Talk:New Math

clearer general explanation needed

I just skimmed through this entire entry and I still have no idea what new math is. The most I can gather is it's a general set of teaching principles for how to teach math, but that's just a guess, I really have no idea what new math is from reading this. Someone needs to write a 2 or 3 sentence overview of what new math is as it needs to be described to someone from mars who's never heard of it before.

Also, if you want to be really helpful, you should have one simple example problem worked out and solved using new math steps.

I completely agree with this -- I have read this article and still don't know what "New Math" actually *is* -- can't someone put up some examples??? Danflave 08:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is still a problem in 2010. Can anybody give even an example of what the "new math" was? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.66.47.162 (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For my History of Math class at Roger Williams University, we are required to improve a Wikipedia article about math. So I would like to add an example of new math, in particular, the example Tom Lehrer uses in his "New Math" song. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajohnson398 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, when something falls out of favor, it sure gets difficult to find out many details about it. I was raised on New Math, and in sixth grade we were told we were 'learning New New Math from the guy who invented New Math'. After that we moved and I felt like I was being taught from McGuffey Readers. It was archaic. Too much emphasis on simple basics and none of that fun stuff that got me excited about math in the first place. And nobody would help me with the parts I was missing. I did miserably in math after that. I came over here hoping to find some of those elements that so delighted me before. All I found was criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leeeoooooo (talk • contribs) 05:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

discussion

I removed: "The U.S. experience does seem in retrospect to have the hallmarks of a moral panic.", as it is original opinion. If it is verifiably seen now as moral panic, it needs substantiating (that people believe it, not the belief itself!). Grayum 10:50, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What in fact were the traditional concepts referred to in the following statement?

"New Math emphasized mathematical structure through abstract concepts like set theory and number bases other than 10, rather than strictly being concerned with mathematical concepts traditionally taught to grade schoolers." odea 00:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does "rather than strictly being concerned with mathematical concepts traditionally taught to grade schoolers" actually mean anything? It seems to me to be saying "rather than doing what was done before", which is tautological, so that entire phrase could easily be removed. If I understand correctly, what was replaced, or de-emphasised, was performing the calculations required for the four traditional arithmetic operations mechanically.

I'm also a bit baffled by the apparent claim that number bases other than 10 are an "abstract concept", while presumably a number base of 10 is not. Switching between different number bases would be an abstraction, but it would be the very useful abstraction of considering a number something separate from the string of decimal digits representing it - something that still seems to be done in grade school, for example when kids are asked to "count" money that is cunningly represented in different coins or bills.

RandomP 01:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lehrer's song

I am not convinced that the text is entirely mathematically correct. The third verse (which covers the tens place calculation of 342 - 173) starts with

From the three you then use one

To make ten ones...

Doesn't Lehrer here make ten tens? Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where can we get pictures?

Back when I was teaching myself New Math with a "Cyclo-Teacher" in the '70s and '80s, I didn't know it had a name. Some of us only recognize New Math when we see those little set-theory diagrams. Does anyone have one that could be legitimately uploaded and used? --Lawikitejana 21:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something like ? Wikimedia Commons has a lot of them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure Venn diagrams would be the best illustration of New Math. Schools commonly teach Venn diagrams today, even in kindergarten, without much of a problem. But New Math put an extreme emphasis on sets and required students to learn set concepts, vocabulary and notation, which is generally not done any more. Venn diagrams would be an example of something introduced in the New Math that remained in current curricula. A better illustration might be a page from an old textbook teaching other bases, which is not done today at all. Then again the Venn diagram would not be wrong and might be better than nothing. seberle (talk) 14:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Professor George F. Simmons

Does anyone know more about him? I have a both a calculus book and a differential equations book that he wrote. I liked his books for his heavy historical, biographical, and philosophical approach to mathematics. It is rare to find a "literate" mathematician; although, it appears that he is tainted by antisemitism? Comments anyone?--Lance ^talk 09:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Repetition

In "The New New Math" section, the phrase "increase mathematical power for all students by creating frameworks which set world-class standards of what all students must know and be able to do" is repeated. I'd like to fix this up but I'm not quite sure how best to. Robert K S 13:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New New Math

Unless there is serious objection, I will work up a separate New New Math article. There is, imo, no continuity between New Math and New New Math, aside from the similar names. Jd2718 23:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely no objection here. There should not be a "New New Math" section in this article since, as you say, there is no relationship between the Math Wars of the 1990s and the New Math. I'm not sure you need a new article entitled "New New Math." The current article on the "Math Wars" is sufficient. There is also coverage of the Math Wars in other articles. What it is doing here in an article on an educational phenomenon of the 1960s is a mystery to me. If you do not move this section soon, I will probably just delete it.--seberle (talk) 02:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion request

The section "across other countries" lacks facts about how New Math influences Asian, African and Latin American countries. Please search for relevant sources and add these facts.--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And while expanding, could someone explain what the sentence "In Japan, China and Asian countries generally, the emphasis on basic numeracy has traditionally been high" has to do with the New Math?

Absolutely nothing. I have deleted that sentence. --seberle (talk) 23:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1970s?

I would like to say that I was taught the New Math in Arizona in the 1970s (1971-1976). I can't add this because it is anecdotal and subjective, but perhaps there are sources that show that the pedagogy had a long afterlife in US Elementary schools? Saudade7 03:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Axiomatic Set Theory

Reference 1 does not mention axiomatic set theory at all (words like “axiom”, “zf”, “logic” etc. are not mentioned) --Chricho ∀ (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

what???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.107.83.210 (talk) 22:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haved removed the claim.[1] --Chricho ∀ (talk) 12:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Parts of "New Math" are still used routinely

This page is definitely in need of work. One of the reforms in "New Math" -- which is actually even mentioned in the Tom Lehrer song! -- is the introduction of the concepts of "borrowing" and "carrying" to addition and subtraction problems.

 This is not so. I learned these methods well before New Math was taught anywhere.

This *stuck* as a pedagogical technique. The way arithmetic was taught before appears genuinely bizarre to anyone who went to school from the 1960s onwards, to the point where I can't even describe it.

So some of the changes from the "new math" period were dropped, but others were permanent.

Needs a balanced treatment by someone who knows the pedagogical history. 24.59.161.166 (talk) 04:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Exercises

This section doesn't seem to support itself with citations, and the claims of hat isn't taught seems contrary to what seems to be taught? There's no citation to what is taught today. 174.62.68.53 (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

elementary school only??

New Mathematics or New Math was a brief, dramatic change in the way mathematics was taught in American grade schools, and to a lesser extent in European countries, during the 1960s.. I had New Math in eighth grade c. 1963. Since this is mere anecdote, I guess it has no probative value herein, but the blanket statement should still be modified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.249.146.8 (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]