undefined

points

[-]

Creativity isn't learning, it's the application of learning, and that's not what school is for. There has always been value in somebody showing you how to apply a math technique and practicing using it to solve problems. It's not creative but it gives us the skills to do useful things in the world - including creative things. Even pure rote learning (such as reciting the periodic table) is useful so you can later draw on that knowledge without interrupting your attention on the higher level thinking (such as creativity!) that you're doing.

by josephg20 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

> There has always been value in somebody showing you how to apply a math technique and practicing using it to solve problems.

Only if your goal is to teach people how to solve that particular problem. But it’s not the best way to teach mathematics.

For my money, the best way is problem based. I heard of one math teacher who had a video playing as the students walked in. The video was a weirdly shaped bucket being slowly filled by a hose. Students came in, saw him sitting up the back, got fidgety then someone asked “how long will this take??”. At that, he shot up and said “good question”! And they spent the rest of the class trying to estimate how long it would take for the bucket to be filled. Complete with diversions into flow rate, volume, and so on. He made the students ask the question. Then got the students to try and answer it themselves, helping them work through their own ideas on the board.

That’s beautiful teaching.

by john_fushi2 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

I don't want to tangle myself in a "technically correct" kind of discussion however I'd like to point out that Bloom's taxonomy - a widely used model in pedagogical context - has a level for creative work.

It is the highest level of learning, but still a level of learning.