This essay draws on a first-hand perspective — that of an El Salvadoran student navigating the American university system — to compare mathematics education in the United States and Latin America. Referencing Friesen and Stone's "Great Explorations" program, the author explores the tension between rote, drill-based instruction common in El Salvador and the creativity-centered approaches favored in U.S. classrooms. The paper argues that neither approach alone is sufficient, and that an ideal mathematics curriculum would marry the structured rigor and high expectations of Latin American schooling with the conceptual exploration and student-driven problem-solving encouraged in American education.
It might be assumed that mathematics education in El Salvador and in El Paso would be similar, unlike language instruction or instruction in history. After all, math is math, no matter whether it is taught in English or Spanish — especially at the relatively rudimentary elementary school level. Indeed, two professors who visited Latin America observed that some of "the problems teaching mathematics" faced by elementary school educators were "remarkably like our own," that is, remarkably like the problems faced by American educators (Friesen & Stone, 1996). However, the systems used to teach mathematics in both nations were often profoundly different.
As was consistent with my own experience as an El Salvadoran national, the Latin American student's education stressed drill and rote learning, while the American children's education that these educators had been exposed to stressed creativity and conceptual understanding. Friesen and Stone argued in favor of their program, entitled Great Explorations. The program included such fundamental points as beginning every exploration of a mathematical subject with a detailed story, and providing opportunities for student interpretation and for pursuing multiple correct solutions to the same problem.
However, rather than stressing an either/or approach to math education — either drill or creative methods — perhaps a marriage of the two is necessary. Only after a sound grounding in the fundamentals can students cognitively engage with the concept of multiple and creative solutions to math problems. As my own education has benefited from a duality of cultural and conceptual exposures, so too might younger students' mathematical educations (Friesen & Stone, 1996).
Friesen and Stone write that during their visit to El Salvador, "we spent two days with students at the two major universities, as well as an entire day with grade two students at a large private school in San Miguel in the south of El Salvador." Although I am in my first semester of university in the United States, I attended an elementary school of the kind these educators described. My nation has endured many difficulties over the course of even my short lifetime, and the quality of education is highly variable across El Salvadorans of different classes, regions, and backgrounds. Yet I was fortunate in my opportunities.
It is mainly because of the quality of education I received in high school in El Salvador that I have been able to navigate the cultural transition from the educational system there to the one in the United States. Here, I find myself challenged and impressed by the quality of education and the rigor of debate in American classrooms, although I remain grateful for the solid conceptual foundation instilled in me through my education in El Salvador.
One thing that has impressed me during my time in the United States is the awe and fear with which even adult Americans regard mathematics education. There seems to be an enduring assumption that one is either naturally good or bad at the subject. I have also encountered what I consider a somewhat contradictory assumption — that math education is better in all other nations, including my own, and that America has much to learn from math instruction abroad.
Such regard is almost flattering with respect to my homeland. Yet the reality is more nuanced than this cultural anxiety suggests, and the solution is not simply to import another country's methods wholesale.
Many of the suggestions offered in the Great Explorations program note that teachers should design "activities which permit innovative solutions by students," whereas my math education at the elementary level was highly standardized in a way that might be considered unacceptable in the United States, which stresses independence and creativity of thought — even to the point of disagreement with the teacher. Indeed, throughout my education in El Salvador, the teacher was regarded as an unquestioned authority, and students were regarded as receptors of information.
This could be frustrating in creative and intellectually engaging subjects such as literature, politics, and history. Still, the stringent and rigorous discipline was helpful in the study of mathematics. Another contributing factor was the high expectations applied without question to every student. Students in El Salvador begin algebra and geometry at a higher level and at a younger age than students in the United States. This introduces abstract mathematical thinking at a far younger age. It is in this aspect, perhaps, that the suggestions of the Great Explorations program were realized in my own math education, through what Friesen and Stone call "a rapid evolution from the simple to the profound" (1996).
However, my teachers made little effort to select "fun activities which deal with important, useful mathematics" concepts, nor did they seek to "ensure participation requires the communication of original thought" (Friesen & Stone, 1996).
Rather than stressing that math education is poor in the United States and calling for more "fun" in the math curriculum, perhaps a blending of the two approaches is best. The United States needs to recognize the value of a structured mathematics program with high national standards. For young children, learning math fundamentals may not be as immediately creative or engaging as literature or history at the outset. Drill, rather than storytelling, instills the rote basics. But this allows students to be pushed forward in mathematics more quickly than young American elementary school children are at present.
By drilling students in the primary and middle school grades and quickly introducing conceptual frameworks into their thinking at a young age, it becomes easier for students to deploy basic math concepts in more interesting and creative ways later in their educational careers. Discipline may be necessary and need not always be dull — but learning the basics of mathematics is not the same as learning literature or history. It is not better or worse, simply different.
Much like training in a sport or a dance, once one knows the fundamentals or the steps, only then can the real enjoyment begin. The broader educational environment benefits when students arrive at advanced work already equipped with fluency in foundational skills. By bridging the two systems — the rigor of Latin American math education and the free-thinking creativity of the American approach — an ideal system of teaching mathematics may be created.
Just as I have benefited from exposure to two different educational approaches in my undergraduate career, so can this problematic area of American education benefit by making use of the techniques of other nations in elementary math education. The answer is not to abandon drill for pure exploration, nor to abandon creativity for pure rote memorization, but to recognize what each tradition does well and to build a curriculum worthy of both.
Friesen, S. & Stone, M. "Great Explorations: Applying Research to the Classroom." 14:2. Pp. 6–11. 1996.
You’re 97% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.