An official website of the United States government
> 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
Programming as Language and Manipulative for Second-Grade Mathematics
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
- PAR ID:
- 10348116
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education
- Volume:
- 7
- Issue:
- 1
- ISSN:
- 2199-3246
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 48 to 65
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
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
-
Cook, S; Katz, B; Moore-Russo, D (Ed.)Teaching mathematics for future elementary teachers is fundamentally different from other forms of mathematics and thus requires different knowledge. As community colleges become increasingly involved in the process of training future teachers, it is essential to explore how instructors at these institutions develop as mathematics teacher educators. This paper reports on a preliminary exploration of how community college faculty grappled with teaching-oriented mathematical tasks involving fractions. Choices of mathematical representation, selection of answer before and after discussion, and overall themes are discussed, with a focus on development of mathematical content knowledge for teaching.more » « less
-
Expansive Framing (EF) is a theory and an instructional technique to facilitate connections between content and contexts. We employed EF as an approach to create a series of integrated mathematics and computer science (CS) lessons, using digital technology as a tool to leverage shared mathematical and computational ideas. We used deductive theoretical qualitative analysis of transcripts of classroom implementations to investigate how two fifth-grade teachers and one computer lab paraprofessional educator used EF during their teaching and what the EF approach looked like in practice. Findings suggested that educators engaged in EF principles when they were present in curricular materials, yet they also made additional impromptu (albeit school-based) expansive connections. The teachers in the study also regularly framed students as authors and owners of new knowledge. We recommend that mathematics-CS integrated curricular materials include language and other supports that make unambiguous, specific connections across learning contexts. We posit that EF theory can be a support to educators in the integration of mathematics and coding instruction with digital technology.more » « less
-
Sacristán, A. I.; Cortés-Zavala, J. C.; Ruiz-Arias, P. M. (Ed.)Mathematics pre-service teachers must learn how to use tools like scientific calculators, Computer Algebra System (CAS), text processors and dynamic mathematical environments. These tools allow users to work with mathematical objects, perform specialized tasks, respond in a defined mathematical way, and transmit mathematical knowledge (Dick & Hollebrands, 2011). To achieve the integration of technology in Mathematics Education, the teacher’s role is very important, since their beliefs and knowledge will dictate how they use technology in the classroom (Julie et al., 2010). The goal of this research is to determine the beliefs and knowledge about technology and its integration into the teaching of mathematics by a group of pre-service teachers at the beginning of their first course of methodology in the teaching of mathematics at the secondary level (N=11). Interviews were conducted, and a questionnaire was administered to determine the profile participants use of technology at their schools and universities.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1007/s40751-020-00083-3
