Sometimes it feels like I’m just teaching students patterns that go in students’ short-term memory. In general, students pick up on the solution pattern if you show them enough examples. I think they’re really getting it. They say, “This is easy.” I’m glad because at least they’re not complaining about how hard math is and how they suck at it. Then I come in the next day and they can’t remember what we’ve done. I spend time showing them the pattern again and little light bulbs go on. Then I teach the new lesson, which is usually another type of problem with a slightly different solution pattern. They practice it and get decent at it. I assign them homework that is just like what we did in class. Some of them do it and some of them don’t. They come in the next day and many have forgotten how to do the problems. So I review again. Review is good, but I wonder if I’m just teaching them patterns that go in their short-term memory.
I want them to be getting the big
idea of the unit and be able to fit what they’re learning into this grand
scheme. But when I was in high school, I didn’t know how things fit together. I
learned math by recognizing patterns and mimicking problem solutions for the
most part. Sometimes I got a glimpse of how some topics were related, but
rarely saw the overall picture. It wasn’t until college when I began learning
even more advanced topics that I could look back and see how concepts in
algebra were related, for example. Many of the different patterns and
procedures I had learned were actually different perspectives of the same
concept. (Which is something I think is cool about mathematics.)
I don’t spend time teaching the
connections because I don’t think they’ll get it. I also don’t think I have
enough time to teach them. I don’t know if these are false preconceptions or if
they’re true. I also don’t know if it’s good or bad that I don’t teach the connections
very often. I used to think that you’re a bad teacher if you focus on
procedures. I still do, in a way. However, today, as I was having this thought
about whether I should be more focused on deep understanding and conceptual
understanding or on procedures, this blog post by Christopher Danielson appeared
on my NetVibes account: “Sometimes in mathematics, we need to live with new
notation before picking its meaning apart too carefully…. Patterns are powerful
tools in mathematics. Tabitha’s [my daughter’s] experience in the teens gave
her powerful intuitions for the twenties” (Christopher Danielson, http://christopherdanielson.wordpress.com).
In the comments, someone writes: “cf: John von Neumann: ‘In mathematics you
don’t understand things. You just get used to them.’ One of my favorite
thoughts about mathematics, and persistence, and playfulness.”
The perspective that learning
patterns is fundamental to learning math countered my thought about
understanding the grand scheme. I do believe that teaching connections is
important in math. But I can’t overlook the importance of the procedures
either. Sometimes you learn the procedures or notation first, and once you get
good at it, you can then start to see how it relates to other ideas. So thanks,
Christopher, for that timely thought!