Math Education Bibliography

Some blog followers might be interested in a “Math Education Bibliography” that was included on pages 42-83 of a recent essay "Can the Cognitive Impact of Calculus Courses be Enhanced?" [Hake (2013)] at http://bit.ly/1loHgC4 (2.7 MB)

The bibliography contains over 400 hot-linked URLs and references, including:

(a) 3 articles due (or due in part) to Joan Ferrini-Mundy http://1.usa.gov/1iQzxNR, NSF Assistant Director for Education and Human Resources;

(b) a YouTube talk “Joan FERRINI-MUNDY on STEM Education Research Areas”; and

(c) 3 articles by MSU Distinguished Professor William Schmidt http://bit.ly/tMA3oL, among them “U.S. students need new way of learning science” [Schmidt (2012a)]. The latter discusses the PROM/SE project “Promoting Rigorous Outcomes in Mathematics and Science Education” at http://bit.ly/1eCnHUw.

References in categories a, b, and c are in the REFERENCE list below preceded by double asterisks**.

An ERRATUM is in order: One of the references in the “Math Education Bibliography” section of my essay is “Berkeley Websites. . . .” [Schoenfeld (2013a)]. Therein I wrote: “A former Berkeley website, containing links to many of Schoenfeld’s articles, seems to have vanished from the web : - ( .” CORRECTION: Over 15 links to Schoenfeld’s articles have recently been made available at http://bit.ly/1ap7pM9, as indicated in the revised reference below to Schoenfeld (2013a).

Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University; LINKS TO: Academia http://bit.ly/a8ixxm; Articles http://bit.ly/a6M5y0; Blog http://bit.ly/9yGsXh; Facebook http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm; GooglePlus http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE; Google Scholar http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3; Linked In http://linkd.in/14uycpW; Research Gate http://bit.ly/1fJiSwB; Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs http://bit.ly/9nGd3M; Twitter http://bit.ly/juvd52.


REFERENCES [All URLs shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 15 Jan 2014.]

**Ball, D.L., J. FERRINI-MUNDY, J. Kilpatrick, R.J. Milgram, Wilfred Schmid, & R. Schaar, “Reaching for Common Ground in K-12 Mathematics Education,” in Notices of the AMS 52: 1055-1058; online as a 49 kB pdf at http://bit.ly/10Z0msf.

** FERRINI-MUNDY, J. & K.G. Graham. 1991. “An Overview of the Calculus Curriculum Reform Effort: Issues for Learning, Teaching, and Curriculum Development,” American Mathematical Monthly 98(7): 627-635; the first paragraph is online at http://bit.ly/1erhawp. An ERIC abstract is online at http://1.usa.gov/196ebpe.

**FERRINI-MUNDY, J. YouTube video “Joan FERRINI-MUNDY on STEM Education Research Areas,” online at http://bit.ly/IOcTca, 332 views as of 15 Jan 2014 13:24-0800.

**Graham, K. G., and J. FERRINI-MUNDY. 1989. “An Exploration of Student Understanding of Central Concepts in Calculus,” paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. I’ve not found an online version.

Hake, R.R. 2013. “Can the Cognitive Impact of Calculus Courses be Enhanced?” An update of 26 Dec 2013 of an invited talk of 24 April 2012, Department of Mathematics, University of Southern California, online as a 2.7 MB pdf at http://bit.ly/1loHgC4 and as ref. 70 at http://bit.ly/a6M5y0. The abstract and link are being transmitted to various discussion lists and are also on my blog “Hake'sEdStuff” at http://bit.ly/1jXolD6 with a provision for comments.

**Lauten, D., K. Graham, and J. FERRINI-MUNDY. 1999. “Increasing the Dialogue About Calculus with a Questionnaire” in Assessment Practices in Undergraduate Mathematics [Gold et al. (1999, pp. 237-240)] at http://bit.ly/1e6ShtL.

**SCHMIDT, W. 2011. “Want better math teachers? Train them better, scholar argues?” 09 June; online at http://bit.ly/1bP1V2r.

** SCHMIDT, W. 2012a. “U.S. students need new way of learning science,” 05 April; online at http://bit.ly/1csHB5o.

** SCHMIDT, W. 2012b. “Study supports move toward common math standards,” 05 Nov; online at http://bit.ly/J09KXl.

Schoenfeld, A.H. 2013a. Berkeley Websites: (a) Functions Research Group http://bit.ly/18Aod7R; (b) Algebra Teaching Study http://bit.ly/IJD7g8; (c) Mathematics Assessment Project http://bit.ly/1bNlL8e; (d) Formative Assessment with Computational Technologies (FACT) http://bit.ly/187WA5r; (e) Alan Schoenfeld’s Downloadable Publications http://bit.ly/1ap7pM9.

Re: Casualty of the Math Wars

Some blog followers be interested in a recent post “Re: Casualty of the Math Wars” [Hake (2012)]. The abstract reads:

*************************************************
ABSTRACT: Scott Jaschik (2012), in his exemplary Inside Higher Ed report “Casualty of the Math Wars” at http://bit.ly/V1ZSL2 wrote (paraphrasing):

“Jo Boaler http://bit.ly/R6XsuP, a full professor at Stanford University argues that new approaches - group work, real-life examples, and solving problems students can relate to - have the potential to transform the way students interact with mathematics. Traditional methods, which emphasize students learning key principles and facts, have resulted in schools in which too many students feel early on that they just ‘don’t get math,’ and shy away from the subject. So why does Boaler feel under siege?

On 12 Oct 2012 she posted on her own website ‘When Academic Disagreement Becomes Harassment and Persecution’ at http://bit.ly/Wpel7t , an account of what she terms unfair personal and professional attacks in an unpublished critique ‘A Close Examination of Jo Boaler's Railside Report’ at http://tinyurl.com/czsa4c by James Milgram of Stanford University and Wayne Bishop of CalState-L.A.

Of her critics, Keith Devlin http://bit.ly/P503sg director of the Human Sciences and Technologies Advanced Research Institute at Stanford, said ‘I suspect they fear her because she brings hard data that threatens their view of how children should be taught mathematics.’ He said that the criticisms of Boaler reach ‘the point of character assassination.’

Alan Schoenfeld http://bit.ly/NGfW62 of the University of California at Berkeley, a past president of the American Educational Research Association and past vice president of the National Academy of Engineering, said ‘The discussion of Boaler’s work ‘fits into the context of the math wars, which have sometimes been argued on principle, but in the hands of a few partisans, been vicious and vitriolic.’ He said that he is on a number of informal mathematics education networks, and that the response to Boaler’s essay ‘has been swift and, most generally, one of shock and support for Boaler.’ One question being asked, he said, is why Boaler was investigated and no university has investigated the way Milgram and Bishop have treated her.
*************************************************

To access the complete 14 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/R1q22j.


Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Links to Articles: http://bit.ly/a6M5y0
Links to Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs: http://bit.ly/9nGd3M
Academia: http://bit.ly/a8ixxm
Blog: http://bit.ly/9yGsXh
GooglePlus: http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE
Twitter: http://bit.ly/juvd52

***************************
“Let the war rage.” - Wayne Bishop

“Can't we all just get along?” - Rodney King
***************************
The above two quotes were cited by Alan Schoenfeld (2004) in his essay "The Math Wars."


REFERENCES
Hake, R.R. 2012. “Re: Casualty of the Math Wars,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/R1q22j . Post of 15 Oct 2012 12:18:37-0700. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.

Schoenfeld, A.H. 2004. "The Math Wars," Educational Policy 18(1): 253-286; online as a 164 kB pdf at http://bit.ly/OIljxk.

Martin Bickman on the Needless War Between Traditionalists and Progressives

Some blog followers might be interested in a recent discussion-list post “Martin Bickman on the Needless War Between Traditionalists and Progressives” [Hake (2012)]. The abstract reads:

**************************************************
ABSTRACT: University of Colorado English Professor Martin Bickman at his website http://bit.ly/MUXUgx states (paraphrasing): “While my book Minding American Education [Bickman (2003)], see http://bit.ly/OSYLdc, won a national academic award, I soon discovered that meaningful educational change happens primarily at the local levels, working student to student and teacher to teacher.”

Bickman drew from his book in a piece in the Los Angeles Times which he had meaningfully titled “The Needless War Between Traditionalists And Progressives And How To End It,” but which was changed by an editor to the snappy but senseless “Won't You Come Home John Dewey?” [Bickman (2004) at http://bit.ly/OF7DWF - scroll to the APPENDIX]. Therein Bickman wrote [paraphrased for brevity; bracketed by lines “bbbbb. . . . .”):

bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
One of the reasons this continuing conflict between traditionalists and progressives is so heartbreaking is that, around the turn of the last century, John Dewey was able to create resolutions both in a philosophic and practical sense. He looked out on an educational landscape torn between similar apparently competing philosophies:

(a) that centered on the notion of “child-study” and the person of G. Stanley Hall http://bit.ly/NBfLEK, with a Rousseau-like sentimentality about nature and children, more concerned with what it saw as health and wholeness than with intellectual growth; and

(b) that centered on high academic achievement as defined and organized by curricula and textbooks, led by William Torrey Harris http://bit.ly/OoqXag, more concerned with the standard curriculum - arithmetic, geography, history, grammar and literature - the “five windows of the soul,” as Harris called them - that rescued the young mind from its immediate narrowness.

Instead of enlisting on one side or the other, Dewey in a crucial 1902 article, “The Child and the Curriculum” at http://bit.ly/QsVuHi, conceptualized each position so that it would no longer seem a matter of the child versus the curriculum. [My italics.]
bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
*************************************************

To access the complete 19 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/Pup0Nb.

Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Links to Articles: http://bit.ly/a6M5y0
Links to SDI Labs: http://bit.ly/9nGd3M
Academia: http://bit.ly/a8ixxm
Blog: http://bit.ly/9yGsXh
Twitter http://bit.ly/juvd52
GooglePlus: http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE

“Education must be conceived as a continuing reconstruction of experience; that the process and the goal of education are one and the same thing.. . . .[[page 434]]. . . . [It does not mean, as it is often misunderstood,] that we have no choice save either to leave the child to his own unguided spontaneity or to inspire direction upon him from without. But [it recognizes] that no such thing as. . . . . insertion of truth from without is possible. All depends upon the activity which the mind itself undergoes in responding to what is presented from without.. . . . [[page 357]]. . . .”
- John Dewey (1974) - as quoted by Ansbacher (2000)

“. . . .there are several ways to distinguish those who advocate a concept-driven reform curriculum from those who remain defenders of a skills-oriented traditional curriculum. . . . . .They represent different value systems. I believe that rational, reflective discussion and exploration of these issues can bring the two sides closer together. . . . . . . I am told that California schools educate one-seventh of the students in this country. There is too much at stake to continue the fighting, to take a chance on sacrificing the mathematical education of our children by not reaching some agreement on what that education should be.”
- Judith Sowder (1998)

“An exclusive focus on basics leaves students without the understandings that enable them to use effectively. A focus on 'process' without attention to skills deprives students of the tools they need for fluid, competent performance. The extremes are untenable. So, why have so many people taken extreme positions, and why are things as polarized as they are? More important, what might be done about it?. . . . . . . I remain convinced that there is a large middle ground. . . . . . .One way to reclaim the middle ground, suggested by Phil Daro (2007), is to define it clearly-to specify a set of propositions that will call for some degree of compromise from reformers and traditionalists alike. That middle ground would be broadly encompassing, containing propositions that most people would find reasonable (or at least livable). The short-term goal . . . must be to capture the middle ground for the majority. Efforts must be made publicly to identify the extremists for what they are and to marginalize them. The math wars have casualties-our children, who do not receive the kind of robust mathematics education they should.”
-Alan Schoenfeld (2004)

REFERENCES [URL’s shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 29 August 2012.]
Ansbacher, T. 2000. “An Interview with John Dewey on Science Education,” Phys. Teach. 38(4): 224-227, April; online to subscribers at http://bit.ly/InrLvJ. A thoughtful and well-researched treatment showing the consonance of Dewey’s educational ideas with the thinking of most current science-education researchers (as quoted straight from Dewey's own writings, not from the accounts of sometimes confused Dewey interpreters).

Daro, P. 2007. “Math wars peace treaty,” online at http://bit.ly/OJD8Pf.

Dewey, J. 1974. John Dewey, On Education: Selected Writings, edited and with an introduction by Reginald D. Archambault. University of Chicago Press, publisher’s information at http://bit.ly/QT9ipb. Amazon.com information at http://amzn.to/Ubf75G, note the searchable “Look Inside” feature.

Hake, R.R. 2012. “Martin Bickman On The Needless War Between Traditionalists and Progressives,” online on the OPEN AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/Pup0Nb. Post of 29 Aug 2012 10:41:56-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.

Schoenfeld, A. 2004. “The Math Wars,” Educational Policy 18(1): 253-286; online as a 164 kB pdf at http://bit.ly/OIljxk.

Sowder, J.T. 1998. “What are the ‘Math Wars’ in California All About? Reasons and Perspectives,” Phi Beta Kappa Invited Lecture; online as a 98 kB pdf at http://bit.ly/O6R9If , thanks to Professor Bowen Brawner of Tarleton State University.

Latest Doceamus against inquiry-based learning

Some blog followers might be interested in a recent post “Latest Doceamus against inquiry-based learning” [Hake (2010)]. The abstract reads:

********************************************

ABSTRACT: A recent thread “Latest Doceamus against inquiry-based learning” on the “Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education” (RUME) list has discussed an article by Sweller, Clark, & Kirschner (SCK) (2010) titled “Teaching General Problem-Solving Skills is Not a Substitute for, or a Viable Addition to, Teaching Mathematics” http://bit.ly/i7wori and published in the November 2010 issue of Notices of the AMS.

Math-problem guru Alan Schoenfeld wrote: “Sweller and colleagues set up a straw man, the notion of ‘general problem solving’ as a counterpoint to mathematical knowledge [but] there are techniques of mathematical problem solving, and there’s plenty of evidence that students can learn them, so the opposition Sweller and colleagues use to frame their paper is nonsensical. . . . .”

Sweller and colleagues have previously set up straw men - the title of their tract “Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching” http://bit.ly/duJVG4 invokes the straw men “Minimal Guidance” and “Failure” but critics of Sweller et al. point out that these methods are generally neither: (a) “un-guided or minimally guided,” nor (b) “failures.”

******************************************

To access the complete 23 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/etl0dc .

Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University

Honorary Member, Curmudgeon Lodge of Deventer, The Netherlands

President, PEdants for Definitive Academic References which Recognize the Invention of the Internet (PEDARRII)

rrhake@earthlink.net

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi

http://HakesEdStuff.blogspot.com

http://iub.academia.edu/RichardHake

REFERENCES [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 08 December 2010.]

Hake, R.R. 2010. “Latest Doceamus against inquiry-based learning,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/etl0dc . Post of 8 Dec 2010 19:58:52-0800 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being distributed to various discussion lists.