How Can I Fit a CueThink Session in 40 Minutes?

Integrate rich, open-ended content into your classes at least once a week for students to demonstrate their understanding of concepts and skills. The Florida Department of Education’s article, Classroom Cognitive and Meta-Cognitive Strategies for Teachers states that using Pólya’s 4-Phases of problem-solving will support students in becoming adept at tackling problem-solving tasks while enhancing their reasoning skills.

Goal: Students will complete CueThink’s 4-Phases of problem-solving and annotations in one class period by previewing the question for homework

Time: 40 minutes

Materials

  1. Select and assign a problem from your curriculum or CueThink Problem Bank. Problems can address concepts students have learned and are ready to demonstrate their understanding. Rich, open-ended problems that encourage multiple representations are the most interesting for students to solve, view and annotate
  2. Add assigned problem to graphic organizer print out from Teacher Dashboard > Resources > Graphic Organizer
  3. Print out Annotations Tic-Tac-Toe and Sentence Frames from Teacher Dashboard > Resources > Annotations section

Preparation

  • For homework before CueThink session, assign students to start solving the problem on the graphic organizer


TEACHER NOTE: Assigning the graphic organizer for homework helps students preview the problem and plan their steps for the 4-Phases. Depending on students’ comfort with the 4-Phases, assign students to complete the Understand and Plan Phases only or draft ideas for each section.

Mini-Lesson (10 minutes)

As a whole group,  

  • Project the Understand Phase in Student Mode

  • Ask students to turn-and-talk about what they wrote for the “What do you notice?” and “What do you wonder about?” sections and their estimates

  • Have student pairs share out one piece of information from their “What do you Notice?” or “What do you Wonder about?” sections that they agree is important for solving the problem. Use the information students share to make sure they are clear about what the problem is asking them to do.

TEACHER NOTE: As students become more comfortable with the format of “What do you notice?” and “What do you wonder about?” the mini-lesson can be dedicated to other elements of the 4-Phases, such as estimation, selecting a strategy, writing a detailed and clear plan and recording a clear verbal explanation. See our 30-minute lesson plans for more ideas

Work Time (20 minutes)

  • Assign students, individually or in pairs, to use their work from the graphic organizer and the class discussion to create a Thinklet

  • Before students begin their work, have them test their microphones by completing a 3-second test recording in the Solve Phase that they listen to in the Review Phase

  • Remind students to write out all their work in the Solve Phase whiteboard before recording, pause their recordings if needed and keep their recordings to 1-3 minutes long. These recommendations make Thinklets more engaging to view and annotate

  • As you circulate, encourage students to select efficient tools to use in the Solve Phase if needed. For Chromebooks, encourage students to use the text and equation editor, shapes, tables and arrays. The pen tool is best for iPad use

TEACHER NOTE: As students are working, circulate to look for students who are using interesting strategies. This time can also be used to conference with students about successes or struggles with the task. This information will alert you of which Thinklets should be reviewed in more detail at a later time to analyze student thinking.

Annotations (10 minutes)

Assign students, individually or in pairs, to:

  • Watch and annotate two Thinklets using the Annotations Tic-Tac-Toe or Annotations Sentence Frames

TEACHER NOTE: Plan which Thinklet students will review first to ensure that each student receives feedback. The second Thinklet can be the student’s choice or assigned so that students view a strategy different from their own.

Optional Homework (5 minutes)

Assign students to revise their solution on a new graphic organizer based on what they learned from watching peers’ Thinklets and reading the annotations written about their work.

Preparing for the Next Session

review student work

  • Use observations collected while circulating during student work time to select specific students’ Thinklets to review in more detail. Use the embedded rubric* to evaluate student Thinklets

  • Access the class rubric data* for the problem to determine if the majority of the class was successful with the concept/skill and problem-solving process
  • Mark students’ final answers as correct, partially, or incorrect using the quick-view “Answer” feature

CueTeach 1.0 provides embedded professional development tools to inform instruction. Rubrics, reflections and tagging features help teachers evaluate the efficacy of student tasks and share observations with a professional learning community.

select the next problem

If students need more practice and reinforcement with the concept/skill:

  • Select a similar problem to assign to the whole class or subgroups of students

  • Clone the problem and create another version for extra practice

If students are ready to demonstrate their understanding of a new concept:

  • Search the CueThink Problem Bank by CCSS or Topic

  • Select an application problem from your curriculum

plan the next mini-lesson

Reference

Classroom Cognitive and Meta-Cognitive Strategies for Teachers. Florida Department of Education, Division of Public Schools and Community Education, Bureau of Exceptional Education and Student Services, 2010. Web 4 Apr. 2017.

Harnessing the Power of Thinklets as Learning Artifacts

CueThink has the unique ability to capture authentic and intimate portraits of student thinking, problem solving, and learning. Teachers can leverage the power of CueThink by providing scaffolds as students share their thinklets with different audiences.

 

Building Agency and Reflection

                                        Tagging in Action

                                        Tagging in Action

While students often look outwards when sharing work, they can benefit tremendously when given the opportunity to reflect. Beth Holland argues that, “As educators, our challenge is ensuring that students have an opportunity to engage in reflection such that they create a meaningful product to actually visit again and again.”  CueThink is designed to enable students to produce meaningful work that is worth revisiting. After thinklets have been created, discussed, and refined, they can be tagged using CueTeach 1.0* as reference thinklets. Students can then review thinklets before starting a new concept.

 

Tips to Build Agency and Reflection

  • When starting a new unit, refresh students on related content or strategies by reviewing previous thinklets.    

  • If students are struggling to remember concepts they have already learned, have them watch thinklets from the unit to see themselves in action.

  • Build in 10 minutes each month for students to reflect on thinklets they have created at different times throughout the year.

  • Use the following sentence starters to support students in their use of thinklets as learning artifacts:

    • I used to solve problems by….but now I can...

    • My solution is clear because I…

    • I forgot how to...but now I remember how to…

 

Building a Community of Mathematical Thinkers

Harnessing the collective knowledge of a community is a central task to all educators, yet it is incredibly difficult to assure that all children are able to share their work with their peers while developing their own thinking and approach to problem solving. In her article about engaging students in mathematical conversations, Dr. Gladis Kersaint argues that after solving problems, children need opportunities “to compare and contrast their approaches and solutions with those shared by others.” CueThink provides a unique platform for peer-to-peer sharing, enabling students to critique and support each other’s mathematical thinking.

 

Tips to Build a Mathematical Peer Community

  • Build in time for students to write annotations.

  • Use Annotations Tic-Tac-Toe.

  • Give students feedback on the quality of their annotations.

  • Take advantage the annotation sentence frames.

  • As a whole class, compare and contrast how thinklets demonstrate mathematical problem solving.

 
 

 

Support Teacher Collaboration

When students share work with their teachers through CueThink, teachers are given a window into aspects of problem solving that are often invisible in other forms of math work. As teachers review children’s strategies and thinking, they are also privy to information about children’s orientation towards problem solving and mathematical content. Hesitancy, excitement, frustration, and joy can all be revealed through thinklets. Diane Weaver Dunne explains the many goals of collaborative analysis of student work. She states that teachers can “learn about the effectiveness of their instruction, better understand students' learning and development, develop more effective curriculum and assessment, and find ways to help students do higher quality work”.

 

Tips for Building Collaborative Teaching Communities

  • Use math coaching or professional development time to examine thinklets with other teachers in your school.

  • Let students know what you notice about their thinking by writing annotations on their thinklets.

  • Use CueTeach 1.0* to reflect and share your notes about students’ work on specific problems with the CueThink Community.

                                                                  Easily Share Notes and Reflections with Other Teachers

                                                                  Easily Share Notes and Reflections with Other Teachers

Family and Community Engagement

Those who spend the most time with children often have the hardest time understanding exactly what students are learning at school. Community members--such as parents, guardians, mentors, and after-school teachers--are often eager to explore what children are learning but find it difficult understand exactly how students solve problems at school. Through CueThink, students can share thinklets that illustrate deep mathematical thinking. Not only does this provide those that care for them with a window into their classroom experience, but it also offers concrete information about the mathematical content and strategies that students are exploring.

 

Tips for Engaging Families with CueThink

  • Show thinklets during parent-teacher conferences.

  • Write families a letter explaining how students can log in to CueThink at home.

  • Show model thinklets to families at Back-to-School or Math events to demonstrate your classroom’s approach to problem solving.

 

In Summary

CueThink’s unique ability to capture a student’s mathematical thinking makes it an excellent platform for sharing student work with a variety of audiences. As students create a portfolio of thinklets, they develop an invaluable bank of artifacts that they can come back to again and again. CueThink can help make mathematical problem solving visible to students, their peers, teachers, and the community.

 

* CueTeach 1.0 provides embedded professional development tools to inform instruction. Rubrics, reflections and tagging features help teachers evaluate the efficacy of student tasks and share observations with a professional learning community. CueTeach provides opportunities to participate in an extended professional learning network focused on problem solving and cognitively demanding tasks. 

 

References

Dunne, Diane Weaver. "Teachers Learn from Looking Together at Student Work." Education World. 15 Aug. 2002.

Holland, Beth. "Digital Portfolios: The Art of Reflection." Edutopia, 30 June 2015.

Kersaint, Gladis. "Talking Math: 6 Strategies for Getting Students to Engage in Mathematical Discourse." Getting Smart. 23 Oct. 2015.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response to Intervention, CueThink Style

CueThink enhances Response to Intervention strategies by providing a consistent, supportive structure while flexibly integrating with a variety of tasks and allowing teachers to differentiate. 

 

What Is RtI?  

The Montana Office of Public Instruction’s paper on Response to Intervention and Gifted and Talented Education states that Response to Intervention (RtI) came into being when the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act turned its focus to “prevention-focused instructional practices.” The instruction practices are divided into three tiers.  

  • Tier 1 is for all students and is defined as classroom instruction that is differentiated and allows 80% to 90% of students to successfully learn the content.  

  • Tier 2 is defined as small group, targeted intervention for students whose assessment shows a need for support beyond the classroom. The Institute of Education Sciences recommends Tier 2 interventions in which teachers model proficient problem solving, verbalize thinking, scaffold guided practice, and provide corrective feedback.

  • Tier 3 is the top level of intervention, focused on remediation of skills and typically lasts for a longer duration.  (Hall, M, Poole, D., Carlstrom, R. Smith, S. & Speaks J.,2009).

The RTI Network explains that students are placed into the different instructional tiers based on screening tasks linked to classroom goals. From the screening task, relative judgements compare students to similar peers and absolute judgements compare the student to expectations for the time of year.

 

How Is CueThink A Fit With RtI?

CueThink fits well with all three tiers of intervention because its structure flexibly enhances a variety of tasks and allows teachers to differentiate their instruction.  

Specifically for tier 2 and 3 interventions, CueThink supports students identified with difficulties in problem solving. The Institute of Educational Sciences (IES) published a guide of peer reviewed recommendations called “Assisting Students Struggling with Mathematics: Response to Intervention (RtI) for Elementary and Middle Schools.” Their third recommendation states, “Instruction during the intervention should be explicit and systematic. This includes providing models of proficient problem solving, verbalization of thought processes, guided practice, corrective feedback, and frequent cumulative review.” Within these recommendations are four focus areas that integrate with CueThink's problem solving tool.  Below are the four focus areas and how they align to CueThink:  

 

Focus 1: Teacher Demonstration

The IES instructs teachers to start the intervention by demonstrating models of how to solve a variety of problems.  As they model their problem solving process, teachers should “think aloud” to explain their reasoning and thought process for each step. Elena Aguilar, in her article in Edutopia, “The Think-Aloud Strategy: An Oldie but Goodie,” writes that the power of “think-alouds” is “making our thinking transparent for kids, the steps we take to figure something out, and the ways in which our actions flow from this thinking. In this way, we are modeling what children need to do, not just telling them what to do” (2013).  Within CueThink, teachers can create a thinklet of an example problem, or series of problems to share with students. The screen casting functionality allows teachers to explain their thinking as they solve the problem. Because the teacher’s model is stored in a digital gallery, students can watch the tutorial at their own pace, pausing and rewinding as needed.  Additionally, students are able to reference the example at anytime.  

 

Focus 2: Guided Practice

As a targeted intervention for students struggling with problem solving, teachers must carefully scaffold their level of support. The IES recommends that teachers gradually decrease their level of involvement as students problem solve.  The consistent structure of the 4 phases fits well with the gradual release model because students are always following the same 4 phases, regardless of the problem.

Teachers can model how to unpack the problem by noticing and wondering in the Understand phase. Noticing and wondering helps students start a problem and reduces anxiety because there is “no right or wrong answer.” Using gradual release to introduce noticing and wondering, the Math Forum’s article “Beginning to Problem Solve with ‘I Notice, I wonder” recommends starting by projecting a problem or scenario and guiding students’ noticing and wondering. Overtime, the interventionist should change the structure from full group to a “Think-Pair-Share.” Once students are familiar with noticing and wondering, interventionists should challenge students to identify the importance, usefulness and paths from noticings and wonderings to a solution.      

Metacognitive reflection in the Review Phase should also be practiced to improve students’ critical thinking skills. In “Metacognition: The Gift that Keeps Giving,” Donna Wilson, Ph.D writes about modeling metacognition by showing students when personal mistakes happen and how to stop and recognize the error and correct it. CueThink’s blog, “Benefits of Error Analysis, CueThink Style,” explains how to use this metacognitive process to have students critique and revise incorrect thinklets. Jo Boaler confirms the power of teaching students by using mistakes. In her blog, "Mistakes Grow Your Brain," Boaler notes that mistakes lead to student learning and increased effort.  

 

Focus 3: Student verbalization

Just as the teacher modeled “think alouds” in step 1, IES establishes that during an intervention to improve problem solving, students should also speak about their thoughts and rationale for each of their steps to solve a problem. In their article, “Metacognitive Strategy Use of Eighth-Grade Students With and Without Learning Disabilities During Mathematical Problem Solving: A Think-Aloud Analysis," Rosenzweig, Krawec and Montague cited Bryant et al., 2000 when they noted students with learning disabilities tend to struggle with problem solving and respond impulsively using trial and error. Thus, Rosenzweig, Krawec and Montague continue that cognitive and metacognitive processes such as visualization, estimation and self-questioning are essential interventions.  

Within CueThink, students explain their thinking several times. First, students start putting thoughts into words by noticing and wondering about the problem. Then, within the Plan phase, students write a detailed guide about how they will solve the problem and use the strategies they selected. As they record their thinklet, students model how they solve the problem and verbally explain their thinking. Finally, when watching their own thinklet and the work of their peers, students write feedback and reflections evaluating the steps to solve a problem.

 

Focus 4: Corrective Feedback

IES concludes that corrective feedback is a critical part of an intervention to improve students ability to solve multi-step mathematical problems. Andrew Miller, in “Feedback for Thinking: Working for the Answer” discusses the power of feedback both to prompt student thinking but also to help the teacher determine the root of a misconception. Miller classifies feedback into three categories: questions, prompting and cueing. He continues to explain that questions should be open-ended and “cause students to explain and justify their ideas.” He defines prompts as “statements and questions that cause students to do metacognitive work” and cueing as verbal or nonverbal signals that “shifts the learner’s attention.”  

Feedback directly pairs with CueThink’s annotations process. Teachers watch a student’s thinklet, see how they solved a problem, hear their thinking and provide written feedback. Because annotations are spatial temporal, comments or questions link to a specific point in time during the thinklet. Thus, a student can see that their teacher’s comment directly relates to a statement they made 45 seconds into their thinklet. This level of specificity helps students connect the feedback to the part of their work that needs improvement.  

 

Conclusion

In the brief Why Is Teaching with Problem Solving Important to Student Learning? NCTM states that teaching problem solving is a slow process that teachers must dedicate focused attention to promoting. With the emphasis on problem solving, “students explain and justify their thinking and challenge the explanations of their peers and teachers, they are also engaging in clarification of their own thinking and becoming owners of ‘knowing’” (Cai, Lester citing Lampert, 1990). Thus, by integrating CueThink’s structured problem solving and collaborative application into tier 1 instruction and further scaffolding support through tier 2 and 3 interventions, students develop problem solving skills that NCTM found not only impact “students’ higher-order thinking skills but also reinforces positive attitudes” (2010).

                

References

Aguilar, Elena. "The Think-Aloud Strategy: An Oldie But Goodie." Edutopia. Edutopia, 01 Aug. 2013. Web. 04 Aug. 2016.

Beginning to Problem Solve with “I Notice, I Wonder” The Math Forum, 2015. Web. 4 Aug. 2016.

Boaler, Jo. "Mistakes Grow Your Brain." Youcubed at Stanford University. Youcubed, 2016. Web. 04 Aug. 2016.

Cai, Jinfa, and Frank Lester. "Why Is Teaching with Problem Solving Important to Student Learning?" NCTM, 8 Apr. 2010. Web. 4 Aug. 2016.

Gersten, R., Beckmann, S., Clarke, B., Foegen, A., Marsh, L., Star, J. R., & Witzel, B. (2009). Assisting students struggling with mathematics: Response to Intervention (RtI) for elementary and middle schools (NCEE 2009-4060). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies. ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides/.

Hall, Michael, Deb Poole, Ruth Carlstrom, Stephanie Smith, and Joette Speaks,. "Gifted and Talented Education from A-Z." (2004): n. pag. Opi.mt.gov, 2009. Web. 27 July 2016.

Hughes, Charles, Ph.D, and Douglas D. Dexter, Ph.D. "Universal Screening Within a Response-to-Intervention Model." Universal Screening Within a RTI Model. RTI Action Networt, n.d. Web. 01 Aug. 2016.

Miller, Andrew. "Feedback for Thinking: Working for the Answer." Edutopia. Edutopia, 06 Apr. 2015. Web. 04 Aug. 2016.

Rosenzweig, Carly, Jennifer Krawec, and Marjorie Montague. "Metacognitive Strategy Use of Eighth-Grade Students With and Without Learning Disabilities During Mathematical Problem Solving: A Think-Aloud Analysis." Journal of Learning Disabilities 44.6 (2011): 508-20.

Sparks, Sarah. "Study: RTI Practice Falls Short of Promise." Education Week. EdWeek, 6 Nov. 2015. Web. 01 Aug. 2016.            

Wilson, Donna, Ph.D. "Metacognition: The Gift That Keeps Giving." Edutopia. Edutopia, 07 Oct. 2014. Web. 04 Aug. 2016.

 

4 Ways To Enhance Instruction With CueThink

Providing a structure for math problem solving, CueThink offers a range of applications. Read on to learn four ways teachers can embed CueThink into commonly existing classroom routines and structures.

 

Launching a new technology in your classroom can feel daunting.  Teachers have found the most success with embedding CueThink into their current classroom routines and structures.   Designed around mathematician George Pólya’s 4 Phases of problem solving, here are four ways to succeed in integrating CueThink into your mathematical instruction. The goal is to make minimal changes to your routines and enhance what you already do.

1. Launch a Unit with CueThink: Pre-Assess and Preview Content

Start the unit by engaging students in upcoming concepts and collect formative data around students’ prior knowledge and current misconceptions. Emphasize to students that this activity aims to capture the variety of strategies and knowledge the class currently has and to collaboratively build upon their repertoire.

Review the unit content goals as well as your goals for developing mathematical thinkers. Mark Chubb’s blog post on  “What Does Day 1 Look Like?” explains how the roles you and your students take (teacher-directed, teacher-guided or teacher-facilitated; student active or student passive) can support your goals.        
Select a rigorous problem either from the CueThink Bank or your own collection that addresses the unit's most important standards and interests students. Consider alternative resources such as the Mathematics Assessment Project for Middle School and High School students that specialize in formative assessments relating to the Common Core Standards. Assign this problem to your CueThink class and pose it to students to introduce the unit. Once students have completed their thinklets, focus peer annotations on unit exploration and making connections to prior concepts using sentence stems such as “Something I’m looking forward to learning more about is…” or “A connection I see to a prior unit is…”

🕒 Working on a launch problem within CueThink will take about 30-40 minutes.

View thinklets and keep notes on students’ prior knowledge and strategies to share during the course of the unit, and misconceptions to be addressed at the start of the unit.

Return to this problem at the end of the unit. Matt Coaty notes in his blogpost, “4 Ways to Encourage Student Self-Reflection in Math Class” that student-led conferences based on formative assessment is a way for them to reflect on their own growth.    

2. Problem Solve with CueThink: Provide a Structured Framework To Facilitate Deeper Learning

In a brief on “Why Is Teaching With Problem Solving Important To Student Learning?” NCTM (2016) cites research that teaching problem solving stimulates engagement as students learn concepts, reasoning and communication skills. The structure of Polya’s 4 phases guides students as they solve multi-step problems which enables the teacher to take on a facilitator role to lead discussions that foster deeper conceptual understanding.

Select a complex and engaging problem from the CueThink Problem Bank or your curriculum. The first problem posed should address concepts that at least 80% of students understand but has multiple solution paths or possible answers. This will reduce students’ cognitive overload while learning a new technology tool. Also keep in mind Mark Chubb’s blog post on “Is That Even A Problem?” where he references Polyá’s idea that problems should require some degree of difficulty where reasoning skills are needed to consciously search for an appropriate course of action.

Use the four phases within CueThink to structure short discussions throughout the process. Use the Think-Pair-Share model where students work alone for 5-10 minutes, then explain their work to a peer, followed by sharing their partner’s work with the whole class. Lance Bledsoe’s blog on “I, We, You vs. You, Y’all, We” references Magdalene Lampert’s twist on the Think-Pair-Share model.

🕒 Working within CueThink and debriefing each phase will last about 40-50 minutes.

Conclude by having students spend 5-10 minutes viewing and annotating two peers’ thinklets, encouraging them to give one compliment and one improvement that is kind, specific and helpful.

3. Target Instruction with CueThink: Address Misconceptions Through Student Error Analysis

Targeted small group instruction has been proven to positively impact student learning, particularly with respect to problem solving (Jitendra, Dupuis, Rodriguez, 2012)Using an error-task analysis allows students to demonstrate their conceptual understanding of mathematical concepts involved.

🕒  Each guided math group lasts 10-15 minutes; hold 2-3 groups in one class period.

Arrange students into small groups targeting specific skills based on the assessment data at hand. Assign students to watch and discuss a thinklet demonstrating a misconception as well as an exemplar thinklet about the intended skill.  The discussion can start with students’ noticings and wonderings about each thinklet and then progress to comparing the similarities and differences of the two solutions. The goal is for students to notice where in the problem solving process mistakes were made.

Check in on the rest of the students on their assignment(s), while the guided math group is evaluating the assigned thinklets.

Return to the guided math group to discuss observations.  Focus the discussion around the similarities and differences between the two thinklets.  If students are able to explain which thinklet contained an error and what the error was, conclude the session with a short exit ticket of a similar problem to assess students’ understanding.  If students remain confused focus them on the error and explain the misconception.  Then work through a similar problem together and highlight the correct steps to solve the problem.  Note students’ level of understanding at the conclusion of the session to plan future guided math groups.

4. Diversify Homework with CueThink: Digitally Extend Your Classroom

Vary and enhance homework to create a digital extension of learning.  Youki Terada (2015) asks, “How can we transform homework so that it’s engaging, relevant and supports learning?” Here are some strategies that our teachers use to answer that question. At home, students can:

Preview a problem that will be worked on the following day in class.  Students can begin to create their thinklets and choose not to submit their thinklet to the class gallery. Focus class time on completing and revising thinklets to submit to the class gallery.  

Annotate peers’ thinklets with kind, specific and helpful feedback. This helps students to independently practice giving effective feedback centered around your classroom discussions on what is kind, specific and helpful feedback and the importance of digital citizenry.

Find two thinklets that model different strategies. Dr. Matthew Beyranevand wrote “the more strategies and approaches that students are exposed to, the deeper their conceptual understanding of the topic becomes.” Comparing multiple strategies support students in learning how to plan their solution as well as evaluating the effectiveness of a strategy in relationship to a specific skill.  Assign a problem for students to review or let students choose from the Gallery.  After watching both thinklets, students compare and explain which strategy is most effective and why. Comparisons can be written using the annotations feature or on paper.  

Revise a thinklet based on peers’ feedback to promote a growth mindset.  In an article, Educating the World said, “Good formative assessment celebrates the student’s successes but also offers strategies for improvement and advice on how to develop a greater depth of knowledge and understanding.” The annotations process provides peer-based formative assessment that students should use to improve their work.  After students receive peer feedback, give students time at the end of class to review annotations and ask clarifying questions. Then for homework, students iterate on their work to address peers’ feedback.  

Conclusion… Your Next Steps

Providing a structure for problem solving, CueThink offers a limitless range of applications.  In this article, CueThink enhanced a range of commonly used classroom routines. Select a starting point, evaluate the current strengths and weaknesses of the routine, and select a CueThink plan to improve the practice. 

 

References

"Assessment for Learning: “Formative Assessment Is a Verb Not a Noun.” International Education Today. N.p., 26 Aug. 2015. Web. 14 July 2016.

Beyranevand, Matthew. "6 Ways to Help Students Understand Math." Edutopia. N.p., 22 Apr. 2016. Web. 14 July 2016.

Bledsoe, Lance. "“I, We, You” vs. “You, Y’all, We”. Lance Bledsoe RSS. WordPress Admin, 7 Aug. 2014. Web. 14 July 2016.

Chubb, Mark. "Is That Even A Problem???" Thinking Mathematically. WordPress Admin, 07 July 2016. Web. 14 July 2016.

Chubb, Mark. "What Does Day 1 Look Like?" Thinking Mathematically. WordPress Admin, 09 June 2016. Web. 14 July 2016.

Coaty, Matt. "4 Ways to Encourage Student Self-Reflection in Math Class." Matt Coaty. WordPress Admin, 13 July 2013. Web. 14 July 2016.

Gordon, Norma. "Annotations Tic-Tac-Toe." RSS. CueThink, 4 Aug. 2015. Web. 14 July 2016.

Gordon, Norma. "Introducing a New App, Tool, Technology." RSS. CueThink, 25 Feb. 2015. Web. 14 July 2016.

Gordon, Norma. "Problem Solving in Four Phases." RSS. CueThink, 5 Feb. 2015. Web. 14 July 2016.

Jitendra, A. K., Dupuis, D. N., Rodriguez, M. C., & Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness. (2012). Effectiveness of Small-Group Tutoring Interventions for Improving the Mathematical Problem-Solving Performance of Third-Grade Students with Mathematics Difficulties: A Randomized Experiment. Society For Research On Educational Effectiveness.

"Problem Solving." - National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics., 2016. Web. 06 July 2016.

Terada, Youki. "Research Trends: Why Homework Should Be Balanced." Edutopia. Edutopia, 31 July 2015. Web. 06 July 2016.