Moving From the Drawbacks

“When a teacher begins a math lesson with direct instruction they completely disregard and ignore their students’ background knowledge and strengths. Resources that promote this approach contradict a focus on equity and access.”

So tweeted Drew Polly, an associate professor at University of North Carolina at Charlotte.

Wow! That is quite an indictment of direct instruction—yet it is one with which I wholeheartedly agree. From both my own classroom experiences and my research on effective methods for teaching math, I know how important it is to identify what your students understand and can do prior to teaching lessons so that you can tailor your teaching to meet their unique learning needs.

While providing equal instruction means teaching each and every student the same lesson, equitable instruction calls for lessons that offer each and every student what they require to be successful, constantly adjusting teaching in response to students’ strengths and weaknesses. Students who may have already mastered or who will quickly master what is being taught are given further challenges. On the other hand, students who may have gaps in the prerequisite background knowledge or skills needed for success with a lesson are given extra support to close those gaps as they learn new mathematical content.

Yet, with direct, whole-class instruction, one-size-fits-all lessons for the entire class are too often the result. Some students languish because of too little challenge, while others because of gaps in foundational knowledge that make learning new concepts and skills difficult to understand. This type of instruction is hardly equitable and often denies access to many students. In contrast, where equitable mathematics instruction flourishes, teachers are not only intimately aware of their students’ background knowledge and strengths, but they also flexibly teach to their students’ identified learning needs.

What might this look like in the classroom?

Like me, many teachers turn to Guided Math small-group lessons so they can target their learners’ needs and engage students more deeply in mathematical learning. Unlike the small groups of the past, there are no static high, middle, and low groups. Instead, group composition varies so that for any lesson students in each group has similar learning needs. Working closely with students in small groups, teachers not only plan differentiation based on identified needs, but also adjust their instruction mid-lesson as needed. Additionally, teachers have the option of varying the length of their lessons depending on the needs of each math group.

The ability to teach to students’ needs is not the only way in which a small-group setting encourages a move away from direct instruction. Some educators shy away from providing opportunities for mathematical exploration and discovery by students because of their concerns over classroom management. Working with a smaller group, however, lends itself to relinquishing greater responsibility for learning to students. It enables teachers to become facilitators of learning rather than simple dispensers of information. With this mode of instruction, they create opportunities for mathematical exploration and learning, carefully question students to promote deeper thinking, and lead students to work collaboratively as a community of mathematicians.

In moving from whole-class direct instruction to the flexibility of small-group lessons in my classroom, I found that teaching to my students’ immediate learning needs became more doable. I could offer each and every student more equitable, rather than equal, mathematics instruction. And, the nature of the small-group learning environment encouraged my students to truly act as mathematicians as they explored the discipline of math. If you are searching for alternatives to direct instruction, I suggest that you consider the benefits of the small-group lesson component of Guided Math.

Meet our Guest Writer: