第 226 期·中文精讀

喬·博勒:如何學數學

Jo Boaler: How to Learn Math

數學教育研究者反對死記硬背與天賦論,介紹如何透過多樣化解題和出錯來真正理解數學。

官方音訊00:00 / --:--
中文精讀由 AI 基於原始訪談改寫,非官方翻譯,可能存在偏差或錯誤;表述以原音訊與官方文稿為準。說明

一組研究者在高中英語課堂上做了個實驗。所有學生都交了一篇作文,老師給每人寫了診斷性反饋。一半學生的評語末尾,研究者偷偷多加了一句話。一年之後,讀到這句話的學生,英語成績顯著高於另一半。

那句話是:“我給你這個反饋,因為我相信你。”

喬·博勒(Jo Boaler)常在教師培訓上講這個實驗。她是斯坦福教育學院的數學教育教授,YouCubed 的聯合創始人。講完之後她會趕緊補一句:我不是建議你把這句話刻成章,蓋在每個孩子的作業本底下。

但接著她講了自己的故事。高中一年級,新來的數學老師第一節課上說,有問題隨時問。她舉手了。老師回了一句:“這就是你的問題?”她記得自己坐在哪,記得當時的光線。她說那絕對是她在那門課上問的最後一個問題。那位老師是數學教研組長。

一句隨口的反問,和一句“我相信你”,在同一個行業裡,都能管用很多年。

任何一塊乾巴巴的數學,都能變成視覺問題

博勒對數學之美的定義,跟大多數人不太一樣。她喜歡的恰恰是很多人不承認那是數學的那部分:可以換個角度看、可以畫出來、可以有好幾種解法的數學。

“很多人以為數學就是一個方法、一個答案。”她在訪談裡說。她做的工作正相反,她和團隊對老師講:把你手上最枯燥最沒勁的那塊內容拿過來,我們把它變成一個視覺的、有意思的、開放的問題。結果發現,任何一塊內容都能這麼幹。

她說這話時是認真的。她提到神經科學的一個發現:人在處理數學問題時,大腦裡有五條不同的通路。世界上數學成就最高的那批人,特徵體現在通路之間的連線數量上,單條通路發達與否反而說明不了什麼。

這意味著什麼?一個孩子用數字看一道題,是一條路;用圖形看同一道題,第二條路就接上了;用文字把思路寫下來,第三條;用積木或者紙筆搭出來,第四條。她管這個叫“數學的多維度體驗”。連線越多的腦子,越是這麼長出來的。

順帶說一個流行說法的坑。學校裡常講“你是視覺型學習者,他不是”,然後給前者配圖,給後者講公式。博勒說這套說法在神經科學上站不住:如果你認為自己不是視覺型學習者,你反而更需要視覺化的方法,因為那塊腦區正等著被開發。

物理學家在這件事上早就走在前頭。愛因斯坦想問題離不開影象,他講相對論的時候腦子裡是一列火車。費曼也是從直覺出發,先感覺“應該是這麼回事”,再去做實驗、寫方程。博勒提到塞巴斯蒂安·特龍(Sebastian Thrun)跟她講過的一段經歷:給史密森尼學會做機器人,機器人在白噪音上出了問題,特龍憑直覺就知道問題出在哪,但把它寫成嚴格的數學證明,花了三個星期。

直覺先到,證明後到,中間隔三週。這個時間差本身就說明,直覺和形式化是兩套系統,學校裡只訓練後一套。

還有一件被忽略的工具:顏色。把一個代數表示式裡的 x 標成紅色,後面所有出現 x 的地方也用紅色寫,孩子一眼就能看見對應關係。這種編碼看著微不足道,博勒說,很多小學老師在她的工作坊裡看到這個,當場就哭了。教了半輩子數學,第一次意識到原來可以這樣看。

掙扎的時候,大腦正在長東西,但前提是你相信自己能長

這裡有個容易走偏的地方。既然掙扎是好事,那是不是應該讓孩子多受苦?

博勒的答案是:掙扎本身是好時機,前提是掙扎的人相信自己最終能出來。

教育系統裡最有害的一個觀念,是“數學腦”的說法。你要麼天生帶著這塊腦,要麼沒有。一個孩子在五年級第一次卡住的時候,如果腦子裡響起的是“果然我沒有數學腦”,那他接下來做的事就是關掉。大腦真的會關掉,成績從這裡開始往下滑。此後的掙扎變成了痛苦的自我確認,生長停在了那一步。

“我們可以掙扎,是因為我們知道自己能到那裡。”她說這句的時候,把因果順序講得很清楚:先有信念,掙扎才有意義。

聊到這兒,Lex 講了自己在蘇聯長大的經歷。數學是被強制灌進來的,他是被強制著愛上數學的。蘇聯體系裡有兩點讓他印象很深。

第一是對卓越的推崇。成功的定義是“你在那個班、你在這件事上真的強”,跟“你比昨天進步了”是兩回事。這跟美國對體育的態度一樣:你要麼是首發,要麼不是。第二是那個信念:每個人都有能力達到卓越,如果你沒達到,那是你不夠努力。

博勒對這套東西的態度很微妙。她認為美國的問題恰恰相反:卓越重要,但孩子在很早的時候就被分成了“能做的”和“做不了的”,後面那批人乾脆不努力了,因為努力也沒用。如果能把“你可以透過努力到達”這個信念裝進去,改變是巨大的。

但這個信念有個副作用,她也直接說了:如果沒到達就是你的錯,那些沒到達的人會背上不該背的東西。她要在這個信念上加一個條件,任何人都有可能到達,但他需要努力,也需要好的教學。有一大批人並非不行,他們從頭到尾沒遇到過一個能把這件事講明白的老師。

至於“多學數學”這件事,她的態度是有條件的贊成。如果數學是有趣的、開放的、多維度的,那多學當然好。她和團隊在斯坦福辦夏令營,課排三個小時。備課時老師們擔心:三個小時,孩子坐得住嗎?結果是孩子不肯去休息,也不肯去吃午飯,因為正卡在那些圖形規律裡,停不下來。

什麼時候的孩子最容易放棄?博勒給了一個具體的時間點:大約從五年級開始,初中那幾年最關鍵。

原因有點諷刺。小學低年級是允許孩子探索和亂想的,到了五年級,老師開始說“我們要為初中做準備了”,然後開始打分、開始密集測驗。孩子的自我評價就是從這個節點開始崩的。初中三年,一大批人正在做決定:STEM 這條路我繼續走,還是到此為止。

她說每一年都重要,每一年都能把孩子掰回另一條路上。但那幾年,槓桿最長。

老師不需要事先知道誰會優秀

回到開頭那個實驗。博勒在教師培訓上講完之後,有位老師說:那我們不能把它做成一個印章嗎?她的回答是:我建議不要。

理由跟這句話有沒有用無關。這句話的力量來自它是具體的、專門寫給這個人的。變成印章,它就變成了牆上的標語。

真正起作用的,是孩子坐在教室裡一直在想的那個問題:我的老師覺得我能做到嗎。這個問題他們不會問出口,但他們一直在收集證據。所以老師要說出來,而且要真的相信。嘴上說說,孩子聽得出來。

Lex 在這裡插了一段自省,說得挺實在。他說自己是個極端的完美主義者,對自己極其苛刻。有學生過來問問題,他清楚這孩子離“好”還差得遠,心裡那個念頭會冒出來:算了吧。但他也知道,歷史上很多了不起的人,某個階段都很爛,有些人爛到了很晚。所以他必須一直相信這個人可以變得很厲害,同時把“你得下功夫”這句話也說出去。

博勒接過話頭,說到矽谷。她住的地方塞滿了學校的退學生、被判定有特殊需求的孩子、沒在體系裡成功過的人,而這批人後來做出了很了不起的事。她對這個現象的解釋很直接:學校系統擅長篩選記性好、能復現老師演示的學生,同時把想得慢、想得深的創造性思考者推出去。後者在很早的時候就接收到了“你不行”的訊號。

那老師要不要專門去關注那些眼睛發亮的學生?博勒說,重點在老師能不能接住那一刻,提前預測誰會成為那個學生是做不到的。因為老師在發下任務之前,根本不可能知道誰會發光。

她講了個夏令營的片段。孩子們在算不同尺寸正方形的邊框要多少塊。下課時一個男孩走過來說:我一直在想,如果換成五邊形會怎麼樣。她說,太好了,五邊形會是什麼樣?你去把它找出來。她說自己完全沒預料到會有這個提問,也沒在心裡給這個孩子預留過拓展任務。但事情發生的時候,她能接住。

接住的方式還不止一種。Lex 說自己吃的是反向那一套:你告訴我“這個你肯定做不到”,我立刻就來勁了。但對另一個孩子,同樣一句話可能直接把人打垮。博勒同意,這也正是教學難的地方,同一個動作對不同的人效果相反。

還有一位數學家的故事,博勒講得很動情。瑪麗亞姆·米爾扎哈尼(Maryam Mirzakhani),伊朗長大,世界上第一位拿到菲爾茲獎的女性,在斯坦福任教,40 歲去世。她的工作幾乎全是視覺的,她女兒一度以為媽媽是藝術家。博勒曾被邀請主持她一位學生的博士答辯,兩個小時的展示,她回憶說自己一個數字都沒看到。

她當時想的是:我應該帶一個 13 歲的孩子來聽這場答辯,那孩子根本不會承認這是數學。

而米爾扎哈尼 13 歲的時候,被老師告知她數學不行。

孩子平均兩分鐘就放棄一道題

從學生自己的角度看,最該改的習慣是什麼?

博勒給的第一條很具體:別用重讀的方式複習。翻開老師的講解或者例題,看一遍,感覺懂了,合上書走人。問題在於那個“懂了”是假的。真正理解與否,要等你動手做一道題的時候才會暴露。

她引用神經科學的建議:不斷給自己出題。測試比閱讀有效得多,因為測試能告訴你,哪些你是真會,哪些你只是看著眼熟。

第二條是關於作業的形態。她建議不要讓孩子回家做二十道題,而是讓他回答幾個問題:今天學的那個大想法是什麼?哪一部分你覺得難?你在哪裡卡住了?什麼地方讓你覺得有意思?

這個建議背後有個現象很多人有共鳴。孩子一路做題,全對,做了好多年,但你問他這門課到底在講什麼、學了有什麼用,他答不上來。題目做對了,主題沒進去。

Lex 把這個思路往大處推了一層。人這一輩子很少問那個“為什麼”,而小孩在很小的時候天天問,長大後就不問了。有組資料博勒提到過,孩子在學校裡提問的數量,從低年級開始基本是一條向下的直線。低年級你攔都攔不住,後來他們學會了不問。

但“為什麼是這樣”通常是有答案的,而且答案往往不壞:這麼做是因為在這個條件下它成立。真正值錢的一刻,是你問完之後發現答案是“因為歷史上就是這麼定的,其實有更好的辦法”。發明就是從這兒開始的。這套思維方式不只用於數學,選職業、選城市、選跟誰過一輩子,都是同一套。

第三件事是深度。Lex 提到卡爾·紐波特(Cal Newport)的《深度工作》,問博勒怎麼看專注力這件事。

她的做法是給一個真正夠深的問題,然後不打擾。她給老師做培訓時常這麼幹:給你們一小時,一小時後我回來看看。老師們的反應是“一小時?”然後他們開始做,一小時後她回去問怎麼樣,回答是“一小時過去了?怎麼可能”。

她在斯坦福給本科生上的一門課,每一節都在做這種題。學生最後的反饋是:我不想回到以前那種數學關係裡了,那種只追求快速給出答案的關係。

這裡有個數字值得停一下。有調查問學校裡的孩子:一道數學題你會想多久才放棄,判定它做不出來?全樣本的平均值是兩分鐘。

兩分鐘。這個數字說明的是他們從沒被允許在一道題上待夠,跟聰明不聰明沒關係。專注本身是塊肌肉,五分鐘、十分鐘、三十分鐘、一小時,是可以練出來的。沒練過的人,坐十分鐘都難受。而在數學這類科目上,不到那個深度,就摸不到解題真正讓人上癮的那一下。

Lex 提到格蘭特·桑德森(Grant Sanderson),也就是 3Blue1Brown。博勒說自己很喜歡他的東西,還開玩笑說應該跟他合作,她出視覺素材,他做成那種驚豔的動畫。

桑德森的路子是用程式生成動畫,把數學概念變成看得見的過程,再配上敘事:先給一個小例子,然後不聲不響地拐一個彎,出現一個意外。博勒評價說,這套東西會讓人愛上那個概念。

桑德森自己說過,他不認為自己在教完整課程,他更像一個點火的人。博勒同意這個定位,也不可能要求他把整個課表都做成那種質量。

但有個細節值得說:他把做動畫的庫 Manim 開源了,用 Python 寫,能動畫演示方程和圖形。程式碼本身文件不算完善,但它放出去之後,冒出了一大批人用它做數學影片。這些人大多沒有百萬訂閱,一個影片幾百次播放,但 Lex 說,從這些人的角度,做那個影片的過程本身就是一次改造。教是最好的學,這是費曼那套東西。

三年級的 60 條標準,把一張地圖剪成了碎片

那教學層面能改什麼?博勒手上有具體的活。

她是加州新數學框架的五位撰寫者之一。這個框架的核心主張叫“教大想法”(teaching to big ideas)。

她解釋了現行標準的問題。以三年級為例,光“單位正方形”這一個概念,就有三條不同的標準。其中一條的原文是:邊長為 1 個單位的正方形,稱為單位正方形,其面積為 1 平方單位,可用於測量面積。教材編者拿到這條標準,就圍繞它編一堆窄題,然後用學生能不能答對這些題來衡量教學成敗。

她的比喻是:數學本來是一張想法和想法之間連線的地圖,標準把這張地圖剪成很多小片,一片一片發給學校。老師看不到片與片之間的連線,學生更看不到。

加州這個新框架做的事,是把 K 到 10 年級的整個數學拆成一組大想法和它們之間的連線。三年級不再是 60 條標準,而是若干個能彼此打通的大概念:測量、分數、形狀、時間,以及它們怎麼連起來。

對老師的實操意義是這樣:一位老師發現這學期的大想法是“測量”,他不再去讀五條關於測量的程式性陳述,而是問自己,有什麼又深又有意思的活動,能讓孩子真的在做測量的過程中把這件事吃透。孩子在這類活動裡做上幾天,會順帶撞上很多別的數學。

評價怎麼辦?博勒的態度很明確:她不喜歡評分和頻繁測驗。

分數放在課程結束時是合理的,那本來就是終結性測量的用途。問題出在美國的數學課堂把評分變成了日常動作,每週、甚至每天。她講自己孩子上高中的經歷,技術讓這件事變得更糟:所有作業都被打分,分數實時顯示在線上成績冊裡,孩子們隨時能查,然後帶著那個數字走進下一節課。

她管這個叫表演文化。你在那兒表演,有人在測量你,你隨時能看到自己的分數。這種環境下深度學習很難發生。

替代方案是量規(rubric)。一個單元開始時把這份量規給孩子,讓他看見這幾周要走的路,看見什麼叫做得好。中途讓學生自評,老師在上面寫具體的備註:接下來幾周你可以試著學這個。孩子腦子裡轉的就不再是“我是個 A 學生還是 B 學生”,而是“我在數學上走到哪兒了”。學年結束給一個分數沒問題,過程中給的是資訊。

Lex 在這裡補了一個自己的經驗。他說自己上過的最好的課,是教授看出來他對某個特定方向有興趣,然後專門給了他一點額外的東西。其中一位用的是激將法:我不覺得你能做成這個。他就把全部力氣砸進去做成了。

他說這類“特別對待”很珍貴,但也承認這對老師要求太高,一個班那麼多學生,不可能都盯住。博勒的回應把這件事拉回了可操作的層面:孩子表現出興趣的那一刻,只要能被接住並往前推一把,就夠了。誰會成為那個孩子,事先看不出來。

七個點,十八種看法

博勒第一次見一群學生會做一件事,她建議所有數學老師都試試。

她放一張圖,上面七個點,擺成一個特定形狀。只放幾秒,然後收走。她的指令是:告訴我這裡有幾個點,但不許一個一個數,我要看你是怎麼把它們分組的。

幾秒鐘不夠數完,所以孩子只能靠一眼看出的結構。收走圖之後她挨個問:你是怎麼看的?

一個 30 人的班,能出大概 18 種看法。有人看成一個外圈加中心一點,有人看成幾條線,有人看成分段的塊。她把這些全寫在黑板上,最後說:我們班 30 個人,用 18 種方式看了這七個點。

這個能力有專門的名字,叫 groupitizing,可以譯成“群組化”。而研究發現,一個孩子群組化的水平,能預測他後續的數學表現。

這句話的分量在於對比。現行的做法是用限時口算測驗來判斷一個孩子數學好不好,而博勒的意思是:讓他看一眼七個點、說說怎麼分的,可能是更有資訊量的評估。

這個能力可以練出來,並非生下來就有。從幼兒園到博士生都玩得起來。

這堂課真正在傳遞的東西,是那七個點之外的另一個資訊:在這個教室裡,你怎麼看這道題是被當回事的。

順著這個往下,就是創造力和靈活性。博勒說 21 世紀真正需要的是一個靈活的腦子,學校該教的是面對問題時能換角度的那種能力,而不是某個特定方法。她提到一本書叫《Elastic》,講的是彈性思維,跟她的主張是一回事。

學校的現狀是反過來的:大量時間花在記憶和按步驟執行上,而這些恰恰是計算機現在做得比人好的事。真正屬於人的那塊,創造性、靈活的組合、跨界的聯想,計算機才剛起步。人腦天生擅長這個,學校卻在削弱它。

還有一個被低估的維度:協作。

2019 年,博勒在斯坦福教一門 100 人的微積分課。這些學生進校時基本都反感在數學課上合作。他們過去只有兩種經驗:一個人做題,或者小組作業裡一個人幹了全部。所以他們不覺得合作跟數學有什麼關係。

而且他們身上帶著很強的社會比較:我坐在這間教室裡,旁邊的人比我強,比我快,他想到了我沒想到的。

博勒的團隊花了四周訓練他們放下這套東西。前後測的設計很有意思:不給限時獨立測驗,而是給一道應用題,讓學生兩人一組做,每人一支不同顏色的筆,全程不換筆。

第一輪收上來的紙,一眼就能看出來:紅筆寫一塊,綠筆寫另一塊,兩個人各寫各的,問題也沒做好。那道題其實初高中生都能上手。

四周之後再給同一道題,同樣的規則。這一次他們真的在合作,而合作的那幾組成績更好。學生後來寫的反饋裡反覆出現一句:我學會了重視別人對同一道題的想法。

Lex 在這裡講了丹尼爾·卡尼曼(Daniel Kahneman)。他第一次跟卡尼曼面對面交流,對方對他研究的自動駕駛幾乎一無所知,但一直在問,問得非常具體,純粹的好奇。十分鐘後,兩個人已經在共同琢磨這個問題了。他說那一刻他意識到,協作是一項技能,前提是你得把自己的 ego 和自己的世界觀先放下,真的去學對方怎麼看這件事。

博勒補了另一半:還有社會比較要放下。如果你坐在那兒想“這個想法太棒了,他比我強太多”,那個想法本身的價值就被這個念頭蓋住了。斯坦福那批學生一開始卡的就是這一關。

Lex 還講了一個他自己的觀察。稍微有點名氣之後他發現,公開為別人叫好,回報遠比想象中大。反過來,那種“我要讓周圍這一小圈人知道我最聰明,辦法是不承認別人聰明”的做法,短期看著划算,長期是虧的。這套東西如果從學生時代就開始練,一直練到職場,收益是複利的。

母親說“我數學也不好”,女兒的成績會下降

家長該怎麼辦?博勒說這是另一個難題。

有研究顯示,父母的數學焦慮能預測孩子的數學成績,但只在一個條件下成立:父母輔導作業的時候。不輔導,這個傳遞就斷了。

機制不難想。一個自己怕數學的家長,坐在孩子旁邊輔導,嘴上說著“我上學的時候這個也爛透了”。這句話傳過去的東西,比任何一道題的解法都深。

更具體的一項研究:母親對女兒說“我上學的時候數學不好”,女兒的成績會往下走。

所以她的建議乾脆得有點好笑:如果你跟數學的關係很糟,那就別陪孩子做數學作業。以及,在孩子面前假裝喜歡數學。哪怕你恨它,也要裝出樂在其中的樣子。

YouCubed 上有一份給家長的說明,講怎麼跟孩子圍繞數學互動。

至於“孩子會不會超過我”這種心態,博勒說自己沒怎麼見過家長在這一點上彆扭。她見得多的是另一種:家長自己跟數學關係很差,不知道怎麼幫,乾脆躲開。而躲開的代價,孩子是能感覺到的。

她還提了一句,連斯坦福的本科生都是這樣。這些人在數學上一直成績很好,但進了大學還認為數學就是一堆要背下來的方法,背完再復現。如果沒有親身經歷過另一種數學,人是很難把孩子往另一個方向帶的,因為在他們眼裡,數學就長那樣。

順便說個輕鬆的。Lex 問她,為什麼英國人管數學叫 maths,是複數?

她的回答很符合她一貫的主張:mathematics 本來的意思就是那些數學,幾何、機率、各種分支,本來就是多維的、多條的。縮寫成 maths 保留了這個複數感。美式英語縮成 math,變成單數,感覺就不一樣了。美國還有句常用語叫“do the math”,意思是算一下數。她說自己不喜歡這個說法,因為數學遠不只是計算。

資料科學擠進高中課表,因為它塞不進任何一門學科

那整個系統會怎麼變?

博勒是樂觀的,但她也承認教育系統變化極慢,慢到顯微鏡級別。不過她確實看到變化正在發生,而且有個具體的例子。

資料科學現在可以作為高中課程,替代代數二。

這件事的意義在於時間尺度。她說,美國高中數學的內容框架是 1892 年定下來的,此後基本沒動過。一百三十年後,課表上終於多了一門新東西。

它是怎麼擠進去的?2014 年有人給高中生開發了一門資料科學課。第一批孩子上完之後沒出什麼事,照樣上了大學,接受度慢慢起來。真正的轉折點在加州:加州大學系統給五萬所高中發了一封郵件,說我們承認資料科學,學生可以用它替代代數二,這是一條完全正當的升學路徑。

對很多還在觀望的學校,這封郵件就是綠燈。博勒說,她上次看的時候有 12 個州允許資料科學作為高中課程,她估計第二年這個數字會翻倍。

路徑很清晰:先在邊緣長出來,有人驗證,然後一個權威機構蓋章,接著擴散。

資料科學能擠進來,還有個更微妙的原因:它不屬於任何一門現有學科。它不完全算數學,也不完全算計算機,也不完全算統計。它一進來,就逼著人問:這門課歸誰教,放在哪個系。學科邊界這件事本身開始被質疑。

博勒對一百年後的想象是這樣的:學科邊界可能沒有了,因為它們本來就不太說得通。程式設計會像讀寫一樣,融進所有事情裡,孩子在學的過程中就在創造、在查、在做。現在這套學校體系常被叫做工廠模式,它的設計目標裡從來沒有“激發創造力”這一項。她說後人回頭看今天,可能會覺得挺好笑。

她還留了一點自嘲。她自己也沒預料到資料科學能這麼快落地。

最後說說 YouCubed。這個網站大約五年前上線,到現在累計訪客超過 5200 萬。

它存在的原因很具體。學術界關於怎麼教數學其實知道很多,論文、期刊、研究一大堆。但老師不讀這些,讀不到,很多卡在付費牆後面,寫法也讓人讀不下去。一整個行業在花錢研究怎麼教得好,然後不告訴真正在教的人。

所以她的做法是把論文翻譯成可用的東西:把研究結論變成老師明天就能用的課、給孩子看的影片、給家長的建議。

他們受“程式設計一小時”啟發,做了“數學靈感周”(Week of Inspirational Maths):別的不說,先試一週,看看會發生什麼。這個東西被下載了幾百萬次,很多老師每年開學第一週就用它。老師反饋說,那一週孩子的眼睛是亮的,特別興奮。然後一週結束,翻開教材,燈滅了。

這個反饋很扎心,也很真實。博勒說,她真正想做的是把那一週延長成整年,但團隊太小,做不出覆蓋每個年級每一天的創造性任務。

後來他們真的做了一部分:用五年時間,做完了 K 到 8 年級的全套數學書,按大想法組織,配豐富的活動和視覺。她說做完的時候,人已經累垮了。

教材像聖經,每天翻到 2.3.2 那一節

聊到教材,兩個人的態度很有意思。Lex 是真心喜歡紙質教科書的,他形容那東西有漂亮的圖、氣味好聞、翻開的手感也好。他說高中那幾年可能是他學習生涯裡最快樂的日子,物理、化學、生物、微積分、解剖、莎士比亞,全都過一遍,沒有人逼你決定這輩子幹什麼。

博勒沒有反駁這個體驗,但她給出了另一面的畫面。

YouCubed 網站上有一段影片,拍的是來參加夏令營的孩子。其中一個學生說:上數學課你得跟著教材走,教材就像聖經,你必須跟著。週一做 2.3.2,週二做 2.3.3,週三接著往下,永遠不能偏離。

她說這些孩子最喜歡夏令營的一點,是這裡沒有書。雖然發的也是一張張紙,但他們感覺自由,因為不用一節一節地刷練習。

Lex 替教材說了句公道話:那種 2.3、2.3 的結構其實給了人進度感,一道題看著難,試了又試,突然通了,往前挪一格,一章結束有個交代,翻到下一章。這種小型的成就感是真實的。

博勒接受了這個說法,但她把問題挪了個位置:教材能不能給人好體驗,取決於裡面裝了什麼,跟有沒有教材關係不大。

她還提了一個美國特有的現象。她自己在英國長大,英國數學不分代數和幾何,據她所知,全世界大概只有美國這麼分。看著孩子們整整一年只學代數,她的評價是:換成我,我會相當無聊。

這個觀察跟前面說的“多維度”其實是一件事。把數學切成代數、幾何、統計,切成 2.3.2 和 2.3.3,都是在把那張連線的地圖剪碎。碎片好管理、好考核、好排課,但學的人看不到全圖。

線上課真正管用的地方,是讓人動起來

博勒跟線上教育的緣分,起點是塞巴斯蒂安·特龍。她看著特龍放出第一門 MOOC,覺得自己也可以做一門數學教育的課。

第一年夏天上線,免費,三萬名數學老師來上。他們在課上互相討論、互相轉發,事情就這麼起來了。後來正是這門課催生了 YouCubed,因為學員上完之後一直在問:接下來呢,還有什麼。

她對 MOOC 的評價是分層的。把好老師放到網上,讓全世界的人都能接觸,這本身是好事。但她不認為 MOOC 實現了早期宣稱的教育民主化。資料顯示,來上 MOOC 的人往往本來就是條件更好的那批人。所以那個最初的興奮,有一部分落空了,還有很長的路要走。

她更在意的是教學方法。大量 MOOC 就是一個對著鏡頭講話的人,這不算好的教學。她從 Udacity 學到一條硬規則:連續講授不要超過五分鐘,然後必須讓人做點什麼。

她的線上課就是按這個節奏搭的:講一小段,給點視覺的東西,然後彈出一個問題讓人答。理由很樸素,半小時的影片,人看著看著就開始幹別的了。

她還有一門給孩子的小課,叫《如何學數學》(How to Learn Math)。六節課,每節十五分鐘。內容是展示數學作為視覺的、創造性的學科,加上一些思維模式和腦科學的常識。

這門課做過隨機對照試驗。實驗組是上了課的中學生,對照組是沒上課、但由同一批老師教的中學生,老師這個變數被控制住了。結果是:上了課的孩子,在數學課上的投入度高出 68%,學年末的成績也更好。

十五分鐘乘以六,總共不到兩個小時。它改變了一批孩子跟數學的關係。博勒用這個例子說明,教育系統裡有些改動並不需要動大手術。

把孩子問問題的數量畫成一條線

有個資料博勒說她每次想起來都覺得難過。孩子在學校裡提問的數量,從入學開始基本是一條持續下降的直線。低年級的時候你攔不住他們問,後來他們學會了不問。

這條線跟前面那條“大約兩分鐘就放棄一道題”的線,其實是同一條線的兩個斷面。提問是不確定的開始,是承認自己不知道。在一個答案被反覆打分、錯一次就掉一分的環境裡,不問是理性的。

所以她做教師培訓時會強調一件很具體的事:孩子提問的時候,要把它當回事。YouCubed 的做法是把孩子的問題寫在紙上貼到牆上,公開慶祝。

她講完自己高中那次經歷之後,Lex 問了句:那位老師後來知道自己造成了什麼影響嗎?

博勒的猜測很寬容,她說那位老師大機率完全沒意識到。一個糟糕的瞬間,可能只是他那天心情不好,隨口一句。而對面的那個十七歲的人,把這句話記住了幾十年。她說這也是教學這份工作難的地方,你的語氣本身就帶著分量。

反面也有。她提到自己有一位叫馬歇爾(Mrs. Marshall)的老師,是她的 A-level 數學老師。英國的模式是十六歲以前什麼都學,之後選三到四門專攻,深度大概相當於美國碩士階段的專業化程度。

馬歇爾做的改變只有一件事:她給題目,然後讓學生互相討論。

博勒說自己十七歲那年坐在那兒,跟朋友一起想辦法解一道題,就這樣。她開始聽到別人怎麼想、怎麼看,幾個人湊出一個解法。她說就是那一下,數學在她眼裡變了。

她特別強調,這跟馬歇爾對她個人的關照無關,兩人之間沒有任何私下的鼓勵談話。起作用的是這位老師設計的那種協作體驗。老師改變一個孩子跟數學的關係,有時候什麼都不用說,只需要換一種上課的方式。

一個老師毀掉一個學生的提問習慣,另一個老師換來一個學生一生的數學關係。同一個行業,同樣四十五分鐘一節課。

你身邊的人,會決定你相信自己能做什麼

訪談快結束的時候,Lex 問她,對年輕人有什麼建議。

博勒先自嘲了一句,說接下來的話聽起來會很像雞湯:永遠相信自己,知道自己能夠達成。

然後她解釋為什麼這句話值得說。因為這個道理聽著像廢話,但現實是數以百萬計的孩子在學校系統裡被反覆告知自己不行。成年人也一樣,他們選擇某個職業的理由往往是“另外那些事我肯定做不好”。所以當有人對他們說“也許你可以試試那些”的時候,很多成年人的第一反應是:說不定真可以。然後他們回去重新學,換掉職業,事情真的發生了。

她提到科學家一直在找學習的上限。

找來找去,找不到。人可以一直往前推,再往前推。這個結論對那些出生時部分腦區功能不全、被歸為“特殊需求”的孩子同樣成立,其中一些人後來做成的事一樣驚人。

她說,希望所有人都能真正體驗到那種感覺。這話得真的知道,停在嘴上承認是不夠的。

Lex 在這裡補了一層,說得挺狠。他說這個道理在成功之後同樣適用,甚至更難。因為愛你的人會一直慶祝你已經取得的成功,他們希望你繼續做那件你已經被證明擅長的事,而不是支援你去做心裡真正想做的、風險更大的事。

他講了自己最近才真正意識到的一件事,說有點慚愧:年輕的時候,主動去找導師、去找那些會相信你的人、把自己放進這樣的圈子裡,這件事的價值被嚴重低估了。

很多人以為讀研就是“落到”一個導師手裡,選導師主要看研究方向。但真正決定一個人生命軌跡的,是他長期泡在誰中間。所以要主動挑那些相信你的人,也要遠離那些不相信你的人。

有時候這道坎來自父母。父母可以深愛你,同時在你身上設下一些限制性的信念,用的還是他們自己的經驗。博勒接過這句話,說得更直接:如果你對數學有興趣,而你父母對數學沒什麼興趣,那在這一件事上,別聽他們的。

她提到自己寫《Limitless Mind》時採訪過不少人,這些人小時候被父母或老師告知“你學不了數學”。幸運的是,他們在人生的某個節點遇到了別的說法,然後發現一整片數學思維的世界對自己是開著的。找到那些相信你的人,哪怕很難找,也要找。

Lex 在這裡說了一句總結性的話:一個人身邊站著誰,基本就決定了他會相信自己能做什麼。

關於未來,她保留了樂觀

最後一個問題:五十年、一百年之後的教育該是什麼樣子?

博勒說她有希望。教育系統的變化通常慢到顯微鏡級別,但她確實看見事情在動。資料科學進高中課表就是一個訊號,一門 1892 年定下來的課程體系,居然真的被撬開了一條縫。

她的想象是:也許學科邊界會消失,因為那些邊界本來就不太說得通。程式設計這類工具會深度嵌進所有事情裡。孩子們在學的過程中就在創造、在查證、在做東西。

她現在這套學校體系常被叫做工廠模式,那套設計裡從來沒有“激發創造力”這一項。她說,後人回頭看今天,可能會覺得挺好笑。

訪談的結尾,Lex 唸了一句愛因斯坦的話作為收束:純數學是邏輯思想的詩。

這句話放在整場對話的最後,位置挺合適。博勒花了一輩子做的事,就是把這句詩從論文和標準檔案裡撈出來,翻譯成七個小點、一支彩筆、一道能讓孩子坐上一小時的題、一句寫在作業本底下的“我相信你”。

她做的事情不宏大。她沒在重構整個教育系統,她在給老師發能明天就用的課,在給家長寫一頁說明,在告訴一個十七歲的女孩“你怎麼看這道題很重要”。但這些東西的連線處,恰恰是那個 1892 年至今沒怎麼動過的地方。

順帶說一個細節。她那門給孩子的小課只有六節、每節十五分鐘,總共不到兩小時,卻把學生的課堂投入度提了 68%。這個數字放在教育改革的大敘事裡顯得太輕,輕到不像能撬動什麼。可它說明了一件事:改變一個孩子跟數學的關係,需要的劑量可能遠比我們以為的小。真正稀缺的,是有人願意把那十五分鐘做得足夠好。

她自己也是這麼過來的。十七歲那年,馬歇爾老師沒跟她說任何一句鼓勵的話,只是把題目發下去,讓她跟朋友一起想。就這樣。

可以立刻做的幾件事

這期對話資訊密度很高,落到具體動作上,不同角色都有明確可執行的事。

  • 把複習方式換掉:別再靠重讀講解和例題。合上書,給自己出題,讓漏洞自己暴露出來。看著眼熟的那個“懂了”是假的,動手做一遍才知道。
  • 測一下自己的放棄閾值:拿一道真正難的題,計時,看你能撐多久。調查的平均值是兩分鐘。把專注當肌肉練,五分鐘、十分鐘、三十分鐘、一小時,這個長度是可以長出來的。
  • 如果你是老師:每週至少留一次一小時不被打斷的深度解題時間,哪怕只佔一節課。給學生一道夠深的問題,然後閉嘴。
  • 如果你想鼓勵一個學生:別做成印章,別做成牆上的標語。針對這個人、這件事,說具體的話,說“我給你這個反饋,因為我相信你能做到”,並且真的相信。孩子一直在收集證據,裝不出來。
  • 如果你是家長:如果你跟數學的關係很糟,就別陪寫數學作業。在孩子面前,裝也要裝出喜歡的樣子。開口說“我上學時數學也不好”之前,先想想那兩項研究。
  • 練一次群組化:七個點擺成圖形,看一眼就收走,問自己是怎麼分組的。換個擺法再來。這個練習從五歲到博士都管用,而且它能預測數學表現。
  • 把學到的講出去:寫一個視覺化的小程式、錄一段講解、給同學講一遍,都算。桑德森開源的 Python 動畫庫 Manim 就是幹這個用的。自己動手做一版,往往比再看十遍影片管用。
  • 挑你身邊的人:主動去找那些相信你能做成事的人,靠近他們。同時把那些反覆告訴你“你不行”的聲音調小,哪怕那聲音來自最愛你的人。

最後一句留給那位差點被一句反問關上門的十七歲女孩。她後來成了斯坦福的教授,靠一件事改變了成千上萬個老師和學生跟數學的關係:把題目發下去,然後讓孩子們互相討論。

這件事沒有門檻。任何一個教室裡,明天就能做。

文稿來自公開 Kaggle 資料集(rajneesh231/lex-fridman-podcast-transcript),為早期自動轉錄存檔,可能存在識別錯誤。
The following is a conversation with Jo Bowler, a mathematics educator at Stanford and co founder of ucubed.org that seeks to inspire young minds with the beauty of mathematics. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. This is the Lex Friedman podcast and here is my conversation with Jo Bowler. What to you is beautiful about mathematics? I love a mathematics that some people don't even think of as mathematics, which is beautiful, creative mathematics, where we look at maths in different ways, we visualize it, we think about different solutions to problems. A lot of people think of maths as you have one method and one answer. And what I love about maths is the multiple different ways you can see things, different methods, different ways of seeing different. In some cases, different solutions. So that is what is beautiful to me about mathematics, that you can see and solve it in many different ways. And also the sad part that many people think that maths is just one answer and one method. So to you, the beauty emerges when you have a problem with a solution and you start adding other solutions, simpler solutions, weirder solutions, more interesting, some of their visual, some of their algebraic, geometry, all that kind of stuff. Yeah, I mean, I always say that you can take any maths area and make it visual. And we say to teachers, give us your most dry, boring maths and we'll make it a visual, interesting, creative problem. And it turns out you can do that with any area of maths. And I think we've given, it's been a great disservice to kids and others that it's always been numbers, lots and lots of numbers. Numbers can be great, but you can think about maths in other ways besides numbers. Do you find that most people are better visual learners or is this just something that's complimentary? What's the kind of the full spectrum of students in the way they like to explore maths, would you say? There's definitely people who come into the classes I do who are more interested in visual thinking and like visual approaches. But it turns out what the neuroscience is telling us is that when we think about maths, there are two visual pathways in the brain and we should all be thinking about it visually. Some approaches have been to say, well, you're a visual learner, so we'll give you visuals and you're not a visual learner. But actually, if you think you're not a visual learner, it's probably more important that you have a visual approach. So you can develop that part of your brain. So you were saying that there's some kind of interconnected aspect to it. So the visual connects with the non visual. Yeah, so this is what the neuroscience has shown us that when you work on a maths problem, there are five different brain pathways and that the most high achieving people in the world are people who have more connections between these pathways. So if you see a maths problem with numbers, but you also see it visually, that will cause a connection to happen in your brain between these pathways. And if you maybe write about it with words, that would cause another connection or maybe you build it with something physical that would cause a different connection. And what we want for kids is we call it a multi dimensional experience of maths, seeing it in different ways, experiencing it in different ways, that will cause that great connected brain. You know, there's these stories of physicists doing the same. I find physicists are often better at building that part of their brain of using visualization for intuition building, because you ultimately want to understand the like the deepest secret underneath this problem. And for that, you have to intuit your way there. And you mentioned offline that one of the ways you might approach a problem is to try to tell a story about it. And some of it is like legend, but I'm sure it's not always is, you know, you have Einstein thinking about a train, you know, and the speed of light and you know, that kind of intuition is useful. You start to like imagine a physical world, like how does this idea manifest itself in the physical world? And then start playing in your mind with that physical world and think, is this going to be true? Is this going to be true? Right. Einstein is well known for thinking visually. And people talk about how he really didn't want to go anywhere with problems without thinking about them visually. But the other thing you mentioned that sparked something for me is thinking with intuition, like having intuition about math problems. That's another thing that's often absent in math class, the idea that you might think about a problem and use your intuition, but so important. And when mathematicians are interviewed, they will very frequently talk about the role of intuition in solving problems, but not commonly acknowledged or brought into education. Yeah, I mean, that's what it is. Like if you task yourself with building an intuition about a problem, that's where you start to pull in, like what is the pattern I'm seeing? In order to understand the pattern, you might want to then start utilizing visualization. But ultimately, that's all in service of like solving the puzzle, like cracking it open to get the simple explanation of why things are wrong. Why things are the way they are, as opposed to, like you said, having a particular algorithm that you can then execute to solve the problem. Yeah, but it's hard. It's hard, like reasoning is really hard. Yeah, it's hard. I mean, I love to value what's hard in maths instead of being afraid of it. We know that when you struggle, that's actually a really good time for your brain. You want to be struggling when you're thinking about things. So if it's hard to think intuitively about something, that's probably a really good time for your brain. I used to work with somebody called Sebastian Thrun, who is a great sort of mathematician, you might think of him, AI person. And I remember in one interview I did with him, he talked about how they'd built robots, I think for the Smithsonian, and how they were having this trouble with them picking up white noise. And he said they had to solve it. They had to work out what's going on and how he intuitively worked out what the problem was. But then it took him three weeks to show it mathematically. I thought that was really interesting that how you can have this intuition and know something works. It's kind of different from going through that long mathematical process of proving it, but so important. Yeah, I think probably our brains are evolved as like intuition machines and the math of like showing it like formally is probably an extra thing that we're not designed for. You see that with Feynman and his, I mean, it just, all of these physicists, definitely you see starting with intuition, sometimes starting with an experiment and then the experiment inspires intuition. But you can think of an experiment as a kind of visualization. Just like let's take whatever the heck we're looking at and draw it and draw like the pattern as it evolves, as the thing grows for N equals one, for N equals two, N equals three, you start to play with it. And then in the modern day, which I loved doing is, you can write a program that then visualizes it for you. And then you can start exploring it programmatically. And then you can do so interactively too. I tend to not like interactive because it takes way too much work because you have to click and move and stuff. I love to interact through writing programs, but that's my particular brain, software engineer. So like you can do all these kinds of visualizations and then there's the tools of visualization, like color, all of those kinds of things that you're absolutely right. They're actually not taught very much. Like the art of visualization. Not taught. And we love as well color coding. Like when you represent something mathematically, you can show color to show the growth and kind of code that. So if I have an algebraic expression for a pattern, maybe I show the X with a certain color, but also write in that color so you can see the relationship. Very cool. And yeah, particularly in our work with elementary teachers, many of them come to our workshops and they're literally in tears when they see things making sense visually because they've spent their whole lives not realizing you can really understand things with these visuals. It's quite powerful. You say that there's something valuable to learning when the thing that you're doing is challenging, is difficult. So a lot of people say math is hard or math is too hard or too hard for me. Do you think math should be easy or should it be hard? I think it's great when things are challenging, but there's something that's really key to being able to deal with challenging maths and that is knowing that you can do it. And I think the problem in education is a lot of people have got this idea that you're either born with a maths brain or you're not. So when they start to struggle, they think, oh, I don't have that maths brain. And then they will literally sort of switch off in their brain and things will go downhill from that point. So struggle becomes a lot easier and you're able to struggle if you don't have that idea, but you know that you can do it. You have to go through this struggle to get there, but you're able to do that. And so we're hampered in being able to struggle with these ideas we've been given about what we can do. Can I ask a difficult question here? Yeah. So there's kind of, I don't know what the right term is, but some people struggle with learning in different ways, like their brain is constructed in different ways. And how much should, as educators, should we make room for that? So how do you know the difference between this is hard and I don't like doing hard things versus my brain is wired in a way where I need to learn in very different ways. I can't learn it this way. How do you find that line? How do you operate in that gray area? So this is why being a teacher is so hard and people really don't appreciate how difficult teaching is when you're faced with, I don't know, 30 students who think in different ways. So, but this is also why I believe it's so important to have this multi dimensional approach to maths. We've really offered it in one way, which is here's some numbers in a method. You follow me, do what I just did and then reproduce it. And so there are some kids who like doing that and they do well. And a lot of kids who don't like doing it and don't do well. But when you open up maths and you give, you let kids experience it in different ways, maybe visually with numbers, with words. What happens is kids, there are many more kids who can access it. So those different brain wirings you're talking about, where some people are just more able to do something in a particular way. That's why we want to, that's one of the reasons we want to open it up so that there are different ways of accessing it. And then that's not really a problem. So I grew up in the Soviet Union and fell in love with math early. I was forced into math early and fell in love through force. That's good. Well, good that you fell in love about the force. Well, but something we talked about a little bit is there is such a value for excellence. It's competitive and it's also everybody kind of looks up the definition of success is being in a particular class is being really good at it. And like, it's not improving. It's like being really good. I mean, we are much more like that with sports, for example. We're not, it's like, it's understood, you're going to star on the basketball team if you're gonna start on the basketball team if you're going to be better than the other guys, the other girls on the team. So that coupled with the belief, this could be partially a communist belief, I don't know, but the belief that everybody is capable of being great. But if you're not great, that's your fault and you need to work harder. And I remember I had a sense that probably delusional, but I could win a Nobel prize. I don't even know what that entails. But I thought, like my dad early on told me just offhand and it always stuck with me that if you can figure out how to build a time machine, how to travel back in time, it will probably give you a Nobel prize. And I remember early in my life thinking I'm going to invent the time machine. And like the tools of mathematics were in service of that dream of winning the Nobel prize. It's silly. I didn't really think in those concrete terms, but I just thought I could be great at feeling. And then when you struggle, the belief that you could be great is like, struggle is good. Right, pushes you on, yeah. And so the other thing about the Soviet system that I'd love to hear your comments about is just the sheer like hours of math. Like the number of courses, you're talking about a lot of geometry, a lot more geometry. I think in the American system, you take maybe one year of geometry. In high school, yeah. In high school. First of all, geometry is beautiful, it's visual. And then you get to reason through proofs and stuff like that. In Russia, I remember just being nailed over and over with geometry. It was just nonstop. And then of course there's different perspectives on calculus and just the whole, the sense was that math is like fundamental to the development of the human mind. So math, but also science and literature, by the way, was also hit very hard. Like we read a lot of serious adult stuff. America does that a little bit too. They challenge young adults with good literature, but they don't challenge adults very much with math. So those two things, valuing excellence and just a lot of math in the curriculum. Do you think, do you find that interesting? Because it seems to have been successful. Yeah, I think that's very interesting. And there is a lot of success, people coming through the Soviet system. I think something that's very different to the US and other countries in the world is that idea that excellence is important and you can get there if you work hard. In the US, there's an idea that excellence is important, but then kids are given the idea in many ways that you can either do it or you're one of the people who can't. So many students in the school system think they're one of the kids who can't. So there's no point in trying hard because you're never going to get there. So if you can switch that idea, it would be huge. And it seems from what you've said that in the Soviet Union, that idea is really different. Now, the downside of that idea that anybody can get there if you work hard is that thought that if you're not getting there, it's your fault. And I would add something into that. I would say that anybody can get there, but they need to work hard and they also need good teaching because there are some people who really can't get there because they're not given access to that good teaching. So, but that would be huge, that change. As to doing lots of maths, if maths was interesting and open and creative and multi dimensional, I would be all for it. We actually run summer camps at Stanford where we invite kids in and we give them this maths that I love. And in our camp classrooms, they were three hours long. And when we were planning, the teachers were like three hours, are we going to be able to keep the kids excited for three hours? Turned out they didn't want to go to break or lunch. They'd be so into these mathematical patterns. We couldn't stop them. It was amazing. So yeah, if maths was more like that, then I think having more of it would be a really good thing. So what age are you talking about? Is there, could you comment on what age is like the most important when people quit math or give up on themselves or on math in general? And perhaps that age or something earlier is really an important moment for them to discover, to be inspired to discover the magic of math. I think a lot of kids start to give up on themselves and maths around from about fifth grade. And then those middle school years are really important. And fifth grade can be pivotal for kids just because they're allowed to explore and think in good ways in the early grades of elementary school. But fifth grade teachers are often like, okay, we're going to prepare you now for middle school and we're going to give you grades and lots of tests. And that's when kids start to feel really badly about themselves. And so middle school years, our camps are middle school students. We think of those years as really pivotal. Many kids in those years are deciding, yes, I'm going to keep going with STEM subjects or no, I'm not, that this isn't for me. So, I mean, all years are important and in all years you can kind of switch kids and get them on a different pathway. But I think those middle school years are really important. So what's the role of the teacher in this? So one is the explanation of the subject, but do you think teachers should almost do like one on one, you know, little Johnny, I believe in you kind of thing? Like that energy of like. Turns out it's really important. There's a study that was done, it was actually done in high school English classrooms where all kids wrote an essay for their teacher. And this was done as an experiment. Half of the kids got feedback from their teacher, diagnostic feedback, which is great. But for half of the kids, it said an extra sentence at the bottom that the researchers had put on. And the kids who read that extra sentence did significantly better in English a whole year later. The only change was this one sentence. What did the sentence say? So what did the sentence say? The sentence said, I'm giving you this feedback because I believe in you. And the kids who read that did better a year later. Yeah. So when I share this with teachers, I say, you know, I'm not suggesting you put on the bottom of all kids work. I'm giving this feedback because I believe in you. One of the teachers said to me, we don't put it on a stamp. So now there's a whole K8 set of books and they're organized in that way. These are the big ideas. Here are rich, deep activities. They're not though what you can do every day for a year. So some teachers use them as a kind of supplement to their boring textbook. And some people have said, okay, this is the year. This book tells us what the year is and then we'll supplement these big activities with. So they're being used and teachers really like them and are really happy about them. I just always want more. And I guess one of the things I would like for YouCubed, one of my personal goals is that every teacher of maths knows about YouCubed. At the moment, lots of teachers who come to us are really happy they found it but there's a lot of other teachers who don't know that it exists. I hope this helps. Yeah. From a student perspective and not in the classroom but at home studying, is there some advice you can give on how to best study mathematics? So what's the role of the student outside the classroom? Yeah, I think one thing we know is a lot of people when they review material, whether it's maths or anything else, don't do it in the best way. I think a problem a lot of people have is they read through maybe a teacher's explanation or a way of doing maths and it makes sense. And they think, oh yeah, I've got that. And they move on. But then it's not until you come to try and work on something and do a problem that you actually realize you didn't really understand it, just seemed to make sense. So I would say, this is also something that neuroscientists talk about, to keep giving yourself questions is a really good way to study. Rather than looking through lots of material, it's always like giving yourself lots of tests is a good way to actually deeply understand things and know what you do and you don't understand. So would the questions be in the form of the material you're reviewing is the answer to that question? Or is it almost like beyond, it's the polygon thing they mentioned for a square. Is it almost like, I wonder what is the bigger picture? I was kind of asking like, how is this extended and so on? Yeah, that would be great. And it's a similar, I mean, a question I get asked a lot is about homework. What is a good thing for kids to do for homework? And one of the recommendations I give is to not have kids just do lots of questions for homework, but to actually ask them to reflect on what they've learned. Like, what was the big idea you learned today? Or what did you find difficult? What did you struggle with? What was something that was exciting? Then kids go home and they have to kind of reflect in a deeper way. A lot of times, I don't know if you had this experience as a math student, lots of people do. Kids are going through math questions, they're successful, they get them right, but they don't even really know what they're about. And a lot of kids go through many years of maths like that, doing lots of questions, but that really knowing what even the topic is or what it's about, what it's important for. So having students go back and think at the end of a day, what was the big idea from this maths lesson? Why is it important? Where would I find that in real life? Those are really good questions for kids to be thinking about. It's probably for everybody to be thinking about. I think most of us go through life never asking the bigger question, always those layers of why questions that kids ask when they're very young. We need to keep doing that. Like whatever the term is, you call first principles thinking, some people call it that, which is like, why are we doing it this way? So one nice thing is to do that because there's usually a good answer. The reason we did it this way is because it works for this reason. But then if you want to do something totally novel, you'll say, well, we've been doing it this way because of historical reasons, but really this is not the best way to do it. There might be other ways. And that's how invention happens. And then you get, that's really useful in every aspect of life, like choosing your career, choosing your, I don't know, where you live, who your romantic partner is, like everything. Everything, yeah. And I think it probably starts doing that in math class. That would be good if we started doing that. I mean, I wonder, I probably didn't do very much of that for most of my education, asking why, except for later, much later in the subjects on grad school when you're doing research on them. When you're first tasked with doing something novel using this or solving a problem really outside the classroom, they have to publish on it. It's the first time you think, wait, why are these things interesting, useful? Which are the things that are useful? And yeah, I guess that would be nice if we did that much earlier, the quest of invention. Yeah, yeah, I mean, one of the sad pieces of research data I think about is the questions kids ask in school goes down like in a linear progression from, in the early years, you can't stop kids asking those questions, but they learn not to ask the questions. I think you told somewhere about an early memory you had in your own education where you asked the question, or maybe that was an example you gave, but it was shut down. Oh, yeah. You've listened to something I said, yeah. I don't remember where it was, but it caught me. Yeah, I remember it really vividly. Or can you tell the memory? Yeah, I was, it's funny, I can remember. It must've really impacted me in that moment because you know how there's lots of hours of school you don't remember at all, but anyway, I can remember where I was sitting and everything. I was in a high school maths class, although they don't call it that in England, and the teacher said, and it was like the first class of this teacher's class, and he said, ask if you have any questions. So at one point I put my hand up and I said, I have a question, and he said something like, that's your question? And I was like, oh, okay, I'm not asking any more questions in this class. And that hit hard in a way where you didn't wanna, the lesson you learn from that is I'm not gonna ask. Yeah, that was absolutely the last question I'm asking. And that was, yeah, he was the chair of the maths department. I remember that really well. So maybe because of that experience, one of the things we encourage when we teach kids is asking questions, and we value it when they ask questions and we put them up on walls and celebrate. It's funny because I wish there was a feedback signal because he probably, to put a positive spin on it, he probably didn't realize the negative impact he's had in that moment, right? If he only knew, see, this is probably when you're more mature in grad school. I had an amazing professor named Ali Shakafande in computer science, and he would get, he would encourage questions, but then he would tell everybody how dumb their questions are. But it was done, I guess if you show, if you say it with love and respect behind it, then it's more like a friendly, humorous encouragement for more questions. Yeah, it's an art, right, to do it, to write. And then you have to time it right because that kind of humor is probably better for when you're in grad school versus when you're in the early education. Right. Well, and I guess kids or young people get whether somebody's doing it to be funny or, you know, I mean, this is why teaching is so hard. Even your tone can be impactful. It's so sad because for that particular human, the teacher, you just had a bad day, and one statement can have a profound negative impact. I know, sadly, that there's a lot of maths teachers who have that kind of approach, and I think they're suffering from the fact that they think people are math people, not math people, and that comes across in their teaching. But on the flip side, one positive statement. Yeah. Keep them going. That's right. That is the flip side of that. And I myself had one teacher who was really amazing for me in maths, and she kept me in the subject. I probably wouldn't have left it. Who was she? She was, her name was Mrs. Marshall. And she was my A level maths teacher. So I was in England. You do lots of subjects till you're 16, and then you choose like three or four subjects. So I had chosen maths, and you go to higher levels, probably equivalent more to a master's degree in the US because you're more specialized. But anyways, she was my teacher, and for the first time in my whole career in maths, she would give us problems and tell us to talk about them with each other. And so here I was sitting there at like 17, talking with friends about how to solve a math problem, and that was it. That was the change that she made, but it was profound for me because like those calculus students, I started to hear other people's ways of thinking and seeing it, and we would talk together and come up with solutions. And I was like, that was it. That changed maths for me. It wasn't some kind of personal interaction with her. It was more like she was the catalyst for that collaborative experience. I mean, yeah, the many ways teachers can inspire kids. I mean, sometimes it's a personal message, but it can be your teaching approach that changes maths for kids. You know, Cal Newport, he wrote a book called Deep Work, and he's a mathematician, a theoretical computer scientist, and he talks about the kind of the focus required to do that kind of work. Is there something you can comment on? You know, we live in a world full of distractions. That seems like one of the elements that makes studying, and especially the studying of subjects that require thinking like maths does, difficult. Is there something from a student perspective, from a teacher perspective that encourages deep work that you can comment on? Yeah, I think giving kids really inspiring deep problems, and we have some on our website, is a really important experience for them. Even if they only do it occasionally, but it's really important. They actually realise, I do, I give a problem out often when I'm working with teachers, and I say to them, all right, I'm gonna check in with you after an hour. And they're like, an hour? They think it's shocking. And then they work on this problem, and after an hour, I say, okay, how are we doing? They're like, an hour's gone by? How is this possible? And so everybody needs those like rich deep problems. Most kids go through their whole maths experience of however many years, never once working on a problem in that kind of deep way. So the undergrad class I teach at Stanford, we do that. We work on these deep problems every session. And the students come away going, okay, I never wanna go back to that maths relationship I had where it was just all about quick answers. I just don't wanna go back to that. And so we can all, all teachers can incorporate those problems in their classrooms. Maybe they don't do them every day, but they at least give kids some experience of being able to work slowly and deeply and to go to deeper places and not be told they've got five minutes to finish 20 questions. Well, part of it is also just the exercise of sitting there and maintaining focus for prolonged periods of time. That's not often, I mean, that's a skill. It's a skill that also could be discouraging. Like if you don't practice it, just sitting down for 10 minutes straight and maintaining deep focus could be exceptionally challenging. Like if you're really thinking about a problem and I think it's really important to realize that that's a skill that you can just like a muscle, you can build, you can start with five minutes and goes to 10 minutes to 30 and to an hour. And to be successful, I think in certain subjects like mathematics, you wanna be able to develop that skill. Otherwise you're not going to get to the really rewarding experience of solving these problems. Definitely. There was a survey done of kids in school where they were asked, how long will you work on a maths problem before you give up and decide it's not possible to solve it? And the result on average across the kids was two minutes. Yeah, that's a bad sign, but that was a powerful sign that they need to learn to not give up so quickly. Yeah, we mentioned offline because we've been talking so much about visualization, Grant Sanderson, Three Blue One Brown. So he's inspired millions of people with exactly the kind of way of thinking that you've been talking about. Yeah, I love his work. Converting sort of mathematical concepts into visual, like visually representing them, exploring them in ways that help you illuminate like the concepts. What do you think is the role of that? So he uses mostly programmatic visualization. So it's the thing I mentioned where there's like animations created by writing computer programs. Like what do you think, how scalable is that approach? But in general, what do you think about his approach? I think it's amazing. I should work with him. I can share some of our visuals and he can make them in that amazing way. So part of his storytelling, part of it is creating the visuals and then weaving a story with those visuals that kind of builds, like there's also, I mean, there's also drama in it. You start with a small example and then you kind of, all of a sudden there's a surprise. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And it really, I mean, it makes you fall in love with the concept. He does talk about that. His sense is like some of the stuff, he doesn't feel like he's teaching like the core curriculum, which is something, he sees himself as an inspirational figure. But because I think it's too difficult to kind of convert all of the curriculum into those elements. And probably you don't need to. I mean, if people get to experience mathematical ideas in the way that he shares them, that will change them. And it will change the way they think. And maybe they could go on to take some other mathematical idea and make it that beautiful. Well, he does that. He created a library called Manim and he open sourced it. And that library is the, people should check it out. It's written in Python and it uses some of those same elements. Like it allows you to animate equations and animate little shapes. Like people that, you know, he has a very distinct style in his videos and what that resulted in, even though from a software engineer perspective, the code he released is not like super well documented or perfect, but him releasing that, now there's all of these people educating it. And the cool, to me personally, the coolest thing is to see like people they're not, you know, don't have like a million subscribers or something is they have just a few views in the video, but it just seems like the process of them creating a video where they teach is like transformative to them from a student perspective. It's the old Feynman thing, the best way to learn is to teach. And then him releasing that into the wild is, it shows that that impact. Yeah, absolutely. I think just giving people that idea that you can do that with maths and other subjects, there's bound to be people all around who can create more, which is cool. Yeah, definitely. So I recommend that people do like JavaScript or Python. You can build like visualizations of most concepts in high school math. You can do a lot of kinds of visualizations and doing that yourself. Plus, if you do that yourself, people will really love it. People actually, people love visualizations of math. Cause they, I mean, it's something in us that loves patterns, loves figuring out difficult things and the patterns in there then are unexpected in some way. Yeah. Have you ever noticed that hotels are always filled with patterns? I was just noticing at the hotel I'm in now, all of their carpets are pattern carpets and then they have patterns on the walls. Yeah. So, yeah. We humans love the symmetry and patterns, the breaking of symmetry and patterns. Yeah. And then it's funny that we don't see mathematics as somehow intricately connected to that, but it is, right? I mean, that's one of the perspectives that I love students to take is to be a pattern seeker. In everything. In, yeah, certainly in all of maths. I mean, you can think of all of maths as a kind of subject of patterns and not just visual patterns, but, you know, when you think about multiplying by five and the fact you can, you know, if you're multiplying 18 times five, you can instead think of nine times 10. That's a pattern that always works in mathematics. You can halve a number and double a number. And so, yeah, I just think there are patterns everywhere. And if kids are thinking their role is to see patterns and find patterns, it's really exciting. What do you think about like MIT OpenCourseWare and the release of lectures by universities? I think it's good. I think it's good. I think that is what started the MOOC I did was using that platform. So you ultimately think like the Udacity models is a little bit more effective than just a plain two hour lecture. I think there's definitely, you can bring in good pedagogy into online learning. And I think the idea of putting things online so that people all over the world can access them is great. I don't think the initial excitement around MOOCs sort of democratizing education and make it more equal came about because they found that the people taking MOOCs tended to be the more privileged people. So that was, I think there's still something to be found in that there's still more to be done to help that online learning reach those principles. But definitely, I think it's a good invention. And I have an online class that's for kids, that's a little free class that gives them. What's the topic? It's called How to Learn Maths. How to Learn Maths. It shows maths as this visual creative subject and it shares mindset and some brain science and kids who take it do better in maths class. We've studied it with like randomized controlled trials and given it to middle school kids and other middle school kids who don't take it but are taught by the same teachers. So their teachers are the same. And the kids who take the online class end up 68% more engaged in their maths class and do better at the end of the year. So that's a little six session, 15 minute class and it changes kids maths relationships. So it is true that we can do that with some words that aren't, it's not a huge change to the education system. Do you have advice for young people? We've been talking about mathematics quite a bit but in terms of their journey through education, through their career choices, through life, maybe middle school, high school, undergrad students, of how to live a life they can be proud of? I think if I were to give advice to people, especially young people, my advice would be to always, it sounds really corny, but always believe in yourself and know that you can achieve because although that sounds like obvious, of course we want kids to know that they can achieve things. I know that millions of kids who are in the school system have been given the message, they cannot do things. And adults too, they have the idea, oh, I did okay in this, I went into this job because those other things I could never have done okay in. So actually when they hear, hey, maybe you could do those other things. Even adults think, maybe I can. And they go back and they encounter this knowledge and they relearn things and they change careers and amazing things happen. So for me, I think that message is really important. You can learn anything. Scientists try and find a limit. They're always trying to find a limit, like how much can you really learn? What's the limit to how much you can learn? And they always come away not being able to find it. People can just go further and further and further. And that is true of people born with brain, areas of their brain that aren't functioning well that have what we call special needs. Some of those people also go on to develop and do amazing things. So I think that really experiencing that, knowing that feeling, not just saying it, but knowing it deeply, you can learn anything is something I wish all people would have. Actually also applies when you've achieved some level of success too. What I find, like in my life with people that love me, when you achieve success, they keep celebrating your success and they want you to keep doing the thing that you were successful at, as opposed to believing in that you can do something else, something big, whatever your heart says to do. And one of the things that I realized the value of this, quite recently, which is sad to say, is how important it is to seek out, when you're younger, to seek out mentors, to seek out the people, surround yourself with people that will believe in you. It's like a little bit is on you. It's like, you don't get that sometimes if you go to grad school, you think you kind of land on a mentor, maybe you pick a mentor based on the topic they're interested in. But the reality is the people you surround yourself with, they're going to define your life trajectory. So select people that believe in you. And get away from people who don't believe in you. Sometimes parents can be that, they can love you deeply, but they set, it's the math thing we mentioned, they might set certain constraints on the beliefs that you have. And so in that, if you're interested in mathematics, and your parents are not that interested in it, don't listen to your parents on that one dimension. Exactly. Yeah, and if people tell you you can't do things, you have to hear from other people who believe in you. I think you're absolutely right about that. So sad the number of people who've had those negative messages from parents. In my Limitless Mind book, I interviewed quite a few people who'd been told they couldn't do math, sometimes by parents, sometimes by teachers. And fortunately, they had got other ideas at some point in their life, and realized there was this whole world of mathematical thinking that was open to them. So it's really important that people do connect with people who believe in them, however hard that might be to find those people. What do you hope the education system, education in general, looks like 10, 20, 50, 100 years from now? Are you optimistic about this future? Yeah, I definitely have hope. There is, change can happen in the education system. In recent years, it's been microscopically slow. But I do actually see change happening. We were talking earlier that data science is now a course you can take in high school instead of algebra two. And that's pretty amazing because that content was set out in 1892 and hasn't changed since then. And so now we're actually seeing a change in the content of high school. So I'm amazed that that's happening and very happy it's happening. So change is very slow in education usually, but when you look ahead and think about all that we know, and all that we can offer kids in terms of technology, you've got to think that 100 years from now, education will be totally different to the way it is now. Maybe we won't have subject boundaries anymore because those don't really make much sense. And it's interesting to think how certain tools like programming, maybe they'll be deeply integrated in everything we do. Yeah, you would think that all kids are growing up learning to program and create. So I just think, I mean, the system of schooling we have now, people call it a factory model. It's not designed to inspire creativity. And I feel like that will also change. People might look back on these days and think they were hilarious, but maybe we'll in the future, kids will be doing their own programming and they'll be able to learn things and find out things and create things even as they're learning. And maybe the individual subject boundaries will go. Data science itself coming into the education system kind of illustrates that because people realize it doesn't really fit inside any of the subjects. So what do we do with it? Where does it go and who teaches it? So it's already raising those kind of questions and questioning how we have these different subject boundaries. So you've seen data science be integrated into the curriculum? Yes, it's happening across the United States as we speak. I wonder how they got initiated. Like how does change happen in the education system? Is it just a few revolutionary leaders? It does, I think so. I think so. It's been an interesting journey seeing data science take off actually. There was a course that was developed in 2014 by some people who thought data science was a good idea for high schoolers. And then after some kids took the course and nothing bad happened to them, they went to college and people started to accept it more. And then this was a big piece of the change in California. The UC system communicated. They sent out an email last year, the 50,000 high schools saying, we now accept data science. Kids can take it instead of algebra two. That's a perfectly legitimate college pathway. So that was like a big green light for a lot of schools who were like wondering about whether they could teach it. So I think it happens in small spaces and expands. It goes viral. Yeah. In this modern age. Then it goes viral. California's ahead, I think in creating courses and having kids go through it, but it's suddenly, when I last looked, there were 12 states that were allowing data science as a high school course. And I think by next year, that will have doubled or more. So change is happening. Joe, as I said, I think mathematics is truly a beautiful subject. And you having an impact on millions of people and you having an impact on millions of people's lives by educating them, by inspiring teachers to educate in the ways that you've talked about in multidimensional ways, in visual ways, I think is incredible. So you're spreading beauty into the world. So I really, really appreciate that you spend your valuable time with me today. Thank you for talking. Thank you. It was really good to talk to you. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Joe Boller. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now let me leave you with some words from Albert Einstein. Pure mathematics is the poetry of logical ideas. Thanks for listening and hope to see you next time. I said, no, don't put it on a stamp. It's, but your words are really important. And kids are sitting in classrooms all the time thinking, what does my teacher think of me? Does my teacher think I can do this? So it turns out it is really important to be saying to kids, I know you can do this. And those messages are not given enough by teachers. And really believe it. And believe it. Yeah, it's like. You can't just say it, you have to believe it. I sometimes, cause it's like, it's such a funny dance, cause I'm almost such a perfectionist. I'm extremely self critical. And I have one of the students come up to me and it's clear to me that they're not even close to good. And it's tempting for me to be like, to sort of give up on them mentally. But the reality is like, if you look at many great people throughout history, they sucked at some point. Yeah, exactly. And some of the greatest took nonlinear paths to where they sucked for long into later life. And so always kind of believing that this person can be great. Exactly. You have to communicate that, plus the fact that they have to work hard. That's it, yeah. Yeah, and you're right. Silicon Valley where I live is filled with people who are dropouts at school, or who had special needs, who didn't succeed. It's very interesting that have gone on to do amazing work in creative ways. I mean, I do think our school system is set up to value good memorizers who can reproduce what a teacher is showing them, and push away those creative deep thinkers, often slower thinkers, they think slowly and deeply. And they often get the idea early on that they can't be good at maths or other subjects. So yeah, I think many of those people are the ones who go on and do amazing things. So there's a guy named Eric Weinstein. I know many mathematicians like this, but he talks a lot about having a nonstandard way of learning. I mean, a lot of great mathematicians, a lot of great physicists are like that. And he felt like he became quickly, he got his PhD at Harvard, became quickly an outcast of the system. Like the education, especially early education system, didn't help him. Is there ways for an education system to support people like that? Is it this kind of multidimensional learning that you mentioned? Absolutely, absolutely. I mean, I think education system still uses an approach that was in classrooms hundreds of years ago. The textbooks have a lot to answer for in producing this very uninspiring mathematics. But yeah, if you open up the subject and have people see and solve it in different ways, and value those different ways. Somebody I appreciated a lot is a mathematician called Mary Mizikani. I don't know if you've heard of her. She won the Fields Medal. She was from Iran. First woman in the world to win the Fields Medal in mathematics. She died when she was 40. She was at Stanford. But her work was entirely visual. And she talked about how her daughter thought she was an artist because she was always visualizing. And I attended, she asked me to chair the PhD defense for one of her students. And I went to the defense in the math department. And it was so interesting because this young woman spent like two hours sharing her work. All of it was visual. In fact, I don't think I saw any numbers at all. That's awesome. And I remember that day thinking, wow, I could have brought her like 13 year old into this PhD defense. They would not recognize this as maths. But when Maryam Izzakhani won the Fields Medal, all these other mathematicians were saying that her work had connected all these previously unconnected areas of maths. And so, but when she was, she also shared that when she was in school, when she was about 13, she was told that she couldn't do maths. She was told that by her teacher. Is this is Iran? She grew up in Iran. In Iran, yeah. So I love that. To be told you can't be good at maths and then go on and win the Fields Medal is cool. I've been told by a lot of people in my life that I can't do something. I'm very, definitely nonstandard. But all it takes, that's why people talk about like the one teacher that changed everything. That's right. All it takes is one teacher. That's right. That's the power of that. So that's like, that should be inspiring to teachers. I think it is. You as a single person, given the education system, given the incentives, you have the power to truly change lives. And like 20 years from now, I feel as a medalist will walk up to you and say thank you. Yeah, so you did that for me. Yeah, absolutely. And I share that with teachers that even in this broken system of what they have to do for districts and textbooks, a single teacher can change kids maths relationship or other subjects forever. What's the role of the parents in this picture? Let's go to another difficult subject. Yeah, that is a difficult subject. One study found that the amount of maths anxiety parents had predicted their child's achievement in school, but only if they helped with homework. So... Oh, that's so funny. There are some interesting implications for this. I mean, you can see how it works. If you have maths anxiety and you're helping your kids with homework, you're probably communicating things like, oh, I was terrible at this at school. And that's how it gets passed on to kids. So one implication is if you have a really bad relationship with maths, you hate maths, you have maths anxiety, just don't do maths homework with your kids. But we have on our website, we have a little sheet for parents of ways to interact around maths with your kids and... That's ucubed.org. That's ucubed.org, yes. So one of the things I say to parents when I give parent presentations is even if you hate maths, you need to just fake it with your kids. You should be always endlessly optimistic and happy about doing maths. And... I'm always curious about this. So I hope to have kids one day. I don't have kids currently. Are parents okay with like sucking at maths and then trying to get their kid to be better than them essentially? Like, is that difficult thing for a lot of parents? It is difficult. To have like, it's almost like an ego thing. Like, I never got good at this and I probably should have. And yeah, I mean, to me, you wanna celebrate that, but I know a lot of people struggle with that. Like coaches in sports, to make an athlete become better than them, it can be hard on the ego. Yeah. So do you experience the same with parents too? I think, I mean, I haven't experienced parents worrying that their kids will be better than them. I have experienced... I have experienced parents just having a really bad relationship with maths and not wanting to help, not knowing how to help, saying things. Like another study showed that when mothers say to their daughters, I was bad at maths in school, their daughter's achievement goes down. So we know that kids pick up on these messages and which is why I say you should fake it. But also I know that lots of people have just had a really bad relationship with maths, even successful people. The undergrads I teach at Stanford have pretty much always done well in maths, but they come to Stanford thinking maths is a set of methods to memorize. And so, so do many parents believe that. There's one method that you memorize and then you reproduce it. So until people have really had an experience of what I think of as the other maths, well, until they've really seen that it's a really different subject, it's hard for them to be able to shift their kids to see it differently. Is there for a teacher, if we were to like systematize it, is there something teachers can do to do this more effectively? So you mentioned the textbook. Yeah. So what are the additional things you can add on top of this whole old school traditional way of teaching that can improve the process? So I do think there's a way of teaching maths that changes everything for kids and teachers. So I'm one of five writers of a new framework for the state of California, a new maths framework. It's coming out next year. And we are recommending through this maths framework that people teach in this way. It's called teaching to big ideas. So at the moment, people have standards that have been written, and then textbooks have taken these standards and made not very good questions. And if you look at the standards, like I have some written down here, just reading the standards, it makes maths seem really boring and uninspiring. What are the kind of, can you give a few examples? So this is an interesting example. In third grade, there are three different standards about unit squares. Okay. So this is one of them. A square with side length one unit, called a unit square, is said to have one square unit of area and can be used to measure area. And that's something you're expected to learn? That is something, so that's a standard. The textbook authors say, oh, I'm gonna make a question about that. And they translate the standards into narrow questions. And then you measure success by your ability to deliver on these standards. So the standards themselves, I think of maths and many people think of maths in this way as a subject of like a few big ideas and really important connections between them. So you could think of it as like a network map of ideas and connections. And what standards do is they take that beautiful map and they chop it up like this into lots of little pieces and they deliver the pieces to schools. And so teachers don't see the connections between ideas, nor do the kids. So anyway, this is a bit of a long way of saying that what we've done in this new initiative is we have set out maths as a set of big ideas and connections between them. So this is grade three. So instead of there being 60 standards, we've said, well, you can pull these different standards to get in with each other and also value the ways these are connected. And by the way, for people who are just listening, we're looking at a small number of like big concepts within mathematics, square towels, measuring fraction, shape and time, and then how they're interconnected. And so the goal, this is for grade three, for example. Yeah, and so we've set out for the state of California, the whole of mathematics K10 as a set of big ideas and connections. So we know that teachers, it works really well if they say, okay, so a big idea in my grade is measuring. And instead of reading five procedural statements that involve measuring, they think, okay, measuring is a big idea. What rich, deep activity can I use that teaches measuring to kids? And as kids work on these deep, rich activities, maybe over a few days, turns out a lot of maths comes into it. So we're recommending that let's not teach maths according to all these multiple statements and lots and lots of short questions. Instead, let's teach maths by thinking about what are the big ideas and what are really rich, deep activities that teach those big ideas. So that's the, like how you teach it and maximize learning. What about like from a school district perspective, like measuring how well you're doing, grades and tests and stuff like that. Do you throw those out or is it possible? I am not a fan of grades and tests myself. I think grades are fine if they're used at the end of a course. So at the end of my maths course, I might get a grade because a grade is meant to be a summative measure. It kind of describes your summative achievement. But the problem we have in maths classrooms across the US is people use grades all the time, every week or every day even. My own kids, when they went through high school, technology has not helped with this. When they went through high school, they knew they were being graded for everything they did, everything. And not only were they being graded for everything, but they could see it in the grade book online and it would alter every class they went into. So this is the ultimate, what I think of as a performance culture. You're there to perform, somebody's measuring you, you see your score. So I think that's not conducive for deep learning. And yes, have a grade at the end of the year, but during the year, you can assess kids in much better ways. Like teachers can, a great way of assessing kids is to give them a rubric that kind of outlines what they're learning over the course of a unit or a few weeks. So kids can actually see the journey they're on, like this is what we're doing mathematically. Sometimes they self assess on those units and then teachers will show what the kids can do with a rubric and also write notes. Like in the next few weeks, you might like to learn to do this. So instead of kids just thinking about, I'm an A kid or a B kid, or I have this letter attached to me, they're actually seeing mathematically what's important and they're involved in the process of knowing where they are mathematically. At the end of the year, sure, they can have a grade, but during the year, they get these much more informative measures. I do think this might be more for college, but maybe not. Some of the best classes I've had is when I got a special like set aside, like the professor clearly saw that I was interested in some aspect of a thing. And then I have a few in mind and one in particular, when he said that he kind of challenged me. So this is outside of grades and all that kind of stuff that basically it's like reverse psychology. I don't think this can be done. And so I gave everything to do that particular thing. So this happened to be in an artificial intelligence class. But I think that like special treatment of taking students who are especially like excellent at a particular little aspect, that you see their eyes light up. I often think like maybe it's tempting for a teacher to think you've already succeeded there, but they're actually signaling to you that like you could really launch them on their way. And I don't know, that's too much to expect from teachers I think to pay attention to all of that because it's really difficult. But I just kind of remember who are the biggest, the most important people in the history of my life of education. And it's those people that who really didn't just like inspire me with their awesomeness, which they did, but also just they pushed me a little. Like they gave me a little push. And that requires focusing on the quote unquote excellent students in the class. Yeah, I think what's important though is teachers to have the perspective that they don't know who's gonna be excellent at something before they give out the activity. Exactly. And in our camp classes that we ran, sometimes students would finish ahead of other students. And we would say to them, can you write a question that's like this but different? Oh, and over time we encourage them to like extend things further. I remember we were doing one activity where kids were working out the borders of a square and how big this border would be in different case sizes. And one of the boys came up at the end of the class and said, I've been thinking about how you do this to the Pentagon. And I said, that's fantastic. How do you, what does it look like with Pentagon? Go find out, see if you can discover. So I didn't know he was gonna come up and say that. And I didn't have in my head like this is the kid who could have this extension task, but you can still do that as a teacher. When kids get excited about something or they're doing well in something, have them extend it, go further. It's great. And then you also, like this is like teacher and coach, you could say it in different ways to different students. Like for me, the right thing to say is almost to say, I don't think you could do this, this is too hard. Like that's what I need to hear. It's just like, no, there's immediate push. But with some people, if they're a little bit more, I mean, it's all has to do with upbringing, how your genetics is. They might be much more, that might break them. Yeah, that might break them. And so you have to be also sensitive to that. I mean, teaching is really difficult for this very reason. It is. So what is the best way to teach math, to learn math at those early few days when you just wanna capture them? I do something, actually there's a video of me doing this on our website that I love when I first meet students. And this is what I do. I show them a picture, this is the picture I show them. And it's a picture of seven dots like this. And I show it for just a few seconds and I say to them, I'd like you to tell me how many dots there are, but I don't want you to count them. I want you to group the dots. And I show it them and then I take it away before they've even had enough time to count them. And then I ask them, so how did you see it? And I go around the room and amazingly enough, there's probably 18 different ways of seeing these seven dots. And so I ask people, tell me how you grouped it. And some people see it as like an outside hole with a center dot. Some people see like stripes of lines. Some people see segments. And I collect them all and I put them on the board. And at the end I say, look at this, we are a class of 30 kids and we saw these seven dots in 18 different ways. There's actually a mathematical term for this. It's called groupitizing. Groupitizing? Yeah. I like it. It's kind of cool. So turns out though that how well you groupitize predicts how well you do in maths. Is it a raw talent or is it just something that you can develop? I don't think it's raw. I don't think you're born groupitizing, I think, but some kids have developed that ability if you like. And you can learn it. So this to me is part of how wrong we have maths. That we think to tell whether a kid's good at maths, we're gonna give them a speed test on multiples. But actually seeing how kids group dots could be a more important assessment of how well they're gonna do in maths. Anyway, I diverge. What I like to do though when I start off with kids is show them I'm gonna give you maths problems. I'm gonna value the different ways you see them. And it turns out you can do this kind of problem asking people how they group dots with young children or with graduate students. And it's engaging for all of them. You talk about creativity a little bit and flexibility in your book Limitless. What's the role of that? So it sounds like there's a bit of that kind of thing involved in groupitizing. Yeah, yeah. I love this term. So what would you say is the role of creativity and flexibility in the learning of maths? I think what we know now is that what we need for this 21st century world we live in is a flexible mind. School should not really be about teaching kids particular methods but teaching them to approach problems with flexibility. Being creative, thinking creatively is really important. So people don't think the words maths and creativity come together, but that's what I love about maths is the creative different ways you can see it. And so helping our kids, there's a book I like a lot by physicists, you probably know this book called Elastic. You might know it. And it's about how we want elastic minds. Same kind of thing, flexible, creative minds. And schools do very little on developing that kind of mind. They do a lot of developing the kind of mind that a computer now does for us. Memorization. Memorization, doing procedures, a lot of things that we spend a lot of time in school on. In the world, when kids leave school, a computer will do that and better than they will. But that creative, flexible thinking, we're kind of at ground zero at computers being able to engage in that thinking. Maybe we're a little above ground zero, but the human brain is perfectly suited for that creative, flexible thinking. That's what humans are so great at. So I would like the balance to shift in schools. Maybe you still need to do some procedural kind of thinking, but there should be a lot more of that creative, flexible thinking. And what's the role of other humans in this picture? So collaborative learning, so brainstorming together. So creativity as it emerges from the collective intelligence of multiple humans. Yeah, super important. And we know that also helps develop your brain, that social side of thinking. And I love mathematics collaboration where people build on each other's ideas and they come up with amazing things. I actually taught a hundred students calculus at Stanford recently, undergrads, and we taught them to collaborate. So these students came in Stanford and most of them were against collaboration in math. This is before COVID in person? Yeah, it was just before COVID hit. It was 2019. And this summer. So you said they're against? Yeah, so it's really interesting. So they'd only experienced maths individually in a kind of competitive individual way. And if they had experienced it as group work, it had been a bad experience. Like maybe they were the one who did it all and the others didn't do much. So they were kind of against collaboration. They didn't see any role for it in maths. And we taught them to collaborate and it was hard work because as well as the fact that they were kind of against collaboration, they came in with a lot of like social comparison thinking. So I'm in this room with other Stanford undergrads and they're better than me or... So when we set them to work on a maths problem together, the first one was kind of a disaster because they put all like, they're better than me. They're faster than me. They came up with something I didn't come up with. So we taught them to let go of that thinking and to work well together. And one of the things we did, we decided we wanted to do a pre and post test at the end of this teaching. It was only four weeks long, but we knew we didn't want to give them like a time test of individual work. So we gave them an applied problem to do at the beginning and we gave them to do in pairs together. And we gave each of them a different colored pen and said, work on this activity together and keep using that pen. So then we had all these pieces of student work. And what we saw was they just worked on separate parts of the paper. So there's a little like red pen section and a green pen section. And they didn't do that well on it. Even though it was a problem that middle or high school kids could do, but it was like a problem solving kind of problem. And then we gave them the same one to do at the end, gave them the same colors. And actually they had learned to collaborate. And not only were they collaborating the second time round, but that boosted their achievement. And the ones who collaborated did better on the problem. Collaboration is important, having people, and what was so eye opening for these undergrads and they talked about it in lovely ways was I learned to value other people's thinking on a problem. And I learned to value that other people saw it in different ways. And it was quite a big experience for them that they came out thinking, I can do maths with other people. People can see it differently. We can build on each other's ways of thinking. I got a chance to, I don't know if you know who Daniel Kahneman is, got a chance to interact with him. And like the first, cause he had a few, but one famous collaboration throughout his life with Tversky. And just like, you know, he hasn't met me before in person, but just the number of questions he was asking, just the curiosity. So I think one of the skills, the collaboration itself is a skill. And I remember my experience with him was like, okay, I get why you're so good at collaboration because he was just extremely good at listening and genuine curiosity about how the other person thinks about the world, sees the world. And then together he's, he pulled me in in that particular case. He doesn't know in particular, like that much about autonomous vehicles, but he kept like asking all of these questions. And then like 10 minutes in, we're together trying to solve the problem of autonomous driving. And like, and that, I mean, that's really fulfilling. That's really enriching. But it also in that moment made me realize it's kind of a skill. Cause you have to kind of put your ego aside, put your view of the world aside and try to learn how the other person sees it. And the other thing you have to put aside is this social comparison thinking. Like if you are sitting there thinking, wow, that was an amazing idea. He's so much better than I am. That's really gonna stop you taking on the value of that idea. And so there's a lot of that going on between these Stanford students when they came. And trying to help them let go of that. One of the things I've discovered just because being a little bit more in the public eye, how rewarding it is to celebrate others. And how much is going to actually pay off in the long term. So this kind of silo thinking of like, I want to prove to a small set of people around me that I'm really smart and do so by basically not celebrating how smart the other people are. That's actually maybe short term, it seems like a good strategy, but long term it's not. And I think if you practice at the student level and then at the career level, at every single stage, I think that's ultimately. I agree with you. I think that's a really good way of thinking about it. You mentioned textbooks and you didn't say it, maybe textbooks isn't the perfect way to teach mathematics, but I love textbooks. They're like pretty pictures and they smell nice and they open. I mean, I talk about like physical. Some of my greatest experiences have been just like, cause they're really well done. When we're talking about basic, like high school, calculus, biology, chemistry, those are like, those are incredible. It's like Wikipedia, but with color and a nice little. You must've seen some good textbooks if they had pretty pictures and color. Yeah, I mean, I remember, I guess it was very, very standard, like AP calculus, AP biology, AP chemistry. I felt those were like some of the happiest days of my life in terms of learning was high school. Cause it was very easy, honestly. It felt hard at the time, but you're basically doing a whirlwind tour of all the science. Yeah, yeah. Without having to pick, you do literature, you do like Shakespeare, calculus, biology, physics, chemistry, what else? Anatomy, physiology, computer science, without like, nobody's telling you what to do with your life. You're just doing all of those things. That's a good thing, you're right. But I remember the textbooks weren't, I mean, maybe I'm romanticizing the past, but I remember they weren't, they're pretty good. But so you think, what role do you think they play still? And like in this more modern digital age, what's the best materials with which to do these kinds of educations? Well, I'm intrigued that you had such a good experience with textbooks. I mean, I can remember loving some textbooks I had when I was learning and I love books. I love to pick up books and look through them, but a lot of maths textbooks are not good experiences for kids. They, we have a video on our website of the kids who came to our camp and one of the students says, in maths, you have to follow the textbook. The textbook is kind of like the Bible. You have to follow it. And every day it's slightly different. Like on Monday you do 2.3.2 and on Tuesday you do 2.3.3 and on Wednesday. And you never go off that. That's like every single day. And that's not inspiring for a lot of the kids. So one of the things they loved about our camp was just that there were no books. Even though we gave them sheets of paper instead, they still felt more free because they weren't just like trotting through exercises, exercises, so. Like what a textbook allows you is like you're, the very thing you said they might not like, the 2.3, 2.3, it feels like you're making progress. And like it's little celebrations because you do the problem and it seems really hard and you don't know how to do it. And then you try and try and then eventually succeed. And then you make that little step and further progress. And then you get to the end of a chapter and you get to like, it's closure. You're like, all right, I got that figured out. And then you go on to the next chapter. I can see that. I mean, I think it could be in a textbook. You can have a good experience with a textbook, but what's really important is what is in that textbook? What are you doing inside it? And I mean, I grew up in England and in England we learn maths. We don't have this separation of algebra and geometry. And I don't think any other country apart from the US has that. But I look at kids in algebra classes where they're doing algebra for a year. And I think I would have been pretty bored doing that. By the way, can we analyze your upbringing real quick? Why do British folks call mathematics, maths? Why is it the plural? Is it because of everything you're saying where it's a bunch of subdisciplines? Yeah, I mean, mathematics is supposed to be the different maths that you look at, whether you think of that as topics like geometry and probability, or I think of it as maths is just multi dimensional lots of ways, but that's why it was called mathematics. And then it was shortened to maths. And then for some reason it was just math in the US. But to me, math has that more singular feel to it. And there's an expression here, which is do the math, which basically means do a calculation. That's what people mean by do the math. So I don't like that expression because no math could be anything doesn't have to be calculation. And so yeah, I like maths because it has more of that broad feel to it. Yeah, I love that. Maths kind of emphasize the multi dimensional, like a variety of different subdisciplines, different approaches. Yeah. Okay, but outside of the textbook, what do you see like broadly being used? You mentioned Sebastian Thrun and MOOCs, online education. Do you think that's an effective set? Can be. I mean, online, having great teachers online, obviously extends those teachers to many more people. And that's a wonderful thing. I have quite a few online courses myself. I got the bug working with Sebastian when he had released his first MOOC. And I thought, maybe I could do one in maths education. And I didn't know if anybody would take it. I remember releasing it that first summer and it was a free online class and 30,000 maths teachers took it that first summer. And they were all talking about it with each other and sharing it and it was like took off. In fact, it was that MOOC that got me to create YouCubed with Kathy Williams, who's the co founder, because people took the MOOC and then they said, okay, what now? I finished, what can I have next? And so that was where we made our website. But so yeah, I think online education can be great. I do think a lot of the MOOCs don't have great pedagogy. They're just a talking head. And you can actually engage people in more active ways, even in online learning. So I learned from the Udacity principle when I was working at Udacity, never to talk more than like five minutes. And then to ask people to do something. So that's the sort of pedagogy of the online classes I have is a little bit of presenting something and then people do something and there's a little bit more. Because I think if you have a half hour video, you just switch off and start doing other things. So the way Udacity did it is like five, 10 minute, like bit of teaching with some visual stuff perhaps. And then there's like a quiz almost. Then you answer a question, yeah. Yeah, no, that's really effective. You mentioned Ucubed, so what's the mission? What's the goal? You mentioned how it started, but what's yeah, where are you at now? And what's your dream with it? What are the kind of things that people should go and check out? Yeah, we started Ucubed, I guess it was about five years ago now and we've had over 52 million visitors to the site. So I'm very happy about that. And our goal is to share good ideas for teaching with teachers, students, parents in maths and to help. We have a sort of sub goal of a raising maths anxiety. That's important to us, but also to share maths as this beautiful creative subject. And it's been really great. We have lessons on the site, but one of the reasons I thought this was needed is there's a lot of knowledge in the academy about how to teach maths well. Loads and loads of research and journals and lots of things written up, but teachers don't read it. They don't have access to it. They're often behind pay walls, they've written in really inaccessible ways. So people wouldn't want to read them or understand them. So this actually is a big problem. You have this whole industry of people finding out how to teach well, not sharing it with the people who are teaching. So that's why we made Ucubed. And instead of just putting articles up saying, here's some things to read about how to teach well, we translated what was coming from research into things that teacher could use. So lessons, there were videos to show kids and there were tips for parents. There were all sorts of things on the site. And it's been amazing. As we took inspiration from the week of code, which got teachers to focus on coding for a week. And we have this thing called the week of inspirational maths. And we say, just try it for a week. Just give us one week and try it and see what happens. And so it's been downloaded millions of times. Teachers use it every year. They start the school year with it. And what they tell us is it was amazing. The kids lights were on, they were excited, they loved it. And then the week finished and I opened my textbooks and the lights went out and they were not interested. Yeah, but getting that first inspiration is still powerful. It is, I wish, I mean, what I would love is if we could actually extend that for the whole year. We're a small team at Stanford and we're trying to keep up with great things to put on the site. We haven't the capacity to produce these creative visual maths tasks for every year group for every day, but I would love to do that. How difficult is it to do? I mean, it's to come up with visual formulations of these big important topics you need to think about in a way that you could teach. I mean, we can do it. We actually, we went from the week of inspirational maths and we made K8 maths books with exactly that. Big ideas, rich activities, visuals. We just finished the last one. We've been doing it for five years and it's been exhausting and we just finished.

本集資源與出處