Reply To: Lesson 2-1 Discussion

[Stephen Levesque]

I really liked these practical suggestions, and that you dispelled the notion that changing the person’s name in the problem is a sufficient motivator.

Withholding information seems to have another benefit; students think more about the problem rather than rushing in and calculating. In Geometry, for instance, showing a figure with congruence (or parallelism) annotations (and no numbers or variables) encourages students to think about and discuss relationships. “Which angles or sides are congruent?” “Should the measure of this angle be greater than, less than, or equal to this other one?” As soon as the numbers and variables are shown, students will rush into, “SET THEM EQUAL!” or “ADD THEM TO GET 180!” One the problem is solved, students will also have a frame of reference to determine if their answer is reasonable. I need to do this more consistently.

[Stephen Levesque]

I really liked these practical suggestions, and that you dispelled the notion that changing the person’s name in the problem is a sufficient motivator.

Withholding information seems to have another benefit; students think more about the problem rather than rushing in and calculating. In Geometry, for instance, showing a figure with congruence (or parallelism) annotations (and no numbers or variables) encourages students to think about and discuss relationships. “Which angles or sides are congruent?” “Should the measure of this angle be greater than, less than, or equal to this other one?” As soon as the numbers and variables are shown, students will rush into, “SET THEM EQUAL!” or “ADD THEM TO GET 180!” One the problem is solved, students will also have a frame of reference to determine if their answer is reasonable. I need to do this more consistently.