This was the first time of doing two sessions in one morning and it proved to be very doable though needs more preparation. Turning up late did not help things.
The first activity was split 3 ways as a game. We've played it as add to 100 before now but I wanted to try something more visual and tactile and that could include the younger ones or anyone. I don't think I got the type of engagement I need for a beginning activity in the first session but they are used to doing this just with a paper grid so I should have started with that for them and just tried getting the grid activity going with the younger ones. I'm still not sure how I could engage them with it though. Perhaps doing it with a song where they perform the actions in rhythm. It would be worth working on that again. I can't be sure how they understand a game like that. None of them seemed to get the meaning of having a certain number of blocks to start with or that the blocks needed to be shared in some way. I would not be able to deal with that part of things but it would be a great responsibility for another facilitator, or me if they took on the main activity. Blocks or any other manipulative are always very distracting if you have an agenda that younger or disengaged kids have not bought into. Care should be taken.
The investigation aspect worked well with the first group. They produced long lists and of course didn't need the blocks. Where kids did need the blocks, they had a lot more difficulty with the concept or idea of the investigation. B struggled with the idea of different sets of numbers. He seemed to like all the numbers to be the same and was stumped by the issue that there is only one set
of numbers for which this worked. He tried to add more columns so that he could get multiple 2s to get to 9. I wasn't sure how to deal with this other than to try to refocus back to the designed activity. What else could I have done? There is only so much time and shared language to be able to get into explorers' own ideas about a task. Maybe I could have got him to talk about the best way to split the numbers etc. Or perhaps got him to fill in the missing number if I put two of the numbers in the column. I tried it by putting in one number and that worked ok. Anyway he seemed to have the concept but not really get into the idea of investigating combinations. This was a bit similar to M who I heard tried some of these things at home and just wasn't interested in enumerating different results.
We took the ability to split 10 and 9 into 3 and looked tried to apply it to the game Dicey Operations. I envisaged us getting through a few games and being able to talk about how to improve results or get closer to 1000. Maybe it would have been better to set up a target with results within 100, 200, 300, 400 etc. of 1000 and get them to place their name, avatar or icon in the place where their score would be. They could then talk about strategies to get better. This would make the goal more visual and provide more compelling reasons for kids to try to improve scores.
I managed to get on to our coloured matching nim type game at the end of the second session (as I was able to go over). I just did an example game. They will need a few more goes to get it properly I suspect. Probably should have just started with Nim and left this game until later. Live and learn.
The first activity was split 3 ways as a game. We've played it as add to 100 before now but I wanted to try something more visual and tactile and that could include the younger ones or anyone. I don't think I got the type of engagement I need for a beginning activity in the first session but they are used to doing this just with a paper grid so I should have started with that for them and just tried getting the grid activity going with the younger ones. I'm still not sure how I could engage them with it though. Perhaps doing it with a song where they perform the actions in rhythm. It would be worth working on that again. I can't be sure how they understand a game like that. None of them seemed to get the meaning of having a certain number of blocks to start with or that the blocks needed to be shared in some way. I would not be able to deal with that part of things but it would be a great responsibility for another facilitator, or me if they took on the main activity. Blocks or any other manipulative are always very distracting if you have an agenda that younger or disengaged kids have not bought into. Care should be taken.
The investigation aspect worked well with the first group. They produced long lists and of course didn't need the blocks. Where kids did need the blocks, they had a lot more difficulty with the concept or idea of the investigation. B struggled with the idea of different sets of numbers. He seemed to like all the numbers to be the same and was stumped by the issue that there is only one setof numbers for which this worked. He tried to add more columns so that he could get multiple 2s to get to 9. I wasn't sure how to deal with this other than to try to refocus back to the designed activity. What else could I have done? There is only so much time and shared language to be able to get into explorers' own ideas about a task. Maybe I could have got him to talk about the best way to split the numbers etc. Or perhaps got him to fill in the missing number if I put two of the numbers in the column. I tried it by putting in one number and that worked ok. Anyway he seemed to have the concept but not really get into the idea of investigating combinations. This was a bit similar to M who I heard tried some of these things at home and just wasn't interested in enumerating different results.
I managed to get on to our coloured matching nim type game at the end of the second session (as I was able to go over). I just did an example game. They will need a few more goes to get it properly I suspect. Probably should have just started with Nim and left this game until later. Live and learn.


Extend by using written sheet and collecting scores to make Leaderboard











