Timeline for Is Euclid dead?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 16, 2023 at 16:18 | history | edited | LSpice | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Wayback'd link; name of paper
|
| Jan 16, 2023 at 14:56 | history | edited | Matthieu Romagny | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
reased extraneous instance of 'them'
|
| Dec 21, 2013 at 11:23 | comment | added | Amir Asghari | As it can be seen, the point is not to teach or not to teach geometry. The point is to teach geomety as mathematics and to teach mathematics as geometry. That is to see mathematics as a lively connected knowlege. This is what most curriculums and accordingly most teachers fail to do so. | |
| Dec 21, 2013 at 11:14 | comment | added | Amir Asghari | First of all, consider that the title speaks itself. Separating the teaching of geometry from the teaching of mathematics (including calulus) reflects the belief of most teachers. Indeed, whatever a mathematician may say in favour of teaching geometry falls into disfavour from teachers' point of view: Geometry is problem based, each problem could have several solutions, solving most problems needs creativity (and you cannot teach creativity), geometry has a unity (that is to say its different parts are closely related to each other) and so on. | |
| Dec 21, 2013 at 10:54 | comment | added | Amir Asghari | @ToddTrimble Dear Todd. The research I mentioned is an unpublished master thesis I supervised in 2009: (Leila Mansouri), The differences between the teaching of geometry and the teaching of mathematics in highschool! Unfortunatly, the result is not available in English. Thus, let me summerize the results here, hoping that it comes handy. | |
| Dec 21, 2013 at 3:49 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | Amir, would you be willing to give a specific citation for the research mentioned as supporting your observation? This would be helpful for anyone who wants to counter the suggestion that the answers are primarily opinion-based. | |
| Dec 20, 2013 at 5:15 | comment | added | smyrlis | @Amir Asghari: Apparently, you have addressed a very serious issue: If EG returns, then who is going to teach it? Even now high school teachers avoid to teach several difficult things. | |
| Dec 20, 2013 at 2:10 | comment | added | Kupiakos | Triangles are wonderful and concrete - until you enter curved space. o.O | |
| Dec 20, 2013 at 1:27 | comment | added | Victor Protsak | An excellent observation! It is especially relevant in the situation OP finds himself in, namely, when geometry has been absent from the school curriculum for a while. As an example, the state of New York dropped EG from its school curriculum for a number of years and now faces a paradoxical situation of teachers instructing in a subject that they themselves have never learned in school! This effect is felt for several generations, e.g. we have pre-service teachers who took geometry in school from someone who had never learned it himself/herself. | |
| Dec 20, 2013 at 0:40 | history | edited | Amir Asghari | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Correct grammar!
|
| Dec 20, 2013 at 0:39 | comment | added | Anton Petrunin | Iran will stay with geometry since the ornament on your flag is made with a compass-and-straightedge construction isiri.org/portal/files/std/1.htm | |
| S Dec 20, 2013 at 0:27 | history | answered | Amir Asghari | CC BY-SA 3.0 | |
| S Dec 20, 2013 at 0:27 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Amir Asghari |