An official website of the United States government
Seymour Papert’s 1972 paper “Teaching Children to be Mathematicians Versus Teaching About Mathematics” started with the summary statement “The important difference between the work of a child in an elementary mathematics class and that of a mathematician is not in the subject matter…but in the fact that the mathematician is creatively engaged….” Along with “creative,” a key term Papert kept using is project rather than the common notion of problem. A project is not simply a very large problem. It centrally includes a focus on sustained and active engagement. The projects in his illustrations were essentially research projects, not just multi-step, fullyprescribed, build-a-thing tasks, no matter how nice the end product might be. A mathematical playground with enough attractive destinations in it draws children naturally to pose their own tasks and projects—as they universally do in their other personal and group playgrounds—and to learn to act and think like mathematicians. They even acquire conventionally taught content through that play. Physical construction was always available, and appealed to such thinkers as Dewey, but for Papert computer programming, newly available to school, suggested a more flexible medium and a model for an ideal playground. A fact about playgrounds is that children choose challenge. In working and playing with children I’ve seen that puzzles tap some of the same personally chosen challenge that a programming centric playground offers. Children are naturally drawn to intellectual challenges of riddles (ones they learn and ones they invent) and puzzles; and adults are so lured by puzzles that even supermarkets sell books of them. So what’s the difference between real puzzles and school problems? What’s useful about creating a puzzle or posing a problem? How might puzzles and problem posing support mathematical learning? And what’s constructionist about this? This plenary will try to respond to these questions, invite some of your own responses, let you solve and create some puzzles, and explore how problem posing in programming and puzzling can support mathematics even in an age of rigid content constraints.
more »
« less
Problem posing and creativity in elementary-school mathematics
> Context • In 1972, Papert emphasized that “[t]he important difference between the work of a child in an elementary mathematics class and […]a mathematician” is “not in the subject matter […]but in the fact that the mathematician is creatively engaged […]” Along with creative, Papert kept saying children should be engaged in projects rather than problems. A project is not just a large problem, but involves sustained, active engagement, like children’s play. For Papert, in 1972, computer programming suggested a flexible construction medium, ideal for a research-lab/playground tuned to mathematics for children. In 1964, without computers, Sawyer also articulated research-playgrounds for children, rooted in conventional content, in which children would learn to act and think like mathematicians. > Problem • This target article addresses the issue of designing a formal curriculum that helps children develop the mathematical habits of mind of creative tinkering, puzzling through, and perseverance. I connect the two mathematicians/educators – Papert and Sawyer – tackling three questions: How do genuine puzzles differ from school problems? What is useful about children creating puzzles? How might puzzles, problem-posing and programming-centric playgrounds enhance mathematical learning? > Method • This analysis is based on forty years of curriculum analysis, comparison and construction, and on research with children. > Results • In physical playgrounds most children choose challenge. Papert’s ideas tapped that try-something-new and puzzle-it-out-for-yourself spirit, the drive for challenge. Children can learn a lot in such an environment, but what (and how much) they learn is left to chance. Formal educational systems set standards and structures to ensure some common learning and some equity across students. For a curriculum to tap curiosity and the drive for challenge, it needs both the playful looseness that invites exploration and the structure that organizes content. > Implications • My aim is to provide support for mathematics teachers and curriculum designers to design or teach in accord with their constructivist thinking. > Constructivist content • This article enriches Papert’s constructionism with curricular ideas from Sawyer and from the work that I and my colleagues have done
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1741792
- PAR ID:
- 10100698
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Constructivist Foundations
- Volume:
- 14
- Issue:
- 3
- ISSN:
- 1782-348X
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 601–613
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Abstract The Reading and Appreciating Mathematical Proofs (RAMP) project seeks to provide novel resources for teaching undergraduate introduction to proof courses centered around reading activities. These reading activities include (1) reading rich proofs to learn new mathematics through proofs as well as to learn how to read proofs for understanding and (2) reading mathematician stories to humanize proving and to legitimize challenge and struggle. One of the guiding analogies of the project is thinking about learning proof-based mathematics like learning a genre of literature. We want students to read interesting proofs so they can appreciate what is exciting about the genre and how they can engage with it. Proofs were selected by eight professors in mathematics who as curriculum co-authors collected intriguing mathematical results and added stories of their experience becoming mathematicians. As mathematicians of colour and/or women mathematicians, these co-authors speak to the challenges they faced in their mathematical history, how they overcame these challenges, and the key role mentors and community have played in that process. These novel opportunities to learn to read and read to learn in the proof-based context hold promise for supporting student learning in new ways. In this commentary, we share how we have sought to humanize proof-based mathematics both in the reading materials and in our classroom implementation thereof.more » « less
-
Abstract Natural language helps express mathematical thinking and contexts. Conventional mathematical notation (CMN) best suits expressions and equations. Each is essential; each also has limitations, especially for learners. Our research studies how programming can be a advantageous third language that can also help restore mathematical connections that are hidden by topic‐centred curricula. Restoring opportunities for surprise and delight reclaims mathematics' creative nature. Studies of children's use of language in mathematics and their programming behaviours guide our iterative design/redesign of mathematical microworlds in which students, ages 7–11, use programming in their regular school lessonsas a language for learning mathematics. Though driven by mathematics, not coding, the microworlds develop the programming over time so that it continues to support children's developing mathematical ideas. This paper briefly describes microworlds EDC has tested with well over 400 7‐to‐8‐year‐olds in school, and others tested (or about to be tested) with over 200 8‐to‐11‐year‐olds. Our challenge was to satisfy schools' topical orientation and fit easily within regular classroom study but use and foreshadow other mathematical learning to remove the siloes. The design/redesign research and evaluation is exploratory, without formal methodology. We are also more formally studying effects on children's learning. That ongoing study is not reported here. Practitioner notesWhat is already knownActive learning—doing—supports learning.Collaborative learning—doingtogether—supports learning.Classroom discourse—focused, relevantdiscussion, not just listening—supports learning.Clear articulation of one's thinking, even just to oneself, helps develop that thinking.What this paper addsThe common languages we use for classroom mathematics—natural language for conveying the meaning and context of mathematical situations and for explaining our reasoning; and the formal (written) language of conventional mathematical notation, the symbols we use in mathematical expressions and equations—are both essential but each presents hurdles that necessitate the other. Yet, even together, they are insufficient especially for young learners.Programming, appropriately designed and used, can be the third language that both reduces barriers and provides the missing expressive and creative capabilities children need.Appropriate design for use in regular mathematics classrooms requires making key mathematical content obvious, strong and the ‘driver’ of the activities, and requires reducing tech ‘overhead’ to near zero.Continued usefulness across the grades requires developing children's sophistication and knowledge with the language; the powerful ways that children rapidly acquire facility with (natural) language provides guidance for ways they can learn a formal language as well.Implications for policy and/or practiceMathematics teaching can take advantage of the ways children learn through experimentation and attention to the results, and of the ways children use their language brain even for mathematics.In particular, programming—in microworlds driven by the mathematical content, designed to minimise distraction and overhead, open to exploration and discoveryen routeto focused aims, and in which childrenself‐evaluate—can allow clear articulation of thought, experimentation with immediate feedback.As it aids the mathematics, it also builds computational thinking and satisfies schools' increasing concerns to broaden access to ideas of computer science.more » « less
-
Abstract This article reports on an exploration of how second-graders can learn mathematics through programming. We started from the theory that a suitably designed programming language can serve children as a language for expressing and experimenting with mathematical ideas and processes in order to do mathematics and thereby, with appropriate tasks and teaching, learn and enjoy the subject. This is very different from using the computer as a teaching app or a digital medium for exploration. Children tackled genuine puzzles – problems for which they did not already have a pre-learned solution. So far, we have built four microworlds for second-graders and tested them with a diverse population of well over three hundred children. The microworlds focus on the most critical second-grade mathematical content (as mandated in state standards), let children pick up all key programming ideas in contexts that make them ‘obvious’ (to maintain focus on the mathematics) and suppress all other distractions to minimize overhead for teachers or students using the microworlds. Because children see the results of the actions they articulate (in the computer language, Snap ! ), they can evaluate their methods and solutions themselves. The feedback is purely the outcome, not happy or sad sounds from the computer. Notably, nearly all children showed intense engagement, some choosing microworlds even outside of mathematics time. Teachers spontaneously reported this as well, with special mention of children whom they found hard to engage in regular lessons. We report our experiments and observations in the spirit of sharing the ideas and promoting more research.more » « less
-
Background: While there exists a large body ofresearch on the benefits of play in supporting chil-dren’s mathematical learning, the vast majority ofsuch research has been conducted in early childhoodor informal contexts, rather than formal K-12 schools.Moreover, this research has predominantly focusedon adults’ perspectives of children’s play. Seeking to bring young children’s voices into methodological and design considerations, this study investigates children’s video interpretations of their mathematical play. Methods: Leveraging data from a larger project that explores the integration of play in elementary mathematics classrooms, I draw upon socio-cultural theory and critical childhood studies, as well as video-elicited interviews with four children, in order to examine play as both a context for mathematics learning, as well as a text for reading the mathematical worlds of young children. Findings: Findings suggest that the four children drew upon sophisticated frames when making sense of video data, including situated conditions, networks of care, affective experiences, tangible fulfillment, and mathematical curiosities.Contribution: Insights from this study challenge traditionally narrow perspectives of young children as merely consumers of knowledge, who learn in order to “become adults,” and instead situates them as active sense-makers, whose noticings may better position us to design mathematics learning environ-ments according to their insights and vantage points.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- The DOI is not currently available.
