Math should be fun no matter it has practical applications or not. Math is an art, not a trade to make money. For those narrow minded ‘practical’ people, even pure math has sooner or later some applications.
What would you do?
Submitted 1 day ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to science_memes@mander.xyz
https://mander.xyz/pictrs/image/50d84c46-7301-48b9-845c-81f57738adfc.jpeg
Comments
33550336@lemmy.world 15 hours ago
Draconic_NEO@mander.xyz 2 hours ago
This is the most important part, especially when teaching math to children. The practical aspects of math (beyond arithmetic counting with basic addition and subtraction) are not going to be fully realized until one is an adult, so they aren’t going to be a motivator for learning math.
It needs to be fun and engaging for them to want to keep learning and engaging with it.
marcos@lemmy.world 1 day ago
If you are talking about school curriculum, nearly the entire population will keep not learning it as long as it doesn’t have some practical application so people can understand WTF the teacher is talking about.
PabloSexcrowbar@piefed.social 1 day ago
Not sure why you’re getting downvoted. Having practical applications for higher math makes that shit stick like glue when otherwise it would get forgotten immediately after the test.
marcos@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Apparently knowing people learn differently and that mathematicians are a tiny minority is neoliberal…
justastranger@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
As the experts say: “Use it or lose it.”
gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 1 day ago
They’re getting downvoted because there’s a lot of esoterical people demanding that we learn stuff either for the joy of it (which many are not at all having btw) or because it “purifies character” or sth.
definitemaybe@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
Citation needed.
Seriously, though, that’s not what the research is showing. Peter Liljedahl’s research, for example, supports that a very effective way to teach mathematics is by having students actually think about math, instead of just passively receiving info dumps (as is common in most traditional math classes). See Building Thinking Classrooms for details but, in short, it’s a method of getting students playing with math concepts for almost the entire class time every day.
No “practical applications” needed. Counterintuitive, but it’s a highly effective practice.
What’s core to practical applications working is student motivation, and practical applications are one easy to induce motivation. But it’s often not the best option, especially for inherently abstract skills.
marcos@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Peter Liljedahl
So… From the publications, looks like he uses problem solving, not “having students actually think about math”.
You want students think about what exactly if you don’t give them an application?
saturn57@lemmy.world 1 day ago
It is sad that the general population is unable to see learning math as good in of itself. Not everything must be solely “practical.”
NotANumber@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
Not really. Not everyone enjoys advanced mathematics the same way not everyone enjoys english literature or engineering, or arts and crafts. People have different interests, aptitudes, and skills. That’s how the world works.
Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 15 hours ago
Yeah, not understanding math and statistics makes propaganda so easy! I’ve seen so many people invest their savings into things that were mathematically or physically impossible from the get go. Gambling too!
fluffykittycat@slrpnk.net 22 hours ago
Math education is basically a Time waster designed to justify hierarchies, it’s tangentially related to math but not really in purpose, there’s just numbers involved
olafurp@lemmy.world 16 hours ago
Wow, that’s one of the worst takes on math education I’ve ever heard.
mlc894@lemmy.world 1 day ago
People who want school to be practical scare me.
A_Chilean_Cyborg@feddit.cl 1 day ago
yes, practical skills change year to year.
what’s important is to learn to learn.
Sunrosa@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I’m genuinely curious why, if this is serious. I feel like adulting badly needs to be taught better. I’m nearing mid twenties and still get so confused at a lot of adult things, especially government shit, because it’s just so much to figure out for the first time.
It’s definitely important to teach math and science and language, and to teach people how to do their own research, and think, and learn, etc. But are you saying practical skills shouldn’t also be taught?
Whats_your_reasoning@lemmy.world 19 hours ago
I interpreted it as a criticism of those who think there’s no point to learning something if there isn’t an immediately-obvious application for that knowledge. Like those who say, “What’s the point of learning history? I’m not going to become a historian,” as if learning needs to have a clear end-goal or else it’s useless. Or those who think it’s pointless to learn to play an instrument because you’re not going to become a famous musician. It’s a mentality that ties in with capitalism, where if you’re not being productive, you have no use.
A well-rounded education should equip students with skills they can apply independently no matter what they do. Learning history provides context for the world we live in, why it is the way it is, and can inform us on how to move forward. Learning to play an instrument builds new connections in the brain, strengthens fine motor skills, and (in the case of reading music) how to move information between abstract concepts and a tangible form.
These skills provide benefits to people that can be built upon in the future. They may not have immediate usage to a student, but they create a foundation upon which a student can reach higher as they progress in life. Not every lesson is practical in the moment, but that doesn’t mean it can’t have value to a growing mind.
frisbeedog@lemmy.world 22 hours ago
If anyone taught you how to do your taxes at school age I bet you’d forgotten all about it by the time you needed it
As OP said, what’s important is to learn to learn
thesmokingman@programming.dev 15 hours ago
Forgive me, I’m not super versed on Dewey’s mathematics ideas. Quick skimming of some articles and papers seems to suggest he was very practical and wanted kids to tie into the real world. How does that differ from the pink side? Both, to me, seem the opposite of classical logic training.
HexesofVexes@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I’m the guy in the background saying “go back to teaching Euclid and proof in schools”, as the real point was to teach logical deduction from established facts.
Whats_your_reasoning@lemmy.world 19 hours ago
Logic puzzles should be applied in more classrooms. Start with simple problems in elementary school, and progress to more challenging ones as students grow. Critical thinking needs to start early.
HexesofVexes@lemmy.world 17 hours ago
A lot of the issue with logic problems is the “common sense” element required. With purely geometric problems, there are less of these to worry about.
Chess problems also work well to teach logical step accusation.
for_some_delta@beehaw.org 1 day ago
One of my math professors sugggested adding a formal logic class to early childhood education.
Kratzkopf@discuss.tchncs.de 1 day ago
One of my math professors told us that when he started elementary school they tried starting maths classes with logic and combinatorics, because they were most essential maths and in principle could be experienced by children by seeing, feeling etc. He said it was a stupid approach. I say he turned out a math professor, so maybe it worked.
elfpie@beehaw.org 14 hours ago
The human brain is not capable of formal logic at this stage.
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 17 hours ago
What would I do?
I would focus on teaching now to learn. Instead of filling the school with silly playtime like high-school football, drama clubs and show and tells just teach kids how to find and verify information, some logic so they can evaluate different arguments and train their memory by making them memorize stuff. What exactly they learn is not that important. Most will forget the dates and formulas anyway. The skills will stay with them.
Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 15 hours ago
So your ideal school has no physical activity, no culture, and is filled with memorization of things that don’t matter. Wow sounds like you’ve spent at least 15 seconds thinking about this. Thanks for sharing!
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 15 hours ago
I didn’t say NO physical activity. Just don’t make it more important than actual school. No idea where you took “no culture” from. You think you can’t research information on culture? Just again, don’t make it more important than school. Memorization should definitely be present, I didn’t say school should be filled with it.
What I was trying to describe is similar to project-based learning used in Finland. If you haven’t heard about it it’s worth researching.
HasturInYellow@lemmy.world 17 hours ago
From reading some of the comments here, it seems that some people think learning is a net negative or neutral for whoever is doing the learning and that one should learn as little as possible.
They seem to think that because they don’t literally write down the equation of “x²+6” that they never use it in their lives and so it is pointless to learn.
There are also people who seem to think that basing your education off of what could help you not being taken advantage of, or misunderstanding the world around you, is silly and you should only follow what is in your heart. Learning what interests you and nothing else.
I don’t understand either of you, idiots.
Debate me, I guess.
captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 9 hours ago
Debate me, I guess.
As per your instruction, I shall.
I am a certified flight instructor, I have studied the fundamentals of instruction and can speak with authority on the subject.
it seems that some people think learning is a net negative or neutral for whoever is doing the learning and that one should learn as little as possible.
Learning is an active process. There’s a reason for turn of phrases like “spend time” and “pay attention,” these actions aren’t free. Any act of learning comes with a real cost in time, energy and likely money. It also comes with an opportunity cost. The time and effort a student spends learning could always be spent doing something else; resting, playing, working, caring for family, or learning something else. It is possible for those costs to be so great as to be a genuine net negative for the student. Especially when the reality of formalized school comes into play.
One of Edward Thorndike’s six fundamental principles of learning is the Principle of Readiness. This ties into Maslowe’s hierarchy of needs. As a teacher, you have to always ask yourself “Where on their pyramid does my lesson fit? Is everything below that on their pyramid of needs well taken care of?” Your students will not be willing to pay attention in algebra class if they’re hungry, thirsty, sleepy, freezing or scared, because their needs for homeostasis and security aren’t being met well enough for an intellectual lesson such as higher math.
Okay, we got the kids fed, rested and secured. Now they should pay attention right? Nope. That isn’t good enough. Where on their pyramid does this lesson fit? What need of theirs will learning this satisfy? Genuine curiosity about the universe and its workings are always always always at the stabby point of the very tippy top of the pyramid, you want to satisfy that need you’ve got to categorically solve every other need these kids can have from romance to personal prestige. Schools and universities love the image of the career scholar, the men with SI units named after them who conducted experiments for the good of humanity…the reality is the very few extremely privileged people who got to play that game were old money wealthy, they owned land and had servants if not slaves to take care of all their material needs.
When a child asks why they have to go to school, they’re told that school is where they learn the skills they need to survive as adults. though Elementary school, you can take this argument seriously. Learning how to add and subtract is necessary for the basic act of paying for things, reading is the most OP skill you can have, reading clocks and calendars is demonstrably important, etc. That argument starts falling apart when you’re preventing people from going out and earning money to live so they can generate standardized test scores in pre-calculus algebra, or being told not asked what the symbology of the blue curtains in some novel is.
Because here’s another thing about the principle of readiness: It is the teacher’s responsibility to inform the students of the value of the lesson to them in their lives. “Someday algebra will save your life” is meaningless; we live in a world with quiz game shows, literally any trivia knowledge can be life changing. You have to be specific and realistic. Otherwise your students aren’t going to spend the effort, they’ll merely go through the motions, like pretending to be sad at a great aunt’s husband’s funeral.
Especially on Lemmy I’ve seen the argument that education shouldn’t be mere job training, it should be about ultimate enlightenment. Except we need to achieve a world where everyone can afford rent before we can play that game, Tiffany. And we haven’t. Survival skills come before abstract beautiful truths and if we’re honest we’re doing a piss poor job of both.
HasturInYellow@lemmy.world 5 hours ago
I agree with just about everything you said. Well put and reasoned. But it doesn’t really wrap back around to what should be taught to the children. Do we let them decide everything for themselves or regiment what is necessary to live in our
hellscapesociety?Then you can ask what is necessary to live in this society? Is it comp sci degrees? Everyone thought so. Now they’re basically useless. That has happened to every generation for the last 30 years or so.
Additionally, as a child I was driven to learn because I was genuinely curious despite crushing depression. It has left me grasping to understand how others approach the world, because let me tell you, it is not how I do so. I would need to look at some good data about how students/adults learn generally, which I have not done much of admittedly.
wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 12 hours ago
You know shit’s fucked when The King In Yellow, the very manifestation of the idea that knowledge can kill, is having to defend the value of education.
Ever day we stray
further from godtoward lost CarcosaHasturInYellow@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
Song of my soul, my voice is dead; Die thou, unsung, as tears unshed Shall dry and die in Lost Carcosa.
BenevolentOne@infosec.pub 15 hours ago
I agree with you on both points, and the third (these people are idiots), but I’m happy to debate you anyways.
I think that we must actively dismantle traditional forms of knowledge (copyrights, private libraries, most of education) in favor of developing new completely open archives and internet based methods of organizing, developing, and interacting with knowledge.
Does that do it for you?
HasturInYellow@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
I mean I like your ideas but that doesn’t really address the “how” of educating. As in how are those materials presented to people?
How do we ensure that children are actually being educated and not just glazing their eyes over as the info flows past? How do we ensure that that education is not just “God did it, now shit up.” How do we get people to be interested in learning and not just stop the second someone isn’t pointing a gun at their head?
fodor@lemmy.zip 17 hours ago
National level fixes almost never work. Give schools and teachers and districts money and power for the win.
ivanafterall@lemmy.world 17 hours ago
Isn’t this just resigning ourselves to shitty religious “charter schools” in like half the states? Feels like it’d be a massive assault on public education, in practice.
QuinnyCoded@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
I with the pink guy, fight me
jacksilver@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I’m always wary of the idea learning should be “practical”. You never know when something will matter and there is an intrinsic value in learning for learnings sake.
Learning needs to be tangible, but I’m not sure it necessitates practicality.
Contramuffin@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Sure, but learning tends to be easier when there’s a practical application to the things you’re learning
fluffykittycat@slrpnk.net 22 hours ago
The hidden Factor here is coercion, if you don’t go to school the cops will literally show up at your door eventually. In light of that it’s completely reasonable for the people who have no choice but to be there to ask what purpose it serves
mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 20 hours ago
Just look at Boolean mathematics. It was developed 100 years before it had a use (digital logic)
gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 1 day ago
Maths education is pointless overcomplicated. We need to simplify and streamline it. And also add in more practical real-world examples.
Someonelol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 hours ago
Especially when you’re forced to use a complicated method to do basic calculations with. People should be allowed to learn different ways to get to the same answer.
theywilleatthestars@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I’m always for the feckless hippie over the neoliberal sellout tbh.
chatokun@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
Except a lot of those switched to antiscience antivaxers, and some bridged from there to facists. While I do also prefer hippies, antiknowledge and antiscience types scare me.
SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 1 day ago
What about feckless hippies that sold out to the neoliberals?
jimmy90@lemmy.world 22 hours ago
or the commie that runs out of martyric protest
new words: martyric
heard it here first folks
theywilleatthestars@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I mean, that’s the sellout part
woodenghost@hexbear.net 21 hours ago
Neither. Math builds a lot on other math. And the curriculum is very standardized. That’s why, when people just happen to miss something at any point, because maybe they have more important stuff going on in their live right now, they never catch up. We should drop the requirement that everyone has to learn the same math at the same time, higher more teachers and allow students to flow freely between courses to focus on the stuff they can learn with the mark they already know. This will allow students to catch up and, paradoxically, produce a higher over all level of math knowledge, if less standardized and predictable for employers.
Now, to ensure students also want to learn math, both abstract math courses and mixed seminars should be offered. Students could choose to attend either or both. In the seminars, math, physics and engineering would be mixed in challenges were students with different skills and preferences have to work together to produce a cool result (like a robot, a game, an experiment, etc.). The abstract courses shouldn’t be forgotten, because many students actually enjoy learning math. Instead of just teaching rules and how to follow them, they should involve a creative aspect, where students are encouraged to break rules by making their own definitions, formulate their theorems and try to prove them (like actual mathematicians do).
33550336@lemmy.world 15 hours ago
Excellent meme, more like this please!
aspensmonster@lemmygrad.ml 1 day ago
The method is irrelevant when there are too few teachers in either case.
redparadise@lemmygrad.ml 1 day ago
How’s the pink guy a neoliberal sellout?
woodenghost@hexbear.net 21 hours ago
“Teaching practical skills” is code for producing lots of ‘human-capital’ with a highly standardized skill set that is useful and predictable for capitalists. Catering to individual interests is not required, neither is actually understanding math, just being able to blindly follow an algorithm.
stray@pawb.social 46 minutes ago
Ideally they could just stop using AI to generate both the text and practice problems.