School Name: Horse Lake Elementary

School District: SD#27 Cariboo-Chilcotin

Inquiry Team Members: Lisa Pugh and Vanessa Rehbein

Inquiry Team Contact Email: lisa.pugh@sd27.bc.ca

II. Inquiry Project Information

Type of Inquiry: Numeracy & Literacy Project

Grade Levels Addressed Through Inquiry: Intermediate (4-7)

Curricular Areas Addressed:

Focus Addressed: Indigenous Focus (for example, Traditional Knowledge, oral history, reconciliation), Literacy, Land, Nature or Place-based learning

In one sentence, what was your focus for the year? To increase student engagement and sense of belonging through combining hands-on, outdoor, land-based learning and literacy/stories related to that learning.

III. Spirals of Inquiry Details

Scanning: We noticed through scanning (observations, student work, and questioning) that students were not as engaged with learning about the plants and their properties for ceremony, medicine, technology and food as we originally thought. We had hands-on field trips and worked with plants in our garden, but the engagement (motivation and desire to learn and participate) was less than anticipated. We decided to add stories both contemporary and traditional to the pedagogy (oral and in print) with the thought that stories would increase connections to the learning. The F.P.P.L. states that “learning is embedded in memory, history, and story” and with this in mind we began our inquiry with this questions: “Will the use of stories increase student engagement related to outdoor, land-based Indigenous plant learning?”

Focus: A sense of belonging is key to student success (for all students Indigenous and non-Indigenous) and engagement goes hand in hand with belonging. You have to feel like you belong to engage and if you hear and see relevant stories related to your life, culture and experiences then you might be more interested in learning.

Hunch: We have been adopting hands-on, outdoor land/water-based curriculum and pedagogy for the past four years and have seen increased engagement and a sense of belonging, but this fall we noticed less engagement with the plants.

New Professional Learning: We explored new literacy resources in text, from students and from online and book oral recordings. We found the texts that involved stories of harvesting and collecting, as well as Indigenous plant recipes for teas and medicines, got the most interest from students. We had times when we would turn off all the lights and lay down and listen to Elder told oral stories from CD’s and from books.

Taking Action:
– Student to student partner and group reading of Indigenous texts
– Teacher-led read-alouds of stories
– Online and CD oral stories
– Personal stories told by students, EA’s and teachers related to plants and on-land experiences

Checking: We saw students engaged in listening and reading Indigenous stories about plants and the land, and we observed students with a high level of engagement related to telling their own stories about land/plant-based experiences. Some students talked about recipes they wanted to make related to plant books we had looked at. This was satisfying and made us believe we were on the right track infusing Indigenous literacy with our science-based curriculum.

Reflections/Advice: We learned that wholistic learning is more engaging than learning about one particular thing. For example, Indigenous plant identification and uses needs to be approached through hands-on experiences, but also it should be married with text and oral story literacy-based learning to engage learners more fully.

School Name: W.L. McLeod Elementary

School District: SD#91 Nechako Lakes

Inquiry Team Members: Libby Hart: lhart@sd91.bc.ca, Erin Baker: ebaker@sd91.bc.ca, Lori Gridley: lgridley@sd91.bc.ca, Kirsten Funk: kandersonfunk@sd91.bc.ca, Donna Good: dgood@sd91.bc.ca, Korrie Mueller: kmueller@sd91.bc.ca, Lyne Gauthier: lgauthier@sd91.bc.ca, Susie Blattner: blattners@sd91.bc.ca, Olivia Obonsawin: oobonsawin@sd91.bc.ca, Amy Forsyth: aforsyth@sd91.bc.ca, Dan Nickel: dnickel@sd91.bc.ca, Michelle Miller-Gauthier: mmgauthier@sd91.bc.ca, Lena Miller: lmiller@sd91.bc.ca

Inquiry Team Contact Email: lgridley@sd91.bc.ca

II. Inquiry Project Information

Type of Inquiry: NOIIE Case Study

Grade Levels Addressed Through Inquiry: Primary (K-3)

Curricular Areas Addressed: Mathematics / Numeracy

Focus Addressed: Numeracy, Core competencies (for example, critical thinking, communication, problem solving), Other: Experiential learning, flexible learning, growth mindset, inclusion/inclusive instructional strategies, universal design for learning, Indigenous learners K-3

In one sentence, what was your focus for the year? Developing a deeper and broader understanding of number sense from K-3 with a focus on improving numeracy outcomes for Indigenous learners.

III. Spirals of Inquiry Details

Scanning: Our scanning this year involved fewer formal assessments and more reflective practice in our collaboration group. We noticed that we were not getting the results that we had anticipated and had a hunch that we needed to refocus. We felt that our interventions were starting too late and the gap for the younger students was getting wider. We also discovered that we were focusing too much on particular students who had extreme learning differences and not having the time or strategies to fill gaps for other learners.

Focus: Decolonizing learning practices, including non-traditional pedagogies, will result in strengthening learners’ number sense, positive attitude and self-efficacy about numeracy.

We wanted to strengthen the connection between numeracy concepts and the world around us and for students to develop a growth mindset and a positive attitude towards numbers – Indigenizing and Decolonizing along the way. We wanted to do this as a group – sharing ideas and resources, following a cross-school schedule, and collaborating.

Hunch: Our practice was too focused on a small group of students who needed intensive intervention rather than a larger population of students who were emerging at their grade level.

New Professional Learning:
• PLC time involved teachers researching new assessment practices, discussing strategies and philosophy, and scope and sequence for essential skills.
• District numeracy support teacher brought in and taught games and resources. Participated in SNAP lessons and story workshop with a numeracy focus in classrooms.
• Staff members attended the NOIIE Symposium, viewed NOIIE learning bursts, participated in the SD91 NOIIE learning celebration, and participated in the NOIIE numeracy/literacy network meetings.
• Time embedded into the schedule for numeracy teacher-lead and blitz lead collaboration.
• The NOIIE symposium highlighted our unique whole staff approach to inquiry.

Taking Action:
• The numeracy blitz intervention
• Playing numeracy games
• Use of counting collections in primary classrooms
• Taking our learning outside for experiential and place-based learning
• Meaningful real-life numeracy experiences
• School-wide scheduled focus on patterns and number sense
• Started math pen pals with other classrooms in the district
• Numeracy assessment (subitizing, counting dots) as a trial for feedback

Checking:
Data Collection:
• Each class did a pre- and post-assessment for and of learning for “ways to make 5/10”
• Revisited real life numeracy in primary classrooms
• Regularly reviewed Leaps and Bounds data (assess, intervene, assess) and critically reflected on the questions themselves
• At each TLT, we checked in with teachers to see how the focus was progressing and any challenges that had come up

• We changed our year-end assessment to focus on kindergarten students rather than grade one students, aligning with our plan to start interventions with grade ones in the fall
• We also reflected on the assessment itself and decided to adjust the questions based on student progression during the one-on-one conferences. We created a flowchart to adjust the questions based on student success with each learning outcome.
• End of year kindergarten patterning assessment – 30 students
  • Identifying and describing a pattern: 19/30 students will require some extra support. This means 12/30 or 40% were successful. Some students who require extra help are very close to meeting expectations. It wouldn’t take very long for them to be successful.
  • Putting this into perspective of the last three years, the grade one students were as follows…
    2022-23 (30%) successful
    2023-24 (49%) successful
    2024-25 (59%) successful
  • All students were emerging+ or successful on extending patterns and creating patterns
  • Translating patterns: Only 12/30 students require some extra help. Some students have a difficult time making a similar pattern to the one shown to them, by using different colours, shapes, sounds, or actions. No data from previous years on this.

Reflections/Advice: This was a year of much reflection on the value of our previous approach and our method of tracking data. We did not get the success we had hoped for and needed a more K-3 vision of where we are, where we want to be, how we are going to get there, and how we know that we have arrived.

We realized that even though we are in year four, we haven’t yet established a culture of numeracy, nor have we been able to track the impact in the intermediate classes yet. There is a lot of work left to do.

School Name: William Konkin Elementary School

School District: SD#91 Nechako Lakes

Inquiry Team Members: Karie Evans: kevans@sd91.bc.ca, Shawnese Trottier: strottier@sd91.bc.ca, Colleen West: cwest@sd91.bc.ca

Inquiry Team Contact Email: kevans@sd91.bc.ca

II. Inquiry Project Information

Type of Inquiry: Numeracy & Literacy Project

Grade Levels Addressed Through Inquiry: Primary (K-3), Intermediate (4-7)

Curricular Areas Addressed: Language Arts – Reading

Focus Addressed: Literacy

In one sentence, what was your focus for the year? We will implement approaches to literacy that incorporate multi-sensory and kinesthetic learning and involves Indigenous staff members in the literacy lessons.

III. Spirals of Inquiry Details

Scanning: Over recent years, we have observed an increased number of students in our school who need an approach that addresses learning disabilities such as “dyslexia,” and “dysgraphia”. The interventions and general instructional strategies that had some success in the past were not as effective anymore. From long past practices, some teachers remember more success with learning tasks that involve multi-sensory approaches. The reading levels of all students, and especially those in the primary grades, have remained consistently low. Excitement, encouragement and focus on literacy as a school was not sufficient to see gains in reading levels. Educators were using various programs and program components with little cohesion from division to division. Classroom teachers of each division were the teachers of literacy and no one else.

Focus: We were hoping for more learners to see significant gains in reading ability and skills, at the same time increasing their confidence as readers. We were also hoping that they would enjoy this process and see it as fun.

Hunch: We felt that whole class approaches to literacy instruction were not able to target specific skills for struggling readers in the same way that individualized and targeted teaching of very small groups could. We also had a hunch that our Indigenous learners need to work with more Indigenous teachers on a regular basis in all aspects of their schooling, not just Indigenous language and culture.

New Professional Learning: Involving our Indigenous Ed staff directly in literacy learning provided role models for Indigenous learners, while at the same time still valuing the first language that is also being taught. The Nedut’en Teacher, Jordan and the Indigenous Education advocates, Rhoda and Geraldine received training to be literacy intervention supports. They infused their language, community relationships, and ways of being into our literacy intervention programs and provided meaningful living examples of the importance of literacy for all people.

We will implement approaches to literacy that incorporate multi-sensory and kinesthetic learning. Based on recommendations and training from our district psychologist, Stephanie Lindstrom, we are a pilot school in our district for Structured Literacy learning through the Indigenous Education Department.

Classroom teachers from K-3 also agreed to implement the UFLI Literacy program in their class-wide teaching and began to do so as their teacher collaboration rolled out.

Taking Action: In addition to phonics, decoding, and encoding, our literacy tasks involve constructivist, hands-on learning, and kinesthetic learning. The learner may build words, draw their letters and words as they sound them out, create letters and words with many substances in addition to the expected pencil and paper, or move their body in specific ways that correspond to specific language learning, to trigger long-term memory and create new neural pathways.

Students wrote on windows, paper, or vertical white boards. They used sensory objects such as sensory mats (and have choice in what feels best to them) where they reinforced learning by drawing the sound of the letter(s) they were learning. They tracked with two fingers instead of one, as this has shown to be more memory reinforcing to the brain. They built letter sounds and moved their bodies and had fun.

Checking:

• We used letter names and sounds data for five Indigenous Kindergarten learners.
• We used phoneme, sight words, and PM benchmark data for learners in the primary grades who were part of blitz, including 11 Indigenous learners.
• We are overwhelmingly pleased by our results. We improved the number of learners reading at grade level by 30% for the first time in the past several years.
• The team is thrilled with the data, and we have shared the specific data sets with our board of trustees, senior leadership, and anyone else who will listen.

Reflections/Advice: We plan to continue to use these tools in literacy. My advice would be to be patient. It takes time to develop real and lasting change. Some of the years we have tried things we had unremarkable results. But we persevered in creating and maintaining a culture of inquiry. Sometimes the results of an inquiry are disappointing. We learned from those results. These results are not just encouraging, but exhilarating. It took four years to get to exhilarating.

School Name: Capitol Hill Elementary

School District: SD#41 Burnaby

Inquiry Team Members: Christina Croft – christina.disalvo@burnabyschools.ca
Nicole Quin – nicole.quin@burnabyschools.ca
Janet Lieu – janet.lieu@burnabyschools.ca
Elysha Fong – elysha.fong@burnabyschools.ca
Bavan Arora – Bavandeep.arora@burnabyschools.ca
Kara Sewell – kara.sewell@burnabyschools.ca
Carla Brancati – carla.brancati@burnabyschools.ca
Susan.Cox – susan.cox@burnabyschools.ca
Lindsey Bogunovic – Lindsay.bogunovic@burnabyschools.ca
Liane Karvelis – liane.karvelis@burnabyschools.ca
Stephanie Lundrigan – stephanie.lundrigan@burnabyschools.ca

Inquiry Team Contact Email: stephanie.lundrigan@burnabyschools.ca

II. Inquiry Project Information

Type of Inquiry: Numeracy & Literacy Project

Grade Levels Addressed Through Inquiry: Primary (K-3)

Curricular Areas Addressed: Language Arts – Literacy, Language Arts – Oral Language, Language Arts – Reading

Focus Addressed: Literacy, Formative assessment, Self-regulation

In one sentence, what was your focus for the year? Our focus was improving literacy practice in the primary grades by making it more intentional and more inclusive.

III. Spirals of Inquiry Details

Scanning: Most of the students involved in this project are very young. For many of the learners, self-regulation is a major factor. However, they are certainly able to say who they know believes in them at the school. They also do want to do well and have a sense of where they are going with their learning. For the students who are requiring the greatest amount of support with their learning, the answers to these questions also provide some insight. Both the First Peoples Principal of Learning and the OECD Seven Principles were considered in the Scanning as well as the Taking Action parts of this project. We wanted the learning to be hands on and engaging. Play was an important factor as was the opportunity to work with a friend. It was important that all students felt connected and in charge of their learning. Story needed to have a huge part of this project – many of these students were involved in Year 1 of this project where the Story Workshop and oral language were the focus. We needed to presume competence for each learner and continue to work through challenges. As mentioned previously, assessment played a continual and important role.

Focus: We were hoping to improve literacy (reading) outcomes for our students. We were concerned with the literacy acquisition of five Indigenous students in grades 1 and 2. We had been tracking them for the past year. We also wanted to make sure that any literacy intervention did not make them feel singled out or less than. We wanted to deliver targeted instruction that met their specific assessed stretches while continuing to make sure they felt like strong and capable members of their classroom community.

Hunch: There was room at school to build on our capacity in providing focused literacy intervention at the primary level that was evidence-based and driven by assessment. We also had hunches about the capacity that could be gained from the primary teachers collaborating on sharing their knowledge and experience and developing new understandings about reading instruction.

New Professional Learning: We explored formative assessment and its importance in driving instruction. We utilized a variety of assessments targeting phonemic awareness, concepts of print, and decoding fluency. We collaborated in a variety of ways – large group and small group. We really came to recognize the value in collaboration and sharing professional understandings.

Taking Action:
• We assessed each student for letter knowledge, concepts of print, phonemic awareness, phonics, decoding/fluency and reading comprehension.
• Using this data, we grouped the grade one and two students (three combined classes) into six different groups. These small groups would move to an appointed area four days a week from 11:15 to 12:00. This was to prevent anyone from feeling that they were being singled out. In these smaller groups, they would receive explicit instruction in their area of stretches indicated by the assessment. They would also participate in engaging learning activities.
• We had plans to group the grade two/three and grade three classes in a similar fashion, but when we looked at the data, over ninety percent of the students were reading at a proficient level. After rich conversations, it was decided not to create groups, students would stay in their classrooms with the exception of a few students who continued to receive targeted intervention.
• Students were assessed frequently to make sure the instruction was useful
• Students were assessed using the EPRA and some of the same methods from September in January and again in May.
• In April, the kindergarten students were assessed using the EPRA and then the phonemic awareness screener. A small group intervention was created four days a week for 25 minutes.

Checking:
• In the somewhat narrow sense of improving literacy outcomes, we did make a significant difference for a great many of our learners. However, in terms of overall literacy there is still a great deal of work we can be doing to support our learners.
• There continues to be a small number of students going into grade 2 and 3 levels who continue to require significant support in literacy acquisition. Looking at the work they did and the work we did, we have arrived at a new hunch that their learning is different than that anticipated in a typical literacy program (e.g the scope and sequence provided by Heggerty and/or UFLI). They have made progress however, it is not linear and it is very unique to each student. We have realized that it is vitally important to stay in tune with each student’s learner and carefully monitor their growth. Again, the idea of presuming competence and holding high expectations is so important.
• Along with the anecdotal evidence we collected each day, we also used the assessment data from the start of the year, in January, and, in May. This allowed us to see where progress occurred and where new intervention is needed.
• We are satisfied with the collaborative work the educators carried out together. It was rewarding and professionally fulfilling to share and work toward this joint goal.

Reflections/Advice: We were reminded of the importance of creating a plan and collaborating to see it through. We were reminded of the power of collaboration and the important role it plays in education. We can achieve more by working together than we can individually.

It is hoped that this inquiry will continue in September and that the first step will be assessing each learner to get an accurate sense of what they truly need to progress. The advice for other schools would be to spend the time getting to know each other and making a concrete plan to follow. Assessment needs to have a major role. Working together to improve the literacy outcomes of the smallest learners is an important project to embark on as the entire school will benefit eventually. This may mean a refocusing on money and resources.

School Name: Courtenay Elementary School

School District: SD#71 Comox Valley

Inquiry Team Members: Heidi Jungwirth: Heidi.jungwirth@sd71.bc.ca, Alison Walkley: Alison.walkley@sd71.bc.ca. Serina Allison: Serina.allison@sd71.bc.ca

Inquiry Team Contact Email: heidi.jungwirth@sd71.bc.ca

II. Inquiry Project Information

Type of Inquiry: Numeracy & Literacy Project

Grade Levels Addressed Through Inquiry: Intermediate (4-7)

Curricular Areas Addressed: Mathematics / Numeracy

Focus Addressed: Numeracy

In one sentence, what was your focus for the year? Our focus was how to teach problem solving in math.

III. Spirals of Inquiry Details

Scanning: At this point in our inquiry, the 4 questions are the guiding principles of our classrooms. Fortunately, because of a lot of intentional work, they extend to our school as a whole. We asked our students the 4 questions, but in all reality we know that they are engaged in their learning. The second question is a little more challenging, but most students understand what they are learning. Thinking about next steps is the most challenging question. Our emphasis on experiential learning and curiosity means that students are encouraged to ask questions about what they could learn. At our school, there is a strong sense of community, and we know that students feel supported and cared for.

Building on what we have learned in years previous, the First People’s Principles of Learning and the OECD Principles of Learning are embedded in our teaching practice. Our focus this year was to tackle a complex topic, problem solving in math. Having the principles of learning as a guide made it easier for students and teachers to confidently tackle a complex topic.

Focus: Before I talk about the area of inquiry, I will explain that this year we did things differently. Whereas before, Alison and I had both inquired in our classrooms with our own students, this year the focus was on my (gr 5) classroom. Alison and Serina played an important supporting role by listening to my debrief sessions, sometimes observing lessons, and working with me to find connections between problem solving and the other areas of math that we had inquired about. Their input was invaluable, but because it was my class that the inquiry took place in, I will write the rest of this summary as if I had the thoughts and made the decisions.

The area of inquiry this year was problem solving in math. We chose this area because it is the area in math that most students (if not all) struggle with. I (Heidi) had never figured out a way to teach it well, and my attempts over the years had mediocre (and that’s being generous) success.

Hunch: My main hunch was that problem solving is an area of struggle for many reasons. First of all, it is because students are all asked to do the same problem-solving exercises, even if the work is too difficult (or occasionally too easy). This has been our experience in all aspects of our inquiry so far. In other math topics (number sense, fluency) it has been extremely successful to have students working at their “just-right” level, and I suspected that this would also be the case for problem solving.

My second hunch was that problem solving was a complex topic (this is less of a hunch than a proven reality) and that to teach problem solving, I first needed to figure out which skills are used. After I did this, my theory was that I would teach the skills, and the students would learn how to problem solve.

My third hunch was that the work we had done in the previous years of our inquiry (number sense, fluency) would have a positive effect on our students’ ability to tackle problem solving. Of course, each year you get a new group of students, and only 6 of my students had been in my class for the year before. This meant that 6 of my students would have a “heads up” when doing the problem solving, because they had already done an intense year of number-sense and fluency work.

My fourth hunch was the importance of using hands-on materials. This has proven to be extremely important. I will talk about how we did this later in this write-up.

New Professional Learning: At the beginning of the inquiry, I was hoping to find a book called “How to Teach Problem Solving” and I would just have to follow the steps in the book and each student would be successful. Unfortunately, either that book doesn’t exist, or I couldn’t find it.

I found that many resources took the approach that I had used previously. They tried to guide teachers in teaching problem solving, but they didn’t go far enough when breaking down the skills needed. In the end, I didn’t end up using any of these resources and relied heavily on two: First Steps in Math (the operations binder) and the book “Daily Routines to Jump-start Problem-Solving K-8” by John SanGiovanni.

I also realized that being in our 4th year of inquiring about math means that Alison and I have built up a strong foundation ourselves, and that for this problem-solving inquiry we could use the skills, intuition, and pedagogy that we had developed from becoming knowledgeable about number sense and fluency. Breaking down problem solving into individual skills and teaching them in a systematic cumulative way using formative feedback proved to be as successful as it had when teaching number sense and fluency.

It is a significant step for teachers to recognize that they have built up the skills, knowledge, and experience necessary to make bold decisions regarding curriculum development and pedagogy. Participating in this 4-year supportive inquiry process has been fundamental for Alison and I to get to this point.

Taking Action: Problem Solving in Math is complex and it will take more than one year of inquiry to fully understand and implement an effective pedagogy. I will outline for you the major understandings that we have made this year. I will also outline for you the steps we are taking this summer to develop a “program” to further field test next year. The goal of this is to create a curriculum (K-5) for problem solving.

The first thing we had to figure out was what exactly are the steps involved in math problem solving? This is what we came up with:

1. Setting: What is the situation of the problem?
2. Number/Quantity: What are the numbers or quantities involved in the problem?
3. Units: What do the numbers mean? What are we talking about? How many of what?
4. Problem: What is the math problem asking? What is the story? What will the answer tell you?
5. Strategy/Operation: What mathematical strategy or operation will solve the problem?
6. Steps: What steps do you need to take to solve the problem?
7. Resolution: What is the final answer or solution to the problem?
8. Check: Does the answer make sense?
9. Reflection: What are you proud of? What would you like your teacher to notice?

Once the steps were identified, then the next thing I did was teach these skills (1 hour each Friday) in a systematic/cumulative way. This differs from traditional math instruction where problem solving would be a “unit of instruction” that might last a few weeks to a month.

Teaching in a systematic/cumulative way means that you teach:
1. Explore skill 1
2. Teach skill 1
3. Explore skill 2
4. Review skill 1, teach skill 2
5. Explore skill 3
6. Mention (briefly) skill 1, review skill 2, teach skill 3,
7. Explore skill 4
8. Assume they can do skill 1, mention skill 2, review skill 3, teach skill 4,
9. Explore skill 5
10. Continue in this way until all skills are learned.

This continues with new skills being explored, then taught, then reviewed, then mentioned. This of course does not happen quickly. It might take a few weeks at any one step. The amount of time between going on to the next step will depend on many things, and as a professional the teacher makes that judgement.

One important thing that I have learned is that after practicing a skill for an amount of time, I can expect that a student has learned it. (it’s ok to require some peer support). If, after a reasonable amount of time, a student has not learned a skill, then it is important that I take the time to figure out why. What is going on for that student? What key understanding does that student not have? What skills does that student not know how to do?

An important resource for these investigations is the First Steps in Mathematics assessments. These skill specific assessments can help you pinpoint where the gaps are in a student’s skills and understandings. You can then do the recommended interventions and help a student get back on track. In the past, I thought that students would just catch up if I repeated things enough. This rarely happens. If a student cannot do one of the problem-solving sub skills, they will most likely continue to struggle.

After spending a year teaching problem solving in a systematic/cumulative way, there are some key learnings I have made.

1. It is crucial to connect problem solving to physical objects, which helps all students make better connections. Eventually, some students choose not to use the physical objects, but I always made them available. We did this by making a problem-solving kit called “Dog Math”. Next year, I plan to use “Dog Math” plus 3 new kits for problem solving. “Road Trip Math”, “Nature Math”, and “Shopping Math”

2. Teach the sub-skills of problem solving in a systematic/cumulative way. I wrote about this earlier, so I won’t go into detail. Expect that students will learn the skills, and if they don’t learn them, make sure to find out why.

3. Think of a math problem as a story. We spent a great deal of time on this, and it was another way to connect problem solving to real-life happenings.

4. It works best to have longer problem-solving math lessons (we spent 1 hour each Friday) and to teach problem solving throughout the year, rather than teach it as a unit of instruction.

5. Using formative feedback in math is guaranteed to boost student skills and confidence. Instead of students doing their work and “handing it in for marking”, I circulate and make comments/guide student work/check that it is being done. Having a conversation about the work means that the feedback is immediate, and students love having conversations about what they are doing.

6. Students learn best when there are check-ins during the lesson. In a 1-hour lesson, I would have time to introduce and teach the skill, then have the students go back to their tables and work on it. Part way through the working time, I would bring the students back to the carpet and have students share where they were at and what they had done. After this short check-in, students went back to their tables and kept working. Having these check-ins helps those who are struggling to get ideas about where to go, and builds confidence in those who are on track.

7. Approach problems from both sides. Sometimes students read a problem and are asked to find the solution. Sometimes students are given the solution and asked to make up the problem.

8. Use units always. Always use units. Every step of every problem must have the units included. This has been a major learning for me. I didn’t realize that students will use numbers and not know what the number represents. Using units means that it is clear what is being talked about. I now require that each step of problem solving must have the units written in, and every conversation includes the units of what we are talking about. (are we talking about dogs or cups of dog food?)

9. Leaving space for exploration develops curiosity and creates engagement. For example, the first lesson with our “Dog Math Kit” went like this: the students took a kit each and tried to figure out what math they could make with it. They wrote this math in their Math Journals and then we came together and shared what we had discovered. The results were amazing. The students were 100% engaged and the math that came out of that lesson was amazing. This excitement about the dog math continued on for the entire year, and I believe that is directly tied into them first being able to explore and wonder about what they could do with the kits.

10. Take time to make sure that students understand what they are doing when they use an operation. This was another major learning for me. Students might know how to add or subtract, or even divide, but many do not understand what this means in real life, or in practical terms. If students don’t understand what they are doing, then they will struggle with problem solving. Taking time to teach this and to check-in with students at each lesson is invaluable.

Checking: This year long deep dive into problem solving has made a tremendous difference for all my students and has made a tremendous difference for me as a teacher. When we began this inquiry, there were 2 or 3 students in my class who would persevere through solving a math problem. Most students tried, but they didn’t know what to do, got stuck, and soon gave up. At the end of the year, all but 1 of my students were able to work industriously for 45 minutes to solve a math problem! Many students started to complain that the problems were too easy, so I built in ways that those students could challenge themselves.

At the end of the year, as a summative assessment, I gave my students a problem to solve (using our dog math kit). I wrote out the story problem and gave them the problem solving template that we developed. (and revised throughout the year as we learned things). Out of 22 students, 21 completed the assessment. Here is a sampling of student responses.

I have uploaded some examples of the problem-solving summative assessment problem (click to enlarge image):

Reflections/Advice: This inquiry has been overwhelmingly successful, but it has also been deeply challenging and at times frustrating. I am grateful to have had an amazing, supportive team to pick me up and dust me off when things were at their most challenging. Here is what I have learned.

1. When you are tackling a difficult subject, seek out colleagues who will support you. It’s especially important that they can listen.
2. Equally important to listening and supporting is listening and challenging. You want inquiry partners who will (gently) point out where things went wrong and offer ideas of what to try next.
3. Expect to make mistakes. Lots of them.
4. When the lesson doesn’t go well, take some time to try and figure out what went wrong. They say you learn from a mistake, but you really only learn when you reflect on a mistake.
5. In the end, my class had a lot of fun doing problem solving! This is what I had hoped for, but many times during the year I wondered if we could ever get there.
6. Students love to challenge themselves when they feel confident that they have the skills, and when they know that they are working in a supportive environment. This is the gift of formative feedback. I now teach all math using immediate formative feedback, and I am working towards teaching all subject areas in this way.

Perhaps the best summation of this year’s work is demonstrated by this (unsolicited) card that I received at the end of this year: (I can’t upload an image because I’m at my max). The card says, “Thank-you for teaching me this year. I definitely got better at problem solving this year”.