Scripta Manent: Shifting Editorial Boards
Susan Hezlet · Notices of the American Mathematical Society · 2012
course.We both believe that better goals should reflect student needs; the differences in specific approaches reflect different student populations.We have both concluded that serving students well will require activity-again different in detail-outside traditional classroom settings.A final similarity is that wide implementation of either approach is seriously limited by resource constraints.They might be seen as examples of enrichments and student-specific variations that would be possible with high-quality computerbased courses. References[1] Keith Stroyan, Doceamus: Why do so many students take calculus?, Notices Amer.Math.Soc.58 (2011), no. 8, 1122-1123.and it really should be clear by now that this is a poor model.We need materials much better adapted to individual use.Real success will also require sophisticated adjustments in the content.My belief is that this is a job for mathematicians, not educators.1 SummaryStroyan suggests a kinder, gentler calculus with extended projects on physical applications.I propose a more rigorous course with fewer physical applications.How can I see these as basically similar?Both of us are concerned that traditional calculus courses do not serve students particularly well.We both feel-for rather different reasons-that calculus is a good setting and that the real problem is the traditional format.In particular, calculus is not the main learning goal even in a calculus 1 See the essays at http://www.math.vt.edu/people/ quinn/education/ for extensive discussion of these issues.