And Why You Shouldn’t believe
This 2005 article by Karen Budd, Elizabeth Carson, Barry Garelick, David Klein, R. James Milgram, Ralph A. Raimi, Martha Schwartz, Sandra Stotsky, Vern Williams, and W. Stephen Wilson casts aside the often repeated and much revered myths math educators like to claim about constructivist math. There is no evidence to support any of these myths. None.
- here to read the entire article.
- Myth #1: Only what students discover for themselves is truly learned.
- Myth #2: Children develop a deeper understanding of mathematics and a greater sense of ownership when they are expected to invent and use their own methods for performing the basic arithmetical operations, rather than study, understand and practice the standard algorithms.
- Myth #3: There are two separate and distinct ways to teach mathematics. The NCTM backed approach deepens conceptual understanding through a problem solving approach. The other teaches only arithmetic skills through drill and kill. Children don’t need to spend long hours practicing and reviewing basic arithmetical operations. It’s the concept that’s important.
- Myth #4: The math programs based on NCTM standards are better for children with learning disabilities than other approaches.
- Myth #5: Urban teachers like using math programs based on NCTM standards.
- Myth #6: Calculator use has been shown to enhance cognitive gains in areas that include number sense, conceptual development, and visualization.
- Myth #7: The reason other countries do better on international math tests like TIMSS and PISA is that those countries select test takers only from a group of the top performers.
- Myth #8: Math concepts are best understood and mastered when presented “in context”
- Myth #9: NCTM math reform reflects the programs and practices in higher performing nations.
- Myth #10: Research shows NCTM programs are effective.