On Apr 25, 8:05=A0am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Beliavsky <beliav...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/25/science/25math.html
> >Study Suggests Math Teachers Scrap Balls and Slices
> >By Kenneth Chang
> >New York Times, April 25, 2008
>
> >'One train leaves Station A at 6 p.m. traveling at 40 miles per hour
> >toward Station B. A second train leaves Station B at 7 p.m. traveling
> >on parallel tracks at 50 m.p.h. toward Station A. The stations are 400
> >miles apart. When do the trains pass each other?
>
> >Entranced, perhaps, by those infamous hypothetical trains, many
> >educators in recent years have incor****ated more and more examples
> >from the real world to teach abstract concepts. The idea is that
> >making math more relevant makes it easier to learn.
>
> Actually, that isn't the idea that I've seen. =A0The idea is that making
> math more relevant makes kids more willing to learn, and provides at
> least some hope that they'll have some use for the math once they walk
> away from the classroom.
>
> The average person never sees an abstract equation in real life after
> graduation (other than possibly e=3Dmc^2 where the equation is iconic
> rather than being an equation to be understood).
>
> lojbab
Yes, perhaps iconic--for example, I was watching a
segment of Oprah, and she was talking to Mariah
Carey about a new album called e=3Dmc^2 (with the
2 as superscript), and it was clear from the conversation
that neither had any idea where the equation came from
(unless they were just pretending not to know), and I'm
sure they're fairly smart ladies, Oprah in particular, who
has certainly read a lot of American literature. Then again,
who does understand all the details of that equation...
I also recently saw a building with e=3Dmc^2
in bright lights.
Perhaps a lot of careers nowadays are based
on form and design more than on content--just
a different way of looking at things.
C.
|
