Rounding Up

Rounding Up Season 3 | Episode 7 – Number Sense Guest: Dr. James Brickwedde RESOURCES The Project for Elementary Mathematics [https://www.projectmath.net/] Speaking in Values When Working with Numbers [https://universal-blog.mathlearningcenter.org/sites/default/files/inline-images/bQzvzp2LGtUoAkl1wIaVBZK3ETncWrRgJi6aG1VDKOLiQ3ujJu.pdf]Download [https://universal-blog.mathlearningcenter.org/sites/default/files/inline-images/bQzvzp2LGtUoAkl1wIaVBZK3ETncWrRgJi6aG1VDKOLiQ3ujJu.pdf]   TRANSCRIPT Mike Wallus: Carry the 1, add a 0, cross multiply. All of these are phrases that educators heard when they were growing up. This language is so ingrained we often use it without even thinking. But what's the long-term impact of language like this on our students’ number sense? Today we're talking with Dr. James Brickwedde about the impact of language and the ways educators can use it to cultivate their students’ number sense.  Welcome to the podcast, James. I'm excited to be talking with you today. James Brickwedde: Glad to be here. Mike: Well, I want to start with something that you said as we were preparing for this podcast. You described how an educator’s language can play a critical role in helping students think in value rather than digits. And I'm wondering if you can start by explaining what you mean when you say that. James: Well, thinking first of primary students, so kindergarten, second grade, that age bracket; kindergartners, in particular, come to school thinking that numbers are just piles of 1s. They're trying to figure out the standard order. They're trying to figure out cardinality. There are a lot of those initial counting principles that lead to strong number sense that they are trying to integrate neurologically. And so, one of the goals of kindergarten, first grade and above is to build the solid quantity sense—number sense—of how one number is relative to the next number in terms of its size, magnitude, et cetera. And then as you get beyond 10 and you start dealing with the place value components that are inherent behind our multidigit numbers, it's important for teachers to really think carefully of the language that they're using so that, neurologically, students are connecting the value that goes with the quantities that they're after. So, helping the brain to understand that 23 can be thought of not only as that pile of 1s, but I can decompose it into a pile of 20 1s and three 1s and eventually that 20 can be organized into two groups of 10. And so, using manipulatives, tracking your language so that when somebody asks, “How do I write 23?” it's not a 2 and a 3 that you put together, which is what a lot of young children think is happening. But rather, they realize that there's the 20 and the 3. Mike: So, you're making me think about the words in the number sequence that we use to describe quantities. And I wonder about the types of tasks or the language that can help children build a meaningful understanding of whole numbers, like say, 11 or 23. James: The English language is not as kind to our learners ( laughs ) as other languages around the world are when it comes to multidigit numbers. We have in English 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. And when we get beyond 10, we have this unique word called “eleven” and another unique word called “twelve.” And so, they really are words capturing collections of 1s really then capturing any sort of 10s in 1s relationship. There's been a lot of wonderful documentation around the Chinese-based languages. So, that would be Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Hmong follows the similar language patterns where when they get after 10, it literally translates as ten 1, ten 2. When they get to 20, it's two ten, two ten 1, two ten 2. And so, the place-value language is inherent in the words that they are saying to describe the quantities. The teen numbers, when you get to 13, a lot of young children try to write 13 as three 1 because they're trying to follow the language patterns of other numbers where you start left to right. And so, they're bringing meaning to something, which of course is not the social convention. So, the teens are all screwed up in terms of English. Spanish does begin to do some regularizing when they get to 16 because of the name diez y seis, so ten 6. But prior to that you have, again, sort of more unique names that either don't follow the order of how you write the number or they're unique like 11 and 12 is. Somali is another interesting language in that—and I apologize to anybody who is fluent in that language because I'm hoping I'm going to articulate it correctly—I believe that there, when they get into the teens, it's one and 10, two and 10, is the literal translation. So, while it may not be the ten 1 sort of order, it still is giving that the fact that there's ten-ness there as you go. So, for the classrooms that I have been in and out of both as my own classroom years ago as well as the ones I still go in and out of now, I try to encourage teachers to tap the language assets that are among their students so that they can use them to think about the English numbers, the English language, that can help them wire that brain so that the various representations, the manipulatives, expanded notation cards or dice, the numbers that I write, how I break the numbers apart, say that 23 is equal to 20 plus 3. All of those models that you're using, and the language that you use to back it up with, is consistent so that, neurologically, those pathways are deeply organized.  Piaget, in his learning theory, talks about young children—this is sort of the 10 years and younger—can only really think about one attribute at a time. So that if you start operating on multidigit numbers, and I'm using digitized language, I'm asking that, kindergartner first, second-grader, to think of two things at the same time. I'm say, moving a 1 while I also mean 10. What you find, therefore, is when I start scratching the surface of kids who were really procedural-bound, that they really are not reflecting on the values of how they've decomposed the numbers or are reconfiguring the numbers. They're just doing digit manipulation. They may be getting a correct answer, they may be very fast with it, but they've lost track of what values they're tracking. There's been a lot of research on kids’ development of multidigit operations, and it's inherent in that research about students following … the students who are more fluid with it talk in values rather than in digits. And that's the piece that has always caught my attention as a teacher and helped transform how I talked with kids with it. And now as a professional development supporter of teachers, I'm trying to encourage them to incorporate in their practice. Mike: So, I want to hang on to this theme that we're starting to talk about. I'm thinking a lot about the very digit-based language that as a child I learned for adding and subtracting multidigit numbers. So, phrases like carry the 1 or borrow something from the 6. Those were really commonplace. And in many ways, they were tied to this standard algorithm, where a number was stacked on top of another number. And they really obscured the meaning of addition and subtraction. I wonder if we can walk through what it might sound like or what other models might draw out … some of the value-based language that we want to model for kids and also that we want kids to eventually adopt when they're operating on numbers. James: A task that I give adults, whether they are parents that I’m out doing a family math night with or my teacher candidates that I have worked with, I have them just build 54 and 38, say, with base 10 blocks. And then I say, “How would you quickly add them?” And invariably everybody grabs the tens before they move to the ones. Now your upbringing, my upbringing is the same and still in many classrooms, students are directed only to start with the ones place. And if you get a new 10, you have to borrow and you have to do all of this exchange kinds of things.  But the research shows when school gets out of the way ( chuckles ) and students and adults are operating on more of their natural number sense, people start with the larger and then move to the smaller. And this has been found around the world. This is not just unique to us classrooms that have been working this way. If in the standard algorithms—which really grew out of accounting procedures that needed to save space in ledger books out of the 18th, 19th centuries—they are efficient, space-saving means to be able to accurately compute. But in today's world, technology takes over a lot of that bookkeeping type of thing. An analogy I like to make is, in today's world, Bob Cratchit out of the Christmas Carol, Charles Dickens’ character, doesn't have a job because technology has taken over everything that he was in charge of. So, in order for Bob Cratchit to have a job ( laughs ), he does need to know how to compute. But he really needs to think in values.  So, what I try to encourage educators to loosen up their practice is to say, “If I'm adding 54 plus 38, so if you keep those two numbers in your mind ( chuckles ), if I start with the ones and I add 4 and 8, I can get 12. There's no reason if I'm working in a vertical format to not put 12 fully under the line down below, particularly when kids are first learning how to add. But then language-wise, when they go to the tens place, they're adding 50 and 30 to get 80, and the 80 goes under the 12.” Now, many teachers will know that's partial sums. That's not the standard algorithm. That is the standard algorithm. The difference between the shortcut of carrying digits is only a space-saving version of partial sums. Once you go to partial sums in a formatting piece, and you're having kids watch their language, and that's a phrase I use constantly in my classrooms. It's not a 5 and 3 that you are working with, it's a 50 and a 30. So when you move to the language of value, you allow kids to initially, at least, get well-grounded in the partial sums formatting of their work, the algebra of the connectivity property pops out, the number sense of how I am building the quantities, how I'm adding another 10 to the 80, and then the 2, all of that begins to more fully fall into place. There are some of the longitudinal studies that have come out that students who were using more of the partial sums approach for addition, their place value knowledge fell into place sooner than the students who only did the standard algorithm and used the digitized language. So, I don't mind if a student starts in the one's place, but I want them to watch their language. So, if they're going to put down a 2, they're not carrying a 1—because I'll challenge them on that—is “What did you do to the 12 to just isolate the 2? What's left? Oh, you have a 10 up there and the 10 plus the 50 plus the 30 gives me 90.” So, the internal script that they are verbalizing is different than the internal digitized script that you and I and many students still learn today in classrooms around the country. So, that's where the language and the values and the number sense all begin to gel together. And when you get to subtraction, there's a whole other set of language things. So, when I taught first grade and a student would say, “Well, you can't take 8 from 4,” if I still use that 54 and 38 numbers as a reference here. My challenge to them is who said?  Now, my students are in Minnesota. So, Minnesota is at a cultural advantage of knowing what happens in wintertime when temperatures drop below zero ( laughs ). And so, I usually have as a representation model in my room, a number line that swept around the edges of the room that started from negative 35 and went to 185. And so, there are kids who've been puzzling about those other numbers on the other side of zero. And so, somebody pops up and says, “Well, you'll get a negative number.” “What do you mean?” And then they whip around and start pointing at that number line and being able to say, “Well, if you're at 4 and you count back 8, you'll be at negative 4.” So, I am not expecting first-graders to be able to master the idea of negative integers, but I want them to know the door is open. And there are some students in late first grade and certainly in second grade who start using partial differences where they begin to consciously use with the idea of negative integers.  However, there [are] other students, given that same scenario, who think going into the negative numbers is too much of the twilight zone ( laughs ). They'll say, “Well, I have 4 and I need 8. I don't have enough to take 8 from 4.” And another phrase I ask them is, “Well, what are you short?” And that actually brings us back to the accounting reference point of sort of debit-credit language of, “I'm short 4.” “Well, if you're short 4, well just write minus-4.” But if they already have subtracted 30 from 50 and have 20, then the question becomes, “Where are you going to get that 4 from?” “Well, you have 20 cookies sitting on that plate there. I'm going to get that 4 out of the 20.” So again, the language around some of these strategies in subtractions shifts kids to think with alternative strategies and algorithms compared to the American standard algorithm that predominates U.S. education. Mike: I think what's interesting about what you just said, too, is you're making me think about an article. I believe it was Rules That Expire. And what strikes me is that this whole notion that you can't take 8 away from 4 is actually a rule that expires once kids do begin to work in integers. And what you're suggesting about subtraction is, “Let's not do that. Let's use language to help them make meaning of, “Well, what if?” As a former Minnesotan, I can definitely validate that when it's 4 degrees outside and the temperature drops 8 degrees, kids can look at a thermometer and that context helps them understand. I suppose if you're a person listening to this in Southern California or Arizona, that might feel a little bit odd. But I would say that I have seen first-graders do the same thing. James: And if you are more international travelers, as soon as say, people in southern California or southern Arizona step across into Mexico, everything is in Celsius. If those of us in the Northern Plains go into Canada, everything is in Celsius. And so, you see negative numbers sooner ( laughs ) than we do in Fahrenheit, but that's another story. Mike: This is a place where I want to talk a little bit about multiplication, particularly this idea of multiplying by 10. Because I personally learned a fairly procedural understanding of what it is to multiply by 10 or a hundred or a thousand. And the language of “add a zero” was the language that was my internal script. And for a long time when I was teaching, that was the language that I passed along. You're making me wonder how we could actually help kids build a more meaningful understanding of multiplying by 10 or multiplying by powers of 10. James: I have spent a lot of time with my own research as well as working with teachers about what is practical in the classroom, in terms of their approach to this. First of all, and I've alluded to this earlier, when you start talking in values, et cetera, and allow multiple strategies to emerge with students, the underlying algebraic properties, the properties of operations, begin to come to the surface. So, one of the properties is the zero property. What happens when you add a number to zero or a zero to a number? I'm now going to shift more towards a third-grade scenario here. When a student needs to multiply four groups of 30. “I want 34 times,” if you're using the time language. And they'd say, “Well, I know 3 times 4 is 12 and then I just add a zero.” And that's where I as a teacher reply, “Well, I thought 12 plus zero is still 12. How could you make it 120?” And they’d say, “Well, because I put it there.” So, I begin to try to create some cognitive dissonance ( laughs ) over what they're trying to describe, and I do stop and say this to kids: “I see that you recognize a pattern that's happening there, but I want us to explore, and I want you to describe why does that pattern work mathematically?”  So, with addition and subtraction, kids learn that they need to decompose the numbers to work on them more readily and efficiently. Same thing when it comes to multiplication. I have to decompose the numbers somehow. So if, for the moment, you come back to, “If you can visualize the numbers, four groups of 36.” Kids would say, “Well, yeah, I have to decompose the 36 into 30 plus 6.” But by them now exploring how to multiply four groups of 30 without being additive and just adding above, which is an early stage to it. But as they become more abstract and thinking more in multiples, I want them to explore the fact that they are decomposing the 30 into factors  Now, factors isn't necessarily a third-grade standard, right? But I want students to understand that that's how they are breaking that number apart. So, I'm left with 4 times 3 times 10. And if they've explored, in this case the associate of property of multiplication, “Oh, I did that. So, I want to do 4 times 3 because that's easy. I know that. But now I have 12 times 10.” And how can you justify what 12 times 10 is? And that's where students who are starting to move in this place quickly say, “Well, I know 10 tens are 100 and two tens are 20, so it's 120.” They can explain it. The explanation sometimes comes longer than the fact that they are able to calculate it in their heads, but the pathway to understanding why it should be in the hundreds is because I have a 10 times a 10 there. So that when the numbers now begin to increase to a double digit times a double digit. So, now let's make it 42 groups of 36. And I now am faced with, first of all, estimating how large might my number be? If I've gotten students grounded in being able to pull out the factors of 10, I know that I have a double digit times a double digit, I have a factor of 10, a factor of 10. My answer's going to be in the hundreds. How high in the hundreds? In this case with the 42 and 36, 1,200. Because if I grab the largest partial product, then I know my answer is at least above 1,200 or one thousand two hundred. Again, this is a language issue. It's breaking things into factors of 10 so that the powers of 10 are operated on.  So that when I get deeper into fourth grade, and it's a two digit times a three digit, I know that I'm going to have a 10 times a hundred. So, my answer's at least going to be up in the thousands. I can grab that information and use it both from an estimation point of view, but also strategically to multiply the first partial product or however you are decomposing the number. Because you don't have to always break everything down into their place value components. That's another story and requires a visual ( laughs ) work to explain that. But going back to your question, the “add the zero,” or as I have heard, some teachers say, “Just append the zero,” they think that that's going to solve the mathematical issue. No, that doesn't. That's still masking why the pattern works. So, bringing students back to the factors of 10 anchors them into why a number should be in the hundreds or in the thousands. Mike: What occurs to me is what started as a conversation where we were talking about the importance of speaking in value really revealed the extent to which speaking in value creates an opportunity for kids to really engage with some of the properties and the big ideas that are going to be critical for them when they get to middle school and high school. And they're really thinking algebraically as opposed to just about arithmetic. James: Yes. And one of the ways I try to empower elementary teachers is to begin to look at elementary arithmetic through the lens of algebra rather than the strict accounting procedures that sort of emerge. Yes, the accounting procedures are useful. They can be efficient. I can come to use them. But if I've got the algebraic foundation underneath it, when I get to middle school, it is my foundation allows for generative growth rather than a house of cards that collapses, and I become frustrated. And where we see the national data in middle school, there tends to be a real separation between who are able to go on and who gets stuck. Because as you mentioned before the article that the Rules That Expire, too many of them expire when you have to start thinking in rates, ratios, proportionality, et cetera. Mike: So, for those of you who are listening who want to follow along, we do have a visual aid that's attached to the show notes that has the mathematics that James is talking about. I think that's a great place to stop. [About the Mathematics: Multi-Digit Addition & Subtraction [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QjloH_FR_xLFf_YAQc_Rvxhn2XVfh-pr/view?usp=drive_link]] Thank you so much for joining us, James, it has really been a pleasure talking with you. James: Well, thanks a lot, Mike. It was great talking to you as well.  Mike: This podcast is brought to you by The Math Learning Center and the Maier Math Foundation, dedicated to inspiring and enabling all individuals to discover and develop their mathematical confidence and ability. © 2024 The Math Learning Center | www.mathlearningcenter.org

Rounding Up Season 3 | Episode 05 - Building Asset-Focused Professional Learning Communities Guests: Summer Pettigrew and Megan Williams Mike Wallus: Professional learning communities have been around for a long time and in many different iterations. But what does it look like to schedule and structure professional learning communities that actually help educators understand and respond to their students’ thinking in meaningful ways? Today we're talking with Summer Pettigrew and Megan Williams from the Charleston Public Schools about building asset-focused professional learning communities.  Hello, Summer and Megan. Welcome to the podcast. I am excited to be talking with you all today about PLCs. Megan Williams: Hi! Summer Pettigrew: Thanks for having us. We're excited to be here. Mike: I'd like to start this conversation in a very practical place, scheduling. So, Megan, I wonder if you could talk just a bit about when and how you schedule PLCs at your building. Megan: Sure. I think it's a great place to start, too, because I think without the structure of PLCs in place, you can't really have fabulous PLC meetings. And so, we used to do our PLC meetings once a week during teacher planning periods, and the teachers were having to give up their planning period during the day to come to the PLC meeting. And so, we created a master schedule that gives an hour for PLC each morning. So, we meet with one grade level a day, and then the teachers still have their regular planning period throughout the day. So, we were able to do that by building a time for clubs in the schedule. So, first thing in the morning, depending on your day, so if it's Monday and that's third grade, then the related arts teachers—and that for us is art, music, P.E., guidance, our special areas—they go to the third-grade teachers’ classrooms. The teachers are released to go to PLC, and then the students choose a club. And so, those range from basketball to gardening to fashion to STEMs. We've had Spanish club before. So, they participate with the related arts teacher in their chosen club, and then the teachers go to their PLC meeting. And then once that hour is up, then the teachers come back to class. The related arts teachers are released to go get ready for their day. So, everybody still has their planning period, per se, throughout the day. Mike: I think that feels really important, and I just want to linger a little bit longer on it. One of the things that stands out is that you're preserving the planning time on a regular basis. They have that, and they have PLC time in addition to it. Summer: Uh-hm. Megan: Correct. And that I think is key because planning time in the middle of the day is critical for making copies, calling parents, calling your doctor to schedule an appointment, using the restroom … those kind of things that people have to do throughout the day. And so, when you have PLC during their planning time, one or the other is not occurring. Either a teacher is not taking care of those things that need to be taken care of on the planning period. Or they're not engaged in the PLC because they're worried about something else that they've got to do. So, building that time in, it's just like a game-changer. Mike: Summer, as a person who’s playing the role of an instructional coach, what impact do you think this way of scheduling has had on educators who are participating in the PLCs that you're facilitating? Summer: Well, it's huge. I have experienced going to A PLC on our planning and just not being a hundred percent engaged. And so, I think having the opportunity to provide the time and the space for that during the school day allows the teachers to be more present. And I think that the rate at which we're growing as a staff is expedited because we're able to drill into what we need to drill into without worrying about all the other things that need to happen. So, I think that the scheduling piece has been one of the biggest reasons we've been so successful with our PLCs. Mike: Yeah, I can totally relate to that experience of feeling like I want to be here, present in this moment, and I have 15 things that I need to do to get ready for the next chunk of my day. So, taking away that “if, then,” and instead having an “and” when it comes to PLCs, really just feels like a game-changer. Megan: And we were worried at first about the instructional time that was going to be lost from the classroom doing the PLC like this. We really were, because we needed to make sure instructional time was maximized and we weren't losing any time. And so, this really was about an hour a week where the teachers aren't directly instructing the kids. But it has not been anything negative at all. Our scores have gone up, our teachers have grown. They love the kids, love going to their clubs. I mean, even the attendance on the grade-level club day is so much better because they love coming in. And they start the day really getting that SEL instruction. I mean, that's really a lot of what they're getting in clubs. They're hanging out with each other. They're doing something they love. Mike: Maybe this is a good place to shift and talk a little bit about the structure of the PLCs that are happening. So, I've heard you say that PLCs, as they're designed and functioning right now, they're not for planning. They're instead for teacher collaboration. So, what does that mean? Megan: Well, there's a significant amount of planning that does happen in PLC, but it's not a teacher writing his or her lesson plans for the upcoming week. So, there's planning, but not necessarily specific lesson planning: like on Monday I'm doing this, on Tuesday I'm doing this. It's more looking at the standards, looking at the important skills that are being taught, discussing with each other ways that you do this. “How can I help kids that are struggling? How can I push kids that are higher?” So, teachers are collaborating and planning, but they're not really producing written lesson plans. Mike: Yeah. One of the pieces that you all talked about when we were getting ready for this interview, was this idea that you always start your PLCs with a recognition of the celebrations that are happening in classrooms. I'm wondering if you can talk about what that looks like and the impact it has on the PLCs and the educators who are a part of them. Summer: Yeah. I think our teachers are doing some great things in their classrooms, and I think having the time to share those great things with their colleagues is really important. Just starting the meeting on that positive note tends to lead us in a more productive direction. Mike: You two have also talked to me about the impact of having an opportunity for educators to engage in the math that their students will be doing or looking at common examples of student work and how it shows up in the classroom. I wonder if you could talk about what you see in classrooms and how you think that loops back into the experiences that are happening in PLCs. Summer: Yeah. One of the things that we start off with in our PLCs is looking at student work. And so, teachers are bringing common work examples to the table, and we're looking to see, “What are our students coming with? What's a good starting point for us to build skills, to develop these skills a little bit further to help them be more successful?” And I think a huge part of that is actually doing the work that our students are doing. And so, prior to giving a task to a student, we all saw that together in a couple of different ways. And that's going to give us that opportunity to think about what misconceptions might show up, what questions we might want to ask if we want to push students further, reign them back in a little bit. Just that pre-planning piece with the student math, I think has been very important for us. And so, when we go into classrooms, I'll smile because they kind of look like little miniature PLCs going on. The teacher’s facilitating, the students are looking at strategies of their classmates and having conversations about what's similar, what's different. I think the teachers are modeling with their students that productive practice of looking at the evidence and the student work and talking about how we go about thinking through these problems. Mike: I think the more that I hear you talk about that, I flashback to what Megan, what you said earlier about, there is planning that's happening, and there's collaboration. They're planning the questions that they might ask. They're anticipating the things that might come from students. So, while it's not, “I'm writing my lesson for Tuesday,” there is a lot of planning that's coming. It’s just perhaps not as specific as, “This is what we'll do on this particular day.” Am I getting that right? Megan: Yes. You're getting that a hundred percent right. Summer has teachers sometimes taken the assessment at the beginning of a unit. We'll go ahead and take the end-of-unit assessment and the information that you gain from that. Just with having the teachers take it and knowing how the kids are going to be assessed, then just in turn makes them better planners for the unit. And there's a lot of good conversation that comes from that. Mike: I mean, in some ways, your PLC design, the word that pops into my head is almost like a “rehearsal” of sorts. Does that analogy seem right? Summer: It seems right. And just to add on to that, I think, too, again, providing that time within the school day for them to look at the math, to do the math, to think about what they want to ask, is like a mini-rehearsal. Because typically, when teachers are planning outside of school hours, it's by themselves in a silo. But this just gives that opportunity to talk about all the possibilities together, run through the math together, ask questions if they have them. So, I think that's a decent analogy, yeah. Mike: Yeah. Well, you know what it makes me think about is competitive sports like basketball. As a person who played quite a lot, there are points in time when you start to learn the game that everything feels so fast. And then there are points in time when you've had some experience when you know how to anticipate, where things seem to slow down a little bit. And the analogy is that if you can kind of anticipate what might happen or the meaning of the math that kids are showing you, it gives you a little bit more space in the moment to really think about what you want to do versus just feeling like you have to react. Summer: And I think, too, it keeps you focused on the math at hand. You're constantly thinking about your next teacher move. And so, if you've got that math in your mind and you do get thrown off, you've had an opportunity, like you said, to have a little informal rehearsal with it, and maybe you're not thrown off as badly. (  laughs ) Mike: Well, one of the things that you’ve both mentioned when we've talked about PLCs is the impact of a program called OGAP. I'm wondering if you can talk about what OGAP is, what it brought to your educators, and how it impacted what’s been happening in PLCs. Megan: I'll start in terms … OGAP stands for ongoing assessment project. Summer can talk about the specifics, but we rolled it out as a whole school. And I think there was power in that. Everybody in your school taking the same professional development at the same time, speaking the same language, hearing the same things. And for us, it was just a game-changer. Summer: Yeah, I taught elementary math for 12 years before I knew anything about OGAP, and I had no idea what I was doing until OGAP came into my life. All of the light bulbs that went off with this very complex elementary math that I had no idea was a thing, it was just incredible. And so, I think the way that OGAP plays a role in PLCs is that we're constantly using the evidence in our student work to make decisions about what we do next. We're not just plowing through a curriculum, we're looking at the visual models and strategies that Bridges expects of us in that unit. We're coupling it with the content knowledge that we get from OGAP and how students should and could move along this progression. And we're planning really carefully around that; thinking about, “If we give this task and some of our students are still at a less sophisticated strategy and some of our students are at a more sophisticated strategy, how can we use those two examples to bridge that gap for more kids?” And we're really learning from each other's work. It's not the teacher up there saying, “This is how you'd solve this problem.” But it's a really deep dive into the content. And I think the level of confidence that OGAP has brought our teachers as they've learned to teach Bridges has been like a powerhouse for us. Mike: Talk a little bit about the confidence that you see from your teachers who have had an OGAP experience and who are now using a curriculum and implementing it. Can you say more about that? Summer: Yeah. I mean, I think about our PLCs, the collaborative part of it, we're having truly professional conversations. It's centered around the math, truly, and how students think about the math. And so again, not to diminish the need to strategically lesson plan and come up with activities and things, but we're talking really complex stuff in PLCs. And so, when we look at student work and we that work on the OGAP progression, depending on what skill we're teaching that week, we're able to really look at, “Gosh, the kid is, he's doing this, but I'm not sure why.” And then we can talk a little bit about, “Well, maybe he's thinking about this strategy, and he got confused with that part of it.” So, it really, again, is just centered around the student thinking. The evidence is in front of us, and we use that to plan accordingly. And I think it just one-ups a typical PLC because our teachers know what they're talking about. There's no question in, “Why am I teaching how to add on an open number line?” We know the reasoning behind it. We know what comes before that. We know what comes after that, and we know the importance of why we're doing it right now. Mike: Megan, I wanted to ask you one more question. You are the instructional leader for the building, the position you hold is principal. I know that Summer is a person who does facilitation of the PLCs. What role do you play or what role do you try to play in PLCs as well? Megan: I try to be present at every single PLC meeting and an active participant. I do all the assessments. I get excited when Summer says we're taking a test. I mean, I do everything that the teachers do. I offer suggestions if I think that I have something valuable to bring to the table. I look at student work. I just do everything with everybody because I like being part of that team. Mike: What impact do you think that that has on the educators who are in the PLC? Megan: I mean, I think it makes teachers feel that their time is valuable. We're valuing their time. It's helpful for me, too, when I go into classrooms. I know what I'm looking for. I know which kids I want to work with. Sometimes I'm like, “Ooh, I want to come in and see you do that. That's exciting.” It helps me plan my day, and it helps me know what's going on in the school. And I think it also is just a non-judgmental, non-confrontational time for people to ask me questions. I mean, it's part of me trying to be accessible as well. Mike: Summer, as the person who’s the facilitator, how do you think about preparing for the kind of PLCs that you've described? What are some of the things that are important to know as a facilitator or to do in preparation? Summer: So, I typically sort of rehearse myself, if you will, before the PLC kicks off. I will take assessments, I will take screeners. I'll look at screener implementation guides and think about the pieces of that that would be useful for our teachers if they needed to pull some small groups and re-engage those kids prior to a unit. What I really think is important though, is that vertical alignment. So, looking at the standards that are coming up in a module, thinking about what came before it: “What does that standard look like in second grade?” If I'm doing a third grade PLC: “What does that standard look like in fourth grade?” Because teachers don't have time to do that on their own. And I think it's really important for that collective efficacy, like, “We're all doing this together. What you did last year matters. What you're doing next year matters, and this is how they tie together.” I kind of started that actually this year, wanting to know more myself about how these standards align to each other and how we can think about Bridges as a ladder among grade levels. Because we were going into classrooms, and teachers were seeing older grade levels doing something that they developed, and that was super exciting for them. And so, having an understanding of how our state standards align in that way just helps them to understand the importance of what they're doing and bring about that efficacy that we all really just need our teachers to own. It's so huge. And just making sure that our students are going to the next grade prepared. Mike: One of the things that I was thinking about as I was listening to you two describe the different facets of this system that you've put together is, how to get started. Everything from scheduling to structure to professional learning. There's a lot that goes into making what you all have built successful. I think my question to you all would be, “If someone were listening to this, and they were thinking to themselves, ‘Wow, that's fascinating!’ What are some of the things that you might encourage them to do if they wanted to start to take up some of the ideas that you shared?” Megan: It's very easy to crash and burn by trying to take on too much. And so, I think if you have a long-range plan and an end goal, you need to try to break it into chunks. Just making small changes and doing those small changes consistently. And once they become routine practices, then taking on something new. Mike: Summer, how about you? Summer: Yeah, I think as an instructional coach, one of the things that I learned through OGAP is that our student work is personal. And if we're looking at student work without the mindset of, “We're learning together,” sometimes we can feel a little bit attacked. And so, one of the first things that we did when we were rolling this out and learning how to analyze student work is, we looked at student work that wasn't necessarily from our class. We asked teachers to save student work samples. I have folders in my office of different student work samples that we can practice sorting and have conversations about. And that's sort of where we started with it. Looking at work that wasn't necessarily our students gave us an opportunity to be a little bit more open about what we wanted to say about it, how we wanted to talk about it. And it really does take some practice to dig into student thinking and figure out, “Where do I need to go from here?” And I think that allowed us to play with it in a way that wasn't threatening necessarily. Mike: I think that's a great place to stop, Megan and Summer. I want to thank you so much for joining us. It's really been a pleasure talking to both of you. Megan: Well, thank you for having us.  Summer: Yeah, thanks a lot for having us. Mike: This podcast is brought to you by The Math Learning Center and the Maier Math Foundation, dedicated to inspiring and enabling all individuals to discover and develop their mathematical confidence and ability. © 2024 The Math Learning Center | www.mathlearningcenter.org [https://www.mathlearningcenter.org]

Rounding Up Season 3 | Episode 6 – Argumentation, Justification & Conjecture Guests: Jody Guarino and Chepina Rumsey Mike Wallus: Argumentation, justification, conjecture. All of these are practices we hope to cultivate, but they may not be practices we associate with kindergarten, first-, and second-graders. What would it look like to encourage these practices with our youngest learners? Today we'll talk about this question with Jody Guarino and Chepina Rumsey, authors of the book Nurturing Math Curiosity with Learners in Grades K–2. Welcome to the podcast, Chepina and Jody. Thank you so much for joining us today. Jody Guarino: Thank you for having us. Chepina Rumsey: Yeah, thank you. Mike: So, I'm wondering if we can start by talking about the genesis of your work, particularly for students in grades K–2. Jody: Sure. Chepina had written a paper about argumentation, and her paper was situated in a fourth-grade class. At the time, I read the article and was so inspired, and I wanted it to use it in an upcoming professional learning that I was going to be doing. And I got some pushback with people saying, “Well, how is this relevant to K–2 teachers?” And it really hit me that there was this belief that K–2 students couldn't engage in argumentation. Like, “OK, this paper's great for older kids, but we're not really sure about the young students.” And at the time, there wasn't a lot written on argumentation in primary grades. So, we thought, “Well, let's try some things and really think about, ‘What does it look like in primary grades?’ And let's find some people to learn with.” So, I approached some of my recent graduates from my teacher ed program who were working in primary classrooms and a principal that employed quite a few of them with this idea of, “Could we learn some things together? Could we come and work with your teachers and work with you and just kind of get a sense of what could students do in kindergarten to second grade?” So, we worked with three amazing teachers, Bethany, Rachael, and Christina—in their first years of teaching—and we worked with them monthly for two years. We wanted to learn, “What does it look like in K–2 classrooms?” And each time we met with them, we would learn more and get more and more excited. Little kids are brilliant, but also their teachers were brilliant, taking risks and trying things. I met with one of the teachers last week, and the original students that were part of the book that we've written now are actually in high school. So, it was just such a great learning opportunity for us. Mike: Well, I'll say this, there are many things that I appreciated about the book, about Nurturing Math Curiosity with Learners in Grades K–2, and I think one of the first things was the word “with” that was found in the title. So why “with” learners? What were y'all trying to communicate? Chepina: I'm so glad you asked that, Mike, because that was something really important to us when we were coming up with the title and the theme of the book, the message. So, we think it's really important to nurture curiosity with our students, meaning we can't expect to grow it in them if we're not also growing it in ourselves. So, we see that children are naturally curious and bring these ideas to the classroom. So, the word “with” was important because we want everyone in the classroom to grow more curious together. So, teachers nurturing their own math curiosity along with their students is important to us. One unique opportunity we tried to include in the book is for teachers who are reading it to have opportunities to think about the math and have spaces in the book where they can write their own responses and think deeply along with the vignettes to show them that this is something they can carry to their classroom. Mike: I love that. I wonder if we could talk a little bit about the meaning and the importance of argumentation? In the book, you describe four layers: noticing and wondering, conjecture, justification, and extending ideas. Could you share a brief explanation of those layers? Jody: Absolutely. So, as we started working with teachers, we'd noticed these themes or trends across, or within, all of the classrooms. So, we think about noticing and wondering as a space for students to make observations and ask curious questions. So, as teachers would do whatever activity or do games, they would always ask kids, “What are you noticing?” So, it really gave kids opportunities to just pause and observe things, which then led to questions as well. And when we think about students conjecturing, we think about when they make general statements about observations. So, an example of this could be a child who notices that 3 plus 7 is 10 and 7 plus 3 is 10. So, the child might think, “Oh wait, the order of the addends doesn't matter when adding. And maybe that would even work with other numbers.” So, forming a conjecture like this is, “What I believe to be true.” The next phase is justification, where a student can explain either verbally or with writing or with tools to prove the conjecture. So, in the case of the example that I brought up, 3 plus 7 and 7 plus 3, maybe a student even uses their fingers, where they're saying, “Oh, I have these 3 fingers and these 7 fingers and whichever fingers I look at first, or whichever number I start with, it doesn't matter. The sum is going to be the same.” So, they would justify in ways like that. I've seen students use counters, just explaining it. Oftentimes, they use language and hand motions and all kinds of things to try to prove what they're saying works. Or sometimes they'll find, just really look for, “Can I find an example where that doesn't work?” So, just testing their conjecture would be justifying. And then the final stage, extending ideas, could be extending that idea to all numbers. So, in the idea of addition in the commutative property, and they come to discover that they might realize, “Wait a minute, it also works for 1 plus 9 and 9 plus 1.” They could also think, “Does it work for other operations? So, not just with addition, but maybe I can subtract like that, too. Does that make a difference if I'm subtracting 5, takeaway 2 versus 2 takeaway 5. So, just this idea of, “Now I've made sense of something, what else does it work with or how can I extend that thinking?” Mike: So, the question that I was wondering about as you were talking is, “How do you think about the relationship between a conjecture and students’ justification?” Jody: I've seen a lot of kids … so, sometimes they make conjectures that they don't even realize are conjectures, and they're like, “Oh, wait a minute, this pattern's happening, and I think I see something.” And so often they're like, “OK, I think that every time you add two numbers together, the sum is greater than the two numbers.” And so, then this whole idea of justifying … we often ask them, “How could you convince someone that that's true?” Or, “Is that always true?” And now they actually having to take and study it and think about, “Is it true? Does it always work?” Which, Mike, in your question, often leads back to another conjecture or refining their conjecture. It's kind of this cyclical process. Mike: That totally makes sense. I was going to use the words virtuous cycle, but that absolutely helps me understand that. I wonder if we can go back to the language of conjecture, because that feels really important to get clear on and to both understand and start to build a picture of. So, I wonder if you could offer a definition of conjecture for someone who’s unfamiliar with the term or talk about how students understand conjecture. Chepina: Yeah. So, a conjecture is based on our exploration with the patterns and observations. So, through that exploration, we might have an idea that we believe to be true. We are starting to notice things and some language that students start to use. Things like, “Oh, that's always going to work” or “Sometimes we can do that.” So, there starts to be this shift toward an idea that they believe is going to be true. It's often a work in progress, so it needs to be explored more in order to have evidence to justify why that's going to be true. And through that process, we can modify our conjecture. Or we might have an idea, like this working idea of a conjecture, that then when we go to justify it, we realize, “Oh, it's not always true the way we thought. So, we have to make a change.” So, the conjecture is something that we believe to be true, and then we try to convince other people. So, once we introduce that with young mathematicians, they tend to latch on to that idea that it's this really neat thing to come up with a conjecture. And so, then they often start to come up with them even when we're not asking and get excited about, “Wait, I have a conjecture about the numbers and story problems,” where that wasn't actually where the lesson was going, but then they get excited about it. And that idea that we can take our patterns and observations, create a conjecture, and have this cyclical thing that happens. We had a second-grade student make what she called a “conjecture cycle.” So, she drew a circle with arrows and showed, “We can have an idea, we can test it, we can revise it, and we can keep going to create new information.” So, those are some examples of where we've seen conjectures and kids using them and getting excited and what they mean. And yeah, it's been really exciting. Mike: What is hitting me is that this idea of introducing conjectures and making them, it really has the potential to change the way that children understand mathematics. It has the potential to change from, “I'm seeking a particular answer” or “I'm memorizing a procedure” or “I'm doing a thing at a discreet point in time to get a discreet answer.” It feels culturally very different. It changes what we're talking about or what we're thinking about. Does that make sense to the two of you? Chepina: Yeah, it does. And I think it changes how they view themselves. They're mathematicians who are creating knowledge and seeking knowledge rather than memorizing facts. Part of it is we do want them to know their facts—but understand them in this deep way with the structure behind it. And so, they're creating knowledge, not just taking it in from someone else. Mike: I love that. Jody: Yeah, I think that they feel really empowered. Mike: That's a great pivot point. I wonder if the two of you would be willing to share a story from a K–2 classroom that could bring some of the ideas we've been talking about to life for people who are listening. Jody: Sure, I would love to. I got to spend a lot of time in these teachers' classrooms, and one of the days I spent in a first grade, the teacher was Rachael Gildea, and she had led a choral count with her first-graders. And they were counting by 10 but starting with 8. So, like, “Eight, 18, 28, 38, 48 … .” And as the kids were counting, Rachael was charting. And she was charting it vertically. So, below 8 was written 18, and then 28. And she wrote it as they counted. And one of her students paused and said, “Oh, they're all going to end with 8.” And Rachael took that student's conjecture. So, a lot of other conjectures or a lot of other ideas were shared. Students were sharing things they noticed. “Oh, looking at the tens place, it's counting 1, 2, 3,” and all sorts of things. But this one, particular student, who said they're all going to end in 8, Rachel took that student’s—the actual wording—the language that the student had used, and she turned it into the task that the whole class then engaged in. Like, “Oh, this student thought or thinks it's always going to end in 8. That's her conjecture, how can we prove it?” And I happened to be in her classroom the day that they tested it. And it was just a wild scene. So, students were everywhere: at tables, laying down on the carpet, standing in front of the chart, they were examining it or something kind of standing with clipboards. And there was all kinds of buzz in the classroom. And Rachael was down on the carpet with the students listening to them. And there was this group of girls, I think three of them, that sort of screamed out, “We got it!” And Rachel walked over to the girls, and I followed her, and they were using base 10 blocks. And they showed her, they had 8 ones, little units, and then they had the 10 sticks. And so, one girl would say, they'd say, “Eight, 18, 28,” and one of the girls was adding the 10 sticks and almost had this excitement, like she discovered, I don't know, a new universe. It was so exciting. And she was like, “Well, look, you don't ever change them. You don't change the ones, you just keep adding tens.” And it was so magical because Rachael went over there and then right after that she paused the class and she's like, “Come here everyone, let's listen to these girls share what they discovered.” And all of the kids were sort of huddled around, and it was just magical. And they had used manipulatives, the base 10 blocks, to make sense of the conjecture that came from the coral count. And I thought it was beautiful. And so, I did coral counts in my classroom and never really thought about, “OK, what's that next step beyond, like, ‘Oh, this is exciting. Great things happen with numbers.’” Mike: What's hitting me is that there's probably a lot of value in being able to use students' conjectures as reference points for potential future lessons. I wonder if you have some ideas or if you've seen educators create something like a public space for conjectures in their classroom. Chepina: We've seen amazing work around conjectures with young mathematicians. In that story that Jody was telling us about Rachael, she used that conjecture in the next lesson to bring it together. It fits so perfectly with the storyline for that unit, and the lesson, and where it was going to go next. But sometimes ideas can be really great, but they don't quite fit where the storyline is going. So, we've encouraged teachers and seen this happen in the classrooms we've worked in, where they have a conjecture wall in their classroom, where ideas can be added with Post-it notes have a station where there are Post-it notes and pencil right there. And students can go and write their idea, put their name on it, stick it to the wall. And so, conjectures that are used in the lesson can be put up there, but ones that aren't used yet could be put up there. And so, if there was a lesson where a great idea emerges in the middle, and it doesn't quite fit in, the teacher could say, “That's a great idea. I want to make sure we come back to it. Could you add it to the conjecture wall?” And it gives that validation that their idea is important, and we're going to come back to it instead of just shutting it down and not acknowledging it at all. So, we have them put their names on to share. It's their expertise. They have value in our classroom. They add something to our community. Everyone has something important to share. So, that public space, I think, is really important to nurture that community where everyone has something to share. And we're all learning together. We're all exploring, conjecturing. Jody: And I've been to in those classrooms, that Chepina is referring to with conjecture walls, and kids actually will come in, they'll be doing math, and they'll go to recess or lunch and come back in and ask for a Post-it to add a conjecture like this … I don't know, one of my colleagues uses the word “mathematical residue.” They continue thinking about this, and their thoughts are acknowledged. And there's a space for them. Mike: So, as a former kindergarten, first-grade teacher, I'm seeing a picture in my head. And I'm wondering if you could talk about setting the stage for this type of experience, particularly the types of questions that can draw out conjectures and encourage justification? Jody: Yeah. So, as we worked with teachers, we found so many rich opportunities. And now looking back, those opportunities are probably in all classrooms all the time. But I hadn't realized in my experience that I'm one step away from this ( chuckles ). So, as teachers engaged in instructional routines, like the example of coral counting I shared from Rachael's classroom, they often ask questions like: “What do you notice? Why do you think that's happening? Will that always happen? How do you know? How can you prove it will always work? How can you convince a friend?” And those questions nudge children naturally to go to that next step when we're pushing, asking an advancing question in response to something that a student said. Mike: You know, one of the things that occurs to me is that those questions are a little bit different even than the kinds of questions we would ask if we were trying to elicit a student's strategy or their conceptual understanding, right? In that case, it seems like we want to understand the ideas that were kind of animating a student's strategy or the ideas that they were using or even how they saw a mental model unfolding in their head. But the questions that you just described, they really do go back to this idea of generalizing, right? Is there a pattern that we can recognize that is consistently the same or that doesn't change. And it's pressing them to think about that in a way that's different even than conceptual-based questions. Does that make sense? Jody: It does, and it makes me think about … I believe it's Vicki Jacobs and Joan Case, who do a lot of work with questioning. They ask this question, too: “As a teacher, what did that child say that gave you permission to ask that question?” Where often, I want to take my question somewhere else, but really all of these questions are nudging kids in their own thinking. So, when they're sharing something, it's like, “Well, do you think that will always work?” It's still grounded in what their ideas were but sort of taking them to that next place. Mike: So, one of the things that I'm also wondering about is a scaffold called “language frames.” How do students or a teacher use language frames to support argumentation? Chepina: Yeah, I think that communication is such a big part of argumentation. And we found language frames can help support students to share their ideas by having this common language that might be different than the way they talk about other things with their friends or in other subjects. So, using the language frames as a scaffold that supports students in communicating by offering them a model for that discussion. When I've been teaching lessons, I will have the language written out in a space where everyone can see, and I'll use it to model my discussion. And then students will use it as they're sharing their ideas. And that's been really helpful to get language at all grade levels. Mike: Can you share one or two examples of a language frame? That's something you would use in say, a K, 1, or a 2 classroom, Chepina? Chepina: Yeah. We've had something like, we'll put, “I notice” and then a blank line. (“I notice ______.) And so, we'll have them say, “I notice,” and then they'll fill it in. Or “I wonder” or “I have a different idea.” So, helping to model, “How do you talk in a community of learners when you're sharing ideas? Or if you have a different idea and you're disagreeing.” So, we'll have that actually written out, and we can use it ourselves or help students to restate what they've said using that model so that then they can pick up that language. Mike: One of the things that stands out for me is that these experiences with argumentation and conjecture, they obviously have benefits for individual student’s conceptual understanding and for their communication. But I suspect that they also have a real benefit for the class as a collective. Can you talk about the impact that you've seen in K–2 classrooms that are thinking about argumentation and putting some of these practices into place? Jody: Sure. I've been really fortunate to get to spend so much time in classrooms really learning from the teachers that we worked with. And one of the things I noticed about the classrooms is the ongoing curiosity and wonder. Students were always making sense of things and investigating ideas. And the other thing that I really picked up on was how they listened to each other, which, coming from a primary background, is challenging for kids to listen to each other. But they were really attentive and attuned, and they saw themselves as problem-solvers, and they thought their role was to things out. That's just what they do at school. But they thought about other kids in those ways, too. “Well, let me see what other people think” or “Let me hear Chepina’s idea because maybe there's something that's useful for me.” So, they really engaged in learning, not as an isolated, sort of, “Myself as a learner,” but as part of a community. The classrooms were also buzzing all the time. There was noise and movement. And the kids, the word I would say is “intellectually engaged.” So, not just engaged, like busy doing things, but really deeply thinking. Chepina: The other thing we've seen that has been also really exciting is the impact on the teachers as they become more curious along with the students. So, in our first group, we had the teachers, the K–2 teachers, and we saw that they started to say things when we would meet because we would meet monthly. And they would start to say things like, “I noticed this, and I wonder if this is what my student was thinking?” So, when they were talking about their own students and their own lessons and the mathematics behind the problems, we saw teachers start to use that language and become more curious, too. So, it's been really exciting to see that aspect as we work with teachers. Mike: So, I suspect that we have many listeners who are making sense of the ideas that you're sharing and are going to want to continue learning about argumentation and conjecture. Are there particular resources that you would recommend that might help an educator continue down this path? Chepina: Yeah. We are both so excited that our first book just came out in May, and we took all the things that we had learned in this project, exploring alongside teachers, and we have more examples. There are strategies, there's examples of the routines that we think it's often we stop too soon. Like, “Here are some ideas of how to keep going with these instructional routines,” and we have templates to support teachers as they take those common routines further. So, we also have some links of our recent articles, and we have some social media pages. We can share those. Mike: That's fabulous. We will post all of those links and also a link to the book that you all have written. I think this is probably a great place to stop. Chepina and Jody, I want to thank you both so much for joining us. It's really been a pleasure talking with you. Jody: Thank you for the opportunity. It's been great to share some of the work that we've learned from classrooms, from students and teachers. Chepina: Yeah. Thank you, Mike. It's been so fun to talk to you. Mike: This podcast is brought to you by The Math Learning Center and the Maier Math Foundation, dedicated to inspiring and enabling all individuals to discover and develop their mathematical confidence and ability. © 2024 The Math Learning Center | www.mathlearningcenter.org

Rounding Up Season 3 | Episode 4 – Making Sense of Unitizing: The Theme That Runs Through Elementary Mathematics Guest: Beth Hulbert Mike Wallus: During their elementary years, students grapple with many topics that involve relationships between different units. This concept, called “unitizing,” serves as a foundation for much of the mathematics that students encounter during their elementary years. Today, we're talking with Beth Hulbert from the Ongoing Assessment Project (OGAP) about the ways educators can encourage unitizing in their classrooms.  Welcome to the podcast, Beth. We are really excited to talk with you today. Beth Hulbert: Thanks. I'm really excited to be here. Mike: I'm wondering if we can start with a fairly basic question: Can you explain OGAP and the mission of the organization? Beth: Sure. So, OGAP stands for the Ongoing Assessment Project, and it started with a grant from the National Science Foundation to develop tools and resources for teachers to use in their classroom during math that were formative in nature. And we began with fractions. And the primary goal was to read, distill, and make the research accessible to classroom teachers, and at the same time develop tools and strategies that we could share with teachers that they could use to enhance whatever math program materials they were using. Essentially, we started by developing materials, but it turned into professional development because we realized teachers didn't have a lot of opportunity to think deeply about the content at the level they teach. The more we dug into that content, the more it became clear to us that content was complicated. It was complicated to understand, it was complicated to teach, and it was complicated to learn. So, we started with fractions, and we expanded to do work in multiplicative reasoning and then additive reasoning and proportional reasoning. And those cover the vast majority of the critical content in K–8. And our professional development is really focused on helping teachers understand how to use formative assessment effectively in their classroom. But also, our other goals are to give teachers a deep understanding of the content and an understanding of the math ed research, and then some support and strategies for using whatever program materials they want to use. And we say all the time that we're a program blind—we don't have any skin in the game about what program people are using. We are more interested in making people really effective users of their math program.  Mike: I want to ask a quick follow-up to that. When you think about the lived experience that educators have when they go through OGAP’s training, what are the features that you think have an impact on teachers when they go back into their classrooms?  Beth: Well, we have learning progressions in each of those four content strands. And learning progressions are maps of how students acquire the concepts related to, say, multiplicative reasoning or additive reasoning. And we use those to sort, analyze, and decide how we're going to respond to evidence in student work. They're really maps for equity and access, and they help teachers understand that there are multiple right ways to do some mathematics, but they're not all equal in efficiency and sophistication. Another piece they take away of significant value is we have an item bank full of hundreds of short tasks that are meant to add value to, say, a lesson you taught in your math program. So, you teach a lesson, and you decide what is the primary goal of this lesson. And we all know no matter what the program is you're using that every lesson has multiple goals, and they're all in varying degrees of importance. So partly, picking an item in our item bank is about helping yourself think about what was the most critical piece of that lesson that I want to know about that's critical for my students to understand for success tomorrow.  Mike: So, one big idea that runs through your work with teachers is this concept called “unitizing.” And it struck me that whether we're talking about addition, subtraction, multiplication, fractions, that this idea just keeps coming back and keeps coming up. I'm wondering if you could offer a brief definition of unitizing for folks who may not have heard that term before.  Beth: Sure. It became really clear as we read the research and thought about where the struggles kids have, that unitizing is at the core of a lot of struggles that students have. So, unitizing is the ability to call something 1, say, but know it's worth maybe 1 or 100 or a 1,000, or even one-tenth. So, think about your numbers in a place value system. In our base 10 system, 1 of 1 is in the tenths place. It's not worth 1 anymore, it's worth 1 of 10. And so that idea that the 1 isn't the value of its face value, but it's the value of its place in that system. So, base 10 is one of the first big ways that kids have to understand unitizing. Another kind of unitizing would be money. Money's a really nice example of unitizing. So, I can see one thing, it's called a nickel, but it's worth 5. And I can see one thing that's smaller, and it's called a dime, and it's worth 10. And so, the idea that 1 would be worth 5 and 1 would be worth 10, that's unitizing. And it's an abstract idea, but it provides the foundation for pretty much everything kids are going to learn from first grade on. And when you hear that kids are struggling, say, in third and fourth grade, I promise you that one of their fundamental struggles is a unitizing struggle.  Mike: Well, let's start where you all started when you began this work in OGAP. Let's start with multiplication. Can you talk a little bit about how this notion of unitizing plays out in the context of multiplication?  Beth: Sure. In multiplication, one of the first ways you think about unitizing is, say, in the example of 3 times 4. One of those numbers is a unit or a composite unit, and the other number is how many times you copy or iterate that unit. So, your composite unit in that case could be 3, and you're going to repeat or iterate it four times. Or your composite unit could be 4, and you're going to repeat or iterate it three times. When I was in school, the teacher wrote 3 times 4 up on the board and she said, “Three tells you how many groups you have, and 4 tells you how many you put in each group.” But if you think about the process you go through when you draw that in that definition, you draw 1, 2, 3 circles, then you go 1, 2, 3, 4, 1, 2, 3, 4, 1, 2, 3, 4, 1, 2, 3, 4. And in creating that model, you never once thought about a unit, you thought about single items in a group.  So, you counted 1, 2, 3, 4, three times, and there was never really any thought about the unit. In a composite unit way of thinking about it, you would say, “I have a composite unit of 3, and I'm going to replicate it four times.” And in that case, every time, say, you stamped that—you had this stamp that was 3—every time you stamped it, that one action would mean 3, right? One to 3, 1 to 3, 1 to 3, 1 to 3. So, in really early number work, kids think 1 to 1. When little kids are counting a small quantity, they'll count 1, 2, 3, 4. But what we want them to think about in multiplication is a many-to-1 action. When each of those quantities happens, it's not one thing, even though you make one action, it's four things or three things, depending upon what your unit is. If you needed 3 times 8, you could take your 3 times 4 and add 4 more, 3 times 4s to that.  So, you have your four 3s and now you need four more 3s. And that allows you to use a fact to get a fact you don't know because you've got that unit and that understanding that it's not by 1, but by a unit. When gets to larger multiplication, we don't really want to be working by drawing by 1s, and we don't even want to be stamping 27 19 times. But it's a first step into multiplication. This idea that you have a composite unit, and in the case of 3 times 4 and 3 times 7, seeing that 3 is common. So, there's your common composite unit. You needed four of them for 3 times 4, and you need seven of them for 3 times 7. So, it allows you to see those relationships, which if you look at the standards, the relationships are the glue. So, it's not enough to memorize your multiplication facts. If you don't have a strong relationship understanding there, it does fall short of a depth of understanding.  Mike: I think it was interesting to hear you talk about that, Beth, because one of the things that struck me is some of the language that you used, and I was comparing it in my head to some of the language that I've used in the past. So, I know I've talked about 3 times 4, but I thought it was really interesting how you used iterations of or duplicated …  Beth: Copies.  Mike: … or copies, right? What you make me think is that those language choices are a little bit clearer. I can visualize them in a way that 3 times 4 is a little bit more abstract or obscure. I may be thinking of that wrong, but I'm curious how you think the language that you use when you're trying to get kids to think about composite numbers matters.  Beth: Well, I'll say this, that when you draw your 3 circles and count 4 dots in each circle, the result is the same model than if you thought of it as a unit of 3 stamped four times. In the end, the model looks the same, but the physical and mental process you went through is significantly different. So, you thought when you drew every dot, you were thinking about 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1. When you thought about your composite unit copied or iterated, you thought about this unit being repeated over and over. And that changes the way you're even thinking about what those numbers mean. And one of those big, significant things that makes addition different than multiplication when you look at equations is, in addition, those numbers mean the same thing. You have 3 things, and you have 4 things, and you're going to put them together. If you had 3 plus 4, and you changed that 4 to a 5, you're going to change one of your quantities by 1, impacting your answer by 1. In multiplication, if you had 3 times 4, and you change that 4 to a 5, your factor increases by 1, but your product increases by the value of your composite unit. So, it's a change of the other factor. And that is significant change in how you think about multiplication, and it allows you to pave the way, essentially, to proportional reasoning, which is that replicating your unit.  Mike: One of the things I'd appreciated about what you said was it's a change in how you're thinking. Because when I think back to Mike Wallus, classroom teacher, I don't know that I understood that as my work. What I thought of my work at that point in time was I need to teach kids how to use an algorithm or how to get an answer. But I think where you're really leading is we really need to be attending to, “What's the thinking that underlies whatever is happening?”  Beth: Yes. And that's what our work is all about, is how do you give teachers a sort of lens into or a look into how kids are thinking and how that impacts whether they can employ more efficient and sophisticated relationships and strategies in their thinking. And it's not enough to know your multiplication facts. And the research is pretty clear on the fact that memorizing is difficult. If you're memorizing a hundred single facts just by memory, the likelihood you're not going to remember some is high. But if you understand the relationship between those numbers, then you can use your 3 times 4 to get your 3 times 5 or your 3 times 8. So, the language that you use is important, and the way you leave kids thinking about something is important. And this idea of the composite unit, it's thematic, right? It goes through fractions and additive and proportional, but it's not the only definition of multiplication. So, you've got to also think of multiplication as scaling that comes later, but you also have to think of multiplication as area and as dimensions. But that first experience with multiplication has to be that composite-unit experience.  Mike: You've got me thinking already about how these ideas around unitizing that students can start to make sense of when they're multiplying whole numbers, that that would have a significant impact when they started to think about fractions or rational numbers. Can you talk a little bit about unitizing in the context of fractions, Beth?  Beth: Sure. The fraction standards have been most difficult for teachers to get their heads around because the way that the standards promote thinking about fractions is significantly different than the way most of us were taught fractions. So, in the standards and in the research, you come across the term “unit fraction,” and you can probably recognize the unitizing piece in the unit fraction. So, a unit fraction is a fraction where 1 is in the numerator, it's one unit of a fraction. So, in the case of three-fourths, you have three of the one-fourths. Now, this is a bit of a shift in how we were taught. Most of us were taught, “Oh, we have three-fourths. It means you have four things, but you only keep three of them,” right? We learned about the name “numerator” and the name “denominator.” And, of course, we know in fractions, in particular, kids really struggle.  Adults really struggle. Fractions are difficult because they seem to be a set of numbers that don't have anything in common with any other numbers. But once you start to think about unitizing and that composite unit, there's a standard in third grade that talks about “decompose any fraction into the sum of unit fractions.” So, in the case of five-sixths, you would identify the unit fraction as one-sixth, and you would have 5 of those one-sixths. So, your unit fraction is one-sixth, and you're going to iterate it or copy it or repeat it five times.  Mike: I can hear the parallels between the way you described this work with whole numbers. I have one-fourth, and I've duplicated or copied that five times, and that's what five-fourths is. It feels really helpful to see the through line between how we think about helping kids think about composite numbers and multiplying with whole numbers, to what you just described with unit fractions.  Beth: Yeah, and even the language that language infractions is similar, too. So, you talk about that 5 one-fourths. You decompose the five-fourths into 5 of the one-fourths, or you recompose those 5 one-fourths. This is a fourth-grade standard. You recompose those 5 one-fourths into 3 one-fourths or three-fourths and 2 one-fourths or two-fourths. So, even reading a fraction like seven-eighths says 7 one-eighths, helps to really understand what that seven-eighths means, and it keeps you from reading it as seven out of eight. Because when you read a fraction as seven out of eight, it sounds like you're talking about a whole number over another whole number. And so again, that connection to the composite unit in multiplication extends to that composite unit or that unit fraction or unitizing in multiplication. And really, even when we talk about multiplying fractions, we talk about multiplying, say, a whole number times a fraction “5 times one-fourth.” That would be the same as saying, “I'm going to repeat one-fourth five times,” as opposed to, we were told, “Put a 1 under the 5 and multiply across the numerator and multiply across the denominator.” But that didn't help kids really understand what was happening.  Mike: So, this progression of ideas that we've talked about from multiplication to fractions, what you've got me thinking about is, what does it mean to think about unitizing with younger kids, particularly perhaps, kids in kindergarten, first or second grade? I'm wondering how or what you think educators could do to draw out the big ideas about units and unitizing with students in those grade levels?  Beth: Well, really we don't expect kindergartners to strictly unitize because it's a relatively abstract idea. The big focus in kindergarten is for a student to understand four means 4, four 1s, and 7 means seven 1s. But where we do unitize is in the use of our models in early grades. In kindergarten, the use of a five-frame or a ten-frame. So, let's use the ten-frame to count by tens: 10, 20, 30. And then, how many ten-frames did it take us to count to 30? It took 3. There's the beginning of your unitizing idea. The idea that we would say, “It took 3 of the ten-frames to make 30” is really starting to plant that idea of unitizing 3 can mean 30. And in first grade, when we start to expose kids to coin values, time, telling time, one of the examples we use is, “Whenever was 1 minus 1, 59?” And that was, “When you read for one hour and your friend read for 1 minute less than you, how long did they read?”  So, all time is really a unitizing idea. So, all measures, measure conversion, time, money, and the big one in first grade is base 10. And first grade and second grade [have] the opportunity to solidify strong base 10 so that when kids enter third grade, they've already developed a concept of unitizing within the base 10 system. In first grade, the idea that in a number like 78, the 7 is actually worth more than the 8, even though at face value, the 7 seems less than the 8. The idea that 7 is greater than the 8 in a number like 78 is unitizing. In second grade, when we have a number like 378, we can unitize that into 307 tens and 8 ones, or 37 tens and 8 ones, and there's your re-unitizing. And that's actually a standard in second grade. Or 378 ones. So, in first and second grade, really what teachers have to commit to is developing really strong, flexible base 10 understanding. Because that's the first place kids have to struggle with this idea of the face value of a number isn't the same as the place value of a number.  Mike: Yeah, yeah. So, my question is, would you describe that as the seeds of unitizing? Like conserving? That's the thing that popped into my head, is maybe that's what I'm actually starting to do when I'm trying to get kids to go from counting each individual 1 and naming the total when they say the last 1.  Beth: So, there are some early number concepts that need to be solidified for kids to be able to unitize, right? So, conservation is certainly one of them. And we work on conservation all throughout elementary school. As numbers get larger, as they have different features to them, they're more complex. Conservation doesn't get fixed in kindergarten. It's just pre-K and K are the places where we start to build that really early understanding with small quantities. There's cardinality, hierarchical inclusion, those are all concepts that we focus on and develop in the earliest grades that feed into a child's ability to unitize. So, the thing about unitizing that happens in the earliest grades is it's pretty informal. In pre-K and K, you might make piles of 10, you might count quantities. Counting collections is something we talk a lot about, and we talk a lot about the importance of counting in early math instruction actually all the way up through, but particularly in early math. And let's say you had a group of kids, and they were counting out piles of, say, 45 things, and they put them in piles of 10 and then a pile of 5, and they were able to go back and say, “Ten, 20, 30, 40 and 5.”  So, there's a lot that's happening there. So, one is, they're able to make those piles of 10, so they could count to 10. But the other one is, they have conservation. And the other one is, they have a rope-count sequence that got developed outside of this use of that rope-count sequence, and now they're applying that. So, there's so many balls in the air when a student can do something like that. The unitizing question would be, “You counted 45 things. How many piles of 10 did you have?” There's your unitizing question. In kindergarten, there are students—even though we say it's not something we work on in kindergarten—there are certainly students who could look at that and say, “Forty-give is 4 piles of 10 and 5 extra.” So, when I say we don't really do it in kindergarten, we have exposure, but it's very relaxed. It becomes a lot more significant in first and second grade.  Mike: You said earlier that teachers in first and second grade really have to commit to building a flexible understanding of base 10. What I wanted to ask you is, how would you describe that? And the reason I ask is, I also think it's possible to build an inflexible understanding of base 10. So, I wonder how you would differentiate between the kind of practices that might lead to a relatively inflexible understanding of base 10 versus the kind of practices that lead to a more flexible understanding.  Beth: So, I think counting collections. I already said we talk a lot about counting collections and the primary training. Having kids count things and make groups of 10, focus on your 10 and your 5. We tell kindergarten teachers that the first month or two of school, the most important number you learn is 5. It's not 10, because our brain likes 5, and we can manage 5 easily. Our hand is very helpful. So, building that unit of 5 toward putting two 5s together to make a 10. I mean, I have a 3-year-old granddaughter, and she knows 5, and she knows that she can hold up both her hands and show me 10. But if she had to show me 7, she would actually start back at 1 and count up to 7. So, taking advantage of those units that are baked in already and focusing on them helps in the earliest grades.  And then really, I like materials to go into kids’ hands where they're doing the building. I feel like second grade is a great time to hand kids base 10 blocks, but first grade is not. And first-grade kids should be snapping cubes together and building their own units, because the more they build their own units of 5 or 10, the more it's meaningful and useful for them. The other thing I'm going to say, and Bridges has this as a tool, which I really like, is they have dark lines at their 5s and 10s on their base 10 blocks. And that helps, even though people are going to say, “Kids can tell you it's a hundred,” they didn't build it. And so, there's a leap of faith there that is an abstraction that we take for granted. So, what we want is kids using those manipulatives in ways that they constructed those groupings, and that helps a lot. Also, no operations for addition and subtraction. You shouldn't be adding and subtracting without using base 10. So, adding and subtracting on a number line helps you practice not just addition and subtraction, but also base 10. So, because base 10’s so important, it could be taught all year long in second grade with everything you do. We call second grade the sweet spot of math because all the most important math can be taught together in second grade.  Mike: One of the things that you made me think about is something that a colleague said, which is this idea that 10 is simultaneously 10 ones and one unit of 10. And I really connect that with what you said about the need for kids to actually, physically build the units in first grade.  Beth: What you just said, that's unitizing. I can call this 10 ones, and I can call this 1, worth 10. And it's more in face in the earliest grades because we often are very comfortable having kids make piles of 10 things or seeing the marks on a base 10 block, say. Or snapping 10 Unifix cubes together, 5 red and 5 yellow Unifix cubes or something to see those two 5s inside that unit of 10. And then also there's your math hand, your fives and your tens and your ten-frames are your fives and your tens. So, we take full advantage of that. But as kids get older, the math that's going to happen is going to rely on kids already coming wired with that concept. And if we don't push it in those early grades by putting your hands on things and building them and sketching what you've just built and transferring it to the pictorial and the abstract in very strategic ways, then you could go a long way and look like you know what you're doing—but don't really. Base 10 is one of those ways we think, because kids can tell you the 7 is in the tens place, they really understand. But the reality is that's a low bar, and it probably isn't an indication a student really understands. There's a lot more to ask.  Mike: Well, I think that's a good place for my next question, which is to ask you what resources OGAP has available, either for someone who might participate in the training, other kinds of resources. Could you just unpack the resources, the training, the other things that OGAP has available, and perhaps how people could learn more about it or be in touch if they were interested in training?  Beth: Sure. Well, if they want to be in touch, they can go to ogapmathllc.com [https://ogapmathllc.com/], and that's our website. And there's a link there to send us a message, and we are really good at getting back to people. We've written books on each of our four content strands. The titles of all those books are “A Focus on … .” So, we have “A Focus on Addition and Subtraction,” “A Focus on Multiplication and Division,” “A Focus on Fractions,” “A Focus on Ratios and Proportions,” and you can buy them on Amazon. Our progressions are readily available on our website. You can look around on our website, and all our progressions are there so people can have access to those. We do training all over. We don't do any open training. In other words, we only do training with districts who want to do the work with more than just one person. So, we contract with districts and work with them directly. We help districts use their math program. Some of the follow-up work we've done is help them see the possibilities within their program, help them look at their program and see how they might need to add more. And once people come to training, they have access to all our resources, the item bank, the progressions, the training, the book, all that stuff.  Mike: So, listeners, know that we're going to add links to the resources that Beth is referencing to the show notes for this particular episode. And, Beth, I want to just say thank you so much for this really interesting conversation. I'm so glad we had a chance to talk with you today.  Beth: Well, I'm really happy to talk to you, so it was a good time.  Mike: Fantastic.  Mike: This podcast is brought to you by The Math Learning Center and the Maier Math Foundation, dedicated to inspiring and enabling all individuals to discover and develop their mathematical confidence and ability. © 2024 The Math Learning Center | www.mathlearningcenter.org [https://www.mathlearningcenter.org/]

Rounding Up Season 3 | Episode 3 – Choice as a Foundation for Student Engagement Guest: Drs. Zandra de Araujo and Amber Candela Mike Wallus: As an educator, I know that offering my students choice has a big impact on their engagement, their identity, and their sense of autonomy. That said, I've not always been sure how to design choice into the activities in my classroom, especially when I'm using curriculum. Today we're talking with Drs. Zandra de Araujo and Amber Candela about some of the ways educators can design choice into their students' learning experiences.  Welcome back to the podcast, Zandra and Amber. It is really exciting to have you all with us today.  Zandra de Araujo: Glad to be back.  Amber Candela: Very excited to be here. Mike: So, I've heard you both talk at length about the importance of choice in students' learning experiences, and I wonder if we can start there. Before we talk about the ways you think teachers can design choice in a learning experience, can we just talk about the “why”? How would you describe the impact that choice has on students' learning experiences? Zandra: So, if you think about your own life, how fun would it be to never have a choice in what you get to do during a day? So, you don't get to choose what chores to do, where to go, what order to do things, who to work with, who to talk to. Schools are a very low-choice environment, and those tend to be punitive when you have a low-choice environment. And so, we don't want schools to be that way. We want them to be very free and open and empowering places. Amber: And a lot of times, especially in mathematics, students don't always enjoy being in that space. So, you can get more enjoyment, engagement, and if you have choice with how to engage with the content, you'll have more opportunity to be more curious and joyful and have hopefully better experiences in math. Zandra: And if you think about being able to choose things in your day makes you better able to make choices. And so, I think we want students to be smart consumers and users and creators of mathematics. And if you're never given choice or opportunity to kind of own it, I think that you're at a deficit. Amber: Also, if we want problem-solving people engaged in mathematics, it needs to be something that you view as something you were able to do. And so often we teach math like it's this pre-packaged thing, and it's just your role to memorize this thing that I give you. You don't feel like it's yours to play with. Choice offers more of those opportunities for kids. Zandra: Yeah, it feels like you're a consumer of something that's already made rather than somebody who's empowered to create and use and drive the mathematics that you're using, which would make it a lot more fun.  Mike: Yeah. You all are hitting on something that really clicked for me as I was listening to you talk. This idea that school, as it's designed oftentimes, is low choice. But math, in particular, where historically it has really been, “Let me show you what to do. Let me have you practice the way I showed you how to do it,” rinse and repeat. It's particularly important in math, it feels like, to break out and build a sense of choice for kids. Zandra: Absolutely. Mike: Well, one of the things that I appreciate about the work that both of you do is the way that you advocate for practices that are both really, really impactful and also eminently practical. And I'm wondering if we can dive right in and have you all share some of the ways that you think about designing choice into learning experiences.  Amber: I feel like I want “eminently practical” on a sticker for my laptop. Because I find that is a very satisfying and positive way to describe the work that I do because I do want it to be practical and doable within the constraints of schooling as it currently is, not as we wish it to be. Which, we do want it to be better and more empowering for students and teachers. But also, there are a lot of constraints that we have to work within. So, I appreciate that.  Zandra: I think that choice is meant to be a way of empowering students, but the goal for the instruction should come first. So, I'm going to talk about what I would want from my students in my classroom and then how we can build choice in. Because choice is kind of like the secondary component. So, first you have your learning goals, your aims as a teacher. And then, “How do we empower students with choice in service of that goal?” So, I'll start with number sense because that's a hot topic. I'm sure you all hear a lot about it at the MLC. Mike: We absolutely do. Zandra: So, one of the things I think about when teachers say, “Hey, can you help me think about number sense?” It's like, “Yes, I absolutely can.” So, our goal is number sense. So, let's think about what that means for students and how do we build some choice and autonomy into that. So, one of my favorite things is something like, “Give me an estimate, and we can Goldilocks it,” for example. So, it could be a word problem or just a symbolic problem and say, “OK, give me something that you know is either wildly high, wildly low, kind of close, kind of almost close but not right. So, give me an estimate, and it could be a wrong estimate or a close estimate, but you have to explain why.” So, it takes a lot of number sense to be able to do that. You have infinitely many options for an answer, but you have to avoid the one correct answer. So, you have to actually think about the one correct answer to give an estimate. Or if you're trying to give a close estimate, you're kind of using a lot of number sense to estimate the relationships between the numbers ahead of time. The choice comes in because you get to choose what kind of estimate you want. It's totally up to you. You just have to rationalize your idea. Mike: That's awesome. Amber, your turn. Amber: Yep. So related to that is a lot of math goes forward. We give kids the problem, and we want them to come up with the answer. A lot of the work that we've been doing is, “OK, if I give you the answer, can you undo the problem?” I'll go multiplication. So, we do a lot with, “What's seven times eight?” And there's one answer, and then kids are done. And you look for that answer as the teacher, and once that answer has been given, you're kind of like, “OK, here. I'm done with what I'm doing.” But instead, you could say, “Find me numbers whose product is 24.” Now you've opened up what it comes to. There's more access for students. They can come up with more than one solution, but it also gets kids to realize that math doesn't just go one way. It's not, “Here's the problem, find the answer.” It’s “Here’s the answer, find the problem.” And that also goes to the number sense. Because if students are able to go both ways, they have a better sense in their head around what they're doing and undoing. And you can do it with a lot of different problems. Zandra: And I'll just add in that that's not specific to us. Barb Dougherty had really nice article in, I think, Teaching Children Mathematics, about reversals at some point. And other people have shown this idea as well. So, we're really taking ideas that are really high uptake, we think, and sharing them again with teachers to make sure that they've seen ways that they can do it in their own classroom. Mike: What strikes me about both of these is, the structure is really interesting. But I also think about what the output looks like when you offer these kinds of choices. You're going to have a lot of kids doing things like justifying or using language to help make sense of the “why.” “Why is this one totally wrong, and why is this one kind of right?” And “Why is this close, but maybe not exact?” And to go to the piece where you're like, “Give me some numbers that I can multiply together to get to 24.” There's more of a conversation that comes out of that. There's a back and forth that starts to develop, and you can imagine that back and forth bouncing around with different kids rather than just kind of kid says, teacher validates, and then you're done. Zandra: Yeah, I think one of the cool things about choice is giving kids choice means that there's more variety and diversity of ideas coming in. And that's way more interesting to talk about and rationalize and justify and make sense of than a single correct answer or everybody's doing the same thing. So, I think, not only does it give kids more ownership, it has more access. But also, it just gives you way more interesting math to think and talk about. Mike: Let's keep going. Zandra: Awesome. So, I think another one, a lot of my work is with multilingual students. I really want them to talk. I want everybody to talk about math. So, this goes right to what you were just saying. So, one of the ways that we can easily say, “OK, we want more talk.” So how do we build that in through choice is to say, “Let's open up what you choose to share with the class.” So, there have been lots of studies done on the types of questions that teachers ask: tend to be closed, answer-focused, like single-calculation kind of questions. So, “What is the answer? Who got this?” You know, that kind of thing? Instead, you can give students choices, and I think a lot of teachers have done something akin to this with sentence starters or things. But you can also just say, instead of a sentence starter to say what your answer is, “I agree with X because of Y.” You can also say, “You can share an incorrect answer that you know is wrong because you did it, and it did not work out. You can also share where you got stuck because that's valuable information for the class to have.” You could also say, “I don't want to really share my thinking, my solution because it's not done, but I'll show you my diagram.” And so, “Let me show you a visual.” And just plop it up on the screen. So, there are a lot of different things you could share a question that you have because you’re not sure, and it's just a related question. Instead of always sharing answers, let kids open up what they may choose to share, and you'll get more kids sharing. Because answers are kind of scary because you're expecting a correct answer often. And so, when you share and open up, then it's not as scary. And everybody has something to offer because they have a choice that speaks to them. Amber: And kids don't want to be wrong. People don't want to be wrong. “I don't want to give you a wrong answer.” And we went to the University of Georgia together, but Les Steffe always would say, “No child is ever wrong. They're giving you an answer with a purpose behind what that answer is. They don't actually believe that's a wrong answer that they're giving you.” And so, if you open up the space … And teachers say, “We want spaces to be safe, we want kids to want to come in and share.” But are we actually structuring spaces in that way? And so, some of the ideas that we're trying to come up with, we're saying that “We actually do value what you're saying when you choose to give us this. It's your choice of offering it up and you can say whatever it is you want to say around that,” but it's not as evaluative or as high stakes as trying to get the right answer and just like, “Am I right? Did I get it right?” And then what the teacher might say after that. Zandra: I would add on that kids do like to give wrong answers if that's what you're asking for. They don't like to give wrong answers if you're asking for a right one and they're accidentally wrong. So, I think back to my first suggestion: If you ask for a wrong answer and they know it's wrong, they're likely to chime right in because the right answer is the wrong answer, and there are multiple, infinite numbers of them. Mike: You know, it makes me think there's this set of ideas that we need to normalize mistakes as being productive things. And I absolutely agree with that. I also think that when you're asking for the right answer, it's really hard to kind of be like, “Oh, my mistake was so productive.” On the other hand, if you ask for an error or a place where someone's stuck, that just feels different. It feels like an invitation to say, “I've actually been thinking about this. I'm not there. I may be partly there. I'm still engaged. This is where I'm struggling.” That just feels different than providing an answer where you're just like, “Ugh.” I'm really struck by that. Zandra: Yeah, and I think it's a culture thing. So, a lot of teachers say to me that “it's hard to have kids work in groups because they kind of just tell each other the answers.” But they're modeling what they experience as learners in the classroom. “I often get told the answers,” that's the discourse that we have in the classroom. So, if you open up the discourse to include these things like, “Oh, I'm stuck here. I'm not sure where to go here.” They get practice saying, “Oh, I don't know what this is. I don't know how to go from here.” Instead of just going to the answer. And I think it'll spread to the group work as well. Mike: It feels like there's value for every other student in articulating, “I'm certain that this one is wrong, and here's why I know that.” There's information in there that is important for other kids. And even the idea of “I'm stuck here,” right? That's really a great formative assessment opportunity for the teacher. And it also might validate some of the other places where kids are like, “Yeah. Me, too.” Zandra: Uh-hm. Amber: Right, absolutely. Mike: What's next, my friend? Amber: I remember very clearly listening to Zandra present about choice, her idea of choice of feedback. And this was very powerful to me. I had never thought about asking my students how they wanted to receive the feedback I'd be giving them on the problems that they solved. And this idea of students being able to turn something in and then say, “This is how I'd like to receive feedback” or “This is the feedback I'd like to receive,” becomes very powerful because now they're the ones in charge of their own learning. And so much of what we do, kids should get to say, “This is how I think that I will grow better, is if you provide this to me.” And so, having that opportunity for students to say, “This is how I'll be a better learner if you give it to me in this way. And I think if you helped me with this part that would help the whole rest of it.” Or “I don't actually want you to tell me the answer. I am stuck here. I just need a little something to get me through. But please don't tell me what the answer is because I still want to figure it out for myself.” And so, allowing kids to advocate for themselves and teaching them how to advocate for themselves to be better learners; how to advocate for themselves to learn and think about “What I need to learn this material and be a student or be a learner in society” will just ultimately help students. Zandra: Yeah, I think as a student, I don't like to be told the answers. I like to figure things out, and I will puzzle through something for a long time. But sometimes I just want a model or a hint that'll get me on the right path, and that's all I need. But I don't want you to do the problem for me or take over my thinking. If somebody asked me, “What do you want?” I might say like, “Oh, a model problem or something like that.” But I don't think we ask kids a lot. We just do whatever we think as an adult. Which is different, because we're not learning it for the first time. We already know what it is. Mike: You're making me think about the range of possibilities in a situation like that. One is I could notice a student who is working through something and just jump in and take over and do the problem for them essentially and say, “Here, this is how you do it.” Or I guess just let them go, let them continue to work through it. But potentially there could be some struggle, and there might be some frustration. I am really kind of struck by the fact that I wonder how many of us as teachers have really thought about the kinds of options that exist between those two far ends of the continuum. What are the things that we could offer to students rather than just “Let me take over” or productive struggle, but perhaps it's starting to feel unproductive? Does that make sense? Zandra: Yeah, I think it does. I mean, there are so many different ways. I would ask teachers to re-center themselves as the learner that's getting feedback. So, if you have a principal or a coach coming into your room, they've watched a lesson, sometimes you're like, “Oh, that didn't go well. I don't need feedback on that. I know it didn't go well, and I could do better.” But I wonder if you have other things that you notice just being able to take away a part that you know didn't go well. And you're like, “Yep, I know that didn't go well. I have ideas for improving it. I don't really want to focus on that. I want to focus on this other thing.” Or “I've been working really hard on discourse. I really want feedback on the student discourse when you come in.” That's really valuable to be able to steer it—not taking away the other things that you might notice, but really focusing in on something that you've been working on is pretty valuable. And I think kids often have these things that maybe they haven't really thought about a lot, but when you ask them, they might think about it. And they might grow this repertoire of things that they're kind of working on personally. Amber: Yeah, and I just think it's getting at, again, we want students to come out of situations where they can say, “This is how I learn” or “This is how I can grow,” or “This is how I can appreciate math better.” And by allowing them to say, “It'd be really helpful if you just gave me some feedback right here” or “I'm trying to make this argument, and I'm not sure it's coming across clear enough,” or “I'm trying to make this generalization, does it generalize?” We're also maybe talking about some upper-level kids, but I still think we can teach elementary students to advocate for themselves also. Like, “Hey, I try this method all the time. I really want to try this other method. How am I doing with this? I tried it. It didn't really seem to work, but where did I make a mistake? Could you help me out with that? Because I think I want to try this method instead.” And so, I think there are different ways that students can allow for that. And they can say: “I know this answer is wrong. I'm not sure how this answer is wrong. Could you please help me understand my thinking or how could I go back and think about my thinking?” Zandra: Yeah. And I think when you said upper level, you meant upper grades. Amber: Yes. Zandra: I assume.  Amber: Yes.  Zandra: OK, yeah. So, for the lower-grade-level students, too, you can still use this. They still have ideas about how they learn and what you might want to follow up on with them. “Was there an easier way to do this? I did all these hand calculations and stuff. Was there an easier way?” That's a good question to ask. Maybe they've thought about that, and they were like, “That was a lot of work. Maybe there was an easier way that I just didn't see?” That'd be pretty cool if a kid asked you that. Mike: Or even just hearing a kid say something like, “I feel really OK. I feel like I had a strategy. And then I got to this point, and I was like, ‘Something's not working.’” Just being able to say, “This particular place, can you help me think about this?” That's the kind of problem-solving behavior that we ultimately are trying to build in kids, whether it's math or just life. Amber: Right, exactly. And I need, if I want kids to be able … because people say, “I sometimes just want a kid to ask a question.” Well, we do need to give them choice of the question they ask. And that's where a lot of this comes from is, what is your goal as a teacher? What do you want kids to have choice in? If I want you to have choice of feedback, I'm going to give you ideas for what that feedback could be, so then you have something to choose from. Mike: OK, so we've unpacked quite a few ideas in the last bit. I wonder if there are any caveats or any guidance that you would offer to someone who's listening who is maybe thinking about taking up some of these practices in their classroom? Zandra: Oh, yeah. I have a lot. Kids are not necessarily used to having a lot of choice and autonomy. So, you might have to be gentle building it in because it's overwhelming. And they actually might just say, “Just tell me what to do,” because they're not used to it. It's like when you're get a new teacher and they're really into explaining your thinking, and you've never had to do that. Well, you've had 10 years of schooling or however many years of schooling that didn't involve explaining your thinking, and now, all of a sudden, “I'm supposed to explain my thinking. I don't even know what that means. What does that look like? We never had to do that before.”  So maybe start small and think about some things like, “Oh, you can choose a tool or two that helps you with this problem. So, you can use a multiplication table, or you can use a calculator or something to use. You can choose. There are all these things out. You can choose a couple of tools that might help you.” But start small. And you can give too many choices. There's like choice overload. It's like when I go on Amazon, and there are way too many reviews that I have to read for a product, and I never end up buying anything because I’ve read so many reviews. It's kind of like that. It could get overwhelming. So purposeful, manageable numbers of choices to start out with is a good suggestion. Amber: And also, just going back to what Zandra said in the beginning, is making sure you have a purpose for the choice. And so, if you just are like, “Oh, I'm having choice for choice's sake.” Well, what is that doing? Is that supporting the learning, the mathematics, the number sense, the conceptual understanding, and all of that? And so, have that purpose going in and making sure that the choices backtrack to that purpose. Zandra: Yeah. And you could do a little choice inventory. You could be like, “Huh, if I was a student of my own class today, what would I have gotten to choose? If anything? Did I get to choose where I sat, what utensil I used? What type of paper did I use? Which problems that I did?” Because that’s a good one. All these things. And if there's no choice in there, maybe start with one. Mike: I really love that idea of a “choice inventory.” Because I think there's something about really kind of walking through a particular day or a particular lesson that you're planning or that you've enacted, and really thinking about it from that perspective. That's intriguing. Zandra: Yeah, because really, I think once you're aware of how little choice kids get in a day … As an adult learner, who has presumably a longer attention span and more tolerance and really likes math, I've spent my whole life studying it. If I got so little choice and options in what I did, I would not be a well-behaved, engaged student. And I think we need to remember that when we're talking about little children. Mike: So, last question, is there research in the field or researchers who have done work that has informed the kind of thinking that you have about choice? Zandra: Yeah, I think we're always inspired by people who come before us, so it's probably an amalgamation of different things. I listen to a lot of podcasts, and I read a lot of books on behavioral economics and all kinds of different things. So, I think a lot of those ideas bleed into the work in math education. In terms of math education, in particular, there have been a lot of people who have really influenced me, like Marian Small's work with parallel tasks and things like that. I think that's a beautiful example of choice. You give multiple options for choice of challenge and see which ones the students feel like is appropriate instead of assigning them competence ahead of time. So, that kind of work has really influenced me. Amber: And then just, our team really coming together; Sam Otten and Zandra and their ideas and collaborating together. And like you mentioned earlier, that Barb Dougherty article on the different types of questions has really been impactful. More about opening up questions, but it does help you think about choice a little bit better. Mike: I think this is a great place to stop. Zandra, Amber, thank you so much for a really eye-opening conversation. Zandra: Thank you for having us.  Amber: Thanks for having us. Mike: This podcast is brought to you by The Math Learning Center and the Maier Math Foundation, dedicated to inspiring and enabling all individuals to discover and develop their mathematical confidence and ability. © 2024 The Math Learning Center | www.mathlearningcenter.org [https://www.mathlearningcenter.org]