Re: Harvard Pres: Women Lack Ability In Math, Sciences
From: Jo Schaper (joschapern4ospam_at_2socketdot.no5net)
Date: 01/20/05
- Next message: George: "Re: Harvard Pres: Women Lack Ability In Math, Sciences"
- Previous message: Jayne Kulikauskas: "Re: Harvard Pres: Women Lack Ability In Math, Sciences"
- In reply to: george of the jungle: "Re: Harvard Pres: Women Lack Ability In Math, Sciences"
- Next in thread: George: "Re: Harvard Pres: Women Lack Ability In Math, Sciences"
- Reply: George: "Re: Harvard Pres: Women Lack Ability In Math, Sciences"
- Reply: Ralph Nesbitt: "Re: Harvard Pres: Women Lack Ability In Math, Sciences"
- Reply: Bob Officer: "Re: Harvard Pres: Women Lack Ability In Math, Sciences"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 10:37:21 -0600
george of the jungle wrote:
<snip>
>
> I tried and failed to get two daughters interested in science. All
> hope was lost around eighth grade. Science is grossly mistaught in the
> public schools. The fundamental approach to learning is backwards
> because it is oriented towards teaching questions that can be answered
> on a multiple choice test rather than learning how to investigate a
> scientific problem.
My interest in rocks began because we had a chat gravel driveway with
pyrite bits, quartz bits and calcite bits as well as nearby housing
excavations full of crinoids. I was 6, and it was a new subdivision, so
there were very few other kids (other than my brother) to play with. My
niece showed up with her 'nature box'--a shoebox with rocks, feathers,
flowers she'd picked--when she was 4. My sister, who is fairly
conventional, shared a room with me growing up (and my rocks, driftwood,
feathers, and shells) and recognized what her daughter was up to and
phoned me to 'take over' that part of her daughter's education. Valerie
has never known that 'girls aren't interested in nature'--obviously Aunt
Jo is. It doesn't hurt that my husband is a biologist--he's someone to
ask critter questions of. And it's FUN...you're not getting a grade, or
taking tests all the time.
You are *so* correct that science it taught backwards. So is
mathematics. While obviously you need to know how to count, make change
and do 4 function arithmetic, education waits way too long to introduce
algebraic/geometry/trig/calculus concepts. By the time kids get to the
'abstract' parts of math, their brains have ossified into the concept
that there is only one right answer, that that answer is extremely
precise and does not vary, and you are in deep doo-doo if you don't get
it. The hardest part of calculus for me was unlearning the previous 12
years of arithmetic and concrete, single-answer algebra, part of it
beaten into me by nuns. It may be counter-intuitive, but I bet young
kids would catch on to simplified calculus and its variability much
easier than people 15+ and most definitely better than when I did it
after 40. Why not have primary grade kids playing with actual triangles
learn the Pythagorean theorem?
Learn to measure volumes in irregularly shaped vessels by demonstration,
and then by symbolic manipulation?
Calculus is the mathematics of the spaces between the points and of
irregular shapes. It is the mathematics of changing quantities. I always
wondered how people measured those things when I was a kid. Then I
forgot about it. Now, I know.
Curiosity is the best teacher.
- Next message: George: "Re: Harvard Pres: Women Lack Ability In Math, Sciences"
- Previous message: Jayne Kulikauskas: "Re: Harvard Pres: Women Lack Ability In Math, Sciences"
- In reply to: george of the jungle: "Re: Harvard Pres: Women Lack Ability In Math, Sciences"
- Next in thread: George: "Re: Harvard Pres: Women Lack Ability In Math, Sciences"
- Reply: George: "Re: Harvard Pres: Women Lack Ability In Math, Sciences"
- Reply: Ralph Nesbitt: "Re: Harvard Pres: Women Lack Ability In Math, Sciences"
- Reply: Bob Officer: "Re: Harvard Pres: Women Lack Ability In Math, Sciences"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
