How problem solving is being implemented by RAMP trained teachers

• In Event: Highlighted Session: I Don’t Know How To Do That Using Mathematics

Proposal

Participants in the study were six teachers and their classrooms in three schools (two in Zarqa and one in Jerash). In each school, one grade 2 and one grade 3 class was observed.
Classroom observation focused on the implementation of the RAMP problem-solving routine. Observed teachers were informed that the research team was visiting their classes with a view to observing them implement the RAMP problem-solving routine. Problem solving was chosen because (1) it is the most unfamiliar of the RAMP mathematics routines that teachers have been asked to introduce; and (2) coaching reports from the MoE Supervisors and RAMP coaches responsible for conducting the classroom-based support component of the in-service training have indicated that the problem-solving routine is, in general, not being well implemented.
Although all six teachers implemented a problem-solving lesson, none of them implemented the lesson in the way that the RAMP mathematics teacher guide anticipates that the lesson will be implemented. That is, not one of the teachers set a problem that forced the students to have to “make a plan,” none of them observed the students making different plans, and certainly there was no meaningful discussion of the strategies that the students had used to make sense of and solve the problem posed. Without exception, the six teachers all used the problem-solving lesson to “teach” “the key steps” use to solve a problem. Although incidents during each lesson demonstrated that the teachers had been exposed to the RAMP training on the use of problem solving, the overriding impression was that the teachers had assimilated the RAMP problem-solving routines into their existing mental model of what it means to teach problem solving in a mathematics classroom and had not shifted their model.
Each of the six lessons followed a similar script. First, the teacher told the students that they would be solving problems. Next, the teacher reminded the students of the four steps (1. understand the problem; 2. make a plan; 3. execute the plan; and 4. verify the answer.) that are used to solve a problem. Then the teacher presented a problem and modelled applying the four steps to solve the problem (with or without the involvement of the class). Finally, the teacher reviewed the steps just done. It should be noted that these steps are not mentioned in the RAMP teacher guide but are instead the way in which problems have been treate for the last many years.
In four of the six lessons observed, the teacher also used the gradual release of responsibility model (“I do, We do, You do”) to structure the lesson. While this model is not mentioned in the RAMP mathematics materials, it does form an integral part of the RAMP approach to developing foundational skills for reading—skills such as phonemic awareness and letter sounds
In observing the lessons, however, it became clear that “making a plan” constituted translating the problem into a mathematical expression and doing the associated arithmetic to solve the mathematical equation. In almost all of the classes, the teacher wrote the problem on the board and either used a different color to highlight the numbers in the problem or circled the numbers in the problem. One teacher wrote a problem on the board (with the two numbers circled in red) and then said: “Let us see who the smartest child in this class is.” After discussing the problem briefly she went on: “Now we need to make a plan. What operation should we use: plus, minus, divide, or multiply? In this case we will use minus. How do we know that we should use minus?” Another teacher started her lesson by saying: “Today we will be doing subtraction problems,” and then proceeded to pose the problem. The lesson was not about sense making— the teacher told the class that the problems were subtraction problems. The lesson was also not about making a plan, and in so doing, developing a more sophisticated computational method. The lesson was simply about translating a situation (problem) into an equation and solving the equation.
The observed lessons suggest that most of the teachers had (1) assimilated some of the RAMP methodology into their existing practices; (2) recognized the value of the RAMP philosophy, even if the implementation fell short of the vision—e.g., they had recognized the possibility of a range of problem-solving approaches, even if they taught these rather than looking out for them in the work of the children; (3) provided differentiated support to the children in their class; and (4) tried to give students greater responsibility for their learning, even if it was through the misplaced implementation of the gradual release of responsibility (the “I do, We do, You do” model).

Author

• Aarnout A Brombacher, RTI International