This is a test.
1/28/2023
“One of the participants in my Making Sense in Algebra 2 workshop had an interesting criticism. That anonymous participant pointed out that I presented no coherent pedagogical framework for the activities I shared. Good point! I did not present a coherent [pedagogical] framework because, well, I do not have one to present.”I was puzzled. Which coherent pedagogical frameworks was the participant referring to? Webster states that a framework is a basic structure underlying a system, concept, or text. For math education that structure is a curriculum. Pedagogical refers to the myriad of approaches that a teacher can take in presenting a curriculum to students. And a coherent pedagogical framework would be a pedagogical framework that made sense. So conjuring up the meaning of those three words together Henri continues with why he doesn’t have one to present.
“During my four-plus decades in the classroom, I've seen many math edu-fads come and go: new math, individualization, manipulatives, problem-solving, group work, constructivism, constructionism (yes, that's a thing), portfolios, complex instruction, differentiation, interdisciplinary-ism, backward design, coding, rubrics, problem-based instruction, technology, Khan Academy, standards-based grading, making, three acts, flipping, inquiry learning, notice-wonder, growth mindset... not to mention various generations of standards.”So instead of following some fad-like frameworks, Henri says:
“We need to be eclectic, and select "what appears to be best in various doctrines, methods, or styles." Instead of rejecting the fads wholesale, we need to consider each one as it comes along, as all (or almost all) have some validity. Instead of shutting our classroom door and continuing business as usual, we should keep it wide open. Without becoming a dogmatic across-the-board adopter of each pedagogical scheme, we need to learn what we can from it, and incorporate that bit into our repertoire. This is how we get the sort of flexibility that makes for good teaching. If we do that, our lessons will not fit a standard mold. Quite the opposite: they will depend on the myriad variables that make teaching such a complex endeavor.”I too like Henri have spent more than 4 decades working in math education. I’ve also worked with many of the edu-fads he mentions. In my private school teaching days I eclectically developed my own curriculum which included lessons borrowed liberally from Harold Jacobs’ “Mathematics: A Human Endeavor.” In fact, Harold’s work helped me to develop a coherent pedagogical framework - a classroom strategy model - that served extremely well in my modeling how to teach coherent lessons to the teachers I worked with. My model went something like this.
Factor Game - Illuminations |
The Taxman game is (apparently) an old programming exercise. But it is also a good game for practicing factors [and problem solving]. […] Here is a gadget that applies the rules of the game for you. The board defaults to 100 numbers but you can start with 20 by changing the number next to Restart button. Can you beat the Taxman?The Taxman metaphor is a good one because the factors can be thought of as the currency to be paid to the taxman. If no factors remain for the numbers that are left on the board, the taxman (greedily) gets the rest of the numbers and the game is over. It’s challenging to beat the Taxman, but if you keep trying there is a sequence to beat him in the 20 game. Try it for other numbers as well.
It is worth playing without reading anything else - it is not too hard to find a heuristic that beats the taxman. The game was written up in an article by Robert Moniot in the Feb 2007 MAA Horizons - an optimal strategy is not known. I've gotten up to 121 points on the 20-size board; I am pretty sure this is not optimal. Can you beat the board with say 30 squares? What is the best score you can get?Robert Moniot shared a little history about the Taxman game:
After the Math Horizons paper appeared, I learned that the game (Taxman) was invented by Diane Resek of San Francisco State University. She writes: “I came up with the game when I was working at the Lawrence Hall of Science in Berkeley from about 1969 to 1972. I was coordinating a grant Leon Henkin (UC Berkeley) and Robert Davis (I think he was at U of Illinois at that time) had from NSF to work with K-6 teachers in the Berkeley Unified School District. One of the things I tried to do was to come up with interesting ways for kids to practice their skills or their facts which would involve them in some thinking and not be so boring. The Taxman was one game I came up with for multiplication facts. It was named for the Beatle's song -"Taxman". At the same time other people were working with kids on teletype machines. They taught them Basic and had games on it for them to play. When I came up with a game or an activity, they would turn it into a program. (slightly edited). (Source)
November, 1967 |
arcademics.com |