Jump to content

Talk:Jo Boaler/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Primary Sources

I am not clear exactly how to use the talk page, in general. Please feel free to tell me if this is not correct.I am struggling with this:) I feel that I have used primary sources correctly according to the Wikipedia guidelines. I have added more secondary sources. I do not feel that I have misused primary sources on my Wikipedia article at all. I feel that I have not used them to "interpret" information about Dr. Jo Boaler. Also, I have used books published by the author by reputable publishers and the research articles by Dr. Jo Boaler that I have cited were published in blind-peer-reviewed, reputable journals. See the excerpt from Wikipedia about primary sources,below: "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge." Someone please respond to my comments, here. Anyone at all. I am definitely struggling with how to use the Talk page and to converse with the editors.

Also, I have made revisions in terms of grammar and format in this article. I am hoping that someone can look at the article and see if it is fit for publication, without reservations. I am not sure how to follow up on the comments that are saying that the article has issues. Any help would be greatly appreciated;) Felicia Darling 03:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


Felicia Darling 00:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleadarling (talk • contribs)

Removing Research section

The research section appears to be poorly source, with most citations being primary sources. I suspect the author of the section (Fleadarling) was an associate of Boaler's, as the only article they ever worked on was this one.

I think this section should be removed based on sourcing, and the available secondary sources merged into the other sections. Input invited. 99.152.115.208 (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Cleaned up primary sourcing per WP:PRIMARY and WP:DUE. 99.152.115.208 (talk) 05:38, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Clarification needed: Outstanding Book of the Year award

I've just removed a reference to the British Journal of Educational Studies which was being used to support the statement that Boaler's book Experiencing School Mathematics won the Outstanding Book of the Year award as (unless I skipped over something) the source did not mention Boaler or the book.

The award is still mentioned in the lead where it is referenced to a webpage on the Stanford Graduate School of Education. However, it would be useful to indicate which organisation conferred the award. I haven't been able to find out that information myself, so wanted to flag it here. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I removed it until someone can find a reliable source. 99.152.115.208 (talk) 05:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Added SF Chron article covering Oxnard contract

I did not link the actual contract in the article as there may be some WP:BLP issues, but here it is if anyone thinks it passes muster for inclusion in the article: https://www.oxnardsd.org/site/handlers/filedownload.ashx?moduleinstanceid=24956&dataid=23535&FileName=Full%20Agenda%20-%20August%204%202021%20Regular%20Board%20Meeting.pdf 99.152.115.208 (talk) 05:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

2021 California Math Framework

The language used to the discuss the letter sent by Boaler is not neutral or objective (for example, using words like ‘passive-aggressive’ and ‘histrionic’). The relevance of the training contract is also not clearly explained. 2A00:23C6:A89F:DF01:129:8F38:521:886A (talk) 16:08, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Conrad's criticism

I made a few copy edits to TheMissingMuse's recent additions, including getting rid of the word "many" in the following sentence:

Conrad highlighted many cases where he said the authors of the framework had misinterpreted cited sources...

TheMissingMuse reverted that part of my edit immediately, with the edit summary correct to source. Strictly speaking, this isn't correct (though it's a really minor quibble). Here's what the source says:

The most prolific and one of the strongest critics of the framework is a colleague at Stanford, Brian Conrad, a professor of mathematics and director of undergraduate studies in math. Conrad said he agrees that math is often poorly taught and needs to be improved. But he faults the framework’s solutions as simplistic, oversold and not grounded in research. Conrad said he spent spring break reading not only the framework but also many of the citations from which the authors justified their recommendations. “To my astonishment, in essentially all cases, the papers were seriously misrepresented” and in some cases “even had conclusions opposite to what was said” in the framework. The misrepresentations of the neuroscience of math comprehension, de-tracking in favor of heterogeneous student grouping, the use of assessments and acceleration call into question the recommendations. Writers, he said, “should not be citing papers they do not understand to justify their public policy recommendations” fitting their perspectives.

The source says that Conrad read many of the citations and then characterized them as misrepresentations. He hasn't actually listed what they were, at least not in the reference provided. I'd suggest therefore as a compromise:

Conrad said that he had checked many of the references cited in the framework and that he had found "in essentially all cases, the papers were seriously misrepresented,” in some cases presenting conclusions contrary to the underlying research.

It's less felicitous language, but at least it avoids running afoul of WP:BLP. Generalrelative (talk) 01:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

If you want to review Conrad's work, it's linked to from the cited article. Here is a direct link for convenience. However, that is a primary source and not generally useful for editing per wp:primary. The paraphrasing of the secondary source is correct, so I'm not sure what your question is. He read many of the sources, and essentially all were misrepresented. I would characterize your paraphrase as cumbersome and needlessly pedantic to the point of potentially being a WP:COPYVIO. Is there a specific aspect of my paraphrase that bounces off of WP:BLP? If you really think there is a BLP issue with my paraphrase, maybe WP:BLPN is the correct noticeboard to get further guidance? TheMissingMuse (talk) 01:57, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Nope, I think I've made my point. If others come along who agree with you you can restore the word. But for now it stays out per WP:ONUS. Generalrelative (talk) 03:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
FYI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Properly_paraphrasing_source_for_Jo_Boaler TheMissingMuse (talk) 06:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Chronicle of Higher Education

The CoHE just published an article which does a good job of summarizing Boaler's history, including the Railside study and more recent work with the CAMF. I'll be reviewing the article and integrating it with the existing text along with other sources from the last five years. TheMissingMuse (talk) 20:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Great! Chronicle is an excellent source. Generalrelative (talk) 01:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Is there a valid URL we can change this to? 172.58.109.146 (talk) 08:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Seems to be. Primefac (talk) 10:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2023

Wikipedia Changes: - take out this section

2021 California Math Framework

Boaler is the primary author of the California Department of Education's controversial mathematics draft framework.[46][47][48] The draft framework seeks to refocus mathematics education towards equity.[49][50] The draft framework recommends that all students take the same fixed set of math courses until their junior year of high school, which critics, including some leading mathematicians, say will hold back students.[51][52][53] Berkeley Professor Jelani Nelson found the framework worrying, saying it removed rigor and created a lower track of study, which would negatively impact diversity in STEM careers.[54]


Replace with:

2023 Approved California Mathematics Framework

Boaler is one of five writers of the California Department of Education’s Mathematics Framework. The Framework came from a committee of 20 education leaders and a four-year process of public comments and revisions. The framework proposes a mathematics approach of teaching to ‘big ideas’ allowing mathematical connections to be highlighted. It shares the value of opening high level pathways to more students, (recommending that a working group be formed to review high school courses) and a focus on data literacy all through K-12. It was unanimously approved by the state board on July 12th, 2023. Bigmathguy123 (talk) 00:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lightoil (talk) 03:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2023

Wikipedia Changes: - take out this section

2021 California Math Framework

Boaler is the primary author of the California Department of Education's controversial mathematics draft framework.[46][47][48] The draft framework seeks to refocus mathematics education towards equity.[49][50] The draft framework recommends that all students take the same fixed set of math courses until their junior year of high school, which critics, including some leading mathematicians, say will hold back students.[51][52][53] Berkeley Professor Jelani Nelson found the framework worrying, saying it removed rigor and created a lower track of study, which would negatively impact diversity in STEM careers.[54]


Replace with:


2023 Approved California Mathematics Framework

Boaler is one of five writers of the California Department of Education’s Mathematics Framework. The Framework came from a committee of 20 education leaders and a four-year process of public comments and revisions. The framework proposes a mathematics approach of teaching to ‘big ideas’ allowing mathematical connections to be highlighted. It shares the value of opening high level pathways to more students, (recommending that a working group be formed to review high school courses) and a focus on data literacy all through K-12. It was unanimously approved by the state board on July 12th, 2023. Mathguy8921 (talk) 01:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: I'm afraid that I have to give the same answer that Lightoil gave above. Please note that the text you're seeking to replace is well sourced (with 9 high quality citations) while the text you're seeking to replace it with contains no citations. If you can provide reliable sources to support the new text I'd be very happy to consider it, though probably as an addition rather than as a replacement. Also, please familiarize yourself with our policy regarding multiple accounts. Generalrelative (talk) 01:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
References provided through VRTS, re-opening for review
(for the record I have not looked at them, just posting). Primefac (talk) 16:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 Partly done:
These are all primary sources, and the third one especially is full of the same promotional language as the edit request. The second one establishes the existence of the 20-person committee, but doesn't call them "education leaders". (It links to a list of the members, with their employers and job titles, but it would be WP:OR for us to characterize them in any fashion.) Both sources tell us the date the board adopted the framework, but I don't see where either say that it was a unanimous vote. This is about all I can *add* to the article using the given citations: On July 12, the framework was adopted by the California State Board of Education after a four-year process lead by a 20-person committee. Feedback from two public comment periods and two public hearings was included in the approved version.
For anything else, you need to provide reliable secondary sources that are independent from any of the organizations involved in proposing, drafting, or approving the framework. I am closing this request until you can do so. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 13:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Amendment proposal

Can we suggest this amendment? There is no 2021 Math Framework

2023 California Math Framework

The California Math Framework came from a committee of 20 educators and a 5 person writing team. Brian Lindaman was the lead writer. The controversy around the framework centered upon its focus on equitable outcomes. Although earlier versions of the framework recommended that all students take common core math 6, 7 and 8 before advancing to higher level courses, the final approved framework makes clear that some students can accelerate in their pathways, as long as it does not set up a structure where most students are filtered out of a pathway to high levels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathguy8921 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: CALIFORNIA DREAMING, THE GOLDEN STATE'S RHETORICAL APPEALS

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 October 2023 and 8 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Pomegranateenjoyer (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Pomegranateenjoyer (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

2021 California Math Framework

Thanks so much Generalrelative for implementing my edit request above. I hope you will also consider implementing the following edits as well. The section called "2021 California Math Framework" has too much detail about the framework than what is appropriate for a BLP about Jo Boaler. The following edits will make this a more balanced presentation:

  • At the top of the section add the following:
See main article: California Department of Education: 2021 Mathematics Framework
  • The first sentence in this section mis-represents Boaler as "the primary author" of the framework, when in fact she was "part of a committee" or "one of five writers" involved, according to the overwhelming majority of reliable sources. I also suggest removing the adjective "controversial" to describe the framework, a contentious description, as discussed here:MOS:LABEL. Plus, the framework was approved, so it is no longer a draft. The new first sentence should appear as follows:
Boaler is one of five writers of the California Department of Education's mathematics framework,[1][2][3][4] approved in July 2023 by the state board of education.[5]
  • The rest of the section should be deleted. Boaler's Wikipedia article is not the place to discuss the contents of the framework, nor a long discussion of the adoption process. The opening link takes interested readers to the place where the framework is discussed in detail.

Thanks so much. MeanderingWalrus (talk) 21:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@MeanderingWalrus: I came in belated response to your request on my talk page, but see that was already addressed. I took a look at your more recent request and partially implemented it. Her work on the framework doesn't need that many sources, per WP:OVERCITE, the framework is clearly controversial, per the sources, and it seemed to make sense to combine the shorter sentences into the regular history section. We don't need to call out the framework info - we can just link to it, as I did. Also, the youcubed.org info is poorly sourced, and might even get deleted if there's not an independent third party source. As it stands, it doesn't warrant a standalone stub section. STEMinfo (talk) 02:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks STEMinfo so much for implementing the above edit request, your other edits, your clear explanations, and suggestions. All the best for a great new year. MeanderingWalrus (talk) 23:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Fensterwald, John (29 July 2022). "Deep divisions, further delay for California's math guidelines". Palo Alto Online. Brian Lindaman, faculty co-director of the Center for Science and Mathematics Instruction at California State University, Chico, chaired the five-person committee that drafted the framework
  2. ^ Galchen, Rivka (8 September 2022). "California Students Are Struggling in Math. Will Reforms Make the Problem Worse?". The New Yorker. Lindaman, the chair of the C.M.F. drafting committee
  3. ^ Miolene, Elissa (28 July 2023). "California has adopted a new plan to teach math. Why are people so riled up?". Mercury News. But Jo Boaler, a Stanford math education professor and one of the writers of the state guidelines
  4. ^ Fensterwald, John (10 July 2023). "Next, maybe last, big test for California's controversial math framework". EdSource. Some of the citations of work support the instructional methods promoted by math instruction experts, including Stanford University math education professor Jo Boaler, one of the original framework's team of authors.
  5. ^ Blume, Howard; Watanabe, Teresa (13 July 2023). "California approves math overhaul to help struggling students. But will it hurt whiz kids?". Los Angeles Times.

Primary Sourcing

This article relies heavily on sources directly written by, or associated with, the subject of the article. There are several op-eds cited without proper attribution, citations to Youcubed, citations of the authors books, as well as her website. Most of these citations are not backed up by secondary sources that establish WP:DUE weight. I am in the process of refactoring references, with the primary goal of separating out secondary sources from the primary sources. I'm not sure how to properly attribute the primary sources in the notes and references, so for now I am only refactoring the secondary sources. All of the primary sources should be reviewed, and if there is no secondary source support, likely removed. TheMissingMuse (talk) 23:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I've refactored many of the sources, removing some of the lowest quality sourcing (mostly PR type sources). There are still a number of dubious sources, but for the most part any source refactored to the References section should be good. Feedback invited. TheMissingMuse (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Here is a list of sources that I'm less confident w.r.t. sourcing for this article.
Most of these have no author and many are likely directly managed by the subject of the article. Most of the facts sourced to these citations should be covered in other more robust sources. TheMissingMuse (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jo_Boaler/Archive_1&oldid=1248394108"