Technolandy

Day X (of 2025/26) some thoughts leading into episode 2 of Recreational Mathematics as part of History of Math 11

Once again, I am trying to shout the virtues of the humanities focused, ‘good parts version’ of studying maths: History of Math 11.

Todays focus… the text…

And an exploration into Recreational Mathematics week 2 on a #mathmonday mindset: https://youtu.be/zU3OswFxMN0

Instagram share: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DOpFkPCgZSb/?igsh=MTBrZ3ZpbmQ0OGJ0cA==

For a long while now, I have likened the way we do the reading/writing literacies to how we ought to do more of the maths… students working at an independent level (99% no frustration), synthesis at a ‘systemically artificially declared grade acceptable level’, and a variety of ways to approach and communicate learning (eg read non fiction, not just fiction; produce infographics, not just 5 paragraph essayzzzzzzz)

The broader push I give when people ask on their quest for ‘the textbook that will rule them all’ is asking who published ‘the’ book they give students for writing… or reading… knowing full well that ‘we’ (in BC) do not default to a single textbook driven set of instructions for writing, and outside of Nortons Anthology in university… there’s no chance you could get all/any of the English teachers to align on which are ‘must reads’ for all learners.

Yet in math… 

Though I do like the concepts shared in Peter Liljedahl’s Building Thinking Classrooms and Jo Boalers Math-ish. But I’m also the one that loved “Math Makes Sense” because (as I compared note) the students didn’t open the text more than twice a year… totally only needed it to guide some instruction and then make use of their ‘golden question’ (designed to test if the concepts of the lesson/unit/assignment were grasped or not). But we talked a lot more than other classes… and even took time to go back when (as usual) subtraction skills were demonstrated to have been forgotten, and the theory of the time was to push for solid understanding of +/- before going onto x/…/… well, that division sign was awkward… let’s discuss the different signs for division aka fractions! Sorry – that’s more of a History of Math 11 question…

But as I explained patiently to parents who wanted 3 weeks of homework while they went on a family vacation… if I could replicate what we do in the classroom, then there would be no reason to come to school… a mindset I have tweaked a bit in my current role in a Provincial Online Learning School, where we often do rely on ‘glorified textbooks’ as online courses as a starting point. I am happy I have a curious teaching cohort that is very good at adapting… and interested in doing very different(iated) when appropriate for the learner… even dealing with a good query from a parent about chunking projects to help with some neuro-spicy pushback they are getting while being a facilitator of home learning… thus History of math 11 and New Media 12 as PBL style approaches, not as ‘the’ way forward, but to model permission for teachers to also explore ways to meet student needs in relevant and meaningful ways.

It’s not about the textbook. The textbook will work for some/many. It always had, even if it’s been with a lot of time in the frustration zone… 

It’s not about the right book, but the right experience. The text is best (for all subjects) when it is a guide.. a springboard… a reference… a safety net… but NOT if it’s a cage. When we give students to play, question, and connect, the “good parts” of maths show up naturally.