Misplaced Pages

Math wars: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:45, 28 May 2017 edit173.3.251.110 (talk) The changes were intended to describe reform math in more concrete terms, and not as a dispute about how to teach ``problem solving.''Tag: references removed← Previous edit Revision as of 23:49, 28 May 2017 edit undoMagnolia677 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers138,680 edits Undid revision 782754271 by 173.3.251.110 (talk) Removing unsourced contentNext edit →
Line 4: Line 4:


While the discussion about math skills has persisted for many decades,<ref name="ed.gov">{{dead link|date=April 2017 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> the term "math wars" was coined by commentators such as John A. Van de Walle<ref>; "Debate has degenerated to 'math wars'"</ref> and ].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.csun.edu/~vcmth00m/bshm.html|title=A quarter century of US 'math wars' and political partisanship|first=David|last=Klein|publisher=California State University}}</ref> The debate is over ] and ] philosophy and curricula, which differ significantly in approach and content. While the discussion about math skills has persisted for many decades,<ref name="ed.gov">{{dead link|date=April 2017 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> the term "math wars" was coined by commentators such as John A. Van de Walle<ref>; "Debate has degenerated to 'math wars'"</ref> and ].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.csun.edu/~vcmth00m/bshm.html|title=A quarter century of US 'math wars' and political partisanship|first=David|last=Klein|publisher=California State University}}</ref> The debate is over ] and ] philosophy and curricula, which differ significantly in approach and content.

Although quite broad in nature, the differences between these two theories of education can be understood in their approach to the teaching of elementary school arithmetic.


==Advocates of reform== ==Advocates of reform==
The largest supporter of reform in the US has been the ].{{citation needed|date=July 2015}} The largest supporter of reform in the US has been the ].{{citation needed|date=July 2015}}


One aspect of the debate is over how explicitly children must be taught skills based on formulas or ]s (fixed, step-by-step procedures for solving math problems) versus a more inquiry-based approach in which students are exposed to real-world problems that help them develop fluency in number sense, reasoning, and problem-solving skills. In this latter approach, conceptual understanding is a primary goal and algorithmic fluency is expected to follow secondarily.<ref name="ed.gov"/> Advocates{{which|date=July 2015}} blame educators saying that failures occur not because the method is at fault, but because these educational methods require a great deal of expertise and have not always been implemented well in actual classrooms.
One aspect of the debate is over how explicitly children must be taught arithmetic. The traditional approach begins with children memorizing the addition table and the multiplication table. Then multi-digit arithmetic is taught via the standard step-by-step procedures, which show how these basic facts can be extended to add and multiply numbers with many digits. For example, the traditional teaching of 17 x 4 uses a vertical scheme with the 4 below the 7. Then the 7 and 4 are multiplied (returning a memorized 28), which is written as an 8 with a carry of 2 for the tens location. Then the 1 and 4 are multiplied, which gives a 4 in the tens location, which combines with the carry to give a 6 in the tens location and an 8 in the ones location. By way of contrast, reform-style teaching views arithmetic as a form of problem-solving. For this teaching theory, arithmetic problems are written in a horizontal style to discourage the teaching of multiplication as a systematic method. So 17x4 is to be solved as an exercise in creativity. A student might reason: 17x4 = 17x2x2=(17x2)x2=(17+17)x2=34x2=68. The critics of this approach claim that it fails to teach skills that will always work, and that it leaves students mathematically illiterate. That is, each step of a more complex derivation will require students to pause to devise a scheme to check the answer,
and their lack of fluency with basic arithmetic will leave them unable to progress to more advanced content.


A backlash, which advocates call "poorly understood reform efforts" and critics call "a complete abandonment of instruction in basic mathematics," resulted in "math wars" between reform and traditional methods of mathematics education.
In higher grades, the analog of this approach is to use problems and projects where the students themselves are intended to figure out the underlying mathematics. And so this teaching style is called ``inquiry-based.'' That is, the teacher is supposed to be ``the guide on the side'' instead of the ``sage on the stage.'' Some practitioners of this approach will arrange classroom desks in pairs of 2 that face each other. The organization is intended to inhibit the opportunity for classroom lecture, and to foster student collaboration in ``discovering'' the underlying mathematics.


==Critics of reform== ==Critics of reform==


Those who disagree with the ] maintain that students must first
Those who disagree with the ] maintain that students must develop computational skills that are complete and sound enough to extend to more complex problems. That is, basic arithmetic skills should be memorized and practiced to the level of automaticity before students progress to algebra, where all of arithmetic reappears in a more generalized and abstract setting. In this view, students progress by mastering concrete concepts first, and can then extending this understanding to more abstract forms of the same concepts.
develop computational skills before they can understand concepts of mathematics. These

skills should be memorized and practiced, using time-tested traditional methods until they become automatic. Time is better spent practicing skills rather than in investigations inventing alternatives, or justifying more than one correct answer or method. In this view, estimating answers is insufficient and, in fact, is considered to be dependent on strong foundational skills. Learning abstract concepts of mathematics is perceived to depend on a solid base of knowledge of the tools of the subject.<ref>{{dead link|date=April 2017 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref>
Critics will also point out that ``inquiry-based'' learning has no safeguards to protect against faulty conclusions. In more general terms, this style of learning is more time-consuming and less complete because it to be ``figured out'' by kids. And it places greater demands on the teacher to detect and correct all kinds of unpredictable mistakes.


Supporters of traditional mathematics teaching also oppose excessive dependence on innovations such as calculators or new technology, such as the ]. Student innovation is acceptable, even welcome, as long as it is mathematically valid. Calculator use can be appropriate after number sense has developed and basic skills have been mastered. ] which are unfamiliar to many adults, and books which lack explanations of methods or solved examples make it difficult to help with homework. Compared to worksheets which can be completed in minutes, constructivist activities can be more time consuming. (Reform educators respond that more time is lost in reteaching poorly understood algorithms.) Emphasis on reading and writing also increases the language load for immigrant students and parents who may be unfamiliar with English. Supporters of traditional mathematics teaching oppose excessive dependence on innovations such as calculators or new technology, such as the ]. Student innovation is acceptable, even welcome, as long as it is mathematically valid. Calculator use can be appropriate after number sense has developed and basic skills have been mastered. ] which are unfamiliar to many adults, and books which lack explanations of methods or solved examples make it difficult to help with homework. Compared to worksheets which can be completed in minutes, constructivist activities can be more time consuming. (Reform educators respond that more time is lost in reteaching poorly understood algorithms.) Emphasis on reading and writing also increases the language load for immigrant students and parents who may be unfamiliar with English.


Critics of reform point out that traditional methods are still universally and exclusively used in industry and academia. Reform educators respond that such methods are still the ultimate goal of reform mathematics, and that students need to learn flexible thinking in order to face problems they may not know a method for. Critics maintain that it is unreasonable to expect students to "discover" the standard methods through investigation, and that flexible thinking can only be developed after mastering foundational skills.<ref>{{cite web| last =Stokke| first =Anna| title =What to Do about Canada’s Declining Math Scores| work =Education Policy; commentary #427| publisher =]| date =May 2015| url =https://www.cdhowe.org/public-policy-research/what-do-about-canada%E2%80%99s-declining-math-scores| accessdate = 11 June 2015}}</ref> Commentators have argued that there is philosophical support for the notion that "algorithmic fluency" requires the very types of cognitive activity whose promotion reform advocates often claim is their approaches' unique virtue.<ref>/</ref> However, such arguments assume that reformers do not want to teach the standard algorithms, which is a common misunderstanding of the reform position. Critics of reform point out that traditional methods are still universally and exclusively used in industry and academia. Reform educators respond that such methods are still the ultimate goal of reform mathematics, and that students need to learn flexible thinking in order to face problems they may not know a method for. Critics maintain that it is unreasonable to expect students to "discover" the standard methods through investigation, and that flexible thinking can only be developed after mastering foundational skills.<ref>{{cite web| last =Stokke| first =Anna| title =What to Do about Canada’s Declining Math Scores| work =Education Policy; commentary #427| publisher =]| date =May 2015| url =https://www.cdhowe.org/public-policy-research/what-do-about-canada%E2%80%99s-declining-math-scores| accessdate = 11 June 2015}}</ref> Commentators have argued that there is philosophical support for the notion that "algorithmic fluency" requires the very types of cognitive activity whose promotion reform advocates often claim is their approaches' unique virtue.<ref>/</ref> However, such arguments assume that reformers do not want to teach the standard algorithms, which is a common misunderstanding of the reform position.

Revision as of 23:49, 28 May 2017

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Find sources: "Math wars" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (July 2015) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Math wars is the debate over modern mathematics education, textbooks and curricula in the United States that was triggered by the publication in 1989 of the Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) and subsequent development and widespread adoption of a new generation of mathematics curricula inspired by these standards.

While the discussion about math skills has persisted for many decades, the term "math wars" was coined by commentators such as John A. Van de Walle and David Klein. The debate is over traditional mathematics and reform mathematics philosophy and curricula, which differ significantly in approach and content.

Advocates of reform

The largest supporter of reform in the US has been the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

One aspect of the debate is over how explicitly children must be taught skills based on formulas or algorithms (fixed, step-by-step procedures for solving math problems) versus a more inquiry-based approach in which students are exposed to real-world problems that help them develop fluency in number sense, reasoning, and problem-solving skills. In this latter approach, conceptual understanding is a primary goal and algorithmic fluency is expected to follow secondarily. Advocates blame educators saying that failures occur not because the method is at fault, but because these educational methods require a great deal of expertise and have not always been implemented well in actual classrooms.

A backlash, which advocates call "poorly understood reform efforts" and critics call "a complete abandonment of instruction in basic mathematics," resulted in "math wars" between reform and traditional methods of mathematics education.

Critics of reform

Those who disagree with the inquiry-based philosophy maintain that students must first develop computational skills before they can understand concepts of mathematics. These skills should be memorized and practiced, using time-tested traditional methods until they become automatic. Time is better spent practicing skills rather than in investigations inventing alternatives, or justifying more than one correct answer or method. In this view, estimating answers is insufficient and, in fact, is considered to be dependent on strong foundational skills. Learning abstract concepts of mathematics is perceived to depend on a solid base of knowledge of the tools of the subject.

Supporters of traditional mathematics teaching oppose excessive dependence on innovations such as calculators or new technology, such as the Logo language. Student innovation is acceptable, even welcome, as long as it is mathematically valid. Calculator use can be appropriate after number sense has developed and basic skills have been mastered. Constructivist methods which are unfamiliar to many adults, and books which lack explanations of methods or solved examples make it difficult to help with homework. Compared to worksheets which can be completed in minutes, constructivist activities can be more time consuming. (Reform educators respond that more time is lost in reteaching poorly understood algorithms.) Emphasis on reading and writing also increases the language load for immigrant students and parents who may be unfamiliar with English.

Critics of reform point out that traditional methods are still universally and exclusively used in industry and academia. Reform educators respond that such methods are still the ultimate goal of reform mathematics, and that students need to learn flexible thinking in order to face problems they may not know a method for. Critics maintain that it is unreasonable to expect students to "discover" the standard methods through investigation, and that flexible thinking can only be developed after mastering foundational skills. Commentators have argued that there is philosophical support for the notion that "algorithmic fluency" requires the very types of cognitive activity whose promotion reform advocates often claim is their approaches' unique virtue. However, such arguments assume that reformers do not want to teach the standard algorithms, which is a common misunderstanding of the reform position.

Some curricula incorporate research by Constance Kamii and others that concluded that direct teaching of traditional algorithms is counterproductive to conceptual understanding of math. Critics have protested some of the consequences of this research. Traditional memorization methods are replaced with constructivist activities. Students who demonstrate proficiency in a standard method are asked to invent another method of arriving at the answer. Some parents have accused reform math advocates of deliberately slowing down students with greater ability in order to "paper-over" the inequalities of the American school system. Some teachers supplement such textbooks in order to teach standard methods more quickly. Some curricula do not teach long division. Critics believe the NCTM revised its standards to explicitly call for continuing instruction of standard methods, largely because of the negative response to some of these curricula (see below). College professors and employers have sometimes claimed that students that have been taught using reform curricula do not possess basic mathematical skills. One study found that, although first-grade students in 1999 with an average or above-average aptitude for math did equally well with either teacher-directed or student-centered instruction, first-grade students with mathematical difficulties did better with teacher-directed instruction.

Reform curricula

Examples of reform curricula introduced in response to the 1989 NCTM standards and the reasons for initial criticism:

Critics of reform textbooks say that they present concepts in a haphazard way. Critics of the reform textbooks and curricula support traditional textbooks such as Singapore math, which emphasizes direct instruction of basic mathematical concepts, and Saxon math, which emphasizes perpetual drill.

Reform educators have responded by pointing out that research tends to show that students achieve greater conceptual understanding from standards-based curricula than traditional curricula and that these gains do not come at the expense of basic skills. In fact students tend to achieve the same procedural skill level in both types of curricula as measured by traditional standardized tests. More research is needed, but the current state of research seems to show that reform textbooks work as well as or better than traditional textbooks in helping students achieve computational competence while promoting greater conceptual understanding than traditional approaches.

Recent developments

In 2000 the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) released the Principles and Standards for School Mathematics (PSSM), which was seen as more balanced than the original 1989 Standards. This led to some calming, but not an end to the dispute. Two recent reports have led to considerably more cooling of the Math Wars. In 2006, NCTM released its Curriculum Focal Points, which was seen by many as a compromise position. In 2008, the National Mathematics Advisory Panel, created by George Bush, called for a halt to all extreme positions.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics 2006 recommendations

In 2006, the NCTM released Curriculum Focal Points, a report on the topics considered central for mathematics in pre-kindergarten through eighth grade. Its inclusion of standard algorithms led editorials in newspapers like the Chicago Sun Times to state that the "NCTM council has admitted, more or less, that it goofed," and that the new report cited "inconsistency in the grade placement of mathematics topics as well as in how they are defined and what students are expected to learn." NCTM responded by insisting that it considers "Focal Points" a step in the implementation of the Standards, not a reversal of its position on teaching students to learn foundational topics with conceptual understanding. Francis Fennell, president of the NCTM, stated that there had been no change of direction or policy in the new report and said that he resented talk of “math wars”. The Focal Points were one of the documents consulted to create the new national Common Core Standards, which are being adopted by most of the United States.

National Mathematics Advisory Panel

On April 18, 2006, President Bush created the National Mathematics Advisory Panel, which was modeled after the influential National Reading Panel. The National Math Panel examined and summarized the scientific evidence related to the teaching and learning of mathematics, concluding in their 2008 report, "All-encompassing recommendations that instruction should be entirely 'student centered' or 'teacher directed' are not supported by research. If such recommendations exist, they should be rescinded. If they are being considered, they should be avoided. High-quality research does not support the exclusive use of either approach." The Panel effectively called for an end to the Math Wars, concluding that research showed "conceptual understanding, computational and procedural fluency, and problem solving skills are equally important and mutually reinforce each other. Debates regarding the relative importance of each of these components of mathematics are misguided."

The Panel's final report met with significant criticism within the mathematics education community for, among other issues, the selection criteria used to determine "high-quality" research, their comparison of extreme forms of teaching, and the amount of focus placed on algebra.

See also

References

  1. ^ Preliminary Report, National Mathematics Advisory Panel, January 2007
  2. Reform Mathematics vs. The Basics: Understanding the Conflict and Dealing with It, John A. Van de Walle Virginia Commonwealth University; "Debate has degenerated to 'math wars'"
  3. Klein, David. "A quarter century of US 'math wars' and political partisanship". California State University.
  4. Preliminary Report, National Mathematics Advisory Panel, January, 2007
  5. Stokke, Anna (May 2015). "What to Do about Canada's Declining Math Scores". Education Policy; commentary #427. C. D. Howe Institute. Retrieved 11 June 2015.
  6. "The Faulty Logic of The Math Wars"/
  7. Morgan, Paul; Farkas, George; Maczuga, Steve (20 June 2014), "Which Instructional Practices Most Help First-Grade Students With and Without Mathematics Difficulties?", Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, XX (X): 1–22, doi:10.3102/0162373714536608 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help)
  8. Clavel, Matthew (March 7, 2003). "How Not to Teach Math". City Journal.
  9. "Public statement on math reform". University of Minnesota.
  10. "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2010-06-13. Retrieved 2009-08-15. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  11. Senk, Sharon L.; Thompson, Denisse R. (2003). Standards-Based School Mathematics Curricula: What Are They? What Do Students Learn?. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  12. Hiebert, James (2003). "What research says about the NCTM Standards". In Kilpatrick, J. (ed.). A Research Companion to Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. Martin, W.; Schifter, D. Reston, VA: NCTM. pp. 5–23. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |editorn-first=, |editorn-last=, and |editorn-link= (help)
  13. ^ Curriculum Focal Points, NCTM
  14. Chicago Sun Times "Fuzzy teaching ideas never added up" September 13, 2006 Archived February 10, 2012, at the Wayback Machine
  15. Letter to the New York Times, Francis Fennell
  16. http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/mathpanel/factsheet.htmlNational Mathematics Advisory Panel: Strengthening Math Education Through Research,
  17. http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/mathpanel/index.htmlFoundations of Success: The Final Report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. March 2008. p. 45."
  18. When Politics Took the Place of Inquiry: A Response to the National Mathematics Advisory Panel’s Review of Instructional Practices, Jo Boaler
Standards-based mathematics controversy
Traditional mathematics
Reform mathematics
Categories: