Nancy
Posts:
4
Registered:
12/3/04
|
|
Re: Re: where is the real weakness?
Posted:
Sep 30, 2002 2:20 PM
|
|
Mark writes:
I will concede that Investigations may be a great program for an
experienced "good math teacher." However, not all teachers
experienced.... and not all teachers are good math teachers.
Mark,
Isn't it sad that all teachers are not good math teachers? It seems
that in the past (maybe still) there was a perception that it takes
training and skill to teach a child to read. At the same time the
perception was that anyone who can do arithmetic can teach it to our
young children. After all, it only amounts to memorizing facts and
algorithms.
The NCTM Standards, the work being done through the National Science
Foundation (NSF), Investigations Math, and many other things are
trying to change that. If we are going to turn out world class math
students, they need world class curriculum and teachers.
Unfortunately many elementary teachers are not strong in math, which
is one of the reasons that NSF and the states are putting a lot of
money into training teachers to teach beyond memorizing. The new
emphasis on mathematical reasoning and problem solving is part of what
makes Investigations look so different from elementary math a
generation ago. But this new emphasis doesn't eliminate the need for
learning basic facts and developing efficient computation procedures.
As others have said, curriculum is designed to support teachers. It
can't and shouldn't be asked to replace them. More than anything else
it is the quality of teaching that determines what is learned. If we
are changing our expectations for students and teachers, and I believe
we have radically done that in the last generation to try to be
competetive internationally, then we need to be sure that teachers
are prepared and supported as we make these changes.
My fourth grade students have soared using Investigations. They are
so much stronger than the students I taught before Investigations was
adopted in our district.
Nancy
|
|
