Academic & Student Services
Concept Paper: Curriculum Review and Comparison
University of Wisconsin System & Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction
CURRICULUM ARTICULATION PROJECT
WORKING GROUP ACTIVITY UPDATES
CESA 7/8, Mathematics NEXT MEETING: March 25, 2000
MEMO DATE: 13 March 2000
TO: CESA #7/8 Mathematics Subgroup of Curriculum Articulation Project
FROM Gregory Davis
RE: March Subgroup Meeting
I have received responses from most of the group. There is no time that all are available for a meeting. Based on what has been provided to me it appears that the majority of us can get together the morning of 25 March. Thus I am scheduling a meeting on Saturday 25 March 9:00 am - 12:00 pm in the ES 317 conference room at UW-Green Bay If you are not familiar with the campus layout at UW-Green Bay, I would recommend that you park in the Green Parking Lot (formally the LS Parking Lot). You will not need a parking permit on Saturday. Go in the first doors you come to at the Laboratory Sciences Building (LS), go down the stairs to the first floor and proceed to the Environmental Sciences Building (ES), go up to the third floor and then to ES 317.
Tentative agenda:
* Interface between High School and University at the following levels: Intermediate Algebra Algebra and Trigonometry Calculus I
* Speed at which material is covered at the High School and the University level for the same class
* Use of technology in the classroom
* Assessment of student experiences
* Other
I hope that those that can attend will get a good start on the above agenda. Any input on these matters from those who cannot attend would be very helpful - please e-mail me your thoughts before the meeting. Results of the meeting will be sent to the whole group for comments and revisions. cc: Steve BialekMINUTES
Curriculum Articulation Project
Mathematics CESA #7/8 Subgroup
3 February 2000
Wisconsin Dells, WI
Present: Cheri Conover, Gregory Davis, Tian-you Hu, Scott Kirst, Dennis Kostac, Ray Lucas, Nikitas Petrakopoulos, Marty Schuh
1. Introduction of Group Members Each group member was asked to introduce him or herself and tell the group briefly what their instructional responsibilities included. Contact information was updated on a single contact sheet that will be distributed to the whole group.
2. Familiarization with WMAS A brief look was taken at the Wisconsin Model Academic Standards. It seemed that overall, the High School instructors in the group were much more aware of what was in the Standards than the University instructors. It was noted that it is difficult to 'unwrap' the standards; one of the problems is that the standards cover more than one year of mathematics. Importantly the group viewed the standards as a minimum.
3. Corresponding K-12 and UW Mathematics Courses The majority of the meeting was spent trying to get a feel for the current instructional levels and expectations for our students and each other (instructors). A summary of the comments and concerns are as follows: How students view the subject is important; do they have a passion for mathematics or are they interested in just obtaining the knowledge to pass the class? Certainly mastery of the subject is of prime importance - they need to learn what they learn very well. Mastery of the subject matter is key. Students must be confident in their abilities. They also must have sufficient breath in the subject to be mathematically literate. It seemed that at all levels that instructors were concerned about the questionable algebra skills in their students. There was concern about the mathematical level needed for certification of K-8 teachers, many of who teach beginning algebra but may not taken much mathematics themselves. Instructors have their own set of problems. There are many useful and interesting mathematical concepts, techniques, and applications that can be presented to students; however, un-policed curriculum will not get done. The current curriculum is crowded; instructors will often only do what they need to get done. Accountability of instructors is important; instructors at each level must be able to assume that they will have students that have been properly trained at the previous level. Variation of instruction occurs at all levels and can be due to many factors. Instructor's interest and focus within the course may influence student outcomes. Too much of a gradation of ability within a class can make class management very difficult. Alternate learning styles - individual vs group learning, collaborative learning, etc. - puts additional pressure on the amount of material that can be covered in a course. There is often pressure from students, parents, others to keep the amount of homework down. It was also noted that there is quite a bit of competition for getting students into advanced classes both at the high school and college level. The interface between high school and college mathematics can occur at many levels. Future group discussions will focus primarily at three levels: the intermediate algebra level, the algebra and trigonometry level (pre-calculus level), and the first semester calculus level. Proper placement of students as well as student knowledge is important for a successful transition between institutions. Placement may be improved via input from their high school instructors and/or by taking the early placement mathematics test offered to junior level high school students. Time between the taking of high school and college mathematics courses should be considered in placement decisions. Copies of textbooks currently used at local high schools could be useful for college instructors to aid in placement and awareness of student knowledge. College instructors need to be aware that there are a number of capable high school students that don't take advanced mathematics in high school in order to be assured of keeping their GPA up. Specific expectations for starting college level, first semester calculus were discussed. It was desired that incoming students have the basics of logic and proof; that is, the ability to prove mathematical statements via logical arguments. In the past, much of this material had been covered in a mathematical analysis course after taking algebra and trigonometry in high school. This course has been removed in many high schools - most students now go directly from algebra and trigonometry to calculus.
4. Comparison of Syllabi Syllabi from a number of courses, both from the high schools and the universities were circulated. It was decided that syllabi could be sent around to each of the group members - perhaps by e-mail and that they could be more fully discussed at a future meeting.
5. Assessment The group did not spend time discussing potential assessment questions and processes for obtaining information from current students.
6. Meeting Dates The group will plan to meet approximately every 6 weeks. The nest meeting will be between 20 March and 27 March.
7. Lead Teacher Davis was nominated and unanimously voted to be the lead teacher who will serve as the group's coordinator and UW system contact.
8. Group Report A short summary report of this meeting was prepared for presentation to the whole Curriculum Articulation Task Force.
Project Timeline
- February 3, 2000: General Meeting: All Working Groups
- February-December, 2000: Working Group Meetings (3-5 meetings)
- May 26, 2000: Progress Update Due
- October 31, 2000: Progress Update Due
- February 2001: General Meeting: Summary of Findings
- April 2001: Final Dissemination Reports Due
To Curriculum Articulation Project Home
To UW System Office of Academic Affairs Page
If you have questions or comments, direct them to Academic and Student Services, Phone: (608) 262-8778, Email: vpacad@ccmail.uwsa.edu