sbornÃk
sbornÃk sbornÃk
Gunter Weiss should show an own scientific profile and wants get the status of an “Elite University”. In a situation of educational and economical competition between Universities ranking lists pretend objectivity, but they often compare ‘apples with pears’. Such ranking procedures put hard pressure onto us teachers and we are daily forced to justify our existence: • Effective duration of studies should not exceed standard duration; • the number of beginners should not differ to much from that of graduates; • we should produce publications with high impact factor; • and first of all, we should be successful fund risers. The big press often leads to improper reactions, as we have to cope somehow with “the system” and to compete with other colleagues instead of cooperate with them. I suppose that the loud calls for a re-organization of Universities and their studies just mask the shortage of financial resource and help to hide cutbacks in staff. While PISA and Bologna, together with bad economy of the states, take effects from ‘outside’ to our universities, our way to cope with those effects also has ‘inner’ changes as consequences. Thus it might be useful to analyze the following question: 2 What happens within our educational/research system I see competition between European Universities, within limits, not at all as only a bad thing. There are the limits it will depend on! Universities of bigger countries are indeed very different, often due to long scientific traditions, special profile, contacts to industry. But they all are governed and ruled by the same national laws. To escape from this, some Universities try to become the status of privatised institutions, like foundations. Such a structural change has many consequences. Some of the consequences are, to my experience, – Reduction of teaching staff: As the faculties are ranked according to their fund rising abilities, Mathematics and Didactics/Pedagogic usually have the last position. – Downgrading of teaching jobs: If a person retires, the replacement – if at all possible – has to be at cheapest conditions. In Jena, Dresden, Karlsruhe I know of examples, where full-professor jobs at Mathematics departments are replaced by jobs at assistant level. Especially Geometry falls victim to this downgrading, which will have negative consequences for Geometry as a mathematical science. 24
GEOMETRY BETWEEN PISA AND BOLOGNA – Founding of “Centres for Innovation and/or Competence”: According to the opinion of University leaderships standard teaching and education of undergraduates is no longer held in great esteem. What counts is working within “graduate colleges” and “special research programs”, Fraunhofer- or Max-Planck-Institutes, where we can harvest the educational fruits of undergraduate teaching from far abroad. But finally: Who cares about our own undergraduates – Outsourcing of teaching capacity: A cheap solution is to let retired persons give courses at the basis of honorary contracts. This seems to be common use not only in Germany but also in Eastern European countries. Even these persons might have been ‘scientifically strong’ and are routines in teaching, they are more or less isolated. They are excluded from University benefits as they cannot get travelling money and conference fees. Their contracts yield one semester, what is not very motivating to keep courses up to date. But it is a cheap solution, with negative consequences after a decade, maybe not at once. 3 How do mathematicians cope with the new teaching/research structures Because of lack of teaching staff in Mathematics courses for different types of studies have to be merged. Here one can mention the catchword “One Mathematics for everybody”, which should justify such a pedagogically wrong fusion of courses with different purposes. The catchword is quite common opinion among mathematicians! But there are several misunderstandings, at least from the Geometry point of view, as it is subsumed that – Geometry – as far it is part of Mathematics – and Mathematics are based on equal methods of thinking, and that therefore − teaching Mathematics/Geometry primary has to impart mathematical thinking, argumentation and methods to students independently of their study and needs, and that the − transfer to applications and treating specific ‘real’ problems arising from diverse engineering professions comes secondary. From personal teaching experience I learned that “pure” Mathematics or Geometry is not the biggest hurdle; it is the ‘mathematisation’ of problems posed by ‘real life’, what causes the greatest difficulties. But exactly, with problem oriented learning/teaching (POL), students become best motivated for acquisition of mathematical tools. Of course, POL demands some knowledge of the respective engineering study by the teacher. Here most Mathematics teachers have week points. There is much ignorance about 25
- Page 1 and 2: Katedra matematiky Fakulty stavebn
- Page 3 and 4: Programový výbor konference: Doc.
- Page 5: OBSAH TABLE OF CONTENTS
- Page 8 and 9: Table of Contents Petr Kahánek, Al
- Page 10 and 11: Table of Contents Daniela Velichov
- Page 13: PLENÁRNÍ PŘEDNÁŠKY PLENARY LEC
- Page 16 and 17: František Kuřina sítě čtyřdim
- Page 18 and 19: František Kuřina Kombinace těcht
- Page 20 and 21: František Kuřina 3 Matematika a v
- Page 22 and 23: František Kuřina řešení je alt
- Page 26 and 27: Gunter Weiss “industrial reality
- Page 28 and 29: Gunter Weiss 5 “e-learning Geomet
- Page 30 and 31: Gunter Weiss In the following some
- Page 32 and 33: Gunter Weiss screen. This made it f
- Page 35: REFERÁTY CONFERENCE PAPERS
- Page 38 and 39: Eva Baranová, Kamil Maleček S a a
- Page 40 and 41: Eva Baranová, Kamil Maleček extr
- Page 42 and 43: Eva Baranová, Kamil Maleček Obrá
- Page 44 and 45: ÊÓÞÔ×ÑÓ×ÓÙÖÒÔÞ×Ñ Å
- Page 46 and 47: ÞÓÓÑÓÒÒ×ÓÙÖÒ×ÓÙÊ´
- Page 48 and 49: ÔÖØÓÑØÓÔÓÝÙ×ÓÙÖÓÚ
- Page 50 and 51: Bohumír Bastl The second reason fo
- Page 52 and 53: Bohumír Bastl 4 3 2 1 0 2 4 0 2 4
- Page 54 and 55: Bohumír Bastl the package that bot
- Page 56 and 57: Zuzana Benáková x B y z B B = u c
- Page 58 and 59: Zuzana Benáková Obrázek 4: třet
- Page 60 and 61: Michal Benes Since des t 2 = ds 2 +
- Page 62 and 63: Michal Benes The latter condition i
- Page 64 and 65: Michal Benes 4 Innitesimal deformat
- Page 66 and 67: Michal Benes where , 1, 2, ¢1, ¢2
- Page 68 and 69: Milan Bořík, Vojtěch Honzík sys
- Page 70 and 71: Milan Bořík, Vojtěch Honzík Dá
- Page 72 and 73: Milan Bořík, Vojtěch Honzík Obr
GEOMETRY BETWEEN PISA AND BOLOGNA<br />
– Founding of “Centres for Innovation and/or Competence”: According to<br />
the opinion of University leaderships standard teaching and education of<br />
undergraduates is no longer held in great esteem. What counts is<br />
working within “graduate colleges” and “special research programs”,<br />
Fraunhofer- or Max-Planck-Institutes, where we can harvest the<br />
educational fruits of undergraduate teaching from far abroad. But<br />
finally: Who cares about our own undergraduates<br />
– Outsourcing of teaching capacity: A cheap solution is to let retired<br />
persons give courses at the basis of honorary contracts. This seems to be<br />
common use not only in Germany but also in Eastern European<br />
countries. Even these persons might have been ‘scientifically strong’<br />
and are routines in teaching, they are more or less isolated. They are<br />
excluded from University benefits as they cannot get travelling money<br />
and conference fees. Their contracts yield one semester, what is not very<br />
motivating to keep courses up to date. But it is a cheap solution, with<br />
negative consequences after a decade, maybe not at once.<br />
3 How do mathematicians cope with the new<br />
teaching/research structures<br />
Because of lack of teaching staff in Mathematics courses for different types<br />
of studies have to be merged. Here one can mention the catchword “One<br />
Mathematics for everybody”, which should justify such a pedagogically<br />
wrong fusion of courses with different purposes. The catchword is quite<br />
common opinion among mathematicians! But there are several misunderstandings,<br />
at least from the Geometry point of view, as it is subsumed that<br />
– Geometry – as far it is part of Mathematics – and Mathematics are based<br />
on equal methods of thinking, and that therefore<br />
− teaching Mathematics/Geometry primary has to impart mathematical<br />
thinking, argumentation and methods to students independently of their<br />
study and needs, and that the<br />
− transfer to applications and treating specific ‘real’ problems arising from<br />
diverse engineering professions comes secondary.<br />
From personal teaching experience I learned that “pure” Mathematics or<br />
Geometry is not the biggest hurdle; it is the ‘mathematisation’ of problems<br />
posed by ‘real life’, what causes the greatest difficulties. But exactly, with<br />
problem oriented learning/teaching (POL), students become best motivated<br />
for acquisition of mathematical tools. Of course, POL demands some<br />
knowledge of the respective engineering study by the teacher. Here most<br />
Mathematics teachers have week points. There is much ignorance about<br />
25