The Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » Education » math-teach

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Fwd.ReplyEval.Stds.XI
Replies: 0  

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List  
Ronald A Ward

Posts: 298
Registered: 12/4/04
Fwd.ReplyEval.Stds.XI
Posted: Apr 1, 1997 9:44 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Here is a reply concerning mathematical procedures from Kimberly Vincent:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 13:35:27 PST8PDT
From: Kimberly Vincent <kvincent@elder.csrv.uidaho.edu>
To: Ronald A Ward <ronaward@henson.cc.wwu.edu>
Subject: Re: Eval.Stds.XI [3/28/97] (fwd)


Ron's latest post on the Standards brings up something taht is near
and dear to my research. Ron wrote the following:

>
>
> 67. The NCTM Standards have often been criticised as if they placed little
> emphasis on procedures. But I note that one of the bulleted items says
> that students should be able to "reliably and efficiently execute
> procedures." And, in fact, this Standard goes even further. It
> demands a knowledge of procedures that requires much more: when to apply
> procedures, why they work, how to verify that they give correct answers,
> understanding concepts that underlie a procedure, as well as the logic
> that justifies it. And assessment "must emphasize all the aspects of
> procedural knowledge." That's pretty demanding, don't you think? Have
> the critics been wrong?
>


I do think the critics have been wrong. I feel that the thrust of
what has been said in the Standards is that we value how each
individual student solves a problem. Rather than requiring all
students to use the same algorith or procedure for finding a
solution, we allow each of them to use the alogrithms or procedures
that they understand the best.

There are times it will be approriate for all
students to use the same algorithm. When this is the case, it is not
too much to ask that the students understand how the process works,
why and how to verify their answers. I have been using this approach
in a college algebra course (not a prerequisite for calculus). In
this class the students have found they are less frustrated when they
rely on understanding rather than memorization and they have more
avenues for verifying their work is correct, expecially at test time.
So by understanding why and what they are doing they gain confidence
and gain a firmer ground to stand on. Unfortuanley there are always
a few students who feel more comfortable just memroizing the process
for it is less work and they are comfortable mimicing the process.
However, for the majority of my students I have found that they can
live up to the expectations and that they are better mathematics
problems solvers because they understand the process, how, when and
why it works. This gives them a wider range of situations to apply
the process to.
Kimberly Vincent
Department of Mathematics
University of Idaho
Moscow, ID 83844-1103






Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.