3 ms·

To my surprise, the text uses the word "algorithm", in the following quote, though I've edited it for clarity: """Elsewhere, I have argued that the practice of

To my surprise, the text uses the word "algorithm", in the following quote, though I've edited it for clarity: """Elsewhere, I have argued that the practice of school mathematics in the US regulates the child by privileging: ... the ‘standard algorithm’ over invented or international algorithms; ... Not only can these repeated practices over a lifetime serve to dehumanize students and teachers in classrooms, the narrative about mathematics being a pure discipline, reflective of the natural world around us, universal, with an almost unilaterally positive relationship to society’s advancement, leaves many humans unable to challenge this narrative to consider other ways of doing mathematics.” (Gutierrez 2017) That's still teaching that algorithms are something that can and should be followed, just arguing that teachers shouldn't privilege one standard algorithm. This echoes complaints about teachers insisting that their students follow one algorithm to multiply (like, say, by the counting-intersection method shown at https://www.careerbless.com/maths/speedmaths/dbl.php https://www.careerbless.com/maths/speedmaths/dbl.php ) and who give no points to students who already know and prefer long multiplication.

WalterBright 5y ago
> shouldn't privilege one standard algorithm Juxtaposing "privilege" and "standard" seems redundant? 1. learning a standard algorithm gives people a known solid basis 2. it improves communication when people have a common understanding 3. the student knowing an alternative algorithm doesn't impair him from learning the standard one
- eesmith 5y ago
  "The wonderful thing about standards ...." There are several ways to teach children to multiply. Which is standard? Indeed, different places privilege different algorithms. I mentioned the counting-intersections method. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplication_algorithm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplication_algorithm says England and Wales use the grid method. As the first document at Equitable Math points out, "The point should be to have a dialogue about their process and their learning, not require every student to follow the exact same path to the right answer. ... The child of immigrants might have learned a different way to solve a problem because that’s how their parents were taught where they grew up. If we just tell that student their way is the wrong way, we risk turning them off to math for life." So if someone from the UK comes to the US, and uses the grid method to get the right method, instead of long multiplication as I learned it in the US, and the teacher gives them a zero and says it's the wrong way, because it's not the standard way .... is that really good pedagogy? Or is it more likely to discourage the student? Or, a couple months back there was a link here about indigenous students in Alaska who natively speak a base-20 language. As I recall, it was more effective for them to learn math in base-20, and then learn base-10, than to follow the standard route of teaching math in base-10. Do you really disagree with this viewpoint from Equitable Math, or is your complaint with my pull quotes, which necessarily omits context?
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    I find the very notion of algorithms being "privileged" and that somehow math can be "equitable" weird. I don't see any problem with a teacher saying "this is the algorithm I'm going to teach" and testing them after teaching it. I don't see how that discriminates or hurts anybody. If they know another way, so what? If they can learn that way, they can learn another way. > because it's not the standard way "Because it's not the algorithm I'm teaching" is not unreasonable. I never got bent out of shape by a teacher/prof saying "this is the way we're going to do it." I just did it that way. I wasn't being oppressed.
    - eesmith 5y ago
      I noticed you didn't answer my question, so I'll pose it again. Suppose a teacher decides everyone must learn the counting-intersections method in order to learn to multiply. One of the students already knows long-multiplication and can even multiply two-digit numbers in her head. And she thinks that drawing all those lines and counting intersection is a boring, tedious, useless way to multiply. She gets all of the answers right, and is the first to finish. But she gets a zero, because she didn't do what the teacher taught. Is that good pedagogy? Is it teaching mathematics? Is it encouraging the child to learn more math? Or is it (as the text argues), more likely teaching conformity to the power structure, and possibly demotivating the student? The argument is that not everyone is like you; not everyone can fit into the power structures at school which unnecessarily and even subconsciously reflect the dominant culture. The argument is that teachers who are aware of these issues may be more likely to educate a wider range of students.
      - WalterBright 5y ago
        I did answer the question, in my own way, because I do not accept your framing of the issue. Your frame it in provocative and loaded terms like "privilege", "dominant", "pedagogy", "power structure", etc. I don't view mathematics through your lens at all.
        eesmith 5y ago

WalterBright 5y ago

> shouldn't privilege one standard algorithm Juxtaposing "privilege" and "standard" seems redundant? 1. learning a standard algorithm gives people a known solid basis 2. it improves communication when people have a common understanding 3. the student knowing an alternative algorithm doesn't impair him from learning the standard one

eesmith 5y ago
"The wonderful thing about standards ...." There are several ways to teach children to multiply. Which is standard? Indeed, different places privilege different algorithms. I mentioned the counting-intersections method. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplication_algorithm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplication_algorithm says England and Wales use the grid method. As the first document at Equitable Math points out, "The point should be to have a dialogue about their process and their learning, not require every student to follow the exact same path to the right answer. ... The child of immigrants might have learned a different way to solve a problem because that’s how their parents were taught where they grew up. If we just tell that student their way is the wrong way, we risk turning them off to math for life." So if someone from the UK comes to the US, and uses the grid method to get the right method, instead of long multiplication as I learned it in the US, and the teacher gives them a zero and says it's the wrong way, because it's not the standard way .... is that really good pedagogy? Or is it more likely to discourage the student? Or, a couple months back there was a link here about indigenous students in Alaska who natively speak a base-20 language. As I recall, it was more effective for them to learn math in base-20, and then learn base-10, than to follow the standard route of teaching math in base-10. Do you really disagree with this viewpoint from Equitable Math, or is your complaint with my pull quotes, which necessarily omits context?
- WalterBright 5y ago
  I find the very notion of algorithms being "privileged" and that somehow math can be "equitable" weird. I don't see any problem with a teacher saying "this is the algorithm I'm going to teach" and testing them after teaching it. I don't see how that discriminates or hurts anybody. If they know another way, so what? If they can learn that way, they can learn another way. > because it's not the standard way "Because it's not the algorithm I'm teaching" is not unreasonable. I never got bent out of shape by a teacher/prof saying "this is the way we're going to do it." I just did it that way. I wasn't being oppressed.
  - eesmith 5y ago
    I noticed you didn't answer my question, so I'll pose it again. Suppose a teacher decides everyone must learn the counting-intersections method in order to learn to multiply. One of the students already knows long-multiplication and can even multiply two-digit numbers in her head. And she thinks that drawing all those lines and counting intersection is a boring, tedious, useless way to multiply. She gets all of the answers right, and is the first to finish. But she gets a zero, because she didn't do what the teacher taught. Is that good pedagogy? Is it teaching mathematics? Is it encouraging the child to learn more math? Or is it (as the text argues), more likely teaching conformity to the power structure, and possibly demotivating the student? The argument is that not everyone is like you; not everyone can fit into the power structures at school which unnecessarily and even subconsciously reflect the dominant culture. The argument is that teachers who are aware of these issues may be more likely to educate a wider range of students.
    - WalterBright 5y ago
      I did answer the question, in my own way, because I do not accept your framing of the issue. Your frame it in provocative and loaded terms like "privilege", "dominant", "pedagogy", "power structure", etc. I don't view mathematics through your lens at all.
      - eesmith 5y ago