Q. & A. With Liping Ma# NextGeneration - 我爱宝宝
a*g
1 楼
December 18, 2013
By VIKAS BAJAJ
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/18/opinion/q-a-with-liping-ma.ht
Liping Ma, a former teacher and principal in China, has written extensively
about the differences between how the United States and China teach math to
elementary school students. After earning a doctorate in curriculum and
teacher education from Stanford University, she worked as a senior scholar
at the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. In 1999, she
published “Knowing and Teaching Elementary Mathematics,” an influential
book that argues elementary school teachers need a better grounding in
arithmetic and math in order to teach them effectively to their students.
She currently works as an independent researcher. Dr. Ma spoke recently with
Vikas Bajaj of The New York Times editorial board about her research and
why Chinese and other Asian students score well above their American
counterparts on international math tests.
Your research compares how the United States and China teach elementary math
. Can you briefly explain the biggest differences between the two countries?
In my first work, published in 1999, I found that Chinese teachers who had
much less education than our American teachers showed more profound
understanding of the elementary math they were teaching.
I noticed that Chinese math education at the elementary level has a core
subject structure. They focus on one subject; I called it school arithmetic.
That ongoing core subject picks up other things [like fractions, geometry
and simple equations]. While in the States, we teach many, many things [like
number operations, algebra, problem solving and geometry, taught
independently of one another in a way that makes it hard for teachers and
students to connect them]. We lack this kind of core that goes through five,
six years of elementary school. That’s why, in my opinion, we in the
States don’t teach elementary math in an efficient way.
One interesting observation in your work is that the two countries once used
similar approaches to teach math. And that the United States changed how it
teaches math, while the Chinese kept and built on that approach.
The turning point in the States was in 1959, after Russia launched Sputnik.
In the beginning, it was all about advanced math. But this new structure
allowed people to make changes and allowed people to take stuff out and put
stuff in [the math curriculum]. What I criticize is the structure, that
structure made the content unstable. Whenever the policy makers changed, the
content changed. So, we were not able to accumulate teaching experience.
How important are these differences in explaining why students in China and
other East Asian countries tend to have higher scores on international math
tests than American students?
There are many explanations. Students [in those countries] work hard, the
parents have higher expectations. But I myself will say that content plays a
big role. The subject was not developed by the Chinese, not even the
Japanese. The core theory of school arithmetic was created by scholars,
including American math scholars, in the second half of the 19th century. We
created it, but we abandoned it. While on the other side, they [East Asian
countries] just adopted it and improved the teaching approaches.
There is a common perception in the United States that education systems in
Asia rely heavily on rote memorization. How true is this perception?
Of course, rote memorization exists in Asia. But, I think, it’s not only
rote memorization. By those tests we can clearly see that they do not only
memorize. It’s overly simplistic to say they just memorize it, and it
blocks our research and understanding of why they are doing well.
The other common perception is that Chinese and East Asian students are less
happy and under greater stress to do well on exams.
Again, that is another issue I wish was not oversimplified. I am in my early
60s, when I was an elementary school student back in China, I felt I was
very happy. Hard work doesn’t make you unhappy, as long as you learn
meaningful things. You will even feel good when you work hard. But currently
in China, there is an over-emphasis on tests. That does make students
unhappy.
In a recent article, you express concern that recent changes China has made
in its math curriculum could weaken its approach and make it more like the
United States. Can you explain what China has done and why you are concerned
about it?
Since 2000, they published a new Chinese standard. They kind of copied a lot
of our concepts. Mainly, my concern is that they conceptually gave up their
structure. They said we will not use arithmetic as the core subject, we
will break it into several standards. That makes me feel that they will
follow the structure that will weaken the content. However, Chinese schools
and textbook publishers have so far kept the arithmetic structure. But they
are not allowed to say that. It’s a very weird situation.
How much has changed in the United States in our approach toward elementary
math since you first started studying it?
We have been trying in this country to teach less. We have noticed that we
have taught too many things – our curriculum is one-mile wide and one-inch
deep. We have tried to get focus. That is a big change in this country.
However, we have not noticed that arithmetic is a core subject. In the
States, now we want to teach algebra, algebraic thinking in elementary
school. I personally think it might not work.
Are you arguing that children shouldn’t be taught algebra or that it should
not be taught in elementary schools?
I am concerned about algebra at the very beginning of elementary school,
even kindergarten. We will not teach real algebra. We will call this algebra
and we will say, ‘Oh, we are teaching algebra, we are teaching advanced
things.’ Actually, that will not lead to what we want.
There is a misunderstanding of arithmetic in this country. Many people think
arithmetic equals computational skills, and that’s it. Arithmetic has a
theoretical core and there is intellectual depth to it. That arithmetic can
serve as a good foundation for students to learn algebra or other advanced
math.
This interview has been edited and condensed.
By VIKAS BAJAJ
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/18/opinion/q-a-with-liping-ma.ht
Liping Ma, a former teacher and principal in China, has written extensively
about the differences between how the United States and China teach math to
elementary school students. After earning a doctorate in curriculum and
teacher education from Stanford University, she worked as a senior scholar
at the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. In 1999, she
published “Knowing and Teaching Elementary Mathematics,” an influential
book that argues elementary school teachers need a better grounding in
arithmetic and math in order to teach them effectively to their students.
She currently works as an independent researcher. Dr. Ma spoke recently with
Vikas Bajaj of The New York Times editorial board about her research and
why Chinese and other Asian students score well above their American
counterparts on international math tests.
Your research compares how the United States and China teach elementary math
. Can you briefly explain the biggest differences between the two countries?
In my first work, published in 1999, I found that Chinese teachers who had
much less education than our American teachers showed more profound
understanding of the elementary math they were teaching.
I noticed that Chinese math education at the elementary level has a core
subject structure. They focus on one subject; I called it school arithmetic.
That ongoing core subject picks up other things [like fractions, geometry
and simple equations]. While in the States, we teach many, many things [like
number operations, algebra, problem solving and geometry, taught
independently of one another in a way that makes it hard for teachers and
students to connect them]. We lack this kind of core that goes through five,
six years of elementary school. That’s why, in my opinion, we in the
States don’t teach elementary math in an efficient way.
One interesting observation in your work is that the two countries once used
similar approaches to teach math. And that the United States changed how it
teaches math, while the Chinese kept and built on that approach.
The turning point in the States was in 1959, after Russia launched Sputnik.
In the beginning, it was all about advanced math. But this new structure
allowed people to make changes and allowed people to take stuff out and put
stuff in [the math curriculum]. What I criticize is the structure, that
structure made the content unstable. Whenever the policy makers changed, the
content changed. So, we were not able to accumulate teaching experience.
How important are these differences in explaining why students in China and
other East Asian countries tend to have higher scores on international math
tests than American students?
There are many explanations. Students [in those countries] work hard, the
parents have higher expectations. But I myself will say that content plays a
big role. The subject was not developed by the Chinese, not even the
Japanese. The core theory of school arithmetic was created by scholars,
including American math scholars, in the second half of the 19th century. We
created it, but we abandoned it. While on the other side, they [East Asian
countries] just adopted it and improved the teaching approaches.
There is a common perception in the United States that education systems in
Asia rely heavily on rote memorization. How true is this perception?
Of course, rote memorization exists in Asia. But, I think, it’s not only
rote memorization. By those tests we can clearly see that they do not only
memorize. It’s overly simplistic to say they just memorize it, and it
blocks our research and understanding of why they are doing well.
The other common perception is that Chinese and East Asian students are less
happy and under greater stress to do well on exams.
Again, that is another issue I wish was not oversimplified. I am in my early
60s, when I was an elementary school student back in China, I felt I was
very happy. Hard work doesn’t make you unhappy, as long as you learn
meaningful things. You will even feel good when you work hard. But currently
in China, there is an over-emphasis on tests. That does make students
unhappy.
In a recent article, you express concern that recent changes China has made
in its math curriculum could weaken its approach and make it more like the
United States. Can you explain what China has done and why you are concerned
about it?
Since 2000, they published a new Chinese standard. They kind of copied a lot
of our concepts. Mainly, my concern is that they conceptually gave up their
structure. They said we will not use arithmetic as the core subject, we
will break it into several standards. That makes me feel that they will
follow the structure that will weaken the content. However, Chinese schools
and textbook publishers have so far kept the arithmetic structure. But they
are not allowed to say that. It’s a very weird situation.
How much has changed in the United States in our approach toward elementary
math since you first started studying it?
We have been trying in this country to teach less. We have noticed that we
have taught too many things – our curriculum is one-mile wide and one-inch
deep. We have tried to get focus. That is a big change in this country.
However, we have not noticed that arithmetic is a core subject. In the
States, now we want to teach algebra, algebraic thinking in elementary
school. I personally think it might not work.
Are you arguing that children shouldn’t be taught algebra or that it should
not be taught in elementary schools?
I am concerned about algebra at the very beginning of elementary school,
even kindergarten. We will not teach real algebra. We will call this algebra
and we will say, ‘Oh, we are teaching algebra, we are teaching advanced
things.’ Actually, that will not lead to what we want.
There is a misunderstanding of arithmetic in this country. Many people think
arithmetic equals computational skills, and that’s it. Arithmetic has a
theoretical core and there is intellectual depth to it. That arithmetic can
serve as a good foundation for students to learn algebra or other advanced
math.
This interview has been edited and condensed.