My wife Anne-Marie isn’t always impressed when I talk about mathematics, especially when I ask her to try something out for me, but on occasion I can get her to really think mathematically without her realizing how much math she is actually doing. Here’s a quick story about one of those times, along with some considerations:
A while back Anne-Marie and I were preparing lunch for our three children. It was a cold wintery day, so they asked for Lipton Chicken Noodle Soup. If you’ve ever made Lipton Soup before you would know that you add a package of soup mix into 4 cups of water.
Typically, my wife would grab the largest of our nesting measuring cups (the one marked 1 cup), filling it four times to get the total required 4 cups, however, on this particular day, the largest cup available was the 3/4 cup.
Here is how the conversation went:
Anne-Marie: How many of these (3/4 cups) do I need to make 4 cups?
Me: I don’t know. How many do you think? (attempting to give her time to think)
Anne-Marie: Well… I know two would make a cup and a half… so… 4 of these would make 3 cups…
Anne-Marie: So, 5 would make 3 and 3/4 cups.
Anne-Marie: So, I’d need a quarter cup more?
Me: So, how much of that should you fill? (pointing to the 3/4 cup in her hand)
Anne-Marie: A quarter of it? No, wait… I want a quarter of a cup, not a quarter of this…
Anne-Marie: Should I fill it 1/3 of the way?
Me: Why do you think 1/3?
Anne-Marie: Because this is 3/4s, and I only need 1 of the quarters.
The example I shared above illustrates sense making of a difficult concept – division of fractions – a topic that to many is far from our ability of sense making. My wife, however, quite easily made sense of the situation using her reasoning instead of a formula or an algorithm. To many students, however, division of fractions is learned first through a set of procedures.
I have wondered for quite some time why so many classrooms start with procedures and algorithms unill I came across Liping Ma’s book Knowing and Teaching Mathematics. In her book she shares what happened when she asked American and Chinese teachers these 2 problems:
Here were the results:
Now, keep in mind that the sample sizes for each group were relatively small (23 US teachers and 72 Chinese teachers were asked to complete two tasks), however, it does bring bring about a number of important questions:
How does the training of American and Chinese teachers differ?
Did both groups of teachers rely on the learning they had received as students, or learning they had received as teachers?
What does it mean to “Understand” division of fractions? Computing correctly? Beging able to visually represent what is gonig on when fractions are divided? Being able to know when we are being asked to divide? Being able to create our own division of fraction problems?
What experiences do we need as teachers to understand this concept? What experiences should we be providing our students?
In order to understand division of fractions, I believe we need to understand what is actually going on. To do this, visuals are a necessity! A few examples of visual representations could include:
A number line:
A volume model:
An area model:
Starting with a Context
Starting with a context is about allowing our students to access a concept using what they already know (it is not about trying to make the math practical or show students when a concept might be used someday). Starting with a context should be about inviting sense-making and thinking into the conversation before any algorithm or set of procedures are introduced. I’ve already shared an example of a context (preparing soup) that could be used to launch a discussion about division of fractions, but now it’s your turn:
Design your own problem that others could use to launch a discussion of division of fractions. Share your problem!
A few things to reflect on:
How do you use contexts and visuals to help your students make sense of concepts?
For the past few years I have had the privilege of being an instructional coach working with amazing teachers in amazing schools. It is hard to explain just how much I’ve learned from all of the experiences I’ve had throughout this time. The position, while still relatively new, has evolved quite a bit into what it is today, but one thing that has remained a focus is the importance of Co-Planning, Co-Teaching and Co-Debriefing. This is because at the heart of coaching is the belief that teachers are the most important resource we have – far more important than programs or classroom materials – and that developing and empowering teachers is what is best for students.
While the roles of Co-Planning, Co-Teaching and Co-Debriefing are essential parts of coaching, I’m not sure that everyone would agree on what they actually look like in practice?
Take for example co-teaching, what does it mean to co-teach? Melynee Naegele, Andrew Gael and Tina Cardone shared the following graphic at this year’s Twitter Math Camp to explain what co-teaching might look like:
Above you can see 6 different models described as Co-teaching. While I completely understand that these 6 models might be common practices in schools when 2 teachers are in the same room, and while I am not speaking out against any of these models, I’m not sure I agree that all of these models are really co-teaching. Think about it, which of these models would help teachers learn from and with each other? Which of these promote students learning from 2 teachers who are working together? Which of these models promotes teachers separating duties / responsibilities in a more isolated approach?
I will admit that after looking at the graphic (without being part of the learning from #TMC17) I was confused. So, I went on Twitter to ask the experts (Melynee Naegele, Andrew Gael, Tina Cardone and others who were present at the sessions) to find out more about how co-teaching was viewed. I was interested to find out from reading through their slideshows and from Mary Dooms that often, the “co-teacher” is a Special Education teacher and not an Instructional or Math Coach.
So, I thought it might be worth picking apart a few different roles to think more about what our practices look like in our schools.
Co-Teaching as a Special Education Teacher
Special Education teachers and Interventionists do really important work in our schools. They have the potential to be a voice for those who are often not advocating for their own education and can offer many great strategies for both classroom teachers and students to help improve educational experiences. When given the opportunity to co-teach with a classroom teacher though, I would be curious as to which models typically exist?
In my experience, the easiest to prescribe models would be model 3 or 4, parallel teaching / alternative teaching. Working with a large class of mixed-ability students isn’t easy, so many classroom teachers are quite happy to hear that a special education teacher or interventionist is willing to take half or some of the students and do something different for them. I wonder though, is this practice promoting exclusion, segregation, integration or inclusion?
While I understand that there are times when students might need to be brought together in a small group for specific help, I think we might be missing some really important learning opportunities.
At the heart of the problem is how difficult it is for classroom teachers to differentiate instruction in ways that allow our students to all be successful without sending fixed mindset messages via ability grouping. Special Education teachers and interventionists have the ability, however, to have powerful conversations with classroom teachers to help create or modify lessons so they are more open and allow access for all of our students! Co-teaching models 3 and 4 don’t allow us to have conversations that will help us learn better how to help those who are currently struggling with their mathematics. Instead, those models ask for someone else to fix whatever problems might be existing. The beliefs implied with these models are that the students need fixing, we don’t need to change! Rushing for intervention doesn’t help us consider what ways we can support classroom teachers get better at educating those who have been marginalized.
The more time Special Education teachers and interventionists can spend in classrooms talking to classroom teachers, being part of the learning together and helping plan open tasks/problems that will support a wider group of students… the better the educational experiences will be for ALL of our students! This raises the expectations of our students, while allowing US as teachers to co-learn together. I think Special Education teachers and Interventionists need to spend more time doing models 1, 5 or 6, then, when appropriate, use other models on an as-needed basis.
Co-Teaching as a Coach
The role of instructional coaches or math coaches is quite different from that of a Special Education teacher or Interventionist though. While Special Education teachers and Interventionists focus their thoughts on what is best for specific students who might be struggling in class, Coaches’ are concerned more with content, pedagogy, the beliefs we have about what is important, and the million decisions we make in-the-moment while teaching. Coaching is a very personal role. Together, a coach and a classroom teacher make their decision making explicit and together they learn and grow as professionals. The role of coaches is to help the teachers you work with slow down their thinking processes… and this requires the ability to really listen (something I am continually trying to get better at).
Coaching involves a lot of time co-planning, co-teaching and co-debriefing. However, in order for co-teaching to be effective, as much as possible, the coach and the classroom teacher need to be together! Being present in the same place allows opportunities for both professionals to discuss important in-the-moment decisions and notice things the other might not have noticed. It allows opportunities for reflection after a lesson because you have both experienced the same lesson. Models 1, 5 and 6 seem to be the only models that would make sense for a coach. Otherwise, how could a coach possibly coach?
If you haven’t seen how powerful it can be for teachers to learn together, I strongly suggest that you take a look at The Teaching Channel’s video showing Teacher Time Outs here.
To me, the more we as educators can talk about our decisions, the more we can learn together, the more we can try things out together……. the better we will get at our job! We can’t do this (at least not well) if co-teaching happens in different places and/or with different students!
As always, I want to leave you with a few reflective questions:
How would you define co-teaching? What characteristics do you think are needed in order to differentiate it from teaching?
If you don’t have someone to co-teach with, how can you make it a priority? How can your administrator help create conditions that will allow you to have the rich conversations needed for us to learn and grow?
If you are a Special Education teacher or an interventionist, how receptive are classroom teachers to discuss the needs of those that are struggling with math? Are conversations about what we need to do differently for a small group, or are conversations about what we can do better for all students?
If you are a math coach or an instructional coach, what are the expectations from a classroom teacher for you? How can you build a relationship where the two of you feel comfortable to learn and try things together? What do conversations sound like after co-teaching?
Are specific models of co-teaching being suggested to you by others? By whom? Do you have the opportunity to have a voice to try something you see as being valuable?
School boards and districts often aim their sights at short-term goals like standardized testing so many programs are put into place to give specific students extra assistance. But does your school have long-term goals too? At the end of the year, has co-teaching helped the classroom teacher better understand how to meet the various needs of students in a mixed ability classroom?
A few weeks ago Michael Fenton asked on his blog this question:
Suppose a teacher gets to divide 100% between two categories: teaching ability and content knowledge. What’s the ideal breakdown?
The question sparked many different answers that showed a very wide range of thinking, from 85%/15% favouring content, to 100% favouring pedagogy. In general though, it seems that more leaned toward the pedagogy side than the content side. While each response articulated some of their own experiences or beliefs, I wonder if we are aware of just how much content and pedagogical knowledge we come into this conversation with, and whether or not we have really thought about what each entails? Let’s consider for a moment what these two things are:
What is Content Knowledge?
To many, the idea of content knowledge is simple. It involves understanding the concept or skill yourself. However, I don’t believe it is that simple! Liping Ma has attempted to define what content knowledge is in her book: Knowing and Teaching Elementary Mathematics: Teachers’ Understanding of Fundamental Mathematics in China & the United States. In her book she describes teachers that have a Profound Understanding of Fundamental Mathematics (or PUFM) and describes those teachers as having the following characteristics:
Connectedness – the teacher feels that it is necessary to emphasize and make explicit connections among concepts and procedures that students are learning. To prevent a fragmented experience of isolated topics in mathematics, these teachers seek to present a “unified body of knowledge” (Ma, 1999, p.122).
Multiple Perspectives – PUFM teachers will stress the idea that multiple solutions are possible, but also stress the advantages and disadvantages of using certain methods in certain situations. The aim is to give the students a flexible understanding of the content.
Basic Ideas – PUFM teachers stress basic ideas and attitudes in mathematics. For example, these include the idea of an equation, and the attitude that single examples cannot be used as proof.
Longitudinal Coherence – PUFM teachers are fundamentally aware of the entire elementary curriculum (and not just the grades that they are teaching or have taught). These teachers know where their students are coming from and where they are headed in the mathematics curriculum. Thus, they will take opportunities to review what they feel are “key pieces” in knowledge packages, or lay appropriate foundation for something that will be learned in the future.
As you can see, having content knowledge means far more than making sure that you understand the concept yourself. To have rich content knowledge means that you have a deep understanding of the content. It means that you understand which models and visuals might help our students bridge their understanding of concepts and procedures, and when we should use them. Content knowledge involves a strong developmental and interconnected grasp of the content, and beliefs about what is important for students to understand. Those that have strong content knowledge, have what is known as a “relational understanding” of the material and strong beliefs about making sure their students are developing a relational understanding as well!
What is Pedagogical Knowledge?
Pedagogical knowledge, on the other hand, involves the countless intentional decisions we make when we are in the act of teaching. While many often point out essential components like classroom management, positive interactions with students… let’s consider for a moment the specific to mathematics pedagogical knowledge that is helpful. Mathematical pedagogical knowledge includes:
Understanding how to help students construct knowledge and a belief that constructivist principles are necessary to help all students be successful;
Which is More Important: Pedagogy or Content Knowledge?
Tracy Zager during last year’s Twitter Math Camp (Watch her TMC16 keynote address here) showed us Ben Orlin’s graphic explaining his interpretation of the importance of Pedagogy and Content Knowledge. Take a look:
In Ben’s post, he explains that teachers who teach younger students need very little content knowledge, and a strong understanding of pedagogy. However, in the video, Tracy explains quite articulately how this is not at all the case (if you didn’t watch her video linked above, stop reading and watch her speak – If pressed for time, make sure you watch minutes 9-14).
In the end, we need to recognize just how important both pedagogy and content are no matter what grade we teach. Kindergarten – grade 2 teachers need to continually deepen their content knowledge too! Concepts that are easy for us to do like counting, simple operations, composing/decomposing shapes, equality… are not necessarily easy for us to teach. That is, just because we can do them, doesn’t mean that we have a Profound Understanding of Foundational Mathematics. Developing our Content Knowledge requires us to understand the concepts in a variety of ways, to deepen our understanding of how those concepts develop over time so we don’t leave experiential gaps with our students!
However, I’m not quite sure that the original question from Michael or that presented by Ben accurately explain just how complicated it is to explain what we need to know and be able to do as math teachers. Debra Ball explains this better than anyone I can think of. Take a look:
Above is a visual that explains the various types of knowledge, according to Deb Ball, that teachers need in order to effectively teach mathematics. Think about how your own knowledge fits in above for a minute. Which sections would you say you are stronger in? Which ones would you like to continue to develop?
Hopefully you are starting to see just how interrelated Content and Pedagogy are, and how ALL teachers need to be constantly improving in each of the areas above if we are to provide better learning opportunities for our students!
What should Professional Development Look Like?
The purpose of this article is actually about professional development, but I felt it necessary to start by providing the necessary groundwork before tackling a difficult topic like professional development.
Considering just how important and interrelated Content Knowledge and Pedagogy are for teaching, I wonder what the balance is in the professional development currently in your area? What would you like it to look like? What would you like to learn?
While the theme here is about effective PD, I’m actually not sure I can answer my own question. First of all, I don’t think PD should always look the same way for all teachers, in all districts, for all concepts. And secondly, I’m not sure that even if we found the best form of PD it would be enough because we will constantly need new/different experiences to grow and learn. I would like to offer, however, some of my current thoughts on PD and how we learn.
Some personal beliefs:
We don’t know what we don’t know. That is, given any simple concept or skill, there is likely an abundance of research, best practices, connections to other concepts/skills, visual approaches… that you are unaware of. Professional development can help us learn about what we weren’t even aware we didn’t know about.
Districts and schools tend to focus on pedagogy far more than content. Topics like grading, how to assess, differentiated instruction… tend to be hot topics and are easier to monitor growth than the importance of helping our students develop a relational understanding. However, each of those pedagogical decisions relies on our understanding of the content (i.e., if we are trying to get better at assessment, we need to have a better understanding of developmental trajectories/continuums so we know better what to look for). The best way to understand any pedagogy is to learn about the content in new ways, then consider the pedagogy involved.
Quality resources are essential, but handing out a resource is not the same as professional development. Telling others to use a resource is not the same as professional development, no matter how rich the resource is! Using a resource as a platform to learn things is better than explaining how to use a resource. The goal needs to be our learning and hoping that we will act on our learning, not us doing things and hoping we will learn from it.
The knowledge might not be in the room. An old adage tells us that when we are confronted with a problem, that the knowledge is in the room. However, I am not sure this is always the case. If we are to continue to learn, we need experts helping us to learn! Otherwise we will continually recycle old ideas and never learn anything new as a school/district. If we want professional development, we need new ideas. This can come in the form of an expert or more likely in the form of a resource that can help us consider content & pedagogy.
Learning complicated things can’t be transmitted. Having someone tell you about something is very different than experiencing it yourself. Learning happens best when WE are challenged to think of things in ways we hadn’t before. Professional development needs to be experiential for it to be effective!
Experiencing learning in a new way is not enough. Seeing a demonstration of a great teaching strategy, or being asked to do mental math and visually represent it, or experiencing manipulatives in ways you hadn’t previously experienced is a great start to learning, but it isn’t enough. Once we have experienced something, we need to discuss it, think about the pedagogy and content involved, and come to a shared understanding of what was just learned.
Professional learning can happen in a lot of different places and look like a lot of different things. While many might assume that professional development is something that we sign up for in a building far from your own school, hopefully we can recognize that we can learn from others in a variety of contexts. This happens when we show another teacher in our school what we are doing or what our students did on an assignment that we hadn’t expected. It happens when we disagree on twitter or see something we would never have considered before. We are engaging in professional development when we read a professional book or blog post that helps us to consider new things and especially when those things make us reconsider previous thoughts. And professional learning especially happens when we get to watch others’ teach and then discuss what we noticed in both the teaching and learning of the material.
Some of the best professional development happens when we are inquiring about teaching / learning together with others, and trying things out together! When we learn WITH others, especially when one of the others is an expert, then take the time to debrief afterward, the learning can be transformational.
Beliefs about how students learn mathematics best is true for adults too. This includes beliefs about constructivist approaches, learning through problem solving, use of visual/spatial reasoning, importance of consolidating the learning, role of discourse…
Not everyone gets the same things out of the same experiences. Some people are reflecting much more than others during any professional learning experience. Personally, I always try to make connections, think about the leaders’ motivations/beliefs, reflect on my own practices… even if the topic is something I feel like I already understand. There is always room for learning when we make room for learning!
Some things to reflect on:
As always, I like to ask a few questions to help us reflect:
Think of a time you came to make a change in your beliefs about what is important in teaching mathematics. What led to that change?
Think of a time you tried something new. What helped you get started?
Where do you get your professional learning? Is your board / school providing the kind of learning you want/need? If so, how do you take advantage of this more often? If not, how could this become a reality?
Think about your answers to any of the above questions. Were you considering learning about pedagogy or content knowledge? What does this say about your personal beliefs about professional development?
Take a look again at any of the points I made under “Some Personal Beliefs”. Is there one you have issue with? I’d love some push-back or questions… that’s how we learn:)
As always, I encourage you to leave a message here or on Twitter (@markchubb3)!