Overview of Session 5

• Overview
• Analysis of Student Thinking and
Teacher Moves (Marie Hanson
Case)
• Facilitating: Dilemmas and
Challenges
• Laying the Foundation for
Multiplicative Thinking
• Wrap Up
1
 Examining Students’
Thinking
• What do the students
understand or
misunderstand?

• What is the evidence?

2
Marie’s Instructional Moves

• How do these moves maintain

the cognitive demand of the
tasks.
• What might motivate these
moves?
• How are these moves related to
the mathematical goals of the
lesson?

3
 The Task

• Solve 25 x 36 in more
than one way.
• Work independently.
• Resist the temptation to
use a procedure.

4
 What Does it Mean to “Do”
Mathematics?

• What does it feel like to do

this kind of work?

• What have you learned

about how students learn
mathematics?

5
 Reflect in Notebooks

• What stood out for you today?

• What did you think about today’s

lesson?

6

MATRIX 1: Examining Students’ Mathematical Understanding in the Marie Hanson Case
Questions
1. What inferences can you draw
about these students’ understanding
or misunderstanding? Cite
paragraphs from the case for each
inference.
2. What did Marie Hanson do to
assess student understanding or
misunderstanding? (Cite paragraphs
to support your conclusions)
3. Identify Marie’s instructional
decisions in this segment and:
a) indicate how these moves
either maintained or
undermined the cognitive
demand of the tasks
b) speculate on the rationale
Marie may have used to
inform her instructional
moves and its relationship
to the mathematical goal(s)
of the lesson?
Adapted from BIFOCL
7/12/07
Session 5 GVSU 07/29/08
April, Jerry, and Sharee [Paragraphs 12 - 17]
April
• Her strategies and contributions from classmates leads her to develop the unit rate of 2.6 jawbreakers to 1 Jolly Rancher. (paras 13-17)
Understands that you can have non-integer unit rates.
• Had trouble with smaller fractions and division with remainders
• Thought you have to have equal size pieces to be able to add fractions. (para 17)
Jerry
• Did not understand that you have to keep track of the whole in order to name fractional pieces. (para 15)
• understanding of unit rate as a comparison of how much of one quantity per 1 unit of the other but recognizes that it doesn’t make sense in this
context. (para 12)
• Came to the understanding that unit rates are possible. (para 12)
Sharee
• Understands that you have to keep track of the whole and the fractional piece depends on the size of the whole. (para 16)
• Did not correct Jerry (piece is 1/5), but instead asked the class to evaluate Jerry’s thinking. (para 15)
• Asked class to consider the effect numbers and how they are related have on a problem and on the strategies that can be used. (para 12) “What
makes this more difficult than the lollipop problem?” Does understanding of unit ratio extend beyond whole number relationships?
• Let the students do the explaining. When April got stuck she asked if someone could come up and help. (para 15)
• Asked the class if they had any questions when Jerry incorrectly name the fractional part 1/5. (para 16)
• Realized they didn’t quite understand, so she kept building and encouraging – help each other; build confidence in kids.
Did not take over. Valued the process, thinking skills, strategies, problem solving, not just the answers.
• Made connections to prior problems. She expected them to make tables, but they went to unit rates instead which she didn’t expect. (para 15)
• Asked students to solve the problem in a way that makes sense before introducing formal notation and symbolic solution methods. This requires
having an understanding of ratio and offers an opportunity to reason proportionally. (p. 5 or 6) Building on std’s knowledge and thinking.
• Developed the concept of ratio and equivalent ratios first. (Building on concepts and developing connections.) Building on std’s knowledge and
thinking and makes conceptual connections.
• Asked students how they could add more candy and keep the ration the same. (p. 9) Scaffolding
• Had Jerlyn and Kamiko explain their table to the class. (p. 10) Encourage communicating
• Asked why the Candy Jar problem was harder than the lollipop problem. (p. 12) Making conceptual connections-unit ratio when numbers are not
compatible.
• Built on prior conceptual understanding of meaning of ratio and equivalent ratios. (para)
• Start with wholes – moves to parts -> (para.14) Kids came to conclusion that they needed parts.
• Students didn’t have questions, so she didn’t drop it but asked more to check for understanding.
• Established culture in the classroom prior to this
• Reading students faces and actions. Read excitement April had. (para 13) P.16 Read the brow (Sharee). (para 16)
Jumped back in to explain when she saw confusion. (para 17)
• She asked a lead in question to encourage thinking. She had great self control to not just give the answer and knew students. Did not “rescue”
students but asked them to help. Involved other students, encouraged communication.
• Keep kids talking to ensure they understood and were participating. By standing back she kept the cognitive level higher so they had to discover math.
p. 1 of 4
 Session 5 GVSU 07/29/08

• Selected numbers that would lend themselves to factor-of-change or scaling up strategy.

• She used large numbers in #3 to discourage additive strategies and encourage multiplicative strategies.
• She did not introduce the cross-multiplication strategy. She encouraged intuitive strategies in order to help students understand multiplicative
relationships.
• Keep kids talking to ensure they understood and were participating. By standing back she kept the cognitive level higher so they had to discover
math.

Adapted from BIFOCL p. 2 of 4

7/12/07

MATRIX 2: Examining Students’ Mathematical Understanding in the Marie Hanson Case
Questions
1. What inferences can you draw
about these students’ understanding
or misunderstanding? Cite
paragraphs from the case for each
inference.
2. What did Marie Hanson do to
assess student understanding or
misunderstanding? (Cite paragraphs
to support your conclusions)
3. Identify Marie’s instructional
decisions in this segment and:
a) indicate how these moves
either maintained or
undermined the cognitive
demand of the tasks
b) speculate on the rationale
Marie may have used to
inform her instructional
moves and its relationship
to the mathematical
goal(s) of the lesson?
Adapted from BIFOCL
7/12/07
Session 5 GVSU 07/29/08
Jordan, Sarah, and Jerry [Paragraphs 24 - 27]
Jordan—Used incorrect additive thinking, adding 25 Jolly Ranchers and 25 Jawbreakers. Perhaps believed that if you add the same to each
quantity the new quantities will have the same relationship. (para 25)
Sarah—She recognizes that using Jordan’s strategy the “new” ratio is almost even, which doesn’t make sense. (para 25-26)
Jerry—Also realized that the “new” ratio is not equivalent to the original ratio. (para 25-26) Used the unit ratio (1 JR to 2.6 JB) and since there
are 100 (JR) you have to multiply 2.6 x100 = 260. (para 26)
• Had students construct and describe their own strategy. (para 25, 26, 27)
• Asked if students had questions about incorrect strategy. Let MH know that stds knew it was incorrect strategy. (para 25)
• Asked not just for answers, but also for reasoning. “How can you tell (same ratio as the original)?” (para 27)
• Communication-Made public an incorrect additive strategy (Jordan’s). This move lets students judge the logic of the strategy. (para 26)
• Scaffolding-Asked which jar had the same ratio of JR to JB as the original jar. Students were asked to do the thinking. (para 27)
• Allotted sufficient time for doing and discussing the task. (para 24-27)
• Modeled
• Built on prior conceptual knowledge, that is, their understanding of equivalent ratios and unit rate (para 26, 27)
• Press for explanations (& justifications). Asked how they could tell that Jerry’s jar had the same ratio as the original jar. (para 27)
• Encouraged multiple solutions
• Asked a student with an incorrect answer to share. This move helps establish an environment in which it is okay to make mistakes and to
cherish mistakes because they become opportunities for learning.
• Encouraged multiple approaches because then all students have access to the task.
•
p. 3 of 4

MATRIX 3: Examining Students’ Mathematical Understanding in the Marie Hanson Case
Questions
1. What inferences can you draw
about these students’ understanding
or misunderstanding? Cite
paragraphs from the case for each
inference.
2. What did Marie Hanson do to
assess student understanding or
misunderstanding? (Cite paragraphs
to support your conclusions)
3. Identify Marie’s instructional
decisions in this segment and:
a) indicate how these moves
either maintained or
undermined the cognitive
demand of the tasks
b) speculate on the rationale
Marie may have used to
inform her instructional
moves and its relationship
to the mathematical
goal(s) of the lesson?
Adapted from BIFOCL
7/12/07
Session 5 GVSU 07/29/08
Angelica, Danielle, and Joshua [Paragraphs 37 - 41]
Angelica—She could set up the proportion equation and solve it, but she did not understand what the answer represented.
Danielle—Understood that it was a multiplicative comparison. How many 18’s in 720. 18 x ? = 720 (40) Then the number of JR would have to be 40
times more. Ditto the JB. Deep understanding of PR. Evidence is language reflecting mult. Reasoning. (37)
Joshua—Understood that repeatedly adding the 5 and 13 (JR and JB) generated equivalent ratios ; 5/13 = (5 + 5) / (13 + 13) = (5 + 5 + 5) / (13 + 13
+13). When the total was 180 he understood that there is a multiplicative relationship, 180 x ? = 720. He used equivalent fractions and factor-of-
change.
• Called on Danielle to explain her reasoning (scalar strategy, 5x 40 and 13 x 40). (para 37)
• Called on Joshua to explain another approach (scalar strategy, 180 x 4 and so 50 x 4 & 130 x 4) (para 38)
• Let Angelica share her (dad’s) strategy, not knowing how she had done the problem. Asked the class if they had any questions. Angelica could
not identify what her response represented. (40)
• Press for explanations from students which maintains the cognitive demand.
• Let students generate their own approaches which provided a variety of strategies to center a discussion around.
• Chose to have more than one strategy displayed and discussed.
• Marie Hanson rephrased Joshua’s strategy (para 39) Dificult to judge if this maintained the cognitive demand.
• Asked the class if anyone had used a different strategy than Joshua. To respond, students have to analyze Joshua’s strategy and compare it
to their own. Maintains the cognitive demand. (para 39)
• As students explain their reasoning the develop a deeper understanding and, when not correct, often self-correct.
• Called on students using scalar strategy, but using different scalars.
• Marie Hanson hoped that by having a variety of strategies, most students would find one that they would understand.
•
p. 4 of 4
- Michigan Mathematics and Science Teacher Leadership Collaborative -
- Michigan Mathematics and Science Teacher Leadership Collaborative -
- Michigan Mathematics and Science Teacher Leadership Collaborative -
- Michigan Mathematics and Science Teacher Leadership Collaborative -
- Michigan Mathematics and Science Teacher Leadership Collaborative -
- Michigan Mathematics and Science Teacher Leadership Collaborative -
- Michigan Mathematics and Science Teacher Leadership Collaborative -
- Michigan Mathematics and Science Teacher Leadership Collaborative -
- Michigan Mathematics and Science Teacher Leadership Collaborative -
- Michigan Mathematics and Science Teacher Leadership Collaborative -
- Michigan Mathematics and Science Teacher Leadership Collaborative -