Technologies in math education

This week I read the second article written by Smith, King, and Hoyte, Learning Angles through Movement: Critical Actions for Developing Understanding in an Embodied Activity. The Kinect design is awesome, which is similar to a project that helps student visualize the relationships among line, line segment, and their 2D equations.

But this is not the only thing I thought during the reading. When I saw the graph (Fig 3, p. 101) showing the improvements in percentage correct rate of the test, I could not stop but asking myself two questions: (1) is it possible that these students may perform similar or better in the test after taking a normal lecture about angle? And (2) by visualizing these math concepts, are we helping our students prepare for their future?

I understand the second question is a bit strange. It comes from a recent discussion between my cousin and I. I try to convince him that he needs to read more books instead of playing games and watching videos, while he tries to convince me that since watching videos and seeing things are more efficient ways of learning, it is unnecessary for him to read books at this time. And by the way, he is in Grade Six right now.

It seems impossible in the short run to develop technologies that can directly input information into human brains, so the fact that reading is the main learning method may not be changed in the short run. However, the daily-updated technologies do provide approaches for students to learn things “faster, more efficiently, and more accurately” (by Kevin, LOL). Then the mismatches here inevitably occur.

So far, learning through doing/acting is still a non-main-stream learning approach. Not only because of the developing technologies, but also its internally conflicted nature to the main-stream learning style. Well, we can also say that the main-stream style is limited by technology, but overly using technologies in learning may not be a good solution to teach students. However, it also depends on the things that students learn. It is also true that students may benefit from learning the technology used in the learning process. 

Impression of FLM 1-1

This is a good opportunity for me to think about a journal as a whole, especially the very first volume of its kind.

In July 1980, the first volume of FLM, For the Learning of Mathematics, was published. The cover page is simple, only the title of the journal and a symbolic graph containing iterated tiles and triangles. I cannot see the color as in pdf it is black and white, but I tend to believe the color may be yellow or green. Meanwhile, the back page is empty, with short statements telling that this is a space for future improvements.

Then I start to read the journal. In total there are 54 pages excluding the cover and the bottom pages. The goal of the journal is printed on the second page as:

The journal aims to stimulate reflection on and study of the practices and theories of mathematics education at all levels; to generate productive discussion; to encourage enquiry and research; to promote criticism and evaluation of ideas and procedures current in the field. It is intended for the mathematics educator who is aware that the learning and the teaching of mathematics are complex enterprises about which much remains to be revealed and understood.

This journal is published three times in a year, July, November and March. The price of subscription is also printed on the second year, along with the staff members of the journal. The instruction of writing articles to FLM is stated in detail at the end of the journal.

Three out of the nine articles published in this volume talk about geometry, with the rests talk about different topics. The lengths of these articles vary a lot. The “Two Cubes” is a one-page article with most of the page occupied by two reversed cubic boxes. The longest articles are “About Geometry” and “Alternative Research Metaphors and the Social Context of Mathematics Teaching and Learning”: 9 pages. The former contains two graphs, while the latter illustrates 15 graphs and tables. It is clear that these articles are of different writing styles.