I agree with what you have said here - particularly on freeloading and copying. I don’t see how you realistically stop that in a classroom of 30 children and who does this? Always the children who need the most instruction.
Whilst I am here, please could I politely invite you over to Bluesky. From what I know of you, I can’t believe you support what Musk is doing but posting on X is effectively supporting them and there is now a viable education community over on Bluesky which would welcome your thoughts.
I have a quick question, though. Did the Swedish teachers have some sort of learning target for their students? If so, did they have any plans of assessing whether or not each student learned?
This is my burning question. How many teachers using this model have clear learning goals, and assess those goals when they are done?
I’m interested to hear your answer. my guess is no to both. But then, we share the same cynicism.
I think you should read the book many of these concerns are addressed in the book. I have been teaching this way for three years. My students have better discussions. Score better on assignments. And are overall better students. It’s harder for students to get away with sitting in class and mimicking the teacher. I worry that you are letting your bias get in the way of truly revolutionizing your classroom.
This is quite interesting. I wonder what are Swedish maths ability scores compared to UK one. Is there another effective way to teach student other than small step progress with endless AfL checks?
- When I taught in the UK, my classroom wasn't big enough to accommodate whiteboards on the other walls, which was a shame. But I did have some classes with very effective mini-whiteboard learning.
- A couple of years ago, I was working in a school where I got to see really effective group work with a highly-motivated top class. They would have benefited from whiteboards rather than huddling around a desk and a piece of paper.
- One school I worked at, the head of maths was thrilled to announce that two of the classrooms would have the whiteboards on the walls. After a few weeks, the kids were covering them in graffiti and the teachers stopped using them.
However... I am actually excited by the idea, and I thank you for the photos in the article.
- I would have a set of rules for using the whiteboards: groups of 2-4, no larger; everyone has a pen, allowing multiple people to write things at the same time; if a student doesn't understand what another student has written, they have a duty to ask, no matter how simple they think their question is; students not actively participating will sit at a desk with a worksheet; etc. I would make sure all of my classes know these rules, especially the younger students.
- The whiteboards would not be included in every lesson, and not for the whole lesson. They would be used to extend thinking, rather than for answering a worksheet.
Example lesson (using the area of circles in the article):
- Recap of area of circles, semi-circles, etc. Quick example, front-led by the teacher.
- Individual worksheet of 10(ish) questions, completed at desks.
- At this point, the wall whiteboards could be used for some students to write their answers, and then we can discuss whether we think they are correct or not (if not, the student will need to provide their reasoning for how they got their answer).
- Hopefully there will be 20 minutes at the end for extended questions. I'm thinking compound areas using circles, or questions that combine the circles topic with other topics they have already covered. Students split up into groups of 2-4 and work on one question each. when they have an answer, they call the teacher over to check and either re-work their mistakes or take another question. The rules above apply.
I would be interested in seeing whether this method will work... but unfortunately I don't have the opportunity to try it at the moment!
Thinking through this has made me think that it would be worthwhile developing some materials for these extended questions... something I may very well do! I absolutely love combining topics because it makes students think outside the box.
(e.g. a right-angled triangle has side lengths of x+2, x+9 and the hypotenuse of x+13. Calculate the area and perimeter, to 2 decimal places.)
I think you raise some incredibly valid points here. My worry is that people may dismiss the whiteboards themselves due to the issues being mostly about group work. It is in large groups at these whiteboards where the copying and hiding can be so problematic. But with smaller class sizes, or having varied tasks in the room, where there is a maximum of 2 students working at one of the surfaces would seem to eliminate your concerns. Structuring HOW students use these surfaces has always been very helpful to me to using them effectively, and can even make it a time-saving task to find student misconceptions.
I must admit, I was disappointed to read this. I have found that a 360 whiteboard strategy is especially productive for individual work or pair work at the fluency building stage of a lesson. Students are typically working on different problems instead of a standard worksheet (such as task cards) so cheating isn't a problem. I can see who is struggling very quickly and if a student is catching up after an absence, they can easily work along with a peer to make sure they get it. Admittedly, I have typically used this in classes of 15 or fewer students which makes it a bit less crowded.
You make some sound points, which I will use as discussion points in a dept meeting. The vast list of positives written by the Swedish author is still very persuasive for me. For ease of communication, I like to use the word multiboards, for classrooms set up with multiple white boards. They are a very common way of teaching maths in 6th form colleges, where more mature and motivated A Level students are less likely to suffer from the negatives you discuss, especially if groups of students are working on different (but related) problem solving questions.
I did some experimenting with this before retirement. I agree with Craig’s points. I found collaboration more effective at desks with no more than three, usually two, students. I did use whiteboards at the rear of the room for students do post “model” completed work for all to see, though. I allowed students to use the models later during formative assessment if they needed assistance.
I sometimes wonder how you have space in your brain for all the things you are obsessed with Craig, but I agree with almost everything you have said here. In my experience of seeing similar approaches, I agree that making the approach you observed effective and efficient requires a level of expertise that is rarely seen and even then probably isn't worth the effort.
I do think there are reasons for having whiteboards on walls instead of display boards, but this is not one of them.
I nearly died when I started reading this and thought you were about to advocate for working on whiteboards on the wall!
Thank you for thinking deeply about this!
When the inevitable fad of paying £££ to install them at the school I work in comes around I'll be very happy to be able to send this to SLT to hopefully make them think again.
I totally agree with you. I have taught maths for nearly 30 years now, including the last 4 as a private tutor via zoom as semi retired. I'm also not convinced that all students like this approach, as group work is extremely difficult as you say to be sure it is effective. The biggest flaw in this strikes me as not having a real plan, or purpose. It just replaces the old large sheet of paper spread over 4 desks shoved together with one person elected 'scribe' and given the marker pen. I always saw that working, in pairs students learned, but in groups they did not.
I agree with what you have said here - particularly on freeloading and copying. I don’t see how you realistically stop that in a classroom of 30 children and who does this? Always the children who need the most instruction.
Whilst I am here, please could I politely invite you over to Bluesky. From what I know of you, I can’t believe you support what Musk is doing but posting on X is effectively supporting them and there is now a viable education community over on Bluesky which would welcome your thoughts.
Nice article Craig, I share the same concerns.
I have a quick question, though. Did the Swedish teachers have some sort of learning target for their students? If so, did they have any plans of assessing whether or not each student learned?
This is my burning question. How many teachers using this model have clear learning goals, and assess those goals when they are done?
I’m interested to hear your answer. my guess is no to both. But then, we share the same cynicism.
Cheers
I think you should read the book many of these concerns are addressed in the book. I have been teaching this way for three years. My students have better discussions. Score better on assignments. And are overall better students. It’s harder for students to get away with sitting in class and mimicking the teacher. I worry that you are letting your bias get in the way of truly revolutionizing your classroom.
This is quite interesting. I wonder what are Swedish maths ability scores compared to UK one. Is there another effective way to teach student other than small step progress with endless AfL checks?
This is a really good article, thanks Craig.
Firstly, my own experience:
- When I taught in the UK, my classroom wasn't big enough to accommodate whiteboards on the other walls, which was a shame. But I did have some classes with very effective mini-whiteboard learning.
- A couple of years ago, I was working in a school where I got to see really effective group work with a highly-motivated top class. They would have benefited from whiteboards rather than huddling around a desk and a piece of paper.
- One school I worked at, the head of maths was thrilled to announce that two of the classrooms would have the whiteboards on the walls. After a few weeks, the kids were covering them in graffiti and the teachers stopped using them.
However... I am actually excited by the idea, and I thank you for the photos in the article.
- I would have a set of rules for using the whiteboards: groups of 2-4, no larger; everyone has a pen, allowing multiple people to write things at the same time; if a student doesn't understand what another student has written, they have a duty to ask, no matter how simple they think their question is; students not actively participating will sit at a desk with a worksheet; etc. I would make sure all of my classes know these rules, especially the younger students.
- The whiteboards would not be included in every lesson, and not for the whole lesson. They would be used to extend thinking, rather than for answering a worksheet.
Example lesson (using the area of circles in the article):
- Recap of area of circles, semi-circles, etc. Quick example, front-led by the teacher.
- Individual worksheet of 10(ish) questions, completed at desks.
- At this point, the wall whiteboards could be used for some students to write their answers, and then we can discuss whether we think they are correct or not (if not, the student will need to provide their reasoning for how they got their answer).
- Hopefully there will be 20 minutes at the end for extended questions. I'm thinking compound areas using circles, or questions that combine the circles topic with other topics they have already covered. Students split up into groups of 2-4 and work on one question each. when they have an answer, they call the teacher over to check and either re-work their mistakes or take another question. The rules above apply.
I would be interested in seeing whether this method will work... but unfortunately I don't have the opportunity to try it at the moment!
Thinking through this has made me think that it would be worthwhile developing some materials for these extended questions... something I may very well do! I absolutely love combining topics because it makes students think outside the box.
(e.g. a right-angled triangle has side lengths of x+2, x+9 and the hypotenuse of x+13. Calculate the area and perimeter, to 2 decimal places.)
I think you raise some incredibly valid points here. My worry is that people may dismiss the whiteboards themselves due to the issues being mostly about group work. It is in large groups at these whiteboards where the copying and hiding can be so problematic. But with smaller class sizes, or having varied tasks in the room, where there is a maximum of 2 students working at one of the surfaces would seem to eliminate your concerns. Structuring HOW students use these surfaces has always been very helpful to me to using them effectively, and can even make it a time-saving task to find student misconceptions.
I must admit, I was disappointed to read this. I have found that a 360 whiteboard strategy is especially productive for individual work or pair work at the fluency building stage of a lesson. Students are typically working on different problems instead of a standard worksheet (such as task cards) so cheating isn't a problem. I can see who is struggling very quickly and if a student is catching up after an absence, they can easily work along with a peer to make sure they get it. Admittedly, I have typically used this in classes of 15 or fewer students which makes it a bit less crowded.
You make some sound points, which I will use as discussion points in a dept meeting. The vast list of positives written by the Swedish author is still very persuasive for me. For ease of communication, I like to use the word multiboards, for classrooms set up with multiple white boards. They are a very common way of teaching maths in 6th form colleges, where more mature and motivated A Level students are less likely to suffer from the negatives you discuss, especially if groups of students are working on different (but related) problem solving questions.
I did some experimenting with this before retirement. I agree with Craig’s points. I found collaboration more effective at desks with no more than three, usually two, students. I did use whiteboards at the rear of the room for students do post “model” completed work for all to see, though. I allowed students to use the models later during formative assessment if they needed assistance.
I sometimes wonder how you have space in your brain for all the things you are obsessed with Craig, but I agree with almost everything you have said here. In my experience of seeing similar approaches, I agree that making the approach you observed effective and efficient requires a level of expertise that is rarely seen and even then probably isn't worth the effort.
I do think there are reasons for having whiteboards on walls instead of display boards, but this is not one of them.
Thank you for another thoughtful post.
The most basic question: what do you do when you have an odd number of students in a class. Pair work doesn’t quite work in the same way …
I nearly died when I started reading this and thought you were about to advocate for working on whiteboards on the wall!
Thank you for thinking deeply about this!
When the inevitable fad of paying £££ to install them at the school I work in comes around I'll be very happy to be able to send this to SLT to hopefully make them think again.
Thanks again!
I totally agree with you. I have taught maths for nearly 30 years now, including the last 4 as a private tutor via zoom as semi retired. I'm also not convinced that all students like this approach, as group work is extremely difficult as you say to be sure it is effective. The biggest flaw in this strikes me as not having a real plan, or purpose. It just replaces the old large sheet of paper spread over 4 desks shoved together with one person elected 'scribe' and given the marker pen. I always saw that working, in pairs students learned, but in groups they did not.