NSF-Curricula

Somehow I let this blog get away from me. It must be that time of year. I apologize for that.

Anyways, as many others in the class have noticed, with some differences, each of the curricula presented last Thursday shared many themes. On a whole, they all relied on the constructivist model of learning—student-centric classrooms with the teacher as a guide, cooperative group work, and open-ended contextual activities to motivate learning. This was unsurprising as each curriculum grew out of the NCTM standards which through their process standards urge for this approach to learning math.

What I found most interesting, however, was the array of differing curricula that the publishers were able to build based on the NCTM standards, and the degree to which each publisher applied constructivist ideologies. For example, I presented ARISE. Probably the first thing that struck me about that program was the degree of text on the page, versus the amount found on a traditional mathematics textbook. A cursory flip through the ARISE books begs the question: Is this still a math text? Digging further shows that it is, but those who look to math as a bastion devoid of reading and writing will be sorely disappointed. On the other hand, Prentice Hall’s four-color Connected Math, while certainly more open-ended and non-routine than a traditional math text, struck me as being quite conventional, almost standards-based-lite, or constructivist math for the newly-converted.

Something that further occurred to me while reviewing my NSF-curricula and viewing each group’s presentation was how different mathematics teaching and learning could be from what I got, should these and other approaches (e.g., The Algebra Project) be implemented for present and future generations. Let me clarify this. I’m not referring so much to the banking method versus the construction of knowledge, as I learned in both ways in school. Nor am I thinking so much of contextual versus theoretical approaches to learning math, as I also learned math in both ways. Rather, I’m speaking to the amount of reading, writing, and critical thinking inherent in all of these curricula, which I certainly did not get from math in school.

We worked in groups and alone. We constructed knowledge in groups and with the class. We learned from our peers and from our teacher. Together, both groups scaffolded informal learning with formal knowledge. However, the text from which we read was short, writing was minimal (if even present), and critical thinking was narrowly developed. Standards-based curricula, however, requires math teachers to heed the mantra of literacy educators everywhere: Every teacher a literacy teacher. Using standards-based curricula, math educators are required to buttress students’ reading skills with guides—how else will struggling and intermediate readers be able to negotiate and thus best understand the text? Math educators are further required to provide students with writing prompts taking the form of exercises, math journals, or blogs—how else will students hone their critical-thinking abilities, or be capable to writing elegant, even convincing, proofs in their future math courses? Simply put, mathematics exercises will not be enough. These types of curricula will force students to be knowledgeable, not only of mathematics, but also of reading and writing.

To me, this is a fascinating concept for it accomplishes that which I as a future math teacher hope to accomplish—it allows for the development of students with greater, more critical comprehension of math and of their world.