I love everything about this post: you are clear about the issues and serve up several useful alternatives for teachers to include all students in learning in a positive way. Excellent post, Dylan!!
One technique that I swear by is to ask a bunch of questions that elicit either binary "yes/no" answers or a slider, and then to have students display their guesses with their thumbs, all on the count of three. So, from today's lesson: "Is electricity just a bunch of electrons? Gimme a thumbs up/thumbs down in three, two, one, shoot!"
Then I'll note aloud the spread of answers, and provoke conversation from that.
Love it! Definitely in the spirit of what I'm describing. I used to have a routine where every day I would prepare a multiple choice question to check for understanding and have students use their fingers to signal A, B, C, or D. Eventually ditched that for my mini whiteboard routine that is more flexible and doesn't require multiple choice. But there are so many ways to do stuff like that, and once you have a good routine it can be a really fast way to check understanding and launch conversation.
Nice, thoughtful post. I’m curious if you have thoughts on how to create a “culture of error”. I have tried to do this in classrooms with varying degrees of success, but still never to the degree that I’d be comfortable cold calling, like some of the teachers you’ve mentioned.
I don't think a culture of error is a particular strength of mine. Here's one thing I did today that represents one common teaching move I use:
I gave students a tape diagram representing x + 4 = 12. Students answered on mini whiteboards. Most said 8, but 0-3 (depending on the class) said 3. They saw the x and thought of multiplication. When I see this, I always frame it as if the mistake is common. "Ok, I'm seeing some people said 3 and some people said 8. Take a moment to think. Is the answer 3 or 8?" Then we do a turn and talk. Then I call on someone to share out.
I do stuff like this all the time where we discuss common mistakes. I always frame it as if the errors are common and normal, and we spend lots of time talking about them. This isn't some magical solution. I think it helps normalize talking about mistakes, but plenty of students still feel embarrassed when they get something wrong. I don't have a great theory for how to create a culture of error, but my best idea is lots of little teacher moves that make talking about mistakes normal.
Yeah, that makes sense, highlighting and normalizing mistakes is about as much as I do as well; sometimes, if people are using some kind of heuristic incorrectly, I try to show a situation where that heuristic is actually correct to sort of show that even though their reasoning is incorrect in this instance, there are cases where it is totally reasonable and correct
What a thoughtful post. Also, I agree with you quite fully.
Even before I had skill with alternatives, I was unwilling to cold call. It is clear to me that on a rough day, I would find it very hard not to use the cold call to zing a student for some behavior that was getting on my nerves. Students would surely notice when that happens, and that would be corrosive to most of the positive things that I’m trying to build into class culture.
I wonder how teachers would respond if they were in a professional development exercise in which they were learning something new, through a process of inquiry, and the person leading that PD exercise used cold calling. I know that there are plenty of people who would respond well, but I suspect that many would not.
I particularly appreciate your description of alternatives. I’ll chime in here. If one of the reasons the question is being asked is to find out what the class understands at that point, and you do ask and get hands up and call on Eve to answer, then once you hear their answer you can ask quick questions such as, “How many of you were thinking the same thing as Eve?” or “Who has something they’d like to add to that?” or “How do you think Eve would answer this question then …?” and then ask a question to see if people really understood Eve’s perspective. Also, at times when understanding is at different places, it is good to ask the question so that the person who raises a hand to answer is only asked for a piece of the answer, to allow a full answer to emerge through several participating students which provides room for students to gain understanding during that process.
As always, Dylan, you offer such perceptive analysis of what actually goes on in classrooms when we cold call students in class. I have been recently re-reading and admiring Doug Lemov's work, and warming up to cold-calling. So when I saw the title and started reading, I had already cued up an instinct to reject what I was going to read. (Always a stupid idea to come to a reading with that mindset.)
And then I read on and realized you share Lemov's goal of inclusivity, of encouraging more than just the handful to speak. While I admire the goal of cold calling, you are so right that it is SO HARD to do correctly in a real classroom, with real students without thoroughly setting up the right culture.
Your alternatives are so helpful. I'll offer two more:
1. I have asked students to read a complex passage and then "everyone writes" and sometimes, even just answers a multiple choice question which I can quickly check to see if everyone got "C" as the correct answer, ensuring that they understood some key point in the reading. Obviously, a student could just avoid thinking and randomly choose "C" without thinking, so it isn't perfect.
2. I have also prefaced such activities by saying something like, "this is a challenging passage. This is actually more like high school level work (if middle schoolers) or college level work (if high schoolers). So if you get it right, pat yourself on the back. But if you get it wrong, don't at all feel bad, because like I said, this is HARD." I'll sometimes even say, "the first time I read this, I stumbled with it." I think that helps to create that "culture of error" you write about.
And also great advice to watch elementary school teachers!
Love your suggestions. I think my biggest thought on this topic is that teachers should have a broad toolbox of strategies to include students in class, and cold call is only one option -- and an option with very specific benefits and challenges. Very much along the lines of what you're describing.
Thank you so much for this. I have been in many heated discussions with admin (who see cold calling as a quick fix for student disengagement) because I refuse to cold call for all those reasons you mentioned. (It was a "focus" for our school one year and I got "talked to" for not doing it.) I firmly believe I have a better gauge of my kids understanding using the strategies you discussed then the majority of my colleagues who use cold calling. I would also argue that cold calling, when done poorly which I agree most teachers do, is just plain lazy. It's much easier to draw a popsicle stick and call on a kid then walking around the room and engaging with students.
I luckily haven't been forced to use it, though I've been encouraged a few times. I agree about cold call being lazy. I think part of the appeal is that it's such a small change -- teach how you were teaching before, but call on random students instead of taking a hand. But that whole type of extended verbal questioning can be pretty mediocre teaching, instead of actually getting students thinking, seeing what they understand, and responding to it.
This is an interesting take and I agree with plenty of it. The one I’m going to disagree with the most is about choosing students carefully. I say we should do that sometimes and only when sequencing student responses such as using 5 Practices. In many other situations I actually recommend calling on students especially for high leverage questions using a random name picker BUT this only happens AFTER a turn and talk and of course with a strong culture of error like you identified. The reason for this is that it eliminates teacher bias (actually!) and messages fairness and equity to students and can be a really powerful way of signaling that all voices really do matter. It also elevates instruction because if I’m going to do this then I know that I better be teaching my butt off to every students so that it is reasonable to assume any of them could be expected to respond to the prompt. I use this most for questions that synthesize or summarize key learning from a task where students have had time to grapple with the task and then can formulate thoughts via turn and talk first. But the eliminating bias of who “I think” I should call on has been a powerful experience and one that I recommend!
Yea that's fair. I think it depends on the goal? I think that if you want to maximize the utility of a check for understanding, then targeting a specific student makes sense. (But that requires a lot of other strong culture to be in place.) I think what you're describing is focused on including every voice in the room and encouraging students to feel like they're a full part of the class, and for that I think random makes sense -- especially after a turn and talk, and for a question that's summarizing and not about answering a specific math question.
I think another issue with cold call is that it can be used for so many different goals, so it's a bit hard to talk about because what you're trying to do with cold call might be very different than what someone else is trying to do.
I love everything about this post: you are clear about the issues and serve up several useful alternatives for teachers to include all students in learning in a positive way. Excellent post, Dylan!!
Thanks!
One technique that I swear by is to ask a bunch of questions that elicit either binary "yes/no" answers or a slider, and then to have students display their guesses with their thumbs, all on the count of three. So, from today's lesson: "Is electricity just a bunch of electrons? Gimme a thumbs up/thumbs down in three, two, one, shoot!"
Then I'll note aloud the spread of answers, and provoke conversation from that.
Love it! Definitely in the spirit of what I'm describing. I used to have a routine where every day I would prepare a multiple choice question to check for understanding and have students use their fingers to signal A, B, C, or D. Eventually ditched that for my mini whiteboard routine that is more flexible and doesn't require multiple choice. But there are so many ways to do stuff like that, and once you have a good routine it can be a really fast way to check understanding and launch conversation.
Thanks so much for this post. It offers so much advice that feels just right.
Thanks Marilyn!
Nice, thoughtful post. I’m curious if you have thoughts on how to create a “culture of error”. I have tried to do this in classrooms with varying degrees of success, but still never to the degree that I’d be comfortable cold calling, like some of the teachers you’ve mentioned.
I don't think a culture of error is a particular strength of mine. Here's one thing I did today that represents one common teaching move I use:
I gave students a tape diagram representing x + 4 = 12. Students answered on mini whiteboards. Most said 8, but 0-3 (depending on the class) said 3. They saw the x and thought of multiplication. When I see this, I always frame it as if the mistake is common. "Ok, I'm seeing some people said 3 and some people said 8. Take a moment to think. Is the answer 3 or 8?" Then we do a turn and talk. Then I call on someone to share out.
I do stuff like this all the time where we discuss common mistakes. I always frame it as if the errors are common and normal, and we spend lots of time talking about them. This isn't some magical solution. I think it helps normalize talking about mistakes, but plenty of students still feel embarrassed when they get something wrong. I don't have a great theory for how to create a culture of error, but my best idea is lots of little teacher moves that make talking about mistakes normal.
Yeah, that makes sense, highlighting and normalizing mistakes is about as much as I do as well; sometimes, if people are using some kind of heuristic incorrectly, I try to show a situation where that heuristic is actually correct to sort of show that even though their reasoning is incorrect in this instance, there are cases where it is totally reasonable and correct
What a thoughtful post. Also, I agree with you quite fully.
Even before I had skill with alternatives, I was unwilling to cold call. It is clear to me that on a rough day, I would find it very hard not to use the cold call to zing a student for some behavior that was getting on my nerves. Students would surely notice when that happens, and that would be corrosive to most of the positive things that I’m trying to build into class culture.
I wonder how teachers would respond if they were in a professional development exercise in which they were learning something new, through a process of inquiry, and the person leading that PD exercise used cold calling. I know that there are plenty of people who would respond well, but I suspect that many would not.
I particularly appreciate your description of alternatives. I’ll chime in here. If one of the reasons the question is being asked is to find out what the class understands at that point, and you do ask and get hands up and call on Eve to answer, then once you hear their answer you can ask quick questions such as, “How many of you were thinking the same thing as Eve?” or “Who has something they’d like to add to that?” or “How do you think Eve would answer this question then …?” and then ask a question to see if people really understood Eve’s perspective. Also, at times when understanding is at different places, it is good to ask the question so that the person who raises a hand to answer is only asked for a piece of the answer, to allow a full answer to emerge through several participating students which provides room for students to gain understanding during that process.
Love those questioning moves! And I love your point about the corrosion of zinging students. That negativity is contagious.
As always, Dylan, you offer such perceptive analysis of what actually goes on in classrooms when we cold call students in class. I have been recently re-reading and admiring Doug Lemov's work, and warming up to cold-calling. So when I saw the title and started reading, I had already cued up an instinct to reject what I was going to read. (Always a stupid idea to come to a reading with that mindset.)
And then I read on and realized you share Lemov's goal of inclusivity, of encouraging more than just the handful to speak. While I admire the goal of cold calling, you are so right that it is SO HARD to do correctly in a real classroom, with real students without thoroughly setting up the right culture.
Your alternatives are so helpful. I'll offer two more:
1. I have asked students to read a complex passage and then "everyone writes" and sometimes, even just answers a multiple choice question which I can quickly check to see if everyone got "C" as the correct answer, ensuring that they understood some key point in the reading. Obviously, a student could just avoid thinking and randomly choose "C" without thinking, so it isn't perfect.
2. I have also prefaced such activities by saying something like, "this is a challenging passage. This is actually more like high school level work (if middle schoolers) or college level work (if high schoolers). So if you get it right, pat yourself on the back. But if you get it wrong, don't at all feel bad, because like I said, this is HARD." I'll sometimes even say, "the first time I read this, I stumbled with it." I think that helps to create that "culture of error" you write about.
And also great advice to watch elementary school teachers!
Love your suggestions. I think my biggest thought on this topic is that teachers should have a broad toolbox of strategies to include students in class, and cold call is only one option -- and an option with very specific benefits and challenges. Very much along the lines of what you're describing.
Thank you so much for this. I have been in many heated discussions with admin (who see cold calling as a quick fix for student disengagement) because I refuse to cold call for all those reasons you mentioned. (It was a "focus" for our school one year and I got "talked to" for not doing it.) I firmly believe I have a better gauge of my kids understanding using the strategies you discussed then the majority of my colleagues who use cold calling. I would also argue that cold calling, when done poorly which I agree most teachers do, is just plain lazy. It's much easier to draw a popsicle stick and call on a kid then walking around the room and engaging with students.
I luckily haven't been forced to use it, though I've been encouraged a few times. I agree about cold call being lazy. I think part of the appeal is that it's such a small change -- teach how you were teaching before, but call on random students instead of taking a hand. But that whole type of extended verbal questioning can be pretty mediocre teaching, instead of actually getting students thinking, seeing what they understand, and responding to it.
This is an interesting take and I agree with plenty of it. The one I’m going to disagree with the most is about choosing students carefully. I say we should do that sometimes and only when sequencing student responses such as using 5 Practices. In many other situations I actually recommend calling on students especially for high leverage questions using a random name picker BUT this only happens AFTER a turn and talk and of course with a strong culture of error like you identified. The reason for this is that it eliminates teacher bias (actually!) and messages fairness and equity to students and can be a really powerful way of signaling that all voices really do matter. It also elevates instruction because if I’m going to do this then I know that I better be teaching my butt off to every students so that it is reasonable to assume any of them could be expected to respond to the prompt. I use this most for questions that synthesize or summarize key learning from a task where students have had time to grapple with the task and then can formulate thoughts via turn and talk first. But the eliminating bias of who “I think” I should call on has been a powerful experience and one that I recommend!
Yea that's fair. I think it depends on the goal? I think that if you want to maximize the utility of a check for understanding, then targeting a specific student makes sense. (But that requires a lot of other strong culture to be in place.) I think what you're describing is focused on including every voice in the room and encouraging students to feel like they're a full part of the class, and for that I think random makes sense -- especially after a turn and talk, and for a question that's summarizing and not about answering a specific math question.
I think another issue with cold call is that it can be used for so many different goals, so it's a bit hard to talk about because what you're trying to do with cold call might be very different than what someone else is trying to do.