Talk:Integrated mathematics

Redirect

From onelook.com, I can access this page if I type "Integrated mathematics," but not if I type "Integrated math." Would someone please have "Integrated math" redirect to this page. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Bandy (talk • contribs) 21:54, 1 February 2011‎

Done. Hyacinth (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with General Mathematics (education)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/General_Mathematics v/r - TP 15:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I am unclear on what a merger would entail. The term "General Mathematics" is used in the U.S. to refer to a very basic math course, usually at the university level, though a few decades ago there were high school math courses with this name. "General mathematics" has nothing to do with integrated math, other than being an example of a general course not in the traditional algebra-geometry-algebra sequence. I could see a redirect to this article, but I wouldn't include the content of the "General mathematics (education)" article in this article beyond a simple mention of the term as an example. --seberle (talk) 08:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem with this is that it was a rather neat solution for dealing with the page General Mathematics, but it may not be the best outcome for this page (Integrated mathematics). The core of the issue, I think, is that the term general mathematics, at least the way its being used in the article, is too broad. It seems to describe pretty much all simple maths education in at all levels. I still think a merge would help a bit, as the general maths article has some sources. Benboy00 (talk) 18:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

References

It is difficult to find good American sources discussing this topic. Currently the first citation in the article is this British PDF, which is a comparison of 24 countries. It is not the clearest of documents and a better source should be found. The second reference is an American source which discusses how the Common Core can follow either a traditional or integrated curriculum -- still not the best source for an international comparison. One editor correctly complained about the first reference, noting:

This is a very nice document, but it does not spell out whether the particular curriculum integrated or "layered". I know for sure that some countries use algebra/trig/calc as one subject "strand" going for several grades, and geometry/stereometry as the other subject "strand", but this is not reflected in this document. It only lists topics and skills. If you can find specific quotes on the integrated nature of the curriculum, it would be great.

I have removed the two tags this editor attached. If the source is inadequate, it should simply be deleted. I agree with this editor that better documents should be found, but I am not aware of where to find them. Ideally it should be an American document, but very few American sources discuss this issue at any depth. The current PDF reference does not discuss the "integrated" nature of the curricula because all curricula (as far as I know) are "integrated" except in the United States, so most documents outside of the U.S. do not see this as an issue to address. The reference does note that algebra and geometry are being studied each year in countries where the document breaks down curricula by grade, but this is not always clear. Again, if the reference is more confusing than helpful, it should simply be deleted. Hopefully someone can find a better reference. As to the problem of "strands" or "layers", I am not sure I understand the editor correctly. What exactly is meant by these terms? It is true that most countries follow "strands" of topics across grades, and therefore follow a strand for months at a time, whereas American integrated curricula often jump more frequently between algebra and geometry. Is this the distinction being referred to? This might be an important issue to include in the article, but again, there are very few American sources which discuss this issue, so it may be difficult to find adequate references. Another possibility would be to simply post references to the curricula of several countries, but I believe this would be considered "original research" and is frowned on in Wikipedia. Perhaps someone knows a better way to reference this subject? --seberle (talk) 22:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

What I meant, is that the common opinion in the U.S. is that high school math can be taught either sequentially alg1 / geom / alg2 or with everything jumbled together int just "math". There is a third option though, when algebra and geometry, while being separate subjects, are taken simultaneously. So, when you need, say cosine in geometry, you already have it in trig. The courses are integrated in the way that they co-depend on each other (well, maybe geometry being more dependent on algebra) yet they remain separate subjects having separate textbooks. Mikus (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

This is interesting. If you have good references, it might be good to add a brief paragraph on this. In my limited experience (I've only taught in three countries, though I'm familiar with how math is taught in neighboring countries), math is always kept together as a single course with a single textbook. Well, there was a case where a unit on projective geometry was singled out as a separate 1-hour-a-week course. (But that course was later dropped and is no longer taught.) Keep in mind that in other countries, courses are not rigidly fixed to a five-hour-a-week schedule as they are in the U.S. Different courses are given different numbers of hours according to their perceived importance. If a country follows a strand system, as you claim, it is likely that each strand is given a different number of hours so that the total hours of math still add up to the required amount (typically 7 or 8 hours a week). But this is just my anecdotal experience. We'll need some good references to add this information. seberle (talk) 12:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Just gotta say...

This article is a great example of how crowdsourcing knowledge improves an encyclopedia. From the first time I visited this article to now, it has improved immensely. Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 23:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC)