question for the high school math teachers

[Chemfemme]

I teach high school chemistry, and have seen an unsettling trend in recent years in the math skills of my kids. Who better to ask than you math folks! Most of my kids are juniors who have passed Alg I and Geometry, are taking Alg II, but simple things like averaging and finding percents throw them for a loop. And I'm not talking about just a few kids. Even in my honors classes, for example, they will be asked to average the results of 2 experimental trials -- many will multiply, then divide by 2. And it never occurs to them that the average of 15 and 18 cannot possibly be 135! Another ex: "a compound contains 40 g of calcium and 16 g of oxygen. What % of the total mass is calcium?" I get the "deer-in-headlights" look -- then they decide to divide 40 by 16. If they're given the formula D=M/V, then asked to solve for V -- well, that's gonna take full class period! Is anybody else seeing highschoolers who lack the simples of skills and concepts? What is causing this? I'm spending as much time teaching basic math as I am teaching chemistry -- and it's getting worse each year. I can't tell you how I dread teaching the math required for pH or the gas laws or heat. (wouldn't dimensional analysis be an Alg 1 level skill?) It's easy to point the finger at the middle school teachers, so I hate to go there, but has there been some change in the way math is taught at those grades that is leaving such gaping holes in the skills? Is it that they just learn a set of steps to get "the answer" for that day's test, but have no real concept of what they are doing and why? Just looking for some explanation. (and, yes, to vent a bit!)

[Unregistered]

The currect theory that we (math teachers) are being told to believe is that if you teach at a "critical thinking" level (a high level), then the students will learn the basic skills themselves by way of seeing the "need to know". The days of "kill and drill" basic skills are gone.
You are experiencing the result of this.
Basic skill understanding has given way to exposing ALL students to higher level math. I call it the old "new math" approach.
For a brief time, the old approach of drilling basic skills was starting to come back which could be called "new old math". So, maybe today's approach could be called "old new old new new math"...

[Chemfemme]

The currect theory that we (math teachers) are being told to believe is that if you teach at a "critical thinking" level (a high level), then the students will learn the basic skills themselves by way of seeing the "need to know". The days of "kill and drill" basic skills are gone.
You are experiencing the result of this.
Basic skill understanding has given way to exposing ALL students to higher level math. I call it the old "new math" approach.
For a brief time, the old approach of drilling basic skills was starting to come back which could be called "new old math". So, maybe today's approach could be called "old new old new new math"...

hmm -- well that would make sense. Always a new theory coming down the pike that we try, then after totally messing up one generation of kids, we say "oops, that wasn't so good" then abandon it for the next buzzword of the day. Science curricula over the years follows a similar pattern. I'm old enough to remember the first "new math" in the '60's. I liked it, but then I was in Jr Hi, so I already had the other "basics" by then. I can sure see the problems with having "new math" without those "old basics" though. Very interesting -- thanks for the reply! :)

Chem

[Unregistered]

As a math and science teacher, I see this a bit. I think one of the main problems is that students are unable to translate material that they have learned in one class to material that they have learned in anotehr class. Many of them believe that you only use math in math class and science in science class.

[Unregistered]

In CA the algebra requirement has been pushed down to 8th grade, often ready or not. Many of the "basics" you mention were taught to us in seventh grade math and pre-algebra. There is no time for pre-algebra now. We churn out students who respond to equations with mechanical predictability. Remember, allowing students to think, ponder, wrestle with comprehension, and apply learning all takes time. There is no time for that now. We save every kid, leave no child behind.

[Unregistered]

That is true. Since we are being told to teach at the high levels, we don't have time to go "back to the basics".
In theory, teaching at the "high level" makes sense but the problem is that practicing (drill and kill) the basics goes out the door.

[Unregistered]

In response to the following post, I am glad that I don't teach in CA.
"In CA the algebra requirement has been pushed down to 8th grade"
I managed to stay interested in math after I failed Algebra in the 8th grade (back in 1976). I thought I was understanding it but I kept failing the tests! I hated the teacher. My 9th grade teacher for Algebra 1 was even worse. I got grades of C and D in it. When I got to Geometry (different teacher), I got grades of A and B.

[Unregistered]

I see it too, after teaching high school math for 13 yrs, they come to me know without any basic skills. It sounds like this is starting way down the ladder in elementary school. Why are we trying to teach them to run before they know how to walk properly?

[annettemcd]

I think that one of factors is that the easiest way for students to deal with skills from one subject being expected to be applied in another class is to act surprised and claim that they do not know the material. That way, it is not their fault, but the fault of the other teacher. (I know that it is done because I can remember trying this tactic myself as a student.)

It does seem that many students learn how to plug the right answer into the right space without thinking outside the box. They do get tunnel vision.

I attended a residential college and to avoid this, the professors worked together and all knew what the others were teaching. In addition, the curriculum was sometimes integrated. For example, in computer class, programs were written to solve problems in physics class.

I think that some of the ways to help overcome this problem would be to have teachers work together to be sure that students are learning in one subject what they will need in another, that students are taught that subjects do not exist in cubbyholes isolated from all others, AND so that students can not claim that they do not know it. (The teacher is prepared to call them on it. --"We never learned this in math class." "Oh, yes, you did. I talked to your math teacher and this was covered." "Oh, darn, foiled again!")

Not only should the students not be treating their subjects as being isolated, teachers should not work in isolation in their own subject's curriculum.

This is not just between math and chemistry and physics, but also English and history; computer skills and all other classes; etc.

[Unregistered]

Google 'New new math' and 'fuzzy math' and I think ant confusion over why kids are reaching high school chemistry without basic math skills will be cleared up.