In March, after attending a workshop by Gary Stager at ASB Unplugged I posted The Future of Math Education and two recent articles on math education have me thinking about this topic again. The New York Time article, Why do Americans Stink at Math, by Elizabeth Green and Jessica Lahey’s article, Teaching Math to People Who Think They Hate it from The Atlantic should be the sources for a professional learning community (PLC) study. The purpose of this post is not to fully analyze these two articles. The purpose is to share a few of the main ideas in hopes that they will stimulate thinking and a dialogue.

The main idea behind Green’s article is that:

“The new math of the ’60s, the new, new math of the ’80s and today’s Common Core math all stem from the idea that the traditional way of teaching math simply does not work.”

And even though these curricular initiatives were designed to transform math education, little has actually changed. Green presents one major reason for this inertia.

“Consequently, the most powerful influence on teachers is the one most beyond our control. The sociologist Dan Lortie calls the phenomenon the apprenticeship of observation. Teachers learn to teach primarily by recalling their memories of having been taught, an average of 13,000 hours of instruction over a typical childhood. The apprenticeship of observation exacerbates what the education scholar Suzanne Wilson calls education reform’s double bind. The very people who embody the problem — teachers — are also the ones charged with solving it.”

The “apprenticeship of observation phenomenon” is something that all educators face when it comes to changing practices in their subject matter. We’ve seen over the years that educators have a difficult time changing their mindsets. To add to the problem, parents have a view of how education should be based on their experiences. When educators actually do change practices, parents can be critical because the changes don’t match their vision (frustrated parent’s rant on Common Core math practices).

Lahey profiles the work of Steve Strogatz from Cornell University. Strogatz is teaching an introductory math course for non-math majors. *“The curriculum he teaches is called Discovering the Art of Mathematics: Mathematical Inquiry in the Liberal Arts (DAoM); it was developed at Westfield State University byJulian Fleron and three colleagues and funded by a grant by the National Science Foundation.” The learning focuses on using “student-led investigations into problems, experiments, and prompts.” *The curriculum looks promising and they are already sharing the results through student quotes, videos, other data.

I’d love to dive deeper into these ideas even though I’m one of those individuals who thinks he hates math.