The Psychology of ArithmeticThorndike, Edward L. (Edward Lee)
Science
The Psychology of Arithmetic
Thorndike, Edward L. (Edward Lee)
Arithmetic -- Study and teaching
The chief reasons why this is not done now seem to be the following:
(1) Certain important bonds (like the additions with higher decades)
are not given enough attention when they are first used. (2) The special
training necessary when a bond is used in a different connection (as
when the multiplications to 9 × 9 are used in examples like
729
8
---
where the pupil has also to choose the right number to multiply, keep in
mind what is carried, use it properly, and write the right figure in the
right place, and carry a figure, or remember that he carries none) is
neglected. (3) The pupil is not taught to check his work. (4) He is not
made responsible for substantially accurate results. Furthermore, the
requirement of (4) without the training of (1), (2), and (3) will
involve either a fruitless failure on the part of many pupils, or an
utterly unjust requirement of time. The common error of supposing that
the task of computation with integers consists merely in learning the
additions to 9 + 9, the subtractions to 18 - 9, the multiplications to
8 × 9, and the divisions to 81 ÷ 9, and in applying this knowledge in
connection with the principles of decimal notation, has had a large
share in permitting the gross inaccuracy of arithmetical work. The bonds
involved in 'knowing the tables' do not make up one fourth of the bonds
involved in real adding, subtracting, multiplying, and dividing (with
integers alone).
It should be noted that if the training mentioned in (1) and (2) is
well cared for, the checking of results as recommended in (3) becomes
enormously more valuable than it is under present conditions, though
even now it is one of our soundest practices. If a child knows the
additions to higher decades so that he can add a seen one-place number
to a thought-of two-place number in three seconds or less with a correct
answer 199 times out of 200, there is only an infinitesimal chance that
a ten-figure column twice added (once up, once down) a few minutes apart
with identical answers will be wrong. Suppose that, in long
multiplication, a pupil can multiply to 9 × 9 while keeping his place
and keeping track of what he is 'carrying' and of where to write the
figure he writes, and can add what he carries without losing track of
what he is to add it to, where he is to write the unit figure, what he
is to multiply next and by what, and what he will then have to carry, in
each case to a surety of 99 percent of correct responses. Then two
identical answers got by multiplying one three-place number by another a
few minutes apart, and with reversal of the numbers, will not be wrong
more than twice in his entire school career. Checks approach proofs when
the constituent bonds are strong.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account