## Lots of 'em

Word/Phrase | Number of Occurrences | Clarification |
---|---|---|

## Not lots of 'em

Word/Phrase | Number of Occurrences | Clarification |

Alright, kiddies, this is one that you can play at home. Just grab your handy copy of the Daft Australian Curriculum, and go word searching. For example, you might look up the word “aimless” and, strangely, nothing will occur. On the other hand, look up “effective”/”effectively” and, just as strangely, you will get plenty of hits.

So, go to it. Look up your favourite/anti-favourite mathematical words and phrases, and let us know the number of hits in the comments. We’ll keep track of the results in our handy dandy Lots and Not-Lots tables, above.

Just a few quick notes:

*) Different derivatives of the same root word or phrase should be grouped together.

*) We’ll add clarifying notes on usage of the word/phrase when it seems appropriate.

*) We won’t be checking your puzzling skills very carefully. We’ll simply put up the numbers, and it’s up to others to do the checking. Then, we’ll correct the totals when need be.

Happy hunting.

I don’t know how to put this in, so maybe somebody can do it for me. The word “theorems” appears 8 times, usually as “spatial theorems” or “geometric theorems” (I don’t know what the difference is), but the only “theorem” to be so mentioned is “Pythagoras Theorem” (once) and “Pythagoras’ theorem” (19 times – note the apostrophe). What other spatial/geometric theorems do they expect will appear? And clearly no algebraic theorems or theorems from number theory or set theory.

The word only shows up in *measurement* and *space*. I suppose this means that when teachers are teaching about proofs in those strands, they should certainly not use any examples from algebra. Wow, we’re going to need a lot of PD to show those teachers how to achieve these goals.

I have a nasty feeling that in this new and wonderful world of ACARAthematics, “proof” means “fiddle about with your calculator until you’re convinced it’s true.” Or, and let’s be pragmatic here, simply “fiddle about with your calculator”. Mind you, they do talk about “digital tools” which always makes me think of sticking fingers into places they shouldn’t be.

My interpretation of “digital tools” is different, but not any more complimentary.

I made a word cloud of the most common noun phrases (using spaCy to get them out) in this Ofsted report https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/research-review-series-mathematics/research-review-series-mathematics

and in the ACARA F-6 maths curriculum. I’m not sure if it helps me understand though. Maybe I should compare the ACARA one with a similar curriculum document from somewhere?

Thanks, WST. I planned to post on that amazingly good UK report.

Probably clouds are not the way to go, since you have to filter out “students” and so on. Plus, clouds tell you what is there: the main point is, what is missing?

Yeah, I thought maybe the comparison (with something I liked) would show what was missing. But it needs to be comparable. The cloud shows how prominently “digital tools” feature in the curriculum though.

21 times, plus the authors.

And that’s just in the F-6 part.

Now that’s funny. In the Dr. Strangelove sense of “funny”.