If you are talking about school curriculum, nearly the entire population will keep not learning it as long as it doesn’t have some practical application so people can understand WTF the teacher is talking about.
Seriously, though, that’s not what the research is showing. Peter Liljedahl’s research, for example, supports that a very effective way to teach mathematics is by having students actually think about math, instead of just passively receiving info dumps (as is common in most traditional math classes). See Building Thinking Classrooms for details but, in short, it’s a method of getting students playing with math concepts for almost the entire class time every day.
No “practical applications” needed. Counterintuitive, but it’s a highly effective practice.
What’s core to practical applications working is student motivation, and practical applications are one way to induce motivation. But it’s often not the best option, especially for inherently abstract skills.
If by “practical application” you mean “motivation for learning the skill”, which is I think the way you’re using it, then yes. But that’s not the usual definition in math education, and not what most people mean by it.
Like, for example, to introduce quadratics, a good progression might be to challenge students to build a table of values and graphs for x², then x² + 3, then graph x² – 5 without a table of values, then 2x² vs. 5x² vs. ½x², –x², etc.
And if you have a Thinking Classroom, every student in the class is working on figuring out that progression collaboratively in small groups. The teacher guides students to discover the math themselves through a series of examples, and mostly interacts with the students by asking questions, never giving them the answers.
That’s not “a practical application of quadratics”—at least not in the usual definition—that’s a learning activity sequence (paired with a set of interrelated pedagogical practices).
A good, practical application of quadratics is more like a Dan Meyer “3 Act Math” lesson on predicting the trajectory of a basketball shot. Also cool, good teaching. But not a great way to introduce quadratics.
(P.S. Yes, I use and like em dashes. I’m not a robot.)
Like, if i was the student, i think i would be extremely confused from this lesson. I would not know what you want from me. I have had my fair share of teachers trying to get me to “just think about something and figure stuff out myself” which mostly amounted to me sitting there in classroom, staring into the air, confused about what the task is, and mostly waiting till the hour is over.
My brain works differently.
When i learn something, before i even start caring about what the topic is, i ask why I’m learning this; and i need to have a proper reason to learn something. The reason needs to be strong enough, and is only strong enough if it is derived from some other, stronger reason. For example, i learned maths because i understood how important it is to grasp the universal, those things that cannot be taken away from us. I grew up in a kinda abusive household, and my mother had a habit of taking away the things that were most precious to me, so i clinged on to maths because i knew that maths was eternal and not dependent on the whims of my mother. That is a clear, practical reason. Maths gives me mental stability, like a skeleton gives stability to the body. It does not shake nor break; for it’s eternal.
Now, if you want me to play around with polynomials, idk what i would do.
Typically, when i learn something, i want to know why but also how to learn something. Especially, to express it in an analogy, my brain is like the C programming language. I need to reserve memory manually, it does not happen automatically, and i need to know how much space will be needed beforehand, in other words i need to have a clear understanding of how big a topic will be before i actually start learning it. When i have no idea what i’m getting myself into, then i don’t get into it, because my brain is very veryvery (i hope i have made this clear enough) bad at learning many small incremental pieces of knowledge. In fact, it’s similar to if you had to put on your jacket, leave the building, go through the cold icy air into the neighboring building each time you want to get yourself a glass of water. Needless to say, you will not drink a lot of water. You will dehydrate. Obviously you would put yourself a large bottle of water into your room, for which you only have to leave the building once. The same applies to me and learning. I have to take very few, appropriately sized portions of knowledge into me at once. Not many many small ones.
I don’t have time to get into the full 13 (? iirc) steps of Liljedahl’s Thinking Classrooms approach, but it’s exactly designed to meet the needs of students like you. Since highlights:
Students are randomly assigned to a new group of 3 daily
All students work on vertical whiteboards, or equivalents
The teacher presents a math task that starts easy-ish, but requires some work/thought to figure out
If 30% of students in the room understand the task, then it will quickly trickle between groups
The teacher circles exemplars of great thinking; students are not allowed to erase these until the next debrief
The teacher regularly cycles back to get students to explain their work to the class, showcasing and explaining the bits the teacher circled
Start over with a more advanced task/“next step”
It’s an incredibly effective teaching method for secondary math. And there’s clear motivation every step of the way for what you’re doing and why it matters.
And the teacher only explains about 5-10% of the material; everything else is explained by the students as the carefully curated progression of activities guides them through discovering the math themselves.
I mean motivation for why somebody cares about the idea at all, but I think that is less strict so yes. A hole in theory or something emerging from an activity are perfectly fine. But there has to be something there.
Not sure why you’re getting downvoted. Having practical applications for higher math makes that shit stick like glue when otherwise it would get forgotten immediately after the test.
They’re getting downvoted because there’s a lot of esoterical people demanding that we learn stuff either for the joy of it (which many are not at all having btw) or because it “purifies character” or sth.
Practical applications are felt like an impurity to that.
If you are talking about school curriculum, nearly the entire population will keep not learning it as long as it doesn’t have some practical application so people can understand WTF the teacher is talking about.
Citation needed.
Seriously, though, that’s not what the research is showing. Peter Liljedahl’s research, for example, supports that a very effective way to teach mathematics is by having students actually think about math, instead of just passively receiving info dumps (as is common in most traditional math classes). See Building Thinking Classrooms for details but, in short, it’s a method of getting students playing with math concepts for almost the entire class time every day.
No “practical applications” needed. Counterintuitive, but it’s a highly effective practice.
What’s core to practical applications working is student motivation, and practical applications are one way to induce motivation. But it’s often not the best option, especially for inherently abstract skills.
So… From the publications, looks like he uses problem solving, not “having students actually think about math”.
You want students think about what exactly if you don’t give them an application?
Anyway, thanks, I’m listing his work as evidence supporting my claim.
Remembering this for next time I clearly don’t understand something. lol
If by “practical application” you mean “motivation for learning the skill”, which is I think the way you’re using it, then yes. But that’s not the usual definition in math education, and not what most people mean by it.
Like, for example, to introduce quadratics, a good progression might be to challenge students to build a table of values and graphs for x², then x² + 3, then graph x² – 5 without a table of values, then 2x² vs. 5x² vs. ½x², –x², etc.
And if you have a Thinking Classroom, every student in the class is working on figuring out that progression collaboratively in small groups. The teacher guides students to discover the math themselves through a series of examples, and mostly interacts with the students by asking questions, never giving them the answers.
That’s not “a practical application of quadratics”—at least not in the usual definition—that’s a learning activity sequence (paired with a set of interrelated pedagogical practices).
A good, practical application of quadratics is more like a Dan Meyer “3 Act Math” lesson on predicting the trajectory of a basketball shot. Also cool, good teaching. But not a great way to introduce quadratics.
(P.S. Yes, I use and like em dashes. I’m not a robot.)
To be honest, i’m not sure what you want.
Like, if i was the student, i think i would be extremely confused from this lesson. I would not know what you want from me. I have had my fair share of teachers trying to get me to “just think about something and figure stuff out myself” which mostly amounted to me sitting there in classroom, staring into the air, confused about what the task is, and mostly waiting till the hour is over.
My brain works differently. When i learn something, before i even start caring about what the topic is, i ask why I’m learning this; and i need to have a proper reason to learn something. The reason needs to be strong enough, and is only strong enough if it is derived from some other, stronger reason. For example, i learned maths because i understood how important it is to grasp the universal, those things that cannot be taken away from us. I grew up in a kinda abusive household, and my mother had a habit of taking away the things that were most precious to me, so i clinged on to maths because i knew that maths was eternal and not dependent on the whims of my mother. That is a clear, practical reason. Maths gives me mental stability, like a skeleton gives stability to the body. It does not shake nor break; for it’s eternal.
Now, if you want me to play around with polynomials, idk what i would do.
Typically, when i learn something, i want to know why but also how to learn something. Especially, to express it in an analogy, my brain is like the C programming language. I need to reserve memory manually, it does not happen automatically, and i need to know how much space will be needed beforehand, in other words i need to have a clear understanding of how big a topic will be before i actually start learning it. When i have no idea what i’m getting myself into, then i don’t get into it, because my brain is very very very (i hope i have made this clear enough) bad at learning many small incremental pieces of knowledge. In fact, it’s similar to if you had to put on your jacket, leave the building, go through the cold icy air into the neighboring building each time you want to get yourself a glass of water. Needless to say, you will not drink a lot of water. You will dehydrate. Obviously you would put yourself a large bottle of water into your room, for which you only have to leave the building once. The same applies to me and learning. I have to take very few, appropriately sized portions of knowledge into me at once. Not many many small ones.
I don’t have time to get into the full 13 (? iirc) steps of Liljedahl’s Thinking Classrooms approach, but it’s exactly designed to meet the needs of students like you. Since highlights:
It’s an incredibly effective teaching method for secondary math. And there’s clear motivation every step of the way for what you’re doing and why it matters.
And the teacher only explains about 5-10% of the material; everything else is explained by the students as the carefully curated progression of activities guides them through discovering the math themselves.
I mean motivation for why somebody cares about the idea at all, but I think that is less strict so yes. A hole in theory or something emerging from an activity are perfectly fine. But there has to be something there.
Not sure why you’re getting downvoted. Having practical applications for higher math makes that shit stick like glue when otherwise it would get forgotten immediately after the test.
Apparently knowing people learn differently and that mathematicians are a tiny minority is neoliberal…
Welcome to the Fediverse, I guess.
I use Arch btw.
They’re getting downvoted because there’s a lot of esoterical people demanding that we learn stuff either for the joy of it (which many are not at all having btw) or because it “purifies character” or sth.
Practical applications are felt like an impurity to that.
As the experts say: “Use it or lose it.”