Goodman, T., (2010). Shooting free throws, probability, and the golden ratio. Mathematical Teacher, 103 (7), 482-487.
I think the author is trying to get across the point that contextual problems can give students the opportunity to use the math that they already know to model that problem as well as others like it. He spends the article explaining one problem in particular. He gives a probability problem with shooting free throws. He showed the different ways that the students solved the problem. This is a very flexible problem so it allows for many different variations on the contextual problem. So he then showed some different variations and each of the ways that students could solve them. He doesn't spend much time tying the problem to his main idea other than to simply say that the ways students chose to solve the problems depended on what their previous knowledge was.
I agree with the authors main point, but I am confused as to what the purpose of the article was. I thought the task he presented to his students was good for learning probablity; however, it seemed like the students already understood probablity, and thus they were not learning so much as testing already aquired knowledge. Students will use previously learned techniques for contextual problems, but understanding this should only be the first step in how to teach students (I would have liked him to explain how this connected to the way teachers should teach).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You did a good job in your summary. You have a main point and you definitely stick to that. I was a little confused on the purpose of why the author was teaching this. I didn't understand really what his point in the free throw exercise really was.
ReplyDeleteYour structure was good and you kept a professional voice through out your article.
I would have liked to just know what the students got out of this. I would have like to understand a little more on how he presented his ideas. If they literally shot free throws, looked at professional stats or what? I don't know if this was included in the article, but it would have been interested to know a little bit more of the how and why.
Overall, good job!
I liked that for a change you took a very negative, critiquing voice in your second paragraph. It would have been nice to hear more specific positive things that you liked about it however. The description of the free throw model was a little vague, and I would have liked to hear more specifics on what the students developed and the different ways they solved the problem. Otherwise it was very clear and well structured. Great job!
ReplyDeleteI found the first paragraph a little confusing to follow logically, but that's probably because you found the article to be that way.
ReplyDeleteYou did a nice in your second paragraph taking a stance and defending it.
I read this article for the first one, so I knew before hand what the article was about. I think that you did a good job summarizing his main point. The only thing was that your topic sencence was a little confusing to me, but after i reread it I better understood what you were coming at.
ReplyDeleteI like your take on the article in the second paragraph. I agree that after reading the article, it was a bit confusing as to why he had used the free throw as an example if they had already learned probability.
I think you did a good job. it was interesting to see you disagree or just find a fault with his argument. It is interesting to me how much time we spend in the united states reviewing topics our students already know.
ReplyDelete