Embracing Disequilibrium

There seemed to be two common threads among the majority of sessions at NCSM this week: CCSS and Standards for Mathematical Practice. It was close to impossible to find a session without those terms somewhere in the description. Whether you love them or challenge them, the CCSS offered a wonderful opportunity for rich mathematical discussions & examination into best practice.

It was Ruth Parker who closed her session by saying, “Looking ahead, we need to embrace disequilibrium, liberate students and teachers to step outside of their comfort zone.” This statement was NOT what you saw in every session description, however for us, truly captured the essence and heart of the conference.

Embrace Disequilibrium.

Not a phrase you often hear in education, right?

To help us along in our post-session discussion, we immediately pulled up our dictionary app: Disequilibrium (n) – loss or lack of balance attributable to a situation in which some forces outweigh one another. Synonyms: changeability, fluctuation, fluidity, unpredictability, variability…

As teachers, we like balance. We live on fixed schedules. We arrive at school at a specific time, each subject has an allotted time, lunch for 1/2 hour and so on. So for us, this thought of imbalance opened up a plethora of questions. What does that mean for math education going forward? Does it mean the same thing for everyone? Can you observe it in a classroom? How does it impact professional development for our teachers?

Disequilibrium in the way we plan our units of study: Plan for “the math” in a unit instead of planning how to teach students to solve the math at the end of unit assessment.

Disequilibrium in the way students problem solve: Don’t rush to rescue students from their confusion. Let them struggle. Allow them the satisfaction of learning something new and knowing they can do it.

Disequilibrium in the way we assess our students: Assessment opportunities arise often, take advantage of them at all times, do not just reserve assessment for “quiz/test day.” Make it formative and meaningful in guiding instruction.

Disequilibrium in the way students talk in the classroom: No more raising hands and sharing answers one at a time. Students create arguments, listen to one another, critique each other’s reasoning, and work collaboratively.

Disequilibrium in the way we pose problems to students: Engage them in meaningful math tasks. Pose investigations with student-driven inquiries and entry points for all learners. Make connections, discover relationships, and make a habit of asking, “Is it always true?” or “Does this always work?” to challenge the learners.

Disequilibrium in the way we organize our PD: No more one size fits all when we train our teachers. Design PD like you would want to see teachers teaching students. Be engaging, do math, involve administrators, use technology (shout out to Twitter here), coach teachers, create teacher leaders, model and reflect on best practice.

Marilyn Burns, Kathy Richardson, Jo Boaler, and many others by whom we were beyond impressed, all sent the powerful message that EVERY student can learn. We, as educators, must meet students where they are, embrace mistakes as a learning opportunities, engage students in challenging tasks with multiple pathways to a solution, and encourage mathematical discourse in the classroom. To do this, we must be fluid in our instruction and let student thinking create imbalance.

Embrace Disequilibrium.

Be okay with discomfort, be okay with imbalance, thoughtfully shake things up, be changeable, your students will thank you!

Mathematically Yours,
Kristin and Nancy, Math Minds

Is the generalization ever too much?

We love having students make generalizations in math class. Is this always true? Will it work for every number? If students can answer those questions, we feel we have created a successful learning experience for students, right?

Well, after attending a session today on supporting teacher learning in the CCSS, it led me to question if there is a time when the generalization hinders a learning experience? For example, we sat down to this problem: “Find all possible dimensions of a rectangle where the area equals the perimeter.” We worked through the problem individually and then together as a group. After coming up with 6×3 and 4×4 by guessing and checking, we started forming some ideas towards a generalization that would push students past guess and check. After some discussion, we concluded that the dimensions couldn’t be two odd numbers and there was a time when the area grew more rapidly than the perimeter so those larger dimensions would not work. After trying to set up an algebraic equation to formulate a generalization, we stopped to share as a group.

Long story short, we were told the generalization to find all possible dimensions with equal area and perimeter was that if a rectangle with sides a and b, a = 2b/(b-2). Now my question is this, does this generalization alienate a large group of students? I know as adults, we persevered and created viable arguments; however at a certain point we saw no entry point for many 6th grade students to answer this question. As adults, we were even at a loss after a certain point of working. Attentions started to stray and side conversations began. On the flip side, if i had left without the generalization, I would have left frustrated. But did that generalization help me make connections between length of sides and area and perimeter? I would argue not.

I feel that if we are going to have students make generalizations, there needs to be connections among entry points and when there is not a visible connection, I am at a loss.

Any general thoughts ;)?
– Kristin

NCTM 2013 – Choices, Choices, Choices…

We are finally en route to Denver! So far we are loving the free baggage (just made the 50 lb limit whew), drinks, and snacks on Southwest; however after leaving the runway & pulling out our NCSM packet of sessions, we are completely overwhelmed and exhausted!

Before choosing our sessions, we brainstormed a bit about what we wanted to get out of the conference as a whole, what were we definitely looking for, as well as what we were not. Nancy was looking for sessions that sounded thought-provoking, interactive and align philosophically with her beliefs on how students learn. I went more with weeding out what I was NOT looking for in a session. I did not want sessions based in “policy” or “newest trends” in education, testing, or tiers of RTI. I wanted sessions, like Nancy, centered around improving student learning and strategies to move more teachers in the direction of best math practice.

It was obviously easy to choose the big sessions led by presenters whom we have used their resources in our own practice, educators we look to for inspiration, and persons who have contributed to us becoming the math educators we are today. Jo Boaler, Marilyn Burns and Kathy Richardson were three easy session picks!

Now the tough part begins….

Monday options:

9:30-10:30
“Exploring teachers’ practices of responding to students’ ideas” – Amanda Milewski
“Constructing arguments in the elementary classroom: struggling and excelling students in the classroom community”-Susan Jo Russell
“Helping teachers implement research-based instructional practices”-Karin Lange
“Thinking beyond the content: using mathematics as a vehicle to teach reasoning”-Marilyn Trow (leaning toward this one)

10:45-11:45
“Linking problem solving and the standards for mathematical practice”-Robyn Silbey
“How to differentiate your mathematics instruction, K-5”-Jayne Bamford-Lynch (leaning toward this one-Nancy)
“Reaching all learners by differentiating instruction in grades 3-5”-Janet Caldwell
“What is fluency and why is it important”-Skip Fennell (leaning toward this one-Kristin)

12:15-1:15
“Interviewing students to learn about algebraic reasoning Grades 3-5”-Virginia Bastable
“Differentiated coaching: providing each teacher with the support to reach each student”-Jane Kise
“Defining effective learning experiences for educators in a CCSS classroom”-Marji Freeman

1:30-2:30
“Increasing teacher quality with differentiated PD”-Jennifer Taylor-Cox

2:45-3:45
“Enhancing mathematics education using the iPad”- Amanda Lambertus

4:00-5:00
“Noticing and wondering as a vehicle to understanding the problem”-Annie Fetter

As you can see we still have some narrowing down to do in our am sessions so any feedback is much appreciated! Do you know any of the presenters? Any topic jump out at you? Why?

Check back soon for our upcoming sessions and session recaps!!

Mathematically Yours,
Nancy & Kristin, Math Minds

Well, it is about time….

We are so excited to finally be getting our blog up and running!  Since joining Twitter this year and reading so many interesting posts, we are ready to dive into the blogging world!

We have decided that in order to make it dramatic, we will begin with an actual launch (of a plane that is) & write our first post on our way to Denver for NCSM!

We will keep you posted on our session choices, comment on sessions we attend and report back on any other great math conversations we encounter on our journey!

If there is anything particular you would love to hear from the conference, let us know in the comments!