Can you post a link to the curriculum that you mean? What years were the main years that it was taught, and in what countries/etc.?LightningInAJar said:Summary:: Still doing it?
Are there places that still do core math? Is that still a thing or did they get rid of it? I have seen videos describing it and it seems very inefficient to do math that way.
LightningInAJar said:Core math is after my time. But it doesn't appear like anything new is added. Just adds steps. Are people getting dumber?
They were still teaching the method of multiplication in the video a couple of years ago. But that was not where they left it. After a few weeks, they went on to more traditional methods, motivated by the core math thinking.LightningInAJar said:I think core math might have existed in the 70s at one time also but was ended.
True! Something to take into account: a large number of math/physics book written during the New Math era were written with care from professionals in the field. Compare this to the Common Core books of today, which look like comic books.jedishrfu said:Often a change of math curriculum elicits complaints from the parents as they try to help their kids. This may not be a fair comparison of its benefits as the parents don't invest the time to understand it since its different from when they went to school.
I went through the post WW2 curriculum where you did things by rote. We memorized everything times tables, addition tables ... Later, when my brothers went to school it was the "New Math" with concepts using set theory diagrams. Now its "Core Math".
Each curriculum change was a result of people realizing there was a deficit in the current teaching method that had to be fixed. The new math was an attempt to fix the issue of people not knowing the concepts and hence not being able to apply math to realworld problems. The Core Math was an attempt to fix the New Math issue of people understanding the concepts but without enough experience with real problems.
Here's some more reading material on the differences:
https://theconversation.com/the-common-core-is-todays-new-math-which-is-actually-a-good-thing-46585
https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/article_7372df80-cb1a-5b36-b37f-082f92a575e9.html
One takeaway is that the new math of the 1960's was due to the Sputnik Effect where schools rushed to make scientists and engineers for our future competition with the USSR.
My old math teacher confirmed this when I asked how our school could afford the old Olivetti Programma 101 computers at $3200 a pop ($26K today). Our school got three units. He said it was due to Sputnik and how easy it was to get govt grants awarded for anything that was math or science related.
Not sure some of what I saw were the "Common Core" type, but I have seen a few textbooks of varying quality - some excellent, others not so - which did include some extra junk that was distracting, making viewing and using the information on the pages difficult. Even as bad or worse, some books include internet hyperlinks or sometimes software discs (or they did); my sense says, if the information is important then it must be printed as instructional documentation in the actual book!MidgetDwarf said:True! Something to take into account: a large number of math/physics book written during the New Math era were written with care from professionals in the field. Compare this to the Common Core books of today, which look like comic books.
Which in hindsight was probably a bad idea. I don't recall us memorizing "everything," other than the times table (up to 12 x 12) and addition facts and how to do long division.jedishrfu said:I went through the post WW2 curriculum where you did things by rote. We memorized everything times tables, addition tables ... Later, when my brothers went to school it was the "New Math" with concepts using set theory diagrams.
IMO, a little bit of memorization goes a long way., but that idea seems to be in conflict with some (misguided, IMO) folks who push for the latest fad in teaching. What little I've seen of the so-called "core math" seems like something dreamed up by the people with Ed degrees and very little math background. I'm speaking from the perspective of having taught high school math for two years, and college math for 20 years.LightningInAJar said:I mean if we used to remember tables for quick reference how little RAM do kid's brains have now that it needs to be broken down into this?
Couldn't agree more...gleem said:All these scientists and engineering trained with archaic teaching methods using books lucky to have black and white photographs and depending on individual teachers to make sure the students were learning.
All those people with Ed. D. degrees have to do something to show how clever they are, whether or not the schemes bear fruit.gleem said:I wonder if too many cooks are not spoiling the broth. Yet there is always another commission or committee formed to study the issue. Another mountain of money is thrown at the problem.
Wait till you read what I have to write. I was reading, Spacetime and Geometry, by Sean M Carroll. See post 15. The textbook was written for readers in their first years of graduate study in physics, typically 23-24 year old adults, who are likely in their top form in intellectual prowess, like strong young lions. You expect the book to be no-nonsense, and it is not a bad book, although it borrows much of it's material from Wald's textbook, which is harder.gleem said:Based on the general approach to the presentation of the material is a cacophony of multicolored text, pictures, notes, exercises, examples, directions, URL references, and QR codes directing the student to online help and assessment.
Clear enough for anyone who reads this.Excuse my earlier omission. The quoting was yours but putting that last part into bold type and italicized was my doing. Done for emphasis.mpresic3 said:I taught physics recitation and labs for around 6 years in the 1980's and I heard more than a few excuses for late assighments or bad test performance. I have never heard the excuse that the textbook did not use pretty colors or bold-faced type to distinguish the important ideas. Are top books in Surgery, Immunology, and or Law also so prettified?
How do these students deal with a classic like Dirac's Quantum Mechanics with no figures or is it relegated to the dust bin?mpresic3 said:Really, does anybody thing the top students studying relativity in the country/ and world at the peak of their intellectual prowess are going to overlook such concepts because the words were not distinguished by boldfaced type?
"Core Math" refers to the Common Core State Standards in Mathematics, which are a set of educational standards designed to outline what students should know and be able to do in math at each grade level.
Yes, "Core Math" is still being used in many schools across the United States. The Common Core standards were developed in 2009 and have been adopted by 42 states, as well as the District of Columbia and four territories.
There are a few potential benefits to using "Core Math" in schools. One is that it provides a consistent set of standards across states, which can make it easier for students who move to a new school or state. Additionally, the standards are designed to promote critical thinking and problem-solving skills.
Yes, there have been some criticisms of "Core Math." Some argue that the standards are too rigorous and not developmentally appropriate for younger students. Others have raised concerns about the amount of standardized testing that is associated with the Common Core.
While many states have adopted the Common Core standards, some have chosen to opt out or revise them. For example, in 2017, the state of Oklahoma repealed the Common Core and replaced it with their own set of standards. However, the majority of states still use "Core Math" in some form.