THE COMPUTER—A TOOL FOR INSTRUCTION?Author(s): JACK D. WILKINSONSource: The Mathematics Teacher, Vol. 77, No. 6 (September 1984), pp. 404-405, 490Published by: National Council of Teachers of MathematicsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27964112 .

Accessed: 15/07/2014 14:10

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.

.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to The Mathematics Teacher.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 129.130.252.222 on Tue, 15 Jul 2014 14:10:17 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

soundOFr

THE COMPUTER?A TOOL FOR INSTRUCTION?

By JACK D. WILKINSON, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, IA 50614

"January of 1980 is an important month in the history of computers and people. During that month, more computers were built than children were born." This statement

by Arthur Luehrmann should set the stage for a September 1984 statement that de scribes the significant, positive impact that

computers have had on secondary school mathematics education (grades 7-12). How

ever, no such statement can be made. In the secondary school mathematics

program, the computer has been treated as

the object of instruction rather than as a tool

for instruction. When the computer is viewed as the object of instruction, the focus is on the teaching of a programming language or programming skills. In some in stances this focus has the effect of weaken

ing, not strengthening, the mathematics

program in a given secondary school. Often the most experienced mathematics teachers are assigned to computing classes and must

give up some of the mathematics classes that they have traditionally taught. Just as

teachers must make decisions about courses

they will teach, students must make choices about courses they will take. Often our best students are faced with the hard choice of

taking an extra semester of mathematics or a semester of computer science. Choices of this sort have the effect of reducing the

The views expressed in the "Soundoff" editorials do

not necessarily reflect the views of the Editorial Panel of the Mathematics Teacher or the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Readers are encouraged to

react to these editorials by writing to the author with

copies to the Mathematics Teacher for consideration in

"Reader Reflections." Please double-space all letters

that are to be considered for publication. Editorials

from readers are welcomed.

number of mathematics credits that college bound students can complete.

It is not surprising that our initial ef forts to introduce the computer into classes have involved teaching programming languages. This approach is the obvious,

straightforward thing to do. We have

languages that can be understood by stu

dents in junior high and high school, and the retraining process for teachers is man

ageable. The effort to integrate the teach

ing of programming languages into existing mathematics classes also leads to an eros

ion of time spent in teaching mathematics. It is not a replacement of the magnitude

mentioned previously, but it nevertheless results in less time devoted to mathematics instruction. Also, many teachers are infatu ated with the prospect of teaching program

ming skills. This infatuation can lead to undue amounts of time spent on teaching these skills. The time is at hand for us to mature in our view of the proper role of

404 Mathematics Teacher

This content downloaded from 129.130.252.222 on Tue, 15 Jul 2014 14:10:17 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

programming instruction in existing math ematics classes.

Now we must address the more signifi cant, more rewarding, and more difficult

question. How can we use the micro tech

nology to enhance the mathematics cur

riculum? This challenge must be met if the

computer is to have significant impact on mathematics education. Recommendation 3.2 in NCTM's (1980) An Agenda for Action states that "electronic tools such as calcu lators and computers should be integrated into the core mathematics curriculum."

AN AGENDA FOR ACTION

4AA4 4AA

4 AO A 4AOO

-IAOC HAOC

1984 When used as a tool, computing technol

ogy should enable us to teach and illustrate mathematical concepts. The technology should be used as a tool for conceptual de

velopment and should make the learning of mathematics easier for students. The tech

nology also should enable us to teach a

wider range of mathematical content.

Topics from discrete mathematics, statis

tics, probability, and so on could finally make their way into the core mathematics curriculum in secondary schools. More at tention to applications of mathematics and to problem solving would be possible.

The development of materials to inte

grate the calculator and computer into the

secondary school mathematics curriculum will be more difficult than was the devel

opment of the courseware and textual ma terial that is currently available. The pub lishing industry will not likely take the lead in producing a new generation of ma terials that integrate the technology into

the development and teaching of secondary school mathematics. To accomplish the task of integrating these materials, it seems im

perative that committees of the NCTM, NCSM, and ASSM establish a cooperative, developmental effort. For instance, the re sources and leadership of this trio can be used to identify and fund pilot schools. One

possible source of funding would be block

grants that are channeled through the states.

It is unrealistic to assume that a single pilot project could examine the entire cur riculum in grades 7-12. It is more likely that individual schools, with quality human resources, funding, and support, could look at a year, or pair of years, in the program for grades 7-12. The staff of these schools could take a hard look at how technology might be used to improve both the kind of mathematics taught and the way in which mathematics is taught.

As teachers, we are often naive about the uses of technology in our classrooms. Americans are sometimes of the opinion that technology will solve all problems. Naturally, it will not, but we must not fall into the trap of rejecting something be cause it will not solve all our problems. We must develop materials in a careful, deliber ate way. We must set reasonable goals and be satisfied with increments of progress, no matter how small. We must "advertise

wisely" and live up to the goals we set. If the mathematics curriculum is to be en hanced by the technology of the 1970s and

1980s, we must begin at once to develop ma terials that enable us to use the computer and calculator as tools for teaching and

learning mathematics. In an earlier "Soundoff," Usiskin (1984)

stated, "Mathematics is getting easier. We will not be able to keep this secret from our students forever." The computer and calcu lator will cause the teaching of mathemat ics to change and will expand secondary school content into new areas. We should not isolate the secondary school mathemat ics curriculum from these changes.

(Continued on page 490)

September 1984 405

This content downloaded from 129.130.252.222 on Tue, 15 Jul 2014 14:10:17 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Philip L. Cox

Council Tchrs. Math., SIG/RME, SSMA, EA, MEA. Actvs. in NCTM, Mathematics Teacher editorial panel, 1981-83, ehm., 1983; v. ehm. local arrangements Detroit Ann. Mtg., 1983; publicity ehm., newsletter

ehm., spkr. rgnl. mtgs.; book reviewer Arithmetic

Teacher; referee Mathematics Teacher. Other actvs., MCTM pres., past pres., pubis, ehm., junior high sch.

prgm. ehm., state conf. gen. ehm., nominations and

elections ehm., Geometry Curric. Study Com., Mtgs. Com. ehm., Audit Com., spkr. state and local confs.; mem. local dist. math, corns.; reviewer state assess

ment math, objectives and test items. Pubis., coauthor

chpt. in Mathematics for Elementary Teachers: The

Rational Numbers, NCTM 1972; author high sch. ge

ometry text; author/coauthor four booklets for Oak

land County Math Proj.; reviewer and author actvs.

for textbook series grades 1-8; contbr. MCTM mono

graphs A Curriculum in Geometry for Grades K-9 and

Metric Measurement Activity Cards. Honors, three aca

demic honor socs., Outstanding Senior Ball State U.,

1962; NSF four-summer grant; nominee for 1983

Presdl. Awards for Excellence in Math. Tchng.

Marilyn L. Hala

MARILYN L. HALA, Positn., math. dir. Di v. Elem. and Seedy. Edn. Pierre (S.D.). Edn., B.A. in math. edn.

Iowa State Tchrs. Coll.; M.Ed, in math. Pa. State U.

Exper., math. dir. state of S.D.; dir. math. lab. grades 4-12 St. Francis Indian Sch.; part-time instr. Sinte

Gleska Coll.; asst. prof. math. Shenango Valley

Campus Pa. State U. ; high sch. math, instr. Davenport and Waterloo (la.); computer prgm. librarian Collins

Radio Co. Mem., NCTM, ASSM, NCSM, MAA, E,

SSMA, ASCD, AEDS, SDCTM, S.D. Assn. Micro

computer Educators, local microcomputer user grps. Actvs. in NCTM, mem. Rgnl. Services Com., 1980-83; conf. cochm. Sioux Falls Mtg., 1983; coll. credit ehm. Grand Forks Mtg., 1980; Mem. Prgm. Com. San Anton io Mtg., 1985; mem. Publicity Com. Minneapolis/St. Paul Mtg., 1981, Omaha Mtg., 1983; spkr. ann. and

rgnl. mtgs.; del. ann. mtg. Other actvs., ASSM first v.p.,

1983-84, and com. mem., 1978-84; NCSM Relations

with Govt. Com., 1978-81; SDCTM Prgm. Com., 1977-; bd. mem. S.D. Assn. Microcomputer Educators, 1982-; bd. mem. S.D. Assn. Eval. Elem. Schs., 1977-80; mem.

S.D. Computer Planning Com., 1981-, Minimal Com

petency Study Com., 1978-81, Basic Skills Com., 1979

82, Governor's Council on Metric, 1977-80, task force on spi. needs of Indian students, 1977-78; mem. local

sch. curric. and grievance corns., rev. teams S.D.

higher edn. prgms. ; testifier State Appropriations and

Joint Bds. on Edn. corns.; spkr. state mtgs. Honors, listed in Who's Who in the Midwest and Outstanding Secondary Educators of America.

soundQrr (Continued from page 405)

REFERENCES National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. An

Agenda for Action: Recommendations for School Mathematics of the 1980s. Reston, Va.: The Council, 1980.

Usiskin, Zalman. "Soundoff: Mathematics Is Getting Easier." Mathematics Teacher 77 (February 1984):82-83. fj

(Continued from page 451)

20 PRINT TAB(20) 4 ? 30 FOR I = 3 TO 500000 STEP 4 40 LET = - 1/1 50 PRINT 4* ; 60 LET = + 1/(1 + 2) 70 PRINT TAB(20) 4 * 80 NEXT I

BIBLIOGRAPHY Beckmann, Petr. The History of (Pi). 4th ed. Boulder,

Colo. : Golem Press, 1977.

von Baravalle, Hermann. "The Number ." In Histori cal Topics for the Mathematics Classroom, Thirty first Yearbook of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Waehington, D.C.: The Council, 1969.

James P. Herrmann

Virgil Middle School Los Angeles, CA 90004 m

490 -Mathematics Teacher

This content downloaded from 129.130.252.222 on Tue, 15 Jul 2014 14:10:17 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions