If you begin reading about the “math wars” on websites that are either promoting or attacking programs like “Investigations” (see links at the right side of this page for a sampling of these), you’re very likely to be confused at first about the names used to describe the programs. Here’s a list of the ones I have seen used most frequently:
- “Standards-based math”: This name comes from the fact that many of these curricula were developed to be in accordance with the standards document published by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics that was published in 1989. This document is available on the NCTM web site, but you need to be an NCTM member to view it.
- “Reform math”: The NCTM standards were developed in response to “A Nation at Risk”, a 1983 report calling for reform in American education.
- “Conceptual math”: The developers and publishers of these programs would have you believe that their products do a better job of helping kids to understand math concepts than the alternatives that promote “mindless” drilling and rote memorization (“drill and kill” is the oft-repeated name for this). Classifying programs like “Investigations” this way is brilliant marketing, but it’s also just plain misleading. Take a look at what kids do in Singapore Math for example and you’ll see that there is plenty of attention paid to conceptual understanding, but there is also a reasonable amount of practice and there is no shying away from the traditional “algorithms” (e.g., carrying for addition and borrowing for subtraction). Calling your math program “conceptual”, “standards-based”, or “reform” is great marketing because it implies that programs that aren’t like yours don’t teach in a conceptual way, aren’t based on standards, and don’t embody reform, and who would want a program like that? What parent who’s not familiar with all the nuances of the math debate would be opposed to a program that is “conceptual”?
- “Fuzzy math”: This is a pejorative term used by some who are opposed to programs like “Investigations”, perhaps because of their emphasis on explanations and de-emphasis of computational skills.
- “New new math”: A reference to an earlier attempt at reform in the U.S. in the 1960s, the “New Math”. Also a bit of a put-down, since the New Math eventually fell out of favor.
- “Constructivist math”: So-called because programs like “Investigations” draw heavily on the ideas of constructivism, the theory that we generate our own knowledge best through experience, and such programs often have students trying to figure out their own ways of solving problems while the teacher serves as a “facilitator” rather than someone who provides direct instruction. To me, “constructivist math” is the most accurate description of these programs. It says what they are, distinguishes them from what they are not, and doesn’t hurt anyone’s feelings.
Did I miss any? What’s your preferred term?
