|
|
|
About CPM >
Introduction > The National Math Debate
The National Math Debate: How CPM Tips the Scales
Intro | Who | What | When | Where | Why | How
Mathematics education has been in the headlines for several years. Much of the coverage of math
curriculum debates has been reduced to an either/or shouting match between proponents of basic
skills and those who emphasize understanding concepts. Advocates of basics emphasize learning
rules and procedures. Those who stress understanding are characterized as more interested in the
process of mathematics than its content. These descriptions are distorted simplifications of both
positions. Even if true, neither approach, by itself, would prepare American mathematics students
to be successful in a global economy that requires mathematical literacy.
We know that mathematics has, to a large extent, served as an academic filter. Math is usually
presented as material that students either "get" or they don't. A 1995 national survey of the
mathematics taken by high school students shows that while 95% will take Algebra 1, only 60%
enroll in Algebra 2 and a mere 33% survive to take pre-calculus. We simply must do better with all
of our students to provide them with a complete mathematics curriculum.
A complete curriculum includes mastering basic skills and procedures, understanding mathematical
principles, and acquiring problem solving strategies. The CPM program presents mathematical ideas
in contexts that help students make sense of otherwise abstract principles. Students are taught how
to gather and organize information about problems, break problems into smaller parts, and look for
patterns that lead to solutions. Each course is built around several core ideas that are used to
develop related topics, skills and procedures. Students master skills and come to understand ideas
over several days and weeks. Much of their classroom time is spent doing guided investigations–
much like a math lab–that develop ideas in concrete, visual ways. They also apply their learning to
realistic problems that require more than merely mimicking examples of rules.
The Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS) ranked the mathematics
performance of American students near the bottom of the countries in the study. Most revealing from
the report were the results of a video study of classrooms in Japan, Germany, and the United States.
In Japan's structured lessons, students and teachers engage in activities that lead to understanding
the content of the lessons. In German and American classrooms, students sit passively while teachers
tell them what they are supposed to know. Furthermore, they rush through textbooks that have 60,
70, even 80 topics, getting at best superficial exposure to them.
The CPM curriculum, emphasizing core ideas, active student participation in lessons, and consistent
practice of ideas over time predates the recommendations drawn from the TIMSS study by five years.
CPM has offered approaches to learning mathematics that parallel practices in successful countries
since 1989. CPM courses contain the mathematical content required of each course. The teacher-authors
present the material in ways that actively involve students in developing and understanding
ideas. Students improve their study skills and build life-long strategies for solving problems that are
applicable in most academic disciplines, the workplace, and daily life.
|
|
|