Building A Thinking Classroom In Mathematics: My (Hopefully) Complete Guide To Toolkit #2

I'm just about to start my sixth week of re-Building A Thinking Classroom in Mathematics for the second time.  In my first year, six weeks was right about when I felt ready to move on to Toolkit #2.

(Well, that's not exactly true.  You see, contrary to advice, I tried to implement all the practices at once.  Six weeks is actually when I realized what a mistake that was, and I backed up to Toolkit #2.)

You'll know you're ready to move on to Toolkit #2 when Toolkit #1 feels completely comfortable - to you and to the kids.  At that point, you're giving thinking tasks - whatever the type - and the kids have adjusted to working on them at non-permanent surfaces and in visibly random groups.

For me, it was about six weeks.  But I'm very used to new things.  So if it needs longer than that to feel comfortable, then so be it.

Whenever that time comes, you'll find yourself feeling like you - and the kids - are ready for more.

Just a little more, but more.

Enter Toolkit #2.
​

What does Liljedahl Tell Us ABout TOolkit #2?

Toolkit #2 consists of five practices:

• "De-fronting" the classroom
• Answering only "keep thinking" questions
• Giving thinking tasks early, standing, and verbally
• Giving check-your-understanding questions
• Mobilizing knowledge

For this Toolkit, unlike Toolkit #1, the practices are implemented one-at-a-time, and in whatever order makes the most sense for you.
​

Toolkit #1 was all about "shocking the system" and sending the message to students that an entirely new set of student behaviors will be needed in their new math class.

With students' mindsets and behaviors adequately shocked, "toolkit #2 is all about teaching practice.  This toolkit will require you to make some fundamental changes to the ways in which you do things that are part of the very fabric of teaching" (p. 284).  

I don't know that would echo his explanation completely.  Toolkit #2 does, indeed, require us to make changes.  But in my experience, the "fundamental changes... to the very fabric of teaching" came in Toolkit #3.

Toolkit #2, to me, is more about fine-tuning and maximizing what takes place during the thinking tasks.  Toolkit #1 asks us to start giving thinking tasks, but asks very little of us in terms of what happens during those tasks.  But in Toolkit #2, I had to start building practices that made those thinking tasks more effective.

I still, however, in Toolkit #2, was doing a lot of "fundamental" teaching practices I had always done, like direct instruction and notes.  Relinquishing those, in Toolkit #3, was an earth-shattering change for me, whereas I found Toolkit #2 to be more of a fine-tuning of the changes in Toolkit #1.  
​

In WHat order did I implement the practices?

• I de-fronted and gave check-your-understanding questions first.  Those were both "light lifts" for me - hardly a change from what I was already doing.
• I focused on answering only "keep-thinking" questions next. 
• I dug into task-launching next
• I started mobilizing knowledge last

​

Which practices had the greatest impact for me?

I have the utmost respect for all of the work and research that went into all of the Building Thinking Classrooms practices, but I definitely have found that some of them have had a bigger impact on their own, while some of the practices' impact can be found more in their inclusion in the totality of the program.

Task launching, at least for me, was the biggest single-impact practice of Toolkit #2, by far.

When I started launching tasks early, standing, and clustered, the increase in energy level was palpable.  Kids' energy levels are naturally higher when they stand, and I also found that I reaped all the benefits that Liljedahl explains about standing during task work (feeling subconsciously visible, better mood, increased non-verbal communication, increased peer reliance, less access to distracting personal items, less boredom/zoning out, etc) during the task launch as well.

In fact, I became so enamored with what I got from the kids during the standing task launch that I started having them stand clustered for the bulk of our CQI/remediation/recall practice time that precedes it, too.

In the past year, I've had both a new assistant principal and a parent who wanted her daughter pulled from my class because of my overly-strict, tyrannical, out-of-touch ways come to observe me, and both left saying that seeing the standing, clustered portion of class was one of the warmest, most interactive, and most relational things they'd seen in a classroom.  I never heard another complaint from the parent after her visit. 

I just love it.  I've already written a love letter to visibly random grouping.  I'm probably overdue to let standing, clustered task launches know just how strong my feelings are for that practice, too.
​

What If I can't De-Front My Classroom?

For various reasons, I see a lot of questions that amount to "what if I can't de-front my classroom?"​

• I share my room with someone else
• I teach more than just math and need it arranged a certain way for other content areas
• My furniture can't be moved
• And so on

​
​I wouldn't worry too much about it.  De-fronting, I think, is more about what happens in the classroom than how the furniture is arranged.  If the furniture is still "fronted," but the action in the room is not, I think you'll get most of the same effect over time.

I have my furniture arranged in a way that meets my needs.  The wall space is free for standing at boards, and there is an open area in the middle for sitting or standing clustered.  The desks or tables are arranged in a way that promotes working together during note-making.  That's about all the thought I put into it.

It works for me.
​

Three I'm-pretty-sure-future-teachers create their own micro-fronted classroom experience during a review session.  I decided to allow it, because, c'mon, just look at them!

Don't You Get In Trouble If You Refuse To answer, like, 90% of the kids' questions?

Not yet!

Over time, the stop-thinking questions really wane.  I mostly get stop-thinking questions in two big buckets.  The first is the "am I done?" bucket, and it doesn't take kids too long in my Thinking Classroom before they realize that they're never done, and they stop asking. 

The second is the "is this right?" bucket.  That one, I have a system for.  Contrary to Liljedah's advice, during thin-sliced tasks, the kids have access to their future questions as they think.  When one is done, they just go to the next one, and I check as I circulate.  They don't have to stop.  

During thin-sliced tasks, I can always see the groups' last four questions when I visit, allowing me to check on their progress without them having to stop and wait.  This is contrary to Liljedahl's advice, but it works for me.

As for proximity questions, those seem to be kid-specific.  I hadn't really had a kid who asked proximity questions in a few years. This year, however, I have two big-time proximity question-ers.  If I'm passing by, they're asking a question whether they have one or not.  I respond about equally with:

• pretending I didn't hear it and keeping moving
• saying "keep thinking"
• reminding them of procedures and routines we have that preclude the need to ask​

It's irritating, for sure.  They mean well and they want me to see how hard they're trying, so they ask questions to get my attention.  

But so far, so good.  Lots of unanswered questions, and I haven't gotten in trouble (for that, at least) yet.

What Have I learned About Task Launches?

I've come to believe that the task launch is a very, very, very significant event in a Thinking Classroom.  As I said above, this is practice that I have found to be highly impactful, and while I am generally a "modify a practice as much as necessary to work for you" proponent, this one worked best for me when I started doing it "by the book" (literally).

Getting kids to learn from an expertly crafted task without direct instruction is really challenging, but it is THE magic of a Thinking Classroom.

I like my task launches to be a simple "you can already... so what about...." most days.  This is the same video as above, and if you skip to 5:25, you'll get an example.  Hard to see, but it is basically "you can already use the long division algorithm if the dividend has a decimal... but what if the divisor has one?"
​

You can hear a good portion of the class start thinking right away.

That's the sign of a good task launch.

It's just one more step forward that they hadn't thought of.

This, in fact, is precisely how I pace out my lessons.  Before I ever start planning, if I can plan out my topics using this language, that tells me how big of a step I can take the next day.  

I literally pace out my units by planning my task launches.   Here's an example of my pacing calendar for common multiples and factorsfrom a previous post.
​

Wording my lessons like this is almost thin-slicing the entire topic of study.

"You can already... but what about...."
​

How Do You Launch (or Even Plan) A Task that the kids have no chance of "figuring out"?

There are times when I simply can't walk the kids into a new lesson with a "you can already... but what about...?"  There do seem to be topics that just doesn't lend themselves to being figured out through thinking.

So I experimented with alternative task launch formats for those types of topics.

And they worked!

I wrote a whole post on launching hard-to-figure-out tasks, and I'd love to encourage you to read it.  I'm really proud of the ideas and details there, and they kept my kids thinking when I didn't think a topic could be learned that way.

Task launching is a real art and it makes a real difference.
​

Doesn't all the moving and fidgeting during the standing cluster drive you crazy?

If you watch the video above, you'll notice a lot of the kids moving, fidgeting, swaying, dancing, etc.  You'd think that it would drive me nuts, but to be honest, I only even notice it when I look at recordings after the fact.  In the moment, it just isn't a distraction, and the kids aren't inattentive when they're moving.  They're just moving.  

I have found that having something in their hands seems to be a big attention drain, but moving around actually seems to help their attention.
​
Honestly, for me at least, all the movement is a non-event.  I make lots of eye contact with them, I'm seen looking, and I hold them accountable for their attention.  Those are the things that matter more than whether or not they're standing still.
​

The book says not to hold kids accountable for check-your-understanding questions, but c'mon

About twice a month in the Building Thinking Classrooms community, I see a "THE KIDS AREN'T DOING THE CHECK YOUR UNDERSTANDING QUESTIONS!!!!!!!!!!" tirade.

I know, they're not.

​Let's talk about it.

First, this is another practice that I've adopted "by the book." 

I give the questions. 

I give the answers. 

I don't check it or grade it.

BUT.

​Check Your Understanding Questions

​Actually, there are four BUTs:

• BUT, I add a "guardian signature" line to one check-your-understanding question a day, and at the beginning of the year, I establish that the students are to do that one for a parent or guardian each night so that he/she can see what the student learned that day.  I still don't check that it gets done, but I establish that it should and I reference it often in parent communication.  For instance, on a test day, I might send a parent email that says "there won't be a check-your-understanding question to sign tonight because we have a test today," as a reminder that there SHOULD be one being signed most other days.
• BUT, if a test doesn't go well and a re-test is needed, doing all the relevant check-your-understanding questions that should have been done earlier is part of the preparation.  And for that, I do check before offering a re-test.
• BUT, if a student isn't doing well and we have a parent-teacher conference, the binder full of never-attempted check-your-understanding questions (and unsigned guardian signature blanks) will be on full display and a prominent point of discussion at this parent-teacher conference.
• BUT, on the days we have class time to work on check-your-understanding questions, that is your only option during that period of time.

So I guess, in short, even though I follow the book to the letter, I still talk about and refer to check your understanding questions in a way that promotes accountability in the long-term.

​From what I see in the online community, the teachers who post on or comment on this practice seem to feel like the kids complete these in far fewer numbers than Liljedahl's research found.  My experience is similar.

​He's pretty clear in the chapter that homework/practice problems produce a whole slew of undesirable outcomes, and we're more or less stuck choosing what mix of those problems we are willing to tolerate.  In general, my practice is...

• Give them BTC style
• Let parents know that I've given them, so that they can hold the kids accountable if they value it
• Make sure that the lack of their completion is spotlighted when things go wrong.

That's the mix that I, personally, have decided to live with.
​

Doesn't mobilizing knowledge defeat the whole purpose of figuring it out for yourself?

I don't think so.

While it can seem like cheating or copping out when they can't figure something out for themselves, I don't think mobilizing knowledge amounts to "just being told the answer."

I use this practice in two versions:

• In version 1, I ask a group to go LOOK at another group's board and see if they can figure out how that group is approaching the problem (less help)
• In version 2, I ask a group to go ASK ANOTHER GROUP TO EXPLAIN how their group is approaching the problem (more help)

​Here's a video of version 2, and I think it does a good job of exemplifying why even the "more help" version of this practice doesn't amount to just being told how to do it.

First, the group of boys I mobilize is genuinely stuck.  I've probably made two full circuits of the room at this point.  They've given what they're trying to figure out a lot of thought.

Second, you've no doubt noticed that, in general, kids are awful teachers.  Awful.  So when the boys arrive at the group I've mobilized them to, they don't exactly get a crystal clear, well organized, high level tutoring session.

It actually takes a lot of thinking (<-- the whole point!) for them to make sense of this other group's understanding, too.  It takes even more thinking to figure out another group's understanding from just looking​ at their board.

You also, no doubt, noticed that only one of the three boys really makes an effort.  He seems to have the idea by the end though, and leads his group back to their board get started again.  When they get there, he still has his work cut out for him to lead the other two, who still have a lot of thinking to do.

In short, everyone is still thinking.  The boy leading the group is still thinking by organizing what he thinks he's figured out into a way he can communicate.  The girl who did the explaining in the other group had to do the same for him.  The other two boys have to make sense of the first boy's (likely poor) upcoming explanation. 

I, you no doubt also noticed, offered no help, which is my normal course of action with this practice.  I use hints and extensions (Toolkit #3) far more than mobilized knowledge to get groups un-stuck and keep them in flow states.  You can see and hear me do so with the neighboring group.  But mobilizing has its place, too.

I think kids do a lot more of this without letting on that they're doing so, too.  I'm pretty sure that a lot of groups overhear or oversee the group right next to them in the formation process and run with what they see and hear.  They don't necessarily visibly go to another group to do it, they just leverage what's happening on the board next to them.

But again, they have to make sense of what they see and hear.  That's still thinking. 
​​

What Does A 2-Toolkit Thinking Classroom Look and Feel Like?

The practices in Toolkit #2 were minor - but highly strategic - changes, I found.  Toolkit #1 is an earth-shattering shock to the system.  Toolkit #2 is not.

One by one through Toolkit #2, I found myself feeling like I was adding tiny, incremental changes that:

• Strengthened the commitment to learning by thinking built in Toolkit #1
• Reinforced that I, the teacher, am less and less the source of your learning
• Further built the expectation that we learn best when we stand and engage

I still, however felt like I had a two-part class every day.

• Part 1 - Thinking and figuring out what I planned for us to learn that day
• Part 2 - Typical instruction and notes on the topic

Toolkit #1 introduces thinking tasks and toolkit #2 improves the practices around that new element of class.  Together, they launch something new, but don't replace the traditional practices of direct instruction and note-taking.  I found myself needing less and less time and formality for those as the kids got better and better at learning from the thinking tasks, but they were still there.

And I loved this time of the year!  The thinking process was dynamic and I got better and better and getting the kids to learn more and more that way.  Part 2 of class got quicker, easier, and less necessary.

Paving the way for Toolkit #3, when those practices get replaced completely.
​  

How Long Before I get to (or Have to) move to Toolkit #3?

I added one practice from Toolkit #2 every week or two, so 5-10 weeks is probably a good estimate.

Toolkit #3 is a biggie.  I can see a world where that Toolkit looming in the distance is an intimidating task that one might like to put off as long as possible.  That toolkit, after all, is where we really move from a classroom where Thinking is part of the learning process to one where Thinking is the whole learning process.  The practices waiting there are big, threatening, and force us to give up control completely.

It might be scary.

It also might be incredibly motivating.  It might be what you've been looking forward to Building the whole time.  You might feel like you just have an "At-The-Boards" Classroom rather than a true Thinking Classroom and look forward to making the leap.

If you can't wait for Toolkit #3, you can probably complete Toolkit #2 in five weeks.  If you're dreading that move, you can probably put it off for ten.

The real sign to look for, like I said in the last section, is that over time you'll notice that instruction and notes following the thinking tasks seem less and less necessary as you get good at the Toolkit #2 practices.  Dropping instruction in favor of consolidation is the single most intimidating transition in the entire program. But it will seem less intimidating - and like a natural next step - when Toolkit #2 is really humming.

More and more often I found myself saying "I don't really need to teach this directly.  They pretty much got it during the task.  I just need to clarify it a little."

That means you're ready to consolidate and to hand off note-making responsibility.  

​That means you're ready for Toolkit #3.
​

What have I missed?

I sincerely want to help make your experience Building (or re-Building) a Thinking Classroom in Mathematics a successful one, and nailing Toolkit #2 completes the foundation for that build.  I've tried to walk you through all the advice I could have used a year ago - but what have I missed?  Please consider leaving your additional Toolkit #2 questions in the comments, or sign up for my email notifications below and send me additional questions there.  I may even add them to the post!
​

If you enjoyed this post, please share it!

Want to make sure you never miss a new post?  Subscribe below for email notifications of new content.

Want to read more right now?  You're in luck - this is my 93rd post! You can browse past posts by category:

• ​Building A Thinking Classroom
• Leaning Into The Science and Engineering Practices
• Classroom Practices
• Classroom Stories
• Ideas and Opinions
• Pandemic-Related Issues

Want to contribute to the conversation?  Or do you have an idea for a future post?  Leave a comment below!