Best Results From Wikipedia Yahoo Answers Youtube
Everyday Mathematics is a pre-K and elementary school mathematics curriculum developed by the University of Chicago School Mathematics Project.
The program is published by the Wright Group of the McGraw-Hill Publishing. One of the textbooks used at the national level for mathematics teaching and also text. It describes the mathematics in the traditional storage methods but with less mathematical problems, many practical methods and a constructive approach of 'teaching math. More than 3 million students in 185,000 classrooms in the U.S., who are currently using Everyday Mathematics.
Brief history of book
Everyday Mathematics curriculum was developed by the University of Chicago Project (or UCSMP ) which was founded in 1983.
Work on it started in the summer of 1985. The 1st edition, released in 1998 and the 2nd edition, released in 2002. A third edition was released in 2007 ..Almost as soon as the first edition was released, it became part of a nationwide controversy over reform mathematics. In October 1999, US Department of Education issued a report labeling Everyday Mathematics as one of five "promising" new math programs. . The perceived endorsement of Everyday Mathematics and a number of other textbooks by an agency of the US government caused such outrage among practicing mathematicians and scientists that a group of them drafted an open letter to then Secretary of Education Richard Riley urging him to withdraw the report. The letter appeared in the November 18, 1999 edition of the Post and was eventually signed by over two hundred prominent mathematicians and scientists including four Nobel Laureates , has since become Secretary of Energy and three Fields Medalists, a National Medal of Science winner from the University of Chicago, and the some chairs of math departments .The debate has continued at the state and local level as school districts across the country consider the adoption of Everyday Math. Two states where the controversy has attracted national attention are California and Texas. California has one of the most rigorous textbook adoption processes and in January 2001 rejected Everyday Mathematics for failing to meet state content standards. Everyday Math stayed off the California textbook lists until 2007 when the publisher released a California version of the 3rd edition that is supplemented with more traditional arithmetic , reigniting debate at the local level. In late 2007, the Texas State Board of Education took the unusual step of rejecting the 3rd edition of Everyday Math after earlier editions had been in use in more than 70 districts across the state. The fact that they singled out Everyday Math while approving all 162 other books and educational materials raised questions about the board's legal powers.
Below is an outline of the components of EM as they are generally seen throughout the curriculum.
A typical lesson outlined in one of the teacherâ€™s manuals includes three parts
- Teaching the Lessonâ€”Provides main instructional activities for the lesson.
- Ongoing Learning and Practiceâ€”Supports previously introduced concepts and skills; essential for maintaining skills.
- Differentiation Optionsâ€”Includes options for supporting the needs of all students; usually an extension of Part 1, Teaching the Lesson.
- Daily Routines:
Every day, there are certain things that each EM lesson requires the student to do routinely. These components can be dispersed throughout the day or they can be part of the main math lesson.
- Math Messagesâ€”These are problems, displayed in a manner chosen by the teacher, that students complete before the lesson and then discuss as an opener to the main lesson.
- Mental Math and Reflexesâ€”These are brief (no longer than 5 min) sessions â€œâ€¦designed to strengthen children's number sense and to review and advance essential basic skillsâ€¦â€� (Program Components 2003).
- Math Boxesâ€”These are pages intended to have students routinely practice problems independently.
- Home Links/Study Linksâ€”Everyday homework is sent home. Grades K-3 they are called Home Links and 4-6 they are Study Links. They are meant to reinforce instruction as well as connect home to the work at school.
- Supplemental Aspects
Beyond the components already listed, there are supplemental resources to the program. The two most common are games and explorations.
- Gamesâ€”These are counted as an essential part of the EM curriculum. â€œâ€¦Everyday Mathematics sees games as enjoyable ways to practice number skills, especially those that help children develop fact powerâ€¦â€� (Program Components 2003). Therefore, authors of the series have interwoven games throughout daily lessons and activities. Some commonly played games in the series are *
- Games only include:
- Addition Top It This is when two to three students use a deck of playing cards (0-10). The cards are shuffled and the deck is placed in the middle of the players. Each player takes two cards and adds them together. The player with the highest sum wins that round and takes the other players cards. The game is over when there are not enough cards left for each person to pull two cards. The person with the most cards at the end of the game wins.
- Beat the Calculator Three students play in groups - one player is the "caller," a second player is the "calculator," and the third is the "brain." The game begins by the "caller" selecting a fact problem by using a deck of playing cards (0-9). That person selects two cards and creates an equation using the two numbers on the cards. The "calculator" then solves the problem with a calculator as the "brain" solves it without a calculator. Students try to race each other to get the correct answer first to the equation. The "caller" decides who got the answer first and that person wins that round. The players trade roles every 3â€“5 minutes depending on how much time is available.
- Explorationsâ€”One could, perhaps, best describe these as mini-projects completed in small groups. They are intended to extend upon concepts taught throughout the year.
Instead of fostering a competitive environment and teaching students through logical deduction, Everyday Mathematics uses a collaborative milieu and allows students to draw their own conclusions after seeing recurring math patterns.
What Works Clearinghouse ( or WWC ) reviewed the evidence in support of the Everyday Mathematics program. Of the 61 pieces of evidence submitted by the publisher, 57 did not meet the WWC minimum standards for scientific evidence, four met evidence standards with reservations, and one of those four showed a statistically significant positive effect. Based on the four studies considered, the WWC gave Everyday Math a rating of "Potentially Positive Effect" with the four studies showing a mean improvement in elementary math achievement (versus unspecified alternative programs) of 6 percentile rank points with a range of -7 to +14 percentile rank points, on a scale from -50 to +50.
Connected Mathematics is a comprehensive, problem-centered curriculum designed for all students in grades 6-8 based on the NCTM standards. The curriculum was developed by the [http://connectedmath.msu.edu/|Connected Mathematics Project (CMP)] at Michigan State University and funded by the National Science Foundation.
Each grade level curriculum is a full-year program, and in each of the three grade levels, topics of number, algebra, geometry/measurement, probability and statistics are covered in an increasingly sophisticated manner. The program seeks to make connections within mathematics, between mathematics and other subject areas, and to the real world. The curriculum is divided into units, each of which contains investigations with major problems that the teacher and students explore in class. Extensive problem sets are included for each investigation to help students practice, apply, connect, and extend these understandings.
Connected Mathematics addresses both the content and the process standards of the NCTM. The process standards are: Problem Solving, Reasoning and Proof, Communication, Connections and Representation. For example, in Moving Straight Ahead students construct and interpret concrete, symbolic, graphic, verbal and algorithmic models of quantitative and algebraic relationships, translating information from one model to another.
Like other curricula implementing the NCTM standards, Connected Math has been criticized by supporters of traditional mathematics for not directly teaching standard arithmetic methods.
One 2003 study compared the mathematics achievement of eighth graders in the first three school districts in Missouri to adopt NSF-funded Standards-based middle grades mathematics curriculum materials (MATH Thematics or Connected Mathematics Project) with students who had similar prior mathematics achievement and family income levels from other districts. Significant differences in achievement were identified between students using Standards-based curriculum materials for at least 2 years and students from comparison districts using other curriculum materials. All of the significant differences reflected higher achievement of students using Standards-based materials. Students in each of the three districts using Standards-based materials scored higher in two content areas (data analysis and algebra), and these differences were significant.
Another study compared statewide standardized test scores of fourth-grade students using Everyday Mathematics and eighth-grade students using Connected Mathematics to test scores of demographically similar students using a mix of traditional curricula. Results indicate that students in schools using either of these standards-based programs as their primary mathematics curriculum performed significantly better on the 1999 statewide mathematics test than did students in traditional programs attending matched comparison schools. With minor exceptions, differences in favor of the standards-based programs remained consistent across mathematical strands, question types, and student sub-populations.
As one of many widely adopted curricula developed around the NCTM standards, Connected Mathematics has been criticized by advocates of traditional mathematics as being particularly ineffective and incomplete and praised by various researchers who have noted its benefits in promoting deep understanding of mathematical concepts among students. In a review by critic James Milgram, "the program seems to be very incomplete... it is aimed at underachieving students." He observes that "the students should entirely construct their own knowledge.. standard algorithms are never introduced, not even for adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing fractions." However, studies have shown that students who have used the curriculum have "develop[ed] sophisticated ways of comparing and analyzing data sets, . . . refine[d] problem-solving skills and the ability to distinguish between reasonable and unreasonable solutions to problems involving fractions, . . . exhibit[ed] a deep understanding of how to generalize functions symbolically from patterns of data, . . . [and] exhibited a strong understanding of algebraic concepts and procedures," among other benefits.
Districts in states such as Texas were awarded NSF grants for teacher training to support curricula such as CM. Austin ISD received a $5 million NSF grant for teacher training in 1997. NSF awarded $10 million for "Rural Systemic Initiatives" through West Texas A&M. At the state level, the SSI (Statewide Systemic Initiative), was a federally-funded program developed by the Dana Center at the University of Texas. Its most important work was directing the implementation of CM in schools across the state. But in 1999, Connected Mathematics was rejected by California's revised standards because it was judged at least two years below grade level and it contained numerous errors . After the 2000-2001 academic year, state monies can no longer be used to buy Connected Mathematics
The Christian Science Monitor noted parents in Plano Texas who demanded that their schools drop use of CM, while the New York Times reported parents there rebelled against folding fraction strips rather than using common denominators to add fractions. For the improved second edition, it is stated that "Students should be able to add two fractions quickly by finding a common denominator". The letter to parents states that students are also expected to multiply and divide fractions by standard methods.
What parents often do not understand is that students begin with exploratory methods in order to gain a solid conceptual understanding, but finish by learning the standard procedures, sometimes by discovering them under teacher guidance. Large-scale studies of reform curricula such as Connected Mathematics have shown that students in such programs learn procedural skills to the same level as those in traditional programs, as measured by traditional standardized tests. Students in standards-based programs gain conceptual understanding and problem-solving skills at a higher level than those in traditional programs.
Despite disbelief on the part of parents whose textbooks always contained instruction in mathematical methods, it is claimed that the pedagogical benefits of this approach find strong support in the research: "Over the past three to four decades, a growing body of knowledge from the cognitive sciences has supported the notion that students develop their own understanding from their experiences with mathematics."
Examples of criticism
Connected Mathematics treatment of some topics include exercises which some have criticized as being either "subjective" or "having nothing to do with the mathematical concept" or "omit standard methods such as the" formula for arithmetic mean. (See above for discussion of reasons for initial suppression of formulas.) The following examples are from the student textbooks, which is all the parents see. (See discussion below.)
In the first edition, one booklet focuses on a conceptual understanding of median and mean, using manipulatives. The standard algorithm was not presented. Later editions included the algorithm.
In the 6th grade u
From Yahoo Answers
Answers:10 4 miles every day minus the distance to get to the track and back home, 1.5 4-(.75X2) = 2.5 2.5 divided by .25 (ea lap is .25 miles) 2.5/.25 = 10 hope this helps, el heno
Answers:impossible, you can't divide by 0.
Answers:Well, you should draw a picture. A square with x side and x side with area x^2 becomes x+5 side and x-4 side with area (x+5)(x-4) so the equation (x+5)(x-4) = x^2 will tell you when the areas are equal. x^2 +5x -4x -20 = x^2 (FOIL) x^2 - x^2 +5x -4x -20 =0 x - 20 =0 x=20 If x is less than 20, the rectangle will have a smaller area than the square. If x is greater than twenty, than the rectangle is larger than the square.
Answers:get your calculator and punch it in we arent your calculator.