1

Mathematics: Candidates demonstrate and apply understandings of major mathematics

concepts, algorithms, procedures, applications and mathematical practices in varied contexts, and
connections within and among mathematical domains.

Teaching math in an upper elementary classroom today is both exciting and challenging.

Parents and substitutes often voice complaints about the “new math” methods which can cause

so much confusion if not approached with an open mind. I’m learning more about conceptual

math now teaching 4th grade than I ever did as an elementary pupil. I wish I had known these

methods earlier. In the past, we practiced standard algorithms day in and day out until they were

(hopefully) memorized and etched into our memories. Math was exact; there was only one

“right” way to solve a problem. Now, we teach math methods using conceptual models and

multiple strategies that can lead to mastery. In this framing statement, I’ll discuss how I teach

math responsively, using constructivist ideas like “turn and talk,” math-centered table

conversations, and a sprinkling of engaging outside-the-box math activities.

Our district uses Ready Math materials at the elementary level. Grade level standards are

introduced in weekly lessons, which are broken down into daily sessions that span the 90-minute

Math block during my daily schedule. The curriculum utilizes the top-down processing

approach, which aligns with a constructivist view of learning as a dynamic process to construct

meaning, rather than simply absorbing information (Slavin, 2019). For instance, each session

opener begins with a higher-level problem to discuss and solve. I will read the problem aloud a

handful of times, noting pertinent math vocabulary, and briefly mention ways to possibly solve

it. Students, in turn, will try their own method to solve and be prepared to share their thinking

with the group. Not only does each lesson opener utilize Piaget’s constructivist approach (as

cited by Slavin, 2019), using a top-down inquiry method, but also relies heavily on Vygotsky’s

social learning as we communicate and observe one another’s attitudes about learning (also cited
 2

by Slavin 2019). We begin our daily math instruction in conversation with one another, allowing

for interactions between struggling students and more capable peers. Vygotsky’s social learning

comes into play when a struggling student hears a capable peer explain their thinking, and they

can learn how successful problem-solvers lean into certain math methods.

Within my classroom, another way we rely on Vygotsky’s social learning theory is by

practicing a “turn and talk” every day during math instruction. This is another opportunity for

more capable peers to share their thinking out loud and hopefully support struggling learners.

Sometimes when you ask students to “turn and talk” about academics, you might overhear them

going off-topic or observe kids not participating. To rectify this, I follow Doug Lemov’s

approach outlined in Teach Like a Champion 2.0 (2015), by setting clear and succinct time limits

to maximize student engagement. With expectations and time limits clearly defined, I am able to

cue the end of the conversation at the peak of students’ interest and energy, rather than when it

has already petered out. Turn and talks are built into our Ready Math curriculum and provide

this enrichment opportunity within the daily lessons.

Similarly, authors Van de Walle et. al. emphasize a constructivist philosophy in math

education in Elementary and Middle School Mathematics: Teaching Developmentally (2019).

They encourage teachers to engage students in active learning, exploration, and problem-solving

during math instruction. The authors claim that teachers should already have the skills to align

with the developmental stages of their students, offering insights into the cognitive development

of students as it relates to teaching math. As an upper elementary teacher, sometimes I forget

that older students still need time to play with math manipulatives. It solidifies understanding

while offering enjoyment for learning activities. I was reminded of this while taking my math

methods course earlier in the MAT program. My veteran host teacher had already observed me
 3

teaching two very weighty lesson plans that I had designed for the course. He suggested that I

try using m&ms™ to teach my final lesson on converting fractions to decimals; it was the best

idea! You can take a look at the worksheet I created here. I knew little about teaching math to

5th graders at the time, which you can easily assess from the worksheet. I had given each kid a

Ziploc baggie of 20 m&ms™ and briefly taught them how to convert a fraction like 3/20 into

15/100. But right off the bat, I asked them to convert fractions to decimals. Nowadays, I spend

much more time teaching about converting fractions in the beginning. If was still in a 5 th grade

classroom, I would edit the worksheet to center on fractions, then another lesson would cover

converting those to decimals. Even though my content knowledge was limited when I first

taught this activity, the students learned and had fun with this hands-on exploration. And I

learned a valuable lesson about keeping lessons fun and engaging. Occasionally, I even think

it’s great to include candy as a manipulative in math instruction.

At the heart of this fun, engaging, and tasty math lesson was the response to the climate

of the classroom. The kids were getting bored. Tomlinson and McTighe (2006) stress the

importance of teaching responsively, noting that attending to students’ interests enlists their

motivation. We can get so focused on pacing to ensure we teach all standards within the school

year that we fail to ensure students are interested enough to pay attention. The host teacher

noticed that I was going that route and encouraged me to let loose and have fun with math. I am

so grateful for that and the memory it brings. I need that reminder often as an educator.

Responding to the needs and interests of my students remains at the forefront of my purpose, not

only in math instruction, but throughout the entire learning day.

 4

References

Lemov, D. (2015). Teach like a champion 2.0: 62 techniques that put students on the path to

college. Jossey-Bass.

Slavin, R. E. (2019). Educational psychology: Theory and practice (12th ed). Pearson.

Tomlinson, C.A. & McTighe, J. (2006). Integrating differentiated instruction:

Understanding by design. Association for Supervision and Curriculum

Development.

Van de Walle, J.A., Karp, K.S., & Bay-Williams, J.M. (2019). Elementary and middle

school mathematics teaching developmentally (10th ed). Pearson