Talk:Connected Mathematics

I have used this book and it teaches you NOTHING about math! The algebra ISN'T algebra. And it is VERY confusing, skipping many elements essential to understanding algebra, geometry, fractions, etc. Try to avoid using this book. Use Saxon Math, it's the greatest math book EVER!

I agree wholeheartedly Mathnerd314 01:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Ahh..more editorializing! And why not, most of the "entry" has been molded into a subjective, POV based, rant with vague charges, lack of references, and outright unsubstantiated claims and opinions..so no surprise to see the same here.

Too bad the teachers in the graduate courses I have taught haven't heard about how CM is all the Work of the Devil (my PhD is in mathematics, the department in which I teach)!

Obviously the texts can be used poorly. Tell me, do you oppose the use of ALL calculators in ALL of K-12? Or do you recognized that some teachers MISuse calculators and that this is entirely separate issue from whether one can have, in some grades, in some contexts, useful inclusion of calculators. That's one point. Another is the omission of the context in which the activities are to be done by the students. It's not a very honest way to describe CM. Sort of like quoting from a karate student's manual while omitting anything about the warmups, personal coaching, intervention, followup feedback after the practice, etc, by the Master teaching the karate class. ''Oh my! Look at that manual, this is ALL it tells the students! Not enough there! Students might do something wrong and hurt themselves!'' Sure they might -- if the teacher doesn't do their job. Guess what? Same is true with traditional textbooks, which is why before ANY of these reforms were in place, college students still had massive holes in their math knowledge. And that was back when only special folks when to college; the comparison with today's demographics in which a higher percent of the population attends college, is apples-vs-oranges, and disingenuous when made. If someone who hates over-reliance on calculators by college students (who have had classes in which calculators were misused or overused) as much as I do, does not blame it all on "the calculators shouldn't be in the schools, at all, ever!" then any rational and fair analysis would apply similar thinking to misuses of this -- or any other reform (or any traditional) approach, either.

Oh, and I've added precise references to two studies. The results aren't what the editorialists will like...so the Pravda police of Mathematical Traditionalistically Correct will kindly keep in mind these are cited peer reviewed research studies..the case for their inclusion in the entry is therefore clear cut.--Harel (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Huh?!
"...but texts such as CM seek to make all students successful. Instead of only presenting facts and methods, CM seeks to engage the student's interest in numbers..."

Sounds pretty POV to me. Mathnerd314 01:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Revert? Mathnerd314 23:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, nobody seems to visit this article much. Mathnerd314 01:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Moose
I don't understand this term, is it related to mathematics in general, or is it a term used mostly in the US? User:Tass-AJ 10:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Reverting Edits
I reverted edits by Bachcell because they did not appear to return the content to its original state before vandalism. It is not clear what iteration of the article this refers to. It's not a problem to revise the content, although it is not clear this is what occurred. It is also problematic because the article had been tagged with original research/unverified claims and this was removed in what Bachcell described as reverting. So, I reverted it to return it to a prior form. It seems like a good idea to update the article, but the version before the one that presently appears does not reflect the issues others, myself included, found with the page. I am happy to discuss this on my talk page. Kearnsdm (talk) 05:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

What a biased article!
What a biased article!

In response to an earlier comment, the texts do matter quite a bit, because elementary school teachers generally don't know how to teach math at all on their own and they do what the text says. Don't blame a text's shortcomings on teachers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.9.66.82 (talk) 07:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Research
I undid the anonymous edits replacing the initial Research section with a poorly formatted summary of WWC conclusions. WWC is not an absolute standard. Including WWC's opinion is quite valid and might be helpful, but the WWC should not be the only research source mentioned. Integrating the differing conclusions would be best, something along the lines of "Studies A and B found this, but the WWC found fault with these studies". A simple citation of WWC's conclusions is very misleading without interpretation for readers not familiar with the WWC. In particular, readers should know that nearly all curricula, both standards-based and traditional, have been faulted for having little or no "valid" research (by WWC's controversial standards), nor have almost any curricula (standards-based or traditional) been found to have large effects at the elementary and middle school levels. It is easy and misleading to imply criticism of almost any curriculum (standards-based or traditional) by noting WWC's disapproval of the current state of research. It should also be noted that not everyone agrees with the WWC's methods and conclusions. These caveats should be included to give a balanced NPOV view of the debate over Connected Mathematics in a well-written paragraph or two. --seberle (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Biased writing
In many places, this seems to be written by advocates of the teaching method. It uses marketese and phrases such as "what parents do not understand." Someone needs to add a "bias warning" to the page. I don't normally edit on Wikipedia, so I don't know how that is done, but if anyone here has rights to do that, it would be a good add. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.36.138 (talk) 14:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)