The Next 10 Years

Trends for
Mathematics
Education
Wilfred E. Boykin

WE HAVE ALL HEARD about the new

.
math. In fact, we probably have heard just
enough to have mixed feelings about its in-
tent and purpose, and to justifiably reject or
accept parts of it.
And there may be an even newer math
Before offering some for the next decade. As many people see it
thoughts on the now, what was known as the new math is
direction mathematics headed for a quick demise. If the coming
education might take trends are to make sense it is important for
in years to come, this
us to look back about two decades and re-
author reviews the
view the development of mathematics edu-
events of the past 20 cation.
years.
A Review of New Math
Noticeable changes began taking place in
mathematics education about 1958, coin-
cidental with but not entirely the result of the
launching of the Russian Sputnik. The time
was ripe for the examination of the various
curricula and for redefining what was meant
by education of the individual to function
best in a changing society.
The Russians must have been doing
something extraordinary to orbit the earth.

Wilfred E. Boykin is associate professor of ap-

plied mathematics at Central Connecticut State
College, New Britain.

101
102

What was it? What werent we doing? Was it the fault of the educational
system that we were behind?
Also at about this time the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
made a concerted effort to establish committees to review the status of
mathematics education. Perhaps the launching of Sputnik was crucial in
providing the impetus needed for both private and governmental groups to
actually put these recommendations into effect.
Funds were provided to review existing math programs and to change
the status of mathematics teaching. It was time not only for mathematics
educators but for all educators to ask questions relevant to how children
learn and to develop programs in response to these questions. Although at
first the greatest impact was felt in the areas of science, math, and foreign
language, no area of the curriculum was left untouched or unchanged.
Specifically, in the area of mathematics, numerous programs hit the mar-
ket overnight. Some were good, some bad, but the word &dquo;new&dquo; was the
slogan for the day. New meant modern to most people, the opposite of
traditional, which to these same people meant old-fashioned, and who
would not be modern in preference to being old-fashioned? New math was
born. The founding fathers had the right idea regarding curriculum devel-
opment. In on this development from the very beginning were university
professors of mathematics, professors of educational psychology, learning
theorists, and classroom teachers from K-12-although it was thought that
the committees were weighted more heavily on the mathematics side.
Their intent was to develop curriculum materials written with a new
psychology of teaching and learning which would be appropriate for all
students of mathematics. Previously, many mathematics educators thought
mathematics was a body of knowledge which was to be transmitted and
learned in a deductive manner; these founding fathers were out to change
that.

Three Basic Questions

At the very heart of the curriculum change were three basic questions:
1. How do children learn mathematics? Is there a progression from con-
crete to semi-concrete to abstract?
2. What topics are appropriate? Should historical topics be included in
the text to show how mathematics developed into its present form?
Specifically, why was base 10 used? Should we include the teaching
of logic to teach children how to reason in mathematics?
3. When should topics be learned? Should sets be introduced in kinder-
garten ? Should geometry follow Algebra I or II?
And, along with these questions was the ever present notion that children
 103

could learn more mathematics than educators and traditionalists had

previously thought possible.
With the monies available institutions began developing their math pro-
grams : Yale with SMSG-School Mathematics Study Group; The Univer-
sity of Illinois with UICSM; local school systems like Cleveland, Ohio, which
developed GCMP, Greater Cleveland Math Program, and numerous
others. Present math series which enjoy wide acceptance have developed
their materials using many recommendations of these mathematics cur-
riculum projects.
Along with these developments in curricula came many research
studies. Studies were designed to demonstrate the efficacy of the new pro-
grams : i.e., to demonstrate that students in new programs did as well on
achievement tests as students in traditional classes.
Studies were designed to place mathematics topics in different
sequence. In one study multiplication was taught before subtraction. Plane
geometry could be taught immediately after first year algebra.
Studies were designed to investigate the teaching of mathematics using
different approaches. Could mathematics be taught effectively using a dis-
covery approach, a deductive or inductive approach, an empirical ap-
proach, and an experimental or exploratory approach, or a creative ap-
proach ? Could mathematics be taught from a historical approach? Studies
were designed to teach more math to more students earlier in the K-12

years.

.
Change Was Everywhere
The changes in mathematics were not unique. At about the same time
that these changes were taking place, similar changes were taking place in
other areas of the curriculum. The recent developments in science were re-
flected in changes in both textbooks and courses; questions were being
asked about course integration. Were chemistry and biology, for example,
two mutually exclusive courses or was there some common thread? Out-
growths of questions such as these formed the foundations of BSCS bio-
logy, PSSC physics, and others.
The work Fenton did in social studies with an inquiry approach led
many to teach social studies using game strategies. The stock market, the
world economy, and the election of government officials were games used
in the social science curriculum. Foreign language laboratories were placed
in schools; it was not uncommon to find French or Spanish speaking
people employed to introduce youngsters to foreign language early in the
grades-clearly a departure from the traditional plan of introducing lan-
guage in tenth grade or later where it was often taught in a traditional
approach and not by using the proposed audio-lingual new method.
104

In isolated cases schools would adopt a K-12 curriculum overnight.

Some programs pinpointed specific problem areas and zeroed in on writ-
ing materials for problem students. Some of these programs were unjudi-
ciously thrust upon the schools. In an eighth grade math class, for example,
students had the second in the University of Maryland series of books for
eighth grade without ever having seen the seventh grade book-certainly
an unusual way to change a curriculum.
Math in the early grades was taught using novel approaches: games and
activities were used: and lessons were taught using discovery methods, ex-
perimentation, use of colorful Cuisenaire Rods, Dienes Blocks. Often many
different approaches were used in a single classroom in the teaching of a
single topic. The intent was to make math real and exciting and relevant to
the childrens lives (whatever that meant).
A second area of concern was the psychology of learning. Not only was
the question of what content was worth learning being asked, but also
questions of why and how should certain content be introduced.
Programed instruction and improved technology gave much hope to
schools in terms of disseminating and providing innovative materials to stu-
dents. What could be taught by a teacher could be taught by media (it was
thought), provided the subject matter could be broken down into small
enough subtopics. Teachers could be freed from normal classroom activi-
ties to work with special projects and thus spend more time with individual
students. Computer-assisted instruction and computer-oriented instruction
were introduced into the schools.
Other attempts at individualizing instruction impacted on the mathema-
tics curriculum. Various school systems purchased complete sets of instruc-
tional materials for grades K-8. Many of these materials were presented in a
series of modules. On completion of a module, the student would take a
test. If he passed, he was directed to another module. If he failed, he re-
worked that module, or one similar to it, and then took the test again. Al-
though this procedure appeared theoretically sound, it was more favorably
accepted by the very capable students than by others. Slower students with
reading and math difficulties who were not keen on learning by themselves
were less enthusiastic.
The schools, on the other hand, had problems deciding what to do with
a student after he had completed one of these prescribed programs.
Another problem was that of channeling a student into the mainstream of
education after he had been in a &dquo;self-initiative&dquo; program.
Prior to 1963, the majority of schools were implementing the new
mathematics program, training teachers to teach this new math, or devel-
oping special programs which were designed to meet special needs of stu-
dents. In mathematics, in particular, there were attempts to design curricula
which used as their basic criteria the following ideas:
 105

~
Any topic can be learned through a game approach-specifically, a
chip trading game to teach place value; fraction bars for teaching frac-
tions ; colorful rods to teach many diverse topics; and Dienes blocks to
teach place value and some mathematics of bases.
~
Any idea can be broken down into very fine, small steps and when-
ever these smaller steps are mastered, then the total concept has a
very good chance of being understood.

Re-Opening Pandoras Box

In the summer of 63, Pandoras box was opened again. The Cambridge
Conference on School Mathematics (CCSM) proposed a most ambitious
curriculum in answer, for the most part, to the question of what mathema-
tics was needed for the 70s. Two tracts were proposed. One was essenti-
ally an updated version of the previous thinking in college prep mathema-
tics education, and the other program would downgrade placement of
selected topics in mathematics in order that a high school graduate would
understand mathematics on the level of a college sophomore. In imple-
menting this latter program, first and second year calculus would be taught
in high school along with basic ideas of probability and statistics.
Although this curriculum proposal seemed rather ambitious, some
schools did in fact adopt many of its recommendations. Developers at
Columbia University were instrumental in designing a curriculum,
SSMCIS, which did just what CCSM proposed. They suggested the pos-
sibility of designing a math program which cut across course content lines:
there would be no first year algebra per se; the function concept was the
common thread interwoven in all 7-12 mathematics. Specifically, where

probability was once thought of as a senior course, now it was introduced

along with other content in seventh, eighth, and ninth grades. One outcry
in the negative column was heard from the college teachers of calculus
who considered calculus as their domain; many thought that high school
teachers did not know enough mathematics to teach calculus. Even if they
did, they could not teach it in the right way.
During the late 60s something else happened. Students rioted; many
faculty members discovered that neither the curriculum nor course content
was sacrosanct. Students were demanding courses that were interesting
and relevant (whatever that meant) and faculty who would relate to them.
Courses that would cause a liberal arts academician to blush were becom-
ing an integral part of the curriculum. Students overplayed their desire for
electives and wanted to fill their programs with as many gut courses as pos-
sible.
In the remaining years up to 1976 the pendulum has almost made a
complete swing. New math has been degraded to a position quite low on
106

the scale. SAT scores have been declining for the past 12 years, and those
disenchanted with new math hypothesize it to be one of the causes that
computational skills are almost nonexistent for some operations for some
groups of people.
In brief, a lesson was learned the hard way. We are now forced to look at
the curriculum in a different way-from innovation to accountability. The
panaceas that were wholeheartedly accepted as answers to all our prob-
lems in the teaching of mathematics failed to produce the outcomes that
were promised. Many schools that used electives failed to deliver in their
fundamental promise to parents to teach the children how to read a simple
article, write a lucid paragraph, or to add, subtract, multiply, or divide using
small numbers.
Prevalent in the 60s was the attitude that electives would work because
teenagers who selected their own courses and instructors would be more
interested in their classwork. That may have been the case, but what about
achievement? It has been hypothesized that the declining abilities of stu-
dents to compute, to write, and to problem-solve were the result of too
many innovative programs.
In mathematics there are attempts to examine with critical eyes many of
those innovative programs of the 60s, and if the past two years are any in-
dication of the direction of math for the 70s and 80s, new math is on its
way to a quick death.
Where the first longitudinal study of SMSG showed that the new mathe-
matics was not detrimental for students, the second longitudinal study
came up with some rather astounding answers to questions about studying
the new mathematics. Three of these follow:
1. The most important single medium in the educational process is the
textbook-printed material. That is, if a topic is not included in a text,
dont expect a student to learn it.
2. We still do not know what kind of person makes the best teacher.
That is, different kinds of teachers use different kinds of approaches,
and there appear to be no major differences in their students
achievement.
3. No one method is superior to any other method at least in the teach-

ing mathematics for understanding.

of
Perhaps the failure of the new math was not a fault of the content alone.
Perhaps the present trend of discrediting the new math stems from a lack
of understanding of the basic aims of the programs. This author has found
that most teacher candidates or inservice teachers are resistent to any kind
of change in their methodology. If they were taught by a lecture method
they assume they can teach likewise. If they were taught by a traditional
 107

method, then although they contend they embrace a discovery approach,

or newer approaches, they traditional method. Very few teachers of
use a
mathematics look on what they are teaching in terms of the total math pro-
gram. The massive job of educating math teachers in the new math failed
to change the very ones who could make new math work.
The open classroom concept, a contract approach, an integrated cur-
riculum, and individualized programs minimized practice of the very skills
fundamental to understanding mathematics. One other reason for less
than adequate results from work with new math arose from only partial
acceptance of the development of topics. If you have had opportunity to
observe the steps in teaching long division, you will appreciate the pre-
requisite understandings which lead to estimation of the quotient. The im-
patient teacher who disregards most of the theories of how children learn
mathematics and who in turn skips steps or even substitutes his own short-
cuts is destroying the very curriculum he is supposed to teach.

What About the Future?

With this development before us and with many unanswered questions
about new math, what would be the direction for math education for the
next decade?
It is difficult to state any definite trends for the next few years, yet the fol-
lowing appear to be the direction of mathematics education:
1. K-7 teachers want more drill-oriented materials. Even proponents
of an open classroom set-up want to provide for drill of basic facts.
Many series of textbooks and educational materials reflect this,
especially in their back-to-basics approach.
2. In order to reeducate those students who are deficient in math skills
(as well as reading skills), remedial courses are being offered on the
college level either as non-credit or partial credit courses.
3. The useof computers and calculators is receiving wide acceptance
not onlyas supplements to the classroom but also as actual teach-

ing devices.
4. With the advent of alternative schools much attention is being given
to the integration of math with life-related activities. Interest in the
environment within the past few years has prompted teachers to
plan broad curriculum projects which cut across all subject lines in
an attempt to integrate the curriculum. Learning takes place inside
and outside of the classroom unit.
5. College credit courses for advanced placement are receiving wide
acceptance in many high schools. Summer programs for the aca-
108

demically talented as well as for the educationally deprived are

being offered. Math and English skills appear to be of most concern.
6. Increasing emphasis is being placed on statistical procedures for
courses in economics, marketing, biology, and psychology. The
same is true for a cookbook vs. theoretical type general calculus
course for social science and business majors. Additional mathe-
matics courses arebeing required of students, not only in science
and math but in other disciplines as well.
7. Within the next few years, at least, math teachers in the states will
attempt to focus on aspects of the Metric System. Courses will be di-
rected to both adults and students and hopefully have a metricated
population when the U.S. finally goes metric.
8. With monies for special projects or expensive materials in short
supply there is a tendency for teachers to look for inexpensive yet
educationally sound materials to use with their classes.
9. There are new programs being developed in mathematics educa-
tion. There are fewer programs than before, but the quality appears
to be higher than that of the traditional mathematics program.

10 The trend is toward accountability. Some schools are implementing

testing programs at different places throughout the grades. Second
graders are tested on knowledge of fundamentals; if they fail, they
are retained. The same is relative to junior high. In some schools
there is talk of awarding certificates rather than diplomas to those
who are hopelessly deficient in knowledge of basic skills.
11. Unique with mathematics, I believe, is not only a strong (perhaps
the strongest) national educational organization, NCTM, but also an
international organization, ICME, which were both founded to ex-
plore relevant issues in mathematics teaching on a global level. Sub-
groups meet periodically to discuss issues in teaching mathematics.

12. There appears to be a great deal of revision and rewriting of text-

books for the elementary school. Topics in mathematics are intro-
duced later in the sequence than previously. Topics are developed
at a slower rate. Some topics are omitted. Many topics enjoy a tradi-
tional approach utilizing only a whiff of concept development. It
appears that the texts for high schools will not receive the same
degree of revision as elementary ones-especially at an equal rate.
In spite of the fact that &dquo;new&dquo; math is supposedly on its way out, I believe
that many of the basic ideas will be with us for years. Perhaps there will be
more emphasis on drill and mastery of basic facts in conjunction with the
 109

new math topics. Nevertheless,

once teachers have taught new math con-
tent and structure, it ishighly unlikely that they will subscribe to excessive
drill. Concept development, as I see it, is the main thrust of the new math
movement.