Pattern Necklaces

I have yet to meet the child that isn't drawn to jewelry.  Boys, girls, doesn't matter.  If it sparkles, they love it.  So today we made pattern necklaces.  This was an open-ended activity with some parameters set up to hold children accountable for math work. 

We made our necklaces out of very simple materials-- plastic pony beads and elastic cording.

 

Rules were as follows: 

All necklaces must have a pattern. 

Before you are allowed to touch the beads, you must make a plan.

The plan must include a colored drawing with the pattern unit circled and a translation into letters underneath. 

Second grade patterns needed to be more complex than a simple "AB" pattern. 

Where Did Patterns Go? An old curricular cornerstone is missing from the new common core standards.

So patterns don't actually appear to be part of the new common core standards. I'm loving the idea that the common core is more streamlined than our old standards, but not exactly sure what to make of the fact that old curriculum cornerstones are apparently no longer relevant.

To be fair, number patterns do seem to be still seem to be something that needs addressing, but basic identification of pattern, translating a pattern into letters, identifying the pattern unit, and extending a pattern are apparently no longer important skills. Were they important before? I'm not sure... They were definitely tested skills.

When I noticed that estimation was missing from the common core, I decided to go ahead with activities that required students to make estimates anyway, working on the assumption that students' overall number sense and therefore other common core math skills would be developed in the context of that activity as well.  (See an example here.)  When I noticed that visualizing numbers, a la "quick images" was not part of the common core, I decided that the activities were still worthwhile and could be justified by the standards about understanding place value in base ten.  These missing elements seemed to support the common core standards that remained.  Estimation and visualization are also skills that I imagine students will use in their own lives.  I feel justified in continuing to teach these lessons. 

But what about patterns?  I'm still torn.  Are these skills that students will have to use in life? Are they skills that underlie other math lessons.  For years I feel that teachers have been told that math is "the study of patterns." --Something I believe was articulated by the famous mathematician A. N. Whitehead.  Is this truly so, or is it only a handy justification? 

I have noticed over the years that some children seem to have an innate ability to recognize and work with patterns, be they colors, letters, shapes, numbers, or what-have-you, while others truly struggle with pattern activities.  Is this ability correlated with ability in mathematics later in school? 

For now I suppose, I'll continue on with my pattern lessons, but I'd love to know what others think.  Should I drop these lessons and develop others more focused on number.  Maybe I should keep the lessons, but teach them outside of my daily math block?

Pattern Work

Math choice today with the gang busy puzzling over patterns, while I pulled small groups at the round table. The choices: making and recording snap cube patterns (also circling the pattern units and translating them into letters) and completing cube pattern puzzles (recreating a cube pattern on a mat board and then extending it). At the back table we played "What comes next?" with first graders deciding on a colored cube that would come next in my snap cube pattern and with second graders drawing figures to complete illustrated patterns.