These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
Thanks. I get the feeling that Nancy and I have ideas about precursors, and promoting, and learning leading development (for me the question is "good grief where did it lead now?") that promise a good line of discussion as time goes on. Peg ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Barowy" <xmcageek@comcast.net> To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu> Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 9:32 AM Subject: Re: education, technology & chat (The Mathematics of it) > Excellent questions Peg, and they are influencing our inquiry. Thank you. > > > > quadrilaterals: Does it come up that squares are rectangles, that the sort > > of things that make a rectangle different from, say, a rhombus is of a > > different order than the difference between squares and other rectangles? > > Yes, squares being rectanges are talked about, but orders of difference are > not. > > > The second thing was about the "big, small" and "big, skinny": Are those > > treated in the talk more like, say, color (and not mathematized) than they > > are like, say, side or point? > > At this early introduction to shapes, i would dare interpret that Jane is > interested in promoting thinking in complexes and that thinking > scientifically/mathematizing, in sucha signficant way as you indicate, is a > ways off. This is to be expected. We're looking at 6-7 year olds, and, in a > piagetian sense, these children are just entering concrete operations. One > does not see consistent perfomance of conservation, or the ability to hold > two things in mind at the same time. > > > I'm guessing that the so-called correlations to the NCTM standards that > > they say are provided by Scott Foresman would have the most information > > about what mathematics learning/development ideas motivate the lesson > > content; is that so? > > No. I've worked at TERC developing curriculum but not with the investigations > group. I think to honestly answer your question one would want to do CHAT > historical analysis of TERC's investigations team together with the NCTM > organization, and the schools that TERC pilots and field tests their content. > The good answer is a book, perhaps a career. In a nutshell I think what > motivates the lesson content is distributed all over. > > > -- > -------- > bb > >