Here is my final paper about math education in the US. Some of the formatting does not come across when copying and pasting from MS Word. Its fairly long, but a good read if you want to know a little bit about mathematics education. Math Education Reform Powered By Teachers Steven Ackerman Rogue Community College Abstract This paper will address math education in the United States. Discussion of the current teaching model in the United States will be outlined in detail. Problems with the current focus of teaching mathematics will be identified. Teaching and student achievement will be compared with other countries which have a high mathematical student achievement rate nationwide. Current statistics for students and math education will be outlined to support the idea that math teaching reform is necessary in the United States. Additionally the paper will address arguments against math education reform; arguments against a complete curriculum change for math in the United States will be considered and responded to. Successful teaching strategies for materials in a high achieving country will be analyzed as a case model for improvement. Conclusion will include a restatement of the necessity for change and reflect on some implications of change versus keeping our current model of math education the same. Keywords: math, education, teacher, student, achievement, mathematics, TIMSS Math Education Reform Powered by Teachers America’s problem with math has been ongoing for years. Not understanding why things work in math means that students do not know when and how to apply mathematical procedures to solve problems. Acknowledgement of the problem can be seen in legislation, specifically the No Child Left Behind Act (Oguntoyinbo, 2012) and Common Core State Standards (Hess, 2013). Legislation is not the focus of this paper; legislation deserves a brief mention because it is a good example of an acknowledgement of a need for education reform. Student achievement in mathematics is significantly behind other countries; in order to improve math education in the United States, teachers need to engage students in assiduous effort by using fundamental mathematical ideas and procedures, working collaboratively on lesson plans and critically developing and analyzing lesson plans together. In the United States the importance of collaborative teacher developed lesson plans, an outline of the current teaching model, discussion of current math education statistics, addressing arguments about math education, and comparing a successful teaching model in one or more high achieving countries is without parallel; these topics must be addressed if we are to improve math education in the United States. A high achieving nation is defined as any country which held a score above 570 in the Trends in International Math and Science Study, heretofore referred to as the TIMSS study, which studied sixty-three countries. The current teaching model in the United States is broken. Everything is focused on procedures and defining terms in math education (Stigler & Heibert, 2009). No effort is taken allowing students to understand why math works. If students do not, or cannot, understand why math works then they will not be able to apply math principles or know when they should apply them. Focusing on problems that will be on a test and memorizing procedures to solve them is an example of most lesson plans in US math education. There is little time spent in the classroom focusing on understanding why solutions work for math. Centering curriculum on passing a test does not allow any room to develop creativity or abstract problem solving. Testing continues to be the focus, especially after passage of the No Child Left Behind Act. Testing is the number one priority in education only in the United States. Most other countries have math curriculum which is focused on understanding why math works and complex mathematical problem solving techniques. All of the above mentioned problems are discussed in Lekan Oguntoyinbo’s article, “Math Problem”, which was published in Diverse: Issues on Higher Education (2012). The current teaching style in the United States is focused on learning the definitions of math terms and practicing procedures, however, this is a failed approach to teaching math. Just looking at the United States score on the TIMSS study of 509 (Mullis, Martin, Foy & Arora, 2011), we placed well behind all other high achieving nations in math (Stigler & Heibert, 2009). In two high ranking countries, Japan and Germany, the policy could be summed up by saying the focus of math education is developing advanced procedures and structured problem solving, as noted by Stigler and Heibert. Those concepts may be difficult to interpret but when put in the context of emphasizing teaching students to understand how and why math works, and not on passing a test with procedures, it may bring more clarity to the idea of developing advanced procedures and structured problem solving. Clarity can be brought to the subject of math education in the United States by looking at the TIMSS study. Most teaching in the United States is done while not engaging students to solve problems and think about solutions on their own. There is little or no emphasis on multiple methods for math solutions and there is little discussion going on in the classroom about solving math problems. Common practice in all high achieving nations is to emphasize student participation in problem solving and to think of solutions on their own. It is also the single biggest thing lacking in US classrooms (Sigler & Heibert, 2009). There is little discussion going on in classrooms about how math works and why it works. Students come out of classrooms and enter college with little understanding about why they can solve a problem. Mathematics education is more of a memorization about how to do something and a focus on passing a test by memorizing procedures. This is a fundamental problem of teaching in the United States. The TIMSS study was done with participation of sixty-three countries which developed the framework of the study. One of the scopes studied was thinking methods looked for in students as they participate in mathematics classes and curriculum (Mullis, Martin, Foy, & Arora, 2011). When we consider that math thinking processes of students were studied across sixty-three different countries and that United States’ math education does not focus on understanding math concepts, but instead focuses on passing tests and memorizing procedures, we begin to see the major missing factor in math education in the United States. It sounds simple, but current research indicates clearly that this is a problem; United States students don’t understand math. To clearly illustrate this we must look at statistics in the United States. The TIMSS study outlines statistics across many countries and is generalized on math student demographics. To gain clarity of students in the United States more specific examples need to be considered. According to Alan Bissell, forty-three percent of high school graduates are not prepared for college level coursework in math directly out of high school. This is astounding. Another article by Nancy Dobo (2012) puts this number at sixty percent. Thirty-four percent of high school graduates are not prepared for any college level coursework directly out of high school (Bissell, 2012). In other words, that means students are not prepared to do any college level math courses directly out of high school. As stated by Nancy Dobo and summarized here, less than one quarter of students who enroll in remedial math courses in college complete a degree. Students who are not testing into college level math are, generally, not completing degrees. We can look at Rogue Community College for narrower results. Only twenty-seven percent of students who enroll in Introduction to Math, AKA Math 20, a remedial math course at Rogue Community College, complete Intermediate Algebra II, commonly called Math 65. That information is taken from an interview with Charlotte Hutt, the Math Department Head at Rogue Community College. Additionally she stated that out of one-hundred and forty-five students that enroll in Math 20 only thirty-nine complete Math 65. This is a local reflection of the problem delineated in the TIMSS study, which placed the United States thirty-first in the international student assessment program in math, statistically significantly lower than other high achieving countries (procon.org, 2009). This illustrates further that students are not understanding math because of current practices in the classroom. Math education reform needs to happen in the United States. The teaching model in the United States greatly differs from high achieving nations (Loveless, 2013). Arguments about reform in mathematics in the United States need to be addressed before looking at a successful teaching model. Math education reform is the discussion of much debate. Many would argue that what we are doing in the United States is not wrong, or possibly, by what method can educators know teaching has gone astray in the United States. The answer seems clear from international studies. The United States placed thirty-first when it comes to student math scores in the world. In other words, the highest achieving nation placed in first place with the highest score and the lowest scoring nation place sixty-third. We have to ask why that is; we can answer that question by looking at teaching models in other countries, however, addressing other arguments to reform are in order first. Some may argue that comparing our scores to other countries does not consider enough factors. This is a reasonable argument because high achieving nations have not improved their scores significantly since 1995, however, the United States scores only improved by a small margin in only one category of math--fourth grade level math (Robelen, 2012). The answer to this argument is still seen in the numbers. High achieving nations have little room for improvement and they are placing top in the world in math. There is little room for more achievement (Stigler & Heibert, 2009). Another argument at this point, is how do we know what we are doing is wrong, this can be answered by studying a successful model and measuring our classroom teaching practices by that. This can answer why the United States is placing so low internationally and what we are doing wrong in mathematics education. Japan placed ninth in the world in the latest TIMSS study. Additionally, Japan has shown that its teaching practices have changed dramatically over the past fifty years. The same research shows that teaching in the United States has changed very little (Stigler & Heibert, 2009). According to the study done by Stigler and Heibert, Japan takes an active approach when it comes to teaching. Stigler and Heibert, in their 2009 study, outline lesson plan development in Japan as follows: it does not focus on teachers themselves, aside from offering continuing professional development specific to the teacher’s course of teaching. Instead, their teachers are held responsible for student learning. The approach is relatively simple, but requires collaboration of math teachers. Lesson plans are developed by all math teachers at any given school and the lesson plan is outlined around a specific goal, for example, how math teachers can help students become self-regulating learners. The lesson is constructed by all teachers in the school’s math department. The lesson plan is designed to accomplish the learning goal. Once the objective is determined the lesson is planned. Usually, the approach is to design the lesson with an idea that can be carried out in practice in the classroom. The plan is then presented to faculty at a school wide meeting with the purpose to petition criticism. Based on the critical feedback, the plan is revised. Stigler and Heibert have put a definitive comparison guide together from the TIMSS study. This is critical to math education development. We have to compare our models to successful teaching models. As the statistics we have discussed show, our current model does not work. Stigler and Heibert go on to explain, after critical feedback and revision of the plan, a teacher is chosen to teach the lesson. This is practiced nationwide. The lesson plan is rehearsed by the group of teachers prior to implementing it in the classroom. The day the lesson is taught for the first time, all teachers attend the class it is taught in and observe. After the lesson is taught its effect is evaluated and the lesson plan is revised accordingly. This evaluation process is done twice. The results are shared in a report and read by faculty. If the results are significant and positive, they are shared with educators through educational authorities. What is being taught has the express purpose of teaching math concepts to students. This is not about learning how to multiply and divide rational expressions. The purpose of this style of lesson planning is to help students understand, conceptually, how math works and why. It is proven to be a very effective way to teach students math. In, The Teaching Gap, by Stigler and Hiebert, this is one dynamic of math education of a high achieving nation. The astounding idea is that lesson plans are developed with the intent of teaching students to understand how and why math works. It is clear that lesson study is focused on student learning of math. This type of class and curriculum emphasizes student learning and understanding of math. Repetition of that point is necessary. The focus of math education for most high achieving nations is teaching to understand math and not teaching procedures to solve problems (Stigler & Heibert, 2009). It is a long term commitment. It would be easy to argue that it would take too long and too much effort to implement this. There are huge gaps currently between students in the United States and other countries. Students in the United States cannot afford to be put aside because implementation is too hard and will take too much time. Lesson study focuses constantly on improving teaching, not improving teachers. Teachers who are involved in lesson study constantly improve their teaching methods. This is a proven course of math education over a fifty year period. Stigler and Hiebert refer to lesson plan development as the Japanese teaching model in their book, The Teaching Gap. Collaboration is key and alleviates teachers from taking on math education reform by themselves. It is a group effort. Additionally, this type of lesson study is practiced, in some form, by all high achieving nations. This allows long-term improvement to education. The primary focus is student learning. This allows teachers to contribute to the development teaching as a whole and develop as well as develop their skillset as a teacher. Teachers cannot individually change math education in the United States (Darling-Hammond, Wei, & Andree, 2010). Group collaboration is key to successful teaching of math. Most high achieving countries have similar approaches as Japan. Math education in the United States needs to take a different approach. The focus needs to be shifted away from teachers and concentrated on teaching. Talented individuals will not solve the problem by becoming teachers. We need talented individuals to teach, but that alone will not solve our problem. Little or no effort has been made towards changing the methods teachers use to teach material. Questioning the existing routines of math education by instructors is key; assigned tasks and explanations students are provided need to have a system that is questioned and improved over time. In order to do this, teachers need to collaborate on material and question the importance and depth of it. Material needs to be put together by teachers working together while they examine each element to determine whether it will improve students understanding of mathematics. Math education is a complex issue and there are many factors to consider. The numbers do not lie. We are behind in math all the way into college. Math can be understand by individuals even if it does not excite them. Excitement may be induced through genuine understanding. It is ludicrous to believe that the United States cannot teach math to people in a way which can be understood.It is being done by multiple countries with less technology and more students in the classroom. Material and teaching is the key. In order to change both, teachers need to collaborate. The concern is now is whether teachers can work together to develop materials which will help students learn and understand math. Only time will tell. References Ackerman, S. (2014). [Interview with Charlotte Hutt, Director of Math Department, Rogue Community College]. Anonymous. (2009) Program for international student assessment. Retrieved May 26, 2014 from standardizedtests.procon.org/#background. Bissell, A. N. (2012). Architecture and impact of an open, online, remixable, and multimedia-rich algebra 1 course. Journal Of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(5), 49-59. Dobo, N. (2013). Emporium approach helps DelTech students conquer math. Community College Week, 25(25), 8. Erik W. Robelen, (December, 2012). U.S. Math, Science Achievement Exceeds World Average, Education Week. Bethesda, Maryland. Editorial Projects in Education, Inc. Hess, F. Q. (2013). Common core in the real world. Phi Delta Kappan, 95(3), 61. Linda Darling-Hammond, Ruth Chung Wei, and Alethea Andree (2010). How high-achieving countries develop great teachers. Dallas, Texas. Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education. Retrieved on May 27, 2014 from: https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/how-high-achieving-countries-develop-great-teachers.pdf Loveless, (March, 2013). The latest trends in international math and science study (TIMSS). Washington, D.C., Brookings Institution Press. Mullis V.S., Martin O., Foy Pierre, & Arora Alka (2011). TIMSS 2011 International results in mathematics. Chestnut Hill, Maine & Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Lynch School of Education, Boston College. International Association of Educational Achievement. Oguntoyinbo, L. (2012). Math problem. Diverse: Issues In Higher Education, 29(13), 18-19. Stigler & Heibert (2009). The teaching gap, best ideas from the world’s teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York, New York: Free Press.
Posted on: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 21:16:48 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015