1999 Prof Eval Memo

1. Professional Self­Evaluation 1999 – 2000
To: Jeffrey L. Hollman, Principal Baldwin SHS
From: A. Jorge García, Teacher of Math 2R
Date: 2/8/00
Re: Self­Evaluation
My primary goals were to investigate new topics in Math 2R with the latest
technology and to help students effectively and fluently communicate mathematical
reasoning. I believe that I have attained these goals as shown below.
I attended a conference on using technology in math class last October (ETS
at SUNY Old Westbury). I also plan to attend Lima‡on this March. These
conferences are for teachers and professors of mathematics using technology. Many
topics discussed at Lima‡on have, per force, been about technology in the
mathematics classroom over the past few years. This year’s scheduled
presentations are no exception. I have also studied literature pertaining to
Computer Algebra Systems (CAS) and Geometers’ Sketchpads (GSP). In addition, I
am a member of the Graph–TI (www.ti.com), AP–Calc (www.ets.org) and Calc–
Reform (www.ams.org) listservs which address many pedagogical issues pertaining
to the use of technology in the mathematics classroom.
I endeavored to use the TI–89 Graphing Calculator (GC) everyday in my
Math 2R classes for the first 15 weeks or so of school (Algebra Unit). I found it an
indispensable tool for investigating many algebraic questions in a short amount of
time. The TI–89 is not only a scientific calculator with graphing capabilities, it also
incorporates a CAS. My students and I were able to make use of this CAS on a
daily basis through–out the entire first portion of the course which is very algebra
intensive. I brought the TI–89 projector into class daily and had a different student
operate it each day. Approximately twice a week, I also brought a class set of
calculators for all the students to experiment with. I think the students learned a
great deal and enjoyed the experience.
I also developed cooperative activities for my students. For example, the day
before each test I broke the class up into groups and challenged each group to come­
up with the best, original solution to several review questions. The students were
awarded bonus points toward the test for correctness, originality and good
communication.
Many of my worksheets and tests had alternative assessment questions
involving the use of GNAV. In other words, the students were required to
communicate their understanding of a problem and method of solution Graphically,
Numerically, Algebraically and Verbally.
I had a few problems incorporating technology into Math 2R. First, the
process of distributing 20­30 GCs and collecting student IDs at the start of class and
then collecting the GCs and returning the IDs at the end of class proved to be very
time consuming. Secondly, I tried using the TI–92 in class when we started the
Geometry unit, as this is the only GC with GSP capabilities. Unfortunately, GSPs
usually entail a rather daunting learning curve to use effectively. I found it counter
productive to teach Geometry at the same time as teaching GSP functions.
Additional lab periods would have helped with this time issue common to
technology intensive classes!
h:profeval99.mem.doc