Last time, I introduced a problem to illustrate the basic differences between additive reasoning and multiplicative reasoning used to solve a problem. I also defined levels of units and what it means to “coordinate units”. In addition, I said that “in activity” means that a level can only be accessed while working on the problem and perhaps using other physical aids. This time, I want to extend the problem to talk about students working at even higher cognitive levels…
A student can assimilate with 2 levels in activity, with 2 levels, with 3 levels in activity, with 3 levels, etc. I will give an example to show the difference between assimilating with 3 levels and assimilating with 3 levels in activity. Let’s extend the vacation problem as follows:
I am away for three weeks. At the end of the three weeks, I decide to stay away for five more weeks. How many total days is that?
Assimilating with 3 levels in activity, the student could reason this way:
3 weeks x 7 days/week = 21 days
5 weeks x 7 days/week = 35 days
21 days + 35 days = 56 days
But if you ask this student how many weeks, that would be a new problem to solve, because the student wouldn’t be able to hold all the information.
Assimilating with 3 levels, the students could reason this way:
3 weeks and 5 weeks are two “like composite units”, so they can be added:
3 weeks + 5 weeks is 8 weeks.
Then, 8 weeks x 7 days/week = 56 days
This student can operate on a week as a unit, as well as a day as a unit. The more levels that a student can assimilate with, the more problem solving power that student brings into the situation.Following is a problem for you to consider. Think about how students assimilating with 1, 2, or 3 levels might approach this problem:
In a classroom, there are six desks in each of four rows. The teacher wants to add seats until there are 36 in the class. How many more rows will be added?
I use this quote from Steve Jobs as my title because this is how I feel about the place I work and the work that I do. Everyday I am tasked with learning more about how children acquire their mathematical knowledge; how do children come to know? Does this sound like a daunting task? Does… Continue Reading
As we have launched the Research Division of the AIMS Center for Math and Science Education we have found that there is extensive financial backing for educational research and there are increasing funds for the professional development of our teachers. Yet, there appears to be a gaping hole in this continuum – the funding for… Continue Reading
After stating a rather shocking statistic that indicates the overwhelming majority of five year olds enter Kindergarten “not ready” according to one assessment. Tim talks to us about how two varieties of early learning based on two professors theories on how children learn. After a failure in efforts, these professors stepped back from an effort to, “catch children up,” and began to focus on the idea that children are constantly learning. We discuss what comes out of this research, specifically two varieties of learning in children: Naming, and Observational.
In the mid-1980’s after becoming a teacher with my own classroom, finding a learning community to think and reflect with was difficult. I wonder what I might have changed, given the chance to work with colleagues, and how I could have been an even better educator. My thoughts wandered to that place again last week… Continue Reading
As a classroom teacher I worked tirelessly to create tasks, problems and questions that I thought would be good for students. I thought that the tasks I was creating were equal to what the students would be thinking. I am constantly reminded that what I perceive to be the question is not always what the… Continue Reading
In previous blog posts we have, in various ways, talked about the commitment of the AIMS Center to a constructivist understanding of how children come to know. There are several reasons for this choice, but probably the most relevant is that the most significant and extensive research related to how children come to know whole… Continue Reading
Welcome (back) to the AIMS Center for Math and Science Education blog! The four early math research associates started the 2016-17 academic year by interviewing more than 70 children in ten Head Start programs to begin year 2 of our study. The number will be narrowed to 24 as we observe and document the children’s… Continue Reading
A Center for thinking about learning and thinking ought to do so within a public forum. Well at least that is how I see things. As I have mentioned in other blog posts, one of my tasks here at the Center is to spearhead the Colloquium Series. I will be visiting the topics from the… Continue Reading
In today’s episode, we explore some of the genesis of Richard’s fascination with puzzle making and solving. Richard describes, in depth a puzzle similar to O’Beirne’s step-cut that he himself created. Then expands on O’Beirne’s puzzle itself. This link will take you to a page with three videos he references in http://goo.gl/Y3ta7C