Steve Hare

[Disclaimer: serious misbehavior in the classroom is a serious issue and should be dealt with accordingly. This article is not about such misbehavior, but rather everyday, ordinary “goofing around.”]

A few weeks ago, two of my most hard-working and conscientious students were seated next to each other in the computer lab. Both of them had completed the coding assignment we were working on. I was helping other students debug their computer programs on the other side of the room, and was unaware that these two had finished their work – and now had nothing to do. Seasoned teachers already know what happened next: escalating tomfoolery. One of them typed a bunch of gibberish on the other one’s screen. The other one turned off the first one’s monitor. The first one pulled the plug on the other’s CPU. The other stole the first one’s mouse. Typical seventh grade misbehavior, of course – but this time from two very unexpected sources.

What caused these two “good kids” to suddenly “go bad”?

I should have told everyone to occupy themselves with something (appropriate) online if they finished early. Since I didn’t, the two cherubs in question followed my lack of directions perfectly - and did nothing. And got bored. And tried to cure their boredom as seventh graders tend to do, by 1) trying to make each other laugh, 2) getting on each other’s nerves, and 3) both.

A few years ago, as I was observing another math classroom, I watched a kid clown around day after day instead of working on the week-long project he was supposed to be working on. This kid was ordinarily a high-level math student, and I had found his behavior to be exemplary in other classes, so the misbehavior in this case interested me. After he was ejected from the class one day on account of his increasingly disruptive antics, I had the chance (in the detention room) to ask for his side of the story. Fighting back tears, he informed me that he had no problem doing the math and had been trying to work on the project, but that he didn’t understand the point of the project or its directions. (This last part I could readily believe; none of the students understood them.) He also told me that he had been hurt by the teacher repeatedly accusing him of laziness, especially since, up to this point, he had considered the teacher to be a friend.

These situations illustrate a law that I’ve observed countless times over my 30-year teaching career, a law that should be right up there with Newton’s law of universal gravitation and Bernoulli’s law of fluid dynamics: Kids don’t goof off because they’re bad; they goof off because they’re bored, baffled, or browbeaten.

How can we make sure they aren’t bored or baffled? (I’m assuming we all know how to avoid browbeating them.) By keeping all instruction within the Goldilocks zone (or flow channel), the mental region where tasks aren’t too hard (confusing) or too easy (boring), but instead are continually just right. I’ve illustrated this zone below (by modifying an image from my article 

Now before we look at how to achieve this goal, let me talk about what I’m 

 talking about. I’m not talking about busy work (word searches, crossword puzzles, mazes, etc., etc., etc.). Schools are littered with this useless crap, because 1.) kids will happily do it, 2.) it’s not confusing, 3.) a kid can complete it incorrectly and it doesn’t matter, and, most importantly 4.) it gobbles up huge amounts of class time. Kids are fine with “working” on this nonsense because it runs out the clock and beats the other more mystifying or soul-crushing work the teacher could be giving them instead. Busy work is excluded from this discussion not because kids don’t learn anything from it (they don’t), or because it doesn’t empower them or make them feel better about themselves in any way (it doesn’t), but because it doesn’t prevent behavior problems. Why not? Because kids aren’t stupid; they know when they’re being condescended to – and they resent it just like we do.

Instruction within the Goldilocks zone prevents behavior problems because it requires and rewards sustained focus, and because it makes kids feel good about themselves, as all genuine accomplishments do. When students feel themselves actually growing and getting smarter – I mean, for real – they're more inclined to do their work, and less inclined to goof around or seek attention.

So how do we get there? By using the classic 1-2-3 punch of “see it, do it, check it.” Each learning task we assign must include an instantly understandable and fully worked-out example to refer to, a related practice problem, and a key containing the fully worked-out solution to the practice problem. (Stay tuned for forthcoming activities along these lines!) By working their way through sequences of related and slightly more complex tasks of this type, and by gradually progressing through “levels” of related and slightly more advanced topics, students will discover more reasons to apply themselves in school and take their learning seriously.

FFBLOG

Why Students Goof Off in Class (Hint: It's Not Because They're Bad)

Why Kids Master Insanely Hard Video Games but Struggle with Basic Math

How to Say Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious Backwards: A Key to Learning Math

Why Math Textbooks Don’t Work and Never Will

Do your students struggle with story problems? Are you searching for a new strategy or trick? I'm sure that you've run across the multitudes of various strategies that claim to teach students how to solve story (also known as word or application) problems. What is disenchanting about the many strategies, tips, and tricks, many of which are found in textbooks, is that the authors provide these strategies as an ala carte menu of offerings as if there were no cohesive agreement regarding problem solving.

But that does seem to be the case. Most subjects, with the exception of math, have an agreed upon framework or protocol for solving problems, with only small variations in the various disciplines. In content areas other than math, students are taught to use some form of the scientific method to solve problems:

The good news is that this methodology is so common it is constantly observed in our everyday life! Think about the last time you went to your doctor with a malady. Your interaction with the doctor likely followed this structure. The doctor asks, “What is wrong?” (Statement of the Problem) Next, “Have you or anyone in your family had this, or something like this, before?" (Identify the problem) "What were you doing differently when you first noticed this?” (Determine what is already known) After several questions like this, the doctor may say, “I have seen something like this before” or “Let me do some research on that." (Generate a hypothesis) From the collected data, a diagnosis is made, a treatment is recommended (Conduct an experiment), and a follow-up appointment is made (Review the data).

The most time consuming, and I argue, the most important components of the process are the first two steps; identifying and gaining knowledge about the problem. A student should continually re-visit their initial questions, which identified the problem and determined what was already known, multiple times throughout the process to stay focused on getting the correct answer. 

Use of the scientific method is ubiquitous in our daily lives and is, in fact, a largely intuitive process.  We observe a crying baby. We ask when has this happened before? Maybe the diaper is dirty, so we change the diaper but the baby is still crying. Maybe she is hungry, but when offered food she won’t eat. Imagine that the crying is due to pain but we decide to stop asking questions and just put her in her crib and hope she falls asleep. The first two steps are so crucial, that if we stop gathering data and skip to the wrong conclusion without generating a hypothesis,

This process continued correctly - identify the problem, determine what is known, generate a hypothesis, conduct an experiment, and review data - is simply common sense. We use it everywhere except when we teach students to solve story problems. To be fair, I have 

about teachers using this framework, but in my twenty years as an instructional coach I have never 

 it. Instead of teaching students a process to identify the problem, instead of teaching them a structured systematic process to reflect on whether they have encountered similar problems, we observe teachers directing students to use disparate strategies that lack the coherence of the problem-solving framework. Strategies such as finding the numbers in the problem, looking for clue words or phrases such as “all together”, “remain”, “how many groups?”, are strategies that may work for some problems but will fail for others.

These disparate strategies do not lead to deeper understanding of the problems by the students, and they rob teachers of the opportunity to gather discrete formative data that could guide further instruction. If a student is unable to solve a problem, 

we need to find out where they are getting stuck

. Are their reading skills less than what the problem is requiring? Is it a lack of knowledge of the necessary math to solve the problem? Do they not recognize a pattern from previous problems? Are they unfamiliar with the context of the problem? (Have you ever noticed how many story problems involve shopping in various types of stores? What percentage of students in your classes have shopped in an office supply store for school supplies?) 

How then, can (and should) we relate the problem-solving framework used by other content areas to math? The first thing to do is teach the framework to the students. Students should be able to describe the process and identify where they are in the process when solving story problems. The framework should be a roadmap, a protocol for every problem.

Please note that as in the example of diagnosing a physical ailment, the first part of the problem solving process, identifying the problem and determining what is already known, 

. Teachers have argued that some students are able to solve story problems without the cumbersome processes listed above, asking why should we make them do all the work suggested to solve a problem they are already capable of doing? Two simple answers: First, learning the problem-solving framework and becoming proficient in using the methodology, will serve the students when they encounter a problem that is more complex. Second, when students are providing answers to practice problems, don’t you require them to show their work? What is unreasonable about asking them to show their work when solving story problems? Nothing, it's not only reasonable, but a necessary part of the process.

When a student uses this framework there is no guarantee that they will be able to solve the story problem. But what 

guaranteed is that by following this framework, teachers will be able to identify sticking points more accurately because of the additional formative data collected. And 

is a strategy that will actually help students solve math story problems. 

Gene has been involved in education for over thirty years. He has served as coach, teacher, counselor, administrator, and consultant. He is the author of 

. Dr. Tavernetti holds a core belief about children and adults: Given the right environment and proper support, everyone can improve and succeed. We, at FactFreaks, share that belief.

FactFreaks

Solving Math Story Problems

Why Kids (and Adults) Get Stuck with Negatives, Part 2

Why Kids (and Adults) Get Stuck with Negatives, Part 1

Phil Andrews

This week, we're excited to introduce a new, frequently requested feature: Personal Accounts! (Still free, no ads, no worries). Below are the simple steps to register which will take you a few minutes and will allow your highest scores in each operation to be saved! 

We know that many families and classrooms utilize FactFreaks, and understanding that not all children have their own email addresses, we're also introducing Shared Accounts (this is a big one!). It allows multiple users under a single account sign-in (similar to the user profiles on platforms like Netflix).

To create an account click the user profile icon on either the home page navigation bar or the speedometer screen. 

 process will ask for an email, first name, and a password. We do our best to collect as little information as we possibly can, and using first names only is to help you identify the different users in your account. 

Once you've signed up you'll be assigned a randomly generated icon. 

NOTE: In the not-so-distant future we'll be releasing some cool features that rely on these icons; stay tuned!

All users under one account will use the same username/password to login. 

 where your high scores will be saved and where you can sign up as many shared account users as you'd like.  

To switch users, use the "Switch User" button inside the profile. 

Switching between users will save scores specific to that user's profile.

This is our first step in making it easier to visualize personal performance and speed progression on FactFreaks. If you have any questions or comments, we are here to help and are always open to feedback! Shoot us an email at 

Blog

Updates & Upgrades

Guest Spotlight

Features