Math perception needs to change

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 29/03/2009 (6134 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

James Currie’s article, Global math bounding into city (March 23), begins with the common sense premise that being incapable with math is not acceptable. People who are not numerate (the mathematical equivalent of being literate) do not function as fully in the world as they might.

But Currie’s article quickly ceases to be a voice for change and lapses into a restatement of several positions that, if anything, further erode the perception of math as a subject of beauty and usefulness.

Imagine you are at a party with your peers and someone says off-handedly, “I can’t read. Never learned how.” At this point, all conversation ceases and people look awkwardly at their shoes. After all, how does one respond to such an admission? Now picture yourself at the same party and someone comments, “I can’t do math.” Other people chime in with similar sentiments and the whole thing takes on a nudge, nudge, wink, wink flavour of “We’re all in the same boat. It’s really pretty normal and OK. In fact, it’s the ones who can do math who are a bit off.”

What can be done about this prevalent anti-math sentiment? Currie suggests that a timed, multiple-choice test such as the Math Kangaroo is the answer. Research has shown that this sort of thing has contributed to the current negative feelings about math. Timed tests, whether in the form of contests such as this or the still much-used Mad Minutes have been shown to have two results.

The first is an increase in the level of math anxiety among students. The second is that it reinforces the fact that school math is divorced from real life. When was the last time you needed to perform a timed mathematical task? Here’s what the noted education critic, Alfie Kohn has to say about timed tests:

The premium is on speed as opposed to creativity or even thoroughness. It’s not that one small part of the test has to be done in a set amount of time, indicating that the ability to do things quickly and under pressure is one of many valued attributes. Rather, the whole test must be taken under the gun, indicating that this ability is prized above others.

Multiple-choice tests are an inherently limiting way to demonstrate understanding. Roger Farr, a professor of education at Indiana University, states, “I don’t think there’s any way to build a multiple-choice question that allows students to show what they can do with what they know.” As far as Math Kangaroo is concerned, Currie says, “…the multiple-choice format allows the contest to be written and marked in one afternoon.” It may be convenient for those administering it but does it reflect understanding on the part of students?

The real issue is the low regard in which math is held. Speaking as one who has spent a great deal of time in classrooms and as a member of a team changing how math is taught, I can state with certainty that the cause is not a lack of contests such as Math Kangaroo.

Indeed, “contests” such as this embody much of what has resulted in this problem.

What we need is an emphasis on understanding rather than procedural competency.

Kangaroo questions are clearly the latter as evidenced by the sample questions cited by Currie. Take the lower level question, for example: What is 2 + 1000 + 9? A) 2009, B) 210009, C) 1209, D) 1029, E) 1011. Although there is a single, correct answer (and it’s E, by the way), we do the student a disservice by simply marking the answer right or wrong. No one benefits. The student may have selected the correct response for the wrong reason or may have chosen an incorrect response. Either way, we miss a valuable chance for an insight into their thinking. Why was that particular answer selected? Can the student deal with large numbers? When they calculated an answer, did they bridge to 10?

So many questions… yet sadly, picking an answer on a multiple-choice test denies teachers the opportunity to give the student feedback for growth. The answer is right or wrong. Move on. The students learn nothing and neither do the teachers.

There is a saying among math educators: Arithmetic is answering the question. Mathematics is questioning the answer. Perhaps Currie has the two confused. Math Kangaroo is arithmetic, not mathematics.

One last point regarding procedural competency versus understanding: Research has shown over and over that learning procedures only (without understanding) leads to increasing disengagement with math as the years go by. Students carry around a vast number of procedures and rules that become increasingly difficult to remember (When I divide fractions, do I invert the second one or the first? Or do I invert at all?)

Currie’s article states “…students realize that solving math puzzles can actually be fun.” There are at least a few things wrong with this. First, students who would do well are not the ones who need to be won over. Second, far from being math puzzles, tests such as this are simply practice for the algorithm, basically worksheets in disguise. What are needed are contextually rich investigations with multiple entry points where students can work together (something that happens in real life, by the way) to construct meaning.

The perception of math needs to change. Tests such as this are not the way to make that happen.

Neil Dempsey is a middle years (4-8) math support teacher in Winnipeg School Division.