Re: Math and science study - reply to Dorrit O'Hallaron

Vern Kays (vkays@RICHLAND.CC.IL.US)
Wed, 27 Nov 1996 14:53:53 -0600

Now I am really confused. Removing failure from the curriculum is not what
these documents are about. It is about admitting the learning is more than
just lecture to the top 10% and letting the rest fail. It is about
understanding how students learn and teaching to how students learn.
Students will continue to fail for many of the same reasons in many classes
but it is not because of the "reform" standards. The hope is that the
curriculm will be appropriate and that students will become better
"mathematically" as citizens. Our current curriculum is a failure. It
ignores the needs of the society for the "easy" of faculty unwilling to work
for the "possibility" of more student success. If we continue the "snobish"
attitude, our usefulness in society will be deminished. I am excited about
"reform" because it makes a significant difference in my students
understanding of mathematics and its appropriate application. I am working
harder and smarter than I have before "technology" and "reform" became an
issue in mathematics. My students are working harder. Not because they are
any different than before the course but because the connections are more
useful and more pedogogically sound. We can not remove the need for skill
practice but we can provide useful and "real" needs based mathematics for
all students. It is maybe sad but true, I do not see many mathematics
majors in my developmental classes, (three calculus students in three years
and they are not majors). Our curriculum is failing us as well. Reform is
not about "dumbing down" it is about making more relevant and seeking a
deeper understanding of the concepts by our students. Because of
collaboration, writting and communication via numberical, graphical, and
algebraic methods, I now understand much more about my students learning and
understandig than before I was using "reform" teaching/learning.

Anyway, it time to look deeper than just the superficial. The research is
convincing and useful. Have a great holiday season.

Vern Kays

At 03:19 PM 11/27/96 EST, Bret Taylor wrote:
>At 01:48 PM 1/15/96 GMT, you wrote:
>>The results of this study were published on Thursday, November 21, 1996 on
>>the front pages of The Hartford Courant, The Washington Post, and The
>>Boston Globe. The New York Times buried the story on page B14. Various
>>references to this study are also available from MAA Online (www.maa.org).
>>This study raises serious questions about the reforms, standards,
>>textbooks, and teaching methods that are being promoted today. The study
>>exposes numerous flaws in U.S. mathematics education, including our
>>abominable textbooks and our poor methods of teaching. Based on what I have
>>read so far, none of these problems is being addressed by the reform,
>>standards, and technology crowd.
>>Dom Rosa
>>rosa@mail.teikyopost.edu
>>
>>
>
>I appreciate what you and everyone else is saying about our educational
>problems. I understand that they are very complicated and complex and the
>solutions lie not just in educational reform, but also social, cultural,
>ethical and spiritual areas as well.
>
>However, I am convinced that until we re-introduce the possibility of
>failure back into education, we will never significantly improve our
>educational system. Too many students think they start with a "C" and work
>their way up (if they want to) and too many times they are right.
>
>"Where there is no possibility of failure, there is no chance for success."
>
>
>
>
>Bret Taylor Lake-Sumter Community College Leesburg FL
>
>"It matters not the subject taught, nor all the books on all the shelves.
>What matters more, yes most of all, is what the teachers are themselves."
> John Wooden
>
>John 3: 3 3
>