Elizabeth Green’s “Why Do Americans Stink at Math?”

Some blog followers might be interested in a discussion-list post “Elizabeth Green’s ‘Why Do Americans Stink at Math?’ ” [Hake (2014)]. The abstract reads:

***************************************************
ABSTRACT: Elizabeth Green, in a NYT Magazine article titled “Why Do Americans Stink at Math?” at http://nyti.ms/1o02vui wrote: “With the Common Core . . . . . .[[ http://www.corestandards.org/, compatible with the reform math education methods]]. . . . teachers are once more being asked to unlearn an old approach and learn an entirely new one, essentially on their own. Training is still weak and infrequent, and principals - who are no more skilled at math than their teachers - remain unprepared to offer support. Textbooks, once again, have received only surface adjustments, despite the shiny Common Core labels that decorate their covers. . . . . Left to their own devices, teachers are once again trying to incorporate new ideas into old scripts, often botching them in the process. . . . . . . No wonder parents and some mathematicians denigrate the reforms as ‘fuzzy math.’ In the warped way untrained teachers interpret them, they are fuzzy.”

Green's article has prompted at least two threads on discussion lists. One initiated by Wayne Bishop on the OPEN! Math-Teach archives at http://bit.ly/eOTrs1. Bishop at http://bit.ly/1Agrtzv wrote: “Other than ‘Americans Stink at Math’, almost everything [Green] says is wrong. Decades-old (century?) math ed mythology.”

Another initiated by John Clement on the CLOSED! July PhysLrnR archives http://bit.ly/WQjkCL. Clement at http://bit.ly/1onL1Nr wrote: (paraphrasing): “Green's very good article is about how the Japanese reformed their math teaching and are now beating us. Their method resembles ‘Interactive Engagement’ methods in Physics Education Research.”
***************************************************

To access the complete 57 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/1lERqiv.

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 [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 25 July 2014.]
Hake, R.R. “Elizabeth Green’s ‘Why Do Americans Stink at Math?’ ” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/1lERqiv. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.

Symbiosis: A Standardista Endorses a Direct Instructionist

Some blog followers might be interested in a recent post “Symbiosis: A Standardista Endorses a Direct Instructionist” [Hake (2013)]. The abstract reads:

*********************************************
ABSTRACT: In “Re: Casualty of the Math Wars” [Hake (2012a)] at http://bit.ly/R1q22j I criticized Bishop et al.’s “A Close Examination of Jo Boaler’s Railside Report” http://tinyurl.com/czsa4c. Then in “R.L. Moore - Pioneer of Math Education Reform” [Hake (2013c)] at http://yhoo.it/132baYU, I criticized Bishop’s (2013b) “Re: Direct Instruction rocks: Or does it?” http://bit.ly/11f8CTH (click on the html attachment).

My criticism of Bishop's proclamations led standardista (in the educational sense employed by Susan Ohanian http://bit.ly/Xe7P56) Richard P. Phelps (2013) http://bit.ly/15kFCOc to endorse direct instructionist Wayne Bishop by portraying my criticism as simply “personal animosity” in a post of that title at http://bit.ly/15iMz2m. In this post I show that Phelps makes serious errors in each of his nine objections to my criticism.
*********************************************

To access the complete 43 kB post please click on http://yhoo.it/15D10Ph.

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
Google Scholar: http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3
Twitter: http://bit.ly/juvd52
Facebook: http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm

"It is not enough to observe, experiment, theorize, calculate and communicate; we must also argue, criticize, debate, expound, summarize, and otherwise transform the information that we have obtained individually into reliable, well established, public knowledge."
- John Ziman. 1969. "Information, Communication, Knowledge," Nature 224: 318-324; abstract online at http://bit.ly/cNPB1d.

REFERENCES [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 23 April 2013.]
Hake, R.R. 2013. “Symbiosis: A Standardista Endorses a Direct Instructionist” online on the OPEN Net-Gold archives at http://yhoo.it/15D10Ph. Post of 22 Apr 2013 18:43:32-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.

R.L. Moore - Pioneer of Math Education Reform

Some blog followers might be interested in a recent post “R.L. Moore - Pioneer of Math Education Reform #2” [Hake (2013)]. The abstract reads:

************************************************
ABSTRACT: Contrary to the misrepresentation of the “Moore Method” http://bit.ly/LElQzB by direct instructionist Wayne Bishop at http://bit.ly/137Wvvk I excerpt ten commentaries demonstrating that the Moore Method is, in fact, (a) an example of “math education reform,” and (b) taught by a “guide on the side.” The commentators are:

1. Keith Devlin (1999) in “The Greatest Math Teacher Ever” part 1 at http://bit.ly/12GYCSR and part 2 at http://bit.ly/17pBWdu.

2. Educational Achievement Foundation’s (2006) “A Quick-Start Guide to the Moore Method” at http://bit.ly/ZvQZly.

3. Paul Halmos in “The Problem of Learning to Teach” (Halmos, Moise, & Piranian, 1975) at http://bit.ly/12BgyOP.

4. F. Burton Jones (1977) in “The Moore method” at http://bit.ly/17nyIaB.

5. Albert C. Lewis (1999) in “Reform and Tradition in Mathematics Education: The Example of R.L. Moore” at http://bit.ly/YbjUoy.

6. G. Edgar Parker (1992) “Getting More from Moore” at http://bit.ly/YbmaMI.

7. The MAA review of The Moore Method: A Pathway to Learner-Centered Instruction [Coppin, Mahavier, May, & G.E. Parker (2009)] at http://bit.ly/LEdug3.

8. “Discovery Learning Project” at the University of Texas (2013) at http://bit.ly/12FqZEW.

9. Lucille S. Whyburn (1970) “Student oriented teaching-The Moore Method” at http://bit.ly/YNS5X4.

10. David Zitarelli (2004) in “The origin and early impact of the Moore Method” at http://bit.ly/149JYIJ.
************************************************


To access the complete 54 kB post please click on http://yhoo.it/XPvHhp.

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
Google Scholar: http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3
Twitter: http://bit.ly/juvd52
Facebook: http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm

REFERENCE [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 16 April 2013.]

Hake, R.R. 2013. “R.L. Moore - Pioneer of Math Education Reform #2,”online on the OPEN Net-Gold archives at http://yhoo.it/XPvHhp. Post of 16 Apr 2013 09:57:44-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post were transmitted to several discussion lists.

Is ‘Education Research’ ‘Scientific Research’ ? YES!”

Some blog might be interested in a recent post “Is ‘Education Research’ ‘Scientific Research’ ? YES!” [Hake (2012)]. The abstract reads:

*********************************************
ABSTRACT: GS Chandy at http://bit.ly/PfqJqt wrote (liberally paraphrasing and drastically condensing): “Judging from his posts on the over 40-post Math-Teach thread ‘Jo Boaler reveals attacks by Milgram and Bishop’ at http://bit.ly/Ty9tbf, Robert Hansen is wrong in his claim that ‘Education Research’ is not ‘Scientific Research.’ "

To which Hansen at http://bit.ly/RHESbF responded with the following statement (paraphrasing) of which the 2nd and 3rd sentences are blatantly false (as I indicate in this post): “In scientific research, conclusions are tested repeatedly by many different researchers. In educational research, they are not. One does a study, claims success, publishes it and that is the end of it.”

The National Academies' Scientific Research in Education at http://bit.ly/VjrQaV suggests six guiding principles that underlie all scientific inquiry, including education research: (1) Pose Significant Questions That Can Be Investigated Empirically, (2) Link Research to Relevant Theory, (3) Use Methods That Permit Direct Investigation of the Question, (4) Provide a Coherent and Explicit Chain of Reasoning, (5) Replicate and Generalize Across Studies, and (6) Disclose Research to Encourage Professional Scrutiny and Critique.

In my opinion, Jo Boaler's research - see the material at http://bit.ly/R6XsuP & http://joboaler.com/ and Boaler & Staples (2008) at http://bit.ly/R8FGsG - satisfies all the above criteria, whereas the unpublished, undated, and referenceless denunciation of Boaler's research by Bishop, Clopton, & Milgram at http://tinyurl.com/czsa4c does not.
*********************************************


To access the complete 12 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/Vdj88z.


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

REFERENCES [All URL’s shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 19 Oct 2012.]

Hake, R.R. 2012. “Is ‘Education Research’ ‘Scientific Research’ ? YES!” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/Vdj88z. Post of 19 Oct 2012 13:11:11-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.

Science Educators Also Under Fire By Traditionalist Math Warriors #3

Some blog followers be interested in a recent post “Science Educators Also Under Fire By Traditionalist Math Warriors #3” [Hake (2012)]. The abstract reads:

**********************************************
ABSTRACT: Stacy Brown (2012) of the Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education (RUME) list wrote at http://bit.ly/V55OTz (paraphrasing):

"Mathematics educators such as Jo Boaler (2012) http://bit.ly/R6XsuP are not the only academics who have had the misfortune of encountering attacks from Wayne Bishop. Science educators who worked with Cal Tech’s Precollege Science Initiative (CAPSI) project http://bit.ly/T9qRsv have been subjected to treatment from Bishop who called on federal funding agencies to audit several of their science projects in California in the hopes that the grant’s funds would be revoked.”

Further evidence that Traditionalist Math Warriors (TMW’s) such as Bishop, Hansen, and “Haim” are virulently opposed to ALL attempts (not just those in math education) to depart from “direct instruction”. . . . [in the sense used by the “Mathematically Correct Science Corner” http://bit.ly/bfzdZS: “drill and practice,” “non-hands-on,” “teach ’em the facts”; and “non-discovery-learning,” where “discovery learning” means setting students adrift either in aimless play or ostensibly to discover on their own, say, Archimedes’ principle or Newton’s Second Law - see Hake (2008b) at http://bit.ly/bHTebD]. . . . can be had by visiting the OPEN! archives http://bit.ly/eOTrs1 of Math-Teach, a den of TMW's. See, for example, the posts of:
(a) Bishop: click on “att1.html” near the top of the page at http://bit.ly/RBMyPZ and http://bit.ly/XoaQxx;
(b)"Haim" at http://bit.ly/RBDpHa, http://bit.ly/RTNfBB, and http://bit.ly/QmM5gb; and
(c) Hansen at http://bit.ly/S1Rcpn and http://bit.ly/U4LDJx.

Hansen's response at http://bit.ly/XkAtiO to my post “Re: Casualty of the Math Wars” at http://bit.ly/R1q22j is typical of the pathologic excess of TMW rhetoric. Hansen wrote: “I am quite content to keep [education researchers] in check by pointing out their lack of honesty and method. These poor bastards are pandering to social elements, not mathematics. . . . . Zealots full of ideology, devoid of fact or logic.. . . . Hakes and Boalers are part of the weather, albeit, the bad part. . . . . These poor bastards have been struggling for 40 years and they will struggle for another 40 years. I suspect that eventually they will move on to something other than mathematics, cause it really isn’t working out for them here. But I don’t suspect they will change their ways.”
**********************************************

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

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

REFERENCES [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 18 Oct 2012.]

Hake, R.R. 2012. “Science Educators Also Under Fire By Traditionalist Math Warriorsn #3,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/QuqXqo. Post of 18 Oct 2012 07:47:21-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.

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.

Re: "How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience and School"

Some blog followers might be interested in a recent post of the above title. The abstract reads:

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

ABSTRACT - GS Candy of the Math-Teach list wrote: "I've now read through quite sizable portions of . . . . . How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience and School. . . . .[[Branford et al. (2000)]] . . . . I believe most of the book's findings and recommendations do not square with the philosophy of the Robert Hansen-Wayne Bishop school of thought regarding the teaching or learning of math. The book will serve as an excellent model for the effective teaching and learning of math - or of any other discipline, for that matter . . . . . I shall be using it as a primary reference for all my own work."

Bransford et al. (2000) have to this to say about behaviorism: "A limitation of early behaviorism stemmed from its focus on observable stimulus conditions and the behaviors associated with those conditions. This orientation made it difficult to study such phenomena as understanding, reasoning, and thinking-phenomena that are of paramount importance for education. Over time, radical behaviorism. . . . . gave way to a more moderate form of behaviorism. . . . that preserved the scientific rigor of using behavior as data, but also allowed hypotheses about internal 'mental' states when these became necessary to explain various phenomena. . . . In the late 1950s, the complexity of understanding humans and their environments became increasingly apparent, and a new field emerged - cognitive science. From its inception, cognitive science approached learning from a multidisciplinary perspective that included anthropology, linguistics, philosophy, developmental psychology, computer science, neuroscience, and several branches of psychology. . . . . . New experimental tools, methodologies, and ways of postulating theories made it possible for scientists to begin serious study of mental functioning: to test their theories rather than simply speculate about thinking and learning and, in recent years, to develop insights into the importance of the social and cultural contexts of learning. The introduction of rigorous qualitative research methodologies have provided perspectives on learning that complement and enrich the experimental research traditions."

What's behaviorism got to do with math education? I used to think that math warrior Wayne Bishop's "Mathematically Correct" http://mathematicallycorrect.com/science.htm school of "direct instruction," was a manifestation of behaviorism. But lately I've come to realize that "Precision Teaching," an exemplar of one school of behaviorism, may not be all bad - more than can be said for "Mathematically Correct."

Math-Teach subscribers, who, like Chandy, think Bransford et al. might "serve as an excellent model for the effective teaching and learning of math" might consider subscribing to PhysLrnR, where "Bransford" is more commonly mentioned than on Math-Teach.

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

To access the complete 17 kB post please click on http://tinyurl.com/yahogu5 .

REFERENCES [Tiny URL’s courtesy http://tinyurl.com/create.php .]

Bransford, J.D., A.L. Brown, R.R. Cocking, eds. 2000. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience and School. Nat. Acad. Press; the entire book (with a search engine) is online at http://tinyurl.com/apbgf !

Hake, R.R. 2010. "Re: How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience and School," online at the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://tinyurl.com/yahogu5 . Post of 1 Apr 2010 20:38:44-0700 to AERA-L, Math-Teach, and Net-Gold. The abstract and a link to the complete post are being distributed to various discussion lists.

Psychology Readings for Mathematicians

Some blog followers may be interested a post [Hake (2010)] of the above title. The abstract reads:

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

ABSTRACT: Mathematics educator Wayne Bishop (2010) stated that in his college years “ed psych and sociology were two of the most useless, objective-evidence-free, courses that [he] was obligated to take.” Bill Marsh (2010) responded that Bishop owed himself and others “a little good reading in good psychology,” suggesting the works of Eleanor or J.J. Gibson, George Miller of “Magic Number Seven” fame, Peter Bryant, Robbie Case, and Catherine Sophian.

In this post I:

(a) list two other suggestions - Mathematics Learning in Early Childhood [Cross et al. (2009)] and “Psychology's role in mathematics and science education” [Newcombe et al. (2009)]; and

(b) break with discussion-list protocol by listing some academic references to works by the authors suggested by Marsh.

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

To access the complete 17 kB post please click on

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Net-Gold/message/31770.

REFERENCES

Hake, R.R. 2010. “Psychology Readings for Mathematicians (was Important Website for Mathematics Educators)” online at

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Net-Gold/message/31770. Post of 1 Feb 7:51pm EST to AERA-L, Net-Gold, and PhysLrnR. The abstract only was transmitted to various discussion lists.