Journal of Educational Practice for Social Change 2012 | Page 13

But what is the alternative? Can we reasonably expect instructors and testing agencies to take
time to review the work, process, and calculations made by each student for each question? Do we
have the time, money, and resources for that level of evaluation? Even if those resources were
available, would this level of assessment be worth using them?
As a mathematician, and true lover of mathematics, it is disappointing to hear my students say
all they care about is the right answer (I remember one who told me she didn’t have time to learn the
material since she was too busy trying to earn an A). I am far more interested in ensuring my students
know HOW the right answer was developed, WHY the answer is reasonable, and WHAT makes the
approach appropriate, applicable, and useful later. I want to engage my students in conversations to
reveal the beauty and richness of mathematics and the history and drama that is part of the field—I
want mathematics to come alive for them.
I look at mathematics as a gateway to logical reasoning and independent thinking. Mathematics
is a field that helps train your mind to look at a problem, consider several approaches, and takes the
steps necessary to arrive at a viable, reasonable solution. Few of us solve complex equations in our free
time; however, all of us solve problems every day—and I’d like to think those of us with training in
mathematics solve our problems more logically (although that’s a study yet to grace my desk…)
But I am also realistic, knowing the type of instruction I’m describing is time consuming and
demanding, requiring from student and teacher alike a willingness to engage in the educational
process and dialogue, not to mention the sweat of calculations, in an era expecting quick results and
immediate feedback, in classrooms with 30 students of varying interest and energy. Perhaps distilling
mathematics to a group of possible answers is the only reasonable approach to assessment given the
constraints of the world in which we live. What, then, can be done to balance the ideal and the real?
The pragmatic part of me recognizes as long as this question remains unanswered, my inbox will
continue to be filled with eager doctoral students hoping their studies will help reveal “the answer.”
And in shepherding my students through the dissertation process, perhaps a solution really will
emerge.
References
Alsup, J. K., & Sprigler, M. J. (2003). A comparison of traditional and reform Mathematics curricula in an
eighth-grade classroom. Education, 123(4), 689-694.
Anastasiow, N. J., Sibley, S. A., Leonhardt, T. M., & Borich G. D. (1970). A comparison of guided discovery, and didactic teaching of pre-math concepts to kindergarten poverty children. American Educational Research Journal, 7(4), 493-510.
Beene, R. (2009). Detroit's public schools post worst scores on record in national assessment. Retrieved
September 1, 2012 from http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20091208/FREE/912089997/detroitspublic-schools-post-worst-scores-on-record-in-national-assessment#.
Colvin, R. (1999). Math wars: Tradition vs. real-world applications. In E. McEwan, The principal’s guide to
raising math achievement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Computing Technology for Math Excellence. (2007). Math Methodology. Retrieved August 31, 2012
from http://www.ct4me.net/math_methodology.htm.
Confrey, J. (2006). Comparing and contrasting the National Research Council report on evaluating curricular effectiveness with the What Works Clearinghouse approach. Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, 28(3), 195 – 213.
13