Interesting story: When I first started working on rough draft math, I was all about welcoming the rough draft ideas (partial thinking?). I thought the whole point was making students feel welcome to share their thinking at any stage. Then, the teachers I collaborated with in the initial study group in Delaware where we were developing rough draft thinking, brought up the importance of working on revising experiences and started generating strategies for explicitly inviting students to revise their drafts in math. After all, we don't want to remain in rough draft stages. We want to keep learning! These teachers reminded me that revising is so crucial. So then my own thinking grew in all kinds of ways we could support students with revising based on the ideas these teachers had. (Chapter 4 in Rough Draft Math is entirely devoted to revising practices...) Anyhow, all this is to say that I had to go on my own journey to get to the point where revising was centered in rough draft math as well.
I think I'm walking along a similar path here, yep. I know there's been a lot of thinking about the development of early ideas (thinking about your work, Smith & Stein, some of the math language routines from Stanford) but I'd love to see all of it consolidated & conceptualized with the same kind of enthusiasm as the initial welcome of the early ideas.
I love the illuminating question from this post! It brings me back to your 'simple' teaching mission: invite, celebrate, and develop. I'd love to have more conversations about the last verb there.
Perhaps this is only tangentially related, but:
I saw Nick Johnson (@CarrythZero) speak at CGI Orlando about some research he and others are doing around what sharing student ideas in synthesizing classroom discourse. Is it more productive to share finished student work? ...partial student work? Do students share their own thinking? Does the teacher annotate? etc. etc.
I took pages of careful handwritten notes, all of which are currently being held hostage in my office at school, so... all of this is from some vague memory right now. But it was striking how powerful it was to share partial student work and then have students finish it together. This allowed for a collective development of an idea, with increased engagement and sensemaking. It often resulted in learning for MORE students, not just the student sharing their rough draft work.
I hope they publish something! I'd love to have more conversation about this with more detail.
Yeah, that's the kind of generative (but practical!) move I'm talking about. Franke shared one of Johnson's videos where he asked a student to share some partial work and then asked the entire class, "What do you think he's going to do next?" which is maybe one of the moves you're describing. (There was tons of student conversation.) I'd love to see more of those but also to understand the kinds of ideas about learning they spring from.
Interesting story: When I first started working on rough draft math, I was all about welcoming the rough draft ideas (partial thinking?). I thought the whole point was making students feel welcome to share their thinking at any stage. Then, the teachers I collaborated with in the initial study group in Delaware where we were developing rough draft thinking, brought up the importance of working on revising experiences and started generating strategies for explicitly inviting students to revise their drafts in math. After all, we don't want to remain in rough draft stages. We want to keep learning! These teachers reminded me that revising is so crucial. So then my own thinking grew in all kinds of ways we could support students with revising based on the ideas these teachers had. (Chapter 4 in Rough Draft Math is entirely devoted to revising practices...) Anyhow, all this is to say that I had to go on my own journey to get to the point where revising was centered in rough draft math as well.
I think I'm walking along a similar path here, yep. I know there's been a lot of thinking about the development of early ideas (thinking about your work, Smith & Stein, some of the math language routines from Stanford) but I'd love to see all of it consolidated & conceptualized with the same kind of enthusiasm as the initial welcome of the early ideas.
Maybe it's just interesting to me. But I'm just sharing that's a journey I had to go down myself!
I love the illuminating question from this post! It brings me back to your 'simple' teaching mission: invite, celebrate, and develop. I'd love to have more conversations about the last verb there.
Perhaps this is only tangentially related, but:
I saw Nick Johnson (@CarrythZero) speak at CGI Orlando about some research he and others are doing around what sharing student ideas in synthesizing classroom discourse. Is it more productive to share finished student work? ...partial student work? Do students share their own thinking? Does the teacher annotate? etc. etc.
I took pages of careful handwritten notes, all of which are currently being held hostage in my office at school, so... all of this is from some vague memory right now. But it was striking how powerful it was to share partial student work and then have students finish it together. This allowed for a collective development of an idea, with increased engagement and sensemaking. It often resulted in learning for MORE students, not just the student sharing their rough draft work.
I hope they publish something! I'd love to have more conversation about this with more detail.
Yeah, that's the kind of generative (but practical!) move I'm talking about. Franke shared one of Johnson's videos where he asked a student to share some partial work and then asked the entire class, "What do you think he's going to do next?" which is maybe one of the moves you're describing. (There was tons of student conversation.) I'd love to see more of those but also to understand the kinds of ideas about learning they spring from.