Our first week assigned reading, "A Coherent Curriculum" by William Schmidt, Richard Houang and Leland Cogan really left me disturbed and confused. I am having a difficult time understanding why the U.S. curriculum is the way it is, basically a big unstructured mess. There were many issues that puzzled me, one of them being the fact that in the U.S. we start introducing Geometry right away in first grade. I suppose the reasoning behind this approach is based on the idea that the earlier you learn a skill the easier it will be and therefore the student will be able to build upon that skill with more complex concepts. This method may be effective, however, it is difficult to measure being that the U.S. curriculum is the way it is. The article refers to it as being a mile wide and an inch deep, referring to the vast array of concepts introduced and the little time or depth spent on each one. This is clearly visible when comparing the two figures provided in the article. The "A+" countries figure is so streamlined in contrast to the U.S. figure.
The article states that the "A+" countries wait until seventh grade to introduce Geometry. That is a significant difference when compared to the U.S. I would imagine the idea behind this approach is to give the students the time and opportunity to truly master the basic skills so that they are using these skills much more efficiently and effectively when they begin to do and learn more abstract mathematics. This approach is obviously working being that the "A+" countries are producing such "A+" results.
Now I know it isn't as easy as flipping a switch, however, if these "A+" countries have such outstanding results then why doesn't the U.S. at least try to adopt this idea of a solid structure based curriculum? I believe that in order to understand a complex subject such as Geometry, a student definitely needs to have this solid base of arithmetic skills mastered to be successful.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
All of us are so accustom to the methods of teaching (and learning) math in this country that it makes sense to us and doing it another way is unneccesary. However, the distance in math skills between older U.S. students and students of 'A+' countries tells a different story. The recently released MCAs scores further proves the point that something is seriously wrong with math curriculm in this country. How can it be changed? Hopefully, over time, policy makers will realize where the problem lies and implement the changes needed.
My first thought when reading the "Curriculum" article was, "what a shame that the US is too stubborn to realize that what it is doing in the area of teaching math is obviously not working". I think that americans in general are very idependent. The fact that we like to drive our own cars (not carpool or take public transportation) is one example. I think it would take a lot of lobbying to get even the states to agree to a commonor curriculum, much less the whole nation. It makes sense when one reads the statistics on it and sees the test scores. One would hope the US would be willing to try something new since obviously what we are doing now in the area of teaching math hasn't been successful for a majority of students.
I was wondering the same thing- why don't we adopt the same teaching methods as A+ countries? There has been significant research done on what works, or else we wouldn't have that article to read in the first place. I wonder if other countries have a large educational gap between minorities and majorities as well. Right now, it seems as if we are trying to close the gap in our country; whether it's working or not is the question. Maybe if the educational gap were closed legislators would focus on closing the gap between the US and A+ countries? It also seems as if education is second rate in the US; where's the money for it? A+ countries may have education a little higher on the what-to-do- list; priorities can make a difference. There's a lot to look into on this subject.
Post a Comment