Search All of the Math Forum:

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

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

Topic: Re: meaningful standards (fwd)
Replies: 1   Last Post: Jun 1, 1995 12:19 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 W Gary Martin Posts: 80 Registered: 12/6/04
Re: meaningful standards (fwd)
Posted: May 31, 1995 1:35 PM

On Tue, 30 May 1995 Harvey Becker wrote:
But do you agree that it is better to define sine as y/r before having
students try to find the sine of 30 degrees?

Steve Means replied:
Indeed. We place definitions up front.

What an interesting coincidence! One of my friends is working on her
undergrad degree and often comes to me for help with her math courses. This
summer she is taking precalculus at the university. Last week her class
started on trig and she asked for help with problems in which they were
asked to compute the trig ratios for right triangles with varying lengths
given. After dealing with her questions, there was a rather long silence.
Finally, she asked, "Why am I computing these ratios anyway?" I burst out
laughing! What a great question! There was absolutely no reason to do any
of those problems, other than to drill the definition which was placed up
front! WHO CARES INDEED! It was useless!

In contrast, consider the approach we use in the Geometry Learning Project,
a r/d project for high school geometry. We begin by developing the
constancy of the tangent ratio (which we actually called slope) for right
triangles with the same angles, tying in similarity, and its usefulness to
determining missing lengths. Motivate the desirability of having a
tabulation of slopes going with various angle measures. As a class project,
have them make a table experimentally using grid paper. THEN give them a
chart with enhanced accuracy and discuss the tan button on their
calculators. They are pathetically grateful. "We'll never have to graph
another triangle! Thanks!"

In other words, there was (a) external motivation for wanting to develop
the idea (wanting to save time) AND (b) some internal mathematical
structure for developing the idea (preservation of ratios of lengths in
similar figures).

I fear that either of these two are easily ignored. By placing definitions
up front, where is the motivation, either externally or internally?

On the other hand, as several people have commented, many new programs are
great with external motivation but weak on providing the internal
structure. We need both!

Gary

============================================================
W. Gary Martin 1776 University Ave.
University of Hawaii Honolulu, HI 96822
Curriculum R & D Group (808)956-9956; FAX (808)956-4984

Date Subject Author
5/31/95 W Gary Martin
6/1/95 Steve Means