Category Archives: Reflection

OAME 2016: Sketch notes for learning

OAME Annual Conference – Barrie 2016 – Leap Into Math
hosted by MAC2 at Georgian College, Barrie, ON

Robert Lang challenges us to open possibilities for every learner. Start with art and find the structure. Seek connections through creativity.

01-OAME-Lang

Catherine Bruce highlighted the importance of fractions, the lack of clarity on the anatomy of a fraction, the need to attend to and understand unit fractions, and to help learners find clarity and understanding.

02-OAME-Bruce

Paul Alves modeled powerful pedagogy as he empowered participants to code.

03-OAME-Alves

Melissa Poremba challenges us to use literacy to further develop a stronger culture of numeracy.

04-OAME-Bremba

Steven Strogatz used his New York Times series to highlight the importance of humor, empathy, relevance, and visualizations. His breast cancer article, Chances Are, connected, for me, to Catherine Bruce’s earlier talk. Fractions often bring more clarity and understanding than percents and decimals.

05-OAME-Strogatz

Chris Suurtamm challenges us to honor algebraic thinking, visualization, and flexibility in learners of all ages.

06-OAME-Suurtamm

Never ever miss an opportunity to learn with Graham Fletcher.

07-OAME-Fletcher

There were two sessions of Ignite talks at OAME. I was a speaker for the first session, therefore, no sketch notes.  Here are the highlights from the second session.

08-OAME-Ignite2

HGSE Teaming: Sketch notes for learning

Our team (Maryellen Berry, Rhonda Mitchell, Marsha Harris, and I) attend the Harvard Graduate School of Education’s 2016 session on the Transformative Power of Teacher Teams taught by Katherine Boyles and Vivian Troen.

Below are my notes from each session and a few of the lasting takeaways.

01-HGSETeaming

Teams that lack open conflict are dying entities.

Boyles and Troen challenge us to level up from a “culture of nice” to a collaboration.

02-HGSETeaming-City

Elizabeth City joined us to make the case for teacher teams and introduce intentional talk around the instructional core.  How might be build collective efficacy?

03-HGSETeaming-BolesTroen

Boyles and Troen then facilitated a session to help teams set norms and change the sense of what is possible.  The instruction core was again emphasized as well as task focus.

04-HGSETeaming-Wilson

Daniel Wilson started our second day with a session on cultivating collaboration.  How might we have communication, coordination, cooperation, and collaboration.  His definition of collaboration, coming together to create something new, inspired our team to co-labor and set new goals?

05-HGSETeaming-Higgins

Monica Higgins used the Mount Everest case study as a catalyst for discussion around leadership, responsibility trust, and teaming.

Changing your mind can be a show of strength.

06-HGSETeaming-SchlerPinnolis

Aviya Schler and Jacob Pinnolis discussed implementing faculty rounds at their school.  How might we build a culture of inquiry where we are curious about each other’s practice? What if we share our questions and help each other “see” what happens during class?

07-HGSETeaming-Doyle

Jodi Doyle and her team creating and sustaining collaborative, committed teaching teams.  How might we grow together to serve all learners in our care? What if we structure team meetings to embrace the power of positivity, have serious task focus around students learning, and be product oriented?

08-HGSETeaming-Blythe

Tina Blythe began our last day with using protocols to learn from student and teacher work.  How might we support deep learning and thinking?

Many eyes looking helps us learn and notice more.

How will we team? norm? collaborate? support? become more curious?

NCSM 2016: Sketch notes for learning

NCSM 2016 National Conference – BUILDING BRIDGES BETWEEN LEADERSHIP AND LEARNING MATHEMATICS:  Leveraging Education Innovation and Research to Inspire and Engage

Below are my notes from each session that I attended and a few of the lasting takeaways.

Day One


Keith Devlin‘s keynote was around gaming for learning. He highlighted the difference in doing math and learning math.  I continue to ponder worthy work to unlock potential.  How often do we expect learners to be able to write as soon as they learn? If we connect this to music, reading, and writing, we know that symbolic representations comes after thinking and understanding.  Hmm…Apr_11_NCSM-Devlin

The Illustrative Mathematics team challenged us to learn together: learn more about our students, learn more about our content, learn more about essentials for our grade and the grades around us.  How might we learn a lot together?

Conference Sketch Note - 25

Graham Fletcher teamed with Arjan Khalsa. While the title was Digital Tools and Three-Act Tasks: Marriage Made in the Cloud, the elegant pedagogy and intentional teacher moves modeled to connect 3-act tasks to Smith/Stein’s 5 Practices was masterful.
Conference Sketch Note - 26

Jennifer Wilson‘s #SlowMath movement calls for all to S..L..O..W d..o..w..n and savor the mathematics. Notice and note what changes and what stays the same; look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning; deepen understanding through and around productive struggle. Time is a variable; learning is the constant.  Embrace flexibility and design for learning.

Conference Sketch Note - 27

Bill McCallum challenges us to mix memory AND understanding.  He used John Masefield’s Sea Fever to highlight the need for both. Memorization is temporary; learners must make sense and understand to transfer to long-term memory.  How might we connect imagery and poetry of words to our discipline? What if we teach multiple representations as “same story, different verse”?

Conference Sketch Note - 28

Uri Treisman connects Carol Dweck’s mindsets work to nurturing students’ mathematical competence.  Learners persist more often when they have a positive view of their struggle. How might we bright spot learners’ work and help them deepen their sense of belonging in our classrooms and as mathematicians?

Conference Sketch Note - 29

Day Two


Jennifer Wilson shared James Popham’s stages of formative assessment in a school community. How might we learn and plan together? What if our team meetings focus on the instructional core, the relationships between learners, teachers, and the content?

Conference Sketch Note - 30

Michelle Rinehart asks about our intentional leadership moves.  How are we serving our learners and our colleagues as a growth advocate? Do we bright spot the work of others as we learn from them? What if we team together to target struggle, to promote productive struggle, and to persevere? Do we reflect on our leadership moves?

Conference Sketch Note - 31

Karim Ani asked how often we offered tasks that facilitate learning where math is used to understand the world.  How might we reflect on how often we use the world to learn about math and how often we use math to understand the world in which we live? Offer learners relevance.

Conference Sketch Note - 32

Day Three


Zac Champagne started off the final day of #NCSM16 with 10 lessons for teacher-learners informed from practice through research. How might we listen to learn what our learners already know? What if we blur assessment and instruction together to learn more about our learners and what they already know?

Conference Sketch Note - 33

Eli Luberoff and Kim Sadler created social chatter that matters using Desmos activities that offered learners the opportunities to ask and answer questions in pairs.  How might we leverage both synchronous and asynchronous communication to give learners voice and “hear” them?

Conference Sketch Note - 34

Fred Dillon and Melissa Boston facilitated a task to highlight NCTM’s Principles to Actions ToolKit to promote productive struggle.  This connecting, for me, to the instructional core.  How might we design intentional learning episodes that connect content, process and teacher moves? How might we persevere to promote productive struggle? We take away productive struggle opportunities for learners when we shorten our wait time and tell.

Conference Sketch Note - 35

#ShowYourWork: words, pictures, numbers

In her Colorful Learning post, Learning: Do our students know we care about that?, Kato shared the following learning progression for showing your work.

What if we guide our learners to

I can describe or illustrate ow I arrived at a solution so that the reader understands without talking to me?

Isn’t this really about making thinking visible and clear communication?  Anyone who has taught learners who take an AP exam can attest to the importance of organized, clear pathways of thinking. It is not about watching the teacher show work, it is about practicing, getting feedback, and revising.

Compare the following:

What if a learner submits the following work?

Screen Shot 2015-11-09 at 8.43.46 AM

Can the reader understand how the writer arrived at this solution without asking any questions?

What if the learner shared more thinking? Would it be clearer to the reader? What do you think?

IMG_1330

How often do we tell learners that they need to show their work? What if they need to show more work? What if they don’t know how?

How might we communicate and collaborate creatively to show and tell how to level up in showing work and making thinking visible?

How might we grow in the areas of comprehension, accuracy, flexibility, and deeper understanding if we learn to communicate clearly using words, pictures, and numbers?

Flexibility and sense-making to build confidence and long-term memory

In his TEDxSonomaCounty talk, The Myth of Average, Todd Rose (@ltoddrose) challenges us to consider and act to leverage simple solutions that will improve the performance of our learners and dramatically expand our talent pool.  (If you’ve not seen his talk, it is worth stopping to  watch the 18.5 minute message before reading on.)

There are far too many students who feel like they are no good at math because they aren’t quick to get right answers. (Humphreys & Parker, 9 pag.)

Efficiency must not trump understanding.  How often do we remember the foundation once we’ve mastered “the short cut?” Were we ever taught the foundation – the why – or were we only taught to memorize procedures that got to an answer quickly?

Of course, students must be able to compute flexibly, efficiently, and accurately. But they also need to explain their reasoning and determine if the ideas they’re using and the results they’re getting make sense. (Humphreys & Parker, 8 pag.)

How might we design and implement practices that help our young learners make sense of what they are learning?  In Brain-Friendly Assessments: What They Are and How to Use Them, David Sousa explains how necessary sense-making and meaning are to transfer information from working memory into long-term memory.

The brain is more likely to store information if it makes sense and has meaning. (Sousa, 28 pag.)

Dr. Sousa continues:

We should not be measuring just content acquisition. Rather, we should be discovering the ways students can process and manipulate their knowledge and skills to deal with new problems and issues associated with what they have learned.  (Sousa, 28 pag.)

The first chapter of Making Number Talks Matter highlights the importance of number talks.  We want our young learners to develop flexibility and confidence working with numbers.

Listen to Ruth Parker and Cathy Humphreys discuss Number talks:

From Jo Boaler’s How to Learn Math: for Students:

…we know that what separates high achievers from low achievers is not that high achievers know more math, it is that they interact with numbers flexibly and low achievers don’t.

What if we take action on behalf of our young learners?  What if we offer multiple pathways for success?

How might we dramatically expand our talent pool?


I am grateful to Kristin Gray (@MathMinds) and Crystal Morey (@themathdancer) for their leadership and facilitation as a dozen #TrinityLearns faculty participate in an online book club (#mNTmTch) for Making Number Talks Matter: Developing Mathematical Practices and Deepening Understanding Grades 4-10 along with over 600 educators across the globe.


Humphreys, Cathy, and Ruth E. Parker. Making Number Talks Matter: Developing Mathematical Practices and Deepening Understanding, Grades 4-10. Portland, ME: Steinhouse Publishers, 2015. Print.

Sousa, David A. Brain-Friendly Assessments: What They Are and How to Use Them. West Palm Beach, FL: Learning Sciences, 2014. Print.

Grading and feedback: what we do matters

Thinking about feedback and marking papers… How should we mark our learners’ work? Do we offer the opportunity to learn through mistakes and corrections?

And, I wonder if we are unintentionally incorrectly using ratios and proportional reasoning when we then put a score on the paper.

Consider the following student’s work from a recent assessment.

math2

Do you see the error?  Is it a big error? Does this young learner understand the task and how to solve it? What feedback should this learner receive?

This child was told that there was a multiplication error in the work. Do you agree?  Is it a matter of close reading on the teacher’s part? What feedback do we hope for to accompany the arrows shown below?

math1

What if we exercise the art of questioning in our feedback? Compare What if you think about what happened here? to You have a multiplication error here. Which feedback will cause more action?

The score for this question was marked as 3.5/4.  Losing 1/2 point for this error seems reasonable.  Would losing 12.5 points also seem reasonable?

If we scale this out of 100 rather than 4,  that 1/2 point become 12.5 points.  Is that what we intend to do, and is it the message that we want to send?

Now, as it happened, this was a 4 question assessment.  This young learner’s questions were marked 4/4, 4/4, 3/4, and 3.5/4.  In question 4, there was the addition error described above. In question 3, the learner multiplied in the first step when division should have been used.  All of these points seem reasonable as long as the items each garner 4 points.  However, proportionally scaled up to 100 points, the 1-point error is now a 25 point error.

How might we rethink grading and scaling? What does research tell us about translating scores between scales?

If learning is our focus and results guide our decisions, what steps do we take now?

And, how are these results guiding the decisions of our young learners?

Listeners: evaluative, interpretive, generative

What type of listener are am I right now? Do I know what modes of listening I use? How might I improve as a listener? What if I actively choose to practice?

Listening informs questioning. Paul Bennett says that one of the keys to being a good questioner is to stop reflexively asking so many thoughtless questions and pay attention— eventually, a truly interesting question may come to mind. (Berger, 98 pag.)

I’ve been studying a paper Gail Burrill (@GailBurrill) shared with us a couple of weekends ago.  The paper, Mathematicians’ Mathematical Thinking for Teaching: Responding to Students’ Conjectures by Estrella Johnson, Sean Larsen, Faith Rutherford of Portland State University, discusses three types of listening: evaluative, interpretive, and generative.

The term evaluative listening is characterized by Davis (1997) as one that “is used to suggest that the primary reason for listening in such mathematical classrooms tends to be rather limited and limiting” (p. 359). When a teacher engages in evaluative listening the goal of the listening is to compare student responses to the “correct” answer that the teacher already has in mind. Furthermore, in this case, the student responses are largely ignored and have “virtually no effect on the pre-specified trajectory of the lesson” (p. 360).

When a teacher engages in interpretive listening, the teacher is no longer “trying simply to assess the correctness of student responses” instead they are “now interested in ‘making sense of the sense they are making’” (Davis, 1997, p. 365). However, while the teacher is now actively trying to understand student contribution, the teacher is unlikely to change the lesson in response.

Finally, generative listening can “generate or transform one’s own mathematical understanding and it can generate a new space of instructional activities” (Yackel et al., 2003, p. 117) and is “intended to reflect the negotiated and participatory nature of listening to students mathematics” (p. 117). So, when a teacher is generatively listening to their students, the student contributions guide the direction of the lesson. Rasmussen’s notion of generative listening draws on Davis’ (1997) description of hermeneutic listening, which is consistent with instruction that is “more a matter of flexible response to ever-changing circumstances than of unyielding progress towards imposed goals” (p. 369).

If you’d like to read about these three types of listening the authors continue their paper with a case study.

Evaluative listeners seek correct answers, and all answers are compared to the one deemed correct from a single point of view.

Interpretive listeners seek sense making.  How are learners processing to produce solutions to tasks? What does the explanation show us about understanding?

Generative listeners seek next steps and questions themselves. In light of what was just heard, what should we do next? And, then they act.

For assessment to function formatively, the results have to be used to adjust teaching and learning; thus a significant aspect of any program will be the ways in which teachers make these adjustments. (William and Black, n. pag)

“Great teachers focus on what the student is saying or doing,” he says, “and are able, by being so focused and by their deep knowledge of the subject matter, to see and recognize the inarticulate stumbling, fumbling effort of the student who’s reaching toward mastery, and then connect to them with a targeted message.” (Coyle, 177 pag.)

What if we empower and embolden learners to ask the questions they need to ask by improving the way we listen and question?

Unless you ask questions, nobody knows what you are thinking or what you want to know.” (Rothstein and Santana, 135 pag.)

How might we practice generative listening to level up in the art of questioning? What is we listen to inform our questioning?

How might we collaborate to learn and grow as listeners and questioners?


Berger, Warren (2014-03-04). A More Beautiful Question: The Power of Inquiry to Spark Breakthrough Ideas . BLOOMSBURY PUBLISHING. Kindle Edition.

Coyle, Daniel (2009-04-16). The Talent Code: Greatness Isn’t Born. It’s Grown. Here’s How. Random House, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

Davis, B. (1997). Listening for difference: An evolving conception of mathematics teaching. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. 28(3). 355–376.

Johnson, E., Larsen, S., Rutherford (2010). Mathematicians’ Mathematicians’ Mathematical Thinking for Teaching: Responding to Students’ Conjectures. Thirteenth Special Interest Group of the Mathematical Association of America on Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education Conference on Research in 
Undergraduate Mathematics Education. Raleigh, NC. Retrieved from http://sigmaa.maa.org/rume/crume2010/Archive/JohnsonEtAl.pdf on September 12, 2015.

Rothstein, Dan, and Luz Santana. Make Just One Change: Teach Students to Ask Their Own Questions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education, 2011. Print.

Wiliam, Dylan, and Paul Black. “Inside the Black Box: Raising Standards Through Classroom Assessment.” The College Cost Disease (2011): n. pag. WEA Education Blog. Web. 13 Sept. 2015.

Yackel, E., Stephan, M., Rasmussen, C., Underwood, D. (2003). Didactising: Continuing the work of Leen Streefland. Educational Studies in Mathematics. 54. 101–126.