Browsing blogs last week, I came across this post about math apps. I had not heard of DragonBox before and decided to give it a whirl. At $5.99, it was pricey, but came highly rated.
DragonBox teaches algebra without calling it algebra. The object is to manipulate the two sides of the screen so that the box is isolated on one side. As you progress through the levels, the box eventually becomes an x.
I think the concept and execution are nothing short of brilliant. I worry that the questions I’m going to pose below may highlight a deep pedagogical deficiency on my part, but after working through all the levels, and introducing my 8-year-old daughter to the game, I do have some questions.
Me
At first, I had a really hard time understanding what was going on. I wanted to see the box and cards as variables, coefficients, and constants. They didn’t work exactly the way my algorithmic training wanted them to. I had a hard time separating my prior and totally engrained training from the game. Does the fact that I was taught equation solving in an algorithmic way, and the fact that I practiced those methods over and over again, actually hinder my ability to understand this concept at a deeper level?
My 8 Year Old
She loved this game. She progressed through the first two worlds and enjoyed it, despite the fact that she’s probably not developmentally ready for algebra yet. Her comments were that she didn’t see how this was math, and that she didn’t see what it was that she was supposed to be learning. I took one of the levels she had completed, and translated it into a concrete mathematical equation, and tried to walk her through it. It didn’t work. What’s the bridge between this brilliant app, and the concrete? Is the next step apparent to older children and to better teachers than me? I’m embarrassed to admit that I’m not entirely sure what my next step is, after my students play with this app.
Tried this with my middle schoolers. Both got quickly proficient at DragonBox, both dislike when they went to letters from the beautiful icons, neither saw any connection to the concepts. It was proficient at teaching the algorithms, though. But there was no sense of why those steps were what they were.
John, goldenoj,
did you try to use our transfer document ? http://wewanttoknow.com/2012/08/01/how-to-use-dragonbox-and-teach-your-child-to-solve-equations-on-paper-in-a-few-hours/
Our next version(s) will improve upon the transferring steps.
Cheers,
Jerome
Thanks for the link!
My daughter played through Dragonbox when she was 8. Now she is 9, and I am homeschooling her in math. I think the effect of Dragonbox is interesting. She didn’t retain much of it conciously, but I think some it sinks in unconciously. Now I have her play through some levels after she does some closely related math. She is beginning to really see the connections. Yesterday I was explaining something, and started to explain compound fractions (why (1/2)/(1/2) would be 1), and she said something like, “oh yeah, that’s like Dragonbox”.
So I agree with the transfer document that it makes sense to let kids play through without trying to explain the connection at first. And then later, have them do it again with some math context. Its painless and quick enough that its worth repeating.
I think there are a lot of things like that – games, puzzles, Vi Hart videos – that are fun and have mathematical content but do not have an immediate effect. But they provide a rich context for the more formal learning.
DragonBox 12+ now out. Covers much more like fractions, parenthesis, signs factoring…. starts off the same 2 first chapters but then give new learning for 20 chapters.