>Does anyone know of any research dealing with the sequence of Algebra I, >Geometry, Algebra II? I received a letter from a teacher in our state >wondering if there was any research to support 9th students lack of >matuirty to be successful in geometry. It appears form the letter that >there school has 8th grade algebra, followed by geometry for 9th grade. >Her question was would it be better to have the students take Algebra II >in 9th grade and save geometry for 10th grade? > > >later..... > >Linda Coutts e-mail address: email@example.com >Coordinator Elementary Mathematics >Columbia Public Schools Voice: (314) 886-2233 >1206 E. Walnut St FAX: (314) 886-2078 >Columbia, MO 65201
This message resonates with a discussion on the geometry forum about readiness. To summarize quickly for nctm-l folks, Lou Talman suggested that some sort of neurological readiness might be necessary for certain things in math, there was a lot of discussion/disagreement/agreement, and the latest was a message from John Conway whose first paragraph is:
" I'm a bit worried about this "not neurologically ready" business. The time when someone is neurologically ready to learn something is just whatever time works! If a teacher refrains from exploring some ideas because the teacher has read that students of such-and-such an age aren't neurologically ready for them, there's a very real risk of loss."
So Linda raises a question of interest to both lists. I've asked Annie Fetter, the person who runs the geometry forum lists and, now, nctm-l, to tell us how to access the geometry discussion digest.
I have another question -- what is this geometry that kids may/may not be ready for? And what is this algebra ditto?
Welcome back everyone!
==================================== Judy Roitman, Mathematics Department Univ. of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66049 firstname.lastname@example.org =====================================