MM 1092: Building Thinking Classrooms: Thin-slicing, collaborative problem-solving - and Claude's suggestions for English

 MM 1092 - from Marshall Memo #1092

Following an approach suggested by Peter Liljedahl (Building Thinking Classrooms), Raab tried to establish a collaborative classroom community by beginning with non-cognitive tasks and getting students engaged with accessible math before teaching the ninth-grade curriculum. She gave her classes the Four 4’s Challenge, where students had to use four 4’s and choose from a variety of math operations (addition, subtraction, division, exponents…) to create expressions equivalent to numbers from 1 to 20 (for example, 4 + 4 + 4 – 4 = 8).

Students were hesitant to get started, so Raab showed one possible answer, formed groups, encouraged students to share ideas, and said, “Do not ask me for help unless everyone in your group is stuck.” It wasn’t long before students were so engaged they didn’t want to stop. For two weeks, Raab continued to give non-cognitive, low-floor/high-ceiling problems, showing the whole class a starting-point strategy to nudge students’ thinking. They began jumping in more quicky, enjoying the feeling of thinking through challenges. 

But when Raab began assigning tasks from the regular curriculum, students regressed to their previous mindsets, crumpling up papers before even trying. “Miss, I’ve been failing math since 4th grade,” said one. “I don’t know how to do math.” Raab recalled something Keazer had said in her methods class: “Kids are not born lazy; they have just developed coping mechanisms that can lead to learned helplessness.” 

Raab gently refused to accept blank papers and encouraged and supported students to keep trying. Three factors were responsible for gradually turning things around:

• Building trust – Raab got to know each student personally and built relationships based on empathy and respect. 

• Providing confidence-building experiences – She found the only way to break through students’ shutdowns and negative attitudes was scaffolding lessons that started with students’ current familiar knowledge. 

• Thin-slicing math tasks – Raab broke concepts down and experimented with sequences that moved from simple to more-advanced concepts and skills. These problem strings helped students incrementally discover new material. 

Here’s an example with solving equations or formulas for a given variable. Raab started with a low-floor problem she knew students could solve:

If 2x + 3 = 13, how can we solve for x?

“Subtract 3, then divide by 2,” students responded. 

What if I said, ax + b = c, solve for x?

Students hesitated but eventually came up with the parallel steps.

Then Raab presented a set of problems where the left column was a less-abstract problem, the right column a more-abstract literal equation with a parallel structure:

x + 3 = 0 x + y = 0, solve for x

x + 6 = 3 x + 6 = y, solve for x

p – 2 = 4 p – q = t, solve for p

2a = 12 ab = 12, solve for b

5y = 15 xy = z, solve for y

7b – 2 = 12 7b – c = d, solve for b

x/4 = 2 x/4 = y, solve for x

w/5 = 6 w/p = r, solve for w

3w/5w = 6 3w/r = s, solve for w

3/5w + 1 = 10 3/5w + y = x, solve for w

“You only have to complete the right column,” Raab told students, “but you can use the left column as a scaffold if you get stuck.” As she circulated, she was delighted to hear comments like, “Wow, Miss, that’s actually really smart! I just got stuck and looked at the other equation and remembered how to solve it!” Students found the new content accessible and their confidence grew.

From Claude:

This is a fascinating example of how Building Thinking Classrooms can transform student engagement! The principles absolutely translate to AP Literature, and I can see several powerful applications:

Non-Cognitive Entry Points for Literature

Just as Raab used the Four 4's Challenge, you could start with engaging, low-stakes activities that get students thinking literarily without the pressure of "analysis." Consider:

• Found Poetry: Give students a newspaper article or random text and have them create poems by circling/highlighting words in sequence. This gets them manipulating language and thinking about word choice and meaning without the intimidation of "interpreting literature."

• Story Spine Challenges: Using the "Once upon a time... Every day... Until one day... Because of that... Until finally..." structure, have students create stories collaboratively. This builds narrative thinking skills.

• Character Speed Dating: Students get brief character descriptions from various works and must "speed date" - quickly deciding compatibility, conflicts, or alliances between characters from different texts.

Building Confidence Through Scaffolding

Your version of Raab's parallel problem approach could look like:

Concrete → Abstract Literary Analysis

• Start with: "What emotions do you feel when you read this passage?"
• Then: "What specific words or phrases created those emotions?"
• Finally: "How does the author's diction contribute to the overall tone?"

Familiar → Unfamiliar Texts

• Begin with song lyrics, social media posts, or contemporary texts students know
• Move to excerpts from works they'll study
• Progress to full complex texts

Thin-Slicing Complex Skills

Instead of jumping into full literary analysis essays, break down the thinking:

1. Observation Phase: "What do you notice?" (no interpretation required)
2. Pattern Recognition: "What do you notice happening more than once?"
3. Questioning Phase: "What questions does this raise?"
4. Connection Phase: "How does this connect to other elements?"
5. Interpretation Phase: "What might this suggest about the author's purpose?"

Collaborative Problem-Solving

Use Raab's "don't ask me unless everyone in your group is stuck" approach with:

• Text annotation parties where groups work together to unpack challenging passages
• Thesis workshops where students help each other refine arguments
• Evidence hunts where groups compete to find the most compelling textual support

The Key Mindset Shift

The most powerful aspect is addressing that "I'm not good at English" learned helplessness. Many students think literary analysis is about finding the "right" answer the teacher wants, rather than developing their own thinking. Your approach could emphasize that there are multiple valid interpretations supported by evidence, just as there were multiple ways to make expressions in the Four 4's Challenge.

What aspects of this approach most intrigue you? Are there particular skills or concepts your AP Lit students struggle with that we could think about "thin-slicing"?