Problem Posing in Mathematics Education

In Brown and Walter's article "Problem Posing in Mathematics Education" they discuss the recurrent themes that should be a part of a student’s mathematical experiences if “learning mathematics is to be viewed as an act of liberation.”  They call these themes sensitivities, and in this article in particular, shy away from the mathematical content, and instead focus on the pedagogical issues.  Each of these sensitivities revolves around the idea that mathematics is, at its essence, a “problem-solving activity.” Filled with examples and anecdotes from their team-teaching experiences, this article was an engaging look at how problem-posing can motivate and involve students, giving them a voice in an, otherwise externally-imposed, curriculum. 

            In their discussion of the efforts that go into creating an atmosphere of problem-posers, they describe three layers: context, posing, and solving.  Typically, a teacher would provide a problem given a particular context, and the students would be asked to solve it. In problem posing, a context, or scenario, is provided for which a problem is to be posed.  This gives the students creative reign over what kind of question they might ask of the scenario.  Brown and Walter hope that these individual efforts, creative endeavors, and opportunities to explore problems of their own choosing will result in students who take more responsibility for their learning. 

            I once taught an extracurricular problem-solving course in mathematics.  The engagement and creativity that students exhibited was truly impressive.  Looking back on my choice of problems, I think that it was their open-ended nature that was a major contributor to the high levels of engagement.  Giving students the choice of how they might attempt the problem was reflected in their range of answers and opened up the door for inspired learning and creative discourse: students defended their own methods and learnt from their classmates.  Open-ended problems could be a good gateway to developing the independence and confidence needed for students to pose their own problems.  

"On the Dual Nature of Mathematical Conceptions"

In the article “On the Dual Nature of Mathematical Conceptions: Reflections on Processes and Objects as Different Sides of the Same Coin” Anna Sfard discusses the dichotomies present in mathemactical concepts, contrasting them with such words as structural and operational, abstract and algorithmic, and declarative and procedural. Sfard focuses on the structural/operational dichotomy and attempts to find the bounds of these two modes, to find where they begin to overlap.  She goes on to rescind  her use, and academia’s use, of the word dichotomy claiming that, in fact, since these two terms are “inseparable, facets of the same thing” it should be called a duality instead as they complement each other.

A very interesting example of this notion in action revolves around the concept of number.  There exists a one-to-one structural relationship between the number of objects in a set and the words ‘one,’ ‘two,’ ‘three,’ but when a child is asked to determine how many in a set, they will repeat the process of counting, showing the operational side of the concept. So number represents both operation, (of measuring how many) and it represents a structure (of representing an amount).

In what order should these two different faces of a concept be learnt?  Or should it be strived to be simultaneous?  Near the end of the article Sfard makes me stop as she mentions that one of the ‘vexing issues’ facing math education is the apparent trade-off between profiency and comprehension, between “promoting the smooth performance of mathematical procedure and developing understanding of how and why that procedure works and what it means.”  What do you think?  Is this an intrinsic issue in learning mathematics, or is it extrinsic of learning math, introduced by ways of how we approach math education?

My personal pedagogic ideology

In Herbal-Eisenmann's paper "Examining the Voice of  Mathematics Textbook" she discusses how a teachers's classroom discourse can limit student learning experiences, and how the language used in textbooks "manifests particular ideological views in mathematics education."  Reading how Herbal-Eisenmann dissected the language of textbooks and how that positions the locus of authority was fascinating and gave rise to a wealth of questions in my own practice.   In particular interest were the use of imperatives in giving exact directing instructions to the student: “make a graph,”  “draw a straight line,” “explain your reasoning.”  Also of interest was the use of pronouns and the absence of the author’s voice, almost as if the textbook were an omniciescent power, a decree from an unknown.

I have been teaching high school mathematics for the last five years in the setting of a small classroom (with 5-10 students) or one-on-one.  Working in a highly supported school environment I realize, after reading this article, that I never assign my students to read through a textbook.  If they have troubles with course material then I will direct them to the wealth of resources we have on hand, namely my colleagues who's job it is to support students with exactly this issue.  This article makes me question my own discourse with my students, and how this is similar or different to what Herbal-Eisenmann describes in her paper.  Being permitted a wealth of time to work with students, I often take a slower, more exploratory approach to learning.  My use of pronouns would differ, obviously, from a textbook, as I am a very real voice in the students learning, not a non-corporeal textbook, and I try to focus on asking ‘how’ questions instead of directing students with imperatives. This personal pedagogic ideology, however, as Herbal-Eisenmann suggests, may certainly be limiting students’ learning in some aspects.  What do you think?

Building from the roof downwards, or the floor upwards?

The introduction to Bill Higginson's "On the Foundations of Mathematics Education" begins with reference to Gulliver's travels, remarking on the far-reaching societies that Gulliver encounters on his voyages. A quoted passage discusses how a math educator attempted to teach his pupils by giving to them a wafer to eat, upon which the theories they were to learn were written. From this passage, I imagine that Higginson will begin to discuss how math education is often conducted en masse, in a one-size-fits-all style, where the teacher is the keeper of the knowledge to be transferred to the pupil. The teacher will offer up their wisdom for the students to nourish themselves on, with hopes that they will be able to digest the offering. Higginson, I imagine, will discuss how math education treats the students who find these offering “too nauseous” to be able to digest, and will offer alternative ways of approaching math education instead of this top-down approach, where the teacher is the purveyor of wisdom.

On further reading, Higginson reveals his thesis statement: “We will not begin to make significant progress in dealing with [the difficulties of learning mathematics] until we more fully acknowledge the foundations of our discipline.” Higginson’s goal in this article is to broach a model of mathematics education called the MAPS-tetrahedral model, where MAPS stands for mathematics, philosophy, psychology, and sociology. He hopes that developing this model as the foundation for math education will help educators better understand their subject, and approach its teaching. Higginson concludes the article in a fascinating, humbling way, claiming that even if this model is shown to be “incomplete, logically flawed, or of very limited use” its ulterior motive, regarding the value it might contribute to help stimulate discussion between educators concerning the foundations of math education, will remain.

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Conrad's Calculation Concatenater where Conrad will collaborate and corroborate with classmates and colleagues in a cacophonous community.