This week one connection I made was between distributed intelligence and the process/ practice standards in mathematics. In brief, the NCTM process standards and CCSSO math practice standards describe disciplinary expertise teachers are expected to develop with their students. For example, the CCSSO math practice standards includes the expectation that students should learn to use appropriately tools strategically and model with mathematics. It struck me that these process/ practice standards capture aspects of distributed intelligence.
A learning environment affording students opportunities to develop these processes/ practices might give students a set of tools (e.g. ruler, calculator, string, internet access) and then help students learn how to choose tools to reach certain learning goals. One could say these learning environments help students learn about the potential intelligences distributed across tools.
While the NCTM Standards and CCSSO aren't flawless, I believe the process/ practice standards embody learning expectations that should encourage learning environments designed to implicitly teach students about intelligences distributed among tools in a math classroom. It is refreshing to me that, ideally, teachers are expected to help students develop such understandings.
Seth- I agree completely. There is little point in having tools if students are not knowledgable about using them. I think the catch here is that some time should be spent explaining to the students why the tool works to solve these problems. For example, a quick explanation of why a protractor is a good tool to determine angles might include a review of the properties of a circle. This would not only give the student context but allow them to feel more confident about their ability to do the problem and less like the tool is a crutch they can't do without. Thoughts?
ReplyDeleteI agree, I think these process standards are a fantastic push in the right direction to help students learn to think and act mathematically in their problem-solving and build a deeper understanding of what it means to "do math". I used these standards quite a bit last year as a 3rd grade teacher. I will admit though, that with the emphasis and pressures of testing, they were not always at the forefront of my teaching or as prevalent in my classroom as would be ideal. So, this raises the question of, how do we move our system of accountability in the field of education to measure what is encompassed by these standards? Also, as acknowledged by the core standards developers in their overview of the Standards for Mathematical Practice and Bransford aand Scwartz in their discussion of Preparation for Future Learning, developing this type of thinking takes time. Research has clearly shown that the benefits are great and long-lasting, but with the way our accountability system is set up right now, this value is not explicitly reflected. So, what should the next step in assuring that what is valued in our practice is aligned with the data we are collecting for accountability purposes?
ReplyDelete