You'll notice they covered up the text of a [K-5] word problem only to show the question at the bottom of the chart paper. I thought this was a really slick move to get students talking, thinking, and imagining. If you've been to one of my problem-solving sessions lately, you'll know I'm really encouraging math teachers to push student potential by creating a mystery, layering in the clues, and solving the mystery. Therefore, the slide Mike and Graham displayed really resonated with me. Imagine students taking those stickies off one at a time, creating suspense in the process. More importantly, in my opinion, a teacher can scaffold in the context and literacy demand of the word problem.
Imagine reading one sentence (or one part of a sentence) at a time on that chart paper, as a class or with a classmate, working on understanding the context better and better with each sticky that is removed. However, the resonation of their slide didn't stop there with me. It really got me asking myself, "Can we help students simultaneously build math skills and literacy skills with 3 Act tasks?"
As much as I love how 3 Act tasks make the math accessible to more students because the literacy demand is usually removed, I agree with teachers that voice their concern about this actual feature. Understandably, they're concerned about the literacy demand that many of our state tests demand. (*concern should not be limited to state tests)
Essentially, I'm wondering if there's a natural way to work in the literacy demand during Act 1 and Act 2 of a 3 Act task? For example, let's use my File Cabinet task as an example:
Students watch Act 1:
Mr. Stadel is using sticky notes to completely cover a file cabinet in his classroom. How many sticky notes will he need to cover the five visible sides of the file cabinet?Whether we (the teachers) present the text to students or students help compose the text description above, would this benefit both the math and literacy? Would it detract from the math?
Moving into Act 2:
I think it's still important to have students think of information (identify variables) that is important to know in solving this question. Lately, I've been encouraging teachers to have students formulate a plan without any data, numbers, measurements, or other information. Lately, I've been seeing students just grab the numbers from Act 2 and hastily plow into a wrong plan or formula, getting unreasonable answers. My suggestion: Let's sit tight on revealing the information in Act 2. Get students to formulate a plan or representation first. Maybe make a more precise estimate in the process. After going through that process, maybe we can refine our original text description to something like this that now includes the measurements necessary in solving the task:
Mr. Stadel is using 3" x 3" sticky notes to completely cover a file cabinet in his classroom. The file cabinet is a rectangular prism with a 36-inch width, 72-inch height, and an 18-inch depth. How many sticky notes will he need to cover the five visible sides of the file cabinet?Now that we know more information in this task, I think the original text should be adjusted (updated) accordingly. To me this feels like we have removed all the stickies from the chart paper Mike and Graham gave us.
Similar to Act 1, I question if this would benefit both the math and literacy?
Since I am putting Act 1 and Act 2 under some scrutiny, it would only be fair to address Act 3 as well. Maybe the literacy in Act 3 seems more intuitive (all relative), but would this be a good time for students to write something that represents their plan from Act 2? For example:
We found the surface area of each side by... We figured that we could divide each side by 9 square inches, the area of one sticky. In doing so we predict Mr. Stadel will need X number of stickies to cover the file cabinet.There are two big reasons I was initially drawn to these tasks. 3 Act tasks typically:
- eliminate the literacy demand, making the math accessible to more students.
- have Act 3 to validate (or break) the mathematical model we used in Act 2.
I still believe in 3 Act tasks, don't get me wrong. However, I believe we might be able to get even more out of them as teachers. I consider this: at what point do we say to our students,
Look, I first want you to access the mathematics without your english language skills (or lack thereof) getting in the way. We have to keep in mind that our state tests (and other math problems) require strong literacy skills. I think you need to see what this task might look like as just plain text.Or do we say this at all to students? parents? colleagues? administrators?
Many online colleagues gave input on building literacy into an Act 4. You can read more in the thread here. I support extended opportunities for more literacy like our colleagues suggest (or practice). However, my focus is during Act 1 and Act 2 right now. Help me think this through. Add some thoughts in the comments.
Literacy,
1020
3-Acts allow us to be extremely purposeful in how the mathematics is delivered by the teacher and unpackaged by the students. We can't lose this piece because it's what keeps students engaged. The connection to literacy you're suggesting is a great idea but it can't be forced, so I really appreciate this post to share thoughts and ideas.
ReplyDeleteI personally think that act 4 is too late for the literacy connection. By the time students have solved the problem in act-3, they don’t care anymore…at least in my experience. Everything has a natural progression through the first 2 acts, which is one reason I’m personally drawn to them. I’d like to introduce the literacy while intellectual need is still high.
The original purpose of the stickies was to have the context be the central focus. Screw the numbers! The Post-its help us slow down student thinking. Once we've teased their thinking long enough, BUT before we "turn them lose", I think that is the time to introduce the written question as suggested above. Let’s dedicate some time to discuss and undress the problem here. It would also be a great opportunity for students to go back and re-evaluate their original estimate… if they choose (fingers crossed).
My hope is that the undressing and dressing up of the mathematics will allow students to visualize future problems through the lens of a 3-Act camera and conquer their math-literacy phobia. My only issue is that I need to wait a week to try this out.
"undressing and dressing up of the mathematics will allow students to visualize future problems through the lens of a 3-Act camera and conquer their math-literacy phobia"
DeleteI agree.
"I’d like to introduce the literacy while intellectual need is still high."
This really has me thinking. This means that a teacher truly needs to be in tune to their students and their intellectual need. Furthermore, I wouldn't want to squash the magic of a powerful task by introducing a bunch of text to the 3-act.
I think part of the literacy is writing down all the questions they have during act one. They visually see how their peers questions appear in written form and can read them if they didn't hear them the first time or want to recall what they said.
ReplyDeleteI do like your idea of introducing a paragraph of the Act 2 information instead of the photo. This forces them to decipher the academic language and also probably encourages them to use it when presenting their answer.
I do like this idea. When I wasn't happy with how students were explaining their thoughts in MARS tasks, I would create different levels of sentence frame structures to model the level of expectation. I think sentence frames would be a nice built in part to act 3 and would be nice to ask students to use them prior to the act 3 reveal.
I'm a complete fan of sentence frames for students.
DeleteAs for introducing a paragraph of Act 2, here's a thought:
I've found that any 3-Act tasks can take more than one class period, especially, in middle school. If I were in the class, I'd be curious about making the exit slip on Day 1 a 5-minute reflection time for students. During the reflection time, they would write (or type) what they know about the problem, what their plan is, and how they might go about solving it. This might be a great opportunity to work in sentence frames as well.
Thoughts?
I think that some tasks are inherently better presented visually and the 3-Act format is ideal for them while others are better communicated as stories (many of the IMP Problems of the Week come to mind). I think there's a benefit to students working on different types of problems, but they don't need each one to contain all the things. Another thought that I had about building literacy is in having students write up a description and justification of their process and conclusion. Especially for problems that are more open, this would include more literacy while still retaining the accessibility of the problem.
ReplyDeleteI would love to hear more about,
Delete"having students write up a description and justification of their process and conclusion. Especially for problems that are more open, this would include more literacy while still retaining the accessibility of the problem."
I think this would be wonderful practice for students. I'm trying to troubleshoot and anticipate students who get stuck or maybe got lucky with guess and check. I would love to see what you had in mind,
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteHere's a pretty detailed description of formal write-ups that I have students do in my class: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1YT0qw2h4ZU6qp1aIrRsmsd0xuGbhUA67QeafWL1At8E/edit#slide=id.gf2e94e0b1_0_93 (it's from a presentation I gave at CMC on writing in math class). Edited to add: the write-up directions are on slide 13.
DeleteI borrowed this format from the IMP series and amended it to work for me. This is pretty structured and formal - it can certainly be dialed back, as needed.
In a 3 Acts lesson, I like the idea of using technology to elicit student responses along the way, encouraging them to put their questions in writing. Otherwise, I wouldn't change the 3 Act "process". However, after the task is complete, I'd add something I learned from Dane Ehlert - present students with a more traditional-looking, similar word problem with the heading "How it might look on a test." Use 3 Acts as the teaching strategy, and use another "word problem" as an assessment strategy (which probably speaks to the way students will be assessed beyond the lesson anyway, no?)
ReplyDeleteHow it might look on a test...
DeleteDig it! I'm all about moderation in the classroom and this sounds like an appropriate format. Thanks for sharing!