Thanks for this. Makes me wonder why they don't cite what (I think) is pretty good evidence for the effectiveness productive struggle (in particular contexts and when done in particular ways). There's some really clear and well documented examples, I know off the top of my head, mostly
Inventing to Prepare for Future Learning Stuff, like
It just seems like there is such a large and varied body of evidence one could point to. It's interesting that they choose not to point to it, or don't consider it the kind of studies that are important o point to. Or? Surely, there's got to be more than what I can just recall from memory.
I think there is a limited nitpicky issue I have with these citations -- they don't really support the *struggle* claim -- but I think I'll steer away from that and zoom out for a second. Let's say that NCTM had replaced productive struggle with "kids need to invent and discover math on their own." That would have of course plugged them into a much larger conversation with many citations and so forth and also a larger debate, where those claims have been held to intense scrutiny.
That's what I feel is going on with these citations. They are studies finding support for invention/discovery in some limited cases, and I'm happy to talk about that broader issue. But did NCTM mean to just (re)state that invention/discovery is important for math learning? Or are they saying something different? It seems to me that either NCTM is saying something new (and it's unsupported by evidence) or something old (in which case it's just the old discovery/di debate).
This is a truly useful analysis! "Research shows" gets thrown around so haphazardly these days that I really appreciate that you've drilled down on those claims in this example. Many will say things like "teachers need to be teaching with pedagogy supported by current research." And I agree! But the rub is that, as you've made so clear in this piece, a lot of what's cited as supporting evidence is in fact not evidence at all. That problem only gets compounded by the lack of replication in ed research and ideologically driven researchers. It makes it hard for the average teacher to sort out who to believe. I think that leads them to lean very hard on intuition (which probably isn't the worst thing - but certainly could be wrong).
This also made me think of the new California math standards, especially the "evidence" around de-tracking. I wrote about that, in case anyone is interested: Jo Boaler, Tracking, Education Research, and Honesty
I am a little more practical, I don't care if studies show that students learn more or less from "productive struggle" - (is that biased by calling it productive?) Students are so diverse, like humans who are students - not one method would be the best for all, but maybe it would be best for the majority??? I have learned more from struggle, but not so sure if left to struggle, more than I did, what the results would be. Many times I learn more from answers, but the question is do the students want to learn and flourish, or just get by, complete the homework- so they can go talk/whatever with their friends. Maybe we should just teach curiosity, to never stop questioning,...
Thanks for this. Makes me wonder why they don't cite what (I think) is pretty good evidence for the effectiveness productive struggle (in particular contexts and when done in particular ways). There's some really clear and well documented examples, I know off the top of my head, mostly
Inventing to Prepare for Future Learning Stuff, like
https://aaalab.stanford.edu/papers/CI2202pp129-184.pdf
https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fa0025140
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11251-016-9374-0
https://journals.aps.org/prper/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.010128
It just seems like there is such a large and varied body of evidence one could point to. It's interesting that they choose not to point to it, or don't consider it the kind of studies that are important o point to. Or? Surely, there's got to be more than what I can just recall from memory.
I think there is a limited nitpicky issue I have with these citations -- they don't really support the *struggle* claim -- but I think I'll steer away from that and zoom out for a second. Let's say that NCTM had replaced productive struggle with "kids need to invent and discover math on their own." That would have of course plugged them into a much larger conversation with many citations and so forth and also a larger debate, where those claims have been held to intense scrutiny.
That's what I feel is going on with these citations. They are studies finding support for invention/discovery in some limited cases, and I'm happy to talk about that broader issue. But did NCTM mean to just (re)state that invention/discovery is important for math learning? Or are they saying something different? It seems to me that either NCTM is saying something new (and it's unsupported by evidence) or something old (in which case it's just the old discovery/di debate).
Not gonna lie. This made me almost tear up. Really nice analysis.
This is a truly useful analysis! "Research shows" gets thrown around so haphazardly these days that I really appreciate that you've drilled down on those claims in this example. Many will say things like "teachers need to be teaching with pedagogy supported by current research." And I agree! But the rub is that, as you've made so clear in this piece, a lot of what's cited as supporting evidence is in fact not evidence at all. That problem only gets compounded by the lack of replication in ed research and ideologically driven researchers. It makes it hard for the average teacher to sort out who to believe. I think that leads them to lean very hard on intuition (which probably isn't the worst thing - but certainly could be wrong).
This also made me think of the new California math standards, especially the "evidence" around de-tracking. I wrote about that, in case anyone is interested: Jo Boaler, Tracking, Education Research, and Honesty
https://medium.com/@z_cress/jo-boaler-tracking-education-research-and-honesty-7828c685e541
I am a little more practical, I don't care if studies show that students learn more or less from "productive struggle" - (is that biased by calling it productive?) Students are so diverse, like humans who are students - not one method would be the best for all, but maybe it would be best for the majority??? I have learned more from struggle, but not so sure if left to struggle, more than I did, what the results would be. Many times I learn more from answers, but the question is do the students want to learn and flourish, or just get by, complete the homework- so they can go talk/whatever with their friends. Maybe we should just teach curiosity, to never stop questioning,...