Our next meeting to continue the discussions about the licensure issues is
scheduled for Wednesday, Feb. 26 - 4pm, BAC.
At this week's meeting, we discussed a number of options for the various
licensure areas. My recollections of these discussions follows - but be
warned that these are only mine rememberings with no gaurantee that they
are accurate!
Issues and questions we still have:
1. Middle Childhood (8-14) Are we training generalists or specialists? If
we are training generalists that may end up teaching any subject, then
the committee felt that requiring a sequence of math courses for everyone is
necessary. If we are training specialists, then the specialist would complete
a math concentration, while the other students would not be expected to teach
math and therefore would probably not need a sequence of math courses. The
problem here, of course, is, can we expect the schools to hire only specialists
to teach mathematics?
2. Too many hours - While we have rationale for each of the plans outlined
below, there is general concern that each may require too many hours for the
student to reasonably complete in four years. On the other hand, various
statements from professional mathematics groups specify more content than any
one of our plans (except the concentration) would require. Where is the
balance?
Possible plans discussed:
Ages 3-8: Plan A: MTH 115 (4 cr) and revised MTH 116 (5 cr). The 116
would include 3 hrs of geometry and 2 hours of probability and statistics.
Everyone would be required to take this sequence and the courses would cover
the major content areas we are concerned about: structure of arithmetic (and
algebra??), geometry, and probability and statistics.
Ages 3-8: Plan B: MTH 115 (4cr), MTH 116 (4cr), STA 261 (4cr)-In addition
to more hours, the basic difference between Plan A and B is that the 116
course would be all geometry.
Ages 3-8: Plan C: MTH 115 (4cr), MTH 116 (4cr; all geometry) and STA 2XY (2cr)
Difference between Plan B and C is only reduced hours in STA, but requires new
course. Kullman voiced concern that the department has too many different
courses now.
--------------
Ages 8-14: Plan D (generalist; non-concentration) MTH 115 (4cr), MTH 218 (3cr),
and STA 261 (4cr).
Ages 8-14: Plan E (generalist; non-concentration) MTH 115 (4cr), MTH 116 (4cr;
all geometry), STA 261 (4cr)
Ages 8-14: Plan F (generalist; non-concentration) MTH 117 (3cr), MTH 218 (3cr)
and STA 261 (4cr) or STA2XY (2cr)
--------------
Ages 8-14: Plan G Concentration: MTH 117 (3cr), MTH 218 (3, or 4 cr),
MTH 141 (proposed calc for el ed; 4 cr), MTH 2341 (3cr), MTH 407 (3cr), and
STA 368 (4cr); totals = 20 cr.
Rouse suggested that having all of the 8-14 students taking the same sequence
at the 115-116 and STA level would simplify advising and reduce the compexities
the students may have understanding the various requirement. Such a plan
might take various forms, but could look like:
MTH 117 (3 cr), MTH 218 (3 cr), STA 261 (4cr). Concentration
students would then complete the remainder of the required concentration
sequence.
---------------
Adolescent Ages 12-21: We have had no complete discussion about these
requirements. Is the committee feeling that they should be basically as
they are now? Perhaps we need to spend some time discussion current
secondary requirements to see if they are appropriate.
If I have misrepresented any of this discussion, TOUGH! No, seriously,
if you have additional ideas, discussion, or corrections, get on the
listserve and let the committee know.
At the next meeting, we should have additional information from the EDT
folks concerning the structural questions about the licensure. I would
suggest that we should try to come to some consensus on what we would like
to put forth as our recommendation.
See you on the 26th. Jerry
|
