This was a really well researched and reasoned treatise on changing our fundamental educational approach to mathematics. The author's thesis is that teaching children a "historical approach to calculating" does not equip them with knowledge or ability for modern applications of maths. To a certain extent, this could apply to many subjects taught in school--why are the same old ideas taught while students, unless they've had hands-on parents, often lack basic life and career skills by the time they graduate? Anyway, this book is a great addition to a philosophy of education collection.

Thanks to the publishers and NetGalley for the opportunity to review a digital ARC in exchange for an unbiased review.

With decades of experience at Wolfram Research, few are as well-placed as Conrad Wolfram to understand the applications of mathematics in our world today and the potential for its future application. And he agrees with those who question the rote requirements of traditional maths education in this new age of computers.

The Maths Fix lays out an alternative vision -- one that focuses on gaining proficiency in using the tools of calculation rather than being human calculators ourselves. It articulates what we've all been saying -- let machines do the calculating faster and more efficiently than humans can, and then focus our creative human minds on applying the results.

I was delighted to be offered to provide a review for this book. Thanks Wolfram and team for considering me.

The core of this book talks about a radical change towards teaching mathematics right from the lowest grade. I could relate to my way of learning math during my school days - the faster you could calculate, the better the math student you were. And the author argues against this throughout the book - learn the concepts first, leave the computation to a machine.

"Math in schools has become highly siloed and above basic primary level, largely unused across other subjects" - very true. The process employed was - definition, procedure and problems to solve. I also recall groaning about working purely mechanically on Fourier Analysis during my engineering course. Worfram asserts that missing the application part will only cause more trouble for us going forward and hence urges to restructure the curriculum.

Though there are other books on this topic, I compliment the author for the extensive research that has been performed to convey his ideas across. The Define-Abstract-Compute-Interpret guideline can very well be applied to any other field, not just to education, let apart mathematics. I found the example on being able to detect leukemia based on the imaging of blood to be explained very creatively.

The categorization of mathematics into 5 core areas was another innovative approach discussed in the book. The author presses upon introducing concepts like Data Science, Calculus much earlier in the curriculum and opines this curriculum promotes solving real-world problems. The analogy on how you can drive a car without having knowing the internals of the machinery is very apt and convincing.

Now for the "downs".
One of my main concerns of this approach is of children having to much 'screen-time'. The author does address them while breaking it into multiple categories, but failed convincing me on how the benefits would outweigh or even just break-even with the negative impact.

I found the language used in the book quite abstruse, forcing me to read those lengthy sentences multiple times to understand their intent. The missing/misplaced punctuation confused me of the author was trying to say. Though the "Math" of this book is excellent, I feel there's room for improvement on the "English" part. Having said that, the author acknowledges this was not his forte.

The above are definitely not the reasons for not picking up this book. The change being prescribed in this book is mammoth, but I'm strongly inclined towards the author's thought process that this is absolutely required for us. It takes time for us to change, but we sure have to start that now. "Good ideas need good luck" - or so I've heard. Wishing the best to that thought process.

I think that this is an important book for anyone involved in math(s) education to read. I have been thinking that the traditional math sequence can use some shaking up, and Wolfram really got my wheels turning. I am afraid that we are not leveraging technology as well as we can, and this book definitely supports that idea. Another key idea is that we are not supplying our students with skills that they can use in the 21st century, and I have heard many students complain that they cannot transfer the skills they learn in our classes into real-world use.

Wolfram prescribes, in detail, what he feels belongs in the new computation course. I’m not sure that I am on board with the entire list, but it is a great starting point. I think that data analysis and modeling are key skills for our students to possess. Some coding makes a lot of sense as well. The focus is on real-world, open-ended problems.

The question for me, which Wolfram addresses at great length, is why are we asking students to perform tasks that a computer can perform? Shouldn’t we be focused on generating our own problems? Shouldn’t we be focused on coming up with functions to model real data? Isn’t it more important that our students can identify problems that they want to solve and come up with efficient ways to solve them? I think this is what math(s) must transform itself to in order to be valuable to our students in the 21st century?

I give this book my strongest possible recommendation, and I encourage you to read it. And start discussions about what we want our ideal math(s) courses to look like.

Thank you to Wolfram Publishing and NetGalley for providing the advance review copy of this book to me for my honest opinion. (Fun fact: I had already pre ordered this book when I was approached to Wolfram for an advance copy. I liked the book so much that I did not cancel my print copy!)

The Math(s) Fix wants you to believe that computers are coming for your math.

Scary, isn’t it? You should find it scary. Computers are way better at calculating than we are, yet we insist that “real math” means learning how to do long division by hand!

Wolfram Media kindly provided me an eARC of this book via NetGalley in exchange for this review. I was definitely very interested in this.

Some positionality, because even though this review is not about me, my perspective informed my reaction to the book. I am a math and English teacher. I have taught high school in the UK, and I currently teach high school to adult students in Ontario who need their diploma. I have 7 years of intimate experience with how the math curriculum and our wider system of educating and assessing students fails them. My current position allows me a lot of latitude that I wouldn’t necessarily have if I had to answer to parents, so I’ve had the enjoyment of doing things like going gradeless. A lot of what Wolfram suggests in The Math(s) Fix aligns with what I am already doing or planning to do in my classroom—however, as he points out, teachers alone cannot implement this fix. For this reason, I am a proponent of radical change to all levels of our education system.

But what if you’re not? What if you’re someone who doesn’t know much about our current education system? You’ve been out of school for years. Maybe you’re a parent, maybe not. Will this book convince you that Wolfram is right, that there is a problem and he has the right solution? I hope so. I really hope so.

Here’s what you need to know about this book.

First, it’s not a math book. It’s not an education book. It’s not a policy book. There are no advanced equations in here. You don’t need anything beyond your basic education to read this. Wolfram also doesn’t delve too deeply into theory of pedagogy here (he brushes up against it, at times, but nothing that’s too hard to follow). Similarly, Wolfram keeps the aim of the book general enough, in terms of policy changes, to apply to any jurisdiction and any scale—local, regional, national. If you’re wondering, “Does this book apply to me, to my children, to my school, to my board or authority?” the answer is “Yes.”

Second, this is a book about the necessity of unity mathematics as a school subject with computational thinking, but it is not about how we should replace educators with computers, and if that’s the reading you take away from this, go back and read it again. I’ll admit I was skeptical as all-get-out when I saw who had written this. Indubitably Conrad Wolfram is qualified to speak on this subject, but would The Math(s) Fix just be a thinly-veiled advertisement for Wolfram products in schools? It’s unavoidable that Wolfram’s companies would benefit from the shift he outlines here, and he acknowledges this. Yet the arguments he makes for the necessity of this shift are persuasive and have nothing to do with the Wolfram bottom line. Moreover, Wolfram recognizes—indeed, is intimately familiar with—the limitations of computer-based math. At one point he condemns people who interpret calls for CBM to mean “computer-based assessments.” He argues that computers can help with the organization and presentation of material, that computers can help with computation, but that at the end of the day, both qualitative and quantitative assessments are best left to human educators. This is true even for quantitative assessments, because it is hard to quantify problem-solving. Which brings me to …

Third, this book clearly defines what math is and is not—or rather, what math has become in schools versus what it should be. One of the first things I say to my new math class full of anxious adult learners traumatized by their years of failing to do math in high school? “This,” I hold up my phone calculator, “is not math.” I proceed to explain how math is not “doing calculations,” because we have computers for that. I explain to them that real math is about creatively solving problems. And then I try, in eight weeks, 110 hours, to somehow undo as much of the years and years of abuse they’ve endured at the hands of our industrialized education system.

Don’t get me wrong: Ontario probably has one of the best math curricula out there. Yet I still want to tear it up and start fresh, because I think our whole approach is fundamentally backwards and obsolete in the world of computation.

Wolfram is very passionate about this change. He explains why this is not something we teachers can tackle alone. We need politicians, parents, and basically everyone else on board too—after all, this affects everyone. The Math(s) Fix is impeccably organized in such a way to lead you through the problem, the solution, and counterarguments to those who think this is unnecessary or unworkable.

What’s missing from The Math(s) Fix is probably a patina of prosaic writing. Wolfram admits he has shortcomings in this area. The arguments are logical, and the rhetoric itself isn’t bad. Yet despite his frequent references to experiences with his daughter, not to mention his own days learning defunct subjects like Latin, Wolfram is not great with the emotional appeals. As a reader, I definitely value these elements of a manifesto. There are others who have made similar arguments in more accessible, emotionally-intelligent ways. And there will hopefully be more to come. Wolfram himself acknowledges that this book cannot be the beginning nor the end of this movement for a new “core computational subject,” as he calls it.

So here’s my evaluation and my recommendation: The Math(s) Fix should be read by anyone with a strong interest in education policy, reform, or decision-making at any level. If you are a school board trustee, an educator, a politician … this book is for you. If you are a member of the general public and you feel like you have the stamina to wade through a book that is not at all math-heavy but definitely logic-encumbered then I’d recommend this book to you as well. If you want a book that makes a plea based more on anecdotes or broader social data, then you won’t find that here (and that’s ok). The Math(s) Fix is an important, well-presented addition to what is one of the most crucial conversations of our age. We are either going to get ahead of the computational revolution or we are going to do our children a disservice.

Will you contribute to the fix?

I was thrilled to be offered a copy of The Math(s) Fix for an honest review, and an invitation to the book launch webinar.
The book is great for anyone involved in education (parents, teachers, support staff, carers etc), but would highly recommend to those who dictate our curriculum. The whole concept is spot on, and voiced many of the reasons I decided my children would be educated otherwise. The Math(s) Fix also sets out a plan for how the subject should be; by teaching skills actually required of the real world, and "acknowledging computers exist". How long do you pressure a child to learn the violin, unless they desire a career as a performer? Why do certain job roles (usually the higher paying ones) require A's in outdated/irrelevant information? Definitely a conversation piece.
I do have one negative; this is painfully verbose. The subject itself involves complex terminology, for me, there was unnecessary padding.
The webinar was enjoyable, and seeing/hearing Conrad speak about and quote the book was great motivation.

The Math(s) Fix is a comprehensive densely informational book on the reformation and updating of mathematics education and teaching methods. Due out 10th June 2020 from Wolfram, it's 320 pages and will be available in hardcover, paperback, and ebook formats. It's worth noting that the ebook format has a handy interactive table of contents as well as interactive links and references throughout. I've really become enamored of ebooks with interactive formats lately. For Kindle Unlimited subscribers, this book is currently included in the KU subscription library to borrow and read for free.

Many educational teaching methods haven't changed a whole lot in hundreds of years. Outdated methods are slowly being replaced but change has been slow and often ineffective. Currently mathematics classes are being stripped to the bare minimum due to funding cuts as well as a lack of qualified and engaged teachers. The author makes the statement that without intervention, it wil become: "a backwater for a few afficianados, and drop out of the mainstream - a bit like the demise of Latin in UK or European schools".

Mathematics and logical reasoning skills are absolutely critical to our continued survival as a species. A basic understanding of math concepts is necessary for most other academic pursuits as well as teaching thinking patterns which provide tools for problem solving. As with most pursuits, having the proper tools available can mean the difference between success and failure.

Our past modality for teaching mathematics has proven inadequate for our current educational needs. The author makes a very good point for utilizing the tools available, including powerful computer assisted processing power, to structure mathematics education to reach more students and actually *teach* them, helping them build and own the problem solving tools instead of just using cookie-cutter tests to "cram - test - forget".

This is an intellectually dense textbook, written by an academic from a strong academic background. It's full of formal academic language and isn't an "easy" (read lazy) book to read. It's rigorous and demanding. He follows the premise in the introduction: define - abstract - compute - interpret, as a formula for the rest of the book.

At the end of the day, though it's somewhat oversimplified (and much more elegantly said in the 320 pages of the book: no teaching reform (however well meaning) has really taken into account the fact that computers exist. This book changes that.

For American readers, much of the spelling and language utilize the British standard spellings, so things like "maths", "utilise", "specialise", etc are chosen consequently. It shouldn't prove any difficulty in context.

We need a better way to teach mathematics. We need more people who understand mathematics to become engineers, physicists, scientist, and problem solvers. Wolfram has a lot of interesting ideas on that subject.

Five stars (readers should keep in mind that the subject requires some effort). I would enthusiastically recommend people in education or policy to expend the necessary effort.

Disclosure: I received an ARC at no cost from the author/publisher for review purposes.

The Math(s) Fix is a remarkable analysis by Conrad Wolfram on what is happening in the field of math as it pertains to worldwide educational systems. Better yet, it offers a solution.

The book reflects an enormous amount of thought and active planning for a proposed change in the way math is taught and used. His brother, Stephen Wolfram, is the founder and CEO of Wolfram Research, home to the software Mathematica and the Wolfram Alpha answer engine. Both are powerful software packages that represent some of the best of what computer technology can now offer. The Math(s) Fix offers a peek at an amazing approach proposed for future math instruction.

Conrad’s experience in advancing computational technology led him to a realization that the way math is taught today does not reflect what is technologically available, nor what is needed for today’s occupations. His dedication to the subject is clear. Much of the book builds a framework for why math education should change. I was convinced early in the reading and found the layers of rationale a little tedious before I made it to the “Fix.” For those who already see a need for math education change, the initial text might be frustrating. For those who don’t believe change is needed, it could become a barrier. But it did cement my respect for an effort that is heart-driven and thorough, and it was exciting to make it to the proposals.

Having Internet access to the website established for implementing these changes is a big plus. (https://www.computerbasedmath.org/). The book example of how the new approach would work was ambitious, but it demonstrates the power of technology and the ability of software to interpret questions. Everyone should try the Wolfram Alpha program (free) to appreciate the power this “answer engine.”

Summary: I loved the book and support the broad proposals. I love math, so am a little nervous about how far we let computational technology do the work for us. But the solution proposed would seem to offer a whole new world of innovation and progress.

Bob Spillman

Instead of trying to put a positive spin on math this book goes on to explain the history of math and challenges many have it and bashing the subject. Basic math is a must for anyone to exist on their own as an adult. The idea of integrating math as subject on to computers for teaching isn't a horrible idea but it was a huge focus of the book. I do like the idea of people of all ages learning coding because you learn other things.

This book was not for me and definitely didn't put a positive spotlight on the subject of math. Just a turn off and might add to be people's anxiety over the subject. Yes, it's well written and you can tell the author has a passion for the subject; but for people that haven't taken advanced math, some of this was like reading Chinese.

Looking forward to reading "Math Without Numbers." Sounds more interesting than this; just my opinion.

Thanks to Netgalley, the author and Wolfram Media for an ARC in exchange for an honest review.

Available: 6/10/20

I am a former teacher, and also love math (not maths), so I was excited about a book that would possibly explain a better way to teach math in school.

Sadly, I didn’t find any such method. I don’t even really know what the Mathematica software does. The book kind of made me feel dumb, the way a computer company representative once did when they told me “we don’t want you to have access to your own computer’s files because you might do something dumb with them.” The writing was sometimes over my head, sometimes vague and without focus. It is unclear how much research the author has done into actual math curriculums around the world.

I live in Canada, and I don’t think our approach to math curriculum is to say “you need math because it’s very important and that’s all you need to know.” Our curriculum is very real-world and problem-solving based. There is coding in elementary school. A lot of learning is cross-curricular.

I don’t think the idea of creating a curriculum using computers is a bad idea. There a quite a few hurdles that have nothing to do with math, though.

In every school where I have taught, almost none of the staff was computer literate. I have spent a lot of hours troubleshooting technology for my coworkers and students. Computers won’t stay connected to the internet, students are unable to log in, etc. Many teachers won’t base lessons around computers because they are so unreliable. You can wait a week for an actual technician to come around.

The people making decisions about curriculum (government) do so for political reasons, not necessarily what’s best for student learning. In Canada, education is a provincial jurisdiction, so it can vary from province to province. Also, the government changes every 4 years, and the curriculum gets scrapped almost every time.

Once, we had an education minister who tried to get the public sector to partner and invest time in our schools so we could make learning more meaningful for our students. Guess what – not much buy-in from companies. Really, I think this may be the best way to make a change – convince the public sector that it’s in their interest to invest in creating the change they want to see.

At one point in this book, the author writes, "When I started this journey, I thought there would be a huge amount of straight hostility. So far, I've found confusion predominates instead." Having read a substantial portion of it before giving up on it, I can only agree.

The book is written by the younger brother of the creator of the Mathematica software, and given that this very software is mentioned more than thirty times throughout the text, I had to wonder if this really is nothing more than an extended sales pitch for said software. The truth is that I honestly cannot say because despite the book being billed as "a groundbreaking book that exposes why math education is in crisis worldwide and how the only fix is a fundamentally new mainstream subject" I could not for the life of me, despite several searches throughout the book, discover what it is that the author proposes to replace traditional math teaching with.

That said, I must confess that I gave up on it about 25% of the way in. The book really dragged. Instead of launching into the new ideas from the outset, the author requires that we spend fully a quarter of the book listening to him waffling on about the problem without really telling us anything. I agree with him that the math we teach these days has little to do with most people's real-world experience of or need for it. The simple solution to that is to teach less of it and more of what people do need!

The language of this book is a bit high level, too. I wasn't sure who the author's intended audience was supposed to be, but given the college-level language he uses, it's definitely not the stereotypical 'man (or woman) in the street'. I didn't have too much trouble understanding most of it, but the writing was very dense, and quite academic in tone. I listened to it (read by my iPhone's Voice Over software) on the commute to and from work each day, and on the morning I decided to give up on it, and the reason I quit was because I realized that I had not understood a single word he'd written in some twenty-five minutes of driving.

This was not because I was too focused on traffic. The streets are largely devoid of traffic when I drive in to work, and I typically have no problem driving safely and hearing what my book or novel of choice is all about as I drive. That morning was a huge fail in this regard, and it's solely because of the high-falutin' language he used.

I read scores of books of all types, and have college-level education, and while it was not wholly impenetrable, this book was far too dense for my taste. He could have eased this quite readily by employing more everyday language, but his attitude seemed to be "why use 'used' when you can write 'utilized'"?! I can't take anyone seriously who regularly writes 'utilized'. For a book that claims to be clearing the cobwebs out of mathematics, perhaps his first step should have been to clear the cobwebs out of his writing, and write at a level that's easy for your average reader to grasp? Just a thought!

Just so you know it's not only me, I pasted the first 600 or so words from the first chapter into an online readability app, and these were the results:

Flesch Reading Ease score: 39.1 (difficult to read)
Gunning Fog: 17.2: (difficult to read)
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 14.1 (College)
The Coleman-Liau Index: 13 (College)
The SMOG Index: 12.4: (Twelfth Grade)
Automated Readability Index: 15.6 (College graduate)
Linsear Write Formula : 17.3 (College Graduate and above)

So: not aimed at Jo Average! But it wasn't just the level of the language, it was the jargon employed. The word, 'computational' for example appears over 400 times. Here are a few examples, and no, I did not bookmark these at the time (driving!) I just went to random places in the book, and swiped a page or two in one direction or another, and sure enough there was a phrase right there. It's not hard to find them:

"Nor do they provide an appropriate structure for so doing, though in some cases they're complementary outcomes lists and can usefully coexist with outcomes for core computation."

"...that's nullifying the point of having a machine do it instead..."

"...indeed, that the rationale is not orchestrated for practical application distinguishes the discipline..."

"One of the drivers for this is the aforementioned problem of traditional outcomes listings being per maths tool, where our outcomes map instead reflects a distillation of substructure..."

"...not pre-abstracted calculation problem segments..."

"...with respect to a a (sic) core computational curriculum change..."

If only some of this had been rendered into more everyday language it would have improved readability immensely. But this was not the worst problem for me.

The real problem I had was that I really wanted to know what his alternative was, and beyond a vague idea that it seems to involve using computer software, I could glean no idea from the opening portion of the book, and nothing from skimming through and doing some reading in later sections to see if it's explained anywhere at all. I confess it's entirely possible, not having read the whole thing, that I could well have missed it, but I could not for the life of me find anywhere where the author says, 'this is what I propose' or words to that effect and lays out a summary of the new plan. The fact that this book has no contents page did not help in my forlorn quest to get to the 'core computation' (to use a phrase of the author's) and find out what he would like to see as the future of math education. To me that was a serious failing.

Given how tedious it was to read this, and how the author himself seemed curiously loathe to share his plan with the reader, I can't in good faith commend this as a worthy read. The problem seemed to be that he was preaching to the choir for the first quarter of the book. If the language had been simplified a bit, and he'd ditched that first 25% and launched right into it, assuming his readers were interested not in the sorry history of math education, but in discovering what his new proposal was, he would have made a better impression on me. But if his only plan is to sell the Mathematica software to every student at eighty bucks a year, then this seems a little self-serving to me. Maybe he had some other plan; I can't say because I couldn't find out what his plan was!