October 2, 2025 • 37 mins
Send us a text! (US messaging rates apply)
We're trying something new this week! Last week's ep with Mike Flynn dove into some very murky debate waters: do students need to know the "why" of what their learning in order to truly understand material, or is it fine for them to just memorize things as long as they get the answers? (If you missed, scroll back in your feed or click here to catch up.)
But the real drama took place over on TikTok, where Vanessa posted a clip from the ep and some viewers engaged in very polite and erudite discussion in the comments ... jk, people LOST THEIR MINDS. But there were also a ton of great points that are often debated in math ed, so we invited Mike back on this week to respond to some comments real-time and clarify some of what he and Vanessa meant last week. Enjoy - and either way, you know where to let us know what you think ;)
Links discussed:
- How to find the "why" in math class w/ Mike Flynn (last week's ep)
- The TikTok that started it all
- Lost S2E01 - *why* was Desmond typing the numbers?!
- Connect with Mike Flynn: Website, TikTok, Instagram
Contact us:
- Vanessa Vakharia: Instagram, TikTok, Email
- Math Therapy: Text the Podcast
More Math Therapy:
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Mike Flynn (00:01):
What Vanessa and I are saying, is it's not one or
the other.
We want fluency, we wantautomaticity, we want all of
that, and we want theunderstanding, and they're not
mutually exclusive.
We can do both together.
And in fact, when we do bothtogether, it's when we actually
achieve that.
So it's not a, one side versusthe other side, we just need to
meet in the middle.
The same with reading.
You wanna be a fluent readerwith good accuracy, but you
wanna understand the story.
(00:22):
You want to be a fluentmathematician with great
accuracy and you wannaunderstand what you're doing.
Vanessa Vakharia (00:29):
Okay guys, it's me, Vanessa, and I'm here
to welcome you to a first of itskind Math Therapy episode.
Last week we shared my interviewwith Mike Flynn, and I posted a
little clip of our interview onTikTok and Instagram like I
always do with every episode.
Now, I don't know if this islike the algorithm blessing or
cursing me, but this clip poppedthe fuck off.
(00:49):
Like we are currently sitting at57,000 views, over 200 comments.
the thing has been saved by morethan 350 people.
It has almost 3000 likes.
We're having like our 15 minutesof viral fame or like, 15
seconds or whatever.
Anyway, the point is that whatreally stood out to both of us
was not just how famous we wereboth getting, but the comments.
(01:11):
There were so many that me andMike started screenshotting and
like sending them back andforth, trying to keep up with
responding to them all.
And finally we decided we shouldjust have'em back on the podcast
to actually discuss some ofthese comments in real time.
Because a lot of common themesemerged that are very hotly
debated topics in math ed, andwe thought it would be fun to
(01:31):
actually like engage with themand clarify some of our points
that we made in the originalepisode.
By the way, you should checkthat out first if you haven't
listened to it already.
Before we dive in, because wethrew this together literally
yesterday on the fly, this willnot shock anyone what I'm about
to say, my producer Davidinsists that I warn you that
(01:51):
the, that the audio will sound abit different than normal
because it wasn't our usualrecording setup.
Honestly, guys, it soundscompletely fine to me, but hey,
that's why we love David, blahblah, he's a Taurus, we get it.
Anyways.
The link to view the clip that Iposted on TikTok that has all
the comments, that link is inthe show notes, and also you can
find a link there to text us, soyou can text us what you think
(02:14):
of this episode because it'slike our first ever of this
kind, and let us know if weshould do more stuff like this.
Also let us know about thetitle, because right now we're
going with"The Comment Section",but the other title we had in
mind for this type of episodewas"Reply Guys".
But I was like, does anyone knowwhat that means?
So text me and let me know.
Okay, here we go.
Let's get into the first everepisode of"The Comment Section"
(02:37):
with Mike Flynn.
welcome back.
Mike Flynn (02:41):
Thank you.
I'm glad to be here.
And, um, how exciting, right.
Who'd have thought?
Vanessa Vakharia (02:45):
How do you feel like being a viral
mathematical sensation suddenly.
Mike Flynn (02:51):
Uh, yeah, it's, you know what it is.
I love that it sparkedconversation.
It's it, I like being a littleprovocative, right?
You want to get people debatingand talking about important
issues and things.
And I think this is an importantone.
And we got, we got good opinionsand, uh, we've got some
interesting perspectives fromall sides of the issue.
So let's dig into it.
Vanessa Vakharia (03:10):
Let's dig into it.
Okay, so before we do, I wannaplay the clip that I posted that
has sparked such controversy andconversation for everyone so
they can hear what it was thatyou said that hit such a nerve.
Mike Flynn (03:23):
There's a reason why math has such a bad reputation
is because, you know, imagine ifwe taught.
Reading the same way we teachmath, where it's just, just
focus on saying these wordsreally fast and don't worry
about what it means.
With reading we also embrace thecomprehension.
In fact, the comprehension's themost important thing and the
speed and accuracy help us toget to that meaning faster.
(03:44):
But in math, we just disregardedthe meaning.
It's like, oh, don't worry aboutit.
Just just do this thing.
I show you.
Do it fast.
And if you do it right, you'regonna get all the right answers.
But don't worry about what itmeans like I was taught, yours
is not to reason why just invertand multiply like that's
Vanessa Vakharia (03:57):
Yours is not to reason why that's actually
fucked.
Mike Flynn (04:00):
Yeah, it is.
But I remembered it.
Vanessa Vakharia (04:02):
Like what an insane thing to say.
Oh yeah.
You know how to, you know how todivide fractions.
Yeah.
But like you're literally toldlike your job is not to think
like, don't even, please do not.
Before we get into the comments,I have to ask you, why do you
think this comment did hit sucha nerve?
You know, it's not often thatpeople on the internet want to
talk about math teaching.
What do you think it was?
Mike Flynn (04:22):
Oh, that's a great question.
I think part of it is likethere's, there's always that
math war, right?
There's the people that think wejust need to go back to the
basics.
And then there's the people thatthink new math, even though
there's no such thing as newmath, but the narrative, right?
So you get both of those sides.
I think part of it is, it sparksthat, but I also think the
analogy of, of the way we teachreading, Uh, the way it's framed
(04:45):
when you actually stop andthink, yeah, if we only taught
kids to say words really fastand not understand what they've
read, they would hate reading.
And I think it made sense forpeople why so many people don't
like math, because that'sexactly how they experience
math.
And I think it's just, it'svisceral.
And, and for some people, ifit's like, if it validated how
they felt, then they're like,they're all excited to get in
(05:06):
there because that's, that'sexactly what I experienced.
But then there are other peoplewho, for the opposite reason,
it's visceral.
'cause it's like, oh, it's thatother, he's pushing this agenda
kind of thing.
So any good topic.
It's got, really strong opinionson both sides and we just lit
the spark.
I.
Vanessa Vakharia (05:21):
Yeah, and I think it also goes to show how
emotional math really is.
There's this real emotionalcomponent to it where exactly
like you said, it's visceral.
People feel very strongly oneway or another because they were
made to feel very strongly oneway or another when they were
taught math.
So let's dig in.
Okay, so the first, we are,we're by the way, leaving all
political comments out of thischat.
(05:43):
Okay?
We are not gonna get into thewide range of comments about the
common core and the quoteunquote new math.
We're not gonna deal with that,but we are gonna deal with a few
major themes.
The first theme that emergedsurrounded this vibe, and I'm
gonna read you two of thecomments.
Okay?
So the first comment is:"My onlyissue I had with math was how
(06:05):
they wanted me to do it.
A 10 page essay about how yousolved five plus five.
Eye roll emoji.
I never understood their way ofdoing things, but I could solve
most problems in my head.
They always failed me in mathclass because I never understood
how to solve the problems theirway, even though I had the right
answers." Another comment I'mgonna throw in here is, someone
(06:28):
says,"As someone withdyscalculia, I hated the not
knowing why, because math is alanguage that I could never
quite get the grasp of.
Numbers don't make sense to me,but I can look at the strokes of
a painting and know exactlyeverything the painter wanted to
say with that piece." There's aton of comments like this, and a
lot of this is I knew why I wasdoing things, but I couldn't do
(06:49):
it the way they wanted me toshow how.
That's kind of what I got fromit.
But I'm curious what yourresponse is.
Mike Flynn (06:54):
Yeah, I mean, that makes sense.
I mean, there's this innateunderstanding,'cause math can
make sense also on its own.
You don't need somebody to showyou or someone to make sense of
the math for you.
Like you can start to notice, Imean any, any like that first
commenter around, I could solveit, I just couldn't do it the
way they wanted me to do it is,it's like they had, there was
this underlining meaning thatthey could start to see, but
(07:15):
they were being forced out of itto comply with like this is the
only way to do that.
And I think that.
That is something I hear a lotwhen I work with teachers, and I
think it's a very commonfrustration because it's
getting, it's it's almost likethey were robbed of the
opportunity to make sense of itbecause they had intuition, but
that, rather than have a teacherthat was responsive and and
(07:39):
trying to understand theirperspective and how they're
seeing the math and help them tobuild connections between the
way they are seeing it and theway maybe the teacher wants the
class to look at, or maybe howanother peer is solving it, it's
instead dismissed and validatedand like, no, you gotta do it.
This is the right way if youwant to get a good grade in this
class.
And it's, it's almost liketaking the meaning away from the
(08:00):
kids.
It's like going back to theliteracy, right?
It's like reading a book andsaying, I feel like there's
foreshadowing here.
It's like, no, no, no, no, no,no.
We're not doing that right now.
I need you, we're gonna answerthis other question, and I just
need you to respond.
What was the main character'smotivation?
And you're like, but I'm reallycurious about this
foreshadowing.
And it's like, no, we're nottalking about that.
That's, that's kind of the samething, right?
Vanessa Vakharia (08:19):
I totally get that.
You know, I grouped thesecomments and there were a lot of
other comments like this, the"Iwish I'd learned this way" crew.
It's all these people thatreally are agreeing with you and
they're like, oh my God.
Yes.
Like there were so many peoplebeing like, yes, if I had just
been taught this way, maybe Iwould've been given a chance.
I'm like, oh my gosh, I neverthought about this.
But it's true.
Like if.
Someone had explained to me thewhy, then maybe I would've had a
(08:41):
chance to, like all these peoplewho feel exactly like you're
saying, like they were robbed ofsomething and hearing you speak,
they were like, what if it hadbeen taught that way?
And it's funny, the firstcomment here, my only issue is
they wanted me to do math theway they were doing it.
And then that eye roll of, ugh,write a whole essay about how I
did this problem.
Like eye roll emoji.
I didn't like that.
(09:02):
I was getting it.
That person interestingly, isagreeing with you.
They're like, no, it's not thatI wanted to just memorize stuff.
I knew the why, but I wasannoyed that I had to like
explain it in this wholeelaborate way because it wasn't
good enough for them, right,like, because they're like, they
have no problem with thinking.
They are thinking.
They're just like, why do youneed me to explain it to you, to
(09:22):
defend why I am doing this?
Why is important, but also likeI wanna explain to you why,
because you're curious.
Not because you don't believeme.
Mike Flynn (09:31):
Right.
Sometimes the interpretationthat teachers would have with
when we're trying to be moreopen and, and honoring students'
ideas and things, is that,sometimes there's an
overcorrection oroverinterpretation, it's like,
alright, you solved the problem.
Now write an essay and draw apicture and build a model and
solve it a separate way and, andall in one big package where it
(09:51):
starts to feel like it's just,we're adding all these layers
versus like, like what's thereason we want students to
explain their thinking and orto, to show different
representations of the thinking.
It's the ideas to help buildstrong connections between these
ideas.
It almost goes back to that TedLasso, like,"be curious, not
judgmental".
Like if the teacher wasgenuinely curious versus like, I
(10:13):
don't think she did it that way,so let me just have her prove
it.
'cause I don't believe she didit versus I, it's interesting.
I never would've thought it thatway.
Could you show me how thatworks?
I, I wanna know more and I feellike that's the piece that
might've been missing for them.
Vanessa Vakharia (10:27):
I actually love that you brought this up.
I'm actually gonna bring this upa bit later with another range
of comments, of how you werelike, I think there might be a
bit of an overcorrection wherewe don't, you know, really
understand the intention behindwhy we're asking why.
It's because we want to know thestudent understands, we wanna
make those connections.
Just like anything, we shouldn'tbe asking students to do
(10:48):
something for the sake of doingit.
Like if it's clear that theyunderstand why we don't need to
be like, and now make a picturebecause we need to have
multiple, you know what I mean?
Like
Mike Flynn (10:56):
Yeah.
Vanessa Vakharia (10:56):
love that you said that.
So, we're gonna move on to thenext group of comments.
And this I kind of framed undera group of I'm gonna call them
the traditionalists, just forthe purposes of this
conversation.
And these comments seem to befrom people who were like taught
math through rote memorizationand mimicking, and you know the
ways we've historically taughtmath and they vehemently
disagree with you because theydid great in math class and they
(11:19):
don't see why we should changeit.
So I'm gonna read you a coupleof those.
User 1 3 2 8 5 9 1 4 1 4 5 5 9says"it's this type of thought
process that have caused sixthgraders to not be able to do
single digit addition.
At least the old way worked.
We are confusing the heck out ofkids, and the results are 12% of
students at grade level.
Wake up." Uh, why, why don't,why don't we tackle that one
(11:45):
right now?
What are we, what are wethinking there of just, I mean,
I, and again, I know we're like,kind of like giggling because
this is what the internet islike, but lot of people
correlate what you're sayingwith the fact that like students
now can't add.
Why is that a potentially faultycorrelation causation situation?
Mike Flynn (12:02):
Yeah, well, a couple things.
One, when, when someone says,it, it just, it worked like math
worked for me, the old wayworked.
It's like I always wanna justfigure out, well what, what do
you define as worked?
Like is work that I got a goodgrade?
is work that I passed highschool?
Math is work that I is is work,meaning I developed a love and
(12:24):
joy of mathematics that, and Iwanted to pursue a career in
mathematics.
Like, I, I doubt it's that one,it's, it's usually like I could
get by.
And so that's the definition ofworked.
And so if, and if that's thedefinition of worked, is that
good enough?
Like do we, do we want as ourbenchmark for students to just
get by to, to pass the class orto pass the test.
(12:46):
And I, I would hope it's notthat I feel like that's, that's
so limiting in what we're ableto do if we say that.
But then the other part is like,we'd also look at the data is
like, sure, it may have workedfor some people and I, I mean, I
graduated with people who areliteral, literal rocket
scientists right now that werein my high school.
And we were all taught math thesame way, we were in the same
classes, and they're well beyondwhere I am in the math world.
(13:10):
And clearly it worked for them.
But I know more students, moreclassmates of mine for whom the
math did not work, at all.
And it's like, so the, sometimeswe get into that place where it
worked for me, so therefore,like, don't worry about everyone
else.
That actually the, that morepeople actually didn't benefit
from a system like that.
So that's just one othercautionary tale that I, I bring
(13:32):
with that.
But here's the thing with thisis like.
The statement that like it'sbecause of this, that kids can't
add it.
there's two things I'll sayabout this.
One people say kids today don'tknow their facts or kids could
today can't do that.
But what's interesting is Istarted teaching in 1998 and
when I started teaching teacherswere saying, kids today can't
(13:53):
do, they don't know their factsand stuff.
And then my, the one my studenttaught with said, and it was
funny, when I started studentteaching, they said, kids today
can't do this.
And I started asking veteranteachers around like, when was
the date where all kids masteredtheir math facts?
Like, can we, can we pinpointit?
Was it 1967 where everyone hadit?
(14:14):
Because the thing is, alwaysheard the argument that kids
don't know their math facts.
And that was even when math wastaught in that traditional way.
I think that's always been sortof problematic.
I don't want to excuse it.
I think it's important forstudents to have math facts and
have that understanding, but Idon't think it's this idea of we
want to have sense making andsomehow that's creating kids not
(14:35):
knowing how to, to, or notmastering fact fluency.
That's a whole separateargument.
It's almost like there, there'stwo things happening here.
It's the meaning is reallyimportant and we also want
students to have fact fluency.
But fact fluency comes fromunderstanding.
If you just memorize your facts,you, you're really good at a
(14:57):
small set of problems.
You've memorized that, but it'shard to apply it.
And, and if people want proof init, I, I remember tutoring third
graders that couldn't tell meanything past nine times 12.
'cause that's all theymemorized.
And when I said, what's ninetimes 13?
They're like, I don't know.
Like I, we can't do it.
That's the result ofmemorization versus like that
understanding piece.
So yeah, there's a lot of thingsto unpack with that, with that
(15:20):
last comment.
Vanessa Vakharia (15:21):
Yeah.
But that was great.
And it actually touched on a lotof, A lot of the comments were
around this idea of, well, wedon't need to understand the
why, we need fact fluency.
We need automaticity.
We need kids to be able to dothings faster.
We need kids to know theirfacts.
And a big question I had foryou, because this is exactly
what happens.
These things get pitted againsteach other, right?
You either understand or youknow, your facts.
(15:41):
And I think what you're sayingis, is so important.
You know, a lot of people, a lotof people were jumping to your
defense in the comment saying,he's not saying you don't need
automaticity or fluency.
He's saying, we can have both.
You know,
Mike Flynn (15:51):
Yeah.
Vanessa Vakharia (15:51):
I get into this argument with friends all
the time who are like, well, ifyou understand things though,
like, you know, you understandthem, but how can you retrieve
them quickly?
Like when you memorize, you justknow your facts.
And I'm, I think I just wannaclarify this and ask you the
expert here of, but if Iunderstood.
If I understood whatmultiplication was and knew how
to myself, create the Timestable, you know, the 12 times
(16:12):
tables, because I understand,you know, I can add things
together, I can double, this andthat.
That gets embedded and becomesquick to retrieve, right?
Like through
Mike Flynn (16:21):
Absolutely.
And the difference is, I'm gonnajust shout out Graham Fletcher
here,'cause he has, I love theway he says this, is that
there's a difference betweenmemorization and knowing from
memory.
And so when you look at, at thestandards, and it doesn't matter
what state you're in, everystandard has, it doesn't say,
students will memorize, it'llsay, students will know from
memory all the facts within, youknow, whatever range.
(16:43):
But knowing from memory meansthat you can efficiently conjure
that fact and, and it could beefficiently, is like, I know
that seven plus eight is 15because I've just seen it
enough.
It's familiar.
It almost looks likememorization, but I also know
that it's 15.
'cause seven and seven is 14,and one more is 15.
But I know that in an instantit's not, I had to say that.
(17:04):
Okay.
Seven and seven.
Okay.
That's 14.
And then one more.
Oh, it's that, not that, it's,it's the reasoning where
they're, they're deriving thefact from taking something they
know and, and then using that tounderstand something they don't
know.
That's knowing from memory.
When kids can do that, wherethey can take a fact they know
and use it to build a fact thatthey don't know, that numerical
(17:26):
reasoning is the flexibilitythat we need.
And a colleague of mine, SusanJoe Russell, had a wonderful
quote saying that teachingchildren.
To be fast doesn't help them tobecome flexible, but building
their flexibility actually helpsthem to become fast.
That when, because think aboutthis.
If, if I said I'd let's get awayfrom fact fluency.
Let's just do like computationalfluency.
(17:47):
If I said 3,999 plus 3,999, ifthat argument of like.
Let's just do it the way we weretaught.
Do you really want someone topainstakingly get out paper and
then do all that regroupinginstead of saying, well, it's
4,000, 4,000 minus two.
So it's not saying that there'ssomething wrong with the
algorithm.
There's a time the algorithm isperfect, that's the right thing
(18:10):
you wanna do, but it's notalways.
Vanessa Vakharia (18:11):
you just said there just gave me a huge aha
moment.
There's a difference betweenmemorizing and knowing from
memory.
And then, that second part yousaid what, what did you say her
name was?
Susan Joe Russell,
Mike Flynn (18:23):
Joe Russell, the, the flexibility helps kids
become fast.
Vanessa Vakharia (18:27):
I think it's so incredible.
It's like, we're not sayingdon't have it in your memory.
It's how it gets there that'sthe important thing.
And leads to flexibility versusjust speed.
Okay.
I'm gonna read one other commentfrom this category.
I don't even think we need tocomment on, but it seriously
sent me like, I was so jarred bythis comment.
I was like, oh my God.
So somebody said,"I was taughtjust do it this way.
(18:48):
I did it that way with noexplanation.
I excelled in math all the waythrough school.
I would've hated common coremath.
I didn't need to know the why."Sorry.
I said common core.
I promised I wouldn't ignore thecommon core part.
The point is this person isliterally like I was to just
copy shit down with noexplanation and I did great and
I don't need to know why.
What's the problem?
(19:09):
And somebody commented after andsaid,"But if you didn't need to
know the why.
Why did you need to even knowthe procedures?
What use to you is being able tocarry out those tasks if you
don't even know what they mean?"And I was just like, ah, this is
so crazy.
Like there are so many peoplewho are like, I don't see the
problem with the fact that wejust copy shit down for no
(19:30):
actual reason.
Who cares?
What's
Mike Flynn (19:32):
Yeah.
Yeah.
Vanessa Vakharia (19:34):
it like really sent me into like obviously out
of math class and into our worldwhere so many people just, we
just follow things, everyoneelse is doing it, we just do it,
don't think for yourself, justdo the thing, you don't need to
know why.
And I was like, when I say mathclass and math therapy is not
just about math class.
It's about the skills you learnto use in your real life.
(19:54):
This was like a, a real momentfor me.
Mike Flynn (19:59):
Yeah, it reminds me of that show Lost.
I dunno if you ever watchedthat.
Like those who haven't seen it,so there's this hatch, and then
they finally get inside thehatch.
And there's this dude downthere, and all he's doing is
entering this number and thenhitting, hitting like, just like
he's typing in this number, thenhits enter.
And he has to do that every sooften, and he has no idea why.
It's just like the, the guybefore him said, that's what
(20:20):
you're supposed to do.
So that's, he's just doing thisthing without any understanding
of why means nothing, but he'sdoing it and it's like, it's
kind of that, that's what thatfeels like.
It's like, well, like.
That's just, it feels somundane.
And again, it goes back to thatlike, what does it mean it
worked for you?
So you passed.
But like, did you, did you gointo a mathematics field?
(20:41):
Did it open up a whole new.
Pathway in life aroundprogramming or, creating
mathematical models and doingoceanography because you just
love the, the patterns around,the, the prevalence of sharks in
the ocean, and you wanted toextend that model and.
Or was it just that you, youcomplied, you got a good grade,
you made the honor roll.
(21:02):
Like I guess that's the thing islike, what, what are we actually
doing this for?
Are we doing it for the gradeand compliance or are we, we
trying to get deeper meaning?
Vanessa Vakharia (21:11):
Okay, let's move on to the next category.
And these are those who I callthe skeptics.
This is a very interesting onebecause no one in this group
mentioned how they were taughtbut they've decided that if we
teach the why as you suggest, itmust mean that we're not
teaching math facts or fluencyor anything else.
They think that teaching the whyis not only a waste of time, but
(21:34):
that kids are not capable ofthinking.
Quite literally.
So let me, I'm gonna read youone of these comments.
Okay.
Somebody here says:"Mathdevelops differently in the
brain.
Not everyone is ready to evenprocess, quote unquote,
understanding in their brains.
Foundational skills areessential and understanding
unlocks over time." Okay, that'sthe first comment.
(21:56):
But here's another one that I, Iwas like, oh my God, a couple of
people are saying this.
get to the, this is from ateacher,"To get to the why you
have to be able to reason andthink critically something many
don't want to do.
I attempted to show my 10thgraders why, or, and I tried to
lead them to the area of atriangle.
I drew the rectangle, split itin half and everything.
They couldn't see it.
(22:16):
So it's not always, because wedon't teach the why sometimes
it's because reasoning is toomuch of a task." Oh boy.
Mike Flynn (22:25):
Yeah.
Vanessa Vakharia (22:26):
good.
Mike Flynn (22:28):
Well, here's two things I'm gonna actually like,
play nice for a moment.
Is that there's, I, I understandthat frustration, right?
It's like there's, I don't wantto invalidate that the, because
I could say, I, I teachpreschool through high school
and college and stuff, so I've,I've done all levels of math and
I work primarily with adults'cause I work with teachers and
(22:48):
coaches and caregivers and, buthere's the thing that we see is
that kids early on if taughtmath in a way where it is just
passive and I'm just followingthe, the rules and the script
and just doing the steps andmimicking.
I'm not really understanding youcan get become complacent pretty
quickly and realize that it's,someone's gonna show you how to
(23:09):
do it.
And there's a quick, easy way todo it where you don't have to
think too hard.
And then whenever, let's saylet's three years, you have that
and then you get a teacher thatwants to try to open it up a
little bit to build some meaningit.
The cognitive demand on that isso much higher for kids.
And it's almost like being on atreadmill and then the teachers
(23:29):
just raise the incline on it andit's like, oh, this is hard
work.
And kids, like kids or peopleworking out, when you raise the
the treadmill, it's like youalmost don't like it at first
'cause it's so much harder whenit could be just so much easier
if we just drop the treadmilldown.
But the thing is, if our goalwas to get better at running,
raising the incline.
(23:50):
Is really helpful to build that.
And the same is true if we wantkids to get used to being good
thinkers in math.
And so the first few times we dothat, yeah, it's gonna be
tiring.
So maybe you do it for smallchunks and get them acclimated
to it a little bit, build uptheir stamina.
But once students start to seethe meaning, it changes
everything.
And I'll just name, I'll cite acouple of in instances.
(24:13):
So the first, and I think Imight have mentioned this at at
the other time, the otherpodcast is When I was
26-year-old, 26 years old in aprofessional learning
experience, and I first madethis connection in math, I
remember turning to someonesaying, if I could have learned
it this way, it would've madesuch a difference.
It was so powerful for me.
But in the work that I did at,when I worked at the college, I
taught in a class that had thatmixed classroom teachers in
(24:36):
undergraduates, and some of themwere math majors.
And I remember a lot of timesstudents telling me who were
excelled in math, I mean,they're coming over to a
prestigious.
College in Massachusetts, they,they have amazing grades,
everything.
And they were, were saying howmuch it meant to them to finally
understand it.
It's really important for peopleto make some of those
(24:58):
connections.
But to go back at that, thatthought of like, our brains
don't work this way or not likethat kids can't learn that way,
they can't think this way.
So I study learning.
I mean, I, I study how long-termlearning works.
and this is what my field is, isthe way learning works is that
we, our long-term memory is allbased on schemas, it's all
(25:19):
categories.
And schemas are connected ideasthat form some kind of category.
And those connections are newknowledge connected to prior
knowledge, and so that's wheremeaning making comes in.
And so one of the things that,like starting with a
five-year-old if we want, or a4-year-old, a 3-year-old, I've
worked in preschool, I can saythat if you can help kids to
(25:40):
connect a new idea withsomething they've already
understood, that's all meaningmaking is.
But to say that kids can't thinkthat way, like that's the only
way we think.
That's how humans makeconnections.
it's slightly slower to go a lotfaster later on.
Going back to that flexibility,right, you build in that
(26:00):
understanding builds theirflexibility.
But we just slow down a littlebit in the beginning so that
they can understand it, versus,I just remember it'cause Mr.
Flynn showed me this thing andnow that's what I'm gonna rely
on for the rest of my life.
Vanessa Vakharia (26:14):
As I'm listening to you, I'm thinking I
was literally one of mathstudents and teachers.
Like remember, I, you know, Iwas getting a 96% in calculus.
Like I was like the star mathstudent after I failed it a few
times, and I remember I, myteacher was like, oh my God,
like, you're, you're so bright.
I'm gonna pick you to do one ofthose like crazy math contests.
So, you know what I mean?
(26:34):
Like, you're so smart.
I could not answer one question,not a single question on this
math contest, because none ofthem were about following any of
the procedures I learned.
They were all about likethinking.
And it's not that I wasincapable of thinking, but I had
never had to, I had not had tothink mathematically, truly
(26:55):
mathematically for my entiretyof high school.
And I was getting a 96%.
And I remember feeling sodismayed.
I was like, I can't answer asingle question.
I was like, oh, what question isthis like, I was trying to
compare like what is this likethat I've done before?
What formula can I use?
None of them even requiredformulas, right?
But like that was so how I wasused to doing math and, another
(27:16):
thing that stood out to me as Iwas reading these comments,
'cause again, there were a lotof these comments, this is idea
of, oh my God, this is allbullshit.
Like, no one needs to know thewhy and kids can't even process
this stuff.
A lot of people, I think.
misunderstanding what you meanby the why.
Like they almost, they're like,what, what?
You want us to sit and tell kidshow we derive the quadratic
formula?
(27:36):
Like no one cares.
And I'm like, but that's notwhat that, and, and actually
I've been a victim to this.
I've often thought, you know, Ipreviously, probably a few years
ago, I was like, what do youmean the why?
Like literally like why atriangle exists?
Like I think we conflate theidea with, explaining why
something works and numbersense, and having kids truly
understand math, we conflatethat with, we need to teach them
(27:59):
like mathematical philosophy orlike, do you know what I mean?
Like etymology, like we, I thinkthere's a confusion there, like
it's like the why feels like avery nebulous territory that
like it could mean somethingreally big or it could mean
something as basic as we justneed to teach them like why it
works.
Mike Flynn (28:16):
Yeah.
Yeah.
I mean that's, that's, I'm soglad you brought that up.
It's so true that it, like, it'salmost like this gross
overgeneralization of it.
It's like, it's one of thereasons I hate the word
discovery math, because the, itgets so interpreted of like, oh,
well, we teach this way.
We just hope we're just let thekids meander around and we hope
they discover it and it's like.
That's not at all how it works.
(28:37):
So discovery math is that wewant them to make the meaningful
connections.
And so we orchestrate theseexperiences where they have the
right tools, they've gotdifferent representations, and
then we ask really intentionalquestions to draw their
attention to like, where do Isee the distributive property in
Vanessa's representation?
Where do I see it in David'sformula or his algorithm?
(28:59):
And, and how are these twosimilar?
And that's the, that's all itis.
That's what meaning making is.
It's just building connectionsso that you tap into something
they already know so that thisnew thing makes more sense.
It doesn't require this Ted Talklecture or like this, uh,
they've gotta read this likegiant book to understand the
theory of, of number.
(29:20):
It's not that at all.
But it's, it can get, um, itmakes for good social media
posts, those kind of jokes andmemes.
And stuff like that.
But at the end of the day, it'slike, it's, it's quite simple
for the, the meaning making andit's just one additional step.
It's like, we just don't wantstudents to just like, do
something.
It's like, well, I, I, the onlyreason I know is'cause Miss
(29:40):
so-and-so showed me this.
So that's, that's the answer.
That's, that's not good enoughanymore.
But if just ask'em to understandit at just a tiny bit, goes a
long way.
And that's all we're trying todo here.
Vanessa Vakharia (29:53):
Yeah.
I love it.
Okay.
We're, you know, we've done Ithink the, the bulk of what
people are saying, but I dowanna say that there are a ton
of people online that areagreeing with you and not just
agreeing with you, but agreeingwith you in a very moving way.
I think because they, they,they're touching on what you
just said, kind of.
Earlier about how, this idea ofwe don't think kids are capable
(30:15):
of thinking and yes, it is a lottrickier for them to, take on
the extra cognitive work ofreally digging into something
when they've never had to.
But a lot of these comments shownot only can kids do it, not
only can it be done, kids arehungry for it.
They want it, and when they getit, something opens up.
(30:36):
So somebody said here,"I hatedthe just do it memorization
math.
I fell behind one year and Istayed behind for the rest of my
life.
I even asked a teacher who knewI was struggling to help me
catch up.
She told me she didn't havetime.
It wasn't until my last year ofhigh school when I took remedial
math that I finally had anenvironment where I could stop
my teacher mid lesson and go,wait, why did you do that?" And
(30:57):
I have like goosebumps sayingthis because I'm like, how the
fuck, why the fuck do we have toget to remedial math?
Well, I hear this a lot fromstudents.
Oh, in remedial math, you know,in the, in the quote unquote
lower math.
That's where I get to ask why.
That's where we learn relevantmath.
I hear it all the time and, andthat really upsets me.
It's like, why?
(31:18):
that kind of crazy?
That in, and it's also crazybecause this is actually what we
were talking about in our, ourlast interview, is asking the
why and learning.
The why is is, you know, kind ofpotentially even harder than
just copying and memorizing.
Yet in these remedial classes,kids are technically doing the
tougher work of digging into thewhy.
Like, isn't that bizarre?
Mike Flynn (31:37):
it makes me happy to hear that though, that, because
I see sometimes the opposite,whereas the belief that students
who have, have any learningchallenges, any needs at all,
just need to be shown how to dothat.
I hear that argument so much, sothat actually brings me hope
that in some remedial mathclasses, that we're actually
seeing more meaningfulconnections.
Vanessa Vakharia (31:56):
Well, but you know why though?
It's because in many of those,in most I would say remedial
math classes, the curriculum isso much smaller because they
don't think kids can learn thatmuch.
So they literally, they havemore time
Mike Flynn (32:06):
Hmm.
Vanessa Vakharia (32:06):
there's less of an emphasis on just getting
the highest score.
Because most of those kids havealready been trained to think
they can't do that.
And the teacher is like,whatever, we're not all getting
A's here.
Like yeah, but like what a crazything that happens when you stop
focusing so much on marks andresults, you actually get to the
interesting stuff of the mathand the kids build higher math
confidence.
So it's like
Mike Flynn (32:25):
Yeah.
Vanessa Vakharia (32:26):
know, it kind of like is a little oomph to
that argument that like, yeah,that's what happens when we stop
thinking about speed and gettingthe highest grade after.
Real understanding happens.
Mike Flynn (32:36):
Yeah.
And then you empower the kids,right?
Because then they're like, thenthey believe they can do it.
Yeah.
Vanessa Vakharia (32:40):
Okay, here's another comment.
I'm just gonna read this.
"I wish we had number sense whenI was coming up.
I would not have struggled somuch.
My ninth grade algebra oneteacher took the time to help
me, quote unquote get it, andman, I took off with math after
that." So this is someone justto your point, who was just
taught the just do it, wait allthe way up until grade nine.
And then when somebody helpedher understand it and understand
(33:03):
the why she took off, it's notlike she was like, oh my God,
now this is making it evenworse.
'Cause now I have to think thisactually helped her.
And somebody else said, Istruggled in math, now I'm
teaching and I wish I hadlearned the different strategies
I'm teaching to students.
It would've helped me so much."So I think that's also a little
extra like bonus for teachersout there.
Who might feel like how I did orhow a lot of teachers do, where
(33:24):
they're like, oh, I, I justunderstand how to do it.
My math confidence isn't superstrong.
I don't wanna now get into allthis.
Why stuff?
Because it's gonna screw meover.
This is proof that no, it'llactually help you even more.
And now you get you for thefirst time, really dig into
learning and understanding themath and you can do it, and it's
gonna make you a richer teacher,a more excited teacher, you
(33:45):
know, a happier teacher, all ofthose things.
Mike Flynn (33:48):
I, I a hundred percent agree.
And it's like, and once youstart to make, you get that
meaning making, once thathappens for you as an adult or a
kid, you can't shut that part ofyour brain off.
You start to realize, oh, all ofthis is supposed to make sense.
You're a musician, right?
So I, I remember when I firststarted learning guitar, I just
would cheat.
I used to get these guitarmagazines and they would have
tablets in the back.
So you would just match yourfingers to the numbers and I
(34:09):
could play like, Stairway toHeaven or you know, welcome to
the jungle, whatever.
But I didn't understand actuallythe, the mechanics of the
guitar.
I could just match my fingers tothe numbers.
And I remember when I eventuallystarted to get away from the
tablet shirt and started tounderstand like the notes and
like it made sense.
Like, this is a G oh, and thisis a G and this is another way
to make a G.
(34:30):
And I realize it's, the guitar'snot about matching your fingers
and numbers, there's this wholestructure here and once I
understood that, like my playingtook off and it was way more
fun, it was like it wasenjoyable.
So it's the same in math as itis with music or any other
things that we're learning.
Vanessa Vakharia (34:47):
Yeah, I love it.
Okay, we're gonna wrap up, but Ido wanna say there is one more
category that we haven't talkedabout, and I call those the,
reflex rejectors.
And they're people who thinkyou're wrong with no actual
reason as to why you're wrong,because the internet, so
Mike Flynn (35:03):
Fair enough.
Yeah.
Vanessa Vakharia (35:04):
the comments, the comments include, one of the
comments is,"you're wrong, pal."Do anything
Mike Flynn (35:10):
Yep.
Vanessa Vakharia (35:11):
than
Mike Flynn (35:11):
Hey.
Can't argue with that.
That was a very sound, uh,argument.
Good justification.
Good reasoning.
Yeah, absolutely.
Alright,
Vanessa Vakharia (35:19):
I'm so glad we did this and honestly, as I'm
literally opening TikTok rightnow,'cause this is the funniest
thing is as we've beenrecording, 15 more comments have
rolled in, um, 5,000 more views.
So who knows where this is gonnago.
But I'm really, really, I'mreally glad we did this because
I actually think it's reallywhat you said at the beginning
is, is the truest and mostimportant part, discussions are
(35:40):
so important to engage in.
You know, it's through thisdiscourse, it's through talking
about it, it's through goingback and forth that we actually
all start understanding withwhat one another is saying.
And I'm really glad you took thetime, so thank you, to actually
respond to a lot of these peoplewho had questions and had
concerns.
user 1, 2 1 4 5 5 9 x 3 5 0 2.
Mike Flynn (36:01):
Yeah.
And if I could just put a periodon the whole thing here, which
is
Vanessa Vakharia (36:04):
Yeah.
Mike Flynn (36:04):
what Vanessa and I are saying, and what a lot of us
in the math world are saying isit's not one or the other.
It's both.
We want, we want fluency, wewant automaticity, we want all
of that, and we want theunderstanding and they're not
mutually exclusive.
We can do both together.
And in fact, when we do bothtogether, it's when we actually
achieve that.
And that's what we're arguing.
So it's not a, a.
One side versus the other side.
(36:26):
We just need to meet in themiddle there and recognize that
we need both of those thingshappening.
The same with reading.
You wanna be a fluent readerwith good accuracy, but you
wanna understand the story.
You want to be a fluentmathematician with, great
accuracy and you wannaunderstand what you're doing.
That's, that's not a huge ask.
Vanessa Vakharia (36:40):
That was perfect.
Thank you so much for coming onthe podcast.
you're listening to this, youcan now text the podcast so you
can chime in on the discussion,to the description of the
episode, there's a link there,you can text us.
You can DM me@themathguru.
You can find us both on TikTok@mikeflynn55 I believe.
Look, I memorized your handle'cause you're so viral.
themathguru for me.
You can chime in on TikTok.
Go find the clip of that we'vebeen talking about, comment on
(37:03):
it and uh, Okay, we're done.
Cut.
bye.
What Vanessa and I are saying, is it's not one or
the other.
We want fluency, we wantautomaticity, we want all of
that, and we want theunderstanding, and they're not
mutually exclusive.
We can do both together.
And in fact, when we do bothtogether, it's when we actually
achieve that.
So it's not a, one side versusthe other side, we just need to
meet in the middle.
The same with reading.
You wanna be a fluent readerwith good accuracy, but you
wanna understand the story.
(00:22):
You want to be a fluentmathematician with great
accuracy and you wannaunderstand what you're doing.
Vanessa Vakharia (00:29):
Okay guys, it's me, Vanessa, and I'm here
to welcome you to a first of itskind Math Therapy episode.
Last week we shared my interviewwith Mike Flynn, and I posted a
little clip of our interview onTikTok and Instagram like I
always do with every episode.
Now, I don't know if this islike the algorithm blessing or
cursing me, but this clip poppedthe fuck off.
(00:49):
Like we are currently sitting at57,000 views, over 200 comments.
the thing has been saved by morethan 350 people.
It has almost 3000 likes.
We're having like our 15 minutesof viral fame or like, 15
seconds or whatever.
Anyway, the point is that whatreally stood out to both of us
was not just how famous we wereboth getting, but the comments.
(01:11):
There were so many that me andMike started screenshotting and
like sending them back andforth, trying to keep up with
responding to them all.
And finally we decided we shouldjust have'em back on the podcast
to actually discuss some ofthese comments in real time.
Because a lot of common themesemerged that are very hotly
debated topics in math ed, andwe thought it would be fun to
(01:31):
actually like engage with themand clarify some of our points
that we made in the originalepisode.
By the way, you should checkthat out first if you haven't
listened to it already.
Before we dive in, because wethrew this together literally
yesterday on the fly, this willnot shock anyone what I'm about
to say, my producer Davidinsists that I warn you that
(01:51):
the, that the audio will sound abit different than normal
because it wasn't our usualrecording setup.
Honestly, guys, it soundscompletely fine to me, but hey,
that's why we love David, blahblah, he's a Taurus, we get it.
Anyways.
The link to view the clip that Iposted on TikTok that has all
the comments, that link is inthe show notes, and also you can
find a link there to text us, soyou can text us what you think
(02:14):
of this episode because it'slike our first ever of this
kind, and let us know if weshould do more stuff like this.
Also let us know about thetitle, because right now we're
going with"The Comment Section",but the other title we had in
mind for this type of episodewas"Reply Guys".
But I was like, does anyone knowwhat that means?
So text me and let me know.
Okay, here we go.
Let's get into the first everepisode of"The Comment Section"
(02:37):
with Mike Flynn.
welcome back.
Mike Flynn (02:41):
Thank you.
I'm glad to be here.
And, um, how exciting, right.
Who'd have thought?
Vanessa Vakharia (02:45):
How do you feel like being a viral
mathematical sensation suddenly.
Mike Flynn (02:51):
Uh, yeah, it's, you know what it is.
I love that it sparkedconversation.
It's it, I like being a littleprovocative, right?
You want to get people debatingand talking about important
issues and things.
And I think this is an importantone.
And we got, we got good opinionsand, uh, we've got some
interesting perspectives fromall sides of the issue.
So let's dig into it.
Vanessa Vakharia (03:10):
Let's dig into it.
Okay, so before we do, I wannaplay the clip that I posted that
has sparked such controversy andconversation for everyone so
they can hear what it was thatyou said that hit such a nerve.
Mike Flynn (03:23):
There's a reason why math has such a bad reputation
is because, you know, imagine ifwe taught.
Reading the same way we teachmath, where it's just, just
focus on saying these wordsreally fast and don't worry
about what it means.
With reading we also embrace thecomprehension.
In fact, the comprehension's themost important thing and the
speed and accuracy help us toget to that meaning faster.
(03:44):
But in math, we just disregardedthe meaning.
It's like, oh, don't worry aboutit.
Just just do this thing.
I show you.
Do it fast.
And if you do it right, you'regonna get all the right answers.
But don't worry about what itmeans like I was taught, yours
is not to reason why just invertand multiply like that's
Vanessa Vakharia (03:57):
Yours is not to reason why that's actually
fucked.
Mike Flynn (04:00):
Yeah, it is.
But I remembered it.
Vanessa Vakharia (04:02):
Like what an insane thing to say.
Oh yeah.
You know how to, you know how todivide fractions.
Yeah.
But like you're literally toldlike your job is not to think
like, don't even, please do not.
Before we get into the comments,I have to ask you, why do you
think this comment did hit sucha nerve?
You know, it's not often thatpeople on the internet want to
talk about math teaching.
What do you think it was?
Mike Flynn (04:22):
Oh, that's a great question.
I think part of it is likethere's, there's always that
math war, right?
There's the people that think wejust need to go back to the
basics.
And then there's the people thatthink new math, even though
there's no such thing as newmath, but the narrative, right?
So you get both of those sides.
I think part of it is, it sparksthat, but I also think the
analogy of, of the way we teachreading, Uh, the way it's framed
(04:45):
when you actually stop andthink, yeah, if we only taught
kids to say words really fastand not understand what they've
read, they would hate reading.
And I think it made sense forpeople why so many people don't
like math, because that'sexactly how they experience
math.
And I think it's just, it'svisceral.
And, and for some people, ifit's like, if it validated how
they felt, then they're like,they're all excited to get in
(05:06):
there because that's, that'sexactly what I experienced.
But then there are other peoplewho, for the opposite reason,
it's visceral.
'cause it's like, oh, it's thatother, he's pushing this agenda
kind of thing.
So any good topic.
It's got, really strong opinionson both sides and we just lit
the spark.
I.
Vanessa Vakharia (05:21):
Yeah, and I think it also goes to show how
emotional math really is.
There's this real emotionalcomponent to it where exactly
like you said, it's visceral.
People feel very strongly oneway or another because they were
made to feel very strongly oneway or another when they were
taught math.
So let's dig in.
Okay, so the first, we are,we're by the way, leaving all
political comments out of thischat.
(05:43):
Okay?
We are not gonna get into thewide range of comments about the
common core and the quoteunquote new math.
We're not gonna deal with that,but we are gonna deal with a few
major themes.
The first theme that emergedsurrounded this vibe, and I'm
gonna read you two of thecomments.
Okay?
So the first comment is:"My onlyissue I had with math was how
(06:05):
they wanted me to do it.
A 10 page essay about how yousolved five plus five.
Eye roll emoji.
I never understood their way ofdoing things, but I could solve
most problems in my head.
They always failed me in mathclass because I never understood
how to solve the problems theirway, even though I had the right
answers." Another comment I'mgonna throw in here is, someone
(06:28):
says,"As someone withdyscalculia, I hated the not
knowing why, because math is alanguage that I could never
quite get the grasp of.
Numbers don't make sense to me,but I can look at the strokes of
a painting and know exactlyeverything the painter wanted to
say with that piece." There's aton of comments like this, and a
lot of this is I knew why I wasdoing things, but I couldn't do
(06:49):
it the way they wanted me toshow how.
That's kind of what I got fromit.
But I'm curious what yourresponse is.
Mike Flynn (06:54):
Yeah, I mean, that makes sense.
I mean, there's this innateunderstanding,'cause math can
make sense also on its own.
You don't need somebody to showyou or someone to make sense of
the math for you.
Like you can start to notice, Imean any, any like that first
commenter around, I could solveit, I just couldn't do it the
way they wanted me to do it is,it's like they had, there was
this underlining meaning thatthey could start to see, but
(07:15):
they were being forced out of itto comply with like this is the
only way to do that.
And I think that.
That is something I hear a lotwhen I work with teachers, and I
think it's a very commonfrustration because it's
getting, it's it's almost likethey were robbed of the
opportunity to make sense of itbecause they had intuition, but
that, rather than have a teacherthat was responsive and and
(07:39):
trying to understand theirperspective and how they're
seeing the math and help them tobuild connections between the
way they are seeing it and theway maybe the teacher wants the
class to look at, or maybe howanother peer is solving it, it's
instead dismissed and validatedand like, no, you gotta do it.
This is the right way if youwant to get a good grade in this
class.
And it's, it's almost liketaking the meaning away from the
(08:00):
kids.
It's like going back to theliteracy, right?
It's like reading a book andsaying, I feel like there's
foreshadowing here.
It's like, no, no, no, no, no,no.
We're not doing that right now.
I need you, we're gonna answerthis other question, and I just
need you to respond.
What was the main character'smotivation?
And you're like, but I'm reallycurious about this
foreshadowing.
And it's like, no, we're nottalking about that.
That's, that's kind of the samething, right?
Vanessa Vakharia (08:19):
I totally get that.
You know, I grouped thesecomments and there were a lot of
other comments like this, the"Iwish I'd learned this way" crew.
It's all these people thatreally are agreeing with you and
they're like, oh my God.
Yes.
Like there were so many peoplebeing like, yes, if I had just
been taught this way, maybe Iwould've been given a chance.
I'm like, oh my gosh, I neverthought about this.
But it's true.
Like if.
Someone had explained to me thewhy, then maybe I would've had a
(08:41):
chance to, like all these peoplewho feel exactly like you're
saying, like they were robbed ofsomething and hearing you speak,
they were like, what if it hadbeen taught that way?
And it's funny, the firstcomment here, my only issue is
they wanted me to do math theway they were doing it.
And then that eye roll of, ugh,write a whole essay about how I
did this problem.
Like eye roll emoji.
I didn't like that.
(09:02):
I was getting it.
That person interestingly, isagreeing with you.
They're like, no, it's not thatI wanted to just memorize stuff.
I knew the why, but I wasannoyed that I had to like
explain it in this wholeelaborate way because it wasn't
good enough for them, right,like, because they're like, they
have no problem with thinking.
They are thinking.
They're just like, why do youneed me to explain it to you, to
(09:22):
defend why I am doing this?
Why is important, but also likeI wanna explain to you why,
because you're curious.
Not because you don't believeme.
Mike Flynn (09:31):
Right.
Sometimes the interpretationthat teachers would have with
when we're trying to be moreopen and, and honoring students'
ideas and things, is that,sometimes there's an
overcorrection oroverinterpretation, it's like,
alright, you solved the problem.
Now write an essay and draw apicture and build a model and
solve it a separate way and, andall in one big package where it
(09:51):
starts to feel like it's just,we're adding all these layers
versus like, like what's thereason we want students to
explain their thinking and orto, to show different
representations of the thinking.
It's the ideas to help buildstrong connections between these
ideas.
It almost goes back to that TedLasso, like,"be curious, not
judgmental".
Like if the teacher wasgenuinely curious versus like, I
(10:13):
don't think she did it that way,so let me just have her prove
it.
'cause I don't believe she didit versus I, it's interesting.
I never would've thought it thatway.
Could you show me how thatworks?
I, I wanna know more and I feellike that's the piece that
might've been missing for them.
Vanessa Vakharia (10:27):
I actually love that you brought this up.
I'm actually gonna bring this upa bit later with another range
of comments, of how you werelike, I think there might be a
bit of an overcorrection wherewe don't, you know, really
understand the intention behindwhy we're asking why.
It's because we want to know thestudent understands, we wanna
make those connections.
Just like anything, we shouldn'tbe asking students to do
(10:48):
something for the sake of doingit.
Like if it's clear that theyunderstand why we don't need to
be like, and now make a picturebecause we need to have
multiple, you know what I mean?
Like
Mike Flynn (10:56):
Yeah.
Vanessa Vakharia (10:56):
love that you said that.
So, we're gonna move on to thenext group of comments.
And this I kind of framed undera group of I'm gonna call them
the traditionalists, just forthe purposes of this
conversation.
And these comments seem to befrom people who were like taught
math through rote memorizationand mimicking, and you know the
ways we've historically taughtmath and they vehemently
disagree with you because theydid great in math class and they
(11:19):
don't see why we should changeit.
So I'm gonna read you a coupleof those.
User 1 3 2 8 5 9 1 4 1 4 5 5 9says"it's this type of thought
process that have caused sixthgraders to not be able to do
single digit addition.
At least the old way worked.
We are confusing the heck out ofkids, and the results are 12% of
students at grade level.
Wake up." Uh, why, why don't,why don't we tackle that one
(11:45):
right now?
What are we, what are wethinking there of just, I mean,
I, and again, I know we're like,kind of like giggling because
this is what the internet islike, but lot of people
correlate what you're sayingwith the fact that like students
now can't add.
Why is that a potentially faultycorrelation causation situation?
Mike Flynn (12:02):
Yeah, well, a couple things.
One, when, when someone says,it, it just, it worked like math
worked for me, the old wayworked.
It's like I always wanna justfigure out, well what, what do
you define as worked?
Like is work that I got a goodgrade?
is work that I passed highschool?
Math is work that I is is work,meaning I developed a love and
(12:24):
joy of mathematics that, and Iwanted to pursue a career in
mathematics.
Like, I, I doubt it's that one,it's, it's usually like I could
get by.
And so that's the definition ofworked.
And so if, and if that's thedefinition of worked, is that
good enough?
Like do we, do we want as ourbenchmark for students to just
get by to, to pass the class orto pass the test.
(12:46):
And I, I would hope it's notthat I feel like that's, that's
so limiting in what we're ableto do if we say that.
But then the other part is like,we'd also look at the data is
like, sure, it may have workedfor some people and I, I mean, I
graduated with people who areliteral, literal rocket
scientists right now that werein my high school.
And we were all taught math thesame way, we were in the same
classes, and they're well beyondwhere I am in the math world.
(13:10):
And clearly it worked for them.
But I know more students, moreclassmates of mine for whom the
math did not work, at all.
And it's like, so the, sometimeswe get into that place where it
worked for me, so therefore,like, don't worry about everyone
else.
That actually the, that morepeople actually didn't benefit
from a system like that.
So that's just one othercautionary tale that I, I bring
(13:32):
with that.
But here's the thing with thisis like.
The statement that like it'sbecause of this, that kids can't
add it.
there's two things I'll sayabout this.
One people say kids today don'tknow their facts or kids could
today can't do that.
But what's interesting is Istarted teaching in 1998 and
when I started teaching teacherswere saying, kids today can't
(13:53):
do, they don't know their factsand stuff.
And then my, the one my studenttaught with said, and it was
funny, when I started studentteaching, they said, kids today
can't do this.
And I started asking veteranteachers around like, when was
the date where all kids masteredtheir math facts?
Like, can we, can we pinpointit?
Was it 1967 where everyone hadit?
(14:14):
Because the thing is, alwaysheard the argument that kids
don't know their math facts.
And that was even when math wastaught in that traditional way.
I think that's always been sortof problematic.
I don't want to excuse it.
I think it's important forstudents to have math facts and
have that understanding, but Idon't think it's this idea of we
want to have sense making andsomehow that's creating kids not
(14:35):
knowing how to, to, or notmastering fact fluency.
That's a whole separateargument.
It's almost like there, there'stwo things happening here.
It's the meaning is reallyimportant and we also want
students to have fact fluency.
But fact fluency comes fromunderstanding.
If you just memorize your facts,you, you're really good at a
(14:57):
small set of problems.
You've memorized that, but it'shard to apply it.
And, and if people want proof init, I, I remember tutoring third
graders that couldn't tell meanything past nine times 12.
'cause that's all theymemorized.
And when I said, what's ninetimes 13?
They're like, I don't know.
Like I, we can't do it.
That's the result ofmemorization versus like that
understanding piece.
So yeah, there's a lot of thingsto unpack with that, with that
(15:20):
last comment.
Vanessa Vakharia (15:21):
Yeah.
But that was great.
And it actually touched on a lotof, A lot of the comments were
around this idea of, well, wedon't need to understand the
why, we need fact fluency.
We need automaticity.
We need kids to be able to dothings faster.
We need kids to know theirfacts.
And a big question I had foryou, because this is exactly
what happens.
These things get pitted againsteach other, right?
You either understand or youknow, your facts.
(15:41):
And I think what you're sayingis, is so important.
You know, a lot of people, a lotof people were jumping to your
defense in the comment saying,he's not saying you don't need
automaticity or fluency.
He's saying, we can have both.
You know,
Mike Flynn (15:51):
Yeah.
Vanessa Vakharia (15:51):
I get into this argument with friends all
the time who are like, well, ifyou understand things though,
like, you know, you understandthem, but how can you retrieve
them quickly?
Like when you memorize, you justknow your facts.
And I'm, I think I just wannaclarify this and ask you the
expert here of, but if Iunderstood.
If I understood whatmultiplication was and knew how
to myself, create the Timestable, you know, the 12 times
(16:12):
tables, because I understand,you know, I can add things
together, I can double, this andthat.
That gets embedded and becomesquick to retrieve, right?
Like through
Mike Flynn (16:21):
Absolutely.
And the difference is, I'm gonnajust shout out Graham Fletcher
here,'cause he has, I love theway he says this, is that
there's a difference betweenmemorization and knowing from
memory.
And so when you look at, at thestandards, and it doesn't matter
what state you're in, everystandard has, it doesn't say,
students will memorize, it'llsay, students will know from
memory all the facts within, youknow, whatever range.
(16:43):
But knowing from memory meansthat you can efficiently conjure
that fact and, and it could beefficiently, is like, I know
that seven plus eight is 15because I've just seen it
enough.
It's familiar.
It almost looks likememorization, but I also know
that it's 15.
'cause seven and seven is 14,and one more is 15.
But I know that in an instantit's not, I had to say that.
(17:04):
Okay.
Seven and seven.
Okay.
That's 14.
And then one more.
Oh, it's that, not that, it's,it's the reasoning where
they're, they're deriving thefact from taking something they
know and, and then using that tounderstand something they don't
know.
That's knowing from memory.
When kids can do that, wherethey can take a fact they know
and use it to build a fact thatthey don't know, that numerical
(17:26):
reasoning is the flexibilitythat we need.
And a colleague of mine, SusanJoe Russell, had a wonderful
quote saying that teachingchildren.
To be fast doesn't help them tobecome flexible, but building
their flexibility actually helpsthem to become fast.
That when, because think aboutthis.
If, if I said I'd let's get awayfrom fact fluency.
Let's just do like computationalfluency.
(17:47):
If I said 3,999 plus 3,999, ifthat argument of like.
Let's just do it the way we weretaught.
Do you really want someone topainstakingly get out paper and
then do all that regroupinginstead of saying, well, it's
4,000, 4,000 minus two.
So it's not saying that there'ssomething wrong with the
algorithm.
There's a time the algorithm isperfect, that's the right thing
(18:10):
you wanna do, but it's notalways.
Vanessa Vakharia (18:11):
you just said there just gave me a huge aha
moment.
There's a difference betweenmemorizing and knowing from
memory.
And then, that second part yousaid what, what did you say her
name was?
Susan Joe Russell,
Mike Flynn (18:23):
Joe Russell, the, the flexibility helps kids
become fast.
Vanessa Vakharia (18:27):
I think it's so incredible.
It's like, we're not sayingdon't have it in your memory.
It's how it gets there that'sthe important thing.
And leads to flexibility versusjust speed.
Okay.
I'm gonna read one other commentfrom this category.
I don't even think we need tocomment on, but it seriously
sent me like, I was so jarred bythis comment.
I was like, oh my God.
So somebody said,"I was taughtjust do it this way.
(18:48):
I did it that way with noexplanation.
I excelled in math all the waythrough school.
I would've hated common coremath.
I didn't need to know the why."Sorry.
I said common core.
I promised I wouldn't ignore thecommon core part.
The point is this person isliterally like I was to just
copy shit down with noexplanation and I did great and
I don't need to know why.
What's the problem?
(19:09):
And somebody commented after andsaid,"But if you didn't need to
know the why.
Why did you need to even knowthe procedures?
What use to you is being able tocarry out those tasks if you
don't even know what they mean?"And I was just like, ah, this is
so crazy.
Like there are so many peoplewho are like, I don't see the
problem with the fact that wejust copy shit down for no
(19:30):
actual reason.
Who cares?
What's
Mike Flynn (19:32):
Yeah.
Yeah.
Vanessa Vakharia (19:34):
it like really sent me into like obviously out
of math class and into our worldwhere so many people just, we
just follow things, everyoneelse is doing it, we just do it,
don't think for yourself, justdo the thing, you don't need to
know why.
And I was like, when I say mathclass and math therapy is not
just about math class.
It's about the skills you learnto use in your real life.
(19:54):
This was like a, a real momentfor me.
Mike Flynn (19:59):
Yeah, it reminds me of that show Lost.
I dunno if you ever watchedthat.
Like those who haven't seen it,so there's this hatch, and then
they finally get inside thehatch.
And there's this dude downthere, and all he's doing is
entering this number and thenhitting, hitting like, just like
he's typing in this number, thenhits enter.
And he has to do that every sooften, and he has no idea why.
It's just like the, the guybefore him said, that's what
(20:20):
you're supposed to do.
So that's, he's just doing thisthing without any understanding
of why means nothing, but he'sdoing it and it's like, it's
kind of that, that's what thatfeels like.
It's like, well, like.
That's just, it feels somundane.
And again, it goes back to thatlike, what does it mean it
worked for you?
So you passed.
But like, did you, did you gointo a mathematics field?
(20:41):
Did it open up a whole new.
Pathway in life aroundprogramming or, creating
mathematical models and doingoceanography because you just
love the, the patterns around,the, the prevalence of sharks in
the ocean, and you wanted toextend that model and.
Or was it just that you, youcomplied, you got a good grade,
you made the honor roll.
(21:02):
Like I guess that's the thing islike, what, what are we actually
doing this for?
Are we doing it for the gradeand compliance or are we, we
trying to get deeper meaning?
Vanessa Vakharia (21:11):
Okay, let's move on to the next category.
And these are those who I callthe skeptics.
This is a very interesting onebecause no one in this group
mentioned how they were taughtbut they've decided that if we
teach the why as you suggest, itmust mean that we're not
teaching math facts or fluencyor anything else.
They think that teaching the whyis not only a waste of time, but
(21:34):
that kids are not capable ofthinking.
Quite literally.
So let me, I'm gonna read youone of these comments.
Okay.
Somebody here says:"Mathdevelops differently in the
brain.
Not everyone is ready to evenprocess, quote unquote,
understanding in their brains.
Foundational skills areessential and understanding
unlocks over time." Okay, that'sthe first comment.
(21:56):
But here's another one that I, Iwas like, oh my God, a couple of
people are saying this.
get to the, this is from ateacher,"To get to the why you
have to be able to reason andthink critically something many
don't want to do.
I attempted to show my 10thgraders why, or, and I tried to
lead them to the area of atriangle.
I drew the rectangle, split itin half and everything.
They couldn't see it.
(22:16):
So it's not always, because wedon't teach the why sometimes
it's because reasoning is toomuch of a task." Oh boy.
Mike Flynn (22:25):
Yeah.
Vanessa Vakharia (22:26):
good.
Mike Flynn (22:28):
Well, here's two things I'm gonna actually like,
play nice for a moment.
Is that there's, I, I understandthat frustration, right?
It's like there's, I don't wantto invalidate that the, because
I could say, I, I teachpreschool through high school
and college and stuff, so I've,I've done all levels of math and
I work primarily with adults'cause I work with teachers and
(22:48):
coaches and caregivers and, buthere's the thing that we see is
that kids early on if taughtmath in a way where it is just
passive and I'm just followingthe, the rules and the script
and just doing the steps andmimicking.
I'm not really understanding youcan get become complacent pretty
quickly and realize that it's,someone's gonna show you how to
(23:09):
do it.
And there's a quick, easy way todo it where you don't have to
think too hard.
And then whenever, let's saylet's three years, you have that
and then you get a teacher thatwants to try to open it up a
little bit to build some meaningit.
The cognitive demand on that isso much higher for kids.
And it's almost like being on atreadmill and then the teachers
(23:29):
just raise the incline on it andit's like, oh, this is hard
work.
And kids, like kids or peopleworking out, when you raise the
the treadmill, it's like youalmost don't like it at first
'cause it's so much harder whenit could be just so much easier
if we just drop the treadmilldown.
But the thing is, if our goalwas to get better at running,
raising the incline.
(23:50):
Is really helpful to build that.
And the same is true if we wantkids to get used to being good
thinkers in math.
And so the first few times we dothat, yeah, it's gonna be
tiring.
So maybe you do it for smallchunks and get them acclimated
to it a little bit, build uptheir stamina.
But once students start to seethe meaning, it changes
everything.
And I'll just name, I'll cite acouple of in instances.
(24:13):
So the first, and I think Imight have mentioned this at at
the other time, the otherpodcast is When I was
26-year-old, 26 years old in aprofessional learning
experience, and I first madethis connection in math, I
remember turning to someonesaying, if I could have learned
it this way, it would've madesuch a difference.
It was so powerful for me.
But in the work that I did at,when I worked at the college, I
taught in a class that had thatmixed classroom teachers in
(24:36):
undergraduates, and some of themwere math majors.
And I remember a lot of timesstudents telling me who were
excelled in math, I mean,they're coming over to a
prestigious.
College in Massachusetts, they,they have amazing grades,
everything.
And they were, were saying howmuch it meant to them to finally
understand it.
It's really important for peopleto make some of those
(24:58):
connections.
But to go back at that, thatthought of like, our brains
don't work this way or not likethat kids can't learn that way,
they can't think this way.
So I study learning.
I mean, I, I study how long-termlearning works.
and this is what my field is, isthe way learning works is that
we, our long-term memory is allbased on schemas, it's all
(25:19):
categories.
And schemas are connected ideasthat form some kind of category.
And those connections are newknowledge connected to prior
knowledge, and so that's wheremeaning making comes in.
And so one of the things that,like starting with a
five-year-old if we want, or a4-year-old, a 3-year-old, I've
worked in preschool, I can saythat if you can help kids to
(25:40):
connect a new idea withsomething they've already
understood, that's all meaningmaking is.
But to say that kids can't thinkthat way, like that's the only
way we think.
That's how humans makeconnections.
it's slightly slower to go a lotfaster later on.
Going back to that flexibility,right, you build in that
(26:00):
understanding builds theirflexibility.
But we just slow down a littlebit in the beginning so that
they can understand it, versus,I just remember it'cause Mr.
Flynn showed me this thing andnow that's what I'm gonna rely
on for the rest of my life.
Vanessa Vakharia (26:14):
As I'm listening to you, I'm thinking I
was literally one of mathstudents and teachers.
Like remember, I, you know, Iwas getting a 96% in calculus.
Like I was like the star mathstudent after I failed it a few
times, and I remember I, myteacher was like, oh my God,
like, you're, you're so bright.
I'm gonna pick you to do one ofthose like crazy math contests.
So, you know what I mean?
(26:34):
Like, you're so smart.
I could not answer one question,not a single question on this
math contest, because none ofthem were about following any of
the procedures I learned.
They were all about likethinking.
And it's not that I wasincapable of thinking, but I had
never had to, I had not had tothink mathematically, truly
(26:55):
mathematically for my entiretyof high school.
And I was getting a 96%.
And I remember feeling sodismayed.
I was like, I can't answer asingle question.
I was like, oh, what question isthis like, I was trying to
compare like what is this likethat I've done before?
What formula can I use?
None of them even requiredformulas, right?
But like that was so how I wasused to doing math and, another
(27:16):
thing that stood out to me as Iwas reading these comments,
'cause again, there were a lotof these comments, this is idea
of, oh my God, this is allbullshit.
Like, no one needs to know thewhy and kids can't even process
this stuff.
A lot of people, I think.
misunderstanding what you meanby the why.
Like they almost, they're like,what, what?
You want us to sit and tell kidshow we derive the quadratic
formula?
(27:36):
Like no one cares.
And I'm like, but that's notwhat that, and, and actually
I've been a victim to this.
I've often thought, you know, Ipreviously, probably a few years
ago, I was like, what do youmean the why?
Like literally like why atriangle exists?
Like I think we conflate theidea with, explaining why
something works and numbersense, and having kids truly
understand math, we conflatethat with, we need to teach them
(27:59):
like mathematical philosophy orlike, do you know what I mean?
Like etymology, like we, I thinkthere's a confusion there, like
it's like the why feels like avery nebulous territory that
like it could mean somethingreally big or it could mean
something as basic as we justneed to teach them like why it
works.
Mike Flynn (28:16):
Yeah.
Yeah.
I mean that's, that's, I'm soglad you brought that up.
It's so true that it, like, it'salmost like this gross
overgeneralization of it.
It's like, it's one of thereasons I hate the word
discovery math, because the, itgets so interpreted of like, oh,
well, we teach this way.
We just hope we're just let thekids meander around and we hope
they discover it and it's like.
That's not at all how it works.
(28:37):
So discovery math is that wewant them to make the meaningful
connections.
And so we orchestrate theseexperiences where they have the
right tools, they've gotdifferent representations, and
then we ask really intentionalquestions to draw their
attention to like, where do Isee the distributive property in
Vanessa's representation?
Where do I see it in David'sformula or his algorithm?
(28:59):
And, and how are these twosimilar?
And that's the, that's all itis.
That's what meaning making is.
It's just building connectionsso that you tap into something
they already know so that thisnew thing makes more sense.
It doesn't require this Ted Talklecture or like this, uh,
they've gotta read this likegiant book to understand the
theory of, of number.
(29:20):
It's not that at all.
But it's, it can get, um, itmakes for good social media
posts, those kind of jokes andmemes.
And stuff like that.
But at the end of the day, it'slike, it's, it's quite simple
for the, the meaning making andit's just one additional step.
It's like, we just don't wantstudents to just like, do
something.
It's like, well, I, I, the onlyreason I know is'cause Miss
(29:40):
so-and-so showed me this.
So that's, that's the answer.
That's, that's not good enoughanymore.
But if just ask'em to understandit at just a tiny bit, goes a
long way.
And that's all we're trying todo here.
Vanessa Vakharia (29:53):
Yeah.
I love it.
Okay.
We're, you know, we've done Ithink the, the bulk of what
people are saying, but I dowanna say that there are a ton
of people online that areagreeing with you and not just
agreeing with you, but agreeingwith you in a very moving way.
I think because they, they,they're touching on what you
just said, kind of.
Earlier about how, this idea ofwe don't think kids are capable
(30:15):
of thinking and yes, it is a lottrickier for them to, take on
the extra cognitive work ofreally digging into something
when they've never had to.
But a lot of these comments shownot only can kids do it, not
only can it be done, kids arehungry for it.
They want it, and when they getit, something opens up.
(30:36):
So somebody said here,"I hatedthe just do it memorization
math.
I fell behind one year and Istayed behind for the rest of my
life.
I even asked a teacher who knewI was struggling to help me
catch up.
She told me she didn't havetime.
It wasn't until my last year ofhigh school when I took remedial
math that I finally had anenvironment where I could stop
my teacher mid lesson and go,wait, why did you do that?" And
(30:57):
I have like goosebumps sayingthis because I'm like, how the
fuck, why the fuck do we have toget to remedial math?
Well, I hear this a lot fromstudents.
Oh, in remedial math, you know,in the, in the quote unquote
lower math.
That's where I get to ask why.
That's where we learn relevantmath.
I hear it all the time and, andthat really upsets me.
It's like, why?
(31:18):
that kind of crazy?
That in, and it's also crazybecause this is actually what we
were talking about in our, ourlast interview, is asking the
why and learning.
The why is is, you know, kind ofpotentially even harder than
just copying and memorizing.
Yet in these remedial classes,kids are technically doing the
tougher work of digging into thewhy.
Like, isn't that bizarre?
Mike Flynn (31:37):
it makes me happy to hear that though, that, because
I see sometimes the opposite,whereas the belief that students
who have, have any learningchallenges, any needs at all,
just need to be shown how to dothat.
I hear that argument so much, sothat actually brings me hope
that in some remedial mathclasses, that we're actually
seeing more meaningfulconnections.
Vanessa Vakharia (31:56):
Well, but you know why though?
It's because in many of those,in most I would say remedial
math classes, the curriculum isso much smaller because they
don't think kids can learn thatmuch.
So they literally, they havemore time
Mike Flynn (32:06):
Hmm.
Vanessa Vakharia (32:06):
there's less of an emphasis on just getting
the highest score.
Because most of those kids havealready been trained to think
they can't do that.
And the teacher is like,whatever, we're not all getting
A's here.
Like yeah, but like what a crazything that happens when you stop
focusing so much on marks andresults, you actually get to the
interesting stuff of the mathand the kids build higher math
confidence.
So it's like
Mike Flynn (32:25):
Yeah.
Vanessa Vakharia (32:26):
know, it kind of like is a little oomph to
that argument that like, yeah,that's what happens when we stop
thinking about speed and gettingthe highest grade after.
Real understanding happens.
Mike Flynn (32:36):
Yeah.
And then you empower the kids,right?
Because then they're like, thenthey believe they can do it.
Yeah.
Vanessa Vakharia (32:40):
Okay, here's another comment.
I'm just gonna read this.
"I wish we had number sense whenI was coming up.
I would not have struggled somuch.
My ninth grade algebra oneteacher took the time to help
me, quote unquote get it, andman, I took off with math after
that." So this is someone justto your point, who was just
taught the just do it, wait allthe way up until grade nine.
And then when somebody helpedher understand it and understand
(33:03):
the why she took off, it's notlike she was like, oh my God,
now this is making it evenworse.
'Cause now I have to think thisactually helped her.
And somebody else said, Istruggled in math, now I'm
teaching and I wish I hadlearned the different strategies
I'm teaching to students.
It would've helped me so much."So I think that's also a little
extra like bonus for teachersout there.
Who might feel like how I did orhow a lot of teachers do, where
(33:24):
they're like, oh, I, I justunderstand how to do it.
My math confidence isn't superstrong.
I don't wanna now get into allthis.
Why stuff?
Because it's gonna screw meover.
This is proof that no, it'llactually help you even more.
And now you get you for thefirst time, really dig into
learning and understanding themath and you can do it, and it's
gonna make you a richer teacher,a more excited teacher, you
(33:45):
know, a happier teacher, all ofthose things.
Mike Flynn (33:48):
I, I a hundred percent agree.
And it's like, and once youstart to make, you get that
meaning making, once thathappens for you as an adult or a
kid, you can't shut that part ofyour brain off.
You start to realize, oh, all ofthis is supposed to make sense.
You're a musician, right?
So I, I remember when I firststarted learning guitar, I just
would cheat.
I used to get these guitarmagazines and they would have
tablets in the back.
So you would just match yourfingers to the numbers and I
(34:09):
could play like, Stairway toHeaven or you know, welcome to
the jungle, whatever.
But I didn't understand actuallythe, the mechanics of the
guitar.
I could just match my fingers tothe numbers.
And I remember when I eventuallystarted to get away from the
tablet shirt and started tounderstand like the notes and
like it made sense.
Like, this is a G oh, and thisis a G and this is another way
to make a G.
(34:30):
And I realize it's, the guitar'snot about matching your fingers
and numbers, there's this wholestructure here and once I
understood that, like my playingtook off and it was way more
fun, it was like it wasenjoyable.
So it's the same in math as itis with music or any other
things that we're learning.
Vanessa Vakharia (34:47):
Yeah, I love it.
Okay, we're gonna wrap up, but Ido wanna say there is one more
category that we haven't talkedabout, and I call those the,
reflex rejectors.
And they're people who thinkyou're wrong with no actual
reason as to why you're wrong,because the internet, so
Mike Flynn (35:03):
Fair enough.
Yeah.
Vanessa Vakharia (35:04):
the comments, the comments include, one of the
comments is,"you're wrong, pal."Do anything
Mike Flynn (35:10):
Yep.
Vanessa Vakharia (35:11):
than
Mike Flynn (35:11):
Hey.
Can't argue with that.
That was a very sound, uh,argument.
Good justification.
Good reasoning.
Yeah, absolutely.
Alright,
Vanessa Vakharia (35:19):
I'm so glad we did this and honestly, as I'm
literally opening TikTok rightnow,'cause this is the funniest
thing is as we've beenrecording, 15 more comments have
rolled in, um, 5,000 more views.
So who knows where this is gonnago.
But I'm really, really, I'mreally glad we did this because
I actually think it's reallywhat you said at the beginning
is, is the truest and mostimportant part, discussions are
(35:40):
so important to engage in.
You know, it's through thisdiscourse, it's through talking
about it, it's through goingback and forth that we actually
all start understanding withwhat one another is saying.
And I'm really glad you took thetime, so thank you, to actually
respond to a lot of these peoplewho had questions and had
concerns.
user 1, 2 1 4 5 5 9 x 3 5 0 2.
Mike Flynn (36:01):
Yeah.
And if I could just put a periodon the whole thing here, which
is
Vanessa Vakharia (36:04):
Yeah.
Mike Flynn (36:04):
what Vanessa and I are saying, and what a lot of us
in the math world are saying isit's not one or the other.
It's both.
We want, we want fluency, wewant automaticity, we want all
of that, and we want theunderstanding and they're not
mutually exclusive.
We can do both together.
And in fact, when we do bothtogether, it's when we actually
achieve that.
And that's what we're arguing.
So it's not a, a.
One side versus the other side.
(36:26):
We just need to meet in themiddle there and recognize that
we need both of those thingshappening.
The same with reading.
You wanna be a fluent readerwith good accuracy, but you
wanna understand the story.
You want to be a fluentmathematician with, great
accuracy and you wannaunderstand what you're doing.
That's, that's not a huge ask.
Vanessa Vakharia (36:40):
That was perfect.
Thank you so much for coming onthe podcast.
you're listening to this, youcan now text the podcast so you
can chime in on the discussion,to the description of the
episode, there's a link there,you can text us.
You can DM me@themathguru.
You can find us both on TikTok@mikeflynn55 I believe.
Look, I memorized your handle'cause you're so viral.
themathguru for me.
You can chime in on TikTok.
Go find the clip of that we'vebeen talking about, comment on
(37:03):
it and uh, Okay, we're done.
Cut.
bye.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Ruthie's Table 4
For more than 30 years The River Cafe in London, has been the home-from-home of artists, architects, designers, actors, collectors, writers, activists, and politicians. Michael Caine, Glenn Close, JJ Abrams, Steve McQueen, Victoria and David Beckham, and Lily Allen, are just some of the people who love to call The River Cafe home. On River Cafe Table 4, Rogers sits down with her customers—who have become friends—to talk about food memories. Table 4 explores how food impacts every aspect of our lives. “Foods is politics, food is cultural, food is how you express love, food is about your heritage, it defines who you and who you want to be,” says Rogers. Each week, Rogers invites her guest to reminisce about family suppers and first dates, what they cook, how they eat when performing, the restaurants they choose, and what food they seek when they need comfort. And to punctuate each episode of Table 4, guests such as Ralph Fiennes, Emily Blunt, and Alfonso Cuarón, read their favourite recipe from one of the best-selling River Cafe cookbooks. Table 4 itself, is situated near The River Cafe’s open kitchen, close to the bright pink wood-fired oven and next to the glossy yellow pass, where Ruthie oversees the restaurant. You are invited to take a seat at this intimate table and join the conversation. For more information, recipes, and ingredients, go to https://shoptherivercafe.co.uk/ Web: https://rivercafe.co.uk/ Instagram: www.instagram.com/therivercafelondon/ Facebook: https://en-gb.facebook.com/therivercafelondon/ For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iheartradio app, apple podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com