Category Archives: Critical thinking

The “golden moment”

We’re in final exams week right now, and last night students in the MATLAB course took their exam. It included some essay questions asking for their favorite elements of the course and things that might be improved in the course. I loved what one of my students had to say about the assignment in the course he found to be the most interesting, so I’ve gotten permission from him to share it. The lab problem he’s referring to was to write a MATLAB program to implement the bisection method for polynomials.

It is really hard to decide which project I found most interesting; there are quite a few of them. If I had to choose just one though, I would probably have to say the lab set for April 6. I was having a really hard time getting the program to work, I spent a while tweaking it this way and that way. But when you’re making a program that does not work yet, there is this sort of golden moment, a moment when you realize what the missing piece is. I remember that moment on my April 6 lab set. After I realized what it was, I could not type it in fast enough I was so excited just to watch the program work. After hitting the play button, that .3 seconds it takes for MATLAB to process the program felt like forever. I actually was devastated that I got an error, and thought I had done it all wrong once again, but then I remembered I had entered the error command so it would display an error. I actually started laughing out loud in the lab, quite obnoxiously actually.

Yes!  As somebody once said, true learning consists in the debugging process. And that’s where the fun in learning happens to lie, too. Let’s give students as many shots as possible to experience this process themselves.

Enhanced by Zemanta

2 Comments

Filed under Critical thinking, Education, Inverted classroom, MATLAB, Teaching, Technology

The inverted classroom and student self-image

picture of an e-learning classroom

Image via Wikipedia

This week I’ve been immersed in the inverted classroom idea. First, I gave this talk about an inverted linear algebra classroom at the Joint Meetings in New Orleans and had a number of really good conversations afterwards about it. Then, this really nice writeup of an interview I gave for MIT News came out, highlighting the relationship between my MATLAB course and the MIT OpenCourseware Project. And this week, I’ve been planning out the second iteration of that MATLAB course that’s starting in a few weeks, hopefully with the benefit of a year’s worth of experience and reflection on using the inverted classroom to teach technical computing to novices.

One thing that I didn’t talk much about at the Joint Meetings or in the MIT interview was perhaps the most prominent thing about using the inverted classroom model on a day-to-day basis: how students react to it and change as a result of it. I was actually quite surprised that nobody at my Joint Meetings talk asked me a question about this, because honestly, the inverted classroom sounds great on paper, but when you start to imagine the average college student walking in on the first day of class and having this method of instruction described to him, it becomes clear that a significant amount of work is going to have to be done in order to get students — who are already resistant to any change from their accustomed modes of instruction — on board with the plan.

Students do tend to resist the inverted classroom at first. Some forms of resistance are more benign than others. On the benign end of the spectrum there are students with little experience with the course material or its prerequisites who get bogged down on the basic podcast viewing (which takes the place of in-class lectures in this model) or the accompanying guided practice, and instead of actively seeking a resolution to their question will wait for the instructor to clear it up — in class. On the other end is the student who simply doesn’t believe I’m serious when I say there won’t be any lecturing, who then doesn’t do the work, assuming I’ll bail him out somehow — in class. But in the inverted model, students are held responsible for acquiring basic competencies before class so that the hard stuff — what we refer to as assimilation — is the primary focus of the class time.

I break this distinction down for students, but not everybody buys into it. Those who don’t will have to undergo a learning process that usually looks like shock — shock that I won’t reteach them the material they were supposed to have viewed and worked on, while the lab assignment based on that material is going on. This can get very ugly in ways I probably don’t need to describe. Let’s just say that you had better not use the inverted classroom model if you aren’t prepared to put out a constant P.R. effort to convince students of the positive benefits of the model and constantly to assuage student concerns.

I’ve often wondered why students sometimes react so negatively to the inverted classroom model. I’ve come to believe it’s the result of a invasive, false belief that can arise in students about their ability to learn things independently of others — namely, that they simply cannot do so. I have had students tell me this to my face — “I can’t learn [insert topic] unless you lecture to me about it in class first.” Clearly this is not true. Toddlers learn their native language without formal instruction, just by assimilating (there’s that word again) the language going on naturally in their background. We all learn things every day without sitting in a classroom; we may seek out training data first through printed instructions, worked-out examples, YouTube videos, etc., but it’s almost never in a classroom setting. Learning new things on our own initiative and without formal instruction in a classroom setting is as natural to humans as breathing. Indeed you could say that it’s the capacity to learn in this way that makes us human. But somehow many students think otherwise.

Where does this belief come from? I think that it comes from its own instance of assimilation, namely the assimilation of a culture of programmed classroom instruction that takes place from roughly the first grade through the twelfth grade in this country. Students have so few experiences where they pursue and construct their own knowledge that they simply come to believe that they are incapable of doing so. And this belief is propagated most rapidly in mathematics. I’ve been reading in Seymour Papert‘s book Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas, and this quote hits this issue right on the head:

Difficulty with school math is often the first step of an invasive intellectual process that leads us all to define ourselves as bundles of aptitudes and ineptitudes, as being “mathematical” or “not mathematical”, “artistic” or “not artistic”, “musical” or “not musical”, “profound” or “superficial”, “intelligent” or “dumb”. Thus deficiency becomes identity and learning is transformed from the early child’s free exploration of the world to a chore beset by insecurities and self-imposed restrictions.

That last sentence (emphasis added) sums it up, doesn’t it? Deficiency becomes identity. Eventually, if a student is robbed of experiences of self-motivated learning, the student eventually adopts a self-image in which she is incapable of self-motivated learning. It is a false self-image that is ultimately dehumanizing.

Which is why I put such stock in the inverted classroom model. I think this method of teaching, along with other learner-centered modes of instruction like problem-based learning, is on the front lines in reversing students’ negative ways of thinking about how they learn. Students may (will?) chafe at the inversion at first. But in the MATLAB course at least, something really cool happened at the end of the semester. I made up a slideshow for students called “Five myths about how you think you learn that CMP 150 has busted”. Among the myths were “I can’t learn unless a professor lectures to me” and “I can’t learn on my own initiative”, and I gave concrete examples of work that the students had done in the class that contradicted these messages. In the end I showed them that through this inverted classroom process they had taken majors strides toward being confident, independent, skill learners and problem-solvers rather than just people who can play the classroom game well. And even the most skeptical students were nodding in agreement. And I think that makes it all worthwhile for everyone.

Enhanced by Zemanta

16 Comments

Filed under Critical thinking, Education, Inverted classroom, Liberal arts, Linear algebra, Math, MATLAB, Screencasts, Student culture, Teaching, Technology

A problem with “problems”

I have a bone to pick with problems like the following, which is taken from a major university-level calculus textbook. Read it, and see if you can figure out what I mean.

This is located in the latter one-fourth of a review set for the chapter on integration. Its position in the set suggests it is less routine, less rote than one of the early problems. But what’s wrong with this problem is that it’s not a problem at all. It’s an exercise. The difference between the two is enormous. To risk oversimplifying, in an exercise, the person doing the exercise knows exactly what to do at the very beginning to obtain the information being requested. In a problem, the person doesn’t. What makes an exercise an exercise is its familiarity and congruity with prior exercises. What makes a problem a problem is the lack of these things.

The above is not a problem, it is an exercise. Use the Midpoint Rule with six subintervals from 0 to 24. That’s the only part of the statement that you even have to read! The rest of it has absolutely nothing with bees, the rate of their population growth, or the net amount of population growth. A student might be turning this in to an instructor who takes off points for incorrect or missing units, and then you have to think about bees and time. Otherwise, this exercise is pure pseudocontext.

Worst of all, this exercise might correctly assess students’ abilities to execute a numerical integration algorithm, but it doesn’t come close to measuring whether a student understands what an integral is in the first place and why we are even bringing them up. Even if the student realizes an integral should be used, there’s no discussion of how to choose which method and which parameters within the method, or why. Instead, the exercise flatly tells students not only to use an integral, but what method to use and even how many subdivisions. A student can get a 100% correct answer and have no earthly idea what integration has to do with the question.

A simple fix to the problem statement will change this into a problem. Keep the graph the same and change the text to:

The graph below shows the rate at which a population of honeybees was growing, in bees per week. By about how many bees did the population grow after 24 weeks?

This still may not be a full-blown problem yet — and it’s still pretty pseudocontextual, and the student can guess there should be an integral happening because it’s in the review section for the chapter on integration —  but at least now we have to think a lot harder about what to do, and the questions we have to answer are better. How do I get a total change when I’m given a rate? Why can’t I just find the height of the graph at 24? And once we realize that we have to use an integral — and being able to make that realization is one of the main learning objectives of this chapter, or at least it should be — there are more questions. Can I do this with an antiderivative? Can I use geometry in some way? Should I use the Midpoint Rule or some other method? Can I get by with, say, six rectangles? or four? or even two? Why not use 24, or 2400? Is it OK just the guesstimate the area by counting boxes?

I think we who teach calculus and those who write calculus books must do a better job of giving problems to students and not just increasingly complicated exercises. It’s very easy to do so; we just have to give less information and fewer artificial cues to students, and force students to think hard and critically about their tools and how to select the right combination of tools for the job. No doubt, this makes grading harder, but students aren’t going to learn calculus in any real or lasting sense if they don’t grapple with these kinds of problems.

Enhanced by Zemanta

4 Comments

Filed under Calculus, Critical thinking, Math, Problem Solving, Teaching

What correlates with problem solving skill?

About a year ago, I started partitioning up my Calculus tests into three sections: Concepts, Mechanics, and Problem Solving. The point values for each are 25, 25, and 50 respectively. The Concepts items are intended to be ones where no calculations are to be performed; instead students answer questions, interpret meanings of results, and draw conclusions based only on graphs, tables, or verbal descriptions. The Mechanics items are just straight-up calculations with no context, like “take the derivative of y = \sqrt{x^2 + 1}“. The Problem-Solving items are a mix of conceptual and mechanical tasks and can be either instances of things the students have seen before (e.g. optimzation or related rates problems) or some novel situation that is related to, but not identical to, the things they’ve done on homework and so on.

I did this to stress to students that the main goal of taking a calculus class is to learn how to solve problems effectively, and that conceptual mastery and mechanical mastery, while different from and to some extent independent of each other, both flow into mastery of problem-solving like tributaries to a river. It also helps me identify specific areas of improvement; if the class’ Mechanics average is high but the Concepts average is low, it tells me we need to work more on Concepts.

I just gave my third (of four) tests to my two sections of Calculus, and for the first time I started paying attention to the relationships between the scores on each section, and it felt like there were some interesting relationships happening between the sections of the test. So I decided to do not only my usual boxplot analysis of the individual parts but to make three scatter plots, pairing off Mechanics vs. Concepts, Problem Solving vs. Concepts, and Mechanics vs. Problem Solving, and look for trends.

Here’s the plot for Mechanics vs. Concepts:

That r-value of 0.6155 is statistically significant at the 0.01 level. Likewise, here’s Problem Solving vs. Concepts:

The r-value here of 0.5570 is obviously less than the first one, but it’s still statistically significant at the 0.01 level.

But check out the Problem Solving vs. Mechanics plot:

There’s a slight upward trend, but it looks disarrayed; and in fact the r = 0.3911 is significant only at the 0.05 level.

What all this suggests is that there is a stronger relationship between conceptual knowledge and mechanics, and between conceptual knowledge and problem solving skill, than there is between mechanical mastery and problem solving skill. In other words, while there appears to be some positive relationship between the ability simply to calculate and the ability to solve problems that involve calculation (are we clear on the difference between those two things?), the relationship between the ability to answer calculus questions involving no calculation and the ability to solve problems that do involve calculation is stronger — and so is the relationship between no-calculation problems and the ability to calculate, which seems really counterintuitive.

If this relationship holds in general — and I think that it does, and I’m not the only one — then clearly the environment most likely to teach calculus students how to be effective problem solvers is not the classroom primarily focused on computation. A healthy, interacting mixture of conceptual and mechanical work — with a primary emphasis on conceptual understanding — would seem to be what we need instead. The fact that this kind of environment stands in stark contrast to the typical calculus experience (both in the way we run our classes and the pedagogy implied in the books we choose) is something well worth considering.

Enhanced by Zemanta

11 Comments

Filed under Calculus, Critical thinking, Education, Higher ed, Math, Peer instruction, Problem Solving, Teaching

Calculus and conceptual frameworks

I was having a conversation recently with a colleague who might be teaching a section of our intro programming course this fall. In sharing my experiences about teaching programming from the MATLAB course, I mentioned that the thing that is really hard about teaching programming is that students often lack a conceptual framework for what they’re learning. That is, they lack a mental structure into which they can place the topics and concepts they’re learning and then see those ideas in their proper place and relationship to each other. Expert learners — like some students who are taking an intro programming course but have been coding since they were 6 years old — have this framework, and the course is a breeze. Others, possibly a large majority of students in a class, have never done any kind of programming, and they will be incapable of really learning programming until they build a conceptual framework to  handle it. And it’s the prof’s job to help them build it.

Afterwards, I thought, this is why teaching intro programming is harder than teaching calculus. Because students who make it all the way into a college calculus surely have a well-developed conceptual framework for mathematics and can understand where the topics and methods in calculus should fit. Right? Hello?

It then hit me just how wrong I was. Students coming into calculus, even if they’ve had the course before in high school, are not guaranteed to have anything like an appropriate conceptual framework for calculus. Some students may have no conceptual framework at all for calculus — they’ll be like intro programming students who have never coded — and so when they see calculus concepts, they’ll revert back to their conceptual frameworks built in prior math courses, which might be robust and might not be. But even then, students may have multiple, mutually contradictory frameworks for mathematics generally owing to different pedagogies, curricula, or experiences with math in the past.

Take, for example, the typical first contact that calculus students get with actual calculus in the Stewart textbook: The tangent problem. The very first example of section 2.1 is a prototype of this problem, and it reads: Find an equation of the tangent line to the parabola y = x^2 at the point P(1,1). What follows is the usual initial solution: (1) pick a point Q near (1,1), (2) calculate the slope of the secant line, (3) move Q closer to P and recalculate, and then (4) repeat until the differences between successive approximations dips below some tolerance level.

What is a student going to do with this example? The ideal case — what we think of as a proper conceptual handling of the ideas in the example — would be that the student focuses on the nature of the problem (I am trying to find the slope of a tangent line to a graph at a point), the data involved in the problem (I am given the formula for the function and the point where the tangent line goes), and most importantly the motivation for the problem and why we need something new (I’ve never had to calculate the slope of a line given only one point on it). As the student reads the problem, framed properly in this way, s/he learns: I can find the slope of a tangent line using successive approximations of secant lines, if the difference in approximations dips below a certain tolerance level. The student is then ready for example 2 of this section, which is an application to finding the rate at which a charge on a capacitor is discharged. Importantly, there is no formula for the function in example 2, just a graph.

But the problem is that most students adopt a conceptual framework that worked for them in their earlier courses, which can be summarized as: Math is about getting right answers to the odd-numbered exercises in the book. Students using this framework will approach the tangent problem by first homing in on the first available mathematical notation in the example to get cues for what equation to set up. That notation in this case is:

m_{PQ} = \frac{x^2 - 1}{x-1}

Then, in the line below, a specific value of x (1.5) is plugged in. Great! they might think, I’ve got a formula and I just plug a number into it, and I get the right answer: 2.5. But then, reading down a bit further, there are insinuations that the right answer is not 2.5. Stewart says, “…the closer x is to 1…it appears from the tables, the closer m_{PQ} is to 2. This suggests that the slope of the tangent line t should be m = 2.” The student with this framework must then be pretty dismayed. What’s this about “it appears” the answer is 2? Is it 2, or isn’t it? What happened to my 2.5? What’s going on? And then they get to example 2, which has no formula in it at all, and at that point any sane person with this framework would give up.

It’s also worth noting that the Stewart book — and many other standard calculus books — do not introduce this tangent line idea until after a lengthy precalculus review chapter, and that chapter typically looks just like what students saw in their Precalculus courses. These treatments do not attempt to be a ramp-up into calculus, and presages of the concepts of calculus are not present. If prior courses didn’t train students on good conceptual frameworks, then this review material actually makes matters worse when it comes time to really learn calculus. They will know how to plug numbers and expressions into a function, but when the disruptively different math of calculus appears, there’s nowhere to put it, except in the plug-and-chug bin that all prior math has gone into.

So it’s extremely important that students going into calculus get a proper conceptual framework for what to do with the material once they see it. Whose responsibility is that? Everybody’s, starting with…

  • the instructor. The instructor of a calculus class has to be very deliberate and forthright in bending all elements of the course towards the construction of a framework that will support the massive amount of material that will come in a calculus class. This includes telling students that they need a conceptual framework that works, and informing them that perhaps their previous frameworks were not designed to manage the load that’s coming. The instructor also must be relentless in helping students put new material in its proper place and relationship to prior material.
  • But here the textbooks can help, too, by suggesting the framework to be used; it’s certainly better than not specifying the framework at all but just serving up topic after topic as non sequiturs.
  • Finally, students have to work at constructing a framework as well; and they should be held accountable not only for their mastery of micro-level calculus topics like the Chain Rule but also their ability to put two or more concepts in relation to each other and to use prior knowledge on novel tasks.

What are your experiences with helping students (in calculus or otherwise) build useable conceptual frameworks for what they are learning? Any tools (like mindmapping software), assessment methods, or other teaching techniques you’d care to share?

Enhanced by Zemanta

9 Comments

Filed under Calculus, Critical thinking, Education, Educational technology, Math, Problem Solving, Teaching, Technology, Textbooks

Boxplots: Curiouser and curiouser

The calculus class took their third (and last) hour-long assessment yesterday. In the spirit of data analytics ala the previous post here, I made boxplots for the different sections of the test (Conceptual Knowledge (CK), Computation (C), and Problem Solving (PS)) as well as the overall scores. Here are the boxplots for this assessment — put side-by-side with the boxplots for the same sections on the previous assessments. “A2” and “A3” mean Assessments 2 and 3.

Obviously there is still a great deal of improvement to be had here — the fact that the class average is still below passing remains unacceptable to me — but there have been some definite gains, particularly in the conceptual knowledge department.

What changed between Assessment 2 and Assessment 3? At least three things:

  • The content changed. Assessment 2 was over derivative rules and applications; Assessment 3 covered integration.
  • The way I treated the content in class changed. Based on the results of Assessment 2, I realized I needed to make conceptual work a much greater part of the class meetings. Previously the class meetings had been about half lecture, with time set aside to work “problems” — meaning, exercises, such as “find the critical numbers of y = xe^{-x}. Those are not really problems that assess conceptual knowledge. So I began to fold in more group work problems that ask students to reason from something other than a calculation. I stressed these problems from the textbook more in class. I tried to include more such problems in WeBWorK assignments — though there are precious few of them to be had.
  • The level of lip service I gave to conceptual problems went up hugely. Every day I was reminding the students of the low scores on Conceptual Knowledge on the test and that the simplest way to boost their grades in the class would be to improve their conceptual knowledge. I did not let their attention leave this issue.

Somewhere in a combination of these three things we have the real reason those scores went up. I tend to think the first point had little to do with it. Integration doesn’t seem inherently any easier to understand conceptually than differentiation, particularly at this stage in the course when differentiation is relatively familiar and integration is brand new. So I think that simply doing more conceptual problems in class and stressing the importance of conceptual knowledge in class were the main cause of the improvements.

Quite interestingly, the students’ scores on computation also improved — despite the reduced presence of computation in class because of the ramped-up levels of conceptual problems. We did fewer computational problems on the board and in group work, and yet their performance on raw computation improved! Again, I don’t think integration is easier than differentiation at this stage in the course, so I don’t think this improvement was because the material got easier. Maybe the last test put the fear of God into them and they started working outside of class more. I don’t know. But this does indicate to me that skill in computation is not strictly proportional to the amount of computation I do, or anybody else does, in class.

To overgeneralize for a second: Increased repetition on conceptual problems improves performance on those problems dramatically, while the corresponding reduction in time spent on computational exercises not only does not harm students’ performance on computation but might actually have something to do with improving it. If we math teachers can understand the implications of this possibility (or at least understand the extent to which this statement is true) we might be on to something big.

The scores on problem solving went two different directions. On the one hand, the median went up; but on the other hand the mean went down. And the middle 50% didn’t get any better on the top end and got worse on the bottom end. I’m still parsing that out. It could be the content itself this time; most of the actual problems in integration tend to take place near the end of the chapter, after the Fundamental Theorem and u-substitution, so the kinds of problems in this section were less than a week old for these students. But quite possibly the improvement in conceptual knowledge brought the median up on problem solving, despite the newness of the problems. Or maybe the differences aren’t even statistically significant.

What I take away from this is that if you want students to do well on non-routine problems, those problems have to occupy a central place in the class, and they have to be done not outside of class where there’s no domain expert to guide the students through them but in class. And likewise, we need not worry so much that we are “wasting precious class time” on group work on conceptual problems at the expense of individual computation skill. Students might do just fine on that stuff regardless, perhaps even better if they have enhanced conceptual understanding to support their computational skills.

It all goes back to support the inverted classroom model which I’ve been using in the MATLAB course, and now I’m wondering about its potential in calculus as well.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

4 Comments

Filed under Calculus, Critical thinking, Education, Inverted classroom, Math, MATLAB, Problem Solving, Teaching

The case of the curious boxplots

I just graded my second hour-long assessment for the Calculus class (yes, I do teach other courses besides MATLAB). I break these assessments up into three sections: Concept Knowledge, where students have to reason from verbal, graphical, or numerical information (24/100 points); Computations, where students do basic context-free symbol-crunching (26/100 points); and Problem Solving, consisting of problems that combine conceptual knowledge and computation (50/100 points). Here’s the Assessment itself. (There was a problem with the very last item — the function doesn’t have an inflection point — but we fixed it and students got extra time because of it.)

Unfortunately the students as a whole did quite poorly. The class average was around a 51%. As has been my practice this semester, I turn to data analysis whenever things go really badly to try and find out what might have happened. I made boxplots for each of the three sections and for the overall scores. The red bars inside the boxplots are the averages for each.

I think there’s some very interesting information in here.

The first thing I noticed was how similar the Calculations and Problem Solving distributions were. Typically students will do significantly better on Calculations than anything else, and the Problem Solving and Concept Knowledge distributions will mirror each other. But this time Calculations and Problem Solving appear to be the same.

But then you ask: Where’s the median in boxplots for these two distributions? The median shows up nicely in the first and fourth plot, but doesn’t appear in the middle two. Well, it turns out that for Calculations, the median and the 75th percentile are equal; while for Problem Solving, the median and the 25th percentile are equal! The middle half of each distribution is between 40 and 65% on each section, but the Calculation middle half is totally top-heavy while the Problem Solving middle half is totally bottom-heavy. Shocking — I guess.

So, clearly conceptual knowledge in general — the ability to reason and draw conclusions from non-computational methods — is a huge concern. That over 75% of the class is scoring less than 60% on a fairly routine conceptual problem is unacceptable. Issues with conceptual knowledge carry over to problem solving. Notice that the average on Conceptual Knowledge is roughly equal to the median on Problem Solving. And problem solving is the main purpose of having students take the course in the first place.

Computation was not as much of an issue for these students because they get tons of repetition with it (although it looks like they could use some more) via WeBWorK problems, which are overwhelmingly oriented towards context-free algebraic calculations. But what kind of repetition and supervised practice do they get with conceptual problems? We do a lot of group work, but it’s not graded. There is still a considerable amount of lecturing going on during the class period as well, and there is not an expectation that when I throw out a conceptual question to the class that it is supposed to be answered by everybody. Students do not spend nearly as much time working on conceptual problems and longer-form contextual problems as they do basic, context-free computation problems.

This has got to change in the class, both for right now — so I don’t end up failing 2/3 of my class — and for the future, so the next class will be better equipped to do calculus taught at a college level. I’m talking with the students tomorrow about the short term. As for the long term, two things come to mind that can help.

  • Clickers. Derek Bruff mentioned this in a Twitter conversation, and I think he’s right — clickers can elicit serious work on conceptual questions and alert me to how students are doing with these kinds of questions before the assessment hits and it’s too late to do anything proactive about it. I’ve been meaning to take the plunge and start using clickers and this might be the right, um, stimulus for it.
  • Inverted classroom. I’m so enthusiastic about how well the inverted classroom model has worked in the MATLAB course that I find myself projecting that model onto everything. But I do think that this model would provide students with the repetition and accountability they need on conceptual work, as well as give me the information about how they’re doing that I need. Set up some podcasts for course lectures for students to listen/watch outside of class; assign WeBWorK to assess the routine computational problems (which would be no change from what we’re doing now); and spend every class doing a graded in-class activity on a conceptual or problem-solving activity. That would take some work and a considerable amount of sales pitching to get students to buy into it, but I think I like what it might become.

7 Comments

Filed under Calculus, Clickers, Critical thinking, Inverted classroom, Math, Teaching, Technology