ISSN:0002-9890    

DOI:10.1080/00029890.1970.11992421

出版商:Taylor&Francis    

年代:1970

数据来源: Taylor

ISSN:0002-9890    

DOI:10.1080/00029890.1970.11992422

出版商:Taylor&Francis    

年代:1970

数据来源: Taylor

ISSN:0002-9890    

DOI:10.1080/00029890.1970.11992423

出版商:Taylor&Francis    

年代:1970

数据来源: Taylor

ISSN:0002-9890    

DOI:10.1080/00029890.1970.11992424

出版商:Taylor&Francis    

年代:1970

数据来源: Taylor

ISSN:0002-9890    

DOI:10.1080/00029890.1970.11992425

出版商:Taylor&Francis    

年代:1970

数据来源: Taylor

摘要:

SummaryThe high rate of return in the survey of colleges and universities was interpreted as an indication of interest in and concern for the problem of teacher preparation in geometry. at the same time the relatively high percentage of‘undecided’and omitted responses on many questions confirmed the general indecision indicated in the literature.The survey revealed that present training of mathematics teachers at most of the selected institutions includes at least one required course in geometry, with Euclidean geometry from the contemporary viewpoint being the most frequent offering. While there seemed to be general satisfaction with teacher preparation in geometry, the majority hoped to see some change in the existing programs.The inclusion of transformations in geometry for teachers was supported on the basis of strong recommendations from mathematicians and educators.The high school geometry course desired by most university mathematicians and educators seemed to be one similar to SMSG geometry in degree of emphasis on formal proof and rigor but with more coordinate geometry incorporated.Differences of opinion between mathematicians and educators may have been due to a number of factors, including lack of knowledge or appreciation of the situation. In any case, it must be recognized that these individuals occupy positions in their respective institutions where they can influence decisions on the teacher preparation program. Significant differences of opinion among such persons seem to suggest the need for careful and thoughtful consideration of the bases for all recommendations. They point to the advisability of continued collaboration among university mathematicians, educators, and competent experienced teachers, not only in preparing instructional materials for high school geometry and determining the content of mathematics courses for teachers, but in examining the total preparation program of mathematics teachers. Each one—the mathematician, the mathematics educator, the high school teacher—has deep interest in, intimate knowledge of, and rich experience in his own specialized area, possessed by no one outside his field. Each should thus have a unique contribution to make in this determination.

ISSN:0002-9890    

DOI:10.1080/00029890.1970.11992426

出版商:Taylor&Francis    

年代:1970

数据来源: Taylor

ISSN:0002-9890    

DOI:10.1080/00029890.1970.11992427

出版商:Taylor&Francis    

年代:1970

数据来源: Taylor

ISSN:0002-9890    

DOI:10.1080/00029890.1970.11992428

出版商:Taylor&Francis    

年代:1970

数据来源: Taylor

ISSN:0002-9890    

DOI:10.1080/00029890.1970.11992429

出版商:Taylor&Francis    

年代:1970

数据来源: Taylor

ISSN:0002-9890    

DOI:10.1080/00029890.1970.11992430

出版商:Taylor&Francis    

年代:1970

数据来源: Taylor