Jump to Resources and Project Overview
Contemporary High School mathematics standards and curricula are woefully inadequate at helping students understand how math is shaping our world. They speak little, or not at all, to the math behind AI, blockchain technology, social media algorithms, gerrymandering, and the many, many other ways that math is impacting, often dramatically, how we live our lives, the choices we have, and the direction of our future. As such, I wanted to create a project that would help students see a wider and more immediate view of the mathematics that is invisibly, yet intensely, entangled in our lives.
Our guiding question was this: Is math good or evil? And to answer that question, we conducted a mock trial with one team of students arguing for good and another arguing for evil. Students researched and played the roles of witnesses who were personified applications of mathematics. For example, Medical Imaging and Online Dating came to the stand to testify about their influence, impact, and importantly their relationship to mathematics.
I began the project by asking the students to rate math on a scale of -10 (pure evil) to 10 (pure good). The class average rating leaned slightly evil at -1.6, which if you’ve taught math probably won’t surprise you. We then randomly dived into Team Good and Team Evil, dug into the work of researching witnesses, building arguments, and finally put on a trial with attorneys, opening statements, and cross examinations (resources and specifics on this can be found below).
I also used this project to help break up the monotony of senior math. We took the whole semester to complete the project, breaking it into chucks, and doing a little each week. The work ran parallel to our more traditional senior math work. This structure also allowed me more flexibility and space to support students in the traditional senior math work. For example, students could work on the trial research while I reviewed missed questions on a functions quiz with a small group.
At the end of the semester, we went to the mock court room in our school and actually put on the trial. I brought in a jury of six educators, support staff, and retired educators who used the same rating scale as the students, -10 (pure evil) to 10 (pure good). Before the trial, the jury’s average was 4.71. After hearing both sides, the jury’s average moved to 3.57. So, Team Evil was successful in swaying the jury more toward their side.*
Overall, I think the students enjoyed the different angle this project took. And their work showed they learned about how many different ways math is used in our society and the real impact it has on our lives and our world – for better or worse. After completing the project, the class responded again on the -10 (pure evil) to 10 (pure good) scale. Their average this time was 5.0.
My goal though was not necessarily to try to move the students in one direction or another toward good or evil. Had their average rating dropped lower after the project that would have been fine as well. Our goals were to sharpen our argumentation skills, to grow in collaboration and communication, and importantly to explore applications and implications of mathematics that they likely hadn’t encountered.
Resources
Project Overview
1 – Picking Sides
I opened the project by just asking the guiding question: Is math good or evil? The students responded on a scale of -10 (pure evil) to 10 (pure good). I then explained that this was the question we were going to try to answer by putting Math on Trial (Law and Order sound effect and everything) and gave an overview of the project. I made sure to emphasize that this was a long-term project.
For the first project activity, the students read an article about scheduling algorithms. After an initial read they had to rate whether the article was evidence that math was good (+10) or evil (-10). They then highlighted three facts that supported their rating. They then came together with a group and had to agree on a single rating.
Unbeknownst to them, I had modified the article into two versions, one highlighting the positive and another highlighting the negative. Each group had students who had read different versions in an effort to spark more debate and highlight different perspectives.
Lastly, the class was then divided into two teams using a random spinner: Team Good and Team Evil.
2 – Can I Get a Witness?
Teams then selected the Witnesses they wanted to research for their case and each member was assigned with researching and writing one witness. I provided a sample witness list and encouraged them to use their own ideas as well.
3 – Building the Case
We started this phase by looking at sample witness questions and responses. I selected a witness that neither team chose and wrote a sample of weak and strong responses. We compared and contrasted, and then co-developed a rubric of what made a strong witness response (evidence, specificity, personality…)
Students then researched and wrote up their own witnesses. Each witness had two required questions that must be researched and answered: 1) Who are you and what do you do? 2) What is your relationship with math? Students then had to develop two additional questions and answers of their own that they thought would help their case. We did a rough and final draft of these witnesses and in between they did a self- and peer- review using the rubric.
4 – Discovery
Teams narrowed down their witnesses to their top six. I then printed the questions and responses each team had written for those six witnesses and gave them to the opposing team. Team members worked in pairs to study the opposing witness they had been assigned and developed a cross-examination question. They also got to include one piece of evidence or a fact that the witness had to include in their response.
The cross questions and evidence were then given back to the original team who worked in pairs to write an answer to the cross-examination question. Their witness answer had to include the provided fact and be honest while still trying to help their case.
5 – Final Arguments
The team narrowed down their Witnesses to their top three and worked on putting finishing touches on responses. Teams looked for themes across all their witnesses and wrote opening and closing statements. And the teams divided up their roles for the trial, deciding who was going to play what part. They then rehearsed their parts.
6 – The Trial
We did the thing. Our school has a mock courtroom, so we held the trial there. I coordinated a jury of six educators, retired educators, and support staff. Teams had to adapt to members being absent or late. Mostly, they got to see how their arguments and research played out to a real audience.
Struggles and Reflections
Structure – I originally had planned to divide each team into sub-teams. Each sub-team would have 2 to 3 witnesses and an attorney. My intent was to divide the larger team’s work up into smaller and thus more manageable and accountable teams. But (and this will be a theme), attendance was a major issue in this class. There was not enough consistency to maintain sub-teams. In the end, I had to make the initial assignments more individual. But I think that worked out for the best.
Writing – Writing the witnesses was way more difficult than I anticipated. The first challenge was encouraging students to dig deep enough with their research to find actual evidence. E.g. the difference between “many companies use this algorithm to make money” and “jones incorporated implemented this algorithm last year and their profits rose 15%.” Finding this type of evidence requires a lot of reading and research and not just accepting the first headline (or AI generated summary). I’m not sure how to develop the persistence side of things, but in the future, I might make the first assignment to just find and list the 5 pieces of evidence.
I also faced a challenge by requiring the witnesses to be written in first-person and with personality. This added a layer of creativity and style that I don’t think many students were used to. In the future, I need a more explicit activity to help them brainstorm a “character” and character traits, and then to transform their research into that character.
Launch Activity – Since they were given fundamentally different articles to read, I was expecting students to quickly question why their ratings varied so greatly. But most of the groups just defaulted to the rating of the most outspoken member. Only one group realized (without prompting) that they read two entirely different articles.
While my in the moment reaction was to feel like this lesson was flopping, it did provide the opportunity to pivot and talk about group think and the value of critically sharing and examining all evidence and perspectives.
I think the lack of realization was mainly because this is the first class or the day, and you know in the morning. But I still need to think about how I could modify it in the future.
The Trial – Many of the students said they wanted the trial to be more interactive. They wanted the freedom to ask multiple cross questions and to respond and adjust their answers on the fly. Indeed, the trial itself was essentially scripted by the work the students had done throughout the semester, and I see how this does take away from some of the fun. I think the pre-written questions and answers were necessary to ensure that the students engaged in the actual research and learning. I also wanted students to feel comfortable and prepared at trial. And I was concerned about the length of the trial. I think if we had attendance consistent enough to form sub-teams like I had originally hoped, we could have time and space to practice some of this more free form style. So, that is something to consider
*The students tell me though I announced the wrong verdict at the trial. I don’t know if I’m being gaslit or not, but I was pretty distracted by how proud I was of them for all their hard work and effort and for being willing to take on this different sort of project
