Logo IMG
HOME > PAST ISSUE > Article Detail


The Music of Math Games

Video games that provide good mathematics learning should look to the piano as a model

Keith Devlin

The Symbol Barrier

2013-03MacroDevlinFC.jpgClick to Enlarge ImageGiven the effort and the expense to make a math game work, is it worth the effort? From an educational perspective, you bet it is. Though the vast majority of math video games on the market essentially capitalize on just one educationally important aspect of video games—their power to fully engage players in a single activity for long periods of time—all but a tiny number of games (fewer than 10 by my count) take advantage of another educationally powerful feature of the medium: video games’ ability to overcome the symbol barrier.

Though the name is mine, the symbol barrier has been well known in math education circles for over 20 years and is recognized as the biggest obstacle to practical mastery of middle school math. To understand the symbol barrier and appreciate how pervasive it is, you have to question the role symbolic expressions play in mathematics.

By and large, the public identifies doing math with writing symbols, often obscure symbols. Why do they make that automatic identification? A large part of the explanation is that much of the time they spent in the school mathematics classroom was devoted to the development of correct symbolic manipulation skills, and symbol-filled books are the standard way to store and distribute mathematical knowledge. So we have gotten used to the fact that mathematics is presented to us by way of symbolic expressions.

But just how essential are those symbols? After all, until the invention of various kinds of recording devices, symbolic musical notation was the only way to store and distribute music, yet no one ever confuses music with a musical score.

Just as music is created and enjoyed within the mind, so too is mathematics created and carried out (and by many of us enjoyed) in the mind. At its heart, mathematics is a mental activity—a way of thinking—one that over several millennia of human history has proved to be highly beneficial to life and society.

In both music and mathematics, the symbols are merely static representations on a flat surface of dynamic mental processes. Just as the trained musician can look at a musical score and hear the music come alive in her or his head, so too the trained mathematician can look at a page of symbolic mathematics and have that mathematics come alive in the mind.

So why is it that many people believe mathematics itself is symbolic manipulation? And if the answer is that it results from our classroom experiences, why is mathematics taught that way? I can answer that second question. We teach mathematics symbolically because, for many centuries, symbolic representation has been the most effective way to record mathematics and pass on mathematical knowledge to others.

Still, given the comparison with music, can’t we somehow manage to break free of that historical legacy?

Though the advanced mathematics used by scientists and engineers is intrinsically symbolic, the kind of math important to ordinary people in their lives—which I call everyday mathematics—is not, and it can be done in your head. Roughly speaking, everyday mathematics comprises counting, arithmetic, proportional reasoning, numerical estimation, elementary geometry and trigonometry, elementary algebra, basic probability and statistics, logical thinking, algorithm use, problem formation (modeling), problem solving, and sound calculator use. (Yes, even elementary algebra belongs in that list. The symbols are not essential.)

True, people sometimes scribble symbols when they do everyday math in a real-life context. But for the most part, what they write down are the facts needed to start with, perhaps the intermediate results along the way and, if they get far enough, the final answer at the end. But the doing-math part is primarily a thinking process—something that takes place mostly in your head. Even when people are asked to “show all their work,” the collection of symbolic expressions that they write down is not necessarily the same as the process that goes on in their minds when they do math correctly. In fact, people can become highly skilled at doing mental math and yet be hopeless at its symbolic representations.

With everyday mathematics, the symbol barrier emerges. In their 1993 book Street Mathematics and School Mathematics, Terezinha Nunes, David William Carraher and Analucia Dias Schliemann describe research carried out in the street markets of Recife, Brazil, in the early 1990s. This and other studies have shown that when people are regularly faced with everyday mathematics in their daily lives, they rapidly master it to an astonishing 98 percent accuracy. Yet when faced with what are (from a mathematical perspective) the very same problems, but presented in the traditional symbols, their performance drops to a mere 35 to 40 percent accuracy.

It simply is not the case that ordinary people cannot do everyday math. Rather, they cannot do symbolic everyday math. In fact, for most people, it’s not accurate to say that the problems they are presented in paper-and-pencil format are “the same as” the ones they solve fluently in a real life setting. When you read the transcripts of the ways they solve the problems in the two settings, you realize that they are doing completely different things. Only someone who has mastery of symbolic mathematics can recognize the problems encountered in the two contexts as being “the same.”

The symbol barrier is huge and pervasive. For the entire history of organized mathematics instruction, where we had no alternative to using static, symbolic expressions on flat surfaces to store and distribute mathematical knowledge, that barrier has prevented millions of people from becoming proficient in a cognitive skill set of evident major importance in today’s world, on a par with the ability to read and write.

comments powered by Disqus


Subscribe to American Scientist