Re: MATHEDCC Digest - 16 Mar 1996 to 17 Mar 1996 -Reply
Mike Mallen (MALLEN@GATE1.SBCC.CC.CA.US)
Mon, 18 Mar 1996 13:20:42 -0800
Concerning the reform math: Having taught the new math of the '60's, I
can say that it failed because (1) teachers, especially elementary
teachers were not ready for it - they did not have the backgrounds to
judge what topics were important and no one trained them. As a
consequence they emphasized the vocabulary of the properties at the
expense of both skills and problem solving (2) It attempted to show the
underlying axiomatic structure and to show the role of proof in math. This
was overdone, but textbook publishers picked up enough of it to
profoundly influence subsequent texts positively (the pre-60's texts
were lists of rules to memorize, e.g., 'transposing' in solving equations).
The new math's effects are still with us.
I might add that most of our elementary and intermediate algebra texts
contain many manipulative exercises dreamed up by text authors over
the last 100 years which 90% of the students will never see in an
application. Most of these manipulations are supposed to prepare
students for calculus, though few actually go on to calculus. In fact, the
calculus reform and the spread of hand held graphing calculators and
symbol manipulators has reduced the need for many of these
manipulations.
Mike Mallen
Santa Barbara City College