I used to be a traditional math teacher.

My classroom would be arranged the same way my

classrooms in high school math class were arranged, in rows and columns. I used similar strategies to

teach my students how to learn the content, I try – you try. At the end of a 20-minute lesson (it usually

went longer than planned) students would use the remaining class time to complete a set of problems

from the textbook. I was very content driven and had set timelines for how long each unit should take.

The timelines were based on the number of classes for the term.

To differentiate instruction, I would offer two sets of problems to complete: basic and

challenging. Students generally had the autonomy to choose which set of problems they would do for

homework. However, If I felt students were not challenging themselves enough, I would assign the more

challenging problem set. Students were memorizing algorithms to solve math problems. They were not

becoming numerate to be problem solvers.

As an educator now, I have shifted towards a balance of content and competency based

assessment. I have more compassion for each student’s circumstance and giving students the

opportunity to share what they’ve learned through competency self assessments allows students to

showcase their learning in a unique way that represents themselves. The building thinking classrooms

framework also has provided me with a strategy to differentiate instruction to meet each students

needs.

Prior to the MEDL program I would say I was not a leader. I’ve always been available to support

my colleagues and students when asked, but never pushed my own ideas. The literature I have read on

the Building Thinking Classroom Framework, math anxiety, and math efficacy has allowed me to be

confident in what I know and more willing to share the information. While I may have already believed

the things I was researching. Reading about the research gave me the confidence to share that

knowledge with others since it was no longer my opinion, but the opinions of others, backed by
research. I am more confident with what I know because of the research and so I am more comfortable

sharing that knowledge, even when it may seem like others do not agree with me.

My leadership style is motivated by inquiry. Rather than push my ideas and force people to do

what I want, I invite them to join a conversation. For example, leading book clubs on Building Thinking

Classrooms. Those that were interested joined and we have had great conversations and we are

supporting each other into implementing the Building Thinking Classroom Framework into our own

classrooms. As we get more people involved, we have shared what we have been doing at staff

meetings which has extended the conversation to other departments. I have a willingness to share with

those who want to listen.

The MEDL program has been a transformational experience. I have learned to stay curious and

appreciate the other perspective, to minimize judgement and try to understand where others are

coming from, and to show compassion for everyone’s unique experience.

My commitment to the future is to continue to lead book clubs and PLC’s. In addition, I’d like to

do an inquiry or district wide collaboration with the senior math teachers in our district. In 2017, while

teaching at Fraser Lake Elementary Secondary School, I was the only math teacher and I was not able to

collaborate with other senior math teachers. Being in a rural district, many of the math teachers don’t

have the opportunity to collaborate within their schools because they are the only math teacher.

Hopefully this is something they want, and I can facilitate that.

I have also submitted two proposals to co-present at the Distributed Learning Symposium

October 2022. These sessions touch on implementing parts of the building thinking classroom

framework into online, asynchronous environments. The first session is on thinking tasks, the second

session is on assessment.