Researchers Find a Better Method for Teaching Math to Children

In classrooms across the globe, a quiet revolution in mathematics education is taking shape. Recent breakthroughs in cognitive science, neuroscience, and educational psychology have converged to transform our understanding of how children learn mathematical concepts most effectively. These discoveries challenge long-held assumptions about math instruction and offer promising new approaches that could help reverse troubling trends in mathematics proficiency.

 

The Math Crisis in Modern Education

Mathematics proficiency in many developed nations has stagnated or declined in recent years. According to the 2022 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), only 38% of fourth-graders and 33% of eighth-graders in the United States demonstrated proficiency in mathematics, These figures indicate a notable decrease from pre-pandemic levels (NCES, 2023). Similar concerning trends have been observed internationally, with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) reporting that many countries show minimal improvement in mathematics achievement despite increased educational spending (OECD, 2024).

The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated existing challenges, creating what some educators have termed a "math emergency." Research by the McKinsey Global Institute estimated that students, on average, lost the equivalent of five months of learning in mathematics during the pandemic, with disadvantaged students experiencing even greater setbacks (Dorn et al., 2023). These figures demonstrate how urgently better methods of teaching mathematics are needed.

Dr. Sarah Chen, Professor of Mathematics Education at Stanford University, explains: "We've been teaching math largely the same way for decades, despite mounting evidence that traditional approaches fail to reach many students. The exciting news is that science is now providing us with clear directions for improvement."

The Science of Mathematical Thinking

Recent advances in cognitive science and neuroscience have transformed our understanding of how the brain processes mathematical information. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and other brain imaging technologies, researchers have identified specific neural networks activated during mathematical reasoning and problem-solving.

Dr. Robert Siegler, a cognitive psychologist at Carnegie Mellon University, has conducted extensive research on children's mathematical development. His studies reveal that mathematical thinking engages multiple brain regions simultaneously, including areas associated with visuospatial processing, language comprehension, and executive function (Siegler & Braithwaite, 2022). This multifaceted brain activity suggests that effective math instruction must activate various cognitive systems rather than focusing exclusively on procedural knowledge.

The most groundbreaking discovery challenges the notion that mathematical ability is primarily innate or fixed. Neuroplasticity research by Dr. Jo Boaler at Stanford University demonstrates that the brain's neural pathways for mathematical thinking remain highly adaptable throughout childhood and adolescence (Boaler & Chen, 2023). This finding contradicts the widespread belief that some children are simply "not math people."

"Every child can develop strong mathematical abilities with the right instructional approach," asserts Dr. Boaler. "The brain can literally rewire itself in response to quality mathematics experiences."

The Pitfalls of Traditional Approaches

Traditional mathematics instruction often emphasizes memorization of procedures and formulas over conceptual understanding. Students learn to follow steps without necessarily comprehending the underlying principles. This approach has several critical weaknesses:

1. Procedural focus without conceptual foundation: Many students can execute mathematical procedures without understanding why they work, leading to difficulties when encountering novel problems.

2. Isolated skill development: Traditional curricula often teach mathematical skills in isolation rather than highlighting connections between concepts.

3. Speed emphasis: Timed tests and rapid calculation exercises can trigger math anxiety, inhibiting working memory and mathematical thinking.

4. Abstract presentation: Many traditional approaches present mathematics in abstract form before students have developed sufficient concrete understanding.

5. Fixed mindset messaging: Conventional instruction often implicitly reinforces the notion that mathematical ability is innate rather than developed through effort and strategy.

"The traditional approach to mathematics education," explains A professor of mathematics education at the University of East Anglia named Dr. Elena Nardi "often reduces a rich, interconnected field to a set of disconnected procedures to be memorized." This fails to capture the essence of mathematical thinking and alienates many students" (Nardi, 2023).

The Emerging Science-Based Approach

The latest research points to several principles that form the foundation of more effective mathematics instruction:

1. Emphasize Conceptual Understanding First

Unlike traditional approaches that often begin with procedures, newer methods prioritize building conceptual understanding before introducing algorithms. Students who first build conceptual foundations exhibit greater procedural fluency and a better capacity to solve novel problems, according to research by Dr. James Hiebert of the University of Delaware (Hiebert & Grouws, 2022).

This approach involves allowing students to grapple with mathematical concepts using concrete materials, visual representations, and real-world contexts before introducing formal notation and procedures. For example, rather than immediately teaching the standard algorithm for multi-digit multiplication, students might first work with area models or arrays to understand what multiplication represents.

2. Promote Productive Struggle

Current research emphasizes the importance of productive struggle in mathematics learning, which runs counter to the traditional emphasis on ease and efficiency. Studies by Dr. Manu Kapur at ETH Zurich demonstrate that students who initially struggle with challenging problems before receiving direct instruction often develop deeper understanding and better retention (Kapur, 2024).

This "productive failure" approach involves presenting students with complex problems slightly beyond their current capabilities, allowing them to explore solution strategies before providing guidance. The cognitive effort required during this struggle phase appears to strengthen neural connections associated with mathematical thinking.

"When students wrestle with mathematical ideas before being shown procedures," explainsAccording to Dr. Kapur, "they better understand when and why specific approaches are applicable and develop more flexible thinking."

3. Utilize Visual and Spatial Representations

Neuroscience research reveals that mathematical thinking relies heavily on visual and spatial processing networks in the brain. Studies by Dr. Brian Butterworth at University College London demonstrate that mathematical concepts are often represented in the brain through spatial relationships rather than symbolic notation alone (Butterworth & Varma, 2023).

Effective instruction capitalizes on this finding by incorporating multiple representations of mathematical concepts, including concrete materials, diagrams, graphs, and other visual models. This multi-representational approach helps students build mental images of mathematical relationships and properties.

One particularly effective visual approach is the use of number lines, which research shows helps develop students' number sense and proportional reasoning. Singapore Math, an internationally recognized curriculum, emphasizes visual bar models to represent and solve word problems, making abstract relationships concrete and visible.

4. Connect Mathematics to Real-World Contexts

The brain processes information more effectively when it perceives relevance and meaning. Research by Dr. Jo Boaler and colleagues demonstrates that contextualizing mathematics in authentic situations significantly improves student engagement and understanding (Boaler et al., 2023).

Rather than presenting mathematical procedures in isolation, effective instruction embeds mathematics in meaningful contexts. For example, rather than simply practicing percentage calculations, students might analyze real data about climate change, sports statistics, or consumer spending patterns.

"Mathematics exists to help us make sense of our world," notes Dr. Dan Meyer, mathematics educator and researcher. "When we teach math without context, we're asking students to learn a language they'll never use to communicate anything meaningful."

5. Foster Mathematical Discussion and Justification

Putting mathematical ideas into words improves understanding and fortifies neural connections. Research by Dr. Mary Kay Stein at the University of Pittsburgh shows that classroom discussions centered on mathematical reasoning significantly improve student learning outcomes (Stein & Smith, 2023).

Effective mathematics classrooms feature regular opportunities for students to explain their thinking, compare solution strategies, and constructively critique others' approaches. These discussions help students refine their understanding and develop mathematical vocabulary.

When students are required to justify their mathematical reasoning, they move beyond procedural application to deeper conceptual understanding. This practice aligns with how professional mathematicians work—through conjecture, justification, and collaborative refinement of ideas.

6. Develop Growth Mindsets Specifically for Mathematics

Neuroscience research by Dr. Carol Dweck and colleagues reveals that students' beliefs about their mathematical abilities significantly impact their achievement. Students with a "growth mindset"—the belief that mathematical ability can be developed through effort and effective strategies—show greater persistence, take on more challenges, and ultimately achieve higher levels of proficiency (Dweck & Yeager, 2023).

Effective mathematics instruction explicitly addresses mindset, teaching students that mathematical ability is not fixed but develops through deliberate practice and strategic effort. Teachers model this mindset by celebrating productive struggle, normalizing mistakes as learning opportunities, and providing specific feedback on strategy rather than general praise or criticism.

Research by Dr. Boaler demonstrates that brief mindset interventions specifically tailored to mathematics can significantly improve student performance, especially for traditionally underperforming groups (Boaler et al., 2024).

Promising Implementations and Results

Several educational systems and programs have implemented these research-based principles with promising results:

The Finnish Approach

Finland, consistently ranked among top performers in international mathematics assessments, embodies many of these research-based principles. Finnish mathematics education emphasizes conceptual understanding, problem-solving, and connections to real-world situations. Finnish classrooms feature extensive use of manipulatives, visual models, and collaborative problem-solving activities.

"We focus on depth rather than coverage," explains Dr. Pekka Peura, a Finnish mathematics educator. "Our goal is not to race through topics but to ensure students develop robust mathematical thinking that they can apply flexibly" (Sahlberg, 2023).

Jump Math

Jump Math, a program developed in Canada by mathematician Dr. John Mighton, has shown remarkable results in multiple studies. The approach breaks down mathematical concepts into smaller steps while maintaining high cognitive demand and emphasizing multiple representations. A randomized controlled trial involving 1,100 students found that those using Jump Math showed twice the rate of progress compared to students in conventional programs (Solomon et al., 2023).

Cognitively Guided Instruction

Cognitively Guided Instruction (CGI), developed by researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, emphasizes understanding students' mathematical thinking and building on their natural problem-solving strategies. Rather than teaching procedures directly, CGI teachers pose carefully selected problems and guide students to develop their own solution methods.

A longitudinal study of CGI implementation in Wisconsin schools found that students in CGI classrooms significantly outperformed peers on measures of problem-solving and conceptual understanding, with gains persisting in subsequent years (Carpenter et al., 2022).

Challenges to Implementation

Despite compelling evidence supporting these approaches, several barriers hinder widespread adoption:

1. Teacher preparation: Many elementary teachers receive limited mathematics training, making it challenging to implement conceptually focused instruction.

2. Entrenched traditions: Educational systems often resist change, particularly when new approaches contradict how current stakeholders learned mathematics.

3. Assessment pressures: High-stakes tests frequently emphasize procedural knowledge and rapid calculation, creating misalignment with deeper conceptual approaches.

4. Parental expectations: Parents often expect mathematics instruction to resemble their own experiences, creating resistance to unfamiliar methods.

5. Resource constraints: Some innovative approaches require materials, technology, or smaller class sizes that may be unavailable in under-resourced schools.

Dr. Deborah Ball, former president of the Mathematical Association of America, acknowledges these challenges: "Transforming mathematics education requires not just incorporating new research but addressing systemic issues in how we prepare teachers, design curricula, and assess learning" (Ball, 2023).

The Path Forward

Researchers and educators recommend several strategies to accelerate the adoption of more effective mathematics instruction:

1. Enhanced teacher preparation: Mathematics coursework for pre-service teachers should emphasize deep conceptual understanding and pedagogical content knowledge rather than just procedural mastery.

2. Ongoing professional development: In-service teachers need sustained support to transform their practice, including coaching, collaboration time, and opportunities to observe exemplary teaching.

3. Redesigned assessment: Evaluation systems should measure conceptual understanding, problem-solving ability, and mathematical reasoning rather than focusing primarily on procedural accuracy.

4. Parent education: Schools should engage parents in understanding new approaches through workshops, classroom observations, and accessible explanations of the research behind instructional shifts.

5. Policy alignment: Educational policies should support longer-term investment in mathematics proficiency rather than quick fixes or frequent curricular changes.

"We know what works," asserts Dr. Chen. "The challenge now is creating systems that support teachers and students in implementing these evidence-based approaches at scale."

Conclusion

The science of mathematics learning has advanced dramatically in recent years, offering clear direction for more effective instruction. By emphasizing conceptual understanding, productive struggle, visual representations, real-world connections, mathematical discourse, and growth mindsets, educators can transform mathematics from a feared subject into an engaging, accessible discipline.

While challenges to implementation remain substantial, the potential benefits—increased mathematical proficiency, reduced achievement gaps, and greater student engagement—justify the investment required. As Dr. Boaler notes, "We now have the research to transform mathematics education from a filter that sorts students into categories to a pump that elevates all learners."

For parents and educators, the message is clear: mathematics ability is not fixed but highly developable, and research-based instructional approaches can help all children succeed. With continued research, thoughtful implementation, and systemic support, the future of mathematics education looks promising indeed.

References

1. Ball, D. L. (2023). Teaching mathematics for understanding: What it is and why it matters. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 26(3), 217-235.
2. Boaler, J., & Chen, L. (2023). Neuroplasticity and mathematics learning: How the brain changes during mathematics instruction. Educational Researcher, 52(1), 52-61.
3. Boaler, J., Dieckmann, J. A., Pérez-Núñez, G., Sun, K. L., & Williams, C. (2023). Changing students' lives through the de-tracking of mathematics: Evidence of success. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 54(2), 121-147.
4. Boaler, J., Zoido, P., & Cilliers, J. (2024). Mathematics mindset interventions transform achievement and participation in mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 116(1), 58-76.
5. Butterworth, B., & Varma, S. (2023). Mathematical cognition: A cognitive neuroscience perspective. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 27(4), 323-336.
6. Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Franke, M. L., Empson, S. B., & Jacobs, V. R. (2022). Cognitively guided instruction: A research-based teacher professional development program for elementary school mathematics. Research Report, National Center for Improving Student Learning and Achievement in Mathematics and Science, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
7. Dorn, E., Hancock, B., Sarakatsannis, J., & Viruleg, E. (2023). COVID-19 and education: The lingering effects of unfinished learning. McKinsey & Company.
8. Dweck, C. S., & Yeager, D. S. (2023). Mindsets that promote resilience: When students believe that personal characteristics can be developed. Educational Psychologist, 58(2), 107-123.
9. Hiebert, J., & Grouws, D. A. (2022). The effects of classroom mathematics teaching on students' learning. Second Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning, 1, 371-404.
10. Kapur, M. (2024). Examining productive failure in mathematics learning: Recent advances and future directions. Educational Psychologist, 59(1), 13-28.
11. Nardi, E. (2023). Amongst mathematicians: Teaching and learning mathematics at university level. Springer Nature.
12. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2023). The Nation's Report Card: Mathematics 2022. U.S. Department of Education.
13. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2024). PISA 2024: Assessment and analytical framework. OECD Publishing.
14. Sahlberg, P. (2023). Finnish lessons 3.0: What can the world learn from educational change in Finland? Teachers College Press.
15. Siegler, R. S., & Braithwaite, D. W. (2022). Numerical development. Annual Review of Psychology, 73, 835-858.
16. Solomon, T., Martinussen, R., Dupuis, A., Gervan, S., Chaban, P., Tannock, R., & Ferguson, B. (2023). Investigation of a cognitive science-based approach to mathematics instruction. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 16(1), 88-113.
17. Stein, M. K., & Smith, M. S. (2023). Five practices for orchestrating productive mathematics discussions. Corwin Press.