Math wars

Last updated

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.

Contents

While the discussion about math skills has persisted for many decades, [1] the term "math wars" was coined by commentators such as John A. Van de Walle [2] and David Klein. [3] 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. [4]

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. [1] Some parents and other stakeholders 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[ who? ] 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. [1]

Supporters of traditional mathematics teaching oppose excessive dependence on innovations such as calculators or new technology, such as the Logo language. [5] 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 [6] 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 that 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. [7] 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. [8] 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. [9]

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. [13] Critics of the reform textbooks and curricula support methods such as Singapore math, which emphasizes direct instruction of basic mathematical concepts, and Saxon math, which emphasizes frequent cumulative review.

Reform educators have responded by pointing out that research [14] [15] [16] 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.

Later 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, [17] which was seen by many as a compromise position. In 2008, the National Mathematics Advisory Panel, created by George W. 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, [17] 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." [18] 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. [17] 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”. [19] The Focal Points were one of the documents consulted to create the new national Common Core Standards, which have been adopted by most of the United States since 2010.

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, [20] 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." [21] 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. [22]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mathematics education</span> Teaching, learning, and scholarly research in mathematics

In contemporary education, mathematics education—known in Europe as the didactics or pedagogy of mathematics—is the practice of teaching, learning, and carrying out scholarly research into the transfer of mathematical knowledge.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">New Math</span> Approach to teaching mathematics in the 1960s

New Mathematics or New Math was a dramatic but temporary change in the way mathematics was taught in American grade schools, and to a lesser extent in European countries and elsewhere, during the 1950s–1970s.

The National Science Education Standards (NSES) represent guidelines for the science education in primary and secondary schools in the United States, as established by the National Research Council in 1996. These provide a set of goals for teachers to set for their students and for administrators to provide professional development. The NSES influence various states' own science learning standards, and statewide standardized testing.

Principles and Standards for School Mathematics (PSSM) are guidelines produced by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) in 2000, setting forth recommendations for mathematics educators. They form a national vision for preschool through twelfth grade mathematics education in the US and Canada. It is the primary model for standards-based mathematics.

Founded in 1920, The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) is a professional organization for schoolteachers of mathematics in the United States. One of its goals is to improve the standards of mathematics in education. NCTM holds annual national and regional conferences for teachers and publishes five journals.

In elementary arithmetic, a standard algorithm or method is a specific method of computation which is conventionally taught for solving particular mathematical problems. These methods vary somewhat by nation and time, but generally include exchanging, regrouping, long division, and long multiplication using a standard notation, and standard formulas for average, area, and volume. Similar methods also exist for procedures such as square root and even more sophisticated functions, but have fallen out of the general mathematics curriculum in favor of calculators. As to standard algorithms in elementary mathematics, Fischer et al. (2019) state that advanced students use standard algorithms more effectively than peers who use these algorithms unreasoningly. That said, standard algorithms, such as addition, subtraction, as well as those mentioned above, represent central components of elementary math.

Constructivist teaching is based on constructivism. Constructivist teaching is based on the belief that learning occurs as learners are actively involved in a process of meaning and knowledge construction as opposed to passively receiving information.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Core-Plus Mathematics Project</span> High school mathematics program

Core-Plus Mathematics is a high school mathematics program consisting of a four-year series of print and digital student textbooks and supporting materials for teachers, developed by the Core-Plus Mathematics Project (CPMP) at Western Michigan University, with funding from the National Science Foundation. Development of the program started in 1992. The first edition, entitled Contemporary Mathematics in Context: A Unified Approach, was completed in 1995. The third edition, entitled Core-Plus Mathematics: Contemporary Mathematics in Context, was published by McGraw-Hill Education in 2015.

Mathematically Correct was a U.S.-based website created by educators, parents, mathematicians, and scientists who were concerned about the direction of reform mathematics curricula based on NCTM standards. Created in 1997, it was a frequently cited website in the so-called Math wars, and was actively updated until 2003.

Traditional mathematics was the predominant method of mathematics education in the United States in the early-to-mid 20th century. This contrasts with non-traditional approaches to math education. Traditional mathematics education has been challenged by several reform movements over the last several decades, notably new math, a now largely abandoned and discredited set of alternative methods, and most recently reform or standards-based mathematics based on NCTM standards, which is federally supported and has been widely adopted, but subject to ongoing criticism.

Investigations in Numbers, Data, and Space is a K–5 mathematics curriculum, developed at TERC in Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States. The curriculum is often referred to as Investigations or simply TERC. Patterned after the NCTM standards for mathematics, it is among the most widely used of the new reform mathematics curricula. As opposed to referring to textbooks and having teachers impose methods for solving arithmetic problems, the TERC program uses a constructivist approach that encourages students to develop their own understanding of mathematics. The curriculum underwent a major revision in 2005–2007.

MathLand was one of several elementary mathematics curricula that were designed around the 1989 NCTM standards. It was developed and published by Creative Publications and was initially adopted by the U.S. state of California and schools run by the US Department of Defense by the mid 1990s. Unlike curricula such as Investigations in Numbers, Data, and Space, by 2007 Mathland was no longer offered by the publisher, and has since been dropped by many early adopters. Its demise may have been, at least in part, a result of intense scrutiny by critics.

The Interactive Mathematics Program (IMP) is a four-year, problem-based mathematics curriculum for high schools. It was one of several curricula funded by the National Science Foundation and designed around the 1989 National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) standards. The IMP books were authored by Dan Fendel and Diane Resek, professors of mathematics at San Francisco State University, and by Lynne Alper and Sherry Fraser. IMP was published by Key Curriculum Press in 1997 and sold in 2012 to It's About Time.

Singapore math is a teaching method based on the national mathematics curriculum used for first through sixth grade in Singaporean schools. The term was coined in the United States to describe an approach originally developed in Singapore to teach students to learn and master fewer mathematical concepts at greater detail as well as having them learn these concepts using a three-step learning process: concrete, pictorial, and abstract. In the concrete step, students engage in hands-on learning experiences using physical objects which can be everyday items such as paper clips, toy blocks or math manipulates such as counting bears, link cubes and fraction discs. This is followed by drawing pictorial representations of mathematical concepts. Students then solve mathematical problems in an abstract way by using numbers and symbols.

Connected Mathematics is a comprehensive mathematics program intended for U.S. students in grades 6–8. The curriculum design, text materials for students, and supporting resources for teachers were created and have been progressively refined by the Connected Mathematics Project (CMP) at Michigan State University with advice and contributions from many mathematics teachers, curriculum developers, mathematicians, and mathematics education researchers.

Reform mathematics is an approach to mathematics education, particularly in North America. It is based on principles explained in 1989 by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). The NCTM document Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics (CESSM) set forth a vision for K–12 mathematics education in the United States and Canada. The CESSM recommendations were adopted by many local- and federal-level education agencies during the 1990s. In 2000, the NCTM revised its CESSM with the publication of Principles and Standards for School Mathematics (PSSM). Like those in the first publication, the updated recommendations became the basis for many states' mathematics standards, and the method in textbooks developed by many federally-funded projects. The CESSM de-emphasised manual arithmetic in favor of students developing their own conceptual thinking and problem solving. The PSSM presents a more balanced view, but still has the same emphases.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mathematics education in the United States</span> Overview of mathematics education in the United States

Mathematics education in the United States varies considerably from one state to the next, and even within a single state. However, with the adoption of the Common Core Standards in most states and the District of Columbia beginning in 2010, mathematics content across the country has moved into closer agreement for each grade level. The SAT, a standardized university entrance exam, has been reformed to better reflect the contents of the Common Core. However, many students take alternatives to the traditional pathways, including accelerated tracks. As of 2023, twenty-seven states require students to pass three math courses before graduation from high school, while seventeen states and the District of Columbia require four. A typical sequence of secondary-school courses in mathematics reads: Pre-Algebra, Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II, Pre-calculus, and Calculus or Statistics. However, some students enroll in integrated programs while many complete high school without passing Calculus or Statistics. At the other end, counselors at competitive public or private high schools usually encourage talented and ambitious students to take Calculus regardless of future plans in order to increase their chances of getting admitted to a prestigious university and their parents enroll them in enrichment programs in mathematics.

In mathematics education, a representation is a way of encoding an idea or a relationship, and can be both internal and external. Thus multiple representations are ways to symbolize, to describe and to refer to the same mathematical entity. They are used to understand, to develop, and to communicate different mathematical features of the same object or operation, as well as connections between different properties. Multiple representations include graphs and diagrams, tables and grids, formulas, symbols, words, gestures, software code, videos, concrete models, physical and virtual manipulatives, pictures, and sounds. Representations are thinking tools for doing mathematics.

Lee Vernon Stiff was an American mathematics education researcher; a professor in the Department of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education and the Associate Dean for Faculty and Academic Affairs in the College of Education at North Carolina State University (NCSU); and the author of several mathematics textbooks. In his 72 years of living he wrote many books.

Sybilla Beckmann is a Josiah Meigs Distinguished Teaching Professor of Mathematics, Emeritus, at the University of Georgia and a recipient of the Association for Women in Mathematics Louise Hay Award.

References

  1. 1 2 3 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. ↑ Thomas, Edwards (2018). "Current Reforms in Mathematics Education". Indiana Education.
  5. ↑ "Logo Programming Language". el.media.mit.edu. Retrieved 2018-05-18.
  6. ↑ "Strategies for Constructivist Teaching". Bright Hub Education. 30 August 2010. Retrieved 2018-05-18.
  7. ↑ 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.
  8. ↑ "The Faulty Logic of The Math Wars"/
  9. ↑ 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): 184–205, doi:10.3102/0162373714536608, PMC   4500292 , PMID   26180268
  10. ↑ Harel, Guershon (2009). "A Review of Four High-School Mathematics Programs" (PDF).
  11. ↑ Wilson, W. Stephen (2009). "Washington State high school math text review" (PDF).
  12. ↑ Clavel, Matthew (March 7, 2003). "How Not to Teach Math". City Journal.
  13. ↑ "Public statement on math reform". University of Minnesota.
  14. ↑ "Which Curriculum Is Most Effective in Producing Gains in Students' Learning?". National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Archived from the original on 2010-06-13. Retrieved 2009-08-15.
  15. ↑ Senk, Sharon L.; Thompson, Denisse R. (2003). Standards-Based School Mathematics Curricula: What Are They? What Do Students Learn?. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  16. ↑ 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.
  17. 1 2 3 Curriculum Focal Points, NCTM
  18. ↑ Chicago Sun Times "Fuzzy teaching ideas never added up" September 13, 2006 Archived February 10, 2012, at the Wayback Machine
  19. ↑ Letter to the New York Times, Francis Fennell
  20. ↑ "National Mathematics Advisory Panel: Strengthening Math Education Through Research". United States Department of Education. Archived from the original on 8 May 2009. Retrieved 28 December 2021.
  21. ↑ Foundations of Success: The Final Report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. March 2008. p. 45."
  22. ↑ When Politics Took the Place of Inquiry: A Response to the National Mathematics Advisory Panel’s Review of Instructional Practices, Jo Boaler
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.