The field of mathematics education has engaged in perennial debate about whether transmission-oriented or constructivist approaches to teaching will best help students learn. Yet, both fluency, learned through step-by-step procedural instruction, and the mathematical flexibility that comes from constructivist methods play an important role in mathematical achievement. Rachel S. McClam and Rebecca A. Cruz explain that the math wars debate acts as a straw man, with each side misrepresenting the other and detracting from what students really need — but often lack — to be successful in math: teachers who understand how both approaches work together to support students to become confident and knowledgeable mathematicians.
BanesL.C.AmbroseR.C.BayleyR.RestaniR.M.MartinH.A. (2018). Mathematical classroom discussion as an equitable practice: Effects on elementary English learners’ performance. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 17 (6), 416-433.
2.
BallD.L.LubienskiS.T.MewbornD.S. (2001). Research on teaching mathematics: The unsolved problem of teachers’ mathematical knowledge. In RichardsonV. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 433-456). Macmillan.
3.
BallD.L.ThamesM.H.PhelpsG. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special?Journal of Teacher Education, 59 (5), 389-407.
4.
BarshayJ. (2023, May8). Proof points: How a debate over the science of math could reignite the math wars. The Hechinger Report.
5.
BeckerJ.P.JacobB. (2000). The politics of California school mathematics: The anti-reform of 1997-99. Phi Delta Kappan, 82, 529537.
6.
BlazarD. (2015). Effective teaching in elementary mathematics: Identifying classroom practices that support student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 48, 16-29.
7.
BlumeH.WatanabeT. (2023, July12). California approves math overhaul to help struggling students. But will it hurt whiz kids?Los Angeles Times.
8.
BoalerJ. (2014). Research suggests timed tests cause math anxiety. Teaching Children Mathematics, 20 (8), 469-474.
9.
BransfordJ.Darling-HammondL.LePageP. (2005). Introduction. In Darling-HammondL.BransfordJ. (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 1-39). Jossey-Bass.
10.
BrewerD.J.GoldhaberD.D. (2000). Improving longitudinal data on student achievement: Some lessons from recent research using NELS: 88. Analytic Issues in the Assessment of Student Achievement [Research seminar proceedings]. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Institute on Student Achievement, Curriculum, and Assessment & RAND.
11.
BursalM.PaznokasL. (2006). Mathematics anxiety and preservice elementary teachers’ confidence to teach mathematics and science. School Science and Mathematics, 106 (4), 173-180.
12.
Calabrese BartonA.TanE. (2020). Beyond equity as inclusion: A framework of “rightful presence” for guiding justice-oriented studies in teaching and learning. Educational Researcher, 49 (6), 433-440.
13.
Copur-GencturkY.LiJ. (2023). Teaching matters: A longitudinal study of mathematics teachers’ knowledge growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 121, Article 103949.
14.
Copur-GencturkY.TolarT. (2022). Mathematics teaching expertise: A study of the dimensionality of content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and content-specific noticing skills. Teaching and Teacher Education, 114, Article 103696.
15.
DepaepeF.VerschafelL.StarJ. (2020). Expertise in developing students’ expertise in mathematics: Bridging teachers’ professional knowledge and instructional quality. ZDM - Mathematics Education, 52, 179-192.
16.
GanleyC.M.SchoenR.C.LaVeniaM.TazazA.M. (2019). The construct validation of the math anxiety scale for teachers. AERA Open, 5 (1).
17.
GardnerD.P.LarsenY.W.BakerW.O.CampbellA.CrosbyE.A.FosterC.A.Jr.FrancisN.C.GiamattiA.B.GordonS.HaderleinR.V.HoltonG.KirkA.Y.MarstonM.S.QuieA.H.SanchezF.D.Jr.SeaborgG.T.SommerJ.WallaceR. (1983). A nation at risk. U.S. National Commission on Excellence in Education.
18.
GrossmanP.McDonaldM. (2008). Back to the future: Directions for research in teaching and teacher education. American Educational Research Journal, 45 (1), 184-205.
19.
HillH.C.BallD.L.ShillingS.G. (2008). Unpacking pedagogical content knowledge: Conceptualizing and measuring teachers’ topic-specific knowledge of students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39 (4), 372-400.
20.
HillH.C.RowanB.BallD.L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42 (2), 371-406.
21.
HornI.GarnerB. (2022). Teacher learning of ambitious and equitable mathematics instruction: A sociocultural approach. Routledge.
22.
JordanN.C.GluttingJ.RamineniC. (2010). The importance of number sense to mathematics achievement in first and third grades. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 82-88.
23.
KarpickeJ.D.RoedigerH.L.III (2008). The critical importance of retrieval for learning. Science, 319, 966-968.
24.
KnightJ. (2002). Crossing boundaries: What constructivists can teach intensive-explicit instructors and vice versa. Focus on Exceptional Children, 35 (4), 1-16.
25.
LambertR. (2018). “Indefensible, illogical, and unsupported”: Countering deficit mythologies about the potential of students with learning disabilities in mathematics. Education Sciences, 8 (2), 72-80.
26.
LiY.SchoenfeldA.H. (2019). Problematizing teaching and learning mathematics as “given” in STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 6, Article 44.
LuttenbergerS.WimmerS.PaechterM. (2018). Spotlight on math anxiety. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 11, 311-322.
29.
MervisJ. (2006). Finding common ground in the U.S. math wars. Science, 312, 988-990.
30.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). How people learn II: Learners, contexts, and cultures. The National Academies Press.
31.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics.
32.
NaraianS. (2019). Teaching for “real”: Reconciling explicit literacy instruction with inclusive pedagogy in a fourth-grade urban classroom. Urban Education, 54 (10), 1581-1607.
33.
O’DwyerL.M.WangY.ShieldsK.A. (2015). Teaching for conceptual understanding: A cross-national comparison of the relationship between teachers’ instructional practices and student achievement in mathematics. Large-scale Assessment in Education, 3 (1), 1-30.
34.
PhelpsG.HowellH.LiuS. (2020). Exploring differences in mathematical knowledge for teaching for prospective and practicing teachers. ZDM- Mathematics Education, 52, 255-268.
35.
PincheiraN.AlsinaA. (2021). Teachers’ mathematics knowledge for teaching early algebra: A systematic review from the MKT perspective. Mathematics, 9, Article 2590.
36.
PowellS.R.HughesE.M.PeltierC. (2022). Myths that undermine maths teaching (Analysis paper 38). The Centre for Independent Studies.
37.
SawyerR.K. (2006). Introduction: The new science of learning. In R.K.
38.
Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 1-18). Cambridge University Press.
39.
SchaefferM.W.RozekC.S.MaloneyE.A.BerkowitzT.LevineS.C.BeilockS.L. (2021). Elementary school teachers’ math anxiety and students’ math learning: A large-scale replication. Developmental Science, 24 (4), e13080.
40.
SchoenfeldA.H. (2004). The math wars. Educational Policy, 18 (1), 253286.
41.
SchoenfeldA.H. (2016). Research in mathematics education. Review of Research in Education, 40, 497-528.
42.
SchoenfeldA.H. (2020). Reframing teacher knowledge: A research and development agenda. ZDM- Mathematics Education, 52, 359-376.
43.
ShulmanL.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15 (2), 4-14.
44.
ShulmanL.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57 (1), 1-23.
45.
SchwartzS. (2023, September29). Do future teachers have math anxiety? Their university instructors think so. Education Week.
46.
SutcherL.Darling-HammondL.Carver-ThomasD. (2019). Understanding teacher shortages: An analysis of teacher supply and demand in the United States. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 27 (35), 1-40.
47.
YigK.G. (2022). Research trends in mathematics education: A quantitative content analysis of major journals 2017-2021. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 6 (3), 137-153.
