|
Issue
Math Reform and Traditional Currriculum
Convener
Terri Leyba
Participants
Ed Hutton
Jeanne Canham
|
Discussion and Recommendations
TIMMS report said we teach a mile wide and an inch deep . . . too much per semester
If students go on to another section, reform teaches more problem solving, while traditional teaches more skill development . . . need a way to bridge the gap between
Old and new
Competencies need reviewing
Caught in dilemma => business asks different things
How do we deal with it now? We don't . . . we each do our own thing and ignore the others
Why is what happens at IC not sent out to all teachers?
such as what ASU and UA doing in calculus?
We would like reform and traditional to find a balance in our classrooms that would be the best for the student.
Reform means too many things, is it NCTM standards, is it MMC, is it collaborative learning, is it applications, is it Arizmatyc standards?
When we say 'reform' we set off assumptions that may not be true.
Reform should mean the competencies are at minimum, use technology, writing, collaboratively all together in class. Study groups, etc.
Do we teach thinking or skills? both
Need applications and theory and proofs . . .
Where is the balance?
The bottom line is that we want the best for the students . . .
Do we use graphing calculators and at what level? We need to train the faculty.
What Next?
I will stay informed and continue to learn about math reform. I will attend conferences and workshops where reform oriented curriculum is developed, in return I will conduct inservice training for Adjunct Faculty at SMCC. (Terri Leyba)
|
