Return to list
of materials about "Identifying characteristics of math inquiry experiences"
Methods course documentation
Identifying characteristics of math inquiry experiences (D5.1)
Participants' feedback -- Responses to an anonymous questionnaire
NOTE: In what follows, we have reported in table form the responses
of participants from implementations A and C of the Methods course who provided
feedback as well as additional comments on the role/value of the following
readings:
- Borasi, R. & Siegel, M. (1992). Reading, writing and mathematics:
Rethinking the basics and their relationship. Invited lecture presented
at the 7th International Congress in Mathematics Education, Quebec, Quebec.
- Borasi, R. (1993). Major assumptions and implications of an inquiry
approach for mathematics education. (unpublished manuscript)
- NCTM (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston,
VA: NCTM.
Each readings was rated according to the following guidelines:
Reading assignments are for me a very important part of the course,
and yet it is always difficult to make my selection among all the worthwhile
texts available in the literature. Thus, as I begin to think about what
to include in my future implementation of this course, I would especially
appreciate your feedback regarding the specific readings assigned over this
semester.
Please evaluate each of the following readings using the following
scale:
- CUT, i.e., you did not find the reading helpful at
all, and you recommend that I definitely eliminate it from my reading list
- MAYBE CUT, i.e., you did not find the reading particularly
helpful, and it is one that could be eliminated
- NEUTRAL, i.e., the reading was valuable and worth
keeping per-se, but was somewhat redundant OR could also be substituted
with something else which is perhaps better
- KEEP, i.e., the reading was valuable for you and certainly
worth keeping in the reading list
- DEFINITELY KEEP, i.e., the reading was especially
valuable for you and one that you recommend I should never drop as you
think any student in this course would definitely benefit from reading
it
I would also appreciate if you can add additional comments or suggestions,
or even explain the rationale for some of your evaluation, at the end of
the list (NOTE: you can refer to a specific reading just by its number in
the list below)
Ratings:
(Note that participants in Implementation A did not read the first of
these readings)
|
# people who gave 3 |
# people who gave 4 |
# people who gave 5 |
average points |
| Borasi & Siegel (1992) |
0 |
6 |
5 |
4.5 |
| Borasi (1993) |
0 |
6 |
15 |
4.7 |
| NCTM Teaching Standards |
0 |
7 |
14 |
4.7 |
Additional comments:
- This was important because I think it gave us the idea that this movement
is truly effective and supported.
- Excellent. Your (Borasi's) articles are very helpful. It sounds like
you try to create a Rogoff-style community of learners.
- Your unpublished manuscript on inquiry approach was beneficial because
it helped me to apply the main points to my teaching experience.
- I thought the readings were really good. They allowed me to see what
kind of environment I had been in as a student, as well as what type of
environment I wanted to create as an educator for my students. (Keep it!)
Return to top of document
Return to list of materials about "Identifying
characteristics of math inquiry experiences"