If you reply to this long (9 kB) post please don't hit the reply
button unless you prune the copy of this post that may appear in your
reply down to a few relevant lines, otherwise the entire already
archived post may be needlessly resent to subscribers.
****************************************
ABSTRACT: Jatila van der Veen of the PhysLrnR list wrote
(paraphrasing): "Math is taught as a separate, abstract set of rules
and relationships, and students are not shown the connections between
math and the physical world! This is the age old problem in physics
education After being a "traditional" physics teacher for many years
I went back to grad school to do a doctorate in Education; during
these years of inquiry away from physics and into multiculturalism,
sociolinguistics, gender studies, cognitive psychology, etc., I came
away with a dissertation on the positive effects of starting an
introductory physics course with symmetry and contemporary physics,
and teaching non-physics majors along with physic majors, to see the
numbers in Nature. The method WORKS (see at <http://bit.ly/9uFByX>).
****************************************
Jatila van der Veen (2010), in her post "What do they do in math,"
wrote [bracketed by lines "JJJJJJJ. . . . . "; my insert at ". . . .
[[insert]]. . . . "]:
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
Gotta jump in on this one . . . . [[quoting Boris Korsunsky (2010)]].
. . . ]]. . . . .: "as a result, most students see mathematics as
entirely algorithmic; that's why they hate word problems."
Because, math is taught as a separate, abstract set of rules and
relationships, and students are not shown the connections between
math and the physical world! This is the age old problem in physics
education.
. . . . . . . .[[As indicated in "Re: Why study math?" [Hake (2004),
Morris Kline (1997) <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_Kline>, in
"Calculus, Part 1" wrote: "The second essential respect in which this
book differs from current ones is that the relationship of
mathematics to science is taken seriously. The present trend to
separate mathematics and science is tragic. There are chapters in
mathematics that have value in and for themselves. However, the
calculus divorced from applications is meaningless."]]. . . . . . . .
.
After being a "traditional" physics teacher for many years. . . . I
went back to grad school to do a doctorate in Education. And during
these years of inquiry away from physics and into multiculturalism,
sociolinguistics, gender studies, cognitive psychology, etc., I came
away with a dissertation on the positive effects of starting an
introductory physics course with symmetry and contemporary physics,
and teaching non-physics majors along with physic majors, to see the
numbers in Nature. The method WORKS. . . . . .[[see at
<http://bit.ly/9uFByX>]]. . . .
Anyway, I get to be a curmudgeon now, and say that it is not kids'
fault, and it is sad to hear teachers blame kids for not knowing the
meaning of pi. Their previous math teachers never taught them.
To finish off my rant, I'll boast: If anyone is interested, you can
download. . . . [[as an 11MB pdf at <http://bit.ly/8YF5kn>]] . . . .
the invited talk. . . . [["Symmetry and Aesthetics in Contemporary
Physics: An Interdisciplinary Arts-and-Physics Curriculum," Session
FA: Art and Physics]]. . . . I gave at the AAPT meeting in February
about this, as well as my dissertation. . . [[online as a 10.7 MB
pdf at <http://bit.ly/buOKcC>]]. . . . . , from my website. . . .
[[<http://www.physics.ucsb.edu/~jatila/>]]. . . .. I'm currently
writing up my 3-year results for AERA.
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
"Mathematics is the gate and key of the sciences. . . .Neglect of
mathematics works injury to all knowledge, since he who is ignorant
of it cannot know the other sciences or the things of this world.
And what is worse, men who are thus ignorant are unable to perceive
their own ignorance and so do not seek a remedy.
Roger Bacon (Opus Majus, bk. 1, ch. 4) <http://bit.ly/dzjbWv>
"The writing in mathematics text is not only laconic to a fault; it
is cold, monotonous, dry, dull, and even ungrammatical. . . The books
are not only printed by machines; they are written by machines"
Morris Kline (1977)
REFERENCES [URL's shortened by <http://bit.ly/>. All URL's accessed
on 30 June 2010.]
Hake, R.R. 2004. "Re: Why study math?" Online on the OPEN! archives
of: (a) Math-Teach at <http://bit.ly/d1fGnk>, and Phys-L at
<http://bit.ly/dyh2zX>. Post of 26 Mar 2004 14:22:00 -0800 to
Math-Learn, Math-Teach, Phys-L, and PhysLrnR.
Kline, M. 1967. "Calculus, Part 1." John Wiley. Amazon. Com
information at <http://amzn.to/8Yjd1Z>. See also the more recent
Kline (1981, 1998).
Kline, M. 1974. "Why Johnny Can't Add: The Failure of the New Math,"
Random House, Amazon.com information at <http://amzn.to/9Vjugx>.
Kline, M. 1977. "Why the Professor Can't Teach," St. Martins Press.
Amazon.com information at <http://amzn.to/b1Hu4n>. See also the K-12
counterpart Kline (1974).
Kline, M. 1981. "Mathematics and the Physical World." Dover. Amazon.
Com information at <http://amzn.to/bHPQhR>. Note the searchable "Look
Inside" feature. A truncated Google book preview is online at
<http://bit.ly/ctucu7>.
Kline, M. 1998. "Calculus: An Intuitive and Physical Approach," 2nd
edition. Dover. Amazon.com information at <http://amzn.to/dvPghf>.
Korsunsky, B. 2010. "Re: What do they do in math?" PhysLrnR post of
25 Jun 2010 10:09:07-0400; online at <http://bit.ly/agfNmu>.
van der Veen, J. 2010. "What do they do in math," PhysLrnR post of 29
Jun 2010 09:20:17-0700; online at <http://bit.ly/drGBIT>