Math 2.0 Conference and who to invite
Sol
I met Maria at ScienceOnline2010. We discussed the possibility of
putting on a Math 2.0 conference next year. Such a conference would
bring together people who have an interest in helping to evolve how
Math is communicated and, in particular, through Web 2.0 technologies.
I know that there are a number of people already involved in this
effort so I want to say that I don't speak for the group, just for
myself.
I'd like to throw out a question to those of you who are interested in
helping to organize, in attending, or in speaking at the conference
once it crystallizes. The question is, who are the big names in the
Math world that, if they were to speak, would motivate you to attend
the conference. Ideally, these people would be involved in
communicating Math in the Web 2.0 world but not necessarily.
My list has people who have done a tremendous job of popularizing
Math. It includes Clifford Pickover, Steven Wolfram, Eric Weisstein
(MathWorld), and Theoni Pappas.
Who would be on your list?
If the conference were two or three days long and you had to pay
airfare and hotel and a nominal registration fee would you attend? If
one or more big names were in the conference would you attend?
Sol
jennifer kurtz
My son read the list of people over my shoulder this morning... He is 8 and thinks that Ivar Ekeland ought to be invited as well. :-) I promised I'd post his suggestion. Of course he thinks that Penrose the cat should get an invite of his own :-)
Thanks~ Jenn |
Sue VanHattum
Your son and I agree. :^) I had put Ivar Ekeland on the wiki page yesterday. Here's what's there so far. Pretty exciting list!
Warmly,
Sue
- GeoGebra
- Scratch
- Wolfram|Alpha
- Ihor Charischak, CLIME
- Maria Droujkova, Natural Math
- Sol Lederman, Wild About Math!
- Sue VanHattum, Math Mama Writes (would like to come; not sure it's possible)
- Maria Andersen, Teaching College Math
- Art of Problem Solving
- Math-U-See
- Math on the Level? (Maria, is this the one you mentioned?)
- Colleen King, Math Playground and Learning in Mathland (SV)
- Rebecca Zook, Math Tutoring Online (SV)
- Ben Blum-Smith, Research in Practice (SV)
- Dan Meyer, dy/dan (SV)
- Kate Nowak, f(t) (SV)
- Julie Brennan, Living Math Forum (a Yahoo group) (SV)
- Denise Gaskins, Let's Play Math! (SV)
- Mary O'Keeffe, Albany Area Math Circle (SV)
- Terence Tao or Tim Gowers, on internet collaboration for math proofs
- xkcd comics
- Alan Kay
- Clifford Pickover
- Theoni Pappas
- Murray Bourne, SquareCirclez
- Mitsumasa Anno
- Ivar Ekeland, author of The Cat in Numberland
- Hans Enzensberger, author of The Number Devil
- Harold Jacobs, author of Mathematics: A Human Endeavor
- Joseph Mazur, author of Euclid in the Rainforest
- Robert and Ellen Kaplan, authors of Out of the Labyrinth: Setting Mathematics Free (and numerous other math exposition books)
- Amanda Serenevy
- Josh Zucker
- Paul Zeitz, author of The Art and Craft of Problem Solving
- Keith Devlin
- Steven Strogatz, From Fish to Infinity is the first in his new series in the NY Times
- Dave Richeson, author of Euler's Gem
Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. Get it now.
Ihor Charischak
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MathFuture" group.
To post to this group, send email to mathf...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to mathfuture+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mathfuture?hl=en.
jennifer kurtz
jennifer kurtz
|
Maria Droujkova
Cheers,
Maria Droujkova
http://www.naturalmath.com
Make math your own, to make your own math.
Sue VanHattum
I added these two, but you and Reed can add others yourselves. Just go to:
http://mathfuture.wikispaces.com/Math+Online+2011
Choose edit, and when you're done save. (The coolness of wikis...)
Warmly,
Sue (who had nothing to do with all this until Maria asked for suggestions a few days ago)
Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sign up now.
Maths for More - WIRIS
I am not sure if you know about WIRIS math tools. You can see them in
action at a Moodle demo site in www.wiris.com/demo-moodle/
WIRIS tools are accessible to all schools in Italy, big states of
Spain, Austria, Estonia or Luxemburg in national licenses. Thouseands
of schoosl and universities use them as well.
We would be happy to contribute to the conference.
Best regards,
Ramon Eixarch
ra...@wiris.com
On Feb 6, 7:48 pm, Sue VanHattum <suevanhat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Jenn,
>
> I added these two, but you and Reed can add others yourselves. Just go to:http://mathfuture.wikispaces.com/Math+Online+2011
>
> Choose edit, and when you're done save. (The coolness of wikis...)
>
> Warmly,
> Sue (who had nothing to do with all this until Maria asked for suggestions a few days ago)
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free.http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469229/direct/01/
ClimeGuy
> My list has people who have done a tremendous job of popularizing
> Math. It includes Clifford Pickover, Steven Wolfram, Eric Weisstein
> (MathWorld), and Theoni Pappas.
>
> Who would be on your list?
There are plenty of names I could add. I've been following the NCTM
conferences for a long time and there have been many great speakers
that have inspired me. And its fun listing all them and remembering
what it was about their presentation that made it special.
But I have a couple of problems with the direction this takes us.
First, and most obviously, we have no budget and we couldn't entice
them with an honorarium especially if we wanted to have a local
presence say near Maria's locale in North Carolina.
But the more fundamental question this raises for me is this: Is our
goal to help reinvent Math as we know it - just fixing things around
the edges or are we going after a new paradigm of teaching and
learning? If we are going for the latter we a need a new breed of 21st
educators who are exploring new ways of doing math with kids. Like Dan
Meyer. 26 yrs old and already he has a following of math educators who
feel deeply about what would make for successful innovative teaching
but they are not clear as to how they could do it in their own
classrooms. But awareness is the first step towards this kind of
transformed approach that we are looking for. Shouldn't the core of
speakers be folks that are trying to change the direction of math
"from the inside out" where creative uses of technology is the driving
force?
Listen to this 2 minute video on Dan's take on how he would do teacher
education. http://vimeo.com/8988360
I think it captures a bit of what I'm writing about.
-Ihor
Bradford Hansen-Smith
| Some of the people on the list that I am familiar with have have done interesting and useful work in mathematics, but having seen the video of Dan Meyer makes it clear there really are people out there who see how to do it differently and bring a broader understanding beyond what is already in place and just trying to make it better. (We can not take what dose not work and make it better.) I would start the list over with Dan Meyer and as suggested look for.... "a new breed of 21st educators who are exploring new ways of doing math with kids." --- On Sun, 2/7/10, ClimeGuy <chari...@gmail.com> wrote: |
|
|
Colleen King
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to mathfuture+...@googlegroups.com.
Sol
I'm very grateful for this dialogue. I know much less than most of you
about real innovation in Math education and I'm excited about the
great ideas everyone is proposing. I love the idea of getting locals
to host attendees. I love the ideas of getting new faces to share
their inspiration and insights with all of us.
My interest in a conference is that I had my love of Math ignited in
junior high school and fueled when I attended the Ross Math program in
high school. To this day, I'm 46, I get excited about "playing" with
Math puzzles and games. I offered to help Maria, Ihor and others
organize a conference as a way to share my passion. I'm in the tech
industry although I'd like to somehow make a living helping to ignite
that passion in others. So, what's in it for me in helping to create a
conference is spending time with like-minded souls, getting new ideas,
hanging out in the Math playground, and getting exposure to companies
and other organizations that might connect me with opportunities to be
paid to ignite Math passion. I'm happy to help with the grunt work of
creating a conference.
Sol
> education.http://vimeo.com/8988360
Maria Droujkova
I have a question apart from the presenter list. I like the idea of a math conference that focuses on the social, collaborative aspects of mathematical learning but why must it be done apart from NCTM organized conferences? There's probably a very good reason that I've just missed but here's why I think it's worth a second look. There's already a built-in audience with many attendees specifically looking to transform their classrooms. Most teachers can only attend, at best, one conference per year. If we could organize the Math 2.0 conference alongside NCTM events, we'd have a much better chance of reaching more people. NCTM's regional conferences are another advantage. It's unlikely there will be a single venue that even the proposed speakers and Math 2.0 members can attend, much less math teachers in general. Regional conferences would enable more people to get involved and would provide more consistent opportunities to promote our ideas. Even if the NCTM doesn't want to work with us, we can still schedule our conferences at the same time in nearby locations.What are your thoughts?Colleen
Colleen,
I want to take this line of thought to the somewhat extreme limit, and suggest the "Continuous unConference" idea, where we keep meeting at any and all math-related events, as an interest group. To use a programming metaphor, this is somewhat similar to "continuous testing" from Agile Methodologies. I am quite vague about details, but I like the general image of an interest group weaving into many regional and particular-interest conferences.
To address NCTM specifically, it has pluses and minuses. The organization started as a chorus of many voices, so its history is very much 2.0, with some of it still going strong, which is a plus. It has not been a strong technology leader, though. There is someone doing social media outreach there (e.g. http://twitter.com/NCTM and http://www.facebook.com/TeachersofMathematics?ref=s), but I don't see much user-generated content yet. Illuminations, to provide another example, either does not have any Reply buttons or I can't find them: http://illuminations.nctm.org/ So the NCTM structure is more like an organization and an institution and less like a community, overall. It may be different in the regions.
Another difficulty I see here is that NCTM has a strong stance in the Math Wars. Aligning with it makes anyone a partisan in the Wars, committed to a side.
And the third difficulty is NCTMs focus on US public schools. I would like to continue with Math 2.0 as an international interest group welcoming a variety of educational establishments, communities and individuals, including public and private schools worldwide, virtual schools, online learning companies, Math Clubs, homeschoolers, and profession- and recreation-oriented (not specifically learning) communities. If we look at the webinar series, all the variety and more is there. Won't we be told it's off-topic for NCTM?
I do not know if these there issues are significant, and welcome comments from those who do know.
Maria Droujkova
Thank you for the link! Tools for typing math, in particular, are quite an item of interest for many people. Let's see if you can't lead a webinar about your work, as well.
Sue Hellman
HI Colleen – at ISTE/NECC there is an unconference and there are some hands on workshops the day before the main event.
It seems to me that if there was a space nearby NCTM that was not expensive and was wired – one room with possible breakout rooms depending on the size of the crowd, then we could take advantage of the fact that people are already travelling to the main event and get the other bundled in.
-SueH
Colleen King
Colleen King
Colleen King
ClimeGuy
brief.
> > I have a question apart from the presenter list. I like the idea of a math
> > conference that focuses on the social, collaborative aspects of mathematical
> > learning but why must it be done apart from NCTM organized conferences?
CLIME's vision has been to be a collaborator with NCTM ever since we
first affiliated in 1988. In those days technology was handled very
informally and anyone with an inspiration could actually do something
with technology within the context of the meeting. See CLIME Story
1988-2009 (http://web.mac.com/Ihor12/CLIME09/CLIME_Story.html) and in
particular what Daryl Stermon (http://mathforum.org/clime/daryl.html)
accomplished with his trailer in 1996.
A couple of years ago I attended a NCTM affiliate group conference in
Philly where I realized that NCTM (e.g. Jim Rubillo and Hank Kepner)
really want more collaboration and would love to partner with
affiliates as well as outside organizations. However, there's a major
hurdle. Nothing can be done without the program committee's and
Board's approval. And for the most part they have stymied most efforts
to enlarge the technology presence at conferences. Their main
complaint has been as you would suspect: $$$. Back in 1999 I was very
optimistic when Ed Dickey asked me to be on program committee as the
first technology liaison for that year's meeting in San Francisco. Ed
and I had high hopes of making the technology more visible, but ended
up with only token additions.
Because of the difficulty to try to do something in house with NCTM's
approval, it's just easier to do something independent. NCTM is doing
good things - Illuminations, Calculation Nation are 2 examples. But
they choose their players that will participate in these projects. And
yes, next year you will be able to actually comment about the
illuminations activity on the NCTM website. (As of now the only
comments are feedback to NCTM staff members.) Open comments to NCTM
are on Facebook but that's never gotten off the ground (as I have
commented on in one of my blog entries.
>>If we could
> > organize the Math 2.0 conference alongside NCTM events, we'd have a much
> > better chance of reaching more people.
I don't think it matters all that much if its alongside or not. The
challenge is to "reach more people." And because the annual meeting is
so huge and awe inspiring for most, I don't think much attention would
be paid. Though I am trying an experiment at my CLIME booth in the
vendor area to see what I came up. I was very impressed with Educon
last month. I think that model could work for us. But we have to do it
independently and - surprise - NCTM will actually be cheering for us!
-Ihor
Colleen King
kirby urner
We could invite Penrose, you know. There are people at UNC working on alternate reality games (ARGs) who can work out how to do that. Maybe he can be behind the cat avatar, eh?
Cheers,
Maria Droujkova
http://www.naturalmath.com
Make math your own, to make your own math.
FYI, this think tank I've been involved with in Portland, Oregon organized a Math Summit in 1997, which many math teachers attended from around the state.
We did in fact have Sir Roger Penrose as one of our star speakers, along with Ivars Petersen, Ralph Abraham, Keith Devlin and other luminaries.
I've just upgraded my write-up to Wordpress, here's a link:
http://grunch.net/archives/130 (newest edition)
http://www.grunch.net/synergetics/mathsummit.html (vintage version, more broken links)
The document, a first person account, admittedly biased, is interesting to read over a decade later. These old guard Renaissance thinkers were urging a more inter-disciplinary approach, with math spread to all subjects, leaving math classes to focus more on the lore, less on just nuts and bolts.
On the other hand, the then State Superintendent of Schools, Norma Paulus was there to address the rank and file about the new state standards and the tests based thereon.
In retrospect, more regimented test-based approach seems to have won the day.
Whether Math 2.0 has some liberation potential (for the sake of both students *and* teachers) would be my question today.
I think George Hart is indeed a good suggestion as well.
ZomeTool is still under appreciated and most math teachers probably don't know about the virtual Zome tools they could be using, to make polyhedra come alive for their students.
vZome by Scott Vorthmann is the tool I'm most familiar with, and my blogs are brimming of colorful examples of its use, in the hands of true masters (not me).
http://www.flickr.com/photos/17157315@N00/sets/72157622797118549/
(stash of vZome renderings)
Which brings me to the question of theme:
Raising the level of technology in the schools, which includes working with networking and collaboration tools (Google groups included), learning new ways of engaging with peers, is a great premise, but then you might want to focus on some open ended queries, to help keep some focus, at least among keynotes.
For example, I tend to think that more computational horsepower and bigger brighter screens means we'll be seeing a resurgence of interest in
(a) polyhedra
(b) spatial geometry, and
(c) the bridge between spatial geometry and geography (great circles, Google Earth, polyhedra again -- tesselations of the sphere).
This is all the kind of stuff George Hart is into, or any Zome afficiondado. But how would a Beyond Flatland approach fare in NCTM world, given the textbooks cycle so slowly (10-15 years) and haven't yet jumped on this bandwagon?
The future of textbooks would be another great query.
How will teachers become more involved in authoring their own curricula (still guided by standards of course, whether set by the state, local higher ed system, or whatever)?
In sum, not just speakers, but themes.
Then you'd probably want tracks, with presentations sorted by track, with an "unconference" towards the end (to promote more mingling and cross-fertilization).
The math-through-programming track could look at textbooks like Mathematics for the Digital Age (Skylit Publishing), various web sites taking this approach.
The teacher collaboration tools track could look at Wikieducator, WizIQ, Elluminate and several others (I'm less an expert than many here).
Since that 1997 Math Summit a lot has happened in Oregon. Sir Roger has visited us a few more times, in the context of one of the great lecture series of our day -- again my biased position (I'm on the ISEPP board now -- unpaid), just check out the line-up: http://www.isepp.org .
On the other hand, a lot hasn't happened in that the standards-based curriculum is still withholding a lot of our best heritage, keeping students in the dark about a lot of important lore.
A conference with the potential to produce breakthroughs would be more enticing than just another swap meet.
I'd suggest looking outside the USA for some great speakers, even though visas can be a hassle (Sir Roger in this category). Mark Shuttleworth?
Or how about Negroponte of One Laptop per Child?
Who's thinking outside the box about bridging the digital divide?
Someone from Intel? I read about Intel committing funds for this purpose, but have little idea where teachers are getting the requisite training -- except places like here, from each other (thank you Maria).
Kirby Urner
Board Member
Institute for Science, Engineering and Public Policy
Linus Pauling Campus
Hawthorne District
Portland, Oregon, 97214
jennifer kurtz
|
|
|
Ihor Charischak
kirby urner
Hi Maria,Having the first Math 2.0 "conference" be physically at UNC or nearby sounds great. One of the themes of the conference could be what Penrose and Kirby could bring to the real or virtual table. Does anyone have a suggestion for a theme name for this one? Maybe we can have theme group leaders put together a "session" or 2. There might be 5 themes like those suggested inYour list could be a starting point. Kirby, do I get a hint that you may want to volunteer for something like this? :-)
Quite possibly, it's what I do a lot.
However, per my recent link to that 1997 write-up, Sir Roger Penrose a star, I've got my various biases, meaning I sometimes take controversial positions regarding what I think a curriculum should include. Not every conference goer is going to approve of my gate crashing (is how they might perceive it).
I'm feeling pretty good about the NCTM tonight though, was just relaying that to my troops via BFI.org web site.
Regarding the above Plans & Dreams, I love that flow chart down below, that I might slide with my mouse.
I see myself coming in through the art community perhaps, gravitating towards Python on the other side, meeting a lot of other interesting professionals along the way.
Pleased to be aboard,
Kirby
Ihor Charischak
Your list could be a starting point. Kirby, do I get a hint that you may want to volunteer for something like this? :-)
Quite possibly, it's what I do a lot.
However, per my recent link to that 1997 write-up, Sir Roger Penrose a star, I've got my various biases, meaning I sometimes take controversial positions regarding what I think a curriculum should include. Not every conference goer is going to approve of my gate crashing (is how they might perceive it).
I'm feeling pretty good about the NCTM tonight though, was just relaying that to my troops via BFI.org web site.
Pleased to be aboard,
kirby urner
> Hi Kirby,
>>
>> Your list could be a starting point. Kirby, do I get a hint that you may
>> want to volunteer for something like this? :-)
>
> Quite possibly, it's what I do a lot.
> However, per my recent link to that 1997 write-up, Sir Roger Penrose a star,
> I've got my various biases, meaning I sometimes take controversial positions
> regarding what I think a curriculum should include. Not every conference
> goer is going to approve of my gate crashing (is how they might perceive
> it).
>
> I don't think your views would necessarily clash with members of the Math
> 2.0 crowd. I personally think what you're doing is important and needs to be
> heard specially by the new up and coming breed of maverick math teachers.
>
Thank you for saying so.
> I'm feeling pretty good about the NCTM tonight though, was just relaying
> that to my troops via BFI.org web site.
>
> Why is that? Are they supporting BFI?
>
Syncing lesson plans more.
"Tetrahedral mensuration" (using a regular tetrahedron as
a unit volume) is core to BFI's math curriculum (per Wikipedia)
and for the longest time couldn't get traction with NCTM.
Here's a related thread on math-teach, for those wanting to look
at some actual math (high school level, nothing too "out there"):
http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?threadID=2036171&tstart=0
Some of math teaching I do with Python capitalizes on this unit
volume tetrahedron idea.
Lots of good stories attach.
What I find most critically absent from most math teaching is
any historical dimension. Technical skills are disconnected
from surrounding lore, cultural context.
For example, few if any students ever learn about Alexander
Graham Bell's work with the octet truss (tetrahedron-
octahedron truss):
http://www.kitehistory.com/images/208a0039.jpg
This has a lot to do with keeping math safely insulated from
world events, but this disconnect may also be dangerous,
don't you think?
> Pleased to be aboard,
>
> Super!
> -Ihor
>
Kirby