Absolutely - gamification is a fantastic tool for encouraging fun involvement! (And spaced repetition is much better, and more effective, than chanting.)
-
-
Historically, most mathematicians have learned arithmetic not by memorizing multiplication tables but by extensive self-directed investigation of numbers as experimental data. Which numbers arise as divisors of sums of two square numbers? One way to find out: do the experiment.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Historically, most mathematicians had solid fundamental rote training in schools stricter and less forgiving than any you'll see today, and then they supplemented that education with "extensive self-directed investigation of numbers."
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Mathematics education in the schools is a relatively recent phenomenon. Neither Euler nor Lagrange experienced any of it.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MathPrinceps @davidmanheim and
Neither did many of history's greatest mental calculators -- who, not infrequently, were illiterate.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MathPrinceps @davidmanheim and
What produces mastery is not rote repetition or practice, but passionate curiosity. An obsessed student practices extensively, without even noticing that he is doing so. Practice is a by-product of curiosity. The more passionate the curiosity, the more extensive the practice.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
I'm telling you yet again that it's not always sufficient. You can feel free to tell me I lacked passionate curiosity - but you're wrong, and if you really want to investigate, I'll be happy to put you in touch with my professors, or my high school math teachers.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Nothing, to my knowledge, is always sufficient. I am speaking of what has been typical of great past masters. My purpose is to refute the assertion that rote is always necessary. A single example of mastery attained without school-imposed rote learning suffices for this purpose.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MathPrinceps @davidmanheim and
Illiterate mental calculators like Jacques Inaudi pose serious problems for any theory of arithmetic learning that insists it must be rooted in rote practice imposed by schools.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
"...insists it must be rooted in rote practice imposed by schools" That doesn't at all describe my claims. I think you're misunderstanding my claims.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Are you maintaining that rote practice need not be externally imposed? This seems at least doubtful. Would Jacques Inaudi, who plainly considered his own self-directed practice of arithmetic an entertaining diversion, describe it as rote? Do you know anyone who enjoys rote?
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.