Math has been touted as a language of science which cannot be contested. However, to claim the status of a language, a few conditions need apply. For one thing a language can be read easily, seamlessly, and invokes comprehension as it is read. It is decodable. That means the black squiggles one sees on a page (and calls print) can be decoded into sounds, and the sounds, being speech-sounds, evoke meaning. To decode in this manner is basically "to read". It can also be encoded. We can take meaning, reconvert it back into speech-sounds, then encode those speech-sounds back into those black squiggles on a page. That is what writing is all about. Can we do that with Math? Anybody can "read" math few can understand it. That's because the sounds that mathematical symbols create in our heads are not familiar speech sounds. They invoke neither images (as of a tree when when one reads "tree"), nor the continuous flow of meaning. How then does it qualify as a language except in its most primitive form? Yet, paradoxically it is among the most advanced forms of language.
An obvious contradiction in terms.

Alphabetic languages uses auditory mediation (or phonics) to facilitate the creation of meaning when print is converted to speech sounds. In fact, if it is the phonical element of spoken and written languag that facilitates comprehension of the written and the spoken word.

In math, this phonical element plays a hollow, mechanical role. You can sound out "pi" (as "pie") and visualize nothing. It is an abstract concept and remains abstract (and often utterly meaningless to most) . And yet pi has meaning (to those who know it) and even an image (to those who understand where it comes from).

My conclusion therefore, is that, there subsists, within the language of math, something that could function as the equivalent of auditory mediation (or phonics).

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?    

join hotmail peeps!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

0  out of 1 found this valuable. Do you find this valuable? Do you?    

These are all great questions but I'd like to focus initially on a classroom teacher audience/discussion, so I think some are more relevant and appropriate than others for that group; my personal favorites would be 4, 8, 3, 7(not the second part of it), and 5, in that order. I don't think most teachers would have a good sense of 2 (opinions, perhaps, but probably not much evidence), and 1 is an interesting question but a bit nebulous (although that quality might also mean it would spark a provocative discussion).

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?    

Could you please finish this statement: We'll know that our 08-09 TMP project year has been successful when...

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?    

Show Last Reply

Where are you seeing movement towards some level of sustainability for select aspects of, or perhaps all of,, your TMP-funded initiative? In other words, where do you see your work taking root, extending out, influencing others, and perhaps being adopted by others? An example or two would be helpful.

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?    

Show Last Reply

1) Do you think we need to meet again to revisit the standards alignment issue between the CRS and the new, new high school standards, and if we do meet, how should we approach it? I’m asking because as you probably know and can see from the OSPI site, the standards are now presented by courses in two different formats—algebra I/geometry/algebra II and Integrated I/II/III—rather than as a holistic set of standards (the same standards are included in both formats but are re-packaged to reflect the different curricular offerings). Even in the earlier versions of the new standards the changes in the layout and organization of the actual standards made the alignment work difficult; this by-course presentation makes it even more challenging to do a full and thorough comparison both with the earlier editions of the high school standards as well as with the CRS. One could argue that we already know that there’s a solid amount of overlap between the two sets of standards and the reasons for the major disconnects—geometry and probability/statistics; what’s the value of drilling down further into more nuanced differences in content?
2) Whether we decide to re-address the alignment issue formally, there could be value in convening a meeting to discuss the implications of the major differences that we know exist—if there is substantial overlap between the CRS and the high school standards, and where differences exist in the content the high school standards tend to go beyond what is defined in the CRS, what’s the role of the CRS for high school teachers in general and TMP partnerships in particular as we think about Phase III?

Note: you can see the official versions of the new high school standards at the OSPI web site:
http://www.k12.wa.us/CurriculumInstruct/Mathematics/RevisedStandards.aspx

0  out of 1 found this valuable. Do you find this valuable? Do you?