From Czikszentmihalyi's talk about flow, I took away a couple of ideas.
First of all, I was thinking about how to create the conditions that can help to foster this concept. Initially, I wondered about what level of competence is needed to create flow; however, I'm beginning to think that the threshold is much lower than I initially anticipated.
Secondly, I was considering times when I wonder whether I've experienced some aspect of flow. I can think of writing essays and not knowing where time goes and how the ideas percolate. I can think of reading a book and missing my bus stop (is that even flow?). I am unsure whether I relate flow to mathematics. I enjoy it. I like thinking about questions. But I do not have any specific math-flow memories. I remember time in math classes being gone in a flash (learning and teaching!), but I don't know whether I've been in a math flow. Maybe a math jam. But I'm not prepared to say a math flow. I wonder if it has to do with a level of creativity -- one that I do not always associate with mathematics, at least in the same way I do when I make a craft.
Also, I wondered whether (or how) flow could be induced. As a TC, I'm looking at how to foster a sense of purpose in the classroom and manage student experience and behaviours. I am also interested in how to find activities that hit that 'sweet spot.' Also, I wonder how I could possibly widen a student's flow band (for want of a better phrase). This really seems to be finding either low-floor high-ceiling tasks or finding a good way to build in assessment and finding strengths upon which to build. So, I wonder how well I can do this and how hard it might be. But, I feel that -- if flow is a possibility -- the investment would be worth it.
You’re doing some lovely reflective work here Shannon. I really appreciate how honestly you sit with your uncertainty, wondering whether you’ve experienced “math flow,” questioning the threshold for competence, and noticing how flow shows up differently across writing, crafting, or reading. That kind of nuance is a real strength to take forward. Your thinking about “widening the flow band” — finding low-floor, high-ceiling tasks and leaning into students’ strengths — shows a deep, student-centred instinct. You’re already holding both the practical challenges and the possibilities, which is exactly where good teaching lives. It is like you have been teaching or something?
ReplyDeleteSomething to keep wondering about:
As you experiment with cultivating purpose and engagement, what small shifts in task design or classroom tone might help students find their own versions of “math jam,” even if it isn’t full flow? And as an lovely extra for you: How do you think you can navigate cultural shift in a traditional math department who may be clasping to traditional approaches over some innovated approaches which will lead to both teacher and student developmemt?