Try a Teaching Strategy

Problem:

After students had completed activities that introduced concepts and were practicing the related skills, they made common errors that demonstrated disconnections between the skills and the underlying concepts.

Change Idea:

I identified approximately four “Big Ideas” per unit and designed about six class activities per unit to highlight and build connections between those Big Ideas and the related skills.

Key Learnings:

• It is important to keep the Big Ideas focused and few.
• The task has to clearly demonstrate the Big Idea and the new algebra skill in relevant and meaningful ways.
• The Big Idea needs to connect to mathematics beyond the specific unit
• Students need constant reminders to connect to the Big Ideas when practicing and applying skills.

Final Routine:

1. Identify Big Ideas that highlight understandings of the unit’s concepts that, if internalized, would remediate common mistakes when applying related skills.
2. Craft activities that connect the Big Idea(s) to the lesson objectives.
3. At the beginning of the unit, list, read, and briefly discuss the Big Ideas for the unit.
4. At the beginning of each lesson introducing new material, list, read, and review the Big Idea(s) related to the lesson.
5. For each activity, introduce the Big Ideas, then include questions that raise how the Big Ideas connect to the activity.

Problem:

Students were not independently making connections to prior knowledge, real life applications or patterns. I had been introducing topics myself and telling the students what the connections were.

Change Idea:

I used guided discovery tasks to help students make their own connections to mathematical algorithms, concepts, and/or applications to real world contexts when introducing new material.

Key Learnings:

• It took time for the students to understand what was expected of them during these tasks.
• It is important to ask questions that are explicitly about the task and the connections involved, rather than asking more broadly, “what connections did you make?”
• Including the questions with the task rather than a separate piece of paper helped students answer more seriously, and more thoroughly.

Students benefited from mastery-oriented feedback regarding the depth of their connection as well as their engagement level. The deep connections didn’t always immediately surface through the task but over time, students are showing they’ve mastered the material and, at times, draw on connections they learned in a particular task to support their work on other problems.

Final Routine:

1. Choose a task related to the topic with multiple entry points for students to complete successfully (guess and check, table, graph, rule, pattern recognition etc.).
2. The task itself should have leading questions to draw students towards pattern recognition, understanding the concept, and/or extending to a generalized rule. These questions are best delivered in the context of the problem and not separately on a card.
3. Give time for productive struggle with the task.
4. Provide scaffolding as needed.
5. Take notes and/or audio record because the students do not always write down what they are saying or what they have learned.

Problem:

Students are not given regular opportunities to make explicit connections between what they are learning and previously learned concepts and algorithms.

Change Idea:

I decided to create generic exit cards that asked students to make connections between that day’s big math idea and another math idea, concept, or algorithm.

Key Learnings:

• It is challenging to help students make deep connections if they do not know what a good connection looks or sounds like.
• Allowing students independent think time to develop their own understanding and connections is important.
• Students build better connections once they have the opportunity to talk about their initial thinking with a classmate.
• Often, a class discussion facilitated by the teacher will help the class as a whole get to deeper connections.
• The tasks students are asked to make connections about must be connected to previous tasks and learning experiences.

Final Routine:

Phase 1: Setting up a Closure Routine

• Create a selection of generic exit cards, photocopied in bulk, that can be used as closure for any class. I created two exit cards asking students to make a connection and one open ended exit card that allowed for any question to be generated at the end of a class.
• At the end of each class, set aside about 5 minutes for students to complete an exit card.
• Utilize these exit cards for a series of classes to create a regular routine of completing exit cards.

Phase 2: Improving the Quality of Responses

• After students are used to the closure routine, begin to focus on the quality of students’ responses.
• Select from the following options to follow up on exit cards at the following class:
  • Read all exit card responses aloud at the start of the next class.
  • Select exemplar exit card responses, read or display these at the start of next class.
  • Select a “favorite no” exit card response, have students discuss in pairs, then as a class what is incorrect about the response.
  • Open class by working together as a class to create a quality exit card response for the previous class.
• As another option, create and use questions about making connections that are specific to a task. These may be separate from the exit cards.
• Have students think about responses independently, talk about them in pairs, discuss them as class, then revise or add on to their responses.

Phase 3: “Connect, Extend, Challenge” Template

• Students in Algebra I often struggle to make correct, quality connections, especially as the topics being learned change. Another way to improve student connections is to use the “Connect, Extend, Challenge” template.
• When first introducing this template, set aside about 15 minutes.
• Have students write about any connections, extensions, or challenges they have about the current big math idea, give them about 3-4 minutes for this.
• Next, have students engage in a structured math talk with a partner, give each partner 1 minute to share their connections, extensions, and/or challenges.
• Hand out post-its and have partners write their most specific connection, extension, or challenge on the post it, then put it on a chart paper in the classroom, with on chart paper for each of Connect, Extend, and Challenge.
• The next class follow up by:
  • Having students walk around to the charts and read the post-its.
  • Select a post-it they think is the most specific, then have students read them aloud.
  • Read a few post-its aloud to the class that you select.

Phase 4: Keeping Making Connections

• Continue to regularly ask students to make connections between math ideas.
• Continue using exit cards or the Connect, Extend, Challenge template.

Problem:

Perhaps because students have not been given enough time or support to do so, they typically rely on the teacher to make the connections instead of themselves and each other.

Change Idea:

To help students make their own quality connections, I implemented this routine:

1. Have students fill out a Connect Table—an organizer for students to describe: 1) a given mathematical idea from the current lesson, 2) a given related idea from a previous lesson, and 3) some similarities and differences between the two.
2. In a whole-class discussion, summarize the connections on an anchor chart.

With the class, use a rubric to evaluate the quality of the connections made by the class.

Key Learnings:

• Select activities where conceptual connections can be readily made; activities can be edited to support deeper connections.
• The discussion routine is essential: it offers quieter students opportunities to share their thinking and students often show deeper understanding in discussion than in their written work.
• It is difficult to measure the quality of connections students describe; I did so by including prompts for students to identify connections.

Final Routine:

1. Identify an activity from a previous lesson that has a mathematical connection to the activity students are currently working on (e.g., there are important connections between formal systems of linear equations and solving shapes puzzles).
2. After students complete the current activity, ask them what connections they see between the activity and the previous activity. Allow at least 3 minutes for students to record their ideas in a Connect Table.
3. Have students share their connections with a partner (1 minute share time, 30 second response time for each partner).
4. In a whole-class discussion, summarize key connections from the class on an anchor chart.

Problem:

Students tend to see algebra as a self-contained set of procedures to be memorized and used to solve specific types of problems, rather than as an extension of arithmetic, numerical relationships. Making these conceptual connections is often discussed as something that is important for students to do, but it is not often explicitly pursued in traditional approaches to teaching algebra.

Change Idea:

Students’ conceptual understanding would be better supported if they had opportunities to make connections between formal algebraic procedures and their prior understandings about arithmetic, numerical relationships. To provide these opportunities, I developed a routine that first allows students to solve problems using informal models and reasoning, and then pushes students to make connections to more formal procedures through probing questions.

Key Learnings:

• Selected tasks should provide rich opportunities for students to make connections between algebraic procedures and the underlying concepts involved.
• Simply asking students what connections they are making while solving a problem is ineffective for helping them develop an understanding of mathematical connections; rather, targeted questions should be used to elicit students’ thinking about connections.

Final Routine:

1. Introduce students to a new topic or concept, either through a pre-assessment or an exploration activity that can support connections to quantitative relationships and numerical properties. For example, card sorts (e.g., http://map.mathshell.org/lessons.php?unit=9210&collection=8) or scale models can be used when introducing equation solving; shape equations or mobile model activities can be used for introducing systems of equations.
2. As students learn more formal algebraic procedures related to the topic, prepare a set of probing questions that push students to think about why a procedure works, drawing connections to their informal explorations in Step 1. For example, why does the substitution method work for solving linear systems? Can you explain it in terms of the mobile model or shape equations?
3. Continue to pose these kinds of probing questions about connections as students explain their solutions to problems, either during small group or whole-class discussions, or as part of a written reflection or assessment.

Problem:

Students do not automatically make mathematical connections between concepts and procedures.

Change Idea:

Use guided exploration and small group work to support students in making deep connections by using different versions of the same task to promote dialogue.

Key Learnings:

• Follow each group’s work to correct/clarify procedural and conceptual misconceptions that might interfere with students making the intended connections.
• Allow individual time to work on and make sense of the task before sharing with the group.
• Find a way to have groups verbalize their thinking in addition to creating a written product as deep connections often come more naturally this way.

Final Routine:

1. Each member of a small group is presented with a slightly different version of the same task and encouraged to work independently before sharing with others in the same small group.
2. During this time, the teacher circulates to question and/or correct procedural errors and conceptual misunderstandings that can get in the way of students reaching the intended connections.
3. Each group member shares his/her work with others within their small group. Students will be able to see that different approaches can lead to the same mathematical conclusion, which will lead to generalization about the study topic.
4. Students respond to a written prompt to demonstrate the deep connections they are making.

Problem:

When asked to give a written description of a connection, student responses lacked clarity, depth, and mathematical importance. However, when spoken, students often offered much more thorough and thoughtful responses.

Change Idea:

Use a discourse routine to support students in creating more detailed and clear connections.

Key Learnings:

• Students benefit from having individual thinking time and group share time.
• Start with surface level connections and build on them as you introduce new material.
• Deep connections develop over time, so use the same scaffolding to create consistency.

Final Routine:

1. Choose a task and plan the connections you want students to make.
2. Provide private reasoning time for students to make individual connections.
3. Use group discussion to lead students to deepen their answers, clarify their thinking, and to try to make a generalized connection.
4. Provide a final private reasoning time for students to revise and finalize their responses.

Problem:

Students are not given enough space and time to make connections in math. They are also not given instructions in the type of metacognitive thinking connections require.

Change Idea:

After pre-teaching problem solving strategies based on the Mathematical Practices, give students a non-routine task and ask them to make a connection.  They will use a charting routine to solve the problem and then a discussion routine to come to consensus about the strategies used to solve it as well as its connection to other math.  Student groups can record their responses on Flipgrid, which allows them to receive and give feedback to other groups.

Key Learnings:

• Pre-teaching centered around mathematical thinking helps students understand and make connections.
• Choose a task that contains opportunities to discuss concepts and edit it so that it contains discussion prompts.

Final Routine:

1. Assign students to groups of 3 or 4 and give each student a role (Timekeeper, Chart Maker, Facilitator, Recorder)
2. Provide each group with a large piece of chart paper that has a center section for group work and four separate sections for individual work.
3. Give students 2-5 minutes of private reasoning time to work on their individual section of the Chart, then Facilitator starts the discussion.
4. Students discuss their own strategies, then work collaboratively to complete the center of the Chart with a group consensus.

Students can create a video of their answers using Flipgrid. Encourage students to expand on their written answers and explain as thoroughly as possible. Students can watch and respond to the videos created by other students.

Problem:

Students cannot make connections between mathematical concepts and procedures.  This is a problem throughout the course where students cannot connect prior knowledge to what they are learning now, nor can they connect within a unit of study.

Change Idea:

Use vocabulary activities to build understanding of the material, then a discussion protocol to help students make connections.

Key Learnings:

• For building vocabulary, students can draw and write about the terms to aid in retention.
• Discussion will help students make connections and expect these to develop over time.

Final Routine:

1. Throughout the unit of study and prior to discussion, use a Frayer model to develop vocabulary terms. Sections include Definition, Picture, Characteristics, and Example.
2. Give students a list of vocabulary terms from the unit and allow individual think time to define as many words as possible.
3. Have students come to the board and write in definitions for the vocabulary terms.
4. Lead a class discussion about the words, adding key information as necessary. As a class, make connections between any two words.
5. Have students continue the process with a partner.

Problem:

My students do not know how to vocalize/write down their mathematical thinking. Their justifications tend to be “surface level,” with little or no mathematical evidence to support their claims.

Change Idea:

I decided to try giving students open-ended problems, ask them to solve the problems in groups and then then ask them to justify their group work and problem-solving strategies verbally using a video forum called Flip Grid.

Key Learnings:

• It is important to give students time and a place to process problems and write down thoughts individually before moving into group work
• Student need to have access to vocabulary words in some sort of organized way and practice using them in meaningful ways to help them use the mathematical language effectively.
• Students need good examples of justifications to understand what strong justification look like and how they different from restating a series of steps Students need to have a good grasp of the concept and be able to justify their own work before being able to critique others.

Final Routine:

1. Research good tasks
2. Decide which task to use which is a practice reinforcement for the unit you are teaching.
3. Make a question template for students to discuss and think about their reasoning while solving the problem
4. Give students about 5 minutes to look at the problem in front of them and make any notes to help when they start their group work, this allows for some individuals to process their thoughts before working with others.
5. Have students get into groups of 3 to 4. Circulate around the room and listen to conversations and ask probing questions to help students through the solving process.
6. Have students verbally explain their problem- solving process and justify their steps along the way and record them using Flip Grid
7. Collect the student work and assess it along with the verbal responses.
8. Watch videos, assess the depth of the justifications and give students feedback.

Problem:

Many students feel that by just showing their work they have justified their solution. Often there is no attempt to explain their reasoning, or it is limited and lacking logic or clarity. Another problem is that students don’t give appropriate feedback to each other on their justifications.

Change Idea:

I decided to use sentence starters to help students write a conjecture and then use a partner share protocol that will elicit deep justifications using quality feedback.

Key Learnings:

• If the tasks weren’t broad enough, the conjectures, justifications and partner feedback were all weak.
• Students need support to write mathematically clear and correct justifications
• It took practice and guidance for students to provide useful feedback.
• Students are typically able to give higher quality spoken justifications than written ones.
• The engagement in writing a conjecture went up significantly when I added a sentence starter.

Final Routine:

1. Provide students with a task that requires them to state a conjecture, test it, and write a justification for why it was correct or incorrect.
2. Provide a sentence starter for students to state a conjecture. For example: I think the graph of y = 3×2 + 4 will be a _________ because ________.
3. Give 10 minutes of Private Reasoning Time to do the task (write a conjecture, test the conjecture, write a justification based on testing).
4. Give 6 minutes for trading papers with a partner and giving feedback to each other (something they understand, are confused about and a question they have).
5. Return papers to their owners and allow 10 minutes for students to revise their justification based on the feedback they received from their partner.

Problem:

Students often are reluctant to engage in math discussions that require them to think, question, and justify reasoning. This may be related to a lack of opportunity to engage in such discussions or a lack of confidence in their ability to use mathematical language.

The goal of this routine is therefore to support and facilitate mathematics discussions in which students justify, question, and critique their own and their peers’ thinking with the help of well-selected problems, a partner discussion protocol, and appropriate scaffolding by the teacher.

Change Idea:

1. Students will use a justification protocol, the Math Paired Conversation Protocol to guide their thinking, questioning, and critiquing during small-group problem solving and discussion.
2. Students will be supported with scaffolds in the form of questions and response starters from the Math Constructive Conversation Skills Poster.

Key Learnings:

• The Math Paired Conversation Protocol has numerous steps; students might benefit from a simplified protocol with fewer steps. Consider selecting your own subset of focus prompts from the protocol each time the routine is used.

Final Routine:

1. Read the Math Paired Conversation Protocol with the whole class. Emphasize that each partner needs to contribute ideas for solving the problem, and that partners should talk about multiple ways to solve the problem.
2. Have students read the Math Constructive Conversation Skills poster. Ask them to highlight a few prompts and responses they think would be most effective. Remind students to use the poster whenever they need help thinking of questions.
3. Introduce the problem(s) students will be working on. It is important to select problems that have more than one way to solve them.
4. While working in pairs, students solve the problem using the Math Paired Conversation Protocol, working through steps of: 1) clarifying the problem in partner discussion, 2) having each partner estimate an answer and justify the estimate to the other partner, 3) having each partner solve the problem and justify the solution to the other partner, 4) comparing solutions to estimates from step 2, and 5) comparing methods and justifying which method you would recommend.
5. Support students’ discussions without answering their questions directly, but instead asking questions that will help them decide on their own pathways to solve the problem and justify their solutions. Encourage students to use informal language to express an idea; then you can re-voice their ideas with more formal mathematical terminology as a scaffold.

Problem:

Students often are unable to describe their reasoning when solving problems related to concepts and procedures they are familiar with. This may be because they have seldom been given opportunities to explain or justify their answers and are therefore not used to explaining their thinking in mathematical terms. For example, students’ explanations often include statements like, “because it is the next step,” rather than justifications based on mathematical relationships; other times students simply do not know how to begin a justification.

Change Idea:

Students are provided with a scaffolded, interactive activity to help them understand how to develop and articulate justifications for algebraic procedures. Students engage in a card-sorting/matching activity in which they order the algebraic steps for solving equations, match justification statements to the algebraic steps, and eventually develop their own justifications for algebraic steps.

Key Learnings:

• Focus on one aspect of deep justification at a time (e.g., logical coherence, precise use of math language, definitions of terms and units, focus on mathematical relationships); this made it easier to understand how students are developing related to specific facets of justification.
• Examples of justification statements are beneficial for students who are new to the process of justification.

Final Routine:

1. Create a “Building Justification” activity by writing the solution steps to a familiar algebraic problem. For each step, write a justification statement. Scramble the steps to create a matching activity or make cards for each step to create a card-sort activity. As students gain confidence, consider adding to the challenge by creating superfluous justification statements/cards that do not match any of the steps.
2. Have students place the algebraic steps into the correct order. Students should discuss their ordering with peers, the teacher, or in a whole-class discussion before proceeding.
3. Next, students match the justification statements to the algebraic steps. As students gain confidence, they may be able to supply their own justifications for steps. To support this progression, replace some (and eventually all) of the justification statements/cards with blanks, on which students write missing justification statements themselves.

Problem:

Students often do not engage deeply in the conceptual learning of algebra and therefore do not develop their understanding of algebraic principles—the “why” behind the “what.” Often, they are only able to solve problems by retracing procedural steps from previously solved problems. Students also have difficulty justifying their steps and providing evidence to support their work.

Change Idea:

Students will develop deeper conceptual understanding and ability to justify their reasoning if they have opportunities to critique worked examples and justify their thinking in the process. In this routine, students are provided completed solutions to problems, either selected from their peers’ work or created by the teacher. Depending on the goal of the activity, solutions will either be mathematically valid or, in most cases, will include a common misconception or error. As students examine the worked example, they evaluate the reasoning contained in the sample work and justify their own conclusions about whether or not the work is mathematically valid.

Key Learnings:

• Use a well-defined protocol for the routine to ensure greater student engagement. Protocols should: provide students with individual think time before they work in groups; clearly specify what students will share in groups; and specify how much time will be allotted for each phase of the routine.
• Appropriate scaffolding tends to improve quality of students’ work over time. Scaffolds in this routine include showing worked examples to provide models for good written work (even in examples that include misconceptions); specific question prompts or sentence starters to create entry points to justification; and word banks with specific terms to include in justifications.

Final Routine:

1. Select a high-quality, non-routine problem related to a concept of interest. Create one or more worked examples for the problem (either teacher-created, or drawing from students’ previous work on the task), and include question prompts and/or sentence starters designed to help students evaluate the reasoning in the example, and justify their conclusions (e.g., Marlowe solved the problem this way… Is Marlowe correct? If so, justify why you think so. If not, Marlowe is incorrect because ____________.).
2. Display a word bank with relevant, mathematical terms to be used in justifications related to the worked example(s).
3. Distribute the worked-example activity and have students analyze the example individually for 3 minutes.
4. Working in groups of 3 or 4, have students take turns sharing their thinking about the problem for 30 seconds each. Encourage students to justify their reasoning, trying to convince each other using mathematical concepts and terms.
5. Have students work on the problem independently again to revise their reasoning based on the discussion.
6. Repeat Steps 4 and 5 as needed to allow students to consider their peers’ arguments and revise their own thinking appropriately.

Problem:

During whole-class discussions, typically not everyone contributes, and students’ conversations often do not demonstrate a depth of mathematical thinking. Improvement is needed in the quality of class discussions, such that students take ownership of their responses, spend time grappling with concepts that do not come to them immediately, and provide depth to their justifications.

Change Idea:

I provided a structured routine for students to develop mathematical justifications, share them with others, and revise them based on discussion and feedback.

• Students were presented with a concise prompt specifically selected to support justification. Prompts focused on conceptually focused activities such as card sorts, matching equation rules to dot-pattern drawings, etc.
• After individual think time, students shared their justifications in small groups. They made edits to their own justification statement based on what they heard from others.

Then we engaged in a whole-class discussion. I hypothesized that giving students time to edit their responses both individually and in groups would help them to share their ideas more confidently and have more natural conversations about mathematics.

Key Learnings:

• Asking students to write down their ideas was helpful to increase the quality of what students were saying aloud.
• Individual think time allowed for more people to share their ideas with confidence and provided the teacher more time to circulate around the classroom.
• The routine allowed for more productive conversation because I had time to sequence who shared what, and when. I found that it made students feel special when you asked them to share their idea with the class.

Final Routine:

1. Provide students a relatively concise, engaging prompt or task that has a conceptual focus, includes multiple points of entry, and/or has the potential for important misconceptions to surface.
2. Allow students 3 to 5 minutes to work on the task independently.
3. Ask students to engage in small-group discussion about their solutions, emphasizing that they should support ideas with mathematical justifications. Circulate around the room and identify solutions/justifications you would like students to share in the whole-class discussion.
4. Facilitate a student-led, whole-class discussion, asking questions about differences, similarities, and connections among the solutions/justifications that are shared.

Problem:

“Checkpoints” are a means of preparing students for an upcoming assessment. The traditional way of organizing a practice assessment of this type is to give students time to work on it independently—without collaboration or opportunity for comparisons with one another. The teacher then provides correct solutions at the end of the class. Review activities might be more effective if they involved collaboration, comparison, and opportunities for students to justify their reasoning and critique the work of others.

Change Idea:

I decided to change the structure of checkpoints to incorporate collaboration in partners and small groups, creating tiers of communication that culminates in a whole-class discussion guided by the teacher. Organizing review this way might enhance students’ understanding of concepts and support their ability to justify their reasoning more deeply among their peers.

Key Learnings:

• Collaboration during review can have a positive impact on assessment averages vs. a traditional approach to practice tests.
• Certain topics work better for comparisons/justifications than others.
• Students generally seemed to prefer collaborating and comparing their work over purely individual work.

Final Routine:

1. Students are given the checkpoint – a short practice activity including key soon-to-be-assessed concepts and procedures – and a certain amount of time to work individually (5-10 minutes).
2. Students work in pairs to compare, justify, and revise their work as needed (5 minutes).
3. Students join pairs into small groups of 4 to 6 students to further compare/justify their work (5 minutes).
4. Students return to a whole-class discussion, where the teacher facilitates making connections among students’ ideas and formalizing concepts and solution strategies (5 minutes).

Problem:

When students have opportunities to verbally justify responses in group problem-solving activities, typically only some students are doing most of the cognitive heavy lifting during these discussions. Students’ justifications also often lack sufficient quality, depth, and mathematical meaning. In part, this may be because it is difficult for the teacher to assess students’ performance during verbal discourse, and therefore to provide formative feedback to students about their justifications.

Change Idea:

Provide a routine that involves meaningful discourse among students, and which emphasizes strategy, evidence, and justification as part of the problem-solving process. The routine also involves students producing written justifications, clarifies for students what a quality justification is through use of an evaluation rubric, and provides students with feedback from the teacher on their written justifications.

Key Learnings:

• Problems should be open-ended and rich enough to support meaningful, worthwhile justification and argumentation.
• It is helpful if students do some planning for how to solve the problem before they participate in discourse; scaffolds can be useful to help students in their planning process.
• It can be useful for students to see models of high-quality justifications so that they develop a picture of what justification involves.

Final Routine:

1. Create the activity, starting with a rich, non-routine problem with multiple ways to solve it. Then add a three-part graphic organizer that helps students: 1) strategize (e.g., identify key information in the problem, understand the task, plan a solution path), 2) apply math knowledge to solve the problem, and 3) justify their reasoning.
2. The first few times the routine is used, students receive samples of exemplar student work to discuss in groups and with the whole class.
3. Launch the problem or activity with the whole class, ensuring students understand the problem context and what is being asked.
4. Students work independently as they develop their plans for solving the problem(s) and complete the “strategize” part of the organizer.
5. Students then work collaboratively in small groups to solve the problem and complete the “apply math knowledge” part of the rubric that shows their collaborative work and solution.
6. For the “justify” part of the organizer, students write justifications for their solutions using the CER (claim, evidence, reasoning) format.
7. The teacher then uses a task rubric to provide feedback to students. The rubric includes three parts to mirror each of  the three sections in the task: strategizing, math knowledge, and justifying.

Problem:

School mathematics often emphasizes getting the right answer over mathematical reasoning. Students therefore have difficulty adjusting their thinking and justifying their reasoning on their own. This change idea involves use of open-ended investigations to help students develop their ability to justify reasoning about mathematical claims.

Change Idea:

To help students learn how to justify their reasoning, they engage in an adapted version of the “Which One Doesn’t Belong?” routine. In this routine, students: 1) examine a set of four mathematical representations, 2) identify which one is different from the other three, and 3) explain why. Because several answers can be justified in these activities, students routinely engage readily in informal mathematical justification. Students then create their own “Which One Doesn’t Belong?” puzzle related to translations of parent functions, share their puzzles with peers, and discuss their reasoning.

Key Learnings:

• Students often approach algebra as an exercise of finding correct answers and thus find it challenging to engage in an activity in which there is no single right answer.
• Teachers should anticipate the wide range of ideas generated by students. In a single classroom, for example, some students may approach a task using informal reasoning, while others may apply formal principles.

Final Routine:

Part 1: “Which One Doesn’t Belong?” Activity

1. Select and display a set of four graphs or equations for a “Which One Doesn’t Belong” activity. See Which One Doesn’t Belong? for examples.
2. Ask students to work individually to identify how various choices might be considered as different from the other three, thinking about their mathematical justifications for each choice. Allow enough time for students’ reflection and productive struggle, and to explore various reasons why one graph/equation may not belong with the others.
3. On a half-sheet of paper, have students show which of the four graphs/equations they identify as different from the other three and write an explanation for why it is different from the other three. Ask them to justify their choice using precise vocabulary.
4. Create a large printed version of each of the four choices and post one in each corner of the classroom. Ask students to move to the corner of the room where their choice is posted. Have students to share their justifications for their choice with the whole group and encourage peers to ask questions and discuss the choice in more depth.
5. Summarize and formalize the most important mathematical ideas that were brought up in the discussion.

Part 2: Creating Your Own “Which One Doesn’t Belong?”

1. Using the same four-box format, ask students to create a “Which One Doesn’t Belong?” activity with graphs of functions that are related in some way. Students should try to include graphs where any of the four can be selected as “not belonging.” To construct graphs for various function families, students could use the DESMOS applet.
2. In small groups, have students share their puzzles with each other and try to identify which of the four is different, again providing justifications for their choices.

Problem:

Students often find it difficult to explain their solution process, justify their reasoning, and critique the reasoning of others. Traditionally in mathematics classes, students are only asked to produce answers but are rarely asked to explain, defend, or critique their own or others’ reasoning. Often students know how to apply a procedure but do not understand why the procedure works.

Change Idea:

To help students learn how to better explain, justify, and critique reasoning, I introduced a routine requiring students to more intentionally and systematically provide written and verbal explanations—not just of their answers but also for the mathematical processes they used to find their answers. Specifically, written problems and activities were supplemented with explicit prompts and sentence frames designed to scaffold justification. In addition, I consistently included prompts for explanations/justifications during class discussions.

Key Learnings:

• The quality of conversations and oral explanations were typically much higher than the quality of written explanations.
• It was extremely difficult to find a practical, reliable way to assess and track students’ oral explanations.
• Students provided better explanations when they understood the differences between medium- and high-quality explanations.

Final Routine:

1. Select a task that requires students to solve a problem. Problems that have more than one possible solution path may more readily support students’ explanation of their reasoning.
2. Select a task that requires students to solve a problem. Problems that have more than one possible solution path may more readily support students’ explanation of their reasoning.
3. Create a rubric that shows students the specific meaning of low-, medium-, and high-quality explanations. When first sharing the rubric with students, ask them to identify the differences between levels. In a whole-class discussion, decide how to turn a low or medium explanation into a high-quality explanation. Example explanations at each level can be helpful for this purpose.
4. Allow students time to complete the task independently at first. Then have them work in pairs or in small groups to share their solutions, justify their reasoning to each other, compare their processes, and critique others’ reasoning.
5. Have a few students share their reasoning with the whole class. During the discussion, include prompts to probe students’ explanations, asking for example, “Explain why you did that?” or “How did that help you move closer to a solution?” or “How is your reasoning different from the other method we saw?”

Problem:

When probing students to explain their reasoning, their reply is often, “I understand it, but I cannot explain it.” When students do attempt to justify their reasoning, these attempts tend to be superficial or limited to one-word answers. Also, students seldom use mathematical terminology in their explanations.

Change Idea:

If tasks included explicit opportunities for students to justify their work verbally and in writing, they could potentially develop deeper understanding of previously learned content. I developed a routine where students work in groups of three to solve problems collaboratively and provide justifications for their work. The premise is that the process of discussing their problem-solving processes and reasoning could lead to a deeper appreciation and understanding of the math content.

Key Learnings:

• Sentence starters can help students organize their thoughts as they prepare explanations of their work.
• Encourage students to use previous class notes and readily available related materials to promote referencing of relevant concepts in explanations.

Final Routine:

1. Select a problem or task that supports rich justifications of reasoning. Add question prompts and/or sentence starters that explicitly ask students to justify their reasoning related to their answers.
2. Place students in groups of three.
3. Have students read the problem individually first. Encourage them to annotate the task before initiating discussion.
4. As students collaborate on their solutions, each student records the group’s work on their own worksheet.
5. The teacher circulates, listening to students’ discussions and asking questions as needed to assess and advance students’ thinking.

Problem:

Students often lean heavily on algorithms to solve problems and don’t connect their solutions to underlying concepts or relationships. Students need support to help them use mathematical reasoning in their solution strategies and justify their solutions using precise vocabulary. Specifically in group work, student would benefit from opportunities to propose a solution strategy (or a next step in a strategy) and justify why it is a valid or useful way to find the solution.

Change Idea:

In this routine, students are explicitly asked to explain how they know their work is accurate – in the context of an opener routine –during problem-solving activities and comparison of worked examples.

Key Learnings:

• Using a “Which One Doesn’t Belong?” activity as an opener provides opportunities to explore what makes for a strong justification.
• Problems that allow for multiple solution paths are best suited to supporting students’ justification.

Final Routine:

1. As an opener, implement a “Which One Doesn’t Belong” activity (or similar activity) where there are multiple valid solutions that require justification. In this whole-class activity: 1) students identify which of four mathematical representations doesn’t belong, 2) students justify their reasoning about their choice using precise mathematical language, and 3) as many students as possible are encouraged to share diverse responses. Throughout the discussion, highlight specific aspects of students’ explanations that involve high-quality justification of reasoning.
2. Introduce a problem or activity that has multiple ways of solving and allow students time to understand the problem and think about the solution individually (~ 5 minutes).
3. In pairs or small groups, students compare their initial ideas and collaborate on a solution and document their thinking as a group (~ 8-10 minutes).
4. Group work is supported by the teacher with clarifications and questions, but not in a way that steers students toward specific strategies or solutions.
5. Use a rubric to assess – and to help students assess – one aspect of their work at a time. Use the rubric to help students reflect on how to improve their solution strategies and justifications.

Problem:

Students are often unwilling to share their thinking because they are not confident in their answer or because they are not used to justifying their thinking to others. Specific attention to supporting more participation in group discussions may help change this, especially if students are given multiple ways and/or opportunities to justify their thought processes. Discussing justifications in group work may also help students interpret whether or not their solution makes sense.

Change Idea:

By introducing a group-based, problem-solving process, specific protocols can be enacted to increase participation by all group members. In the process, students’ collaborative thinking and group feedback may support stronger verbal and written justifications.

Key Learnings:

• It is essential that students get an appropriate amount of time to work on the task themselves.
• Group discussion helps students decide if solutions were reasonable, and how to revise and enhance their reasoning.
• Students need clear expectations of what comprises a high-quality justification.

Final Routine:

1. Provide an open-ended problem-solving task, read through the problem and ensure students’ understanding of the task, and provide students with a few minutes of individual time to begin thinking about a solution.
2. Implement a small-group discussion protocol that ensures participation by all students in the group (e.g., using a timer, have each group member explain their process/solution to the rest of the group for 1 minute; for the first round, each student explains their reasoning without responses; for the second round, encourage students to respond to each other’s ideas with questions and responses).
3. Give students the opportunity to put their ideas together to collaborate on a solution to the problem, building from the discussion in Step 2.
4. Encourage students to use thought-provoking questions in their discussions and model these questions in your own interactions with small groups (e.g., “Can you explain why you did…?” or “Does that method always work?”).
5. Have students review and strengthen the justifications they are writing. Provide written prompts to support this process. Examples include, Does your work follow a clear path? It is fluent? Can a reader tell what you did? Did you explain why?

Problem:

When asked to make and justify claims, students struggle with the idea of what it means to make a claim. When they do make claims, their justifications lack sufficient depth. Often students make no attempt to explain their reasoning, or their explanations are limited in logic and clarity.

Change Idea:

For this routine, I developed a justification rubric to measure and track the logic, clarity, and mathematical connections in students’ justifications. I shared this rubric with students so that the expectations were transparent. The routine also focused on using open-ended, rich problems to elicit these justifications. The open-ended tasks were enhanced with scaffolding questions to help students develop and justify their claims.

Key Learnings:

• Students need time to learn what a quality justification is before they can produce one themselves. Transparency on what you are looking for is key for both your teaching and their learning.
• Opportunities for students to make justifications are highly dependent on the quality of the task. Tasks should be open-ended, rich problems that require students to make contextual or mathematical connections.
• When students struggle to develop a claim, scaffolds can help students to go back and follow the trail of reasoning to their claim.

Final Routine:

1. Review the justification rubric with the whole class, discussing how ideas of logic, clarity, and mathematical connections are important in justifications.
2. Select a rich, open-ended problem to elicit justifications; integrate scaffolding questions to help students develop and justify claims made in their solutions.
3. Give students 5-10 minutes of private reasoning time to think about the problem, the process what was being asked of them, and strategize how to solve the problem.
4. Provide time for small-group collaboration to develop solutions and justify their claims, reminding groups to use the rubric as a guide for their justifications.
5. Use a technique called “Select and Sequence,” where students’ work is displayed with a document camera. Select student work samples that demonstrate various stages of the development of the claim, as well as any common misconceptions. Discuss with the whole class the claims and justifications students make as they explain their solutions. Ask questions that support deeper justifications.
6. Collect students’ work and use the rubric to score students’ justifications and track progress.

Problem:

Students tend to lack an understanding of how to justify their reasoning verbally and in written form because they not often are asked to explicitly to do so in the classroom. When students are prompted to justify, explain, or show work, their responses are often limited to calculations. Students will be accountable in high-stakes assessments for providing evidence in the form of both calculations and reasoning with words.

Students generally face two barriers when given a constructed response item: How to go about solving the problem, and not knowing how to write their answer to include all of the question components. Often students do not include the reasoning behind the calculations, leading to lower performance on constructed response questions.

Change Idea:

To increase student discourse related to justification, I implemented a protocol where students responded to each other using “talk moves.” To improve written justifications, I integrated small writing tasks into daily activities. To merge verbal and written justifications, students engaged in a protocol where they first justified their reasoning in writing and then defended their justifications verbally. To increase the quality of the justifications, I used a claim-evidence-reasoning graphic organizer for students to analyze their constructed responses.

Key Learnings:

• Timing matters: It matters when in the lesson you implement the instructional routine and what students are talking about. If students do not have anything interesting or engaging to talk about, their contributions are minimal during the group work. Asking a more open-ended questions yielded more engagement and discussion among students.
• Routine influences engagement: Students engaged more when they were required to talk to each other rather than work independently. This may suggest limiting the independent “think time” to just a few minutes of getting oriented with the problem before collaborating on a solution.
• Collect data: I collected data on students’ verbal and written justifications. In doing so, I found that there were students who had the correct written justification but did not share out during the discussion. It is important to look at both forms to get a full picture of students’ understanding, and to think about ways to involve more students in verbal discussions.

Final Routine:

Solve-Pair-Share Routine

1. Give students several minutes of private reasoning time to work on solving the problem.
2. Then have students work in pairs in which Partner A shares a solution strategy for one minute while Partner B listens and asks clarifying questions, and then vice versa for a minute. Allow the discussion to continue so that partner pairs can advance and revise their solutions based on the discussion.
3. Student pairs explain to the whole group how they solved the problem.

Written Justification Routine

1. Students independently solve a cognitively demanding task.
2. Students turn and talk to a partner regarding how they attempted/solved the problem.
3. Students engage in a small group (6-8 students) discussion about the problem.
4. Students independently write an answer to the problem, using a rubric as a guide for their written justifications. (Note: I used a justification rubric that included the categories: “Clear”, “Logical”, and “Relies on Mathematics Relations.” Students could score 0, 1, 2, or 3 on each category in the rubric based on their written justification.
5. Collect and score students’ written justifications using the rubric.

Problem:

Justification does not come naturally to students, who often are rarely asked to justify their reasoning. I have found that students often want to get to the solution, but do not necessarily work to understand the mathematics behind the procedure they are using to solve, nor do they pay attention to the reasonableness of their solution.

Change Idea:

This routine seeks to improve students’ ability to justify their reasoning through unfamiliar, multiple-entry-point problems that allow for students to justify their solutions to one another. The routine includes opportunities for students to communicate and justify their thought processes and approaches.

Key Learnings:

• It is important to give students individual think time before they work in small groups.
• Students worked best either with partners or in groups of three.
• Students need to know what the expectations are for good justifications.

Final Routine:

1. Give students a problem or task with multiple entry points that incorporates their prior mathematics knowledge.
2. Have students read through the problem and provide a few minutes of private reasoning time before moving to group work.
3. Allow students to work in small groups or pairs. Give students 1 minute each to share their thoughts or questions about the problem with their group members. Give the group 2 more minutes to see if they can answer or address the questions that arise.
4. If students still have questions, they may write them on sticky notes and put them in the “parking lot” of questions to be taken up in whole-class discussion. Note: Not all questions in the parking lot have to be discussed, but some may need to be addressed for students to be able to continue their work.
5. Give students sufficient time for most groups to arrive at a collaborative solution and justification. Encourage students to resolve disagreements by justifying their mathematical reasoning to their partner or group members.

Problem:

Students in my Sheltered English Immersion (SEI) class have difficulty explaining their thinking about math concepts. In addition, activities that involve making justifications have primarily been more teacher-centered than student-centered. Activities seldom focus on students’ ability to justify their answers and reasoning while solving inquiry-based problems.

Change Idea:

In an effort to support the mathematical language development of students in the SEI classroom, I developed a routine to introduce new topics by using inquiry-based tasks and having students justify their mathematical reasoning. The routine provided more explicit focus on mathematical language development. I mainly implemented these activities during shortened, 30-minute blocks.

Key Learnings:

• Students need feedback and the opportunity to make revisions on their written justifications.
• With an SEI class, prompts for written justifications need to be structured (e.g., if I simply asked students to “justify your answer,” it led to mixed results).
• Students benefit from seeing exemplars and from being introduced to writing strategies specifically designed for English learners (e.g., peer editing, circle writing).
• Task selection is paramount. It was helpful to include a range of tasks—some tasks requiring simple justifications and others allowing for deeper engagement and explanation.

Final Routine:

1. Select an inquiry-based activity that supports mathematical reasoning, problem solving, and justification. The activity should also include scaffolds to support students’ inquiry and justification. Distribute and introduce the activity.
2. Students work in small groups to complete the activity sheet while the teacher circulates among groups, supports groupwork with questions to help advance students along their own solution paths, and tracks student engagement.
3. After the groups have developed their written solutions with mathematical justifications, facilitate a whole-class discussion to formalize the mathematical concepts and justifications, drawing from students’ explanations of their work.
4. Record and track students’ progress, using the “justification rubric” on student conversations and written work. Provide this feedback to students.

Problem:

When students explain their problem-solving process, they often provide only generic explanations that have very few, if any, details linked to the problem or the mathematical concepts involved in the solution. Students’ generic oral and written explanations are often connected to memorized procedures but lack deep justifications.

Change Idea:

In this routine, students develop written justifications through a scaffolded, iterative process. Students’ initial written work is treated as a draft. The teacher then provides feedback to improve the logical connections of their justifications. “Sentence starters” are included in written assignments to provide students with guidance on what types of information they should include in their justifications.

Key Learnings:

• Students were much more productive writing justifications than they were discussing them with classmates.
• The problem/activity selected for the routine should: 1) require more than just procedural work, and 2) should be connected to students’ prior knowledge.
• Prompts should include student-friendly language.
• Set students up for success by activating their related background knowledge when introducing the activity.

Final Routine:

1. Choose a task or problem that is non-routine, requires more than procedural work, and builds upon students’ prior knowledge.
2. Before implementing the task, activate prior knowledge with a warm-up or class discussion related to skills and concepts involved in the problem.
3. Give students the task and let them work for at least 20 minutes. Students should show how they solve the problem and provide an explanation. To support reflection and strong justification, provide students with justification prompts (e.g., “Why does the mathematics make sense?” or “What mathematical idea does your representation show?”) and a rubric indicating levels of logic, clarity, and mathematical connections included in the justification. Encourage students to work collaboratively, but individual work will be collected to ensure individual accountability.
4. Circulate around the room as students work, listening and providing support to students who are having a difficult time starting. If students are confused or stuck, ask them to write what they understand and what specifically is confusing to them.
5. After students have had sufficient time to solve the problem (~15 minutes), ask students to write justifications for their solutions using the rubric as a resource.
6. Collect student work and score according to the rubric. Write at least one feedback comment to help students improve their logical connections on the next draft, referring to the reflection prompts and rubric categories in your feedback.
7. Return scored work to students and ask them to write a revised draft. Students may revise their solutions as well as their justifications. A goal may be to have them improve their score by at least 1 point. As time and judgment dictate, repeat the revision process as needed.

Problem:

Student feedback had been a one-way street from myself to my students, who did nothing with that feedback and only looked at their own writing.

Change Idea:

I wanted students to strengthen their own justifications through writing and feedback from peers and myself. Post-task responses became part of our problem-solving process. Students answered specific prompts, gave and received feedback to their peers, and then wrote a revised reflection.

Key Learnings:

• Model what writing in math class looks like. Start by having students write reflections using sentence stems to help state their claim before moving into the full justification.
• Students need to be exposed to their peer’s work and quality feedback before they can start producing feedback themselves.
• Modeling and discussing success criteria with students will improve writing.

Final Routine:

1. Students engage in a task beginning with private individual reasoning time and then moving to group work.
   1. Max of 3 students per group, and work is completed on giant chart paper and markers. Students select a role for their group (facilitator, resource manager, recorder).
   2. Teacher circulates the room listening to discussion and/or asking clarifying questions or prompts to the group.
2. Students individually write a post-task reflection to a question or prompt specific to the task. Allow 8 minutes to start, then ask if students need any additional time – this is their initial thinking for a first draft.
3. Students pair-share their reflections with a partner. Students read their partner’s reflection and give written feedback on the feedback reflection form. Students take turns explaining their feedback to their partner. Initially the teacher may also provide feedback but can phase him/herself out as the year moves on.
4. Students use feedback to write a revision to their original response digitally in Google classroom. Their second submission is completed outside of classroom time with a predetermined submission date (one-week later, end of unit, etc.)

Problem:

My students needed some type of closure and synthesis of learning before they rushed off to their next class or home for the day.  I also wanted the opportunity to formatively assess where students were at the end of a lesson or part way through a unit of study to plan next steps and scaffolds needed.

Change Idea:

I created a routine that provided students the chance to mentally synthesize learning from the day’s or week’s lessons.

Key Learnings:

• Start by offering exit tickets with sentence starters to give structure to the students’ responses.
• Some students need longer to finish their justifications. Provide students enough time and do not collect the tickets until most or all students have finished, or the results will be rushed.

Final Routine:

1. Select a task that requires some type of justification, not just a solution.
2. Edit the task to focus narrowly on one concept from the past two to three lessons.
3. Give students at least 10 minutes to complete the task individually, providing a template when appropriate on the exit ticket.
4. Collect tickets as students leave class and give feedback the following class.  Use students’ work as exemplars to model deep justification.
5. Modify instruction based on feedback given in the exit ticket.

Problem:

My students did not have the opportunity to justify their thinking through discussions or written work. I rarely provided students with open-ended tasks that allowed them to have an opinion, and support that opinion, instead of solving for the one correct answer.

Change Idea:

When given a group of four different options, students must choose which one doesn’t belong and then justify their thinking with evidence and counter examples. Students will complete two “Which One Doesn’t Belong” tasks each time. The first is completed verbally as a whole class, and the second is completed through individual written work.

Key Learnings:

• A “Which One Doesn’t Belong” task is open-ended and there is not one correct answer. There should be at least one reason why each object does and does not belong with the others. Students will figure this out quickly, so you need to lead them away from answer-getting to the actual goal which is writing a clear argument and supporting that argument.
• It is important to give private reasoning time during both tasks before students discuss in small groups. This allows them to form their own claim, start thinking of an argument and allow for a livelier discussion and debate. Small group discussions allow students time to say their thinking out loud before putting it on paper, allowing them to find gaps in their thinking or change their claim as needed.

Final Routine:

1. Part 1- The Whole Class
   1. The teacher presents the first task to the whole class. See the website https://wodb.ca/ for ideas.
   2. Allow one minute of silent private reasoning time, followed by 1-2 minutes of small group discussion.
   3. Students sort into the corresponding corner of the room for the object they believe does not belong. The corner groups discuss their argument.
   4. Each group shares out the statement: “___ does not belong because ___. You might say it belongs because ___ , but ___.”

    

   Part 2- Individual

   1. Give students the “Which One Doesn’t Belong?” Student Template.
   2. Present the second task to the whole class.
   3. Students complete the “Brain Dump” section of the student template for 4-5 minutes. (See Resource #1)
   4. Allow 1-2 minutes of small group discussion time.
   5. Students have 10 minutes to complete the “Justify You Thinking” section of the student template.

Problem:

I have not had success with student group work. Students were often off-task, and the experience evolved into just more teacher-centered instruction.

Change Idea:

I decided to assign specific roles when my students worked in teams to solve problems, justify their thinking, and correct each other’s errors.

Key Learnings:

• Using roles increased engagement and positive student interactions and helped hold students more accountable for their work.
• Frontloading expectations helped students better understand the routine.
• Time must be built in for rich discussion and dialogue between reporters.

Final Routine:

1. Begin by frontloading expectations and discussing the important functions of each role.
2. Break students into groups of three and assign each student a role (Facilitator/Task Manager, Recorder, Reporter). Instruct them to write down their role.
3. Have students begin the task and monitor progress using a problem-solving template to guide their work.
4. When a group is not engaging enough with the task, instead of redirecting the entire group, focus on each member individually as it relates to their role. If the group is off task, ask the Task Manager why they are allowing this to happen. If students are leaving things blank, ask the Recorder to help the members in their group know what to write down. And always remind the Reporter that they need to have a clear understanding of the process for when its time to share.
5. At the end of class, the Reporters lead a whole-class discussion. Ask probing questions that encourage students to discuss their process, as well as their results.

Problem:

Students struggle to justify their thinking. Often their justifications are not logically connected, don’t use clear math language, and don’t draw on math relationships.

Change Idea:

Students need to practice writing justifications, but that can be cumbersome for so many. In developing a justification template, I wanted to create a way for students to be able to reflect on their own thinking and give and receive feedback from a partner while writing a justification.

Key Learnings:

• Use this justification template as a formative assessment.
• Be sure to model what strong justification, productive feedback, and reflection are before you let students try it themselves.
• Expect that the first few times you use this, it may not go very well but then something clicks. My students really enjoy the structure of this template.

Final Routine:

1. Model this justification process for students and include feedback and reflection.
   1. Hand out Part 1 of the justification template.
   2. Read the problem out loud and give students 3 minutes to write a conjecture and an initial reflection.
   3. Quickly ask a few students to share their initial reflections.
   4. Give students 10–15 minutes of private reasoning time to work independently on showing their justification and reflecting on their thinking as they are justifying.
   5. After 10–15 minutes, students switch papers with a partner and the partner will give feedback for about 4 minutes.
   6. When that is completed, collect student work.
   7. The next class period, hand students their paper and Part 2 of the justification
   8. Give students 15–20 minutes to write a justification using all their evidence and feedback from the previous class.

Problem:

Our school organizes portfolios for end of year presentations to an audience.  Students were not creating meaningful projects, nor did they have enough experience and practice to present them using academic language.

Change Idea:

I decided to help students create projects that connect math and real life while giving feedback for continuous improvement throughout the school year.

Key Learnings:

• Allow students a choice of media for use in their projects.

Final Routine:

1. Allow students to choose from various media, such as tri-fold boards, Google docs, Book Creator, and PowerPoint.
2. Throughout the year, students rehearse to increase their self-confidence.
3. Over the course of the year, students complete four presentations, receive feedback on them, and then choose the best one for the full presentation.

Problem:

Students struggle to explain, much less justify, their work and rarely use precise math vocabulary in their explanations.  They also have difficulty examining someone else’s work to understand the processes used.

Change Idea:

Use sentence starters and a work bank to support students as they explain a sample student’s correctly worked problem for the day’s warm-up activity.

Key Learnings:

• Struggling students engaged in explaining “worked” problems that they knew had no errors, especially if the problem had labeled steps for interpreting the work.
• Before students can deeply justify and critique work, they need to practice how to read, interpret, and explain written math work.

Final Routine:

1. Choose a problem similar to what students will be doing later in class.
2. Label the key “steps” in the work and show a clearly “worked” solution.
3. Provide a vocabulary list (or word bank) on the handout.
4. Write sentence starters/prompts to have students explain what the work shows in each step.
5. Discuss the explanations with the full class.
6. Have students revise their explanations.

Problem:

When students are asked to explain their answers on formative assessments, their idea of justifying is showing the steps they took to solve the problem.  They are not using precise math language or making connections of math relationships to show understanding.

Change Idea:

I decided to have students participate in a whole group notice and wonder activity and a pair analysis to prepare them for their independent critique.

Key Learnings:

• Model exemplars for a critique before asking students to do it individually.
• Sentence starters provide an entry point for al students.

Final Routine:

1. Give students a formative assessment, then choose one student sample to use for the error analysis.
2. Allow students 2 minutes of private reasoning time to complete a notice/wonder with the sample.
3. As a whole class, share ideas (5 minutes) and write a justification.
4. Students work individually to write their own error analysis.
5. After 2 minutes, partner students randomly, then have students share their reasoning with a partner.
6. Come back together as a whole class. Each group has 30-60 seconds to share findings with the whole class and ask clarifying questions.
7. Students complete written justification (5-10 minutes)

Problem:

Students need more opportunities to justify their thinking (in writing) on problems and tasks. Students are good at sharing answers and their thoughts but aren’t necessarily justifying their thinking, especially in written form.

Change Idea:

Use problems where students are required to justify their thinking. Students will follow a routine to complete the problem and justification.

Key Learnings:

• Sentence stems are a great scaffold to help students learn to write justifications.
• Students are best at justifying the thinking of others or justifying reasoning on a problem that is already solved.

Final Routine:

1. Provide students with the task and let them work individually for 3-5 minutes. This allows time for students to read and reread the problem, make sense of the problem, and start to consider strategies they would use to get started.
2. Students work in groups for 15-20 minutes.
   • During this time students collaborate with group members to solve the problem as well as ensure all members have a clear understanding of what the question is asking and the procedures they used to solve it.
   • The teacher rotates between groups to encourage students and prompt discussions by asking questions. Students will share out their thinking and answers to get feedback from their peers.
3. After students have worked through the task and had a chance to discuss with their group, have them independently write up a justification using the prompt/handout (include sentence starters).

Problem:

As a teacher I was talking too much, and students were nodding but not really talking. I wanted students to feel comfortable talking about math with their peers out loud in class.

Change Idea:

Give students a structure to debate their mathematical ideas. Give students practice debating their mathematical ideas.

Key Learnings:

• You need to implement this routine at least once a week for students to become accustomed to using it well.

Final Routine:

1. Review Evidence Based Argumentation with your students.
2. Prepare an EBA problem that lends itself to class discussion. The problem should make a statement about a math problem that could be incorrect or correct (only the teacher knows for sure).
3. Hand out the problem or display it for students. After a few minutes in a group discussion and working on the problem, ask one person from each group to come to the front of the class and state what they think the answer is and why.
4. After the first group, then one other person from another group will come to the front of the class and state what they think the answer is and why.
5. During this time, the teacher does not talk about math or reveal the correct answer until all groups have presented.

Problem:

We have routines in place to help students solve non-routine problem solving tasks, but students were having trouble justifying/explaining their results and process.

Change Idea:

Give students a problem and then asking them to justify a correct version of “student work” for the same problem. The work was scaffolded into parts for them to consider separately.

Key Learnings:

• Show exemplar justifications to students at the start and then revisit during the year as well.
• Using previous-seen problems gave students a better change to justify deeply because they had already critically thought through the problem.

Final Routine:

1. Show students a mathematical task that they have worked on before (or is very similar to something they have seen before)
2. Give students a completed version of the task, broken into sections and including a solution.
3. Provide students with sentence starters to use when writing their justifications.
4. Give students time to interpret the work and write a justification for each part of the work.

Problem:

In classes with a high proportion of special-education students, students can find it especially challenging to persevere in making sense of and solving challenging, non-routine math problems. Many students immediately ask for adult support, and the adults/resource teachers often provide too much problem-specific support (e.g., hints, strategies, answers) that reduce the cognitive demand of the activities.

Change Idea:

In this routine, a collection of prompts was implemented for paraprofessionals and special educators to use in class to respond to student requests for help in a way that orients students towards their own thinking, their peers’ thinking, the task itself, or classroom resources.

Key Learnings:

• The special educator and paraprofessionals I work with were much more receptive to this change idea than I expected. Having specific tools to use when students get stuck was much more helpful than being told what not to do, as has previously been the case.
• Later in the year, after students had consistent opportunities to reason with each other about mathematical ideas, the value of this change idea became much more apparent than when it was first implemented and tested.

Final Routine:

Ahead of Implementation:

1. Create a large print poster or two to post in the classroom with a list of prompts for adults in the room to refer to. These can include prompts like:
   • What do you notice about this problem?
   • What information seems useful for start to work on this task?
   • Can you tell me (more) about your idea?
   • Why do you think that?
   • Is there another way you could organize or represent this information?
2. Speak with administrator in charge of special-education services to ensure support of the routine.
3. Meet briefly with all support adults about implementing a student-centered approach to learning with high-need students. Discuss ideas for supporting students in problem-solving activities, review the posted prompts together, and discuss some examples of how they can be used. If possible, ask supporting adults to read two short articles about the importance of letting students take ownership of their learning: Never Say Anything a Kid Can Say by Steven C. Reinhart and Telling You the Answer Isn’t the Answer by Rhett Allain.

During Class:

1. Remind adults of the prompts posted in the room and that it is expected that students will struggle as they work through the ideas raised by the given task.
2. Distribute the task, read it out loud, and allow for 3 minutes of private reasoning time where students will brainstorm any ideas and/or clarifying questions they have about the problem. Remind students they are not expected to solve the task during this time, but they all need to be prepared to share an idea, an attempt, or a question about the task. Adults should not interact with students during this time.
3. At the end of the 3 minutes, organize the students into pairs or small groups to discuss the task and solve the problem(s) collaboratively. During these discussions, adults are welcome to listen in but should aim for student groups to work as independently as possible. When students request help or if a group or pair gets stuck, adults should select a prompt to reorient students and try to help them persist in working on their own solution to the task.

Problem:

My 2-year looping Algebra 1 class is designed for very high needs students. Students weren’t engaging with perseverance in the work of making sense and solving challenging math problems due to emotions, frustrations, anxieties, and stresses. Many students shut down in class or left the room. Students who aren’t physically or mentally present can’t engage in math problem solving, let alone engage deeply!

Change Idea:

I wanted to try to implement a 3-to 5-minute mindfulness routine near the start of class using short mindfulness videos from YouTube.

Key Learnings:

• Mindfulness breaks made an incredible difference in the culture and productivity of this class.
• Students became much more likely to stay in class and engage in productive mathematical discourse. They also seemed more patient with each other.
• Students unanimously recognized that this time was helpful for our class.
• It is important to keep reminding students of the purpose and expectations for this time.
• 5-6 minutes was much more effective than 3-5 minutes.
• Providing various relaxing options during mindfulness time was important (video, audio, eyes open/closed, locations in room, doodling or coloring).

Final Routine:

Ahead of implementation: discuss with special educators to plan for any accommodations that may need to be made. Select a 5- or 6-minute mindfulness video for class (be careful to listen for and avoid any religious references). You are welcome to explore the videos I’ve used successfully which are now included on my YouTube playlist: Daily Classroom Mindfulness Breaks. Print some coloring pages such as Mandalas etc.

In class: Implement mindfulness breaks after reviewing homework.

First time – explain to students the intention of this new part of our routine. Watch the brief intro video: Mindfulness: Youth Voices by Kelty Mental Health.

Then every time:

1. Remind student of the purpose and to put away all technology.
2. Let students know their options. Offer coloring sheets and colored pencils/markers to those who would like to color during this time.
3. Turn off lights. Ask all to participate in 3-6 timed deep breaths as a full group following a visual clip such as Polygon Breathing by the School of Self or Breathr Mindful Moments: Three Breaths by BC Mental Health & Addiction Services’ Health Literacy group. Guide and model this from the front of the room.
4. Play the selected mindfulness video and sit in the classroom among the students.
5. When the video is over, turn on the lights and immediately dive into the warm up, problem solving task, discussion, practice, or other math thinking activity.

Problem:

Students typically are not given the opportunity to solve challenging problems when completing their homework. Homework assignments usually consist of multiple rote problems and seldom provide opportunities to work on problem-solving. Students also have few opportunities to discuss homework problems after completing them.

Change Idea:

Students engage in a homework routine that involves solving challenging, non-routine problems, with a routine for discussing and revising the homework in small-group discussion in class the following day. When completing the problems at home, students are provided with question prompts to support and encourage them in making sense of the problem, finding a solution path, and writing about their work.

Key Learnings:

• It is important to choose tasks that will be challenging but that also have multiple entry points. The goal for the students is to problem-solve, write about their thinking, and discuss their work with their peers.

Final Routine:

1. Provide students with a challenging, non-routine problem presented within a problem-solving template. The template should include the problem itself, as well as prompts to: 1) identify important information, 2) solve the problem while self-assessing “stuck-points” and strategies/questions for getting unstuck, 3) identify strategies being used, and 4) self-assess the level of challenge, time spent, and level of progress. The problem itself should relate to concepts from the lesson, but also extend those concepts into a novel problem or situation.
2. Provide students with resources to help them solve non-routine problems. I created a poster with question prompts related to describing the problem, planning a solution path, monitoring progress, and making sense of and checking the solution.
3. Share and discuss exemplars of student work from other non-routine homework problems, especially as students are getting familiar with the routine.
4. Students work independently on the problem and write down any clarifying questions or alternative strategies they might consider if they get stuck. Students also reflect on the problem by checking off the problem-solving techniques they used, rating how challenging they found the problem and scoring their work using the problem-solving rubric.
5. During the next class session, ask students to discuss their solutions in small groups. Ask students to edit their work using a different colored pen/pencil as they discuss. Students should not erase their original work even if they need to revise. If students solved the problem correctly, they should compare their work to their peers, and be able to make sense of each other’s strategies.

Problem:

Students often have difficulty making sense of non-routine problems. As a result, students can become stuck and disengaged, and unable or unwilling to even attempt a solution. I often hear students say, “What is this even asking?” For students to be able to answer that question for themselves and- solve challenging, non-routine problems, they need targeted support to develop their sense-making ability.

Change Idea:

By using built-in guiding questions as students work collaboratively on problem-solving tasks, students will be better supported in making sense of challenging math problems. Once they are able to make sense of what a problem is asking, they may be more likely to persist toward a meaningful solution.

Key Learnings:

• It is helpful to build the making-sense prompts into the task, as opposed to keeping the prompts on a separate form.
• Students benefit from ongoing feedback and gain confidence in making sense of problems.
• Students struggle to re-phrase the task in their own words in writing.

Final Routine:

1. Select a task with an appropriately high level of cognitive demand (i.e., includes problem-solving with non-routine tasks).
2. Edit the task to include guiding questions at appropriate places to explicitly support students in making sense of the problem. Examples include, “What is the problem asking you to find?” or “What information in the problem will help you find a solution?”
3. Give students 3 to 5 minutes of Private Reasoning Time (PRT) to preview the task and answer the guiding questions.
4. Allow students to work collaboratively to decide what the task is asking and what important information is given. Note: Norms for group discussion should be established prior to having students work collaboratively.
5. After students have made sense of the problem in group discussions, review their ideas in a whole-class discussion as necessary.
6. Allow students to complete the tasks in pairs or groups.

Problem:

Students are not often asked to solve non-routine problems that take more than a few minutes to solve. Solving challenging, non-routine problems is an import part of proficiency in mathematics.

Change Idea:

In this routine, students solve rich, open-ended problems in small groups where there is explicit attention to and support for students making sense of the problem and collaborating on an appropriate strategy for solving the problem.

Key Learnings:

• The quality of the task itself is closely connected to students’ initial level of engagement.
• It is important to give students individual think time before they work in groups.
• Groups of 2 or 3 students generally work better than groups of 4 or more.

Final Routine:

1. During the planning process, choose a high-quality, non-routine problem for the students to solve. The problem should include multiple entry points and tasks/contexts that are interesting for students.
2. Distribute a “task template” to each student, which is a simple advanced organizer for students to reflect and write about: 1) what the task asking is students to do, and 2) what information in the problem is important and why.
3. Give students 5 minutes to read the problem independently and to answer the 2 questions on the template. Review students’ responses on the template as students finish writing, asking questions to probe and push their thinking.
4. Ask if there are any clarifying questions and have students resolve any of the questions that arise in class discussion.
5. Have students work in groups of 2 or 3. Provide each group with a single sheet of chart paper and different colored markers. Have each student record different ideas at the corners of the chart paper and discuss them aloud as they go. Once the group agrees on a solution path, it should be recorded in the center of the paper. Circulate as students are working to monitor progress and ask questions that help them to assess or advance their own thinking.
6. After the appropriate amount of time has passed, ask a few groups to share and discuss their solution strategies with the whole class. Ask further questions and highlight key mathematical ideas as students discuss their solutions.

Problem:

Students speed through homework assignments and claim success., but then are unable to make sense of their work or review the concepts behind their solutions.  I needed to slow down student thinking and increase reflection time.

Change Idea:

I asked students to read, process, and understand written peer solutions. Students annotate peer work and write a summary on the original document. Volunteers present open-ended problems anonymously for the entire class.

Key Learnings:

• The task you use must require students to justify.
• Start with simple examples of peer evaluation to gain confidence. Peers may then further develop the extent and thoughtfulness of their critique.
• Deep connections develop over time so be sure to check for understanding over several days.

Final Routine:

1. Assess student work and mark with a preliminary grade. Remove names and assign a number code.
2. Give students work anonymously. In other words, they receive someone else’s work, but they do not know whose it is.
3. Students make comments in alternate pencil color.
4. Return the work to the author based on a number code.
5. Original author makes any corrections or modifications based on the comments of papers then submit for a final grade.

Problem:

Students currently do a daily warm-up for the first 10 minutes of class. The routine is very teacher centered; there is no opportunity for deep engagement and many students will wait until we go over the warm-up as a whole class. Students need more opportunities to solve nonroutine “short” problems.

Change Idea:

I wanted to implement number talks using Desmos to shift the responsibility of solve onto the students by asking them to not only solve a problem out of context, but to also explain how they arrived at their answer. I tried to facilitate small-group conversation to encourage students to share ideas and methods in whole-class conversations.

Key Learnings:

• It is important to establish routine with accessible number talks first before presenting more challenging problems.
• Students are more willing to take risks when they see similar problems over time.
• The ability to read student responses in real time on Desmos increases student accountability and the pause feature on Desmos permits time for conversation without distraction.
• Students tend to default to traditional algorithms unless otherwise instructed.

Final Routine:

1. Select appropriate problem for the number talk.
2. Create the activity on Desmos. Slide 1 (the problem with space to explain how students arrived at their answer); Slide 2 (Stop & Wait); and Slide 3 (space to share after a table discussion).
3. Tell students they cannot use a calculator or pen/pencil/paper, just their brain!
4. Give them 3 minutes to initially answer the question independently.
5. Provide 2 minutes for the tables to exchange thoughts.
6. Provide an additional 2 minutes for the students to either change their original response or share something they learned from the conversation.
7. Select students at random to share their method in a whole-class discussion.

Problem:

Students are coming in with significant variations in Social-Emotional Learning skills, which are limiting their ability to be in a place to learn math. Mindfulness is a way to level the playing field and put all students in a place to learn while in the classroom.

Change Idea:

I decided to try daily mindfulness to help students prepare for deep thinking.
Specific strategies I explored were mediation (guided and not guided), breathing exercises, and stretching to help students regulate and reach a place where they are ready to learn.

Key Learnings:

• Modeling mindfulness as a teacher is key to creating a mindfulness community.
• The less distraction, transition, and movement between mindfulness and learning tasks, the longer students can sustain focused math thinking.
• As part of a trauma-informed classroom, it’s important to be understanding of students that might not want to shut their eyes or participate fully. Being open and non-judgmental is extremely important when building trust in mindfulness with students.

Final Routine:

1. Begin class with usual routines including reviewing homework and a starter question. This should take students through approximately the first 20 or so minutes of a block schedule class.
2. Project a slide and/or refer to a poster containing the expectations of mindfulness time for students.
3. Verbally and briefly remind students of the expectations of mindfulness time including what mindfulness does and does not look like.
4. Turn the lights down or off so the room is calm.
5. Give students the option to get coloring materials including mindfulness boxes and adult coloring pages.
6. Start the mindfulness and plan for between 3 and 7 minutes.
7. While the lights are off, gently ask students to put materials away and prepare for their next task. If it is possible to have students remain in their seats rather than get up to put things away, that’s even better.
8. Hand out the student task and once they have started, turn the lights on and move on with class.

Problem:

When given a problem to solve, my students immediately engage by grappling with a solution process rather than making sense of the problem, planning, or the ability to check the viability of their solution.

Change Idea:

I decided to try a three-phase problem-solving routine that is supported by an individual-partner-individual work structure and a coordinating template.

Key Learnings:

• Using a Three-Reads protocol provided students with a structure for sense-making.
• The opportunity to discuss one’s problem-solving strategy with a partner helped students validate/modify their understanding of the problem situation and selected strategy.
• The reflection phase allowed students to evaluate—for themselves—the reasonableness of their solution in terms of a real-world context or to validate their process and solution by discussing connections to underlying (big idea) math concepts.

Final Routine:

1. Distribute problem solving template (Make Sense, Plan, Solve, Reflect)
2. Three-Reads: Using a slide presentation to guide the routine within a routine: (1) Students listen to the teacher read the problem situation, absent quantities, and record what is happening in the problem situation; (2) students read the problem situation, including quantities (choral read), and record the quantities involved in the problem situation; and (3) students read the problem situation individually and write one or two mathematical questions that are appropriate to the problem situation.
3. Select students share their questions. Teacher validates their thoughts and reveals the main question. Students record the main question within the template.
4. Students are asked to dedicate 2 minutes to ponder the problem situation, the main question, and formulate a plan.
5. Students are asked to dedicate 2 minutes to vet their understandings and plan with a self-selected partner.
6. Students work individually for a period up to 15 minutes.
7. If students are “stuck,” they are given an opportunity to confer with another student for a period of 2 minutes.
8. Students are given an additional 10 minutes to complete their solution and write a reflection.

Problem:

Students struggle with being independent problem-solvers, including making sense of the problem, planning how to approach it, and making sense of the solution. Students, even when working in groups, rely heavily on teachers to help them work through a problem.

Change Idea:

I used a solve template that includes independent think time, pair share time, and pair solve time to help students go from processing what the problem is asking for on their own to working with a classmate to solve the problem and checking to make sure the answer makes sense and is correct.

Key Learnings:

• The task you use must require students to solve.
• Start by working independently to make sense of the problem before joining a group to solve.
• Students need a common workspace. This helps them to compare and discuss what they notice they did versus their partner.
• Some students need sentence starters to communicate with their group.

Final Routine:

1. If possible, type the task students will be solving on the top of the solve template. If the task is too large, leave it on a separate sheet but do not include follow-up questions; they can be given to them after using the solve template.
2. Students will need approximately 3–5 minutes for independent think time. This section has four questions for them to answer and help them think about the task.
3. Students will then be paired or grouped (maximum of four students) and share what they learned about the problem based on the questions in the independent think time. Each student was given a minute of uninterrupted time to speak. Everyone else in the group takes notes and writes down in the pair share section of their paper.
4. Students were then given approximately 30–40minutes to work though and solve the problem with their group.
5. Teachers can circulate around the room at this point to make sure they are communicating between partners and group members. If there is no communication happening, I gave them sentence starter cards.

Problem:

Students are not thinking about mistakes they made on quizzes and tests. Often students just look at their scores and their assessments ended up buried in their folders or in the trash.

Change Idea:

I decided to have the students take an assessment and after grading it, I picked a problem that many students struggled with and had them look at examples of incorrect work. They had to analyze the errors that someone has made, decide what was done well in the specific problem, and find where the error was made and how it needed to be corrected.

Key Learnings:

• Students have a difficult time finding what type of errors were made, so using a chart with different possible errors makes it easier for students to get used to that kind of work.
• Students need more exposure to what each error looks like and how to correct these errors. Practice the error analysis more during class, using warm-ups and displaying incorrect answers and discussing them with students as often as possible, modeling from the teacher and other students.
• If you are using a lot of word problems for the error analysis, it helps to have a template that breaks the problem into pieces so when they are analyzing the problem, they can look at each piece separately.

Final Routine:

1. Students are given an assessment and a problem is chosen based on students’ errors they have made. A copy of an anonymous student’s problem or a few different students’ work is made to be used for error analysis.
2. Students are given a copy (a day or a few days after the assessment) of the completed problem (from an anonymous student) with error(s) picked from an assessment that they have recently taken. They are given 5–10 minutes to look at the problem individually and analyze it on their own and can reference a chart of possible errors as needed.
3. Students are paired up/grouped based on how they have done on the problem on the assessment to make sure there are students with different abilities in each group. The teacher gives each group a copy of a problem and they are given 10–20 minutes to analyze error(s) that were made with their partner(s) and reflect on what was done right and what needs to be improved and how.
4. The teacher circulates around the room to help students who are stuck and check on new solutions.
5. After a second check by the teacher, some students share their reflections to help other students understand what the error was and how it should be fixed.

Problem:

I needed an additional student-centered lesson structure to encourage student problem-solving and discourse.

Change Idea:

I decided to post three different level questions connected to the same content for students to attempt to solve on sticky notes during 3–4 minutes of private reasoning time. Students then post their sticky note responses by each problem, and the subsequent lesson is constructed around their postings.

Key Learnings:

• This routine is easy to prepare and a useful informal pre-assessment.
• Students seem very comfortable taking risks and writing questions on sticky notes, perhaps because the notes feel informal.
• The teacher must feel comfortable planning in the moment based on student responses. Alternatively, this routine could be adapted to gather student responses at the end of class, allowing more time for the teacher to think through how best to build on the ideas collected.

Final Routine:

1. Ahead of implementation, select three problems of different complexity levels related to the skills we’ll be reviewing or building on that day from previous courses. Make sure that the simpler problem would be accessible to most students to at least attempt. Create the problem slide using the template.
2. Hand out two different colored pads of 3×3 sticky notes to each group of four students.
3. Explain that you are about to post three problems of different complexity levels. Students will be given 3–4 minutes of private reasoning time to try one or more problems of their choosing from the options given. All students are expected to try at least one problem. It is OK if they get stuck part way through a problem; that still gives information about their thinking and will help inform our next steps as a class. Each problem attempted should be on its own sticky note (specify the color). Students can put their name on the front or back of each note. No one is expected to know all the problems, or to be able to complete them all in this short amount of time.
4. Explain that the other color of sticky notes is for questions or relevant math thoughts that come up while they attempt the problems.
5. Post the questions giving 3–4 minutes of private reasoning time. At the end of the time, ask students to post their notes on the board by the question(s) they played with.
6. If there are no questions, have students return to their groups. Ask tables to take a minute or two to discuss what they wondered about while trying the problems. Have each group record at least one question from their table and post it.
7. Take 5 minutes while students work on another brief task or activity to quickly review what they have posted. For each question, consider how best to share the ideas posted in a way that will maximize student engagement in making sense of the concepts they are developing. If multiple students posted similar ideas that you want to share, consider selecting students whose voices are heard less often in the classroom.
8. Reconvene the class for whole group discussion.

Problem:

I’ve noticed when students solve rich tasks, it is very challenging for them to write in detail their problem-solving process in a clear and coherent manner. Often, they might have gaps in their reasoning such as failing to explain why they constructed a certain equation, or how they identified a relationship that might be present in the problem, but their solution is still correct.

Change Idea:

To give students a better platform to demonstrate how to solve a math task and a fair way to share what they know, I created a process for students to document their problem-solving process in a Flipgrid video.

Key Learnings:

• Any type of problem can be used in this routine, it does not always need to be a rich task.
• This is not a routine to be rushed. Students need time and space to understand a problem, attempt it, check work, solve it, and then develop more refined models and work for their videos. Expect it to last longer than a period.
• When students have incorrect solutions, I do not ask them to delete a video. Instead, I ask them to make a “response” video that explains their mistake. In this way, the student is continuing to document the problem-solving process.
• In Flipgrid, you can “spotlight” videos that are well done. I like to show students videos I have spotlighted so they can see what a quality video looks and sounds like.

Final Routine:

(Before doing this routine, you will want to make sure students are already familiar with using Flipgrid and how to make quality videos. If it is your first time, start with an easier math problem to work on and then share quality responses to the whole class.)

1. Present the math task to the entire class. Read it together, ask for clarifying questions or observations, but do not start to solve anything.
2. Group students together (no larger than three per team).
3. Make sense of the problem. In groups, students will make a visual representation (sketch), add given information to their representation, and develop an initial strategy to solve the problem.
4. Attempt the problem and monitor progress. Groups work through the problem and organize their work to be able to explain it in a logical way. Circulate as needed in the classroom. If a misconception reveals itself across most of the groups, bring everyone together for a class discussion.
5. Make sense of the solution. When students find their solution, they will explain how it relates back to the problem and how they know it is correct. If they think it is wrong, explain what might have happened.
6. Students will follow a protocol to assist them in creating a video. I recommend in groups of three, each student take ownership of one of the three problem-solving domains.
7. Watch student videos. If something is unclear or incorrect, follow up with students in a short discussion and have them make a video response.

Problem:

Students work on problem individually, but do not share meaningfully in group discussions.

Change Idea:

Give students specific suggestions/ideas to explore and complete during independent think time, followed by interview questions to use with their partner.

Key Learnings:

• Discussion were richer when students knew what to focus on during independent think time.
• Students discussed concepts in more depth when using math interview questions.

Final Routine:

1. Begin with a class “notice and wonder” of the problem.
2. Allow independent think time to solve the problem.
3. Use the interview protocol with a partner to discuss how you solved the problem.

• What did the problem ask you to solve?
• What information did you need to answer this question?
• What did you do first to solve the problem? Why did you start there?
• How did you solve the rest of the problem? What steps did you take next?
• Is there a point you got stuck? Describe specifically what confused you. What piece of information helped or would help you move forward?
• Did you find an answer? What’s your answer? Is there a way for you to check to make sure your answer makes sense?

4. Have students reflect on the process and consider how they might approach problem solving the next time.

Problem:

My students come from many different countries with a wide range of mathematical ability. One common theme is that they need to work on number sense and numeracy.

Change Idea:

I decided to try Number Talks to help students build their arithmetic skills. I based my routine on the book Making Number Talks Matter: Developing Mathematical Practices and Deepening Understanding, Grades 3-10 by Catherine Humphreys and Ruth Parker.

Key Learnings:

• Students need instruction on how to ask each other questions about their thinking.
• Begin with dot images, then once students understand the routine move to numbers.
• Post the students’ strategies in the classroom so others can refer to them.

Final Routine:

1. Present the problem to the students horizontally rather than vertically.
2. Students SILENTLY and MENTALLY solve the problem. When they are finished, students are asked to put their thumb up. Those who finish early can continue by solving it with another process and then showing two, three … or more fingers to represent the number of methods they used to solve the problem.
3. Students can also put their thumb down or to the side to indicate that they are struggling.
4. When all thumbs are shown at the chest level, then ask the class for the solution and write down the answers without judgment or identifying the correct answer.
5. Call on students to explain their process for solving and allow others to ask questions. This should be a student-led discussion.
6. Scribe student responses. I also give my students the option to come to the board and write down their process if they do not want to verbally explain it.
7. Post the student strategies on the wall and reference them before starting the next Number Talk.

Problem:

Our students struggle to engage in challenging problems with new material by themselves without much depth, persistence, or reflection.

Change Idea:

We created a set of prompts to help students become more independent in the problem solving process. Think about the problem, try something, edit/revise, decide if it makes sense.

Key Learnings:

• Use the routine regularly so that students become familiar with it and can use it smoothly.
• Provide examples of what a good response looks like.
• Make sure to provide scaffolding as needed for English Learners.

Final Routine:

1. Select a challenging problem for students to solve.
2. Provide each student a template to use as they solve the problem.

• What do I notice?
• What do I want to find out?
• What questions do I have?
• Does my answer make sense? Explain.
• Could I represent it in another way?
• How do the ideas in this task connect to other ideas (from math, other classes, or real world)?

Problem:

The former quiz revision form only required students to redo the item and explain how they fixed their mistake, resulting in low level error analysis without improvement in competency. Additionally, when faced with a new problem, they were unable to demonstrate mastery on the same skill because they were only focused on getting the right answer, and not why the answer made sense.

Change Idea:

I decided to try a revision routine where students would correct any mistakes they made on a quiz and make sense of their new answer by demonstrating their understanding in a new way.

Key Learnings:

• Choose task/quiz items that allow for multiple methods of solving or a unique way to make sense of an answer, such as items that can be reasoned algebraically or visually.
• Provide models so that students understand how the form can help them.

Final Routine:

1. Grade quizzes and staple the revision form as needed.
2. Have students complete the form:

• Why does this item/these items need revisions? (I guessed, I did not know what the item was about/asking, I made a silly mistake, I did not explain/show my work, Other (explain))
• Make sense of the item(s)
• Redo the item(s)
• Make sense of the solution (Is your solution correct? How do you know?  Does it make sense in the context of the problem?)

Problem:

Students solved problems independently, then immediately asked if they got the correct answer, seeking feedback rather than working through steps to check their work themselves.

Change Idea:

I decided that I would move students to working in teams to not only have them have another person to talk to, but to also learn new ideas or methods to solving problems. Students try the problem independently first using their background knowledge and their own skills and then share out with a team to see if others have a more solidified answer and method.

Key Learnings:

• Use a problem that builds on prior knowledge so that all students have a starting point when discussion with their group.
• Maintain group roles and dynamics to help students feel comfortable sharing information.

Final Routine:

1. Give guidelines for group work and remind them what it means to work in a team. This can be done with general group guidelines or specific roles. I gave the following roles:

• Group Representative gets my attention if needed
• Reporter shares out the work that they had done so far
• Questioner was the one person that could ask questions

2. Give students a problem that will allow for discussion or new solving skills and allow no more than 8 minutes for solving independently. This is to ensure that they still have work to do in their teams.
3. Allow the teams to work asynchronously though the problem sets so they can work at their own pace.
4. When each team has completed one question, have the group check their work and call over the teacher for feedback before moving to the next question.

Problem:

My students are 11^th graders who have not been successful in math and have difficulty retaining information presented over the course of an entire unit.

Change Idea:

Introduce each unit with an exploratory task which we revisit again midway through the unit and at the end.

Key Learnings:

• Emphasize process over getting the correct answer the first-time students approach the task.
• Allow students to use their notebooks as a resource during the second and third attempts.

Final Routine:

Carefully choose a task that you think students will have to struggle with during at least 2 out of the 3 trials as you will use the same task each time.

At the beginning of the unit:

1. Read the problem out loud once for words they do not understand, another time for what the problem is about, and a third time for key pieces of information.
2. Record the key pieces of information on the board.
3. Tell students that you will not answer their questions but that you will be observing. Your expectation is that they are working for the full 20 minutes and that their papers should be filled with evidence of thought.
4. At the end of 20 minutes collect their work and thank them for their perseverance.

In the middle of the unit: Repeat the same process as above with the same task.

At the end of the unit: Repeat the same process as above with the same task. At this point all students should be arriving at the same answer.