was studying applied mathematics. It's kind of their job to not get excited and instead ask the boring question of "how will I ever use this in real life". True, but the applied mathematicians I've seen still have a lot of fun with it. That's my complaint - that the author didn't get to enjoy the kind of math he was doing. I don't think that it's because his math was applied. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquiry-based_learning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquiry-based_learning [2] https://www.edutopia.org/blog/what-heck-inquiry-based-learning-heather-wolpert-gawron https://www.edutopia.org/blog/what-heck-inquiry-based-learni...