Education ∪ Math ∪ Technology

# Month: October 2011(page 2 of 3)

Here are some of the resources I shared or mentioned during my presentations today.

Interactivity and Multimedia in Mathematics.

Dan Meyer‘s TED talk – Math class needs a makeover

Math in the Real World Flickr group

Here are the videos I shared during my presentation.

Here’s a list of free tools for math education, some of which I shared during my first presentation on Interactivity in Math.

A collection of math projects I’ve done over the years (many of these have been shared with me by colleagues).

Here’s my presentation for the day.

Social Media in Education

8 videos to help teachers get started using Twitter

A description of the paper blogging activity we did

Just posted this comment on this article lamenting the loss of the standard algorithms in Mathematics classrooms.

Should we teach the standard algorithms for arithmetic? Absolutely, but they shouldn’t be the only algorithms kids learn.

Why exactly is the ability to add, subtract, divide and multiply large numbers so critical? It seems clear to me that these are useful skills for numbers we will encounter in our day to day lives, and that it is useful to know that algorithms exist to work with larger numbers, but your other connections seem tenuous to me at best.

You’ve argued that without practice using algorithms, students will not be able to remember them to use them later, and this I agree with. It is a basic tenet of education that spaced repetition helps students remember how to use knowledge.

The question is, what type of knowledge is critical for students to remember? Does knowing how to multiple 39835 by 2338383 or any other arbitrarily large number assist the typical person in their life? Does it even contribute to a greater understanding of advanced mathematics? Has the number of people completing advanced mathematics degrees dropped? Statistics Canada data from 2007 suggests that it has dropped very slightly (see http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/81-004-x/2009005/article/11050-eng.htm) but not by an alarming amount.

Regarding your achievements as a PHD in mathematics, don’t forget, the plural of anecdote is not data. You can’t generalize from your one experience to what is useful for all of society.

Understanding how to use the algorithm seems sensible to me, but I think it is even more important that people understand algorithms (emphasis on the plural) which is probably lacking in the current curriculum as it is constructed.

One problem is that all across our society, at many different age groups, we have a lack of people using any advanced mathematical thinking to solve problems. If you look at how people solve problems similar to what they learned in school, but in a different context (see Jean Lave’s work), you find that it is rare for people to use the standard algorithms they learned in life, despite the fact that the standard algorithms are much more efficient than the various algorithms people construct for themselves. This suggests that even though the standard algorithms are more efficient, they may still not be the best algorithms to teach.

It seems to me that if over the course of a lifetime, some knowledge is going to be forgotten, the skill of learning is more important than what specific knowledge is learned.

Update: I’ve had another conversation with the author of the blog post above, and it seems I’ve over-reacted a bit. We have more in common than we disagree about.

This playlist has some very interesting videos from the Open University on their YouTube channel on the topic of mathematical modelling, and how it is used in different contexts.

I recommend this talk by Eric Mazur on why he switched his teaching from lecture based teaching to peer instruction based approach. It’s more than an hour long, but it really is worth it.

How does this change how we teach? How much of what students learn in our classes is actually learned? If a student can only apply the concepts they have learned to very familiar contexts, and are completely unable to apply them in different contexts, can we really say they have learned the concepts?

As an experiment, I started out the beginning of this year and tried flipping my classroom, but with a slight twist: I have extra instructional time, so students were to watch the instructional videos (from the Khan Academy and IBVodcasting.com) during classroom time. We spent about 1/3 of classtime using the Khan Academy videos and exercises, about 1/3 doing problem solving activities (like what is available on www.mathpickle.com and projecteuler.net), and the rest of the time attempting to put the knowledge we were learning into a useful context for the students. While students were involved in these activities, I spent my time circulating the classroom and providing individual and small group support and instruction.

After a month I ended my experiment and am currently in a state of transition while I explore other possible ways of running my classroom. Here are some of the reasons I ended it.

• Some students chose, despite repeated requests from me, to only watch videos and do exercises that were really easy for them, instead of advancing their knowledge. One student said "she liked the easy videos because it was easy to get points." Another student said she chose the easy exercises because "she was worried about getting problems wrong." These students were more focused on getting easy points and avoiding challenges than learning.

• Some of my students ignored the point system of the Khan Academy and focused on learning, but found that the information from the Khan Academy wasn’t challenging enough. When given practice questions from the course content, they found that the Khan Academy style questions didn’t adequately prepare them. This was partially addressed for these students by switching to the IBVodcasting.com videos, since they are more difficult.

• A few students were able to "master" the content in the Khan Academy exercises after watching a few of the videos, but were unable to transfer what they had learned to any other context, and when queried in more depth, lacked basic understand of what they were learning. For example, they could solve problems like log10 + log2 = log20, but had no idea how to find the value of log20 in terms of p and q when log10 = p and log2 = q.

I’m hoping to implement the RME model and looking for resources that will help support the course curriculum I’m required to cover in the International Baccalaureate program. If I can’t find resources to support this, I’m switching back to my style where I spend some time with students doing experiments in math, some time working on practice problems, and some time with me explaining mathematical concepts. I’m definitely not using the Khan Academy videos again (but I will probably use the IBVodcasting.com videos as additional support for students).

See this Slideshare presentation for a description of what the RME model looks like.

;

What if we create really clear explanations to address these misconceptions?

What if we run experiments with students? What if they design their own experiments to test out their hypothesis? (Really recommend watching this until the very end.)

Are there some scientific facts which are useful to know? Definitely. We could teach most those facts in a single science course if that was the purpose of science education. Why then do we teach science for 13 years in school?

A recent article suggesting that labs are "a waste of time" in science assumes that the purpose of science education is to transfer information. Instead, I believe that kids should learn that science is about experimentation and testing ideas, and that the facts which comprise scientific knowledge have been discovered through experimentation. They should know that science is not a collection of permanent facts about the world, but that instead, what is considered true in science changes. Science is more of a way of thinking about the world than a collection of isolated facts. Science is a philosophical perspective on the world wherein we recognize that through observation, experiment, and analysis, we can learn about the world.

What would you prefer? Should students know a lot of science facts, but perhaps don’t understand how those facts were derived? Or would you prefer that students understand the scientific method deeply, but might not know as much existing scientific knowledge?

A common argument for continuing to use grades, awards, competitions, and point systems in schools:

Students will experience extrinsic motivation outside of school, so we help prepare them for this experience by using similar reward systems in schools.

Our monetary system is a reward system. You work, you get rewarded with money, which you can use to purchase goods and services to improve your life. Work harder, smarter, longer, you get more money. The recent attention on the income disparity in the world, and the fact that people will lie, cheat, steal, and murder people for this reward should tell you that there are perverse side effects of our monetary system simply because of its existence.

Every reward system I can think of has unintended negative side effects. While every system has people who play by the rules, all of them similarly have people who have focused too much on the reward and then engaged in immoral acts.

Instead of basing what we do in schools on what is not working in our society, why don’t we look at other alternatives for to motivate our students? If you can think of a system based on motivating participants with a reward that doesn’t have serious problems with internal corruption and cheating, please let me know…

I recommend listening to this interview of Douglas Rushkoff on CBC Spark by Norah Young.

Rushkoff’s recommendation is that children should learn a little bit of a taste of programming right after they learn long division. His reasoning is basically this; once students see an algorithm like long division, and they learn how to make a computer compute long division for them, they’ll see that computers are devices which compute algorithms, not places for them to visit.

I’d like to add that teaching a computer to program something like long division would be very empowering for children. Having been through this process of learning what is one of the most complicated sequences of steps they’ve likely been exposed to in their young lives, they can then conquer this algorithm and "teach" a computer how to do it. As a happy consequence of teaching the computer the algorithm, they’ll probably understand how it works better.

I started learning origami again this past weekend. So far I’ve built a swan, and a couple of paper airplanes that are more advanced than what I usually make but none of it has been particularly complicated to make. I’ve often thought that origami would be a fun hobby, but that I wouldn’t find much use for it in my teaching.

Today, I watched a TED talk (thanks to @BobbycSmith for sharing it with me today) that definitely changed my mind. Origami is way up there now on my list of things I need to learn.

"Unless you have used a computer to learn something yourself, you are not in a good position to think about how it can help children learn." ~ Seymour Papert (1996) The Connected Family, p85

This statement by Seymour Papert is true both of people who promote the use of computers in schools, and those who argue against their use in schools.

Further, I suspect this is almost certainly true of any instructional strategy. You cannot effectively evaluate an instructional technique from a distance, because when you are immersed in the activity, you have a much different perspective than when you attempt to evaluate the activity without experiencing it. It is far too easy to look at a collection of data and use this to evaluate an educational practice and miss critical benefits of the practice that are invisible in your data.