WSJ: The Best Language for Math

This entry refers to the article “The Best Language for Math” by Sue Shellenbarger in the WSJ on Wednesday September 10, 2014 on page D1-D2 (Personal Journal section).

Misguided “glass half empty” mindset comes to mind when I read this article. Building “numeracy in small children” is not to be admired – it is another one of those despicable pressures that deprives children of their creative opportunities and development. Think about it: who is concerned? It’s adults. Do children care? Not one bit.

People who cite rankings in international achievement tests are similar to those who care about and cite university rankings. Both types of rankings are trivial and lack meaning. They are multivariate sets of functions with inconsistent variable sets. As if the education paradigm is the sole predictor of academic achievement. As if a top-ranked university is suitable for everyone.

Researchers should be looking at the needs for customization in education – especially in cores subjects such as math and language – rather than choking creativity out of early childhood education. Such customization should promote finding learning PREFERENCES, and after that, it’s PRACTICE that makes the difference (this is greatly affected by the availability of tutoring and after-school programs in the countries compared in the article).

How much does it matter that 27 is written as twenty-seven in English? How do YOU add two numbers? “32+17=49” or “thirty-two plus seventeen equals forty-nine”? The difference between these two approaches reminds me of the consequences of the shift from numerical math lessons to verbalized math lessons.

Move along. Nothing to see here.