Rounding Up

The Math Learning Center
  • 5.0 (19)
  • EDUCATION

Welcome to "Rounding Up" with the Math Learning Center. These conversations focus on topics that are important to Bridges teachers, administrators and anyone interested in Bridges in Mathematics. Hosted by Mike Wallus, VP of Educator Support at MLC.

  1. 4D AGO

    Season 4 | Episode 15 – Dr. DeAnn Huinker & Dr. Melissa Hedges, Math Trajectories for Young Learners, Part 2

    DeAnn Huinker & Melissa Hedges, Math Trajectories for Young Learners, Part 2 ROUNDING UP: SEASON 4 | EPISODE 15 Research confirms that early mathematics experiences play a more significant role than we once imagined. Studies suggest that specific number competencies in 4-year-olds are strong predictors of fifth grade mathematics success. So what does it look like to provide meaningful mathematical experiences for our youngest learners?  Today, we'll explore this question with DeAnn Huinker from UW-Milwaukee and Melissa Hedges from the Milwaukee Public Schools. BIOGRAPHY Dr. DeAnn Huinker is a professor of mathematics education in the Department of Teaching and Learning and directs the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Center for Mathematics and Science Education Research. Dr. Huinker teaches courses in mathematics education at the early childhood, elementary, and middle school levels. Dr. Melissa Hedges is a curriculum specialist who supports K–5 and K–8 schools for the Milwaukee Public Schools.  RESOURCES Learning Trajectories website, featuring the work of Doug Clements and Julie Sarama  Math Trajectories for Young Learners book by DeAnn Huinker and Melissa Hedges TRANSCRIPT Mike Wallus: A note to our listeners: This episode contains the second half of my conversation with DeAnn Huinker and Melissa Hedges about math trajectories for young learners. If you've not already listened to the first half of the conversation, I encourage you to go back and give it a listen. The second half of the conversation begins with DeAnn and Melissa discussing practices that educators can use to provide students a more meaningful experience with skip-counting.  Melissa Hedges: One of the things, Mike, that I would add on that actually I just thought about is when you were talking about the importance of us letting the children figure out how they want to approach that task of organizing their count is it's coming from the child. And Clements and Sarama talk about the beautiful work about the trajectory, [which] is that we see that the mathematics comes from the child and we can nurture that along in developmentally appropriate ways.  The other idea that popped into my mind is it's kind of a parallel to when our children get older and we want to teach them a way to add and a way to subtract, and I'm going to show you how to do it and you follow my procedure. I'm going to show it. You follow my procedure. We know that that's not best practice either. And so we're really looking at, how do we grab onto that idea of number sense and move forward with it in a way that's meaningful with children from as young as 1 and 2 all the way up?  Mike: DeAnn, I was going to ask a question to follow up on something that you said just now when you said even something like skip-counting should be done with quantities. And you, I think, anticipated the question I was going to ask, which is: What are the implications of this idea of connecting number and quantity for processes that we have used in the past, like rote counting or skip-counting? And I think what you're saying is we need to attend to those things that, like the counting sequence, we should not create an artificial barrier between speaking the words in sequence and quantity. Am I reading you right or is there more nuance than I'm describing?  DeAnn Huinker: I think you're right on target, Mike. (laughs) Connecting those things to quantity. And I mean, the one that's always salient for me is skip-counting. Skip-counting is such a rote skill for so many children that they don't realize when they go, "5, 10, 15" that they actually have seen, "Oh, there's five [items], there's five more items, there's five more items." So it's making that connection to quantity for something like skip-counting, but also on the counting trajectory, then we start thinking about, "What's a ten? And what makes a ten?" And, "What is 30? And how many tens are composing or embedded in that number 30?" And again, it's not just to rotely say, "3 tens." No. "Show me those objects. Can you make those tens?" Because sometimes we find disconnects. Kids will tell us things and then we say, "Can you show me?" And it doesn't match. (laughs) So we continually start thinking about quantities and putting [objects] with quantities.  Let me add one more thing. In the counting trajectory—and this was very intentional for Melissa—is when we have kids count, we'd like to give them like 31 or 32 counters to see whether [...] they can actually bridge that decade and to go beyond. The other thing that we did, so getting like beyond a ten, also we find when kids get to the number 100, they stop. They just think that's the end. I got to 100, I'm going to stop. And then we say, "Oh, what would be the next number?" And some will say 110, some will say 200, some will give us something else that we find bridging 100 is on the trajectory. And that's actually a really critical point. And again, we want it with quantities with objects.  Mike: I really appreciate this part of the conversation because I think for a teacher who's listening, it helps really get to the specific types of details that would allow them to create the kind of experiences that we think matter for children.  I do want to take a step back though and talk about what's going on for students under the hood, so to speak. So as they're engaging in meaningful counting, what are the cognitive processes that they're learning to coordinate?  Melissa: This is Melissa. So I'll start that one and then invite DeAnn to jump in as I work my way through my thinking.  One of the pieces that, in addition to everything we talked about with all of the skills and ideas and understanding that comes to bear when little ones count, one of the big pieces that we're starting to talk and learn about a whole lot more is this idea of executive functioning. And so executive functioning are those skills that help us manage our attention, help us manage our behavior. They help us stay focused. They help us complete tasks, keep track of things. So hopefully as I'm saying this, what you have in your mind is a little one counting and you're thinking, "Oh my gosh, how do they know where to start?" "How do they know when to stop?" "How do they know when this has been counted with that hasn't been counted?" "What am I going to say next?" All of that tends to be couched very strongly in this idea of executive functions. So when we watch kids count, we know that they're really drawing on those executive functions. And it's actually a really beautiful marriage. So again, we're looking for kids to—are they able to stay on task? Can they keep track? Do they monitor themselves as they go? If someone—this happens a lot—if someone bumps into their collection and their collection gets a little shaky because their desk got moved or someone kicked a counter across the floor, do they remember where that goes and what that stood for in quantity? And for us, that really kind of comes down to some of those higher order skills and in particular, those ideas of the executive functions.  So part of what we notice is that in particular with counting, though all of mathematics, much of what we do and ask kids to do, it takes planning, it takes self-monitoring, and it takes kind of a sense of control and agency over their work. We've talked a little bit about some of that other stuff in the way that it's the work of the child, and that's why we will always ask teachers to step back and just watch, just watch what they do, just watch what they do, because it gives us insight into so many skills, understandings, and kind of where they're at.  DeAnn: Yeah. This is DeAnn. I was thinking of that same thing, Melissa, about this is the work of the child, right? As adults, we're kind of prone sometimes to say, "Let me show you how to do it." But if we want to develop these executive function skills, these ideas and cognitive abilities under the hood, we have to give children opportunities. They need the time to think about how to organize that collection. That's always a great one to kind of think about. As adults, we're like, "Well, just line them up." And it's like, oh no, that's actually huge for a child to realize lining them up or organizing them in some way is a strategy, just like we do with larger numbers. It's a strategy for little kids. So again, that work needs to come from the child and they need to do some trial and error and adjustments in order to develop those things under the hood. And as adults, we can't take that opportunity away from children. We need to create the opportunities so they can explore more of their world and the quantitative world that we live in.  Mike: Everything that we're talking about has some pretty major implications for instructional practice, but what I find myself thinking about is my own time teaching kindergarten. And when I reflect on that, I sometimes found myself falling into something that I would call a readiness trap. And what I mean by that is I had this notion that kids had to have a certain set of skills in place before they were ready to do something like counting a collection. And I think what you're going to tell me is that perhaps I had it backwards. Am I right?  DeAnn: So this is DeAnn and I'm thinking, well, maybe it's not so much backwards, but it's a different perspective. So Melissa and I really struggle with this concept of readiness, and that's because we really frame our work from a developmental perspective. And as we think about learning trajectories, that's what they are. Learning trajectories is a developmental view of children's learning. So what really changes the question for us. We don't ask the question, "Are children ready?" What we ask is, "Oh, where are children currently in their learning?" And then we can start at that spot and then think about the experiences that would help support the next step in thei

    26 min
  2. Season 4 | Episode 14 – Dr. DeAnn Huinker & Dr. Melissa Hedges, Math Trajectories for Young Learners, Part 1

    MAR 19

    Season 4 | Episode 14 – Dr. DeAnn Huinker & Dr. Melissa Hedges, Math Trajectories for Young Learners, Part 1

    DeAnn Huinker & Melissa Hedges, Math Trajectories for Young Learners, Part 1 ROUNDING UP: SEASON 4 | EPISODE 14 Research confirms that early mathematics experiences play a more significant role than we once imagined. Studies suggest that specific number competencies in 4-year-olds are strong predictors of fifth grade mathematics success. So what does it look like to provide meaningful mathematical experiences for our youngest learners?  Today, we'll explore this question with DeAnn Huinker from UW-Milwaukee and Melissa Hedges from the Milwaukee Public Schools.  BIOGRAPHY Dr. DeAnn Huinker is a professor of mathematics education in the Department of Teaching and Learning and directs the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Center for Mathematics and Science Education Research. Dr. Huinker teaches courses in mathematics education at the early childhood, elementary, and middle school levels. Dr. Melissa Hedges is a curriculum specialist who supports K–5 and K–8 schools for the Milwaukee Public Schools.  RESOURCES Math Trajectories for Young Learners book by DeAnn Huinker and Melissa Hedges Learning Trajectories website, featuring the work of Doug Clements and Julie Sarama  School Readiness and Later Achievement journal article by Greg Duncan and colleagues  Early Math Trajectories: Low‐Income Children's Mathematics Knowledge From Ages 4 to 11 journal article by Bethany Rittle-Johnson and colleagues TRANSCRIPT Mike Wallus: Welcome back to the podcast, DeAnn and Melissa. You have both been guests previously. It is a pleasure to have both of you back with us again to discuss your new book, Math Trajectories for Young Learners. Melissa Hedges: Thank you for having us. We're both very excited to be here. DeAnn Huinker: Yes, I concur. Good to see you and be here again. Mike: So DeAnn, I think what I'd like to do is just start with an important grounding question. What's a trajectory? DeAnn: That's exactly where we need to start, right? So as I think about, "What are learning trajectories?," I always envision them as these road maps of children's mathematical development. And what makes them so compelling is that these learning pathways are highly predictable. We can see where children are in their learning, and then we can be more intentional in our teaching when we know where they are currently at. But if I kind of think about the development of learning trajectories, they really are based on weaving together insights from research and practice to give us this clear picture of the typical development of children's learning. And as we always think about these learning trajectories, there are three main components.  The first component is a mathematical goal. This is the big ideas of math that children are learning. For example, counting, subitizing, decomposing shapes. The second component of a learning trajectory are developmental progressions. This is really the heart of a trajectory. And the progression lays out a sequence of distinct levels of thinking and reasoning that grow in mathematical sophistication. And then the third component are activities and tasks that align to and support children's movement along that particular trajectory.  Now, it's really important that we point out the learning trajectories that we use in our work with teachers and children were developed by Doug Clements and Julie Sarama. So we have taken their trajectories and worked to make them more usable and applicable for teachers in our area. So what Doug and Julie did is they mapped out children's learning starting at birth—when children are just-borns, 1-year-olds, 2-year-olds—and they mapped it out up till about age 8. And right now, last count, they have about 20 learning trajectories. And they're in different topics like number, operations, geometry, and measurement. And we have to put in a plug. They have a wonderful website. It's learningtrajectories.org. We go there often to learn more about the trajectories and to get ideas for activities and tasks.  Now, we're talking about this new book we have on math trajectories for young children. And in the book, we actually take a deep dive into just four of the trajectories. We look at counting, subitizing, composing numbers, and adding and subtracting. So back to your original question: What are they? Learning trajectories are highly predictable roadmaps of children's math learning that we can use to inform and support developmentally appropriate instruction. Mike: That's an incredibly helpful starting point. And I want to ask a follow-up just to get your thinking on the record. I wonder if you have thoughts about how you imagine educators could or should make use of the trajectories. Melissa: This is Melissa. I'll pick up with that question. So I'll piggyback on DeAnn's response and thinking around this highly predictable nature of a trajectory as a way to ground my first comment and that we want to always look at a trajectory as a tool. So it's really meant as an important tool to help us understand where a child is and their thinking right now, and then what those next steps might be to push for some deeper mathematical understanding.  So the first thing that when we work with teachers that we like to keep in mind, and one of the things that actually draw teachers to the trajectories is that they're strength-based. So it's not what a child can't do. It's what a child can do right now based off of experience and opportunity that they've had. We also really caution against using our trajectories as a way to kind of pigeonhole kids or rank kids or label kids because what we know is that as children have more experience and opportunity, they grow and they learn and they advance along that trajectory. So really it's a tool that's incredibly powerful when in the hands of a teacher that understands how they work to be able to think about where are the children right now in their classroom and what can they do to advance them.  And I think the other point that I would emphasize other than what moves children along is experience and opportunity. Children are going to be all over on the trajectory—that's been our experience—and they're in the same classroom. And it's not that some can't and some won't and some can; it's just some need more experience and some need more opportunity. So it's really opened up the door many ways to view a more equitable approach to mathematics instruction.  The other thing that I would say is, and DeAnn and I had big conversations about this when we were first using the trajectories, is: Do we look at the ages? So the trajectories that Clements and Sarama develop do have age markers on them. And we were a bit back and forth on, "Do we use them?," "Do we not?," knowing that mathematical growth is meant to be viewed through a developmental lens. So we had them on and then we had them off and then we shared them with teachers and many of our projects and the teachers were like, "No, no, no, put the ages back on. Trust us. We'll use them well." (laughs) And so the ages are back onto the trajectories. And what we've noticed is that they really do help us understand how to take either intentional steps forward or intentional steps back, depending on what kids are showing us on that trajectory.  The other spot that I would maybe put a plugin for on where we could use a trajectory and what would be an appropriate use for it would be for our special educators out there and to really start to use them to support clear, measurable IEP goals grounded in a developmental progress. So that's kind of what our rule of thumb would be around a "should" and "shouldn't" with the trajectories. Mike: That's really helpful. You mentioned the notion of experiences and opportunities being critical. So I wanted to take perhaps a bit of a detour and talk about what research tells us about the impact of early mathematics experiences, what impact that has on children. I wonder if you could share some of the research that you cite in the book with our listeners. DeAnn: Sure. This is DeAnn, and in the book we cite research throughout all of the chapters and aligned to all of the different trajectories. But as we think about our work, there really are a few studies that we anchor in, always, as we think about children's learning. And the research evidence is really clear that early mathematics matters. The math that children learn in these early years in prekindergarten, kindergarten, first grade—I mean, we're talking 4-, 5-, 6-year-olds, 7-year-olds—that their math learning is really more important than a lot of people think it is. OK? So as we think about these kind of anchor studies that we look at, one of the major studies in this area is from Greg Duncan and his colleagues, and there was a study published in 2007. And what they did is they examined data from thousands of children drawing information from six large-scale studies, and they found that the math knowledge and abilities of 4- and 5-year-olds was the strongest predictor of later achievement. I mean, 4- and 5-year-olds, that's just as they're starting school. Mike: Wow. DeAnn: Yeah. One of the surprising findings was that they found early math knowledge and abilities was a stronger predictor than social emotional skills, stronger than family background, and stronger than family income. That it was the math knowledge that was predictive. Mike: That's incredible. DeAnn: Yes. A couple other surprising things from this study was that early math was a stronger predictor than early reading. Now, we know reading is really important, and we know reading gets a lot of emphasis in the early grades, but math is a stronger predictor than reading. And then one last thing I'll say about this study is that early math not only predicts later math achievement, it also predicts later reading achievement. So that is always a surprise as we share that information with teachers, that early mat

    25 min
  3. Season 4 | Episode 13 – Dr. Mike Steele, Pacing Discourse-Rich Lessons

    MAR 5

    Season 4 | Episode 13 – Dr. Mike Steele, Pacing Discourse-Rich Lessons

    Mike Steele, Pacing Discourse-Rich Lessons ROUNDING UP: SEASON 4 | EPISODE 13 As a classroom teacher, pacing lessons was often my Achilles' heel. If my students were sharing their thinking or working on a task, I sometimes struggled to decide when to move on to the next phase of a lesson.  Today we're talking with Mike Steele from Ball State University about several high-leverage practices that educators can use to plan and pace their lessons.  BIOGRAPHY Mike Steele is a math education researcher focused on teacher knowledge and teacher learning. He is the past president of the Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators, editor in chief of the Mathematics Teacher Educator journal, and member of the NCTM board of directors.  RESOURCES Journal Article "Pacing a Discourse-Rich Lesson: When to Move On" Books 5 Practices for Orchestrating Productive Mathematics Discussions  The 5 Practices in Practice [Elementary]  The 5 Practices in Practice [Middle School]  The 5 Practices in Practice [High School] Coaching the 5 Practices  TRANSCRIPT Mike Wallus: Well, hi, Mike. Welcome to the podcast. I'm excited to talk with you about discourse-rich lessons and what it looks like to pace them. Mike Steele: Well, I'm excited to talk with you too about this, Mike. This has been a real focus and interest, and I'm so excited that this article grabbed your attention. Mike Wallus: I suppose the first question I should ask for the audience is: What do you mean when you're talking about a discourse-rich lesson? What does that term mean about the lesson and perhaps also about the role of the teacher? Mike Steele: Yeah, I think that's a great question to start with. So when we're talking about a discourse-rich lesson, we're talking about one that has some mathematics that's worth talking about in it. So opportunities for thinking, reasoning, problem solving, in-progress thinking that leads to new mathematical understandings. And that kind of implicit in that discourse-rich lesson is student discourse-rich lesson. That we want not just teachers talking about sharing their own thinking about the mathematics, but opportunities for students to share their own thinking, to shape that thinking, to talk with each other, to see each other as intellectual resources in mathematics.  And so to have a lesson like that, you've got to have a number of things in place. You've got to have a mathematical task that's worth talking about. So something that's not just a calculation and we end up at an answer and that the discourse isn't just, "Let me relay to you as a student the steps I took to do this." Because a lot of times when students are just starting to experience discourse-rich lessons, that's kind of mode one that they engage in is, "Let me recite for you the things that I did." But really opportunities to go beyond that and get into the reasoning and the why of the mathematics. And hopefully to explore some approaches or perspectives or representations that they may not have defaulted to in their first run-through or their first experience digging into a mathematical task.  So the task has to have those opportunities and then we have to create learning environments that really foster those opportunities and students as the creators of mathematics and the teacher as the person who's shaping and guiding that discussion in a mathematically productive way. Mike Wallus: One of the things that struck me is there is likely a problem of practice that you're trying to solve in publishing this article, and I wonder if we could pull the curtain back and have you talk a bit about what was the genesis of this article for you? Mike Steele: Absolutely. So let me take us back about 20 or 25 years, and I'll take you back to some early work that went on around these sorts of rich tasks and discourse-rich lessons. So a lot of this legacy comes out of research or a project in the late nineties called the Quasar Project that helped identify: What is a rich task? What is a task, as the researchers described it, of high cognitive demand that has those opportunities for thinking and reasoning? The next question that that line of research brought forward is, "OK, so we know what a task looks like that gives these opportunities. How does this change what teachers do in the classroom? How they plan for lessons, how they make those moment-to-moment decisions as they're engaged in the teaching of that lesson?" Because it's very different than actually when I started teaching middle school in the nineties, where my preparation was: I looked at the content I had for that day, I wrote three example problems I wanted to write on the board that I very carefully got all the steps right and put those up and explained them and answered some questions. "Alright, everybody understand that? OK, great, moving on." And then the students went and reproduced that. That's fine for some procedural things, but if I really wanted them to engage in thinking and reasoning, I had to start changing my whole practice.  So this bubbles up out of the original work of the 5 Practices for Orchestrating Productive Discussions [book] from Peg Smith and Mary Kay Stein. I had the opportunity actually to work with them both in the early two thousands at the University of Pittsburgh. And so as we were working on this five-practices framework that was supposed to help teachers think about, "What does a different conceptualization of planning and teaching look like that really gets us to this discourse-rich classroom environment where students are making sense of and grappling with mathematics and talking to each other in a meaningful way about it?" We worked with teachers around that and the five-practices [framework] is certainly helpful, but then as teachers were working with the five practices and they were anticipating student thinking, they were writing questions that assess and advance student thinking, some of the things that came up were, "OK, what are the moment-to-moment decisions and challenges related to that as we start planning and teaching in this way?"  And a number of common challenges came up. A lot of times when we were using a five-practice lesson, we were doing kind of a launch, explore, share, and discuss sort of format where we've got the teacher who's getting us started on a task, but we're not giving the farm away on that task. We're not saying too much and guiding their thinking. And then we let students have some time individually and in small groups to start messing around with the mathematics, working, talking. And then at some point we're going to call everybody together and we're going to share what the different ways of thinking were. We're going to try to draw that together. Peg Smith likes to talk about this as being more than a show-and-tell. So it's not just, "We stand up, we give our answer, we do that. Great." Next group, doing the same thing, and oftentimes they start to look alike. But there's some really meaningful thinking that goes on in that whole-class discussion. So one of the really pragmatic concerns here is, "How do I know when to move?" So I've got students working individually, and maybe I gave them 3 minutes to get started. Was that enough? What can I see in the work they're doing? What questions am I going to hear to tell me, "OK, now it's a good moment to move to small groups." And then similarly, when you've got small groups working, they're cranking away on a task. There might be multiple subquestions in that task. What's my cue that we're ready to go on to that whole-class discussion?  We were in so many classrooms where teachers were really working hard to do this work, and this happens to me all the time. I have somehow miscalculated what students are going to be able to do—either how quickly they're going to be able to do it, or I expected them to draw on this piece of prior knowledge and it took us a while to get there, or they've flown through something that I didn't expect them to fly through. So I'm having to make some choice in a moment, saying, "This isn't exactly how I imagined it, so what do I do here?" And frequently with teachers that get caught in that dilemma, the first response is to take control back, [to] say, "OK, you're all struggling with this. Let's come back together and let me show you what you should have figured out here." And it's done with the best of intentions. We need to get some closure on the mathematical ideas. But then it takes us right away from what we were trying to do, which was have our students grapple with the mathematics. And so we do this lovely polished job of putting that together and maybe students took the important things away from that, that they wanted to, maybe they didn't, but they didn't get all the way they were on their own. So that's really the problem of practice that this helps us to solve is, when we get in those positions of, "OK, I've got to make a call. I've got this much time left. I've got this sort of work that I see going on in the classroom. Am I ready? What can I do next?" That really keeps that ownership of the mathematics with our students but still gives me some ability to orchestrate, to shape that discussion in a way that's mathematically meaningful and that gets at the goals I had for the lesson. Mike Wallus: Yeah, I appreciated that part of the article and even just hearing you describe that so much, Mike, because you gave words to I think what sat behind the dilemma that I found myself in so often, which was: I was either trying to gauge whether there was enough—and I think the challenge is we're going to get into, what "enough" actually might mean—but given enough time, whether I was confident that there was understanding, how much understanding was necessary. And what that translates into is a lack of clarity around "How do I use my time? How do I gauge when it's worth expending some of the time that I maybe h

    35 min
  4. Season 4 | Episode 12 – Kyndall Thomas, Building a Meaningful Understanding of Properties Through Fact Fluency Tasks

    FEB 19

    Season 4 | Episode 12 – Kyndall Thomas, Building a Meaningful Understanding of Properties Through Fact Fluency Tasks

    Kyndall Thomas, Building a Meaningful Understanding of Properties Through Fact Fluency Tasks ROUNDING UP: SEASON 4 | EPISODE 12 Building fluency with multiplication and division is essential for students in the upper elementary grades. This work also presents opportunities to build students' understanding of the algebraic properties that become increasingly important in secondary mathematics.  In this episode, we're talking with Kyndall Thomas about practical ways educators can support fluency development and build students' understanding of algebraic properties.  BIOGRAPHY Kyndall Thomas serves as a math interventionist and resource teacher with the Oregon Trail School District, focusing on data-driven support and empowering teachers to spark a love of numbers in their students. TRANSCRIPT Mike Wallus: Hi, Kyndall. Welcome to the podcast. I'm really excited to be talking with you today. Kyndall Thomas: Hi, Mike. Thanks for having me. I'm excited to dive into some math talk with you also. Mike: Kyndall, tell us a little bit about your background. What brought you to this work? Kyndall: Yeah. I started in the classroom. I was in upper elementary. I served fifth grade students, and I taught specifically math and science. And then I moved into a more interventionist role where I was a specialist that worked with teachers and also worked with small groups, intervention students. And through that I was able for the first time to really develop an understanding of that mathematical progression that happens at each grade level and the formative things that are introduced at the lower elementary [grades] and then kind of fade out, but still need to be brought back at the upper elementary. Mike: So I've heard other folks talk about the ways students can learn about the algebraic properties as they're building fluency, but I feel like you've taken this a step further. You have some ideas around how we can use visual models to make those properties visible. And I wonder if you could talk a little bit about what you mean by making properties visible and maybe why you think this is an opportunity that's too good to pass up? Kyndall: My thought is bringing visual models back into the classroom with our higher upper elementary students so that they can use those models to build a natural immersion of some of the algebraic properties so that they can emerge rather than just be rules that we are teaching. By supporting students' learning through building models with manipulatives, we're able to build a bridge in a student's mind between their experience with those models and then their mental capacity to visualize those models. This is where the opportunity to bring properties to life is too good to pass up. Mike: OK, so let's get specific. Where would you start? Which of the properties do you see as an opportunity to help students understand as they're building an understanding of fluency? Kyndall: So, when I begin laying the foundation for understanding of the operations and multiplication and division, I intentionally layer in two other major algebraic properties for discovery: the commutative property and the distributive property. We're not setting our students up for success when we simply introduce these properties as abstract rules to memorize. Strong visual models allow students to discover the why behind the rules. They're able to see these properties in action before I even spend any time naming them.  For example, they get to witness or discover how factors can switch order without changing the product, how grouping affects computation, and how numbers can be broken apart and recombined for efficient counting and solving strategies. By teaching basic facts in this structured and intentional way through the behavior of numbers and the authentic discovery of properties, we're not only building fluency, but we're also developing deep conceptual understanding. Students begin to recognize patterns, understand rules, make connections, and rely on reasoning instead of rote memorization. That approach supports long-term mathematical flexibility, which is exactly what we want our students to be able to do. Mike: I want to ask you about two particular tools: the number rack and the 10-frame. Tell me a little bit about what's powerful about the way the [10-frame] is set up that helps students make sense of multiplication. What is it about the way it's designed that you love? Kyndall: The [10-frame] is so powerful because it's set up in our base ten system already. It introduces the tens in a way that is two rows of 5, which is going to lead into properties being identified. So, let me break that up into each individual thing that I love about it.  First, the [10-frame] being broken up into the two rows of 5. That's going to allow students to be able to see that distributive property happening, where we're counting our 5s first and then adding some more into each group. So, when we're seeing a factor like 8 times 2, we're seeing that as two groups of 5 and two groups of 3. Mike: I think what you're making me remember is how it's difficult to help kids visualize that, right? It's a challenge. You can say "'4 times 4' is the same as '4 times 2 plus 4 times 2,'" but that's still an abstraction of what's happening, right? The visual really brings it to life in a way that—even if you're representing that with an equation and doing a true-false equation where it's 4 times 4 is the same as 4 times 2 plus 4 times 2—that's still at a level of abstraction that's not necessarily accessible for children. Kyndall: And as we're talking through this, if I see students and they're working on four groups of 3 and they're seeing those 3s as a double fact plus one more group, I'm on the board writing out the equation, and I'm using the parentheses as that introduction to what this looks like abstractly. They're building it, and they're building those visuals both with their hands and with their minds, and then I'm bringing it to life in the equation on the board. Mike: So, I think what I see in my mind as I hear you describe that is, you have kids with a set of materials. You're doing, for lack of a better word, a translation into a more abstract version of that, and you're helping kids connect the physical materials that they have in front of them to that abstraction and really kind of drawing the connection between the two. Am I getting that right? Kyndall: Yeah. As the students are doing the physical work of math, I'm translating it into its own language up on the board. Absolutely. Mike: I think what's clear to me from this conversation is the way that the tools can illuminate the property, and I think this also helps me think about what my role is as a teacher in terms of building a bridge to an abstraction. Do you actually feel like there's a point where you do introduce the formal language of it? And if you do, how do you decide when? Kyndall: So, the vocabulary kind of comes after the concept has been discovered. But I don't like to introduce the vocabulary first as a rote memorization tool because that has no meaning to it. Mike: I think if I were to summarize this, you're giving them a physical experience with the properties. You're translating that into an abstraction. And then once they've got an experience that they can hang those ideas on top of, then you might decide to introduce the formal language to them at some point. Kyndall: Yeah, absolutely. Mike: So, just as a refresher, for folks who might teach upper elementary and don't have a lot of lived experiences with the number rack—be it the ten or twenty or the hundred—can you describe a little bit about the structure, and maybe what about the structure in particular is important? Kyndall: The structure of a number rack has rows, and each row has 10 beads in it. And typically those beads are divided into two sets of 5: five red beads and five white beads. Then we typically move into a number rack that has two rows so that we're working within 20.  Now, my thought is to take that [to] our third, fourth, and fifth grade, our upper elementary students, and use the hundreds rekenrek [i.e., number rack], where now we have 10 rows and we have 10 beads in each row—still split up into five red [beads] and five white—so that we can use that to teach things. If we're looking at the zero property, students are starting to notice that the rows represent the groups—the rows with the beads on it, that's one group. And so, if we're building zero groups of 3, we don't have a group that we can access to put three beads in. If we're looking at it with the commutative property, students are able to say, "One group of 3. We have one row and we're putting three beads in it."  But what happens when we switch those factors? Now we're utilizing three of our rows, but we're only sliding over one bead. The number rack is also so important when we get to the distributive property because of the way that they have separated those colors. So when we're looking at a factor like 7 times 6—seven groups of 6—then we're gonna be accessing seven rows with six beads in each. That is already set up in the structure of the tool to have five red beads and one white bead showing seven groups of 5 and seven groups of 1 put together. Mike: That is super powerful. One of the things that really jumped out that I want to mark is: If I treat the rows like the groups and then I treat the beads like the number of things in each group, I can model one group with three inside of it, or I can model three groups with one inside of it, and I can really make the difference between those things clear, but also [I can make] the way that the product is still the same clear, right? So, I've got an actual physical model that helps kids understand what was often a rule that was just like 1 times 3 is the same as 3 times 1, because it is. But you're actually saying this is a tool that

    12 min

  5. FEB 5

    Season 4 | Episode 11 – Dr. Amy Hackenberg, Understanding Units Coordination

    Amy Hackenberg, Understanding Units Coordination ROUNDING UP: SEASON 4 | EPISODE 11 Units coordination describes the ways students understand the organization of units (or a unit structure) when approaching problem-solving situations—and how students' understanding influences their problem-solving strategies. In this episode, we're talking with Amy Hackenberg from the University of Indiana about how educators can recognize and support students at different stages of units coordination. BIOGRAPHY Dr. Amy Hackenberg taught mathematics to middle and high school students for nine years in Los Angeles and Chicago, and is currently a professor of mathematics education at Indiana University-Bloomington. She conducts research on how students construct fractions knowledge and algebraic reasoning. She is the proud coauthor of the Math Recovery series book, Developing Fractions Knowledge. RESOURCES Integrow Numeracy Solutions Developing Fractions Knowledge by Amy J. Hackenberg, Anderson Norton, and Robert J. Wright TRANSCRIPT Mike Wallus: Welcome to the podcast, Amy. I'm excited to be chatting with you today about units coordination. Amy Hackenberg: Well, thank you for having me. I'm very excited to be here, Mike, and to talk with you. Mike: Fantastic. So we've had previous guests come on the podcast and they've talked about the importance of unitizing, but for guests who haven't heard those episodes, I'm wondering if we could start by offering a definition for unitizing, but then follow that up with an explanation of what units coordination is. Amy: Yeah, sure. So unitizing basically means to take a segment of experience as one thing, which we do all the time in order to even just relate to each other and tell stories about our day. I think of my morning as a segment of experience and can tell someone else about it. And we also do it mathematically when we construct number. And it's a very long process, but children began by compounding sensory experiences like sounds and rhythms as well as visual and tactical experiences of objects into experiential units—experiential segments of experience that they can think about, like hearing bells ringing could be an impetus to take a single bong as a unit. And later, people construct units from what they imagine and even later on, abstract units that aren't tied to any particular sensory material. It's again, a long process, but once we start to do that, we construct arithmetical units, which we can think of as discrete 1s. So, it all starts with unitizing segments of experience to create arithmetical items that we might count with whole numbers. Mike: What's really interesting about that is this notion of unitizing grows out of our lived experiences in a way that I think I hadn't thought about—this notion that a unit of experience might be something like a morning or lunchtime. That's a fascinating way to think about even before we get to, say, composing sets of 10 into a unit, that these notions of a unit [exist] in our daily lives. Amy: Yeah, and we make them out of our daily lives. That's how we make units. And what you said about a ten is also important because as we progress onward, we do take more than 1 one as a unit—like thinking of 4 flowers in a row in a garden as a single unit, as both 1 unit and as 4 little flowers—means it has a dual meaning, at least; we call it a composite unit at that point. That's a common term for that. So that's another example of unitizing that is of interest to teachers. Mike: Well, I'm excited to shift and talk about units coordination. How would you describe that? Amy: Yeah, so units coordination is a way for teachers and researchers to understand how children create units and organize units to interpret problem situations and to solve problems. So it originated in understanding how children construct whole number multiplication and division, but it has since expanded from just that to be thinking more broadly about units and structuring units and organizing and creating more units and how people do that in solving problems. Mike: Before we dig into the fine-grain details of students' thinking, I wonder if you can explain the role that units coordination plays in students' journey through elementary mathematics and maybe how that matters in middle school and beyond middle school. Amy: So that's where a lot of the research is right now, especially at the middle school level and starting to move into high school. But units coordination was originally about trying to understand how elementary school children construct whole number multiplication and division, but it's also found to greatly influence elementary school children's understanding of fractions, decimals, measurement and on into middle school students' understanding of those same ideas and topics: fractions ratios and proportional reasoning, rational numbers, writing and transforming algebraic equations, even combinatorial reasoning. So there's a lot of ways in which units coordination influences different aspects of children's thinking and is relevant in lots of different domains in the curriculum. Mike: Part of what's interesting for me is that I don't think I'm alone in saying that this big idea around units coordination sounds really new to me. It's not language that I learned in my preservice work[, nor] in my practice. So I think what's coming together for me is there's a larger set of ideas that flow through elementary school and into middle school and high school mathematics. And it's helpful to hear you talk about that, from the youngest children who are thinking about the notion of units in their daily lives to the way that this notion of units and units coordination continues to play through elementary school into middle school and high school. Amy: Yeah, it's nice that you're noticing that because I do think that's something that's a strength of units coordination in [that] it can be this unifying idea, although there's lots of variation and lots of variation in what you see with elementary students versus middle school students versus high school students versus even college students. Some of the research is on college students' unit coordination these days, but it is an interesting thread that can be helpful to think about in that way. Mike: OK. With that in mind, let's introduce a context for units coordination and talk a little bit about the stages of student thinking. Amy: Yeah. So, one way to understand some differences in how children up through, say, middle school students might coordinate units and engage in units coordination is to think about a problem and describe how solving it might happen.  Here's a garden problem: "Amaya is planting 4 pansies in a row. She plants 15 rows. How many pansies has she planted?" There are three stages of units coordination, broadly speaking—we've begun to understand more about the nuances there. But a stage refers to a set of ways of thinking that tend to fit together in how students understand and solve problems with whole numbers, fractions, quantities, and multiplicative relationships. It's sort of about a nexus of ideas, and—that we tend to see coming together and students don't usually think in a way that's characteristic of a different stage until they've made a significant change in their thinking, like a big reorganization happens for them to move from one stage to the next. So students at stage 1 of units coordination are primarily in a 1s world and their number sequence is not multiplicative. That's going to be hard to imagine. But they can take a group of 1s as one thing. So, they can make a composite unit and that means in the garden problem, they can take a row of pansies as 1 row as well as 4 little ones, and they can continue to do that over and over again. And so they can amass rows of 4 pansies and keep going. And what it usually looks like for them to solve the problem is they'll count by 1s after any known skip-counting patterns. So, in this case they might be like, "Oh, I know 4 and 8; that's two rows. 9, 10, 11, 12; that's three rows." Often using fingers or something to keep track, or in some way to keep track, and continuing to go up and get all the way, barring counting errors, to 60 pansies. And so for them the result, 60 pansies, is a composite unit. It's a unit of 60 units, but they don't maintain the structure that we see at all of the units of 60 as 15 fours. That's not something—even though they did track it in their thinking—they don't maintain that once they get to the 60, it's really just only a big composite unit of 60. So their view of the result is very different than an adult view might be.  So, the students at stage 1 can solve division problems, which means if they give some number of pansies and they're supposed to make rows of 4, they can definitely do it, they can solve that. But they don't think of multiplication and division as inverses. So let me say what I mean by that. If they had this problem next, so: "Amaya's mom gave her 28 pansies. How many rows of 4 can she make?" A student at stage 1 could solve that problem, and they would be able to track 4s over and over again and figure out that they got to 7 fours once they get to 28. But then if immediately afterwards a teacher said, "Well, so, how many pansies are there in 7 rows of 4?," the student at stage 1 would start over and solve the problem from the beginning. They wouldn't think that they had already solved it. And that's one telling sign of a student operating at stage 1. And the reason is that the mental actions they engage in to do the segmenting or the tracking off of the 4s and the 28 pansies are really different to them than what they use then the ways of thinking they use to create the 7 rows of 4 and make the 28 that way. And so they don't recognize them as similar, so they feel like they have to engage in new problem solving to solve that problem. So, to get back to the g

    31 min
  6. Season 4 | Episode 10 – What Counts as Counting? Guest: Dr. Christopher Danielson, Part 2

    JAN 22

    Season 4 | Episode 10 – What Counts as Counting? Guest: Dr. Christopher Danielson, Part 2

    What Counts as Counting? with Dr. Christopher Danielson ROUNDING UP: SEASON 4 | EPISODE 10 What counts as counting? The question may sound simple, but take a moment to think about how you would answer. After all, we count all kinds of things: physical quantities, increments of time, lengths, money, as well as fractions and decimals.  In this episode, we'll talk with Christopher Danielson about what counts as counting and how our definition might shape the way we engage with our students. BIOGRAPHY Christopher Danielson started teaching in 1994 in the Saint Paul (MN) Public Schools. He  earned his PhD in mathematics education from Michigan State University in 2005 and taught at the college level for 10 years after that. Christopher is the author of Which One Doesn't Belong?, How Many?, and How Did You Count? Christopher also founded Math On-A-Stick, a large-scale family math playspace at the Minnesota State Fair. RESOURCES How Did You Count? A Picture Book by Christopher Danielson How Many?: A Counting Book by Christopher Danielson Following Learning blog by Simon Gregg Connecting Mathematical Ideas by Jo Boaler and Cathleen Humphreys  TRANSCRIPT Mike Wallus: Before we start today's episode, I'd like to offer a bit of context to our listeners. This is the second half of a conversation that we originally had with Christopher Danielson back in the fall of 2025. At that time, we were talking about [the instructional routine] Which one doesn't belong? This second half of the conversation focuses deeply on the question "What counts as counting?" I hope you'll enjoy the conversation as much as I did.  Well, welcome to the podcast, Christopher. I'm excited to be talking with you today. Christopher Danielson: Thank you for the invitation. Delightful to be invited. Mike: So I'd like to talk a little bit about your recent work, the book How Did You Count?[: A Picture Book] In it, you touch on what seems like a really important question, which is: "What is counting?" Would you care to share how your definition of counting has evolved over time? Christopher: Yeah. So the previous book to How Did You Count? was called How Many?[: A Counting Book], and it was about units. So the conversation that the book encourages would come from children and adults all looking at the same picture, but maybe counting different things. So "how many?" was sort of an ill-formed question; you can't answer that until you've decided what to count.  So for example, on the first page, the first photograph is a pair of shoes, Doc Marten shoes, sitting in a shoebox on a floor. And children will count the shoes. They'll count the number of pairs of shoes. They'll count the shoelaces. They'll count the number of little silver holes that the shoelaces go through, which are called eyelets. And so the conversation there came from there being lots of different things to count. If you look at it, if I look at it, if we have a sufficiently large group of learners together having a conversation, there's almost always going to be somebody who notices some new thing that they could count, some new way of describing the thing that they're counting. One of the things that I noticed in those conversations with children—I noticed it again and again and again—was a particular kind of interaction. And so we're going to get now to "What does it mean to count?" and how my view of that has changed. The eyelets, there are five eyelets on each side of each shoe. Two little flaps that come over, each has five of those little silver rings. Super compelling for kids to count them. Most of the things on that page, there's not really an interesting answer to "How did you count them?" Shoelaces, they're either two or four; it's obvious how you counted them. But the eyelets, there's often an interesting conversation to be had there. So if a kid would say, "I counted 20 of those little silver holes," I would say, "Fabulous. How do you know there are 20?" And they would say, "I counted." In my mind, that was like an evasion. They felt like what they had been called on to do by this strange man who's just come into our classroom and seems friendly enough, what they had been called on to do was say a number and a unit. And they said they had 20 silver things. We're done now. And so by my asking them, "How do you know? " And they say, "I counted." It felt to me like an evasion because I counted as being 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, all the way up to 20. And they didn't really want to tell me about anything more complicated than that. It was just sort of an obvious "I counted." So in order to counter what I felt like was an evasion, I would say, "Oh, so you said to yourself, 1, 2, 3, and then blah, blah, blah, 18, 19, 20." And they'd be like, "No, there were 10 on each shoe." Or, "No, there's 5 on each side." Or rarely there would be the kid who would see there were 4 bottom eyelets across the 4 flaps on the 2 shoes and then another row and another row. Some kids would say there's 5 rows of 4 of them, which are all fabulous answers. But I thought, initially, that that didn't count as counting. After hearing it enough times, I started to wonder, "Is it possible that kids think 5 rows of 4, 4 groups of 5, 2 groups of 10, counted by 2s and 1, 2, 3, 4, all the way up to 19 and 20—is it possible that kids conceive of all of those things as ways of counting, that all of those are encapsulated under counting?" And so I began because of the ways children were responding to me to think differently about what it means to count.  So when I first started working on this next book, How Did You Count?, I wanted it to be focused on that. The focus was deliberately going to be on the ways that you count. We're all going to agree that we're counting tangerines; we're all going to agree that we're counting eggs, but the conversation is going to come because there are rich ways that these things are arranged, rich relationships that are embedded inside of the photographs. And what I found was, when I would go on Twitter and throw out a picture of some tangerines and ask how people counted, and I would get back the kind of thing that was how I had previously seen counting. So I would get back from some people, "There are 12." I'd ask, "How did you count?" And they'd say, "I didn't. I multiplied 3 times 4." "I didn't. I multiplied 2 times 6."  But then, on reflection through my own mathematical training, I know that there's a whole field of mathematics called combinatorics. Which if you asked a mathematician, "What is combinatorics?," 9 times out of 10, the answer is going to be, "It's the mathematics of counting." And it's not mathematicians sitting around going "1, 2, 3, 4" or "2, 4, 6, 8." It's looking for structures and ways to count the number of possibilities there are, the number of—if we're thinking about calculating probabilities of winning the lottery, somebody's got to know what the probabilities are of choosing winning numbers, of choosing five out of six winning numbers. And the field of combinatorics is what does that. It counts possibilities.  So I know that mathematicians and kindergartners—this is what I've learned in both my graduate education and in my postgraduate education working with kindergartners—is that they both think about counting in this rich way. It's any work that you do to know how many there are. And that might be one by one; it might be skip-counting; it might be multiplication; it might be using some other kind of structure. Mike: I think that's really interesting because there was a point in time where I saw counting as a fairly rote process, right? Where I didn't understand that there were all of these elements of counting, meaning one-to-one correspondence and quantity versus being able to just say the rote count out loud. And so one way that I think counting and its meaning have expanded for me is to kind of understand some of those pieces. But the thing that occurs to me as I hear you talk is that I think one of the things that I've done at different points, and I wonder if people do, is say, "That's all fine and good, but counting is counting." And then we've suddenly shifted and we're doing something called addition or multiplication. And this is really interesting because it feels like you're drawing a much clearer connection between those critical, emergent ideas around counting and these other things we do to try to figure out the answer to how many or how did you count. Tell me what you think about that. Christopher: Yeah. So this for me is the project, right? This book is an instantiation of this larger project, a way of viewing the world of mathematics through the lens of what it means to learn it. And I would describe that larger project through some imagery and appealing to teachers' ideas about what it means to have a classroom conversation.  For me, learning is characterized by increasing sophistication, increasing expertise with whatever it is that I'm studying. And so when I put several different triangular arrangements of things—in the book, there's a triangular arrangement of bowling pins, which lots of kids know from having bowled in their lives and other kids don't have any experiences with them, but the image is rich and vivid and they're able to do that counting. And then later on, there's a triangular arrangement of what turned out to be very bland, gooey, and nasty, but beautiful to photograph: pink pudding cups. Later on, there are two triangles of eggs. And so what I'm asking of kids—I'm always imagining a child and a parent sitting on a couch reading these books together, but also building them for classrooms. Any of this could be like a thing that happens at home, a thing that happens for a kid individually or a classroom full of children led by a teacher. Thinking about the second picture of the pudding cups, my hope and expectation is that at least some children will say, "OK, there are 6 rows

    22 min
  7. Season 4 | Episode 9 - Dr. Todd Hinnenkamp, Enacting Talk Moves with Intention

    JAN 8

    Season 4 | Episode 9 - Dr. Todd Hinnenkamp, Enacting Talk Moves with Intention

    Dr. Todd Hinnenkamp, Enacting Talk Moves with Intention ROUNDING UP: SEASON 4 | EPISODE 9 All students deserve a classroom rich in meaningful mathematical discourse. But what are the talk moves educators can use to bring this goal to life in their classrooms?  Today, we're talking about this question with Todd Hinnenkamp from the North Kansas City Schools. Whether talk moves are new to you or already a part of your practice, this episode will deepen your understanding of the ways they impact your classroom community.  BIOGRAPHY Dr. Todd Hinnenkamp is the instructional coordinator for mathematics for the North Kansas City Schools.  RESOURCES Talk Moves with Intention for Math Learning Center Standards for Mathematical Practice by William McCallum  5 Practices for Orchestrating Productive Mathematics Discussions by Margaret (Peg) Smith and Mary Kay Stein  TRANSCRIPT Mike Wallus: Before we begin, I'd like to offer a quick note to listeners. During this episode, we'll be referencing a series of talk moves throughout the conversation. You can find a link to these talk moves included in the show notes for this episode. Welcome to the podcast, Todd. I'm really excited to be chatting with you today. Todd Hinnenkamp: I'm excited to be here with you, Mike. Talk through some things. Mike: Great. So I've heard you present on using talk moves with intention, and one of the things that you shared at the start was the idea that talk moves advance three aspects of teaching and learning: a productive classroom community, student agency, and students' mathematical practice. So as a starting point, can you unpack that statement for listeners? Todd: Sure. I think all talk moves with intention contribute to advancing all three of those, maybe some more than others. But all can be impactful in this endeavor, and I really think that identifying them or understanding them well upfront is super important.  So if you unpack "productive community" first, I think about the word "productive" as an individual word. In different situations, it means a quality or a power of producing, bringing about results, benefits, those types of things. And then if you pair that word "community" alongside, I think about the word "community" as a unified body of individuals, an interacting population. I even like to think about it as joint ownership or participation. When that's present, that's a pretty big deal. So I like to think about those two concepts individually and then also together. So when you think about the "productivity" word and the "community" word and then pairing them well together, is super important. And I think about student agency. Specifically the word "agency" means something pretty powerful that I think we need to have in mind. When you think about it in a way of, like, having the capacity or the condition or state of acting or even exerting some power in your life. I think about students being active in the learning process. I think about engagement and motivation and them owning the learning. I think oftentimes we see that because they feel like they have the capacity to do that and have that agency. So I think about that, that being a thing that we would want in every single classroom so they can be productive contributors later in life as well. So I feel like sometimes there's too many students in classrooms today with underdeveloped agencies. So I think if we can go after agency, that's pretty powerful as well. And when you think about students' math practice, super important habits of what we want to develop in students. I mean, we're fortunate to have some clarity around those things, those practices, thanks to the work of Dr. [William] McCallum and his team more than a decade ago when they provided us the standards for mathematical practice. But if you think about the word "practice" alone, it's interesting. I've done some research on this. I think the transitive verb meaning is to do or perform often, customarily or maybe habitually. The transitive verb meaning is to pursue something actively. Or if you think about it with a noun, it's just a usual way of doing something or condition of being proficient through a systematic exercise. So I think all those things are, if we can get kids to develop their math practice in a way it becomes habitual and is really strong within them, it's pretty powerful. So I do think it's important that we start with that. We can't glaze over these three concepts because I think that right now, if you can tie some intentional talk moves to them, I think that it can be a pretty powerful lever to student understanding. Mike: Yeah. You have me thinking about a couple things. One of the first things that jumped out as I was listening to you talk is there's the "what," which are the talk moves, but you're really exciting the stage with the "why." Why do we want to do these things? And what I'd like to do is take each one of them in turn. So can we first talk about some of the moves that set up productive community for learners? Todd: Yeah. I think all the moves that are on my mind contribute, but there's probably a couple that I think go after productive community even more so than others. And I would say the "student restates" move, that first move where you're expecting students to repeat or restate in their own words what another student shared, promotes some really special things. I think first it communicates to everyone in the room that "We're going to talk about math in here. We're going to listen to and respectfully consider what others say and think." It really upholds my expectation as an educator that we're going to interact with and understand the mathematical thinking that's present so that student restates is a great one to get going.  And I would also offer the "think, turn, and learn" move is a highly impactful one as well. The general premise here is that you're offering time upfront. Always starting with "think," you're offering time upfront. And what that should be communicating to students is that "You have something to offer. I'm providing you time to think about it, to organize it, so then you're more apt to share it with either your partner or the community." It really increases the likelihood that kids have something to contribute. And as you literally turn your body and learn from each other—and those words are intentional, "turn" and "learn"—it opens the door to share, to expand your thinking, to then refine what you're thinking and build to develop both speaking and listening skills that help the community bond become stronger. So in the end it says, "I have something to offer here. I'm valued through my interactions." And I feel like that there's something that comes out of that process for kids. Mike: You talked about the practice of "think, turn, learn." And one of the things that jumps out is "think." Because we've often used language like "turn and talk," and that's in there with "turn and learn," but "think" feels really important. I wonder if you could say more about why "think"? Let's just make it explicit. Why "think"? Todd: Sure. No, and I'm not trying to throw shade at "turn and talks" or anything like that, but I do think when we have intention with our moves, they're super impactful relative to other opportunities where maybe we're just not getting the most out of it. So that idea of offering time or providing or ensuring time for kids to think upfront—and depending on the situation, that can be 10 seconds, that can be 30 seconds—where you feel like students have had a chance to internalize what's going on [and] think about what they would say, it puts them in an entirely different mode to build a share with somebody else. I'm often in classrooms, and if we don't provide that think time, you see kids turn and talk to each other, and the first part is them still trying to figure out what should be said. And it just doesn't seem like it's as impactful or as productive during that time as it could be without that "think" first. Mike: Yeah, absolutely.  I want to go back to something you said earlier too, when you were describing the value that comes out of restating or rephrasing, having a student do that with another student's thinking. One of the things that struck me is there were points in time when you were talking about that and you were talking about the value for an individual student who's in that spot.  Todd: Mm. Mike: But I also heard you come back to it and say, "There's something in this for the group, for the community as well." And I wonder if you could unpack a little bit: What's in it for the kid when they go through that restating another student's [idea], or having their [own] idea restated, and then what's in it for the community? Todd: Sure. Well, let's start with the individual, Mike. And I think that with what we know about learning and how much more deeply we learn when we internalize something and reflect on it and actually link it to our past learning and think about what it means to us, is probably the most important thing that comes out of that. So the student that's restating what another student says, they really have to think about what that student said and then internalize it and make sense of it in a way where they can actually say it out to the community again. That's a big deal! So to talk about the impact on the community in that mode, Mike, when you get one or two [ideas], and maybe you ask for a couple more, you now have student thinking in four different forms out in the community rather than, say, one student sharing something and a teacher restating it and moving on. And I just love how those moves together can cause the thinking to linger in the classroom longer for kids. Often when I'm in classrooms, the kids actually learn it more when somebody else says it rather than me. And it kind of ties to that where, like, they just need to hear other kids thinking and start to

    27 min
  8. Season 4 | Episode 8 – Janet Walkoe & Margaret Walton, Exploring the Seeds of Algebraic Thinking

    12/18/2025

    Season 4 | Episode 8 – Janet Walkoe & Margaret Walton, Exploring the Seeds of Algebraic Thinking

    Janet Walkoe & Margaret Walton, Exploring the Seeds of Algebraic Thinking ROUNDING UP: SEASON 4 | EPISODE 8 Algebraic thinking is defined as the ability to use symbols, variables, and mathematical operations to represent and solve problems. This type of reasoning is crucial for a range of disciplines.  In this episode, we're talking with Janet Walkoe and Margaret Walton about the seeds of algebraic thinking found in our students' lived experiences and the ways we can draw on them to support student learning.  BIOGRAPHIES Margaret Walton joined Towson University's Department of Mathematics in 2024. She teaches mathematics methods courses to undergraduate preservice teachers and courses about teacher professional development to education graduate students. Her research interests include teacher educator learning and professional development, teacher learning and professional development, and facilitator and teacher noticing. Janet Walkoe is an associate professor in the College of Education at the University of Maryland. Janet's research interests include teacher noticing and teacher responsiveness in the mathematics classroom. She is interested in how teachers attend to and make sense of student thinking and other student resources, including but not limited to student dispositions and students' ways of communicating mathematics. RESOURCES "Seeds of Algebraic Thinking: a Knowledge in Pieces Perspective on the Development of Algebraic Thinking" "Seeds of Algebraic Thinking: Towards a Research Agenda" NOTICE Lab  "Leveraging Early Algebraic Experiences"  TRANSCRIPT Mike Wallus: Hello, Janet and Margaret, thank you so much for joining us. I'm really excited to talk with you both about the seeds of algebraic thinking. Janet Walkoe: Thanks for having us. We're excited to be here.  Margaret Walton: Yeah, thanks so much. Mike: So for listeners, without prayer knowledge, I'm wondering how you would describe the seeds of algebraic thinking. Janet: OK. For a little context, more than a decade ago, my good friend and colleague, [Mariana] Levin—she's at Western Michigan University—she and I used to talk about all of the algebraic thinking we saw our children doing when they were toddlers—this is maybe 10 or more years ago—in their play, and just watching them act in the world. And we started keeping a list of these things we saw. And it grew and grew, and finally we decided to write about this in our 2020 FLM article ["Seeds of Algebraic Thinking: Towards a Research Agenda" in For the Learning of Mathematics] that introduced the seeds of algebraic thinking idea. Since they were still toddlers, they weren't actually expressing full algebraic conceptions, but they were displaying bits of algebraic thinking that we called "seeds." And so this idea, these small conceptual resources, grows out of the knowledge and pieces perspective on learning that came out of Berkeley in the nineties, led by Andy diSessa. And generally that's the perspective that knowledge is made up of small cognitive bits rather than larger concepts. So if we're thinking of addition, rather than thinking of it as leveled, maybe at the first level there's knowing how to count and add two groups of numbers. And then maybe at another level we add two negative numbers, and then at another level we could add positives and negatives. So that might be a stage-based way of thinking about it.  And instead, if we think about this in terms of little bits of resources that students bring, the idea of combining bunches of things—the idea of like entities or nonlike entities, opposites, positives and negatives, the idea of opposites canceling—all those kinds of things and other such resources to think about addition. It's that perspective that we're going with. And it's not like we master one level and move on to the next. It's more that these pieces are here, available to us. We come to a situation with these resources and call upon them and connect them as it comes up in the context. Mike: I think that feels really intuitive, particularly for anyone who's taught young children. That really brings me back to the days when I was teaching kindergartners and first graders.  I want to ask you about something else. You all mentioned several things like this notion of "do, undo" or "closing in" or the idea of "in-betweenness" while we were preparing for this interview. And I'm wondering if you could describe what these things mean in some detail for our audience, and then maybe connect them back with this notion of the seeds of algebraic thinking. Margaret: Yeah, sure. So we would say that these are different seeds of algebraic thinking that kids might activate as they learn math and then also learn more formal algebra. So the first seed, the doing and undoing that you mentioned, is really completing some sort of action or process and then reversing it.  So an example might be when a toddler stacks blocks or cups. I have lots of nieces and nephews or friends' kids who I've seen do this often—all the time, really—when they'll maybe make towers of blocks, stack them up one by one and then sort of unstack them, right? So later this experience might apply to learning about functions, for example, as students plug in values as inputs, that's kind of the doing part, but also solve functions at certain outputs to find the input. So that's kind of one example there.  And then you also talked about closing in and in-betweenness, which might both be related to intervals. So closing in is a seed where it's sort of related to getting closer and closer to a desired value. And then in formal algebra, and maybe math leading up to formal algebra, the seed might be activated when students work with inequalities maybe, or maybe ordering fractions.  And then the last seed that you mentioned there, in-betweenness, is the idea of being between two things. For example, kids might have experiences with the story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears, and the porridge being too hot, too cold, or just right. So that "just right" is in-between. So these seats might relate to inequalities and the idea that solutions of math problems might be a range of values and not just one. Mike: So part of what's so exciting about this conversation is that the seeds of algebraic thinking really can emerge from children's lived experience, meaning kids are coming with informal prior knowledge that we can access. And I'm wondering if you can describe some examples of children's play, or even everyday tasks, that cultivate these seeds of algebraic thinking. Janet: That's great. So when I think back to the early days when we were thinking about these ideas, one example stands out in my head. I was going to the grocery store with my daughter who was about three at the time, and she just did not like the grocery store at all. And when we were in the car, I told her, "Oh, don't worry, we're just going in for a short bit of time, just a second." And she sat in the back and said, "Oh, like the capital letter A." I remember being blown away thinking about all that came together for her to think about that image, just the relationship between time and distance, the amount of time highlighting the instantaneous nature of the time we'd actually be in the store, all kinds of things.  And I think in terms of play examples, there were so many. When she was little, she was gifted a play doctor kit. So it was a plastic kit that had a stethoscope and a blood pressure monitor, all these old-school tools. And she would play doctor with her stuffed animals. And she knew that any one of her stuffed animals could be the patient, but it probably wouldn't be a cup. So she had this idea that these could be candidates for patients, and it was this—but only certain things. We refer to this concept as "replacement," and it's this idea that you can replace whatever this blank box is with any number of things, but maybe those things are limited and maybe that idea comes into play when thinking about variables in formal algebra. Margaret: A couple of other examples just from the seeds that you asked about in the previous question. One might be if you're talking about closing in, games like when kids play things like "you're getting warmer" or "you're getting colder" when they're trying to find a hidden object or you're closing in when tuning an instrument, maybe like a guitar or a violin.  And then for in-betweeness, we talked about Goldilocks, but it could be something as simple as, "I'm sitting in between my two parents" or measuring different heights and there's someone who's very tall and someone who's very short, but then there are a bunch of people who also fall in between. So those are some other examples. Mike: You're making me wonder about some of these ideas, these concepts, these habits of mind that these seeds grow into during children's elementary learning experiences. Can we talk about that a bit? Janet: Sure. Thank you for that question.  So we think of seeds as a little more general. So rather than a particular seed growing into something or being destined for something, it's more that a seed becomes activated more in a particular context and connections with other seeds get strengthened. So for example, the idea of like or nonlike terms with the positive and negative numbers. Like or nonlike or opposites can come up in so many different contexts. And that's one seed that gets evoked when thinking potentially when thinking about addition. So rather than a seed being planted and growing into things, it's more like there are these seeds, these resources that children collect as they act on the world and experience things. And in particular contexts, certain seeds are evoked and then connected. And then in other contexts, as the context becomes more familiar, maybe they're evoked more often and connected more strongly. And then that becomes something that's connected with tha

    18 min
See All (71)

Trailer

5
out of 5
19 Ratings

About

Welcome to "Rounding Up" with the Math Learning Center. These conversations focus on topics that are important to Bridges teachers, administrators and anyone interested in Bridges in Mathematics. Hosted by Mike Wallus, VP of Educator Support at MLC.

Information

  • Creator
    The Math Learning Center
  • Years Active
    2022 - 2026
  • Episodes
    71
  • Rating
    Clean
  • Copyright
    © 2022 The Math Learning Center | www.mathlearningcenter.org
  • Show Website
    Rounding Up

You Might Also Like