ironically the head teacher interviewed on the bbc said teachers needed more training in primary school maths? WTF.. so you go through school until your 18 get a degree but cant manage primary school maths? what are we doing wrong. 2+2 = answers on a post card.
Chat Forum
maths teachers are rubbish
-
Posted 9 months ago #
-
primary school teachers, well some of them anyway, do not have a fundamental understanding of all mathematics, this creates misconceptions which the children consider to be true, secondary maths teachers have to undo these misconceptions and reteach the maths, this is very difficult as they have to understand the maths themselves to a very deep level and identify the misconception which can be different in every child, before they even begin to teach new maths,
e.g. try explaining why "two minuses" is a "plus"
also you can become a maths teacher without a maths related degree and without an a-level in maths,
Posted 9 months ago # -
also you can become a maths teacher without a maths related degree and without an a-level in maths,
My maths teacher at GCSE only got a C in her GCSE maths, she was quite good though.
ironically the head teacher interviewed on the bbc said teachers needed more training in primary school maths? WTF.. so you go through school until your 18 get a degree but cant manage primary school maths? what are we doing wrong. 2+2 = answers on a post card.
I think it's more about how hard it is to teach something so basic, especially something you take so much for granted. You might think there just having a problem with multiplication, when in reality they've forgotten what number comes after eleven.
Posted 9 months ago # -
I've often thought maths could be taught much better, as could science. It's taught by sciency/mathy people with the assumption that if you don't get it, you're just not good at it.
However I firmly believe that MOST people would get it if it was taught in a way that made sense to them. Many people who think they don't have an aptitude for maths simply don't have an aptitude for maths taught in the traditional way.
Some of my mates at school were in the bottom sets. They'd not know what was going on in the lessons we did share, so afterwards I'd explain to them in a way that I knew they'd latch on to and they got it.
Posted 9 months ago # -
2+2 = answers on a post card
Well, that really very much depends on what you are adding doesn't it. Maths is just a model which attempts to explain the real world, it's not real and there are no truths.
Posted 9 months ago # -
So.. real numbers are not real?
And the imaginary plane should actually contain everything?
Posted 9 months ago # -
Maths is just a model which attempts to explain the real world
You seem to be confusing maths and physics.
Posted 9 months ago # -
Physics is just applied maths.
Posted 9 months ago # -
Maths is just a model which attempts to explain the real world
You seem to be confusing maths and physics.I'm not, but now I'm wondering why you think I am
Posted 9 months ago # -
So.. real numbers are not real?
Well, they are just a representation, they are not a 'thing' in themselvesPosted 9 months ago # -
I'm not, but now I'm wondering why you think I am
Why do you think I'd think that? It's a pretty simple bit of text to parse, physics is an attempt to model the real world, maths isn't.
Posted 9 months ago # -
Why do you think I'd think that?
erm, because you said it seemed i was confusing the tow
physics is an attempt to model the real world, maths isn't
oh yes it is
Posted 9 months ago # -
Oh no it isn't. etc.
Posted 9 months ago # -
well, one and two don't exist in themselves, we use them to represent quantities which we see in the real (or theoretical) world. Mathematical 'truths' are not really true, as they don't always apply
Posted 9 months ago # -
You are contradicting yourself. 1+1=2 as a mathematical statement is axiomatically true (depending on your axioms). You are quite right that the numbers don't exist in themselves, but they are explicitly not an attempt to model anything real.
Posted 9 months ago # -
You are contradicting yourself.
where?1+1=2 as a mathematical statement is axiomatically true
well, if you call it an axiom of course it has to be 'true' however it fails to represent what happens in the real world where adding one thing to another of the same does not always give you two of those things
but they are explicitly not an attempt to model anything realOk... what are we using them for then?
Posted 9 months ago # -
maths qualifications are just for getting into uni, got some pretty good ones and I don't think they've ever helped me get a job.
Posted 9 months ago # -
well, if you call it an axiom of course it has to be 'true' however it fails to represent what happens in the real world where adding one thing to another of the same does not always give you two of those things
Exactly, because it has nothing to do with the real world. It's a formal system.
Ok... what are we using them for then?
See previous comment regarding physics.
Posted 9 months ago # -
Exactly, because it has nothing to do with the real world. It's a formal system
Can we not use 1+1=2 in any way to help us in the real world?Ok, so you think counting is physics?
Posted 9 months ago # -
Ok, so you think counting is physics?
No it's an example. Of course you can use mathematics for a multitide of different things, that doesn't make mathematics a model of the real world though.
Posted 9 months ago # -
Of course you can use mathematics for a multitide of different things, that doesn't make mathematics a model of the real world
though
I don't think that is what I saidSo, it does have something to do with the real world?
Posted 9 months ago # -
I am only messing with you CM, I know you know your maths, and I agree with you anyway. I love the ambiguity of what numbers actually are. If there are three rocks in space, that is a definite physical property as distinct from another group of four rocks - but the concept of three has been invented by humans - hasn't it?
You are quite right that the numbers don't exist in themselves, but they are explicitly not an attempt to model anything real
They were conceived as an attempt to model something real (quantities of real objects) and I would suggest they still are a model of something real.
Posted 9 months ago # -
Maths is just a model which attempts to explain the real world
You'll have to translate this sentence then.
and I would suggest they still are a model of something real.
What are they a model of? Even if you consider the real numbers to be models of "real" things, maths is obviously far more than merely real numbers.
Posted 9 months ago # -
You'll have to translate this sentence then.
That is very different from saying it is a model of the real world. You might need to read it again.
What is being modelled? Well, for example then mean of a group of numbers attempts to represent / model those numbers.
Why don't you state what your position is? You maths has nothing to do with the real world. Numbers are an example or an existence proof of maths having an role in modelling the real world.
Which part of that do you disagree with? What is it you think?
Posted 9 months ago # -
You seem to be confusing maths and physics.
This.
Posted 9 months ago # -
Maths is just a model which attempts to explain the real world
This is the bit I disagree with. As a statement, it is simply incorrect. However, if you replace the word maths with physics, it would be a perfectly good statement.
As a very simple example, you can define all sorts of different geometries, all of which are mutually inconsistent with each other hence at most only one of them representing the real world. They would all be mathematically valid however.
Posted 9 months ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
