SMP 7-13Author(s): Alan RogersonSource: Mathematics in School, Vol. 7, No. 5 (Nov., 1978), pp. 4-6Published by: The Mathematical AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30213410 .

Accessed: 22/04/2014 11:04

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

The Mathematical Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toMathematics in School.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 130.239.116.185 on Tue, 22 Apr 2014 11:04:58 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Ole, by Alan Rogerson, Project Leader for SMP 7-1 3

In 1971 the idea of a major curriculum development project for 8-1 3-year-old children was first discussed amongst the teachers associated in the School Mathematics Project. To test the need and the feasibility for such a new course a large conference was held at Easter 1972 during which a number of problems and recommendations were highlighted. The major problems facing schools teaching 7-1 3-year-old children were identified as a lack of mathematics specialists, a poor structure and progression in many mathematics schemes, a lack of practical work, poorly organised materials difficult to use in the classroom and an excessively high reading level in mathematics materials. There was therefore a need for a new, structured, up-to-date mathematics course for the middle years. It should be more relevant, interesting, mathematically sound, readable and attractive. In the Summer of 1972 I was asked to lead the new Middle Years Project, afterwards to be christened SMP 7-13. After an intensive year's preparation through reading, letters, visits and contacts, I invited a new writing team to meet together for the first time in September 1973 to begin work.

Now, more than five years later, the first.three Units of SMP 7-13 have been published. Units 4 and 5 are being finally edited for publication in March 1979 and Unit 6 is written and undergoing its first year of testing. More than 30 writers and advisers have contributed to the six years work, and about 20 000 children in more than 40 schools all over the country have tried out the draft materials. There have been countless visits and meetings, an unending series of critical deadlines, extensive liaison with artists and designers at both draft and final stages, and a constant communication with more than 1 00 contacts vital to the completion of this major curriculum development work. It has been a massive project viewed from these points of view, but what has actually been accomplished? The objectives we set ourselves in 1972 were as follows:

"There now appears to be a growing feeling that, in the 7- 13 range, some consolidation is needed and that the period of innovation has passed its peak. Many primary school teachers may be confused by the changes that have occurred and there is evidence that

4

T ik e Smp A b t' b rt; So om e

C, s" cad

undstand a,nd Sorre t r"

es geY you rnad

becmu'" yca exre ys 9e & ll9

1avv,-ng ,-~ h ord _

, ke b e

c o,

C

c. .

This content downloaded from 130.239.116.185 on Tue, 22 Apr 2014 11:04:58 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

1~9

teachers throughout the country are looking for guidance on the mathematics curriculum the 7-13 course should weave together the following four essential ideas: enjoyment and interest, mathematical ideas and skills, relevance to the life of the pupils, integration with other subjects. "" To achieve these objectives we used the successful and efficient mechanism characteristic of previous SMP work: a relatively autonomous writing team of mainly full-time teachers united in their overall philosophy with an enviable freedom of action and implementation. Writing, editing, thorough testing, revising and final editing was a well-tried and familiar mechanism for producing good materials. Although we had the considerable SMP background and experience, SMP 7-13 was nevertheless a fresh start with an almost completely new team of writers.

It would be wrong to suggest that our progress in the past five years has been uniformly smooth. Curriculum

development is never like that and the best work can only be done through the overcoming of the inevitable problems that arise. The first two years draft materials were revised during the first year's testing. Different writers have joined, and left the writing team as time went on. The team as a whole were able to remedy the deficiencies in the draft materials and produce satisfactory revised draft materials. Some of our testing schools gave up but these were soon replaced from a growing list of schools interested in SMP 7-13. The extensive testing certainly revealed any weaknesses and deficiencies in the draft work and it was part of SMP 7-13's job to put this right in the final revising and editing. This needed careful organisation to ensure enough time, and even after the revision was completed it is a rare teacher who doesn't find something to criticise! While it is impossible to please everyone, the purpose of the detailed feedback and the subsequent revision was to remedy the errors but also to check that the major aims were being achieved, and that our detailed revision was a sensible one. Most important, the testing assured us of certain things that only long-term classroom experience can decide: that the structure and organisation ate viable, the balance of content is correct and the overall quality of work is suitable.

In two years time the full six-year course will all be published, and half is already available. This is important in itself, for curriculum work can fail through not enough appearing too late. The initial response to SMP 7-13 confirms that it is likely to be widely used here and abroad, but how does the material produced cope with the problems mentioned at the beginning of this article?

In several important respects, SMP 7-13 represents a breakthrough in curriculum development: in mathematical structure, readability, design and classroom organisation. The content of the 7-13 curriculum is relatively familiar work, but it has been very carefully and progressively written. This is particularly evident from the distinctive network analysis of content. Readability is now beginning to be given its proper emphasis in school mathematics courses. We have from 1972 onwards concentrated on making every card as readable (or comprehensible) as possible by looking carefully at every word and

5

This content downloaded from 130.239.116.185 on Tue, 22 Apr 2014 11:04:58 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

sentence and by detailed editing, employing research criteria for readability. SMP 7-13 is probably still unique in curriculum development terms in having the very closest liaison between the writers, artists and designers. Regular weekly meetings discuss each card's design and format in detail to ensure the fullest implementation of educational ideas. Finally our thorough and widespread testing programme has been essential to discover a classroom organisation structure that really works. The details - individual record cards, assessment tests, practical teachers handbook, separate answer book, and so on, may seem obvious now but they emerged only from long-term classroom testing with more than 20 000 children. I want to stress that the above major points, and many smaller objectives achieved, are listed not in any spirit of self-congratulation so much as genuine satisfaction and happiness that the course will be suitable for children and teachers. In fact breakthroughs are not achieved through good ideas alone, as Edison put it; for every 5% inspiration we need 95% perspiration. Detailed, dedicated and directed hard work is essential to achieve any major advance in curriculum development.

My greatest personal satisfaction, however, is something that has largely motivated my own commitment to SMP 7-13. It is the thought that we can communicate mathematics to individual pupils of all abilities and from all social backgrounds. I want them to find SMP 7-13 (or indeed any other course) readable, enjoyable, and mathematically satisfying, and hence to get more out of education. It has been a source of great happiness to hear almost unanimous reports of children actually enjoying mathematics and being turned on by relevant, interesting and motivating work in- SMP 7-13. The ultimate and fundamental

criterion is simple: it is the success or failure with individual children in the classroom, it is there that SMP 7-13 will prove itself in the future.

Postscript Some unsolicited children's comments on SMP 7-13:

I like SMP because I can work by myself.

It gives me ideas.

I like SMP because it gives you a lot of interesting things to do.

I like SMP because you can work with your friends. And there's lots of things to do. And you find things out like how much things weigh.

I like SMP Maths because you can do all kinds of maths and you can make things.

I like SMP because it is something you can do without having to stay in the classroom all the time.

I like SMP because it gives you lots of things to do. Also you find words which you do not know what they are and you find them out.

You can measure. It has lots of different sums in it. You can count people. It is very interesting.

I like SMP because it isn't just one thing. And because it is more interesting than ordinary maths.

It goes at the speed I want it to. I like measuring and lots of other things.

I think on some cards there are too many sums like 26. I just about like 15.

It's helped me think about how to do maths.

Colloquial Mathematics

by Rosemary Simmons, Southlands School, Biggleswade

In order to be able to suggest what aspects of mathematics should be taught to children to enable them to be mathematically competent and confident in everyday life as adults, I analysed my own use of mathematics over a period of two weeks.

Summarised, the results indicated the basic needs to be:

Familiarity with a wide range of unit values Ability to estimate and compare Oral competence in basic operations with small numbers

(under four figures) Competence in analysis of complex problems, selection of

appropriate units and methods of operation Confident understanding, speed and accuracy

I suggest that there is nothing controversial or extraordinary here. In fact, the list is similar to that which might be found included in the stated aims of any scheme for mathematical education. Yet evidence of non-transference of mathematical skill from school to everyday life is not hard to find. Examples of inadequacy are commonplace - examples like that of the young girl in charge of the supermarket cash register who had to be shown the receipt before she was convinced that a1.92

6

could not be the correct charge for five articles at 48p each, and that the machine had only "rung up" four.

The need to relate school mathematics to "real" situations has long been recognised, and for the past 20 years new mathe- matics schemes have emphasised the importance of developing understanding through practical experience (eg Mathematics for the Majority, The Nuffield Primary Mathematics Project).

If the content of mathematical education is appropriate to the needs of everyday life, why are so many unable to apply the mathematical skill acquired at school to everyday situations?

In this paper I suggest what I consider may be one possible answer to this question.

My hypothesis is that a key reason for non-transference of school learning in mathematics to the reality of life situations is that the processes of mathematical thinking which are needed in everyday life are not the same as those taught in school.

Consider, for example, the petrol pump attendant who, in calculating the cost of four gallons of petrol at 79p, said: "Four eights are thirty-two that will be a3.20 less 4p, please." His method of calculation bears no resemblance to the written form that is commonly taught in school, ie "Four nines are

This content downloaded from 130.239.116.185 on Tue, 22 Apr 2014 11:04:58 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions