This article reminded me of our word problem exercise this morning, as we were sorting the word problem strips, the categories my group seemed to be using centered around what do we know about the problem and what do we want to find out...that leading to the question HOW do we find out?
Students are very accustomed to predicting the outcomes of stories based on prior knowledge, but has that strategy every been methodically applied to math? I need to remind myself to do that, not only when guiding students in taking apart word problems, but with any challenging math concept they attempt.
I also could see some of Maggie's philosophy in the statement that problem solving has been considered as a way to apply what students have been taught, leading them to believe that the problem WAS the math, and as we have learned this week, that is not the case. The problem is a vehicle for understanding the math. I understand the difference now.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Yes, students are accustomed to using their schema when responding to literature. However, I tend to expect these responses during reading instruction, not math. How many of us use literacy response journals that encourage representations where they: discuss, create concrete representations, act it out, draw a picture, or make an outline or list? In the article, they discuss using these . . . for math. Seems to me they cover the Multiple Intelligences pretty well too.
Our school is fortunate to have supportive parent/community funding that has helped us build our bookrooms. One of the areas recently enhanced was literature that supports math concepts. I have used several books during math lessons to support new math skills, but never did I think to use a modified KWL chart or have them respond using the same criteria I would for reading. I can't wait to use the KWC chart!
Post a Comment