The hamburger is a mainstay of American culture, but when the restaurant chain A&W unveiled their third pounder hamburger to compete with McDonald’s quarter pounder, they were baffled by its commercial failure. The price was the same, and the quality was better, according to blind taste tests. So why were Americans refusing to buy the new third pounder? The answer lies in another mainstay of American culture: mathematical incompetence. Customers believed that ⅓ was less than ¼, since “After all, three is less than four!” They thought A&W was ripping them off by charging the same amount for a smaller burger (Conradt). Rather than dismissing this story as stereotypical American ignorance, we should wonder why innumeracy is so alarmingly common,
…show more content…
Only after much experience can they begin to generalize abstract principles of math. A study was done in Brazil on what the researchers called “street math” -- the astonishingly dextrous math skills people have when solving problems in the context of everyday situations. The researchers studied children who sold coconuts in the streets to support their families. For example, they asked a young vendor how much four coconuts would cost at 35 cruzeiros each. The child could quickly calculate the total price by taking the more familiar price of three coconuts and adding 35 cruzeiros for an additional coconut to get 140 cruzeiros. But when the child was presented with the same problem on paper as 4 x 35, numbers devoid of context, he incorrectly used the method he was taught in school and arrived at an answer of 200 (Devlin). Numbers with physical context, like the 4 coconuts and the 35 cruzeiros, are easier for the mind to grapple with than purely abstract numbers, like 4 and 35. When students begin to learn mathematical ideas, working with numbers that relate to tangible objects is the best way for them to comprehend the …show more content…
In the 1960’s, New Math, a revised math curriculum, was introduced as a part of the math and science fervor that swept the United States after the Soviet launch of Sputnik. It emphasized more abstract topics such as set theory and bases other than ten, and was meant to prepare students for pure mathematics rather than fields of applied mathematics like engineering or economics (Feynman 9). It was almost universally regarded as a failure due to overcomplicating simple ideas with technical terminology. For instance, instead of saying “sick lizards”, a teacher would say, “the set of animals which is the intersection of the set of lizards and the set of sick animals” (15). Although this particular instance of math education reform was a failure, not all changes in math education are doomed. The inductive method for teaching advocated by this paper is the exact opposite of New Math, giving it a good chance to succeed where New Math had failed. Instead of pushing for a more advanced, esoteric curriculum, it suggests a curriculum based on
Only after much experience can they begin to generalize abstract principles of math. A study was done in Brazil on what the researchers called “street math” -- the astonishingly dextrous math skills people have when solving problems in the context of everyday situations. The researchers studied children who sold coconuts in the streets to support their families. For example, they asked a young vendor how much four coconuts would cost at 35 cruzeiros each. The child could quickly calculate the total price by taking the more familiar price of three coconuts and adding 35 cruzeiros for an additional coconut to get 140 cruzeiros. But when the child was presented with the same problem on paper as 4 x 35, numbers devoid of context, he incorrectly used the method he was taught in school and arrived at an answer of 200 (Devlin). Numbers with physical context, like the 4 coconuts and the 35 cruzeiros, are easier for the mind to grapple with than purely abstract numbers, like 4 and 35. When students begin to learn mathematical ideas, working with numbers that relate to tangible objects is the best way for them to comprehend the …show more content…
In the 1960’s, New Math, a revised math curriculum, was introduced as a part of the math and science fervor that swept the United States after the Soviet launch of Sputnik. It emphasized more abstract topics such as set theory and bases other than ten, and was meant to prepare students for pure mathematics rather than fields of applied mathematics like engineering or economics (Feynman 9). It was almost universally regarded as a failure due to overcomplicating simple ideas with technical terminology. For instance, instead of saying “sick lizards”, a teacher would say, “the set of animals which is the intersection of the set of lizards and the set of sick animals” (15). Although this particular instance of math education reform was a failure, not all changes in math education are doomed. The inductive method for teaching advocated by this paper is the exact opposite of New Math, giving it a good chance to succeed where New Math had failed. Instead of pushing for a more advanced, esoteric curriculum, it suggests a curriculum based on