Running Head: THINKING ANALYSIS 1

Thinking Analysis
Cassie McLemore
Teachers College of San Joaquin











THINKING ANALYSIS 2
Thinking Analysis
In teaching and observing three lessons at three different grade levels I was able to look
at different students landscape of learning solely as an observer and as a participant in the
teaching process. At each grade level students were engaged and wanted to find the answers to
questions posed to them. What was surprising to me was the apprehension that students
displayed when asked to discuss with one another how to solve the problem. Most students
currently do not have the schema required to discuss their mathematical thinking. It seems that
this generation of kids is focused primarily on answering the question with a number. Therefore
mathematical instruction needs to begin including less repetitive questioning and more
discussion about how to solve problems. According to Storeygard, Hamm and Fosnot (2010) the
key to getting students to open up about what they know requires that Teachers . . . find
students strengths to build their self-confidence (p. 46). Students must be confident in their
ability or they will never be able to explain their thinking, because they truly do not understand
the processes needed for transferable skills. In each grade level I encountered this issue with
discussion and just wanting to give a numbered answer.
In the first grade lesson I asked two students (Miller and Noah) to share with me
everything they knew about 15. I wanted them to talk about what the number represented and
how they could numerically and graphically represent the number 15. Students began by telling
me purely the numbers involved in making 15 (5 and 1). Storeygard, et al., (2010) caution
teachers to listen carefully and make adjustments based on individual responses (p. 46). After
waiting several seconds for the students to elaborate or discuss the number 15, I prodded them
with other questions to inspire conversation, but conversation never came.
THINKING ANALYSIS 3
Most of the lesson continued this way with me guiding the students into answers, until
the light bulb went off and a pattern emerged. This was the breaking point. Where the
conversation began. Where, as Storeygard, et al., (2010) put it the child had enough self-
confidence to demonstrate his thinking in many ways (p.49). The child was excited and wanted
to run and tell his teacher how he figured out the pattern. It was amazing to watch and made me
realize that this is what learning is about finding that place where students are excited to build on
their learning. In teaching this lesson again I would remind myself that understanding a students
landscape of learning is something that requires time, good listening skills and differentiated
activities.
Looking at seventh grade students, who are developmentally much older than the first
graders, I was surprised to see some of the same struggles with explaining their thinking and
analyzing a problem for solution strategies. I did not teach this lesson, but was an active
observer. I did not focus on one child or group of children to study, but looked at the whole class
interaction and pieces of conversations I overheard while circulating. While observing this
lesson I noticed that the majority of students willing to speak or discuss were a select few. Most
students did not volunteer and the teacher did not use random calling on students. There were
several pockets of students off task just waiting for answers to be given so they could write them
down. After the lesson was delivered and independent practice started, I focused on one group
of students that were unclear about the estimation and how it worked.
Students in general are not fond of estimation and struggle with the concept. In the group
where I listed in there was disagreement as to how to tackle the problem. Most students just
wanted to divide the numbers as they were written. I interjected in some instances asking them
how they were going to round to find whole number answers and it took some specific detailed
THINKING ANALYSIS 4
questioning to get them on the right track. Storeygard, et al., (2010) would agree that
adjustments for the individual are necessary for equity to occur (p. 46). If I were teaching this
lesson I would have used the independent practice time to check in with groups of students that I
know struggle in mathematics. This would have allowed me to determine whether their current
landscape of learning allowed them to be successful with this new concept or if additional
differentiation was required.
In the eighth grade lesson that I taught a similar struggle with discussion occurred.
Students were presented with a word problem that required several steps for completion. I
presented the problem to the students and asked them to discuss how they would go about
solving it. Part of the issue that I had was that I had two students that were drastically diverse in
their knowledge of mathematics (one was an advanced algebra student and the other was a
remedial 8
th
grade math student). Initially the advanced math student wanted to jump right to an
equation that solved the problem without discussing how or why this would work (the equation
she initially proposed was actually incorrect). I interjected and asked how she knew this was
true and could she explain why she was doing this to the remedial math student.
In teaching this lesson again I would not mix two students that are so far apart
mathematically. The remedial student was apprehensive after the advanced student jumped
quickly to an equation. Storeygard, et al., (2010) warned that having diverse student pairs is
essential, but if those pairing are not optimal (where both students are contributing) then we are
just reinforcing the learned helplessness of the student struggling to understand (p. 55). I
also would have not talked so much about what they needed to find. One of my most difficult
character/teacher flaws is the need to help students understand and let them struggle with the
THINKING ANALYSIS 5
problem. This is what I will begin working on as I move forward in furthering my math
instruction.





















THINKING ANALYSIS 6
Reference List
Storeygard, J., Hamm, J. & Fosnot, C., (2010). Determining what children know: Dynamic
versus static assessment. In Fosnot, C.T. (Eds.), Models of intervention:
Reweaving the tapestry (pp. 45 -70). New York, NY: National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics.