4 ms·

Indeed. Conrad Wolfram has a great Ted talk on this very subject: http://www.ted.com/talks/conrad_wolfram_teaching_kids_real_math_with_computers.html http://www

Indeed. Conrad Wolfram has a great Ted talk on this very subject: http://www.ted.com/talks/conrad_wolfram_teaching_kids_real_math_with_computers.html http://www.ted.com/talks/conrad_wolfram_teaching_kids_real_m...

dxbydt 15y ago
Thanks for the link. I just finished listening to the talk in its entirety. I would love to know what you thought about the actual content of the talk ( ie. not the presentation skills...Conrad Wolfram is charismatic and his analogies are compelling ). I personally think he has completely missed the whole point of math, why does one do math, math education, and problem solving using math.
- TravisLS 15y ago
  Interesting. I thought the most compelling part of the talk was his interpretation of the purpose for doing math and how we've failed to educate toward that purpose. I assume you're referring to his assertion that deep understanding of by-hand calculation is not necessary (the driving a car vs servicing a car analogy). I would agree that this may be a false analogy, and that a basic understanding of mathematical concepts (presently drilled into place through hand calculation) may be a fundamentally important step to being able to do math. Especially for those who continue to any advanced math study, fundamental understanding is almost certainly necessary. But this talk is more about the common student who doesn't go on to college or post-grad math. Overall the broader point of the talk still rings true to me: because of an overemphasis on calculation, the majority of students are receiving insufficient math education to successfully make life decisions and contribute to their own fields of work/study. In my mind, Wolfram presents a viable solution in recommending refocusing math education towards logical thinking and correctly structuring problems, and in utilizing computers for calculation.
  - dxbydt 15y ago
    >the most compelling part of the talk was his interpretation of the purpose for doing math Exactly. Except that he misinterprets that very purpose. He assumes the purpose is entirely utilitarian. He implicitly says math should be about solving common real-world problems, like his concocted life-insurance premium minimization, which helps the common student make life decisions (as if!). While 100% of pure math folks would actively disagree with him, even 99% of applied math folk would have a tough time agreeing with his utilitarian mindset. We simply don't do math to just pay the bills. People were trisecting angles and squaring the circle and computing surds for over thousands of years with no utilitarian aspect whatsoever. He also says math problems must be rephrased as CS programming problems!!! I'm all for algebraic computing tools, and Mathematica is a rather neat addition to that category, but aside from that, the rest of his talk is beyond hyperbolic. Koblitz makes the case against computing here: http://www.math.washington.edu/~koblitz/mi.html http://www.math.washington.edu/~koblitz/mi.html But there's a very wide literature on why math & computers don't mix in the classroom - read Dr. Jeffery King on the art of math (http://www.amazon.com/Art-Mathematics-Jerry-P-King/dp/0306441292 http://www.amazon.com/Art-Mathematics-Jerry-P-King/dp/030644... ) - there's whole chapters in that book devoted to debunking what Conrad is talking about.

dxbydt 15y ago

Thanks for the link. I just finished listening to the talk in its entirety. I would love to know what you thought about the actual content of the talk ( ie. not the presentation skills...Conrad Wolfram is charismatic and his analogies are compelling ). I personally think he has completely missed the whole point of math, why does one do math, math education, and problem solving using math.

TravisLS 15y ago
Interesting. I thought the most compelling part of the talk was his interpretation of the purpose for doing math and how we've failed to educate toward that purpose. I assume you're referring to his assertion that deep understanding of by-hand calculation is not necessary (the driving a car vs servicing a car analogy). I would agree that this may be a false analogy, and that a basic understanding of mathematical concepts (presently drilled into place through hand calculation) may be a fundamentally important step to being able to do math. Especially for those who continue to any advanced math study, fundamental understanding is almost certainly necessary. But this talk is more about the common student who doesn't go on to college or post-grad math. Overall the broader point of the talk still rings true to me: because of an overemphasis on calculation, the majority of students are receiving insufficient math education to successfully make life decisions and contribute to their own fields of work/study. In my mind, Wolfram presents a viable solution in recommending refocusing math education towards logical thinking and correctly structuring problems, and in utilizing computers for calculation.
- dxbydt 15y ago
  >the most compelling part of the talk was his interpretation of the purpose for doing math Exactly. Except that he misinterprets that very purpose. He assumes the purpose is entirely utilitarian. He implicitly says math should be about solving common real-world problems, like his concocted life-insurance premium minimization, which helps the common student make life decisions (as if!). While 100% of pure math folks would actively disagree with him, even 99% of applied math folk would have a tough time agreeing with his utilitarian mindset. We simply don't do math to just pay the bills. People were trisecting angles and squaring the circle and computing surds for over thousands of years with no utilitarian aspect whatsoever. He also says math problems must be rephrased as CS programming problems!!! I'm all for algebraic computing tools, and Mathematica is a rather neat addition to that category, but aside from that, the rest of his talk is beyond hyperbolic. Koblitz makes the case against computing here: http://www.math.washington.edu/~koblitz/mi.html http://www.math.washington.edu/~koblitz/mi.html But there's a very wide literature on why math & computers don't mix in the classroom - read Dr. Jeffery King on the art of math (http://www.amazon.com/Art-Mathematics-Jerry-P-King/dp/0306441292 http://www.amazon.com/Art-Mathematics-Jerry-P-King/dp/030644... ) - there's whole chapters in that book devoted to debunking what Conrad is talking about.