Implementing The Standards: Multiple Approaches to Geometry: Teaching Similarity

1990 ◽  
Vol 83 (4) ◽  
pp. 274-280
Author(s):  
Sharon L. Senk ◽  
Daniel B. Hirschhorn
Keyword(s):  
Mathematics Education ◽  
Secondary School ◽  
Algebraic Approach ◽  
Physical World ◽  
School Mathematics ◽  
The Other ◽  
Synthetic Approach ◽  
Evaluation Standards

Geometry as a subject uniquely furnishes a language for describing our physical world. It also gives a way visually to represent concepts and relations in other branches of mathematics. Although debate might always ensue on whether geometry should be a full-year secondary school course, the importance of geometry throughout a student's mathematics education seems to have broad acceptance. Consequently, it is not surprising that in the Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics (NCTM 1989) we find an explicit standard on geometry for all levels K–4, 5–8, and 9–12. In fact, for grades 9–12, two standards on geometry are included—one focusing on a synthetic approach, the other on an algebraic approach.

Examining the Recruitment, Placement, and Career Trajectories of Secondary Mathematics Teachers Prepared for High-Need Schools

2019 ◽  
Vol 121 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-36
Author(s):  
William Zahner ◽  
Suzanne Chapin ◽  
Rich Levine ◽  
Lingjun A. He ◽  
Robert Afonso
Keyword(s):  
Secondary School ◽  
Mathematics Teachers ◽  
Early Career ◽  
School Mathematics ◽  
The Other ◽  
Attrition Rate ◽  
Secondary School Mathematics ◽  
Stem Majors ◽  
Career Trajectories ◽  
High Need Schools

Background School leaders are challenged by the relatively limited supply and high turnover of qualified secondary school mathematics teachers. In response, policy makers and teacher educators have developed various pathways and incentives to recruit, train, place, and support highly qualified mathematics teachers to work in hard-to-staff schools. Focus of Study In this study, we investigate the recruitment, placement, and early career trajectories of 158 Grades 6–12 mathematics teachers from two preparation programs focused on staffing “high-need” schools in the same region. Setting The contrasting programs were both supported by the same university in the Northeast United States. Participants & Programs The participants were 158 secondary school (Grades 6–12) mathematics teachers. Of these, 48 were recruited and prepared through a teacher education program with financial support from the National Science Foundation-funded Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program. The other 110 school mathematics teachers were recruited and trained through the Greater Boston office of Teach For America. Both programs required two years of service in high-need schools. Research Design In this study, we used a comparative design. Descriptive profiles of teachers from each program were created. Then, participants’ early career trajectories were compared using logistic regression and survival analysis. Data Collection and Analysis We administered a longitudinal survey and created a database combining survey data and each program's administrative data. Conclusions Our data illustrate that the Noyce scholarship-supported pathway was generally successful in recruiting individuals with STEM majors, training them to be mathematics teachers, and placing those individuals as secondary school mathematics teachers in high-need schools. The comparison of the scholarship-pathway teachers with the secondary school mathematics teachers in the alternative-certification pathway provides a useful contrast. On the one hand, the alternatively certified secondary school mathematics teachers were less likely than the scholarship-pathway teachers to have STEM majors, and the attrition rate for the alternatively prepared teachers was higher than the attrition rate for the scholarship-supported teachers, particularly after they had completed the two-year service requirement. On the other hand, the alternative-certification program recruited a more diverse pool of potential teachers and placed these teachers in schools serving a higher proportion of low-SES students.

scholarly journals Mathematics education and the dignity of being

Pythagoras ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Paola Valero ◽  
Gloria García ◽  
Francisco Camelo ◽  
Gabriel Mancera ◽  
Julio Romero
Keyword(s):  
Mathematics Education ◽  
Secondary School ◽  
Latin American ◽  
Teacher Educators ◽  
Mathematics Curriculum ◽  
School Mathematics ◽  
Critical Geography ◽  
Mathematics Classrooms ◽  
The Enlightenment ◽  
Political Approach

On the grounds of our work as researchers, teacher educators and teachers engaging with a socio-political approach in mathematics education in Colombia, we propose to understand democracy in terms of the possibility of constructing a social subjectivity for the dignity of being. We address the dilemma of how the historical insertion of school mathematics in relation to the Colonial project of assimilation of Latin American indigenous peoples into the episteme of the Enlightenment and Modernity is in conflict with the possibility of the promotion of a social subjectivity in mathematics classrooms. We illustrate a pedagogical possibility to move towards a mathematics education for social subjectivity with our work in reassembling the notion of geometrical space in the Colombian secondary school mathematics curriculum with notions of space from critical geography and the problem of territorialisation, and Latin American epistemology with the notion of intimate space as an important element of social subjectivity.

One Point of View: Reclaiming School Mathematics

1990 ◽  
Vol 37 (8) ◽  
pp. 4-5
Author(s):  
Portia Elliott
Keyword(s):  
Mathematics Education ◽  
Mathematics Curriculum ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
School Mathematics ◽  
Evaluation Standards ◽  
Design Change

The framers of the Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics (NCTM 1989) call for a radical “design change” in all aspects of mathematics education. They believe that “evaluation is a tool for implementing the Standards and effecting change systematically” (p. 189). They warn, however, that “without changes in how mathematics is assessed, the vision of the mathematics curriculum described in the standards will not be implemented in classrooms, regardless of how texts or local curricula change” (p. 252).

An Achievement test in Solid Geometry

1928 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 151-162
Author(s):  
Louis A. McCoy
Keyword(s):  
Secondary School ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Achievement Test ◽  
School Mathematics ◽  
The Other ◽  
Good Teacher ◽  
Secondary School Mathematics ◽  
Solid Geometry ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Right

In the work of teaching secondary school mathematics in a large school where there are as many as twelve different divisions of the same subject, it would be very interesting and indeed very enlightening to see the different grades of work being done. Different teachers have their own pet ways of doing things, of presenting new matter, of conducting recitations, of drilling on old matter, of developing mathematical power in their pupils, etc. And yet they are all striving for the same results. The fact that one teacher's pupils consistently attain better results naturally should put a premium on that teacher's methods, and the work of the department would be improved if some of the other teachers would take a leaf out of the successful teacher's book. Students will often remark “So and So is a good teacher; I get a lot out of his class; he makes things clear; he has good discipline; he certainly gets the stuff over, etc.”An inspector visits the class, notes the attitude of the pupils, the personality and skill of the teacher, and oftentimes is familiar enough with the subject matter of the recitation to see if the pupils are catching and giving back the right things, and then grades the teacher as an Al man, for example. But does the opinion of the boys themselves or the visitor answer the question whether or not the teacher is successful in giving his subject to the pupils? Don't we need something more objective, more tangible, more exact on which to pin our faith? In general the supervisors are hitting it right, also the students, but we think we can do better.

Implementing the Curriculum and Evaluation Standards: First-Year Algebra

1991 ◽  
Vol 84 (9) ◽  
pp. 715-722
Author(s):  
Judith Kysh
Keyword(s):  
Secondary School ◽  
Mathematics Teachers ◽  
School Mathematics ◽  
First Year ◽  
Evaluation Standards ◽  
Secondary School Mathematics

Fans of Dr. Doolittle may recall his famous fictional beast, the Push-Me-Pull-You. It had heads at both ends but never knew which way to go. Many secondary school mathematics teachers feel as though they are trying to ride one of these creatures when they examine the NCTM's Curriculum and Evaluation Standards (1989) and then turn around to consider the institutional demands of their schools and local universities.

SoundOFF: The Computer—A Tool for Instruction?

1984 ◽  
Vol 77 (6) ◽  
pp. 404-490
Author(s):  
Jack D. Wilkinson
Keyword(s):  
Mathematics Education ◽  
Secondary School ◽  
Positive Impact ◽  
School Mathematics ◽  
Secondary School Mathematics ◽  
History Of

“January of 1980 is an important month in the history of computers and people. During that month, more computers were built than children were born.” This statement by Arthur Luehrmann should set the stage for a September 1984 statement that describes the significant, positive impact that computers have had on secondary school mathematics education (grades 7-12). However, no such statement can be made.

On My Mind: The Standards—Some Second Thoughts

1996 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 8-11
Author(s):  
Stephen S. Willoughby
Keyword(s):  
Mathematics Education ◽  
School Mathematics ◽  
National Council ◽  
Evaluation Standards ◽  
Professional Educators ◽  
The Way

Members of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics can be proud of the Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics (NCTM 1989). Not only has the Standards document set the course for improving mathematics education, but it has been imitated by virtually every other content-oriented teachers' organization. Thus, as well as recasting mathematics education, the NCTM has led the way toward recasting education generally. However, professional educators have an obligation to reconsider and reflect on the Standards themselves and any other recommendations made by responsible educators and organizations.

Felix Klein and the NCTM's Standards: A Mathematician Considers Mathematics Education

2000 ◽  
Vol 93 (8) ◽  
pp. 714-717
Author(s):  
Kim Krusen McComas
Keyword(s):  
Mathematics Education ◽  
School Mathematics ◽  
Rote Learning ◽  
German Mathematician ◽  
Evaluation Standards ◽  
10Th Anniversary ◽  
Felix Klein ◽  
Look Back ◽  
Principles And Standards ◽  
Year 2000

The year 1999 marked the 10th anniversary of the NCTM's Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics. It also marked the 150th anniversary of the birth of German mathematician Felix Klein, who lived from 1849 to 1925. Although the relation between these two anniversaries may not be obvious, the connection is that Klein, were he still alive today, would probably support the NCTM's Standards. As the year 2000 brings us NCTM's Principles and Standards for School Mathematics, let us look back to the year 1900 and find Felix Klein at the forefront of a movement to reform mathematics education from rote learning to more meaningful mathematical learning.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document