Is Building Thinking Classrooms in Mathematics Out of Step with Cognitive Science? (Part 2½)

For the last two weeks, I've been investigating the question,

Is Building Thinking Classrooms in Mathematics out of step with cognitive science?

This week was supposed to be the grand finale.

In part 1, I refuted a popular op-ed accusing Thinking Classrooms of exactly that.

In part 2, I got into the weeds on the nature and mechanics of research in general, focusing specifically on two studies that were held up as proof that Thinking Classrooms violate all that is cognitively holy.

Thank you so much to everyone who contributed to the robust discussion that part 2 generated.  Research is a tricky thing, and I'm really proud that I was able to shed some light on how it works and what we should and shouldn't expect from it in a way that readers found to be helpful and clear.  

So good, however, was that discussion, that it merits continuing.  I dug really deep into the inner workings of research in part 2, but there was a big question about research in the discussion that I think a lot of folks would love to address:

The moral of part 2 was that research is often weaponized to justify actions it was never meant to support.  Knowing what "the existing research says" is not as simple as some make it out to be.

But as this reader points out, there's another big research question out there.  It is one thing to say that research doesn't refute BTC in the ways that it has been suggested that it does, but a fair follow up question is,

So where's the research says that it works at all?

"I've looked everywhere for the research on the effectiveness of BTC, but I'm not finding much."

I promise, in part 3, I'm going to fulfill my vow of getting straight to the point - here are the pillars of cognitive science and here's evidence that Building Thinking Classrooms in Mathematics is or isn't aligned.

But,

1. I need to reorganize and re-write that piece, so it isn't ready yet
2. If we're talking about BTC and research, I think this diversion has a place in the series

So, while I re-work part 3, let's look into research a little more here in part 2½​.
​

Where's the Research that BUilding THinking Classrooms is Effective?

It's a fair question, and one we should probably be able to answer if we're going to be accused from time to time - fairly or not - of doing something that goes against all the research on cognitive science.

So where is it?

The answer is - it depends who is asking.

Allow me to explain.

There are two points I made in part 2.0 that are especially important here:

1. Research can only provide evidence for things that have been - and that can be - researched 
2. It takes many, many studies done - and replicated - in many contexts to prove that something is effective or not.  It usually takes decades to get enough to be conclusive.

Building Thinking Classrooms in Mathematics was only published four years ago.  It hasn't existed nearly long enough to be thoroughly academically researched.  Anyone telling you that it isn't research-supported is technically correct, but only because something has to exist before it can be researched.  

Academics can't conduct studies on something prior to its invention.

​Academically speaking, Thinking Classrooms aren't research-supported. 

Academically speaking, they aren't research-refuted either.   

​They're too new for anyone to tell you that research has anything definitive to say about them.
​

"There's not any research showing that this will work.  But there also isn't any showing that it won't.  How, then, should we proceed?"
​

If you ask an academic, "where's the research on the effectiveness of BTC?" the answer is, "we haven't done it yet.  And it'll probably be a very long time until we have done so to an extent that meets the academic scrutiny necessary to say anything definitive about it."

That's one answer to the question.

But it isn't the only answer to the question.

Academics aren't the only people worth asking that question to, and academic research isn't the only type of research that matters.

Building Thinking Classrooms in Mathematics is choc-full of extensive action research on the practices presented in the book prior to its publishing, of course.  Every chapter is littered with references to what was tried, how it went, and how it was revised in the forty-ish classrooms where Liljedahl hashed out the practices with participating teachers.  Action research isn't experimentally designed, so it doesn't qualify as academic "proof" in those circles.  When done by an academic, like Liljedahl, it is usually introductory research used to justify later, more formal study.
​

Some of Liljedah's action research has been published - the research process is underway!

It has  specific, limited use academically, but it is of great use to practitioners.

And practitioners are who the thing is aimed at.  It isn't an academic exercise.  It's intended to be used.

A graph showing one of the many action research findings presented in Building Thinking Classrooms in Mathematics.  All throughout the book (and the subsequent "green book" updating findings of several practices after further investigation) Liljdahl says "when we tried this, we found this.  Doing it like this worked, doing it like this didn't."  That's action research.  It is highly practical, if not experimentally designed.  The introductory findings of action research justify future, formal, experimental studies.
​

Professors aren't the only people who can conduct action research, either.  Action research has been my own justification for Building A Thinking Classroom, too.  I've been open that, after the pandemic, I taught the way I always taught and no longer got the results I always got, so I tried something new.  And it worked!  I've publicly shared how much better my students' test scores were when I made the the change, even in year #1.  Nobody in academia can use those results because there wasn't an experimental and a control group, there were too many uncontrolled variables, and all the other stuff that makes it not official research.

But those results are of great use to me.

Academic research isn't the only kind of research, nor is it the only kind of evidence worthy of justifying action.

I don't know of any academic research showing that Aldi is cheaper than Publix, but I do have my own evidence that it is cheaper where I live.

I don't know of any academic research proving that writers do better, more productive work away from home, but I have plenty of my own evidence that I sure do.

And I don't have any academic research (yet) to convince me that Thinking Classrooms are effective in general.  The program simply hasn't existed long enough for it to be done.  

Most teachers have used teaching philosophies that weren't scientifically proven for as long as teaching has been happening.  Socrates, having lived long before the establishment of the scientific method, had no experimental research justifying the Socratic method, I assure you.  People were using direct instruction long before the studies supporting it that I discussed in part 2 were published, too.  They had to be, of course, else there wouldn't have been anything to research!

Decades worth of careful, expertly carried out research would be a wonderful justification for Building your Thinking Classroom in Mathematics.  Given our propensity to discard new instructional ideas before there is time to research their effectiveness anyways, I worry that BTC will rise and fall before that research can be done. 

But maybe not.  It has made its way into so many countries at this point that it has a good shot of surviving somewhere long enough to be thoroughly studied, even if not in the US.
​

"He said we might be waiting decades for this evidence to be scientifically conclusive."

Until then, in its absence, I need my own research to convince me that it is effective in my own, particular setting.

​And I have it.

There is evidence that it works for me.  There is evidence that it works for forty-some teachers that Liljedahl worked with.  It works for Julia, who left a stunningly insightful comment on part 2 of this series.  It has surely worked for countless others, or it wouldn't be proliferating across the world at such a staggering pace.

For a while, we are going to have to rely on the shockingly great evidence we collect in our own classrooms.

And if it works, it can't possibly be out of step with cognitive science.

Right?

Right?

I promise this time, I'll get right to that point in part 3.

​Unless y'all get me off track again.

If you enjoyed this post, please share it! 

Want to make sure you never miss a new post?  Subscribe below for email notifications of new content.

Want to read more right now?  You're in luck - this is my 104th post! You can browse past posts by category:

• ​Building A Thinking Classroom
• Leaning Into The Science and Engineering Practices
• Classroom Practices
• Classroom Stories
• Ideas and Opinions
• Pandemic-Related Issues

Want to contribute to the conversation?  Or do you have an idea for a future post?  Leave a comment below!