In this chapter, the content of the geometry and measurement program at the various grade levels will be examined, and a rationale will be offered for what is being done and for what is being proposed for the program.

The purpose of the present article is to focus on the function concept, to describe several of its aspects, and to chart some of its appearances in the mathematics curriculum. At the start, we shall rely upon examples; the modem concept of function will not emerge in its final form until the end of the chapter, where we enter more deeply into the technical background.

In human affairs, there seems to be a tendency to swing from one extreme to another. Often, having swung violently between two extremes, man finds himself coming to rest somewhere in the middle, like a pendulum that has stopped oscillating. In mathematics education, this pendulum-like action has occurred with respect to many issues. In this chapter we will examine some of those issues.

The main part of our discussion appears under the next four major headings of this chapter and will be concerned with the undergraduate training of teachers at Levels I-III with particular attention to Level III. The first of these four sections, the one immediately following the Introduction, will describe briefly the situation prior to 1961; the next section will outline the CUPM recommendations; and the following two will respectively (a) survey the present situation and (b) discuss deficiencies in the present program and attempt some predictions as to future developments.

In this chapter, we are going to examine in some measure the nature of applications of mathematics and how such applications relate to the teaching of mathematics. The problem is a rather complex one, and the subject is so beset with various misconceptions and intuitive prejudgments that we must think our way through the issues rather carefully. It would, of course, be logical to begin with as precise a definition of applications of mathematics as is possible. However, our contact with problems of mathematics education during recent years has somewhat converted us to the spiral method of teaching, and this method tends to suffer from attempts at becoming too precise too early. Our plan, therefore, is to make a modest beginning and to return to the problem many times.

Our approach to evaluation in this chapter is less structured than Maurice L. Hartung's from several years ago; however, our interpretation of terminology will be in keeping with the undefined terms and definitions just identified. We also shall find it convenient to use the term outcomes to refer to actual (and hopefully, observable) experiences. Thus, evaluation may be viewed as the process of determining the extent to which outcomes agree with objectives.

This chapter begins with a general discussion of evaluation, including the important problem of stating the objectives of mathematics education in an organized fashion. This discussion is followed by brief reviews of a number of projects which have been concerned in one way or another with the evaluation of mathematics programs. The final portion is a detailed discussion of the variety of evaluation procedures used by the School Mathematics Study Group (SMSG), the largest of the mathematics curriculum projects in this country.

This chapter is designed to assist educational workers in achieving better utilization of available instructional resources in order to more effectively meet the learning needs of individual pupils. Developing adequate systems for differentiating or individualizing instruction is a difficult task, and progress has been somewhat slower than some authoritative predictions had anticipated. However, there are signs that indicate a growing capability in many schools to cope with the economic, managerial, and instructional problems that differentiation of instruction necessarily incurs. The following remarks summarize the trends in this area and point to new directions which appear to be most promising at this time.

Repeated layers of minor revisions of the curriculum had been applied, year after year, and the time was overdue for a complete rethinking. As scientists and mathematicians became aware of the situation, many indicated interest in accepting responsibility and assisting with the problem. Their resulting involvement in precollege curriculum improvement assisted both in producing change and in influencing the character of the change. One of the characteristics of this movement was that it was discipline centered rather than child centered. The emphasis was upon updating and reorganizing the academic disciplines which constitute preparation for college. Thus it attended to the special needs of middle-class and upper middle-class, college-bound students.

In earlier chapters, and especially in chapters i and viii, we have indicated something of the growing role that mathematics and its applications are playing in our society today. Today the areas of mathematical activity are so broad and diverse that it no longer seems adequate to speak simply of mathematics, and in consequence a new term has arisen: the mathematical sciences.

Arithmetic exhibits some marked contrasts when compared with some of the other content areas of education. Unlike chemistry, physics; and the social sciences, its content is not subject to radical changes due to discoveries such as those involving new elements, forms of energy, or ideas of social organization.

This chapter does not deal primarily with the place of arithmetic as assessed by its life values but with its place and relationships in the total curriculum of the elementary school. The many unmistakable contributions of arithmetic to life have been convincingly portrayed in various yearbooks of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. It will be apparent, as the discussion in this chapter proceeds, that the writer suspects that the proponents of the organized course of instruction in arithmetic have been too modest and limited, rather than too extravagant and comprehensive, in their claims.

The arithmetic we teach pupils in school is a way to think about the numbers of things—about quantities, amounts, sizes. It comprises the questions, "How many?" "How much?" "What part?" and the seeking and finding of their fitting answers. By means of arithmetic as a way to think, and in the degree that we have learned this way, we (a) recognize number questions and (b) determine their answers.

What children say, using number words, is only one of many clues which the interested parent or teacher should use in making observations as to the young child's number maturity. As with older children, glib verbal use of number terms should not be mistaken for certain knowledge of number concepts which a mature person associates with those words.

While achievement in arithmetic or any other school subject is no longer so important in determining grade promotion as it was a generation ago, the middle grades still remain critical in the teaching of arithmetic.

Some aspects of arithmetic in the junior-senior high school need reconsideration. This need is called to the attention of those interested in the program of the junior-senior high school, not only by the evidence of mathematical illiteracy exhibited by our armed forces during the last war but also by the performance of the graduates of our public school systems in the business world.

The teaching of arithmetic today shows extreme variation. Markedly different procedures are employed even in classrooms that are considered superior, to say nothing of differences in methods between classrooms representing superior and inferior instruction. Attention will first be given to procedures that are generally considered to be good, those most popular in school systems rated as being good or superior.

The present chapter is directed to teachers and supervisors rather than to psychologists. The aim of the writer will be to make a sensible interpretation of psychological theory and experiments as they affect the arithmetic program. Illustrations will be drawn from the teaching of arithmetic to make the interpretations as clear as possible.

The success of a meaningful program in arithmetic depends, in a large degree, upon methods (see chap. vii) and materials of instruction. There is no one method or any single type of instructional material which will suffice in all situations. The skillful teacher selects methods and materials in terms of the outcomes to be achieved and of the needs and the interests of the children. If instruction in arithmetic is to insure a steady growth in understanding number relationships, a wide variety of instructional materials must be used to enrich and to supplement the learner's experiences.

A discussion of testing instruments and practices in relation to present concepts of teaching requires identification of the major characteristics of teaching. Five such characteristics are listed and briefly described.

This chapter deals with the academic and professional preparation of teachers of arithmetic.

A curriculum designed for the training of elementary-school teachers, in common with the rest of our educational program, is a subject for debate. The writer, by virtue of his position that is concerned in part with teacher education in the state of New York, is aware of the force with which proponents of rival philosophies can suggest changes in the curriculum. It is very difficult, and perhaps impossible, to construct a teacher-training program that will receive any unanimity of acceptance. However, such chapters as the present one must be written in order that specific proposals may be set up for purposes of discussion and trial.

Many teachers often carry on modest experimentation with techniques and procedures on their own initiative and without any particular encouragement of administrative help. Some teachers try to find new and better ways even at the risk of incurring official displeasure. There is reason to believe, therefore, that if supervision is conceived as a process of mutual study and investigation by the staff of a school or a school system under competent leadership, far more will be gained in the improvement of instruction than if a series of directives on content and method are merely passed out by a supervisory authority.

Giving names, tallying, comparing and combining actual groups, and counting—these, it is clear, must have been evolved to serve human purposes. Primitive men can hardly be said to have invented or discovered their arithmetic; they lived it. The social value of arithmetic, that is, its human serviceability, is no less evident in the historical period.

This chapter consists of two parts. First, there is a brief consideration of some problems of research as they relate to arithmetic; and, second, there is a group of specific proposals for research submitted by some twenty members of the profession who have an active interest in the teaching of arithmetic.

Researches dealing with arithmetic were few prior to 1900. While this section is concerned only with the influences of research, a brief consideration of the status of arithmetic at that time will serve as a useful basis of comparison.

Part One of this volume consists in a systematic treatment of the general field of arithmetic. Part Two is devoted to research relating to this subject. In this part of the Yearbook the Committee is presenting two types of material. The first of these, contained in Chapters II and III, is a classification of the entire body of published research in arithmetic arranged under the nineteen techniques which have been employed in such investigations. The second type of material consists in a series of new research studies relating to several aspects of arithmetic.

Exact and valid knowledge concerning the many problems of teaching and learning in arithmetic is to be had only from fundamental research studies which are carefully planned, painstakingly prosecuted, and wisely interpreted. In the last analysis the central issue in such studies consists in the development of a technique adapted to the type of problem which is to be investigated.

No attempt will be made in this chapter to present a detailed summary of the research studies in arithmetic which are now in print. Such detailed summaries have already been published and may be procured easily. The chapter will deal with the nature and findings of investigations in arithmetic without attempting to mention all the persons who have made contributions.

The conventional arithmetic textbook, a book intended to be placed in the hands of third-grade children, begins with the presentation of a gaudy picture in which certain priggish children, impossibly clean in appearance, are occupied with hoops, marbles, dolls, or whatnot of the apparatus of play.