When Good Teaching Leads to Bad Results: The Disasters of “Well-Taught” Mathematics Courses

In the article, When Good Teaching Leads to Bad Results: The Disasters of “Well-Taught” Mathematics Courses, Schoenfeld (1988) argues that mathematics curriculum, and pedagogies do not foster students to gain a true understanding of mathematics. The traditional approach to teaching fails to make real world connections. Scoenfeld argument is not new, in my Ed6602 and Ed6300, we studied educational reformist such as Dewey (1933) and Piaget (1970) who made similar arguments.

Scoenfeld also implies that traditional method of instruction is inadequate, focusing on competition of a fixed body of knowledge. The article was written in 1988 and not much has changed. Traditional teaching methods are predominantly the method of choice of teachers, as described by Boaler, teachers of Amber Hill. Scoenfeld further suggest that such traditional methodologies trivialise mathematics and deny students of the opportunities to understand and use what they have explored in their classrooms. Scoenfeld would see Pheonix Park has providing students with these opportunities.

Scoenfeld fails to present all the factors that are impacting student performance, his analysis needs to probe deeper into the true nature of the student as an individual. I believe he has shifted the pendulum too far in the other direction. There has to be a happy medium between the two schools of thought. There is no true model that would work for every classroom, and it would be ridiculous to think it would work for each individual student. Reality is that not every student will be so capable, or feel so compelled to learn. We have adopted a student centered learning model, in the hope that it would provide the best opportunities for our students, in order for them to reach their greatest potential.