Difficulties in the passage from secondary to tertiary education (Q1126877)

The paper under review is the outcome of a round-table at ICM-98 (Berlin) devoted to problems and issues in the transition from secondary to tertiary mathematics education, both as regards specialised mathematical studies and mathematics as a service subject. In addition to offering a general framework for discussing these problems and issues, the paper identifies a number of main factors that influence the transition problématique. Thus, the paper provides a general survey of the difficulties at issue rather than a detailed analysis of specific problems. After having offered some empirical evidence that significant segments of university students of mathematics do in fact experience a marked discontinuity and severe difficulties in the transition from school to university, and indications that this view is shared by the majority of university teachers, the authors focus on three categories of difficulties encountered in this transition. Firstly, there are epistemological and cognitive difficulties related to the conceptual leap from elementary to advanced mathematical thinking, in particular with regard to the nature and position of concepts, the notion and role of proof and proving, and the modes of mathematical practice. Also included in this category are university teachers' often unrealistic images of students and their learning outcomes. The second category are the sociological and cultural difficulties stemming from different institutional boundary conditions and modes of organisation and operation (e.g. class/group size and mental and social classroom climate), as well as differences in students' and teachers' attitudes and expectations, part of which is due to the reward systems in university mathematics that typically emphasize research rather than teaching achievements. The last category contains the didactical difficulties, which have to do with teachers' lack of pedagogical and didactical abilities, disregards for methodological issues, insufficient knowledge of innovative teaching or assessment approaches, etc. The paper is not under-estimating those difficulties that mainly reside in or stem from the secondary level, but since the authors and the potential readership are primarily university people, the emphasis has deliberately been placed on the aspects encountered on the tertiary side of the transition, which are also the ones that can be influenced by university people. In this spirit the paper finishes by outlining in gross terms possible actions -- at the tertiary level -- that might help alleviating the difficulties at issue. Actions proposed include, among others: establishing a (better) dialogue between secondary and tertiary educators; provide students with orientation activities and individualised help, also to use resources for learning; create contexts that stimulate faculty development; change the `cultures' of students and teachers; stimulate students' meta-cognitive activity; and finally, realising that `less is more', i.e. reduce the quantity of the material taught for the benefit of the quality of students' learning. The paper under review is a clear and balanced survey of the problématique addressed. It is likely to be a useful standard reference and stimulus for everyone who would like to seriously engage in improving the teaching and learning of university mathematics by counteracting those difficulties in the secondary-tertiary transition which are undesirable and unnecessary.