
Re: Technology In Education
Posted:
Nov 29, 2007 10:08 PM


An effective recommendation along this line is the secondary Saxon math series. After book 3 (that is marketed under different names) students test quite well and objective assessment does matter. A problem for lots of schools is that the second year is traditionally the geometry one especially if there is to be an emphasis on proof. Funny thing, students who haven't had any experience with Euclidean geometry proofs don't test well in that area. An end of curriculum tests after three years gives a very different impression but is also quite rare.
Wayne
At 06:54 AM 11/29/2007, Paul A. Tanner III wrote: >Don't forget my use of "high" throughout my message below. I know of no >writing by anyone who takes a position consistent with Mathematically >Correct who (we can verify) knows of the high quality curricula of the >East Asians who would object to such curricula being used in place of >US reform curricula. If such writing exists, I'd like to see it. > >Paul > >  Michael Paul Goldenberg <mikegold@umich.edu> wrote: > > > Since the VAST majority of countries do indeed teach integrated > > mathematics, and if we assume that Wayne's data is more than just > > selfserving, then maybe that integrated mathematics stuff isn't some > > > > "fad," as our Mathematically Correct colleagues would mislead their > > fellow citizens to believe. > > > > I think this committee owes an apology, Senator. > > > > Unfortunately, I don't expect that we'll get one. > > > > On Nov 28, 2007, at 11:05 PM, Paul A. Tanner III wrote: > > > > > > > >   Wayne Bishop <wbishop@exchange.calstatela.edu> wrote: > > >> The best students in my geometry class are almost > > >> universally foreign students who have had a traditional Euclidean > > >> geometry proofbased preparation. > > >> > > >> Wayne > > >> > > > > > > A thought that just occurred to me as I read this (since many of > > these > > > higher quality preparations in these other countries are in > > integrated > > > curricula): In a truly high quality integrated curriculum, students > > > obtain a proofbased geometry preparation a little bit at a time > > over > > > years, not all at once in one year. This seems inherently easier to > > > > > me. > > > That is, spreading out the more difficult proofbased stuff over > > the > > > years might inherently be a be a better (easier, more doable) way > > to > > > have as high a percentage of them as possible succeed at obtaining > > a > > > high quality proofbased preparation. > > > > > > Paul > > >

