[1] The Myth of Im Bad at Math

Kimball, Miles, and Noah Smith. "The Myth of 'I'm Bad at Math'" The Atlantic.
Atlantic Media Company, 28 Oct. 2013. Web. 26 Feb. 2016.

Everyone has the potential to be good at math. The idea that math is an inborn
ability is a myth (well, not quite, some research suggests that everyone is born with
an innate aptitude for math). High school level math is mostly about hard work and
confidence. This stems back to the idea that intelligence is fixed and cannot be
changed that is not true. Research suggests that intelligence is malleable. The
reason this article is focusing on math is 1) because its important and 2) because If
we can convince you that anyone can learn math, it should be a short step to
convincing you that you can learn just about anything, if you work hard enough.
One solution presented is to treat those who work hard in school as heroes or role
models, much like what we already do with sports stars.
This article agrees with [9] and [10] in that students could actually be competent in
math if they truly believe that they have the potential, and not just write it off by
saying oh, Im just not a math person. There is no way they can get good at math
if everyone around them thinks it is okay to hate math. This also hints at [2] by
addressing some of the cultural differences between the United States and
countries whose students excel in math.

[2] Lessons in Perspective: How Culture Shapes

Math instruction in Japan, Germany, and the United
States
Lessons in Perspective: How Culture Shapes Math Instruction in Japan, Germany,
and the United States. Publication. The California State University, June 1997. Web.
24 Mar. 2016.

Japanese teachers take excruciating care in planning lessons. They see the
classroom as a sort of managed confusion. They start out lessons by giving kids a
problem to try to solve with each other that presents a new math concept. The kids
try to figure out the concept on their own based on the problem, and then the
teacher guides them toward the correct method. In contrast, American teachers
have been known to plan lessons in 15 minutes, while some Japanese teachers have
taken over a year just to plan a lesson. What happens is a few teachers get together
and write up a lesson on a concept, and then after extensive testing, it is published
for other teachers to use. This makes Japanese teachers see teaching as expanding

the collective knowledge among teachers, as opposed to American teachers, who

mostly have to learn what works and what doesnt work on their own.
This bit of research sort of serves as an example of the kind of studies that were
used to construct the common core curriculum. It identifies the differences in
teaching between the United States, Germany and Japan, which helps educators to
develop the right curriculum as described in [6].

[3] Five Experts answer: Can your IQ change?

Cox, By Lauren. "5 Experts Answer: Can Your IQ Change?" LiveScience. TechMedia
Network, 09 Feb. 2012. Web. 3 Mar. 2016.
This article provides the opinions of five psychologists about the thought of a
changing IQ: the unanimous answer seems to be yes. The central idea seems to be
that there is no single one IQ, you have several IQs pertaining to different abilities.
IQ tests measure these abilities, so with practice you can get better scores on an IQ
test. There have actually been several studies done where adolescents have
changed their scores by as much as 20 points in either direction. So with practice, it
is perfectly possible for anyone to get smarter in just about any area they like.
This goes hand in hand with what most of the articles have been saying. [10]
confirms the beliefs of those higher scoring children because the research shows
that intelligence is definitely malleable. It is possible to get better at math with
enough work. This agrees with [7] by claiming that the best way to get better, or
smarter in an area is to practice with it. This goes against what [7] claims is
Americans goals, which involve trying to find as many shortcuts as possible. While
it may be possible to study better, there is still no shortcut to sitting down and
giving a subject hard thought.

[4] Standard Algorithms in the Common Core State

Standards
Fuson, Karen C., and Sybilla Beckmann. "Standard Algorithms in the Common Core
State Standards." NCSM Journal 14.2 (n.d.): n. pag. Web. 3 Mar. 2016.

It looks like common core attempts to add on to what students are already learning.
In the case of addition, it seems that students are taught to add on bits of an
addend until they have nothing left. For example, to do 456 + 167, students first do
456 + 100 (leaving 67), then add 50 (leaving 17) then add 10 (leaving 7) then add 7
(leaving nothing), resulting in 623. Students exercise this method in a number of
visual ways, from using different shapes to represent hundreds, tens, and ones, to
using a number line. Students are also taught the vertical way that many were
taught, while using these visual methods to illustrate what happens when you do

something like move an extra 10 over basically it helps to understand place value.
It seems that students are learning the same things, but more in depth.
This agrees with [6]s description of common core, which implied that it allowed
teachers to add on to the traditional methods. This may also both agree and
disagree with [5]. It demonstrates that the new way of doing math is very similar
to the traditional methods, which the parents in [5] cant seem to understand.
This source also shows that students have to know several different methods of
doing the same thing, something which [5] claims is a major issue.

[5] 2+2=What? Parents Rail Against Common Core

Math
Rubinkam, Michael. "2+2=What? Parents Rail Against Common Core Math."NBC4
Washington. NBCUniversal Media, LLC, 15 May 2014. Web. 16 Mar. 2016.

Some parents are claiming that common core standards are making basic
operations as complicated as calculus. It seems that many parents cannot
understand what is going on with their childrens homework. Some experts are
arguing that common core is too complicated for students and that teachers are not
prepared enough to teach it. Officials that run common core claim it is from a
botched implementation and that parents lack the context to understand what is
going on.
This article refutes many pro-common core sources. It claims that the new methods
of teaching math are too complicated for many elementary school students to
understand.

[6] Common Core Standards for Math (video)

Common Core State Standards for Math. Teaching Channel. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Mar.
2016

The common core standards are basically an effort to model our curriculum like
those of higher-performing countries. The goal is to spread out the math
curriculum, have kids learn new concepts at a slower rate. This will, theoretically,
allow teachers to devote more time to explaining the underlying logic to basic math
concepts.
While it may seem like an excellent idea in theory, [5] suggests that it is not
working as well as intended. Something that is missing from this system seems to
be the ways that teachers plan lessons. In [2], Japanese teachers plan lessons over
months, or even years, and after several test runs, they publish the lesson. It is
almost like doing research. To contrast, American teachers might spend an hour
planning a lesson, and even worse, many teachers have to learn the same lessons
the hard way on their own. This suggests that one of the best ways to improve the
system would be to foster a community of teachers where everyone is contributing
to the collective knowledge.

[7] Americans will always suck at math

Horton, Nick. "Common Core: Why Americans Will Always Suck At Math."THE IRON
SAMURAI. N.p., 11 July 2014. Web. 28 Mar. 2016.
Common Core is not solving our fundamental problem with math. The real problem
lies in our culture. We used to teach mathematics in a traditional way thats
because it worked. Common core sort of adds to the traditional method. It helps
show kids how varied math can get. The author describes math as fuzzier than
has originally been let on. He describes how there are many different ways to solve
the same problem, and it is important for students to understand what those
methods are. The author also points out that Americans like short cuts, and it is
impossible to get good at math with short cuts. To be good at doing math, you must
practice lots of math, there is no way around that. The problem also lies with the
teachers. More often than not, the people providing a childs introduction to math
hates it. The problem also lies in our culture.
Other/bigger picture stuff: the author actually hints about the issues that are
mentioned in the seven habits of highly effective people, which are basically that
our culture favors the shortcuts as opposed to the solutions that get to the root of
the problems. I think that our issues with mathematics might actually be another
manifestation of this more global problem. Although the whole shortcut business
might extend beyond the United States.

This basically regurgitates what [5], [2], and [10] said about both the common core
and what actually goes into making a good student, but in a more vulgar way. He
goes a bit deeper into the cultural side of things than the other sources, but they
hint at a culture issue themselves. [2] starts to hint at the idea of a cultural issue for
Americans education system, mainly because when you compare the teaching
methods of Japanese and American teachers: the Japanese do not seem to take
shortcuts. They can spend up to a year planning a single lesson whereas many
American teachers wont even take a day. [10] and [3] start suggesting that if we
wouldnt be so lazy and just realize that everyone has the ability to do higher-level
math, and that we need to stop being so lazy, get off our butts, and do the actual
work required to succeed.

[8] Math Achievement, Stereotypes, and Math SelfConcepts among Elemntary-school Students in
Singapore
Cvencek, Dario, Manu Kapur, and Andrew N. Meltzoff. "Math Achievement,
Stereotypes, and Math Self-concepts among Elementary-school Students in
Singapore." Learning and Instruction 39 (2015): 1-10. Web
The idea that math is for boys may lead to the underrepresentation of females in
STEM fields. Evidence shows that the gap between boys and girls in math
achievement at the upper levels is decreasing, and in some countries, its
nonexistent. In Singapore, there is no statistical difference in math scores between
male and females, but they still hold on to the traditional math-gender stereotype.
The results indicate that both boys and girls associated math more strongly with
boys than with girls. The overall results conclude that a higher identification with
math indicates a higher performance on standardized tests. The main thing to take
away here is the notion that students who thought themselves as capable of doing
math generally scored better than those who did not see themselves capable of
doing math.

This is very similar to what [10] and [something else] suggests about ability in
general. If you have confidence in yourself, you will see much greater outcomes in
your endeavors. One of the best pieces of advice I have ever heard is that if you
face something challenging (i.e. a big test or tough homework assignment), then
just thinking to yourself and trying to convince yourself that you know what you are
doing can drastically help your outcome.

[9] Math-Gender Stereotypes in Elementary School

Children (United States)
Cvencek, Dario, Andrew N. Meltzoff, and Anthony G. Greenwald. "Math-Gender
Stereotypes in Elementary School Children." Child Development82.3 (2011): 766-79.
Web.
This article describes the relationships that boys and girls have with math and relate
them to gender stereotypes. As with Singapore, boys generally associated with
math more than girls. The study mainly focused on gender differences (which are
out of the scope of this project, as it focuses only on American students as a whole
without differentiating anyone based on race or gender).
The main reason to bring this study up is that it seems like American students (both
male and female) identify less with math than their Singaporean counterparts as
described in [8]. When you take the ideas presented in [10] and [1], it supports the
idea that one of the reasons that American children are struggling in math is that
they are less confident in their abilities. Many of the sources suggest that improving
childrens confidence and enthusiasm in math will help develop their competence in
the subject.

[10] Conceptions of Ability: Nature and Impact

across Content Areas
Linehan, Patricia Louise. Conceptions of Ability: Nature and Impact across Content
Areas. Diss. Purdue U, 1998. Ann Arbor: ProQuest, 1998. Print.

This is a dissertation that compares the performance of students who believe that
intelligence is malleable and those who believe it is fixed. The results are that
higher academic performance is correlated with students who believe intelligence is
fixed and vice versa.
This piece agrees with much of the literature already discussed. The consensus
seems to be that people who believe that their intelligence is malleable are more
likely to succeed than those who do not. This supports the evidence provided in [8]
and [9] which imply that American children identify with math less than their higher

performing counterparts. If teachers/instructors could get kids more involved and

excited about math, then they will be more willing to put in the work to do it. The
problem is, as stated in [7], many teachers that teach math in elementary school
dont even like math. So if youre parents are claiming that theyre not math people
(or even supporting the idea that there is such a thing) and your teacher secretly
hates math, how likely is it that you will want to do more activities that involve math
yourself? How likely is it that you will develop a love for math when everyone
around you dislikes it? The sources mentioned suggest that the problem with our
math system doesnt lie in our educational system or teaching methods; it lies in
our cultures. Everything mentioned here suggests we need a major paradigm shift
in our ideals if we are to keep advancing like we have been in the 20 th century. No
one is going to make it to Mars if our high school graduates were taught that it is
okay to hate math
(the last half of this paragraph should probably go into another section).