written by: Andrew J. Smith, Kent ISD

“Technical changes are changes to tools or mechanisms professionals use to do their jobs effectively.  These changes within a school context refer to changes in structure, policies, or teaching tools. These changes are definitely necessary to effect improvement in student performance, but they produce very few positive results when people who do not believe in the intended outcome of the change use them.” (Muhammed, 2018, p. 22)

In our society, culture, and educational system we are constantly influenced by technical changes.   As educators we are used to technical changes that come at us from a variety of sources. We have to decide how it is we might react to those changes, as well as, what implications those changes might have on us and on our students.

Technical vs. Adaptive Change

In part 1 of this blog series, we discussed why I stopped using timed tests in my classroom. The practice of stopping timed tests in a classroom might seem like a technical change, however, for me it was an adaptive change.   This change was not only about aligning my actions and behaviors with my identity and beliefs, but it was also about putting the identity of my students at the forefront of our learning environment.  Timed tests were something I enjoyed as a student and were an instructional practice I was utilizing in the elementary classroom. However, this instructional practice lacked purpose. In what ways might that data from students have been impacting my instruction?

Considering my WHY?

Before making a technical change in terms of instructional practice, it was important to consider my “why.”   My assumption was that if students knew their “basic facts” they would be successful at mathematics.  This assumption was rooted in misconceptions.

There are three primary misconceptions embedded in this assumption:

1. Facts are single, disconnected items that must be learned separately.
2. “Learning your facts” means rote memorization.
3. The best way to master facts and build fast recall is through a lot of rote practice (flash cards, worksheets and timed tests (Clements & Sarama, 2019, p. 16).

After taking a look at myself and my instructional practice, I determined I was not utilizing the data from timed tests and it did not impact my instruction.   I was following a pattern I felt comfortable with as a student and assuming what worked for me  would work as a strategy for my students. As an educator I needed to shift my instruction to meet the needs of the learners in my classroom.   Our standards address the need for students to attain fluency and my instruction was not hitting the mark of allowing students to be accurate, efficient, and flexible. The question became, “if not timed tests, what might I do with my instruction?”

There were a number of opening routines that seemed to fit as technical ways for us to address fact fluency.   We could engage with Number Talks, Which One Doesn’t Belong, Choral Counting, Estimation 180, etc. These short 10-15 minute routines seemed to hit the mark in terms of content, however, I would need to examine myself to uncover the adaptive change.   If I truly was going to value student thinking and value the conceptual understanding that may occur during these 10-15 minutes then I was going to need to set aside my biases and let students dictate the math in which we engaged on and around.

At first the Number Talk representations I chose were ideas that were aligned to my instructional goals.   As we began to engage in more opening routines, I began to shift my identity from content expert to facilitator. I listened to my students and began to pause, paraphrase, and inquire.   Soon the ideas for number talks came from student thinking (both during the number talk time and during our math instructional block). Students began owning their learning and building on one another’s ideas.   They were begging to engage with Number Talks on a daily basis, and soon it became a routine.

After weeks of trial and error as the facilitator, I started noticing that my students were grasping the conceptual understanding of numbers.   They were beginning to make connections between quantitative, symbolic, and verbal representations of number. This eagerness and excitement was enough inspiration for me to make a permanent shift in instruction.

As an educator, I found my “why.”   We were engaging with an opening routine, specifically Number Talks, to support students in becoming flexible mathematicians and to allow all students to build their identity as mathematicians.

Your Practice

For you and your students, Number Talks might not be “it.”   We would invite you to pause and examine your practice. Why might we be doing this?   What opportunities might students have to productively engage with mathematics? In what ways is this practice aligning with our values and beliefs?    In what ways might we be utilizing student thinking to inform instructional decisions? What might be our “why?”

If you are interested in learning more about opening routines or about taking time to think about the teaching and learning of mathematics, consider joining the Michigan Mathematics Educators #MichME or contact the math team at math@kentisd.org

Click Here to Register Today for #MichME! 

References:

Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2019). No more math fact frenzy (p. 16). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Muhammad, A. (2018). Transforming school culture (p. 22). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

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.