In simple term, what was "new math?"

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: TumblingBones

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: Dieter

Quote: Hunterhill

I think they need to do something different. Like put the slower students in their own class
link to original post

Yeah, so the wrestling team is getting an A- in "Business Math" for managing to total a stack of checks on a ten key, while the students with "so much potential" are struggling to pull a C in calculus to satisfy their math requirement.

Every individualization adds complexity and cost.
link to original post

My mother was a school teacher early in her career. She taught business writing, letter composition,typing and business math. No making change for a dollar for her students. It was bookkeeping to the trial balance, and the mathematics that went along with it, including how to check your work. Not an easy A for the lunkhead athletes, and her children with her accountant/CPA husband became good in math as well. Same for her grandchildren.
link to original post

Once upon a time I was a grad student and supposedly working on a PhD in math at a Big Ten university. At one point I had a teaching assistantship and had to teach a semester of freshman algebra. Around the 2nd week I got a letter from the athletic department telling me that one of my students was on the football team and they wanted to be informed if at any point he needed extra tutoring. Translation: “make sure our boy gets an A or your ass is toasted”. As it turned out he already knew the material and got the A without having to spend much time in class.

As to the rest of the class, I was always mystified that someone could be accepted at a major university without knowing basic high school algebra.
link to original post

Then your school sucked. Around here, athletes get no winks-and-nods. They either pass on their merits or they don't.
link to original post

Maybe that glare off the silver spoon has blinded you to the obvious reality that there are people going to D1 schools that are perfectly good schools academically, but that rely on D1 sports income to pay the bills and many/most/all of those varsity players would not be accepted by that school any other way.

For money talks, we all know what walks, and economics will always win. There are Harvard boys who are there because of what family they are from and no more, and they will get the same treatment, just from some chin-pulling pinky-raiser rather than the football coach. Some people think that's better. But I'd rather see the jock get franked through, at least he does something that normal people enjoy and are inspired by. What is the dummy of a legacy admission or a quota admission ever going to do for me?
link to original post

That dummy of a legacy admission or quota admission isn't going to beat his gf, blow his money on drugs and strippers and end up in prison and generally live a lifestyle of a dumb jock.

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: TumblingBones

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: Dieter

Quote: Hunterhill

I think they need to do something different. Like put the slower students in their own class
link to original post

Yeah, so the wrestling team is getting an A- in "Business Math" for managing to total a stack of checks on a ten key, while the students with "so much potential" are struggling to pull a C in calculus to satisfy their math requirement.

Every individualization adds complexity and cost.
link to original post

My mother was a school teacher early in her career. She taught business writing, letter composition,typing and business math. No making change for a dollar for her students. It was bookkeeping to the trial balance, and the mathematics that went along with it, including how to check your work. Not an easy A for the lunkhead athletes, and her children with her accountant/CPA husband became good in math as well. Same for her grandchildren.
link to original post

Once upon a time I was a grad student and supposedly working on a PhD in math at a Big Ten university. At one point I had a teaching assistantship and had to teach a semester of freshman algebra. Around the 2nd week I got a letter from the athletic department telling me that one of my students was on the football team and they wanted to be informed if at any point he needed extra tutoring. Translation: “make sure our boy gets an A or your ass is toasted”. As it turned out he already knew the material and got the A without having to spend much time in class.

As to the rest of the class, I was always mystified that someone could be accepted at a major university without knowing basic high school algebra.
link to original post

Then your school sucked. Around here, athletes get no winks-and-nods. They either pass on their merits or they don't.
link to original post

Maybe that glare off the silver spoon has blinded you to the obvious reality that there are people going to D1 schools that are perfectly good schools academically, but that rely on D1 sports income to pay the bills and many/most/all of those varsity players would not be accepted by that school any other way.

For money talks, we all know what walks, and economics will always win. There are Harvard boys who are there because of what family they are from and no more, and they will get the same treatment, just from some chin-pulling pinky-raiser rather than the football coach. Some people think that's better. But I'd rather see the jock get franked through, at least he does something that normal people enjoy and are inspired by. What is the dummy of a legacy admission or a quota admission ever going to do for me?
link to original post

That dummy of a legacy admission or quota admission isn't going to beat his gf, blow his money on drugs and strippers and end up in prison and generally live a lifestyle of a dumb jock.
link to original post

Oh, what an absurd stereotype that is! I've known so many jocks, been a bit of one back in the day, most were not dumb even though it was OK to be a little dumb, and some of the crowd I ran with wouldn't even eat a piece of candy, let alone use drugs. None of them ever beat any girls. We did like strippers. So beat me with a hetero stick.

And why would you think someone from either a rich family or a politically-favored demographic wouldn't do that? The worst guys I knew were from rich and connected families. Believed they were entitled, fully unconcerned with the rights of those they considered beneath them, outraged when they got caught and indignant when someone else wouldn't shoulder the blame for them. That's how the bigshots the Ivy League prepares for their roles are now and likely always have been.

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: TumblingBones

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: Dieter

Quote: Hunterhill

I think they need to do something different. Like put the slower students in their own class
link to original post

Yeah, so the wrestling team is getting an A- in "Business Math" for managing to total a stack of checks on a ten key, while the students with "so much potential" are struggling to pull a C in calculus to satisfy their math requirement.

Every individualization adds complexity and cost.
link to original post

My mother was a school teacher early in her career. She taught business writing, letter composition,typing and business math. No making change for a dollar for her students. It was bookkeeping to the trial balance, and the mathematics that went along with it, including how to check your work. Not an easy A for the lunkhead athletes, and her children with her accountant/CPA husband became good in math as well. Same for her grandchildren.
link to original post

Once upon a time I was a grad student and supposedly working on a PhD in math at a Big Ten university. At one point I had a teaching assistantship and had to teach a semester of freshman algebra. Around the 2nd week I got a letter from the athletic department telling me that one of my students was on the football team and they wanted to be informed if at any point he needed extra tutoring. Translation: “make sure our boy gets an A or your ass is toasted”. As it turned out he already knew the material and got the A without having to spend much time in class.

As to the rest of the class, I was always mystified that someone could be accepted at a major university without knowing basic high school algebra.
link to original post

Then your school sucked. Around here, athletes get no winks-and-nods. They either pass on their merits or they don't.
link to original post

Maybe that glare off the silver spoon has blinded you to the obvious reality that there are people going to D1 schools that are perfectly good schools academically, but that rely on D1 sports income to pay the bills and many/most/all of those varsity players would not be accepted by that school any other way.

For money talks, we all know what walks, and economics will always win. There are Harvard boys who are there because of what family they are from and no more, and they will get the same treatment, just from some chin-pulling pinky-raiser rather than the football coach. Some people think that's better. But I'd rather see the jock get franked through, at least he does something that normal people enjoy and are inspired by. What is the dummy of a legacy admission or a quota admission ever going to do for me?
link to original post

That dummy of a legacy admission or quota admission isn't going to beat his gf, blow his money on drugs and strippers and end up in prison and generally live a lifestyle of a dumb jock.
link to original post

Oh, what an absurd stereotype that is! I've known so many jocks, been a bit of one back in the day, most were not dumb even though it was OK to be a little dumb, and some of the crowd I ran with wouldn't even eat a piece of candy, let alone use drugs. None of them ever beat any girls. We did like strippers. So beat me with a hetero stick.

And why would you think someone from either a rich family or a politically-favored demographic wouldn't do that? The worst guys I knew were from rich and connected families. Believed they were entitled, fully unconcerned with the rights of those they considered beneath them, outraged when they got caught and indignant when someone else wouldn't shoulder the blame for them. That's how the bigshots the Ivy League prepares for their roles are now and likely always have been.
link to original post

I said what I said. But you're the one complaining about kids today not being able to do math, all the while defending the D1 jocks who...can't do math!

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: billryan

Quote: aceside

I totally agree. Another game that requires memorization is blackjack, in which basic strategy is the key to success. Most card counters have trouble memorizing the basic strategy table, not to mention extra deviation plays when counting cards.
link to original post

I didn't learn BJ by memorizing it; I learned it by analysis. Knowing why you should make a decision is infinitely superior to simply parroting a chart.
Rote learning teaches you what to think. Teaching someone how to think is vastly superior. Sadly, most people are more comfortable not having to think very much.
link to original post

So you want us to believe that instead of memorizing a chart that you can buy for $1 in most casino gift shops you wrote a computer program and used your computer programing and math knowledge to simply get the same info as is on the card?
link to original post

I never said anything like that. 90% or more of BS is a no-brainer, and I sat down with a deck of cards and played out the possibilities on the ones I had problems with. I wasn't aware of strategy cards until after I'd taught myself how to play. On Long Island, in the 1970s, almost every LV night was single- or double-deck, and I never saw a strategy card. I had a second-hand Scarne book, but his BS was all wrong. I certainly didn't have access to a computer.

Quote: billryan

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: billryan

Quote: aceside

I totally agree. Another game that requires memorization is blackjack, in which basic strategy is the key to success. Most card counters have trouble memorizing the basic strategy table, not to mention extra deviation plays when counting cards.
link to original post

I didn't learn BJ by memorizing it; I learned it by analysis. Knowing why you should make a decision is infinitely superior to simply parroting a chart.
Rote learning teaches you what to think. Teaching someone how to think is vastly superior. Sadly, most people are more comfortable not having to think very much.
link to original post

So you want us to believe that instead of memorizing a chart that you can buy for $1 in most casino gift shops you wrote a computer program and used your computer programing and math knowledge to simply get the same info as is on the card?
link to original post

I never said anything like that. 90% or more of BS is a no-brainer, and I sat down with a deck of cards and played out the possibilities on the ones I had problems with. I wasn't aware of strategy cards until after I'd taught myself how to play. On Long Island, in the 1970s, almost every LV night was single- or double-deck, and I never saw a strategy card. I had a second-hand Scarne book, but his BS was all wrong. I certainly didn't have access to a computer.
link to original post

So you’re saying by dealing hands to yourself you were able to figure out the correct basic strategy. Nonsense. The 4 horseman took 1000s of man hours with calculators to come up with basic strategy which still wasn’t totally accurate. An accurate strategy wasn’t derived until the use of computers.

I think what new match was to teach why math works rather than just how to compute, but it fell out of favor because it confused both students and parents.

Quote: Hunterhill

Quote: billryan

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: billryan

Quote: aceside

I totally agree. Another game that requires memorization is blackjack, in which basic strategy is the key to success. Most card counters have trouble memorizing the basic strategy table, not to mention extra deviation plays when counting cards.
link to original post

I didn't learn BJ by memorizing it; I learned it by analysis. Knowing why you should make a decision is infinitely superior to simply parroting a chart.
Rote learning teaches you what to think. Teaching someone how to think is vastly superior. Sadly, most people are more comfortable not having to think very much.
link to original post

So you want us to believe that instead of memorizing a chart that you can buy for $1 in most casino gift shops you wrote a computer program and used your computer programing and math knowledge to simply get the same info as is on the card?
link to original post

I never said anything like that. 90% or more of BS is a no-brainer, and I sat down with a deck of cards and played out the possibilities on the ones I had problems with. I wasn't aware of strategy cards until after I'd taught myself how to play. On Long Island, in the 1970s, almost every LV night was single- or double-deck, and I never saw a strategy card. I had a second-hand Scarne book, but his BS was all wrong. I certainly didn't have access to a computer.
link to original post

So you’re saying by dealing hands to yourself you were able to figure out the correct basic strategy. Nonsense. The 4 horseman took 1000s of man hours with calculators to come up with basic strategy which still wasn’t totally accurate. An accurate strategy wasn’t derived until the use of computers.
link to original post

When I discovered BJ I did indeed sit down and do the math for all the hard totals 10-17 versus Dealer 2 - A. Then I found BJ books that had strategy sheets, but I still worked the probabilities so I could see how to change decisions when I saw other cards (this was single deck BJ.)

Quote: gordonm888

Quote: Hunterhill

Quote: billryan

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: billryan

Quote: aceside

I totally agree. Another game that requires memorization is blackjack, in which basic strategy is the key to success. Most card counters have trouble memorizing the basic strategy table, not to mention extra deviation plays when counting cards.
link to original post

I didn't learn BJ by memorizing it; I learned it by analysis. Knowing why you should make a decision is infinitely superior to simply parroting a chart.
Rote learning teaches you what to think. Teaching someone how to think is vastly superior. Sadly, most people are more comfortable not having to think very much.
link to original post

So you want us to believe that instead of memorizing a chart that you can buy for $1 in most casino gift shops you wrote a computer program and used your computer programing and math knowledge to simply get the same info as is on the card?
link to original post

I never said anything like that. 90% or more of BS is a no-brainer, and I sat down with a deck of cards and played out the possibilities on the ones I had problems with. I wasn't aware of strategy cards until after I'd taught myself how to play. On Long Island, in the 1970s, almost every LV night was single- or double-deck, and I never saw a strategy card. I had a second-hand Scarne book, but his BS was all wrong. I certainly didn't have access to a computer.
link to original post

So you’re saying by dealing hands to yourself you were able to figure out the correct basic strategy. Nonsense. The 4 horseman took 1000s of man hours with calculators to come up with basic strategy which still wasn’t totally accurate. An accurate strategy wasn’t derived until the use of computers.
link to original post

When I discovered BJ I did indeed sit down and do the math for all the hard totals 10-17 versus Dealer 2 - A. Then I found BJ books that had strategy sheets, but I still worked the probabilities so I could see how to change decisions when I saw other cards (this was single deck BJ.)
link to original post

Yes for hard totals is one thing but for splits it’s quite another matter

Quote: Hunterhill

Quote: billryan

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: billryan

Quote: aceside

I totally agree. Another game that requires memorization is blackjack, in which basic strategy is the key to success. Most card counters have trouble memorizing the basic strategy table, not to mention extra deviation plays when counting cards.
link to original post

I didn't learn BJ by memorizing it; I learned it by analysis. Knowing why you should make a decision is infinitely superior to simply parroting a chart.
Rote learning teaches you what to think. Teaching someone how to think is vastly superior. Sadly, most people are more comfortable not having to think very much.
link to original post

So you want us to believe that instead of memorizing a chart that you can buy for $1 in most casino gift shops you wrote a computer program and used your computer programing and math knowledge to simply get the same info as is on the card?
link to original post

I never said anything like that. 90% or more of BS is a no-brainer, and I sat down with a deck of cards and played out the possibilities on the ones I had problems with. I wasn't aware of strategy cards until after I'd taught myself how to play. On Long Island, in the 1970s, almost every LV night was single- or double-deck, and I never saw a strategy card. I had a second-hand Scarne book, but his BS was all wrong. I certainly didn't have access to a computer.
link to original post

So you’re saying by dealing hands to yourself you were able to figure out the correct basic strategy. Nonsense. The 4 horseman took 1000s of man hours with calculators to come up with basic strategy which still wasn’t totally accurate. An accurate strategy wasn’t derived until the use of computers.
link to original post

Again, I never said I learned perfect BS. The rules I was playing with only allowed doubling on 9-11. I knew nothing about card counting, except that my friends said-1) it was impossible for normal people and 2) the Jewish mafia that ran the Las Vegas Nights wouldn't tolerate it. It turned out #2 was accurate. My strategy was simply based on my two cards: would the next card help or hurt me? If four cards helped, but nine cards hurt, I'd stick. A few years later, I read an article in Casino Player about a simple strategy that captured much of the benefits of BS without memorizing everything, and it was very similar to what I thought I'd come up with on my own. Then I read the Blackjack Zone in the late 90s and realized where I had made some mistakes. My biggest mistake was using Scarne's strategy as a base.

Quote: TumblingBones

As to the rest of the class, I was always mystified that someone could be accepted at a major university without knowing basic high school algebra.
link to original post

My daughter is a math professor and every semester she gets about 30 students at the start of the class. The second week there's always about 10 students left because the other 20 never learned basic math in high school and they want her to teach them Algebra 101 and she tells them she's not there for that. So they drop out and this happens every semester.

When I took geometry, 10% of the final exam was a required theorem. Either you wrote down every step in order, or you got no points. It was pure rote memory that got us to memorize the 15 or so potential problems. A year later, I doubt 10% of the class could recall the correct answers. We have a limited time to teach children for a lifetime; it needs to be spent usefully.

Quote: billryan

When I took geometry, 10% of the final exam was a required theorem. Either you wrote down every step in order, or you got no points. It was pure rote memory that got us to memorize the 15 or so potential problems. A year later, I doubt 10% of the class could recall the correct answers. We have a limited time to teach children for a lifetime; it needs to be spent usefully.
link to original post

That geometry memorization is also teaching deductive reasoning. Again, memorization is simply part of life.

Quote: billryan

When I took geometry, 10% of the final exam was a required theorem. Either you wrote down every step in order, or you got no points. It was pure rote memory that got us to memorize the 15 or so potential problems. A year later, I doubt 10% of the class could recall the correct answers. We have a limited time to teach children for a lifetime; it needs to be spent usefully.
link to original post

Oh, but they learned something so valuable doing that! I hated it too, until I "got it" and then I didn't. You're learning to expand a limited set of principles into a complete description of the world.

You start with Euclid's Five Postulates. Those are the things that "just are," that's what you're starting with. Then you have the definitions and axioms which mostly have to do with the language you will be using. The words "point" and "line" each have several meanings in English so you need to define them appropriately, and that will be a little different in whatever language are using.

Then you start proving theorems, two-column proofs where every claim you make has to be supported by a postulate, an axiom or definition, or by a theorem you have previously proven. That was the fun part- once you proved a theorem it went in your notebook and it was yours, now it's a tool you can use by itself for more complicated proofs. And as your toolbox of proven theorems fills up, you become more powerful, and you can find different ways to solve a problem, sometimes more efficiently than the example in the book or how your teacher does it. Awesome!

What you're really being prepared for is a law career, where the analogs to the postulates and theorems are statues (legislatures just made those up, not your business why) and case law (that's rulings other judges have made by applying logic and reason to these laws, just like you did with the theorems).

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: billryan

When I took geometry, 10% of the final exam was a required theorem. Either you wrote down every step in order, or you got no points. It was pure rote memory that got us to memorize the 15 or so potential problems. A year later, I doubt 10% of the class could recall the correct answers. We have a limited time to teach children for a lifetime; it needs to be spent usefully.
link to original post

That geometry memorization is also teaching deductive reasoning. Again, memorization is simply part of life.
link to original post

How does memorization teach deductive reasoning? Recalling facts is not creative thinking.

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

What you're really being prepared for is a law career, where the analogs to the postulates and theorems are statues (legislatures just made those up, not your business why) and case law (that's rulings other judges have made by applying logic and reason to these laws, just like you did with the theorems).
link to original post

I recall when I was an undergraduate majoring in math hearing something about majoring in math was the best way to get into law school. Not sure how true that was but I am pretty sure none of the math types I knew had any interest in becoming lawyers.

Quote: TumblingBones

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

What you're really being prepared for is a law career, where the analogs to the postulates and theorems are statues (legislatures just made those up, not your business why) and case law (that's rulings other judges have made by applying logic and reason to these laws, just like you did with the theorems).
link to original post

I recall when I was an undergraduate majoring in math hearing something about majoring in math was the best way to get into law school. Not sure how true that was but I am pretty sure none of the math types I knew had any interest in becoming lawyers.
link to original post

The best way to get into law school is to come from a rich alumni family that contributes heavily.

Quote: billryan

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: billryan

When I took geometry, 10% of the final exam was a required theorem. Either you wrote down every step in order, or you got no points. It was pure rote memory that got us to memorize the 15 or so potential problems. A year later, I doubt 10% of the class could recall the correct answers. We have a limited time to teach children for a lifetime; it needs to be spent usefully.
link to original post

That geometry memorization is also teaching deductive reasoning. Again, memorization is simply part of life.
link to original post

How does memorization teach deductive reasoning? Recalling facts is not creative thinking.
link to original post

Because it makes you go step by step to solve the problem. There is a more detailed answer above which I cannot improve on much. But like it says, geometry was step by step. Prove one thing at a time until you could prove the answer. Memorization is part of that.

You have to know the facts before you can think creatively. You learn them. You string them together. Then you are thinking creatively.

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: billryan

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: billryan

When I took geometry, 10% of the final exam was a required theorem. Either you wrote down every step in order, or you got no points. It was pure rote memory that got us to memorize the 15 or so potential problems. A year later, I doubt 10% of the class could recall the correct answers. We have a limited time to teach children for a lifetime; it needs to be spent usefully.
link to original post

That geometry memorization is also teaching deductive reasoning. Again, memorization is simply part of life.
link to original post

How does memorization teach deductive reasoning? Recalling facts is not creative thinking.
link to original post

Because it makes you go step by step to solve the problem. There is a more detailed answer above which I cannot improve on much. But like it says, geometry was step by step. Prove one thing at a time until you could prove the answer. Memorization is part of that.

You have to know the facts before you can think creatively. You learn them. You string them together. Then you are thinking creatively.
link to original post

A computer learns new facts. It strings them together. Does it think creatively?
I think we agreed a polar bear is an Apex Predator. Do they learn by rote memorization? Is there an animal or insect on this planet that uses memorization to learn the skills needed to thrive and survive?

If you want to see how to educate children without rote learning, you only have to go to the nearest Montessori school. They've been producing students for over a hundred years and are widely acknowledged as superior to most private and public schools.

Quote: billryan

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: billryan

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: billryan

When I took geometry, 10% of the final exam was a required theorem. Either you wrote down every step in order, or you got no points. It was pure rote memory that got us to memorize the 15 or so potential problems. A year later, I doubt 10% of the class could recall the correct answers. We have a limited time to teach children for a lifetime; it needs to be spent usefully.
link to original post

That geometry memorization is also teaching deductive reasoning. Again, memorization is simply part of life.
link to original post

How does memorization teach deductive reasoning? Recalling facts is not creative thinking.
link to original post

Because it makes you go step by step to solve the problem. There is a more detailed answer above which I cannot improve on much. But like it says, geometry was step by step. Prove one thing at a time until you could prove the answer. Memorization is part of that.

You have to know the facts before you can think creatively. You learn them. You string them together. Then you are thinking creatively.
link to original post

A computer learns new facts. It strings them together. Does it think creatively?
I think we agreed a polar bear is an Apex Predator. Do they learn by rote memorization? Is there an animal or insect on this planet that uses memorization to learn the skills needed to thrive and survive?
link to original post

Unless trained by humans, animals go by instinct not learning.

Quote: billryan

If you want to see how to educate children without rote learning, you only have to go to the nearest Montessori school. They've been producing students for over a hundred years and are widely acknowledged as superior to most private and public schools.
link to original post

So how do you learn your ABCs in Montessori school?

We'll start with Phoenician runes and how they spread and influenced the writing of other societies in the region, and then move on to the Greek and Hebrew practices of using the letters to represent integers, giving them an order. I'm sure a bunch of 4-year olds will be really enthused about this lecture!

Or, we can get them all chanting "Ay, bee, cee, dee, eee, eff, gee..." as a peppy young teacher whirls across the front of the classroom, pointer in hand, pointing at each letter taped to the wall above the blackboard as they go. In that way they associate the shape of the letter, its order, its spoken name, and a musical note, all in one sensory experience of a song and being a combined sensory experience it's effortless to recall. Didn't we all do that? That's a form of rote learning. It doesn't have to be agonizing.

Oh no, all this talk of teaching and learning gave me an idea!

It's been observed (can't remember by whom) that things are easier to remember when they are crude and vulgar. When you first learned the quadratic formula in algebra class, you were probably up all night sweating that before you had to use it on a test. But how many times did you have to hear "The Diarrhea Song" before you could recite it? Probably once. And which one could you recall right now?

I think that's why most jokes are dirty. Just natural selection- they're easier to remember and recite to others.

So how about this- a school curriculum full of vulgarity, bad taste, rude mnemonics and acronyms, politically incorrect jokes, all that stuff that keeps kids engaged and thrilled and wanting to hear more! Think of a textbook but written by Al Goldstein and Lenny Bruce. For the younger grades it would be mostly potty humor, and as they get older it would be separated by sex and start phasing in rude rhymes about getting an erection, getting your period, somebody whacked off, etc. All as part of the lesson.

That's something that should be researched a little more, why material like that is easier to remember. There might be something valuable.

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Oh no, all this talk of teaching and learning gave me an idea!

It's been observed (can't remember by whom) that things are easier to remember when they are crude and vulgar.
link to original post

Who knows the raunchy resistor color code mnemonic?
I honestly don't even know if there is a clean one.

Quote: Dieter

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Oh no, all this talk of teaching and learning gave me an idea!

It's been observed (can't remember by whom) that things are easier to remember when they are crude and vulgar.
link to original post

Who knows the raunchy resistor color code mnemonic?
I honestly don't even know if there is a clean one.
link to original post

Yes there were a bunch, many dirty. And I recall there was one that would not get the approval of the NAACP as well.

I would assume the ones for the JAN color code were even worse.

Quote: Dieter

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Oh no, all this talk of teaching and learning gave me an idea!

It's been observed (can't remember by whom) that things are easier to remember when they are crude and vulgar.
link to original post

Who knows the raunchy resistor color code mnemonic?
I honestly don't even know if there is a clean one.
link to original post

Our Young Boys . . . . . But Violet Goes Willingly

Don't remember the middle but that's

Orange Yellow Brown . . . . . Blue Violet Gold White

Quote: gordonm888

Quote: Dieter

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Oh no, all this talk of teaching and learning gave me an idea!

It's been observed (can't remember by whom) that things are easier to remember when they are crude and vulgar.
link to original post

Who knows the raunchy resistor color code mnemonic?
I honestly don't even know if there is a clean one.
link to original post

Our Young Boys . . . . . But Violet Goes Willingly

Don't remember the middle but that's

Orange Yellow Brown . . . . . Blue Violet Gold White
link to original post

Also to the tune of the Good and Plenty (candy) jingle on their commercials (1962, after the Cuban missile crisis):

"Once upon a time there was a Cuban queer

Fidel Castro was his name we hear

He had a country and he sure had fun.

Pounding Communism into everyone

Charlie says: We really love our Castro

Charlie says: We love him oh so well

Charlie says : We really love our Castro

But we know for certain that he's going to Hell."

I remember that profane version of the jingle but don't remember the original words about Good and Plenty.

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Quote: billryan

If you want to see how to educate children without rote learning, you only have to go to the nearest Montessori school. They've been producing students for over a hundred years and are widely acknowledged as superior to most private and public schools.
link to original post

So how do you learn your ABCs in Montessori school?

We'll start with Phoenician runes and how they spread and influenced the writing of other societies in the region, and then move on to the Greek and Hebrew practices of using the letters to represent integers, giving them an order. I'm sure a bunch of 4-year olds will be really enthused about this lecture!

Or, we can get them all chanting "Ay, bee, cee, dee, eee, eff, gee..." as a peppy young teacher whirls across the front of the classroom, pointer in hand, pointing at each letter taped to the wall above the blackboard as they go. In that way they associate the shape of the letter, its order, its spoken name, and a musical note, all in one sensory experience of a song and being a combined sensory experience it's effortless to recall. Didn't we all do that? That's a form of rote learning. It doesn't have to be agonizing.
link to original post

What the hand does, the mind remembers. It's the entire concept behind Montessori learning. Their students work with sounds and combine different sounds to make words before they learn letters. When they get around to actually working with letters, they use sandpaper models that the kids feel while making the sounds. By the time they are learning the alphabet, they already understand that letters represent sounds and are used to form words. Three-letter words grow into four-letter words and so on. Montessori has students writing sentences using a limited number of letters and slowly introduces new letters.
Their students don't memorize the times tables. They learn the concepts of addition and subtraction and understand that taking three items away from seven is subtraction before they learn the symbols of math. They learn that a box of eggs has twelve inside, and their family is five people. These are real concepts that they understand. Only then do they learn that 12 is the symbol for twelve, and 5 is the symbol that best describes their family unit. They learn that 4 is the symbol for the size of their friend's family.

I changed schools a lot, as my family sometimes moved where my father was stationed, and sometimes I'd live with and go to school in NY if he was stationed somewhere dangerous. The US Army schools were using a new system called SRA or something similar. You took a placement exam, and then you were assigned individual modules that stressed your weaknesses. Four days a week, you worked on your individual module, with occasional input from a teacher or a parent volunteer, and once a week you had a group with everyone working on the same module. Levels were color-coded rather than by grade, so a 5th grader and a 7th grader may both be at the same level of learning. You learned at your own pace. You could finish a module in a week, or sometimes it took a few weeks. Each module builds on the one before and prepares you for the next. A student might be taking 7th-grade math, 6th-grade English, and 3rd-grade History while in 5th grade.
Then, some years later, I went to a Catholic school in Queens that still had mostly nuns as teachers, and they taught the same way they had since my mom went there. I learned almost nothing and was not challenged. Later, I attended a Catholic HS that stressed peer-to-peer tutoring. When taken seriously, that can be very effective.