现在是时候为20世纪30年代贝内泽-伯曼数学教学实验的科学对应物了吗？
Is it time for a science counterpart of the Benezet-Berman mathematics teaching experiment of the 1930's?
摘要：
教师是否应该专注于批判性思维，估计，测量和绘图，而不是在K-12年级的大学克隆算法物理？迄今为止，物理教育研究几乎没有提供实质性的指导。数学教育研究在20世纪30年代解决了这个问题的数学模拟。新罕布什尔州曼彻斯特的学生直到六年级才开始学习算术算法。在较早的年级，他们阅读，发明，并讨论故事和问题;估计长度，高度和面积;并喜欢寻找和解释与他们生活相关的数字。在六年级，经过4个月的正式训练，他们在算法能力方面赶上了普通学生，在一般计算能力以及他们在五年前练习的语言，语义和解决问题的技能方面遥遥领先。评估是定性的-例如，要求八年级学生用自己的话讲述为什么“如果你有两个分子相同的分数，分母较小的分数是较大的”;以及定量--例如，对六年级的测试组和对照组进行标准化算术考试。现在是时候进行20世纪30年代Benezet/Berman Manchester实验的科学配对了吗？
英文摘要：
Should teachers concentrate on critical thinking, estimation, measurement, and graphing rather than college-clone algorithmic physics in grades K--12? Thus far physics education research offers little substantive guidance. Mathematics education research addressed the mathematics analogue of this question in the 1930's. Students in Manchester, New Hampshire were not subjected to arithmetic algorithms until grade 6. In earlier grades they read, invented, and discussed stories and problems; estimated lengths, heights, and areas; and enjoyed finding and interpreting numbers relevant to their lives. In grade 6, with 4 months of formal training, they caught up to the regular students in algorithmic ability, and were far ahead in general numeracy and in the verbal, semantic, and problem solving skills they had practiced for the five years before. Assessment was both qualitative -- e.g., asking 8th grade students to relate in their own words why it is `that if you have two fractions with the same numerator, the one with the smaller denominator is the larger'; and quantitative -- e.g., administration of standardized arithmetic examinations to test and control groups in the 6th grade. Is it time for a science counterpart of the Benezet/Berman Manchester experiment of the 1930's?
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
