>
> On Wed, 1 Jun 2011 22:13:14 +0000 (UTC) 123hop at comcast.net writes:
> > I learned new math when I came to the U.S. in 1963, and I thought it
> > was wonderful...
>
> I had new math back in the mid-1960s and liked it, but I think
> that project was a failure for most students because instruction
> was pitched at too abstract a level and most teachers simply
> lacked the training in set theory (most school teachers
> I don't think knew who Frege, Russell, or Whitehead
> were) to understand what it was
> all about and to convey that understanding to young children.
>
> Jim Farmelant
>
> My dad, the physicist/mathematician/engineer PhD never mentioned those guys
but probably had them in mind any time he helped me with my math.
While I'd never argue - too strongly - against Carrol's point that some
teachers are so bad that they incite students to teach themselves
collectively just to spite/compensate for the teacher - I think it is far
more important (in primary and secondary school) that teachers be able to
teach the same concepts in different ways. I remember, really clearly, some
point in seventh grade when I realized that each time my dad's first
explanation didn't work for me that he'd completely shift tack and approach
the problem very differently (and that he could do this four or five times)
until we hit on the one that worked for me.
To say that the majority of my experience with bad teachers or
run-of-the-mill teachers was the antithesis of Carrol's periodic experience
and my dad's practice is obvious, no?