Happy summer Friday, Bell Ringers. I’ve got a great letter for you today. Recently, two researchers reached out to me and wanted to respond to my story, “Why schools are rolling back ‘productive struggle.’” that’s generated quite a lot of conversation. I am more than happy to let them have the floor today, and would love to hear your thoughts.

James Hiebert and Ronald Gallimore are co-authors today, explaining how the original meaning of the term “productive struggle” has been misinterpreted and is often being misused in some of the situations I described in the story. They’re wanting to set the record straight on what struggle that’s actually productive might look like in the math classroom.

Gallimore is professor emeritus of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences in the medical school at the University of California Los Angeles, where he studied student achievement in academics and sports, among other pursuits.

Hiebert, who coined the term “productive struggle” alongside researcher Doug Grouws, is professor emeritus in the school of education at the University of Delaware, where his research interests included improving math teaching and learning.

Together, they authored “Toward a New Model for Research on Ambitious Mathematics Teaching,” published in 2023.

Here’s their response to my story. Would love to hear your thoughts in the comments or you can reach me here.

Abandoning Unproductive Struggle, Reinstating Productive Struggle

In a recent article in this space, “Why Schools Are Rolling Back ‘Productive Struggle,’” several educators described students experiencing excessive frustration when asked to solve problems they did not understand. These examples were presented as evidence against productive struggle and as justification for a different instructional approach.

We believe several critiques in Korbey’s article conflate productive struggle with unproductive struggle. This distinction matters because productive struggle is not a pedagogical fad but a well-established principle of learning. Abandoning it risks returning to instructional approaches that limit students’ opportunities to engage in the demanding intellectual work through which deep and lasting understanding develops.

When Hiebert and Grouws defined the term “productive struggle” in 2007, they argued that meaningful conceptual learning often requires students to work through challenging ideas and make sense of mathematical relationships for themselves. Productive struggle is not synonymous with frustration, confusion, or repeated failure; rather, it is the effortful process through which deeper understanding develops.

Learning almost anything of value requires effort. A child learning to read struggles to connect sounds with symbols. A musician struggles to master a new piece. A teacher struggles to improve a lesson that fell short. Such effort is not harmful simply because it is difficult. The critical question is whether the difficulty advances learning and understanding.

We believe that a number of examples in the article reflect failures of instructional judgment rather than failures of productive struggle. Asking students to tackle multi-digit subtraction before they have mastered prerequisite knowledge is a problem of task design, not of productive struggle. Similarly, when students lack fluency with basic facts, the appropriate response may be additional practice rather than the abandonment of challenging work.

The lesson to draw from these examples is not that struggle should be abandoned, but that it should be appropriately calibrated. The examples demonstrate the importance of matching instructional tasks to students’ current levels of understanding, not that students learn best by being told how to solve a problem before attempting a solution.

The key to making struggle productive is teacher planning and scaffolding assistance. Hiebert and Grouws did not envision students working in isolation while teachers stand aside. Making struggle productive requires careful task selection, monitoring student thinking, providing hints and representations, asking questions, and helping students connect emerging ideas. The teacher’s role is active, not passive. A student’s frustration is a call for teacher action.

The issue, then, is not whether students should struggle, but how that struggle is structured and supported. Mathematics instruction requires balance. Students need explicit instruction and deliberate practice. They also need opportunities to struggle productively, to grapple with important ideas, make conjectures, test strategies, and learn from mistakes.

Leave a comment

Welcome to Week 1 of The Bell Ringer Book Club 2026. We are reading Writing Fitness: From Beginner to 5K, by David Didau and Rikki Cole, and in this newsletter you’ll find an overview about the book and about student writing generally, a reading schedule, chapter summaries for the Introduction and Chapters 1-2, plus some extras—research, videos, and articles if you want to go deeper.

It’s not too late to join us, you can order the book or ebook here. To get access to the book guide, interviews with experts, and our virtual meetups, join Bell Ringer Pro.

• Our first virtual conversation about the book, covering the introduction and chapters 1-4, will be held on Wednesday, June 24, at 4 pm Eastern. Natalie Wexler, author of The Knowledge Gap and The Writing Revolution, will be joining the conversation and taking questions. If you can’t make it, a recording will be made available for you the next day. Below the paywall, there’s a Zoom link to join so you can get it on your calendar!

• Our second virtual conversation covering chapters 5-9 will take place Wednesday, July 22, time TBD. Author David Didau will be joining the conversation and taking your questions. This one will also be recorded.

• The Book Club chat happening in the Substack chat also launches today. Start here by introducing yourself!

For at least the last few decades, writing has taken a backseat to reading and math in American classrooms. Learning how to compose sentences, organize thoughts, and create narratives builds stamina for longer, more complex writing later, but according to teachers, school leaders, and researchers I’ve spoken with, the path to get there is often a bit of a mess.

In the recent movement toward evidence-based teaching, greater attention is being given to how reading and math are taught, but many educators and experts say a lot less attention has been paid to writing. While schools worry that students are shortcutting the writing process with help from chatbots, the challenges with teaching and learning writing began before ChatGPT and are notoriously complex. The evidence base on what works is scant, writing is hard to teach, hard for students to learn and it’s complicated to assess how students are doing.

It’s difficult to get a handle on how American students are performing in writing.

Read more

Happy Friday, Bell Ringers. I’ve got two announcements for events you’re not going to want to miss.

• First, I promised you a surprise special guest for the first book club meeting, which is going to be Wednesday, June 24, at 4 pm Eastern. I’m so excited to reveal that Natalie Wexler, author of The Knowledge Gap and Beyond the Science of Reading, and author of the great Minding the Gap newsletter, will be joining our discussion for a live Q&A about all things cognitive science and writing. We will be taking questions from you, dear reader, you don’t want to miss this special event!

• The book club officially begins next Tuesday, June 16. We are reading Writing Fitness: From Beginner to 5K, a book that walks readers through the steps of explicit writing instruction from sentences to full essays. You can order your copy or ebook here. I’ll be sending out an introduction and chapter summaries for chapters 1-3 on Tuesday.

Join Bell Ringer Pro so you don’t miss a thing!

Teaching That Succeeds Symposium

We are getting closer to the big virtual event, here are all the details:

• Tuesday, June 30, 2026

• 1pm-5pm Eastern Standard Time

• Event will begin with a keynote from Holly Korbey, followed by four sessions, and closing with a panel of teacher-experts.

• Learn evidence-based teaching strategies that have produced remarkable results for educators in reading fluency, math, and a variety of other subjects.

Attend for free—add the Zoom link to your calendar

Add Zoom link to calendar!

Schedule of events

Who’s speaking

• Andrew Kieta, Executive Director of Morningside Academy

• Andrew Shimrock, Upper School Spanish Teacher; Research Coordinator for the Center for Teaching and Learning

• Andrew Urevig, 5th grade teacher

• Anjanette McNeely, kindergarten teacher

• Anne Sulsky, 7th and 8th grade writing teacher

• Caitlin Goodrow, interventionist and literacy coach

• David Robson, math coach

• Dylan Kane, 7th grade math teacher

• Jennea Boskill, 3rd grade teacher

• Jennifer Concepcion, 5th grade teacher

• Jennifer Rios-Alers, Read Act specialist and literacy coach

• Laura Stam, 3rd grade teacher

• Maria Knowles, itinerant resource teacher

• Nirmala Vetticatil, resource teacher

• Samantha Lippert, 3rd grade teacher

• Sean Morrisey, 5th grade teacher

• Stephane Bolton, 1st grade teacher

• Tal Most, deputy director, ColoREADo

Leave a comment

The Bell Ringer is back with another Public Notice—more news on the science of learning. This week we’ve got a small-scale study on dyslexic students who didn’t learn to read using Orton-Gillingham but found success with linguistic phonics; a new NCTQ report showing a gap in science of reading coursework and practice in teacher prep programs; the article that started the “Writing Revolution” from 2012, plus summer learning events and more.

News

* New study on Orton-Gillingham “non-responder” students with dyslexia shows reading improvement with linguistic phonics.

Read more

Happy Friday, Bell Ringers. In preparing for next week, when we go full-tilt on the summer of writing—with all-new reporting, interviews and the book club—I thought it would be helpful to bring back this great interview with Natalie Wexler from last year, about her book Beyond the Science of Reading: Connecting Literacy Instruction to the Science of Learning.

The reason Wexler wrote this book was to make some important and often missing connections between the science of reading and the science of learning. One of the biggest missed connections, she argues, is the importance of teaching writing explicitly and well.

We talk a lot in here about the importance of teaching writing not just as part of literacy and making stronger readers, but also how writing is so helpful to learning generally—but it’s often not treated that way.

Listen, watch or read this interview and put all that writing research in your back pocket for when we revisit some of it next week.

And don’t forget to order a copy of our book club pick, Writing Fitness, and join Bell Ringer Pro so you can be a part all the fun book club activities.

Hey there, Bell Ringers! It’s June, and I know you’re relaxing—but don’t forget summer school launches next week.

It’s six weeks of reporting, analysis and resources on writing—what the evidence says about teaching writing, what schools are actually doing when it comes to writing, and why schools must be the lighthouses cultivating the teaching and learning of deep reading and writing. Human-centered reading and writing are on the menu, so to speak, which is why I called this year’s intensive “Will schools save writing?”

We’ve got a book club focused on writing, too: Writing Fitness: From Beginner to 5k, by David Didau and Rikki Cole. This book is all about evidence-based writing practices and how to explicitly teach writing. The central metaphor compares learning to write to running a 5k—if you’ve been totally sedentary, running a marathon just isn’t going to happen. You’ve got to build students up, step by step, and that’s what the book shows readers how to do. I’m really excited about getting to read this book together with you all, so let’s get cracking.

What you get with the Book Club:

• Complete book guide with chapter summaries

• Background, extra resources and research

• 2-3 virtual meetups to talk about the book (all recorded and shared)

• Book chat in the Substack chat

• Live virtual Q&A with co-author David Didau (recorded and shared)

• Fun with curious educators, leaders and parents from around the world

What you need to join:

• The book (order it here!)

• A notebook and pen (optional)

• A Bell Ringer Pro subscription

We start June 16. All the info and the links will be sent through the newsletter, very easy. Order your copy today and join Bell Ringer Pro to get full access.

News

More elementary teachers are ditching productive struggle for explicit instruction in math, no matter what their curriculum recommends—as I reported recently. Now they’re showing me their data, and I think you should see it, too.

Read more

Happy Friday, Bell Ringers! I’m in full fun summer events mode over here at The Bell Ringer. First, there’s the summer school event, which is reporting, resources and tools all focused on writing. And I just announced the Bell Ringer Book Club pick—go read about it here, and go here to pick up your copy. Should there be a virtual cocktail party to kick …

Read more

Welcome to The Bell Ringer Summer School 2026! This year’s summer school is a mini-course on writing, the kind students do in school. As others have said before me, w…

Read more

Happy holiday weekend, Bell Ringers! You’re reading a special double issue, and I’ve got news handcrafted by yours truly.

This week’s feature is focused on Deans for Impact, one of the most influential U.S. organizations in the science of learning field. For the last decade, they have been working with teacher preparation programs to bring cognitive science principles to teachers before they ever step into a classroom.

This week they’re out with a new, updated second edition of The Science of Learning, their original report featuring the basic cognitive science framework for teaching and learning that’s been downloaded more than a million times.

The organization also told me that they’re moving into advocating for policy changes, too.

So let’s get cracking on this special issue, a story + a video interview with DfI’s CEO, Valerie Sakimura. We talk about getting cognitive science principles embedded in teacher education, why they added a new section of research to the report, and more. Getting evidence-based practices into teachers’ hands has the potential to change learning outcomes for students, which is why I’ve endorsed the new report.

What will it take to change teacher prep in the U.S.?

As I reported just a few weeks ago, according to a survey of eight countries out from the OECD, many teachers don’t have strong “general pedagogical knowledge,” or GPK, on how to teach—even after their teacher preparation training. “Teachers with formal education training…often have lower GPK scores on average,” researchers wrote.

In countries like Portugal, the survey showed, teachers with a master’s degree know a lot about both their content area and how to teach. In countries like Poland and Morocco—and to some extent, the U.S.—having an education degree makes little difference.

U.S. teacher knowledge on basic teaching foundations like cognitive science and evidence-based teaching practices, alongside content knowledge, is all over the place. We have both very knowledgeable teachers and very unknowledgeable teachers, and everything in between—the biggest range of qualifications in the survey by far, and the biggest gap between the most knowledgeable and the least.

The lack of coherent teacher prep and an evidence-based framework for teacher education has been an ongoing problem in the U.S., and contributes to poor student performance and high teacher turnover. States all have individual rules and requirements for teachers; often, so do the universities that train them and the districts that hire them.

But even within education schools, there’s a lot of leeway, too. Douglas Cost, dean of the School of Education at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, said that for too long, professors in teacher prep programs all did their own thing: “We’ve arrived, we know everything, let them figure it out has kind of been the way, and I just don’t think that’s working with education anymore,” Cost said.

Read more

Happy Friday, Bell Ringers! Thank you so much for reading, week after week, what I think is the most important story in education today: the science of how humans learn. Consider supporting The Bell Ringer, and keep this kind of education reporting going!

Today we are talking elementary science education. Do you remember kindergarten science? I do. Hands-on lessons like tracing leaves in the fall and planting seeds in the spring are essential to learning about the natural world for young children, says neuroscience PhD , who runs Science Delivered, a nonprofit that brings science lessons to schools. But there’s so much more that elementary science could do to build a strong foundation for the youngest students.

Data shows that elementary students don’t get a lot of science, compared to reading and math—an average of 18 minutes a day. But it’s not only lack of time that makes science so tricky—a lot of science lessons for young students are both inquiry-based and text-heavy, with complex concepts and vocabulary that many 5-, 6- or 7-year-olds can’t read or understand, Mullins said.

“We both overestimate what students can do at one time and underestimate what they can do over time,” she said.

She continued:

So what does a good elementary science lesson look like?

In the following video interview, Mullins explains how she’s using learning science to create a better elementary science lesson—knowledge-rich, explanatory and hands-on, a stronger foundation to help students reach their STEM dreams.

Watch/listen/read here:

A better science lesson

Read more

The Bell Ringer is back with another Public Notice, more news on the science of learning. Today, we are looking at what a new report says is really going on in math classrooms (and both sides of the ‘Math Wars’ will be greatly disappointed). I want to hear if you think the National School Technology Freakout is warranted. Speaking of freaking out, my new story, out today at Tes Magazine, looks at whether AI will be your child’s teacher soon. And catch my blabbing about the science of learning on all the pods.

News

* Report: Everyone’s confused about the Math Wars, while many teachers move on with lectures and worksheets.

Read more

Happy Friday, Bell Ringers! Thanks to all who showed up and watched Left Behind with us— that was my third viewing, and I still cried (again). If you missed this important documentary, watch it on your own here.

In last week’s newsletter, I reported a story about “productive struggle,” a common elementary school teaching practice in which lessons begin with problem-solving exercises that students have had little or no experience with, the idea being that a) they might come up with something cool on their own, and b) they will learn the importance of trying hard.

Teachers are trained to teach young students that way, and popular elementary school curricula begin lessons with productive struggle problems. Yet a growing group of teachers, districts and even some state agencies are saying the practice is making it harder for students to learn math, and they’re backing away from productive struggle done this particular way, and embracing evidence-based practices like the instructional hierarchy.

But I’m not done with this story yet: what does research say about productive struggle? I wanted to ask a researcher who specializes in the math cognition of young students to explain the evidence.

What Boston College psychologist Elida Laski talks about in this important video episode might surprise you (or maybe not): this brand of productive struggle now used with millions of students has morphed from the research base, and has been misinterpreted. Some of Laski’s work includes studies on successful Asian countries who use problems-first approaches with young students—she said the technique has run away from, and in some cases become the opposite, of its original intention.

“The original definition of productive struggle, it was not meant to be sort of any challenge or anything that’s really hard. It was meant to be a struggle that’s actually going to lead to thinking and learning. So the intention was to help students move their skills forward, maybe by setting up particular kinds of problems that are within reach,” Laski says in the following video. Productive struggle used correctly would look a lot more like the Bjorks’ desirable difficulties, she said.

Laski, who does a great job breaking down the nuance of when productive struggle is useful and when it’s not according to the evidence, told me that successful problem solving is a lot like the TV show Chopped:

Read more

It’s movie time, Bell Ringers! Hope you will join us tomorrow evening, Wednesday, May 6, at 7pm Eastern Time/ 6pm Central/ 4pm Pacific for a special screening of the award-winning documentary Left Behind, followed by a Q&A with director Anna Toomey and one of key activists from the film, Naomi Peña.

The documentary, which profiles a group of activist …

Read more

Happy Friday, Bell Ringers! Today’s story is available to everyone, because I think it’s important reporting that needs to be shared. If you like stories like this and want to see more of them, become a Bell Ringer Pro subscriber to keep this kind of reporting going.

Read more

Welcome to Public Notice, where science of learning insiders get their news. In today’s newsletter: American teachers’ knowledge of content and pedagogy is all over the place. And I’m looking for detailed teacher reports on successful early math teaching.

* If you’ve got news, a tip, an upcoming report or event you’d like to share with The Bell Ringer community, give me a shout and put “Public Notice” in the subject line.

News

* The U.S. has teachers who know a lot, and some who know very little—the widest range of teacher knowledge in an eight-country survey, it’s not even close

Read more

Happy Friday, Bell Ringers. I’ve got a great newsletter today that’s perfect for both parents and teachers. We’re talking about how to help students develop good learning habits. Over their school years, students do develop habits, says educator Richard Wheadon, author of the new book Learning Habits: How to Develop Independent and Successful Learners, but many probably don’t serve them—heck, most kids may not even recognize them as habits at all.

Yet making bad learning habits visible—think copying down notes instead of flashcards, or passively watching videos—and replacing them with better choices can often be an uphill slog. Our human urge to do what feels good in the moment, or what’s easiest and closest at hand, keeps students from choices that might not only get them closer to their goals, but help them feel less anxious and more successful.

Wheadon has done a deep dive into the research on habit formation and blended it with his decades of experience as an educator, school leader and consultant in England. He brings all that insight to our lively conversation today.

In this video, we talk about:

• How James Clear’s Atomic Habits influenced Wheadon’s thinking for students

• Making habits visible through actions like habit tracking

• Understanding how humans learn as a key piece of developing good habits

• The vital role environment plays in supporting or detracting from good learning habits

• How good study habits promote success, which promotes student wellbeing

To watch the whole thing, you need to be a Bell Ringer Pro member. Join now and get all the good stuff!

Helping students build better learning habits, with Richard Wheadon

Read more

Welcome to Public Notice, where science of learning insiders get their news. In today’s newsletter: Why is a large portion of the education industry still spending millions on “21st Century Skills”? The Math Wars are heating up (again). Thinking of submitting a proposal to speak at the Teaching That Succeeds Symposium? We answer your questions about what to include. RSVP to our first movie watch party, and more, more, more.

*If you’ve got news, a tip, an upcoming report or event you’d like to share with The Bell Ringer community, give me a shout and put “Public Notice” in the subject line.

News

* Oh look, we are reinventing high school—again.

Read more

Happy Friday, Bell Ringers! Even with all the laws and policies made over the last few years, the problem of undiagnosed dyslexia in schools is a long way from being solved.

This week’s newsletter is a fascinating Q&A with Anna Toomey, who made the documentary Left Behind: The Film, about a handful of moms who took on the New York City Department of Education and demanded they do something about students who really struggled to read. The movie features this group, which eventually turned into the nonprofit Literacy Academy Collective, along with Fulcrum director and literacy advocate Kareem Weaver, Harvard dyslexia researcher Nadine Gaab, and others.

I wanted to give you some insight into Toomey’s thinking in this interview—why she made the film, why the dyslexia story still needs to be told, and what is happening next—because The Bell Ringer is going to have a community watch party of the film on Wednesday evening, May 6, at 7p.m. EST, and if you are a free or paid subscriber, you can join to watch the film and participate in the Q&A afterward.

RSVP and claim your spot now:

RSVP to the Left Behind watch party!

This event is free for all subscribers, we want as many people as possible to join us. So consider supporting my work by becoming a Bell Ringer Pro member, keep these kind of events and reporting headed your way!

The road to solving dyslexia is long, and we are still on it

Over the last few years, in addition to “science of reading” laws aimed at legislating how to teach all students to read, almost every state has passed some kind of law to address the 5%-20% of students with dyslexia. Many of these laws follow a similar pattern: require schools to screen students early for reading issues, train teachers about dyslexia and how to recognize the signs in students, and provide evidence-based reading support for students who have gotten a diagnosis.

Yet a recent analysis of how dyslexic students have performed on reading tests after these laws have been passed doesn’t show substantial improvement. Researchers found that in many states, students identified with a reading disability didn’t perform any better many years after laws had been passed—and in states like Maine, Massachusetts, and New York, they performed worse than before.

New York is a particularly confounding case when it comes to teaching reading and identifying students who need help, since they have lagged behind many other states in requiring evidence-based teaching practices and diagnosis for students with a disability. Forty-one percent of fourth-graders don’t meet the minimum standard of reading proficiency in New York State, according to the 2024 NAEP results. And Governor Kathy Hochul’s promised $10 million science-of-reading overhaul may be falling short of what’s needed. Literacy experts have recently claimed the new training for New York teachers, provided by the state teachers union, contains ideas still aligned with disproven, unscientific methods from balanced literacy.

In New York City, former Mayor Eric Adams, a late-diagnosed dyslexic himself, promised to help struggling students, implementing a mandatory dyslexia screener that some say has been unevenly applied to schools. While he brought awareness to the need for students with dyslexia to get appropriate reading help, many city parents say that in reality it’s just as difficult now as it once was—if the school doesn’t offer help, parents are still paying exorbitant testing fees to get a diagnosis. And even if a problem is identified, many teachers and leaders still may not understand the kind of intensive intervention dyslexic students need to learn to read.

Left Behind is the story of five New York City moms who had dyslexic children and were ignored by the system. They banded together to push the city to change.

Journalist Anna Toomey, who has a dyslexic son, found their goal to create a public school for dyslexic kids in the city a compelling one, and decided to follow their journey with a film camera to see what happened. In her research, Toomey discovered what many of you may already know: help for reading disabilities is very inequitably distributed, and lack of intervention to learn to read causes profound challenges later in life, especially for students who come from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Here’s my conversation with Anna Toomey. This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

The Bell Ringer: I’ve been covering the science of reading movement for a decade, and things are beginning to change, but New York is one of the last holdouts.

Anna Toomey: One hundred percent, they have dragged their feet.

Read more

Hi there Bell Ringers, a short newsletter to invite you to some great stuff happening this week.

But first, a cool map of everyone who is currently subscribing to The Bell Ringer, in 50 states and 115 countries. Thank you all for reading and commenting and emailing to yell at me when needed. It’s an honor to bring you the best reporting and insight I ca…

Read more

Happy Friday Bell Ringers! In case you missed it, there are a bunch of exciting events coming up, including a community watch party of the dyslexia movie Left Behind, and a Teaching That Succeeds Symposium where you can learn from some of the country’s most remarkable educators. Check out what we’ve got coming up and put these events on your calendar!

In the New Testament, there’s a story about how Jesus heals a man born blind. Making a paste of dirt and his own spit, Jesus covers the blind man’s eyes with it, and tells him to go wash it off. When he does, the blind man realizes he can now see. This is obviously miraculous, but everyone around the former blind man is quite skeptical of the healing, and they begin to question everything about it—whether his parents have done something weird, whether the former blind man is completely making it up, whether it’s even the same guy they knew to be blind.

When the group of scholars that rule the spirituality of the community, the Pharisees, start to ask questions about exactly what’s going on here, even the blind man’s own parents act like they really don’t know. “We know he was born blind, but we have no idea what’s going on,” they tell the Pharisees, trying to wash their hands of the whole situation. “You’re going to have to ask him.”

The story of the blind man is about a few things, but in part it’s about how being able to suddenly see clearly isn’t always what it’s cracked up to be: freeing and enlightening, yes, but also threatening to power and authority in ways that make people squirm. A lot of people— including the once-blind, now-seeing man himself—would rather not see the miracle right in front of them. It’s just better to shrug shoulders and say, “we’re not sure how this occurred, you’ll have to ask someone else, please.” Then they won’t get into trouble.

I’ve been thinking a lot about the blind man’s story lately when it comes to math instruction. (Hang with me.) I thought after the science of reading toppled balanced literacy and began ushering in evidence-based (not miraculous) practices for teaching reading, that people would quickly make a crucial leap, an important connection that teaching and learning has a body of evidence behind it that applies to reading but also all learning more generally. It applies to math, science and history. It applies to learning.

But that is not what happened.

Some who watched the science of reading change how reading was being taught can’t see how similar ideas apply to math.

The blind man’s theory of math instruction

Read more