## Alike & Different: Which One Doesn’t Belong? & More

I have no idea what I was going for here:

At that time, I was creating Which One Doesn’t Belong? sets. Cuisenaire rods didn’t make the cut. Nor did hundreds/hundredths grids:

I probably painted myself into a corner. Adding a fourth shape/graph/number/etc. to a set often knocks down the reason why one of the other three doesn’t belong. Not all two-by-two arrays make good WODB? sets (i.e., a mathematical property that sets each element apart).

Still, there are similarities and differences among the four numbers above that are worth talking about. For example, the top right and bottom right are close to 100 (or 1); the top left and bottom right are greater than 100 (or 1); top left and top right have seven parts, or rods, of tens (or tenths); all involve seven parts in some way. There is an assumed answer to the question, “Which one is 1?,” in these noticings — a flat is 100 if we’re talking whole numbers and 1 if we’re talking decimals. But what if 1 is a flat in the top left and a rod in the bottom left? Now both represent 1.7. (This flexibility was front and centre in my mind when I created this set. The ten-frame sets, too.)

Last spring, Marc and I offered a series of workshops on instructional routines. “Alike and Different: Which One Doesn’t Belong? and More” was one of them. WODB? was a big part of this but the bigger theme was same and different (and justifying, communicating, arguing, etc.).

So rather than scrap the hundreds/hundredths grids, I can simplify them:

Another that elicits equivalent fractions and place value:

For more, see Brian Bushart’s Same or Different?, another single-serving #MTBoS (“Math-Twitter-Blog-o-Sphere”) site.

Another question that I like — from Marian Small — is “Which two __________ are most alike?” I like it because the focus is on sameness and, like WODB?, students must make and defend a decision. Also, this “solves” my painted-into-a-corner problem; there are three, not six, relationships between elements to consider.

The numbers in the left and right images are less than 100 (if a dot is 1); the numbers in the centre and right can be expressed with 3 in the tens place; the left and centre image can both represent 43, depending on how we define 1.

At the 2017 Northwest Mathematics Conference in Portland, my session was on operations across the grades. The big idea that ran through the workshop:

“The operations of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division hold the same fundamental meanings no matter the domain in which they are applied.”
– Marian Small

That big idea underlies the following slide:

At first glance, the second and third are most alike: because decimals. But the quotient in both the first and second is 20; in fact, if we multiply both 6 and 0.3 by 10 in the second, we get the first. The first and third involve a partitive (or sharing) interpretation of division: 3 groups, not groups of 3. (Likely. Context can determine meaning. My claim here is that for each of these two purposefully crafted combinations of naked numbers, division as sharing is the more intuitive meaning.)

Similar connections can be made here:

This time, the first and second involve a quotative (or measurement) interpretation of division: groups of (−3) or 3x, not (−3) or 3x groups. (What’s the reason for the second and third? Maybe this isn’t a good “Which two are most alike?”?)

I created a few more of these in the style of Brian’s Same or Different?, including several variations on 5 − 2.

Note: this doesn’t work in classrooms where the focus is on “just invert and multiply” (or butterflies or “keep-change-change” or…).

And I still have no idea what I was going for with the Cuisenaire rods.

The slides:

An edited version of this post appeared in Vector.

## Dividing by Decimals & Fractions: Ham & Ribs

I bought a ham. It was touch-and-go there for awhile. As I was picking up and putting down hams of various sizes, I was calculating baking times. My essential question was, can I have this on the table by six? Simultaneously, I was trying to remember if this was partitive or quotative division.

In partitive division problems, a.k.a division as (fair) sharing, the number of groups is known. This type of problem asks how many are in each group. In quotative division problems, a.k.a. division as measurement, the number in each group is known. This type of problem asks how many groups. For example: 6 ÷ 3 = 2 (partitive) means ♦♦  ♦♦  ♦♦; 6 ÷ 3 = 2 (quotative) means ♦♦♦  ♦♦♦. This distinction isn’t limited to collections of objects. Consider 6 ÷ 3 as cutting a 6 m rope into 3 parts (sharing) vs. cutting lengths of 3 m (measurement). Nor are these meanings limited to whole numbers. Which brings me back to my ham…

The directions read “bake approximately 15 minutes per pound (0.454 kg) or until internal temperature reaches whatever.” But here’s the thing: Kilograms, not pounds. I could have converted from kilograms to pounds by doubling then adding ten percent of that. Instead, I divided 1.214 by 0.454. I know, I know, this still gives me the weight of my ham in pounds. But at the time, I interpreted 2.67 as the number of repeated additions of 15 minutes in my baking time. Either way, I determined how many 0.454s there are in 1.214. Quotative division. By a decimal.

As a math task, this is clunky. The picture book How Much Does a Ladybug Weigh? by Alison Limentani is a more promising jumping off point for quotative division in the classroom. On each page, the weight of one animal is expressed in terms of a smaller animal. Using the data at the back of the book, we have 3.2 ÷ 0.53 = 6. We could ask children to make other comparisons (e.g., how many grasshoppers weigh the same as one garden snail?). In the past, I have struggled with partitive division by decimals (or fractions). But I found the following example at The Fair this summer: It’s not intuitive–at least to me–to think of 1/3 in 12 ÷ 1/3 as the number of groups. Take a step back and think about 26 ÷ 1 = 26. The cost, \$26, is shared between 1 rack of ribs; the quotient represents the unit price, \$26/rack, if the unit is a rack. This result should be… underwhelming.

Before we think about dividing by a fraction here, let’s imagine dividing by a whole number (not equal to one). What if I paid \$72 for 3 racks? (Don’t look for these numbers in the photo above–I’m making them up.) In 72 ÷ 3 = 24, the cost, \$72, is shared between the number of racks, 3; again, the quotient represents the unit price, \$24/rack. Partitive division.

So what about 12 ÷ 1/3? The cost is still distributed across the number of racks; once again, the quotient represents the unit price, \$36/(full) rack. The underlying relationship between dividend, divisor, and quotient hasn’t changed because of a fraction; the fundamental meaning (partitive division) remains the same.

We could have solved this problem by asking a parallel question, how many 1/3s in 12? And this quotative interpretation makes sense with naked numbers. But it falls apart in this context–how many 1/3 racks in 12 dollars? Units, man! If dollars were racks, a quotative interpretation would make sense–how many 1/3 racks in 12 full racks?

As a math task, this, too, is clunky. My favourite math tasks for partitive division by fractions are still Andrew Stadel’s estimation jams.

(Looking for a quotative division problem that involves whole numbers? See Graham Fletcher’s Seesaw three-act math task. For partitive, there’s Bean Thirteen.)

## “They’ll Need It for High School” (Part 3)

I’m picking “TNIFHS” back up. At the end of Part 1, I promised Part 2 would answer “What are the big ideas in elementary school mathematics that students will need for high school?” Instead, I talked times tables.

In this third half, I’ll refocus on these big ideas. Or one of them — one that came up in that initial “they’ll need long division for high school” conversation.

More than the standard algorithm, what students will need is an understanding of division as sharing (finding the number in each group) and measuring (finding the number of groups). More generally, what students will need is an understanding of the fundamental meanings of all four operations.

Here’s part of a task I presented to my secondary math colleagues:

Evaluate, or simplify, each set of expressions. Make as many connections as you can conceptually & procedurally, pictorially & symbolically.

Sticking with division, in this task (−6) ÷ (+3) was chosen to bring to mind sharing (3 groups, −2 in each group) whereas 6/5 ÷ 3/5 was chosen to evoke measuring (3/5 in each group, 2 groups). (This often leads teachers themselves to revisit 6 ÷ 3.) (−6) ÷ (+3) as sharing (top) and 6/5 ÷ 3/5 as measuring (bottom)

Flexibility is key. Consider (−6) ÷ (−3), 6/5 ÷ 3, 6 ÷ 0.3, 0.6 ÷ 3, 6x ÷ 3, 6x ÷ 3x, etc. (Note: division of fractions & integers are high school topics in Western Canada.)

(I’m not saying that dividing by a fraction — or decimal fraction — always means measuring. You can think sharing, which can be challenging. Andrew Stadel’s estimation jams are my favourite examples of this. How long is “All Along the Watchtower”?

Did you see 2/3 in the picture? Did you divide by two, then multiply by three? In other words, did you invert and multiply? What’s the meaning of 2:40 ÷ 2/3 in this context?)

The subtraction set above is interesting. Teachers pick up that the expressions are variations on a theme: five “take away” two. Their pictorial representations tend to show subtraction as removal: “if you have five apples/quarters/x‘s/square root of two’s and I take away two…”

Pictorial representations that show subtraction as comparison (the “difference”!) are less frequent, but maybe more helpful. 5/4 − 2/4 as removal (top number line) and comparison (bottom number line)

Consider (+5) − (−2). To “take away” negative two from positive five means introducing zero pairs whereas the “difference” between positive five and negative two means understanding that positive five is seven greater than negative two.

This second meaning is probably more meaningful in high school. For example, subtraction as removal reduces (1.89t + 15) − (1.49t + 12) to an exercise in collecting like terms whereas subtraction as comparison has students contrasting rates of change (e.g., cost per additional pizza topping) and initial amounts (e.g., the price of a plain cheese pizza). Similarly, if F_1(C) = 9/5C + 32 and F_2(C) = 2C + 30, then (F_2 − F_1)(C) compares conversions given by an estimate and the formula. When solving |x − 5| = 2, it’s more helpful to ask “What numbers differ from five by two?” than think missing minuends in take away problems.

Addition and multiplication — as well as other big ideas needed for high school such as proportional reasoning (or “multiplicative thinking”?) — will be addressed in future posts.

## Math Picture Book Post #7: Bean Thirteen

A few ago, I was invited to teach a lesson on division (Grade 3). First, I read Bean Thirteen aloud – once just for fun. About Bean Thirteen, from the author:

Ralph warns Flora not to pick that thirteenth bean. Everyone knows it’s unlucky. Now that they’re stuck with it, how can they make it disappear? If they each eat half the beans, there’s still one left over. And if they invite a friend over, they each eat four beans, but there’s still one left over! And four friends could each eat three beans, but there’s still one left over! How will they escape the curse of Bean Thirteen?

(A funny story about beans, that may secretly be about . . . math!) Next, we revisited several of the pages. I asked students to write an equation to match the picture. I modelled this using magnetic “bean counters.” For the page above, students suggested 2 × 6 + 1 = 13; I introduced 13 ÷ 2 = 6 R 1. We discussed and recorded the meaning of this: In pairs, students then chose their own number of beans (counters) and built different division as sharing stories for this number. They recorded (.doc) their stories using pictures, numbers, and words:  I called on students to share their stories with the class. They observed that some numbers gave remainders more so than others; Bean Thirteen can also be used to explore even/odd and prime/composite numbers.

This lesson served as the students’ introduction to division. I wrestled with the decision to introduce remainders at this time. An alternative problem – one consistent with both the prescribed learning outcomes and recommended learning resources – might be to start with 18 beans – a “nice” dividend – and share equally among 2, 3, 6, and 9 bugs – “nice” divisors. Note 15 ÷ 3 = 4 R 3 (and 15 ÷ 2 = 6 R 3) above. This mistake would not have happened had I not introduced remainders. I wonder if including remainders makes it more difficult for students to understand division and relate division to multiplication.

## [TMWYK] Aero Bubble Bar

Recently, Nestlé launched the new AERO bubble bar throughout Canada and the UK.

For the benefit of the American readership:

From the press release:

As well as offering a unique bar design, guaranteed to stand out from the crowd, AERO’s innovation isn’t just for show. The new design sees the bar divided into ten easily snappable ‘bubbles’, making it less messy to eat and more portionable. What’s more, each of the ten ‘bubbles’ are designed to melt more easily in the mouth, maximising the taste of AERO’s signature bubbly chocolate.

I brought one home a couple weeks ago. I put the bar’s portionability to the test. I snapped off two bubbles each for Keira (5), Gwyneth (8), and Marnie (N/A). Plus, two for me. (Missed math teacher opportunity, I know.) Two pieces were left over. “How much more should we each get?” I asked.

“Half,” Keira answered. She told me to make two cuts: two becomes four, or n(Keira’s family). For shits and giggles, we played with different cuts. What I learned from Keira: “Or two-quarters,” Gwyneth piped up.

“Huh?” I returned, caught off-guard. “Tell me more,” I recovered. Gwyneth told me to cut each of the two bubbles into four quarters, giving us eight quarters. Eight pieces can be shared equally between four people. Each of us should get two pieces, or two-quarters.

Gwyneth’s strategy–divide each piece into fourths rather than make four pieces in all like her sister–surprised me. It’s a strategy that makes sense to her: dividing each piece into fourths means she’ll be able to form four equal groups. It’s a strategy that’s flexible: I don’t think she’ll be fazed by a curveball, like an additional bubble or family member.

Symbolically, we have: The result is trivial; her thinking is not.

For more math talk with kids, please follow Christopher Danielson’s new blog.

## Multiple Multiples

“Can you show me another way?”

Multiple representations show students there is more than one correct way to do the math. This is an important message in itself.

Multiple representations also allow students to learn new mathematical concepts and procedures.

For example, division can be thought of as sharing or grouping.

8 ÷ 2 = 4 can be thought of as:

I prefer the adjective flexible over multiple. Adaptability of, not number of, is what is important.

To learn how to divide integers and fractions, students must be able to visualize both representations.

For example, -8 ÷ 2 can be thought of as sharing equally between 2 groups. Each group contains four negative counters. However, -8 cannot be put in groups of +2.

Alternatively, having a negative number of groups does not make sense. However, -8 can be put into groups of -2.

Think about why 6 ÷ ½ is 12 (without simply applying the invert and multiply rule). Having a fraction for the number of groups doesn’t make sense. However, students can explore how many halves there are in 6 using pattern blocks or number lines.  3 × 2 is more than simply 3 groups of 2.  An understanding of an area model of multiplication helps students to learn two-digit multiplication.

An understanding of this model will help students make connections between multiplying binomials and multiplying two-digit numbers.

As a secondary department head pointed out a meeting last year, teaching how to multiply binomials may be easier than teaching how to multiply two-digit numbers – in algebra, there isn’t the added complication of place value.

Now if only we would stop using the term FOIL…