Before reading my thoughts I really think it is important to read the actual article I plan to commentate on (see here).
Once again I will share potential areas of bias in my comments up front.
I am a colleague of Sarah Powell who was quoted in this article
I was referenced in the article
I participated in many of the initial “Science of Math” meetings and continue to attend the group meetings
I am writing this for a couple of reasons.
I am thankful there is a growing interest to discuss how to best support students in learning math. For example, EdWeek just released some really thoughtful articles in a special series on math learning. Thus, I do not want this post to be an attack on the Hechinger Report.
BUT…I do think it is worthwhile to point out some concerns I had in the report. If the language, tone, and content of reporting around how kids learn math is not received well by others it becomes easy for them to tune out all potential conversations. My worry is the report may have done that for some.
“Math War”
Merriam-Webster defines war (as a noun) as:
a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations
a period of such armed conflict
a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism
a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end
The language and tone we use to communicate ideas matter deeply. I am not a fan of using the word “war” to describe the current topics of conversation on how to best support children in learning mathematics. For one, although people have different perspectives on how to best address the issue - there is a shared common interest to reach a similar end. From my perspective it seems three common goals all may share include the following: develop students who (1) are successful in doing mathematics, (2) have a positive self-concept of themselves as a student of mathematics, and (3) have a positive disposition towards mathematics and identify how it can be integral in their life.
This tone and language around “war” can be seen later.
Their first public assault on the status quo came in August 2022.
I will not speak for the two co-authors on the paper, but I did not view what we did as a “public assault.” My viewpoint was rather that there are certain beliefs some teachers may have about the best way to promote student learning of math. The article aimed to clarify where this belief might come from and then provide actionable steps on how to adjust instruction to better support student learning of math.
Reading vs. Mathematics
I was surprised to read the following statement
The researchers begrudged the lack of attention math gets in schools compared to reading, but suddenly their rival discipline – reading – was providing a role model for action.
There are several concerns I have in regard to the level of attention mathematics receives in school. Here are some:
In pre-service teacher preparation, specifically in the elementary grades and in special education, on average students will complete more coursework in how to provide reading instruction compared to mathematics instruction.
Within tiered models of intervention systems (e.g., multi-tiered systems of support), it is not uncommon to see universal screening, progress monitoring, enhancement of core (Tier 1 instruction), and provision of tiered interventions within reading and not in mathematics.
Within schools, it is not uncommon to have reading interventionists (or dyslexia specialists in some states) hired but no math interventionists (or dyscalculia specialists)
This definitely varies from school to school and district to district, but on average we see a lot more allocated instructional time provided to reading versus mathematics. For example, seeing 90 to 120min of instructional time allotted to an ELA block with math receiving 45 to 50min of allocated instructional time is not uncommon.
My concern though lies with pitting reading as a “rival discipline.” Students’ proficiency in reading-related skills (Lin et al., 2021; Peng et al., 2016; Yang et al., 2022), language (Peng et al., 2020), and writing (Graham et al., 2020) support math learning. Pitting reading and math against one another does not make sense to me.
Teacher-Led versus Student-Centered
I have taught (or supervised the instructor) the first course our pre-service special educators complete in their cohort. The course focuses on designing quality instruction. On Day 1 I put these two words up on the slide. We engage in some conversations about their prior learning history of hearing or using this type of language to describe instruction. In the end, I try to build an argument for why these two words are a meaningless way to try and “categorize” or “explain” instruction and I won’t ever use them in the class moving forward.
Thus, it was shocking to me to see the following quote in the article
In its most extreme version, this new math movement revives an old fight between advocates of teacher-led instruction of step-by-step procedures against those who favor student discovery and a conceptual understanding of math.
I see many concerns in the content of this quote.
I do not believe high-quality math instruction consists of a teacher providing instruction solely on step-by-step procedures.
I believe teachers can use explicit instruction to teach conceptual knowledge of math ideas.
Student discovery comes in many shapes and sizes as we consider the amount of “teacher guidance” that is provided.
I believe student discovery can be useful in math if used at the right time (i.e., thinking about the interaction between students’ prior knowledge, the content of the discovery, and the task presented) and being cognizant of the amount of time spent in the “discovery” phase.
Final Thoughts
I think Dr. Ball highlights a really important point to convene on.
She said that in order to come up with the most effective approach for teaching math, we need to agree on the goals of math instruction. Do we want kids to be able to compute accurately? Yes, but not everyone agrees that this should be the main goal of mathematics education. “The public needs to understand that the goals of math education are contested,” she said. Merely invoking the word “science” doesn’t resolve that debate, Ball said.
Discussing the outcomes or goals of mathematics instruction is a critical need and perhaps warrants a follow up post!