Gerofsky Reflection

Presented here, is a brief history of the conflicts surrounding mathematics education throughout the 20th Century. Starting with the Progressivist movement in the early part of the century, followed by New Math in the 1960s and finishing up with the NCTM Standards reforms that are currently being debated we see the development of math curriculum and the controversy it has created.

I find all of this debate on the way math “should” be taught very confusing. We have no real experience and are therefore relying on readings and lectures to show us the way but, there is so much information out there. My mathematics education began to fall apart when my lack of true fundamental understanding of the subject became apparent in honours courses I was taking at UBC. No longer could I just practice and get better, I actually had to think differently and I wasn’t prepared for that. So, I tend to think that we should be working on the students thinking processes. My feeling is that once these are developed properly, the rest should fall in to place. I know how I feel, but how do I substantiate that feeling? What proof is there that I am right? The arguments in the article are interesting, but they are all based on the assumption that progressive is better. Are there statistics to back this up?