Kimberly Cronin

October 12, 2014

EDU 221-G11, T/TH 9:10-10:25
Jan Stapleton & Jim Richardson

Observations of Middle and High School Mathematics Classes

In early September, I observed two mathematics classes and will compare and contrast
the difference and similarities in classroom management techniques, teaching strategies, and
student responses to the teacher. I will also discuss classroom set-up and give my impressions
of the effectiveness of the teaching style and perceived student response to the learning
activity. Overall, I felt that both teachers were amazing in their own style and kept the students
engaged and on learning task.
I observed Dylan Wittstrucks ninth grade, 50 minute, Pre AP Trigonometry class at
Thompson Valley High School in Loveland, Colorado. There were 26 students in the class sitting
in a 6 by 5 grid of single desks (Figure 1). A school wide bell signified the start and end of each
class period, although Wittstruck (which is how the students referred to the teacher) turned the
lights off to quite the students and to get their attention that class was starting. He began the
class by joking with the students while asking the students to get their homework out. He also
wrote the class objective on the board. Wittstruck verbalized his excitement about the math
topic they were going to discuss. While presenting the topic he gave ideas to the student about
what to put in their notes, indicating that drawing the figure was important, but not the actual
problem word for word.
Wittstruck used questions to engage the students to think and the students responded
when they thought they knew the answer. The process of questions and answers continued
most of the structured learning time. Students were not intimidated by trying to answer the
questions and if someone got a wrong answer Wittstruck would ask follow up questions to

Kimberly Cronin
October 12, 2014
EDU 221-G11, T/TH 9:10-10:25
Jan Stapleton & Jim Richardson

guide the student to the correct answer. If the student answered correctly, he would ask the
student to explain how they came to that answer.
After the main objective of the class was explained and Wittstruck went through an
example problem with the class, he asked the students to work with a neighbor to try and solve
a problem that was displayed on the smart board. He was explicit in his directions about what
was expected from the students during this work time. The students were to work in groups,
every student was to turn in their own work and after completing the problem the students
were to work on homework. The students physically turned their desks towards their partners
and most began working. Wittstruck walked around the room observing and at one point
hinted of potential problems that could be on a test. He indicated to me that he chose to do
group activities in this class because the students would actually work on the required task, but
in some of his other classes the students would just talk, so he has to adjust teaching
techniques per class. If students had questions during the group time Wittstruck would
continue to ask questions to help the student arrive at the answer on their own. It seemed to
be an effective technique that the students responded to and allowed the student to think
through the problem and to practice a critical thinking approach.
At the end of the period when the students were to hand in their class work there were
a few students that did try to manipulate how they wanted to hand in their work, but
Wittstruck stood firm and jokingly indicated that each student had to turn in their own work.
I also observed Heidi Christensens sixth grade 1.5 math class (students learn all of sixth
grade and half of seventh grade math in one year), at Bill Reed Middle School in Loveland,

Kimberly Cronin
October 12, 2014
EDU 221-G11, T/TH 9:10-10:25
Jan Stapleton & Jim Richardson

Colorado. There were 35 students, arranged in small desk clusters around the room (Figure 2).
There was no bell to signify the start of class, Heidi announced to the students to get their
homework out and look it over, which she indicated to me was a way to have them change
their thinking from their previous class. The class objectives and homework assignments were
written on the front and back boards respectively.
Heidi used various techniques to engage the students. She tossed Bubble Gum to
students when they answered a question correctly, she used thumbs up or thumbs down for
class consensus of an answer, she gave Smarties to students that wanted to come to the
board to write out their answers, she used humor, and about half way through the 70 minute
class she did a 30 second exercise that a student picked from an assortment of fitness sticks,
as she called them. Heidi also involved the class by surveying the students to demonstrate a
statistics topic the class was discussing. She used different color markers on the board to
highlight important items and used different colored paper to differentiate between class work,
homework, and notes. She employed a ticket out the door, which was a daily math question
written on the board that the students had to answer in order to leave the class. I think this
was used to take attendance, but also provided a fun way to use math.
The students raised their hands to answer questions, and have not started taking notes
on their own at this level. The students worked individually and in their pre-assigned desk
groups. Heidi dismissed the students when each table group was quiet, ready and organized.
I believe there are many more similarities than differences between the two teachers I
observed. Both teachers were organized and kept students on the learning task. Both used

Kimberly Cronin
October 12, 2014
EDU 221-G11, T/TH 9:10-10:25
Jan Stapleton & Jim Richardson

humor with the students, but were still authoritative in their overall demeanor. They were
excited about what they were teaching and the students responded respectfully and
inquisitively to each teaching approach. Both teachers encouraged student participation by
asking questions and allowed ample wait time for student responses. They also kept asking
questions to engage the students to think critically which allowed the students to arrive at the
answer when they understood how to get the answer. Both teachers had a lecture based
portion and a group activity within their teaching technique. Class objectives were clearly
written on the boards for students to see. Overall, I feel the students in both classes were
engaged and challenged with the math topic and that each math teacher managed to clarify the
material clearly so that the students could understand the math concept.
I feel the only real difference is the obvious one of grade level and differences in age.
The middle school teacher used more gimmicks to engage the students, gave more simplistic
directions, and also addressed misbehavior, talking in class, when it was happening, whereas,
Wittstruck seemed to ignore student chatter while he was teaching.
Both Heidi and Wittstruck kept students on learning task in an environment that was
highly conducive to learning. Their rapport with the students is based on respect, humor and
the ability to engage and challenge the students without discouraging them. By observing
these two teachers I now have many new ideas and teaching techniques that I can employ
when I become a teacher. I can only hope that I may be as successful in my teaching strategies
as these two teachers currently are.

Kimberly Cronin
October 12, 2014
EDU 221-G11, T/TH 9:10-10:25
Jan Stapleton & Jim Richardson
White Boards

Smart Board

Teacher
Desk

Storage

Student Desks

Table

Figure 1: Wittstruck Classroom Setup

Black Board

Book Shelves

Student Desks

Teacher Desk

White Board

Figure 2: Heidi Christensen Classroom Setup

Storage

Windows, Storage and Heaters

Desk
Teacher
Desk

Door to Another
Classroom