Linkety Link July 31, 2011
Posted by mareserinitatis in feminism, links, math, science.Tags: feminism, links, math, science, women in science
add a comment
I came across this fascinating article on the history of research in global climate change. I am greatly amused by the fact that methods used for oil and gas exploration were later utilized to validate theories on climate change. Irony.
Anyway, it’s a fascinating read: The Discovery of Global Warming
I’ve also been remiss in not posting a link to this sooner. (As you can tell, blogging hasn’t been at the forefront of my brain.) GEARS wrote two great posts on diversification in STEM fields: Diversification In Stem Fields and On Diversification: with Dr. Anna Garry and Professor Ursula Keller.
Of course, there’s a lot going on at EngineerBlogs. I wrote a post recently titled Died-in-the-wool Engineer.
For fun, you should think about whether math should be taught in schools. (And yes, the video is a spoof.)
Touch math June 10, 2011
Posted by mareserinitatis in education, math, teaching, Uncategorized.Tags: finger counting, math, memory, touch math
1 comment so far
I have another rant about elementary math education, but this one is slightly different.
I am completely appalled that schools still do not teach touch math.
You probably have no idea what I’m talking about because you’ve probably never heard of it.
When I was in fourth grade, we moved to a town in rural North Dakota called New Salem. At the time, the population was 2000. Now it’s half that. If you’ve ever driven through North Dakota and seen the world’s largest Holstein cow on the side of a hill, you’ve seen New Salem. (The cow, by the way, is named Salem Sue.)
Shortly after we moved there, I was sent to get some extra help in math. In fourth grade, I was still counting on my fingers. Some people term that a math disability now. However, the way this rural school saw it, there was an easy fix. I was sent to the special ed teacher for two one-hour sessions. I was, of course, feeling very ashamed about my finger counting. She said that it’s not unusual and that she had a way to fix it. She pulled out a piece of paper with an image that looked something like this (only, back then, it was black and white because I grew up in the days before they invented color):
So what the heck is this?
It’s a way of computing addition and subtraction facts.
The dots are places where you touch the number, and the dots with rings around them are places where you touch the number twice. You’ll notice that seven has a single touch and three double touches. Basically, when a child is sitting there with a math problem in front of them, they can touch the number in the designated places, and count those touches rather than their fingers.
As I got the hang of this (which was very quickly), I started being able to see the points and make computations without touching the numbers. I started developing some visual strategies for calculations. Eventually, with practice, I ended up memorizing my math facts. I’ve written before about how math facts are better memorized through practice than rote. I think this would be another great method for teaching facts, as it obviously worked for me. In fact, you can look at the Touch Math website and see that there’s a decent amount of research showing that the strategy works well both for average children as well as those with learning disabilities.
So why isn’t it being used? I’m still surprised that teachers in a small rural school district were thinking so far ahead. I’m not sure why larger schools have not followed suit in the past 30 years, and it’s really unfortunate that so many people have not heard of it.
The math critic June 9, 2011
Posted by mareserinitatis in education, math, teaching, younger son.Tags: curriculum, EPGY, everyday mathematics, math, school
add a comment
The private school that my younger son attends uses the same math program as the Fargo Public Schools. It’s a program called Everyday Math. During the last few months, after my son switched to the school, he was actually using two math programs: the one at school as well as Stanford’s EPGY online math program.
In discussing how to move forward with the boy’s academics, my husband and I have been very impressed with the EPGY program as well as the younger son’s attitude toward it.
The school, of course, would really rather he stay in the classroom and maybe go to an upper-level classroom for his math instruction. When we were looking at options, I told the principal that I didn’t really like Everyday Math. Admittedly, I haven’t seen a lot of the program, but what I have seen bugs me.
About the time Fargo adopted the program, I was starting to homeschool the older boy. I didn’t look into the program because I’d heard it wasn’t the best. Instead, I chose to use Singapore math for the math component of his homeschooling education. That was a few years ago, so I knew that I didn’t particularly like the program, but I didn’t have any specific objections.
Before school ended, the school principal handed me a copy of the state math standards. I’m guessing he is worried I think the program doesn’t teach to the standards or that I think they aren’t following the standards – or maybe even that I don’t realize there are standards.
Since this conversation took place, I’ve spent some time researching Everyday Mathematics, and I’m now even more convinced that this is not a program I want my son using. (A good starting point is this page.)
Unlike a lot of the objections, I don’t think constructivist math is bad. The fact that they teach alternative algorithms is great. (I personally am a huge fan of lattice multiplication, and even though I don’t use it myself, my older son uses it unfailingly.) I think that learning to explore and play with math is a good thing. My objection is that it doesn’t have the kind of implementation that Singapore has. There doesn’t seem to be a logical flow, there is no textbook, and it does omit teaching some things that I DO think are important (like that pesky long division).
Let’s face it: my objection is that any math program, no matter how well written, will suffer if the person teaching it doesn’t have a decent background in math, and most elementary school teachers do not. Making a student rely solely on a teacher presentation because there is no textbook will certainly spell disaster for some students. If a student doesn’t understand during the presentation, they don’t have much recourse…and the methods used are not ones that most parents have grown up with, leaving them unable to help much.
Second, Singapore has a great progression, allowing kids to see how the concepts are connected, building from previous material. This isn’t strictly going from one concept to another, but within a concept, moving from concrete examples to abstract application. It also teaches the use of mental math – which basically means one uses shortcuts or handy rules that can be used once there is already an understanding of the concepts. This is how I view long division, and that’s why it’s a shame it isn’t taught. The algorithms presented in Everyday Mathematics may be useful as teaching the concept, but they’re, in many cases, very impractical for everyday use.
Finally, there is the jumping around. Repetition and cycling are not inherently bad things, but they can be done without a seemingly random approach. In fact, it’s much better if they’re not done randomly. The best way to retain knowledge is to attach it to something you’ve learned before. That is, it’s best to have a point of reference. By randomly approaching the topics that need to be addressed, they’re removing the foundation and sense of connectedness that should be present in a well-taught mathematics curriculum.
Those are my objections, at least. I’m not sure how to approach this with the school, or whether I even should. I am considering seeing if they have some sort of curriculum committee where I could be involved. I’m also contemplating letting the principal know that there is a lot of controversy surrounding this curriculum, including extremely poor evaluations in other states like California and Texas. I feel fortunate that we have good reason to keep my son on the EPGY program, but I feel bad for the other kids who are learning math in such a haphazard way.
How I hate thee, biologee March 26, 2011
Posted by mareserinitatis in education, homeschooling, math, older son, science.Tags: biology, curriculum, homeschooling, math, older son
1 comment so far
We’re coming to the close of older boy’s first year of high school, and this has caused me to look over what we’d been planning to do for his schooling in light of my completely unrealistic view of what he could accomplish in a year.
I discovered that this notion that he could do about 3-4 college level classes at a time may be realistic – if one is not also taking 2-3 classes in high school. Oops.
Conclusion: 2 college classes max.
I also discovered that computer classes, while being really great, are too difficult to tackle because of all the shiny, pretty things on the internet. Fortunately, we have no more classes like that as he will be completing his last math class this year. I promised him that if he finished college algebra and trigonometry (aka precalc), that he would not be required to take any further math (much to my chagrin). This means he gets to spend the next two years doing things he really loves: language and writing, history, and social science. First advantage: I hopefully won’t have to keep harping on him to get his math done.
For the next two years, the boy will be doing video courses and classes through Johns Hopkins Center for Talented Youth. The second advantage to this is that I don’t have to oversee any of the JHU classes.
You may notice that science is absent from that list. That’s because it’s a real quandry for me. You see, the older boy is squeamish beyond belief. He’s taking a health class this semester, and it’s been horrible for him. One of the things I felt he should take was biology, but I know there is absolutely no way he can handle the labs. We’ve therefore come up with another compromise: he’s going to try to do early entry at the college for his senior year. I came up with an idea: the kid hates biology…but he loves geology. Our compromise is that he’s going to take physical geology as well as history of Earth through time. The latter class actually deals a lot with biology and the evolution of life on earth. I figure this is the closest he’s going to get to a biology class without passing out or leaving the room wretching.
You can tell he’s definitely my kid.
Teaching math without memorization March 2, 2011
Posted by mareserinitatis in education, gifted, homeschooling, math, older son, teaching.Tags: abacus, arithmetic, bead frame, gifted education, homeschooling, math, multiplication, tables
12 comments
If there is one thing I learned in my junior level electromagnetics class that will always stick with me, it’s this:
The permittivity of free space (ε0) is 8.854 * 10 -12 F/m.
And realizing that will always stick with me gave me a lot of insight into what is wrong with the typical approach to teaching math, especially in elementary school.
I know it’s a stretch, but bear with me.

(Totally gratuitous picture of a cute baby bear.)
One of the things I’ve encountered with both my kids is that their teachers are very set on them memorizing math facts. My older boy spent 3rd and 6th grade enrolled full-time in regular public school programs, and his third grade teacher was constantly railing on about how he was ‘bad in math’. In fact, she blamed it on the fact that he’d been homeschooling. (We got this every time we talked to her.) She would go on and on about how he didn’t have his tables memorized. Why, he had to stop and think every time she asked him a basic addition problem!
OMG…thinking in school?! Can’t have that.
I therefore found it very amusing when, prior to the the next school year, his principle pulled out the results of his spring MAPS testing and commented on how good his math scores were because, in her words, “He must know his tables really well.”
By these two comments alone, you can tell what is important to elementary school teachers: memorization of arithmetic tables.
Aside from having a BS in physics, I minored in math in college. Despite the fact that I had enough credits for a major, the credits were in overwhelmingly applied math classes, and there was no applied math major at my school. Suffice it to say that I do have at least a basic knowledge of math.
I also have homeschooled my older child for most of his educational career, and as a freshman in high school, he’s finishing a course in college algebra and trigonometry.
During the older child’s homeschooling years, I never once made an attempt to have him memorize tables of any kind. I did not practice a lot of repetition of basic facts, either. This was because of my experience in my electromagnetics class: I didn’t memorize the value of the permittivity of free space due to repetition and drill; I memorized it because I used it in nearly every problem I did for four months in that class. Yeah, I had to look it up the first dozen times I used it, but after that, it was lodged in my brain. And look…it’s still there a decade later!
I came to the conclusion that if you really need to know something, you’ll learn it through frequent use. But how do you use something that you don’t know?
Addition and subtraction are fairly simple: you give a kid a bead frame, abacus, or even a ruler (the original slide rule!) and show them how to perform addition and subtraction operations using beads or moving up and down a number line. Then you can move them quite quickly through addition and subtraction of infinitely (okay…not infinite) finitely large numbers. You can let them go through increasingly complex topics without ever making them memorize a table. In fact, after a short time, you’ll find that they are pointing at beads or rulers in the air, counting out the solution to their problem. And after that, the invisible ruler or beads will be sitting in their head, being manipulated by mental fingers. Finally, they won’t even have to think about it…they’ll just know.
The image on the left is an abacus, while the image on the right is a bead frame. Bead frames are easier to find and manipulate, in my experience.
![]() |
![]() |
Multiplication should be taught as addition of groups of objects, and division as ‘counting’ of the number of groups in the whole. Once kids have mastered the process of multiplication and division, you can then simply print out a multiplication table. I had my older son paste it on the inside cover of a notebook or the front of a folder so that he could always find it. You may find that some kids prefer to go back to the bead frames. (And if you are really lucky, you have an abacus and know how to use it for multiplication…which I don’t.) Any method is fine as long as it works for your child. But the point is that you can then let them progress through more and more complicated arithmetic involving those operations (such as multiplying large numbers or long division) using the table or other device to look up values. Again, as you progress through these concepts, they will slowly begin to memorize them.
As a homeschooler, the curriculum that I chose for math was fairly important as well. I liked Singapore math for it’s focus on simplicity and conceptual explanations. Everyone raves about the ‘mental math’ tricks that are taught in the series. And they’re right: mental math is awesome. However, the only reason the series does it so effectively is because it teaches the concepts in a way that you can then make logical simplifications in process that result in ‘mental math’ and good estimation skills.
(My only complaint is that they don’t teach the lattice method of multiplication. I think the ‘traditional’ method of multiplying large numbers is much better suited for estimation methods, whereas the lattice method is definitely superior for calculating with precision.)
To me, the important part of all of this is to make sure that they understand what the process of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. Kids can memorize facts for quick recall, but if that is the emphasis and they can’t recall a fact, they’re going to be stuck. If the emphasis is instead on teaching arithmetic as a process, they can always figure it out should they forget.
And really, arithmetic is a process. I came across an article on Hoagies’ Gifted site called Why Memorize? I have to take big exception to the article because it says that math is a lot of dry facts. If you teach it as memorization of facts instead of a process of manipulating numbers (or objects or motion in space), it sure is! But I can tell you that it’s not, and as you advance to higher level classes in mathematics, reliance on the notion that math is memorization will cause you problems and impede your progression.
Finally, I have to wonder if this is why so many elementary school educators fear math: it’s boring memorization of facts. They are never taught how it’s actually a really cool process. If it were taught properly, preferably with a lot of enthusiasm instead of dread, I wonder if a lot of teachers would lose their ‘math-phobia’. And that would, of course, mean their students might start to like math, too.
Calculated decision July 23, 2010
Posted by mareserinitatis in education, math, teaching.Tags: calculators, math, teaching
3 comments
Dean Dad took up an interesting point: college students in remedial math have difficulty because they’ve been allowed to use calculators in high school. He then wonders if taking away the calculators is necessary. Chad Orzel responds by saying that calculators are evil (paraphrasing here) because they enable students to punch numbers without using any sort of reasoning process. (He does conclude that it may be okay to get a minimal level of competence.)
Chad’s post is here and Dean Dad’s post is here.
In elementary school, I was told that I was bad at math. I had the dubious distinction of having excellent math reasoning skills while having average computational skills (as measured by things like the Iowa basics tests). For most of my pre-college career, I was told I was bad at math.
When I started homeschooling the older boy, I decided I was going to do things different, especially knowing that he would likely have a similar skill set to mine. (It turns out that we’re not bad at computation, just slow. Tests which are timed in this regard thus underrepresent our actual ability.)
Elementary school teachers and sometimes junior high teachers are usually scared of math. They see math as a set of facts to be memorized and don’t really understand that reasoning is more important than computation (thanks to the advent of things like calculators).
I have never determined whether this is a cause (math-phobic types tend to go into elementary ed) or effect (teachers are only taught that math is a set of facts to memorize and doesn’t involve reasoning).
My focus, in teaching my son, was that he should learn processes and reasoning. Can he go through the process? Does he understand why we use this process? Can he figure out if the answer is wrong? Can he think of other ways to do the problem?
I guess this is why when I ask my own students simple questions about math that they can’t answer, I go slightly batty. My guess is that they’ve never had a teacher work through the reasoning aspect of math, and the students are held hostage by ‘math as an exercise only accessible by geniuses’ notion for the rest of their lives.
To be perfectly honest, I don’t think the use of calculators furthers or hinders the learning of math. It’s a red herring. The real issue is the way math is taught, or a student’s natural ability to reason. I gave my son times tables to use and he learned how to count by multiples. When he took pre-algebra in sixth grade, his teacher let him use a calculator. Initially, she was resistant, but then she later told me she let him. She said he very obviously understood the process and reasoning, but he had difficulty with computation. On the other hand, given enough time, he can do the calculations…just not as fast as his classmates.
The problem, from my view, is that the easiest way to teach math is to teach memorizable facts and perhaps simple processes. There is little reasoning taught when it’s most important: elementary school.
My son was doing a problem the other day comparing sizes of statues with their heights. He was supposed to calculate the volume of a statue when given the height along with the height and volume of a smaller replica. He went ahead and plugged numbers into the calculator, but then realized that the number he got was less than the volume of the replica. He stopped and said, “Oh! That can’t be right.” Knowing how to calculate the size is important, but being able to tell when the calculation is correct is just as important.
If all you do is memorize, then you never learn ways to check your answers or think about the process. However, it’s faster and easier just to give a table to kids and tell them to memorize things. By the time they get to junior high or high school, they may never have been taught reasoning and will therefore have no intuitive sense about numbers and the processes used the manipulate them.
You can give a kid a calculator or not. However, if you never teach them to check their work or give them ideas on questions they should be asking themselves, then the presence of a calculator will have little bearing on how well the students do in math in the long run.



I also blog at Engineer Blogs, home away from home to some of the best engineering blogs.