I. General Information
School Name: Randerson Ridge Elementary
School District: SD#68 Nanaimo-Ladysmith
Inquiry Team Members: Linda Baldwin: Linda.Baldwin@sd68.bc.ca
Holly Shelton: Holly.Shelton@sd68.bc.ca
Tanya Evans: Tanya.Evans@sd68.bc.ca
Tanya Mack: tmack1@sd68.bc.ca
Derek Snowden: dsnowden@sd68.bc.ca (admin)
Inquiry Team Contact Email: linda.baldwin@sd68.bc.ca
II. Inquiry Project Information
Type of Inquiry: NOIIE Case Study
Grade Levels Addressed Through Inquiry: Primary (K-3), Intermediate (4-7)
Curricular Areas Addressed: Mathematics / Numeracy
Focus Addressed: Numeracy, Core competencies (for example, thinking, communication, personal and social), Self-regulation
In one sentence, what was your focus for the year? Deepening our understanding of mathematical reasoning and how to best support students in developing strong number sense, resilience and strategies for persevering through problem solving.
III. Spirals of Inquiry Details
Scanning: Our scanning process focused on understanding how students engage with mathematical reasoning across grade levels. We gathered evidence through classroom observations, student work samples, and conversations with both students and staff. Guided by the questions “What is going on for our learners?” and “How do we know?”, we examined how students approach problem solving, communicate their thinking, and use mathematical language.
We noticed that many students struggle with reasoning and tend to focus on task completion, rather than developing a deeper understanding. Student voice revealed that learners often aim to get the “right answer” quickly and may feel uncertain when asked to explain their thinking or engage with unfamiliar problems. Some students, particularly those who find math challenging, may rely on others’ thinking rather than fully engaging themselves.
This process was informed by the OECD Principles of Learning, recognizing that learners benefit from active engagement and that learning is social and emotional. We also drew on the First Peoples Principles of Learning, which emphasize that learning is relational, requires time, and supports confidence and identity. These perspectives reinforced the importance of creating opportunities for students to think deeply, take risks, and engage in meaningful mathematical conversations.
Focus: We chose to focus on deepening mathematical reasoning because we observed that many students would benefit from stronger conceptual understanding, number sense, and confidence in problem solving. Our goal is to support students in seeing mathematics as a process of thinking, communicating, and making connections, rather than simply arriving at correct answers. We hope to see increased engagement, greater use of mathematical language, and improved ability to explain and justify thinking. We also aim to support students in building perseverance and confidence so they are more willing to engage in challenging tasks and persist through problem solving.
Hunch: Our hunch is that our current practices may unintentionally reinforce the idea that mathematics is about getting the right answer or “just getting it done,” rather than engaging in thinking, reasoning, and communicating. As a result, many students prioritize speed and completion over developing a deeper understanding.
We have noticed that some learners, particularly those who struggle, may look to others for answers instead of engaging fully in the thinking required. This suggests that while they are capable, they may need more support in developing confidence, independence, and perseverance when faced with challenging tasks. We continue to wrestle with the question: Why do some students not yet show a sense of ownership or agency in their learning?
As a team, we are wondering how we can refine our instructional approaches and learning opportunities to better support students in engaging in productive struggle, strengthening their reasoning, and seeing mathematics as a process of thinking, questioning, and making connections.
New Professional Learning: Our professional learning focused on deepening our understanding of mathematical reasoning, number sense development, and instructional approaches that support all learners, particularly those who are currently struggling. We explored the work of Pam Harris, John SanGiovanni, and Peter Liljedahl, along with district-supported learning, which strengthened our understanding of conceptual mathematics, the importance of students explaining and justifying their thinking, and the role of discussion and mathematical vocabulary in supporting deeper understanding.
This learning reinforced the importance of aligning instruction with the curriculum by intentionally creating opportunities for students to demonstrate curricular competencies. We also recognized the need to deepen our understanding of the learning continuum within the curriculum and how this progression supports student success.
Through this work, we developed a clearer understanding of how classroom structures, task design, and instructional choices influence student engagement, independence, and willingness to think. We also deepened our understanding of how visual models, representations, and hands-on approaches support conceptual understanding and make student thinking visible.
We engaged in collaborative, cross-grade conversations through staff meetings, explored resources together, and reflected on practice, building shared understanding and supporting ongoing professional growth.
As our understanding grew, we began exploring resources that could support greater consistency across grade levels. A core group met with a My Math Path (Edwin) representative (Nelson) and then shared the resource with the wider staff, recognizing its potential to support a more coherent instructional approach. A small group then piloted the resource to better understand how it could support teaching and learning in our classrooms.
Taking Action: As a team, we began to shift our thinking about mathematics instruction, focusing on strengthening student reasoning, engagement, and perseverance. Through our professional learning, we became more aware of the importance of providing opportunities for students to explain their thinking, engage in discussion, use mathematical vocabulary, and experience productive struggle. While these shifts are still developing, they have helped us identify key areas for growth, particularly moving beyond task completion toward deeper understanding.
A small group of teachers piloted My Math Path, beginning in April, to explore its potential as a common instructional resource. The trial demonstrated how a structured framework can support lesson design, scaffold conceptual understanding, and provide clarity for both teachers and students. It also modelled effective instructional approaches, including gradual release (“I do, we do, you do”) and progression from concrete understanding to application.
As a staff, we explored the resource together and engaged in collaborative conversations to reflect on practice and consider how to better support students, particularly those who struggle. With approval to use PLG funding, we plan to implement My Math Path more fully over the next two years. With six licenses over two years, our goal is to increase consistency across grade levels and reduce reliance on disconnected resources, supporting a more focused and coherent approach to instruction. This work has helped us clarify next steps and build a shared commitment to improving mathematics instruction.
Checking: At this stage, our work is still in the early phases, so evidence of impact is primarily based on teacher observations, student responses, and initial experiences during our pilot. Through classroom observations and conversations, we have noticed increased awareness among both teachers and students around the importance of explaining thinking and engaging more deeply with mathematical tasks. In classrooms where My Math Path was piloted, teachers reported greater clarity in lesson design and a stronger focus on conceptual understanding. There were also early signs of increased student engagement in discussions, problem-solving, and more intentional use of manipulatives.
As a staff, we have seen growth in our shared understanding of effective mathematics instruction and greater alignment in what we want student learning to look like. Staff engagement has increased beyond the core group, with many valuing a common, practical resource that shows what effective instruction looks like in practice.
At the classroom level, students are beginning to show greater awareness of using mathematical vocabulary and justifying their thinking—for example, explaining why an answer is correct and why other options may not be. Teachers are also becoming more intentional in designing questions that promote thinking and discussion.
We are excited that we now have a clear pathway forward. Staff are increasingly aligned, and we feel confident that using a consistent, high-quality resource to guide instruction will lead to meaningful gains for our students.
While encouraged by these early indicators, we recognize we are at the beginning of this work. Although we cannot yet demonstrate significant measurable impact for all learners, we believe we are moving in a positive direction and have identified clear next steps.
Reflections/Advice: Through this inquiry, we learned the importance of moving beyond understanding instructional ideas in theory to seeing what they look like in practice. While our professional learning provided valuable insights, we recognized that without a clear and consistent framework, it was difficult to fully implement these approaches in our classrooms.
One of our key takeaways is the importance of a shared, coherent approach across a school. Piecing together multiple resources can lead to inconsistency and gaps in student learning, whereas working from a common framework supports alignment and more meaningful collaboration. As a team, we made a strong effort to align our work—seeking funding through the NOII grant and PLG, and intentionally using staff meeting time, with the support of administration, to engage in collaborative conversations and focus our professional learning on mathematics. While progress has been gradual, we feel we now have a practical direction that will support our instruction and allow us to focus more fully on student learning.
We also learned that meaningful change takes time. Building a culture where students see mathematics as a process of thinking, communicating, and persevering requires ongoing focus and intentional instructional decisions.
Our next steps include implementing My Math Path more fully over the next two years and continuing to use staff meeting time to share learning and refine our practice. We will deepen our focus on mathematical reasoning and strengthen our use of formative assessment to better understand and measure student growth, particularly for our most vulnerable learners.
Our advice to other schools would be to invest in ongoing, collaborative professional learning and to consider the value of a consistent instructional approach. Take time to explore and pilot resources, involve staff in the process, and ensure decisions align with both your goals and your students’ needs. Most importantly, focus on small, meaningful shifts in practice and build from there.