Technolandy

Day 82 (of 2025/26) #mathmonday – Math evolving in how we solve it… 

Some thinking about math as we re-enter some thoughts connected to History of Math 11 (the best math ever for those of us who are called to the Arts more than the Sciences – especially as universities now welcome it… for the Arts – not so much for Business/Science that still wants more formulatic thinking rather than diving into the ‘why’ 😜

1. Systemic thinking

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/endreberentzen_were-still-trying-to-solve-2025s-problems-activity-7401895571579502593-c_BT?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_ios&rcm=ACoAABZNptIBuMettSFB5rSK4pFTltY83fhN9vo

Complexity matters… and isn’t the enemy, but we can’t see math as a series of isolated tasks. I have enjoyed a couple of online shares wondering why we bother with making students do long division… not ‘don’t teach it’ – but teach it so that it is understood WHY we do such a procedure… explore some of the ways HOW to solve it, but then pivot to tools that are much more efficient at it… 

“From Renaissance Individual to Renaissance Team

Leonardo da Vinci could master multiple disciplines because the knowledge base was smaller. One brilliant mind could hold it all.

That era ended.”

1. Why you might not be good at math:

https://apple.news/ARWgR-YNBSrSGY30XsqE_ew

I know on social media there is a push by some to ‘just get over math anxiety’ – as a great way to show their own abled bias… having had family members share their own stories about when math hatred/fear happened… it is the same things that made some apparently love the subject: high speed assignments… even though I don’t recall ever seeing “speed” or solutions per minute on any curriculum that I have worked with…  though some (including New York State guidelines) like to promote that speed = fluency (I have the same arguments in reading… not everybody reads the same… even if we wish speed = understanding).  Glad the article highlights the use of “I do, we do, you do” as explicit instruction on math and yet that timed tests are the only way to measure fluency (point – this is something Einstein was very poor at doing…) 

Is knowing math facts the same as sight words? We need to deconstruct the letters to make the sounds that make the words being read… but do we support the same understanding on math flash cards, or is it just ‘easier’ when someone matches 6×7 with a 42 on the back? Or is this just the ultimate answer and we are trying to ban the TikTok trending question…? (Search: Douglas Adams)

I know Solomon (in the article) fears test scores could stagnate if changes are made… I for one LOVE it when test scores stagnate because it means we are finally doing different(iated) in the classroom that doesn’t translate as nice and neatly into a scantron form! At least, much as we are acknowledging that not every brain reads the same (some are shocked others can’t create pictures in their mind and others are shocked that reading text generates images in others minds!) Why would math be any different?

Do we want to focus on test scores to define who is a good mathematician? Why haven’t I seen a trend of mathematicians highlighting their scores on various ‘mad minute’ worksheets…

Speaking of which – todays History of Math 11 rabbit hole:

1. Different counting: https://youtube.com/shorts/YcBTymRQCDM?si=FTlmpiryQ8Lc2EcG

Why might it be that different languages would use the same arabic numerals, but say them, and think of them in so many different ways? 

Video Edition: