Tackling Group Work - Part 2

Types of Task

I believe that not all activities are suited to the type of group work that I described in my previous entry on group work.  For example, doing problems to practice a particular procedure does not lend itself to collaborative group work. While students benefit from asking each other for help, this type of discussion is usually asymmetric—a student who understands the procedure is helping a student who does not yet understand a procedure. The group work that I particularly want to foster in my classroom is more symmetric and involves all students sharing possible ideas and then together trying at least one of them out.

In Strength in Numbers (in case you can’t tell, I am pretty obsessed with this book), Horn suggests the following about “groupworthy tasks”

• task focuses on central mathematical concepts or ideas
• task require some interpretation
• task provides multiple ways of being competent in problem solving
• task is done in a group, which bolsters students’ interdependence
• task is designed in a way that provides individual and group accountability
• during collaborative learning time, only group questions
• have clear evaluation criteria

These criteria overlap with the QUASAR description of “doing mathematics.” These tasks...

• require complex and non-algorithmic thinking
• explore the nature of math concepts, processes, and/or relationships
• require analysis of constraints and connections
• may involve some level anxiety due to unpredictability

I would like to commit to doing this type of task at least once a week. Some weeks this task will be intimately related to the content we are focusing on. Some weeks it will not be related at all, but will build other mathematical problem-solving skills (ex: diagramming, working backwards, developing a strategy when there are no hints for what the strategy should be).

Problem-Solving Days: Groupworthy Tasks

In general, I imagine that we will usually do some sort of problem launch for the whole class.  Students would then have a couple of minutes of PTT to start the problem on their own. This should not be enough time for any student to solve the problem or feel like they’ve solved the problem. Instead, it would be enough time to start thinking about a strategy for solving the problem. Once PTT is up, then the group work begins.

Here’s how I envision students starting a problem together after private think time:

• each person explains their ideas(s) so far
• each person makes sense of partner’s idea: what did they do and why did they do it
• partners compare their ideas: similarities and differences      
• partners evaluate their own and each other’s ideas
• partners choose some next steps to try together

As they continue to work together, I imagine that there is a lot of exploratory talk. Here is a description that I think is important, again from The Value of Exploratory Talk.

“In exploratory talk, listeners gain the benefit of hearing a speaker’s tentative thoughts. Feedback from listeners may require a speaker to elaborate their point of view, to perhaps cast it in a clearer, more persuasive form—or even to change their mind. Talk of an exploratory kind is thus not only useful for an individual to sort out their thoughts, it can also help two or more people to solve problems because they are sharing ideas (some of which may only be partly developed) in a genuinely collaborative interaction.” (66)

Students may find that they would again take PTT at points during the work time. But they would continue to check back in with each other and follow the steps from above.

Supporting Students in Successful Groupwork

In looking and thinking about CI group work roles (see Strength in Numbers and here), two things were important to me. First that everyone pulls their weight, and second that responsibilities were not artificially divided when shared accountability would be more appropriate. Therefore, pulling from the different CI roles, I came up with the following for partners:

Partner Work Norms and Responsibilities

Facilitator: - read instructions aloud - get the work off to a fast start - watch progress and time	Resource Manager: - call the teacher over if there is a question - get and return needed materials
Both students will enforce partner work norms: - Everyone gets a turn to talk and everyone listens - Explain your reasons so that everyone understands - Respectfully challenge and build on each other’s ideas - Make decisions together after everyone has shared - Everyone contributes to documenting and/or presenting

I also wanted to offer students some guidance in how to talk together once they have taken some PTT.

Partner Work Protocol

Steps	Sentence Stems
1. Each person explains their idea(s) so far	“What were you thinking?” “What did you do?” “I started by…” “I tried… because…”
2. Each person makes sense of partner’s idea: what did they do and why did they do it	“Can you explain that to me in another way?” “What did you mean when you said…?”  “Why did you…?”  “How do you know…?” “I don’t understand…” “I have a question about…”
3. Partners compare their ideas: similarities and differences	“My strategy is like yours because…” “This part is different because…” “Our ideas connect if…”
4. Partners evaluate their own and each other’s ideas	“I agree/disagree with… because…” “This makes sense/does not make sense because…” “I got a different answer because…”
5. Partners choose some next steps to try together	“What are you thinking now?” “I think…. is a good start because…” “I think we should try… together because…”

I will also have various class structures/teaching moves to support students in working collaboratively while having individual accountability.

Most of these ideas are from Strength in Numbers. Here are explanations of ones that I had not heard of before:

Task card: Students share the problem/directions would also have evaluation criteria, students do not write on it or turn it in

Participation quizzes: Teacher calls attention to particular groupwork norm(s) and then publically tracks all groups on the norm.

Check points: Before the group can continue, someone randomly selected by teacher answers a few key questions.

Group quiz: Group has 4 questions to answer and everyone records on their own paper. Teacher chooses one randomly to grade and all group members earn that grade.

Shuffle quizzes: Teacher takes every group member’s paper, shuffles, and then chooses one. That person has to explain for the group.

Other Days: Non-groupworthy Tasks

When we’re not doing “groupworthy tasks,” my students will still sit in partners. They will be allowed/encouraged to work with each other, but it will be less structured than groupworthy task days. The following will always be my expectations and will be taped to all sets of desks.

Table Work Norms Help! I don’t know what to do!
Before asking a teacher… - look back at your notes (ex: first page of packet(s), similar problems, reference sheets) - ask someone at  your table - try something even if you’re not sure it will work	When you ask a teacher… - all people at your table must be able to say the question - you should have evidence of something you’ve tried - all people at the table must be involved in conversation with the teacher
Norms: - you have the right to ask anybody at your table for help - you have a duty to give help to anybody who asks - helping is not the same as telling - stay focused on your table’s work

 The most important thing to me in the above is that there is a protocol for asking me questions that makes the students think and use each other as resources first. The norms that make this possible are that everyone has the right to ask for help and a duty to give help when asked.

Math is Personal - Week 1 Reflection

“The truth is this: You’re not born being a math smarty pants—it is something you learn. The real trick to being a math smarty pants is believing that math makes sense, or can make sense if you put your mind to it.” ---Marilyn Burns Math for Smarty Pants pg. 9

This past year, I was lucky enough to start working on a team that was explicitly teaching and reinforcing growth mindset. In short, this is the idea that you aren’t born smart, but instead, effective effort makes you smarter.  I think that this is such an important idea for students to embrace, particularly with mathematics, where so many people seem to think they are a “math person” or they aren’t. (Jo Boaler offers two interesting online courses—one for students and one for teachers that tackle this idea as well.) In reading the introduction to Math for Smarty Pants for my the Math is Personal smOOC, I found that growth mindset was really the foundation on which the rest of Marilyn Burns’ conceit was built.

Burns explains to her reader that there are different ways of being smart in math: with numbers, with shapes, with visualization, with strategy games, with puzzles, etc. This reminded me of the mathematical competencies that Ilana Horn presented in Strength in Numbers: quick and accurate calculation, posing interesting questions, making astute connections, representing ideas clearly, developing logical explanations, working systematically, and extending ideas (30).

This idea of different ways of being smart or different types of competencies in the math classroom is so important to me not only because I believe it is true, but because so many of my students do not. As Burns says, “some people think that being good in math is just getting the right answers to problems.” People think this because that is what many math classes (including mine) reinforce. As I continue this class, I want to think about how the choices I make about the structures in my own classroom reinforce the value of quickly getting the right answer. I want to think about how I can change the structure, change the way I speak, change the way I present problems to get at the heart of mathematics. Because the wide array of mathematical competencies gives more students an entry point to get smarter at math. It's also why math is interesting, beautiful, and ultimately a subject that I love.

Automathography

I am participating in Justin Lanier's smOOC and our first assignment is to write up some of our "automathography," which is an account of our mathematical experiences. Here is what I have come up with:

Math has always been my favorite subject. I realize that this is not exactly true, as I was a music major and I preferred my music classes to my math classes in college. But being a “math person” has been my identity for as long as I can remember. In elementary, middle, and high school, I excelled in mathematics. I loved the adrenaline rushes of perfectly completing timed tests on number facts, and understood procedures from examples and could effortlessly apply them. I liked that most problems had one right answer and it was one that I could check. I was drawn to the order of pure mathematics and uninterested in contrived real-world applications. My parents gave me math-related books and math puzzles. I tutored in math classes during my study halls in high school. I had math teachers who I idolized and wanted to be. While I excelled in all classes, math was my favorite.

So I went into college thinking that maybe I would want to be a math major. My first semester, I took linear algebra. Linear algebra was fine. It didn’t rock my world and I certainly didn’t rock its world. My favorite class that semester was my Chinese class because it was immensely challenging and required daily, sustained effort. My linear algebra class was not similarly consuming. I went on to take multivariable calculus and differential equations and felt similarly towards them. I found the math moderately interesting and doable, but nothing more. Instead, I was most engaged in classes that pushed me to my limits in terms of thinking. I did passably well in math classes, but I knew I could absolutely do better if I devoted more time. But I just found other classes more interesting. I ended up deciding to minor in math and major in music because I loved my music classes.

For me, the most interesting part of my math classes was the interaction that I had with other students when doing problem sets. I made sure that each semester I found at least one other person to work with, even when I was in a class when I didn’t know anybody else. While I might have been able to do the problem sets alone, I certainly didn’t want to. I knew that I was more efficient, more interested, and more motivated, when working collaboratively. I think this is part of the reason that I feel so strongly about incorporating group work in my class.

The exception to my luke-warm feelings about math was the last math class that I took in college—graph theory. I loved graph theory and spent time explaining what it was and how awesome it was to all of my friends. I was so into the class that I wanted my friends to find me a Bridges of Konigsburg mug like the one my professor had (sadly he got it at a math conference and they are not widely available). I’m not exactly sure why the class was so amazing for me.

Basically, class time was spent with our extremely engaging professor explaining definitions and concepts to us (the ones that corresponded to the section in the textbook we were working on). Then we had two problem sets a week, which mostly consisted of proving or disproving all sorts of graph-theory related statements. This was the first class that I took that required proofs and I was initially terrified. I didn’t know how to write a proof and only had vague memories of the nightmare that was the two-column proofs in my 9^th-grade geometry class. But I quickly learned that I didn’t have to write anything particularly formally—just clearly. I took the class with one of my best friends and we would just sit and work through proofs. We wrote them up separately (as mandated by our professor), but we thought through every single one of them together. About half the time I had the strike of inspiration that helped us figure out the proof and about half of the time he did. And it was the talking with each other that helped us get there. It was the perfect math-working relationship.

So why did I like this class? At the time, I remember saying that I liked it because the thinking was complex, but we could represent basically everything with pictures. Even when trying to prove theorems involving infinite numbers or graphs that can’t be represented two-dimensionally, it was always possible to draw a smaller problem. Looking back on the class, I think it was also because writing proofs pushed me to think in a way that the applying procedures of my previous math classes had not. Perhaps I should have taken more upper-level math classes like graph theory.

There’s one particular statement that my graph theory professor made, which has stuck with me ever since.  Professor Schmitt claimed that you became a mathematician when you made your first original proof. He talked about how for most math students, it’s not until grad school (or even after?) that people do this. I was enamored with the idea and at the time considered myself to absolutely not be a mathematician. Jumping forward a little bit, when I brought this up with another student in my grad program (who had left a math PhD program), she basically just rolled her eyes and told me that was nonsense from elitists. And while it is semantics, of a sort, this is a question that still plagues me. On one hand, the elitism of my professor’s definition of mathematician has some pull for me. There is something exciting and distinguishing about proving something no one has ever proved before. On the other hand, I believe that all people authentically engage in mathematics. Not just ones who do so in a formalized or academic way. And I don’t think there should be a great divide between the two. I want my students to realize that they are legitimately doing math. It’s not just something that you spend 17+ years practicing before you get the chance to actually do.

Then in my teacher-training program, my math methods class challenged all of my pre-conceived ideas about mathematics, and made me love math in a way that I never had felt before. I think this transformation was primarily based on two inter-related concepts. First, we did a lot of high cognitive demand problems. As defined by QUASAR, “doing mathematics” tasks require complex and non-algorithmic thinking, explore the nature of math concepts/processes/relationships, require analysis of constraints and connections, and may involve some level of anxiety due to unpredictability. Second, one of my professors repeatedly told us, “I don’t care about the solution to the problem. You are never going to see this problem again.” Instead, she, and by extension we, only cared about how we thought about the problems. We practiced notating our thinking rather than notating a finished product. We used the lenses of the math practices—particularly 2, 7, and 8, to think about more broadly applicable math concepts such as structure and patterns. I absolutely thrived on this type of process. I got to think and experiment and represent and apply my mathematical brain to all sorts of challenges. As student teachers, we tried to bring type of mathematics into our classrooms. I wanted students to be doing the type of math that was so fun for me.

Fast-forward one year, and I have just now completed my first year of teaching.  I am struggling with the balance of doing math through the lens that I was taught in grad school with a more traditional method of skills building. I’ve been told that it’s possible to teach and build skills exclusively through problem-solving, but I don’t know how and I haven’t seen anyone do it. My math content methods professors always said that students should have a “steady diet” of high cognitive demand tasks, but I also found that maddeningly vague. I think, at this point, that we do need to spend some days/time building skills through more traditional practice (though hopefully in ways that aren’t completely boring). I do have to teach my kids some procedures and have them develop fluency with those procedures. But the point of that isn’t just to know procedures. I spend time on procedures so students develop comfort and flexibility that enables them to do exciting thinking. But this is a dangerous way to think because often, the fluency threshold is much lower than I think it is to engage in high-level thinking. “Math skills” shouldn’t be a prerequisite for interesting, exciting problem-solving and thinking. But certain skills are prerequisite or at least requisite for certain problems. So where is the balance?

I’m going to end my authomathography, at least for now, by talking about my most recent experience of doing mathematics. Last week, I went to a week-long math teachers’ circle retreat. With 35 other middle school math teachers, we devoted 95% of our time to doing math and about 5% of our time to thinking about pedagogy. I had so much fun working on “good problems.” Many of these problems involved proof, particularly after noticing a pattern (see this blog post). Many of these problems involved trying out “what ifs” and hitting dead ends. Many of the problems involved multiple solution strategies or even solutions. And they all involved talking to each other—justifying solutions, comparing answers, and explaining our thinking in ways that helped both our partners and ourselves. I’m really excited about continuing to meet in this circle because I think it’s important that I continue to do math while teaching math. It keeps my mathematical thinking skills sharp and reminds me of the type of math experiences that I need to make sure that my students get.

Math Teachers' Circle: Mathematical Empiricism & Its Role in Education

I am spending the week at a math teachers' circle retreat and loving every moment of it. It's great to talk with other middle school math teachers about their experiences, resources, and what they are passionate about. I also love having the opportunity to spend a significant number of hours a day doing math with other people. Here's what I am still thinking about from Glenn Stevens' session: Mathematical Empiricism & Its Role in Education.

 

Knowing --> Explaining

The central idea of this session was that mathematics is first empirical and then deductive. That is, we come to realize that something is true based on experimentation and observation. It is only after we've experienced this truth that we are driven to prove or explain it. For example, after calcualating the squares of the sides of x number of right triangles, you might know with all your heart that a^2+b^2=c^2. But you would still wonder why. This curiosity would then drive you to prove the pattern. However, we often teach in the exact opposite way. First a teacher explains an idea and then students use or apply it. In doing this, students don't get to experience the curiosity that comes with the expectation of structure and the drive to explain why it works.

I find this to be an extremely convincing framework for the doing of mathematics. In the problems we've worked on this week, I have found that I am reasonably convinced of a conjecture (based on a combination of experimentation and intuition) and then want to figure out why and prove beyond a doubt that it is true. In thinking about the school year, I want to make sure that my students get the opportunity to have this type of experience in doing mathematics.

One of the other teachers posed follow-up question: If students can thoroughly observe and describe a pattern, do they then need to be able to explain why it happens? I think this is a tough question because for me, the answer is "it depends." It depends on the topic and the student's own need to know why. Because it is at the heart of mathematics, I would like to cultivate in all of my students this compulsion to explain. However, sometimes I may need students to trust their own powers of observation without explanation of why a phenomenon exists. If I go this route, I need to have a good reason for why, as a class, we might not pursue an explanation.

In talking about doing mathematics, Professor Stevens also shared the following ideas:
- math is natural
- math exists independent of us
- experience precedes formality
- math is the science of structure
- math is the art of figuring things out

When asked about structure, Professor Stevens said "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it." This pushed me to think about how I define structure, particularly in the context of Math Practice 7: Look for and Make Use of Structure. I think that structure is any type of organizing principle. And that it is these organizing principles that allow us to be convinced of the truth of a conjecture before the proof, but also to create the proof itself.

Problems

Finally, two awesome problems that I spent a lot of time thinking about.

1. In how many ways can one spell out "ABRACADABRA" by traversing the following diamond, always going from one letter to an adjacent one? (from Polya)

2. With Pascal's triangle, how many odd numbers are in the 100th row?

Tackling Group Work - Part 1

Another thing that I want to incorporate into my classroom this year is more structured partner (and eventually 3- or 4-person group) work. This is because I strongly believe that when people talk about their ideas, they push each other and themselves to clarify, develop, question, integrate, and add to ideas in ways that no one person could do alone. Collaboration also reinforces the idea that I, as the teacher, am not the only source of knowledge in the room, instead it builds a belief in classmates and in self.

In the past, I have simply told students that they are welcome to work with a partner during most work time in class. As a result, some students would seek out other students for help when they got stuck and others would work independently. When we were working on a longer problem for the whole period, I would often be more direct in my instructions. I would have students take a couple minutes of PTT and then ask students to share with a partner what they had done so far. Students would then write brief notes on the similarities and differences in each other's work. After that, I would instruct them to work together to solve the problem. This was slightly more successful, but often ended up with one student doing the majority of the thinking and the other student copying down their partner's work.

To support my students to fully take advantage of everything that partner/group work has to offer, I've decided to do two things: structure partner/group work and explicitly teach it. To help me with this goal, I did some reading about exploratory talk, complex instruction, and accountable talk.

Before I get into the specifics of what group work will look like and how I will teach and support it, it was important to me to figure out what I valued and wanted to promote in group work. Maybe I will primarily re-inforce these values implicitly, maybe I will teach them explicitly, and/or maybe I will guide my students in creating their own norms around these values (see here or here or here or here for examples of what this might look like). To help me figure out what these values were, though, I pulled group work norms/ground rules from four sources, and categorized them.

Values of Group Work	Strength in Numbers (51)	Shell Centre PD Module	The Value of Exploratory Talk (Chapt. 4, pg. 68)	Thinking Together (University of Cambridge)
Participation	- everyone gets a turn	1) Give everyone in your group a chance to speak	- everyone participates	3 We will ask everyone to say what they think. 2 We will share what we know with each other. 6 We will pay attention and try to think of good ideas
Understanding	- give reasons for ideas	4) Try to understand what is said 6) Demand good explanations	- ideas are elaborated when necessary, so that everyone understands what is meant	5 We will give reasons for what we say.
Listening	- listen to different ideas	2) Listen to what people say 3) Check that everyone else listens		4 Everyone will listen carefully to others and consider what we hear.
Respect		8) Treat all opinions with respect	- tentative ideas are treated with respect
Interact with Ideas		5) Build on what others have said 7) Challenge what is said	- partners engage critically but constructively with each other’s ideas - ideas offered for joint consideration may be challenged - challenges are justified and alternative ideas or understandings are offered
Joint Responsibility		9) Share responsibility 10) Reach agreement	- opinions are sought and considered before decisions are jointly made - knowledge is made publicly accountable (and so reasoning is visible in the talk)	1 We will talk together to think about what to do.  7 We will decide what to do only when everyone has said all they want. 8 We will try to agree about what we think

Synthesizing the table above, I came up with the following values for myself as I move forward in thinking about group work:

• Everyone gets a turn to share their ideas and everyone listens
• Explain reasons or ask for explanation to build group understanding
• Respectfully challenge and build on each other’s ideas
• Make decisions together after everyone has shared

It's also extremely important for students to feel comfortable sharing half-formed ideas. This is something that I am hoping to normalize and value in my class overall, but I may emphasize this in group work.

Finally, the following norms for group work are also presented in Strength in Numbers (48). These were separated from their norms for group discussion, which are in the table above. I definitely plan to implement these guidelines for the mechanics of group work in my class.

• stay focused on your group’s work--no talking outside your group
• you have the right to ask for help
• you have the responsibility to give help to anyone who asks
• helping is not the same thing as telling

Recap #msMathChat 7/28/14

I attended my first #msmathchat today, though without a twitter handle, I was just "listening." It was a flood of ideas and resources, and the hour flew by! Today's focus was "getting our students to talk and justify their thoughts."

Here were the highlights for me:

@cmmteach described how she does a post-it debate

"Pose a question, ask for answers. All answers go on board. Students get post-it. Explain why they choose the answer they did. I collect and put into columns under answers while getting an idea of who said what. Then someone from each group has to try to convince others to switch answer to theirs. Kids can come change post it whenever. Then discuss what was it that made them change their mind. Then someone who changed explains concept again to those still need convincing."

I love this idea. Students persuading each other to change their minds (or not) is at the heart of MP3. And then the actual getting up and moving of the post-it provides a concrete action to go with the discussion. Even though I will have students primarily working in pairs (at least at the beginning of the year), I could pair pairs so that students would have a slightly larger group to discuss with. 

@MathButler has students work in groups to do error analysis of diagrams, equation solution processes, etc. He also recommended @lisabej_manitou's Always, Sometimes, Never Activity
 These are two activities that I already do a version of. However, I have never done them in a partner or group setting, and I absolutely think that the format for each of these activity would spark discussion.

@Kidsmathtalk offered up some critical thinking posters with questions and sentence stems
@Jreulbach has "smart" questions at each table for students to ask each other 
At some point this summer, I do want to figure out what sentence frames I will teach my students to support both partner and full group talk. These are some good ones to start with.
 

@Sarah3martin offered up her conversation rubric and recommended Promoting Purposeful Discourse

4	3	2	1
- One person talks at a time - Everyone looking at the speaker - Everyone listening - Answering most questions - Telling why we agree or disagree  - Everyone shares ideas, thought, feelings	- One person talks at a time - Everyone looking at the speaker  - Everyone listening - Answering most questions - Telling why we agree or disagree - Everyone shares ideas, thought, feelings	- A few people listening - A few people looking at speaker - Few questions answered - Only some agrees or disagrees - A few people share	- Hardly anyone listening - Hardly anyone looking at speaker - Not everyone involved in talk - Questions left unanswered - Hardly any sharing Conversation stops

 As I am thinking about what I want group work to look like in my own classroom, this rubric also seems like a good place to start .

Incorporating Feedback – Part 2

So I know that I want to give meaningful feedback to my students and then have them revise their work based on the feedback (See Part 1). But what specifically will this feedback look like?

Examples:

Wiggins offers this example, with feedback in italics and then advice at the end.

“I found it very difficult to grasp your main point. At the start, it seemed that you were arguing against mining coal, but in paragraph three you focused on the need to provide healthcare to all workers. Next time, Sam, you’ll want to make your thesis clearer to the reader”

The feedback is the essential part, with the advice sometimes unnecessary. It is also possible to offer praise at the beginning, as long as it is followed by feedback.

“Nice job on the project, Sheshona! You answered the essential question in great depth, with lots of illustrative examples, and your oral presentation was polished and informative.”

The examples above are student-focused rather than work-focused, but could easily revised. Ex: "This paper deeply answers the essential equation with lots of illustrative examples, and the presentation was polished and informative.”

In his Role Reversal, Mark Barnes offers a framework for narrative feedback that he calls SE2R: Summarize, Explain, Redirect, Resubmit. Here’s an example:

Summarize: You have completed a how-to article and posted it to KidBlog. You highlighted words in the post in order to demonstrate understanding of the “Words that Pop” presentation.

Explain: The highlighted words are not words that make the writing “pop.” Also, we reviewed how to use commas after introductory words and phrase, yet you haven’t placed any commas by these words. For example, first, next, and then are all introductory words that should be followed by a comma.

Redirect: You should review the presentation on strong adjectives and verbs, linked under RAY on www.barnesclass.com. Then return to your how-to-blog and improve it, based on the presentation. Also, add the commas where needed.

Resubmit: When this is done, please go to the “Write to Mr. Barnes” section on our classroom website and tell me that you have resubmitted this activity. (74)

Within this framework, Barnes still highlights the goals (a how-to article with “Words that Pop” and correct comma usage), gives a description of what was done that doesn’t meet the goals, and offers next steps to meet the goals. Although he is not explicit about what “words that pop” are in the feedback, he directs the student to where he/she can find that information.

My Plan

So, where does this leave me? I think that I want to start on the more scaffolded end of my continuum (though there are arguments that giving students more autonomy early on will increase investment). 

So my narrative feedback will always have:

- a description of work in relation to the goals/criteria

 It may have:

- evaluative language

- Advice/Redirection

- brief praise at the beginning or end

- A statement of support (See Result 5 from Jo Boaler)

To help me give feedback more consistently and quickly, I wrote up some sentence frames that I can use. I imagine that this list will change/grow once the school year starts and I am actually writing feedback.

Category	Sentence Frames
Description of Work in Relation to the Goal(s)/Criteria Avoid “you” language	- “In doing {description}, this work does/does not {goal}” - “In doing {description}, this work does/does not demonstrate understanding of {main concept}” - “There are minor errors in {goal}, such as…” -“The work {description}, therefore {analysis of goal}. - “This work contains/includes…” - “This work does not contain/include…”
Evaluative Language Avoid “you” language	- “strongly/starts to” - “accurately/inaccurately” - “successfully/unsuccessfully”
Advice/Redirection Try to avoid but, however, instead of	- “The next thing to do is…” - “Revisit…” - “Continue to…” - “Do/do more/don’t do/do less” - “Try” - “Check the work/calculations/steps for…” - “The next step is…” - “In your revision, remember to…”
Brief Praise at Beginning or End	- “Nice job with…” - “Good work!”
A Statement of Support	- “I am giving you this feedback because I believe in you” - “Keep up the good work” - “Keep up the strong effort”

Based on my feedback, students should be able to answer the following questions:

- what goal(s) does the feedback reference?

- Does the work meet the goal? (more complex than yes/no, usually)

- what part of the work helped you get to the goal?

- what part of the work did not help you get to the goal?

- what are your next steps? (If different than given by teacher, why?)

Therefore, I have created the following sheet for my students to do revisions to their Math Thinking Record entries. They will complete them and staple them into their journals over their original entry.

Revision Template

For quizzes/tests/projects, I will give abbreviated feedback through standards based grading and offer brief additional comments/advice by standard.

Last thoughts (for now!): While eventually I would like to have students give each other feedback, that will wait until the middle of the year (or, if I’m realistic, perhaps next year). I want us to get in the groove of getting feedback and using it to repeatedly reach our goals first. After that, I can start to think about how to teach students to give good feedback.