The Math Mojo Chronicles » math education

How to Present New Math Ideas

Brian — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 20:20:04 +0000

Using magic to present new math Ideas

An insightful reader wrote in:

Susan Grigor wrote:

Good morning, Brian,

I want to consult your wife as one who works with little people.

I have been looking at the Grade 3 and Grade 4 curricula. There is a
lot about looking for alternate strategies such as 26 + 35 = 30 – 4 +
30 + 5 = 61. Note, however, that positive and negative numbers are
not taught until Grade 7.

Kids even up to Grade 7 are literal/concrete thinkers, not abstract
thinkers. How well do they use these abstract ideas? They are
mental gymnastics.

Susan,

I don’t see anything in Math Mojo that is less concrete than the pap they feed kids in “standard curriculums.”

Math Mojo doesn’t use the 26 + 35 = 30 – 4 + 30 + 5 = 61 kind of strategy. I use what I call the See-Say-Write strategy. It is subtly different, but it does not use any subtraction. It is also extensible. I use it for adding gigantic columns and rows in my head, easier than most people can use a calculator. I also use it for advanced multiplication. (More on that in a forthcoming course.)

The only problems I’ve ever had teaching second-graders or above any Math Mojo stuff has been because of what you mention in the next paragraph – some of them apparently “like” to do it the tired, old way.

I see that as one of the most important things I can do in this world – break them of that miserable, school-learned, brain-deadening habit.Naturally, kids like to learn. They like to learn cool and new things. But when you get “partial credit” for showing work that doesn’t need to be done, and you are bent-over and forced through artificial hoops long enough, it just beats the soul out of you.

Here’s my dirty secret – Math Mojo isn’t about any math techniques. It’s about re-humanizing the learning experience. My goal is to get people to realize, “Hey, that’s amazing! I can really learn meaningful stuff if I want to! And it’s always more fun and rewarding than that stuff the drones do!”

Susan continued -

My experience is that kids in elementary school (and high school) do
a lot of math by ritual and rote, rather than real understanding–
and they like it that way. They want to be told the right way to do
things, and then to practise until they get good at it. Only one to
three per class are interested in mental mathematics and alternate
views.

I am working on presenting these ideas. But I wonder about those
others for whom this is not interesting, but frightening, those who
want numbers to be sure and solid, not slippery and subject to
interpretation like story- and essay-writing.

Okay, I’ll admit that some kids get scared of this in the beginning. But those kids are so severely damaged that they need to learn this stuff. It’s so important that we teach kids that math really is a free-ranging, adventurous, imagination-filled world. If they don’t learn to appreciate that in the early grades, they will be the kind of people who grow up to say “I’m just not a math person.” That is like saying, “I’m just not a reading person.”

Kids that insist their numbers be “non-slippery” are kids who are going to have a very, very difficult time with irrational numbers someday. They are also the kinds of kids who get the heebie-jeebies when they are faced with operations with negative numbers.

All of that stress can be avoided by not reinforcing the bad pedagogy that standard curriculums present

So one of the ways I present cool stuff is not to tell them that they are learning the same stuff a new, alternative, better way (which of course it is), but instead to present this stuff to them as an extra bit of “math magic.” Not a trick, but real magic.

For example, when teaching multiplication by 5, I write a long number, with all even digits, on the board, like 68,462.

Then I ask one of the kids who may not be the swiftest in the group to come up for a magic experiment. I them simply ask him or her what half of 6 is, and to write that below the six. Then what’s half of 8, and to write that below the 8, etc. down to the final 2, and then imagine there’s a zero at the end, and to write half of that (which will be zero, of course) below that.

Then I tell the class that little Spatula (or whatever the kid’s name is) has done an amazing magic trick. It’s one that even David Blaine probably can’t do (true). Then I have the kid sit down, and ask for applause.

Everyone thinks I’m nuts.

Then I ask the best math student in the class to come up and be part of an experiment. (It’s still the same “trick”, but I don’t tell them that).

Then I ask the “smart” kid to multiply the original number on the board by 5. Normally the little genius re-writes the number, writes a 5 below it, writes an “x” for multiplication, draws a line, then goes through the ritual of doing times-tables in his or her head, complete with writing the carries, until finally little Pippin (or whatever the kid’s name is) arrives at the very same number that Spatula did, without carries, re-writing or other machinations. (And Spatula even did it from left to right!)

I do so enjoy the little tykes’ “Oh, my God!“ses when they realize what just happened.

They have seen, and convinced themselves, that this new thing “rocks.”

Being a magician, I’ve spent most of my life helping people reach a “suspension of disbelief.” This is one great way to do that with math.

In general, I think this is the way to go. It makes you appear to be less of a “teacher.” It also avoids trivializing magic as a “trick.” The actual magic happens when the kid goes “Oh, my God!” – when the light bulb goes off. It’s that light bulb, not the method, that’s important. As a true teacher you know that already. As a magician, I’m just giving you another way to light that sucker up.

It is questioning like this that interfered with my career, you know

Yeah, I know. That’s why I can’t really even consider working for anyone but myself. But it speaks wondrous volumes towards your human-ness.

By the way, the little people my wife works with are usually more at the stage of being able to tell their nose from their arm, or simply being able to count, than doing simple arithmetic. I’d love to help her with this kind of stuff, but there’s not much call for it with the kids she works with. Her magic with them is waaaay beyond any help I could offer her, anyway.

I think teachers in general (the good ones) are magicians in a sense I never could be – you deal with administrations. That is some heavy mojo (voodoo?)

All the best,

Brian

More about Constructivism

Brian — Thu, 21 May 2009 19:37:53 +0000

Ah, math ed. I hate it. Yes, I hate it. It has become a corporate tug-of-war for the hearts and minds of petty pedagogues, and your kids are in the crossfire.

Should it be Math-U-See? TERC, Singapore, Saxon, or one of the other over-marketed mind-usurpers?

I like math. I love math. I hate to see it co-opted by these impostors. OK, some are worse than the others. Before you say, “Hey, but Math Mojo is also trying to sell me something…” let me tell you now – you are correct.

But I’m not trying too hard, and I don’t want you to buy in to my “brand.” There is no “Math Mojo” math. Math Mojo is my own silly wording for the way I like to think about how I deal with math. It has helped me go from someone who was mathophobic to someone who really loves the heart of math and the art of math. I don’t propose that I know anything better than anyone else – I just happen to have some Ideas that seem to prove useful to some people.

I would NEVER propose that it be used as a “curriculum” for anyone. To me, “curriculum” means, “this is what I think is important for you to know, and you better damned well know it because we will test you on it.” At least that’s what it means in schools. Schools – the same places that define “scholarship” as “money for football players.” I fart in curriculum’s general direction.

Something I can tell you is that my judgement should never be considered final for anyone but me (and even I don’t do that), and that no one else’s judgement should be, either.

But there are degrees. And someone recently wrote me to tell me about some posts he had written which address some of the issues with different curricula currently being hawked to your schools.

It needs to be stated right now that the posts I am linking to here do not entirely express my opinions. I just feel that they make a lot of important points. I am offering links to them here simply for your consideration. If you need to debate them, please take them up with the author, not me.

I will say that I generally don’t find any value in “traditionalist” or “constructivist” arguments. I feel that either extreme is a sham, and the math wars behind them are about as useful as debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I tried to engage in it at one time, but the mind-numbing natterings of the different sides are ….zzzzzzzzz… pardon me, where was I?

The following links actually argue against constructivism, but in a very, ahem, “constructive” way. I don’t find them fodder for the war, just well-reasoned essays, although they don’t entirely express my views. And that probably speaks for them

My views? Well ….zzzzz.

So hear are some links from Barry Garelick:

http://www.thirdeducationgroup.org/Review/Essays/v5n2.htm

http://ednews.org/articles/one-step-ahead-of-the-train-wreck.html

The Problem with Math Education

Brian — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 00:18:14 +0000

Well, of course it’s not the problem, just one of many, but here it goes…

Somehow along the way, people got the feeling that math is supposed to always be right, and that math teachers are supposed to know all the answers.

Math has gotten the reputation of being an authoritarian science. I don’t think this is the fault of mathematicians, I think it is the fault of many math educators who have tried to turn mathematics from an art and science into a “subject.”

Math education is all too often about “standards” and “curricula” that students take “tests” about that they are “graded” on.

If Archimedes was to take a high-school math test today, he would be unfamiliar with the jargon, and would find little value in the trite little multiple-choice and partial credit nonsense that passes for assessment.

On the other hand, he could run rings around the math teachers with his knowledge of actual mathematics, and could twist their pedagogical dogma into moebius bands.

Trying to shove math into the education industry’s rubric is one of the worst educational crimes I can think of. School math seldom has anything to do with actual math, except for the very rare cases where an inspired person is doing the teaching. And when that happens, that person is invariably in trouble with the administration.

How do you know if your school is doing a really good job?

Easy – your school definitely is not doing a really good job. Even if the school representatives like to trot out some meaningless statistics saying how well their students score on this or that test.

The tests show nothing whatsoever about the essence of math. They are created by the same industry flunkies who sell the schools the textbooks and other curriculum material. It is the foxes guarding the henhouses.

Show me a school that can compete against the Russians an Chinese, and you might have a case. But you can’t .

The Germans have a great quote, which you will find yourself quoting frequently if you understand it. It’s – “Never trust any statistics that you haven’t falsified yourself.”

In other words, the education industry can manipulate their statistics to seem to “prove” anything it wants.

If you truly understand mathematics, you can understand why those statistics are worthless.

So what does matter in math education?

Here’s one thing that matters – Realize that education is not inculcation. It’s not about getting children to jump through hoops that somebody in the state capitol thinks are important this week. It’s more about turning the mind on to enjoying and investigating a subject, and fostering a thirst for learning.

A Chinese acquaintance of mine said, “Curiosity is the best teacher.” I love that quote.

If you can get a child to be curious about a subject, all you then have to to is point him or her to the library where they can find out more about the subject, and they will learn more than all the textbooks in school closets have to offer.

They will also get more diverse input than from a “curriculum.” Curriculums, as far as I can see, are designed as much to limit knowledge as to teach. Maybe more.

School gives children the false sense that math is carved in stone, and all the answers are there, you just have to know the formulae. It teaches them how to answer questions that someone else has posed. It doesn’t teach them how to ask questions.

Math is about asking questions – asking how can you make and understand patterns of the things in your world. When was the last time you ever even heard about a teacher mentioning that in a classroom?

I’ll admit, it occasionally happens, but that is in spite of curricula, not because of them.

U.S. Math Education is “Broken and Must Be Fixed” (?)

Brian — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 17:11:35 +0000

I read this in a recent blog post from The Economistblog.com:

Final Report

“International and domestic comparisons show that American students have not been succeeding in the mathematical part of their education at anything like a level expected of an international leader. Particularly disturbing is the consistency of findings that American students achieve in mathematics at a mediocre level by comparison to peers worldwide.”

As always, there’s something to this story, but it’s deeper than a short blog post can explore adequately. You just have to be mildly conscious to notice that American schools are generally doing a pathetic job of math education. But it’s not that easy to assess “blame,” or “what needs to be done.” There’s no simple answer to such a complex problem.

That it’s “broken” seems clear. But what is “it?” Each state, district, and even type of school is different. One thing that is clear is that creating simplistic “standards” (which are supposed to cover all federally funded schools) is just jaw-flapping by people who understand neither education, math, nor children.

Change for change’s sake is a silly impostor of a real cause. But there must be change for progress’s sake. So a consideration might be, “What kind of change, for whom, when, and how can we implement it – instead of just demanding it?”

I hope we don’t become even more of a nation of people who demand simplistic answers to complex questions. We demonize pretty bad math programs (yes, there are plenty, and I think the article is basically right to call “Everyday Math” one of them) but that doesn’t mean they have no good elements, or that we have to return to “tradition.”

That’s like saying, “We were the greatest car manufacturers when we had to hand-crank them to start them. If we want to be the greatest again, we need to put hand cranks back on cars.”

Although the premise has something to it, and I can certainly empathize with the commentary in the article which asks, “Can we get rid of “Everyday Math” now and go back to the old math?” – I also recognize that is probably not a useful solution.

The world changes. There are much better ways to teach nowadays than one way or the other, and it’s time we start working harder at using them, rather than insisting that there is “one best way,” that would work “if we would just do so-and-so.”

A first step might be to look at what works in each system (I imagine there are even parts of “Everyday Math” that don’t suck) and find out why, when, and for whom they work. Then put that in each teacher’s “toolbox” and go and find some more.

And then, for godssakes, let the teachers teach! Keep the textbook lobbyists and the politicians where they belong (in jail?), and away from young minds.

Another thing we might keep in mind is that the people who work on “Advisory Panels” tend to come from the industry they are advising (naturally). This sometimes leads to very myopic visions of what is wrong as “what is to be done.”

Everything with a grain of salt. No?

Hotcha!

Brian (a.k.a. Professor Homunculus )

“Math Wars”

Brian — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 01:39:34 +0000

Photo credits: two unknown and one from monkeymucker
Edited by Brian

I recently read a post at:

dolcevitaacademy, which talked a bit about something that is close to my heart, which is: should you focus on teaching concrete skills first, or rather on concepts? (I’ve blogged about that on the post about Math Skills v. Math Concepts.)

This seems to be about what the “math wars” are about.

If you don’t know what the math wars are, here’s the quick and dirty on them:

At some point, around the early sixties, American educators decided that what we needed to improve our math education was a new way to teach math. This was probably due to our getting our butts kicked by the Soviets in the Space Race for awhile in the late fifties.

Some genius came up with “The New Math,” which was basically a somewhat new way to teach math; it had nothing to do with any kind of actually new math . I mean, two plus two still equalled four.

Since then, “traditionalist” and “constructivists” have been sniping at each other about “which way is the best way.” (I like to snipe at both.)

Sheesh!

For people who are supposed to be “educated,” why don’t they realize that there really never is one best way for most things (especially something as subjective as teaching and learning)? Chasing after the “One Best Way” is a Snark Hunt, that leads you to nothing but frustration.

“The One Best Way” is just a term that people who are struggling to enforce their way on others use, instead of being honest and saying “MY WAY,” (as in, “You’ll do it MY WAY or or the highway.” That is not about what’s best for the students, no matter how much the pedagogue says it is. It’s about the pedagogue’s insecurity.

Insecurity, of course, is what the Space Race was all about, and what economies are usually about. And schools are set up for nothing if not to make little consumers and worker-bees for whatever economy the society chooses.

I submit that if you want obedient shoppers and salespeople, sure, go ahead, stick with the traditional methods.

And if you want airy-fairy children, who feel good about their level of accomplishment, despite that fact that most of them don’t know a multiple from a factor, then by all means, try any fad that comes down the pike.

On the other hand, if you want your children to appreciate the wonder of understanding, the joy of abstract thinking, along with mastery of skills that will help them accomplish tasks and solve problems, then it’s time to jettison the false dichotomy of “traditionalist” or “constructivist” philosophies.

Admittedly, there are uses for skills-based courses, like “Consumer Math,” as well as philosophically based courses, like, “Number Theory.” But for a solid grounding in basic math, people need to appreciate elements of both, in order to develop a more mature awareness of the power and beauty of mathematics and the worlds it describes and explores.

To Each his/her own (Imagine that!)

Another point that you seldom see addressed, is that each student already comes to each math class with his/her own experiences and learning strategies and preferences, although they are generally not aware of it.

A teacher of any value should have the acuity to sense some of the ways the student can be approached, and teach to that style; at least until the student and teacher have some rapport. Once the student is “on the path” to learning, the teacher can then assess the gaps in the student’s learning style, and begin leading the student to new strategies.

I feel that the US is on an absolutely miserable path with the creepily misnamed, “No Child Left Behind” act. It is the perfect storm of bad teaching style, bludgeoning “standardized tests,” hypocritical talk of “accountablility,” (let’s see some administrators and policy-makers, not to mention semi-retarded politicians held to account for their blunders, first, OK?) and cruel unfunded mandates.

One Idea to change this might be to actually trust the people we train and pay to teach to do just that. Teachers are so handcuffed by stupid school policies and over-active “hover-parents,” that they have to be lawyers, nurses, social workers, etc. before they ever get to teach.

A way to trust these teachers might be to actually be one. I don’t mean school-teachers, I mean home-teachers. Since teachers, no matter how good, are not allowed to teach to their abilities, it’s the duty of every parent to become a bigger part of their child’s education.

That’s why home-schoolers, after-schoolers and un-schoolers get my greatest appreciation. Parents know their kids best, and regardless of the parent’s expertise in any field, they can always learn the material to teach, and no school-policy weenies can mess them up. That’s why they blow the public schools away, even on the tests that public schools make up for themselves.

So if you’re not a homeschooler (not everyone can be, for a variety of reasons), you can at least look into the afterschooling movement. They are dedicated parents who supplement their children’s public-school education with large doses of love and attention.

The best teachers are the ones who leave the dogma in the “dogma-house” and teach with an open mind, and a clear eye for how the student is doing, and the ability to be flexible in their response, without having to clobber that kid with tests and grades.

’nuff said.

Hotcha!

Brian (a.k.a. Professor Homunculus )

Things are Looking Up

Brian — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:52:23 +0000

Hey, you droogs,

There was an interesting post on the Whallah! blog about an article in the Associated Press, concerning the education of math teachers in public schools.

Apparently the National Council on Teacher Quality has done a comprehensive study to come to the conclusion that everyone who is not an “expert” has known for years: Teachers are not being taught math adequately, and generally fail to teach it well to their students. (Do tell…)

Isn’t it funny that the “establishment” will never admit that? It takes an expensive academic “study” to show what is already known, yet Universities (in general) will not do anything about the way they teach teacher how to teach math. They will try some new, expensive methods that some textbook company has lobbied for, of course. But they won’t try anything that might actually work.

That’s why homeschooling and afterschooling are becoming more and more important. Taking an interest in your own child’s education is more important than ever, as public schools tank in their ability to actually teach, thanks to the natural entropy of society, and the idiotically simple-minded ways some people like to deal with it, as with the subtly(?) sardonically named “No Child Left Behind” act.

According to the AP article:

“Teacher candidates know their multiplication tables, but “they don’t come to us knowing why multiplication works the way it does,” said Denise Mewborn, who heads the University of Georgia department of math and science education.”

This is the key to most of what every student needs to know…

… – how multiplication works. Addition is almost intuitive. It is an extension of counting. Once you extend addition to multiplication, (be careful, this does not mean that multiplication is simply an extension of addition) though, you need a good understanding of how the base ten system works, and the commutative, associative, and distributive laws. You don’t need to know the names of those laws, of course, but you need to understand how to use them in order to understand multiplication.

That’s the big issue. Just being able to recite multiplication tables is not actually being able to understand multiplication. And just going through the motions and repeating math steps that a teacher has “taught” you by show-and-tell methods, so you can prove that you can jump through the hoops for the big test at the end of the year usually does more damage to your understanding that anything.

So what is there to do about it?

First, as a truly concerned parent or teacher, make sure you, yourself understand some of the nuances of multiplication. Like why when you multiply by a fraction, the product is smaller than the multiplicand. (Did I get you with that one? Leave a comment below requesting the Math Mojo take on that one, and I’ll cover it in a new post).

Second, make sure you have at least two ways of explaining to your students how multiplication works. Not just how to do it, but how it actually works. I’m working on a video series about this now. Send me a nudge (again, in a comment below) to make it a higher priority to get it done and available to you faster.

Third, make sure you have a way to assess if your child or students understand what you taught them. The assessment doesn’t have to be a test. Tests are more about beating kids over the head. Asking questions and asking to demonstrate, in a non-threatening way would be my first strategy. If you must beat someone over the head, start with someone in an administrative position.

Here’s one of the reasons why:

According to the AP article:

“Since states oversee the preparation of the nation’s school teachers, the report recommends they set tougher coursework and testing standards.”

Why is does the solution always involve browbeating the learners? Why are the words “tough” and “testing” so often involved? How on earth does that teach or inspire? The problem isn’t that, “those who can’t do, teach.” The people who run those studies and teach university level education courses usually can do the math they are supposed to teach quite well.

The problem is that “those that can’t teach, teach.” Then they “train” teachers, instead of teaching them. No wonder those teachers have problems teaching. And no wonder the

As I always say, look up when you look for where the problem lies. You can’t blame a third grader for not learning. If it’s behavior problems, there might be an issue beyond the teacher’s scope, but most behavior problems are dealt with by good teachers. Also, I’m sure you understand that I am not talking about children with neurological damage. That is an issue outside the realm of my expertise.

But beyond those things, start looking up the chain for someone who needs the butt-kicking. If the teacher can’t teach, was s/he taught well? (Are they even allowed to teach well in that school?) If the teacher’s teacher can’t teach, was s/he taught well? Is the administrator constantly putting monkey-wrenches in the teacher’s teaching techniques? Is something going on at the School Board mucking up the school? Is the state requiring more tests, but providing less resources for teachers and students? Did some idiot in the White House set everyone else up to fail so he can push some hidden agenda?

Keep looking up. Here’s a hint: Besides the handicapped, who’s got the parking spot closest to the school entrance? Start with him/her.

Remember - when things are looking bad, begin to look up.

I hope to hear from some of you soon,

Brian (a.k.a. Professor Homunculus)

Why Write Backwards?

Brian — Fri, 09 May 2008 12:22:08 +0000

Click here to view the embedded video.

What the heck does writing backwards have to do with math?
For me, it’s a sort of warm-up exercise to get me into the creative, non-judgemental flow of opening my mind. This helps let answers come to me that my mind would otherwise have blocked out. It makes thinking less of a chore and more of a “party in my mind.”

Have you ever wanted to jog, but were too lazy to get going on your daily run? But if you suit up, and start stretching, all of a sudden it becomes a “given” that you are going to run. You look forward to it. You can’t wait to get the stretching over and get running.

That’s what backwards writing can be like. It’s not something that you have to be good at. You can just write a word forwards, and then next to it or beneath it, try writing it backwards. Try it. It doesn’t have to look good. Nobody gets graded on how they write backwards.

By the way, this exercise will also improve your penmanship. I know that in this century penmanship is a lost art (so is being able to calculate in your head, or memorization skills; pretty soon even typing will be a lost art when voice-recognition software develops further) but it shouldn’t be. It has been part of being human for thousands of years. It is a great hand-eye coordination developing skill.

Use it or lose it

People who cannot write in cursive, or do not use it daily, do not develop other skills as easily. Same with calculating or reading daily. If you don’t read, you don’t practice comprehending new information actively. It’s not the same as watching YouTube. If you don’t keep up with your reading, it’s a skill you can lose after awhile.

In my own life, I’ve noticed that I’ve not read for “pleasure” for many years. I used to read like crazy. Sometimes I read a book a day. Then, about nine years ago I got into math and computers, and I have barely read five novels since then. As I thought about that while I wrote the last post, I realized how much I’ve been missing. It was a great relaxer and a great mind-stretcher. So I’ve decided to cut back my TV watching to maybe fifteen minutes a day, plus “The Daily Show.” The other hour or so I might have spent watching some crap, will be used to read. At the moment, I’m on Dashiell Hammett’s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dashiell_Hammett “The Red Harvest.” I’m so glad I started reading again. Hammett is amazing. He sure beats watching “SVU” re-runs.

Back to writing backwards:

In our “immediate gratification” culture, people (children, or immature people, mostly) tend to ask, “What good is it for?” That is a question that presumes many things. It presumes that if you can’t read the future and say exactly what it’s good for, it has no value. What a stupid Idea that is.

The question is a trap. It is not an honest question. No one can ever know what good learning a general skill might be for. It would be like a baby asking, “Why do I have to put the effort into learning to walk? This crawling thing has been working well enough for me so far.”

How can you explain to a baby what walking might be good for? He doesn’t know any of the things he might want to do with it someday. You could explain that he could use it to walk to his friend’s house and play with him. But he’d think, “Bullcrap! You can just drive me to the play-date (god, is that a distasteful word!) like you always do!”

If you told a baby he could use it to walk to the store to buy an X-box, he’d think, “Why is this adult trying to feed me this bullcrap again? I don’t know what a store is, and I don’t know what an x-Box is. Why should I spend any time or effort learning how to walk for that? What a bullcrap reason.”

So when you try to tell a teenager “why” he should learn math, how to do a weird skill, etc., you’re up against the same thing. “Why should I learn that? I’ll never need it.” If you try to answer that with specifics, you’ll get the same baby-answers.

For example, if you say, “Well, it will help you get a good job.” They’ll come up with all the things they want to do in the future, none of them having anything to do with math (at least in their minds). Like, “But I’m going to be a professional skateboarder, man!” Or, “I’m going to be a writer, I don’t need that.”

If you are an adult reading this, you know all the reasons that the above examples are silly, immature rationalizing. But you didn’t understand that when you were a teenager, either (I know I didn’t). So why would we expect little Johnny Rotten to understand that, either?

Notice how no child who wants a bicycle or an X-box would ever put up with a parent asking him/her, “What good is it for?” So when a child asks, “What good is it for, and demands an answer, don’t feel like you own the child a direct answer. It is like one of those questions that a Zen master might answer with, “MU!” (loosly, “Un-ask the question.”)

The only way to get them to appreciate any of the values of math, strange skills, classical knowledge, etc, is to get them to experience it for themselves.

What is the value of riding a bike? Sure, you can use a bike to get places, but it is fun to ride for it’s own sake! But you can’t know that until you try it.

So how can you get someone to try it? There are lots of ways, but one of them is to try it yourself, and find enjoyment in it. If you hate math, there is no way you are going to get your child to love it. You must find at least something you like about math that makes your child curious. You can’t force a kid, but you can inspire one. And that inspiration doesn’t come from nagging.

When I was a kid (pleistocene epoch), my parents would nag the hell out of me to do my homework. Yet I never saw them actually study anything. So I never gave any value to it. On the other hand, they both were (and still are) great readers. They were always reading books, talking about books, and I could sense their great enjoyment whenever they were reading. Well, if reading was so much fun, hell, I wanted to do that, too.

My dad built model airplanes. He loves hobbies. Even when I was a toddler I knew that was something I wanted to try. I used to “help” him by handing him parts to the models he was building. I know that bugged the hell out of him, because he probably wanted some “alone time” from the kids when he did his hobbies, but I’m glad he occasionally let me help, because hobbies are a huge, enjoyable part of my life now. I can’t imagine how a person could not enjoy a hobby.

That “meditative state” you enter when you do your hobby, or the “zone” you are in when you do art, sports, music, etc., that is the “what good it’s for.” But you can’t explain that (as evidenced by this post!) You just have to do it, and hope that it will inspire others to try it.

To that end, I’m going to practice some left-handed writing now (I’m right-handed).

Want to join me?

(video of this to be added later today, Thurs., May 9.)
Hoskeebo!

Next post: Some hidden benefits of writing backwards, or with your non-dominant hand.

Introducing Strange Powers of the Mind

Brian — Wed, 07 May 2008 03:53:27 +0000

With so many things in bloom here in rural upstate New York, I figured it’s time for some new Ideas with Math Mojo.

Click here to view the embedded video.

One of them is the addition of a new segment, called, “Strange Powers of the Mind.” Look for a lot more weird stuff like this at Math Mojo. Sign up for the Math Mojo Monthly (“Comes out Quarterly, Mostly!”) Newsletter to keep up with the additions.

The whole “Math Ed” thing is getting pretty stale to me. You keep on hearing the same old issues: No Child Left Behind, standards, curriculum, tests, grades, schools; it’s all getting a bit boring. The bean-counters run everything, and I’m tired of doing battle with them. They are not worthy opponents.

I’ve got to admit, Good old Professor Homunculus couldn’t give a rusty goddamn about anybody’s grades. I just wish the whole school issue would go away. It makes drones out of even very good people. I love math. I love playing with my mind, and I love sharing that with people. That’s what this site needs to focus on.

Curriculi! Curricula!

It depresses the hell out of me to read or hear about homeschoolers looking for curriculums. I kind of figured that anyone who homeschooled did it because they had something to teach and some way to teach it that was better than the crap they teach in school. So why do homeschoolers yearn from some packaged program to teach their kids math? Read books! Buy them books! Take them to the library! They’ll learn to read, and they’ll learn math.

I’m heartened by the “afterschooling” movement, though. It seems like those parents get it that school might be a “minimum basis” to be built upon at home. Leave the curriculum in school, and do weird stuff after school. The world is full of weird stuff. Most of the curriculum-based stuff is for low-paid drones anyway.

Show me a kid who excels in school, and I’ll show you a kid who learned a lot of stuff at home or elsewhere outside the school.

I do find some hope with the “unschooling” crowd. Lots of “testicular fortitude” there. Google it.

“Yes! We have no Arcana”

One of the greatest reasons that I dislike schools is because not only do thet tend to dumb-down even the average student, but they also proscribe so many “rules” that are useless and counter-productive. They try to protect children from bad influences, like real literature or science. (“We’ll not be having any of that “Catcher in the Rye” stuff here, thank you! And you can keep your evolution heresy, too! We like our education unsullied by thought, thank you very much!”)

I’ve been working on a book, called “Joe Archimedes – Hard-Boiled Substitute Teacher” for years, one vignette at a time. It’s about the life of an itinerant substitute teacher who truly loves to help people develop their minds. (Imagine that!)

Joe is constantly faced with an uphill battle against absurd bureaucratic hurdles. But none of them can compare with something I read about today.

There was a story from Florida (apparently “The Doofus State” – no offense intended to the exceptions) about a substitute teacher who was fired for, get this – wizardry. Christ, it’s hard to make this stuff up!

Some knuckleheads at Rushe Middle School in Pasco County fired a substitute teacher because he did a magic trick in class, and then they tried to weasel their way out of it by trumping up some other stuff. Please read that article if you live anywhere near a public school, and find out what can actually happen when administrators run one.

Don’t forget to read the comments. At the time of this posting, there are 303 comments, and ALL of them are negative comments against public schools. Don’t feel safe if you don’t live in Florida, either. Any state who’s name has a vowel in it is in danger.

So, what to do?

Well, you may have noticed that this blog and it’s companion website at MathMojo.com is less than professional-looking. That’s because it’s a one-man operation. I make the stuff up, write it, format it, make the videos, format the booklets, self-publish, do most of the back-end programming, and much more.

It’s fun, but it’s not polished, and it’s making no money. Why is that? Because education of our young people is a dead-end market. People will spend money on some bullshit (“oooh, he said a bad word!”) toy, but no-one is really going to invest in their children’s education.

The more that I’m involved in education, the more I notice that not enough people care enough about their kids to spend time at sites like this one (obviously you are an exception, because, well, you’re here aren’t you?)

But I’ve got to attract a larger readership. I don’t think people inherently mean to neglect their children’s education; they just don’t know any better. It’s time to reach out to them. So I’ll be putting up more weird stuff. Stuff that people like. Funny, entertaining, and somewhat meaningful. But it’s not going to be slick. And it’s not going to be pandering to the whitebread crowd.

I hope you can take that, because your children can. This site is not going to be the super-huge flat-screen HTDV “entertainment-center,” – it’s going to be more like the carton it came in – you know, the one that your children actually want to play in, instead of watching “Captain Jackass” sponsored by The Cosmo-Demonic Frooty-Sugarbomb Company, or whatever.

If I don’t worry about making it slick, I’ll put up more content. Stuff you can use, and stuff that will amuse you. This way, I’ll get to play with my ADD instead of trying to control it. The new material is going to be called “Strange Powers.” Yowza!

To that end, I’ll be featuring more things that actually engage your mind. (Imagine that!) And I may actually occasionally try to sell you something. BEWARE!

Just to be clear – “Strange Powers” do not refer to “paranormal” or “psychic” baloney. They refer to uncommon, yet valuable abilities you can develop yourself, like mental-math, speed-reading, developing a high-powered memory, playing the flute with your nose – stuff like that. You’re dealing with a magician here. Magicians are the best skeptics there are. We know what’s bullshit, and we use it for purely entertainment and enlightenment purposes, not to coerce anyone into believing in mysticism. If you want superstition, you have to go elsewhere.

I think you’re going to like what the site will become. I’m interested in your input, too. There are going to be some calls for reader-input in the near future.

Let me know what you think! Leave a comment.