A Case for Quantitative Reasoning

By Josh Recio, Course Program Specialist and Nikki Gavin-Swan, Math Faculty, Lane Community College

If you had a say in what mathematics you wanted your family members to fully understand, what would it be? What about your coworkers? Community members? What about yourself?

There’s a safe bet that the first thing that comes to your mind isn’t something that’s taught in a calculus course. There would likely be some data, some finance, and maybe some other applied mathematics concepts, but it’s highly unlikely that properties of functions, curve-sketching, or strategies for integration would make the cut.

Don’t misunderstand – calculus is an amazingly beautiful and essential subject, but don't our calculus scholars deserve a solid foundation in mathematical concepts that are directly beneficial to their everyday lives? Don’t we want those same students to be able to analyze data, understand everyday financial applications, and use logic in tackling real-world problems? These skills are foundational in quantitative reasoning courses, and are not skills that are conventionally acquired in the path to calculus.

Quantitative literacy is in high demand for careers and is critical for interacting with and understanding the world. However, math education has a history of downplaying courses that prioritize quantitative reasoning skills. In fact, many of our highest achieving students are discouraged from taking quantitative reasoning courses, to make room for what is often considered to be more rigorous math—math that often comes with AP course options. It shouldn’t have to be this way. Maybe the math that we prioritize in education isn’t the only math that’s important. And maybe this is even true for our best and brightest mathematics learners.

David Bressoud recently wrote about what is meant by quantitative reasoning in education. In his post, he references the Dana Center’s Quantitative Reasoning course, which states that, “Quantitative Reasoning serves students who are focused on developing quantitative literacy skills that will be meaningful for their professional, civic, and personal lives. Such reasoning is a habit of mind, seeking pattern and order when faced with unfamiliar contexts. In this course, an emphasis is placed on the need for data to make good decisions and to understand the dangers inherent in basing decisions on anecdotal evidence rather than on data.” (p. 1)

Doesn’t it make sense that your family members, coworkers, and community members should have an opportunity to develop these skills, regardless of whether they are a STEM major or not? One of the problems in how we view quantitative reasoning courses may be how we look at the hierarchy of math curriculum and the vague notion of ‘mathematical rigor’.

We recently had a great conversation about Nikki’s experiences as a student in STEM. From early on, she was very successful in her math courses and, because of her abilities, was accelerated early and enrolled in what educators viewed as the most rigorous levels of math because of her success in these courses. She completed an honors degree in Mathematics from California State University, Bakersfield, then continued on to complete a graduate degree in Mathematics from the University of California, Berkeley.

Now, as an adult with a better understanding of the world, she has one of the most interesting perspectives of a student who successfully navigated her STEM math education journey, and this perspective is a critical one. “As a math major, they never even considered encouraging me to take a quantitative reasoning course. Those courses were for students that ‘aren’t good’ at math. I'm ‘good’ at rigorous (STEM) math, so all ‘easier’ math should just come naturally, right?” Wrong.

Based on how we have structured math education, it seems as though we believe that if you’ve learned high levels of algebra and calculus, that you somehow understand all aspects of math. This isn’t true, and Nikki is a good counterexample. In her blog on Numeracy, she has written about this topic, stating that “students who successfully navigate through STEM pathways do NOT automatically know how to do taxes, or understand loans, or understand statistics.” This became shockingly evident for Nikki the first time she taught a quantitative reasoning course in her role as faculty in higher education when she was faced with teaching applied mathematical concepts she had never experienced before either in her STEM coursework or in her personal life.

It doesn’t seem obvious that someone who has taken multiple levels of calculus would struggle to teach a quantitative reasoning course, but it makes sense if that person has never been exposed to those concepts in a meaningful way. Without coursework in quantitative reasoning and without personal connections to people employing these concepts in their daily lives, she had to teach herself these new skills and vocabulary so that she could pass this genuinely important learning to her students.

What was even more shocking for Nikki was the identification of critical skills and knowledge that she believes would have made her a more informed and prepared participant in everyday applications of mathematics, particularly those ideas grounded in quantitative reasoning. It seems unfair that a person with her impressive math background would never have been provided a chance to learn these concepts, and was never told these concepts were equally, or possibly more, important as calculus. She was never prepared for the mathematics she would experience as she navigated adulthood…and she’s not alone. It didn’t have to be that way then, and it doesn’t have to be that way now.

Many states offer quantitative reasoning courses in high school. The problem is not the lack of courses and established curriculum; the problem lies with who is encouraged to enroll in these courses and who is diverted away from them. In many schools, students are incentivized to take advanced courses like AP Calculus or AP Statistics because extra weight is given to their grade and because these courses are often considered a golden ticket into higher education. If taking these courses gives an opportunity to boost a student’s grade point average, class rank, or admission to a competitive school, what motivation is there to consider something different, even if another course is more aligned to the student’s future? More importantly, why do we set it up as one or the other? Why are students bifurcated between STEM and everything else? Why aren’t we encouraging and directing all students to develop numeracy and quantitative reasoning skills that will support an ongoing fluency and confidence in the mathematics they will use in their daily lives?

Many of today’s employers are desperately looking for people who have solid quantitative reasoning skills. We should not be discouraging or diverting students away from skills that employers value; skills that would be beneficial professionally AND personally. It would require a paradigm shift, but one that could have a monumental positive impact, to see advanced quantitative reasoning courses get the same prioritization, the same weight, and the same respect, as that given to other advanced math.

It’s time that we rethink our perspective on quantitative reasoning courses. If we know the types of knowledge and skills that we want people to have, it’s imperative that we do a better job of prioritizing learning in those areas. It seems obvious that we would want all students to have the opportunity to take courses that develop the quantitative reasoning skills needed to interpret data, solve real problems, and help make better decisions. Now is the time to make it a reality; it’s time to prioritize developing numeracy and quantitative reasoning skills necessary for successfully navigating in the 21st century.

Josh Recio is a member of the curriculum team at the Charles A. Dana Center, which authors content development for Agile Mind middle and high school course programs. He also supports the Dana Center’s Launch Years Initiative, which seeks to usher in a new paradigm to support students for college preparation and guide them through pathways for degree attainment.

Nikki Gavin-Swan is math faculty at Lane Community College in Eugene, Oregon. She participates in statewide and national efforts to rethink mathematics curriculum, assessment, and pedagogies in K-12 and higher education. She is part of the Oregon group participating in the Dana Center’s Launch Years Initiative to align 11-14 mathematics curriculum and improve the student experience during educational transitions. She is a faculty lead on the statewide Common Course Number Project, norming higher education mathematics courses for all public institutions in Oregon.