4 ms·

AFAIK the idea at that time was to try to apply the Bourbaky method to teach kids elementary maths - e.g. try to explain the concept of sets before kids know ho

AFAIK the idea at that time was to try to apply the Bourbaky method to teach kids elementary maths - e.g. try to explain the concept of sets before kids know how to add 2 numbers (I'm caricaturing but not that much - you had to explain to kids Peano before addition..). Someone else might have a better answer for that as I'm too young to know. Wikipedia French page on 'New Math' mentions it but not in details. > Is it still going on in French schools today? Or was it 60's/70's only? Unless you are in a reaally elitist high school in Paris with a really old teacher, this should'nt happen nowadays.

Jraf 6y ago
French here : As far as i remember, I've learned set, intersect, include, etc when i was 11-12 years old, in 1985-1986. Seems to be 6th Grade.
- wbhart 6y ago
  Everybody learns that at school, French or not (I certainly did in Australia). The set theory referred to here is very abstract.
- posed 6y ago
  When I learned set theory and relations for the first time, I was in love with the abstractiveness of mathematics. It was so intuitive and I truly felt that I've got the grasp of fundamental principles of maths. The sad thing was, we were introduced to set theory in Grade 11(17 years old), that's too late IMO, it should be taught around Grade 4.
radomir_cernoch 6y ago
I'm Czech and this revolutionary method of teaching came here in the 90's, when I entered my grammar school. Probably, it had a political “east vs. west” motivation among others, shortly after the velvet revolution... The first thing I learned in the 1st year of schools were basic concepts of set theory. We were drawing circles, ellipses and Venn diagrams (even though we didn't call them like that) filled with images of apples, plums and cherries. Teachers explained to us what an intersection, union and set differences are and we were supposed to draw items into one set, but not in another set, etc. I recall these exercises as funny and playful. They were similar to IQ tests in the sense that the exercise is logical, slightly entertaining, but highly abstract and loosely related to the world you know. And I think this was the main issue. The 2nd topic we learned was simple arithmetics as in standard educational systems. However, at that time, I didn't see any relationship with the concepts of set theory. Was the system any good? Hard to say. AFAIK, it was dropped after a few years. Eventually, I obtained a PhD in computer science, so at least, the system wasn't a complete disaster for me. :-)
- andi999 6y ago
  I think teaching sets like this totally misses the point. Finite sets are trivial (and pretty useless), so there is no use for schoolkids, it is just a waste of time.
  - abecedarius 6y ago
    On the other hand, arithmetic for very young kids like second-graders is probably also a waste of time. If you waited till they're older (or they express a genuine interest) I expect they'd learn it quickly enough and with less chance of learning mainly to hate math. Perhaps it made sense in ye olde days when many students would not go on to junior high.
    - andi999 6y ago
      You mean adding and substracting numbers? Personally I think it should be taught (and is here) to first graders. Also here no kid hates math before 5th grade (overly generalizing).
      - abecedarius 6y ago
        It's nice to hear there are places that don't implicitly teach math-hate -- where is it?
        andi999 6y ago
        My sample number might be too small (so it is probably anecdotal evidence at most), but I would say german primary schools (which is grade 1-4). To me it looks like the math hate is coming later starting somewhere in secondary school between grade 5 to 7.
        abecedarius 6y ago
        Thanks. I based my 'probably' on a few things -- it's admittedly not strong: - There was an American school about a lifetime ago that tried that strategy, and the principal claimed it worked fine. - A general impression that before mass education it wasn't uncommon for people who got schooling to start years older than our start, with no impression that they learned arithmetic any worse. E.g. http://www.scientiasocialis.lt/pec/files/pdf/vol57/90-101.Pisano_Vol.57.pdf http://www.scientiasocialis.lt/pec/files/pdf/vol57/90-101.Pi... "In general the pupils began their arithmetical instruction at 10–11 and this education prosecuted for two years." - Piaget's picture of stages of development (in my vague understanding) suggests that arithmetic beyond a very concrete level would be developmentally unnatural for younger kids, and more natural later. Apparently Montessori schools do better on this score? - Unschoolers sometimes reach adulthood with less understanding of math than state-schoolers, but if the average is worse, I haven't heard of it. Anecdotally they're fine. - Hate and ignorance of math is very widespread (I've read similar claims about average French people with their substantially different school system) - This jibes with my general experience, having gone to school, etc. - There's not much reason to expect a claim this far from mainstream to have been carefully studied. Maybe it has been and refuted -- I just don't very much respect the status quo and so I expect there are improvements that would 'easy' except for the obstacle that it's very hard to meaningfully change the system. And this strikes me as a plausible (though unambitious) one.

Jraf 6y ago

French here : As far as i remember, I've learned set, intersect, include, etc when i was 11-12 years old, in 1985-1986. Seems to be 6th Grade.

wbhart 6y ago
Everybody learns that at school, French or not (I certainly did in Australia). The set theory referred to here is very abstract.
posed 6y ago
When I learned set theory and relations for the first time, I was in love with the abstractiveness of mathematics. It was so intuitive and I truly felt that I've got the grasp of fundamental principles of maths. The sad thing was, we were introduced to set theory in Grade 11(17 years old), that's too late IMO, it should be taught around Grade 4.

radomir_cernoch 6y ago

I'm Czech and this revolutionary method of teaching came here in the 90's, when I entered my grammar school. Probably, it had a political “east vs. west” motivation among others, shortly after the velvet revolution... The first thing I learned in the 1st year of schools were basic concepts of set theory. We were drawing circles, ellipses and Venn diagrams (even though we didn't call them like that) filled with images of apples, plums and cherries. Teachers explained to us what an intersection, union and set differences are and we were supposed to draw items into one set, but not in another set, etc. I recall these exercises as funny and playful. They were similar to IQ tests in the sense that the exercise is logical, slightly entertaining, but highly abstract and loosely related to the world you know. And I think this was the main issue. The 2nd topic we learned was simple arithmetics as in standard educational systems. However, at that time, I didn't see any relationship with the concepts of set theory. Was the system any good? Hard to say. AFAIK, it was dropped after a few years. Eventually, I obtained a PhD in computer science, so at least, the system wasn't a complete disaster for me. :-)

andi999 6y ago
I think teaching sets like this totally misses the point. Finite sets are trivial (and pretty useless), so there is no use for schoolkids, it is just a waste of time.
- abecedarius 6y ago
  On the other hand, arithmetic for very young kids like second-graders is probably also a waste of time. If you waited till they're older (or they express a genuine interest) I expect they'd learn it quickly enough and with less chance of learning mainly to hate math. Perhaps it made sense in ye olde days when many students would not go on to junior high.
  - andi999 6y ago
    You mean adding and substracting numbers? Personally I think it should be taught (and is here) to first graders. Also here no kid hates math before 5th grade (overly generalizing).
    - abecedarius 6y ago
      It's nice to hear there are places that don't implicitly teach math-hate -- where is it?
      - andi999 6y ago
        My sample number might be too small (so it is probably anecdotal evidence at most), but I would say german primary schools (which is grade 1-4). To me it looks like the math hate is coming later starting somewhere in secondary school between grade 5 to 7.
        abecedarius 6y ago
        Thanks. I based my 'probably' on a few things -- it's admittedly not strong: - There was an American school about a lifetime ago that tried that strategy, and the principal claimed it worked fine. - A general impression that before mass education it wasn't uncommon for people who got schooling to start years older than our start, with no impression that they learned arithmetic any worse. E.g. http://www.scientiasocialis.lt/pec/files/pdf/vol57/90-101.Pisano_Vol.57.pdf http://www.scientiasocialis.lt/pec/files/pdf/vol57/90-101.Pi... "In general the pupils began their arithmetical instruction at 10–11 and this education prosecuted for two years." - Piaget's picture of stages of development (in my vague understanding) suggests that arithmetic beyond a very concrete level would be developmentally unnatural for younger kids, and more natural later. Apparently Montessori schools do better on this score? - Unschoolers sometimes reach adulthood with less understanding of math than state-schoolers, but if the average is worse, I haven't heard of it. Anecdotally they're fine. - Hate and ignorance of math is very widespread (I've read similar claims about average French people with their substantially different school system) - This jibes with my general experience, having gone to school, etc. - There's not much reason to expect a claim this far from mainstream to have been carefully studied. Maybe it has been and refuted -- I just don't very much respect the status quo and so I expect there are improvements that would 'easy' except for the obstacle that it's very hard to meaningfully change the system. And this strikes me as a plausible (though unambitious) one.