Talk:Mathematics education

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 August 2021 and 11 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bmart20.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

This

This page is pretty rampant with non-NPOV sentiments, isn't it? -Chinju

Maybe. Why don't you try to fix it? :P wshun 21:39, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Mathematics education in Australia

I propose that the orphaned article Mathematics education in Australia be merged into this one, perhaps in a section highlighting mathematics education in various countries around the world. I don't feel the other article deserves its own place (the orphan status should be evidence enough of that). --JStalk 19:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. While such a section in this article would be an excellent addition, it would take a lot of research to write intelligently, and I'm not sure that a broad comparison should include even the scant amount of detail found at Mathematics education in Australia. I created that article as an outlet for those students who feel compelled to write Wikipedia articles on Applicable mathematics, Maths X, and what have you. You're welcome to AfD the poor thing; I'll probably vote weak keep without much conviction! Melchoir 19:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Weren't there articles on Maths A, Maths B etc. a few days ago? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to merge their content into Mathematics education in Australia (which would then be long enough to justify its independent existence)? —Blotwell 19:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep, they were deleted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maths A. It was charged that they were inaccurate and/or promotional, so I'm not sure that their content should have been merged. Melchoir 19:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Since this is no longer about Mathematics education I'm going to reply on "in Australia"'s talk page. --JStalk 19:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Collected U.S. material into one section

There were chunks of material about controversies in modern U.S. mathematics education scatterd throughout the article. This broke up the flow of the article and made it difficult to read. I have re-arranged the article to collect all the material about modern U.S. mathematics education into one section. I did not attempt to edit any of this material - I have just done a cut-and-paste job. It would be a good idea if someone edited this section to remove duplication and make it more NPOV - but please keep it all together in one place. Gandalf61 11:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

If the section contains no general insterest for "Mathematics education", than the material should be moved to a US specific article.--SummerWithMorons 12:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest spinning of one or two articles, either just history of mathematics education, or this and history of mathematics instruction in the United States, which would address the controversy, currently covered by what I see as the overly specific articles math wars, traditional mathematics, and reform math (note the inconsistent use of math/mathematics). Dialectric (talk) 23:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that mathematics education and research all over the world are somewhat connected, but it seems that if the "deep" coverage is US-centric, then starting another page particularly for the US would be the best way of handling it. I'd be more than willing to head this move up, if others think it's a good move. Therealcaro (talk) 07:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I have started a math education for the US page at Mathematics Education in the United States, and removed the information here that stuck out awkwardly, and placed it there. Thanks, Therealcaro (talk) 03:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I moved the new US page to Mathematics education in the United States to conform to page title conventions. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Van Hiele

The comment about van Hiele Levels was completely erroneous, so I removed it. The Van Hiele model only applies to geometry and is NOT age-dependent. Seberle 16:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Differences between countries

I think it should be written that some countries are far behind others when it comes to level of math. Just yesterday I found out a friend of mine who left Israel and went to Singapore several years ago, started learning in tenth grade material which is learned in Israel only in the university. And he's not attending a geniuses' school (it's a private one, but it works according to some international standard). There is a lad from China who's learning with me in the same math class (5 units) material he learned in China when he was a ninth grader (we're now 11th graders). Siúnrá (talk) 10:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This is really interesting. Perhaps you could find some sources and write about it? DoomedToBeTeaching (talk) 11:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Making mathematics articles more accessible to a general readership

Please visit Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Easy as pi? to see a discussion about making mathematics articles more accessible to a general readership.

-- Wavelength (talk) 17:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It has been archived at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 35#Easy as pi?.

-- Wavelength (talk) 15:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

David O. Tall

I would appreciate some help improving the article and perhaps including a mention at this page. Katzmik (talk) 17:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Mary P. Dolciani

Okay, I feel pretty silly--I didn't even see that Polya was already listed under Mathematics Educators. Sorry!

I was thinking about including Mary P. Dolciani in the Mathematics Educators list. Any objections or comments? Regards, CinchBug | Talk 21:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

No objections here, but at the risk of making the list unnecessarily long or US-focused, this would be my list of the five most influential mathematics educators of the past 50 years in the U.S.: Max Beberman, Edward Begle, Mary Dolciani, John Saxon, and Thomas Romberg. Downclimb (talk) 08:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Math vs. Mathematics

Re: Dialectric's comment, I've attempted to change all mentions of "math" to "mathematics," which does seem to help the flow. Therealcaro (talk) 07:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

footnote

This seems like an interesting report: "Richard Scheaffer, ed. Working Group on Statistics in Mathematics Education Research (Richard Scheaffer, Martha Aliaga, Marie Diener-West, Joan Garfield, Traci Higgins, Sterling Hilton, Gerunda Hughes, Brian Junker, Henry Kepner, Jeremy Kilpatrick, Richard Lehrer, Frank K. Lester, Ingram Olkin, Dennis Pearl, Alan Schoenfeld, Juliet Shaffer, Edward Silver, William Smith, F. Michael Speed, and Patrick Thompson, Using Statistics Effectively in Mathematics Education Research: A report from a series of workshops organized by the American Statistical Association with funding from the National Science Foundation. The American Statistical Association, 2007", but I am not sure why it appears as a footnote twice? Tkuvho (talk) 08:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I inserted the footnote late in Sweden, and it's late again, so pardon my brevity. I thank the other editors for creating a section on "debates", which I shortened today, along with trying to correct some strawmen misrepresentations of Cook, etc.

I would urge the editors to consider deleting the Sokalled "article" by Lather, from which I quote:

"This militantly empiricist and quantitative movement, this desire for hardness with its claims to produce findings that are verifiable, definitive and cumulative, is set against a softness where interpretation is central and findings are always subject to debate and reinterpretation (Gherardi & Turner, 2002). French feminist theory is premised on the idea that the classic structure is splitting and opening to becoming and that this becoming will be initiated primarily by women as men have more to lose. Irigaray’s (1985) argument is based on psychoanalytic theory. Her concern is that we have so naturalized masculinized language and logic that we do not see the practical aspects of such domination. Regimes of power and systems of philosophy are designed to ‘penetrate,’ interventions are engineered, ‘we encourage one another to be “hard” on issues’ (Olkowski, 2000, p. 92).

[The grand finale:] "Foucault writes of the ‘absolute optimism’ of ‘a thousand things to do’ (1991, p. 174) in our constant struggle against the very rules of reason and practice inscribed in the effects of power of the social sciences. For those attentive to the demands of different contexts and different communities, this is our moment to act in the struggle for an applied social science that can engage strategically with the limits and the possibilities of the uses of research for social policy toward the improvement of practice."

The article by Howe is almost as bad,

[From the abstract] "Neoclassical experimentalism is little more than a throwback to the Campbell-Stanley era and its dogmatic adherence to an exclusive reliance on quantitative methods."

and deserves deletion on the same premise: Wikipedia sources must be reliable, not exhibits from a freak show. Thanks Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 20:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the great edits. Feel free to replace the Lather article (and Howe) with something better (or delete that Lather sentence entirely). Lather is not my cup of tea, but she is very popular in some circles and I'm just trying to be fair to all viewpoints. I had to make one change where you inserted the comment < !-- Avoid Original Research about heated discussion following report; a citation to a reliable source is needed -- >. You are right about POV words like "heated discussion". However, it is not original research -- the footnote IS the reference to the debate about the NMAP report and the footnote does not make sense without some reference to the debate the NMAP report caused in the referring sentence. This debate is extremely important (much more so than the Lather article!) as it represents a fairly serious divide in the research community.--seberle (talk) 00:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

This has been a very helpful and productive editing experience. I am especially grateful for Seberle's kind words, given my cutting of the introductory paragraph on qualitative versus quantitative methods (which was a good and fair minded representation of the quantitative/qualitative apartheid ), and my severe remark about the Howe and Lather articles (above). Thanks!Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 17:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Suggested paragraph

Here is the current final paragraph on the rarity of experiments:

The fact remains that randomized experiments have been rare in the evaluation of teaching methods in recent decades. Indeed, the desirability of randomized experiments has been questioned. For decades, scholars in educational schools have raised objections against randomized experiments in education. Some researchers have claimed that an expectation that research methods be subjected to randomized experiments is influential particularly in the United States. Arguments against randomized experiments continue; such criticisms argue that randomized trials are flawed or of limited usefulness in educational studies Almost all participants in the debates agree that randomized experiments need to be combined with observational studies.. The National Mathematics Advisory Panel published its report based on only studies using randomized experiments, which received criticism from some researchers.

In education research, the current near exclusive teaching & use of qualitative research methods means that any use of randomized trials is attacked on ideological grounds. Nobody says that randomized experiments are perfect. The statisticians and scientists want to do some randomized experiments in education, just like in psychology, public health, economics, etc. Nobody has argued for stopping observational studies and qualitative methods, and many statisticians have acknowledged that such studies are invaluable. Why bother quoting people who are opposed to all randomized studies and who are opposed to all "quantitative methods", and who are trying to argue against the value of even a limited number of randomized experiments in schools? Isn't that the current debate? Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 22:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I submit the following paragraph as an improvement: I italize the common wording. I ask for your comments:

The fact remains that randomized experiments have been rare in the evaluation of teaching methods in recent decades. For decades, many scholars in educational schools have raised objections against increasing the number of randomized experiments, often because of philosophical objections to the use of "quantitative" (or alleged "physical-scientific" or "positivist") methods on human subjects. While statisticians have urged an increase in the number of randomized experiments---which again have been rare in most areas of pedagogy and didactics in recent decades---statisticians recognize that observational studies remain valuable in education---just as observational studies remain valuable in epidemiology, political science, economics, etc. [Updated Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 16:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)] In the United States, the National Mathematics Advisory Panel published its report based on only studies using randomized experiments; this report's exclusive reliance on randomized experiments received criticism from some scholars.

This paragraph is shorter and avoids straw-man targets. Thanks Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 16:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for eliminating straw man arguments or poor references! Your paragraph looks good. The only thing it fails to address (and the current paragraph is not much better) is that, even though most researchers agree that conducting more randomized trials is good and all kinds of research is needed, randomized trials to the exclusion of all other research has been privileged in American political decisions and this is creating serious debate in the US. I think it would be good to go with your paragraph, but keep the sentence on the NMAP. We should keep the sentence about the NMAP because (1) it brought the argument to a head in the United States, (2) the reference at the end of that sentence is a good summary of the many objections currently being discussed.

I wish some other editors would chime in here!--seberle (talk) 15:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I am writing from Sweden, and so have limited knowledge of USA debates. I will include some mention of the NMAP law of the USA, per your guidance. As I understand it, then, even though most studies from educational schools or about educational methods are anecdotal/qualitative, the NMAP requires some randomized trials be done and be reported and this requirement was thought to be controversial? Thanks, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 16:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. Wow, we really need a Wikipedia article on the NMAP. No, it's not a law, just a report, but a very influential one setting the direction for future curriculum changes. And it's not just "some" randomized trials, it's "only" randomized trials. The committee decided to base all of their conclusions exclusively on results of randomized trials without any consideration at all of what is known in the field of math education outside of these results. The recommendations of the report were therefore very controversial. This is all related to NCLB which is a law requiring that only programs proven by randomized trials be accepted. Sorry, this is much too brief a summary, and I know this article is international in scope, but it would still be good to have a one sentence mention of the US problem. The debate is being tempered somewhat by the new Common Core Standards (no Wikipedia article on that one yet either) which are due to come out soon. These are based on a much broader range of research. I think your suggested paragraph is fine, if we just keep the current last sentence as an "example" of the current debate. The reference at the end of that sentence is a good one because it summarizes input from many different researchers. --seberle (talk) 21:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I tried to improve a few phrases, particularly the footnote's intelligibility (by itself). Thanks for the feedback. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 23:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

References

Classical education

This description does not fit my understanding of classical education. The classical education link links to Medieval university. I'd like to see more sources.Cliff (talk) 22:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I notice that you tagged the sentence "the teaching of mathematics within the classical education syllabus of the Middle Ages, which was typically based on Euclid's Elements taught as a paradigm of deductive reasoning". Which part do you think is dubious - is it the claim that Euclid's Elements was part of the classical education syllabus (specifically, part of the quadrivium) or the claim that it was tuaght as a paradigm of deductive reasoning ? Gandalf61 (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I question the description of classical education as using a syllabus from the middle ages. Cliff (talk) 16:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

What if we change it to "the teaching of mathematics within the quadrivium education syllabus of the Middle Ages ..." - would that be better ? Gandalf61 (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand either. Cliff, are you protesting the confusion between the modern classical education movement and the Medieval university? Are you protesting the existence of a Medieval syllabus in the modern sense? Are you doubting the status of the quadrivium in the Middle Ages? --seberle (talk) 17:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Now that I understand what was meant by the passage, I've removed the dubious tag. The passage does not, in my opinion, give a clear description of what is meant by a classical mathematics education. Seberle, I do think that we should work toward more distinction between classical education, as understood in its modern usage, and the Medieval University. Do any object to changing the term syllabus to Curriculum? Cliff (talk) 18:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The term "curriculum" would probably be an improvement over "syllabus". I think much of the confusion is connected to the Classical education movement article which confuses the modern movement with Medieval university. (I have noted my concerns on that talk page.) Perhaps in this article we could reword the sentence to make clear which system we are referring to? Thanks for helping clarify this, Cliff. --seberle (talk) 16:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

NCTM

Seberele's edit made this summary:

Citations do not refer to these studies, nor to summaries by NCTM. These citations are already in the general discussion in next section. Citation needed here specifically accusing NCTM of being guilty of reporting poor quality research.

Seberle's comment was misleading.

The citations given preceded the reference to the NCTM. Nobody accused the NCTM of anything.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

My apologies if the comment was misleading. The sentence "Notwithstanding the lack of experimental evidence, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics states that the following results have been established" seemed to me to be implying that the NCTM was depending on non-experimental studies.

My thanks to Kiefer.Wolfowitz for continuing to improve this section. The lead sentences are much better now, but I am still concerned that they are misleading in that position. The two citations concerning the quality of education research are good references for the methodology section. But they are not appropriate for the NCTM summaries, which are based on experimental studies, not "observational studies". I started the research section with some of the firmer experimental findings summarized by NCTM just to get the section started, but my hope is that this section will evolve beyond that initial NCTM list. This should not be a section of NCTM findings, though at the moment those are the only contributions there. Let's delete anything truly controversial or not based on experimental research and add more experimentally-based research. By all means, let's not have any findings based on qualitative research alone.

I will delete the findings on homework because they appear to be controversial (though they are experimental findings). Let's stick to the clearer findings. I will also delete the lead sentence part again because it is implying that the list of findings are not based on experimental research, which is not correct. I believe this issue is already sufficiently discussed for research in general in the Methodology section. I am deleting the NCTM header because this really should not be limited to the NCTM, but if others disagree, feel free to restore it. The header can be removed again once we start broadening this section to represent more research. --seberle (talk) 11:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of non-NCTM reasearch, the finding entitled "What can we learn from research?" has been edited to the point where it no longer represents what is on the NCTM page, so I'm removing the NCTM citation. (So the section is now going beyond NCTM, as it should.) Let's get a better citation for this finding. --seberle (talk) 11:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Seberle,

You cannot delete sourced material on homework so casually. Simon and Anderson have been international leaders in cognitive and experimental psychology.

I'm restoring the material. It's just bizarre to ignore homework.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The research section does seem to be heavily reliant on one source and some of the ways the results are reported are problematic, say Formative assessment is both the best and cheapest way to boost student achievement is far to cut and dried a statement for quite a subjective area. The actual reference is lacking footnote 2 just gives a link to a selection of articles. As the same reference is repeated so many times it would be better to link to the individual item, the Briefs seem more substantial sources than the clips.--Salix (talk): 23:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

>> The New Math method was the topic of one of Tom Lehrer's most popular parody songs, with his introductory remarks to the song: "...in the new approach, as you know, the important thing is to understand what you're doing, rather than to get the right answer."<< The popular culture comics songs are irrevelant to the topic. Please remove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.41.165.149 (talk) 12:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Multiplication and Repeated Addition

Multiplication and Repeated Addition is currently a long, mostly unreferenced essay about methodology in maths education. Any objection to a content merge to this article? Scopecreep (talk) 12:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I never knew the article existed. There's a little bit about this in the lead of Multiplication as well, plus the problem of which side is the multiplier. There were some heated debates on the talk page on that! There may be something that can be merged into that article as well or if it isn't merged a link to the debate at multiplication. Dmcq (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a very new start on this narrow/specialized, but very important topic. Eventually, it may or may not make sense to merge it - but right now it is very much under development. References and links can be added - why not give some time (more than 4 days!) for the group developing this? Henry1776 (talk) 00:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Controversies and Ethics

The controvery section is well annotated, but may benefit from clarification about the ethical issues concerning mathematics education research. The article may benefit from acknowledging origins of these ethical issues, i.e. these ethical considerations may not be those of the community of researchers, but the ethics of the society at large. Legal requirements, such as Institution Review Board requirements, are also not discussed. In the U.S. the issue of ethics is tied to other historical factors of the school system and the way the school system becomes the theater for working out its social problems; with the need to provide the same quality of education to all, researching a new method of learning poses the risk that the research group may not learn as well.

Another controversy that is not indicated in this article is the origin of mathematical education research. Mathematics education research can "start from the top", from university researchers who have an idea for research and bring it to a participating school for study. Alternatively, it can "start from the bottom" where teachers see reason to implement changes and a researcher steps in to document this work. From my understanding, there are international differences in this respect.

Funding is another controversy not addressed. In the U.S., the NSF is the major funder of mathematics education research, but this comes with provisions of the NSF's agenda which has an outline of "what works".

Another controversy in methodology concerns "Action Research". From my understanding, some countries require action research. In terms of thesis requirements for Ed.D. programs in the US, I have heard that action research has become questioned for various ethical reasons concerning the positioning of researcher (as a teacher) and participants; as well as the validity of the results.

Also, what level of knowledge should participants be given about being in a study? Some people say that educational questions can only do minimal harm, but this really is not a simple matter. Near the end of a freshman Calculus class, a researcher gives the professor a test question on linear functions (with no Calculus). The students answer it, not knowing that it is a research study or consenting to participate; they think it is a test for their grade. Many people would immediately say that no harm is done, but in the U.S. college students must pay for their college classes. In effect, they are unknowingly losing the time they paid for instruction. Looking at it differently, they have less hours of instruction to qualify for the same degree requirement; however students in other sections are not given the researcher's exam and had to do more hours of instruction to qualify for the degree requirement.

Unfortunately, I don't know any sources to quote on any of these ideas on the top of my head. Thelema418 (talk) 04:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thelema418, these are all excellent points. I would also like to see the controversy section improved. I would encourage you to write some of them into the article. If you are concerned about missing sources, propose a paragraph here on the talk page. Perhaps someone can improve it and add resources until it's good enough for the article.

I think the points you raise are important and should be included, with the caveat that the controversy section should not get too long (much of the controversy is really over education in general, whereas this article is supposed to be about mathematics education only) and should not be too U.S.-centric. But another paragraph or two would be good, even if they used the U.S. as an example of worldwide controversy. --seberle (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Difficulties in learning mathematics

Some people(students) have genuine difficulties in understanding and grasping mathematics than other theoretical subjects like biology and chemistry. They are inherently weak in quick logical thinking and grasping abstract concepts of maths.You can see some people can do calculations quickly in mind and some have hard time doing the same.It seems to me as one of the reasons why some people dislike or fear maths. Where is this point addressed in the article?. I think this point should be addressed if not already present in the article.

Under the "Mathematical Difficulties" header in the "See also" section, there are links to Wikipedia articles on these subjects. Feel free to add a section in this article on this important topic. --seberle (talk) 20:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Lokesh 2000 (talk) 05:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

(1_x/m) 2401:4900:51DF:C970:5C06:57B7:5A9D:93A7 (talk) 14:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

split Mathematics education research section into its own article

for one thing, it's the only section with subsections in the present article; your thoughts? Fgnievinski (talk) 22:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

My opinion is that there is not enough substance to the research section to make a separate article. We should probably even consolidate a bit to eliminate the subsections. I hope someday there will be more substance, but nothing much has been done with it for a quite a while. --seberle (talk) 16:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Manual tag

A Manual tag was added to the research section. Since many research findings are about what works in teaching, it is difficult to see how to report on such research without reporting on what research has found to work. Please discuss reasons for this tag. I don't see what to fix. seberle (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mathematics education. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081208070250/http://georgetown.edu/faculty/irvinem/theory/McLuhan-Understanding_Media-I-1-7.html to http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/irvinem/theory/McLuhan-Understanding_Media-I-1-7.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Mathematics Education must've Note on bit of Intro

However so Maths is that it makes Science could precise by when it heads up. Its that Mathematics gives the Metrics, not the fact of Actuals.

Its closer to rational behavior of some precision even when Maths Probabilistic Monotony defined by, terms & distribution, and its integration/summation. Bit of Intro required like Binomial Expansion, Polynomial Expansion over our Linear Algebra which could convulse its heads on.

How does our computer world makes Science not by Mathematics rather by clear abstraction study and still tries to advance its ability on Norms which is observed, however it could differ when Astronomy Metrics slightly goes on in different settings, so all got slightly varies by rather. Kind of Mathematics Education why it is important always needs to be rephrased for one who reads in a just a simple grasp.

—Dev Anand Sadasivam^t@lk 23:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mathematics education. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111120085344/http://www.math.unl.edu/~s-kfield1/203currentevent.htm to http://www.math.unl.edu/~s-kfield1/203currentevent.htm%20
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714233214/https://cee.mit.edu/undergraduate/1C-degreerequirements to https://cee.mit.edu/undergraduate/1C-degreerequirements
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040409131958/http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Education/index.html to http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Education/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Standards

Hello, How is the topic of standards in the field of mathematics education included in the lead of the article? Eglegg2019 (talk) 22:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Primary school

I added this:

Counting and comparison are the most basic ideas, which are taught in preschool or early primary school. Arithmetic is a central part of primary school mathematics, beginning with addition and subtraction, followed by multiplication and division. Children in primary school also learn about measurement and shapes. Around ages 11 to 14, most students will learn pre-algebra topics.

And Seberle removed it, saying that it was only relevant to the United States. Are there other countries where students do not learn counting and comparison at a very young age, and then arithmetic, as well as measurement and shapes, in primary school? I thought this must be universal. Is your concern with the word "prealgebra"? —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 17:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Good points. I also struggle with these issues. It would be good if others also discussed this issue.

Part of the problem is a growing presence of U.S.-centric descriptions in this article. Much of this is my fault, and I have been thinking this American content needs to be reduced or put off to the side somewhere. At the very least, edits like this recent one need to mention they are describing U.S. content.

Yes, the term "pre-algebra" is an American catch-all term which doesn't really describe what topics are being learned. Also the choice of what math education focuses on. Each country emphasizes different areas of math. For example, the country where I live considers the core topics of primary mathematics to be geometry, logic, measurement and arithmetic. As another example, the French curriculum does not focus on "counting and comparison" at the beginning, but rather orientation in space, shapes, time, abstract relationships and a psychological understanding of cardinal and ordinal numbers. Other countries orient their programs in still different ways.

Finally, any edit needs references. The deleted edit does not really line up with how the Common Core (the most widely used official standards) describe the primary mathematics curriculum.

I welcome discussion of how we can make this section useful and universal. --seberle (talk) 08:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

White supremacy in Oregon and Ontario

• https://katu.com/news/local/debate-emerges-over-racism-and-white-supremacy-in-math-instruction Xx236 (talk) 09:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
• https://www.tvo.org/article/what-does-an-anti-racist-math-class-look-like Xx236 (talk) 09:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

"Algebra I" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Algebra I and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 4 § Algebra I until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

"Algebra II/Trigonometry" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Algebra II/Trigonometry and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 4 § Algebra II/Trigonometry until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

"Mathematics education effects on the economy of the United States" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Mathematics education effects on the economy of the United States and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 4 § Mathematics education effects on the economy of the United States until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Unnecessary Eurocentrism

Hello,

I’m curious why the leading sentence of this page denotes how the phrase “math education” is labeled in Europe. This is a Eurocentric element, considering math education occurs all over the world, and each geographical region may have a respective term for the subject. Aside from a biased viewpoint, these points should not be in the lead sentence due to cluttering (see MOS:LEADCLUTTER). Zyploc (talk) 19:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

For the countries where the term used is a direct translation of "mathematical education", this is certainly not useful to provide such a translation. Here the European term is far from the English one. So many people who have encountered the two terms may be confused by the fact that they refer to the same thing. This is true for people originated from anywhere in the world, even for American and Chinese ones. D.Lazard (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I am finding this short conversation difficult to follow Where is "Here"? HiLo48 (talk) 23:33, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Here means "in this Wikipedia article" or "in this context". The point is, the subject commonly in America called mathematics education or just math education, is also known by such names mathematical pedagogy or the didactics of mathematics in other parts of the world. –jacobolus (t) 23:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Certainly, I appreciate your input and viewpoint. Perhaps it would be best to conserve the alternative terminologies, but place them in a subsequent sentence or a later section? I have no personal stake in this matter; rather I'd like for the article's style to be as inclusive as possible. Zyploc (talk) 02:17, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

If you have specific other synonyms for this which are reflective of reliable sources, feel free to add those. The point of including synonyms in Wikipedia articles is to help people with different backgrounds understand what the topic is supposed to be about, not to promote particular terminology. –jacobolus (t) 04:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

PISA

The PISA scores should be updated with more recent data which can be found on the main article. Whoever generated the chart in current use left some countries out of the ordering, and also decided to break up US scores by racial background. What's up with that? Don't you think it'd be more appropriate to address that issue on the PISA article, or one of the numerous controversial articles on "race" differences in standardized test scores? Jonathan f1 (talk) 03:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)