In the article, “How Multimodality Works In
Mathematical Activity: Young Children Graphing Motion” written by Francesca
Ferrara, different experiences are observed and analyzed to see how they affect
mathematical learning. Specifically,
Ferrara looks at perceptual, sensory, and motor experiences. She noticed that there is often a very
concrete connection between the perceptual/sensory neurons and their associated
motor neurons so that when you think of solving a problem, you are using the
same neurons as when you actually solve it.
To work with these established neural
connections, Ferrara created a study where she analyzed how primary students
used digital technology (graphing calculators & computer software). By using the technological tools, the
students were stimulating their perceptual/sensory neurons as well as their
motor neurons. The students would
capture movement and data would instantaneously be displayed on the calculator
or computer.
The benefit of these activities was that
the children could view the position-time graph being created as their peer
moved in front of the motion-capture device.
Often we are given a graph to analyze, but have not actually witnessed
how it was created. I can definitely see
how the students can benefit from experiencing the sensory stimuli and creating
a direct association with the graph itself.
It should also be noted that these students started to participate in
this study when they were in grade 2.
Position-time graphs are not usually seen in mathematical lessons until
later. After seeing the graph create
itself while someone walked past the motion sensor, the students were able to
not only make sense of what the graph represented, but they could also in a
sense re-create how it was made.
There was a second experiment that also
involved the students making an association between the movement of an object
and the creation of a graph on a piece of technology.
When the students were asked to explain the
graphs, they often used physical movements (recreate the action), and their
imagination (“pretend that. . .”). Due
to the numerous ways that the students were able to describe the graph, it was
deemed to be multimodal. I think that
this style of learning is an excellent one.
By tapping into the motor as well as the sensory aspects of learning, I
believe that there is a greater chance that the student will be able to recall
what was learned. Sometimes, basic
physical movements can help students retain knowledge such as basic facts. For example, one could create specific body movements
when reciting their 4 times tables. This
style of learning may not always be possible in a classroom setting, but it
should definitely be encouraged.
Great summary of the article! I am still somewhat sceptical about the "concrete connection" between when an individual is thinking about solving a problem as opposed to actually solving the problem. If the connection is the same, why bother solving the problem in the first place? Besides, I am curious to know how much or the quality of information that can be retained through multimodal learning?
ReplyDeleteSensory motor activities really help trigger a flashback to events and experiences you have had. There seems to be a relationship between this article and the article I read by Smith, King, and Hoyte. Both articles emphasize how a motion-activated technology and sensory motor skills combine to make the learning of math concepts more concrete and visual for students. While this article examines the effect of these skills on graphing which generally relates to transformations of functions, the article I read considers it in relation to transformations of angles. The aims of both articles seem to emphasize some aspects of geometry which may lead people to think about the limitations of such a technology. As David suggests, I wish one of these articles would consider the application of motion-controlled technology to non-geometric concepts. This may add a new dimension to the technology.
ReplyDelete