Ooh, Self-Aggrandizement
Since I have many topics to address, I present to you an exclusive interview with myself from the fine staff at phooeyhoo.com. As Sean from ESPN's Breakdown would say, "Almost show boating! He was destined for a fall..."
Phooeyhoo.com: Where the hell have you been?
Phooeyhoo: I'm currently in Saint Louis working as a research assistant in math education and learning technologies.
Phooeyhoo.com: Get real. You're only in Saint Louis so you can stalk Tony LaRussa whom we all love.
Phooeyhoo: While it's true that I do indeed have deep affection for Tony, I'm actually here to learn more about math-ed.
Phooeyhoo.com: Weren't you disgruntled about this entire thing a few months ago? Wasn't that you drunkenly roaming the streets of Ann Arbor caviling about the fake handshake?
Phooeyhoo: While it is true that the fake handshake is a huge factor in all of our lives and we must respect it with the utmost deal of propriety (lest it strike its ugly head), my anger was really toward the lack of a cohesive theory to the learning sciences. Not to say that all of the research in the learning sciences is garbage — it just seems that they're running random experiments with no purport of how they're contributing to the vast space of education knowledge. There are only so many studies that you can run using software on affluent communities before your readers start to wonder: what would happen if you went to poor urban neighborhoods with your software? But I'm happy now because the team I'm working with actually has a real theory that they're basing their research on. Call me a theory slut if you will.
Phooeyhoo.com: Tell us more about this theory.
Phooeyhoo: Well, if you insist. Part of the theory is based on the way the US curriculum treats math. You learn addition and then subtraction first and then are told around second grade about multiplication and division and how multiplication is just multiplying n times and dividing is just subtracting n times. However, this creates a problematic situation when you try to explain exponentiation and the trigonometric functions ... and so those topics are postponed until middle school and sometimes high school which is silly because exponentiation deals with important topics like ratio and proportion that children have an intuitive grasp of at very early ages. Children naturally split when you give them complex problems about area, for example. So part of the theory is to teach it the way that it's done in Asian countries where addition, subtraction, multiplication and division are taught at the same time and multiplication and division are respected as the building blocks to exponentiation and ratio. Indeed, if you were to build a table with x values and xn values, children naturally see the ratio of n within successive values.
The other part of the theory deals with the fact that math is basically taught now based on the last 100 - 200 years of mathematical development which is the analysis model of math made famous by Dedekind, Cauchy, et al. That's fine and their theories are beautiful but it also makes the learning of mathematics nothing more than the rote memorization of formulas and theorems. The construction of mathematics is somehow, unfortunately, lost in that. Indeed, we often forget that the Greeks worked for hundreds of years to develop constructions for geometry, algebra, area, volume, etc. that almost got them to an understanding of the integral calculus (Archimedes actually succeeded but his paper got lost to the ages). Does it make their math any less "real" because it failed to provide a formal definition of limit the way that Dedekind did? I think not.
Phooeyhoo.com: Fascinating, but aren't you just advocating new age "fluffy" math? You're starting to sound like those hippie math educators down in California. What's wrong with just learning the equations and going on from there?
Phooeyhoo: This type of math isn't fluffy at all. In fact, I would argue that it's even more rigorous because you're not allowed to make some of the assumptions that you would if you approach it from the "new-age" Analysis argument. Remember that not even Newton or Leibniz cared about epsilons and deltas. That stuff came later. They were more interested in using limits to define useful things. I'm also not saying that the equations and more analytical methods shouldn't be learned at all. But research shows that it's easier to learn once you have all of the construction blocks in place. Indeed, the way math is taught now, more than 50% of the curriculum each year from grades 4 - 8 is regurgitation of old stuff. And we know from research that children, when presented with it correctly, can learn things like exponentiation, trigonometry, and even point set topology at early ages. They can start to describe rates of change, define functions, etc. which are all of the building blocks to more advanced courses in Calculus and Analysis.
Phooeyhoo.com: Research shows? They've brainwashed you, haven't they?
Phooeyhoo: Well, obviously the education problem is more deeply rooted and claiming that we can change the entire paradigm overnight is wishful thinking. But I'm glad to be around people who are thinking about this stuff and agree that it's partially a curricular issue and that the current way of thinking about math-ed may not be the best way.
Phooeyhoo.com: Okay, switching topics. Weren't you going to go on a sojourn to Vietnam or something this year?
Phooeyhoo: Oh, that's still planned ... mostly likely sometime in the late spring.
Phooeyhoo.com: Been watching the world series? What's the most interesting story there?
Phooeyhoo: Well, obviously that Ozzie Guillen has gone through the entire postseason without uttering a [bleep] during press conferences. That man is hilarious. Somebody get him a sandwich.
Also, the fact that the Cardinals are cursed with Tony LaRussa's inability to get a vastly superior team during the regular season through the playoffs. I'm starting to feel badly for the guy. Pretty soon, Dave Duncan is going to be a cadaver. Speaking of pitching coaches, why on Earth did you leave the braves for Baltimore, Leo Mazzone? (In case you're reading, Cara — Baltimore is your team. Remember? You also now have a pretty good pitching coach. His name is Mazzone. Not Tejada. That's your all-star shortstop whom you stole form Oakland.) I mean, that's like Duncan leaving LaRussa and the Cardinals for say, Toronto or Milwaukee.
Phooeyhoo.com: What other thoughts swirl around your mind these days?
Phooeyhoo: Unfortunately, too many. As my mom would say, "You know ... if you sat more zazen you would not be troubled by so much ..." But let's see here ... the fact that Everybody thinks they like but really wants to kill Raymond beat out Arrested Development is quite a tragedy. Veronica Mars is really sucking it up this year adding to the theory that TV shows shouldn't go past one or two seasons. Would Freaks and Geeks have been as good if it had gone on for a few more seasons and they didn't have to suddenly use all of their good story ideas at the end? I hope so but who knows. Let's see, what else? Leo Laporte is a very rotund man, my new aspiration in life is to become even more of a curmudgeon like granddad in the Boondocks, Ginny actually called me and said that she'd be on the trail for two more months, and I wouldn't shed a tear if the RIAA died a quick death.
Phooeyhoo.com: Thank you for your time. One last question: the delay of Whisking with Chlamydia is starting to make us compare it with such doomed projects as Daikatana. Can we expect the final version before the New Year?
Phooeyhoo: Well, if you'll remember I gave myself until the Cubs win the world series and Oakland gets out of the first round so I'm kind of in the clear there. In truth, haven't worked on it much since May but the plan is to have it ready around New Years. Thankfully, I've made promises like that before and have not kept any of them and don't feel obliged to keep this one. Does that answer your question?
Phooeyhoo.com: Not at all. Can we expect any more biting analysis form this useless web log or will we just have broken links to stupid news stories and butter pictures of fictional characters?
Phooeyhoo: Probably more of the latter but I've got a few more things to get off my chest. Also, there are always the photos to post so you may see some of those soon too.
Phooeyhoo.com: As always, a pleasure to talk to you.
Phooeyhoo: Oh, the pleasure is definitely all on this side of the table.
Posted by phooeyhoo at
1:24 PM
|
Comments (6)
| Self-Aggrandizing
