C.T. M. (sirius-mama) -
I really wanted to throw this book across the room. So irritating and inaccurate! Jo Boaler makes such sweeping generalizations, such huge assumptions, and such one-sided diatribes that I found myself yelling outloud to correct her ridiculous assertions. She decries the "Math Wars" in Chapter 2, but she puts herself squarely on one side of them in the reform camp. She only presents the best-case scenario, positive aspects of what she is promoting (discovery style instruction) and only presents the most negative, stereotyped aspects of what she opposes (traditional math fundamentals). This is NOT sound research - it's biased marketing or lobbying.
I expected a university professor to present a balanced argument, addressing both pros and cons, based on adequate objective data. Jo Boaler claims to base her book on a "longitudinal" study, yet she uses a small sample size from 3 suburban high schools and follows these three cohorts from 9 thru 12 grade only. She looks at test scores and grades, but puts too much weight on her personal observations, surveys she designed, and casual interviews with students. I was expecting a mathematician to focus much more on hard number data - not subjective wordy data. Jo Boaler also does not include any of her raw data or copies of her surveys or interview questions for the reader to look over. From what she provides in this book, her evidence is only anecdotal. Her findings may be interesting and enough to provoke additional research, but it is not sufficient for the significant and drastic policy changes she promotes for the entire US.
I did give the book 1 star based on Chap 5, which introduces very engaging questions regarding tracking vs. multiability classrooms. She still makes huge assumptions of the most ideal circumstances for multiability to work well; however, she is more open-ended in this chapter, so I was left with lots of interesting questions to start a discussion.
I will also credit the book with sparking my desire to find out more about these "Math Wars" and to find out more about how math is being taught in my children's public schools. As a result of having read this book, I am now advocating for a completely different and more traditional approach to be adopted for my district.
For anyone else questioning her data or assertions, check out this academic response: A Close Examination of Jo Boalers Railside Report, by Wayne Bishop, Dept. of Mathematics, Cal. State University, LA; Paul Clopton, VAMC, San Diego; and R. James Milgram, Dept. of Mathematics, Stanford University. ftp://math.stanford.edu/pub/papers/milgram/combined-evaluations-version3.pdf
I expected a university professor to present a balanced argument, addressing both pros and cons, based on adequate objective data. Jo Boaler claims to base her book on a "longitudinal" study, yet she uses a small sample size from 3 suburban high schools and follows these three cohorts from 9 thru 12 grade only. She looks at test scores and grades, but puts too much weight on her personal observations, surveys she designed, and casual interviews with students. I was expecting a mathematician to focus much more on hard number data - not subjective wordy data. Jo Boaler also does not include any of her raw data or copies of her surveys or interview questions for the reader to look over. From what she provides in this book, her evidence is only anecdotal. Her findings may be interesting and enough to provoke additional research, but it is not sufficient for the significant and drastic policy changes she promotes for the entire US.
I did give the book 1 star based on Chap 5, which introduces very engaging questions regarding tracking vs. multiability classrooms. She still makes huge assumptions of the most ideal circumstances for multiability to work well; however, she is more open-ended in this chapter, so I was left with lots of interesting questions to start a discussion.
I will also credit the book with sparking my desire to find out more about these "Math Wars" and to find out more about how math is being taught in my children's public schools. As a result of having read this book, I am now advocating for a completely different and more traditional approach to be adopted for my district.
For anyone else questioning her data or assertions, check out this academic response: A Close Examination of Jo Boalers Railside Report, by Wayne Bishop, Dept. of Mathematics, Cal. State University, LA; Paul Clopton, VAMC, San Diego; and R. James Milgram, Dept. of Mathematics, Stanford University. ftp://math.stanford.edu/pub/papers/milgram/combined-evaluations-version3.pdf
