[00:00:07.790] - Pam
Welcome to the Math is Figure-Out-Able podcast. I'm Pam Harris, a former high school math teacher, university lecturer, writer, speaker, and founder of Math is Figure-Out-Able. At Math is Figure-Out-Able, we are on a mission to improve math teaching. We know that algorithms are amazing human achievements, but they are not good teaching tools because mimicking step-by-step procedures can actually trap students into using less sophisticated reasoning than the problems are intended to develop. In this podcast, we help you teach the mental actions that mathy people actually use when they math, where students grapple with and use mathematical relationships to solve problems, and in the process, learn what it means to math. Where the goal is not just repeating steps to get answers but teaching deliberately and intentionally the mental actions and mental maps, so that students are math-ing to their full potential.

[00:01:14.010] - Pam
In this episode, I'll be sharing a white paper that we have co-written with Dr. Catherine Beals, who is currently the Director of Special Programs for Blaine County School District, and before that was the Mathematics Coordinator at the Idaho Department of Education for 7 years. I'll be reading parts of this white paper and commenting on the main points. A year ago, I was sitting with my small team at NCSM, the National Conference for Leaders, K-12 mathematics education. My colleague Kourtney was looking at the sessions and said, "Pam, I think you'll be interested in this one." Sure enough. I went to the session and heard Dr. Cathy Beals compare the science of reading and mathematics education.

[00:02:03.580] - Pam
She and I met, discussed, and shortly after started working on a document to get that information out to more people, especially to practitioners, teachers, and leaders who want to understand. We gave it to our Journey teacher and leader coaching groups and other respected colleagues for feedback. We have rewritten and refined. At the time this episode drops, we will be giving it out at the national NCSM and NCTM conference for further consideration and feedback. The document is called Comparing Mathematics Education to the Science of Reading. Here is the first paragraph. Quote, "The Science of Reading is becoming a standard for high-quality instruction in teaching children to read. Many educators want to translate practices established by the Science of Reading to the teaching of mathematics. While there is wide consensus within the research literature around many important principles of teaching and learning reading, this consensus does not mean that the Science of Reading represents the entirety of effective literacy instruction, nor does the same level of consensus yet exist in mathematics education. This document compares and contrasts principles supported by the Science of Reading with evidence-based teaching practices in mathematics education. Understanding both the similarities and differences is important when considering whether and how insights from one field can appropriately inform the other." Unquote.

[00:03:47.050] - Pam
Many of you have noticed that over the past several years, the term the "Science of Reading" has been a topic for discussion. It has informed classroom practices, district initiatives, and policies and legislation at the state levels. It is also currently receiving some pushback, even from some of its founders, that it has been oversimplified, overgeneralized, and sometimes even misused. Some are calling for a more measured approach. That said, there has been a lot of consensus, and when one says the "Science of Reading", people are generally clear on what is meant.

[00:04:23.030] - Pam
Therefore, people have wondered, where does math fit in? Can and how would insights from one field appropriately inform the other? Is there a direct correlation? And so, our paper is at least part of the answer. In our paper and this podcast, most of the references for the Science of Reading come from the booklet Science of Reading: Defining Guide, written by the Reading League.

[00:04:52.090] - Pam
Our first section of the paper answers the question, what do educators call evidence-based teaching practices? Again, reading from the document. Quote, "Reading educators call these evidence-based teaching practices, 'The Science of Reading'. Mathematics educators do not typically use the phrase the 'Science of Math' to refer to these evidence-based teaching practices. They call these practices evidence-based teaching practices or high-leverage teaching practices. These phrases come from AMTE, the Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators, in their What Is Evidence-Based Math Instruction? And NCTM, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, in their book Principles to Actions. So, while reading educators have come to consensus on the phrase the "Science of Reading" and what it represents, math educators have been using the phrases "evidence-based teaching practices" or "high-leverage teaching practices." That's a thing to know. The next section of our paper answers the question, does each field have a common definition of the discipline? I'll now quote again from our paper, quoting the Science of Reading Defining Guide. 

[00:06:15.030] - Pam
Quote, "The Science of Reading is a vast interdisciplinary body of scientifically based research about reading and issues related to reading and writing. The research has been conducted over the last 5 decades across the world, and it is derived from thousands of studies conducted in multiple languages. The Science of Reading has culminated in a preponderance of evidence to inform how proficient reading and writing develop, why some have difficulty, and how we can most effectively assess and teach, and therefore improve student outcomes through prevention and intervention of reading difficulties." Unquote.

[00:07:01.290] - Pam
So, the Science of Reading, as described, is generally accepted as best practices to inform the teaching of reading. Now, from the math side of our document, answering the same question, does each field have a common definition of the discipline? Quote, "AACTE, AMTE, ASSM, NCSM, NCTM, and the Charles A. Dana Center, in a recent joint position statement, suggests that, quote, "Evidence-based math instruction focuses on developing students' conceptual understanding, reasoning, and procedural skills and fluency, along with their capacity to solve everyday problems. Student success depends upon opportunities to engage in problem solving, practice, and the discussion of strategies, methods, and solutions. It also depends upon developing a strong sense of oneself as someone who can do math." Unquote.

[00:08:01.670] - Pam
Continuing to read from our paper, "Another group of educators has called themselves the 'Science of Math', and they disagree with the above." What I read before. "This is one example that there is not the same consensus in mathematics education as in reading." Unquote.

[00:08:22.700] - Pam
So, whereas the Science of Reading has reached consensus on the common definition, mathematics education has not. And that is noteworthy. The next section of our paper answers the question, what are the breadth and depth of each. So, first, about reading. Quote, "Reading is a small part of the larger discipline of language arts and literacy. Literacy is a broad topic which consists of reading, writing, speaking, listening, language, a grasp of syntax, vocabulary, and grammar to structure messages.

[00:08:58.960] - Pam
The Science of Reading refers to a small subset of the broad field of language arts literacy. This subset is not called the 'Science of Language Arts, Literacy'. It focuses narrowly on parts of reading, decoding, and the foundational skills of learning how to read, how to get students to look at symbols on paper and decipher meaning. These foundational skills are important for the more general language arts literacy that develops later." Unquote.

[00:09:30.350] - Pam
Then we have a great graphic that shows language arts literacy. Big circle encompassing syntax, vocabulary, grammar, listening, writing, reading, all of these things. Notice, that reading is one of the components of language arts literacy. Language arts literacy? Reading is one small part. From the math side, we see a similar graphic where the all-encompassing title is mathematics, and it includes measurement, algebra, algebraic thinking, data, geometry, numeracy, etc. Mathematics is the general category, and there are many components of mathematics.

[00:10:08.520] - Pam
Quote from our paper, "Mathematics is a broad discipline that includes many varied subsets: numeracy, geometry, algebraic thinking, algebra, data, measurement. Unlike literacy, which features a narrow foundational subset— reading, decoding— mathematics does not have a single narrow part analog. Because of this depth, trying to apply a 'Science of Math' label does not make sense. Mathematics is not parallel to reading. We cannot overgeneralize from a narrow subset to the overarching set, and a subset does not equal the entire discipline.

[00:10:49.520] - Pam
Instead, the field of mathematics education focuses on building mathematical proficiency across all of these varied subsets throughout students' pre-K through 12 educational experience." Unquote. This is noteworthy. There is no narrow part analog in mathematics, this general, overarching set of mathematics to reading, which is a small part of language arts literacy. What are some takeaways from this podcast?

[00:11:20.440] - Pam
Number 1, reading educators call evidence-based teaching practices the "Science of Reading", and in math, "evidence-based teaching practices" or "high-leverage teaching practices". Number 2, while reading educators have consensus around a definition of the discipline, mathematics educators do not. We disagree. And third, language arts literacy is the comparison to mathematics. Reading is a subset of language arts literacy and does not have an analog in mathematics.

[00:11:53.120] - Pam
May I invite you to consider that the next time someone asks, "Hey, what does mathematics education have to do with the Science of Reading?" You could, in part, answer that mathematics and reading are not the same thing. Now, I'm not suggesting that they cannot both be learned and that we should not deliberately, intentionally teach students to read and to math. But I am inviting you to consider that the overarching discipline of mathematics does not have a narrow analog to reading, which is reading is a subset of the much larger discipline of language arts literacy. Therefore, what refers to one may not simply transfer to the other. You can download our paper at the link bit.ly/mathedreading. Download it, share it, come back next week to hear more about the paper. That's bit.ly/mathedreading.

[00:12:50.990] - Pam
Click on the link. In this episode, I touched on part of our paper, Comparing the Science of Reading to Mathematics Education. Join me in our next episodes where we'll dive deeper with the comparison. Thank you for tuning in and teaching more and more real math. To find out more about the Math is Figure-Out-Able movement, visit mathisfigureoutable.com. Let's keep spreading the word that Math is Figure-Out-Able!