LISTEN NOW HERE…

WATCH NOW…

Building Thinking Classrooms is praised for promoting engagement and rich discourse, but is there such a thing as too much BTC? In this episode, we explore both the benefits and the potential pitfalls—yes, students are talking more, but are they thinking more? We discuss concerns like over-reliance on group work, the risk of passive participation, and how easy it can be for students to copy rather than truly engage. Join us as we unpack the nuances of this approach and consider how to find the right balance for your classroom.

Key discussion points include:

Building Thinking Classrooms fosters engagement, collaboration, and deep mathematical discourse, making it a powerful approach worth considering.

Too much emphasis on group work can lead to passive participation, uneven contribution, and students copying rather than thinking.

Learn how to implement BTC strategically—balancing structure with flexibility to ensure all students are thinking, not just talking.

Explore ways to integrate BTC effectively without losing sight of individual accountability, diverse learning needs, and varied instructional approaches.

Resources:

• How To Start The Year Off Right [Blog Post]
• Make Math Moments Online Workshop
• Assessment For Growth: A Blueprint Course For Standards Based Grading in Math Class
• Make Math Moments Problem Based Lessons & Units

Attention District Math Leaders:

Free Random Grouping Cards

Not sure what matters most when designing math improvement plans? Take this assessment and get a free customized report: https://makemathmoments.com/grow/ 

Ready to design your math improvement plan with guidance, support and using structure? Learn how to follow our 4 stage process. https://growyourmathprogram.com 

Looking to supplement your curriculum with problem based lessons and units? Make Math Moments Problem Based Lessons & Units

FULL TRANSCRIPT

Yvette Lehman: All right, today we’re gonna talk about a topic that I’m not gonna lie, John, I was a little bit nervous about going down this road only because I think people are very passionate about this topic on one side or the other of the debate. And we’re gonna be talking today about building thinking classrooms, which of course, know, is widely adopted across North America and Europe. It’s supported through research. And there are many districts who are really passionate about

the changes that they’re seeing as a result of the implementation of this research and this approach. But then, you know, there’s also some, let’s say, criticism in some places, or also others who are highlighting perhaps some pitfalls of the approach. And so we’re just going to have a very honest conversation today about this topic, and just kind of dig into our own experience with the implementation of this research and strategy, and also zoom out to kind of look at the big picture of where this approach fits within a comprehensive math program.

Jon Orr: I love it. I love it. You know, and if you’re a long time listener of the podcast, you know, I think this is episode, I don’t know, 351. And if you go back and rewind and listen to many of the others, you’ll, you’ll, you know, recognize that we’ve talked about building thinking classrooms a lot over the years. Um, we, you know, practicing it in our classrooms, um, you know, coaching teachers through that process, you know, talking with Peter little, all the author of building,

building thinking classrooms, presenting with Peter at the summit and talking about, you know, the different aspects of the structures that he’s recommending and providing. Like we’ve talked about it a lot. And, you know, and I think what we also see is that there are people who are saying that they’re implementing building thinking classrooms, in our opinion, who aren’t. And I think there’s

There’s a lot of nuance to doing it well and right. And versus I think what people think it is. And we want to talk about that too, is to say like, what is it and what is it, do we think we’re doing? And what is it that we want to make sure that we’re avoiding? And if we are structuring our classrooms to say, doing a, you know, I’m, being a building thinking classroom teacher. what are those components that I really want I’m after, but also like, how do I, how do, how am I structuring to make sure that,

I’m accounting for the things that I really want my students to be doing. So let’s get into it. Yvette, where do want to start first?

Yvette Lehman: Well, let’s, and I mean, as you mentioned, this isn’t the first episode about this topic, but you know, let’s talk about why we implemented it in the first place, right? So like, what was the change in student behavior we were after that told us that this was the right approach for us?

Jon Orr: Right. Yeah. And I would say that when, and this might be, you know, if you’re listening right now, this might be the case for you. If you’ve, you’ve tried this technique or this structure in your classroom and it was true for us. And then I think, you know, Kyle and I both, we’re always after engagement first and foremost for a long time. You know, we, and we’ve, we’ve documented that here in the podcast and, and, and the work that we’ve been doing is really, we were kind of saying,

Our story was, I wanted engagement to happen. And then we realized that it wasn’t all about engagement. was like, once I had them engaged, what do I do now? What do I do to help them encourage their thinking? And then it was like, okay, let’s get them thinking more. And all of a sudden, this part was where I think building thinking classrooms lived for a while. was like, we could have our students.

you know, taking more ownership in the problem solving that they’re doing in the classroom and not say listening to our teacher. You know, we paired and I think we first learned about, you know, the five practices for orchestrating productive mathematical discussions before we ventured in down Peter’s road in his book. But those two married together and made a nice way to think about structuring our classrooms in certain ways to allow more thinking to happen. But I think then our pathway evolved to being a little bit more like, what is the right thinking?

You know, like what if we want thinking to happen? Is it, does it look a certain way? What is the right thinking to do? What should we be focusing on when we’re having students think? Because, and this is, this is the downfall, I think, where most people think they’re doing building thinking classrooms, right? They’re, reading the book and they’re in, if I’m a coach or I’m a teacher or I’m an administrator and I’m thinking, we’re doing a thinking classroom. They’re thinking, um, I want my students up. I want my students at the boards because that’s what we’re after. We’re after engagement, you know, and, if you’re are going to go down the same pathway as ours.

That’s the worry I think I have when people say I’m doing a building thinking classroom is that all I’ve is done a replacement strategy for sitting at my desks doing my worksheet or my work. And I’ve put my worksheet up at the boards. And I have them standing and then now have, say, dry erase boards around the room that I now invested in. And now my students are doing that work at the boards. And right off the bat, it’s feels like if you do that and you consistently do that, then it looks like students are more engaged than they were before. But then it makes me think, go, OK, if that’s true, then are they doing thinking? And then are they doing the right thinking? Because those two pieces have to come in line. And that’s where I think we have to be cautious to say, what is it that we’re actually trying to create in our classroom?

And where is the priority? Because I could structure it so students are standing up and doing work at the boards, but I’m going to argue that is it the good thinking and is it the right thinking? And really what were we after in the first place? Because if I’m after good thinking and the right thinking in the first place, then is building thinking classrooms the right tool for me? As long as I’m doing well to get to that aspect, then maybe. And it could be. Likely it is.

I had to make that definition. think that’s where a lot of teams right now are going, I want this because I’m after engagement, but they’re maybe not thinking down the road of like, what is it that we really want that engagement to do? Like, why are we getting engaged? just talked with, if you listen to a couple episodes ago, had Blaine McIntosh from Winnipeg on and he had this, you know, this thing that he keeps asking himself. He’s like, ask why five times? Like, why are we doing that?

Why are we doing that? Why, like why, why, why? And when we get to the heart of it, we have to then say, is this the right tool to get to the why we really want? And I think that’s a main caution about like when we think about using tools and structures and routines in our classrooms to say what we’re really after. We have to make that definition. I think a lot of us haven’t, we just kind of seen that thing to do, cause it’s after this but that might be the superficial thing we really want. I don’t know, that answers your question. I got ranty.

Yvette Lehman: Well, I was just thinking about you made, you made a really, I think, important connection about just our, the, let’s say the sequence of our journeys. So like you, when I was first introduced to building thinking classrooms, I saw Peter speak at an OAMI conference and, you know, I think I was ready for the changes that he was suggesting because I was already using five practices in my classroom. So I was already prioritizing, selecting tasks that promote reasoning and problem solving. I was already taking the time to anticipate student thinking and plan assessing and advancing questions. had already done, I think, you know, I’d started the work I needed to do to be a strong facilitator at that point and to, you know, make sure I had clarity around learning goals and make sure I had clarity around what a high cognitive demand task looks like, sounds like. And so I think that because I had already been on that journey,

when I heard the research from Peter, it was like, you’re giving me really practical ways to enhance the experience for students by, you know, vertical non-permanent surfaces, defronting the classroom, visibly random groups. Like that was something I struggled with all the time was like, how do I group kids? Do I do like ability? Do I do different ability? Do I let them choose? Like I constantly struggled with that. And I think that my inconsistency impacted their

openness to group work. And so I really was able to, you know, take some of the research and infuse it into a classroom where I was already teaching through a task-based approach, leveraging the five practices as my framework for planning. And so you had said to me earlier, and I think that it’s like spot on, like these two things in our mind cannot be separated.

It’s like to plan a meaningful task that works in a building thinking classroom environment, we need to have the five practices in place. Without them, the intention of that work, the consolidation of that work, the questioning of students while they’re working is probably not going to get you to the thinking you were hoping to achieve.

Jon Orr: Totally. I think you have said it exactly the way, because I think, and I think maybe this is also a bias of ours is that we, because we came that route in terms of engagement, how do we do more rich tasks? five practices gave us a way to plan and structure our lessons to get the most out of those rich tasks. And then all of a sudden we had building things in classrooms that helped us with the physicalness of what we were already doing.

You know, the switch for me was I was already doing those things. And then all of a sudden it’s like, right at the board standing adds the extra dynamic to allow us to do the right thinking to get our students to have discourse to get our students to be, you know, problem solving on a regular basis. Like that, that progression in our minds was married in a way blended. And in some folks who say didn’t go down that pathway.

you know, in their history of teaching and just starts with building thinking classrooms. These are the teams that are kind of maybe making sure that did we make sure that we are capitalizing on how to plan for that with five practices and are we using rich tasks to do that? Like, you know, we’re leaning heavily on on Peter’s book to say like, this is the be all end all. And maybe we’ve missed the mark a little bit along the way because of these other really key components that we need to be building into the work that we do.

Um, so I think, you know, it goes to kind of say like our having the, in a way, the right pathway maybe blinded us to the fact that what we were doing in our classrooms. Now, I want to, I want to get your opinion on, on this part, because I think the other thing that we’re, you know, hearing from the districts we support in some of the classrooms that we’re say visiting or

some of the coaches that we’re talking with, or the teachers that we’re talking with on a regular basis is they get the sense that, or they get this idea of like, we’re doing a building thinking classrooms, you know, classroom, which makes you think every day I have to be students at the boards, problem solving, rich tasks, you know, even if we are embedding the five practices for planning purposes along the way, I think we get, we get in this like, that’s what we do. That’s what we do all the time. And we’ve got some concerns about that too.

Yvette Lehman: Yeah, we talked about this in a recent episode about group work, right? And how we talked about how it’s just, we never wanna live in a world where we’re all one thing, you know? Or it’s like too much of a good thing is too much, you know? And I do get nervous when I hear, you know, let’s say even administrator who is expecting that every time they walk into one of their classrooms, they’re seeing evidence of a building thinking classroom. And that does scare me.

only because we know that there are other critical components of a comprehensive math classroom beyond just engaging in rich tasks. And so I remember we interviewed Peg Smith earlier this fall and we asked Peg, you know, how often is it realistic for teachers to be doing a true cognitively demanding rich task that’s planned through the five practice lens? And, you know, in reality, it’s probably realistic to plan a lesson that

quality of a lesson, maybe twice a week, once a week for some teachers, you know, and I think that it’s critical. Like it’s absolutely critical that within a five week cycle or five day cycle, we should see at least one, if not two really, you know, cognitively demanding rich tasks that are student centered, that really promote discourse and allow students to take the lead on the learning and the problem solving. But that’s not every day, you know.

where do fluency routines fit in? Where does small group instruction fit in? Where do games and puzzles fit in? Where does, you know, instruction of a particular strategy, introduction of a targeted strategy come in? Like I really think that in a comprehensive math program, if we’re doing, you know, a building thinking classroom style task every single day and it’s filling up our entire block, then we are missing other really critical components of Rich Math program.

Jon Orr: You you said, you know, when that admin kind of does that walkthrough and they’re looking for the building thinking classrooms is like right there that statement. If you hear that statement, they’re putting the wrong emphasis in the wrong spot, right? Because, in this goes just to talk about your, you know, your comp, the components of a comprehensive math classroom is like,

you have to define what are the things that we want to see in our classrooms. What are the experiences that we want to provide our students? So when we think about the process standards, when we think about the mathematical practices, we think about those things and we start to define where are we going to make some improvements this year? If it is appropriate discourse in the classroom, it is productive struggle. it is using learning goals or eliciting student evidence. When we think about some of these

these moves that we want to make, we can think about the routines and the structures and the strategies that help bring those experiences out. And that’s the part that we need to really define. Is it like, where do we want to put emphasis? And it’s not on the thing. It’s not on, like, even to say like, we’re going to do this type of math talk every day is not the right way to think about it. It’s like, well, what is it that we’re trying to do? And for that student to have an experience.

and then go, what is the right tool for this group on that day, on that topic to help us get there? And, you know, sometimes it is like, we need to have a purposeful practice here because we need this component, or, you know, we need to have this rich task here because we want to get at this component that we want to make sure is happening in our classrooms. So we need to really define those things and then go, let’s now build the components that allow us to get there.

So having like you say, like your components of like a rich task, you know, in a student centered that has high cognitive demand is, is for us to help with strengthening productive struggle with reasoning, with say building resiliency and problem solving, but also, you know, structuring a certain way to get the thinking out the way we want to get the thinking out, you know,

designing in math talks or fluency routines so that we can have our students performing and thinking about the actual strategies that they can use when they get to the rich task as well like strengthening those two components up side by side is essential. You know, how do we target small group instruction? Because if we’re doing a rich task every single day, then where do we get the individualized support? You know, is it walking around from group to group when you’re giving, you know, individualized support at group to group? Maybe.

Are you being that strategic about the work that you’re in the guidance you’re providing at those groups? Well, what about the individual work that a student’s doing? Are they supposed to be doing that at home? Is there time in the class for you to kind of do that individualized small group target instruction? you know, how do I pull these two, three kids together that need the same little bit of instruction to kind of in guidance around, say, this strategy or this idea? If I’m just doing, you know,

building things in classrooms, tasks all day, then I don’t have that time. I have to figure out how do I give the kids what they need when they need it? And I think, you know, long story short here is that we have to be flexible. And I think we all know this as teachers. We all know that we have to give the students the right thing at the right time. And we just need to be able to say, like, I know that these are good things to have, it’s okay.

that I don’t do them every single day because I have other things that get to the other things I want to have for my students. And therefore, I have a building thinking classrooms structure sometimes. I have purposeful practice happening strategically sometimes. I have centers, games, puzzles happening sometimes because it gets to these other things. And I’m not, say, identifying myself as a, I’m a building thinking classrooms teacher and that’s it. I’m a robust teacher. I’m a flexible teacher.

Yvette Lehman: I think that helps with people who, let’s say, are on the other side of this debate and they say, well, I walk into a building thinking classroom and, you know, it’s all collaboration. How do I know what each student knows individually? How do I know they’re not copying off the board next to them? How do I know that they’re not passively engaging with this lesson? And I think that our rebuttal to maybe those critics would be because that one task is not your entire program.

Like maybe after that task, you’re giving an exit ticket where you’re having students independently engage with the task that’s similar in structure, but different constraints. And then you’re asking them to independently take the learning that they did in their group and apply it to a novel scenario. So I think that again, it’s about the risk of flying in, getting a snapshot of one lesson at one point in time, and assuming that that defines the entire program.

Jon Orr: Right? Yeah. Yeah. So what would you say is, your, you thinking about what we just discussed here, like your main recommendation moving forward for someone who’s listening, a teacher who’s listening going like, okay, I’ve, I’m either I am,

you know, using building thinking classroom structure and if I’m not doing it all the time, like is that the right move? Like I think a lot of teachers are continually asking themselves, am I doing the right thing? And therefore if I’m not doing it all the time, then am I doing the right thing? And what would be say your big takeaway for that person today? Of course.

Yvette Lehman: Can I have two, John? So my first one kind of circles back to our first idea, which is that, based on our experience, five practices in a task-based approach go hand in hand. So if you have implemented the moves based on the research and building thinking classrooms, but you haven’t invested in your planning of a rich task, and five practices is the structure that works for us. I’m sure there are others.

strong facilitation doesn’t just happen. You know, it requires thought and planning and real clarity around the learning outcomes that you’re hoping to achieve through that task. So if anybody’s listening and you have not engaged in that learning, that might be a place to strengthen the structures that you already have in place. And I think to any leaders or coaches listening, maybe just to caution a little bit around the messaging that we give our districts or our teachers or our administrators that

You know, yes, we certainly have seen the advantages of this approach to math instruction, the high cognitive demand, the collaboration, the discourse, but that just because I don’t see it every time I walk in the room doesn’t mean that it isn’t being implemented effectively. It just means that you came to my room on a day when I’m doing another aspect of robust program.

Jon Orr: Right. Yeah. And my takeaway would be to make sure we’re defining what it is that we want that robust program to look like. What are the components that I want my students to be engaged in and then reverse engineer from there? Some days it might make sense to do the rich task at the walls. Some days it might make sense to do a purposeful practice where students are thinking and we’re using fluency strategies in certain ways and we’re highlighting small group instruction on certain days. I think it’s just defining where

Where do we want the, where do we want our, what do we want our classrooms to really look like? You know, what are the values that we’re trying to have happen here in our room? and be reflective on that and then make sure that we are choosing the right structures, the right strategies to build, know, to bring those forward, put our students in those experiences so that learning occurs and learning and learning happens. because, because we can, you know, we can use other strategies to get that same thing. So if I am.

Like, let’s say I’m in a school where everyone’s thou shalt do building thinking classrooms. But then if we, if we did push on the issue of like, well, why are we using that particular structure? And we reverse to get to like that, we’re here for engagement, but we’re also here for, you know, critical thinking. But then all of sudden, a principal does walk through, and we’re looking for building things in classrooms, we can actually point to the things that we’re actually using today to get at the heart of what we’re trying to do.

Right? Like that’s the key is what is the heart of what you’re trying to do. Ask the why five times and get there and go, okay, is today makes sense to do this strategy or the structure or is it okay? Or does it make sense to do this strategy, this structure to achieve the same, the outcomes that we’re actually after. Well, that’s our take. Yvette, any last thoughts?

Yvette Lehman: think we, know, again, like I said, I was a little bit, you know, apprehensive to record this topic because you say this all the time and it’s like words we live by. It’s like we have strong convictions that are loosely held. And so, you know, I always am cautious that…

This is our belief today in this moment. This is where we are at on our journey and it may change and we could be convinced, you know? So if there are people out there who listen to this episode and think, you know, but you’re missing this point or you haven’t considered this, please reach out to us because although we have strong convictions, there’s certainly, we always try to make sure that they are loosely held. So, you know, reach out to us, share your thinking about this topic.

Jon Orr: That’s right. Well said, well said. And hey, we’ll see you next time everybody. Thanks for listening.

Thanks For Listening

• Book a Math Mentoring Moment
• Apply to be a Featured Interview Guest
• Leave a note in the comment section below.
• Share this show on Twitter, or Facebook.

To help out the show:

• Leave an honest review on iTunes. Your ratings and reviews really help and we read each one.
• Subscribe on iTunes, Google Play, and Spotify.