When word problems are a problem

Kenneth Chang had a fascinating story in the New York Times last week: Study Suggests Math Teachers Scrap Balls and Slices. The story describes a new study showing how children might learn mathematics best if they are taught in the abstract ((t + 1) = 400 - 50t) versus the concrete (One train leaves Station A at 6 p.m. traveling at 40 miles per hour toward Station B. A second train ...etc, etc.).

As Chang wrote:

Dr. Kaminski and her colleagues Vladimir M. Sloutsky and Andrew F. Heckler
did something relatively rare in education research: they performed a
randomized, controlled experiment. Their results appear in [the April 25] issue of
the journal Science.

The study reminded me of a story I wrote for the Times several years ago ("Testing: None of the Above") about how science and math questions on standardized tests can trip up students -- especially the brightest ones.

And how does this relate to technology? Good question, though I suspect that a lot of animations, games and educational videos directed at children today are rooted in "real world" problems, not abstractions. A worthwhile research question might be: Are these approaches the best way to prime kids for math, even if they seem more engaging than old-fashioned equations?