ARTICLES: How to Fix Our Math Education - Context and Engagement

[Ryan Goble]

Most of you probably saw this interesting op ed in the New York Times - after that link I excerpted an interesting rebuttal from KQED out in NorCal. FWIW - I do think context is key but crafting engaging curriculum can take many forms and may trump context when given a choice.

From the New York Times....

OP-ED CONTRIBUTORS
How to Fix Our Math Education
By SOL GARFUNKEL and DAVID MUMFORD
Published: August 24, 2011

Most interesting paragraphs....

Imagine replacing the sequence of algebra, geometry and calculus with a sequence of finance, data and basic engineering. In the finance course, students would learn the exponential function, use formulas in spreadsheets and study the budgets of people, companies and governments. In the data course, students would gather their own data sets and learn how, in fields as diverse as sports and medicine, larger samples give better estimates of averages. In the basic engineering course, students would learn the workings of engines, sound waves, TV signals and computers. Science and math were originally discovered together, and they are best learned together now.

Traditionalists will object that the standard curriculum teaches valuable abstract reasoning, even if the specific skills acquired are not immediately useful in later life. A generation ago, traditionalists were also arguing that studying Latin, though it had no practical application, helped students develop unique linguistic skills. We believe that studying applied math, like learning living languages, provides both useable knowledge and abstract skills.

In math, what we need is “quantitative literacy,” the ability to make quantitative connections whenever life requires (as when we are confronted with conflicting medical test results but need to decide whether to undergo a further procedure) and “mathematical modeling,” the ability to move practically between everyday problems and mathematical formulations (as when we decide whether it is better to buy or lease a new car).

Read the full Op-Ed HERE.

Then the rebuttal from KQED...

September 12, 2011 | 9:25 AM | By Audrey Watters
Is Math Education Too Abstract?

Best paragraphs...

But does thinking about “applied mathematics” mean necessarily that we have to steer clear of algebra and calculus as their own units in math education? Does putting math in context mean that we cannot teach math in abstract?

In a response to the editorial, Al Cuoco, the director of the Center for Mathematics Education at EDC, takes issue with the assumption that contextualization is such a simple task:

“Many of the students in my high school classes came from situations that many of us would find hard to imagine; the last thing they cared about was how to balance a checkbook or figure the balance on a savings account. But they loved solving problems. For another thing, reality is relative. The authors claim that ‘it is through real-life applications that mathematics emerged in the past, has flourished for centuries and connects to our culture now,’ and I agree. But the best mathematicians and scientists I know, and the students in my classes who really got it (and these were not necessarily the ‘good students’)—who saw the power and satisfaction one can derive from doing mathematics—all see mathematics as part of their real world.”

In some ways, the debate between abstract and contextualized, “pure” or “applied” math belie the real problem: one that Dan Meyer makes so clear in his TED Talk: students simply aren’t engaged. Will offering more context make for better math education? (And will it make for better future mathematicians?)

Read the full editorial HERE.