As an active participant in the Building Thinking Classrooms in Mathematics Facebook Community, I frequently see posts that can be summarized as: "I've transitioned to the Thinking Classrooms model, and it isn't working. What do I do? I usually don't respond to these posts because the answer is far too complicated to squeeze into a Facebook comment. There are a lot of possibilities, and without stepping into that teacher's classroom to see what's going on, it can be hard to know what say. Building A Thinking Classroom is indeed challenging. I've been chronicling my learning and my progress since August, and three of my earliest posts were titled "Into the Weeds," "Disaster Strikes," and "Struggling To Hold On." It was hard at the beginning. Frankly, it is still hard now. It is routinely and predictably successful now, but it still isn't easy. If it isn't working - and I mean full on, the whole thing feels like it isn't working - I can think of ten things to do about it. 1. Give It Time
In short, I've gotten very good at learning to change frequently, and to change big. One of the undeniable truths of major, framework-level change is that it takes time. It takes time for the kids to get used to new models of learning, and it takes time for the teacher to work the kinks out and make it his or her own. I don't even think about evaluating how a new teaching framework is going for six weeks. And that's six weeks of doing it all out, every single day. Full immersion. That's a bare minimum acclimation period. The workshop model took me over two years to finally get just right. Looking back at my Building Thinking Classrooms posts from the year, the one where I turned the corner from frequent chaos to frequent success came right at seven weeks into the school year. And that's coming from someone who is really comfortable with, experienced with, and frankly excited by major change. Building Your Thinking Classroom not going too well? You might just need to give it more time. 2. Implement the Practices One At A Time
This decision was the turning point of my year. Ever since backing off and then working on one practice at a time, things have been going really, really well. And I shouldn't be surprised! I've long advocated for assuring students are only focused on one thing at a time. Why shouldn't that apply to me, as well? Building your Thinking Classroom not going so well? You might consider backing off of some practices and working on them one at a time. 3. Craft Tasks CarefullyIn a Thinking Classroom, the boards and the collaboration get all the attention, but the quality of the thinking task is the real difference-maker. I learned really quickly that I can't just give my students any task that relates to the topic we're learning. Tasks have to be crafted very carefully - just the right entry point, just the right slicing, just the right content at just the right time in the unit... it's hard. Frequently, I'll see folks in the Facebook community ask "Does anybody have a good task on _______?" I'll be honest, I think this is a big mistake. I have not had success using other teachers' tasks. I have not had success with AI-written tasks. I need a task every day that meets JUST the right standard in JUST the right way for JUST the right students at JUST the right sequence in the broader unit of study. Picking a task off list or asking AI to make one isn't likely to meet that level of nuance very often. I'll give you a disasterous example from literally yesterday. I'm working with my students on finding the area of parallelograms. My specific state standards call for students to find the area of those figures by "decomposing them into rectangles and triangles." Even making my own thinking task, look how easy it was to cause a mess. Just about any parallelogram example from Google looks like this: As you can probably see, you wouldn't be able to find the area of this parallelogram by decomposing it into triangles and rectangles (at least not as a 6th grader), because after decomposing it as such, you wouldn't know the length of the base of the triangles. When it comes to thinking tasks, details like that matter... a lot.
4. Launch Tasks StrategicallyMuch of the Thinking Classrooms philosophy rests on the premise that, with the right task, the right sequencing, and the right thin-slicing, students can "figure out" the lion share of mathematics with just a series of hints and extensions from the teacher. As I said above, the task has to be just right for this to happen, which I have found to be true, but not sufficient. The task launch has to be just right, too, in order to get kids' foot in the door, so to speak. Most days, I can just get by with a "you can already... but what about...?" task launch. But some topics are harder to "figure out" than others. I've had to experiment with a couple of other task launch strategies as well, like doing minimal instruction to get their foot in the door and showing completed examples to get the ball rolling on hard-to-figure-out skills. One of my big Thinking Classrooms mantras is that "the magic is in the mild." If the mild questions are accessible enough for them to get started, the complexity can increase rapidly through collaboration, hints, and extensions. Carefully considering the task launch can go a long way toward making that happen. Building your Thinking Classroom not going so well? Consider launching tasks specifically and carefully. 5. Transfer OwnershipTransferring ownership of learning is relatively straight forward in a traditional, mimicking classroom. Most commonly, through some sort of gradual release series, ownership of content knowledge is passed from the teacher directly to individual students. If done well, that gradual release method is pretty reliable, and students are able to begin mimicking the new skill in a few minutes. In a thinking classroom, the transfer of ownership is not so tidy. Students develop their own understanding of a new skill or concept in their thinking groups first. This understanding is usually messy, imprecise, and often depends on the collective knowledge of the group. After a thinking task, students usually have some level of understanding and mastery, but a) it isn't equal among all students, b) it may only exist in the group, at the board, and all together, and c) different groups will have formed different understandings and strategies. Messy. The process of transferring that messy, collective understanding to a neat and tidy individual one can be tricky, but it is of vital importance that we make the effort to do so. Seeing students "at the boards" gets all the attention, but the work that happens afterwards is what seals the learning and transfers ownership of it to individual students. In some way shape or form, that process includes consolidation, meaningful note-making, check-your-understanding questions, and spiral reviewing. Consolidation is a challenge for everyone. I am constantly experimenting with new consolidation practices, sequences, and activities. In general, I find that making the effort to do it at all is more important than doing it perfectly. Right now, I most often include a short writing prompt, a look at our unit success criteria to see where the recently completed task falls in the broader topic of study, a set of questions for the students to classify by spiciness, and some direct instruction of vocabulary and conventions (see links for deeper explanations). Note-making, check your understanding questions, and spiral reviewing are more straight-forward.
6. Manage Memory
7. Manage BehaviorBuilding a Thinking Classroom in Mathematics brings with it so many incredible changes. The room looks different, work looks different, notes look different, teaching looks different, the kids are standing up, everybody is talking all the time - there are days I stop, look around, and hardly recognize what is happening as even counting as "school." Unfortunately, there's a big something that isn't different - there is still behavior to manage. A tight classroom and behavior management system is still a must. There's no getting around it. I've already written a piece about my thoughts on influencing student behavior. It isn't specific to a Thinking Classroom, but it still has my broad beliefs about how and why to do that effectively.
8. Manage AttentionLike behavior, managing attention post-pandemic is also much harder than it used to be. Building a Thinking Classroom does a lot of the legwork on attention management, but I still find myself doing a good bit of additional work on this on my own. During a task launch, I am laser focused on every student and their attention. In thinking groups, the kids need regular reminders of what their job is when they have the marker and when they don't. During consolidation, I'm making constant efforts to keep kids' attention where I need it. During note-making, I'm still hard at work making sure groups are on task.
9. Communicate the Reason Behind the PracticesWe are asking students to make a pretty big leap when they enter a Thinking Classroom. There are a whole host of things we ask them to do that aren't asked of them in any other class, and some of them are likely literally forbidden in other classes. Standing up is my favorite example. When I show other teachers video of my task launches, they usually can't even pay attention to what is happening because the sight of a group of kids standing clustered in the middle of the room stresses them out so much. "I never let the kids stand up," I usually hear. I get it! I had the same policy myself at one point (meanwhile, I've actually stared doing other parts of class standing and clustered because I like it so much!). Standing is also a point of contention with quite a few of my kids. They complain about "just sitting there" in their other classes, then complain to me about having to stand up so much.
10. Make sure it is all about thinkingMy biggest fear since becoming a member of the Building Thinking Classrooms Facebook community is that there are droves of teachers out there Building an At-The-Boards Classroom rather than a Thinking Classroom.
As Liljedahl always says, "thinking is what you do when you don't know what to do." A Thinking Classroom is supposed to be a room where, most of the time, kids are figuring out what to do because they don't know what to do. The boards are one of fourteen practices meant to generate thinking. They're not the star. They're a supporting role. There should be thinking before the boards. There should be thinking after the boards. We are Building Thinking Classrooms. Building your Thinking Classroom not going so well? Maybe your show has the wrong star. Boards or no boards, it's about thinking. What did I miss?It is my sincere hope that every teacher out there who wants to could experience the same success I have Building A Thinking Classroom. It is tough when I log into the community and see someone struggling, but I don't know how to help because I'm not there to see what's going wrong. This opus is my attempt to make suggestions based on what I've seen and experienced myself, but what about you? What are some other things a teacher struggling to Build A Thinking Classroom might need to consider? Leave a comment, share your wisdom, and be part of the conversation! If you enjoyed this post, please share it! Want to read more right now? You're in luck - this is my 81st post! You can browse past posts by category:
3 Comments
It was another strong week in my Thinking Classroom. Having had to think and figure things out for themselves every single school day for a full six months now, my students are able to cover huge amounts of content in a short amount of time. It was almost comical this week. They learned how to simplify variable expressions via combining like terms, applying the distributive property, and factoring in a class and a half. In my prior, mimicing classroom, that was a three or four day affair, and it still would have been shaky at the end. Both of these skills - combining like terms and moving between standard and factored forms of expressions - were not ones I expected students to be able to figure out organically. In the past, I've written about "introducing the minimum, then thin-slicing to the maximum" for topics where this is the case. That's what I ended up doing here, too, but not the same way I had before. In my first video demonstrating introducing the minimum, I was in front of the class showing how to approach thinking about the topic. This week, I tried showing them completed examples to think about during the task launch. For combining like terms, they saw a few un-simplified expressions pair with the simplified version. For distributing and factoring - which remarkably they were able to figure out in the same, shorter-than-usual class period (!) - I showed examples of the the same expressions in factored and standard form. It was remarkable, and it allowed them to dig right into the thin-slicing and run with it. I've got videos of each to share below. The first is just the task launch for combining like terms. This was the first of the two days I tried the task launch strategy. One of the things that made me fall in love with the new tactic is that, by the third example, you can hear how excited the kids are that they already that they see what's going on, and they literally can't wait to get into the first unfinished example before I even send them off. This second video is of the task launch for applying the distributive property and factoring. Similar enthusiasm - once they see it, they can't wait to get going. This video also includes a full recording of a single group working on the thinking task - mic-ed and all! These two were right next to the camera when I moved it and were nice enough to let me record them. This third one is the same as the second with a different class, but it also has our weekly rule review and some recall practice prior to the task launch. Feel free to skip to 13:45 you want to see the task launch, or 18:00 if you want to see the thinking group in action. All in all, I really liked the task launch tactic. There are certain times when, rather than "figuring something out," we need students to learn a particular mathematical convention or process, and it has to be the way it has to be. There are certain things that we can all solve our own way or have our own way of doing, but certain things have to be understood the way the broader mathematics community understands it. Knowing the vocabulary, conventions, and customs of math is part of belonging to that community. Here, I hope, is an approach to building that belonging but still maximizing thinking along the way. If you enjoyed this post, please share it! Want to read more right now? You're in luck - this is my 80th post! You can browse past posts by category:
After a rough start to Building A Thinking Classroom in Mathematics for the first time this year, things have really been rolling for several months now. The increases I've seen in student engagement, perseverance, long-term memory, cooperation, leadership, vocabulary, general comfort and happiness, and even standardized test scores have far exceeded what I expected in my first half-year of implementation. It is very hard work, but it is really worth it. For most of the good run I've had over the last few months, I catch myself almost every day thinking, I can't believe this works. This past week, however, I caught myself telling myself something slightly different. I can't believe this works with all three classes. As they always are, my three classes this year are very different. Personality, cohesiveness, energy level, motivation level... it's all different from one class period to the next. But a thinking classroom has immensely benefited all three. Here's why I think so. Class #1 - The PleasersMy first class is every teacher's dream. The first thing you'd notice about them if you visited is that they absolutely love each other. Visibly random groups help everybody get to know each other quickly, and this group is the poster child for that benefit. They adore each other. Seriously. One day recently, they spontaneously formed a welcome tunnel at the door to make everyone feel great when they got to school. All on their own. Academically, they're pleasers. Pleasers are generally very rewarding to teach. They are sweet. They are adorable. They are thoughtful. They are conscientious.
With such great classroom habits, many pleasers are highly successful students, but others use teacher-pleasing as a means to mask real struggles in math. That's the case with a good chunk of this class. So, why does Building A Thinking Classroom in Mathematics benefit the pleasers? Because disincentivizing "studenting" is what the program was designed to do in the first place. In this year's Thinking Classroom, this group of delightful kids has very few opportunities to please me through studenting. Most of the time, I'm not even around for them to please! The only way to please me is by thinking during tasks, thinking during note-making, and thinking during check-your-understanding questions. So they do. Class #2 - Big Energy, Small Attention SpanClass #2 is all enthusiasm. They have a lot of energy, and quite a few of them are "math kids" in that I like to be right and I like to be done kind of way. Quite a few of them are also math kids in that math is my best subject because it doesn't take the same extended concentration as analyzing a text kind of way. In short, they are my big energy, small attention span class. If you've had a class like this, they can be miserable to teach traditionally, even when they're strong academically (as this group is). A bunch of them can't sit still. A bunch of them zone out the second they sit down for a lesson. They just want to get to the answer. And so on. So, why does Building A Thinking Classroom benefit a big energy, small attention span class?
They could be the poster class for Building A Thinking Classroom, though. Class #3 - Anyone? Anyone?Actual footage of my trying to teach my third class traditionally. My third class is mostly made up of two kinds of kids: the unmotivated, and the motivated-but-painfully-quiet. It is as though the universe refuses to allow a single joule of energy into the room when they're with me. Everyone in the room just wants to get to the end of day either unbothered or unnoticed. Ask a question - there will be no hands. Make a joke - there will be no laughter. Read the room - there will be no feedback. Anybody? Anybody? So why does a Thinking Classroom benefit this energy vortex of a class?
But in a Thinking Classroom, there's no sitting and waiting to be done. Literally. As Liljedahl teaches us in the book, standing makes the kids feel visible, so hiding to "wait it out" isn't an option. All of their tactics are in plain sight. I'll be visiting their group every few minutes. There is nowhere to hide. What about the motivated-but-painfully-quiet bunch? The main threat to this group is that, in normal circumstances, they won't ask questions, won't ask for help, and won't give me any indication when they're struggling. In fact, they can be tough to distinguish from the unmotivated because their affect in class is so similar. But in a Thinking Classroom, they don't have to. I'll visit their group every few minutes, and I'll see if they're struggling. The impetus isn't on them to speak up or start the conversation. This way, their misunderstandings get noticed and addressed without their having to ask. And That's Everybody!And voila! It appears to me that, albeit for different reasons, a Building A Thinking Classroom in Mathematics has (greatly) benefited all three groups of kids, different as they may be. All three groups would have presented me with significant challenges last year. Instead, we've been on a roll for months. I can't believe this works for three such different groups of kids! If you enjoyed this post, please share it! Want to read more right now? You're in luck - this is my 79th post! You can browse past posts by category:
What a moment I had in class this week. We were doing a bit of recall practice ahead of the day's thinking task, and I had posed this question: Why would the following question be considered a "spicy" ratio question - If the arcade basketball guy makes 15 shots every 6 seconds, how many shots can we expect him to make in 10 seconds? Quite a few hands went up, and I got the following response from the student who answered: "Since 10 isn't a multiple of 6, we would need to go to a lower term ratio or to the unit rate instead of just skipping straight to the answer." And the whole room nodded in agreement without hesitating. I would consider that student's response to be not only accurate, but worded using exact academic vocabulary (multiple, lower term ratio, unit rate) with extreme fluency. I would also consider a room full of students decoding that response and agreeing with it in a matter of seconds - months separated from last having worked on that concept - to be a minor miracle.
Prior to Building A Thinking Classroom, I was a big proponent of explicit front-loading of vocabulary and conventions in my lessons. In direct instruction situations, I still believe that's the way to go. "Here are the vocabulary words and conventions you're likely to see in the upcoming lesson, and here's what they mean or how they work." Sometimes those vocabulary and conventions were new ones, and sometimes they were old ones that I wanted to bring back to mind. But either way, students do best when those are presented ahead of time. Obviously, in a Thinking Classroom, these can't be front-loaded. If, as Liljedahl so eloquently explains, "thinking is what you do when you don't know what to do," then any front-loading prior to a thinking task reduces thinking, which we don't want. The kids have to make their own sense of everything - including vocabulary - in the thinking tasks for maximum effectiveness. Oh, how easy it is to teach vocabulary and conventions after thinking task, however. Here's an example. To introduce my students to the concept of percent ratios they worked on this thin-sliced thinking task using ratio problem-solving skills they had already developed prior. You'll notice that the word "percent" appears nowhere in this thinking task. The kids worked with the concept of a percentage, but not the word itself. As you might imagine, already having good mastery of ratio problems, this thinking task hardly required thinking at all. It was simply a bunch of ratio questions where, curiously, the "whole" in the ratio was always 100. When we got to consolidation, all I had to do was name what they'd already figured out.
If you enjoyed this post, please share it! Want to read more right now? You're in luck - this is my 78th post! You can browse past posts by category:
The holidays marked the end of my first semester of Building A Thinking Classroom in Mathematics. Looking back through my list of posts from that time, it was mostly struggle for the first six weeks, then pretty smooth sailing for the next 12 weeks, with a lot of rapid learning on my part. One of the things I've been dying to see over that time was whether or not all the obvious benefits of the Building Thinking Classroom practices would translate into the currency of our educational time - test scores. I teach in a very, very large school district, which means my students take standardized final exams in every subject at the end of each semester. These are tests that cover the standards the district prescribes for the first half of the year, and tests that I can't see ahead of time. They are pretty important for the kids and for me. The results are used, in part, to determine what math course opportunities the students get for the following year, they count as a decent chunk of their final grade, and they're analyzed heavily by my school and district leaders to evaluate how I'm doing as a teacher, too. So, did Building Thinking Classrooms deliver 'hard' results to support the 'soft' benefits visible in the classroom every day? It did. Maybe a little, maybe a lot, depending on how you look at it. Looking at the overall results and knowing very precisely how my students have typically done on these tests in the past, my best guess is that this group of students would have averaged a score in the low-80's if I had taught them the way I used to. I have a lot of data collected from a lot of years with a lot of groups of students, and I feel pretty confident this prediction. So how did they fare? They averaged a shade under 89%. Looking at it one way, that's a modest improvement of maybe 7-9 points in the average score. Looking at it another way, it's a massive improvement, nearly cutting in half the percent of the questions the students missed (from 20-ish% to only 10-ish%). Improving test scores isn't everyone's goal, I know. If you've spent any time in a Thinking Classroom, the portfolio of benefits is obvious. It transforms kids in ways that are impossible not to notice. But at least where I work, test scores talk, and I personally value them as evidence of the work I'm doing, too. Either way, the early results are in, and they're better! If you enjoyed this post, please share it! Want to read more right now? You're in luck - this is my 77th post! You can browse past posts by category
|
About MeI'm an award-winning teacher in the Atlanta area with experience teaching at every level from elementary school to college. Categories |