Making Your Own Sense

Reflections on maths, learning and maths learning support, by David K Butler

Tag: early childhood

  • Childhood memories

    Two books I’ve read recently have encouraged me to investigate my memories from childhood. In Tracy Zager’s “Becoming the Math Teacher You Wish You’d Had“, she urged me to think about my maths autobiography to see what influenced my current feelings about maths. In Stuart Brown’s “Play“, he urged me to think about my play history to see what influenced my current feelings and tendencies about play. In the spirit of those two, here are some of my earliest memories about maths and play.

    In primary school, I have very few memories of actually being in a maths class, and all of them are negative. I’ve related two of them already in this blog. One was my memory of doing a maths assignment about one million dollars, where the financial aspect distressed me to tears. Another was my memory of my Year 6 teacher attempting to teach us averages using cricket.

    The only other maths class memory is of a test I did in Year 3. I had been sick with asthma for a couple of weeks and came back to school on the day of a test. I dutifully did the test and actually got almost full marks. The only thing I got wrong was the meaning of the word “net” in the phrase “net weight” as you might see listed on a packet of food. I distinctly remember it being a multiple choice question and ruling out two of the answers as ridiculous, but basically having to guess between the other two. I was angry because how could I possibly know that? Everything else was just logic and so I could figure it out for myself, but you can’t figure out the meaning of a word without more context. Eight-year-old me was an astute little person.

    Across my primary school career, I do remember a strong feeling of pleasure and fascination associated with construction toys. I remember absolutely loving the MAB blocks, in particular the moment when I replaced ten units with a long, and ten longs with a flat and ten flats with a block. Interestingly, my memory is only of the blocks themselves and I can’t pinpoint a year level or a teacher that goes with this. I also remember loving playing with polydrons and attribute tiles, but again the memory is just about the fascination of playing with them, and not about any particular maths class. In fact, thinking carefully about what is around me in these memories, I seem to be in a hall or a library, rather than in a classroom.

    Outside of school, I remember playing a game in each new playground, where I would try to do every part of the play equipment exactly once without crossing my path. Would I have to interpret the slide as both a sliding down and a climbing up in order to do it? Would I end up trapped on the top, or could I finish on the ground where I started?

    At home, we’d build elaborate maze-like cubby houses out of spare mattresses and sheets (we lived in a house where visitors often stayed over). I remember planning these out with my brother with explicit conversations of how we would fit more rooms and pathways into the space of our shared room. I also remember spending hours making designs with a ruler and compass. Or by folding paper several times and cutting out holes then unfolding and sticking on a contrasting colour.

    It seems that for me, geometrical play holds the strongest positive mathematical memories from my primary school years.

    Indeed, my very first memory of primary school is about geometrical play. It’s the moment I walked into my kindergarten classroom for the first time. We walked into a carpeted play area, and the desks and blackboard were some distance away at the other end of the classroom. Here in the play area was a bookcase filled with big thick brown blocks. Some of them were on the floor being made into a car track by some other children. I remember immediately wondering about how the various straight and curved pieces might fit together. I have some vague memories of tying various combinations on other days in kindergarten.

    Earlier than this, one of my only memories of Happy Days Pre-School was getting out the giant foam blocks from the store room under the building and playing with them on the grass.

    It’s funny that so many of my positive mathematical memories are geometrical when now I also have such a love of the structure and behaviour of numbers. Maybe that came later, though my mother says as a very young child I was always “playing number and letter games in my head”. I myself can’t remember doing that, but my mother is a very astute person and I am not about to doubt her observations.

    My earliest memory of any kind is of a cool hard flat greenness. My mother says this is probably a memory of the back verandah at the house we lived in before I was two years old – it had a green-painted concrete floor. I wonder if other people’s earliest memories are about feelings of space and colour. If so, maybe it means we’re all geometers from birth. Or maybe it’s just me.

    What is clear is that it’s hardly surprising that I ended up doing a PhD in finite geometry even though the original undergraduate degree I enrolled in was mathematical physics. I think the fundamental pull towards that geometrical play was calling me all along, considering how strongly I gravitated towards it in primary school despite the rest of maths not being so inspiring.

    If you’re reading this, I don’t know what you might learn from my story. But for myself I realise I am right where I belong.

    This comment was left on the original blog post:

    V Lakshmi 27 September 2017:

    Nice article! Infact, childhood memories have something to learn and plays an important role in future they are like the learning stages check this peace very interesting http://www.publicdebate.in/childhood-happiest-part-life-agree/ 

  • Book Reading: Which One Doesn’t Belong – Teacher Guide

    This is another post about a teaching book I’ve read recently. This one is about the Which One Doesn’t Belong Teacher Guide by Christopher Danielson.

    (You can read this blog post and all other Book Reading posts in PDF form here. )

    It goes with a beautiful little picture book called “Which One Doesn’t Belong?”, which is a shapes book different from any you’ve ever seen before. In this book, each page has four pictures, and asks the readers to say which one doesn’t belong, and why. The fabulous thing about the book is that there is at least one reason why each of the four pictures doesn’t belong, and talking through these with children (or indeed anyone) is a rich conversation about the properties that shapes have and don’t have.

    The Teacher Guide is all about these rich conversations: why it’s important to have them, what you and your students/children can learn through them, and how to facilitate them. Chris has a friendly and welcoming style which draws you easily into a new appreciation of the sophisticated thoughts of children as they make sense of geometry and the world.

    There are a few key things Chris talks about that really impacted my thoughts about teaching and learning maths. I’ve organised them by quotes from the book:

    Commonly in maths class, student responses are compared to a standard answer key – the measure of what’s right is what’s in the back of the book, or what the teacher has in mind. In a conversation about a well-designed Which one doesn’t belong? task, the measure of what’s right is what’s true. – page 3

    I read this quote first when someone else tweeted it out of the book and it struck me as awesome then. In my job at the Maths Learning Centre, students are always asking me if things are right, as if the measure of rightness is if I say it is. But in most places in maths, correctness is measured by truth. Your vectors will either be an orthonormal basis for the subspace or not. A number is either prime or it’s not. You can tell if you’re right by thinking about whether it’s true. I very much want to see opportunities to talk about the truth of things with students, to put the measure of rightness outside an authority figure.

    The van Heiles haven’t argued that it is difficult to go from level 1 thinking directly to secondary school geometry; they have argued that it is impossible. If students don’t have experience and instruction building informal geometry arguments, they will not learn to write proofs. – page 8.

    Chris is referring to the van Hiele model of “how childrens’ geometric thinking develops over time”. In this model, there is a build-up from noticing that shapes look like things they’ve seen (level 0), to noticing properties that shapes have and don’t have (level 1), to relating properties between properties of shapes (level 2), to logically supporting claims about these relationships (level 3).

    The thing in the above quote that really struck me is the idea that it’s impossible to learn to write proofs without experiencing informal arguments first. I see so many students at university every day who struggle with proofs, and it makes me wonder that they maybe need more experience with informal arguments. Indeed, it makes me wonder if they need more experience simply noticing properties, since that’s an even earlier level. This is essentially applying the van Hiele models to other types of maths, but certain aspects of the progression still feel right to me, especially for things vaguely geometrical like vectors or matrices or graphs of functions.

    I wonder if a student struggling with proofs might benefit from talking through a progression like this, and then helping them have experiences at the earlier levels before helping them with proofs.

    Of course being able to state new facts is an aspect of learning, but much more important to me is being able to ask new questions. – page 21

    I had never thought of this idea explicitly before, but immediately I saw that new questions were important to me as well. I was reminded of the time someone asked me if my students were understanding my statstics lectures. I said that I wasn’t completely sure, but certainly the students were asking very deep and complex questions. Instinctively I knew that a new type of question indicated learning.

    Also, in the Drop-In Centre, there’s a certain joy when a student asks new questions you’ve never thought of before. They are wondering about the connections between things, which means they are learning, because learning is all about connections.

    I am excited to listen out for new questions as a sign of learning, and to tell the students that it’s a sign of learning to have new questons!

    … I hope you will begin to see geometry through children’s eyes as well as through the eyes of a mathematician. Mostly, I hope you will come to understand that these two views of geometry are not nearly so distant as the school curriculum might lead us to believe. – page 37

    Now, I already believe that children’s investigations and ideas are actually very close to the way mathematicians work. You can’t be married to a very excellent early childhood educator without coming to some appreciation of this! It’s so nice to have someone publish a book telling teachers and parents the same.

    Even more, this whole section is all about noticing and naming things and their properties. It’s about whether properties need names at all, or whether the objects that share those properties need names. It’s about what properties are important to make a thing a special thing and what aren’t, and in what context. It’s about the relationships between things. All of these are the work of professional mathematicians both pure and applied. And they are the work of children sorting out how the world works.

    The geometry of children and the geometry of mathematicians are definitely not so far removed.

    I have come to understand that talking about this difference is more important than defining it away. – page 54

    Along with the rest of this chapter, this quote got me thinking about a whole new way to approach definitions in mathematics. As a pure mathematician, definitions are very important to me, and I always used to start with the definition. But I know those very definitions took years and even centuries to come to their current forms, and I also know that humans don’t learn through definition but through comparison of things that do and do not fit an idea. I think this is precisely what Chris is getting at here.

    By skipping straight to the definition, we’re robbing people of a key part of mathematical thought, and we’re skipping them through the van Hiele levels before they’re ready. You don’t need a definition until you have a need to distinguish a thing from the other things around it. You don’t need a definition until you’ve noticed the properties you can use to define something.

    The classic example in my own teaching is subspaces in linear algebra. The properties used to define a subspace aren’t even discussed until the definition is given. Little wonder, then, that the definition is meaningless to students!

    It’s not just definitions either. I help a lot of students learn statistics, and one of the things that is never explicitly taught in your traditional statistics course is how to choose what is the most appropriate statistical procedure for the situation. I have been teaching this by focussing on some specific aspects of these procedures that statisticians use to distinguish things. Reading this chapter and this quote in particular helped me realise what I was doing was exactly “talking about this difference”. To distinguish between things you need to notice the properties that make them different, and to notice them, you need to compare things. I now have a much clearer idea of what I’m doing when teaching in the way I do.

    I want to spend more time putting students in situations where they notice the differences between things and have to talk about them, so that they can distinguish between things they need to, and so that the properties I use to define things make more sense.

    Thanks Chris for a most thought-provoking book.

  • Kindy is awesome

    My younger daughter started kindy last week, and I got to actually be there for the beginning of her first day. It was one of those moments only a parent can understand as I realised with both excitement and sadness that my little baby was not a baby any more.

    But this is a maths learning blog, so as much as the above point really is all that needs to be said, I will make just one more: kindy is awesome!

    Of course I already knew it was awesome – my wife is a kindy teacher and director and anything she is involved with is definitely awesome – but the true awesomeness of it was brought home to me once more as I stood there in my daughter’s own kindy.

    I looked around, and everywhere I looked was something specifically designed for learning, and learning was actually happening there.

    The activities chosen allowed each child to choose to learn in their own way: Some activities were quiet and some were loud; some required social interaction and some were individual; some involved running, some hand-eye coordination, and some sitting still; some needed deep thought and some creativity – and every activity was encouraging learning.

    The free-form structure allowed each child to choose what to learn at their own pace: children decided what to do as the whim took them, and didn’t need to wait for anyone else to tell them it was ok, and didn’t need to wait for everyone to be ready. They just started playing, and therefore just started learning straight away.

    The staff were in the thick of it helping learning to happen: they moved from one place to the next, talking to the children and turning ordinary moments into teaching moments. It was clear that at some point they would move to the “group time” areas and help the students draw together the ideas they had encountered in their play. And finally, they were also constantly setting up and re-setting up the environment so that new children could keep learning there.

    I was in total awe of the whole thing, and it made me wish again that we could make uni more like kindy – a place where the staff choose learning environments and materials that students could interact with in their own way and still learn, but where staff are always ready to help make learning happen.

    I have been accused in the past of making the Maths Learning Centre too kindy-like. But in my mind, I could never make it too much like kindy.

    Because kindy is awesome.