Has the math(s) brand become toxic?

Has the math(s) brand become toxic?

For once I'm not talking about the contents of school maths but the name and its associations.

The question I'm asking is if our core technical subject wasn't termed "maths" but "nicebrand" would things go better in and out of education?

Sadly, I've started to conclude the answer is yes. I now suspect that using the brand of maths is damaging core technical education, its reform, and efforts to equip society for the AI age.

Believe me, this is not the conclusion I want. I've spent years of my life somehow connected with the word "maths". But much as I might not like my conclusion, I want the essence of subject maths to succeed; so I don't want the name to kill the subject—a much worse outcome.

Read More

Evidence: let's promote not stifle innovation in education

Evidence: let's promote not stifle innovation in education

Earlier this week I was part of a high-level discussion about maths and computer science education, how we could improve their reach and effectiveness. Rather quickly the question of  evidence came up, and its role in driving innovation.

It's taken me a few days to realise that there were actually two very different "importance of evidence" conversations--one with which I completely concur, and one with which I vehemently disagree. In the end, what I believe this exposes is a failure of many in charge of education to understand how major innovation usually happens--whether innovation in science, technology, business or education--and how "evidence" can drive effective innovation rather than stifle it. In an age of massive real-world change, the correct and rapid reflection of this in education is crucial to future curricula, their effective deployment, and achieving optimisation for the right educational outcomes.

Read More

What are the modern areas of maths?

Traditional areas of maths like algebra, calculus or trig don't seem a good way to think about subdividing the subject in the modern world.

You might ask, why subdivide at all?

In a sense, you shouldn't. The expert mathematician utilises whichever maths areas helps them solve the problem at hand. Breadth and ingenuity of application is often key.

But maths represents a massive body of knowledge and expertise, subdividing helps us to think about different areas, for curricula to focus their energies enough that there's sufficient depth of experience gained by students at a given time to get a foothold.

However I believe the subdivisions should be grouped by modern uses of maths, not ancient divisions of tools.

So here goes with our 5 major areas:

  • Data Science (everything data, incorporating but expanding statistics and probability).
  • Geometry (an ancient subject, but highly relevant today)
  • Information Theory (everything signals--whether images or sound. Right name for area?).
  • Modelling (techniques for good application of maths for real world problems)
  • Architecture of Maths (understanding the coherence of maths that builds its power, closely related to coding).

Comments welcome!