Improving the Conditions for Learning at Crest View Elementary 

Posted on by

by Laura Wagenman, President Elect

I was recently asked by some school board members; “How much direct instruction is used in math classrooms? What’s the percentage of the time? 

 This question was likely prompted by the MN Read Act and I think unintentionally is the wrong question. We should be asking the question from the MN Department of Education Commitment to Equity

How are we improving the conditions for learning?

This question is something we work hard to achieve at our school, Crest View Elementary. We have had a lot of positive results and one we are especially proud of is ranking #1 in Minnesota for our math growth between 2022 and 2023.  

How are we improving the conditions? For 3 years we’ve learned, responded, and leveraged the talent & leadership of our staff. While we are continuing to learn, below are just some of the ways we’ve improved the conditions for our students to find joy, growth and excellence in mathematics.

Leadership – Principal Stephanie Webster’s vision for our community allows each and every one of us to thrive. She has created systems & a culture in which our goals are:

    • “An inclusive and safe environment that sees each scholar as unique, gifted, and capable. A welcoming community of equitable access, high expectations and rigorous learning that amplifies the identities of the students we serve. A school of belonging” (Vision for Crest View, 2022
    • Broaden the Purposes of Learning Math so each student “develops deep mathematical understanding, understands and critiques the world through mathematics, and experiences the wonder, joy, and beauty of mathematics, which all contribute to a positive mathematical identity.” (Catalyzing Change, 2020
    • For each child to be mathematically proficient (Adding it Up, 2001) 

Building Level Systems created by Principal Webster ensure belonging, consistency and coherence, critical components found in the research, Opportunity Makers. 

    • A consistent building schedule
    • A Professional Learning Team process in which our Leadership team facilitates each PLT to ensure vertical and horizontal alignment as well as consistent communication
    • A Building Leadership Team that works to create coherence & consistency, builds teacher leaders, and critical awareness about how our experiences impact our beliefs and thus our practices (Schoenfeld, 2022)
    • Doing walkthroughs to support core/tier 1 instruction 
    • In-house professional development in August and then monthly meetings and coaching (Lynch, Hill, Gonzalez & Pollard, 2019) 
    • Lesson study opportunities (Lewis, Friedkin, Emerson, Henn, & Goldsmith, 2019)

Classroom Teachers & Staff 

    • Consistently attend our optional monthly in-house professional development which includes doing math, learning about NCTM’s evidence based practices, The Skill Set of Teacher Noticing & Responsive Teaching (Jacobs, et al., 2010, Richards & Robertson, 2016) and finding connections among progressions & models, K-5
    • Plan units through a backwards design type model (Math Learning Center, 2023) 
    • Ensure access to rigorous math experiences aligned to Minnesota Math Standards 
    • Facilitate tasks that make student thinking visible through the concrete, representational and abstract thinking model (Ritchhart, Church, & Morrison, 2011 and Flynn, 2020) 
    • Incorporate the eight Standards for Mathematical Practice (SMPs) to promote experiences that empower students to be “confident in themselves as doers, knowers, and sense makers of mathematics” (NCTM, 2020), also found in our 2022 Minnesota Math Standards
    • Use assessment FOR learning to determine student strengths and connect what students know to new learning (Hattie 2011 & Hattie, 2017)
    • Respond daily through instructional decision making with our curricular resource, Bridges in Mathematics, “choosing the right (teaching) approach at the right time to ensure learning, and how both dialogic and direct approaches have a role to play during the learning process but in different ways” (Hattie, 2017 and Berry, 2018)
    • Believe that each child can and will grow & learn (Hattie, 2018)

Improving the conditions for learning is complex. Starting with curiosity may be a good starting point. 

    • What systems are in place for coherence, consistency, & belonging? 
    • How are learning environments created to support learning partnerships based on trust and high expectations?
    • What are the teachers’ experiences learning math? Did they experience a pedagogy of voice, a pedagogy of compliance or a mixture? (ASCD, 2023)
    • What does collaboration & planning look like? 
    • How are teachers eliciting, noticing, listening to & responding to student thinking & understanding?
    • How are teachers supported in understanding progressions to build upon what students know? 
    • How is core instruction being implemented in k-5? 
    • How are teachers supported in assessing for learning and making instructional decisions? 

How are we improving the conditions for learning?

In our journey to improve the conditions for learning, we have built our capacity to be able to hold students to high expectations, be responsive, and find joy in learning through all of the above systems & structures and more. 

Back to the school board question; “How much direct instruction is used in math classrooms? What’s the percentage of the time? 

it depends…

The words from former NCTM President Kevin Dykema (2023) offer a next step in the conversation;

“The question should be “When do I use each?” rather than “Which one should I use?” Inquiry-based instruction should be used most of the time as students begin to understand the concepts they are studying. Their curiosity is sparked, and they can begin to see the reason of learning the content, often increasing their desire to learn the material. Inquiry-based instruction centers on and is driven by students’ thinking as they develop a deeper understanding. Direct explicit instruction can then be used to formalize that understanding and provide precise mathematical vocabulary and language. It can provide an opportunity for students to consolidate their thinking. We should also acknowledge that there are some skills or ideas that students need to be told, for example, what numerals are called, explanations of mathematical symbols, and standard mathematical vocabulary.”

References:

Berry, Robert Q. “Thinking about Instructional Routines in Mathematics Teaching and Learning.” Thinking about Instructional Routines in Mathematics Teaching and Learning – National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Dec. 2018, www.nctm.org/News-and-Calendar/Messages-from-the-President/Archive/Robert-Q_-Berry-III/Thinking-about-Instructional-Routines-in-Mathematics-Teaching-and-Learning/#:~:text=Typically%2C%20the%20GRR%20model%20has,students%20practice%20the%20procedures%20demonstrated.

Dykema, Kevin. “Balancing Instructional Strategies in the Math Classroom.” Balancing Instructional Strategies in the Math Classroom – National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Dec. 2023, www.nctm.org/News-and-Calendar/Messages-from-the-President/Archive/Kevin-Dykema/Balancing-Instructional-Strategies-in-the-Math-Classroom/.

“Four Steps to Unit Planning.” The Math Learning Center, Mar. 2022, bridges.mathlearningcenter.org/system/files/pd/file/tla-unitplanning_1.pdf. 

 Jacobs, V.R., Lamb, L.L.C., Phillipps, R.A. (2010) Professional Noticing of Children’s Mathematical Thinking. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. 41 (2), 169-202.

Hattie, J. (2011). Visible Learning for Teachers. Routledge.

Hattie, J. A. C., Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2017). Visible Learning for Mathematics: Grades K-12: What works best to optimize student learning. Corwin Mathematics. 

Hattie, J., Zierer, K. (2018) 10 Mindframes for Visible Learning: Teaching for Success. Routledge. 

   Lewis, Catherine, et al. “How does lesson study work? toward a theory of lesson study process and impact.” Advances in Mathematics Education, 2019, pp. 13–37, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04031-4_2.

 Lynch, Kathleen, et al.   “Strengthening the Research Base that Informs STEM Instructional Improvement Efforts: A Meta-Analysis.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, vol. 41, no. 3, 3 June 2019, pp. 260–293, https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373719849044. 

The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Inc. (n.d.). Page 23. In Catalyzing Change in Early Childhood and Elementary Mathematics. Essay, NCMT. 

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2000). Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. 

National Research Council. 2001. Adding It Up: Helping Children Learn Mathematics. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

  “The Opportunity Makers.” TNTP, 25 Sept. 2024, tntp.org/publication/the-opportunity-makers/. 

   Ritchhart, R., Church, M., & Morrison, K. (2011). Making Thinking Visible. Jossey Bass Wiley.

Safir , Shane. “Cultivating a Pedagogy of Student Voice.” ASCD, Apr. 2023, ascd.org/el/articles/cultivating-a-pedagogy-of-student-voice. 

  Schoenfeld, Alan H. “Why are Learning and Teaching Mathematics So Difficult?” Handbook of Cognitive Mathematics, Nov. 2022, pp. 1–35, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44982-7_10-1. 

2022 Minnesota K–12 Academic Standards in Mathematics