You must log in or register to comment.
It is sad that the general population is unable to see learning math as good in of itself. Not everything must be solely “practical.”
If you are talking about school curriculum, nearly the entire population will keep not learning it as long as it doesn’t have some practical application so people can understand WTF the teacher is talking about.
Citation needed.
Seriously, though, that’s not what the research is showing. Peter Liljedahl’s research, for example, supports that a very effective way to teach mathematics is by having students actually think about math, instead of just passively receiving info dumps (as is common in most traditional math classes). See Building Thinking Classrooms for details but, in short, it’s a method of getting students playing with math concepts for almost the entire class time every day.
No “practical applications” needed. Counterintuitive, but it’s a highly effective practice.
What’s core to practical applications working is student motivation, and practical applications are one way to induce motivation. But it’s often not the best option, especially for inherently abstract skills.
Peter Liljedahl
So… From the publications, looks like he uses problem solving, not “having students actually think about math”.
You want students think about what exactly if you don’t give them an application?
Anyway, thanks, I’m listing his work as evidence supporting my claim.
If by “practical application” you mean “motivation for learning the skill”, which is I think the way you’re using it, then yes. But that’s not the usual definition in math education, and not what most people mean by it.
Like, for example, to introduce quadratics, a good progression might be to challenge students to build a table of values and graphs for x², then x² + 3, then graph x² – 5 without a table of values, then 2x² vs. 5x² vs. ½x², –x², etc.
And if you have a Thinking Classroom, every student in the class is working on figuring out that progression collaboratively in small groups. The teacher guides students to discover the math themselves through a series of examples, and mostly interacts with the students by asking questions, never giving them the answers.
That’s not “a practical application of quadratics”—at least not in the usual definition—that’s a learning activity sequence (paired with a set of interrelated pedagogical practices).
A good, practical application of quadratics is more like a Dan Meyer “3 Act Math” lesson on predicting the trajectory of a basketball shot. Also cool, good teaching. But not a great way to introduce quadratics.
(P.S. Yes, I use and like em dashes. I’m not a robot.)
motivation for learning the skill
I mean motivation for why somebody cares about the idea at all, but I think that is less strict so yes. A hole in theory or something emerging from an activity are perfectly fine. But there has to be something there.
Anyway, thanks, I’m listing his work as evidence supporting my claim.
Remembering this for next time I clearly don’t understand something. lol
I’m the guy in the background saying “go back to teaching Euclid and proof in schools”, as the real point was to teach logical deduction from established facts.
Logic puzzles should be applied in more classrooms. Start with simple problems in elementary school, and progress to more challenging ones as students grow. Critical thinking needs to start early.
A lot of the issue with logic problems is the “common sense” element required. With purely geometric problems, there are less of these to worry about.
Chess problems also work well to teach logical step application.
People who want school to be practical scare me.
I’m genuinely curious why, if this is serious. I feel like adulting badly needs to be taught better. I’m nearing mid twenties and still get so confused at a lot of adult things, especially government shit, because it’s just so much to figure out for the first time.
It’s definitely important to teach math and science and language, and to teach people how to do their own research, and think, and learn, etc. But are you saying practical skills shouldn’t also be taught?
I interpreted it as a criticism of those who think there’s no point to learning something if there isn’t an immediately-obvious application for that knowledge. Like those who say, “What’s the point of learning history? I’m not going to become a historian,” as if learning needs to have a clear end-goal or else it’s useless. Or those who think it’s pointless to learn to play an instrument because you’re not going to become a famous musician. It’s a mentality that ties in with capitalism, where if you’re not being productive, you have no use.
A well-rounded education should equip students with skills they can apply independently no matter what they do. Learning history provides context for the world we live in, why it is the way it is, and can inform us on how to move forward. Learning to play an instrument builds new connections in the brain, strengthens fine motor skills, and (in the case of reading music) how to move information between abstract concepts and a tangible form.
These skills provide benefits to people that can be built upon in the future. They may not have immediate usage to a student, but they create a foundation upon which a student can reach higher as they progress in life. Not every lesson is practical in the moment, but that doesn’t mean it can’t have value to a growing mind.
If anyone taught you how to do your taxes at school age I bet you’d forgotten all about it by the time you needed it
As OP said, what’s important is to learn to learn
I was actually working and worrying about my taxes when i was in 10th grade. I think that’s pretty common. It could be taught in 10th to 12th depending on when kids decide to learn it, maybe.
Math should be fun no matter it has practical applications or not. Math is an art, not a trade to make money. For those narrow minded ‘practical’ people, even pure math has sooner or later some applications.
This is the most important part, especially when teaching math to children. The practical aspects of math (beyond arithmetic counting with basic addition and subtraction) are not going to be fully realized until one is an adult, so they aren’t going to be a motivator for learning math.
It needs to be fun and engaging for them to want to keep learning and engaging with it.
From reading some of the comments here, it seems that some people think learning is a net negative or neutral for whoever is doing the learning and that one should learn as little as possible.
They seem to think that because they don’t literally write down the equation of “x²+6” that they never use it in their lives and so it is pointless to learn.
There are also people who seem to think that basing your education off of what could help you not being taken advantage of, or misunderstanding the world around you, is silly and you should only follow what is in your heart. Learning what interests you and nothing else.
I don’t understand either of you, idiots.
Debate me, I guess.
I’m always for the feckless hippie over the neoliberal sellout tbh.
What about feckless hippies that sold out to the neoliberals?
I mean, that’s the sellout part
It’s because they ran out of fecks
or the commie that runs out of martyric protest
new words: martyric
heard it here first folks
Forgive me, I’m not super versed on Dewey’s mathematics ideas. Quick skimming of some articles and papers seems to suggest he was very practical and wanted kids to tie into the real world. How does that differ from the pink side? Both, to me, seem the opposite of classical logic training.
The method is irrelevant when there are too few teachers in either case.
Excellent meme, more like this please!
How’s the pink guy a neoliberal sellout?
