Summer Literacy and Mathematics Professional Learning June 5-9, 2017 Day 1 – Make Sense and Persevere
Jill Gough and Becky Holden

Today’s focus and essential learning:

We want all mathematicians to be able to say:

I can make sense of tasks and persevere in solving them.

(but… what if I can’t?)

Great teachers lead us just far enough down a path so we can challenge for ourselves. They provide us just enough insight so we can work toward a solution that makes us, makes me want to jump up and shout out the solution to the world, makes me want to step to the next higher level. Great teachers somehow make us want to ask the questions that they want us to answer, overcome the challenge that they, because they are our teacher, believe we need to overcome. (Lichtman, 20 pag.)

… designed to help students slow down and really think about problems rather than jumping right into solving them. In making this a routine approach to solving problems, she provided students with a lot of practice and helped them develop a habit of mind for reading and solving problems. (Flynn, 19 pag.)

Flynn, Michael. “If My Math Is Correct….” Math Leadership Programs. Mount Holyoke College, n.d. Web. 26 May 2017.

Gough, Jill, and Jennifer Wilson. “#LL2LU Learning Progressions: SMP.” Experiments in Learning by Doing or Easing the Hurry Syndrome. WordPress, 04 Aug. 2014. Web. 11 Mar. 2017.

We will continue to use the Visible Thinking Routine Sentence-Phrase-Word to notice and note important, thought-provoking ideas. This routine aims to illuminate what the reader finds important and worthwhile.

Sentence-Phrase-Word helps learners to engage with and make meaning from text with a particular focus on capturing the essence of the text or “what speaks to you.” It fosters enhanced discussion while drawing attention to the power of language. (Ritchhart, 207 pag.)

However, the power and promise of this routine lies in the discussion of why a particular word, a single phrase, and a sentence stood out for each individual in the group as the catalyst for rich discussion . It is in these discussions that learners must justify their choices and explain what it was that spoke to them in each of their choices. (Ritchhart, 208 pag.)

When we share what resonates with us, we offer others our perspective. What if we engage in conversation to learn and share from multiple points of view?

Continue the pattern: 18, 27, 36, ___, ___, ___, ___

Lots of hands went up.

18, 27, 36, 45, 54, 63, 72 Yes! How did you find the numbers to continue the pattern?

S1: I added 9. (Me: That’s what I did.)
S2: I multiplied by 9. (Me: Uh oh…)
S3: The ones go down by 1 and the tens go up by 1. (Me: Wow, good connection.)

Arleen and Laura probed and pushed for deeper explanations.

S1: To get to the next number, you always add 9. (Me: That’s what I did.)
S2: I see 2×9, 3×9, and 4×9, so then you’ll have 5×9, 6×9, 7×9, and 8×9. (Me: Oh, I see! She is using multiples of 9, not multiplying by 9. Did she mean multiples not multiply?)
S3: It’s always the pattern with 9’s. (Me: He showed the trick about multiplying by 9 with your hands.)

Without the probing and pushing for explanations, I would have thought some of the children did not understand. This is where in-the-moment formative assessment can accelerate the speed of learning.

There were several more examples with probing for understanding. Awesome work by this team to push and practice. Arleen and Laura checked in with every child as they worked to coach every learner to success. Awesome!

I was so curious about the children’s thinking. Look at the difference in their work and their communication.

By analyzing their work in the moment, we discovered that they were seeing the patterns, getting the answers, but struggled to explain their thinking. It got me thinking…How often in math do we communicate to children that a right answer is enough? And the faster the better??? Yikes! No, no, no! Show what you know, not just the final answer.

My turn to teach.

It is not enough to have the correct numbers in the answer. It is important to have the correct numbers, but that is not was is most important. It is critical to learn to describe your thinking to the reader.

How might we explain our thinking? How might we show our work? This is what your teachers are looking for.

The children gave GREAT answers!

We can write a sentence.
We can draw a picture.
We can show a number algorithm. (Seriously, a 4th grader gave this answer. WOW!)

But, telling me what I want to hear is very different than putting it in practice.

It makes me wonder… How can I communicate better to our learners? How can I show a path to successful math communication? What if our learners had a learning progression that offered the opportunity to level up in math communication?

What if it looked like this?

Level 4
I can show more than one way to find a solution to the problem. I can choose appropriately from writing a complete sentence, drawing a picture, writing a number algorithm, or another creative way.

Level 3
I can find a solution to the problem and describe or illustrate how I arrived at the solution in a way that the reader does not have to talk with me in person to understand my path to the solution.

Level 2
I can find a correct solution to the problem.

Level 1
I can ask questions to help me work toward a solution to the problem.

What if this became a norm? What if we used this or something similar to help our learners self-assess their mathematical written communication? If we emphasize math communication at this early age, will we ultimately have more confident and communicative math students in middle school and high school?

What if we lead learners to level up in communication of understanding? What if we take up the challenge to make thinking visible? … to show what we know more than one way? … to communicate where the reader doesn’t have to ask questions?

How might we impact the world, their future, our future?

What if we reframe mistakes to be billed as opportunities to learn? If we truly believe in fail up, fail forward, fail faster, how do we leverage the quick bursts of failuremistakes struggle to propel learning in a new direction?

Struggle is not optional—it’s neurologically required: in order to get your skill circuit to fire optimally, you must by definition fire the circuit suboptimally; you must make mistakes and pay attention to those mistakes; you must slowly teach your circuit. You must also keep firing that circuit—i.e., practicing—in order to keep myelin functioning properly. After all, myelin is living tissue. (Coyle, 43 pag.)

How might we position each learner to work at the edge of their ability, reaching to a new goal, capture failure and turn it into skill?

Because the best way to build a good circuit is to fire it, attend to mistakes, then fire it again, over and over. Struggle is not an option: it’s a biological requirement. (Coyle, 34 pag.)

How might we establish a community norm that calls for a trail of mistakes to show struggle and evidence of learning? What if paying attention to mistakes is an essential to learn? How might we celebrate the trail that leads to success, to keep moving forward?

How might we target struggle so that it is productive? For what should we reach? What if expand our master coach toolkit to include a pathway to sense making and perseverance?

What if we target productive struggle through process? How might we lead learners to level up by helping them reach? When learners are thrashing around blindly, how might we serve as refuge for support, encouragement, and a push in a new direction?

The trick is to choose a goal just beyond your present abilities; to target the struggle. Thrashing blindly doesn’t help. Reaching does. (Coyle, 19 pag.)

What if we teach how to reach? How might we offer targeted struggle for every learner in our care?

Investing time in teaching students how to learn is never wasted; in doing so, you deepen their understanding of the upcoming content and better equip them for future success. (Jackson, 19 pag.)

If we are to harness the power of feedback to increase student learning, then we need to ensure that feedback causes a cognitive rather than an emotional reaction—in other words, feedback should cause thinking. It should be focused; it should relate to the learning goals that have been shared with the students; and it should be more work for the recipient than the donor. (Wiliam, 130 pag.)

When people believe their basic qualities can be developed, failures may still hurt, but failures don’t define them. And if abilities can be expanded – if change and growth are possible – then there are still many paths to success.” (Dweck, 39 pag.)

What pathways to learning are illuminated in order to highlight learning = struggle + perseverance?

Many students would struggle much less in school if, before we presented new material for them to learn, we took the time to help them acquire background knowledge and skills that will help them learn. (Jackson, 18 pag.)

We want every learner in our care to be able to say

But…what if I can’t? What if I have no idea what to look for, notice, take note of, or attempt to generalize?

Investing time in teaching students how to learn is never wasted; in doing so, you deepen their understanding of the upcoming content and better equip them for future success. (Jackson, 19 pag.)

Are we teaching for a solution, or are we teaching strategy to express patterns? What if we facilitate experiences where both are considered essential to learn?

We want more students to experience the burst of energy that comes from asking questions that lead to making new connections, feel a greater sense of urgency to seek answers to questions on their own, and reap the satisfaction of actually understanding more deeply the subject matter as a result of the questions they asked. (Rothstein and Santana, 151 pag.)

What if we collaboratively plan questions that guide learners to think, notice, and question for themselves?

What do you notice? What changes? What stays the same?

Indeed, sharing high-quality questions may be the most significant thing we can do to improve the quality of student learning. (Wiliam, 104 pag.)

How might we design for, expect, and offer feedback on procedural fluency and conceptual understanding?

Level 4
I can attend to precision as I construct a viable argument to express regularity in repeated reasoning.

Level 3 I can look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning.

Level 2
I can identify and describe patterns and regularities, and I can begin to develop generalizations.

Level 1
I can notice and note what changes and what stays the same when performing calculations or interacting with geometric figures.

If we are to harness the power of feedback to increase student learning, then we need to ensure that feedback causes a cognitive rather than an emotional reaction—in other words, feedback should cause thinking. It should be focused; it should relate to the learning goals that have been shared with the students; and it should be more work for the recipient than the donor. (Wiliam, 130 pag.)

But what if I can’t look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning yet? What if I need help? How might we make a pathway for success?

Level 4
I can attend to precision as I construct a viable argument to express regularity in repeated reasoning.

Level 3 I can look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning.

Level 2
I can identify and describe patterns and regularities, and I can begin to develop generalizations.

Level 1
I can notice and note what changes and what stays the same when performing calculations or interacting with geometric figures.

What do you notice? What changes? What stays the same?

Can we use CAS (computer algebra system) to help our students practice look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning?

What do we need to factor for the result to be (x-4)(x+4)?
What do we need to factor for the result to be (x-9)(x+9)?
What will the result be if we factor x²-121?
What will the result be if we factor x²-a2?

We can also explore over what set of numbers we are factoring using the syntax we have been using. And what happens if we factor x²+1. (And then connect the result to the graph of y=x²+1.)

What happens if we factor over the set of real numbers?

Or over the set of complex numbers?

What about expanding the square of a binomial?

What changes? What stays the same? What will the result be if we expand (x+5)²? Or (x+a)²? Or (x-a)²?

What about expanding the cube of a binomial? Or expanding (x+1)^n, or (x+y)^n?

What if we are looking at powers of i?

We can look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning when factoring the sum or difference of cubes. Or simplifying radicals. Or solving equations.

Through reflection and conversation, students make connections and begin to generalize results. What opportunities are you giving your students to look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning? What content are you teaching this week that you can #AskDontTell?