Subscribe to our Blog
Constructive math pedagogy rests on pillars of sand
In the edreform business, “the research” is constantly being cited by people on both sides of an argument. Kind of like God being on both sides in a war, don’t you know.
But of course there is research, and then there is RESEARCH. Here is an eye-opening article about the nature of the research cited by proponents of cognitive-based math teaching (constructivism). You may be thinking that this is going to be very dry reading with, as the author puts it, remarks about the F-test being used inappropriately when the G-test should have been used or somebody’s kurtosis being inadequate, but it’s not like that at all. The author writes in a very droll, tongue in cheek sort of way concluding, for example, that he would probably have been better off if he had never got interested in this topic in the first place.
So go ahead and read the article: it won’t hurt a bit. And for sure, once you have read it, you will no longer be confused when a progressive math educator cites “the research”. H/T RC
“I value very highly the anecdotes and stories that fine human beings and gifted and sensitive teachers tell, about what worked for them in their
classrooms. True reforms can be proposed and debated without the necessity of doing
double-blind studies.”
Very true in my eyes.