Speaking of the New Math.....
I’ve been going through my box of things to read and finally got to TeacherLink, the newsletter that McGraw-Hill puts out in support of their Everyday Math curriculum. Everyday Math is controversial, with many saying that it bypasses procedure and algorithms in favor of exploration and discovery. They say they’re just as good as any other math program, but they made a pretty stupid mistake in their newsletter. Check out this excerpt from an article on algorithms:
Check the math and you’ll see what the problem is.
Friends, if you’re writing a newsletter to promote your math program, MAKE SURE THE ADDITION YOU USE IN THE NEWSLETTER IS CORRECT. This article had to go through a writer and at least one editor before it got into the newsletter, and neither of them saw this? That’s a bad, bad miss.
You can read the article (still uncorrected!) at the link above. Click on the article about algorithms and you'll see it on page one.
When formal instruction is not geared to their level, children tend to perceive mathematics as difficult, mysterious, and even threatening. This contrasts with the ease, confidence, and enthusiasm with which children use their informal mathematics to think through a problem to the solution such as 22 + 34: 20 plus 30 is 50 and 4 plus 2 is 6 so the answer is 56! Or 35 + 27: 30 + 20 is 50 and 5 + 7 is 11 so put the 10 with the fifty and 1 is left so the answer is 61!
Check the math and you’ll see what the problem is.
Friends, if you’re writing a newsletter to promote your math program, MAKE SURE THE ADDITION YOU USE IN THE NEWSLETTER IS CORRECT. This article had to go through a writer and at least one editor before it got into the newsletter, and neither of them saw this? That’s a bad, bad miss.
You can read the article (still uncorrected!) at the link above. Click on the article about algorithms and you'll see it on page one.
posted by Ryan at 2:40 PM
1 Comments:
Our math specialist was charged with writing trimester assessments for grades k - 6. She had other math specialists proof, as well as the secretary---and there were still the occasional typos. Sometimes we see what we want to see---instead of what's actually there. :)
Post a Comment
<< Home