I am not a PL apologist by any means. I know what I like about the BTC framework (and note it is a framework not a theoretical framework, philosophy or methodology) and a distillation. BTC is not a research text. It is a popular text, meant for a popular audience. I've probably known Peter for 20 years...about as long as I've been in Canada. A simple google scholar search (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=10&q=peter+liljedahl&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5) will turn up lots of the research evidence which is 'distilled' in the BTC book. Including work in ZDM (one of the premier and oldest journals in mathematics education but often paywalled unless the open access fee is paid) and other highly selective mathematics education journals. Peter's early work is on problem solving and belief/affect and the BTC work has grown out of that over the 20 years and again is a distillation. The same is true for most texts published by Corwin - they are not 'research' texts in the traditional sense, i.e. their audience is wider, more practitioner focused, and not 'researchers' only.
Carl Wieman (Nobel Physicist) positioned it well in a nice piece in Ed. Researcher (2014, 43(1)) about the relative development of the methods in education research compared to that of the 'hard' sciences. Education research is still in its early days compared to more mature sciences and is 'messy' and 'complex' since the complexities in the systems involved have not yet been well studied and understood. Similarly the recent set of Editorials in JRME under Cai make the case that mathematics education research (in English) is still in its early adolescent phase (if you read it that way then Peter's work falls right in line with the challenging of all of the traditional orthodoxies and deploying the Costanza method in its early days - try the opposite of what we've been doing).
The thing I like and respect about the BTC approach is that it has made available to more kids and teachers the beauty and joy that I experienced as a student preparing for math contests. This is the way we work - as a mathematics community. Peter has made a version of this accessible to the more traditional and over-surveilled classrooms in North America with many teachers who are under-prepared mathematically.
Respectfully, Someone who reads the original papers (cause its my job).
I very much appreciate the comment, and you raise a lot of good points. But it would be especially helpful if you could point me very specifically to the papers that you think have been condensed into the book, because I was looking at his published papers (including the ZDM ones) for work that would support the BTC framework -- also because PL doesn't cite any of these in his book. Are there any specific papers you're thinking of?
To set the stage I suggest reading Wieman, C. (2014). The similarities between research in education and research in the hard sciences. Educational Researcher, 43(1), 12-14. This is an opinion essay but to my mind quite insightful.
Liljedahl, P. (2005). Mathematical discovery and affect: The effect of AHA! experiences on undergraduate mathematics students. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 36(2-3), 219-236.
[The original doctoral thesis is also worth reading to understand the origins of Peter's motivation.]
Liljedahl, P. & Sriraman, B. (2006). Musings on mathematical creativity. For The Learning of Mathematics, 26(1), 20-23.
[These were the early ideas]
Liljedahl, P. (2010). Noticing Rapid and Profound Mathematics Teacher Change. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 13(5), 411-423.
[Somewhere along the way the importance of changing teachers' beliefs alongside their knowledge and practices became a focus.]
Liljedahl, P. (2011). The Theory of Conceptual Change as a Theory for Changing Conceptions. Nordisk Matematikkdidaktikk, 16(1-2), 101-124.
[This was important for identifying the theoretical framework that would be at the heart of his next set of endeavours - conceptual change theory.]
Liljedahl, P. (2014). Approaching Professional Learning: What teachers want. The Mathematics Enthusiast, 11(1), 109-22.
[This is a good paper which could explain the development and popularity of the BTC framework in later years. This is less about the evidence for BTC than understanding the audience for that work]
I will recommend to Peter that he add a link to the BTC book website to the supporting literature. I would not expect 'strong' evidence for at least another century or so :-) as it becomes more organized and systematic in its approach.
The BTC phenom is typical of the current educational landscape in North America in which marketing and over hyping of educational celebrity / influencers / ideas are part of the current zeitgeist.
So I would say the evidence is EARLY and PROMISING rather than WEAK...BUT our culture wants things now (amazon/netlfix/on-demand effect) and with a guarantee.
Thank you for all this! I reviewed most of those papers (albeit briefly) while searching for evidence to support BTC. I understand your point that it explains his trajectory, which is not unimportant (and he writes about the AHA research in the 2016 paper and in the book). But what I was looking for was something along the lines of what he provides for vertical whiteboards -- explanations of how we know that they are more engaging. That's what I'm not seeing in these papers, though I think he's making claims that the evidence is there.
But the student theses are new to me, so I'll take a closer look at those.
I hear your point about the state of math edu research, but I don't know if this is about math edu specifically. There is a lot of terrific qualitative research that comes out of education departments, I don't think this work is representative of math edu as a research field. (It is representative of how math edu consultants and speakers talk, though.)
Yes the 'grey' literature...sometimes overlooked. I think the first toolkit has likely the strongest support, the third maybe the least BUT are pragmatic extensions that are consistent with the ideas. The point is about ed research in general and better made by Wieman - we're still in the messy mucking about phase, though less messy than say 30 years ago.
With all due respect, if you can’t provide solid, replicated, experimental evidence to support BTC, then it has no value to me.
There are more than enough models and strategies that have repeatedly been shown to result in significant gains in learning over the past several decades, and still not part of most classrooms. Why would anyone want to waste valuable time and resources on anything else?
But this is how it's supposed to work, right? But, isn't this the point of research? He was a teacher doing some cool stuff, he didn't have access to like institutional research boards and classrooms of kids available for experimental control. He still put his stuff out there, he shot his shot, and the journals published it. Lots of people talked about it and liked it. I'm glad you pointed out that at this point the research behind it might lack behind the scale at which it's being used, or perhaps a nicer way to say it is that the wide spread of it makes it possible to do larger research and learn more about what is behind the successes people see. But isn't this the order it has to go in? People are supposed to put stuff out there, see if it works. Get some feedback, do some more testing, put that out there, see if it works, etc. I think we would all rather see this out in the world then to see it not in the world because he spent 15 years going from school to school trying to gather up enough kids for a large enough pilot of his new teaching method to have a representative sample.
I don't think this is the right timeline. He spent a lot of time as a teacher, then he got his PhD. Since then he has been a professor of mathematics education who has published many journal articles. He is very clear throughout that this project isn't the result of his teaching, but the result of his research. Here is Peter's Google Scholar page, you can see a lot of published papers there: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=GyKWvH0AAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao
But like I said in the post, I'm all for teacher sharing! If this book was, like, "hey here's what I learned from my teaching and observations and you know what? I think it's 100% absolutely true, and you'll find that it immediately transforms your classroom" then I wouldn't say boo.
But "these are the findings of our research for which we have evidence" is supposed to mean something more. Precisely why people like to talk about it is because it suggests that the work is more likely to work for someone who is adapting it -- some degree of generalizability. Otherwise, why make such a big deal about how it's the result of 15 years of research, in every kind of classroom, it transformed every classroom, etc?
He doesn't seem like a guy who is 100% research in the lab at a university where his teaching responsibilities are once per year, or bought out by grant funding. He's teaching K-12 concepts to pre-service teachers, and pulling his thoughts on it. Maybe it's not 'research' but the fact his string of publications includes a lot about about his teaching, and it's getting accepted by research journals and conferences, it's hard to say it's 'not research' either. Maybe it's in the middle. Maybe what he's doing is like thinking in public about what he's doing in his class.
The points you raise about where exactly the evidence for BTC is and how strong that evidence is are valid given that the book draws a lot of authority from vaguely hinting at research, which seems hard to actually pin down. I am wondering if you reached out to Liljedahl for comment/resources that shed light on these questions. If so, what did he say? If not, in my experience, he is very easy to reach via email (his address is easy to find on the internet).
Also, I think some of your characterizations of the book and the research are a bit off:
1. The book doesn't recommend not using direct instruction. Rather, direct instruction happens in short highly intentional ways- when tasks are launched and during consolidation/ note creation.
2. The book also doesn't recommend only answering questions with other questions in some generic way. This recommendation is for questions that, if answered, would deprive students of the opportunity to think.
3. You're summary of Liljedahl's take on homework doesn't capture the essence of that take which is that homework should be a chance for students to check their understanding of the work they did in groups without fear of failure.
4. You incorrectly conveyed an important detail about the study on work spaces. The people coding for engagement and so forth were independent observers, not Liljedahl.
Also, I think the whole point of the book is to help teachers build structures that foster problem solving and autonomy rather than mimicry and dependence. As you present your case, your gripe is not specifically with these goals, but rather with the quality of the evidence marshalled to support the recommended practices offered- especially given how the book draws on the implied authority of THE RESEARCH... AND it also feels like you're dissing the whole project- that is that you think these values are misplaced. I think you're critique would land better if you made your stance clearer regarding the stated goals the BTC practices purport to support.
Reading the book and investigating these practices further/ experimenting with them it's always been clear to me that the claims are bracketed by a statement such as "If your goal is to have more students thinking more of the time, as opposed to "studenting" then try this stuff." That might not be your goal, or what you value (it's hard to tell from this post) but if it is, the BTC framework does have a lot of non-bullshit concrete things you can do to get more students thinking more of the time.
To be clear: I am only talking about research in this post. From the title to the content of the post, I don't know how I could have been clearer that my gripe is about the research and that I'm not discussing my feelings about the pedagogy -- not sure why it feels that way on your read. If it's hard to tell from my post what my views are about his system...that's because I'm not talking about that!
You couldn’t have been more clear. Don’t forget there are a lot of dogs in the fight. Think of it from the the perspective of someone who has put their heart and a great deal of time and resources into BTC.
Peter probably about $20k per day and is booked solid. After writing that check, attending that workshop, reading that book and planning lessons for countless hours, people don’t want to hear your message.
Never mind all the money spent on those vertical nonpermanent surfaces. . .
I’m not sure if it’s too late to comment on this post, but has anyone seen or read any peer-reviewed articles of his BTC work? Our district is adopting this and I’d love to have a better understanding of the whole picture. Thank you!
I don’t publish. I’m not a writer. But I do share it at all of my trainings and entertain all questions. I believe once I have a larger set of data the numbers will mean and show even more. To be continued…
Thank you for this. Many years ago, in my graduate education program, we were taught how to tell the difference between real research and opinion pieces by looking for key indicators of reliability and validity. I've surveyed (completely unreliably and invalidly) my junior colleagues and they all tell me this skill is no longer taught, or inadequately taught in teacher training programs. I think what's required are publicly funded, 100% transparent education think tanks whose only purpose is to rigidly establish what research is reliable and valid, and what isn't. Like a Consumer Reports for Education Research. Is that a crazy idea?
Thanks for taking the time to summarize this for us, that's a lot of work! You are totally correct there needs to be a better understanding of the difference between strong & weak evidence. Can i be both cynical and skeptical?
Thanks, George! Part of what makes me frustrated is that it's actually NOT that much work. It's four papers, all of which are thankfully available online without a paywall, two of which are extremely short. This isn't arcane or slippery stuff, because I think Peter L is an honest and sincere guy. The issues are I think immediately apparent -- there isn't anything to support the big generalizations.
thanks Michael, regarding the work, I guess i'm referring to all the work you do in checking research - like your history of CLT - the best i've read and gives a very different impression than many of the CLT proselytizer's I've read.
Great writing Michael! This the gospel of Liljedahl has started spreading in my district’s math division, and frustratingly, charismatic teachers with good classroom management are singing its praises, and as a result, any faults are let go, and to have a go at it is heresy. I was a mentor for a BT who was trying to follow it (based on said charismatic, veteran teacher), and some of what she was trying to do was failing spectacularly or utterly incomprehensible. Seat in groups of no more than 3? Ugh.
I have Wipeboards up in the room and hallway to access for problem-solving activities. The kids enjoy using them and appear engaged. The Wipeboards have become an enriching element of our cooperative learning.
My biggest issue is with how this book/research has been adopted as though it is the holy-grail of evidence-based mathematics practice in my school and school board. We have math coaches/mentors presenting this book as though it were a rigorous meta-analysis with large effect sizes. They have said "we know problem solving is critical to mathematics and this a proven method for supporting student learning.""the groups have to be random, it won't work otherwise," "the directions have to be oral, so don't give handouts with the problems," "don't answer questions from students, let them experience productive struggle," "classrooms should be messy because learning is messy." I realize these things would matter if you were concerned with replicating the study but our concerns lie with supporting learning - learning in little people at that (elementary). PL's study measures engagement in high school students. Engagement is a poor proxy for learning and his findings may not be generalizable to elementary students.
The statements above are wishful extrapolations and absurd distortions of evidence-based research.
During our math PD sessions I'm unsure whether to laugh or cry at the conviction and ignorance of claims. This is not PL's fault but a major challenge in the profession - particularly in elementary settings and it is impacting the quality of instruction students are getting.
Consider BTC for complementing your existing EBP in math. Circle the wagon and take what is valuable but don't hook your wagon to it.
Check out the facebook group https://www.facebook.com/groups/buildingthinkingclassrooms, it has real teachers sharing success and failures within the thinking classroom. It is really the best collaborative workspace that I have ever been apart of, everyone is very encouraging and happy to share in the work to help kids think about math differently
What research is there for this method with neurodivergent students? My 2E daughter's (autism, ADHD, anxiety, facial blindness, gifted) HS recently started this in her math class and it has been disastrous for her. The constant seat changing and group changing heightens her anxiety so much that she's unable to get past the fight/flight. Is there support for use with neurodivergent students?
n of 3 here. Our children's school implemented it this year and within a month our daughters went from loving math to dreading it. All top three in their previous algebra classes.
Here are the results of a survey we conducted of parents in our District since BTc started. Our District quashed a survey started by a student surveying other students.
I am not a PL apologist by any means. I know what I like about the BTC framework (and note it is a framework not a theoretical framework, philosophy or methodology) and a distillation. BTC is not a research text. It is a popular text, meant for a popular audience. I've probably known Peter for 20 years...about as long as I've been in Canada. A simple google scholar search (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=10&q=peter+liljedahl&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5) will turn up lots of the research evidence which is 'distilled' in the BTC book. Including work in ZDM (one of the premier and oldest journals in mathematics education but often paywalled unless the open access fee is paid) and other highly selective mathematics education journals. Peter's early work is on problem solving and belief/affect and the BTC work has grown out of that over the 20 years and again is a distillation. The same is true for most texts published by Corwin - they are not 'research' texts in the traditional sense, i.e. their audience is wider, more practitioner focused, and not 'researchers' only.
Carl Wieman (Nobel Physicist) positioned it well in a nice piece in Ed. Researcher (2014, 43(1)) about the relative development of the methods in education research compared to that of the 'hard' sciences. Education research is still in its early days compared to more mature sciences and is 'messy' and 'complex' since the complexities in the systems involved have not yet been well studied and understood. Similarly the recent set of Editorials in JRME under Cai make the case that mathematics education research (in English) is still in its early adolescent phase (if you read it that way then Peter's work falls right in line with the challenging of all of the traditional orthodoxies and deploying the Costanza method in its early days - try the opposite of what we've been doing).
The thing I like and respect about the BTC approach is that it has made available to more kids and teachers the beauty and joy that I experienced as a student preparing for math contests. This is the way we work - as a mathematics community. Peter has made a version of this accessible to the more traditional and over-surveilled classrooms in North America with many teachers who are under-prepared mathematically.
Respectfully, Someone who reads the original papers (cause its my job).
I very much appreciate the comment, and you raise a lot of good points. But it would be especially helpful if you could point me very specifically to the papers that you think have been condensed into the book, because I was looking at his published papers (including the ZDM ones) for work that would support the BTC framework -- also because PL doesn't cite any of these in his book. Are there any specific papers you're thinking of?
To set the stage I suggest reading Wieman, C. (2014). The similarities between research in education and research in the hard sciences. Educational Researcher, 43(1), 12-14. This is an opinion essay but to my mind quite insightful.
Liljedahl, P. (2005). Mathematical discovery and affect: The effect of AHA! experiences on undergraduate mathematics students. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 36(2-3), 219-236.
[The original doctoral thesis is also worth reading to understand the origins of Peter's motivation.]
Liljedahl, P. & Sriraman, B. (2006). Musings on mathematical creativity. For The Learning of Mathematics, 26(1), 20-23.
[These were the early ideas]
Liljedahl, P. (2010). Noticing Rapid and Profound Mathematics Teacher Change. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 13(5), 411-423.
[Somewhere along the way the importance of changing teachers' beliefs alongside their knowledge and practices became a focus.]
Liljedahl, P. (2011). The Theory of Conceptual Change as a Theory for Changing Conceptions. Nordisk Matematikkdidaktikk, 16(1-2), 101-124.
[This was important for identifying the theoretical framework that would be at the heart of his next set of endeavours - conceptual change theory.]
Liljedahl, P. (2014). Approaching Professional Learning: What teachers want. The Mathematics Enthusiast, 11(1), 109-22.
[This is a good paper which could explain the development and popularity of the BTC framework in later years. This is less about the evidence for BTC than understanding the audience for that work]
Some of the 'evidence' is also in his student theses eg. Allen (2017). https://summit.sfu.ca/item/17584
Pruner (2016) https://summit.sfu.ca/item/16614
Wells (2009). https://summit.sfu.ca/item/9750
McGregor (2018). https://summit.sfu.ca/item/17982
I will recommend to Peter that he add a link to the BTC book website to the supporting literature. I would not expect 'strong' evidence for at least another century or so :-) as it becomes more organized and systematic in its approach.
The BTC phenom is typical of the current educational landscape in North America in which marketing and over hyping of educational celebrity / influencers / ideas are part of the current zeitgeist.
So I would say the evidence is EARLY and PROMISING rather than WEAK...BUT our culture wants things now (amazon/netlfix/on-demand effect) and with a guarantee.
Thank you for all this! I reviewed most of those papers (albeit briefly) while searching for evidence to support BTC. I understand your point that it explains his trajectory, which is not unimportant (and he writes about the AHA research in the 2016 paper and in the book). But what I was looking for was something along the lines of what he provides for vertical whiteboards -- explanations of how we know that they are more engaging. That's what I'm not seeing in these papers, though I think he's making claims that the evidence is there.
But the student theses are new to me, so I'll take a closer look at those.
I hear your point about the state of math edu research, but I don't know if this is about math edu specifically. There is a lot of terrific qualitative research that comes out of education departments, I don't think this work is representative of math edu as a research field. (It is representative of how math edu consultants and speakers talk, though.)
Yes the 'grey' literature...sometimes overlooked. I think the first toolkit has likely the strongest support, the third maybe the least BUT are pragmatic extensions that are consistent with the ideas. The point is about ed research in general and better made by Wieman - we're still in the messy mucking about phase, though less messy than say 30 years ago.
With all due respect, if you can’t provide solid, replicated, experimental evidence to support BTC, then it has no value to me.
There are more than enough models and strategies that have repeatedly been shown to result in significant gains in learning over the past several decades, and still not part of most classrooms. Why would anyone want to waste valuable time and resources on anything else?
Great post MP! Yes, irritating. It's like the "evidence" for sham nutritional supplements.
But this is how it's supposed to work, right? But, isn't this the point of research? He was a teacher doing some cool stuff, he didn't have access to like institutional research boards and classrooms of kids available for experimental control. He still put his stuff out there, he shot his shot, and the journals published it. Lots of people talked about it and liked it. I'm glad you pointed out that at this point the research behind it might lack behind the scale at which it's being used, or perhaps a nicer way to say it is that the wide spread of it makes it possible to do larger research and learn more about what is behind the successes people see. But isn't this the order it has to go in? People are supposed to put stuff out there, see if it works. Get some feedback, do some more testing, put that out there, see if it works, etc. I think we would all rather see this out in the world then to see it not in the world because he spent 15 years going from school to school trying to gather up enough kids for a large enough pilot of his new teaching method to have a representative sample.
I don't think this is the right timeline. He spent a lot of time as a teacher, then he got his PhD. Since then he has been a professor of mathematics education who has published many journal articles. He is very clear throughout that this project isn't the result of his teaching, but the result of his research. Here is Peter's Google Scholar page, you can see a lot of published papers there: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=GyKWvH0AAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao
But like I said in the post, I'm all for teacher sharing! If this book was, like, "hey here's what I learned from my teaching and observations and you know what? I think it's 100% absolutely true, and you'll find that it immediately transforms your classroom" then I wouldn't say boo.
But "these are the findings of our research for which we have evidence" is supposed to mean something more. Precisely why people like to talk about it is because it suggests that the work is more likely to work for someone who is adapting it -- some degree of generalizability. Otherwise, why make such a big deal about how it's the result of 15 years of research, in every kind of classroom, it transformed every classroom, etc?
I looked through some of his papers and it looks like he was really focused on his teaching while he was a professor. Pretty interesting stuff actually. I skimmed this one where he talks about Aha moments: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter-Liljedahl/publication/228620190_Mathematical_discovery_and_affect_The_effect_of_AHA_experiences_on_undergraduate_mathematics_students/links/54b6d2b70cf2e68eb27f7ae3/Mathematical-discovery-and-affect-The-effect-of-AHA-experiences-on-undergraduate-mathematics-students.pdf He describes the students in his undergraduate class that had AHA moments and shared the student's reflections about those moments. It's clear that the class had a lot of elements of the 'Thinking Classroom' (open-ended problems, group work, teacher questioning, etc), while occuring back in maybe 2004-6-ish?
He doesn't seem like a guy who is 100% research in the lab at a university where his teaching responsibilities are once per year, or bought out by grant funding. He's teaching K-12 concepts to pre-service teachers, and pulling his thoughts on it. Maybe it's not 'research' but the fact his string of publications includes a lot about about his teaching, and it's getting accepted by research journals and conferences, it's hard to say it's 'not research' either. Maybe it's in the middle. Maybe what he's doing is like thinking in public about what he's doing in his class.
"Maybe what he's doing is like thinking in public about what he's doing in his class."
I think that sort of thing is great! If that's all that's happening, then fantastic.
The points you raise about where exactly the evidence for BTC is and how strong that evidence is are valid given that the book draws a lot of authority from vaguely hinting at research, which seems hard to actually pin down. I am wondering if you reached out to Liljedahl for comment/resources that shed light on these questions. If so, what did he say? If not, in my experience, he is very easy to reach via email (his address is easy to find on the internet).
Also, I think some of your characterizations of the book and the research are a bit off:
1. The book doesn't recommend not using direct instruction. Rather, direct instruction happens in short highly intentional ways- when tasks are launched and during consolidation/ note creation.
2. The book also doesn't recommend only answering questions with other questions in some generic way. This recommendation is for questions that, if answered, would deprive students of the opportunity to think.
3. You're summary of Liljedahl's take on homework doesn't capture the essence of that take which is that homework should be a chance for students to check their understanding of the work they did in groups without fear of failure.
4. You incorrectly conveyed an important detail about the study on work spaces. The people coding for engagement and so forth were independent observers, not Liljedahl.
Also, I think the whole point of the book is to help teachers build structures that foster problem solving and autonomy rather than mimicry and dependence. As you present your case, your gripe is not specifically with these goals, but rather with the quality of the evidence marshalled to support the recommended practices offered- especially given how the book draws on the implied authority of THE RESEARCH... AND it also feels like you're dissing the whole project- that is that you think these values are misplaced. I think you're critique would land better if you made your stance clearer regarding the stated goals the BTC practices purport to support.
Reading the book and investigating these practices further/ experimenting with them it's always been clear to me that the claims are bracketed by a statement such as "If your goal is to have more students thinking more of the time, as opposed to "studenting" then try this stuff." That might not be your goal, or what you value (it's hard to tell from this post) but if it is, the BTC framework does have a lot of non-bullshit concrete things you can do to get more students thinking more of the time.
To be clear: I am only talking about research in this post. From the title to the content of the post, I don't know how I could have been clearer that my gripe is about the research and that I'm not discussing my feelings about the pedagogy -- not sure why it feels that way on your read. If it's hard to tell from my post what my views are about his system...that's because I'm not talking about that!
You couldn’t have been more clear. Don’t forget there are a lot of dogs in the fight. Think of it from the the perspective of someone who has put their heart and a great deal of time and resources into BTC.
Peter probably about $20k per day and is booked solid. After writing that check, attending that workshop, reading that book and planning lessons for countless hours, people don’t want to hear your message.
Never mind all the money spent on those vertical nonpermanent surfaces. . .
I’m not sure if it’s too late to comment on this post, but has anyone seen or read any peer-reviewed articles of his BTC work? Our district is adopting this and I’d love to have a better understanding of the whole picture. Thank you!
I don't think anything has changed in this regard, but if I learn of some evidence I will certainly post about it!
I have all the data you need to show it works. Contact me at Christopher.collins@hcps.net and I’ll share.
Thanks! But if you have that data, you should publish it so that others can understand how you collected it and try to figure out what it shows.
I don’t publish. I’m not a writer. But I do share it at all of my trainings and entertain all questions. I believe once I have a larger set of data the numbers will mean and show even more. To be continued…
Thank you for this. Many years ago, in my graduate education program, we were taught how to tell the difference between real research and opinion pieces by looking for key indicators of reliability and validity. I've surveyed (completely unreliably and invalidly) my junior colleagues and they all tell me this skill is no longer taught, or inadequately taught in teacher training programs. I think what's required are publicly funded, 100% transparent education think tanks whose only purpose is to rigidly establish what research is reliable and valid, and what isn't. Like a Consumer Reports for Education Research. Is that a crazy idea?
It's not a crazy idea...but it already sort of exists? Though it's far from perfect: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/
Thanks for taking the time to summarize this for us, that's a lot of work! You are totally correct there needs to be a better understanding of the difference between strong & weak evidence. Can i be both cynical and skeptical?
Thanks, George! Part of what makes me frustrated is that it's actually NOT that much work. It's four papers, all of which are thankfully available online without a paywall, two of which are extremely short. This isn't arcane or slippery stuff, because I think Peter L is an honest and sincere guy. The issues are I think immediately apparent -- there isn't anything to support the big generalizations.
thanks Michael, regarding the work, I guess i'm referring to all the work you do in checking research - like your history of CLT - the best i've read and gives a very different impression than many of the CLT proselytizer's I've read.
Thanks for that! I agree that in general it's a lot of work. :)
Great writing Michael! This the gospel of Liljedahl has started spreading in my district’s math division, and frustratingly, charismatic teachers with good classroom management are singing its praises, and as a result, any faults are let go, and to have a go at it is heresy. I was a mentor for a BT who was trying to follow it (based on said charismatic, veteran teacher), and some of what she was trying to do was failing spectacularly or utterly incomprehensible. Seat in groups of no more than 3? Ugh.
Keep up the great work!
I have Wipeboards up in the room and hallway to access for problem-solving activities. The kids enjoy using them and appear engaged. The Wipeboards have become an enriching element of our cooperative learning.
My biggest issue is with how this book/research has been adopted as though it is the holy-grail of evidence-based mathematics practice in my school and school board. We have math coaches/mentors presenting this book as though it were a rigorous meta-analysis with large effect sizes. They have said "we know problem solving is critical to mathematics and this a proven method for supporting student learning.""the groups have to be random, it won't work otherwise," "the directions have to be oral, so don't give handouts with the problems," "don't answer questions from students, let them experience productive struggle," "classrooms should be messy because learning is messy." I realize these things would matter if you were concerned with replicating the study but our concerns lie with supporting learning - learning in little people at that (elementary). PL's study measures engagement in high school students. Engagement is a poor proxy for learning and his findings may not be generalizable to elementary students.
The statements above are wishful extrapolations and absurd distortions of evidence-based research.
During our math PD sessions I'm unsure whether to laugh or cry at the conviction and ignorance of claims. This is not PL's fault but a major challenge in the profession - particularly in elementary settings and it is impacting the quality of instruction students are getting.
Consider BTC for complementing your existing EBP in math. Circle the wagon and take what is valuable but don't hook your wagon to it.
Check out the facebook group https://www.facebook.com/groups/buildingthinkingclassrooms, it has real teachers sharing success and failures within the thinking classroom. It is really the best collaborative workspace that I have ever been apart of, everyone is very encouraging and happy to share in the work to help kids think about math differently
What research is there for this method with neurodivergent students? My 2E daughter's (autism, ADHD, anxiety, facial blindness, gifted) HS recently started this in her math class and it has been disastrous for her. The constant seat changing and group changing heightens her anxiety so much that she's unable to get past the fight/flight. Is there support for use with neurodivergent students?
n of 3 here. Our children's school implemented it this year and within a month our daughters went from loving math to dreading it. All top three in their previous algebra classes.
Here are the results of a survey we conducted of parents in our District since BTc started. Our District quashed a survey started by a student surveying other students.
https://bhcommunitywatch.com/2022/11/29/berkeley-heights-public-schools-btc-parent-survey-final-results/