Raspberry Pi Workshops

Free CPD event in Cambridge during the Easter Hols. The details are here: http://www.raspberrypi.org/archives/6458 and no experience is necessary.

Y5 Maths Conversation on the SMART TAble

This session focused on developing an understanding of the differences in learning styles when faced with similar activities in a traditional format and when using the table.

There was a core focus on the type of learning talk that was happening and how discussion was used to answer the questions faced.

Based on earlier lessons, I focused on Y5 mathematical number problems that were based on reading a scenario and solving it. To ensure high quality questions, a range of past SATS questions were used.

While in hindsight, some of the questions may have been too high level, it was important to see how they approached the problems regardless.

The four children were chosen by the teacher and represented a more confident group of pupils with appropriate mathematical abilities for their age.

Pre-prepared were a range of questions on a worksheet with space to put working-out, and a series of questions in a table activity that utilised a range of the basic toolkit

We undertook the worksheet activity first, which the pupils worked in pairs for. They read the questions and then tried to answer them. The question asked them to solve the gaps in a mathematical puzzle.

The boys took a more scattershot approach, guessing and trying the numbers with no real process behind it, whereas the girls were more methodical, trying to work out the answer by deconstructing the problem.

Further questions asked the pupils to deconstruct a problem, and develop the sequence of equations/sums that would answer it. In general, the pupils had the processes, but were unable to put the questions into the right order to get the correct answer. In both cases, the conversation was based on the mathematics and how they needed to find out the answers.

Language used was appropriate, mathematical and working as a pair. Girls generally were more logical whereas boys were more scattergun, and moved to other questions when they couldn’t get the answer quickly.

After the starter activity, we moved to the table, because the style of questions was similar to the starter, we used the tasks that had been put into the paint app first.

Because I wanted the pupils to work, rather than “paint” we provided each child with a pen from the smart board, this was transformative in the way in which they used the app, moving from a simple splodge effect, to something more refined, where they were able to write answers and working out.

Watching pupils develop the answers was interesting using the paint tool, as they very quickly realized they could erase their incorrect answers and go back stages, and that no one would be looking at them. This seemed to give them more freedom to try things and experiment within the mathematical process.

Interestingly, while I felt that the lack of answer feedback would be an issue, because I was there to say if they’d done it right or wrong, when they ALL agreed on the answer, this was less of an issue.

We them moved to a number of hot spot and hot spaces activities. During these activities, the quality of talk decreased quickly as the pupils discovered that they did not need to actually work out the answers, but simply move things around until they locked in place. The only difference to this was when the hot spaces were used for missing number activities (using number labels) where the ability to move cards around generated discussion about the answer and whey they felt they were right.

In both of these cases, the pupils lamented not having a space or ability to write on the table, as they wanted to “try my answer” before putting things into place.

The creation of the table activities was very time intensive, and the quality was not that great, because I had to think about how to create the activity, then how the question would be presented (often only in one orientation), souring labels and images took a lot of time for such a short activity. However, we were able to see how the pupils worked as a group in a different process.

We also included a pre-made app from a third party that asked pupils to create bubbles based on criteria of numbers and values. This activity in particular excited the pupils, and the boys became much more engaged. When asked after, the boys said they thought it looked better and was more of a game “so they didn’t think they were learning”

When using this game, the group of pupils worked closely together and the language used by the pupils themselves became much more focused on the game and recalling the criteria being placed on them.

Year 1 pupils on the Smart Table- Maths Concepts

Year One Pupils

I had previously not seen the year one pupils using the board, so spent some time observing a range of small groups playing a small range of apps with a mathematical basis

We started with the number train, which pupils tended to enjoy playing. Interestingly, the pupils tended to self sort themselves to focus on a colour and only move ladybirds onto the train when it came close to them rather than working collaboratively or working on a range of trains.

The pupils did not need the game explained to them, and were able to pick them up quickly through experimentation and trial and error.

With pupils this small, the location of the table, leaning against a wall was interesting, but became obvious that unless it was propped against something solid, multiple children leaning into it could cause it to shift and slide across the carpet.

The younger pupils liked the apps that told them if they were right or wrong, but were generally more insular in the way they worked, with little collaboration or process, simply swiping and hoping to get the right answer. Despite this, they were able to explain WHY the answer was right then they got that feedback.

Dot Train

Little focus on process

More were placing than thinking of places

Students tended to wait till the train came to them rather than lean across table

Paint- unless task was clearly defined, they would quickly turn to spreading paint

Class excited, lots wanting to come and see

Did not listen to or read instructions, so task became lost quickly

Number match, once realized about placing a hot spot, worked well, but slowed speed when it came to matching words to text

Group one was dominated by 2 girls (along wider edge), who tended to take charge and were more vocal

Little talk about activity, more about right/wrong

Number Train wouldn’t load unless already on the table

Addition wasn’t working

Multiple choice, when a sequence, tried to follow sequence

Dot train, little thought, when asked to hold and only move when sure, pupils were unable to wait

Outside of the more games styled apps, the Paint app was most popular, simply to be able to create something “messy” without getting told off. They really enjoyed the way all of them could add to a task.

Though when faced with a task asking them to do something with the paint tool (such as tracing a letter form or number form) they got bored quickly and wanted to just paint.

In general, girls tended to lead the group, but boys tended to take over the screen if they could (such as massive paint washes or hitting the exit button if they got bored)

In all cases, again, the audio instructions for the activities were lots in the hubbub of a normal classroom, and using headphones did not encourage discussion. The inability to repeat the instructions made it hard sometimes to actually decide what to do in a task unless supported by an adult.

Year 1 – Maths skills- basic number functions

I had previously not seen the year one pupils using the table, so spent some time observing a range of small groups playing a small range of apps with a mathematical basis