Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
NCTM or The Math Forum.


Math Forum
»
Discussions
»
Education
»
mathteach
Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.
Topic:
Six Myths in the New York Times Math Article by Elizabeth Green
Replies:
3
Last Post:
Aug 12, 2014 8:31 AM




Re: Six Myths in the New York Times Math Article by Elizabeth Green
Posted:
Aug 11, 2014 10:41 PM


At 04:22 PM 8/11/2014, Jerry Becker wrote:
Loveless's last Myth fails to be a myth because of his own explanation. In spite of the words, the constructivists have already   and successfully  had their way as evidenced by both SBAC and PARCC. Unfortunately, what gets tested is what gets taught. Even "the standard algorithms" of elementary school arithmetic are left to fuzzy reinterpretation.
Wayne
>That does not mean the Common Core won't be used to promote >constructivist pedagogy or to suppress traditional instruction. The >protests of CCSS authors that the standards are being misinterpreted >may not be enough. The danger emanates from what I've previously >described as "dog whistles" embedded in the Common Core.[14] The >CCSS math documents were crafted to comprise ideas (CCSS advocates >would say the best ideas) from both traditional and progressive >perspectives in the "math wars." That is not only politically >astute, but it also reflects the current state of research on >effective mathematical instruction. Scholarly reviews of the >literature have raised serious objections to constructivism. The >title of an influential 2006 review published in Educational >Psychologist says it all, "Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction >Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, >Discovery, ProblemBased, Experiential and InquiryBased >Teaching."[15] Unfortunately, the Common Coreand in particular the >Standards for Mathematical Practicecontain enough shorthand terms >related to constructivist pedagogy that, when heard by the true >believers of inquirybased math reform, can be taken as license for >the imposition of their ideology on teachers. > >In its onesided support for a particular style of math instruction, >Elizabeth Green's article acts as a megaphone for these dog >whistles, the misguided notions that, although seemingly innocuous >to most people, are packed with meaning for partisans of >inquirybased learning. Green's article is based on bad science, >bad history, and unfortunate myths that will lead us away from, >rather than closer to, the improvement of math instruction in the >United States.



