Gifted Bulletin Board

Welcome to the Gifted Issues Discussion Forum.

We invite you to share your experiences and to post information about advocacy, research and other gifted education issues on this free public discussion forum.
CLICK HERE to Log In. Click here for the Board Rules.

Links


Learn about Davidson Academy Online - for profoundly gifted students living anywhere in the U.S. & Canada.

The Davidson Institute is a national nonprofit dedicated to supporting profoundly gifted students through the following programs:

  • Fellows Scholarship
  • Young Scholars
  • Davidson Academy
  • THINK Summer Institute

  • Subscribe to the Davidson Institute's eNews-Update Newsletter >

    Free Gifted Resources & Guides >

    Who's Online Now
    0 members (), 263 guests, and 44 robots.
    Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
    Newest Members
    Ruby Rose, Hamxa1, Alice12, lianass, anon125
    11,545 Registered Users
    December
    S M T W T F S
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7
    8 9 10 11 12 13 14
    15 16 17 18 19 20 21
    22 23 24 25 26 27 28
    29 30 31
    Previous Thread
    Next Thread
    Print Thread
    Page 6 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
    HowlerKarma #138321 09/17/12 08:03 AM
    Joined: Jul 2011
    Posts: 2,007
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Jul 2011
    Posts: 2,007
    Originally Posted by HowlerKarma
    a) appalled (seriously?? how can this even qualify as basic Geometry without this piece??) and,

    b) irked (this was the bit of math education that revealed the sheer beauty of higher mathematics and tethered it to the Socratic method and the ancient Greeks and Arabic traditions of learning... why... why... why...)

    I honestly never saw the point of geometry, to tell you the truth.

    I don't think I even know what a geometric proof *is* or any "why" to go along with geometry.

    I was tutored in it so that I could get to Calculus, which I suppose I understand a little better, meaning that i can auto-generate the answer pretty well in a very short period of time. Well, I used to be able to do that.

    Joined: Feb 2011
    Posts: 5,181
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Feb 2011
    Posts: 5,181
    I think that is my point and Val's, though, Jon.

    That without that emphasis on applied deductive reasoning, it is just sort of a jumble of memorized formulae having to do with areas and distances of plane figures.

    That isn't what geometry should be teaching.

    I'm guessing that you first saw the subject some time after 1990? That seems to be when this shift first occurred.

    WITH that part of things, geometry becomes a marvelous puzzle game-- rather like those logic puzzles that the LSAT contains. It's terrific fun. Well, okay-- it's hard. But hard in a really GOOD way for GT students.

    This is a large part of the reason why I regard initiatives like "Common Core" with a certain amount of disdain to begin with. I feel that they are enormously misguided at their very foundations. Not everyone probably can pass a good Geometry course. Even among those who can, not everyone will find it an epiphany.

    Neither is a reason to make it unavailable to those who can and should be engaging with that material. Unfortunately, that is precisely what happens with initiatives like this. Under the twin guises of "pragmatism" and "standardization" various courses are watered down until anyone everyone can master the material.

    :sigh:



    Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.
    HowlerKarma #138326 09/17/12 08:13 AM
    Joined: Jul 2011
    Posts: 2,007
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Jul 2011
    Posts: 2,007
    Originally Posted by HowlerKarma
    I think that is my point and Val's, though, Jon.

    That without that emphasis on applied deductive reasoning, it is just sort of a jumble of memorized formulae having to do with areas and distances of plane figures.

    That isn't what geometry should be teaching.

    I'm guessing that you first saw the subject some time after 1990? That seems to be when this shift first occurred.

    No, I think I had the applied deductive reasoning thingy with proofs. I just didn't see the point of proofs generally or the applied deductive reasoning.

    Geometry seemed quite boring me, which is why I just wanted to get through it and move on.

    My general approach to math was as something that I could absorb and do faster than other people to beat them in math competitions.

    Which was kind of my approach to school in general.

    My purpose wasn't to learn, rather it was to win.

    Joined: Feb 2011
    Posts: 5,181
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Feb 2011
    Posts: 5,181
    Yes, well, that certainly seems to be what my DD got out of geometry the way it is taught with Common Core (and similar initiatives) in mind.

    At least a few people back in the day got more than that out of it, though-- and that's now virtually impossible since there is no longer any... THERE, there.


    Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.
    HowlerKarma #138330 09/17/12 08:27 AM
    Joined: Sep 2007
    Posts: 3,299
    Likes: 2
    Val Offline
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Sep 2007
    Posts: 3,299
    Likes: 2
    Originally Posted by HowlerKarma
    I think that is my point and Val's, though, Jon.

    That without that emphasis on applied deductive reasoning, it is just sort of a jumble of memorized formulae having to do with areas and distances of plane figures.

    That isn't what geometry should be teaching.

    Yes, exactly. We water down the courses and then water them down some more and everyone smiles and pretends that our students are "learning geometry." They aren't. They're memorizing factoids so that they can pass simplistic multiple choice tests. And then everyone wonders why so many students end up in remedial math classes when they go to college. Please don't tell me that the colleges should have told the kids to study first: someone two or three months out of four years of solid high school math should be able to manage a bare scraping pass on a basic placement test, regardless of whether or not he spent some time the week before studying. Seriously.


    And all the while, the effects of this dumbing down are creating or exacerbating terrible problems in our society (e.g. two years of student loans paying for remedial coursework; the needs of bright and gifted students being sidelined) while people put the same hackneyed solutions in a shiny new box and label it "Rigor (tm)!"

    Last edited by Val; 09/17/12 08:29 AM. Reason: I edit too much. Back to work!!
    Joined: Jul 2011
    Posts: 2,007
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Jul 2011
    Posts: 2,007

    I can't recall a single time that I used anything that I recalled from geometry class, itself in the engineering undergrad.

    Trigonometry, sure.

    Geometry, no.

    Joined: Jul 2011
    Posts: 2,007
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Jul 2011
    Posts: 2,007

    What's funny is that I just looked up trigonometry on wikipedia and learned that it dealt with triangles and the relationship between their sides.

    It's amazing how many degrees you can get without learning basic things like what the word "trigonometry" means.

    I just threw it into that box of "things with sines and cosines".

    It's amazing how much completely disconnected and jumbled things I have learned over the years for no apparent purpose.

    Val #138334 09/17/12 08:42 AM
    Joined: Feb 2010
    Posts: 2,640
    Likes: 2
    B
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    B
    Joined: Feb 2010
    Posts: 2,640
    Likes: 2
    Originally Posted by Val
    Yes, exactly. We water down the courses and then water them down some more and everyone smiles and pretends that our students are "learning geometry." They aren't. They're memorizing factoids so that they can pass simplistic multiple choice tests. And then everyone wonders why so many students end up in remedial math classes when they go to college.

    College math placement tests are pretty "simplistic" too, and they do not require students to write proofs. Students who get high enough scores on the math sections of the SAT or ACT place out of remedial math, and those exams have short answer and multiple choice questions.

    Joined: Sep 2010
    Posts: 320
    S
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    S
    Joined: Sep 2010
    Posts: 320
    I really don't understand the way math is structured in the US.

    I studied geometry (and algebra) as part of the standard math curriculum starting in 6th grade in my home country. And in the math/science strand we certainly covered calculus in 12th grade (possibly starting in 11th grade) -- we needed those concepts for physics! But there was still geometry involved in 12th grade (and trigonometry).

    And where does the idea that proofs are limited to geometry come from?!?

    Math and multiple choice questions. How... sad.

    Joined: Aug 2010
    Posts: 3,428
    U
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    U
    Joined: Aug 2010
    Posts: 3,428
    Geometric proofs were my favorite part of math. (I'm not great at math. Really. I worked hard for a B+ in trig, the hardest class I ever took.) They were definitely NOT taught as fill in the blank when I took geometry as a 9th grader in 1988.

    Page 6 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

    Moderated by  M-Moderator 

    Link Copied to Clipboard
    Recent Posts
    Gifted Conference Index
    by ickexultant - 12/04/24 06:05 PM
    Gift ideas 12-year-old who loves math, creating
    by Eagle Mum - 11/29/24 06:18 PM
    Visual Perceptual Processing Disorder
    by anon125 - 11/21/24 01:22 PM
    Quotations that resonate with gifted people
    by indigo - 11/16/24 12:59 PM
    Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5