Math Wars | Two Myths that Undermine Teaching and Learning
Ғылым және технология
We’ve all heard about the Reading Wars (whole-word versus phonics), but perhaps lesser known are the Math Wars.
In this context, I’m referring to a 30+ year-old debate about how we should approach math instruction in the classroom.
While we’ve traditionally relied on computational procedures to teach mathematics (fixed, step-by-step procedures), certain reformists in the early 1990’s began pushing a more conceptual, inquiry-based approach (students construct their own understanding).
Fortunately, by the turn of the century, researchers clearly established that learning math (at least for humans) is far from natural or intuitive, and they demonstrated that students who use established computational procedures perform better (and faster) than those who don’t.
And, with this understanding, the Math Wars were over … or so I thought.
I’ve recently learned that this educational-conflict is making a slow, insidious resurgence based on some misguided rhetoric being promulgated by a few public-facing researchers.
So, in my newest From Theory to Practice video, I’ve decided to examine a new research paper that arms us with some key ideas as we prepare to re-fight this battle:
Myths That Undermine Maths Teaching (Sarah Powell, Aug-2022)
Now, this paper covers seven so-called ‘myths’ that undermine math instruction, and I recommend you peruse it if you can ...
But, in the interest of time, I only look at the two that are most relevant:
1. Myth #1: Concepts before procedures
2. Myth #2: Algorithms are harmful
And, lest you think this video is only for math people, I use this narrow example to draw some broader lessons about teaching in general …
Plus, for those of you who are glass-half-full types, I end on a highly-optimistic note about the state of education ;)
If you have a few minutes, give it a watch.
P.S. Although the inquiry-based math movement was highly criticized and eventually discarded in the late 90’s, proponents note that it was the only time in our educational history that mathematicians - and not educators - wrote the curricular materials.
If you’ve read Chapter One of my book ’10 Things Schools Get Wrong’, you already know why this is so problematic.
#MathWars #mathteacher #mathteaching
---
JARED COONEY HORVATH | PhD, MEd
Dr. Jared Cooney Horvath is an award-winning cognitive neuroscientist, best-selling author and renowned keynote speaker with an expertise in human learning, memory, and brain stimulation.
Dr. Horvath has published 4 books, over 30 research articles, and currently serves as an honorary researcher at the University of Melbourne and St. Vincent's Hospital in Melbourne.
His research has been featured in popular publications including The New York Times, WIRED, BBC, The Economist, PBS's Nova and ABC’s Catalyst.
www.lmeglobal.net/media
---
LME GLOBAL
LME Global is a mission-driven company aiming to serve teachers, students and educators through applied brain science.
Пікірлер: 13
Wow! Where has this channel been in my feed for my past 17 years on KZread? LOL As a high-school English teacher, I am loving your videos and appreciating the way you make large bodies of research digestible! The importance of explicit instruction is a hobby horse of mine. When I worked in elementary schools, I was involved in math instruction and saw the negative effects of undermining or abandoning traditional instructional methods, so I watched this video even though, in secondary, I no longer teach math. I'm now subscribed. Thanks for sharing!
Brilliant as usual Jared! Love the last few minutes, we all need a reminder that schools are better now than they have ever been.
Absolutely brilliant. You explain a difficult topic in a clear and effective way.
Thank you Jared
Perfect Jared - I would be very interested in you having a look at the work of Kapur around productive struggle and see how it sits in relation to this. It is extremely popular in Australia at the moment.
@JaredCooney
10 ай бұрын
Craig! I've been doing more and more reading on it, and am less and less impressed. It's a good rule of thumb: when 90% of papers on a particular field include the same researcher or his students, we're looking at something less-than-solid. That was basically my PhD: when you analyzed a field like this and eliminated all work that included the 'founder' of the field, then the effect disappeared - I have a sneaking suspicion we'll see the same thing here. LOL - PS - Kapur has now moved onto the 'blame the teacher' model perfected by Dweck. As more and more data is coming out showing it does not work as advertised, his response is "you're doing it wrong." C'est la vie!
@JaredCooney
10 ай бұрын
Holy geez - exactly as expected: someone did a meta-analysis and separated Kapur papers from all others. When Kapur was incluved, effect size was 0.85. When Kapur wasn;t involved, it was 0.02. If it wasn't so predictable, it'd be depressing: link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11423-018-9579-9/tables/3
@Simplistic40
10 ай бұрын
That blows my mind!! Thanks for the work mate, really appreciate it! Hope your family is well!!
I talked to a pretty serious researcher about the idea of conflating math with the simple view of reading as you did here - he pretty much said that it isn't accurate as math has a considerable amount of different constructs and there is no empirical support for this distinction as we have seen in the reading field. As a rhetorical device I understand doing this, but this was an interesting point and something to be careful with, though it makes intuitive sense. Thanks for the video though, living in CA I am amazed at how intrenched these ideas are from "top level" people in districts or even the state - as the new CA state standards are, since Jo Boaler was key in that process. Along with other scandals going on down there, Stanford is a blemish on higher ed. I would question anyone coming out of that institution at this point.
@JaredCooney
10 ай бұрын
'Math' is large - arithmetic is small. The argument is that while reading stops, math continues - ergo, arithmetic might align well with reading, but the large 'maths' do not. I understand the sentiment, but have not seen a shred of data that supports this idea. Nobody (so far as I've seen) has empirical evidence that that comprehension in higher maths somehow transcends the deep embodiment of relevant concepts and algorithms (which is the basis of reading comprehension as well). If there's no evidence supporting it, and no evidence refuting it - I imagine this is a non-empirical distinction: it will boil down to how one chooses to conceptualize each field. This conceptualization will ultimately drive distinctions and interpretations - but can never be proven right or wrong.
@JaredCooney
10 ай бұрын
PS - I heard a podcast recently about Stanford - was shocked at how strange things are there! I guess all of higher ed is getting a bit kooky, but I think you're right - Stanford is a unique case. I just heard someone (will have to track down who) say something to the extent of "The top universities used to be filled with the best performers - now they're filled with the best manipulators." That's sad.
I'm kind of curious if this topic relates to much of the student-guided learning that I see often. Where students are provided stimulus and expected to learn from open exploring and discovery. I see this a lot, where teachers want to remove the linear instruction and want kids to lean through discovery. Though I have always struggled with how this idea could be better for students. Am I off-base in seeing a connection between the topics in this video and the self-guided learning?
@JaredCooney
10 ай бұрын
You're spot on - a big aspect of the 'concepts first' argument includes 'self-directed discovery learning'. I always bring it back to cars: do you think discovery-learning would be a meaningful way for 16-year-old kids to learn how to drive? Of course not - because there are clear structures and processes involved with driving. Why would math, reading, science, or any other academic subject be any different?