RCML Musings

April 2005
Whither, now?

This, present column is my 9th, and last column. I thought it fitting to end my contributions to the column as the “mantle” of editorship of
Intersection Points has passed from Dan Brahier to Mike Naylor, and fresh, new blood would reenergize the newsletter. Knowing Mike’s versatility and creativity, I don’t doubt that he has a number of new ideas he is going to share, so that forthcoming issues of Intersection Points will have no dearth of novel, interesting, instructive and insightful ideas!

Since 2002, I have had the privilege of sharing my views in the Musings column of Intersection Points, a total of 8 times. A list of the titles and corresponding years of their publication is given below:

1. (2002). Appreciating the beauty of math. RCML Intersection Points, 27(2).
2. (2002). A new fanaticism, pure arrogance, or sheer naiveté? RCML Intersection Points, 27(3).
3. (2003). The prisoner’s dilemma. RCML Intersection Points, 28(1).
4. (2003). Making mathematics relevant. RCML Intersection Points, 28(2).
5. (2003). Mentoring mathematics online. RCML Intersection Points, 28(3).
6. (2004). Meeting the needs of the Y generation. RCML Intersection Points, 29(1).
7. (2004). Standardized assessment and constructivist-based teacher preparation: Strange bedfellows? RCML Intersection Points, 29(2).
8. (2004). Implications and consequences of the No Child Left Behind Act. RCML Intersection Points, 29(3).

As can be seen, I have shared views ranging from the importance of appreciating the beauty of math to the (perhaps intractable?) problems associated with some policy mandates. My fond hope has always been that fellow RCML members would reflect on what was written, and perhaps even respond to some of my views. While the latter hope has remained unfulfilled, I do hope the former did not go unfulfilled!

As RCML members, we have always been mindful of research that serves to help the practitioner who has the responsibility of facilitating the learning of math. Also, in most of our conferences, it has been a practice to invite speakers who share their insights on making connections between math and other disciplines. In other words, RCML has emphasized the meaningful learning of math. Now, however, math educators are being bombarded by powerful forces that seem intent on an agenda built on a very narrow perception of what it means to be mathematically literate. It looks as if being mathematically literate is being equated to competent performance in standardized exams, and the only credible research is that from the positivist paradigm. So, where do we go from here?

As befits the title of this column, let me end by asking some questions for consideration by our RCML members.

1. Are you concerned about the directions taken by policy makers vis-à-vis how math teaching and math education research are to be conducted? If so, what can RCML do to redress/resolve any issues regarding math teaching and research?

2. Given that membership is our lifeblood, what steps can be taken to increase our membership?

3. How can we encourage new education faculty (especially math ed, special ed, etc) and current graduate students to become members, and how can we support their research efforts?

4. What can be done to ensure reasonablysized audience/participation, especially towards the last day of the RCML conference? (Remember the times when we had hardly 3 people for some of the Saturday presentations?)

Once again, thank you for the privilege of allowing me to share my “musings,” and good luck to Mike Naylor in his new role of newsletter editor!

|| RCML Home || RCML Officers || RCML History || RCML Founding Members || Past Conferences ||
FOCUS--On Learning Problems In Mathematics || FOCUS Tables of Contents || Wilson Memorial Lecture ||