Sei sulla pagina 1di 12
 
Review of the January 2016 Oklahoma Academic Standards for Mathematics Ze
ev Wurman. Palo Alto, California. zeev@ieee.org
Generic Comments.
1.
 
In multiple places the standards refer to “open number line.” It would be better and clearer to change this simply to “number line.” First, “open number line” is non
-standard use. Second, the number line in elementary grades more often th
an not actually refers to a “half open” (limited at 0 on the left) number line, if at all. Third, “open number line” may also refer to an empty
number line. Rather than create confusion, simply
drop the “open.”
 All kind of number lines should be available to teachers depending on the problem at hand. 2.
 
The phrase “
Read, write, discuss, and represent whole numbers
…” appears in multiple
early
grades. I suggest to eliminate the “discuss,” it being unclear what one can cogently discuss
about a number such as 29 or 123 beyond it being one more than 28 or 122 respectively.
Instead, I would suggest to add “in expanded form” (e.g., 100 + 20 + 3) to the “representation, such as “
Read, write, and represent in expanded form whole numbers
...”
. This will also cleanly remove th
e need for clauses or standards such as in grades 2 & 3 “
3.N.1.2 Use place value to describe whole numbers between 1,000 and 10,000 in terms of ten thousands, thousands, hundreds, tens and ones, including expanded form
,” reducing
 the number of standards. 3.
 
The development of the Algebraic Reasoning & Algebra strand is very weak throughout K-6. It focuses almost solely on patterns and input/out rules and tables, and is deficient and unspecific when it comes to use and evaluation of expressions, order of operations, use of parentheses, using expressions with variables, and establishing rules of equivalence (e.g., adding equals to both sides does not change it). It could bear a significant strengthening, while pruning some of the repetitive focus on patterns and input/output tables. 4.
 
Some K-7 geometry content is a bit slow. For example, area of triangle and sum of its angles are deferred to grade 6; circles are deferred to grade 7. 5.
 
The development of basic arithmetic skills is generally reasonable, but the standards exhibit strong aversion to bring their development to closure using the standard algorithms. Instead, the standards introduce spurious and confusing verbiage about
efficient and generalizable procedures and strategies
 in those places. This is confusing and wrong-headed
 –
 when it comes to the capstone fluency standards, they should simply specify a single efficient standard algorithm for each operation. We don
t teach people to drive with one hand tied, then with another hand tied, and then with their legs in shackles
 –
 we simply teach them to drive normally. This needs to be corrected. 6.
 
The high school courses get weaker as and weaker for higher grades.
 
 
Pre-K
PK.D.1.2
Use categorical data to create real-object graphs
 
Expectation of graphing seems to be premature for this age.
Kindergarten
K.N.1.4
 
Recognize without counting (subitize) the quantity of a small group of objects in organized and random arrangements up to 10.
 
Clarification Statement
: Subitizing is defined as instantly recognizing the quantity of a set without having to count.
 The standard is incorrect and the Clarification Statement is deficient. Subtilizing is NOT recognizing
 
“a
small group of objects in organized and random arrangements
.”
Rather, the automatic recognition comes from the
regular arrangement.
Nobody in his right mind would expect to automatically recognize the number of objects in a random arrangement when it is larger than three or four.
 
Consequently, the standard must change “random arrangements” to “regular arrangements”
and change the Clarification statement from
 
“ 
Subitizing is defined as instantly recognizing the quantity of a set without having to count 
” should be augmented
 
along the lines of “
Subitizing is defined as instantly recognizing the quantity of a fixed-shape set, such as on faces of a die or dominoes, without having to count 
.”
 
K.N.3.1
 
Distribute equally a set of objects into at least two smaller equal sets
 Dealing with fair shares at this age is unnecessarily demanding.
K.N.1
 
Understand the relationship between quantities and whole numbers
 Comparing numbers/groups
up to 10 is missing. “Discuss and represent” is insufficient to clearly
set expectations for comparison, which is of key importance.
K.N.2
 
Develop conceptual fluency with addition and subtraction (up to 10) using objects and pictures.
The addition and subtractions should be up to 20, with each *group* being up to 10.
K.GM.3.1
 
Develop an awareness of simple time concepts using words such as yesterday, today, tomorrow, morning, afternoon, and night within his/her daily life.
 Day of the week should probably be added here.
 
Grade 1
1.N.1.1
 
Recognize numbers to 20 without counting (subitize) the quantity of structured arrangements.
 Subitizing has been found helpful for developing instant small number recognition in early age. It has not been found helpful for anything larger than 10. In fact, it is probably damaging beyond 10 as it works against the grouping by 10 that is inherent in our decimal system. Eliminate!
1.N.1.2
 
Use concrete representations to describe whole numbers between 10 and 100 in terms of tens and ones.
 
“between 10 and 100” should be changed to “up to 100.” Clearly we want to have single digits
nu
mbers too modeled as having “zero tens.”
 
1.N.1.6
Compare and order whole numbers from 0 to 100
.
 
Adding something about estimation is indicated here
. Something like “
Make reasonable
estimates when comparing numbers.”
 
1.N.1.8
Use objects to represent and use words to describe the relative size of numbers, such as more than, less than, and equal to.
 
The standard should also specify symbols for greater than, equal, and less than at this point, beyond only words.
1.N.2
 
Solve addition and subtraction problems up to 10 in real-world and mathematical contexts.
This set of 1.N.2 standards (1.N.2.1, 1.N.2.3) should be changed to expect problems up to 20 (rather than 10), with each of the numbers being up to 10. The decomposition of numbers up to 10 has been already done in Kindergarten (K.N.1.6 and K.N.2.1) and to be closer to international expectations 20 is required.
1.N.2.2
Determine if equations involving addition and subtraction are true
.
An awkward phrasing. A better one might be simply “Verify addition and subtraction equations” or, perhaps better, “verify additions using subtractions, and subtractions using additions.”
 
1.N.2.3
 
Demonstrate fluency with basic addition facts and related subtraction facts up to 10
. Very nice, but should be up to 20.
1.N.3.1
Partition a regular polygon using physical models and recognize when those parts are equal 
. This standard is ill advised and ill defined. First, which types of polygons? Further, children at this age tend to have little concept of area, and even less of area equivalence. Finally, no obvious reason to push concepts of division and fractions to be so strongly and early associated

Premia la tua curiosità

Tutto ciò che desideri leggere.
Sempre. Ovunque. Su qualsiasi dispositivo.
Nessun impegno. Annulla in qualsiasi momento.
576648e32a3d8b82ca71961b7a986505