Soundoff: A Case against Computer Symbolic Manipulation in School Mathematics Today

1992 ◽  
Vol 85 (3) ◽  
pp. 180-183
Author(s):  
Bert K. Waits ◽  
Franklin Demana
Keyword(s):  
Mathematics Education ◽  
Computer Algebra ◽  
Graphing Calculators ◽  
School Mathematics ◽  
Computer Algebra Systems ◽  
National Council ◽  
Symbolic Manipulation ◽  
Symbol Manipulation ◽  
Evaluation Standards ◽  
Exploration Tool

The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics and leaders in mathematics education must move vigorously to build a consensus for acceptance of the Curriculum and Evaluation Standards (NCTM 1989). One important assumption of the Curriculum and Evaluation Standards is that all students should use computers and graphing calculators on a regular basis in school mathematics. The symbol-manipulating ability of such computer algebra systems (CAS) as the IBM Math Exploration Tool Kit, Mathematics™, and Derive™ can be used today in school mathematics to do algebra. However, we take exception to the use of computer symbol manipulation in school mathematics today for two important reasons.

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.

Sound Off!: To CAS or Not to CAS?

2008 ◽  
Vol 102 (1) ◽  
pp. 8-9
Author(s):  
Andrew Freda
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Development ◽  
Conceptual Understanding ◽  
Computer Algebra ◽  
Mathematics Teachers ◽  
Computer Algebra Systems ◽  
Symbolic Manipulation ◽  
Mathematical Literacy ◽  
Symbol Manipulation ◽  
Ap Calculus ◽  
Interesting Discussion

The AP Calculus Listserv recently posted an interesting discussion about whether mathematics teachers should continue to teach certain algebraic techniques such as rationalizing a numerator or whether we should move students away from symbolic manipulation and toward the use of computer algebra systems (CAS). One writer, who was concerned about mathematical literacy and cognitive development, argued against using CAS, contending that the activity of symbol manipulation helps solidify or enhance conceptual understanding of mathematics. Another writer, who was in favor of CAS, maintained that once teachers are convinced that students understand the idea behind a given skill, we should allow them to use CAS rather than practice the traditional skills of algebra.

NCTM's Standards for School Mathematics, K – 12

1988 ◽  
Vol 81 (5) ◽  
pp. 348-351
Author(s):  
Charles S. Thompson ◽  
Edward C. Rathmell
Keyword(s):  
Mathematics Education ◽  
School Districts ◽  
Mathematics Learning ◽  
School Mathematics ◽  
National Council ◽  
Evaluation Standards ◽  
State And Local ◽  
K 12 ◽  
National Tests ◽  
Local Levels

The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics is in the process of generating a set of Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics (Standards) (Commission on Standards of the NCTM 1987). NCTM has committed considerable resources to this project, anticipating that the Standards will have a pervasive effect on mathematics education during the next five to ten years. The expectation is that the Standards will influence curriculum writing at the state and local levels and that the resulting curricular changes will influence the content of textbooks adopted by states and school districts. Furthermore, the newly written curricula, together with the new Standards for the evaluation of mathematics learning, should influence the content and emphasis of local, state, and national tests.

Soundoff: Are Teachers Prepared to Implement The Standards?

1990 ◽  
Vol 83 (4) ◽  
pp. 248-251
Author(s):  
Michael B. Fiske
Keyword(s):  
Mathematics Education ◽  
National Research Council ◽  
School Mathematics ◽  
National Commission ◽  
National Council ◽  
Evaluation Standards ◽  
Mathematics Standards ◽  
Nation At Risk ◽  
Excellence In Education ◽  
Societal Expectations

The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics's Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics (Standards) (1989) presents a view of precollege mathematics t hat stresses the development of mathematical power. Framed within the context of students' needs, societal expectations, and engaging teaching, the Standards proposes to define the mathematical content of school mathematics. It responds to the crisis in mathematics education described in Everybody Counts: A Report to the Nation on the Future of Mathematics Education (National Research Council 1989), A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education 1983), and Educating Americans for the 21st Century (National Science Board Commission on Precollege Education in Mathematics, Science, and Technology 1983). Although representing a consensus of mathematics educators, the Standards does not present a research basis for its recommendations (NCTM 1988) and thus at times stands at odds with the descriptive accounts of current mathematics teaching practices found in The Underachieving Curriculum (McKnight et al. 1987) and The Mathematics Report Card (Dossey, Mullis, Lindquist, and Chambers 1988). This article examines implications for teaching of explicit and implicit assumptions in the Standards and compares them with other views in the literature.

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).

Informing Learning Through the Clinical Interview

1991 ◽  
Vol 38 (6) ◽  
pp. 44-46
Author(s):  
Madeleine J. Long ◽  
Meir Ben-Hur
Keyword(s):  
Student Outcomes ◽  
Clinical Interview ◽  
School Mathematics ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Teaching Mathematics ◽  
National Council ◽  
Evaluation Standards ◽  
Paper And Pencil ◽  
Primary Assessment

The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics's Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics (1989) and Professional Srandards for Teaching Mathematics (1989) endorse the view that assessment should be made an integral part of teaching. Although many of the student outcomes described in the Srandards cannot properly be assessed using paper-and-pencil tests, such tests remain the primary assessment tools in today's classroom.

A Plan for Assessing the Impact of the NCTM's Agenda for Action

1984 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-14
Keyword(s):  
Mathematics Education ◽  
School Mathematics ◽  
Significant Part ◽  
National Council ◽  
The Impact

In 1980, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) published An Agenda for Action: Recommendations for School Mathematics of the 1980s. The Agenda was widely disseminated and represents a significant part of NCTM's effons to influence changes in mathematics education during the current decade.

Welcome to Our Focus Issue on Problem Solving

2003 ◽  
Vol 96 (8) ◽  
pp. 529
Keyword(s):  
Mathematics Education ◽  
Problem Solving ◽  
Word Problems ◽  
Mathematics Curriculum ◽  
School Mathematics ◽  
National Council ◽  
Seminal Work ◽  
Strong Case ◽  
School Mathematics Curriculum

THE CALL FOR THIS FOCUS ISSUE BEGAN BY reminding readers that in 1980, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics made a strong case for including problem solving in the mathematics curriculum. Problem solving was not a new topic at that time—after all, George Pólya published his seminal work, How to Solve It, in 1945. However, the 1980 Agenda for Action publication marked the beginning of a period in mathematics education when the processes of problem solving received specific attention in the school mathematics curriculum. Problem solving became much more than solving word problems.

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