Talk:Investigations in Numbers, Data, and Space

Please add

Please add to this article, and other articles pertaining to outcomes-based education methods that have raised debate among informed citizens and parents.

Deletion

I deleted the sentence "The median is a computing function available only on mainframe computer statistics programs, which requires sorting all data items, although the standard average calculation can be done on a four-function calculator." The median is a very elementary statistical computation (probably simpler than the average); calling it a "computing function" is really an overstatement. Saying it's "available only on mainframe computer statistics programs" isn't true either; my calculator can compute the median of a set of numbers (and it's quite easy to do by hand; I can compute the median of twenty numbers in my head much faster than I can compute the average using a calculator). Also, computing the median doesn't require sorting the numbers; see Selection algorithm. —Babcockd 11:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV

This article has serious NPOV problems in the section "Critical reviews". The bulleted list headed "some unusual content" gives the impression of a set of examples chosen to cast the materials in the worst possible light, and are often phrased in a charged way. I tried to tone it down, but there was only so much I could do without access to the actual materials. Some of the examples of what the books ask students to do (filling in squares, etc.), even if they really are misguided, might seem less ridiculous in context. None of this is to say that the books are any good; I think they do sound like a mess. But each part of an article should be explaining an issue, not making a point.

The complaint about it being too US-centric is valid too, even though at first it sounds silly since the article is about an American series of textbooks. But it ought to be written without assuming that the reader grew up in the US educational system and knows what the traditional curriculum (to the extent that there is a single traditional curriculum) is like.

-Mark Foskey 02:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

&hank you for your input. About usa-centric: in the wikipedia parlance the intention and the meaning of the tag is that the subject of the article may be encountered elsewhere in the world, but the article describes only the case of USA, i.e., as the tag says, "does not represent a worldwide view of the subject." (please click the bold link) `'Míkka >t 04:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV is not violated merely because the truth is ugly. Frankly, elimination of the downsides looks like corporate whitewashing, but I'll assume you meant the best. 72.40.45.79 (talk) 07:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please. This article was clearly written by someone who hates these books. If I had a nickle for everytime an NPOV fanatic tried to justify their article by saying "OH NOEZ IT'S THE TRUTH YOU JUST CAN'T ACCEPT IT", I would be a very rich man indeed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.251.8.113 (talk) 09:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article sounds as severe criticism. It seems more than deserved though (here is your nickel, Noez), but I tried to substantiate it with some factual details, in particular about research of A. Goodrow on TERC website. It is indeed quite spectacular in its inconclusiveness, but the sentiment exprssed in the article (smthg like that negative numbers need not be taught in grade 2) was invalid: That was exactly Goodrow's point that the constructivist student invented a methods he was not taught. I removed the sentiment, but quoted what the student actually said about negative numbers: In fact he got a right result from cancellations of two errors.

The other changes and rearrangements I made should be clear. Borisovich (talk) 03:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Professional Mathematicians

"Its goal was to help all children understand the fundamental ideas of number and arithmetic, geometry, data, measurement and early algebra. But many of these concepts are unfamiliar not only to parents, but also teachers and professional mathematicians..."

I have no experience with this curriculum so I'm not going to change this myself, but I find it very hard to believe that there are professional mathematicians unfamiliar with fundamental ideas of numbers, etc, which are being taught to grade school children. 71.75.215.254 (talk) 19:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Professional mathematicians are familiar with the concepts that are desired to be taught, but unfamiliar with the strange stuff actually being taught. The teaching methods are strange, to put it mildly. Professional mathematicians typically come from a very traditional elementary school education. They give this program an "F". Fix: "Its goal was to help all children understand the fundamental ideas of number and arithmetic, geometry, data, measurement and early algebra. Many of the teaching methods are unfamiliar not only to parents, but also to teachers and professional mathematicians -- few of whom have ever seen such an approach to mathematics before." 72.40.45.79 (talk) 09:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's precisely the fundamental ideas that are NOT taught by texts such as this. The methods used are completely foreign to any generation of parents from any nation except those trained in NCTM standards-based methods. Bachcell (talk) 20:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]