The Door to Liberating Mathematics: Advocating from Within Cultural Ignorance For

Constructivism In Math Education

Alexandria Tsukanova

It is predictable and par for the course that in the pursuit of progress, needless inertia stemming from a
complacent commitment to a comfortable and outdated system insists upon its mediocrely-minded agenda. We
can see this in the following quote from Framing Constructivism in Practice as the Negotiation of Dilemmas:
An Analysis of the Conceptual, Pedagogical, Cultural, and Political Challenges Facing Teachers by Mark
Windschitl. “The constructivist mathematics curriculum, in particular, had become a lightning rod for a group
of fathers with degrees in science and engineering, who ‘blasted the program’ as failing to prepare their children
for the rigors of the university. The school conceded to parents’ demands by creating a traditional curriculum
strand that avoided progressive practices such as active learning, integrated curriculum, and a classroom
community environment. Teachers in this strand closed their classrooms, placed desks in rows, and relied more
heavily on textbooks. Oakes et al. commented on trends across a number of middle schools that they had
studied.” I see such fears of not getting society’s acknowledgement, no matter how broken, as the number one
obstacle to a vigorous, thorough and strongly-founded constructivist approach. Like an adherence to broken
laws, many outdated schools of mathematics–like the willful ignorance of the originating history of any given
idea, exposing as it does the sloppiness and fallibility of the mathematical creative process that does not grok well
with the Western platonic falsity of pure form—encourage an ethos-focused performance instead of a sincere,
thoroughly analyzed, and deeply possessed knowledge of the material.
Therefore I see the constant and irritating push back against the truly necessary inclusion of active
learning, integrated curriculum, and classroom community involvement as the greatest challenge I will face in
implementing the constructivist approach. In fact, I have even already experienced such pushback. I have even
heard fellow teachers say, when allowing the nature interests of the child to merge organically with mathematical
inquiry developing therein their flexibility of thought as well as their enthusiasm, the statement “Focus on the
math.” The implication here is that only a strict set of scripts, numbers, symbols and a dry procedure are
mathematics. Perhaps this is true of surgery, but mathematics is not surgery. They have similar powers of
accuracy, certainly, but mathematics is inherently wider-scoped, explorative, joyful and creative. It is not simply
corrective or limited to a small series of tasks set before them, that are dryly completed, billed-for, and then
forgotten with a breath of relief and a trip to the beach.
I will go into what resources I can use for that three-pronged agenda. These include active learning,
integrated curriculum, and classroom community environment. The use of active learning in a constructive
framework is evidenced in the piece, Active Learning in A Constructivist Framework. In this example, Gareth is
contrasted with Adam. Gareth represents the same type of thinking that the previously mentioned fathers
embody. He believes that math is necessary for his job and career, but deep down believe that it itself is dull and
rote. He believes all it takes to learn is to master the test–read, study, and check if you get everything right. It is
simply a means to the end of college. It is easy to see why he is uninspired, and following such motivations why
his understanding is very limited. This is what the group of fathers expects to see, but that does not make them
correct. In fact, we see in the case of Adam who will not only get into his colleges of choice but excel in them and
be noticed by professors, that is a severe disservice and hampering of the children’s future. Adam focuses on his
understanding. His motivation is akin to the infamous statement of Black Lives Matter “make it make sense”.
Doing perfectly on a test isn’t good enough for him if it doesn’t make sense to him. I’d venture to say that he
doesn’t like to just accept things as true that feel really wrong or senseless. This is an extremely healthy person for
that reason, and that should be encouraged as its opposition leads to pathology. Adam enjoys proofs because it
allows him to follow the reasoning and check for understanding. He wasn’t focused on completing the test, but
getting to his level of satisfaction in understanding. In fact, I think we have all been Adam at some point before
it was abused out of us by our culture, communities, expectations and institutions that did not have our best
interest in mind. The only completion he really cared about was his own sense-making process. This is precisely
what we want to see, and is how new mathematics is generated. This is especially true given there is a litany of
errors in the existing curriculum, and only people who do not accept the senseless but have high standards and
high regard for math can expose these errors and prevent logical pathology. Even if this is not yet who top
schools know how to vet for, we must push for the future where someone who keeps his or her society logically
healthy such as Adam usurps in admissions priority someone who merely dryly masters a test with no respect,
interest or admiration to and for the depth of knowledge it offered.
The second tenant that is lost in teaching to the test or the admissions process is STEM integration
from a constructivist approach. Without integration, there is a false binary of modes that does a real disservice to
all elements of education. STEM is treated like a militaristic operation, where, according to Jessica Patel in The
Constructivist Approach to STEM Education, students are forced to engage with a curriculum that goes against
every ounce of their most logical self that evaluates for relevancy, efficiency, and applicability. Ultimately they
learn to silence this screaming red alert of force over reason in order to get an A and not be financially punished.
Thus, the population becomes slowly but surely worse and worse at mathematics and reason as they are taught
with people who merely use math with no deep love and understanding of it themselves, something I believe to
be the case in Washington state specifically. To silence this part of themselves is to normalize those parts of us
that take orders without critical thought, and in fact this precisely what Jessica Patel states is the problem. These
students begin to associate STEM with the subordination of critical thought to the goal. They associate it with
echelons of powerful people who abuse you deeply if you try to touch what truly belongs to everyone, having its
origins in nature. If there were ample integration of STEM to other spheres of education, including history,
english, art and others, not only would this abuse, poor regard and poor engagement slowly heal, but it would
allow us to rid ourselves of a tired and deeply inaccurate trope that logic is anti-human and cold. In fact, logic is
deeply warm and allows for the richest elements of human endeavor to thrive by creating a stable foundation.
This stability is itself the mark of good logic. This preventative and on-the-ground logic is the work of critical
thought, not rote militarism. In fact, behind most wars we can even hypothesize severe and hegemonic
comprehension issues that caused peaceful negotiations to break down. Therefore, keeping STEM separate from
the humanities is a huge disservice to the whole brain of the human and humanity itself, and in fact is based in
that very old and disproven anatomically-isolated neuroscience that ignored the obvious cross-connections
inherent in the richest intercommunicating neuronal networks (richest here meaning more intelligence; believe
it or not intelligence is simply a matter of how brave we are to make organized, natural, fruitful connections
between things..I find this deeply equitable and hope-giving).
Finally, we can use these points to bring Vygotsky into the conversation, via Jennifer D. Cribs and
Sandra M. Linder in Teacher Practices and Hybrid Space in a Fifth-grade Mathematics Classroom. “This study
was approached through the lens of social constructivism which draws from the writings of Vygotsky. His
foundational work stressed that learning was not only a social process but also a process where children learn
about the culture in which they live (Vygotsky, 1978, 1981).” The first premise of this is students construct their
meanings based on their experiences with the world. Though we usually consider the world the rich externality of
physical properties and objects, the dry paper-eye interaction is also part of the world. Therefore, if this is just
procedure, cut-and-dry correct-or-wrong, the only way to survive the lack of satisfying, relieving explanations is
a neurosis without comprehension. This means finding ways to secure information on the test before it happens
and practicing and practicing to avoid errors, without understanding why consistent issues occur and failing to
get to the root issue. The world does not operate in such a manner. For instance, a doctor may encounter a novel
disease and treat it like a cold, and then be sued for malpractice. They didn’t think for themselves, they simply
operated by the book and the patient paid. Similar instances happen consistently in areas that have been
punished out of their critical thought for the sake of retaining a broken structure out of fear of losing comfort.
There is a great body of people in the interest of inertia who are afraid of the new, the innovative, and the
abnormal.
Students are also informed by social and historical elements. I spoke briefly on the Western idea of the
“perfect platonic” but it is relevant once more. Without history, we may think that our ways of understanding
mathematics are sacrosanct and perfect. However, this could not be further from the truth. Constantly we are
“electing” through strength of analysis different definitions of mathematical entities, opening up passageways
and powers that may not have been previously known about the representation should it not have been analyzed
to its component parts. Without acknowledging this process, we may be unable to even conceive of the infallible
and logical mathematician actually in truth making grave errors of concept, and may fail to find the root of
societal problems in such an overlooking. Thus, we have to remain historically minded and see over and over
against the fallibility of what was once seen as perfect, and see that it is a beautiful thing that liberates us, not a
tragedy, to do so. Finally, the last claim’s meaning is derived through social interaction. Through interacting
with each other socially, we gain clues about how our society operates. If we are treated like our valid opinions
are dismissible just because someone has greater power over us and doesn’t understand them, we may think we
don’t have a valid point. But if we are treated as someone really onto something and have the new opening of a
new dimension supported (which happens often in the most fruitful halls of mathematics) then we get excited
and brave enough to support into joyful clarity those secret niches within the representational semantics of the
mathematical map.
In conclusion, the pushback that I am likely to experience for advocating for what I know to be the
approach most respectful to the field of mathematics itself, the constructivist approach, has been honorably
strengthened and supported through the resources aforementioned. We must challenge our inertia, our comfort,
and our fear of failure to open the door to dimensions that are not so horrifyingly rote, forced and senseless. It is
then this warishness reveals itself at heart to be a sad, isolated and painful struggle to understand, and a much
more beautiful and symphonic way of existing becomes accessible to all who seek to preserve the alternative with
honor, grit, positive regard, joy and sincerity. Namely it is the secretive and immense conversation with the most
powerful truths kept by life, time, space, complexity, and material themselves; the secrets of mathematics.