Written by: Andrew J. Smith, Kent ISD
As a student in fifth grade, I was fortunate enough to have Mrs. Ann Ostrowski as my teacher. “Mrs. O” was the teacher who changed my trajectory as a mathematician.
Before entering Mrs. O’s room, my disposition towards mathematics was one of frustration, isolation, and even anger at times. However, Mrs. O had this unrelenting belief in me as a student and would not let that disposition stick for very long in her learning environment. She valued work ethic, making mistakes, and the utilization of strategies.
My appreciation for Mrs. O runs deep. She changed not only my disposition in math, but also, my disposition around school in general. I remember eating lunch in her classroom, spending time after school editing the school newspaper, and seeing her outside of school at our soccer games and track meets. Mrs. O cared about her students as learners and she also cared about each of us as human beings.
As an educator, I can now look back on my two years in Mrs. O’s classroom and recognize her ability to value and support students. I also think about her instructional practices. One practice, that I remember most distinctly, was timed tests in mathematics. I accelerated at timed tests because of my ability to memorize information.
At the time, I thought that I was really good at math because I had the ability to “solve facts quickly.” As I progressed through high school and struggled my way through being a math major in college, I realized that “math facts” are a very minuet piece of mathematics.
Light bulb Moment
Entering my first year as an educator in a third grade classroom in Phoenix, Arizona, I believed I was doing my students a service by utilizing the same instructional practice that Mrs. O had utilized with me earlier – timed tests. I thought I was supporting my students in becoming mathematicians.
However, about half-way through the year, I had a “light bulb” moment. A moment in which I began to truly reflect on both my teaching and the implications this instructional practice was having on my students. After all, the same students were progressing forward and the same students were staying in their current state. The question I closely began to ponder, was “Why am I doing this?”
As human beings, we all develop and thrive on patterns of thinking. The instructional practice of giving timed tests was a pattern that I learned as a student and began to utilize as an educator. At times in life, our patterns are interrupted.
My interruption came in the form of an instructional coach named Cathy Cunningham. Cathy introduced me to the text Mathematical Mindsets by Jo Boaler. In this text, Jo’s words hit my instructional practice like a lake effect snowstorm hits Holland in January.
“Unfortunately, most teachers and parents think that because some areas of math are factual, such as number facts, they need to be learned through mindless practice and speed drills. It is this approach to early learning about numbers that causes damage to students, makes them think that being successful at math is about recalling facts at speed, and pushes them onto a procedural pathway that works against their development of a mathematical mindset (Boaler, 2016, p. 37).”
As I read these words I began to think about Anthony, Angel, and Jennifer. These were students who loved school, yet when it came to timed tests, their dispositions completely changed.
Shift In Mindset
As a new educator, I stopped this practice almost immediately after reading Jo Boaler’s words. I spent the next few years of my career wanting students to be successful mathematicians, but it was unclear to me how to tackle this thinking around math facts.
During my third year of teaching, students lead me to a mathematical epiphany. I had started attending Kent ISD’s Math Network (#MichME) and we began to unpack this complexity I had been holding onto for some time. “Teaching something differently depends on teachers learning something new (Dack & Katz, 2013, p. 6).” At #MichME I learned what computational fluency truly meant (Russell, 2000, p. 154).
This thinking around computational fluency created some dissonance for me and I began to internally wonder about many of my instructional practices. Some of the questions I pondered were:
- “Why are we doing the things we are doing during our math block?”
- “In what ways are we allowing for student voice and choice to direct our learning?”
- “In what ways might students be invited to make sense of the math rather than memorizing it?”
- “In what ways, might students learning math be different than the way I learned math?”
The answers to these questions took years for me to discover, yet now that I know differently…I can do differently.
Shift in Instructional Practices
If you utilizing timed tests because it has been a practice you have always done…I’d invite you to consider your “why.” Who might this instructional practice be benefiting and who might this instructional practice be marginalizing?
Stay tuned for part 2 of this blog post, where we will address, “If no timed tests, then what?” as we explore instructional moves and opening routines that will allow students to make sense of the mathematics and hold the identity of mathematician.
Interested in learning more about opening routines? Wondering what to do if not timed tests?
Contact the math team at math@kentisd.org for any questions related to the teaching and learning of mathematics, as well as, curriculum, assessment and instruction.
Click Here to Register Today for #MichME!
References: Boaler, Jo. Mathematical Mindsets. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, 2000, p. 37. Dack, Lisa, and Steven Katz. Intentional Interruption. Thousand Oaks, Corwin, 2013, p. 6. Russell, Susan J. "Developing Computational Fluency with Whole Numbers." Teaching Children Mathematics, Nov. 2000, p. 154.This blog post was written by Andrew J. Smith, Mathematics Specialist at Kent ISD and edited by Amanda Walma Professional Development Coordinator at Kent ISD.
Leave a Reply