My College is implementing a Mathematical Literacy course, beginning this semester. I am teaching one of the two sections, with a colleague (a project ACCCESS fellow) doing the other class. In case this would be of interest, I am planning on writing a post most weeks about the experience of teaching a course that is so different from the traditional curriculum.
As a curricular design issue, this Math Lit course (Math105) will serve as one of the math prerequisite options for 3 existing math courses for degrees (business math, art of geometry, and math – applications for living), and as a prerequisite option for a new statistics course the department is developing. Students will have a choice to either take the traditional beginning algebra course or take this new Math Lit course.
We will be using the “Math Lit” textbook by Kathy Almy and Heather Foes, in a class test format. Some of my weekly posts will relate to the use of this text, though I hope to talk more generally about mathematical literacy with a focus on the reasoning (algebraic and other) that the students will encounter
Our course, and the Math Lit textbook, are true to the design in the New Life model for the course called Mathematical Literacy for College Students (MLCS). Although similar to the Quantway I course, the MLCS course is more flexible within the curriculum … we will have 4 math courses which follow our Math Lit course. Also, the MLCS content is a bit more aligned with the basic mathematical ideas and values among math faculty; this is not saying that MLCS is traditional — it is not. Rather, the observation is that more faculty will be able to be enthused about teaching MLCS, and MLCS can fit into our curriculum quite nicely.
Our classes start on January 14, with 2 class sessions per week. I’ll post a “how did the start go” type of note after the class has met twice. I hope you find the posts on this course enjoyable and/or helpful!
Join Dev Math Revival on Facebook:
As we all know, the world ended recently (December 21, 2012). Being mathematicians and scientists, we will use the more specific statement: After December 21, 2012 (on the typical Western calendar), human life on Earth changed in a basic way. I think we’d all agree with this statement as being so obvious a statement that it might seem trivial.
However, what is not so obvious is the information I have recently acquired concerning the nature of this change. Through the sophisticated work of quarks, photons, and Marvin the Martian, everybody will now ‘get math’. We will no longer have students ask ‘when will I use this’, because they will understand the math and appreciate the innate value of this understanding. No longer will we have students say “I’ve always been terrible at math”, though a few might have a nagging feeling that they weren’t always really good at math.
In this new world order, math will not filter students from any field of study or life work. This will not mean that all students will have STEM majors; this is okay … we need some people who are not geeks or nerds about math & science, who choose to learn the truly hard stuff that normal people do not get (like arts, language, and psychology).
We will, of course, have a difficult period of adjustment. In math classes, we are accustomed to spending a great deal of energy on motivation and confidence; it will take time for us to change, and we can just hope that our students will be patient with us as we struggle with their competence with math.
The only serious point in this post is this:
Sometimes, we expect most students to have trouble understanding math; perhaps we would be better served by a possibly baseless optimism that most students can “get math”.
“Go math in 2013!!”
Join Dev Math Revival on Facebook:
Some years ago, we had an extended discussion about college credit for developmental courses (math in particular). The proposal being discussed was eventually superseded by other policies; however, strong opinions were voiced. During one commentary, a colleague was decrying students getting credit for such courses (though he had nothing against faculty who teach them. Our Divisional Dean leaned over to me and said “some of my best friends are developmental math teachers”, which I thought was quite funny (though the situation prevented me from laughing at the time).
When I hear some colleagues talk about calculators, I am reminded of that comment rephrased … “some of my best friends are calculators”. Calculators have their place, such colleagues say; calculators are not bad … it’s how students use them, so we need to prevent students from using calculators in a math class (as they say). In fact, I once took the position that graphing calculators not be allowed in a first algebra course (back in 1993). Since 1995, I have taught in an environment where graphing calculators are required starting with our first algebra course; although there are days when I find this frustrating, I have become a supporter of using calculators.
Unfortunately, the problem is much more complex than a ‘no calculator’ policy could solve; nor does a ‘required calculator’ policy solve these problems. Here are some of the problems that we can avoid discussing by focusing on a calculator policy issue:
- Students want a calculator for basic operations for a reason — they feel ‘dumb’ at math; that’s a major issue.
- Students view correct answers as being a valuable commodity, instead of seeing correct answers as suggesting good understanding
- Numeracy leads to feeling smarter; having a sense of how quantities ‘behave’ is possible for almost all humans (just like language literacy).
- Reasoning about quantities is a natural human endeavor, though we communicate this with language systems that are artificial (a necessary condition)
- A single math class tends to be very ineffective at changing long-held beliefs and habits; data suggesting an impact normally are measuring temporary conditions.
- The big picture ideas are more important than how a student calculates a particular value; the big picture includes their self-image about mathematics.
I like requiring a calculator in math classes, to provide a better venue to discuss these issues with students. Sometimes, a student ‘gets it’ (what we are talking about) and they change their math trajectory; for most students, it’s not that much of an issue either way — it took them 12 or more years to get to this point, mathematically, and a short-term experience is not likely to hurt them any more. Using the calculator, it seems, at least opens the doors to possible positive changes over a longer period.
This conversation with myself started when somebody reminded me of an article I wrote for the 1993 AMATYC journal; reading that article was an awkward experience, as I could see errors in my own thinking. Perhaps this post will encourage readers to examine their own position on calculators in math classes from a different perspective, one reflecting my course correction on the use of technology in mathematics.
Join Dev Math Revival on Facebook:
I am finally going to be able to attend the Achieving the Dream conference (Anaheim, February 2013) … see http://www.achievingthedream.org/DREAM2013 . My college is sharing a workshop time with Muskegon Community College, and part of this workshop will be on our new Mathematical Literacy course (MLCS in the New Life model).
For others who are attending, I am thinking of having a “Birds of a Feather” on New Life and basic reform efforts in mathematics (Thursday, February 7 at 11am). If you are attending the conference and interested, please let me know!
I’m looking forward to seeing a diverse crowd at “DREAM 2013”.
Join Dev Math Revival on Facebook:
Mathematical Literacy Course | Jack Rotman | 
January 12, 2013 3:48 pm | 
Comments (6) 
Subscribe
Jack Rotman
NOTE: This blog will become 'inactive' on January 1, 2020.