Posted on 09/16/2002 7:15:16 PM PDT by Sweet_Sunflower29
Nearly one in three children aged between four and eight cannot tell the time on traditional clock faces.
A study has found that the prevalence of digital clocks on computers, video timers, radio alarms and mobile phones means that children learn to tell the time this way - such as "10:45" rather than "a quarter to eleven".
The survey of 2,950 parents found that the number of children who recognised the "big hand, little hand" method had decreased from 75 per cent to 66 per cent in a year.
Government guidelines state that all children in reception classes - those aged four to five - should be able to read traditional clocks. But 59 per cent cannot.
By year one, aged five to six, they are supposed to understand half and quarter hours, but 52 per cent cannot.
A year later they are meant to have a sense of hours, minutes and seconds, but more than one in four are still struggling. Nearly two thirds of this group cannot tell the time on a digital clock.
Nick Seaton, chairman of the Campaign for Real Education, said: "Children are continually being confronted by digital displays and so it is essential that they also learn to tell the time on analogue clocks and watches."
The research was carried out by BMRB International for the watch-makers Flik Flak.
It was rare enough 20 years ago. The same probably goes for being able to perform interpolation with tables of logarithms. My high school chemistry teacher insisted we learn, but I never had a need for a slide rule, calculators were accepted by then. A lot of things are obsolete now. For example, my ex-wife was the only Japanese I knew who could handwrite all 2000 of the common Kanji.
Sadly that is true. It is also true that in engineering that can be dangerous. The first priority in mathematics is to actually know WHY 2+2=4. To accept a computation from a calculator or a super computer on face value is not a good thing.
This doesn't surprise me. Eventually we're going to lose the ability as a society to do basic arithmetic. The Japanese as a society are forgetting how to handwrite. These are unneeded skills.
And ZinGirl adds: "Actually, using four I's is not a mistake...although the real story is anybody's guess."
ZinGirl is correct, but here's the rest of the story.
When Roman Numerals were originally introduced, there was no value or significance to any given digit or symbol's position in a number. That means that IV and VI both had a value of 6. Such a number system is called a "symbol" weighted system. The only thing that adds value is the symbol.
But in a later development, an attempt was made to "modernize" the Roman Numerals system by adding the concept of "position weighting" where now one had to take into account the position of each symbol relative to the others in order to determine the actual value of a number. By the rules then established for position weighting in the Roman Numeral system, the number IV was thus deemed to have a value of 4 and VI was deemed to have a value of 6.
Which Roman Numeral system is the proper one to use today? Well actually neither, but when it is used the general usage is the modern (or position weighted) one, but for some very formal applications (like your clock), you can still find a few people reverting to the original system.
The change to position weighted was done in a belated attempt to keep the Roman Numeral system "competitive" with the more modern and mathematically useful "place" (not position) weighted systems that were then just beginning to gain acceptance in that area of the world. Place weighted number system are what we use in everyday life today. In our system, each symbol (or digit) has a value that must be multiplied by its position (or column) in the number. Thus when we see the number 1,973 we know that the symbol "7" has a value of 70, and the symbol "9" has a value of 900.
Performing higher forms of math using a symbol weighted is nearly impossible. For example, would you care to calculate the natural log of "V" for me? It was only with the introduction of the place weighted system that such calculations became a reasonable task. Without that development, we never would have left the dark ages and seen the Age of Reason and the development of science. Basically, without it, you would not exist today.
As an interesting aside (for a nerd that is) is that the biggest impediment in the development of a place weighted number system was the invention of a type of digit that had never existed before (because it had never been needed before) and that was the digit zero. (Q: Hey Achmed, what's holding up that new number system of yours? A: Oh, nothing!)(Nerd humor)
So now that I've proven beyond doubt that you owe your existence to "nothing", I'll say good night! Regards,
Boot Hill
Depends on the value of WHY doesn't it? ;-)
That was exactly the philosophy of an old college trig instructor of mine, John Saxon. He always felt that you should be able to forget everything about math in terms of formulas, etc., but should understand math theory well enough that you could re derive anything you might ever need to know whenever you needed to know it. He ended up writing mathematics textbooks using his unique methdology. My 10 year old is currently being taught by the Saxon method in her school (a private religious school).
So how effective is his method? Well, today, after several decades, I can still attack any project requiring math on any level with confidence that I can succeed. And, I rarely use math at all in my ordinary life.
Somehow I just get the feeling that this article is trying to make a point that is a little ludicrous. Oh my god, the kids today are so stupid, they can’t even read a clock. Give me a break, my kids can operate electronic devices with great aplomb, most of which didn’t even exist when I was in school
Guess what, my son can't dial a rotary phone, he must not be being taught the proper stuff in Publik Skool. You know why he can’t? He has never seen one. Same goes for fire alarm boxes on the corner, 8-track tapes, TV rotors, and kerosene lamps. Its all the teachers and educrates fault.
Analog clocks are still everywhere, and roman numerals are tricky, even for me sometimes. But I guess that’s what my parents thought when I wasn’t taught to use a fountain pen or a slide rule. /end of disjointed rant
Recall the written test for Officer Candidate School for the Air Force. They put up a series of dial faces with all kinds of strange graduations and divisions and asked what the readings were. Clocks and radio dials may have digital output these days, but there is still a need to read analog devices. Even something simple like reading the meniscus on the volumetric flask or reading the red blood cells to plasma ratio after centrifuging is analog. Clock face reading extends to many things in our technological civilization, don't skip the opportunity to teach it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.