5 ms·

A quick look at https://equitablemath.org/ https://equitablemath.org/ shows that the quotes in the WSJ are overly selective, leaving out important context. Tak

A quick look at https://equitablemath.org/ https://equitablemath.org/ shows that the quotes in the WSJ are overly selective, leaving out important context. Take "getting the right answer". The full statement in the Equitable Math document is: """There is a greater focus on getting the "right" answer than understanding concepts and reasoning.""" It explains: """Upholding the idea that there are always right and wrong answers perpetuate objectivity as well as fear of open conflict. Some math problems may have more than one right answer and some may not have a solution at all, depending on the content and the context. And when the focus is only on getting the right answer, the complexity of the mathematical concepts and reasoning may be underdeveloped, missing opportunities for deep learning.""" It instead argues that math educators should "Choose problems that have complex, competing, or multiple answers" and "Engage with true problem solving". Finally, it comments: """Of course, most math problems have correct answers, but sometimes there can be more than one way to interpret a problem, especially word problems, leading to more than one possible right answer. And teaching math isn't just about solving specific problems. It's about helping students understand the deeper mathematical concepts so that they can apply them throughout their lives.""" Or, here's the context around "linear fashion": """Math is taught in a linear fashion and skills are taught sequentially without true understanding of prerequisite knowledge""" with commentary: """While some mathematical skills and concepts build off each other, the forced construct of linear teaching reinforces objectivity. A prime example is how matrices is considered a precalculus standard, even though the only math skill needed as a prerequisite is arithmetic. This is highly detrimental to students because they are systematically deprived of knowledge they could access due to false constructs. Math teachers have internalized the sequences that have been predetermined by standards and textbooks, rather than sequencing learning based on (pre)requisite knowledge. In general, teachers teach math like a ladder rather than a web. """ The actual context for "show their work" is "Students are required to “show their work” in standardized, prescribed ways.". The problem is "that can center the teacher’s need to understand rather than student learning. Teachers should seek to understand individual student perspectives and focus on students showing their work in ways that help students learn how to process information." Frankly, I think those observations and commentary are correct, and the WSJ op-ed piece was deliberately constructed to scare and anger readers without being informative.

ThrowawayR2 5y ago
> "Upholding the idea that there are always right and wrong answers perpetuate objectivity as well as fear of open conflict." This is primary/secondary school mathematics, not cutting edge mathematical research, and there quite clearly is a right and wrong answer for simple, commonly used mathematics of that nature. Moreover, it's unclear what's wrong with "perpetuat[ing] objectivity"; most people here on HN would describe objectivity as a good thing.
- eesmith 5y ago
  As I quoted: """Of course, most math problems have correct answers, but sometimes there can be more than one way to interpret a problem, especially word problems, leading to more than one possible right answer.""" Just how certain are you that all problems posed in primary/secondary school mathematics quite clearly have a right and wrong answer? Judging on my own experience, you aren't correct. My point was to highlight how the WSJ op-ed was overly selective quote mining. You appear to be objecting to how one quote uses the term "objectivity". You likely know there is no simple definition of what "objectivity" means, yes? If not, see https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-objectivity/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-objectivity/ for a lengthy discussion focused just on scientific objectivity, in the introduction writing "The ideal of objectivity has been criticized repeatedly in philosophy of science, questioning both its desirability and its attainability" and saying in the conclusion "In each case, there are at least some reasons to believe that either science cannot deliver full objectivity in this sense, or that it would not be a good thing to try to do so, or both." Equitable Math specifically uses the description from Jones and Okun (2001), and links to https://www.thc.texas.gov/public/upload/preserve/museums/files/White_Supremacy_Culture.pdf https://www.thc.texas.gov/public/upload/preserve/museums/fil... . The first of these is "the belief that there is such a thing as being objective"; a belief which I pointed out "has been criticized repeatedly" and that likely cannot or should not be achieved in science. (See "positivism", "postpositivism", and "interpretivism" in case you find it hard to get to sleep.) Other characteristics from Jones and Okun include "invalidating people who show emotion" and "the belief that emotions are inherently destructive, irrational, and should not play a role in decision-making or group processes." I do not invalidate BitwiseFool for showing emotion ("scares and angers me"). Nor do I think others on HN would regard BitwiseFool's emotions as destructive or irrational. I therefore believe that most people on HN do reject "objectivity" as used by the authors of Equitable Math. While you may dislike the authors' definition of "objectivity", I don't think it's appropriate to dismiss their work based on a tangential quote I pasted here. Consider how confusing is it that in math a set can be neither "closed" nor "open" yet in normal a door is typically either "open" or "closed", or perhaps "ajar."

ThrowawayR2 5y ago

> "Upholding the idea that there are always right and wrong answers perpetuate objectivity as well as fear of open conflict." This is primary/secondary school mathematics, not cutting edge mathematical research, and there quite clearly is a right and wrong answer for simple, commonly used mathematics of that nature. Moreover, it's unclear what's wrong with "perpetuat[ing] objectivity"; most people here on HN would describe objectivity as a good thing.

eesmith 5y ago
As I quoted: """Of course, most math problems have correct answers, but sometimes there can be more than one way to interpret a problem, especially word problems, leading to more than one possible right answer.""" Just how certain are you that all problems posed in primary/secondary school mathematics quite clearly have a right and wrong answer? Judging on my own experience, you aren't correct. My point was to highlight how the WSJ op-ed was overly selective quote mining. You appear to be objecting to how one quote uses the term "objectivity". You likely know there is no simple definition of what "objectivity" means, yes? If not, see https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-objectivity/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-objectivity/ for a lengthy discussion focused just on scientific objectivity, in the introduction writing "The ideal of objectivity has been criticized repeatedly in philosophy of science, questioning both its desirability and its attainability" and saying in the conclusion "In each case, there are at least some reasons to believe that either science cannot deliver full objectivity in this sense, or that it would not be a good thing to try to do so, or both." Equitable Math specifically uses the description from Jones and Okun (2001), and links to https://www.thc.texas.gov/public/upload/preserve/museums/files/White_Supremacy_Culture.pdf https://www.thc.texas.gov/public/upload/preserve/museums/fil... . The first of these is "the belief that there is such a thing as being objective"; a belief which I pointed out "has been criticized repeatedly" and that likely cannot or should not be achieved in science. (See "positivism", "postpositivism", and "interpretivism" in case you find it hard to get to sleep.) Other characteristics from Jones and Okun include "invalidating people who show emotion" and "the belief that emotions are inherently destructive, irrational, and should not play a role in decision-making or group processes." I do not invalidate BitwiseFool for showing emotion ("scares and angers me"). Nor do I think others on HN would regard BitwiseFool's emotions as destructive or irrational. I therefore believe that most people on HN do reject "objectivity" as used by the authors of Equitable Math. While you may dislike the authors' definition of "objectivity", I don't think it's appropriate to dismiss their work based on a tangential quote I pasted here. Consider how confusing is it that in math a set can be neither "closed" nor "open" yet in normal a door is typically either "open" or "closed", or perhaps "ajar."