Reading between the lines...

Any approach that continually revisits topics year after year without closure is to be avoided.

really means...

Everyday Math is to be avoided.

National Math Panel works hard

I sure hope all those Everyday Mathematics books are recyclable because they won't do well on the re-sale market and no developing country is going to want them either.

The National Math Advisory Panel has issued the report they've been working on since 2006 having reviewed over 16,000 research studies in the process. Considering the findings of the panel, I would be worried if I were the Wright Group because if the report is any indication, Everyday Math's approach to teaching math to over 2.8 million students, is anything but right.

Math courses must be streamlined, focusing on "a well-defined set of the most critical topics".

Anyone familiar with Everyday Math knows that this curriculum is anything but. The approach would be best described as a "Jack of all trade, master of none" kind of thing. Students move through mountains of concepts at break-neck speed never slowing down to appreciate the scenery.

Michigan State University professor William Schmidt adds, "In the U.S., we're trying to teach first-graders 20-some topics." There is no call for mastery, because according to Everyday Math's take on the "spiral", the topics will be revisited again and again and again.

Despite the findings of the panel, the folks at Everyday Mathematics would have you believe the following:

Because very few people learn a new concept or skill the first time they experience it, the curriculum is structured to provide multiple exposures to topics, and frequent opportunities to review and practice skills. A concept or skill that is informally introduced in kindergarten, for example, will be revisited, developed and extended numerous times, and in a variety of contexts, throughout the year and into later grades. - About Everyday Mathematics

So, what happens to these children subjected to the Everyday Mathematics "spiral"? Dr. Larry Faulkner, president emeritus of UT Austin said, "There is a problem of kids not feeling like they're getting anywhere, that third-grade math is the same as fourth-grade math." I would add that it's more than just a feeling. They really aren't getting anywhere.

Any approach that continually revisits topics year after year without closure is to be avoided.


Everyday Mathematics does precisely that. In fact, they consider the it one of the program's most salient features. So, if you're the Wright Group and you've been pushing your "spiral" as the basis for your program, just how would you spin it?

In answer to the question of whether math should be all fun and games in order to be engaging and therefore effective (another feature promoted by the Everyday Math folks), the answer, as far as I can tell, is no. Foundational fluency leads to conceptual understanding-- you cannot have one without the other. Automatic recall of math facts is essential to that understanding. Even if you choose "games" to get there, fact mastery is serious business.

Faulkner said that the panel “buys the notion from cognitive science that kids have to know the facts.”

“In the language of cognitive science, working memory needs to be predominately dedicated to new material in order to have a learning progression, and previously addressed material needs to be in long-term memory,” he said.

The panel also determined that "Americans should look at prowess in math less as a talent than as the result of sheer hard work." Furthermore, "Effort counts. Students who believe that working hard will make them smarter in math actually do achieve better."

“Experimental studies have demonstrated that changing children’s beliefs from a focus on ability to a focus on effort increases their engagement in mathematics learning, which in turn improves mathematics outcomes,” the report says.

“When children believe that their efforts to learn make them ‘smarter,’ they show greater persistence in mathematics learning.”

Clearly, Barbie had it all wrong.

As my daughter says, "Math isn't hard, it's just hard work."

Indeed.

A solution to how to teach math: Subtract
By Greg Toppo, USA TODAY
March 13, 2008

Panel Proposes Streamlining Math
By TAMAR LEWIN, New York Times
Published: March 13, 2008

Panel Finds Faults in America's Math System
By Maria Glod Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 13, 2008

National Math Panel Releases Final Report

"Overlearning" Overrated?

Science Daily had an interesting article out this week discussing the value of overlearning. Recent research has found that studying material beyond mastery may be a waste of time in the long run.

University of South Florida psychologist Doug Rohrer decided to explore this question scientifically. Working with Hal Pashler of the University of California, San Diego, he had two groups of students study new vocabulary in different ways. One group ran through the list five times; these students got a perfect score no more than once. The others kept drilling, for a total of ten trials; with this extra effort, the students had at least three perfect run-throughs. Then the psychologists tested all the students, some one week later and others four weeks later.

The results were interesting. For students who took the test a week later, those who had done the extra drilling performed better. But this benefit of overlearning completely disappeared by four weeks. In other words, if students are interested in learning that lasts, that extra effort is really a waste. They should instead spend this time looking at material from last week or last month or even last year.

Researchers concluded that once mastery was achieved it was better to leave that subject alone for a while and return to it later. They actually found that an optimal "study break" of about a month resulted in long-term learning-- something they refer to as the "spacing effect".

Is this "spacing effect" an argument for the spiral approach? Perhaps so, yet it does seem to be a well executed spiral in which the content is first studied to mastery and then revisted for reinforcement later. This is certainly not the haphazard "spiral" I've witnessed my children being subjected to with Everyday Math and seems to be more in keeping with Saxon's idea of a spiral curriclum and to a more limited degree with Singapore Math's "spiral".

Just to be clear, it has absolutely no resemblance to the Everyday Math "spiral".

I hope they keep looking into this subject. Children have such precious little time to learn so many important things. Imagine all that could be accomplished if we implemented teaching and study skills that were actually efficient.

That would be a nice change.

Source: Back to School: Cramming Doesn't Work In The Long Term


ABSTRACT—Because people forget much of what they learn, students could benefit from learning strategies that yield long-lasting knowledge. Yet surprisingly little is known about how long-term retention is most efficiently achieved. Here we examine how retention is affected by two variables: the duration of a study session and the temporal distribution of study time across multiple sessions. Our results suggest that a single session devoted to the study of some material should continue long enough to ensure that mastery is achieved but that immediate further study of the same material is an inefficient use of time. Our data also show that the benefit of distributing a fixed amount of study time across two study sessions—the spacing effect—depends jointly on the interval between study sessions and the interval between study and test. We discuss the practical implications of both findings, especially in regard to mathematics learning.

Increasing Retention Without Increasing Study Time

cross posted at Kitchen Table Math