Total 14 Posts

## Fave Five

Five of my favorite articles from the last month.

## Estimation Isn’t Just Calculating Badly On Purpose

Here is a tweet I haven’t stopped thinking about for a couple of months.

I think it’s possible we should cut the student some slack here.

If the student has all the tools, information, and resources necessary to calculate an answer, we should be excited to see the student calculate it. Asking students to do anything less than calculate in that situation is to ask them to switch off parts of their brain, to use less than their full capacity as a thinker.

If we treated skills in other disciplines the way we often treat estimation in math …

… we’d ask students to spell words incorrectly before spelling them correctly.

… we’d ask students to recall historical facts incorrectly before recalling them correctly.

Estimation shouldn’t ask students to switch off parts of their brains or use less than their full capacity as thinkers. It should ask them to switch on new parts of their brains and expand their capacities as thinkers. Estimation tasks should broaden a student’s sense of what counts as math and who counts as a mathematician.

Estimation and calculation should also be mutually supportive in the same way that …

… knowing roughly the balance of yeast and sugar in bread supports you when you pour those ingredients exactly.

… knowing the general direction of your destination supports you when you drive with turn-by-turn directions.

… knowing the general order of your weekend schedule supports you when you carry out your precise itinerary.

Engaging in one aspect of mathematics makes the other easier and more interesting. That’s what Kasmer & Kim (2012) found was true about estimation. When students had a chance to first predict the relationship between two quantities it made their later precise operation on that relationship easier.

If we want students to develop their ability to estimate, we need to design experiences that don’t just ask them to calculate badly on purpose.

Create tasks where estimation is the most efficient possible method.

Take that worksheet above. Give students the same sums but ask them to order the sums from least to greatest.

Students may still calculate precisely but there is now a reward for students who estimate using place value as a guide.

Create tasks where estimation is the only possible method.

This is the foundation of my 3-Act Task design, where students experience the world in concrete form, without the information that word problems typically provide, without sufficient resources to calculate.

“Estimate the number of coins.” Estimation feels natural here because there isn’t enough information for calculation. Indeed, estimation is the only tool a student can use in this presentation of the context.

Meanwhile, in this presentation of the same task, there is enough information to calculate, which makes estimation feel like calculating badly on purpose.

Estimation isn’t a second-class intellectual citizen. It doesn’t need charity from calculation. It needs teachers who appreciate its value, who can create tasks that help students experience its benefits.

BTW

Featured Comment

One thing I love about calculus is is proceeds from estimation to exact calculation, and there’s no way to justify the exact calculations without working through the estimation first. We often think of mathematics as a discipline that proceeds deductively from perfect truth to perfect truth, but there are whole swaths of mathematics where the best way forward is to work from an answer whose incorrectness we understand towards an answer whose correctness we don’t yet understand.

I agree with you, but I think it’s interesting to turn your non-math examples into better activities that reflect what we’re trying to do with “good” math estimation tasks.

Mr. K references Fermi problems, which fall really nicely in the category of “tasks where estimation is the only possible method.”

At the beginning of the year, I fill four jars around the room. One with M&M’s, one with eraser caps, one with cotton balls, and one with paper clips. They are all allowed a guess for how many in each jar. They enter their answer and their name on a slip of paper and place it in a collection jar. Whenever we come to a question where I want them to estimate first, I remind them of what they did when they first looked at the jar. I don’t tell them how many in each until the winter break – the suspense is awesome. Then in January I start with four new jars.

Joel offers an example of this kind of estimation exercise.

## Upcoming Conferences

Come hang out with me at California Math Council’s North and South conferences in November and December.

CMC-South. Palm Springs, CA. November 15-16. I’m going to describe how “rich tasks” and “bland tasks” bothÂ fail our students. And I’m going to do it with 15 students on a stage in a live lesson demonstration. Let’s gooo! [register]

CMC-North. Pacific Grove, CA. December 6-8. I’ll share some of the ways my colleagues and I at Desmos are designing for belongingÂ in math class, specifically how we try to expand the list of who counts as a mathematician and what countsÂ as mathematics. [register]

## Fave Five

Five of my favorite articles from the last month.

## “If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.”

Economist Herb Stein’s quote ran through my head while I read The Hustle’s excellent analysis of the graphing calculator market. This cannot go on forever.

Every new school year, Twitter lights up with caregivers who can’t believe they have to buy their students a calculator that’s wildly underpowered and wildly overpriced relative to other consumer electronics.

The Hustle describes Texas Instruments as having “a near-monopoly on graphing calculators for nearly three decades.” That means that some of the students who purchased TI calculators as college students are now purchasing calculators for their own kids that look, feel, act and (crucially) cost largely the same. Imagine they were purchasing their kid’s first car and the available cars all looked, felt, acted, and cost largely the same as their first car. This cannot go on forever.

As the chief academic officer at Desmos, a competitor of Texas Instruments calculators, I was already familiar with many of The Hustle’s findings. Even still, they illuminated two surprising elements of the Texas Instruments business model.

First, the profit margins.

One analyst placed the cost to produce a TI-84 Plus at around \$15-20, meaning TI sells it for a profit margin of nearly 50% – far above the electronics industry’s average margin of 6.7%.

Second, the lobbying.

According to Open Secrets and ProPublica data, Texas Instruments paid lobbyists to hound the Department of Education every year from 2005 to 2009 – right around the time when mobile technology and apps were becoming more of a threat.

Obviously the profits and lobbying are interdependent. Rent-seeking occurs when companies invest profits not into product development but into manipulating regulatory environments to protect market share.

I’m not mad for the sake of Desmos here. What Texas Instruments is doing isn’t sustainable. Consumer tech is getting so good and cheap and our free alternative is getting used so widely that regulations and consumer demand are changing quickly.

Another source told The Hustle that graphing calculator sales have seen a 15% YoY decline in recent years – a trend that free alternatives like Desmos may be at least partially responsible for.

You’ll find our calculators embedded in over half of state-level end-of-course exams in the United States, along with the International Baccalaureate MYP exam, the digital SAT and the digital ACT.

I am mad for the sake of kids and families like this, though.

“It basically sucks,” says Marcus Grant, an 11th grader currently taking a pre-calculus course. “It was really expensive for my family. There are cheaper alternatives available, but my teacher makes [the TI calculator] mandatory and there’s no other option.”

Teachers: it was one thing to require plastic graphing calculators calculators when better and cheaper alternatives weren’t available. But it should offend your conscience to see a private company suck 50% profit margins out of the pockets of struggling families for a product that is, by objective measurements, inferior to and more expensive than its competitors.

BTW. This is a Twitter-thread-turned-blog-post. If you want to know how teachers justified recommending plastic graphing calculators, you can read my mentions.