Reflecting on Math Instruction: Empowering Learning Through a Balanced Approach

Integrate student-centered approaches to reduce your workload while maximizing student learning and collaboration.

DR. CRISTINA COMPTON
Director of Program Development​
​

Recently, I had the opportunity to visit a seasoned math teacher, Ms. M., whose passion for teaching was unmistakable. Her enthusiasm for math came alive as she demonstrated solving multi-step equations, making real-world connections to when these skills might be used. Using colorful markers, she modeled the problem-solving process, guiding her students through each step. Her students eagerly followed along, jotting notes in their notebooks and raising their hands to answer questions like, “What do I do next?”

The energy and structure in Ms. M.'s classroom were inspiring. However, as Ms. M continued to model problem after problem, some questions began to surface in my mind. 

• How many whole-class practice problems are necessary?
• How does Ms. M. gauge whether all her students are truly understanding?
• What about the students who aren’t raising their hands or those seated at the back, often struggling to hear their peers’ responses?

These reflections prompted me to consider the balance between teacher-led instruction and opportunities for student-driven learning.

---

The limitations of whole-class instruction

Whole-class instruction has undeniable benefits. It provides structure, allows teachers to maintain control over the pace of the lesson, and can help manage behaviors. However, relying solely on this approach may unintentionally limit students' growth and a teacher’s ability to assess their understanding.

When students spend most of the class copying notes or watching the teacher work through problems, they’re engaged in passive learning. While this compliance might look like understanding, it’s worth asking: Are they truly grappling with the material?
​
I’ve experienced this tension firsthand. As a teacher, it’s tempting to stick with whole-class instruction because it feels efficient. But over time, I realized that by holding the reins too tightly, I was doing most of the work. My students weren’t building the cognitive muscles needed to tackle challenges independently.

---

A shift in approach: embracing "I Do, We Do, You Do"

One powerful framework that helped me balance instruction and engagement was the I Do, We Do, You Do model. Initially, I used this approach in reading and writing workshops, but I soon found it effective across all disciplines, including math. This method provides a clear structure:

1. I Do – The teacher models the skill or concept
2. We Do – Students practice together with guidance and support
3. You Do – Students work independently, applying their learning

This approach not only ensures students have time to practice but also allows the teacher to observe, assess, and adjust instruction in real-time.

Now, let’s explore how Ms. M. could integrate this framework into her teaching, building on the context of the visit I previously described: 

• I Do: Ms. M. begins by modeling 2–3 problems using the board or a document camera. She explains her thinking step-by-step, highlighting strategies and common pitfalls.
• We Do: Instead of continuing with more whole-class examples, Ms. M. poses a problem for students to solve in pairs using a Think-Pair-Share activity. As students work, she circulates the room, observing their process and offering feedback. Afterward, she invites a pair to share their solution with the class, either verbally or by modeling it on the board. This collaborative step allows students to learn from each other and reinforces their understanding.
• You Do: Next, students work independently on similar problems. Ms. M. might differentiate tasks by providing "reach" problems for advanced learners or small-group support for those needing extra help. This independent practice not only deepens learning but also gives Ms. M. valuable insight into her students’ progress.
• Closing: To wrap up, Ms. M. brings the class together for a quick review. Students might share their learning aloud or complete an exit ticket, giving Ms. M. additional data to inform her next lesson.

---

The benefits of mathematical discourse and letting go 

Why advocate for this approach? Research, such as Jo Boaler’s work in Mathematical Mindsets, highlights the importance of mathematical discourse in fostering deeper understanding, reducing math anxiety, and promoting a growth mindset. When students take ownership of their learning through collaboration and problem-solving, they not only engage more deeply but also retain concepts more effectively.

By shifting some of the cognitive load to students, teachers can focus on circulating the room, checking for understanding, and offering targeted support. This dynamic, student-centered approach helps meet learners where they are and ensures that all voices are heard.

For seasoned educators like Ms. M., letting go of traditional methods can feel daunting. But the benefits of integrating strategies like I Do, We Do, You Do are transformative. This framework not only empowers students to take charge of their learning but also lightens the teacher's workload, allowing for more meaningful interactions and assessment.

I encourage all teachers — whether in math or other disciplines — to experiment with this model. By clearly defining what you’ll do as the teacher, what students will do collaboratively, and what they’ll tackle independently, you create a structured yet flexible environment where true learning thrives.

---

RECENT READS FROM CPET

Loading...