Thanks for this! I’ve seen the structure before but struggled to come up with examples of how it would be used in math (especially the “so”). I also appreciate the caveat to not use it with a concept that they are still wrapping their heads around. I think I would have attempted to do that and would have been scared off by the “messiness” in their not yet formed understanding.
Glad it's helpful! Even when I sequence the prompt well and students are in a good place to do some writing, it can definitely feel messy. An important part of this has been focusing on the mathematical thinking, so if a student does some good thinking, talking with their partner, and talking with me that's a win even if the sentences aren't great. And if the whole thing's a mess that's still good data for me to go deeper with that concept.
I appreciate this perspective. I will need to remind myself to consider it a win when I hear great mathematical thinking and not get too discouraged when their sentences “aren’t great”.
That‘s nice inspiration! But I wonder about the need to market this as a “revolution”. Such ideas have been around for a long time, one can find literature on written mathematical reasoning in the classroom from 20-30 years ago. I think it’s worth rediscovering it and being humble with respect to the work done in the past.
Yea that's a great point. The book is co-written by Judith Hochman and Natalie Wexler. Hochman is a veteran educator who used these activities in her classroom for decades before shifting to training teachers in this approach to writing. Wexler is a journalist. That reinforces your point. They title the book and the writing program The Writing Revolution, and I wonder if that's in part marketing? Because you're right, these have been around for a long time.
I appreciate the point about consistency. I’ve included these types of activities one-off but each time it feels like I have to reteach the routine. You’ve convinced me to read the book!
Oh, my first school worked with Judith Hochman quite a bit! At the time, they didn't have anything for math - they just said "Look at what we have for science" and hoped it was for the best. We wound up having to come up with ways to apply their stuff to math and report back. (The big one we said worked best was Because/But/So, in fact.) I wonder if that made it into this 2.0 version.
Fun! From what I remember it didn't, there were a few brief nods to math but not the kind of substantive examples I would love to see to get a sense of what other teachers have used. Glad I'm not the only one who settled on because/but/so as a solid option for math class.
Thank you! Excited to try this!
Thanks for this! I’ve seen the structure before but struggled to come up with examples of how it would be used in math (especially the “so”). I also appreciate the caveat to not use it with a concept that they are still wrapping their heads around. I think I would have attempted to do that and would have been scared off by the “messiness” in their not yet formed understanding.
Glad it's helpful! Even when I sequence the prompt well and students are in a good place to do some writing, it can definitely feel messy. An important part of this has been focusing on the mathematical thinking, so if a student does some good thinking, talking with their partner, and talking with me that's a win even if the sentences aren't great. And if the whole thing's a mess that's still good data for me to go deeper with that concept.
I appreciate this perspective. I will need to remind myself to consider it a win when I hear great mathematical thinking and not get too discouraged when their sentences “aren’t great”.
That‘s nice inspiration! But I wonder about the need to market this as a “revolution”. Such ideas have been around for a long time, one can find literature on written mathematical reasoning in the classroom from 20-30 years ago. I think it’s worth rediscovering it and being humble with respect to the work done in the past.
Yea that's a great point. The book is co-written by Judith Hochman and Natalie Wexler. Hochman is a veteran educator who used these activities in her classroom for decades before shifting to training teachers in this approach to writing. Wexler is a journalist. That reinforces your point. They title the book and the writing program The Writing Revolution, and I wonder if that's in part marketing? Because you're right, these have been around for a long time.
I appreciate the point about consistency. I’ve included these types of activities one-off but each time it feels like I have to reteach the routine. You’ve convinced me to read the book!
Good! I loved it. Made teaching writing seem way more approachable.
Oh, my first school worked with Judith Hochman quite a bit! At the time, they didn't have anything for math - they just said "Look at what we have for science" and hoped it was for the best. We wound up having to come up with ways to apply their stuff to math and report back. (The big one we said worked best was Because/But/So, in fact.) I wonder if that made it into this 2.0 version.
Fun! From what I remember it didn't, there were a few brief nods to math but not the kind of substantive examples I would love to see to get a sense of what other teachers have used. Glad I'm not the only one who settled on because/but/so as a solid option for math class.