24 ms·

> school's curriculum is based on Russian teaching traditions that emphasize reasoning and deeper understanding early on, not just memorization and practice dri

> school's curriculum is based on Russian teaching traditions that emphasize reasoning and deeper understanding early on, not just memorization and practice drills. "The child should be brought to abstract level as soon as possible," she says, "meaning early introduction of algebra and geometry, not only arithmetic," and helping children figure out principles for themselves rather than spoon-feeding them.

dehrmann 5y ago
I buy into having a deeper understanding, and in both work and school, it's pretty clear who has a deeper understanding and who's going through the motions. That said, how is it that there's such range in pedagogy? So many people have studied teaching that you'd think we'd have a better idea of what works. Or maybe it's that goals are different.
- fallingknife 5y ago
  The goals are different. The goal of the Russian school is to teach math. The goal of public schools is to dumb down the curriculum until everyone is equal.
  - tsukikage 5y ago
    That's an interesting take, since the Russian school's teaching methods originate in Soviet public schools. If that's the difference, why were the goals so different there, and how do we make US public school goals more like the Soviet ones?
    - iammisc 5y ago
      The soviets were nationalists who believed the utility of the citizenry was in their contribution to their country. You reinstill love of country, which really means love of society and others, which is another word for philanthropy, and you will quickly get this. In America, instead of education and work being for the greater purpose of your nation and people, education is for the individual. As usual, most people find more motivation when helping others than themselves, but the focus on ourselves in American education means it's easy to slack.
- ajuc 5y ago
  I think a big part of this is society's expectations. For example while there was bullying in my primary school - there was no bullying because you were good at math. The opposite was true - if you were bad at math it meant you're "dumb" and kids will laugh at you. It wasn't all perfect - it was uncool to try hard (means you're dumb and have to work for it and that's boring) but it was very fashionable to instantly know every answer. So teachers had it much easier because kids had intrinsic motivation to learn math. Another part of it was probably that the unemployment was at 20% at that point and everybody realized you have to be well educated to have a chance of good job.
- Sponge5 5y ago
  Not goals - incentives. I'm from Czechia and for me math education changed dramatically for the last year of high-school. All of a sudden it was crunch time to get the best result at the standardized tests that are part of government's examination. Up until that point the math classes were very much Soviet-style understanding-first, daily hour-long homeworks that are described in the article. Final year was about technique memorization. Once you're gaming a system, education quality tanks.
  - dehrmann 5y ago
    The dilemma with tests is that we need them to measure competency, but once you introduce them, the specific form the test takes becomes a target, itself.
hellbannedguy 5y ago
I wish American teachers could teach the reasoning behind math. I don't think most math teachers know themselfs though---even at some colleges. I don't think I have even seen a math book that goes into depth on why a equation, or problem, is solved a certain way. I would like to see most memorization in math, and most subjects nixed for good. I have found, including myself, my early difficulties in math were due to just memorizing how to do a problem. It wasen't until I started over (I went to a CC early. I hated high school socially, and it affected my studies. Going to a CC was the best move I made.) I took basic math, and algebra, trig., at the community college. It made inorganic chemistry, and physics, so easy.
- BeFlatXIII 5y ago
  I went from terrible at timed tests of regurgitating basic arithmetic facts to one of the better math students in my school once the curriculum moved on to requiring some understanding of what was going on.

dehrmann 5y ago

I buy into having a deeper understanding, and in both work and school, it's pretty clear who has a deeper understanding and who's going through the motions. That said, how is it that there's such range in pedagogy? So many people have studied teaching that you'd think we'd have a better idea of what works. Or maybe it's that goals are different.

fallingknife 5y ago
The goals are different. The goal of the Russian school is to teach math. The goal of public schools is to dumb down the curriculum until everyone is equal.
- tsukikage 5y ago
  That's an interesting take, since the Russian school's teaching methods originate in Soviet public schools. If that's the difference, why were the goals so different there, and how do we make US public school goals more like the Soviet ones?
  - iammisc 5y ago
    The soviets were nationalists who believed the utility of the citizenry was in their contribution to their country. You reinstill love of country, which really means love of society and others, which is another word for philanthropy, and you will quickly get this. In America, instead of education and work being for the greater purpose of your nation and people, education is for the individual. As usual, most people find more motivation when helping others than themselves, but the focus on ourselves in American education means it's easy to slack.
ajuc 5y ago
I think a big part of this is society's expectations. For example while there was bullying in my primary school - there was no bullying because you were good at math. The opposite was true - if you were bad at math it meant you're "dumb" and kids will laugh at you. It wasn't all perfect - it was uncool to try hard (means you're dumb and have to work for it and that's boring) but it was very fashionable to instantly know every answer. So teachers had it much easier because kids had intrinsic motivation to learn math. Another part of it was probably that the unemployment was at 20% at that point and everybody realized you have to be well educated to have a chance of good job.
Sponge5 5y ago
Not goals - incentives. I'm from Czechia and for me math education changed dramatically for the last year of high-school. All of a sudden it was crunch time to get the best result at the standardized tests that are part of government's examination. Up until that point the math classes were very much Soviet-style understanding-first, daily hour-long homeworks that are described in the article. Final year was about technique memorization. Once you're gaming a system, education quality tanks.
- dehrmann 5y ago
  The dilemma with tests is that we need them to measure competency, but once you introduce them, the specific form the test takes becomes a target, itself.

hellbannedguy 5y ago

I wish American teachers could teach the reasoning behind math. I don't think most math teachers know themselfs though---even at some colleges. I don't think I have even seen a math book that goes into depth on why a equation, or problem, is solved a certain way. I would like to see most memorization in math, and most subjects nixed for good. I have found, including myself, my early difficulties in math were due to just memorizing how to do a problem. It wasen't until I started over (I went to a CC early. I hated high school socially, and it affected my studies. Going to a CC was the best move I made.) I took basic math, and algebra, trig., at the community college. It made inorganic chemistry, and physics, so easy.

BeFlatXIII 5y ago
I went from terrible at timed tests of regurgitating basic arithmetic facts to one of the better math students in my school once the curriculum moved on to requiring some understanding of what was going on.