In second grade I was the undisputed “Around the World” champion of my class making it around the entire room two consecutive times without being “defeated” although my buddy, Curtis Williams, used to give me a run for my money. Do you remember Around the World? If not, it is where one student stands next to another student sitting at a desk, the teacher has some sort of math fact card (addition, subtraction, etc.) that is shown to the two students, and whoever answers the fact first gets to move on to the next student. If the student standing, the current champion, loses then they sit at the desk of the person who beat them and waits until the “champion” makes her way around the room again for another chance. I used to love this activity because it was “so fun”, in fact I often was able to shout out an answer before my “opponent” even had time to think, and I hated it when I lost and therefore had to wait until the champion made her way back around to me. Now, as a curriculum director, I look back at this activity I enjoyed so much as a kid and shutter. I think about how the activity was focused solely on speed and answers, I cringe that the students who needed the most practice sat around waiting for 23 other students to answer one fact before getting their turn, I hate that the slower thinkers never even had time to think, and I wonder how did we think this was a good idea. To be honest, this practice didn’t help me as a mathematician either. It only reinforced what many people still believe that being good at math means you get answers quickly. It also makes me think that even though something is “fun”, although probably not for all the students, it is not necessarily a good practice.
At this point, I suspect you are reading this saying of course that was a terrible
practice, but I wonder if we fall into that same trap of “fun” math practice when we assign our young people to complete fact driven drill and kill computer based math games. I am not saying all computer math games are bad, but what I would like to suggest is that not all computer based math games help our young people be more mathematical. The next time you get on one of these games decide for yourself. When “playing” this game are you spending more time on collecting and using “potions” or are you spending more time on mathematics? When you are using math in the game is it based on how fast you find an answer? In other words, is it an electronic form of “Around the World” by recalling math facts quickly? This, of course, is assuming that the game covers the appropriate level of mathematics for the young people in your class. Hopefully, the math program is not covering concepts that are not developmentally appropriate as it can quickly lead to frustration and even anxiety especially if our young people are expected to complete the on-line activity at home (which often means without support). We have to be careful we don’t fall into the “Around the World” trap that practicing by using some form of assessment (drill & kill) is a form of learning mathematics. I would argue that there are math apps out there that do help our young people be more mathematical, we just need to ask ourselves a different set of questions when vetting the app.
One of these questions could be, “Is this math app focused on product or process?”. What I mean by product is “answers” and what I mean by process is conceptual understanding. Math apps that help students to apply their current understanding of mathematical concepts to new situations help students to build their conceptual understanding of math. A math app that is based on conceptual understand rather than rote facts and speed can also be fun. One such math app that I am looking at now is ST Math. I am not sure if it fits the bill yet, but it certainly answered the first question on the “process” side. This particular app also emphasizes looking at the big picture or analyzing info to look for patterns. Another question might be, “Does this app reinforce making connections to mathematics through examining patterns and relationships?”. In “Mathematical Mindsets”, Jo Boaler suggests several math apps that do just that task. One such game, Wuzzit Trouble, helps young people to become more flexible in their math thinking as they problem solve various mathematical scenarios or situations their character was placed. It is a fun and challenging way for young people to make connections and see those mathematical patterns as they solve the various challenges. One last question I would suggest we ask when evaluating a computer based math game is, “How does this app promote creativity, innovation, or flexibility with numbers?”. Only a small part of mathematics should be about calculations. That is another one of the traps we fall into with “school math” vs. “mathematics”. As mentioned in, If THEY Build it, Learning Will Come, mathematician Conrad Wolfram points out mathematics should also be about: posing the right question and making connections. A math app that I believe meets the criteria of the third question is Code Monkey. In this app, young people will be able to be creative and innovative as they literally start to learn how to code.
I am sure there are many more math apps out there that can help our young people become more mathematical, but I am also aware of many others that reinforce getting an answer quickly which undermines mathematical thinking. It is for that reason we should start to ask these questions and others in order to vett the large number of computer based math games. If we do this, it will go a long way in helping our young people “develop mathematical mindsets whereby they believe that mathematics is about thinking, sense making, big ideas, and connections-not about the memorization of methods” (Boaler, 2016, p.47).
References
Boaler, J.. (2016). Mathematical Mindsets: Unleashing Students’ Potential
Through Creative Math, Inspiring Messages, and Innovative Teaching.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
No comments:
Post a Comment