Tag Archives: Andrew Day

Write a #Shorting for National Poetry Day and Win Books

Win a copy of ’40 Lessons to Get Children Thinking’ or the award-winning ‘Thoughtings’.

‘This collection of poems is very, very irritating. It’s irritating like having toast crumbs in your bed. It’s irritating like having toast crumbs in your brain… getting toast crumbs out of your bed is fun. They jump up and down. Some of them refuse to be swept out. Some of them find new places to hide. Some invite you to nibble them. Getting toast crumbs out of your mind is just like that too.’

Michael Rosen, from his foreword to Thoughtings by Andrew Day and Peter Worley

For National Poetry Day 2015 Andrew and Peter would like to invite you, and your classes, to write a Shorting (a short Thoughting). Tweet your short ‘poem for thinking’ with the hashtag #Shorting and we’ll gather them together and post them all here after National Poetry Day.

This competition is open to adults and young people (under 18) . The teacher (or parent, or interested adult) prize will be a copy of Peter’s new book 40 Lessons to Get Children Thinking and the under 18 prize, a copy of Thoughtings.

Need inspiration on poetry in the classroom? Download Thought Adventure Number 8, Is This a Poem? from 40 Lessons, on The Philosophy Foundation’s website.

What’s a Thoughting?

Thoughtings

Thoughtings: poems for thinking

In 2012 Andrew Day and Peter Worley wrote a book called Thoughtings: Puzzles, problems and paradoxes in poetry to think with (Awarded Teach Primary Magazine’s ‘Best Teaching Book’ 2014) to use in classrooms to stimulate philosophy sessions. Michael Rosen, who wrote the foreword (or forward!) for Thoughtings recommends it in his book for parents Good Ideas (2014). The title for Thoughtings was coined by a 6-year-old who was asked to say what thinking is without saying the word ‘think’ or ‘thinking’ in his answer; he said, ‘It’s when you’re thoughting’. There are free downloadable Thoughtings for you to use National Poetry Day on our website.

40 Lessons to Get Children Thinking

40 Lessons to Get Children Thinking, Philosophical thought adventures across the curriculum

What’s a Shorting?

In Peter Worley’s new book 40 lesson to get children thinking (out in October 2015) he has a chapter called ‘Is This A Poem?’ to help classes think through what poems are (and what they’re not). In the chapter he introduces the idea of a ‘Shorting’, a Thoughting for the Twitter generation: a ‘poem for thinking’ in 130 characters or less (to make space for the hashtag)! Here are some Shortings by Andrew and Peter:

Nospacetothinkmakesnosense. Space to think makes sense. B ut notw hen thes p ace s a r ei nthew ron gp lac e s.

I’ve got 140 characters I can play. Which one shall I be today? Let’s see what other people do and what they make me say.

Deciding is taking a scalpel and making a clean incision, cutting away the alternatives every time you make a decision.

Over to you! 

Write your shorting, post on twitter with the #shorting, or if you’re not on twitter send it to us via email info@philosophy-foundation.org

Thoughtings (plus more free poetry resources) on our site.

40 Lessons to Get Children Thinking will be available in October, available for pre-order now.

For more on our work on philosophy in schools and with children visit our website www.philosophy-foundation.org

2 Comments

Filed under Education, Philosophy in Schools, Poetry

How To See Into Their Heads

How To See Into Their Heads: Picturing a child’s own number line.

‘Miss, why we doing this?’ is something you hear from time to time. And however irritating it might be in tone, it’s a question that deserves an answer. After all, if we are going to take anyone’s time up teaching them anything, we should be able to say why that particular thing is worth the bother. Our reason doesn’t have to be of a narrow ‘you’ll need this to get a job’ type. It could be: ‘Understanding this will make you a better human being in countless ways’, but there must be a sense of purpose in education.  Familiarity with our curriculum can allow us to disregard fundamental questions that affect someone coming to the topic for the first time.

Let’s take an example: percentages. Why do children study them? Come to that, why do adults use them? What are they for?

This is a key question because we say nothing with percentages that can’t be said another way. So if 4% of people in my constituency voted UKIP, I could just as easily say that 0.04 of us voted UKIP. Or 4/100. Or I could (sticking with the raw data) say that it was 1971 out of 49 449.

Percentages are actually of course just fractions: they are hundredths. And at some point in the past, someone decided it would be useful to talk about parts of a whole in hundredths. Why? Why not just stick with ordinary fractions?

Well, percentages have one main advantage, which is that they are good for visualising and comparing. So let’s say I want to compare how UKIP did in my neighbouring consitituency – did they do better or worse than in mine? If I am told they got 6%, it is easy for me to compare. I can see immediately that they got more votes there than here, and a moment’s thought tells me that they got half as much again compared to here (4 + 2 = 6). But it is still less than 10%, so not a direct threat to the winner. And I can quickly conclude that even the winner of this seat would consider UKIP’s 4 % worth trying to win over to his own side, unlike the Socialist Party of Great Britain’s share, less than 1%.

All of that strikes me straight away, without me having to puzzle or calculate. Go back to the raw data of 1971 votes out of a 49 449 turnout, however. Is that better or worse than, say, 3707 from 73 788?! I can work it out, but it’s not immediately obvious in the same way.

Although percentages make comparison easier, there is one main disadvantage to them: they are not 100% (enjoy the pun) accurate. So usually when I use a percentage I will be rounding to make the figure into hundredths: 67%, 33%, 8% etc. Except… it’s not actually a disadvantage, it seems. In almost every ordinary life situation, (so, not including specialist financial data) a percentage is accurate enough for our purposes and makes the point we want to make. We simply don’t need the exact data.

How many children are taught that point when they are taught percentages?

It might not seem to matter. It might seem to be the pursuit of curiosity and trivia when there is real work to be done. But the whole procedure of converting data into percentages is meaningless without a reason for doing it.  They need to see that they are adding to their skills, understanding or wisdom.

So how do we go about proving to students that percentages make decisions and comparisons easier? The quickest way is to get them to put a set of unwieldy fractions in order of size:

4/7           5/12         16/22      4/9

They can put these in size order if they give every fraction the same denominator. But that’s a big ‘if’, and a big faff. Quicker and easier to divide the top by the bottom on a calculator and note the first two digits after the decimal point (ignore any digits after that). Like this:

0.57         0.42         0.73         0.44

It’s pretty easy to put them order of size now. Percentages, of course, are just these numbers written differently (57 % etc.)

OK, but that’s not the thing. Because I have still made a big assumption. I have assumed that kids can do what we do.  Assumed that when fractions are converted to numbers between 0 and 100, kids can now compare them easily, and immediately spot the proportions and relations between them. But can they?

One way to find out is to stretch a line of some kind along the classroom floor. You could make it one metre – there are some advantages to this – but it could be longer, which makes it easier for more people to see and participate. Mark one end 0 and the other 100. You then cut out some triangular pieces of paper with various numbers between and 1 and 99 on them. Do one each, and choose strategic numbers and a few random ones (so 25, 50, 75, 33, 66 and then random ones like 9, 42 etc).  Ask the child with the 50 triangle to place it along the line where it should go (if you’ve used triangles then you can use the point of the triangle to mark an exact point on the line). Hopefully, he’ll aim it smack in the middle. If he doesn’t you really have work to do, but the others in the class should be able to help get it to the right place. Then ask children who are confident they know where theirs goes to step forward and put their triangle point on the line.  Others can comment and suggest adjustments.

What you will see is the children’s own number lines – how it looks in their heads. These emerge as they make their attempts to divide the line visually and make an estimate of distance and proportion.

Now I guarantee that most basically educated adults, whatever their perceived ability at maths, would be able to divide the line into halves, quarters or thirds in their minds – perhaps tenths too. They would then place their triangle on the correct side of these points. For example, if you had the 40 triangle, you would know it goes on the left of the halfway point 50, because it’s lower. You might then imagine the line divided into tenths and judge one tenth left of 50. Or you imagine it divided into thirds and place your 40 slightly closer to the third point (because it’s 7 away from 33, which is a third) than the half (which is 10 away from 50).

People who have to do this for practical purposes, like builders, may well have better judgment. Perhaps artists would too.

Some children can do this kind of a thing a bit. Others barely at all. They will see this for themselves when you measure out the line.   By the way, this is where it is good to have a metre-long line after all because you don’t have to convert the distances into hundredths, it’s already there in the cm markings.  Alternatively, you could make a long line that has the correct markings on the underside that can be revealed when you flip the line over at the end.

There is certainly a big difference between what children of average ability manage and what adults of any ability at all can do. But if most of the students can’t do it well, then a lot of the purpose of percentages is lost on them. Knowing, for example, that a rise of 18 to 26% takes you past the 25% mark is the whole point. Without a grasp of these milestones, percentages don’t help nearly as much in appreciating the significance of data.

What should we do? Try to help them develop their mental number line, perhaps.  Her are some some suggestions…

  1. Get children estimating all kinds of distances under 1m and checking their accuracy until they develop a feel for where numbers between 1-100 are on the scale.  Some children will do this competitively in their breaks.
  2. Get children practising questions like ‘Is 67 closer to 55 or 75?’. See how they visualise it in their own drawings and help them to settle on strategies that help.
  3. Get children to choose which way to represent parts of a whole (common fractions, decimal fractions or percentages) when doing a task – make sure it’s not always decided in advance by the rubric of the question.
  4. So that they can succeed at point 3, make sure children experience the practical value of the three different ways of talking about amounts between 0 and 1. When I say ‘practical’ I include practical for completing calculations as well as problems in everyday life.
  5. Always let children show you how they see numbers fitting together. Don’t be in a rush to straighten out the wonky bits. Instead, help the child build a better map of the ‘numberverse’ in a way that they understand.

The first part of this blog is an abridged version of Go Compare, my chapter on percentages in The Numberverse.  http://www.philosophy-foundation.org/resources/philosophy-foundation-publications/the-numberverse  The second part is something I did in a classroom once with results that surprised me.

Leave a comment

Filed under Education, Maths, Philosophy in Schools

Maths In Singapore: Why You Don’t ALWAYS Want To Start With A Concrete Example

Question: How do you introduce new concepts in Maths?
One Answer: You demonstrate and explore them in a concrete way, then get students to represent the concept pictorially, then record it numerically – from the concrete to the abstract, in other words. So if you were introducing fractions, you’d get students to cut up a cake, then draw or arrange pictures of cakes cut up, then use digits to record the process.
That all makes sense to me, and apparently it’s the main principle behind Singapore Maths, the curriculum and methods that started in Singapore and have been followed by schools around the world attracted by the country’s performance in Maths teaching.

However, I spent last week at the impressive UWCSEA international school in Singapore. They don’t use ‘Singapore’ Maths, though, because they are an international school and so outside the Singapore system. I was there to work with the teachers on Enquiry Maths, an approach I came to through doing philosophy in schools.

The central insight of my book The Numberverse – the thunderbolt that hit me when I first got into this area – is that children will explore numbers in the abstract. So yes, they are helped enormously if they can proceed from concrete to abstract, and see how concepts are applied first. But they also, at times, can make strides by pursuing their own curiosity about numbers in the abstract. I’d like to give an example of how.

One of the many challenges the teachers at UWCSEA set me was how to use enquiry to introduce the multiplication of fractions by whole numbers, e.g. 3/4 x 7. When I learned this topic, in about 1980, it certainly wasn’t by enquiry. I had a good teacher that year but she was the sort that just showed you how to do stuff: I was told to multiply the top number (numerator) by the whole number, e.g 3 x 7 and keep the bottom number (denominator) the same, e.g. 21/4. Bingo. This gives you a correct answer, though you may need to simplify the fraction, e.g. 5 and 1/4.

I learned to do this mechanically, and as the arithmetic involved is pretty simple even for someone like me, successfully. It was some time – perhaps years – later that I twigged that 3/4 multiplied by 7 is exactly the same as three-quarters OF 7.  My confidence with the procedure wasn’t matched by a confidence with the concept, the problem lying in wait being that when I needed to apply the knowledge (whether in practical situations or abstract ones, like algebra) I was hesitant.

So I wanted the group I worked with last week to ground the new concept in the knowledge they already had. I followed the principle of starting with the known as the gateway to the unknown. I wrote this on the board:

6 x 6 = 36

6 x 5 = 30

Without saying anything about what I was doing, I asked if anyone could continue it. They wrote the 6x table backwards down to 6 x 1 = 6. I asked if we had finished. Someone added 6 x 0 = 0. Have we finished now, I asked. After discussion in pairs the children said that you could continue by ‘doing minus numbers’. I agreed that you could. Then I asked:

‘Does anything go in between these?’ and pointed to two lines in the list. The room buzzed with activity, and after a few minutes each pair had suggested another entry to the list, where 6 was multiplied by a fraction or mixed number. They wrote their ideas in the gaps between the lines. Although they used the word ‘fraction’ when they discussed it out loud, they mostly switched to decimals when writing. The children attempted:

6 x 1.5
6 x 1.75

… and so on. Some of their calculations weren’t correct, but two of the children thought through how to test the calculations practically: by imagining six people all with one and a half cakes each, for example, and counting how many cakes there are in total.

What these two children were doing was working the opposite way to the concrete-to-abstract method I mentioned at the beginning. I’d got them to think about it purely as a matter of logic: i.e. there must be something in between 6 x 0 and 6 x 1, so what could it be? Now they were testing that abstract reasoning by applying it to a concrete scenario. Some felt more inclined to do that testing than others, and that’s fine.

So my point is that you can start at either end – concrete or abstract. Different topics, different students, different teachers and resources – all of these may influence a teacher’s decision about which angle to come from.

Where this comes into its own is if you extend this from multiplication to division of fractions. So now you might write:

6 divided by 3 = 2

6 divided by 2 = 3

6 divided by 1 = 6

Now if you just stop a moment you might spot something new this time. Whereas last time moving on to 6 x 0 was quite straightforward, 6 divided by 0 is far from that. In fact I once set this to a class as a starter and asked them to figure it out, having stumbled across the problem myself and got very confused. I initially thought the answer must be 6 or 1. But neither makes sense: 6 by 1 is 6 and 6 by 6 is 1, so neither of those can have the same answer as 6 by 0… surely?

If you try the concrete approach of physically trying to share 6 oranges, say, between zero people you find that you are in fact left with 6 oranges as you have no-one to share them with. But then the whole point of sharing is that I should share out all that I’ve got till I have nothing – not have everything still left.

Working at an abstract level was something I found more helpful on this occasion. It took me a while to figure this, but I remember one boy who came up with it within about 10 seconds of being presented with the problem:

‘You can’t do it. Because you can’t do it backwards. If 6 divided by zero had an answer, that would mean something multiplied by 0 equalled 6, but it can’t.’

This is a perfect reductio ad absurdum argument. It shows that if we allow that 6 divided by 0 is possible then we have to allow also that something multiplied by 0 equals 6, which is absurd. This boy was thought not to be very academic, by the way, but OK because he was good at sport. I’ve got a feeling he’ll do just fine in life.

If you’re interested, you can see Matt Parker prove it more mathematically and entertainingly here <a href=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRRolKTlF6Q”>

But that’s all a digression! The point is that by running the same enquiry for dividing by fractions as you did for multiplying them you might get the children filling in values like this:

6 divided by 3 = 2

6 divided by 2 = 3

6 divided by 1 = 6

6 divided by 1/2 = ???

If children can spot a pattern in what comes above they can make a conjecture about what comes next. For example, they might say that the answer must be higher than 6.  Good start.  How much higher…?  Tricky to say.  Or they could see that the inverse operation works in each line, so they ask themselves: ‘what do you multiply by a half to get six?’, or ‘how many halves make six?’. Then the answer is quite straightforward: 12.

Were you, on the other hand, to try and start from a concrete scenario, then what? You imagine yourself giving six oranges to half a person?! I would be genuinely interested to hear from anyone who has managed this, as I’d like to be able to come at it both ways. Until I hear different, though, I’ll go on believing that sometimes the concrete-to-abstract is perfect, but that the purely abstract sometimes blows it away.

[Since posting this I’ve seen an excellent round up on the x & ÷ fractions issue: http://www.resourceaholic.com/2014/08/fractions.html ]

If you’d like to take a peek at The Numberverse, try:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Philosophy-Foundation-Numberverse-everything/dp/1845908899
<a href=”
http://www.philosophy-foundation.org/resources/philosophy-foundation-publications/the-numberverse&#8221; target=”_blank”>http://www.philosophy-foundation.org/resources/philosophy-foundation-publications/the-numberverse

Leave a comment

Filed under Maths

Is 3 The Same Upside-Down?

This is a session that started as general philosophy, but led into a Mathematics focus. (It’s Year 6, mixed ability in a 1-form entry primary school.) Here is the story/scenario I began with:

“There was once a man who had been working for 50 years, and it came to the day of his retirement. People asked him ‘What will you do all day now that you don’t have a job to go to?’. And the man thought about this for a while and said ‘Something I’ve never had the time to do before’.

The next day he woke up and said to his wife ‘I’m going to invent something. I’ve always wanted to invent something, and now’s my chance’. So he went down to the shed at the bottom of the garden, where he kept all his tools and bits and bobs for making things.

After a week, he came back up to the house after another long day in the shed. He made his wife a cup of tea and as he gave it to her with a sigh. ‘How’s it going?’ she enquired, sympathetically.

‘Well… I have all these ideas for things I’d like to invent. But I don’t know how to invent them. I’ll just have to keep trying.’

His wife nodded, and said gently: ‘To invent something, you’d need to be a bit more up-do-date with technology. And you’re not really that good with technology. Your phone looks like something out of a museum. And that time you tried to take a picture of your grandchildren with my phone, you took a selfie by accident. Technology is pretty complicated these days.’

The man thought about this for a while. Then he jumped up out of his chair, and said: ‘You’re right. I’ve been thinking about this all the wrong way’ and off he trotted, back to the shed.

The next morning, at breakfast he looked very pleased with himself. ‘I’ve worked out what to do,’ he explained to his wife. ‘I’ve got to invent something that doesn’t need technology. So I’ve narrowed it down to three possibilities. I’m going to invent either… a new word, a new shape, or a new number.’ “

I didn’t give the class a question at this point. I just asked them to discuss their reactions to the story in pairs, saying:

There is no question at the moment. Just tell your partner what you think.

I had questions up my sleeve, in case this initial prompt came to nothing. These were the questions:

If you were his wife what would you say?
Are all three possible, and what makes you say so?
Which would be easiest, and why?

One of the first responses was:

‘He can’t invent a new number, because numbers go on for ever.’

The next answer was:
‘He can’t invent a new number but he can invent a new rule. Like he could say that a number written upside down means a minus number, so an upside down 5 would mean minus 5.’

There followed a spirited and very flowing response from a youngster called Tabatha. Two of the things she said were:

1. It would be easier to invent a new word. Because in Mary Poppins they did it with Super-calli-fragilistic-expi-alidocious.
2. Turning numbers upside down to make them into minus numbers wouldn’t work because if you turn 1000 upside down, it’s still 1000.

Now, I love this second point, and I would like to put it to you, the reader, to ponder. Is 1000 the same upside down? Plump for an answer before you read on!

The children discussed it for a while. One of the answers was:

‘Numbers are the same upside down if they join up. 1, 8, and 0 are the same upside down. It’s because they join up. 4 and 2 don’t join up.’

By this time, several pupils have come up to the board to try to illustrate their points. I switched the term ‘number’ to ‘digit’ at one point, saying ‘Which digits are the same upside-down?’. Although it was obvious to me that the ‘joined up’ theory was fallacious, I waited for it to be superseded by something else.

Quite soon, a long-winded and rather confused answer contained the word ‘symmetry’ at some point. At the end, I said: ‘He mentioned the word ‘symmetry’. Does anyone else think this is anything to do with symmetry or not?’

The discussion went off at another tangent at this point, though in an interesting way, as the children debated whether the numeral ‘3’ is the same upside down. This brings into focus the very same issue that complicates whether 1000 is the same upside down: it sort of depends how you make it go upside-down.

By this time, I and most of the class were periodically turning our heads upside down to read the numbers on the board. If you do this, you will find that 1000 is not the same, because it reads as 0001, because all the digits look the same, but appear in a different order (this assumes that we are writing 1 with a single vertical stroke, though the children noticed that you might not). The numeral 3 is also different upside-down because it appears ‘backwards’ with its open side facing right instead of left. So…. is that the answer?

What about if we use a mirror? If I place a mirror under the numeral 3, what do I see in the mirror? Another 3, facing the correct way. The number 1000 will also read correctly. Which is weird because I always thought that if you look at something in a mirror then left is right and right is left.

Huh? This is a nice example of how a simple question can lead down an interesting and unexpected route. With this class it led away from the concept of whether numbers are invented or discovered into the practicality of whether something looks the same upside-down. But this then led into a discussion where the class needed the concept of symmetry to explain a phenomenon that they could all observe – which is a great way of consolidating that concept in the minds of the children. They would also needed to refine their application of the concept of symmetry to explain why 3 is the same upside-down if you use a mirror, but not if you turn your head upside down.

We didn’t quite get there. Can you explain it?

By the way, we did also have fun talking about how you invent a new word, but this blog series is about maths. Next time I do it, we might end up on shapes. I just don’t know. If we do, I’ll report back.

 

2 Comments

Filed under Education, Maths, Philosophy in Schools

Mine Do It Already: Nought To Reasoning In 60 Seconds

Are your children reasoning in the lesson? Not sure? Or maybe you want to prove that they are?

Here is a simple activity that is fun for the children and shows you – or anyone else – how they are reasoning. Before I go on to explain it, it may be useful to give a definition of reasoning that we can use here – just so we know what we are talking about.

Reasoning is described this way by ACARA, the Australian curriculum authority:
‘Students are reasoning mathematically when they explain their thinking, when they deduce and justify strategies used and conclusions reached, when they adapt the known to the unknown, when they transfer learning from one context to another, when they prove that something is true or false and when they compare and contrast related ideas and explain their choices.’

A simpler, neater, definition is that when we reason, we use information that we already have to prove information that we don’t have. So, for example, we use DNA evidence to reason that someone must be guilty. We use the lengths of a polygon’s sides to calculate its area.

It also helps to define something negatively – in this case, to say what is NOT reasoning. And here are some examples:

Guessing
Copying
Remembering

Not that those things are bad in themselves. Sometimes we have to guess to get started. Sometime the best thing to do in a given situation is just copy someone who seems to know what to do. And sometimes it is great to realise that you know the answer because you remember it from before. That’s all fine. It is just that where we rely on these strategies we are not, at that point, reasoning.

Here is the activity…

The simplest way to explain is to say that it’s 20 Questions, but with numbers. So 20 Questions goes like this:
• One individual thinks of a type of object at random – such as ‘chair’.
• The rest of the group can ask him/her questions. The individual will only answer Yes or No.
• If the group can guess the word in 20 questions or less they defeat the individual.

For maths, the individual thinks of a number instead of an object. Usually I say it has to be between 0 and 100. With Year 2 or lower, you might want to set it at 1-20. Also, instead of a limit to the number of questions, our goal is to get the answer in the lowest number of questions, improving our score with practice.

If you play this game you will be able to see the reasoning of your class and the people in it. At primary level, the person who finally guesses the answer often wants to claim maximum credit from the others even though he or she may have contributed very little to the hunt. That is a sign that reasoning – using reasons to move from one question to the next – is not taking place, at least with that person.

Between each game, I ask the children to say which questions were good and why (so it’s a good idea to write the questions, or short forms of them, on the board as you go). At the beginning, some may say that ‘Is it 17?’ was the best question because the answer was 17. But gradually the children will start to spot that the final shot was the easy one as all the other numbers had been eliminated. And if not enough numbers have been eliminated then glory-seeking stabs in the dark like ‘Is it 17?’ are a waste of a question (unless the questioner happens to get lucky). The class often takes a while to articulate the idea that a good question ‘narrows it down’. In other words, it reduces the possibilities to a narrower range.

Children also fail to realise, to begin with, that a ‘No’ answer is not worse than a ‘Yes’ answer, necessarily. If you ask ‘Is it an odd number?’, then either a Yes or No answer gives you exactly the same amount of help. And there are some Yes answers that tell you very little. For example, if you ask ‘Is it a two-digit number?’ the answer will probably be ‘Yes’ but it doesn’t get you far because you still have so many possibilities left. Now, you may still feel that ‘Is it a two-digit number?’ is a pleasing answer for you the teacher, because it shows the children recruiting prior knowledge to apply to the task (i.e. they’ve been learning about one/two/three-digit numbers, have remembered it, and are trying to apply that knowledge here). I couldn’t agree more, so you may want to praise some questions while preparing to nudge the questioner towards a more effective strategy.

After a few runs through, I ask the children if they can come up with a strategy that will always get them the answer in a set number of questions – so, can they guarantee to get the answer in 10 questions, or 5? Children then explain their strategies and we try them out. This is crucial because they are now thinking about their reasoning.

Most classes latch onto 0-50 as the first question before long. Either that or ‘Is it even/odd?’. However, it can go in two ways from there. Usually, you have two different strategies being used within the class. For example, after ‘Is it between 1 and 50?’ with the answer No, we might get:

Is it odd? Yes
Is it between 50 and 75? Yes
Is it in the 3-times table? No

Now it is quite hard from here to work out which numbers that leaves. Try it yourself! It’s better to stick to one strategy. So:

‘Is it between 0-50?’ halves the possibilities should be followed by a question that halves what’s left in a predictable, memorable, way. So if the answer was No, then the next question should be either 50-75 or 75-100, and so on, halving each time. For example:

0-50? No
50-75? Yes
50-62? Yes
50-56? No
56-59? Yes
56-57? No
58? No
The only remaining number is 59.

Using the ‘halving’ method outlined above, the class should be able to guarantee to find any number within 7 or 8 questions. You may able to refine this further. I’ve only had a couple of classes who got that far (I generally teach primary).

When I’m playing the game, though, I’m content for the children to circle gradually closer to a strategy like this, and don’t worry if they never quite nail it. What I’m interested in is them looking at a task and saying to themselves: ‘How do I make this simple? How do I work steadily towards the answer?’.

One side issue that comes up here is a problem with the edge of the range. For example: is 50 itself between 0 and 50? You might be sure that it is. But imagine if you have a group of children sitting in a row in this order:

Floriana, Luke, Chester, Adibola, Polly.

We wouldn’t say that Floriana is sitting ‘between’ Floriana and Polly (we’d say that Luke, Chester and Steven were). So the word ‘between’ can be applied differently. You can introduce the word ‘inclusive’ here to help the children, (‘Is it between 0 and 50 inclusive?’) and they will have learned a valuable lesson about the definition of a range. In a similar way, by the way, the question ‘Is it below 50?’ doesn’t make it clear (for some children) whether 50 itself should be judged above or below! You could argue that ‘below’ is not ambiguous at all – 49 is below 50; 50 isn’t – and that’s exactly the kind of precision in the use of terms that we want the children to learn.

If, instead of the ‘halving’ method, children try to extend the ‘Is it odd?’ question into a strategy, another set of problems is thrown up. Because to extend that strategy means using times tables:

• Is it odd?
• Is it in the 3xTable?
• Is it in the 4xTable?
Etc.

This is much harder to operate, and soon challenges the reasoning of the child. For example, if the answer to ‘Is it odd?’ was Yes, then there is no point in then asking if the number is in the 4xTable (or the 6, 8, or 10xTable, come to that) as odd numbers won’t feature in any of those times tables.

Another issue is that it is very hard to know what numbers are left if you eliminate them through timestables. You could do it with a number line or square, crossing out the eliminated numbers, but few of us could do it in our heads.

And finally, and most fascinating, is that if the person choosing has chosen a prime number, then it is not in any times tables – except of course its own. So you’d have to wait until you got to ‘Is it in the 97xTable?’ to eliminate 97.

All of these knotty problems are rich pickings for reasoning. Lead the children again and again back to a discussion of their strategies. Do that by asking ‘What did the answer to that question tell you?’ to develop the children’s logical thinking. Try not to jump in and tell them – stick to questions. If you feel they’re falling short of what you’d hope, just keep encouraging them – that’s more valuable than getting them to the best strategy fast. After all, it’s only a game – not a SAT.

Trust me, you can spend a whole hour on trying to crack this. Alternatively, you can use it to warm up/down at the beginnings or endings of lessons or weeks. Just remember that its main value as a teaching tool – rather than a mere time-filler – is in developing awareness of reasons, and how a chain of reasoning can solve a problem.

Once they have exhausted the possibilities of this game, you could try some of the games on the NRICH website. I particularly like Strike It Out
http://nrich.maths.org/6589
…and Got It – where the whole class can play against the computer
http://nrich.maths.org/1272

I am indebted to Peter Worley at The Philosophy Foundation for showing me this game, and Andy West (also TPF) who reminded me of its value.

For more on how to introduce Enquiry into your set of teaching skills, try my book The Numberverse: How Numbers Are Bursting Out Of Everything And Just Want To Have Fun.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=numberverse

You can also buy it here:
http://www.philosophy-foundation.org/resources/philosophy-foundation-publications/the-numberverse

Leave a comment

Filed under Education, Maths, Philosophy in Schools

When Numbers Won’t Behave

When numbers won’t behave

Some people like Maths because it feels like a land of certainty. Where other subjects – indeed life in general – teem with doubts and contradictions, numbers are cool, hard and permanent. You know where you are with them.

But is this how numbers really are, or just how we want them to be?

Once we know that two plus two equals four it can be quite comforting. We feel confident that there will never be a time that teachers, the government, our parents or anyone else turn out to have misled us about this simple fact. George Orwell, in 1984, floated the idea that ‘freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four’. So for him, or the protagonist of his novel at least, it was the perfect example of objective truth.

That may well be so, and certainly I myself can’t think of a better example. But despite that, students of maths can find what they are being told vague, or illogical. And some of the most confusing moments come with the most basic concepts.

I once got into a discussion with a class about whether 7 was a number or a digit. One child said ‘both’. We then started to discuss whether a digit and a number are the same thing. Some children said ‘yes’, some ‘no’. Their teacher sighed and crinkled her brow, having gone to some pains to teach them recently that a digit and a number are not the same thing.

Except that sometimes they sort of are…

Think of it like this:
51 is a number made of two digits.
5 is a number made of one digit

In the first example, 51 is a number and I have used two digits to write it. A computer working in binary, on the other hand, might communicate it as 110011, using six digits to express the same number. So it is clear to me that one number can be expressed with different digits.

I could, of course, communicate it another way altogether: ‘fifty-one’. That’s two words. Is it two digits? Maybe. What if I make up a single word to express the number… let’s say, ‘flimp’. If my new word caught on then people would be referring to the number 51 without using any digits. So this proves that numbers and digits are not the same thing. Doesn’t it?

But what about a single-digit number? The 5 in 51 was a digit, we said, but what about the 5 in the number 5? It’s a digit because it’s in a column where it means ‘5 units’. But isn’t it a number as well? And if it isn’t… what is a number?

Let’s widen this out a bit. Because ‘5’ (and I am talking about that bendy line on the page here) is also a numeral. A numeral is a mark, and can vary between languages. In Arabic, for example, 5 is written with a circle much like our sign for zero.

So 5 (European etc) and 0 (Arabic) are two different numerals, but they stand for the same digit. It helps to compare numbers with words here. The Arabic for ‘book’ is ‘kitab’, apparently. So ‘kitab’ and ‘book’ are two different words for one thing – a book.

The problem is that numbers aren’t quite like books. I have no doubt what both ‘book’ and ‘kitab’ stand for because there are some books on the shelf two metres away from me, and I could pick one up and drop it down on the table to illustrate. However, if I look at the numerals ‘5’ and ‘0’, there is nothing I can drop on the table to show what they refer to. So what do they refer to? If what they refer to is a number, how can I demonstrate what that number is without going back to the numerals all over again?

This may sound as if I am looking for a problem where there isn’t one – or at least not if you don’t go looking. But in my experience, people learning new concepts or procedures in maths come up against precisely these weird questions as they try to bend their brains around the new idea. This can happen when they are introduced to double-digit figures. Or decimal fractions.

Wittgenstein, a philosopher who was fascinated by the fundamentals of mathematics, wrote that as a philosopher he was trying to ‘show the fly the way out of the fly-bottle’. I always wondered what a fly bottle was but apparently it’s something they used to use to trap flies. Anyway, you can imagine the predicament of a fly inside a bottle. It buzzes around, ever more frantically, blocked by an invisible wall and unable to locate the exit.

That is a fitting metaphor for intellectual confusion. And you don’t have to be an intellectual to suffer from it. An ordinary 8-year-old can be unable to progress because a new concept is, basically, doing her head in. At that moment, numbers are doing things she thought they weren’t meant to do. They are behaving irrationally.

What can a teacher do? What a philosopher does. That is to:

• listen to the confusion
• try to understand the confusion rationally (i.e. how it stems naturally from the student’s current knowledge and beliefs)
• sympathise with the confusion (e.g. by saying ‘I see why you’re confused – that must be annoying’)
• consider why you the teacher believe what you believe instead, and try to explain it

Remember, we all have an upper limit of understanding in any subject, a point where the next stage doesn’t make sense to us. Reaching that point is anxious and frustrating. A guide who takes those feelings of ours seriously rather than brushing them aside is more likely to boost us up to that next level of understanding.

**Check out my book The Numberverse: How Numbers Are Bursting Out Of Everything And Just Want To Have Fun.
You can ‘Look Inside’ on Amazon here:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Philosophy-Foundation-Numberverse-everything/dp/1845908899

You can also buy it here:
http://www.philosophy-foundation.org/resources/philosophy-foundation-publications/the-numberverse

2 Comments

Filed under Education, Maths, Philosophy in Schools

The Philosophy Foundation Series Book Launch

On June 27th a crowd of teachers, philosophers, academics, friends and family gathered at Blackwell’s Bookshop at the Institute of Education to welcome The Numberverse and Provocations into the world.

book launch 3

Party go-ers at The Philosophy Foundation Series Launch Party.

These books are part of The Philosophy Foundation Book Series, a set of books published by Crown House, that challenge, engage and stimulate the imagination as well as being a practical resource for teachers/educators and parents to use. 

Andrew Day’s The Numberverse which was released on June 30th is a maths book designed to help teachers teach maths through enquiry, putting students at the heart of lessons and letting their curiosity drive it. 

What is in-between numbers?

What is in-between numbers?

At the launch Andy ran a session from his book where he puts a number line on the floor, and then asks, ‘Is there anything in-between the numbers?’. ‘Yes’, says one attendee, ‘Show us’ replies Andy. On pieces of paper in different colour they step forward and write 0.5, 1.5, 2.5, 3.5 and so on, placing them eqi distance between the whole (or as I would find out later that evening ‘natural’ numbers) numbers. ‘Is there anything else between the numbers?’ Andy asks, ‘Yes’, replies another and steps forward to show us. Through a series of comments, discussions and questions we soon find ourselves talking about infinity, ‘real’ numbers, and whether there are more numbers in-between the natural numbers than the natural numbers themselves. Andy does this session with Year 3 classes (aged 7/8) and above, and it is one of many activities on fractions, or the ‘in-betweeny-bits’, designed to make fractions more understandable.

Andy says in his introduction that “I’m putting The Numberverse out there now for two kinds of people: teachers looking for ways to get their more reluctant pupils into maths, and people who liked school generally but not maths (probably the latter group are the pupils from the first group but grown up).

“The evidence I have [that the book works] is anecdotal. Feedback from head teachers is very often positive. They want to instil a risk-taking, creative, exploratory attitude in all their classrooms. They want all their children to have high self-esteem and to believe they can improve at maths. But it’s hard. It’s also difficult to reconcile with the barrage of targets, levels, directives and schemes through which a teacher has to pick her way.

“One assumption I have made is that the teacher can get the class’s attention and manage behaviour to positive levels. I am as aware as anyone that those conditions are not always in place. I do know, however, that the material and techniques in this book can help win over a class, as part of an overall strategy for both ruling and entertaining the young.”

book launch 1

What order would you put these objects in?

Next up was David Birch, whose book Provocations: Philosophy for Secondary Schools has already received excellent reviews, including one from Michelle Sowey in Australia, having been released in February this year. David put the following objects on the floor: a banana, a mobile phone, Provocations and a chocolate bar, and then asked us to put them in order from the most to the least natural.

So, what order would you put them in? What do we mean by natural? Is something man-made natural? Are we natural? Is anything more natural than anything else? There was a fair amount of disagreement around these issues, and if you use David’s book his chapter on ‘Nature’ looks at the many varying ideas around nature, our relationship and responsibility (or not) towards it, including considering whether we should protect all natural things.

From Provocations:

“Smallpox has existed for at least 3,000 years and its rash can be seen on the faces of Egyptian mummies. In the 20th century alone an estimated 300 million people died from it. It is a disease caused by the variola virus; its most conspicuous symptom is blistering which develops all over the body, even in the mouth and throat, but mostly on the face and arms. It kills approximately a third of all those infected.

“Though there is no cure, smallpox was officially eradicated in 1979. The variola virus, however, still exists. It is preserved in two high-security facilities, one in Russia and the other in the US. The World Health Organisation (WHO), which was instrumental in its eradication, has been calling for its complete destruction for decades.

“The request by WHO has raised concern. It has been argued that if the virus were to be destroyed, it would be the first instance of humans intentionally acting with the explicit goal of eliminating another life form from the planet. It would constitute an unthinking disregard for nature. In arguing for the conservation of species, the biologist David Ehrenfeld has said, ‘they should be conserved because they exist and because this existence is itself but the present expression of a continuing historical process of immense antiquity and majesty.’

“The deliberate extinction of a species – the total annihilation of a life form – is perhaps an act worthy of moral scrutiny.”

Both of these books are available from all good booksellers and from The Philosophy Foundation Shop for £14.99. 

Win a copy of The Numberverse

Exterion Media (UK) have kindly provided The Philosophy Foundation with ad space on two bus routes in London and Wales and to mark the occasion we are giving away a copy of The Numberbervse. To find out which bus routes will be be carrying the ad, follow the hashtag #TPFBUS. To enter, simply take a photo and Tweet it to us @philosophyfound including the hashtag #TPFBUS and we will select a winner at random by the end of August.

If you would like a review copy of either of these books please email Rosalie Williams with the address you would like the book sent to, and details of where you will be publishing the review.

1 Comment

Filed under Education, Maths, Philosophy in Schools