Boarder Task, Sneaky Snake, and “Never Say Anything a Kid Can Say!”

This week I learned about the importance of quality in math problems (sometimes in lieu of quantity) and how exploration can be great way to foundational thinking before going to straight to the algorithm. The cooperative activities like Boarder Task and Sneaky Snake in class incorporated algebraic thinking and sharing in different strategies that I had not been exposed to before. This type of activity also met standards which was remarkable.

Reading the article “Never Say Anything a Kid Can Say” by Steven C. Reinhart, I learned it is not only important for math teachers to explain math well but it possibly more important for the students to “explain things so well that they can be understood” if students were truly going to learn mathematics. This reminds me of what was said in class about how kids will learn more from each other than they will from you- the teacher. Asking good question that produce thoughtful thinking and fruitful answers is another big idea presented in the article. I also learned to keep in mind that good questions take time, but a key principle is trying new things little by little so it becomes a norm. I like the quote on the definition of lecture: “The transfer of information from the notes of the lecturer to the notes of the student without passing through the minds of either (p. 480).” Ahh yes, this is one of the reason I disliked lecture so much in my past schooling.

The article also presented a lot of implications for classroom practice. A productive math lesson involves the teacher’s role as more of a facilitator and listener then a lecturer. The classroom environment should make students feel comfortable sharing, taking risks, and discussing ideas. “Students should understand that all their statements are valuable to me, even if they are incorrect or show misconceptions” (p. 480). I like the idea of providing a risk free environment and not using questions to embarrass or punish. I remember often feeling embarrassed in class if I did not produce the correct answer or if I did not understand right away. Another big idea in the classroom is for everyone to understand that “participation is not optional.” If students cannot answer a question, then students know then they are required to pose a question to the class to help in their understanding. Group work becomes more than finding the right answer but the members in the group are responsible for each other’s learning. This adds more accountability and hopefully more discussion on ideas and concepts. Instead of sitting back, listening to rules, memorization, worksheets, and tests this type of lessons makes math more alive via discussion and collaboration.

Questions:
I like the cooperative group work concepts. But for slow learners, sometimes the time allotted for understanding and doing group is still not enough. Wouldn’t this cause group work frustration? And for the slower learner, it may make him/her feel they are not fast enough, and then reinforce what we are trying to prohibit- that I am just not good at math. Realistically, is there really away to stop the status in math?