Math 2.0 Unconference 2010 opportunity - WCYDWT*?

As a president of an affiliate group of NCTM I can get a discounted table in the exhibit area in San Diego next April. (See NCTM's Announcement). This might be an interesting possibility for having a HQ for the Math 2.0 (Un)Conference that I'm planning for next April.
So the question of the day is what would you/we do with this space? It will cost us $475 for the furnishings, but the space itself usually costs vendors about $2000.00. (We can worry about the cost later.)
Please share your ideas with me by adding a comment to this post. (If we go with this, I will definitely make the trip.)
*Thanks to Dan Meyer and Kate Novak for promoting WCYDWT (What can you do with this?) in your math class.

Math 2.0 – Making a Virtual Splash in San Diego?

This week I was reminded rather abruptly that Math 2.0* will most likely not be a major theme at the NCTM conference in San Diego next April. The reminder came in the form of a friendly email from the program committee that informed me that my proposal to speak there was rejected. Not that this was unexpected. I’ve been getting rejections more regularly than acceptances ever since 2004. That’s the year when NCTM stopped inviting affiliate groups (mine being CLIME) to host a session at the annual conference. I did argue a bit with Johnny Lott (the president at the time) that NCTM should allow the affiliates some perks since they do most of the heavy lifting for NCTM, but the decision to make conference presenting more of a free for all won out. You see once the main speakers are invited, the rest of the program’s participants (other than vendors) are chosen anonymously based on what is in the proposal. But I digress and this blog entry is not intended to be about my personal sour grape peeves. (Back to why no Math 2.0 focus in SD.) At the previous NCTM conference in Washington last April there were only 4 sessions that made any reference to Web 2.0. Mine was one of them. Since there was only 1 the year before, can we expect twice as many for the next year? Maybe. But I’m not that optimistic. Mostly because NCTM’s “powers that be” have been to preoccupied with putting out fires like the ongoing math wars with their publication of the Focal Points and their recent support of a national curriculum initiative by penning the Guiding Principles for Curriculum and Assessment which made no reference to technology’s role in the enterprise (see my previous blog entry “What’s Missing from This Picture”.) These reform initiatives though admirable I don’t think will do much to change the status quo. For the anti-reformers this is more like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titantic. Certainly not that bad, but not much of an effort to redirect the ship toward a more promising future with a stronger technology infrastructure.

It appears that technology as a Principle has not made much of an impact either. Technology continues to be relegated to a support tool status something that NCTM first decided to do in the early 1990s when it stated that using technology as a tool was OK to use in its position paper, but not technology all by itself. (It still is used that way. See 2003 version of paper.) So when technology as a Principle came on board in 2000 I thought, naively that this would encourage a paradigm shift to think of technology as a platform for all the other principles (equity, curriculum, teaching, learning and assessing) from which to build on and innovate from. But nothing of any substance has materialized since then. Nor will it any time soon. Not because it isn't important, but because its too disruptive.

When Seymour Papert first introduced the idea of a Logo Microworld** he was thinking how this could be framework for creating a new paradigm for the teaching and learning of math where teachers and students work as partners in the learning enterprise with emphasis on developing and nurturing the student's mathematical habits of mind which in turn illuminates content in more dynamic and personal ways. But Papert was marginalized as a utopian dreamer and his vision was mostly ignored. But today his ideas are more accessible than ever in this new dynamic world of Web 2.0. But is NCTM planning to encourage this? No, but they are not ignoring it either.

After NCTM I went to the NECC (National Educational Computing) Conference and found some of the energy that was missing for me at the NCTM gathering. There I found lots of math teachers who were very eager to use Web 2.0 tools in learning math. Unfortunately, the conference can be overwhelmingly technocentric and can easily be a turn off for an educator who is skeptical about over use of technology and its potential for improving students’ achievement. In other words as a colleague recently pointed out to me, "This Web 2.0 world is still a bit too wild and woolly." I agree. I’m one of the first to scream when a techy-type tells me that something non-intuitive is a no-brainer. But the potential is there and needs to be ferreted in a way that pushes the envelop in a more meaningful and disruptive*** way.

You may not have noticed but there is a groundswell of support out there by pioneers who are now blogging, tweeting, organizing social networks, creating alternative route conferences including a Math 2.0 group that convenes every Wednesday on Elluminate to discuss Math 2.0 issues. And that's not all...

How about a Math 2.0 Conference next April? I hope to help put together a “parallel conference” to showcase what Math 2.0 is all about around the same time as the April, 2009 NCTM conference. Please share your ideas of what this conference might look like it and how you might like to participate.

Meanwhile I'm starting a CLIME Wiki (my first) which will include notes on planning for this conference. I'll even try to explain all the Web 2.0ish terms as I go along. What's a Wiki you ask? Here's a Youtube video that will get you started. It has an example of how I hope we can plan for the Math 2.0 event next April.

The Wiki I will be using is at http://clime.wikispaces.com. For those of you are novices (like me) join and we can learn how to build one of these Web 2.0 things together. :-)

*I think of Math 2.0 as a contraction for "Teaching and Learning Math with Dynamic Software and Web 2.0 tools"

**A microworld is a software environment that encourages students engagement in learning math ideas in a empowering way. See Microworld

*** Disruptive as in the way it is described in "Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns." See Edutopia article for a summary.

In Search of Math 2.0

On July 8th Maria Dourjkova was interviewed by Steve Hargadon at an Elluminate Webinar on the question "Where is Math 2.0?" I unfortuntely was not able to connect to the live cast but managed to listen to the archived version. Since the notion of Math 2.0 intrigues me, I was eager to learn more about what others thought the term Math 2.0 might mean. Here are some of the responses to "What is Math 2.0?" from the chat log of the event.

• Math education involving social networking
• Math education using web 2.0 tools
• Using Web 2.0 to build knowledge and share knowledge of math concepts
• Maths anywhere, anytime, for anyone
• The ability of any skill level to place mathematics on any social networking site
• Math created and shared between people.
• Math that you create and/or contribute to, rather than just passively receive
• Math that is interactive among teachers and students
• For me math 2.0 is collaborating and connecting with others on problem solving, math thinking & learning
• ... interactive, participatory, engaging... you know... the stuff that you don't get with textbooks.
• Math that is interactive and communicative
• Breaking math into concepts, and components, and methods that can be shared interactively between people
• Math 2.0 is the ability of users to create their own math-rich social objects, using web technologies.
• My contribution to the list (sent by proxy – thanks, Cal) was that Math 2.0 is a contracted form of math and Web 2.0
• For complete chat log click here.

Building on Math 1.0 For me Math 1.0 began in 1989 when NCTM announced the release of their Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics. Since then there has only been one major revision in 2000 when NCTM published their Principles and Standards for School Mathematics and made technology a principle (joining teaching, learning, assessing, curriculum and equity.) I was optimistic at the time that NCTM would forge a new initiative into exploring what it means for technology to be a principle, but to date I’m disappointed that no such initiative has emerged. In fact, given their latest Guidelines (where there was no mention of technology) and disappointing tech support at the last April’s NCTM conference, it looks like they are not yet ready to embrace technology in a bold, new way that includes the promise of what Web 2.0 offers.
A New Paradigm for Teaching and Learning Math That’s why CLIME is joining Maria and other interested individuals and groups in banging the Math 2.0 drum to encourage a grass roots movement that will make the possibility of a paradigm shift reality. Web 2.0 has the potential to change the way we learn and teach mathematics not unlike what Apple Computer did back in 1984 with their launch of the Macintosh which changed the way everyone uses computers today. Maria is having another Math 2.0 event on Wednesday, July 22 at 9:00pm (Eastern daylight savings time). Come join us as we search for Math 2.0: a new and exciting frontier!

What's Missing from this Picture?

Hank Kepner and NCTM released their latest position paper called ""Guiding Principles for Mathematics Curriculum and Assessment" which is NCTM's effort to support the forging of a common curriculum for Mathematics. It appears to be aligned with the new 46 state initiative to create a common curriculum for all subjects. Putting aside whether you agree or disagree with having a common anything in the world of mathematics education, I couldn't help but notice the omission of an important key word from this entire 2132 word document. (What's missing from the word cloud image above I created with the text of the document?*) Apparently none of the drafters of this paper thought it might useful to include a reference to technology - the only principle from PSSM left out of the document - and the role it must play in any common curriculum. I'm afraid that this common ground movement is making us think narrowly about what Math Ed should look like for students who will be living entirely in the 21st century. It may ease some political tensions, but it also may throw out the baby with the bathwater because it will lack the spirit of what technology brings to the enterprise: an exciting and transformational way to teach and learn mathematics. I just reread the position paper and it does sound good. But there is nothing new here. It's just another tweeking of the same old text that's been overtweeked to death already. It's time for a new, bolder statement about what curriculum should be like where the design principle should be technology. I suggest strongly that this paper be reconsidered and rewritten to add technology as a principle in carving out this common ground curriculum. Otherwise we are just spinning our wheels again. *Answer: technology. To make the image I copied and pasted the text from the document into Wordle.net. The size of the words indicates its frequency in the document.

NCTM 09 Conference Reflections

I'm putting together a website with some podcasts of sessions I was involved at the NCTM and NCSM meetings in Washington last month. I've finished the first one which highlights one of the new 3C* discussion sessions "Emerging Technology" which premiered this year. To learn more about this session click here. *Come, Connect, Communicate

Blogging, Tweeting and Web 2.0

Blogging became real for the first time at the NCTM meeting in Washington. After a limited trial balloon last year in Salt Lake City, NCTM created a Blogger site specifically intended for conference attendees to give some first hand information as to what what was going on at NCTM as close to real time as possible. Even closer to real time were a few tweets (See http://twitter.com/nctm and http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%23nctm09) that informed followers of what others were experiencing at the conference.That is, of course, if they were able to find some available Wifi which was a challenge if you weren't willing to pay the $25 daily fee. There actually was a free Wifi area at the convention center near the Mt. Vernon/7th St. entrance. Not well publicized. I took a photo but forgot to post it so it obviously helped no one. Dave Powers set up a Ning group site for folks to share what they were learning and presenting at NCTM 09. I'm thinking about continuing to use the forum for CLIME updates and other issues related to math and technology teaching and learning. Here are some of the posts at this site.

The NCTM Conference ends in grand style

If you were in Washington last week and you had to leave early or for some reason missed this session, you can catch the closing session online via Windows Media Player. The dynamic duo of Arne Duncan and Ron Clark closed the conference in grand style. Ron Clark is not to be missed. In this streaming video Arne is up first followed by Ron.

CORRECTION - NO Ron Clark on the video, only Arne. A major disappointment. Arne was good, but Ron stole the show. I hope NCTM will post it. In the meantime you can check out the video that he showed at the outset of his talk at his website (http://www.ronclarkacademy.com). Once the main page comes up, click on the image that "Watch Now" points to (like in the image below.)

See also Scott Steketee's review of Arnie's half hour presentation.