[IAEP] Concise explanation of Constructionism from the Learning Team

[Albert Cahalan]

On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 7:21 PM, Edward Cherlin <echerlin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Albert Cahalan <acahalan at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 6:03 PM, Edward Cherlin <echerlin at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 10:52 PM, Albert Cahalan <acahalan at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Unfortunately, the cold hard facts don't support the ideas.
>>>> In study after study, including the largest educational study
>>>> ever done, the ideas have been proven to fail.
>>>
>>> Links or it never happened, Albert. I have asked you over and over
>>> what your evidence is, and you have never yet replied.
>>
>> I did, at least twice.
>
> Not in a form I recognized as such. Make a page on one of the Wikis
> for your evidence.
>
>> Search the mailing list archives if
>> you need to. (on laptop.org I believe, not sugarlabs.org)
>
> What would I search for, and in which list? Searching for

I forgot about lo-res.org, where the post resides.
http://lists.lo-res.org/pipermail/its.an.education.project/2008-July/001361.html

I gave you **three** links. Please read them all.

Note that it is directly a follow-up to you. I'm 99% sure
that you got your own copy.

> "Can I get you to agree that all children
> must memorize traditional arithmetic methods long before getting
> any exposure to vector calculus? Can I get you to agree that
> constructionism does not work for teaching math?
...
> The answers to your questions are
>
> * No, children can grasp the concepts of vectors, calculus, and vector
> calculus visually without any arithmetic. (You are confusing geometric
> vectors with their numeric representations.)

That sounds like a Math Appreciation course. It's a lot
like a Music Appreciation course: an easy "A", and you
don't really have to learn how to do the Math/Music.
Superficial understanding is not of great value.

> * No, none of us agrees that Constructionism does not work for teaching math.

So you are OK with this:
http://mathematicallycorrect.com/ml1.htm

More:
http://mathematicallycorrect.com/nychold.htm

> You have not named or linked to your alleged study. So, again, links
> or it never happened.

Maybe it's still in your inbox.