Thursday, November 22, 2012
Alternative pathways
It seems that student-success discussion at two-year colleges is shifting from "course redesign" to "alternative pathways" for the math required to transfer.
The topics overlap considerably, because the idea of alternative pathways normally involves modifying course prerequisites in format and/or content.
Some community colleges are exploring alternative pathways via multiple versions of intermediate algebra. For example, several campuses have a "pre-stats" course which prepares students for the regular statistics course, but the pre-stats course does not cover all of intermediate algebra (and may not have elementary algebra as a prerequisite).
The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, the Dana Center at UT Austin, and 3CSN (California Community College Success Network) are three groups promoting the development of alternative pathways through dev math for non-STEM majors. The California State University system has agreed to accept Statway™ (Carnegie's two-semester course beginning at the elementary algebra level and ending with a transferable statistics credits) for meeting the Area B4 (math/quantitative reasoning ) requirement for transfer.
But last month the CSU emailed California Community College articulation officers the following:
"When the CSU reviews community college courses proposed to satisfy Area B4, we look for a prerequisite of intermediate algebra. We’re aware that many community colleges are experimenting with alternative prerequisites to their approved B4 courses, in an effort to improve student persistence. Some of these alternatives take away topics traditionally included in intermediate algebra; others substitute a different course altogether.
"Please take this email as a reminder that only courses with a full prerequisite of intermediate algebra, as traditionally understood, will continue to qualify for CSU Area B4.
"The CSU has made a recent exception for the Statway™ curriculum, under controlled and very limited circumstances, so we can evaluate whether other approaches will satisfactorily develop student proficiency in quantitative reasoning. In the meantime, we count on the articulation community to uphold the current standard."
That email seems to cast doubt on the future of alternative pathways. But in the meanwhile, the CSU appears to be fine with the strategy proposed by Palomar College. Palomar is not changing the intermediate algebra prerequisite for statistics, but evidently students who pass the alternative pre-stats course will be allowed to waive the intermediate algebra prerequisite.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Student struggle is a good thing!
NPR recently interviewed UCLA researcher Jim Stigler about the differences between how the US and other cultures view student struggle.
In the US, we typically attribute academic success to intelligence, and often give praise by admiring how smart someone is. In many east Asian cultures, success is attributed to continued effort, and children are praised for their persistence to overcome obstacles.
A possible consequence is that US children who do not have immediate success at a task will abandon the effort--their intelligence was evidently insufficient. And US education authorities view student struggle as an indicator that something is wrong--the term "struggling student" is used to designate a student who requires some intervention, rather than to describe a student experiencing an essential stage of deep understanding.
Asian cultures often embrace student struggle as a key indicator of future success. And it actually should be embraced by educators following the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics, which has as its first standard of Mathematical Practices:
- Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them.
Praising intelligence rather than effort also reinforces a fixed mindset, which can limit a person's successes, whereas praising effort promotes the development of a growth mindset. Carol Dweck has fascinating data on how mindsets affect learning and how mindsets can be changed.
Labels:
ccss,
common core state standards,
K-12,
mindsets,
struggle
Sunday, October 14, 2012
Mathematical Practices
The Common Core State Standards list Standards for Mathematical Practice at each grade level. These practices are
Mathematical Practices
1. Make sense of problems and persevere in
solving them.
2. Reason abstractly and quantitatively.
3. Construct viable arguments and critique
the reasoning of others.
4. Model with mathematics.
5. Use appropriate tools strategically.
6. Attend to precision.
7. Look for and make use of structure.
8. Look for and express regularity in
repeated reasoning.
These same eight
expectations are listed in the descriptions for every grade level and for every
advanced (a.k.a. high school) course.
But carrying out the Mathematical Practices will look different at
different grade levels.
The practices that may require the most clarification are probably #4 (Model with mathematics), #7
(Look for and make use of structure) and #8 (Look for and express regularity in
repeated reasoning).
Modeling with
mathematics typically involves using and perhaps even creating mathematical
objects (such as algebraic expressions, equations, inequalities, graphs, etc.)
to capture key aspects of a situation to be explored. A kindergartner might use 2+3 to represent
the number of people involved if two people are joined by 3 more; a sixth
grader might describe a relationship
between the numbers of tables to chairs in a room by the ratio 1:4; an Algebra
I student might use the expression 10x
to represent the value (in cents) of x
dimes.
But not all word
problems involve mathematical modeling.
It is not mathematical modeling to use a contrived algebraic expression
such as a quadratic expression obtained by curve-fitting bi-variate data
without any plausible a priori reason for believing that the two variables should be
related quadratically.
Mathematical
Practice #7, seeking and using
structure, is key to both pure and applied mathematics. A first-grader begins to recognize that an
addition fact such as 2+3=5 carries with it a family of related arithmetic
facts, e.g., 3+2=5, 5-2=3, 5-3=2, etc. ; a seventh-grader can see that because
a+0.05a = 1.05a, increasing a quantity by 5% is equivalent to scaling the
quantity by 1.05; a geometry student recognizes and introduces structure by
adding an auxiliary line to a geometric diagram. Mathematical Practice #7 is definitely not
about memorizing or plugging into formulas--both practices, when applied inappropriately, can allow
students to ignore the underlying structure .
I personally need
further explanation of Mathematical Practice #8. Here is how it's first described in the CCSS:
Mathematically
proficient students notice if calculations are repeated, and look both for
general methods and for shortcuts. Upper elementary students might notice when
dividing 25 by 11 that they are repeating the same calculations over and over
again, and conclude they have a repeating decimal. By paying attention to the
calculation of slope as they repeatedly check whether points are on the line through (1, 2) with
slope 3, middle school students might abstract the equation \( \frac {y – 2}{x – 1} =
3\) . Noticing the regularity in the way terms cancel when expanding (x – 1)(x +
1), (x – 1)(x^2 + x + 1), and (x – 1)(x^3 + x^2 + x + 1) might lead them to the general
formula for the sum of a geometric series. As they work to solve a problem,
mathematically proficient students maintain oversight of the process, while attending to the
details. They continually evaluate the reasonableness of their intermediate
results.
The phrase
"repeated reasoning" presumably refers to the "R" in
Guershon Harel's DNR. Some of Harel's work is listed in the mathematics CCSS
references, but there do not appear to be any direct attributions cited.
Labels:
ccss,
common core state standards,
K-12,
teacher prep
Friday, October 12, 2012
Supporting community college faculty across the disciplines
I recently spent 48
hours in Northfield, MN (home of Malt-O-Meal) to work with educators from
different disciplines and different organizations trying to find ways to
increase two-year college faculty awareness of and participation in
professional development opportunities.
The workshop was
hosted by Carleton College and its Science Education Research Council. SERC (http://serc.careltoncollege.edu) has
amassed an impressive collection of resources across multiple disciplines
including geoscience (the first discipline), chemistry, economics, mathematics,
physics, psychology, and more.
The Pedagogy in
Action page (http://serc.carleton.edu/sp/)
has links for Teaching Methods, Activities, and Research on Learning. SERC is
continually seeking to improve its website to become a one-stop launching point
for finding discipline-specific lesson plans, research-based pedagogical
strategies, student projects, career information--essentially anything of
interest to an educator seeking to improve student learning.
SERC has also been
learning how to run effective workshops.
We were given pre-workshop assignments to upload essays into designated
spaces on the SERC website that were visible to the other participants but not to the rest of the
world. And during the workshop we were constantly moving from
whole group to small group activities, mixing tasks from cross-discipline to
the discipline-specific.
Each group would
choose a recorder, who wirelessly entered directly into the SERC system. The others in the small working group could
see the notes on their own computers during their discussion, and the notes
were available to the whole group during the "share out" session.
Working across disciplines allowed us to learn of challenges and strategies
that gave us fresh perspectives for our discipline-specific discussions.
The real-time
recording of discussions means that our notes won't be accidentally lost among
papers or luggage during our journeys home. Eventually the notes from our
workshop will be organized, polished, and made publicly accessible on the SERC
site.
Friday, September 28, 2012
Simpson's Rule on Cubics
Simpson's rule
approximates a definite integral
by replacing the integrand f with the quadratic function that agrees with f at the endpoints and midpoint of each sub-interval. (For comparison, the Left- and Right-Hand Riemann sums each replace f with a constant function, the Trapezoid and Midpoint rules replace f with the linear function respectively agreeing with f at the endpoints of the interval or agreeing with both f and f' at the midpoint of the interval.)
by replacing the integrand f with the quadratic function that agrees with f at the endpoints and midpoint of each sub-interval. (For comparison, the Left- and Right-Hand Riemann sums each replace f with a constant function, the Trapezoid and Midpoint rules replace f with the linear function respectively agreeing with f at the endpoints of the interval or agreeing with both f and f' at the midpoint of the interval.)
It is remarkable
that Simpson's rule gives the exact values of definite integrals not only for
any quadratic but also for any cubic polynomial, using only one sub-interval.
This can be
algebraically verified by using the change of variable x = a + (b - a)t and verifying
that Simpson's rule with one sub- interval gives the exact value for
Here is a more geometric argument.
Let f be a cubic
polynomial, and let q be the quadratic function satisfying f(a) = q(a),
f(b) = q(b), and f((a+b)/2) = q((a+b)/2).
Then the error in
using Simpson's rule for approximating
is
where E is the cubic polynomial defined by E(x) = q(x) - f(x).
is
where E is the cubic polynomial defined by E(x) = q(x) - f(x).
Because E(a) = E(b) = E((a+b)/2) = 0, the inflection
point in the graph of E occurs at x = (a+b)/2.
Cubic polynomials are symmetric about their inflections points, so the
region lying between the curve and the x-axis on one side of the inflection point is congruent to the region between the curve and the x-axis on the others side of the inflection point.
Hence
Hence
That is, the approximation has no error.
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
CCSS and Community College Math Programs
We may need a
complete redesign of the developmental math program in US two-year colleges.
My campus currently
uses a placement test (Mathematics Diagnostic Test Project) to determine if
students are ready for transfer level courses (math for elementary school
teachers, stats, trig, precalculus, calculus)
or what remedial course (arithmetic, prealgebra, elementary algebra,
intermediate algebra) they should take.
But the Common Core State Standards for mathematics will have high school students studying
mathematics organized in a fashion that does not align with our existing math
courses.
California is one of
the 45 states that have formally adopted the CCSS for mathematics, and I am on
a recently appointed state committee whose charge is to align California’s math
standards (a.k.a. the California Framework) with the CCSS.
One of the main
reasons that I applied to be on the Mathematics Curriculum Framework and Evaluation Criteria Committee (MCFCC) was to better familiarize myself with
what is to be taught in California's K-12 schools. (Another reason was to lose myself in
abbreviations: SBE for State Board of
Education, CDE for California Department of Education, IQC for Instructional
Quality Commission, the body that forwarded my name to the SBE for approval to
serve on the MFCC to align the CF with the CCSS.)
The CCSS specify a
consensus of what math is required for students to be college or career
ready. The standards are grouped into
six conceptual categories: Number and
Quantity, Algebra, Functions, Modeling, Geometry, and Statistics and
Probability. (There are separately eight
standards for mathematical practice that go across all grade levels.)
The CCSS differ
significantly from what is typically required for graduation in most American
high schools today. For example, the
treatment of statistics and probability includes not only descriptive
statistics but also conditional probability, inference, decisions based on
probability, and rules of
probability.
The CCSS include not
only right-triangle trigonometry but also trig functions of a real variable, to
be used in modeling periodic behavior.
Thus trig spans the geometry, algebra, and function categories.
The CCSS gives math
standards for high school without specifying courses or order of topics. But evidently the introduction of functions
includes an emphasis on (linear and) exponential functions with domains restricted
to a subset of the integers--sequences are explicitly studied as functions.
California community
colleges do not require a high school diploma for admission. A student who masters the first CCSS high
school math course will already have compared exponential functions with linear
functions and solved equations both algebraically and graphically. The student
will have had explicit instruction on descriptive statistics. The student may have worked with
constructions and transformations in the plane and proved simple geometric
theorems algebraically but not yet worked with polynomials (and specifically
not with quadratic functions or quadratic equations).
How will our
placement system advise this student?
One of the
recommendations of California's Student SuccessTask Force is for better alignment between high school and college
curricula. With the CCSS adopted across
states, it looks as if most community colleges will need to make adjustments to
their way of placing and educating their math students.
Monday, August 6, 2012
MathFest 2012 and Common Core State Standards in Math
Andrew Hacker’s article "Is Algebra Necessary?" in
the New York Times was a hot topic last week and mentioned by several
presenters at the 2012 MathFest session "What Mathematics Should Every
Citizen Know?". The panelists, Bil lMcCallum, Lynn Steen, Hyman Bass, Joseph Malkevitch, and co-organizer Sol Garfunkel, were actually reacting to the Core Curriculum State Standards in mathematics.
Mathematicians and
math educators agree that we are not
currently doing the best job of teaching algebra. But unlike Hacker, the math community
believes the appropriate strategy is to improve algebra instruction, not to
abandon it to all but an elite few pupils.
On the other hand,
the speakers on the panel, although quite civil with each other, clearly had
disagreements about the best strategy to improve math education in the US.
McCallum, who was
the lead mathematician in the development of the CCSS, emphasized the benefits
of having commonality across states.
Having a set of standards that could be adopted by 45 of the 50 states
(so far) required compromises, but the benefits accrue not only to pupils and
teachers in our mobile society, but to all who do business with textbook
publishers who currently provide materials for the multitude of different
curricula.
Steen gave some
numbers showing the dismal success of preparing US students for STEM, but
argued that we should improve rather than remove algebra from the
curriculum. He favors a modeling-based
approach and avoidance of common assessments.
When asked how to accomplish his recommendations, he cheerfully remarked
that he doesn't need to worry about that now that he's retired.
Bass focused on
pedagogy rather than curriculum as the key to improving math education. Student learning is increased when the
instructor employs appropriate classroom strategies.
Malkevitch promotes
widening the curriculum. He argued that
we need to show many ways that mathematics impinges on daily lives. He gave combinatorial graphs and fair choice
algorithms as examples of mathematical topics that are new and accessible to very young
children.
Garfunkel believes
that the entire K-12 mathematics curriculum should be centered on modeling. He
echoed Malkevitch's suggestions that the US curriculum needs to be widened, and
said that Bill Schmidt had paid an advertising agency to create the phrase "a
mile wide and an inch deep" that is used to characterize the US K-12
curriculum following the disappointing ranking of the US high school students
in the Third International Mathematics and Science Study.
Labels:
algebra,
ccss,
common core state standards,
K-12
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
