I suppose they think it is contextually brilliant because they supported it with a pretty picture. My two questions are, “Who cares?” and “Why don’t they just count if they care so much?”
Great problem. I wonder if “Who cares?” is a good lamp for guiding our curriculum design, though. There will always be students who don’t care, because engagement is relative. The part that strikes me about the problem is that you could replace “cones” with any random unit, or even gibberish, and it wouldn’t diminish the relative engagement of the problem one bit, from student to student, because there isn’t anything inherent to those cones that leads to that system of equations.
At this point, I have a lot of submissions I can’t (yet) post because I can’t personally prosecute the charge of pseudocontext. You need to convince me. I’m relying on you all to make the case for or against pseudocontext in your e-mails and in the comments. And definitely check out Ben Blum-Smith’s recent description of the term.
Talise folded 545 metal lids to make cones for jingle dresses for herself and her younger sister. Her dress had 185 more cones than her sister’s dress. How many cones are on each dress?
- Scan an example of pseudocontext.
- Email it to firstname.lastname@example.org
- List the textbook title, edition, and publisher.
- Give me your interpretation of the term “pseudocontext.”
- Let me know if you’d like credit (name, blog or twitter) or if you’d prefer anonymity.