Whom Do we Follow?

At the college level, most introductory mathematics has been materials-based … meaning that the curriculum experienced by our students was largely determined by the textbook used.  The vast majority of textbooks considered for a given course would be very similar in ‘objectives’, presentation, and terminology.  Authors would bring minor variations in explanations, and more substantive variations in the range of problems included.

Along comes the ‘redesign-modules-web homework’ push.  The content becomes atomized, with most content described by the algorithms used to generate the problems.  Many of us are delivering courses which emphasize students “doing problems” as a way to get them to “do mathematics”; I would argue that these are not the same, and the differences have weakened our curriculum.

Another push would be the Pathways of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (Statway™ and Quantway™), developed in partnership with the Dana Center (Univ Texas- Austin), with assistance from AMATYC.  Rather than driving the curriculum by algorithm, these materials seek to remain true to the mathematical description of the content … the homework system is much more difficult to develop (though they have the best people working on it, and they are succeeding).

So, the question for our profession is this:  Whom do we follow?  Do we follow the atomized content with algorithms defining the outcomes, or do we follow new voices that seek to deliver mathematics needed by our students? 

Perhaps the question is not fair, as some of us are not following anybody … some of us are being told that we WILL walk a certain path, with the atomized content and algorithms; frequently this is due to administrators reaching a critical point in the process, and there is no more patience for a faculty-led process.

As long as we are professionals, we should continue to advocate for our responsibilities relative to our curriculum.  When administrators push, we need to look for all avenues to push back — not to avoid change, not to deny the existence of a problem; no, we need to push back so that the responsibilities remain ours as faculty. 

I hope you, and all of us, will consider our responsibilities … whether we are able to chose whom to follow, or whether somebody attempts to tell us whom to follow.  We have our own professional standards, and our future will depend upon how well we are true to those standards.

 
Join Dev Math Revival on Facebook:

No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.