Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » Inactive » MEME

Topic: Op-Ed by W.Schmid in Harvard Crimson
Replies: 7   Last Post: May 13, 2000 1:14 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Ruth O'Maley

Posts: 1
Registered: 12/3/04
Re: Op-Ed by W.Schmid in Harvard Crimson
Posted: May 7, 2000 1:33 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On 06 May 2000, Nancy Buell wrote:
>Today I sent the Harvard Crimson the following response to Schmid's
>op-ed piece. Don't know if it will get printed. Nancy


Dr. Wilfried Schmid [New Battles in the Math Wars; 5/04] is concerned
>that two third of Massachusetts fourth graders could not correctly
>solve 256 x 98 on last Spring’s MCAS tests. In both the traditional
>and reform mathematics curricula that I’ve used over the past 30
>years, this would be a fifth grade expectation, not fourth grade. Of
>course one wonders why such a problem appeared on a test that is
>supposed to measure what all students should know and be able to do

by
>the end of fourth grade.

In fourth grade students spend a great deal of time developing
>important mathematical ideas related to multiplication:
* understanding what multiplication represents and how it relates to
>real experiences.
* understanding the multiplication operation itself where all parts
>of one factor operate on all parts of the other. This is different
>from adding ones with ones and tens with tens.

* recognizing the reasonableness of an answer in the thousands when
>multiplying two 2-digit numbers. This is unreasonable when adding
two
>2-digit numbers.
* extending number sense into the thousands.
* recognizing multiplication as repeated addition, but also
>recognizing the effeciency of moving beyond addition as a strategy
for
>solving multiplicative problems.
* developing an understanding of the distributive property and how it
>works in partitioning multiplication problems.
* mastering the basic multiplication facts.

These are mostly complex ideas that develop over time and with varied
>experiences. These are the ideas that lay the foundation for
>flexibility, efficiency, and accuracy in multiplication work in fifth
>grade. Dr. Schmid states, “American school children rank near the
>bottom in international comparisons of mathematical knowledge.” In
>fact, fourth graders were about average in the recent TIMSS study,

but
>are weakest at estimation and number sense, the very areas where the
>reform curricula, that Dr. Schmid decries, are putting more emphasis.

As we work to develop students’ conceptual and computational
>understandings, we do need to be mindful of what is known about
>children’s cognitive developmental levels and about how children
>learn, as well as the mathematical understandings and skills we hope
>they will develop. Pushing more complex computation to lower grades
>does not necessarily raise the bar. It may mean many students will
>resort to memorizing procedures rather than working for understanding
>of those procedures.


My experience with reform curricula is that students are doing far
>more mathematical reasoning than with any traditional program I’ve
>used in the past. In addition they have more practice, although not
>in the familiar form of worksheet drills. Their ability to estimate
>and to calculate accurately have improved.


Nancy Buell
Brookline 4th Grade Teacher


On May 4, Anne Wheelock wrote:
>FYI - This op-ed may be of interest. It's posted at

<a
>href="http://www.thecrimson.harvard.edu/opinion/article.asp?ref=7818">http://www.thecrimson.harvard.edu/opinion/article.asp?ref=7818
>
>Published on Thursday, May 04, 2000

New Battles in the Math
Wars

By WILFRIED SCHMID

What is 256 times 98? Can you do the multiplication
without using a calculator? Two thirds of Massachusetts
fourth-graders could not when they were asked this
question on the statewide MCAS assessment test last year.

Math education reformers have a prescription for raising
the mathematical knowledge of schoolchildren. Do not
teach the standard algorithms of arithmetic, such as long
addition and multiplication, they say; let the children find
>>their own methods for adding and multiplying two-digit
numbers, and for larger numbers, let them use calculators.
One determined reformer puts it decisively: "It's time to
acknowledge that continuing to teach these skills (i.e.,
pencil-and-paper computational algorithms) to our
students is not only unnecessary, but counterproductive
and downright dangerous."

Mathematicians are perplexed, and the proverbial man on
the street, when hearing the argument, appears to be
perplexed as well: improve mathematical literacy by
downgrading computational skills?

Yes, precisely, say the reformers. The old ways of teaching
mathematics have failed. Too many children are scared of
mathematics for life. Let's teach them mathematical
thinking, not routine skills. Understanding is the key, not
computations.

Mathematicians are not convinced. By all means, liven up
the textbooks, make the subject engaging and include
interesting problems. But don't give up on basic skills!
Conceptual understanding can and must coexist with
computational facility--we do not need to choose between
them.

The disagreement extends over the entire mathematics
curriculum, kindergarten through high school. It runs right
through the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
(NCTM), the professional organization of mathematics
teachers. The new NCTM curriculum guidelines,
presented with great fanfare on April 12, represent an
earnest effort at finding common ground, but barely
manage to paper-over the differences.

Among teachers and mathematics educators, the
avant-garde reformers are the most energetic, and their
voices drown out those skeptical of extreme reforms. On
the other side, among academic mathematicians and
scientists who have reflected on these questions, a clear
majority oppose the new trends in math education. The
academics, mostly unfamiliar with education issues, have
been reluctant to join the debate. But finally, some of them
>>are speaking up.

Parents, for the most part, have also been silent, trusting
the experts--the teachers' organizations and math
educators. Several reform curricula do not provide
textbooks in the usual sense, and this deprives parents of
one important source of information. Yet, also among
parents, attitudes may be changing. A recent front-page
headline in the New York Times declares that "The New,
Flexible Math Meets Parental Rebellion."

The stakes are high in this argument. State curriculum
frameworks need to be written, and these serve as basis for
assessment tests; some of the reformers receive substantial
educational research grants, consulting fees or textbook
royalties. For now, the reformers have lost the battle in
California. They are redoubling their efforts in
Massachusetts, where the curriculum framework is being
revised. The struggle is fierce, by academic standards.

Both sides cite statistical studies and anecdotal evidence
>to
support their case. Unfortunately, statistical studies in
education are notoriously unreliable--blind studies, for
example, are difficult to construct. And for every
charismatic teacher who succeeds with a "progressive"
approach in the classroom, there are other teachers who
manage to raise test scores dramatically by "going back to
basics."

The current fight echoes an earlier argument, over the
"New Math" of the '60s and '70s. Then, as now, the old
ways were thought to have failed. A small band of
mathematicians proposed shifting the emphasis towards a
deeper understanding of mathematical concepts, though on
a much more abstract level than today's reformers. Math
educators took up the cause, but over time, most
mathematicians and parents became unhappy with the
results. What had gone wrong? Preoccupied with
"understanding," the "New Math" reformers had neglected
computational skills. Mathematical understanding, it
turned out, did not develop well without sufficient
computational practice. Understanding and skills grow
best in tandem, each supporting the other. In most areas of
human endeavor, mastery cannot be attained without
technique. Why should mathematics be different?

American schoolchildren rank near the bottom in
international comparisons of mathematical knowledge.
Our reformers see this as an argument for their ideas. But
look at Singapore, the undisputed leader in these
comparisons: their math textbooks try hard to engage the
students and to stimulate their interest. In early grades,
they present mathematical problems playfully, often in the
guise of puzzles. Yet the textbooks are coherent,
systematic, efficient, and cover all the basics--worlds
apart from the reform curricula in this country. How I
wish Singapore's approach were adopted in my daughter's
school!

The curriculum, of course, is not the only reason for
Singapore's success, nor is it even the most important
reason. The teachers' grasp and feeling for mathematics:
that is the crucial issue, already for teachers in the early
>>grades. Here, it turns out, many of the reformers agree
with the critics. Teacher training in America has
traditionally and grossly stressed pedagogy over content.
The implicit message to the teachers is: If you know how
to teach, you can teach anything! It will take a heroic
effort--by mathematicians and math educators--to change
the entrenched culture of teacher training.

Mathematicians do not want to invade the educators' turf.
We are not qualified to do their work. Yet we are
qualified as critics of reforms in math education. We
should call attention to reforms we see as well meaning,
but hectic and harmful. Most music critics would not do
well as orchestra musicians. They do have acute hearing
for shrill sounds from the orchestra.

Wilfried Schmid is Dwight Parker Robinson Professor of
Mathematics. Earlier this year, he served as a
mathematics advisor to the Massachusetts Department of
Education.










Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.