id: 06514388
dt: j
an: 2016a.00903
au: Meyer, Dan
ti: Missing the promise of mathematical modeling.
so: Math. Teach. (Reston) 108, No. 8, 578-583 (2015).
py: 2015
pu: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), Reston, VA
la: EN
cc: M10 D30 U20
ut: modeling; educational standards; textbooks; curriculum
ci:
li: http://www.nctm.org/Publications/mathematics-teacher/2015/Vol108/Issue8/Missing-the-Promise-Of-Mathematical-Modeling/
ab: Summary: The Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSSM) have
exerted enormous pressure on every participant in a child’s
education. Students are struggling to meet new standards for
mathematics learning, and parents are struggling to understand how to
help them. Teachers are growing in their capacity to develop new
mathematical competencies, and administrators are growing in their
capacity to support them. These standards have also exerted pressure on
textbook publishers, who must provide curriculum that aligns with the
CCSSM. A recent study of fourth-grade textbooks found that this
alignment has been slippery, with many textbooks including content
external to the CCSSM, failing to include critical CCSSM content or
duplicating their previous unaligned editions to an inappropriate
degree. This situation should concern us all given the large sums of
money spent nationally on textbooks and the high degree to which
teachers take their instructional cues from textbooks. What incentives
do publishers have to undertake these costly alignments and
developments? The CCSS issued a Publishers’ Criteria, but these
criteria are not binding in any sense. We ‒ the people who buy
textbooks or influence those who do ‒ are publishers’ only
incentive. With that rationale in mind, this article provides Dan
Meyer’s analysis of how well textbooks fulfill the promise of one
particular standard ‒ mathematical modeling ‒ as it is represented
in the CCSSM. (ERIC)
rv: