Fig. 4.
II. A is 1 inch long. Which line is 2 inches long? Which line is 4 inches long? Which line is 3 inches long? A and C together make ... inches? A and B together make ... inches? B is ... ... longer than A? B is ... ... longer than C? D is ... ... longer than A?
(2) Multiples of 11.—The multiplications of 2 to 12 by 11 and 12 as single connections should be left for the pupil to acquire by himself as he needs them. These connections interfere with the process of learning two-place multiplication. The manipulations of numbers there required can be learned much more easily if 11 and 12 are used as multipliers in just the same way that 78 or 96 would be. Later the 12 × 2, 12 × 3, etc., may be taught. There is less reason for knowing the multiples of 11 than for knowing the multiples of 15, 16, or 25.
(3) Abstract and concrete numbers.—The elaborate emphasis of the supposed fact that we cannot multiply 726 by 8 dollars and the still more elaborate explanations of why nevertheless we find the cost of 726 articles at $8 each by multiplying 726 by 8 and calling the answer dollars are wasteful. The same holds of the corresponding pedantry about division. These imaginary difficulties should not be raised at all. The pupil should not think of multiplying or dividing men or dollars, but simply of the necessary equation and of the sort of thing that the missing number represents. "8 × 726 = .... Answer is dollars," or "8, 726, multiply. Answer is dollars," is all that he needs to think, and is in the best form for his thought. Concerning the distinction between abstract and concrete numbers, both logic and common sense as well as psychology support the contention of McDougle ['14, p. 206f.], who writes:—
"The most elementary counting, even that stage when the counts were not carried in the mind, but merely in notches on a stick or by DeMorgan's stones in a pot, requires some thought; and the most advanced counting implies memory of things. The terms, therefore, abstract and concrete number, have long since ceased to be used by thinking people.
"Recently the writer visited an arithmetic class in a State Normal School and saw a group of practically adult students confused about this very question concerning abstract and concrete numbers, according to their previous training in the conventionalities of the textbook. Their teacher diverted the work of the hour and she and the class spent almost the whole period in reëstablishing the requirements 'that the product must always be the same kind of unit as the multiplicand,' and 'addends must all be alike to be added.' This is not an exceptional case. Throughout the whole range of teaching arithmetic in the public schools pupils are obfuscated by the philosophical encumbrances which have been imposed upon the simplest processes of numerical work. The time is surely ripe, now that we are readjusting our ideas of the subject of arithmetic, to revise some of these wasteful and disheartening practices. Algebra historically grew out of arithmetic, yet it has not been laden with this distinction. No pupil in algebra lets x equal the horses; he lets x equal the number of horses, and proceeds to drop the idea of horses out of his consideration. He multiplies, divides, and extracts the root of the number, sometimes handling fractions in the process, and finally interprets the result according to the conditions of his problem. Of course, in the early number work there have been the sense-objects from which number has been perceived, but the mind retreats naturally from objectivity to the pure conception of number, and then to the number symbol. The following is taken from the appendix to Horn's thesis, where a seventh grade girl gets the population of the United States in 1820:—
|
7,862,166 233,634 1,538,022 9,633,822 | whites free negroes slaves |
In this problem three different kinds of addends are combined, if we accept the usual distinction. Some may say that this is a mistake,—that the pupil transformed the 'whites,' 'free negroes,' and 'slaves' into a common unit, such as 'people' of 'population' and then added these common units. But this 'explanation' is entirely gratuitous, as one will find if he questions the pupil about the process. It will be found that the child simply added the figures as numbers only and then interpreted the result, according to the statement of the problem, without so much mental gymnastics. The writer has questioned hundreds of students in Normal School work on this point, and he believes that the ordinary mind-movement is correctly set forth here, no matter how well one may maintain as an academic proposition that this is not logical. Many classes in the Eastern Kentucky State Normal have been given this problem to solve, and they invariably get the same result:—