My Oreo Lesson

Finally... my chance to do the oreo lesson!

I'm teaching one of our math for elementary education courses and the content includes measurement and statistics. I love measurement as a context which needs statistical understanding. Measurement introduces variability, and has a strong need for producing a number to represent typical. If the question is, "How tall is the ceiling?" then 2.60, 2.7, 2.725, 2.73, 2.735, 2.735, 2.74, or 2.76 meters is not a satisfying answer.

The oreo lesson, if you are unimaginably unfamiliar with it, is the brainchild of Christopher Danielson, aka @Trianglemancsd, the purveyor of much fine snack food mathematics. (All the oreo posts; this one is sort of a wrap up.)

Previous to this lesson, we investigated measurement, did an introduction to statistical typicals, and worked on statistical displays. (Two of those covered in a previous blogpost.) On the day before oreo day, I brought three packages of oreos to class: regular, double stuf, and mega stuf. Their interest was definitely piqued; it was like they could smell the sugar. Not much mathematical interest, though. So I prompted - what might a mathematician wonder about this? They immediately jumped to the idea of is it really double, and what is mega. Then we brainstormed together - what do we need to gather data on for the next day?

Their list:

OREO: data to collect

weight of the whole cookie

weight of white stuf in each cookie

height of each cookie (mm)

diameter of each cookie

weight of cookie/black sides

height of black cookie

height of white stuf

diameter of white stuf

how many of each size fit in a specific container/height

volume by displacement

compare deliciousness of different types

nutrition information

stuffing v serving size

calorie content (burning)

Not bad. Calorie burning turned out not to be viable with that short of a notice... but I'd like to see it! I made a data sheet, so that we'd have a whole class worth of data, and a google spreadsheet to share.


The points about measuring like a scientist (half of the smallest unit) and recording to show the accuracy measured are obviously still in progress. Also the statistical thinking of gathering and using data need more development - most were happy to answer the main question with just their measurement. "It's double." "It's more than double." "It's less than double." No one used the measurements, they went entirely by weight.

That wasn't what bothered me. I expect those kind of goals to take time.

What bothered me was that they weren't into it.

They were excited about the cookies, and figuring how many each person got, and eating the cookies afterward. But they weren't into the math.

Dave Coffey sometimes recounts (or makes fun of me for) how I want to be obsolete. Sitting back and watching students direct themselves at the end of the semester. I always want to hand off to the students. Have them make it their lesson. Look, here's a pile of data! On something interesting! What can you do with it? What else could we look into? How many ways can we come at the question?

But on this day, they said no.

My personal metaphor for this is a Smothers Brothers routine. (That's how old I am.)


(The whole brilliant bit... the show was amazing. Steve Martin got his start there as a writer, for example. They used their folk singing to make the show safe for sharp political commentary. Like we use math class as a ruse to get students problem solving and thinking critically. They were cancelled and replaced with Hee Haw.)

So this lesson felt like, "Take it, class!"
"No."

My response was to ask them to make sure they got all their group's data, and to write about the measuring and their answer to the question for a standards based grading assessment. And this is a compliant class, so they did, and did a good job on it. But that's far from the peak experience for which I was hoping with this lesson.

Part of the problem, I think, was in my desire for efficiency. By introducing the problem in the previous class and then making a record sheet, I took the initiative from them. They went into fill in the blank mode, from long habit in math class. Another part of the problem was lack of a focus, in the workshop sense. I think I should have discussed statistical thinking with them, and how that's different from single measurement thinking. It's all about the data! This is very reminiscent of the Barbie Bust. It was my problem and my lesson. "My" doesn't help me be a better teacher. (Gollum.)

Reflecting afterward, I think my high expectations helped create the sense of disappointment, like an overhyped movie.  And it led me to rush into a lesson instead of building suspense and anticipation.  I think this kind of experience contributes to teachers who "tried that once" and that was enough to turn them off of inquiry-based learning.  In the end it is the learning that needs to be the center of engagement, not the cookie.

Intellectually Needy

Intro

"So does this bore the heck out of you?" a student asked me.

The problem is that this was after two days of doing the Barbie Bungee Jump activity. The fabulous Barbie Bungee Jump. (Cf. Julie and Fawn) I was assisting a very nice and competent substitute teacher.

Coming on the heels of Christopher Danielson's and Chris Lusto's #globalmath session on building intellectual need, it was clear that most of these students did not have it. Nor were they looking for it.

This is a good school with good students and good teachers. What's going on, or not going on? My first brief observations:

1. Students were given all the steps to follow. Being told to do a, b and c and then doing a, b and c is not engaging.
2. There was no hook. How much of a hook depends on the lesson. This one could have used the video, a discussion about bungee jumping, etc. Going straight into 'here's what you do' gives no chance for wondering. Even if it's what the students want or are asking for.
3. There was no expectation that this was worth their time or could be interesting. There is always time to start, but this might also be about developing a culture of inquiry. Students need to learn that this is what math is, and this is what math class is like or could be like.

Recount:
Day 1: Students were given a worksheet with a table, told how to assemble the rubber bands and washers and to collect data for 1 to 6 rubber bands. Then graph all of their data and freehand a line of best fit. This is the beginning of a functions unit that will end with linear functions. Then they were asked to make a prediction for how many rubber bands they would need for the drop. We didn't have the actual heights, so they predicted for 3 m. Mostly, their prediction method was pick a number that was bigger than 6. 20 seemed nice to them, though some went with 18, since 6 rubber bands was close to a meter. Two groups found the average increase per rubber band.





We weren't clear about how to do the drop in the stairwell. We didn't have a set (or maybe even one) tape measure for long distances. Two teachers wound up determining 3 drop spots and measuring the distances, between 3 and 3.5 m.

Day 2: (After a snow day and a PD day.)
The students coming back were not much more enthralled than they were Day 1. I shared how this was the start of a functions unit, the math idea of having a rule to go from input to output. I tried to phrase the question as given the input of how many rubber bands, could they predict how far it would drop. (Not much traction, as there were already instructions on the screen.) The substitute gave each group their drop height. The two groups that had figured out the averages used this to make quite specific predictions, and one group made the complete table that this would generate. At the last second they cut 2 rubberbands off of their total, to allow for the length of the disk and acceleration. They were worried that it would be traveling faster at the bottom and that would make it stretch more. Two other groups adjusted their number a bit, but without reasoning that they could share.

We proceeded to the stairwell and groups took turns making their single drop. 2 hit the floor, including one of the more mathemaical groups, 2 got about 70 cm away, 1 was more than 1 m, and the group that had made the table got to within 10 cm. Went back to the classroom, shared the results and had the winning group describe their efforts while few listened. I talked with the mathy group that hit the floor about what went wrong. Basically they felt math failed them. Double checking their work I saw the problem was that they were computing for the wrong drop height! Their calculation would have put them quite close.

So What?
The students were pretty happy. Better than a typical math class, playing with rubber bands, leaving the classroom. The sub was okay with it, as students were mostly in control and made it through all of the steps. I felt like we missed an opportunity.

So what would you change about the lesson? What would add/create/inspire intellectual need in what is a (potentially) great activity?

Post Script:
Excellent discussion! I just want a few of the shared links to be more visible here. But many people put great thinking below so don't skimp on the comment reading.

• Timon: http://www.101qs.com/1563-barbie-bungee Barbie Bungee video
• Ruth: http://cohort21.com/ruthmcarthur/2013/02/02/freestyle-barbie-bungee-no-steps-required/ her blogpost sharing an open-ended/low structure approach
• Pieter: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/222209242_Analysis_of_a_fatal_bungee-jumping_accident sad accident analyzed
• Julie: (blogspot ate her comment) follow up post http://ispeakmath.wordpress.com/2013/02/02/barbie-bungee-follow-up-be-careful-when-using-the-recipe/
• Robert: http://robertkaplinsky.com/lessons-learned-in-implementing-problem-based-learning/ expands on his four C's