Podcasts about mike yeah

William Zahner, Understanding the Role of Language in Math Classrooms ROUNDING UP: SEASON 3 | EPISODE 17 How can educators understand the relationship between language and the mathematical concepts and skills students engage with in their classrooms? And how might educators think about the mathematical demands and the language demands of tasks when planning their instruction?  In this episode, we discuss these questions with Bill Zahner, director of the Center for Research in Mathematics and Science Education at San Diego State University. BIOGRAPHY Bill Zahner is a professor in the mathematics department at San Diego State University and the director of the Center for Research in Mathematics and Science Education. Zahner's research is focused on improving mathematics learning for all students, especially multilingual students who are classified as English Learners and students from historically marginalized communities that are underrepresented in STEM fields. RESOURCES Teaching Math to Multilingual Learners, Grades K–8 by Kathryn B. Chval, Erin Smith, Lina Trigos-Carrillo, and Rachel J. Pinnow National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Mathematics Teacher: Learning and Teaching PK– 12 English Learners Success Forum SDSU-ELSF Video Cases for Professional Development The Math Learning Center materials Bridges in Mathematics curriculum Bridges in Mathematics Teachers Guides [BES login required] TRANSCRIPT Mike Wallus: How can educators understand the way that language interacts with the mathematical concepts and skills their students are learning? And how can educators focus on the mathematics of a task without losing sight of its language demands as their planning for instruction? We'll examine these topics with our guest, Bill Zahner, director of the Center for Research in Mathematics and Science Education at San Diego State University.  Welcome to the podcast, Bill. Thank you for joining us today. Bill Zahner: Oh, thanks. I'm glad to be here. Mike: So, I'd like to start by asking you to address a few ideas that often surface in conversations around multilingual learners and mathematics. The first is the notion that math is universal, and it's detached from language. What, if anything, is wrong with this idea and what impact might an idea like that have on the ways that we try to support multilingual learners? Bill: Yeah, thanks for that. That's a great question because I think we have a common-sense and strongly held idea that math is math no matter where you are and who you are. And of course, the example that's always given is something like 2 plus 2 equals 4, no matter who you are or where you are. And that is true, I guess [in] the sense that 2 plus 2 is 4, unless you're in base 3 or something. But that is not necessarily what mathematics in its fullness is. And when we think about what mathematics broadly is, mathematics is a way of thinking and a way of reasoning and a way of using various tools to make sense of the world or to engage with those tools [in] their own right. And oftentimes, that is deeply embedded with language.  Probably the most straightforward example is anytime I ask someone to justify or explain what they're thinking in mathematics. I'm immediately bringing in language into that case. And we all know the old funny examples where a kid is asked to show their thinking and they draw a diagram of themselves with a thought bubble on a math problem. And that's a really good case where I think a teacher can say, “OK, clearly that was not what I had in mind when I said, ‘Show your thinking.'”  And instead, the demand or the request was for a student to show their reasoning or their thought process, typically in words or in a combination of words and pictures and equations. And so, there's where I see this idea that math is detached from language is something of a myth; that there's actually a lot of [language in] mathematics. And the interesting part of mathematics is often deeply entwined with language. So, that's my first response and thought about that.  And if you look at our Common Core State Standards for Mathematics, especially those standards for mathematical practice, you see all sorts of connections to communication and to language interspersed throughout those standards. So, “create viable arguments,” that's a language practice. And even “attend to precision,” which most of us tend to think of as, “round appropriately.” But when you actually read the standard itself, it's really about mathematical communication and definitions and using those definitions with precision. So again, that's an example, bringing it right back into the school mathematics domain where language and mathematics are somewhat inseparable from my perspective here. Mike: That's really helpful. So, the second idea that I often hear is, “The best way to support multilingual learners is by focusing on facts or procedures,” and that language comes later, for lack of a better way of saying it. And it seems like this is connected to that first notion, but I wanted to ask the question again: What, if anything, is wrong with this idea that a focus on facts or procedures with language coming after the fact? What impact do you suspect that that would have on the way that we support multilingual learners? Bill: So, that's a great question, too, because there's a grain of truth, right? Both of these questions have simultaneously a grain of truth and simultaneously a fundamental problem in them. So, the grain of truth—and an experience that I've heard from many folks who learned mathematics in a second language—was that they felt more competent in mathematics than they did in say, a literature class, where the only activity was engaging with texts or engaging with words because there was a connection to the numbers and to symbols that were familiar. So, on one level, I think that this idea of focusing on facts or procedures comes out of this observation that sometimes an emergent multilingual student feels most comfortable in that context, in that setting.  But then the second part of the answer goes back to this first idea that really what we're trying to teach students in school mathematics now is not simply, or only, how to apply procedures to really big numbers or to know your times tables fast. I think we have a much more ambitious goal when it comes to teaching and learning mathematics. That includes explaining, justifying, modeling, using mathematics to analyze the world and so on. And so, those practices are deeply tied with language and deeply tied with using communication. And so, if we want to develop those, well, the best way to do that is to develop them, to think about, “What are the scaffolds? What are the supports that we need to integrate into our lessons or into our designs to make that possible?”  And so, that might be the takeaway there, is that if you simply look at mathematics as calculations, then this could be true. But I think our vision of mathematics is much broader than that, and that's where I see this potential. Mike: That's really clarifying. I think the way that you unpack that is if you view mathematics as simply a set of procedures or calculations, maybe? But I would agree with you. What we want for students is actually so much more than that.  One of the things that I heard you say when we were preparing for this interview is that at the elementary level, learning mathematics is a deeply social endeavor. Tell us a little bit about what you mean by that, Bill. Bill: Sure. So, mathematics itself, maybe as a premise, is a social activity. It's created by humans as a way of engaging with the world and a way of reasoning. So, the learning of mathematics is also social in the sense that we're giving students an introduction to this way of engaging in the world. Using numbers and quantities and shapes in order to make sense of our environment.  And when I think about learning mathematics, I think that we are not simply downloading knowledge and sticking it into our heads. And in the modern day where artificial intelligence and computers can do almost every calculation that we can imagine—although your AI may do it incorrectly, just as a fair warning [laughs]—but in the modern day, the actual answer is not what we're so focused on. It's actually the process and the reasoning and the modeling and justification of those choices. And so, when I think about learning mathematics as learning to use these language tools, learning to use these ways of communication, how do we learn to communicate? We learn to communicate by engaging with other people, by engaging with the ideas and the minds and the feelings and so on of the folks around us, whether it's the teacher and the student, the student and the student, the whole class and the teacher. That's where I really see the power. And most of us who have learned, I think can attest to the fact that even when we're engaging with a text, really fundamentally we're engaging with something that was created by somebody else. So, fundamentally, even when you're sitting by yourself doing a math word problem or doing calculations, someone has given that to you and you think that that's important enough to do, right?  So, from that stance, I see all of teaching and learning mathematics is social. And maybe one of our goals in mathematics classrooms, beyond memorizing the times tables, is learning to communicate with other people, learning to be participants in this activity with other folks. Mike: One of the things that strikes me about what you were saying, Bill, is there's this kind of virtuous cycle, right? That by engaging with language and having the social aspect of it, you're actually also deepening the opportunity for students to make sense of the math. You're building the scaffolds that help kids communicate their ideas as opposed to removing or stripping out the language. That's the context in some ways that helps them filter and make sense. You could either be in a vicious cycle, which comes from removing the language, or a virtuous cycle. And it seems a little counterintuitive because I think people perceive language as the thing that is holding kids back as opposed to the thing that might actually help them move forward and make sense. Bill: Yeah. And actually that's one of the really interesting pieces that we've looked at in my research and the broader research is this question of, “What makes mathematics linguistically complex?” is a complicated question. And so sometimes we think of things like looking at the word count as a way to say, “If there are fewer words, it's less complex, and if there are more words, it's more complex.” But that's not totally true. And similarly, “If there's no context, it's easier or more accessible, and if there is a context, then it's less accessible.”  And I don't see these as binary choices. I see these as happening on a somewhat complicated terrain where we want to think about, “How do these words or these contexts add to student understanding or potentially impede [it]?” And that's where I think this social aspect of learning mathematics—as you described, it could be a virtuous cycle so that we can use language in order to engage in the process of learning language. Or, the vicious cycle is, you withhold all language and then get frustrated when students can't apply their mathematics. That's maybe the most stereotypical answer: “My kids can do this, but as soon as they get a word problem, they can't do it.” And it's like, “Well, did you give them opportunities to learn how to do this? [laughs] Or is this the first time?” Because that would explain a lot. Mike: Well, it's an interesting question, too, because I think what sits behind that in some ways is the idea that you're kind of going to reach a point, or students might reach a point, where they're “ready” for word problems.  Bill: Right. Mike: And I think what we're really saying is it's actually through engaging with word problems that you build your proficiency, your skillset that actually allows you to become a stronger mathematician. Bill: Mm-hmm. Right. Exactly. And it's a daily practice, right? It's not something that you just hold off to the end of the unit, and then you have the word problems, but it's part of the process of learning. And thinking about how you integrate and support that. That's the key question that I really wrestle with. Not trivial, but I think that's the key and the most important part of this. Mike: Well, I think that's actually a really good segue because I wanted to shift and talk about some of the concrete or productive ways that educators can support multilingual learners. And in preparing for this conversation, one of the things that I've heard you stress is this notion of a consistent context. So, can you just talk a little bit more about what you mean by that and how educators can use that when they're looking at their lessons or when they're writing lessons or looking at the curriculum that they're using? Bill: Absolutely. So, in our past work, we engaged in some cycles of design research with teachers looking at their mathematics curriculum and opportunities to engage multilingual learners in communication and reasoning in the classroom. And one of the surprising things that we found—just by looking at a couple of standard textbooks—was a surprising number of contexts were introduced that are all related to the same concept. So, the concept would be something like rate of change or ratio, and then the contexts, there would be a half dozen of them in the same section of the book. Now, this was, I should say, at a secondary level, so not quite where most of the Bridges work is happening. But I think it's an interesting lesson for us that we took away from this. Actually, at the elementary level, Kathryn Chval has made the same observation.  What we realized was that contexts are not good or bad by themselves. In fact, they can be highly supportive of student reasoning or they can get in the way. And it's how they are used and introduced. And so, the other way we thought about this was: When you introduce a context, you want to make sure that that context is one that you give sufficient time for the students to understand and to engage with; that is relatable, that everyone has access to it; not something that's just completely unrelated to students' experiences. And then you can really leverage that relatable, understandable context for multiple problems and iterations and opportunities to go deeper and deeper.  To give a concrete example of that, when we were looking at this ratio and rate of change, we went all the way back to one of the fundamental contexts that's been studied for a long time, which is motion and speed and distance and time. And that seemed like a really important topic because we know that that starts all the way back in elementary school and continues through college-level physics and beyond. So, it was a rich context. It was also something that was accessible in the sense that we could do things like act out story problems or reenact a race that's described in a story problem. And so, the students themselves had access to the context in a deep way.  And then, last, that context was one that we could come back to again and again, so we could do variations [of] that context on that story. And I think there's lots of examples of materials out there that start off with a core context and build it out. I'm thinking of some of the Bridges materials, even on the counting and the multiplication. I think there's stories of the insects and their legs and wings and counting and multiplying. And that's a really nice example of—it's accessible, you can go find insects almost anywhere you are. Kids like it. [Laughs] They enjoy thinking about insects and other icky, creepy-crawly things. And then you can take that and run with it in lots of different ways, right? Counting, multiplication, division ratio, and so on. Mike: This last bit of our conversation has me thinking about what it might look like to plan a lesson for a class or a group of multilingual learners. And I know that it's important that I think about mathematical demands as well as the language demands of a given task. Can you unpack why it's important to set math and language development learning goals for a task, or a set of tasks, and what are the opportunities that come along with that, if I'm thinking about both of those things during my planning? Bill: Yeah, that's a great question. And I want to mark the shift, right? We've gone from thinking about the demands to thinking about the goals, and where we're going to go next.  And so, when I think about integrating mathematical goals—mathematical learning goals and language learning goals—I often go back to these ideas that we call the practices, or these standards that are about how you engage in mathematics. And then I think about linking those back to the content itself. And so, there's kind of a two-piece element to that. And so, when we're setting our goals and lesson planning, at least here in the great state of California, sometimes we'll have these templates that have, “What standard are you addressing?,” [Laughs] “What language standard are you addressing?,” “What ELD standard are you addressing?,” “What SEL standard are you addressing?” And I've seen sometimes teachers approach that as a checkbox, right? Tick, tick, tick, tick, tick. But I see that as a missed opportunity—if you just look at this like you're plugging things in—because as we started with talking about how learning mathematics is deeply social and integrated with language, that we can integrate the mathematical goals and the language goals in a lesson. And I think really good materials should be suggesting that to the teacher. You shouldn't be doing this yourself every day from scratch. But I think really high-quality materials will say, “Here's the mathematical goal, and here's an associated language goal,” whether it's productive or receptive functions of language. “And here's how the language goal connects the mathematical goal.”  Now, just to get really concrete, if we're talking about an example of reasoning with ratios—so I was going back to that—then it might be generalized, the relationship between distance and time. And that the ratio of distance and time gives you this quantity called speed, and that different combinations of distance and time can lead to the same speed. And so, explain and justify and show using words, pictures, diagrams. So, that would be a language goal, but it's also very much a mathematical goal.  And I guess I see the mathematical content, the practices, and the language really braided together in these goals. And that I think is the ideal, and at least from our work, has been most powerful and productive for students. Mike: This is off script, but I'm going to ask it, and you can pass if you want to.  Bill: Mm-hmm. Mike: I wonder if you could just share a little bit about what the impact of those [kinds] of practices that you described [have been]—have you seen what that impact looks like? Either for an educator who has made the step and is doing that integration or for students who are in a classroom where an educator is purposely thinking about that level of integration? Bill: Yeah, I can talk a little bit about that. In our research, we have tried to measure the effects of some of these efforts. It is a difficult thing to measure because it's not just a simple true-false test question type of thing that you can give a multiple-choice test for.  But one of the ways that we've looked for the impact [of] these types of intentional designs is by looking at patterns of student participation in classroom discussions and seeing who is accessing the floor of the discussion and how. And then looking at other results, like giving an assessment, but deeper than looking at the outcome, the binary correct versus incorrect. Also looking at the quality of the explanation that's provided. So, how [do] you justify an answer? Does the student provide a deeper or a more mathematically complete explanation?  That is an area where I think more investigation is needed, and it's also very hard to vary systematically. So, from a research perspective—you may not want to put this into the final version [laughs]—but from a research perspective, it's very hard to fix and isolate these things because they are integrated. Mike: Yeah. Yeah. Bill: Because language and mathematics are so deeply integrated that trying to fix everything and do this—“What caused this water to taste like water? Was it the hydrogen or the oxygen?”—well, [laughs] you can't really pull those apart, right? The water molecule is hydrogen and oxygen together. Mike: I think that's a lovely analogy for what we were talking about with mathematical goals and language goals. That, I think, is really a helpful way to think about the extent to which they're intertwined with one another. Bill: Yeah, I need to give full credit to Vygotsky, I think, who said that. Mike: You're— Bill: Something. Might be Vygotsky. I'll need to check my notes. Mike: I think you're in good company if you're quoting Vygotsky.  Before we close, I'd love to just ask you a bit about resources. I say this often on the podcast. We have 20 to 25 minutes to dig deeply into an idea, and I know people who are listening often think about, “Where do I go from here?” Are there any particular resources that you would suggest for someone who wanted to continue learning about what it is to support multilingual learners in a math classroom? Bill: Sure. Happy to share that.  So, I think on the individual and collective level—so, say, a group of teachers—there's a beautiful book by Kathryn Chval and her colleagues [Teaching Math to Multilingual Learners, Grades K–8] about supporting multilingual learners and mathematics. And I really see that as a valuable resource. I've used that in reading groups with teachers and used that in book studies, and it's been very productive and powerful for us. Beyond that, of course, I think the NCTM [National Council of Teachers of Mathematics] provides a number of really useful resources. And there are articles, for example, in the [NCTM journal] Mathematics Teacher: Learning and Teaching PK– 12 that could make for a really wonderful study or opportunity to engage more deeply.  And then I would say on a broader perspective, I've worked with organizations like the English Learners Success Forum and others. We've done some case studies and little classroom studies that are accessible on my website [SDSU-ELSF Video Cases for Professional Development], so you can go to that. But there's also from that organization some really valuable insights, if you're looking at adopting new materials or evaluating things, that gives you a principled set of guidelines to follow. And I think that's really helpful for educators because we don't have to do this all on our own. This is not a “reinvent the wheel at every single site” kind of situation. And so, I always encourage people to look for those resources.  And of course, I will say that the MLC materials, the Bridges in Mathematics [curriculum], I think have been really beautifully designed with a lot of these principles right behind them. So, for example, if you look through the Teachers Guides on the Bridges in Mathematics [BES login required], those integrated math and language and practice goals are a part of the design. Mike: Well, I think that's a great place to stop. Thank you so much for joining us, Bill. This has been insightful, and it's really been a pleasure talking with you. Bill: Oh, well, thank you. I appreciate it. Mike: And that's a wrap for Season 3 of Rounding Up. I want to thank all of our guests and the MLC staff who make these podcasts possible, as well as all of our listeners for tuning in. Have a great summer, and we'll be back in September for Season 4.  This podcast is brought to you by The Math Learning Center and the Maier Math Foundation, dedicated to inspiring and enabling all individuals to discover and develop their mathematical confidence and ability. © 2025 The Math Learning Center | www.mathlearningcenter.org  

Dr. Cathery Yeh, Supporting Neurodiverse Students in Elementary Mathematics Classrooms ROUNDING UP: SEASON 3 | EPISODE 14 What meaning does the term neurodiverse convey and how might it impact a student's learning experience?  And how can educators think about the work of designing environments and experiences that support neurodiverse students learning mathematics?  In this episode, we discuss these questions with Dr. Cathery Yeh, a professor in STEM education from the University of Texas at Austin.  BIOGRAPHY Dr. Cathery Yeh is an assistant professor in STEM education and a core faculty member in the Center for Asian American Studies from the University of Texas at Austin. Her research examines the intersections of race, language, and disability to provide a nuanced analysis of the constructions of ability in mathematics classrooms and education systems. TRANSCRIPT Mike Wallus: What meaning does the term neurodiverse convey and how might that language impact a student's learning experience? In this episode, we'll explore those questions. And we'll think about ways that educators can design learning environments that support all of their students. Joining us for this conversation is Dr. Cathery Yeh, a professor in STEM education from the University of Texas at Austin.  Welcome to the podcast, Cathery. It's really exciting to have you with us today. Cathery Yeh: Thank you, Mike. Honored to be invited. Mike: So, I wonder if we can start by offering listeners a common understanding of language that we'll use from time to time throughout the episode. How do you think about the meaning of neurodiversity? Cathery: Thank you for this thoughtful question. Language matters a lot. For me, neurodiversity refers to the natural variation in our human brains and our neurocognition, challenging this idea that there's a normal brain. I always think of… In Texas, we just had a snow day two days ago. And I think of, just as, there's no two snowflakes that are the same, there's no two brains that are exactly the same, too. I also think of its meaning from a personal perspective. I am not a special educator. I was a bilingual teacher and taught in inclusive settings. And my first exposure to the meaning of neurodiversity came from my own child, who—she openly blogs about it—as a Chinese-American girl, it was actually really hard for her to be diagnosed. Asian Americans, 1 out of 10 are diagnosed—that's the lowest of any ethnic racial group. And I'll often think about when… She's proud of her disabled identity. It is who she is. But what she noticed that when she tells people about her disabled identity, what do you think is the first thing people say when she says, “I'm neurodivergent. I have ADHD. I have autism.” What do you think folks usually say to her? The most common response? Mike: I'm going to guess that they express some level of surprise, and it might be associated with her ethnic background or racial identity. Cathery: She doesn't get that as much. The first thing people say is, they apologize to her. They say, “I'm sorry.” Mike: Wow. Cathery: And that happens quite a lot. And I say that because–and then I connected back to the term neurodiversity—because I think it's important to know its origins. It came about by Judy Singer. She's a sociologist. And about 30 years ago, she coined the term neurodiversity as an opposition to the medical model of understanding people and human difference as deficits. And her understanding is that difference is beautiful. All of us think and learn and process differently, and that's part of human diversity. So that original definition of neurodiversity was tied to the autism rights movement. But now, when we think about the term, it's expanded to include folks with ADHD, dyslexia, dyscalculia, mental health, conditions like depression, anxiety, and other neuro minorities like Tourette syndrome, and even memory loss. I wanted to name out all these things because sometimes we're looking for a really clean definition, and definitions are messy. There's a personal one. There's a societal one of how we position neurodiversity as something that's deficit, that needs to be fixed. But it's part of who one is. But it's also socially constructed. Because how do you decide when a difference becomes a difference that counts where you qualify as being neurodiverse, right? So, I think there's a lot to consider around that. Mike: You know, the answer that you shared is really a good segue because the question I was going to ask you involves something that I suspect you hear quite often is people asking you, “What are the best ways that I can support my neurodiverse students?” And it occurs to me that part of the challenge of that question is it assumes that there's this narrow range of things that you do for this narrow range of students who are different. The way that you just talked about the meaning of neurodiversity probably means that you have a different kind of answer to that question when people ask it. Cathery: I do get this question quite a lot. People email it to me, or they'll ask me. That's usually the first thing people ask. I think my response kind of matches my pink hair question. When they ask me the question, I often ask a question back. And I go, “How would you best educate Chinese children in math?” And they're like, “Why would you ask that?” The underlining assumption is that all Chinese children are the same, and they learn the same ways, they have the same needs, and also that their needs are different than the research-based equity math practices we know and have done 50–60 years of research that we've highlighted our effective teaching practices for all children. We've been part of NCTM for 20 years. We know that tasks that promote reasoning and problem solving have been effectively shown to be good for all. Using a connecting math representation—across math representations in a lesson—is good for all. Multimodal math discourse, not just verbal, written, but embodied in part who we are and, in building on student thinking, and all those things we know. And those are often the recommendations we should ask. But I think an important question is how often are our questions connecting to that instead? How often are we seeing that we assume that certain students cannot engage in these practices? And I think that's something we should prioritize more. I'm not saying that there are not specific struggles or difficulties that the neurodiversity umbrella includes, which includes ADHD, dyslexia, autism, bipolar disorder, on and on, so many things. I'm not saying that they don't experience difficulties in our school environment, but it's also understanding that if you know one neurodiverse student—you know me or my child—you only know one. That's all you know. And by assuming we're all the same, it ignores the other social identities and lived experiences that students have that impact their learning.  So, I'm going to ask you a question. Mike: Fire away. Cathery: OK. What comes to your mind when you hear the term “neurodiverse student”? What does that student look like, sound like, appear like to you? Mike: I think that's a really great question. There's a version of me not long ago that would have thought of that student as someone who's been categorized as special education, receiving special education services, perhaps a student that has ADHD. I might've used language like “students who have sensory needs or processing.” And I think as I hear myself say some of those things that I would've previously said, what jumps out is two things: One is I'm painting with a really broad brush as opposed to looking at the individual student and the things that they need. And two is the extent to which painting with a broad brush or trying to find a bucket of strategies that's for a particular group of students, that that really limits my thinking around what they can do or all the brilliance that they may have inside them. Cathery: Thank you for sharing that because that's a reflection I often do. I think about when I learned about my child, I learned about myself. How I automatically went to a deficit lens of like, “Oh, no, how are we going to function in the world? How's she going to function in the world?” But I also do this prompt quite a lot with teachers and others, and I ask them to draw it. When you draw someone, what do you see? And I'll be honest, kind of like drawing a scientist, we often draw Albert Einstein. When I ask folks to draw what a neurodiverse student looks like, they're predominantly white boys, to be honest with you. And I want to name that out. It's because students of color, especially black, brown, native students—they're disproportionately over- and under-identified as disabled in our schooling. Like we think about this idea that when most of us associate autism or ADHD mainly as part of the neurodiversity branch and as entirely within as white boys, which often happens with many of the teachers that I talk to and parents. We see them as needing services, but in contrast, when we think about, particularly our students of color and our boys—these young men—there's often a contrast of criminalization in being deprived of services for them. And this is not even what I'm saying. It's been 50 years of documented research from the Department of Ed from annual civil rights that repeatedly shows for 50 years now extreme disproportionality for disabled black and Latinx boys, in particular from suspension, expulsion, and in-school arrests. I think one of the most surprising statistics for me that I had learned recently was African-American youth are five times more likely to be misdiagnosed with conduct disorder before receiving the proper diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder. And I appreciate going back to that term of neurodiversity because I think it's really important for us to realize that neurodiversity is an asset-based perspective that makes us shift from looking at it as the student that needs to be fixed, that neurodiversity is the norm, but for us to look at the environment. And I really believe that we cannot have conversations about disability without fully having conversations about race, language, and the need to question what needs to be fixed, particularly not just our teaching, but our assessment practices. For example, we talk about neurodiversities around what we consider normal or abnormal, which is based on how we make expectations around what society thinks. One of the things that showed up in our own household—when we think about neurodiversity or assessments for autism—is this idea of maintaining eye contact. That's one of the widely considered autistic traits. In the Chinese and in the Asian household, and also in African communities, making eye contact to an adult or somebody with authority? It is considered rude. But we consider that as one of the characteristics when we engage in diagnostic tools. This is where I think there needs to be more deep reflection around how one is diagnosed, how a conversation of disability is not separate from our understanding of students and their language practices, their cultural practices. What do we consider normative? Because normative is highly situated in culture and context. Mike: I would love to stay on this theme because one of the things that stands out in that last portion of our conversation was this notion that rather than thinking about, “We need to change the child.” Part of what we really want to think about is, “What is the work that we might do to change the learning environment?” And I wonder if you could talk a bit about how educators go about that and what, maybe, some of the tools could be in their toolbox if they were trying to think in that way. Cathery: I love that question of, “What can we as teachers do? What's some actionable things?” I really appreciate Universal Design for Learning framework, particularly their revised updated version, or 3.0 version, that just came out, I think it was June or July of this year. Let me give you a little bit of background about universal design. And I'm sure you probably already know. I've been reading a lot around its origins. It came about [in the] 1980s, we know from cast.org. But I want to go further back, and it really builds from universal design and the work of architecture. So universal design was coined by a disabled architect. His name was Ronald Mace. And as I was reading his words, it really helped me better understand what UDL is. We know that UDL— Universal Design for Learning and universal design—is about access. Everybody should have access to curriculum. And that sounds great, but I've also seen classrooms where access to curriculum meant doing a different worksheet while everybody else is engaging in small group, whole group problem-based learning.  Access might mean your desk is in the front of the room where you're self-isolated—where you're really close to the front of the board so you can see it really well—but you can't talk to your peers. Or that access might mean you're in a whole different classroom, doing the same set of worksheets or problems, but you're not with your grade-level peers.  And when Ronald Mace talks about access, he explained that access in architecture had already been a focus in the late 1900s, around 1998, I think. But he said that universal design is really about the longing. And I think that really shifted the framing. And his argument was that we need to design a place, an environment where folks across a range of bodies and minds feel a sense of belonging there. That we don't need to adapt—the space was already designed for you. And that has been such a transformative perspective: That it shouldn't be going a different route or doing something different, because by doing that, you don't feel like you belong. But if the space is one where you can take part equally and access across the ways you may engage, then you feel a sense of belonging. Mike: The piece of what you said that I'm really contemplating right now is this notion of belonging. What occurs to me is that approaching design principles for a learning environment or a learning experience with belonging in mind is a really profound shift. Like asking the question, “What would it mean to feel a sense of belonging in this classroom or during this activity that's happening?” That really changes the kinds of things that an educator might consider going through a planning process. I'm wondering if you think you might be able to share an example or two of how you've seen educators apply universal design principles in their classrooms in ways that remove barriers in the environment and support students' mathematical learning. Cathery: Oh gosh, I feel so blessed. I spend… Tomorrow I'm going to be at a school site all day doing this. UDL is about being responsive to our students and knowing that the best teaching requires us to listen deeply to who they are, honor their mathematical brilliance, and their agency. It's about honoring who they are. I think where UDL ups it to another level, is it asks us to consider who makes the decision. If we are making all the decisions of what is best for that student, that's not fully aligned with UDL. The heart of UDL, it's around multiple ways for me to engage, to represent and express, and then students are given choice. So, one of the things that's an important part of UDL is honoring students' agency, so we do something called “access needs.” At the start of a lesson, we might go, “What do you need to be able to fully participate in math today?” And kids from kindergarten to high school or even my college students will just write out what they need. And usually, it's pretty stereotypical: “I want to talk to someone when I'm learning.” “I would like to see it and not just hear it.” And then you continually go back and you ask, “What are your access needs? What do you need to fully participate?”  So students are reflecting on their own what they need to be fully present and what they believe is helpful to create a successful learning environment. So that's a very strong UDL principle—that instead of us coming up with a set of norms for our students, we co-develop that. But we're co-developing it based on students reflecting on their experience in their environment. In kindergarten, we have children draw pictures. As they get older, they can draw, they can write. But it's this idea that it's an ongoing process for me to name out what I need to be fully present. And oftentimes, they're going to say things that are pretty critical. It's almost always critical, to be honest with you, but that's a… I would say that's a core component of UDL. We're allowing students to reflect on what they need so they can name it for themselves, and then we can then design that space together. And along the way, we have kids that name, “You know what? I need the manipulatives to be closer.” That would not come about at the start of me asking about access needs. But if we did a lesson, and it was not close by, they'll tell me. So it's really around designing an environment where they can fully participate and be their full selves and feel a sense of belonging. So, that's one example.  Another one that we've been doing is teachers and kids who have traditionally not participated the most in our classrooms or have even engaged in pullout intervention. And we'll have them walk around school, telling us about their day. “Will you walk me through your day and tell me how you feel in each of these spaces, and what are your experiences like?” And again, we're allowing the students to name out what they need. And then they're naming out… Oftentimes, with the students that we're at, where I'm working in mostly multilingual spaces, they'll say, “Oh, I love this teacher because she allows us to speak in Spanish in the room. It's OK.” So that's going back to ideas of action, expression, engagement, where students are allowed a trans language. That's one of the language principles.  But we're allowing students and providing spaces and really paying close attention to: “How do we decide how to maximize participation for our students with these set of UDL guidelines? How we are able to listen and make certain decisions on how we can strengthen their participation, their sense of belonging in our classrooms.” Mike: I think what's lovely about both of those examples—asking them to write or draw what they need or the description of, “Let's walk through the day. Let's walk through the different spaces that you learn in or the humans that you learn with”—is one, it really is listening to them and trying to make meaning of that and using that as your starting point. I think the other piece is that it makes me think that it's something that happens over time. It might shift, you might gain more clarity around the things that students need or they might gain more clarity around the things that they need over time. And those might shift a little bit, or it might come into greater focus. Like, “I thought I needed this” or “I think I needed this, but what I really meant was this.” There's this opportunity for kids to refine their needs and for educators to think about that in the designs that they create. Cathery: I really appreciate you naming that because it's all of that. It's an ongoing process where we're building a relationship with our students for us to co-design what effective teaching looks like—that it's not a one size fits all. It's disrupting this idea that what works for one works for all. It's around supporting our students to name out what they need. Now, I'm almost 50. I struggle to name out what I need sometimes, so it's not going to happen in, like, one time. It's an ongoing process. And what we need is linked to context, so it has to be ongoing. But there's also in the moments as well. And it's the heart of good teaching in math, when you allow students to solve problems in the ways that make sense to them, that's UDL by design. That's honoring the ideas of multiplicity in action, expression. When you might give a context-based problem and you take the numbers away and you give a set of number choices that students get to choose from. That is also this idea of UDL because there's multiple ways for them to engage. So there are also little things that we do that… note how they're just effective teaching. But we're honoring this idea that children should have agency. All children can engage in doing mathematics. And part of learning mathematics is also supporting our students to see the brilliance in themselves and to leverage that in their own teaching and learning. Mike: Yeah. Something else that really occurred to me as we've been talking is the difference between the way we've been talking about centering students' needs and asking them to help us understand them and the process that that kind of kicks off. I think what strikes me is that it's actually opening up the possibilities of what might happen or the ways that a student could be successful as opposed to this notion that “You're neurodiverse, you fit in this bucket. There's a set of strategies that I'm going to do just for you,” and those strategies might actually limit or constrict the options you have. For example, in terms of mathematics, what I remember happening very often when I was teaching is, I would create an open space for students to think about ways that they could solve problems. And at the time, often what would happen is kids who were characterized as neurodiverse wouldn't get access to those same strategies. It would be kind of the idea that “This is the way we should show them how to do it.” It just strikes me how different that experience is. I suspect that that was done with the best of intentions, but I think the impact unfortunately probably really didn't match the intent. Cathery: I love how you're being honest. I did the same thing when I was teaching, too, because we were often instructed to engage in whole-group instruction and probably do a small-group pullout. That was how I was taught. And when the same kids are repeatedly pulled out because we're saying that they're not able to engage in the instruction. I think that part of UDL is UDL is a process, realizing that if students are not engaging fully in the ways that we had hoped, instead of trying to fix the child, we look at the environment and think about what changes we need to make in tier one. So whole-group instruction, whole-group participation first to see how we can maximize their participation. And it's not one strategy, because it depends; it really depends. I think of, for example, with a group of teachers in California and Texas now, we've been looking at how we can track participation in whole-group settings. And we look at them across social demographics, and then we started to notice that when we promote multimodal whole-group participation, like kids have access to manipulatives even during whole-group share out. Or they have visuals that they can point to, their participation and who gets to participate drastically increase. So there's many ways in which, by nature, we engage in some narrow practices because, too, oftentimes whole group discussion is almost completely verbal and, at times, written, and usually the teacher's writing. So it's going back to the idea of, “Can we look at what we want our students to do at that moment? So starting on the math concept and practices, but then looking at our students and when they're not participating fully, it's not them. What are the UDL principles and things that I know and strategies that I have with my colleagues that I can make some small shifts?” Mike: You know, one of the things that I enjoy most about the podcast is that we really can take a deep dive into some big ideas, and the limitation is we have 20 minutes to perhaps a half hour. And I suspect there are a lot of people who are trying to make meaning of what we're talking about and thinking about, “How might I follow up? How might I take action on some of the ideas?” So I want to turn just for a little while to resources, and I'm wondering if there are resources that you would suggest for a listener who wants to continue learning about universal design in a mathematics classroom? Cathery: Oh, my goodness, that's such a hard question because there's so many. Some good ones overall: I would definitely encourage folks to dive into the UDL guidelines—the 3.0 updates. They're amazing. They're so joyful and transformative that they even have, one of the principles is centering joy in play, and for us to imagine that, right? Mike: Yes! Cathery: What does that mean to do that in a math classroom? We can name out 50 different ways. So how often do we get to see that? So, I would highly encourage folks to download that, engage in deep discussion because it was a 2.2 version for, I think, quite a few years. I would also lean into a resource that I'm glad to email later on so it's more easily accessible. I talked about access needs, this idea of asking students, asking community members, asking folks to give this opportunity to name out what they need. It's written by a colleague, Dr. Daniel Reinholz and Dr. Samantha Ridgway. It's a lovely reading, and it focuses specifically in STEM but I think it's a great place to read. I would say that Dr. Rachel Lambert's new book on UDL math is an excellent read. It's a great joyful read to think about. I'm going to give one shout out to the book called the Year of the Tiger: An Activist's Life. It's by Alice Wong. I encourage that because how often do we put the word activism next to disability? And Alice Wong is one of the most amazing humans in the world, and it's a graphic novel. So it's just joyful. It's words with poetry and graphic novel mixed together to see the life of what it means to be a disabled activist and how activism and disability goes hand in hand. Because when you are disabled and multi-marginalized, you are often advocating for yourself and others. It's amazing. So I'll stop there. There's endless amounts. Mike: So for listeners, we'll link the resources that Cathery was talking about in our show notes. I could keep going, but I think this is probably a great place to stop. I want to thank you so much for joining us. It's really been a pleasure talking with you. Cathery: Thank you. Thank you. Mike: This podcast is brought to you by The Math Learning Center and the Maier Math Foundation, dedicated to inspiring and enabling all individuals to discover and develop their mathematical confidence and ability. © 2025 The Math Learning Center | www.mathlearningcenter.org

Sue Kim and Myuriel Von Aspen, Building Productive Partnerships   ROUNDING UP: SEASON 3 | EPISODE 10 In this episode, we examine the practice of building productive student partnerships. We'll talk about ways  educators can cultivate joyful and productive partnerships and the role the educator plays once students are engaged with their partner.  BIOGRAPHIES Sue Kim is an advocate for children's thinking and providing them a voice in learning mathematics. She received her teaching credential and master of education from Biola University in Southern California. She has been an educator for 15 years and has taught and coached across TK–5th grade classrooms including Los Angeles Unified School District and El Segundo Unified School District as well as several other Orange County, California, school districts.  Myuriel von Aspen believes in fostering collaborative partnerships with teachers with the goal of advancing equitable, high-quality learning opportunities for all children. Myuriel earned a master of arts in teaching and a master of business administration from the University of California, Irvine and a bachelor of science in computer science from Florida International University. She currently serves as a math coordinator of the Teaching, Learning, and Instructional Leadership Collaborative. ​ RESOURCES Catalyzing Change in Early Childhood and Elementary Mathematics by National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Purposeful Play by Kristine Mraz, Alison Porcelli, and Cheryl Tyler  Hands Down, Speak Out: Listening and Talking Across Literacy and Math K–5 by Kassia Omohundro Wedekind and Christy Hermann Thompson TRANSCRIPT Mike Wallus: What are the keys to establishing productive student partnerships in an elementary classroom? And how can educators leverage the learning that happens in partnerships for the benefit of the entire class? We'll explore these and other questions with Sue Kim and Myuriel von Aspen from the Orange County Office of Education on this episode of Rounding Up.  Well, hi, Sue and Myuriel. Welcome to the podcast. Myuriel von Aspen: Hi, Mike.  Sue Kim: Thanks for having us. Mike: Thrilled to have you both.  So, I first heard you two talk about the power of student partnerships in a context that involved counting collections. And during that presentation, you all said a few things that I have been thinking about ever since. The first thing that you said was that neuroscience shows that you can't really separate emotions from the way that we learn. And I wonder what do you mean when you say that and why do you think it's important when we're thinking about student partnerships? Myuriel: Yes, absolutely. So, this idea comes directly from neuroscience research, the idea that we cannot build memories without emotions. I'm going to read to you a short quote from the NCTM [National Council of Teachers of Mathematics] publication Catalyzing Change in Early Childhood and Elementary Mathematics that says, “Emerging evidence from neuroscience strongly shows that one cannot separate the learning of mathematics content from children's views and feelings toward mathematics.”  So, to me, what that says is that how children feel has a huge influence on their ability to learn math and also on how they feel about themselves as learners of math. So, depending on how they feel, they might be willing to engage in the content or not. And so, as they're engaging in counting collections and they're enjoying counting and they feel joyful and they're doing this with friends, they will learn better because they enjoy it, and they care about what they're doing and what they're learning. Mike: You know, this is a nice segue to the other thing that has been on my mind since I heard you all talk about this because I remember you said that students don't think about a task like counting collections as work, that they see it as play. And I wonder what you think the ramifications of that are for how we approach student partnership? Sue: Yeah, you know, I've been in so many classrooms across TK through fifth [grade], and when I watch kids count collections, we see joy, we see engagement in these ways. But I've also been thinking about this idea of how play is even defined, in a way, since you asked that question that they think of it as play.  Kristine Mraz, teacher, author, and a consultant, has [coauthored] a book called Purposeful Play. And I remember this was the first time I hear about this reference about Vivian Paley, an American early childhood educator and researcher, stress through her career, the importance of play for children when she discovered in her work that play's actually a very complex activity and that it is indeed hard work. It's the work of kids. It's the work of what children do. That's their life, in a sense. And so, something I've been thinking about is how kids perceive play is different than how adults perceive play. And so, they take it with seriousness. There is a complex, very intentionality behind things that they do and say. And so, when we are in our session, and we reference Megan Franke, she says that when young people are engaging with each other's ideas, what they're able to do is mathematically important. But it's also important because they're learning to learn together. They're learning to hear each other. They're developing social and emotional skills as they try and navigate and negotiate each other's ideas. And I think for kids that this could be considered play, and I think that's so fascinating because it's so meaningful to them. And even in a task like counting, they're doing all these complex things. But as adults we see them, and we're like, “Oh, they're playing.” But they are really thinking deeply about some of these ideas while they're developing these very critical skills that we need to give opportunities for them to develop. Myuriel: I like that idea of leaning into the play that you consider maybe not as serious, but they are. Whether they're playing seriously or not, that you might take that opportunity to make it into a mathematical question or a mathematical reflection. Sue: I totally agree with you. And taking it back to that question that you asked, Mike, about, “How do we approach student partnerships then?” And I think that we need to approach it with this lens of curiosity while we let kids engage in these ways and opportunities of learning to hear each other and develop these social-emotional skills, like we said. And so, when you see kids that we think are “playing” or they're building a tower: How might we enter that space with a lens of curiosity? Because to them, I think it's serious work. We can't just think, “Oh, they're not really in the task” or “They're not doing what they were supposed to do.” But how do we lean into that space with a lens of curiosity as Megan reminded us to do, to see what mathematical things we can tap into? And I think that kids always rise to the occasion. Mike: I love that. So, let's talk about how educators can cultivate joyful and productive student partnerships. I'm going to guess that as is often the case, this starts by examining existing beliefs that I might have and some of my expectations. Sue: Yeah, I think it really begins with your outlook and your identity as a teacher. What's your outlook on what's actually possible for kids in your class? Do you believe that kids as young as 4-year-olds can take on this responsibility of engaging with each other in these intelligent ways? Unless we begin there and we really think and reflect and examine what our beliefs are about that, I think it's hard to go and move beyond that, if that makes sense.  And like what we just talked about, it's being open to the curiosity of what could be the capacity of how kids learn. I've seen enough 4-year-olds in TK classrooms doing these big things. They always blow my mind, blow my expectations, when opportunities are given to them and consistently given to them. And it's a process, right? They're not going to start on day one doing some of these more complex things. But they can learn from one another, and they also learn from you as a teacher because they are really paying attention. They are attending to some of these complex ideas that we put in front of them. Mike: Well, you hit on the question that I was thinking about. Because I remember you saying that part of nurturing partnerships starts with a teacher and perhaps a pair of children at a table. Can you all paint a picture of what that might look like for educators who are listening? Sue: Yeah, so actually in one of the most recent classrooms, I went in, and this teacher allowed me to partner with her in this work. She wanted to be able to observe and do it in a structured way so that she could pick up on some details of noticing the things that kids were doing. And so, she would have a collection out, or they got to choose. She was really good about offering choice to kids, another way to really engage them. And so, they would choose. They would come together. And then she started just taking some anecdotal notes on what she heard kids saying, what she saw them doing, what they had to actually navigate through some of the things, the stuck moments that came up.  From that, we were able to develop, “OK, what are some goals? We noticed Students A and B doing this and speaking in these ways. What might be the next step that we might want to put into a mini lesson or model out or have them actually share with the class what they were working on mathematically?” Whether it was organization, or how they decided they wanted to represent their count, how they counted and things like that.  And so, it was just this really natural process that took place that we were able to really lean into and leverage that kids really responded to because it wasn't someone else's work or a page from a textbook. It was their work, their collection that was meaningful to them and they had a true voice and a stake in that work. Mike: I feel like there have been points in time where my understanding of building groups was almost like an engineering problem, where you needed to model what you wanted kids to do and have them rehearse it so specifically. But I think what sits at the bottom of that approach is more about compliance. And what I loved about what you described, Sue, is a process where you're building on the mathematical assets that kids are showing you during their time together—but also on the social assets that they're showing you. So, in that time when you might be observing a pair or a partnership playing together, working together with something like counting collections, you have a chance to observe the mathematics that's happening. You also have a chance to observe the social assets that you see happening. And you can use that as a way to build for that group, but also to build for the larger group of children. And that just feels really profoundly different than, I think, how I used to think about what it was to build partnerships that were “effective.” Myuriel: You know, Mike, I think it's not only compliance. It's also that control. And what it makes me think about is, when we want to model ourselves what we want students to do, instead of—exactly what you said, looking at what they're doing and bringing that knowledge, those skills, that wisdom that's in the room from the students to show to others so that they feel like their knowledge counts. The teacher is not only the only authority or the only source of knowledge in the room—we bring so much, and we can learn from each other. So, I think it's so much more productive and so effective in developing the identity of students when you are showing something that they're doing to their peers versus you as an adult telling them what to do. Mike: Yeah. Are there any particular resources that you all have found helpful for crafting mini lessons as students are learning about how to become a partnership or to be productive in a partnership? Myuriel: Yes. One book that I love, it's not specific to counting collections, but it does provide opportunities for teachers to create micro-lessons when students are listening and talking to each other. It's Hands Down, Speak Out: Listening and Talking Across Literacy and Math K–5 by Kassia [Omohundro] Wedekind and Christy [Hermann] Thompson. And the reason why I love this book is because it provides, again, these micro-lessons depending on what the teacher is noticing, whether it is that the teacher is noticing that students need support listening to each other or maybe making their ideas clear. Or maybe students need to learn how to ask questions more effectively or even reflect on setting and reflecting on the goals that they have as partners. It does provide ideas for teachers to create those micro-lessons based on what the teacher is noticing. Sue: Yeah, I guess I want to add to that, Mike, as well, the resources that Myuriel said. But also, I think this is something I really learned along the process of walking alongside this teacher, was looking at partnerships through a mathematical lens and then a social lens. And so, the mini lesson could be birthed out of watching kids in one day. It might be a social lens thinking about, “They were kind of stuck because they wanted to choose different collections. What might we do about that?” And that kind of is tied to this problem-solving type of skill and goal that we would want kids to work on. That's definitely something that's going to come up as kids are working in partnerships. These partnerships are not perfect and pristine all the time. I think that's the nature of the job. And just as humans, they're learning how to get along, they're learning how to communicate and navigate and negotiate these things. And I think those are beautiful opportunities for kids and for teachers, then, to really lean into as goals, as mini lessons that can be out of this. And these mini lessons don't have to be long and drawn out. They can be a quick 5-, 10-minute thing. Or you can pause in the middle of counting and kind of spotlight the fact that “Mike and Brent had this problem, but we want to learn from them because they figured out how to solve it. And this is how. Let's listen to what happened.” So, these natural, not only places in a lesson that these opportunities for teaching can pop up, but that these mini lessons come straight from kids and how they are interacting and how they are taking up partnerships, whether it be mathematical or social. Mike: I think you're helping me address something that if I'm transparent about was challenging for me when I was a classroom teacher. I got a little bit nervous about what was happening and sometimes I would shut things down if I perceived partnerships to be, I don't know, overwhelming or maybe even messy. But you're making me think now that part of this work is actually noticing what are the assets that kids have in their social interactions in the way that they're playing together, collaborating together, the mathematics? And I think that's a big shift in my mind from the way that I was thinking about this work before. And I wonder, first of all, is this something that you all notice that teachers sometimes are challenged by? And two, how you talk to someone who's struggling with that question of like, “Oh my gosh, what's happening in my classroom?” Myuriel: Yes, I can totally understand how teachers might get overwhelmed. We hear this from, not only from teachers trying to do the work of counting collections, but even just using tools for students to problem-solve because it does get messy. I like the way Sue keeps emphasizing how it will be messy. When you have rich mathematical learning happening, and you're using tools and collections and you have 30 students having conversations, it definitely will get messy. But I would say that something that teachers can do to mitigate some of that messiness is to think about the logistics ahead of time and be intentional about what you are planning to do. So, some of the things that they may want to think about is: How are students going to access the counting collections? Where are you going to [put] the tools that they're going to be using? Where physically in the classrooms will students get together to have collections so that they have enough room to spread out and record and talk to each other? And just like Sue was mentioning: How do I partner students so that they do have a good experience, and they support each other? So, all of these things that might cost a bit of chaos if you don't think about them, you can actually think about each one of those ahead of time so that you do have a plan for each one of those.  Another thing that teachers may want to consider thinking about is, what do they want to pay attention to when they are facilitating or walking around? There's a lot that they need to pay attention to. Just like Sue mentioned, it is important for them to pay attention to something because you want to bring what's in the room to connect it and have these mini lessons of what students actually need. And also, thinking about after the counting collections: What worked and what didn't? And what changes do I want to make next time when I do this again? Just so that there is a process of improvement every time. Because as Sue had mentioned, it's not going to happen on day one. You are learning as a teacher, and the students are learning. So, everybody in that room is learning to make this a productive and joyful experience. Sue: Yeah, and another thing that I would definitely remind teachers about is that there's actually research out there about how important it is for kids to engage with one another's mathematical ideas. I'm so thankful that people are researching out there doing this work for us. And this goes along with what Myuriel was saying, but the expectations that we put on ourselves as teachers sometimes are too far. We're our biggest critique-ers of the work that we do. And of course we want things to go well, but to make it more low-risk for yourself. I think that when we lower those stakes, we're more prone to let kids take ownership of working together in these ways, to use language and communication that makes sense while doing math and using these cognitive abilities that are still in the process of developing. And I think they need to remember that it takes time to develop, and it's going to get there. And kids are going to learn. Kids are going to do some really big things with their understanding. But giving [yourself] space, the time to learn along with your students, I think is very critical so that you feel like it's manageable. You feel like you can do it again the next day. Mike: Tell me a little bit about how you have seen educators use things like authentic images or even video to help their students make sense of what it means to work in a partnership. What have you seen teachers do? Sue: Yeah. Not to mention how that is one sure way to get kids engaged. I don't know if you've been in a room full of first graders or kindergartners, but if you put a video image up that's them counting and showing how they are thinking about things, they are one-hundred-percent there with you. They love being acknowledged and recognized as being the doers and the sensemakers of mathematics. And it goes into this idea of how we position kids competently, and this is another way that we can do that. But capturing student thinking in photos or a short clip has really been a powerful tool to get kids to engage in each other's ideas in a deeper way. I think it allows teachers and students to pause and slow down and really focus in on the skill of noticing. I think people forget that noticing is a skill you have to teach. And you have to give opportunities for kids to actually do these things so they can see mathematically what's happening within the freeze-frame of this image, of this collection, and how we might ask questions to help facilitate and guide their thinking to think deeply about these ideas. And so, I've seen teachers use them with partners, and they may say, “Hey, here's one way that they were counting. How do you think they counted within the frame of this picture or this photo that we took?” And then kids will have these conversations. They'll engage mathematically what they think, and then they might show the video clip of the students actually counting. And they get to make predictions. They get to navigate the language around what they think. And it's just, again, been a really nice tool that has then branched out into whole-group discussions. So, you can use it with partnerships and engage certain kids in specific ways, but then being able to utilize that and leverage that in whole-group settings has really been powerful to see. Myuriel: I also recently observed a teacher with pictures, showing students different tools that different partners were using and having those discussions about, “Why did this tool work and why didn't this one?” or “What will you have to do if your collection gets bigger?” So, it is a great opportunity to really show from what they're using and having those discussions about what works and what doesn't, and “Why would I use this versus this?” from their own work. Mike: Myuriel, what you made me wonder is if you could apply this same idea of using video or images to help support some of those social goals that we were talking about for students as well. Myuriel: I think that you could. I can just imagine that if you see two students working together and supporting each other or asking some good questions and being curious, you could record them and then show that to the others to ask them what they're noticing. “How are these two students supporting each other in their learning?” Even “How are they being kind to each other when they make a mistake?” So, there is so much power in using video for not just the mathematical skills, but also for the social skills. Sue: Myuriel, when you're talking, you're reminding me about two particular students that we have watched, and we have recorded video around, actually, when they came to a disagreement.  There was this one instance when a couple of students came to a disagreement about what to call the next number of the sequence. And that was a really cool moment because we actually discovered, “Wow, these two peers had enough trust in each other to pause, to listen to both sides.” And then when it came time to actually call the number and the sequence, the other student actually trusted enough and listened to the reasoning of the other student to say, “OK, I'm going to go along with you, and I think that should be what the sequence is.” And it was just a really neat opportunity and—that this teacher actually showed in front of kids just to see what kids would say in response to that particular moment. Myuriel: It was actually one very cute, but very interesting moment when you see that second student who's listening to the other one. And actually at first she kind of argued with him a little bit about, “No, it's not this number.” But the second time around, when she counted, she paused right at that same spot where she had trouble before, and she set the number that he had suggested the earlier time so that you see that she's listening, she's considering someone else's ideas, and she's learning the correct sequence. Yes, that was really amazing to see. Sue: So, it's the sequence of numbers that they're working on, but think about all the social aspects of what is happening and developing, and I think that they're addressing it and that they're having to engage with [it]. It's [a] very complex situation that they're learning a lot of skills around in that very moment. Mike: You know, I wonder how an educator might think about their role once students are actually engaged with a partner. How do you all think about goals, or the role of the teacher, once students are working with a partner? Sue: I think that one of the things we're really thinking about and being more intentional about is: When do we actually interject, or when do we as teachers actually say something? When and how do we make those decisions? And for several years now, I've really taken on this notion that we are facilitators. Yes, we're teachers. But more than anything, we are facilitators of the students in our class, and we want to really give them the opportunity to work through some of these ideas. And we will have set up partnerships based on what we've seen and notes that we took as kids have been working. But it's an ever-innovated process, I think. And I think something that's always going to be on the forefront is that idea: How are we facilitating? How are we deciding when we want to say something or interject, and why? And what is it that we are trying to get kids to think about? Because I think we need to help students realize that they are always in the driver's seat of what they're doing, especially if they're in a partnership. And there are targeted things that we can have them maybe think about when we drop a question based on what we're noticing. Or maybe when they're stuck, and they're in the middle of negotiating something. But I really think that it starts there with us kind of thinking about: What is our role? Is it OK that we step back and we just watch even if they have to problem-solve through something that feels like, “Oh, I don't know if they're going to get through that moment.” But we've got to let them. We've got to give them opportunities to do that without having to rescue them every single time. Myuriel: And you're right, Sue, we've seen it so many times when if you just bite your tongue, 10 seconds later, it's happening, right? They're helping each other, and they get to the idea that you thought you had to bring up to them. But they were able to resolve it. So, if we only allow that time for them to process the idea or to revise their thinking or to allow the other partner to support their partner, it will happen. Sue: Yeah, and I think that doesn't mean that we can't set kids up. I've seen teachers launch the lesson with something a partner did before yesterday, and they will have referred to a protocol or something they're working on. And then as facilitators, we can then go out, and we might already be thinking about, “Oh, I want to be watching these two partnerships today”—having in mind, “OK, this is my target idea for them, my target goal for them.” So, there are definite ways that we can frame and decide who we want to watch and observe, but while in the balance of letting kids do what they're going to do and what the expectation of being surprised. Because kids always surprise us with their brilliance. Mike: Yeah, there's multiple things that came to mind as I was listening to you all talk about this. The first one is how it's possible to inadvertently condition kids to see the teacher coming and look and stop and potentially look for the teacher to say something. We actually do want to avoid that. We want to see their thinking.  The other piece is the difference between, as you said, potentially dropping a question and interjecting, as you said, Myuriel, biting your tongue and letting them persist through—whether it's an idea they're grappling with or a struggle for what to do next—that there's so much information in those moments that we can learn or that might help us think about what's next. It's a challenge, I think, because math culture in the United States is such that we're kind of trained to see something that looks like a mistake. “Let's get in there.” And I hear you giving people permission to say, “Actually, it's OK to step back and watch their thinking and watch them try to make sense of things because there's a big payoff there.” Sue: Absolutely. Yeah.  Myuriel: Yes. And, Mike, I think we as teachers—you feel the need of having to address every single “mistake” per either individual student or per partnership. And sometimes you feel like, “I have 30 students, how can I possibly do that?” And I think that's where the power of doing a share out from what you've observed, bringing everyone together, learning from what was in the room, right? Because just like Sue was saying, it's not that you don't ever set up kids with knowledge of what you've observed, but you bring the power. It's what you're bringing, what's in the room, what you've noticed. But you share it out, or you have students share it out, with everyone so that everyone is moving forward. Mike: I have a follow-up question for you all about goals for partnerships. I'm wondering how you think about the potential for partnerships as a way to help develop language, be it academic or social, for students. Are there particular practices that you imagine educators could take up if language development was one of their goals? Myuriel: I'm so glad you're asking that question because I don't think we can learn math without language. I don't think we can learn anything without language. And I think that working in partnerships provides such an authentic, meaningful way of developing language because students are in conversations with each other. And we know that conversation is one way that ideas develop conversations or even sharing your thinking. Sometimes we notice that as students are sharing their thinking, and they're listening to themselves, they catch themselves making a mistake, and they are able to revise their thinking based on what they are saying. So again, I think it is the perfect opportunity for students to mathematically learn counting sequence or socially learn how to negotiate and make sense of what they're going to represent, when they're counting, or to explain their thinking. And we know, of course, that one of the mathematical practices is justifying, explaining your thinking. So, it's important to provide those opportunities for students to do that in this kind of structural way. I also think that working in partnerships provides this opportunity for teachers to listen and notice if there's any language that students are starting to use that can be shared with others. So again, this idea that you hear it from someone in the room and that's going to help everybody else grow. Or that if students are doing something and you can name it, provide those terms to students. So, for example, just like I mentioned, somebody's explaining their thinking and through that they change their mind. They revised their thinking. Actually sharing that with the whole class and naming it: “Oh, they were revising their thinking” or sharing how they were explaining something with academic language so that others can also use that language as they're explaining their own thinking. So, I think that those are powerful ways to provide opportunities for everyone's academic language or social skills through language to be developed. Sue: Yeah, I think that another big idea that comes out of that language piece is just how kids are learning to make sense of how to be partners, especially our younger students, our younger mathematicians. They're really needing to figure out like, “Oh, what does it mean to take turns to speak about this and how I use my words in this way versus another?” And I think that's another big opportunity for kids to build those skills because we can't just assume that kids come into our classrooms knowing how to talk in these ways, how to address each other, how to engage respectfully, that they can disagree respectfully, even in partnerships. And we want them to have the time and space to be able to develop those skills through language as well. Mike: You know, I think the mental movie that I have for the point in time after children have engaged in any kind of partnership task, be it counting collections or something else, has really shifted. Because I think beforehand the way the movie ended was potentially sharing a student's representation if they had represented something on a piece of paper that showed what they had physically done with their things. And I still think that's valid and important, particularly if that's one of your goals.  But you're making me think a lot more about the potential of images of students at work as they're going through the process or video and how closing, or potentially opening the next time, with that really just kind of expands this idea of what's happening. Being able to look at a set of hands that are on a set of materials or in the process of moving materials or listening to language that's emerging from students in the form of a short video. There's a lot of richness that you could capture, and it's also a little bit more of a diverse way of showing what's going on. And it feels like another way to really position what you're doing—not just the output in the form of the paper representation—but what you're actually doing is valuable, and it's a contribution. And I think that just feels like there's a lot of potential in what you all are describing. Sue: I think you hit the nail on the head. We're trying, and it's hard work. But to be open to these ideas, to these possibilities. And like you said, it's positioning kids so drastically different than how we've been doing it for so many years. And how you're actually inviting kids to be contributors of this work that they are now. They have the knowledge. They are the ones that hold the knowledge in the room. And how we frame kids and what they're doing is I think very critical because kids learn from that, and kids have so many things to offer that we need to really be able to think about how we want to create those opportunities for kids. Myuriel: And, Mike, something that you said also made me think of just like we want to provide those opportunities for students to be creative and to show what they know. What you were talking about, having this new perspective, makes me think about also teachers being creative with how they use counting collections, right? There isn't just the one way. It doesn't mean that at the end of every counting collection, I have to have a share out right at the end and decide at that moment. I could start the day that way. I could start the next session that way. I could use a video. I could use a picture. I could have students share it. So, you can get creative. And I think that's the beauty also, because I think as a teacher, it's not only the students that are learning; you are learning along with them. Mike: That's a great place to stop. This has been an absolutely fabulous conversation. Thank you both so much for joining us. Myuriel: Thank you. Thank you so much for this opportunity. Sue: Thank you. Thanks for having us. Mike: This podcast is brought to you by The Math Learning Center and the Maier Math Foundation, dedicated to inspiring and enabling all individuals to discover and develop their mathematical confidence and ability. © 2025 The Math Learning Center | www.mathlearningcenter.org  

Rounding Up Season 3 | Episode 05 - Building Asset-Focused Professional Learning Communities Guests: Summer Pettigrew and Megan Williams Mike Wallus: Professional learning communities have been around for a long time and in many different iterations. But what does it look like to schedule and structure professional learning communities that actually help educators understand and respond to their students' thinking in meaningful ways? Today we're talking with Summer Pettigrew and Megan Williams from the Charleston Public Schools about building asset-focused professional learning communities.  Hello, Summer and Megan. Welcome to the podcast. I am excited to be talking with you all today about PLCs. Megan Williams: Hi! Summer Pettigrew: Thanks for having us. We're excited to be here. Mike: I'd like to start this conversation in a very practical place, scheduling. So, Megan, I wonder if you could talk just a bit about when and how you schedule PLCs at your building. Megan: Sure. I think it's a great place to start, too, because I think without the structure of PLCs in place, you can't really have fabulous PLC meetings. And so, we used to do our PLC meetings once a week during teacher planning periods, and the teachers were having to give up their planning period during the day to come to the PLC meeting. And so, we created a master schedule that gives an hour for PLC each morning. So, we meet with one grade level a day, and then the teachers still have their regular planning period throughout the day. So, we were able to do that by building a time for clubs in the schedule. So, first thing in the morning, depending on your day, so if it's Monday and that's third grade, then the related arts teachers—and that for us is art, music, P.E., guidance, our special areas—they go to the third-grade teachers' classrooms. The teachers are released to go to PLC, and then the students choose a club. And so, those range from basketball to gardening to fashion to STEMs. We've had Spanish club before. So, they participate with the related arts teacher in their chosen club, and then the teachers go to their PLC meeting. And then once that hour is up, then the teachers come back to class. The related arts teachers are released to go get ready for their day. So, everybody still has their planning period, per se, throughout the day. Mike: I think that feels really important, and I just want to linger a little bit longer on it. One of the things that stands out is that you're preserving the planning time on a regular basis. They have that, and they have PLC time in addition to it. Summer: Uh-hm. Megan: Correct. And that I think is key because planning time in the middle of the day is critical for making copies, calling parents, calling your doctor to schedule an appointment, using the restroom … those kind of things that people have to do throughout the day. And so, when you have PLC during their planning time, one or the other is not occurring. Either a teacher is not taking care of those things that need to be taken care of on the planning period. Or they're not engaged in the PLC because they're worried about something else that they've got to do. So, building that time in, it's just like a game-changer. Mike: Summer, as a person who's playing the role of an instructional coach, what impact do you think this way of scheduling has had on educators who are participating in the PLCs that you're facilitating? Summer: Well, it's huge. I have experienced going to A PLC on our planning and just not being a hundred percent engaged. And so, I think having the opportunity to provide the time and the space for that during the school day allows the teachers to be more present. And I think that the rate at which we're growing as a staff is expedited because we're able to drill into what we need to drill into without worrying about all the other things that need to happen. So, I think that the scheduling piece has been one of the biggest reasons we've been so successful with our PLCs. Mike: Yeah, I can totally relate to that experience of feeling like I want to be here, present in this moment, and I have 15 things that I need to do to get ready for the next chunk of my day. So, taking away that “if, then,” and instead having an “and” when it comes to PLCs, really just feels like a game-changer. Megan: And we were worried at first about the instructional time that was going to be lost from the classroom doing the PLC like this. We really were, because we needed to make sure instructional time was maximized and we weren't losing any time. And so, this really was about an hour a week where the teachers aren't directly instructing the kids. But it has not been anything negative at all. Our scores have gone up, our teachers have grown. They love the kids, love going to their clubs. I mean, even the attendance on the grade-level club day is so much better because they love coming in. And they start the day really getting that SEL instruction. I mean, that's really a lot of what they're getting in clubs. They're hanging out with each other. They're doing something they love. Mike: Maybe this is a good place to shift and talk a little bit about the structure of the PLCs that are happening. So, I've heard you say that PLCs, as they're designed and functioning right now, they're not for planning. They're instead for teacher collaboration. So, what does that mean? Megan: Well, there's a significant amount of planning that does happen in PLC, but it's not a teacher writing his or her lesson plans for the upcoming week. So, there's planning, but not necessarily specific lesson planning: like on Monday I'm doing this, on Tuesday I'm doing this. It's more looking at the standards, looking at the important skills that are being taught, discussing with each other ways that you do this. “How can I help kids that are struggling? How can I push kids that are higher?” So, teachers are collaborating and planning, but they're not really producing written lesson plans. Mike: Yeah. One of the pieces that you all talked about when we were getting ready for this interview, was this idea that you always start your PLCs with a recognition of the celebrations that are happening in classrooms. I'm wondering if you can talk about what that looks like and the impact it has on the PLCs and the educators who are a part of them. Summer: Yeah. I think our teachers are doing some great things in their classrooms, and I think having the time to share those great things with their colleagues is really important. Just starting the meeting on that positive note tends to lead us in a more productive direction. Mike: You two have also talked to me about the impact of having an opportunity for educators to engage in the math that their students will be doing or looking at common examples of student work and how it shows up in the classroom. I wonder if you could talk about what you see in classrooms and how you think that loops back into the experiences that are happening in PLCs. Summer: Yeah. One of the things that we start off with in our PLCs is looking at student work. And so, teachers are bringing common work examples to the table, and we're looking to see, “What are our students coming with? What's a good starting point for us to build skills, to develop these skills a little bit further to help them be more successful?” And I think a huge part of that is actually doing the work that our students are doing. And so, prior to giving a task to a student, we all saw that together in a couple of different ways. And that's going to give us that opportunity to think about what misconceptions might show up, what questions we might want to ask if we want to push students further, reign them back in a little bit. Just that pre-planning piece with the student math, I think has been very important for us. And so, when we go into classrooms, I'll smile because they kind of look like little miniature PLCs going on. The teacher's facilitating, the students are looking at strategies of their classmates and having conversations about what's similar, what's different. I think the teachers are modeling with their students that productive practice of looking at the evidence and the student work and talking about how we go about thinking through these problems. Mike: I think the more that I hear you talk about that, I flashback to what Megan, what you said earlier about, there is planning that's happening, and there's collaboration. They're planning the questions that they might ask. They're anticipating the things that might come from students. So, while it's not, “I'm writing my lesson for Tuesday,” there is a lot of planning that's coming. It's just perhaps not as specific as, “This is what we'll do on this particular day.” Am I getting that right? Megan: Yes. You're getting that a hundred percent right. Summer has teachers sometimes taken the assessment at the beginning of a unit. We'll go ahead and take the end-of-unit assessment and the information that you gain from that. Just with having the teachers take it and knowing how the kids are going to be assessed, then just in turn makes them better planners for the unit. And there's a lot of good conversation that comes from that. Mike: I mean, in some ways, your PLC design, the word that pops into my head is almost like a “rehearsal” of sorts. Does that analogy seem right? Summer: It seems right. And just to add on to that, I think, too, again, providing that time within the school day for them to look at the math, to do the math, to think about what they want to ask, is like a mini-rehearsal. Because typically, when teachers are planning outside of school hours, it's by themselves in a silo. But this just gives that opportunity to talk about all the possibilities together, run through the math together, ask questions if they have them. So, I think that's a decent analogy, yeah. Mike: Yeah. Well, you know what it makes me think about is competitive sports like basketball. As a person who played quite a lot, there are points in time when you start to learn the game that everything feels so fast. And then there are points in time when you've had some experience when you know how to anticipate, where things seem to slow down a little bit. And the analogy is that if you can kind of anticipate what might happen or the meaning of the math that kids are showing you, it gives you a little bit more space in the moment to really think about what you want to do versus just feeling like you have to react. Summer: And I think, too, it keeps you focused on the math at hand. You're constantly thinking about your next teacher move. And so, if you've got that math in your mind and you do get thrown off, you've had an opportunity, like you said, to have a little informal rehearsal with it, and maybe you're not thrown off as badly. (  laughs ) Mike: Well, one of the things that you've both mentioned when we've talked about PLCs is the impact of a program called OGAP. I'm wondering if you can talk about what OGAP is, what it brought to your educators, and how it impacted what's been happening in PLCs. Megan: I'll start in terms … OGAP stands for ongoing assessment project. Summer can talk about the specifics, but we rolled it out as a whole school. And I think there was power in that. Everybody in your school taking the same professional development at the same time, speaking the same language, hearing the same things. And for us, it was just a game-changer. Summer: Yeah, I taught elementary math for 12 years before I knew anything about OGAP, and I had no idea what I was doing until OGAP came into my life. All of the light bulbs that went off with this very complex elementary math that I had no idea was a thing, it was just incredible. And so, I think the way that OGAP plays a role in PLCs is that we're constantly using the evidence in our student work to make decisions about what we do next. We're not just plowing through a curriculum, we're looking at the visual models and strategies that Bridges expects of us in that unit. We're coupling it with the content knowledge that we get from OGAP and how students should and could move along this progression. And we're planning really carefully around that; thinking about, “If we give this task and some of our students are still at a less sophisticated strategy and some of our students are at a more sophisticated strategy, how can we use those two examples to bridge that gap for more kids?” And we're really learning from each other's work. It's not the teacher up there saying, “This is how you'd solve this problem.” But it's a really deep dive into the content. And I think the level of confidence that OGAP has brought our teachers as they've learned to teach Bridges has been like a powerhouse for us. Mike: Talk a little bit about the confidence that you see from your teachers who have had an OGAP experience and who are now using a curriculum and implementing it. Can you say more about that? Summer: Yeah. I mean, I think about our PLCs, the collaborative part of it, we're having truly professional conversations. It's centered around the math, truly, and how students think about the math. And so again, not to diminish the need to strategically lesson plan and come up with activities and things, but we're talking really complex stuff in PLCs. And so, when we look at student work and we that work on the OGAP progression, depending on what skill we're teaching that week, we're able to really look at, “Gosh, the kid is, he's doing this, but I'm not sure why.” And then we can talk a little bit about, “Well, maybe he's thinking about this strategy, and he got confused with that part of it.” So, it really, again, is just centered around the student thinking. The evidence is in front of us, and we use that to plan accordingly. And I think it just one-ups a typical PLC because our teachers know what they're talking about. There's no question in, “Why am I teaching how to add on an open number line?” We know the reasoning behind it. We know what comes before that. We know what comes after that, and we know the importance of why we're doing it right now. Mike: Megan, I wanted to ask you one more question. You are the instructional leader for the building, the position you hold is principal. I know that Summer is a person who does facilitation of the PLCs. What role do you play or what role do you try to play in PLCs as well? Megan: I try to be present at every single PLC meeting and an active participant. I do all the assessments. I get excited when Summer says we're taking a test. I mean, I do everything that the teachers do. I offer suggestions if I think that I have something valuable to bring to the table. I look at student work. I just do everything with everybody because I like being part of that team. Mike: What impact do you think that that has on the educators who are in the PLC? Megan: I mean, I think it makes teachers feel that their time is valuable. We're valuing their time. It's helpful for me, too, when I go into classrooms. I know what I'm looking for. I know which kids I want to work with. Sometimes I'm like, “Ooh, I want to come in and see you do that. That's exciting.” It helps me plan my day, and it helps me know what's going on in the school. And I think it also is just a non-judgmental, non-confrontational time for people to ask me questions. I mean, it's part of me trying to be accessible as well. Mike: Summer, as the person who's the facilitator, how do you think about preparing for the kind of PLCs that you've described? What are some of the things that are important to know as a facilitator or to do in preparation? Summer: So, I typically sort of rehearse myself, if you will, before the PLC kicks off. I will take assessments, I will take screeners. I'll look at screener implementation guides and think about the pieces of that that would be useful for our teachers if they needed to pull some small groups and re-engage those kids prior to a unit. What I really think is important though, is that vertical alignment. So, looking at the standards that are coming up in a module, thinking about what came before it: “What does that standard look like in second grade?” If I'm doing a third grade PLC: “What does that standard look like in fourth grade?” Because teachers don't have time to do that on their own. And I think it's really important for that collective efficacy, like, “We're all doing this together. What you did last year matters. What you're doing next year matters, and this is how they tie together.” I kind of started that actually this year, wanting to know more myself about how these standards align to each other and how we can think about Bridges as a ladder among grade levels. Because we were going into classrooms, and teachers were seeing older grade levels doing something that they developed, and that was super exciting for them. And so, having an understanding of how our state standards align in that way just helps them to understand the importance of what they're doing and bring about that efficacy that we all really just need our teachers to own. It's so huge. And just making sure that our students are going to the next grade prepared. Mike: One of the things that I was thinking about as I was listening to you two describe the different facets of this system that you've put together is, how to get started. Everything from scheduling to structure to professional learning. There's a lot that goes into making what you all have built successful. I think my question to you all would be, “If someone were listening to this, and they were thinking to themselves, ‘Wow, that's fascinating!' What are some of the things that you might encourage them to do if they wanted to start to take up some of the ideas that you shared?” Megan: It's very easy to crash and burn by trying to take on too much. And so, I think if you have a long-range plan and an end goal, you need to try to break it into chunks. Just making small changes and doing those small changes consistently. And once they become routine practices, then taking on something new. Mike: Summer, how about you? Summer: Yeah, I think as an instructional coach, one of the things that I learned through OGAP is that our student work is personal. And if we're looking at student work without the mindset of, “We're learning together,” sometimes we can feel a little bit attacked. And so, one of the first things that we did when we were rolling this out and learning how to analyze student work is, we looked at student work that wasn't necessarily from our class. We asked teachers to save student work samples. I have folders in my office of different student work samples that we can practice sorting and have conversations about. And that's sort of where we started with it. Looking at work that wasn't necessarily our students gave us an opportunity to be a little bit more open about what we wanted to say about it, how we wanted to talk about it. And it really does take some practice to dig into student thinking and figure out, “Where do I need to go from here?” And I think that allowed us to play with it in a way that wasn't threatening necessarily. Mike: I think that's a great place to stop, Megan and Summer. I want to thank you so much for joining us. It's really been a pleasure talking to both of you. Megan: Well, thank you for having us.  Summer: Yeah, thanks a lot for having us. Mike: This podcast is brought to you by The Math Learning Center and the Maier Math Foundation, dedicated to inspiring and enabling all individuals to discover and develop their mathematical confidence and ability. © 2024 The Math Learning Center | www.mathlearningcenter.org

Rounding Up Season 3 | Episode 3 – Choice as a Foundation for Student Engagement Guest: Drs. Zandra de Araujo and Amber Candela Mike Wallus: As an educator, I know that offering my students choice has a big impact on their engagement, their identity, and their sense of autonomy. That said, I've not always been sure how to design choice into the activities in my classroom, especially when I'm using curriculum. Today we're talking with Drs. Zandra de Araujo and Amber Candela about some of the ways educators can design choice into their students' learning experiences.  Welcome back to the podcast, Zandra and Amber. It is really exciting to have you all with us today.  Zandra de Araujo: Glad to be back.  Amber Candela: Very excited to be here. Mike: So, I've heard you both talk at length about the importance of choice in students' learning experiences, and I wonder if we can start there. Before we talk about the ways you think teachers can design choice in a learning experience, can we just talk about the “why”? How would you describe the impact that choice has on students' learning experiences? Zandra: So, if you think about your own life, how fun would it be to never have a choice in what you get to do during a day? So, you don't get to choose what chores to do, where to go, what order to do things, who to work with, who to talk to. Schools are a very low-choice environment, and those tend to be punitive when you have a low-choice environment. And so, we don't want schools to be that way. We want them to be very free and open and empowering places. Amber: And a lot of times, especially in mathematics, students don't always enjoy being in that space. So, you can get more enjoyment, engagement, and if you have choice with how to engage with the content, you'll have more opportunity to be more curious and joyful and have hopefully better experiences in math. Zandra: And if you think about being able to choose things in your day makes you better able to make choices. And so, I think we want students to be smart consumers and users and creators of mathematics. And if you're never given choice or opportunity to kind of own it, I think that you're at a deficit. Amber: Also, if we want problem-solving people engaged in mathematics, it needs to be something that you view as something you were able to do. And so often we teach math like it's this pre-packaged thing, and it's just your role to memorize this thing that I give you. You don't feel like it's yours to play with. Choice offers more of those opportunities for kids. Zandra: Yeah, it feels like you're a consumer of something that's already made rather than somebody who's empowered to create and use and drive the mathematics that you're using, which would make it a lot more fun.  Mike: Yeah. You all are hitting on something that really clicked for me as I was listening to you talk. This idea that school, as it's designed oftentimes, is low choice. But math, in particular, where historically it has really been, “Let me show you what to do. Let me have you practice the way I showed you how to do it,” rinse and repeat. It's particularly important in math, it feels like, to break out and build a sense of choice for kids. Zandra: Absolutely. Mike: Well, one of the things that I appreciate about the work that both of you do is the way that you advocate for practices that are both really, really impactful and also eminently practical. And I'm wondering if we can dive right in and have you all share some of the ways that you think about designing choice into learning experiences.  Amber: I feel like I want “eminently practical” on a sticker for my laptop. Because I find that is a very satisfying and positive way to describe the work that I do because I do want it to be practical and doable within the constraints of schooling as it currently is, not as we wish it to be. Which, we do want it to be better and more empowering for students and teachers. But also, there are a lot of constraints that we have to work within. So, I appreciate that.  Zandra: I think that choice is meant to be a way of empowering students, but the goal for the instruction should come first. So, I'm going to talk about what I would want from my students in my classroom and then how we can build choice in. Because choice is kind of like the secondary component. So, first you have your learning goals, your aims as a teacher. And then, “How do we empower students with choice in service of that goal?” So, I'll start with number sense because that's a hot topic. I'm sure you all hear a lot about it at the MLC. Mike: We absolutely do. Zandra: So, one of the things I think about when teachers say, “Hey, can you help me think about number sense?” It's like, “Yes, I absolutely can.” So, our goal is number sense. So, let's think about what that means for students and how do we build some choice and autonomy into that. So, one of my favorite things is something like, “Give me an estimate, and we can Goldilocks it,” for example. So, it could be a word problem or just a symbolic problem and say, “OK, give me something that you know is either wildly high, wildly low, kind of close, kind of almost close but not right. So, give me an estimate, and it could be a wrong estimate or a close estimate, but you have to explain why.” So, it takes a lot of number sense to be able to do that. You have infinitely many options for an answer, but you have to avoid the one correct answer. So, you have to actually think about the one correct answer to give an estimate. Or if you're trying to give a close estimate, you're kind of using a lot of number sense to estimate the relationships between the numbers ahead of time. The choice comes in because you get to choose what kind of estimate you want. It's totally up to you. You just have to rationalize your idea. Mike: That's awesome. Amber, your turn. Amber: Yep. So related to that is a lot of math goes forward. We give kids the problem, and we want them to come up with the answer. A lot of the work that we've been doing is, “OK, if I give you the answer, can you undo the problem?” I'll go multiplication. So, we do a lot with, “What's seven times eight?” And there's one answer, and then kids are done. And you look for that answer as the teacher, and once that answer has been given, you're kind of like, “OK, here. I'm done with what I'm doing.” But instead, you could say, “Find me numbers whose product is 24.” Now you've opened up what it comes to. There's more access for students. They can come up with more than one solution, but it also gets kids to realize that math doesn't just go one way. It's not, “Here's the problem, find the answer.” It's “Here's the answer, find the problem.” And that also goes to the number sense. Because if students are able to go both ways, they have a better sense in their head around what they're doing and undoing. And you can do it with a lot of different problems. Zandra: And I'll just add in that that's not specific to us. Barb Dougherty had really nice article in, I think, Teaching Children Mathematics, about reversals at some point. And other people have shown this idea as well. So, we're really taking ideas that are really high uptake, we think, and sharing them again with teachers to make sure that they've seen ways that they can do it in their own classroom. Mike: What strikes me about both of these is, the structure is really interesting. But I also think about what the output looks like when you offer these kinds of choices. You're going to have a lot of kids doing things like justifying or using language to help make sense of the “why.” “Why is this one totally wrong, and why is this one kind of right?” And “Why is this close, but maybe not exact?” And to go to the piece where you're like, “Give me some numbers that I can multiply together to get to 24.” There's more of a conversation that comes out of that. There's a back and forth that starts to develop, and you can imagine that back and forth bouncing around with different kids rather than just kind of kid says, teacher validates, and then you're done. Zandra: Yeah, I think one of the cool things about choice is giving kids choice means that there's more variety and diversity of ideas coming in. And that's way more interesting to talk about and rationalize and justify and make sense of than a single correct answer or everybody's doing the same thing. So, I think, not only does it give kids more ownership, it has more access. But also, it just gives you way more interesting math to think and talk about. Mike: Let's keep going. Zandra: Awesome. So, I think another one, a lot of my work is with multilingual students. I really want them to talk. I want everybody to talk about math. So, this goes right to what you were just saying. So, one of the ways that we can easily say, “OK, we want more talk.” So how do we build that in through choice is to say, “Let's open up what you choose to share with the class.” So, there have been lots of studies done on the types of questions that teachers ask: tend to be closed, answer-focused, like single-calculation kind of questions. So, “What is the answer? Who got this?” You know, that kind of thing? Instead, you can give students choices, and I think a lot of teachers have done something akin to this with sentence starters or things. But you can also just say, instead of a sentence starter to say what your answer is, “I agree with X because of Y.” You can also say, “You can share an incorrect answer that you know is wrong because you did it, and it did not work out. You can also share where you got stuck because that's valuable information for the class to have.” You could also say, “I don't want to really share my thinking, my solution because it's not done, but I'll show you my diagram.” And so, “Let me show you a visual.” And just plop it up on the screen. So, there are a lot of different things you could share a question that you have because you're not sure, and it's just a related question. Instead of always sharing answers, let kids open up what they may choose to share, and you'll get more kids sharing. Because answers are kind of scary because you're expecting a correct answer often. And so, when you share and open up, then it's not as scary. And everybody has something to offer because they have a choice that speaks to them. Amber: And kids don't want to be wrong. People don't want to be wrong. “I don't want to give you a wrong answer.” And we went to the University of Georgia together, but Les Steffe always would say, “No child is ever wrong. They're giving you an answer with a purpose behind what that answer is. They don't actually believe that's a wrong answer that they're giving you.” And so, if you open up the space … And teachers say, “We want spaces to be safe, we want kids to want to come in and share.” But are we actually structuring spaces in that way? And so, some of the ideas that we're trying to come up with, we're saying that “We actually do value what you're saying when you choose to give us this. It's your choice of offering it up and you can say whatever it is you want to say around that,” but it's not as evaluative or as high stakes as trying to get the right answer and just like, “Am I right? Did I get it right?” And then what the teacher might say after that. Zandra: I would add on that kids do like to give wrong answers if that's what you're asking for. They don't like to give wrong answers if you're asking for a right one and they're accidentally wrong. So, I think back to my first suggestion: If you ask for a wrong answer and they know it's wrong, they're likely to chime right in because the right answer is the wrong answer, and there are multiple, infinite numbers of them. Mike: You know, it makes me think there's this set of ideas that we need to normalize mistakes as being productive things. And I absolutely agree with that. I also think that when you're asking for the right answer, it's really hard to kind of be like, “Oh, my mistake was so productive.” On the other hand, if you ask for an error or a place where someone's stuck, that just feels different. It feels like an invitation to say, “I've actually been thinking about this. I'm not there. I may be partly there. I'm still engaged. This is where I'm struggling.” That just feels different than providing an answer where you're just like, “Ugh.” I'm really struck by that. Zandra: Yeah, and I think it's a culture thing. So, a lot of teachers say to me that “it's hard to have kids work in groups because they kind of just tell each other the answers.” But they're modeling what they experience as learners in the classroom. “I often get told the answers,” that's the discourse that we have in the classroom. So, if you open up the discourse to include these things like, “Oh, I'm stuck here. I'm not sure where to go here.” They get practice saying, “Oh, I don't know what this is. I don't know how to go from here.” Instead of just going to the answer. And I think it'll spread to the group work as well. Mike: It feels like there's value for every other student in articulating, “I'm certain that this one is wrong, and here's why I know that.” There's information in there that is important for other kids. And even the idea of “I'm stuck here,” right? That's really a great formative assessment opportunity for the teacher. And it also might validate some of the other places where kids are like, “Yeah. Me, too.” Zandra: Uh-hm. Amber: Right, absolutely. Mike: What's next, my friend? Amber: I remember very clearly listening to Zandra present about choice, her idea of choice of feedback. And this was very powerful to me. I had never thought about asking my students how they wanted to receive the feedback I'd be giving them on the problems that they solved. And this idea of students being able to turn something in and then say, “This is how I'd like to receive feedback” or “This is the feedback I'd like to receive,” becomes very powerful because now they're the ones in charge of their own learning. And so much of what we do, kids should get to say, “This is how I think that I will grow better, is if you provide this to me.” And so, having that opportunity for students to say, “This is how I'll be a better learner if you give it to me in this way. And I think if you helped me with this part that would help the whole rest of it.” Or “I don't actually want you to tell me the answer. I am stuck here. I just need a little something to get me through. But please don't tell me what the answer is because I still want to figure it out for myself.” And so, allowing kids to advocate for themselves and teaching them how to advocate for themselves to be better learners; how to advocate for themselves to learn and think about “What I need to learn this material and be a student or be a learner in society” will just ultimately help students. Zandra: Yeah, I think as a student, I don't like to be told the answers. I like to figure things out, and I will puzzle through something for a long time. But sometimes I just want a model or a hint that'll get me on the right path, and that's all I need. But I don't want you to do the problem for me or take over my thinking. If somebody asked me, “What do you want?” I might say like, “Oh, a model problem or something like that.” But I don't think we ask kids a lot. We just do whatever we think as an adult. Which is different, because we're not learning it for the first time. We already know what it is. Mike: You're making me think about the range of possibilities in a situation like that. One is I could notice a student who is working through something and just jump in and take over and do the problem for them essentially and say, “Here, this is how you do it.” Or I guess just let them go, let them continue to work through it. But potentially there could be some struggle, and there might be some frustration. I am really kind of struck by the fact that I wonder how many of us as teachers have really thought about the kinds of options that exist between those two far ends of the continuum. What are the things that we could offer to students rather than just “Let me take over” or productive struggle, but perhaps it's starting to feel unproductive? Does that make sense? Zandra: Yeah, I think it does. I mean, there are so many different ways. I would ask teachers to re-center themselves as the learner that's getting feedback. So, if you have a principal or a coach coming into your room, they've watched a lesson, sometimes you're like, “Oh, that didn't go well. I don't need feedback on that. I know it didn't go well, and I could do better.” But I wonder if you have other things that you notice just being able to take away a part that you know didn't go well. And you're like, “Yep, I know that didn't go well. I have ideas for improving it. I don't really want to focus on that. I want to focus on this other thing.” Or “I've been working really hard on discourse. I really want feedback on the student discourse when you come in.” That's really valuable to be able to steer it—not taking away the other things that you might notice, but really focusing in on something that you've been working on is pretty valuable. And I think kids often have these things that maybe they haven't really thought about a lot, but when you ask them, they might think about it. And they might grow this repertoire of things that they're kind of working on personally. Amber: Yeah, and I just think it's getting at, again, we want students to come out of situations where they can say, “This is how I learn” or “This is how I can grow,” or “This is how I can appreciate math better.” And by allowing them to say, “It'd be really helpful if you just gave me some feedback right here” or “I'm trying to make this argument, and I'm not sure it's coming across clear enough,” or “I'm trying to make this generalization, does it generalize?” We're also maybe talking about some upper-level kids, but I still think we can teach elementary students to advocate for themselves also. Like, “Hey, I try this method all the time. I really want to try this other method. How am I doing with this? I tried it. It didn't really seem to work, but where did I make a mistake? Could you help me out with that? Because I think I want to try this method instead.” And so, I think there are different ways that students can allow for that. And they can say: “I know this answer is wrong. I'm not sure how this answer is wrong. Could you please help me understand my thinking or how could I go back and think about my thinking?” Zandra: Yeah. And I think when you said upper level, you meant upper grades. Amber: Yes. Zandra: I assume.  Amber: Yes.  Zandra: OK, yeah. So, for the lower-grade-level students, too, you can still use this. They still have ideas about how they learn and what you might want to follow up on with them. “Was there an easier way to do this? I did all these hand calculations and stuff. Was there an easier way?” That's a good question to ask. Maybe they've thought about that, and they were like, “That was a lot of work. Maybe there was an easier way that I just didn't see?” That'd be pretty cool if a kid asked you that. Mike: Or even just hearing a kid say something like, “I feel really OK. I feel like I had a strategy. And then I got to this point, and I was like, ‘Something's not working.'” Just being able to say, “This particular place, can you help me think about this?” That's the kind of problem-solving behavior that we ultimately are trying to build in kids, whether it's math or just life. Amber: Right, exactly. And I need, if I want kids to be able … because people say, “I sometimes just want a kid to ask a question.” Well, we do need to give them choice of the question they ask. And that's where a lot of this comes from is, what is your goal as a teacher? What do you want kids to have choice in? If I want you to have choice of feedback, I'm going to give you ideas for what that feedback could be, so then you have something to choose from. Mike: OK, so we've unpacked quite a few ideas in the last bit. I wonder if there are any caveats or any guidance that you would offer to someone who's listening who is maybe thinking about taking up some of these practices in their classroom? Zandra: Oh, yeah. I have a lot. Kids are not necessarily used to having a lot of choice and autonomy. So, you might have to be gentle building it in because it's overwhelming. And they actually might just say, “Just tell me what to do,” because they're not used to it. It's like when you're get a new teacher and they're really into explaining your thinking, and you've never had to do that. Well, you've had 10 years of schooling or however many years of schooling that didn't involve explaining your thinking, and now, all of a sudden, “I'm supposed to explain my thinking. I don't even know what that means. What does that look like? We never had to do that before.”  So maybe start small and think about some things like, “Oh, you can choose a tool or two that helps you with this problem. So, you can use a multiplication table, or you can use a calculator or something to use. You can choose. There are all these things out. You can choose a couple of tools that might help you.” But start small. And you can give too many choices. There's like choice overload. It's like when I go on Amazon, and there are way too many reviews that I have to read for a product, and I never end up buying anything because I've read so many reviews. It's kind of like that. It could get overwhelming. So purposeful, manageable numbers of choices to start out with is a good suggestion. Amber: And also, just going back to what Zandra said in the beginning, is making sure you have a purpose for the choice. And so, if you just are like, “Oh, I'm having choice for choice's sake.” Well, what is that doing? Is that supporting the learning, the mathematics, the number sense, the conceptual understanding, and all of that? And so, have that purpose going in and making sure that the choices backtrack to that purpose. Zandra: Yeah. And you could do a little choice inventory. You could be like, “Huh, if I was a student of my own class today, what would I have gotten to choose? If anything? Did I get to choose where I sat, what utensil I used? What type of paper did I use? Which problems that I did?” Because that's a good one. All these things. And if there's no choice in there, maybe start with one. Mike: I really love that idea of a “choice inventory.” Because I think there's something about really kind of walking through a particular day or a particular lesson that you're planning or that you've enacted, and really thinking about it from that perspective. That's intriguing. Zandra: Yeah, because really, I think once you're aware of how little choice kids get in a day … As an adult learner, who has presumably a longer attention span and more tolerance and really likes math, I've spent my whole life studying it. If I got so little choice and options in what I did, I would not be a well-behaved, engaged student. And I think we need to remember that when we're talking about little children. Mike: So, last question, is there research in the field or researchers who have done work that has informed the kind of thinking that you have about choice? Zandra: Yeah, I think we're always inspired by people who come before us, so it's probably an amalgamation of different things. I listen to a lot of podcasts, and I read a lot of books on behavioral economics and all kinds of different things. So, I think a lot of those ideas bleed into the work in math education. In terms of math education, in particular, there have been a lot of people who have really influenced me, like Marian Small's work with parallel tasks and things like that. I think that's a beautiful example of choice. You give multiple options for choice of challenge and see which ones the students feel like is appropriate instead of assigning them competence ahead of time. So, that kind of work has really influenced me. Amber: And then just, our team really coming together; Sam Otten and Zandra and their ideas and collaborating together. And like you mentioned earlier, that Barb Dougherty article on the different types of questions has really been impactful. More about opening up questions, but it does help you think about choice a little bit better. Mike: I think this is a great place to stop. Zandra, Amber, thank you so much for a really eye-opening conversation. Zandra: Thank you for having us.  Amber: Thanks for having us. Mike: This podcast is brought to you by The Math Learning Center and the Maier Math Foundation, dedicated to inspiring and enabling all individuals to discover and develop their mathematical confidence and ability. © 2024 The Math Learning Center | www.mathlearningcenter.org

United recently launched Kinective Media, the airline industry's first media network. Its first-party data could change the future of people's travel experiences.  Episode TranscriptPlease note, this transcript  may contain minor inconsistencies compared to the episode audio. [00:00:00] Damian: I'm Damian Fowler and welcome to this edition of the current podcast this week we're delighted to talk with Mike Petrella, the managing director of partnerships at United airlines. In June, the airline launched a new initiative named connective media, which is the airline industry's first media network. [00:00:17] The network will use data from its customer profiles to create a personalized and immersive travel journey. This launch comes at a time when retail media networks have become one of the hottest topics in ad tech, allowing brand marketers to target consumers using retailers first party data. [00:00:35] We start by asking Mike about why United wanted to move in this direction.  [00:00:40] Damian: United's the first travel focused company to develop its own media network called Connective Media by United Airlines, and how is this a boon for the company and its flyers? [00:00:50] Mike: of course, so we consider ourselves a commerce media network, and we distinguish ourselves as a commerce media network. Given retail media, networks are typically point of [00:01:00] purchase, transaction based. The Commerce Media Network embraces the emotion, the journey, the feelings of all parts of the funnel. [00:01:08] So when you think about our users at time of planning, time of travel, [00:01:13] Damian: and signals [00:01:14] Mike: time of destination, even when they're not thinking about travel, we have 108 million profiles. And the beauty of our data is it's incredibly accurate. You have to be Damien to get on a plane. Your name has to be what it is, your address has to be correct, your phone number, and all the other information. [00:01:33] So the breadth of that information, coupled with the accuracy of it, gives us insights and signals that allow us to create these robust profiles of the user. And it's the user at all points. And the commerce nature of this isn't just a point of sale. We are not microtransactions on a consistent, on a constant basis. [00:01:54] Rather, we think about The interaction of the user at the time of [00:02:00] planning, top funnel. At the time of trip, or even time of purchase in an ancillary mindset. Purchase path typically generates a significant amount of revenue. Be it airline tickets, upgrades, any purchase path. [00:02:11] Regardless of whether it is airline ticket or if you're purchasing a ticket to an event, parking, whatever the case is. So for us, it's the ability to take that journey. To be able to identify when the right time to send the right message to the right user is. And that message could be an advertisement, it could be content, it could be nothing because it's not the right time. [00:02:35] But in each of these cases, you can make a use case for any and every brand based on the scale and depth of our data. [00:02:42] Damian: of our data. Fascinating. And you mentioned that long purchase journey, which is, sometimes it can be a long purchase journey, right? For air travel, or it could be short, but you do have a lot of scope within that context. [00:02:54] Mike: It is. I mean, very few people spontaneously book tickets to destinations, right? [00:02:59] And when [00:03:00] you're in that mindset, you're in a planning mindset, not only of the journey, but think about the insights and intelligence we can extract from the signals we receive to say, Well, this person happens to frequent a specific hotel chain, a car rental chain, a ride share company, when they land, they frequent a food delivery service. [00:03:21] Endemic, but then you think the non endemic piece. And this is the beauty of what we do. The lines of endemic and non endemic are completely blurred. To me at least. Because I think about, when you get on a plane, you may be traveling home to return to normality. Which takes you to food shopping, which takes you to the pharmacy, which takes you to the laundromat. [00:03:39] But my point is, I think the idea of always coupling a travel endemic brand or journey with the traveler is only a piece of it. be it on the road or at home. [00:03:50] I may go see a music event. I may go purchase music. I might play music. I may eat pizza. I will eat pizza just to be clear. But my point is, my behaviors [00:04:00] There are some that are going to be unique based on my journey, and others that are going to overlap with when I'm traveling for leisure, when I'm home. [00:04:08] And so, I love the fact that just, we can essentially meet the interests of the customer, which is the centric piece of this, and provide value to our partners as well. [00:04:21] Damian: It's a very clear example of how non endemic works in a retail media network, I think, because, you know, when you think about other retail media networks, often think about the retailer and what it sells, but, you know, with United, it's a different story. [00:04:34] Mike: Yeah, it's the breath of commerce, and that's what I enjoyed. That was like when I came here, it was eye opening. I had an idea, right? But just to see what we can do and really the validation of just how strong our data is and how valuable it is from a customer standpoint. When I say valuable to the customer, it is to spoon feed customers based on their interests. [00:04:57] Cafeteria style doesn't work. There are too many choices. [00:05:00] So if you're in a planning phase and we can bring about certain things that are of, normality to you, booking a restaurant, booking a golf reservation, simply as getting my ride share, it makes the journey easier. It makes it feel like it's Damien Fowler's journey, not just a customer who purchased a seat in one of our planes. [00:05:20] Damian: Yeah, I love that. And I just want to take that point a little bit further. Can you give some more examples of how, you work with brands, whether endemic or, when I say endemic, that would be travel related, right? Or not. and where that media might appear. [00:05:34] Mike: Sure. So today we are, our media network extends from our dot com, our in app, we have digital signage within the airports, be it in our clubs and lounges, gate information displays, on our planes we have in flight entertainment, or we call IFE, or personal device entertainment on your phone, and so as part of United Next, we made an investment to purchase north of [00:06:00] 800 planes. [00:06:01] And within each of those planes, they will be outfitted with the new IFE system. It's meant to be more of an OTT experience versus the current experience, which quite frankly is, it's legacy, it's the 1950s. It's a small screen with limited choices and it's not what we're used to. we envision this opportunity to have a very personalized experience in which you will have your interests displayed on that screen and every person's screen will be different. [00:06:28] Based on that individual. And so, for us, we will be retrofitting our current fleet, with the exception of a couple planes that will be retired over time. And so, over time, we will have screens in all planes on a, personalized basis. And so, for us too, it's, you extend past that, you have email and such. [00:06:47] It's a true omni channel offering, but most importantly, it's the engagement. We have an average of three and a half hour flight time. And so, when you're at home You can get up, use the restroom, go to the kitchen, whatever, if [00:07:00] a commercial comes on. You cannot do the same in a plane. At the same frequency. I mean, yes, you can get up, but the idea of having the ability to engage in an intimate and targeted manner with our users and to be able to show them things of their interest is huge. [00:07:16] Right? And then you think more, in lounges and clubs, It's not going to be personalized. If Damien walks in, if you walk into the club, you don't want to see. Hello, Damon. How are you? Do you need a new green shirt? That's creepy, right? Yes. So again, there's you can think about. the business traveler travels from Monday at 5 a. [00:07:35] m. to 11 a. m. and Thursdays from 4 to 7. So perhaps we put advertisers endemic to that audience. Families travel on weekends and these are generalities. But through research and through signals, we can begin to capture that. And again, the right message at the right time. [00:07:50] Damian: What customer insights will help connect brands with United Flyers? [00:07:54] Mike: So we capture over 120 targetable segments, or signals, I should say. And that [00:08:00] is, a mix of attitudinal, behavioral, lifestyle, and transactional. And today, our audience indexed to the highly affluent individual. Married, college educated, homeowner, household income of 250, 000 plus. And so you'll see in some of our launch partners, Bottega Veneta, which is a luxury brand, McAllen's, a higher end Scotch. [00:08:21] Very good for that audience, but at the same time, we are very diverse in terms of who is on our plane. We, our launch partner was Televisa Univision. 25 percent of the Chicago population is Hispanic. Is it 63 million, Spanish speaking, Americans in the U. S., right? So the idea of just focusing on one demographic doesn't do anyone justice. [00:08:45] very much. Right? Again, speaks to that scale of data. And so, we, there's a use case for every single brand, every single opportunity. We [00:08:56] Damian: that nuance that you can bring to it, to [00:09:00] advertising, is obviously key to this. what strategies is Connective employ to personalize ads and offer that to these different segments? [00:09:08] We are a very privacy centric, privacy [00:09:10] Mike: privacy safe, conservative approach to what we're doing. We sit atop GAM. we work with, a number of clean rooms. any and everything we do is meant to uphold the integrity of that customer's data. we will never sell the data as a stand alone. It'll always be wrapped with media on a managed basis. [00:09:31] And I say that because the sale of data opens up opportunity for bad actors. Then there are bad actors out there. So when it comes down to it You know, we want to ensure that we are keeping our customers, information, and privacy at the forefront. And then, any and everything we do is in a compliant way. [00:09:51] Data collaborations through clean rooms, proper encryption at all specific times, proper measurement and verification. it's a textbook [00:10:00] approach, knowing full well that,  [00:10:04] Mike: party data is currency, you have to protect it, and you have to use it in the right manner. [00:10:09] Damian: And it feels great, right? The work that we did is meaningful. [00:10:20] Mike: It's been overwhelming, honestly. I used to work, I helped startup advertising. com a long time ago, and all its brand names up through Yahoo. And I was always the one vying for a brand's business. To work on a brand site now has been an eye opening experience because you have the problem of choice. And the reception to what we've been doing has been incredibly positive. [00:10:44] and it feels great, right? The work that we did is meaningful. The work that we did is interesting. but we have to be smart in terms of who we work with. I would say the outreach from partners, we always want to maintain a very premium nature for any owned [00:11:00] and operated supply. I think it's important. [00:11:02] Again, the brand integrity for United is paramount. but at the same time, as I said earlier, there's a use case for all brands. And we're always open to exploration and conversations. And then making the right choice based on United brand, based on the value for our customers and for the overall business. [00:11:21] Damian: Now travel has skyrocketed since pandemic times, and that's been well reported. Can you describe the change United has seen more generally in people coming back to the skies? [00:11:32] Mike: the largest airline in the U. S. right now. and it's, it's a great position to be in because people fly United for the experience. [00:11:39] We do not compete with low cost carriers. That's not our model. People fly for the convenience, for the experience, for the opportunity to increase their loyalty status, for the journey in itself. Our app is the number one rated app in the, in, of all airlines, and if you, you know, I'm not sure if you're a flyer or not, Thank you. [00:11:58] If you are [00:12:00] so you see that app is very intuitive in terms of my baggage goes here. My gate is here. And so against personalization, right? It may not be specific. Damien. This is your journey. Rather, you are flying at this airport. Here is where your luggage is. Here's where your gate is. And it's just it's taking those steps to just again lessen the hassle of travel. [00:12:19] And then, as you get on the plane, our flight attendants, our ground crew, our pilots are just top caliber. it's the friendliness that you see. again, the experience extends beyond [00:12:29] Damian: a traveler's standpoint. [00:12:30] Mike: Connected media provides an opportunity for us to gather what we have from our three core pillars. Travel, loyalty, and media. [00:12:39] And it's that flywheel. we are able to ingest signals based on the profiles that we have. And in doing so, you begin to see the traveler profile as it begins to matriculate to an actual loyalty partner. [00:12:52] 39 million mileage plus loyalty partners. We have a co brand card through Chase. Right. We have our mileage plus [00:13:00] partnerships team, and we think about that from the Avis's, the Marriott's, from a travel endemic standpoint, non endemic, even like the away, I guess away luggage is not therabody, things to that effect. [00:13:10] And so, the ability to accrue and redeem miles as transaction. And then, with the credit card, the ability to redeem miles, or accrue miles, I should say, through transactions. As you go through the flywheel, you come to the media piece, which is the connective tissue. To understanding the middle and lower funnel of that transaction, purchase point, brand affinity, options for our users. [00:13:33] And then back to the first part, the emotion, and the journey, and the actual travel. And as we do this flywheel, we have more travelers, which means more signals, which means more opportunities for media, which means more, and it's a self fulfilling flywheel that essentially, again, with the customer in the middle, or the customer is the focus, it's Creates that opportunity to your point of why people are flying more with United.[00:14:00]  [00:14:00] Damian: What kind of feedback have you had from those customers? what are people's experience, what are people experiencing and how are they setting that back to you? [00:14:08] Mike: think the best part is, they've come up and said I'm so excited you're doing this. Never would have thought of this. like you, you're hearing it from the horse's mouth, right? So there's, in an unbiased manner, what I'm most proud of is the fact that we've come out with a legitimate business with a very, very focused North Star, that is focused solely around the customer. [00:14:31] that's unique. And to bring it to market at the speed that we did. With the help that we had from partners and the support that we've had from the industry has been just, has been amazing. Now the [00:14:43] Damian: the idea now seems like a very good one. And you're describing, you're telling me, Mike, how quickly you brought it to market. What, in under a year, really? I mean, it's a good idea. Do you expect that other airlines are going to want to emulate, what you've done here with your media network? [00:14:59] Mike: is [00:15:00] a very savvy airline. They're a great airline. they're doing certain things [00:15:07] with the connect, that we're connecting. streaming from a device to their, seatback screens. They've done partnerships with Walmart Plus and such. Whether they come out with a full scale media network, I'm not sure. but, United and Delta are the top two airlines in the U. S. [00:15:22] And they are a very savvy brand. So, if they come out, I would not be, surprised. I don't know about the others. You know, for me, it's not one's better than the other. It's just where I see the next. In [00:15:35] Damian: In general, while we're on the topic of predictions, when you look ahead to the rest of this year and to next, as you build this offering out, what are the kind of trends you're looking for in terms of that merging of travel and media that you just talked about? The year into next, what trends are you all looking for? [00:16:09] Mike: It's really, when you and I grew up, you had to pay for HBO, you had to pay for ESPN. it's a similar model, and you're seeing consolidation and M& A start in that sector. There's too many choices for consumers. Today, there's 273 retail media networks. That is not scalable, right? Marketers and agencies already have too many choices to make. [00:16:30] and at the same time, the uniqueness of that data, depending on the sectors. It may not be all that unique. I do think there's going to be consolidation. There has to be. And for me, I would expect that. I think we're in a very good position just given the unique position that we're in. And quite frankly, like the three pillars, right? [00:16:53] Scale, accuracy, and omni channel. And we can say we have that with confidence. I would say like, [00:17:00] to your point of expectations, there has to be consolidation. I think the introduction of AI, it wouldn't be a podcast without saying AI. I've already said flywheel, if there's another one I need to say. [00:17:11] But I do think, the introduction of AI into not only the purchase path, but more importantly, the analytics. Right? Humans know which questions to ask. AI will figure out what other questions to ask. And as we constantly feed these models, you're going to have, just from an analytics standpoint, the ability to extract new data, new intelligence, new insights, and we want to be on the forefront there to ensure that, we modernize our offering at a pace that is quicker, than what the industry is seeing. [00:17:44] Damian: Do you anticipate that your media network and what you're offering might have some kind of partnerships with some of those streaming platforms? I'm just thinking. Yeah, it's my job. So, [00:17:54] Mike: So, like, I do. I think there's opportunity for partnership. Yeah. it's the many versus the [00:18:00] power of one. [00:18:00] Damian: Yeah.  [00:18:01] Mike: You have to be selective, right? If you partner with everyone, you partner with no one. So, I think there's opportunities in the travel space. I do think there's opportunities in the non endemic space, too. We're at really early stages, so Honestly, platform side, I'm not used to this much attention. [00:18:21] and I love it. And we brought friends in to build this business. I'm working with my friends. I absolutely love it. And so together we're kind of sitting down and putting our heads together and say, okay, like we got to the starting line. We bust out our asses for nine months and we got to the starting line. How do we run this race and always be the leader? Because there's going to be people coming up after us. And that challenge with one another is great because we're pushing one another to be better. And it's not intense in the sense that like, any conversations with emotion are meant for constructive and collaboration. [00:18:57] And I think we're all being better because we're constantly pushing [00:19:00] one another. But more importantly, we're supporting one another. [00:19:02] Damian: Yeah. you do see some relationships with broadcasters, with in flight entertainment, but I imagine this is going to go. To a different level. [00:19:11] Mike: this is the early stage of the business. This is the exciting part. we're the bright, shiny object right now, and I think it's good to revel in that just to pat yourself on the back and say, Hey, we did it. [00:19:22] But realistically, like complacency doesn't get you anywhere, right? So everyone else has got has gotten to the starting line. There's been 273 other companies that got to the starting line, and some are running the race faster than others, and some are not even on the same course anymore. so for us, I think it's about heads down, and just constantly push. [00:19:42] And to be the best, [00:19:49] Damian: is highly competitive. Do you feel the pressure? [00:19:53] Mike: I don't feel the pressure from the industry. I feel the pressure to deliver. Like, me personally, I hold the bar very [00:20:00] high for myself, and I'm my worst critic. I know what it's like to be successful. I helped launch advertising. com and I can tell you those first five years were by far like the highlight of my life from a professional standpoint. [00:20:11] these last nine months are on par with that. And if I can make the next four years and three months the same or better, I'm going to do everything I can to do it. And if there's 23 years, 18 more years to follow that, great. I hope to retire at some point in my life. But, um, I'm just excited because. [00:20:30] This is real. And it's good. And, will be responsible for our success. So, yeah, I'm really excited about it.  [00:20:37] Damian: thank you so much for these insights. It's been great. [00:20:40] Mike: to speak with you, Damian. Thank you.  [00:20:42] Damian: And that's it for this edition of The Current Podcast. [00:20:44] We'll be back next week, so stay tuned. [00:20:47] Ilyse: The Current Podcast's theme is by Love Caliber. The current team includes Kat Vesce and Sydney Cairns. [00:20:53] Damian: . And remember, I'm Damian. [00:20:55] Ilyse: I'm Ilyse. [00:20:56] Damian: And we'll see you next time. And if you like what you hear, please [00:21:00] subscribe and leave us a review. Also, tune in to our other podcast, The Current Report.

Rounding Up Season 3 | Episode 2 – Responsive Curriculum Guest: Dr. Corey Drake Mike Wallus: When it comes to curriculum, educators are often told to implement with “fidelity.” But what does fidelity mean? And where does that leave educators who want to be responsive to students in their classrooms? Today we're talking with Dr. Corey Drake about principles for responsive curriculum use that invite educators to respond to the students in their classrooms while still implementing curriculum with integrity. Mike: One of the age-old questions that educators grapple with is how to implement a curriculum in ways that are responsive to the students in their classroom. It's a question I thought a lot about during my years as a classroom teacher, and it's one that I continue to discuss with my colleague at MLC, Dr. Corey Drake. As a former classroom teacher and a former teacher educator who only recently began working for an organization that publishes curriculum, Corey and I have been trying to carve out a set of recommendations that we hope will help teachers navigate this question. Today on the podcast, we'll talk about this question of responsive curriculum use and offer some recommendations to support teachers in the field. Mike: Welcome back to the podcast, Corey. I'm excited to have you with us again. Corey Drake: It's great to be with you again. Mike: So, I've been excited about this conversation for a while because this question of, “What does it mean to be responsive to students and use a curriculum?” is something that teachers have been grappling with for so long, and you and I often hear phrases like “implementation with fidelity” used when folks are trying to describe their expectations when a curriculum's adopted. Corey: Yeah, I mean, I think this is a question teachers grapple with. It's a question I've been grappling with for my whole career, from different points of view from when I was a classroom teacher and a teacher educator and now working at The Math Learning Center. But I think this is the fundamental tension: “How do you use a set of published curriculum materials while also being responsive to your students?” And I think ideas like implementation with fidelity didn't really account for the responsive-to-your-students piece. Fidelity has often been taken up as meaning following curriculum materials, page by page, word for word, task for task. We know that's not actually possible. You have to make decisions, you have to make adaptations as you move from a written page to an enacted curriculum. But still the idea of fidelity was to be as close as possible to the written page. Whereas ideas like implementation with integrity or responsive curriculum use are starting with what's written on the page, staying consistent with the key ideas of what's on the page, but doing it in a way that's responsive to the students who are sitting in front of you. And that's really kind of the art and science of curriculum use. Mike: Yeah, I think one of the things that I used to think was that it was really a binary choice between something like fidelity, where you were following things in what I would've described as a lockstep fashion. Or the alternative, which would be, “I'm going to make everything up.” And you've helped me think, first of all, about what might be some baseline expectations from a large-scale curriculum. What are we actually expecting from curriculum around design, around the audience that it's written for? I wonder if you could share with the audience some of the things that we've talked about when it comes to the assets and also the limitations of a large-scale curriculum. Corey: Yeah, absolutely. And I will say, when you and I were first teachers probably, and definitely when we were students, the conversation was very different. We had different curriculum materials available. There was a very common idea that good teachers were teachers who made up their own curriculum materials, who developed all of their own materials. But there weren't the kinds of materials out there that we have now. And now we have materials that do provide a lot of assets, can be rich tools for teachers, particularly if we release this expectation of fidelity and instead think about integrity. So, some of the assets that a high-quality curriculum can bring are the progression of ideas, the sequence of ideas and tasks that underlies almost any set of curriculum materials; that really looks at, “How does student thinking develop across the course of a school year?” And what kinds of tasks, in what order, can support that development of that thinking. Corey: That's a really important thing that individual teachers or even teams of teachers working on their own, that would be very hard for them to put together in that kind of coherent, sequential way. So, that's really important. A lot of curriculum materials also bring in many ideas that we've learned over the last decades about how children learn mathematics: the kinds of strategies children use, the different ways of thinking that children bring. And so, there's a lot that both teachers and students can learn from using curriculum materials. At the same time, any published set of large-scale curriculum materials are, by definition, designed for a generic group of students, a generic teacher in a generic classroom, in a generic community. That's what it means to be large scale. That's what it means to be published ahead of time. So, those materials are not written for any specific student or teacher or classroom or community. Corey: And so, that's the real limitation. It doesn't mean that the materials are bad. The materials are very good. But they can't be written for those specific children in that specific classroom and community. That's where this idea that responsive curriculum use and equitable instruction always have to happen in the interactions between materials, teachers, and students. Materials by themselves cannot be responsive. Teachers by themselves cannot responsibly develop the kinds of ideas in the ways that curriculum can, the ways they can when using curriculum as a tool. And, of course, students are a key part of that interaction. And so, it's really thinking about those interactions among teachers, students, and materials and thinking about, “What are the strengths the materials bring? What are the strengths the teacher brings?” The teacher brings their knowledge of the students. The teacher brings their knowledge of the context. And the students bring, of course, their engagement and their interaction with those materials. And so, it's thinking about the strengths they each bring to that interaction, and it's in those interactions that equitable and responsive curriculum use happens. Mike: One of the things that jumps out from what you said is this notion that we're not actually attempting to fix “bad curriculum.” We're taking the position that curriculum has a set of assets, but it also has a set of limitations, and that's true regardless of the curriculum materials that you're using. Corey: Absolutely. This is not at all about curriculum being bad or not doing what it's supposed to do. This assumes that you're using a high-quality curriculum that does the things we just talked about that has that progression of learning, those sequences of tasks that brings ideas about how children learn and how we learn and teach mathematics. And then, to use that well and responsibly, the teacher then needs to work in ways, make decisions to enact that responsibly. It's not about fixing the curriculum. It's about using the curriculum in the most productive and responsive ways possible. Mike: I think that's good context, and I also think it's a good segue to talk about the three recommendations that we want educators to consider when they're thinking about, “What does it mean to be responsive when you're using curriculum?” So, just to begin with, why don't we just lay them out? Could you unpack them, Corey? Corey: Yeah, absolutely. But I will say that this is work you and I have developed together and looking at the work of others in the field. And we've really come up with, I think, three key criteria for thinking about responsive curriculum use. One is that it maintains the goals of the curriculum. So again, recognizing that one of the strengths of curriculum is that it's built on this progression of ideas and that it moves in a sequential way from the beginning of the year to the end of the year. We want teachers to be aware of, to understand what the goals are of any particular session or unit or year, and to stay true to those goals, to stay aligned with those goals. But at the same time, doing that in ways that open up opportunities for voice and choice and sensemaking for the specific students who are in front of them in that classroom. And then the last is, we're really concerned with and interested in supporting equitable practice. And so, we think about responsive curriculum use as curriculum use that reflects the equity-based practices that were developed by Julia Aguirre and her colleagues. Mike: I think for me, one of the things that hit home was thinking about this idea that there's a mathematical goal and that goal is actually part of a larger trajectory that the curriculum's designed around. And when I've thought about differentiation in the past, what I was really thinking about was replacement that fundamentally altered the instructional goal. And I think the challenge in this work is to say, “Am I clear on the instructional goal? And do the things that I'm considering actually maintain that for kids or are they really replacing them or changing them in a way that will alter or impact the trajectory?” Corey: I think that's such a critical point. And it's not easy work. It's not always clear even in materials that have a stated learning goal or learning target for a session. There's still work to do for the teacher to say, “What is the mathematical goal? Not the activity, not the task, but what is the goal? What is the understanding I'm trying to support for my students as they engage in this activity?” And so, you're right. I think the first thing is, teachers have to be super clear about that because all the rest of the decisions flow from understanding, “What is the goal of this activity, what are the understandings that I am trying to develop and support with this session? And then I can make decisions that are enhancing and providing access to that goal, but not replacing it. I'm not changing the goal for any of my students. I'm not changing the goal for my whole group of students. Instead, I'm recognizing that students will need different ways into that mathematics. Students will need different kinds of supports along the way. But all of them are reaching toward or moving toward that mathematical goal.” Mike: Yeah. When I think about some of the options, like potentially, number choice; if I'm going to try to provide different options in terms of number choice, is that actually maintaining a connection to the mathematical goal, or have I done something that altered it? Another thing that occurs to me is the resources that we share with kids for representation, be it manipulatives or paper, pencil, even having them talk about it—any of those kinds of choices. To what extent do they support the mathematical goal, or do they veer away from it? Corey: Yeah, absolutely. And there are times when different numbers or different tools or different models will alter the mathematical goal because part of the mathematical goal is to learn about a particular tool or a particular representation. And there are other times when having a different set of numbers or a different set of tools or models will only enhance students' access to that mathematical goal because maybe the goal is understanding something like two-digit addition and developing strategies for two-digit addition. Well then, students could reach that goal in a lot of different ways. And some students will be working just with decade numbers, and some students will be working with decades and ones, and some students will need number pieces, and others will do it mentally. But if the goal is developing strategies, developing your understanding of two-digit addition, then all of those choices make sense, all of those choices stay aligned with the goal. Corey: But if the goal is to understand how base ten pieces work, then providing a different model or telling students they don't need to use that model would, of course, fundamentally alter the goal. So, this is why it's so critically important that we support teachers in understanding, making sense of the goal, figuring out how do they figure that out. How do you open a set of curriculum materials, look at a particular lesson, and understand what the mathematical goal of that lesson is? And it's not as simple as just looking for the statement of the learning goal and the learning target. But it's really about, “What are the understandings that I think will develop or are intended to develop through this session?” Mike: I feel like we should talk a little bit about context, because context is such a powerful tool, right? If you alter the context, it might help kids surface some prior knowledge that they have. What I'm thinking about is this task that exists in Bridges where we're having kids look at a pet store where there are arrays of different sorts and kinds of dog foods or dog toys or cat toys. And I remember an educator saying to me, “I wonder if I could shift the context.” And the question that I asked her is, “If you look at this image that we're using to launch the task, what are the particular parts of that image that are critical to maintain if you're going to replace it with something that's more connected to your students?” Corey: Connecting to your students, using context to help students access the mathematics, is so important and such an empowering thing for teachers and students. But you're asking exactly the right question. And of course, that all relates to, “What's the mathematical goal?” Again. Because if I know that, then I can look for the features of the context that's in the textbook and see the ways in which that context was designed to support students in reaching that mathematical goal. But I can also look at a different context that might be more relevant to my students, that might provide them better access to the mathematics. And I can look at that context through the lens of that mathematical goal and see, “Does this context also present the kinds of features that will help my students understand and make sense of the mathematical goal?” And if the answer is yes, and if that context is also then more relevant to my students or more connected to their lives, then great. That's a wonderful adaptation. That's a great example of responsive curriculum use. If now I'm in a context that's distracting or leading me away from the mathematical goal, that's where we run into adaptations that are less responsive and less productive. Mike: Well, and to finish the example, the conversation that this led to with this educator was she was talking about looking for bodegas in her neighborhood that her children were familiar with, and we end up talking quite a bit about the extent to which she could find images from the local bodega that had different kinds of arrays. She was really excited. She actually did end up finding an image, and she came back, and she shared that this really had an impact on her kids. They felt connected to it, and the mathematical goal was still preserved. Corey: I love that. I think that's a great example. And I think the other thing that comes up sometimes when we present these ideas, is maybe you want to find a different context that is more relevant to your students that they know more about. Sometimes you might look at a context that's presented in the textbook and say, “I really love the mathematical features here. I really see how knowing something about this context could help my students reach the mathematical goal, but I'm going to have to do some work ahead of time to help my students understand the context, to provide them some access to that, to provide them some entry points.” So, in your example, maybe we're going to go visit a pet store. Maybe we're going to look at images from different kinds of stores and notice how things are arranged on shelves, and in arrays, and in different combinations. So, I think there are always a couple of choices. One is to change the context. One is to do some work upfront to help your students access the context so that they can then use that context to access the mathematics. But I think in both cases, it's about understanding the goal of the lesson and then understanding how the features of the context relate to that goal. Mike: Let's shift and just talk about the second notion, this idea of opening up space for students' voice or for sensemaking when you're using curriculum. For me at least, I often try to project ideas for practice into a mental movie of myself in a classroom. And I wonder if we could work to help people imagine what this idea of opening space for voice or sensemaking might look like. Corey: I think a lot of times those opportunities for opening up voice and choice and sensemaking are not in the direct, action steps or the direct instructions to teachers within the lesson, but they're kind of in the in-between. So, “I know I need to introduce this idea to my students, but how am I going to do that? What is that going to look like? What is that going to sound like? What are students going to be experiencing?” And so, asking yourself that question as the lesson plays out is, I think, where you find those opportunities to open up that space for student voice and choice. It's often about looking at that and saying, “Am I going to tell students this idea? Or am I going to ask them? Are students going to develop their strategy and share it with me or turn it in on a piece of paper? Or are they going to turn and talk to a partner? Are they going to share those ideas with a small group, with a whole group? What are they going to listen for in each other's strategies? How am I going to ask them to make connections across those strategies? What kinds of tools am I going to make available to them? What kinds of choices are they going to have throughout that process?” Corey: And so, I think it's having that mental movie play through as you read through the lesson and thinking about those questions all the way through. “Where are my students going to have voice? How are they going to have choice? How are students going to be sensemaking?” And often thinking about, “Where can I step back, as the teacher, to open up that space for student voice or student choice?” Mike: You're making me think about a couple things. The first one that really jumped out was this idea that part of voice is not necessarily always having the conversation flow from teacher to student, but having a turn and talk, or having kids listen to and engage with the ideas that their partners are sharing is a part of that idea that we're creating space for kids to share their ideas, to share their voice, to build their own confidence around the mathematics. Corey: Absolutely. I think that, to me, is the biggest difference I see when I go into different classrooms. “Whose voice am I hearing most often? And who's thinking do I know about when I've spent 20 minutes in a classroom?” And there are some classrooms where I know a lot about what the teacher's thinking. I don't know a lot about what the students are thinking. And there are other classrooms where I can tell you something about the thinking of every one of the students in that room after 10 minutes in that classroom because they're constantly turning and talking and sharing their ideas. Student voice isn't always out loud either, right? Students might be sharing their ideas in writing, they might be sharing their ideas through gestures or through manipulating models, but the ideas are communicating their mathematical thinking. Really, student communication might be an even better way to talk about that because there are so many different ways in which students can express their ideas. Mike: Part of what jumped out is this notion of, “What do you notice? What do you wonder?” Every student can notice, every student can wonder. So, if you share a context before you dive right into telling kids what's going to happen, give them some space to actually notice and wonder about what's going on, generate questions, that really feels like something that's actionable for folks. Corey: I think you could start every activity you did with a, “What do you notice? What do you wonder?” Students always have ideas. Students are always bringing resources and experiences and ideas to any context, to any task, to any situation. And so, we can always begin by accessing those ideas and then figuring out as teachers how we might build on those ideas, where we might go from there. I think even more fundamentally is just this idea that all students are sensemakers. All students bring brilliance to the classroom. And so ,what we need to do is just give them the opportunities to use those ideas to share those ideas, and then we as teachers can build on those ideas. Mike: Before we close this conversation, I want to spend time talking about responsive curriculum use being a vehicle for opening up space for equity-based practice. Personally, this is something that you've helped me find words for. There were some ideas that I had an intuitive understanding of. But I think helping people name what we mean when we're talking about opening space for equity-based practice is something that we might be able to share with folks right now. Can you share how a teacher might take up this idea of creating space for equity-based practice as they're looking at lessons or even a series of lessons? Corey: Yeah, absolutely. And I think student voice and choice are maybe outcomes of equity-based practices. And so, in a similar way, I think teachers can begin by looking at a lesson or a series of lessons and thinking about those spaces and those decisions in between the action steps. And again, asking a series of questions. The equity-based practices aren't a series of steps or rules, but really like a lens or a series of questions that as a teacher, you might ask yourself as you prepare for a lesson. So, “Who is being positioned as mathematically capable? Who's being positioned as having mathematically important ideas? Are all of my students being positioned in that way? Are some of my students being marginalized? And if some of my students are being marginalized, then what can I do about that? How could I physically move students around so that they're not marginalized? How can I call attention to or highlight a certain student's ideas without saying that those ideas are the best or only ideas? But saying, ‘Look, this student, who we might not have recognized before as mathematically capable and brilliant, has a really cool idea right now.'” Corey: You and I have both seen video from classrooms where that's done brilliantly by these small moves that teachers can make to position students as mathematically brilliant, as having important or cool or worthwhile ideas, valuable ideas to contribute. So, I think it's those kinds of decisions that make such a difference. Those decisions to affirm learners' identities. Those aren't big changes in how you teach. Those are how you approach each of those interactions minute by minute in the classroom. How do you help students recognize that they are mathematicians, that they each bring valuable ideas to the classroom? And so, it's more about those in-between moments and those moments of interaction with students where these equity-based practices come to life. Mike: You said a couple things that I'm glad that you brought out, Corey. One of them is this notion of positioning. And the other one that I think is deeply connected is this idea of challenging places where kids might be marginalized. And I think one of the things that I've been grappling with lately is that there's a set of stories or ideas and labels that often follow kids. There are labels that we affix to kids within the school system. There are stories that exist around the communities that kids come from, their families. And then there are also the stories that kids make up about one another, the ideas that carry about, “Who's good at math? Who's not? Who has ideas to share? Who might I listen to, and who might I not?” And positioning, to me, has so much opportunity as a practice to help press back against those stories that might be marginalizing kids. Corey: I think that's such an important point. And I think, along with that is the recognition that this doesn't mean that you, as the individual teacher, created those stories or believed stories or did anything to perpetuate those stories—except if you didn't act to disrupt them. Because those stories come from all around us. We hear Pam Seda and Julia Aguirre and people like that saying, “They're the air we breathe. They're the smog we live in. Those stories are everywhere. They're in our society, they're in our schools, they're in the stories students tell and make up about each other.” And so, the key to challenging marginality is not to say, “Well, I didn't tell that story, I don't believe that story. But those stories exist, and they affect the children in my classroom, so what am I going to do to disrupt them? What am I going to do? Because I know the stories that are told about certain students, even if I'm not the one telling them, I know what those stories are. So how am I going to disrupt them to show that the student who the story or the labels about that student are, that they are not as capable, or they are behind or struggling or ‘low students.' What am I going to do to disrupt that and help everyone in our classroom community see the brilliance of that child, understand that that child has as much to contribute as anybody else in the math classroom?” And that's what it means to enact equity-based practices. Mike: You're making me think about an interview we did earlier this year with Peter Liljedahl, and he talked about this idea. He was talking about it in the context of grouping, but essentially what he was saying is that kids recognize the stories that are being told in a classroom about who's competent and who's not. And so, positioning, in my mind, is really thinking about—and I've heard Julia Aguirre say it this way—“Who needs to shine? Whose ideas can we bring to the center?” Because what I've come to really have a better understanding of, is that the way I feel about myself as a mathematician and the opportunities that exist within a classroom for me to make sense of math, those are really deeply intertwined. Corey: Yes, yes, absolutely. We are not focusing on marginality or identity just because it makes people feel good, or even just because it's the right thing to do. But actually in the math classroom, your identity and the expectations and the way you're positioned in that classroom fundamentally affect what you have opportunities to learn and the kinds of math you have access to. And so, we will do this because it's the right thing to do and because it supports math learning for all students. And understanding the role of identity and marginality and positioning in student learning is critically important. Mike: You're making me think about a classroom that we visited earlier this year, and it was a really dynamic math discussion. There was a young man, I'll call him David, and he was in a multilingual classroom. And I'm thinking back on what you said. At one point you said, “I can go into a classroom, and I can have a really clear idea of what the teacher understands, and perhaps less so with the kids.” In this case, I remember leaving thinking, “I really clearly understand that David has a deep conceptual understanding of the mathematics.” And the reason for that was, he generally volunteered to answer every single question. And it was interesting. It's not because the educator in the classroom was directing all of the questions to him, but I really got the sense that the kids, when the question was answered, were to almost turn their bodies because they knew he was going to say something. And it makes me think David is a kid who, over time, not necessarily through intention, but through the way that status works in classrooms, he was positioned as someone who really had some ideas to share, and the kids were listening. The challenge was, not many of them were talking. And so, the question is, “How do we change that? Not because anyone has any ill intent toward those other children, but because we want them to see themselves as mathematicians as well.” Corey: Yeah, absolutely. And that is part of what's tricky about this is that that's so important is that I think for many years we've talked about opening up the classroom for student talk and student discourse. And we do turn and talks, and we do think pair shares. And we've seen a lot of progress, I think, in seeing those kinds of things in math classrooms. And I think the next step to that is to do those with the kind of intentionality and awareness that you were just demonstrating there; which is to say, “Well, who's talking and how often are they talking? And what sense are people making of the fact that David is talking so much? What sense are they making? What stories are they telling about who David is as a mathematician? But also who they are as mathematicians. And what does it mean to them that even though there are lots of opportunity for students talk in that classroom, it's dominated by one or maybe two students. And so, we have opened it up for student discourse, but we have more work to do. We have more work to say, “Who's talking, and what sense are they making, and what does that look like over time? And how is mathematical authority distributed? How is participation distributed across the class? And, in particular, with intentionality toward disrupting some of those narratives that have become entrenched in classrooms and schools.” Mike: I think that's a great place for us to stop. I want to thank you again for joining us, Corey. It was lovely to have you back on the podcast. Corey: Thanks. It was great to be with you. Mike: This podcast is brought to you by The Math Learning Center and the Maier Math Foundation, dedicated to inspiring and enabling all individuals to discover and develop their mathematical confidence and ability. © 2024 The Math Learning Center | www.mathlearningcenter.org 

Rounding Up Season 3 | Episode 1 – Grouping Practices That Promote Efficacy and Knowledge Transfer Guest: Dr. Peter Liljedahl Mike Wallus: We know from research that student collaboration can have a powerful impact on learning. That said, how we group students for collaboration matters—a lot. Today we're talking with Dr. Peter Liljedahl, author of “Building Thinking Classrooms in Mathematics,” about how educators can form productive, collaborative groups in their classrooms. Mike: Hello, Peter. Welcome to the podcast. Peter Liljedahl: Thanks for having me. Mike: So, to offer our listeners some background, you've written a book, called “Building Thinking Classrooms in Mathematics,” and I think it's fair to say that it's had a pretty profound impact on many educators. In the book, you address 14 different practices. And I'm wondering if you could weigh in on how you weigh the importance of the different practices that you addressed? Peter: Well, OK, so, first of all, 14 is a big number that publishers don't necessarily like. When we first started talking with Corwin about this, they were very open. But I know if you think about books, if there's going to be a number in the title, the number is usually three, five or seven. It's sometimes eight—but 14 is a ridiculous number. They can't all be that valuable. What's important about the fact that it's 14, is that 14 is the number of core practices that every teacher does. That's not to say that there aren't more or less for some teachers, but these are core routines that we all do. We all use tasks. We all create groups for collaboration. We all have the students work somewhere. We all answer questions. We do homework, we assign notes, we do formative, summative assessment. We do all of these things. We consolidate lessons. We launch lessons. Peter: These are sort of the building blocks of what makes our teaching. And through a lot of time in classrooms, I deduced this list of 14. Robert Kaplinsky, in one of his blog posts, actually said that he thinks that that list of 14 probably accounts for 95 percent of what happens in classrooms. And my research was specifically about, “How do we enact each of those 14 so that we can maximize student thinking? So, what kind of tasks get students to think, how can we create groups so that more thinking happens? How can we consolidate a lesson so we get more thinking? How can we do formative and summative assessments so the students are thinking more?” So, the book is about responding to those 14 core routines and the research around how to enact each of those to maximize thinking. Your question around which one is, “How do we put weight on each of these?” Peter: They're all important. But, of course, they're not all equally impactful. Building thinking classrooms is most often recognized visually as the thing where students are standing at whiteboards working. And, of course, that had a huge impact on student engagement and thinking in the classroom, getting them from sitting and working at desks to getting them working at whiteboards. But in my opinion, it's not the most impactful. It is hugely impactful, but the one that actually makes all of thinking classroom function is how we form collaborative groups, which is chapter two. And it seems like that is such an inconsequential thing. “We've been doing groups for forever, and we got this figured out. We know how to do this. But … do we really? Do we really have it figured out?” Because my research really showed that if we want to get students thinking, then the ways we've been doing it aren't working. Mike: I think that's a great segue. And I want to take a step back, Peter. Before we talk about grouping, I want to ask what might be an obvious question. But I wonder if we can talk about the “why” behind collaboration. How would you describe the value or the potential impact of collaboration on students' learning experiences? Peter: That's a great question. We've been doing collaborative work for decades. And by and large, we see that it is effective. We have data that shows that it's effective. And when I say “we,” I don't mean me or the people I work with. I mean “we, in education,” know that collaboration is important. But why? What is it about collaboration that makes it effective? There are a lot of different things. It could be as simple as it breaks the monotony of having to sit and listen. But let's get into some really powerful things that collaboration does. Number one, about 25 years ago, we all were talking about metacognition. We know that metacognition is so powerful and so effective, and if we get students thinking about their thinking, then their thinking actually improves. And metacognition has been shown time and time again to be impactful in learning. Some of the listeners might be old enough to remember the days where we were actually trying to teach students to be metacognitive, and the frustration that that created because it is virtually impossible. Peter: Being reflective about your thinking while you're thinking is incredibly hard to do because it requires you to be both present and reflective at the same time. We're pretty good at being present, and we're pretty good about reflecting on our experiences. But to do both simultaneously is incredibly hard to do. And to teach someone to do it is difficult. But I think we've also all had that experience where a student puts up their hand, and you start walking over to them, and just as you get there, they go, “Never mind.” Or they pick up their book, and they walk over to you, and just as they get to you, they just turn around and walk back. I used to tell my students that they're smarter when they're closer to me. But what's really going on there is, as they've got their hand up, or as they're walking across the room toward you as a teacher, they're starting to formulate their thoughts to ask a question. Peter: They're preparing to externalize their thinking. And that is an incredibly metacognitive process. One of the easiest forms of metacognition, and one of the easiest ways to access metacognition, is just to have students collaborate. Collaborating requires students to talk. It requires them to organize their thoughts. It requires them to prepare their thinking and to think about their thinking for the purposes of externalization. It is an incredibly accessible way of creating metacognition in your classroom, which we already know is effective. So, that's one reason I think collaboration is really, really vital. Peter: Another one comes from the work on register. So, register is the level of sophistication with which we speak about something. So, if I'm in a classroom, and I'm talking to kindergarten students, I set a register that is accessible to them. When I talk to my undergraduates, I use a different register. My master's students, my Ph.D. students, my colleagues, I'm using different registers. I can be talking about the same thing, but the level of sophistication with which I'm going to talk about those things varies depending on the audience. And as much as possible, we try to vary our register to suit the audience we have. But I think we've also all had that instructor who's completely incapable of varying their register, the one who just talks at you as if you're a third-year undergraduate when you're really a Great Eight student. And the ability to vary our register to a huge degree is going to define what makes us successful as a teacher. Can we meet our learners where they're at? Can we talk to them from the perspective that they're at? Now we can work at it, and very adept teachers are good at it. But even the best teachers are not as good at getting their register to be the same as students. Peter: So, this is another reason collaboration is so effective. It allows students to talk and be talked to at their register, which is the most accessible form of communication for them. And I think the third reason that collaboration is so important is the difference between what I talk in my book about the difference between absolute and tentative knowledge. So, I'm going to make two statements. You tell me which one is more inviting to add a comment to. So, statement number one is, “This is how to do it, or this is what I did.” That's statement number one. Statement number two is, “I think that one of the ways that we may want to try, I'm wondering if this might work.” Which one is more inviting for you to contribute to? Mike: Yes, statement number two, for many, many reasons, as I'm sitting here thinking about the impact of those two different language structures. Peter: So, as teachers, we tend to talk in absolutes. The absolute communication doesn't give us anything to hold onto. It's not engaging. It's not inviting. It doesn't bring us into the conversation. It's got no rough patches—it's just smooth. But when that other statement is full of hedging, it's tentative. It's got so many rough patches, so many things to contribute to, things I want to add to, maybe push back at or push further onto. And that's how students talk to each other. When you put them in collaborative groups, they talk in tentative discourse, whereas teachers, we tend to talk in absolutes. So, students are always talking to each other like that. When we put them in collaborative groups, they're like, “Well, maybe we should try this. I'm wondering if this'll work. Hey, have we thought about this? I wonder if?” And it's so inviting to contribute to. Mike: That's fascinating. I'm going to move a little bit and start to focus on grouping. So, in the book, you looked really closely at the way that we group students for collaborative problem-solving and how that impacts the way students engage in a collaborative effort. And I'm wondering if you could talk a little bit about the type of things that you were examining. Peter: OK. So, you don't have to spend a lot of time in classrooms before you see the two dominant paradigms for grouping. So, the first one we tend to see a lot at elementary school. So, that one is called “strategic grouping.” Strategic grouping is where the teacher has a goal, and then they're going to group their students to satisfy that goal. So, maybe my goal is to differentiate, so I'm going to make ability groups. Or maybe my goal is to increase productivity, so I'm going to make mixed-ability groups. Or maybe my goal is to just have peace and quiet, so I'm going to keep those certain students apart. Whatever my goal is, I'm going to create the groups to try to achieve that goal, recognizing that how students behave in the classroom has a lot to do with who they're partnered with. So that's strategic grouping. It is the dominant grouping paradigm we see in elementary school. Peter: By the time we get to high school, we tend to see more of teachers going, “Work with who you want.” This is called “self-selected groupings.” And this is when students are given the option to group themselves any way they want. And alert: They don't group themselves for academic reasons, they group themselves for social reasons. And I think every listener can relate to both of those forms of grouping. It turns out that both of those are highly ineffective at getting students to think. And ironically, for the exact same reason. We surveyed hundreds of students who were in these types of grouping settings: strategic grouping or self-selected groupings. We asked one question, “If you knew you were going to work in groups today, what is the likelihood you would offer an idea?” That was it. And 80 percent of students said that they were unlikely or highly unlikely to offer an idea, and that was the exact same, whether they were in strategic groupings or self-selected groupings. The data cut the same. Mike: That's amazing, Peter. Peter: Yeah, and it's for the same reason it turns out; that whether students were being grouped strategically or self-selected, they already knew what their role was that day. They knew what was expected of them. And for 80 percent of the students, their role is not to think. It's not to lead. Their role is to follow, right? And that's true whether they're grouping themselves socially, where they already know the social hierarchy of this group, or they're being grouped strategically. We interviewed hundreds of students. And after grade 3, every single student could tell us why they were in the group this teacher placed them in. They know. They know what you think of them. You're communicating very clearly what you think their abilities are through the way you group them, and then they live down to that expectation. So, that's what we were seeing in classrooms was that strategic grouping may be great at keeping the peace. And self-selected grouping may be fabulous for getting students to stop whining about collaboration. But neither of them was effective for getting students to think. In fact, they were quite the opposite. They were highly ineffective for getting students to think. Mike: So, I want to keep going with this. And I think one of the things that stood out for me as I was reading is, this notion that regardless of the rationale that a teacher might have for grouping, there's almost always a mismatch between what the teacher's goals are and what the student's goals are. I wonder if you could just unpack this and maybe explain this a bit more. Peter: So, when you do strategic grouping, do you really think the students are with the students that they want to be with? One of the things that we saw happening in elementary school was that strategic grouping is difficult. It takes a lot of effort to try to get the balance right. So, what we saw was teachers largely doing strategic grouping once a month. They would put students into a strategic group, and they would keep them in that group for the entire month. And the kids care a lot about who they're with, when you're going to be in a group for a month. And do you think they were happy with everybody that was in that group? If I'm going to be with a group of students for a month, I'd rather pick those students myself. So, they're not happy. You've created strategic groupings. And, by definition, a huge part of strategic grouping is keeping kids who want to be together away from each other. Peter: They're not happy with that. Self-selected groupings, the students are not grouping themselves for academic reasons. They're just grouping themselves for social reasons so that they can socialize, so they talk, so they can be off topic, and all of these things. And yes, they're not complaining about group work, but they're also not being productive. So, the students are happy. But do you think the teacher's happy? Do you think the teacher looks out across that room and goes, “Yeah, there were some good choices made there.” No, nobody's happy, right? If I'm grouping them strategically, that's not matching their goals. That's not matching their social goals. When they're grouping themselves in self-selected ways, that's matching their social goals but not matching my academic goals for them. So, there's always going to be this mismatch. The teacher, more often than not, has academic goals. The students, more often than not, have social goals. There are some overlaps, right? There are students who are like, “I'm not happy with this group. I know I'm not going to do well in this group. I'm not going to be productive.” And there are some teachers who are going, “I really need this student to come out of the shell, so I need to get them to socialize more.” But other than that, by and large, our goals as teachers are academic in nature. The goals as students are social in nature. Mike: I think one of the biggest takeaways from your work on grouping, for me at least, was the importance of using random groups. And I have to admit, when I read that there was a part of me thinking back to my days as a first-grade teacher that felt a little hesitant. As I read, I came to think about that differently. But I'm wondering if you can talk about why random groups matter, the kind of impact that they have on the collaborative experience and the learning experience for kids. Peter: Alright, so going back to the previous question. So, we have this mismatch. And we have also that 80 percent of students are not thinking; 80 percent of students are entering into that group, not prepared to offer an idea. So those are the two problems that we're trying to address here. So, random groups … random wasn't good enough. It had to be visibly random. The students had to see the randomness because when we first tried it, we said, “Here's your random groups.” They didn't believe we were being random. They just thought we were being strategic. So, it has to be visibly random, and it turns out it has to be frequent as well. About once every 45 to 75 minutes. See, when students are put into random groups, they don't know what their role is. So, we're solving this problem. They don't know what their role is. When we started doing visibly random groups frequently, within three weeks we were running that same survey. Peter: “If you know you're going to work in groups today, what is the likelihood you would offer an idea?” Remember the baseline data was that 80 percent of students said that they were unlikely or highly unlikely, and, all of a sudden, we have a hundred percent of students saying that they're likely or highly likely. That was one thing that it solved. It shifted this idea that students were now entering groups willing to offer an idea, and that's despite 50 percent of them saying, “It probably won't lead to a solution, but I'm going to offer an idea.” Now why is that? Because they don't know what their role is. So, right on the surface, what random groups does, is it shatters this idea of preconceived roles and then preconceived behaviors. So, now they enter the groups willing to offer an idea, willing to be a contributor, not thinking that their role is just to follow. But there's a time limit to this because within 45 to 75 minutes, they're going to start to fall into roles. Peter: In that first 45 minutes, the roles are constantly negotiated. They're dynamic. So, one student is being the leader, and the others are being the follower. And now, someone else is a leader, the others are following. Now everyone is following. They need some help from some external source. Now everyone is leading. We've got to resolve that. But there is all of this dynamicism and negotiation going on around the roles. But after 45 to 75 minutes, this sort of stabilizes and now you have sort of a leader and followers, and that's when we need to randomize again so that the roles are dynamic and that the students aren't falling into sort of predefined patterns of non-thinking behavior. Mike: I think this is fascinating because we've been doing some work internally at MLC around this idea of status or the way that … the stories that kids tell about one another or the labels that kids carry either from school systems or from the community that they come from, and how those things are subtle. They're unspoken, but they often play a role in classroom dynamics in who gets called on. What value kids place on a peer's idea if it is shared. What you're making me think is there's a direct line between this thing that we've been thinking about and what happens in small groups as well. Peter: Yeah, for sure. So, you mentioned status. I want to add to that identity and self-efficacy and so on and so forth. One of the interesting pieces of data that came out of the research into random groups was, we were interviewing students several weeks into this. And we were asking them questions around this, and the students were saying things like, “Oh, the teacher thinks we're all the same, otherwise they wouldn't do random groups. The teacher thinks we're all capable, otherwise they wouldn't do random groups.” So, what we're actually talking about here is that we're starting—just simply through random groups—to have a positive impact on student self-efficacy. One of the things that came out of this work, that I wrote about in a separate paper, was that we've known for a long time that student self-efficacy has a huge impact on student performance. But how do we increase, how do we improve student self-efficacy? Peter: There are a whole bunch of different ways. The work of Bandura on this is absolutely instrumental. But it comes down to a couple of things. From a classroom teacher perspective, the first thing, in order for a student to start on this journey from low self-efficacy to high self-efficacy, they have to encounter a teacher who believes in them. Except students don't listen to what we say. They listen to what we do. So, simply telling our students that we have confidence in them doesn't actually have much impact. It's how we show them that we have confidence in them. And it turns out that random groups actually have a huge impact on that. By doing the random groups, we're actually showing the kids that we believe in them and then they start to internalize this. So that's one thing. The work of Bandura about how we can start to shift student self-efficacy through mastery experiences, where they start to, for example, be successful at something. And that starts to have an impact that is amplified when students start to be successful in front of others, when they are the ones who are contributing in a small group. And that group is now successful. And that success is linked in some small or great part to your contributions; that self-efficacy is amplified because not only am I being successful, I'm being successful in a safe environment, but in front of others. Peter: Now, self-efficacy contributes to identity, and identity has an interesting relationship with status. And you mentioned status. So, self-efficacy is what I think of myself. Status is what others think of me. I can't control my status. I can't shift my status. Status is something that is bestowed on me by others. And, of course, it's affected by their interactions with me in collaborative spaces. So, how they get to see me operate is going to create a status for me, on me, by others. But the status gets to be really nicely evenly distributed in thinking classrooms when we're doing these random groups because everybody gets to be seen as capable. They all get to be someone who can be mathematical and someone who can contribute mathematically. Mike: I want to shift back for a moment to this idea of visibly random groups. This idea that for kids, they need to believe that it's not just a strategic grouping that I've called random for the sake of the moment. What are some of the ways that you've seen teachers visibly randomize their groups so that kids really could see the proof was right out there in front of them? Peter: So, we first started with just cards. So, we got 27 kids. We're going to use playing cards, we're going to have three aces, three 2S, three 3s, three 4s, and so on. We would just shuffle the deck, and the kids would come and take a card. And if you're a 4, you would go to the board that has a 4 on it. Or maybe that fourth 4 is there, so to speak. We learned a whole bunch of things. It has to be visible. And however way we do it, the randomization doesn't just tell them what group they're in, it tells them where to go. That's an efficiency thing. You don't want kids walking around the classroom looking for their partners and then spending 5 minutes deciding where they want to work. Take a card, you got a 7, you go to the 7 board. You got an ace, you go to the ace board. Peter: And that worked incredibly well. Some teachers already had Popsicle sticks in their classroom, so they started using those: Popsicle sticks with students' names. So, they would pull three Popsicle sticks and they would say, “OK, these students are together. These students are together.” At first, we didn't see any problems with that. That seemed to be pretty isomorphic … to using a playing card. Some teachers got frustrated with the cards because with a card, sometimes what happens is that they get ripped or torn or they don't come back. Or they come back, and they're sweaty or they're hot. And it's like, “OK, where were you keeping this card? I don't want to know. It's hot, it's dirty.” They got ink on it. The cards don't come back. The kids are swapping cards. And teachers were frustrated by this. So, they started using digital randomizers, things like Flippity and ClassDojo and Picker Wheel and Team Shake and Team Maker. Peter: There were tons of these digital randomizers, and they all work pretty much the same. But there was a bit of a concern that the students may not perceive the randomness as much in these methods. And you can amplify that by, for example, bringing in a fuzzy [die], a big one, and somebody gets to roll it. And if a 5 comes up, they get to come up and hit the randomized button five times. And now there's a greater perception of randomness that's happening. With Flippity, that turns out actually it'd be true. Turns out that the first randomization is not purely random, and the kids spot that pattern. And we thought, “OK, perfect. That's fine. As long as the students perceive it's random, that it is truly random, that the teacher isn't somehow hacking this so that they are able to impose their own bias into this space.” So, it's seemingly random, but not purely random. And everything was running fine until about six to eight months ago. I was spending a lot of time in classrooms. I think in the last 14 months I've been in 144 different classrooms, co-teaching or teaching. So, I was spending a lot of time in classrooms, and for efficiency's sake, a lot of these teachers were using digital randomizers. And then I noticed something. It had always been there, but I hadn't noticed it. This is the nature of research. It's also the nature of just being a fly on the wall, or someone who's observing a classroom or a teacher. There's so much to notice we can't notice it all. So, we notice the things that are obvious. The more time we spend in spaces, the more nuanced things we're able to notice. And about six to eight months ago, I noticed something that, like I said, has always been there, but I had never really noticed it. Peter: Teacher hits a randomized button, and all the students are standing there watching, waiting for the randomized groups to appear on the screen. And then somebody goes, “Ugh.” It's so small. Or somebody laughs. Or somebody's like, “Nooo.” And it's gone. It's in a moment, it's gone. Sometimes others snicker about it, but it's gone. It's a flash. And it's always been there, and you think it's not a big deal. Turns out it's a huge deal because this is a form of micro-bullying. This is what I call it, “micro-bullying.” Because when somebody goes, “Ugh,” everybody in the room knows who said it. And looking at the screen, they know who they said it about. And this student, themself, knows who said it, and they know that they're saying it about them. And what makes this so much worse than other overt forms of bullying is that they also are keenly aware that everybody in the room just witnessed and saw this happen, including the teacher. Peter: And it cuts deeply. And the only thing that makes bullying worse is when bullying happens in front of someone who's supposed to protect you, and they don't; not because we're evil, but because it's so short, it's so small, it's over in a flash. We don't really see the magnitude of this. But this has deep psychological effects and emotional effects on these students. Not just that they know that this person doesn't like them. But they know that everybody knows that they don't like them. And then what happens on the second day? The second day, whoever's got that student, that victimized student in their group, when the randomization happens, they also go, “Ugh,” because this has become acceptable now. This is normative. Within a week, this student might be completely ostracized. And it's just absolutely normal to sort of hate on this one student. Peter: It's just not worth it. It cuts too deeply. Now you can try to stop it. You can try to control it, but good luck, right? I've seen teachers try to say, “OK, that's it. You're not allowed to say anything when the randomization happens. You're not allowed to cheer, you're not allowed to grunt, you're not allowed to groan, you're not allowed to laugh. All you can do is go to your boards.” Then they hit the random, and immediately you hear someone go, “Ugh.” And they'll look at them, and the student will go, “What? That's how I breathe.” Or “I stubbed my toe where I thought of something funny.” It's virtually impossible to shut it down because it's such a minor thing. But seemingly minor. In about 50 percent of elementary classrooms that I'm in, where a teacher uses that digital randomizer, you don't hear it. But 50 percent you do. Almost 100 percent of high school classrooms I'm in you hear some sort of grunt or groan or complaint. Peter: It's not worth it. Just buy more cards. Go to the casino, get free cards. Go to the dollar store, get them cheap. It's just not worth it. Now, let's get back to the Popsicle stick one. It actually has the same effect. “I'm going to pull three names. I'm going to read out which three names there are, and I'm going to drop them there.” And somebody goes, “Ugh.” But why does this not happen with cards? It doesn't happen with cards because when you take that card, you don't know what group you're in. You don't know who else is in your group. All you know is where to go. You take that card, you don't know who else is in your group. There's no grunting, groaning, laughing, snickering. And then when you do get to the group, there might be someone there that you don't like working with. So, the student might go, “Ugh.” But now there's no audience to amplify this effect. And because there's no audience, more often than not, they don't bother going, “Ugh.” Go back to the cards, people. The digital randomizers are fast and efficient, but they're emotionally really traumatizing. Mike: I think that's a really subtle but important piece for people who are thinking about doing this for the first time. And I appreciate the way that you described the psychological impact on students and the way that using the cards engineers less of the audience than the randomizer [do]. Peter: Yeah, for sure. Mike: Well, let's shift a little bit and just talk about your recommendations for group size, particularly students in kindergarten through second grade as opposed to students in third grade through fifth grade. Can you talk about your recommendations and what are the things that led you to them? Peter: First of all, what led to it? It was just so clear, so obvious. The result was that groups of three were optimal. And that turned out to be true every setting, every grade. There are some caveats to that, and I'll talk about that in a minute. But groups of three were obvious. We saw this in the data almost immediately. Every time we had groups of three, we heard three voices. Every time we heard groups of four, we heard three voices. When we had groups of five, we heard two voices on task, two voices off task, and one voice was silent. Groups of three were just that sort of perfect, perfect group size. It took a long time to understand why. And the reason why comes from something called “complexity theory.” Complexity theory tells us that in order for a group to be productive, it has to have a balance between diversity and redundancy. Peter: So, redundancy is the things that are the same. We need redundancy. We need things like common language, common notation, common vocabulary, common knowledge. We need to have things in common in order for the collaboration to even start. But if all we have is redundancy, then the group is no better than the individual. We also have to have diversity. Diversity is what every individual brings to the group that's different. And the thing that happens is, when the group sizes get larger, the diversity goes up, but redundancy goes down. And that's bad. And when the group sizes get smaller, the redundancy goes up, but the diversity goes down. And that's bad. Groups of three seem to have this perfect balance of redundancy and diversity. It was just the perfect group size. And if you reflect on groups that you've done in your settings, whatever that setting was, you'll probably start to recognize that groups of three were always more effective than groups of four. Peter: But we learned some other things. We learned that in K–2, for example, groups of three were still optimal, but we had to start with groups of two. Why? Because very young children don't know how to collaborate yet. They come to school in kindergarten, they're still working in what we call “parallel,” which means that they'll happily stand side by side at a whiteboard with their own marker and work on their own things side by side. They're working in parallel. Eventually, we move them to a state that we call “polite turn-taking.” Polite turn-taking is we can have two students working at a whiteboard sharing one marker, but they're still working independently. So, “It's now your turn and you're working on your thing, and now it's my turn, I'm working on my thing.” Eventually, we get them to a state of collaboration. And collaboration is defined as “when what one student says or does affects what the other student says or does.” Peter: And now we have collaboration happening. Very young kids don't come to school naturally able to collaborate. I've been in kindergarten classrooms in October where half the groups are polite turn-taking, and half the groups are collaborating. It is possible to accelerate them toward that state. But I've also been in grade 2 classrooms in March where the students are still working in parallel or turn-taking. We need to work actively at improving the collaboration that's actually happening. Once collaboration starts to happen in those settings, we nurtured for a while and then we move to groups of three. So, I can have kindergartens by the end of the year working in groups of three, but I can't assume that grade 2s can do it at the beginning of the year. It has a lot to do with the explicit efforts that have been made to foster collaboration in the classroom. And having students sit side by side and pair desks does not foster collaboration. It fosters parallel play. Peter: So, we always say that “K–2, start with groups of two, see where their level of collaboration is, nurture that work on it, move toward groups of three.” The other setting that we had to start in groups of two were alternate ed settings. Not because the kids can't collaborate, but because they don't trust yet. They don't trust in the process in the educational setting. We have to nurture that. Once they start to trust in working in groups of two, we can move to groups of three. But the data was clear on this. So, if you have a classroom, and let's say you're teaching grade 6, and you don't have a perfect multiple of three, what do you do? You make some groups of two. So, rather than groups of four, make some groups of two. Keep those groups of two close to each other so that they may start to collaborate together. Peter: And that was one of the ironies of the research: If I make a group of four, it's a Dumpster fire. If I make two groups of two and put them close to each other, and they start to talk to each other, it works great. You start with groups of two. So, having some extra groups of two is handy if you're teaching in high school or any grade, to be honest. But let's say you have 27 students on your roster, but only 24 are there. There's going to be this temptation to make eight groups of three. Don't do it. Make nine groups, have a couple of groups of two. Because the minute you get up and running, someone's going to walk in late. And then when they walk in late, it's so much easier to plug them into a group of two than to have them waiting for another person to come along so that they can pair them or to make a group of four. Mike: Yeah, that makes sense. Before we close, Peter, I want to talk about two big ideas that I really wish I would've understood more clearly when I was still in the classroom. What I'm thinking about are the notion of crossing social boundaries and then also the concept of knowledge mobility. And I'm wondering if you could talk about each of them in turn and talk about how they relate to one another. Peter: Certainly. So, when we make our groups, when we make groups, groups are very discreet. I think this comes from that sort of strategic grouping, or even self-selected groupings where the groups are really separate from each other. There are very well-defined boundaries around this group, and everything that happens, happens inside that group, and nothing happens between groups. In fact, as teachers, we often encourage that, and we're like, “No, do your own work in your group. Don't be talking to the other groups.” Because the whole purpose of doing strategic groups is to keep certain kids away from each other, and that creates a very non-permeable boundary between the groups. But what if we can make these boundaries more porous, and so that knowledge actually starts to flow between the groups. This is what's called “knowledge mobility,” the idea that we don't actually want the knowledge to be fixed only inside of a group. Peter: The smartest person in the room is the room. We got to get that knowledge moving around the room. It's not groups, it's groups among groups. So, how can we get what one group is achieving and learning to move to another group that's maybe struggling? And this is called “knowledge mobility.” The easiest way to increase this is we have the students working at vertical whiteboards. Working at vertical whiteboards creates a space where passive knowledge mobility is really easy to do. It's really easy to look over your shoulder and see what another group is doing and go, “Oh, let's try that. They made a table of values. Let's make a table of values. Or they've done a graph, or they drew a picture” or whatever. “We'll steal an idea.” And that idea helps us move forward. And that passive can also lead to more active, where it's like, “I wonder what they're doing over there?” Peter: And then you go and talk to them, and the teacher can encourage this. And both of these things really help with mobilizing knowledge, and that's what we want. We don't want the only source of knowledge to be the teacher. Knowledge is everywhere. Let's get that moving around the room within groups, between groups, between students. And that's not to say that the students are copying. We're not encouraging copying. And if you set the environment up right, they don't copy. They're not going to copy. They'll steal an idea, “Oh, let's organize our stuff into a table of values,” and then it's back to their own board and working on that. And the other way that we help make these boundaries more porous is by breaking down the social barriers that exist within a classroom. All classrooms have social barriers. They could be gender, race. They could be status-based. Peter: There are so many things that make up the boundaries that exist within classrooms. There are these social structures that exist in schools. And one of the things that random groups does is it breaks down these social barriers because we're putting students together that wouldn't normally be together. And our data really reveals just how much that happens; that after three weeks, the students are coming in, they're socializing with different students, students that hadn't been part of their social structure before. They're sitting together outside of class. I see this at the university where students are coming in, they almost don't know each other at all. Or they're coming in small groups that are in the same class. They know each other from other courses, and within three, four weeks, I'm walking through the hallways at the university and I'm seeing them sitting together, working together, even having lunch together in structures that didn't exist on day one. There are so many social structures, social barriers in classrooms. And if we can just erode those barriers, those group structures are going to become more and more porous, and we're creating more community, and we're reducing the risk that exists within those classrooms. Mike: I think the other piece that jumps out for me is when I go back to this notion of one random grouping, a random grouping that shifts every 45 to 75 minutes. This idea of breaking those social boundaries—but also, really this idea that knowledge mobility is accelerated jumps out of those two practices. I can really see that in the structure and how that would encourage that kind of change. Peter: Yeah. And it encourages both passively and actively. Passive in the sense that students can look over the shoulder, active that they can talk to another group. But also passively from the teacher perspective, that random groups does a lot of that heavy lifting. But I can also encourage it actively when a group asks a question. Rather than answering their question, looking around the room going, “You should go talk to the sevens over there.” Or “We're done. What do we do next?” “Go talk to the fours. They know what's next.” That, sort of, “I as a teacher can be passive and let the random groups do a lot of the heavy lifting. But I can also be active and push knowledge around the room. By the way, I respond to students' questions.” Mike: Well, and I think what also strikes me is you're really distributing the authority mathematically to the kids as well. Peter: Yeah, so we're displacing status, we're increasing identity. We're doing all sorts of different things that are de-powering the classroom, decentralizing the classroom. Mike: Well, before we go, Peter, I'm wondering if there are any steps that you'd recommend to an educator who's listening. They want to start to dabble, or they want to take up some of the ideas that we've talked about. Where would you invite people to make a start? Peter: So, first of all, one of the things we found in our research was small change is no change. When you make small changes, the classroom as a system will resist that. So, go big. In building thinking classrooms, random groups is not a practice that gets enacted on its own. It's enacted with two other practices: thinking tasks, which is chapter one of my book, random groups, which is chapter two. And then, getting the students working at vertical whiteboards. These are transformational changes to the classroom. What we're doing in doing that is we're changing the environment in which we're asking students to behave differently. Asking students to behave differently in exactly the same environment that they behaved a certain way for five years already is almost impossible to do. If you want them to behave differently, if you want them to start to think, you're going to have to create an environment that is more conducive to thinking. Peter: So, that's part of it. The other thing is, don't do things by half measures. Don't start doing, “Well, we're going to do random groups on Mondays, but we're going to do strategic groups the rest of the days,” or something like this. Because what that communicates to students is that the randomness is something that you don't really value. Go big. We're doing random groups. We're always doing random groups. Have the courage. Yes, there's going to be some combinations that you're going to go, “Uh-oh.” And some of those are going to be really uh-oh combinations. But you're also going to have way more situations where you go and then it turns out to be amazing. So, have that courage. Go with the random groups and do it persistently and consistently. Because there is going to be resistance. The students are going to resist this thing because at least when you're being strategic, you're being thoughtful about it. Peter: But this feels like too much chance. And they start to attribute, they start to map their emotions around being placed in strategic groups, which were often for a month, into this setting. And what we need to do is, we need to show that this is not that by being consistent, doing it randomly, doing it frequently, so they start to realize that this is different. This is not the kind of grouping structures that have happened in the past. And do it. Do it consistently, persistently. Do it for at least 10 days before you start to really see and really reap those benefits. Mike: I think that's a really great place to stop. Thank you so much for joining us on the podcast, Peter. It really has been a pleasure chatting with you. Peter: Thanks so much. It's been a great conversation. Mike: This podcast is brought to you by The Math Learning Center and the Maier Math Foundation, dedicated to inspiring and enabling all individuals to discover and develop their mathematical confidence and ability. © 2024 The Math Learning Center | www.mathlearningcenter.org

Have you been wondering how AI could revolutionize dental practices and patient care? In this Monday Morning Episode, we chat with Mike Buckner from Pearl, an AI company dedicated to transforming the dentistry landscape with cutting-edge technology. I begin by asking for insights on integrating AI into dental practices, Mike emphasizes that, despite the confidence many experienced dentists have in their diagnostic skills, patients increasingly expect advanced technologies that offer precision and unparalleled care. He delves into how Pearl's AI assists by marking pathologies on dental x-rays, making dental issues more comprehensible to patients and boosting acceptance of recommended treatment plans.Mike shares compelling statistics from the CDC on undiagnosed conditions and highlights how AI offers a valuable second look, ensuring no critical details are overlooked. He discusses the reliability of AI, acknowledging its occasional false positives or negatives but likening it to a TSA scanner that identifies areas warranting closer dentist inspection. Throughout the conversation, he emphasizes that AI aids rather than replaces dentists, providing them with robust tools to enhance diagnostic accuracy. A deeply personal story about his wife's missed breast cancer diagnosis underscores the broad potential of AI to elevate diagnostic care across medical fields. As the episode wraps up, Mike encourages listeners to explore Pearl's offerings and consider a demo to experience AI's benefits firsthand.What You'll Learn in This Episode:How AI is transforming the field of dentistry and patient expectationsThe advantages of using AI for diagnosing dental issues through x-ray analysisKey statistics on undiagnosed conditions and the role of AI in mitigating theseThe limitations and reliability of AI in diagnostic proceduresPersonal anecdotes highlighting the broader significance of AI in healthcare diagnosticsDon't miss out on discovering how AI can elevate your dental practice and ensure the best patient care – tune in to this episode now!‍‍Pearl AI: The Future of Dentistry, Powered by AI: https://hellopearl.com/ (Don't forget to mention you heard about Pearl AI on the podcast!)‍You can reach out to Mike Buckner here:Website: https://hellopearl.com/Can You Beat AI? http://play.hellopearl.com/‍Mentions and Links: Podcast Episodes:402: DR. KYLE STANLEY | BEVERLY HILLS DENTIST – THE DENTAL MARKETER PODCAST‍Products/Brands:iPhone‍Sources for Referenced Stats: Development of a Deep Learning Algorithm for Periapical Disease Detection in Dental RadiographsDiagnosis of Occlusal Caries: Part I. Conventional MethodsProducts - Data Briefs - Number 307 - April 2018‍If you want your questions answered on Monday Morning Episodes, ask me on these platforms:My Newsletter: https://thedentalmarketer.lpages.co/newsletter/The Dental Marketer Society Facebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/2031814726927041‍Episode Transcript (Auto-Generated - Please Excuse Errors)‍Michael: Hey Mike. So talk to us. What's one piece of advice you can give us this Monday morning? Mike: A little background. I work at a, an AI company, right? Pearl. and so what we're doing is we're helping dentists see and analyze everything that's on the x rays that are taken.And oftentimes, you know, it's really interesting, but oftentimes talk to dentists who say, you know what, I've been looking at x rays. for the last 20, 30 years, I don't need help. I don't need technology to help me look at or diagnose or find things on x rays. I never miss anything on my x rays.And I guess a piece of advice that I would give is that it's not necessarily about. You know, that sounds really bad, but it's really about the patient and what the patient is expecting. oftentimes we get an influx of patients that reach out to us at Pearl are asking us, Hey, can you help us find a dentist in the area that we live in that utilizes artificial intelligence?because they've been burned before. They've had bad experiences before they needed to go and get a second opinion before. And so it's really about what the patient's expectations are. What is going to give your patients the peace of mind that they are going to a practice that leverages the latest and greatest in technology so that they are going to someone who's going to provide them with the best oral care available.Michael: And so you guys have been bumping into this a lot with regular population, general population asking. Mike: Yeah. So we, we get a lot of patients that,have an interest in what we're doing with artificial intelligence and highlighting all of the pathologies on the x rays because really what it does is it's giving the patients as a patient's in the chair.It gives them the opportunity really for the first time to kind of see what the clinician's seeing, to see what the doctor's seeing. The dentist can look at the x rays and he can see and analyze almost everything that's on there. But when he's pointing out the treatment to the patient, the patient's like, I'm sorry, everything looks Kind of gray or this dark color gray, because the doctor's like, do you see this area right here? That's a little darker and for them. They're not seeing it But when AI can come in and highlight all of those areas on the x ray it breaks it down for them It helps them see it and understand it and when they see it and they understand what's going on in the x rays it makes sense to them.It truly leads to an increase in case acceptance. Michael: Do you, Mike, by any chance have stats on how much missed things have happened you know what I mean? like my own self trust. I got this. Don't worry. I've been doing this for years. Compared to AI. Mike: I do. In fact, I'm glad you asked that. We did not rehearse this before, but I actually have some stats up that I wanted to share.this is right off of the CDC website. are some studies show that 43 percent of carries in x rays are undiagnosed. 20 percent of carries diagnosed in patients are not actually carries. here's the big one, 49%, almost right down the middle, almost a coin toss 49 percent of periapical radiolucency and x raysare undiagnosed.That's huge. Yeah. That's massive. And even if it's just one that's missed, now, unfortunately we're seeing it more than ever. We're seeing, law firms that are advertising to patients. saying, Hey, did your dentist miss this or miss that? Cause if so, click here and submit a claim and we're going to go after him and get you some money.It's, unfortunate, but that's really the way that things are going. So, This just allows that second set of eyes, that peace of mind, especially as you have associates, you've got other people working with you in the practice to make sure that everyone is seeing all of the detections.It's not diagnosing. But it's just helping highlight and find things earlier or sooner than human eye might be able to. Michael: the human eye can only see between 30 and 50 different shades and tones of gray, artificial intelligence, it has the ability to really pick up and highlight between 500 and 700 different shades and tones of gray, it really is able to catch things earlier than what a dentist might be confident in finding diagnosing. Gotcha. Okay. now this is a question I've seen floating around. Can AI make mistakes? Mike: Absolutely. In fact, what I would say is that when you do install or implement AI, there will be times that you'll look at it and it might be a false positive.It might be a false negative. And here's really kind of reasoning behind it. if you go onto your phone, your iPhone. And they have that search in your photos, you can go to your photos and you can search and type in something fairly generic into the search. You can type in like a dog or a cat and it's going to go in and it's going to give you all of the pictures, all categorized, all bunched together, all the pictures of dogs in your phone.But you might have a couple of those that are going to be cats or might be deer or might be something else, but it looks very similar to that. Now, this is where it's not a replacement for the doctor. It's not a replacement for the human eye, because if you look at that, you can easily see, Oh, you know what?It's actually a deer. It looks like a dog, but I can tell that it's a deer. The same thing applies with the x rays. Sometimes the x ray might be taken on a poor angulation or with a lot of overlap and it might pick something up. But looking at it, oftentimes the doctor will say well, yeah, I can see why it might be highlighting or showing that as carries.But I know that there's just massive area of overlap or something else that, they can easily see and pick up. Michael: So would you recommend if we're utilizing Pearl or AI, right? We use it Hey, this is our first round and then I will double check it as a doctor and make sure it looks good.Or the other way around,Mike: because it works instantaneously, I would almost suggest look at the areas that the AI is saying, Hey, there might be a curious lesion here. Very similar, Michael, when you go through like TSA at the airport, you walk through that scanner.And when you walk through, there's a little box that it shows kind of an outline of a person and it shows a little box to the TSA agent saying, Hey, you should probably check this area. And that's very similar to what the AI is doing. showing you the areas to the dentist that saying, Hey, you might want to check this area based upon the pixels on the x ray in this area.There's a high likelihood that there's, radiolucency that's found within this area. Michael: Gotcha. it's really good. To always keep that alert on this thing. And so with AI, you mentioned that patients reach out to you. Is there a specific thing that you guys do where you're like, Hey, there's doctors near you who have, you know,Mike: So we don't have anything that's programmed yet that we, have released, probably coming soon, kind of a little teaser there but, is something that AI is huge in medicine. we talked about this, right before this podcast where, it affected me as well. In fact, my wife's breast cancer was missed on a mammogram. And I started researching where is AI in mammography we're seeing more and more of it, but patients are aware of this.Patients know that AI is here to stay. It is really elevating the standard of care because humans are prone to mistake. Humans are prone to errors and missing things. And the AI is really kind of that, unbiased, able to just highlight all the data that's shown and let the clinicians, let the doctors make the final decision.Michael: Gotcha. Can I ask Mike, what made you, when it came to the breast cancer with your wife, get like a second opinion and not just depend on that one doctor and say, Hey, cool. Mike: Yeah. It's funny. there was a phrase that was shared with us when the oncologist, showed us the mammogram and then he said, we can do an ultrasound.We did the ultrasound. Same thing. It's not really typical to what we see with breast cancer. And then he said, we can watch it. you're young, I wouldn't worry about it. You can come back next year. We'll get another mammogram.We can see if it's changed in size or anything. I'm like, there's no way there's no way I'm watching it. Cause I know what that means. What are we going to watch it do? We're going to watch it get bigger. I don't want to play with that. that's really where I thought, you know what? kind of. wanted to research where is AI in mammography? Because this all happened while I'm working at Pearl, while I'm working at a company that is bringing artificial intelligence, aid or detections to x rays. those words, we can watch it. To me, it was like, okay, the doctor sees something there, but is not certain enough.To give a diagnosis. went ahead with the biopsy and the biopsy came back positive. She's doing well now, but the biopsy came back positive and I went home and I was like, Oh my gosh, of course. humans make mistakes.don't blame him because here's the thing that I don't know. Was that his first mammogram that he looked at on Monday, or was that his 500th mammogram that he looked at on Friday and where everything is kind of all blending together, can't blame him for that, humans just make mistakes, but that's really where after we got the results back from the biopsy, I went back and I started researching this.And, AI in medicine is making massive strides all across all the different fields in medicine. And it's exciting because I do think that it will improve the overall standard of care. Michael: That's interesting. Man, that you mentioned that because for a lot of patients. Dental or not, like this is their, visit, whether they're in the chair, right?And then they're getting checked up on and stuff like that, that could be their first most terrifying experience ever. But for the doctor, it's it's Friday, my last pay, I just want to get out of here kind of thing. Right. I have stuff to do. And so the doctor could be super experienced.But the time of day and how they're feeling and everything plays a huge factor, and that's what can miss it, right? And so I guess we're not really thinking of, oh, this is the patient's first and most terrifying experience ever here with us. And they're depending on me to get everything on point, but I'm like, I gotta get Mike: out of here Michael: kind of thing, right?Mike: Yeah. you look at those x rays, we've been looking at the same black and white and gray technology for a long time now oftentimes it is kind of on the fence, like, should we treat it? Should we not? We don't want to be too aggressive. But I remember I've been to the dentist before and the dentist has told me like, ah, there's something here, but might want to just keep an eye on it.And I'm like either there is, or there isn't. Can we stop it? Can we do something to remineralize whatever? But don't just let me walk out of here. If you see something there let's take care of it. I want to fix it. Michael: Yeah. A hundred percent, man. That's true. Awesome. Mike, thank you so much for your time.I appreciate it. But if anyone has further questions or concerns, where can they reach out to me? Mike: Actually you can go to our website. Hellopearl. com. If you go to our website, you can sign up for a demo of Pearl. see how the AI interfaces with your x rays.what it can do for your practice. So we really have designed different features and different tools for all areas of the practice, whether it's front office, whether you're a hygienist, you're a dentist. We really have, explored ways to leverage artificial intelligence to really increase overall efficiency and the standard of care in the practice.Michael: Awesome. So that's going to be in the show notes below. So you can reach out to Mike and get that free demo. Mike, thank you so much for being with us on this Monday morning episode. Mike: Thank you very much.‍

In this episode of Building Texas Business, I chat with Mike Snavely, CEO of Phunware. Mike details Phunware's evolution from a mobile development agency into a thriving SaaS company delivering high-ROI apps to hotels and healthcare providers. Hear how shifting culture from rigid control to empowering autonomous teams with accountability revived success. Key strategic maneuvers included trimming the workforce judiciously and securing capital patiently. Timely decisions breathe new life into businesses' surfaces repeatedly. We delve into crafting a trusting, candid culture. Difficult conversations are promptly addressed and failures learned foster innovation and resilience. I share that I founded such an environment at a former startup. Mike's unique hobby of creatively mapping dream destinations blends work wisdom with life's pleasures, crafting an episode uplifting attendees' strategies and spirits. SHOW HIGHLIGHTS Mike Snavely explains the evolution of Phunware from a mobile solution development agency to a SaaS company that specializes in customized mobile apps for hotels and healthcare institutions. We discuss the strategic decisions and cultural shifts necessary during the transition to new leadership at Phunware, including capital injection and reshaping the balance sheet for growth. Mike highlights the move from a command-and-control culture to one that champions autonomy and accountability, emphasizing the importance of empowering team leaders. We explore the significance of building a leadership team grounded in trust, accountability, autonomy, and candor, and how these principles contribute to a positive organizational culture. Mike shares his personal career journey, detailing his long-standing experience in mobile technology and his eventual rise to the CEO position at Phunware. We examine how Phunware fosters a culture of appreciation and collaboration through a Slack channel called Momentum, which recognizes and celebrates employee contributions. Mike talks about balancing professional obligations with personal passions, including the importance of prioritizing family and maintaining a positive trajectory in both areas. We discuss the importance of in-person engagement for building and maintaining key relationships with stakeholders, despite the trend toward virtual interactions. Mike reflects on past experiences and learnings, including the value of having prompt and honest conversations to avoid delays in decision-making and mitigate potential failures. We delve into Mike's hobby of pinning dream travel destinations on Google Maps and how this practice turns travel planning into an immersive and memorable adventure. LINKSShow Notes Previous Episodes About BoyarMiller About Phunware GUESTS Mike SnavelyAbout Mike TRANSCRIPT (AI transcript provided as supporting material and may contain errors) Chris: In today's episode, you will meet Mike Snavely, ceo of Funware. In building and maintaining key relationships with your stakeholders, mike shares his opinions on why there is no substitute for being in person to engage on a human level. Mike, I want to welcome you to Building Texas Business and thank you for taking time to come on the show with me. Glad to be here. Thanks for the invitation. So, as the CEO of Funware, let's start by just orienting the listeners to what is Funware and tell us what the company's known for. Mike: Sure so. Funware is a 15-year-old publicly traded company based in Austin, Texas. We build mobile experiences that help hotels and healthcare institutions engage their guests and patients while they're on premises in ways that drive satisfaction and monetization. Chris: Very interesting. So you said the company started I guess in the early 2000s. Mike: Then it would have been in 2009. The company started. It was private for the first 11 or so years of its existence and then we went public via SPAC transaction in 2000. I believe it was 20. Chris: Okay, and it sounds like a fairly niched focus for the company. How did it come to be that the company, I guess, was so focused on kind of those two industries and providing that type of, I guess, service to those customers? Mike: Well, originally it wasn't. So over 15 years, you might imagine, there's been an evolution in the focus of the company, and so the company in 2009 was really more of a mobile solution development agency. So some of the biggest brands you know in the world really selected Funware back in the timeframe to build some of their first mobile apps in the app store. So companies like Fox, the NFL, the Sochi Olympics, wwe, a number of airports and so on were spending a lot of money to build their first mobile application and then to develop their first mobile audience. For lots of reasons and that was two years after the iPhone was introduced. It was actually before the iPad was introduced and so obviously there's a lot of evolution of consumer expectations when it comes to engaging on mobile, and those brands were spending a lot of money in the early comes to engaging on mobile, and those brands were spending a lot of money in the early days to build their first mobile presences. That's evolved over time, and so agencies are really not, they really don't drive the valuation that a SaaS company does, and so we've, over time, evolved into becoming a SaaS company. So we license our technologies. We'll essentially build an app, configuring it for the customer, launch it into the app store and then generate license fees off that app for as long as it exists and is available for download. That's a much better valuation model because typically when our customers get involved with us they stick around. Our retention rate is very high because we drive a positive ROI. So we've kind of followed the evolution of mobile from really high investment work for hire, boutique agency-like development all the way through today where we charge between 50 and $150,000 a year for a given property, whether it's a hotel or a hospital, to have their own mobile app in the app store, to have their own brand in front of their users or guests and then ultimately to develop that one-on-one relationship with that guest or patient in a way that drives repeat business and satisfaction and additional monetization. Chris: That's fascinating. Now you mentioned retention rate. What do you which obviously is very important for success of a company, especially like yours what do you attribute that successful retention rate to? Mike: Well, we do good work and I can make available to you a list and you could even put it in the podcast if you'd like of the apps that we build, or some of the apps that we build. They're beautiful apps. So, number one, we do really high-quality work that all of our customers are proud to have their name on. And then, number two, we drive ROI, plain and simple. For a dollar they put into our solutions, they get between $5 and $50 back, depending on who they are and the specifics of their business. And you know, if I could give you a machine that would, you put a dollar bill in, you get a five or a 50 back out. You would say how many dollar bills can I put in there? Chris: Yeah, no, no, kidding, right Well. I mean, but fundamentally, you mentioned at least you know two fundamental things that is key to customer retention. That's one provide good service. If you're in the service industry, it starts with providing good service and I think an outcome of that is your customer sees a valuable return on the investment for your service. Those are not unique to software but for any kind of service type business right, exactly, that's right. Let's talk a little bit about your. So you're the CEO. The company was founded by others than yourself. How did you come, I guess, to work at Funware and I know just a little bit that you've had this is like your second stint there but give us a little background on your connection to the company and how it was you became the CEO. Mike: Yeah, sure enough. So I've really made a career of pursuing technology trends. So I'm kind of an old guy so I've been in business for a long time. But I started off in offline marketing technologies, sending out snail mail and running telephone centers. Then I evolved into social marketing with a startup in Austin, texas. I then got into mobile and I've been in mobile really kind of on and off ever since. Mobile's a big deal because you've got a device that knows who you are and knows where you are, you tell it all your secrets. It really is an indispensable. It's become an indispensable tool. And so I've really made kind of a career over the last shoot 15 years at this point in mobile. And so I was originally with my first stint in mobile was with a little mobile application development boutique in Austin called Mutual Mobile. That was 2008, 9, 10, 11 timeframe Did something else and then I was recruited to come to Funware by somebody who had worked for me at Mutual Mobile and I said look, we're building out this platform company. We're very interested in having somebody who can really help to drive revenues. Would you be interested in joining? So that in 14, I joined Funware for the first time and I came to run the software business. So I was responsible for all revenues for the software business of Funware from 14 through 16 or so, got to know the company, got to really understand the technologies Actually, a number of the people who were there then are still with the company. Then I went off, worked at a Silicon Valley startup and did a couple of other things, couple of other things. And then, when the founding CEO left in 23, they hired a guy that I had worked with at Mutual Mobile back in the day as the new CEO and he said look, mike, I know that you're great at building businesses on the revenue side. Would you like to come and be my CRO, as I'm CEO of Funware? And he said I'll make it worth your while. So I said no a couple of times and then eventually I said yes. Well, this was September of last year that I rejoined the company and 30 days in the board said look, you know, what we really need is somebody with sales DNA at CEO. Let's try that again. Easy for me to say CEO role. So, mike, would you like to step in as CEO? So I actually I had a buddy who brought me back to be a CRO and then wound up taking this job. We're still friends, we still talk all the time and he was very supportive of that move. But a long story short, I think that the company for a time kind of lost its way in the simple fact of selling, servicing accounts and driving revenues, and that's something I've had the good fortune to develop pretty good skill at, and so now I'm the CEO and I'm going to tell you I think the E in CEO stands for extra. Everything about it is extra, but it really is the best job I've ever had and I'm really enjoying it. I still spend a lot of time working with customers, selling, identifying strategic partnerships and that kind of thing, because I enjoy it, I feel like I'm good at it and it's absolutely critical to positioning the company for growth and valuation, which is exactly my job. Chris: There you go, so let's talk a little bit about that. What are some of the things that you do to build and maintain relationships with those partners, customers, strategic relationships that you think someone listening might learn? Mike: from. Well, it's funny, there's been a real trend away from in-person, and so you and I are meeting today on Zoom. Our business, funware, is essentially 100% virtual at this point, and what I find is there's no substitute for hopping on a plane and going to see somebody, breaking bread with them, getting to know them as a person, understanding what it is they're trying to accomplish, what their hopes and dreams are, what their fears are. Once you get to that point and really just kind of understanding them as a person, and then exposing yourself as a person and say, look, you know, this is what I'm trying to accomplish, mr and Ms, partner or prospect, and really kind of, you know, engaging on a human level, which you know is a whole lot easier for sitting across the desk from somebody, and that's that to me, is is where I spend a lot of my time. I do invest a lot of time in in person, you know, spending time with customers, prospects, partners and the rest of it, and I really just don't think there's much of a substitute for that. Chris: Couldn't agree more. I think that's how, really, until the pandemic, it's how business got done in person. I don't think anything's changed here. I think, especially these days, I think it says so much more that you take the time to do that when you could otherwise, yeah, do a Teams or Zoom call or whatever, and just the human interaction I mean. As humans, I think we're meant to be together, right and interact, and I think that just fosters the relationship. So great advice there. Keeping on that kind of theme you've come back in not in an easy economic time, so let's talk a little bit about managing through kind of some economic uncertain, rising interest rates and all the stuff that's out there in the news. Let's talk about kind of what are some of the things you've done to stay focused and keep your people focused on driving the business forward? Mike: Sure enough. Well, there are some benefits and some drawbacks to being a public and trading company. Of course One is access to the capital markets. That's a benefit, and we certainly have the ability to draw capital out of the markets in ways that don't require us to be as susceptible to excuse me, the interest rate environment, but that doesn't mean that our customers aren't susceptible to that environment. And so we've had to do some things. Selling into hospitality and healthcare, I mean, we're typically selling into pretty big organizations and they have a little bit of a buffer, I suppose, from the ebbs and flows of the economy, particularly when you look at luxury hospitality. I mean, COVID aside, luxury hospitality has really been on a growth tear because of the generation of a lot of wealth on the part of a lot of people and they're wanting to spend it on high-quality experiences. But that doesn't mean that we don't have to be creative from time to time when it comes to pricing a deal or generating terms that are acceptable to the customer. They can digest, they can maybe capitalize the expense as opposed to turning into an OPEX expense and that kind of thing, and certainly we've had to be creative there. When I first took on the CEO role. The company was having a little bit of financial trouble and you could read in our public filings all about it. But, long story short, we were having problems with access to capital and I had to work with my CFO and others you know capital partners to really inject some capital into the company from the market in ways that allowed us, you know, the ability to move forward without paying a lot of interest, frankly. So we were able to kind of reshape the balance sheet in a way that puts us in a great spot for growth today Smaller companies I can only imagine what it must be like if you're dealing with debt financing, distinct from capital financing, and what some of the challenges there must be. We had to make some hard decisions in connection with the recapitalization of the company that had to do with people, in large part because that's our number one expense and those are hard things to do, and I spent many a sleepless night, you know, because I had to do some of those things. But the fact of the matter is that most companies don't cut fast enough and they don't cut deep enough because of those reasons, and it feels terrible, but preserving the company and giving ourselves the ability to go forward and thrive is really kind of the job for the shareholders. Chris: Yeah, and yeah, I agree. I think, regardless of the size of the company, making those people decisions are extremely difficult because, again, we went back to in person and it's human and these people have been with you typically and but it's what they say, right, it is when you have to make the hard cuts, you have to cut muscle and those can be challenging decisions. On the flip side of that, sure, as you come into the CEO role, you are either have or still in the process of building your team. What are some of the things that you do? Processes maybe you've created to help you identify the right people to surround yourself with to further the mission and strategies of the company. Mike: Well, there are two non-delegable duties that the CEO has, in my belief. Number one it's setting the strategy of the company. So we're going to be a SaaS company serving these markets, we're going to drive toward these margins, we're going to deliver in this way, and these are the things that are important for the strategy of the business. Number two is the culture of the business, and so I can't hire somebody to give me a culture. I've got to work with the company to create the culture that we want, and so I'll give you a little bit of a story there. So I have a lot of respect for the fellows who founded the company, a lot of respect for them, because they built something that I now have the good fortune to run and take to the next level. But there was a lot of. They were literally army guys, and there was a lot of army DNA in the company. Now that there's nothing wrong with that, there's nothing at all wrong with that, and the company was successful for a number of years, but and the culture that was built was one of command and control, because that's what the army is Right. Chris: Well, it's not. I'll just interrupt it. That's also not atypical of kind of startup mentality. Right, it's dominant kind of leadership. Got to get it done, got to get this off the ground. Mike: Yep, dominant leadership plus the military background equaled very much a command and control structure, a bit of a cult of personality around the founding CEO, and all of that, you know, paid great dividends. For a long time, I could not be any more different from the founding CEO. I'm not an army guy, you know. And so one of the first things I did when I took on the job is I said look, you know, you know if you're the vice president of sales or you're the vice president of, you know of product or delivery or deployments or whatever it is. You're the CEO of your own business and I'm not going to tell you what to do. I'm going to give you an objective and I'm going to give you the flexibility and the support to go and achieve that objective. You need people. You get people. You need investment. You get investment. But your accountability is to go and run your portion of the business as if you were the CEO. I'm not going to micromanage the decisions at all. I'm going to empower you to do the right thing number one for the customer, because then that ultimately becomes the right thing for the company over many observations and so that was a transition that some people are still working through. Frankly, in leadership roles within the company. It's sometimes people get comfortable being told what to do and we just we don't do that anymore. And you know a couple of people have left as a result of that. They did not have that comfort and that's okay because it's not the right job for them anymore. But most people have really embraced the opportunity of agency and empowerment and the ability to kind of run their own part of the business. ADVERT Hello friends, this is Chris Hanslick, your Building Texas business host. Did you know that Boyer Miller, the producer of this podcast, is a business law firm that works with entrepreneurs, corporations and business leaders? Our team of attorneys serve as strategic partners to businesses by providing legal guidance to organizations of all sizes. Get to know the firm at boyermillercom. And thanks for listening to the show. Chris: Yeah, I mean, there's a lot to unpack there, but clearly what you're talking about in my terms are giving people autonomy, but with accountability, which I think is the right way to go. However, organizations evolve over time, just like people. So I think we talk about command and control in the early days. That, for most companies, may make sense, but where this company is now and size and scale, you couldn't do that because there's too much going on and you have to then hire the right people, and the people that work for the company in the first few years may not work, you know, 10 years, 15 years later, because different skill sets needed, right, so it sounds like you've got your hands around that pretty well. Mike: Well, you know, it's always a work in progress, and so one of the one of the accelerants to adopting a new cultural tone is bringing in people, you know right. So I brought in a couple of guys and they are both guys, I'm afraid, who I had worked with a number of times in the past, who I knew kind of got the way that we wanted to run the railroad and who are are the kind of guys who just roll up their sleeves every day and make the most of the day. And, you know, those guys are not only in leadership roles within the company but they're also, you know, setting a tone for the others they work with most closely day to day, and I absolutely think it's working. Chris: That's great. So kind of sum that conversation up for us how would you define the culture of Funware today? Mike: I'd say that we're kind of a restart up, but with all the good elements of a startup, and what I mean by that is that we had a revenue profile that grew, grew and then it kind of dropped off. For some reason I wasn't here, and we're in the process of growing back up and we're getting in the right people who are interested in not only doing great work and serving the customers really well and building a terrific product, but also ones who are embracing the autonomy and the accountability that we're providing to them, and I couldn't be any more pleased with the reception that I'm getting. Chris: Anything special that you've kind of put in place to kind of help foster that type of culture so that you can perpetuate it and see it grow. Mike: Well, we tend to recognize the behaviors that we're looking for, and here's what I mean by that. So you know, somebody will just do a thing right and they'll do it. They'll achieve an accomplishment, whatever that accomplishment may be, and we'll talk. We've got a Slack channel. Slack is a tool we use all day long, every day, and we have a Slack channel called Momentum, and the Momentum channel is really about recognizing the contributions that a person makes, and the deal is that if you put something in Momentum, you've got to recognize somebody else. So you say, hey, a great thing happened, you got to recognize somebody else. So you say, hey, a great thing happened. And I want to thank Bob over here for his contribution to the thing, because Bob, you know, contributed in a way that if he hadn't done that, you know we might not have gotten the outcome that we're looking for. You know that that's something that you see traffic in every single day, that's great. Chris: We obviously I can relate to that we do something similar here at the firm Every single day. That's great, I can relate to that. We do something similar here at the firm, not necessarily on a specific channel, but it's kind of become part of our culture to. We call them core value kudos and it's about recognizing other people not yourself, obviously in efforts that they made and tying them to our mission and values, so that the behaviors and the values marry up right. And then people. It makes it tangible that I want to thank or, you know, congratulate someone for doing X, Y and Z which demonstrated this value in action. Mike: That's terrific. Yeah, I've been in companies that have done that. I think that's something that I may need to reincorporate into my bag of tricks there, for sure that have done that. I think that's something that I may need to reincorporate into my bag of tricks there for sure. Chris: So you know along those lines your software company. I always am interested to know what are you doing to kind of promote or foster creativity and innovation within the company? Mike: Well, some of the things that you know it's interesting, I'm going to I'll give you maybe a little bit longer answer you might be looking for, but there is, and it's really important to kind of separate the day-to-day from the long-term vision. And what I mean by that is that I'm, let's say, a developer and today I have to fix a bug, and I just have to fix the bug because the bug exists and it's in the way of something happening and it's not my favorite part of the job, I'm quite confident of that. Not my favorite part of the job, I'm quite confident of that. Not my favorite part of the job to fix a bug. But there is some long range stuff that I'm really excited about. A big part of what we do is indoor wayfinding and hyperlocal marketing offers, and there are lots and lots of innovations that we're looking at right now, and so we identify people who are interested in innovation. We put together both formal processes for them to say, okay, you're on the R&D team and you're going to be doing this work, but we also give them informal opportunities. Hey, look, I want you to go to Denver to our customer with Gaylord Rockies and I want you to actually go into the physical space that we're trying to map, and I want you to help me figure out a better way to do it. And so that's two things. It's number one, solving a strategic problem for the business, but it's also kind of getting them out of their, since we're all virtual, it's getting them out of their own office, sending them to Denver, take an extra day, engage the customer, do great work, but also enjoy yourself a little bit. So we try to give people an opportunity to get out of the context within which they're working sitting in my home office squashing bugs and get out into the real world where our solutions are deployed in ways that are not only sort of fun but also problem solving. Chris: So you've been in some leadership roles throughout your career, obviously CEO now. How would you describe your leadership style and how do you think it's evolved over the last few years? Mike: Well, I try to work with people. I try to work as best I can. You can't always do that right, but you can absolutely make the investment of time to get to know them, and so I walk into this job. I've got a CFO that I just met very recently, and I had a chief legal officer that I met just recently, and I had a chief operating officer that I had known actually for some time and one of those guys wound up leaving that I had known actually for some time and you know, one of those guys wound up leaving. But you know the other two guys that I had just met. I made it a real point of going to where they were, sitting down with them breaking bread, understanding who they are, what they were trying to accomplish, why they were at the company in the first place and all the rest of it, because it was important for me to understand whether I could trust and whether it was appropriate to invest in these guys. Right and absolutely it was. By the way, I had a couple of gaps in my leadership team and what I did was find people that I'd worked with in the past and I said, look, are you willing to come and work for me again, and the answer in every case was absolutely so, and that's not because I'm the greatest guy in the world or because I gave him a zillion dollars or anything like that. It's because we have, over the years, established a working cadence that's founded on this idea of trust and accountability, autonomy of action and really candor of discussion. There's nothing that the leadership team and I don't discuss in detail and with candor. We're not afraid to tell our truths to each other. We've created what I think is a safe space for us to really talk about what's on our mind and what concerns or challenges we have, or if somebody is all wet, you know, and and that kind of. That kind of culture. The executive table, I think, filters down to the rest of the business in ways that help support the culture we're trying to build. Chris: Yeah, and I was gonna say it sounds like it's a culture of safety to have the hard conversations, but that those conversations are done in a respectful way. Mike: Yeah. Chris: I don't know if there's no better way to do it Right, and it's okay to fail. Mike: And I got to tell you, I used to race, I used to race cars a long time ago and you know, if you don't crash, you're not driving fast enough and so it's okay. It's okay to crash every once in a while because that means you're pushing the envelope, You're trying to get, you know, you're trying to get to the edge of the performance envelope and that's positive. Chris: Yeah, no, let's talk about that, cause I I there. There's always learning, and so I think there's. You know, when you have setbacks or failures, you can learn from them and it can make you better. Don't let it define you. So can you give us an example of more than not the car racing, because crashing is easy to understand as a failure, but in the business world, as a leader something that you felt a failure of yours, a bad decision, a setback that you absolutely grew from, and it's made you better today. Mike: Yeah, sure enough, I think that my greatest learnings are not being decisive enough and not acting quickly enough. And so you know, let's say, for example, I'll give you the example of last company I worked for before. Well, yes, I'll give you that example. So I was working at an AI video startup in Madison, Wisconsin. It was essentially a unit of a publicly traded company that I won't name, but your viewers can certainly look it up. And, long story short, that company is now bankrupt and I don't fault any of the. I don't fault the CEO of that company, which was not me, by the way, in that, but I fault myself. Yeah, exactly, it wasn't me. I didn't bankrupt the company. This was a guy I had worked with before were pretty small, and so what I said was I need this much to make this happen. I was given about half that much and I didn't adequately reset the expectations on how long it was going to take to get that thing done, slash. I should have had probably more pointed discussion about is this worth doing at all, and I didn't do that. And the long story short is that company is now bankrupt for lots of reasons, but the thing that I that my not being as aggressive as I felt like I should have been was a contributor to that. I think it was a small contributor, but you know all that to say that it didn't help. Chris: And so I kind of trace it. I would say the learning for you is kind of having the hard conversations faster right and that's the kind of culture that's terrifically important for me. Mike: So that informs the culture I'm building at Funware, which is like, if this ain't going to work, I just need you to tell me, and I might disagree and I might argue with you, but I will absolutely hear you. I might argue with you, but I will absolutely hear you. It's going to be super important for us to just trust each other enough to be able to have the discussion about you know, without fear. I guess is where I'm coming from. Chris: I understand that, so let's talk a little bit about you know these are important jobs that you've held over the last few years, and as is the current one. I don't like using the term work-life balance, but how do you? Manage work and personal life to try to keep them both going in a positive direction. Mike: Well, I spend a lot of time with my kids. I really, yeah, my daughter. So I'm here in Ohio, I'm spending time with my father and mother, but my daughter came along, my older daughter came along, she's out of school already. I'm going to go next week pick up my younger daughter in boarding school in Colorado, drive her down to Big Bend, where she has never been, and then, you know, spend time with her over the summer. So I mean, it's really about being deliberate about that and working from anywhere, candidly, in my opinion, helps. There's no expectation. I'm going to the office, I'm going to be there during the business day on Monday through Friday, and what I kind of joke is that I mean, I work a lot, no question about it, but I work around my life as opposed to work, as opposed to planning my life around my work, to planning my life around my work. So I might work, you know, 60 hours a week, but that's not going to be five times 12. That's going to be, you know, kind of eight-ish times seven. I'll work every day a little bit, but I'm certainly going to put my kids first and that's just the way it is. Chris: Well, I can identify with that. I think everyone has to find their own way and each job and role requires different things. In different stages of life require different things. So I think that's what people you know should stay focused on, individually as well as the companies to try to make sure you have good people. You don't want to lose them for those types of reasons. People you don't want to lose them for those types of reasons. Yeah, so, mike, this has been a great conversation. Before we wrap up, I just want to kind of get a little bit more less or a little less serious about things. Tell us what was your first job as a kid? Mike: It'd be funny, you should ask. So I'm back in rural Ohio where I grew up. Right now, at my parents' house, as I mentioned earlier, my first job was was am I allowed to say shit on your podcast? Of course, the texas my first, my first job was shoveling hog shit. Chris: Shoveling hog shit for minimum wage and I was nothing that wants to make you go to college and get a degree than that right. Mike: well, the funny thing is that I wound up raising hogs to pay for college. So it was fine to shovel the hog shit, but I was like, if I was fine to shovel the hog shit, but I was like, if I'm going to shovel the hog shit, I'm going to do it for more than $3.35 an hour. I'm going to do it in exchange for a college education. So that's not exactly that way, but that's a big part of how I kind of got off the farm and moving ahead. Chris: I love that, okay, well, yeah, obviously, as we now know, you're from Ohio, but you spent enough time in Texas for me to ask you this question Do you prefer Tex-Mex or barbecue? Mike: I love Tex-Mex. I would eat Tex-Mex every day of the week All right. And sometimes I do. I do love barbecue, but the thing is that the best barbecue is something I don't want to wait in line for and I don't want to drive a long ways. If I happen to be by La Barbecue or Franklin's a little bit over their great barbecue a little bit overhyped, or if I want a great barbecue, I'll just treat it as a destination thing. I'll go down to Lockhart or something like that, but I can get absolutely terrific Tex-Mex around the corner from my house every day of the week. Chris: Yes, it was one good thing. You know, I think we living in Texas both are abundant right. Mike: But you're right. Chris: The marquee barbecue, you know, is tucked away in some places. All right, so my last thing is if you could do a 30 day sabbatical, where would you go? What would you do? Mike: Well, I got a bunch of customers who have really beautiful beach resorts so I might go to one of those. Chris: You might go break bread with them there. Mike: Break bread with the customers at the most beautiful resorts in the world. That would be one thing I might do. There are a lot of places around the world that I'd love to see, so I've got a Google Maps layer that has little flags. There are probably 800 flags on that map and I add some every week. Places that I like to go around the world. Sometimes they're restaurants that I read about. Sometimes they're beautiful. You know natural features, like you know mountain ranges, the Painted Mountains in the Andes, or you know beautiful lake I've never been to Crater Lake, things like that so what I'd probably do is find 30 days worth of those pins in an area that I can consume within that 30-day period and I'd just go knock it out. Chris: I love that. I like the concept of keeping track of the pins. Yep. Mike: And there's too many on the map that you know I'll be dead and gone before I get to see all of them. But you know, it is kind of a it's a memory bank for things that have caught my interest and that I do want to experience at some point, if I can pull it off. Chris: Love it. Love it Well, mike, thanks so much for taking the time to be a guest on the show. Really enjoyed hearing your story, and the things y'all are doing at Funware sound really fun, exciting and innovative. Mike: Thanks a lot. Special Guest: Mike Snavely.

Hearst Newspaper's Vice President of Programmatic, Mike Irenski, joins The Current Podcast to explore the value of local journalism and what advertisers need to know about it.  Episode TranscriptPlease note, this transcript  may contain minor inconsistencies compared to the episode audio.[00:00:00]Damian: I'm Damian Fowler. AndIlyse: I'm Ilyse Liffreing.Damian: welcome to this edition of The Current Podcast.Ilyse: This week, we're delighted to talk with Michael Eirenski, the Vice President of Programmatic Revenue at Hearst Newspapers.Damian: Now Hearst has a legacy that goes all the way back to 1887 when William Randolph Hearst acquired the San Francisco Daily Examiner and founded the Hearst Corporation.Ilyse: Only 137 years later, the legacy of the brand continues as the publisher of 24 dailies and 52 weeklies, including papers such as the Houston Chronicle and the San Francisco Chronicle.Damian: Hearst Newspapers has a unique insight into journalism in the U. S. at a local and a national level, even as publishers are under pressure to find fresh ways to fund their newsrooms.Ilyse: We talk with Mike about the value of local journalism and what advertisers need to know about it.Mike: Yeah, so Hearst newspapers has grown a lot. it's funny. I, most people don't know this, is actually 137 year old brand. We've been around, during the same amount of time as some of our friends, down the block or a couple but I think what's really differentiated us is, That, over the [00:02:00] years, we have thousands of employees.We have, award winning content. And, really unique our strong local presence. When people think of. being stale, and I think it's a little bit different here at Hearst Newspapers, is that we've always constantly been evolving. And we take pride in our core product. But I think what is particularly unique is that we have been actively engaging in our local communities over the past dozens of years. And, have really listened to our audiences. So some of the things that, come to light for us is that we are continuing to lean into And we've been [00:03:00] recently as of this year, expanding into, puzzles and gaming. We have, a big comics presence and own, several, large IPs, from Popeye to Betty Boop. And we've also been rethinking about the types of, long form content that we So it's been an evolution over time, but I think what we've really just, continued to lean into is, local community aspect. And we've seen the returns as a result.Ilyse: I had no idea that Hearst is in the IP game so much as it is.Mike: Oh my gosh. I, it's very funny when I first started here, the other side of the floor has a Popeye paraphernalia throughout the office. And I just thought people are really into Popeye. I didn't know that it was anything that we, But it is, one of many, which is fascinating. There's a large video game called Cuphead, which has a Netflix show that is actually something that we also own the IP for. So it's fascinating and [00:04:00] a growing part of our business.Ilyse: Ah, so interesting. Now, with so many, local publications, how does that affect Hearst Newspapers, approach to something like audience segmentation?Mike: Oh, my gosh. It's very funny because each market is completely different. Albany readers that relevant, accurate information that is happening, regardless of where they are.But something we like to say internally is, the national stories are conversations that are being had with everyone, but the local stories are conversations with your friends or your neighbor or your family. And as a result, I think that gives us some level of differentiation. I also joke around that we cover high school sports as if it's the NBA [00:05:00] finals.And while we might not say focus on the Royals, this came up recently, where I was curious in our newsrooms, are we talking about the Royals? Are we providing any content? And the newsrooms have been if the local community isn't really asking for it, that it really isn't, we'll cover it, but it's not just something that we lean into.And I think what I'm very proud of is we stay close to the zeitgeist, but we never follow the zeitgeist. We are really leaning into what our local communities want. And with those boots on the ground doing it, we have just amazing, journalists and, video content creators who are talking to the people.comes out in Ilyse: It's very much community first,Reader driven. Which I'm sure helps when it comes to advertising as well.Mike: Not only our readers react to our content, but also how they react to the adjacent advertising associated to it. And, with [00:06:00] that is something that we're constantly up leveling at the national level and talking to the big brands and agencies on, but just seeing that performance at the local level is a microcosm of the things we could do, but it's very inspiring when you're able to drive business to a small entrepreneur or local business.Damian: Mike, I feel really inspired by, local newspapers. I grew up in Britain and I remember getting the Yorkshire Evening Press. It used to be an evening paper and just that's how I got interested in journalism, just looking at all that.People are interested in what's happening, in their backyard.And at the same time, of course, you get the national stories and international stories in there too. As well as the TV listings that I was interested in. Anyway, I digress. But, that value of local journalism has been, of late, it's been under threat. It's been challenged. And local papers, we've, reported on have basically been, closing newsrooms and the like, across the United States and indeed other countries.But, how do you [00:07:00] think about that, in, in a world where people want local journalism, and how advertisers need those local audiences to advertise too? What's the inherent sort of like challenge and how do you think about that?Mike: Yes, I think about it often. I also think about, coming here is, it's very hard. I don't need to talk myself up or what we do here. but it's a very hard conversation that's being had, our industry touched upon it perfectly. There's a lot of threat and what we've, I think one of the things that makes us unique is that we do, across all of our properties and just Hearst brands, we have the reach. The reach play is not the challenge for us, but it's the ongoing, challenge that we have with advertisers who are looking not to run on it's very funny because people see the value of news, but then you'll talk to an advertiser and I've had advertisers say this to my face that, Hey, we don't run a news.I'm [00:08:00] sorry. We would love to run, but we can't. And, something as a case in point is, the recent eclipse, that, passed over the United We saw from our Eclipse content, when you think of the eclipse, the first thing I did was I went to my, local sites to see where, what time does it start here in New York?Where can I be? Where can I watch it? You can't get that everywhere. And those are the experiences that we are constantly trying to bring to advertisers is that there's a perception with news that it is not brand safe, that you do not want the right, alignment with the news.breaking news content. But the large majority of our content is informative to come, spend with us, we're also trying to challenge them [00:09:00] to think a little bit differently.because I think if we can get past that, I think we're actually going to be funding. The open internet, but also, quality journalism the industry will get there.Damian: That's interesting. Do you think that advertisers minds are being changed a little bit, or is it that there are new tools to offer more nuance in terms of what they can advertise against?Mike: addressability for them and their campaigns, but how do we get smarter about our contextual, And I think what [00:10:00] we're trying to do in partnership with our advertisers is show them that, an article about, again, our high school sports team shooting that basket that won the game is very different from, a gun shooting or some type of gun violence.So those are the parts that we're hoping we can get advertisers to lean into and build with us. But until some of the technology is there, it's gonna be really a very manual, open dialogue that we're having with them. But I think it's changing. I think especially with the cookie deprecating, it, this is my personal feeling is that it's gonna really spring back to the content, to the quality, and to the objectiveness of that content, that's gonna bring advertisers back to us.Damian: There's one more question. You mentioned at the top, the importance of content variety, and you mentioned long form. Journalism and that's another form that's been disappearing un unless it's in national magazines, why is that important and why is a variety of [00:11:00] content an important factor for, a newspaper, publisher, when it comes to finding advertisers to embrace that content and be next to it.Mike: Yeah, it's a great question. What we've seen is the long form content, especially as it relates to the weekends, people really are looking to understand what's happening at the local level, but they're looking for just, I think more than just the two or three paragraphs, about, what's happening there.[00:12:00] They're Spectrum of what is happening at home.And I think that's what's really important for us, is to just show, you can cover the breaking news all day, you can maybe get the hits from, search, and maybe everyone's curious about that advertisers might not want to run against, but the majority of what people are coming to read us on is, what happened yesterday and what should I be doing this weekend?And I think those are things that we can answer for them.Damian: Yeah.Ilyse: Totally, and outside of specific content, [00:13:00] There's been, like, a number of major publications, including the New York Times, that have leaned into the subscription model, especially as, they realize, cookies will be going away, we need to make sure our revenue model is still intact, we need people reading the news, should this be free, it's, we are providing a service, there's a whole list of reasons why, a subscription model has been implemented, and part of that is enlarging, also your footprint through podcasts and other apps, but as we've all seen, not everybody has that kind of scale to do that. What role should advertising play then versus that subscription model?Mike: Yes. Great question. I am a proponent of advertising helps fund the open internet. I will always champion that. And I also say that we have a phenomenal, customer engagement and consumer marketing team that is driving [00:14:00] an amazing subscription business. But I, Looking at the evolution of subscriptions, I think, especially in a market, economic market, that there's a lot of choice now, and especially with things like streaming. I think there's a lot more penny pinching, that is happening. In a past life, I've, really analyzed are people willing to have multiple newspaper subscriptions or are they really just leaning into one and Just have that brand loyalty and something that we've been really taking a hard look at is one, who's subscribing to our Publications but where are they and I think something that we've been taking that look at is it in DMA?Is it out of DMA? So we're catering to that subscription audience. But at the same time, we know there are going to be people that aren't going to subscribe. Maybe they don't have the budget to subscribe and we still want to provide them that same level of quality content and news and informative news.So we've [00:15:00] been a little bit different in that we have two types of, publication formats. We have a free model and a paid model are paid is exactly what it sounds like. It has a lot more of that long form, behind a paywall, investigative journalism, some of that content.  but there's a different type of content that we're sharing that is allowing, people to still stay informed and still, Be engaged in their local community.And what we're hoping is that it will have this flywheel effect where when people see the type of content that we're putting out there,  And that's how we've been thinking about it, and we have a lot of investment on our free model.Ilyse: that note, you mentioned this before that you guys have implemented like more games, and you're not the only ones, looking to gain or find more ways to really gain more first party data, especially as like cookies deprecate. Are there any other [00:16:00] strategies that Hearst is using?I guess looking into to create and build that free content model.Mike: We have a robust first party data set. It's very important to us. I just want to plug that everything the extreme, quality of being privacy compliant and really lean in. We take, we really value the first party data that we have. But with that being To your point, we've been really thinking of different types of experiences that we can unlock for our users., as we mentioned, we have a new site called Puzzmo that if anyone ever wants to play Spell Tower, I highly recommend it. It's an extremely fun game. But what's really great about the Puzzmo site is there's an interactive community aspect to it where you can play games. With your friends, you can time yourself.There's a bit more of a [00:17:00] social activation to it. That we've been really having a lot of fun with and we're seeing the returns back on the well.  And we have, other partnerships that are currently in the works as well that are gonna help, bring different forms of content, like that to, better just help people, understand what they're doing with their time, , with probably a little bit of free time that they have. We just want to help them relax a little bit more.Damian: like that, yeah. I know what you mean, though, about still feeling cooped up. Somehow that pandemic mentality didn't fully go away. I don't know. Mike: It's very true. It's very true. And it's, that's been the fun part. really trying to figure out, I, again, I got, I recently got into hiking because of our content. But just knowing that I can find something to do this weekend, and share it with, friends and family. And Google and there's just a choice. We [00:18:00] help narrow it down for you.Damian: Yeah. Speaking of Google, here's a little segue. We've already mentioned cookie deprecation several times in this conversation.I just wanted to zero in on how you think about that identity conundrum that publishers are facing right now. What are the sort of solves for it that you're thinking about?Mike: Yes. So we've been very leaned into, the identity, I'll call it ecosystem and identity resolution. We are. pretty lucky with that first party data that we do have. Being 137 year old brand and loyal readers we've been collecting this for quite some time. I think we've also been ready for the cookie to deprecate for quite some time.It's been a challenge when things keep getting pushed back, but what we'veIlyse: ready. Sorry. Sorry.Mike: but what really leaning into isMaking sure that, we understand how do we still provide [00:19:00] relevant advertising in a cookie less world. And as a result, we've been leaning into the deterministic side of the house.We have, millions of email email addresses and that we, that people have consented to give us. We're being very smart about it. We are creating opportunities. It's very funny. I think back on newsletters when I first got into this industry, and it was just static creatives that you see when you news.And, but we've been really thinking outside the box of how do we, Utilize these premium more. How do we lean into a newsletter strategy that isn't just, Hey, this is what happened, then I would go into, I would share that we're working really hard on the contextual end as well. because you guys are so local, I think you would be a great source to talk about DMAs. Where would you [00:20:00] say is your largest markets and how do you then incentivize readers?Yes I think about DMAs all the time. I will say that we, while we have, we provide that national reach, I would say our largest DMAs are typically Houston San Francisco and and, Albany, New York. Many, I would say all of Connecticut, just the entire state of Connecticut.We, we have a slam dunk in coverage. But I think what's really interesting, I'll use San Francisco Chronicle as a great example of. And I didn't know this until I really started here, which is people who are reading the San Francisco Chronicle, they're obviously reading it in San Francisco, but a lot of people travel to LA or work in Palo Alto or are traveling all throughout California and are actively reading the Chronicle.And then I have a bunch of friends who've told me this, who are Ex San Franciscans who now live in New York, [00:21:00] who are San Francisco Chronicle subscribers. And what we've been really trying to track is understanding people who have brain loyalty, who want to know what's happening in their community but maybe aren't there anymore.So we've market coverage. And in New York but we want to be there letting them know everything that's happening.So it's been a very fun project of mine, [00:22:00] which is just slicing and dicing the different parts of America to see where are our second, third, large, fourth largest DMAs as it relates to our core key markets. And how do we come up with a different strategy? I think going back to even the whole free, paid, what are we doing with cookies?Of it all is we've actively are looking into the DMA aspect as well to see, maybe paying for a subscription for the San Francisco Chronicle is tough when you're in New York and you're living a busy life. In which case, maybe we do something a little bit different for them. Maybe we provide them different incentives to come back to us.So that's been a something I've been working on actively on the back end, which has been a lot of fun.you see a big surge during an election year?Coincidentally this year has been, normally we do, this year's been a little different. I don't know if it's here in America, at least at a national level, People either have, [00:23:00] already. into the back half of the Damian: That makes sense. Given the fact that there wasn't so much hoopla around primary season, there was no real need for a primary this year, right? On either side.Mike: Exactly. It's, and it's very interesting too, because I think it's thrown some of the political agencies and trading desk for a loop a little bit. there are certain people that we can rely on and we actively are talking to, and even they're like, Hey, I got the money, [00:24:00] but We're doing it laterand uh, you when it comes to budgeting, we budgeted that it would be a little bit more of a stronger year, but I, I think we're hoping that over time, people are gonna pick it back up.Ilyse: Yeah not to resort back to the doom and gloom, but, and bring up a certain Company again. But, so Google recently threatened to remove links and pause investments for California publishers in response to the pending California Journalism Preservation Act, also known as CJPA, due to them having to basically pay a fee to link Californians to news articles. Is this concerning to Hearst at having, of course, properties in California, and if so, why?Mike: I'll say local news is always under pressure. Just over, even ongoing State law as it relates to privacy. I think these are just things that are going to [00:25:00] continue to happen and you know we have to remain steadfast in our position of what we do and forming people and communities as business as usual, but it's something that we are very close to and we are continue to work with a lot of our people Largest partners and the walled gardens to ensure that,But it's something that we just, we, again, it's an, it's another day and another challenge. And I firmly believe we're going to get through it.Ilyse: So Mike, how would you say news blockers are basically an impediment to advertisers? Mike: it does. And I would say it's really from these fourth parties. I think it's the way we're getting tagged, even at a keyword level, lot of our advertisers. Are running if they're not running against an allowless block list on the domain level, which we've had to unblock, we've had people spend with us and want to do a buy with us, and then we later find [00:26:00] out that they, we were on a block list for news.But I think the difficult part as it relates to is someone will not want to run against any type of Donald Trump content or Trump. And. That will get tagged as not brand safe as relates to their advertising buy. But in actuality, the content itself is not brand safe. It's just, I think the, like we, if we said, Hey Trump is the new Republican candidate who needs to is for the candidate that.Content is deemed not brand safe and we remove that we don't think advertiser would run on, but the challenge has been how an [00:27:00] article about Trump being the new candidate versus advertisers, both of those are equal, and we just need to figure out a better way to inform them of those types of things. I always, I again, I'll use shot block list, and we will talk about basketball shots and people shooting three pointers to win games.And that content will be tagged unbrand safe when it's probably the most brand safe community based content that you're going to get. So those are the challenges that we're actively engaging with people on. It's just informing them more about the contextual relevancy and [00:28:00] less on individual keywords and isolation.Ilyse: Awesome.Now, outside of your localized newspapers, how does Hearst newspapers overall market yourselves? Is there a national story you're trying to tell?Mike: Yes, there definitely is. so across newspapers I also will plug, I run a team called Hearst Mosaic we and sell across both newspapers and TV. We have about 86 million uniques monthly. We have a really large audience. We can give you national reach, we can give you local reach, but at the end of the day we can give you performance and we have an engaged audience who wants to hear from you.Ilyse: need to. Damian:and that's it for this edition of The Current Podcast. We'll be back [00:01:00] next week, so stay tuned.Ilyse: The current podcast's theme is by Love and Caliber. The current team includes Kat Vesey and Sydney Cairns.Damian: And remember, I'm Damian.Ilyse: I'm Ilyse,Damian: And we'll see you next time. Please subscribe and leave us a review. Also, tune in to our other podcast, The Current Report, a weekly roundup of what's happening in the world of digital media.

Rounding Up Season 2 | Episode 16 – Strengthening Tasks Through Student Talk Guests: Dr. Amber Candela and Dr. Melissa Boston Mike Wallus: One of the goals I had in mind when we first began recording Rounding Up was to bring to life the best practices that we aspire to in math education and to offer entry points so that educators would feel comfortable trying them out in their classrooms. Today, we're talking with Drs. Amber Candela and Melissa Boston about powerful but practical strategies for supporting student talk in the elementary math classroom.  Welcome to the podcast, Amber and Melissa. We're really excited to be talking with you today. Amber Candela: Thank you for having us.  Melissa Boston: Yes, thank you. Mike: So we've done previous episodes on the importance of offering kids rich tasks, but one of the things that you two would likely argue is that rich tasks are necessary, but they're not necessarily sufficient, and that talk is actually what makes the learning experience really blossom. Is that a fair representation of where you all are at? Melissa: Yes. I think that sums it up very well. In our work, which we've built on great ideas from Smith and Stein, about tasks, and the importance of cognitively challenging tasks and work on the importance of talk in the classroom. Historically, it was often referred to as “talk moves.” We've taken up the term “discourse actions” to think about how do the actions a teacher takes around asking questions and positioning students in the classroom—and particularly these talk moves or discourse actions that we've named “linking” and “press”—how those support student learning while students are engaging with a challenging task. Mike: So I wonder if we could take each of the practices separately and talk through them and then talk a little bit about how they work in tandem. And Melissa, I'm wondering if you could start unpacking this whole practice of linking. How would you describe linking and the purpose it plays for someone who, the term is new for them? Melissa: I think as mathematics teachers, when we hear linking, we immediately think about the mathematics and linking representations or linking strategies. But we're using it very specifically here as a discourse action to refer to how a teacher links student talk in the classroom and the explicit moves a teacher makes to link students' ideas.  Sometimes a linking move is signaled by the teacher using a student's name, so referring to a strategy or an idea that a student might've offered. Sometimes linking might happen if a teacher revoices a student's idea and puts it back out there for the class to consider. The idea is in the way that we're using linking, that it's links within the learning community, so links between people in the classroom and the ideas offered by those people, of course. But the important thing here that we're looking for is how the links between people are established in the verbal, the explicit talk moves or discourse actions that the teacher's making. Mike: What might that sound like? Melissa: So that might sound like, “Oh, I noticed that Amber used a table. Amber, tell us how you used a table.” And then after Amber would explain her table, I might say, “Mike, can you tell me what this line of Amber's table means?” or “How is her table different from the table you created?” Mike: You're making me think about those two aspects, Melissa, this idea that there's mathematical value for the class, but there's also this connectivity that happens when you're doing linking. And I wonder how you think about the value that that has in a classroom.  Melissa: We definitely have talked about that in our work as well. I'm thinking about how a teacher can elevate a student's status in mathematics by using their name or using their idea, just marking or identifying something that the student said is mathematically important that's worthy of the class considering further. Creating these opportunities for student-to-student talk by asking students to compare their strategies or if they have something to add on to what another student said. Sometimes just asking them to repeat what another student said so that there's a different accountability for listening to your peers. If you can count on the teacher to revoice everything, you could tune out what your peers are saying, but if you might be asked to restate what one of your classmates had just said, now there's a bit more of an investment in really listening and understanding and making sense. Mike: Yeah, I really appreciate this idea that there's a way in which that conversation can elevate a student's ideas, but also to raise a student's status by naming their idea and positioning it as important. Melissa: I have a good example from a high school classroom where a student [...] was able to solve the contextual problem about systems of equations, so two equations, and it was important for the story when the two equations or the two lines intersected. And so one student was able to do that very symbolically. They created a graph, they solved the system of equations where another student said, “Oh, I see what you did. You found the difference in the cost per minute, and you also found the difference in the starting point, and then one had to catch up to the other.”  And so the way that the teacher kind of positioned those two strategies, one had used a sensemaking approach based really in the context. The other had used their knowledge of algebra. And by positioning them together, it was actually the student who had used the algebra had higher academic status, but the student who had reasoned through it had made this breakthrough that was really the aha moment for the class. Mike: That is super cool.  Amber, can we shift to press and ask you to talk a little bit about what press looks like? Amber: Absolutely. So how Melissa was talking about linking is holding students accountable to the community; press is more around holding students accountable to the mathematics.  And so the questions the teacher is going to ask is going to be more related specifically to the mathematics. So, “Can you explain your reasoning?” “How did you get that answer?” “What does this x mean?” “What does that intersection point mean?” And so the questions are more targeted at keeping the math conversation in the public space longer. Mike: I thought it was really helpful to just hear the example that Melissa shared. I'm wondering if there's an example that comes to mind that might shed some light on this. Amber: So when I'm in elementary classrooms and teachers are asking their kids about different problems, and kids will be like, “I got 2.” OK, “How did you get 2?” “What operation did you use?” “Why did you use addition when you could have used something else?”  So it's really pressing at the, “Yes, you got the answer, but how did you get the answer?” “How does it make sense to you?”, so that you're making the kids rather than the teacher justify the mathematics that's involved. And they're the ones validating their answers and saying, “Yes, this is why I did this because…” Mike: I think there was a point when I was listening to the two of you speak about this where, and forgive me if I paraphrase this a little bit, but you had an example where a teacher was interacting with a student and the student said something to the effect of, “I get it” or “I understand.” And the teacher came back and she said, “And what do you understand?” And it was really interesting because it threw the justification back to the student. Amber: Right. Really what the linking and press does, it keeps the math actionable longer to all of the peers in the room. So it's having this discussion out loud publicly. So if you didn't get the problem fully all the way, you can hear your peers through the press moves, talk about the mathematics, and then you can use the linking moves to think through, “Well, maybe if Mike didn't understand, if he revoices Melissa's comment, he has the opportunity to practice this mathematics speaking it.” And then you might be able to take that and be like, “Oh, wait, I think I know how to finish solving the problem now.” Mike: I think the part that I want to pull back and linger on a little bit is [that] part of the purpose of press is to keep the conversation about the mathematics in the space longer for kids to be able to have access to those ideas. I want y'all to unpack that just a little bit. Amber: Having linking and press at the end is holding the conversation longer in the classroom. And so the teacher is using the press moves to get at the mathematics so the kids can access it more. And then by linking, you're bringing in the community to that space and inviting them to add: “What do you agree [with]?” “Do you disagree?” “Can you revoice what someone said?” “Do you have any questions about what's happening?” Melissa: So when we talk about discourse actions, the initial discourse action would be the questions that the teacher asks. So there's a good task to start with. Students have worked on this task and produced some solution strategies. Now we're ready to discuss them. The teacher asks some questions so that students start to present or share their work and then it's after students' response [that] linking and press come in as these follow-up moves to do what Amber said: to have the mathematics stay in the public space longer, to pull more kids into the public space longer.  So we're hoping that by spending more time on the mathematics, and having more kids access the mathematics, that we're bringing more kids along for the ride with whatever mathematics it is that we're learning. Mike: You're putting language to something that I don't know that I had before, which is this idea that the longer we can keep the conversation about the ideas publicly bouncing around—there are some kids who may need to hear an idea or a strategy or a concept articulated in multiple different ways to piece together their understanding. Amber: And like Melissa was saying earlier, the thing that's great about linking is oftentimes in a classroom space, teachers ask a question, kids answer, the teacher moves on. The engagement does drop. But by keeping the conversation going longer, the linking piece of it, you might get called on to revoice, so you need to be actively paying attention to your peers because it's on the kids now. The math authority has been shared, so the kids are the ones also making sense of what's happening. But it's on me to listen to my peers because if I disagree, there's an expectation that I'll say that. Or if I agree or I might want to add on to what someone else is saying.  So oftentimes I feel like this pattern of teacher-student-teacher-student-teacher-student happens, and then what can start to happen is teacher-student-student-student-teacher. And so it kind of creates this space where it's not just back and forth, it kind of popcorns more around with the kids. Mike: You are starting to touch on something that I did want to talk about, though, because I think when I came into this conversation, what was in my head is, like, how this supports kids in terms of their mathematical thinking. And I think where you two have started to go is: What happens to kids who are in a classroom where link and press are a common practice? And what happens to classrooms where you see this being enacted on a consistent basis? What does it mean for kids? What changes about their mathematical learning experience? Melissa: You know, we observe a lot of classrooms, and it's really interesting when you see even primary grade students give an answer and immediately say, you know, “I think it's 5 because …,” and they provide their justification just as naturally as they provide their answer or they're listening to their peers and they're very eager to say, “I agree with you; I disagree with you, and here's why” or “I did something similar” or “Here's how my diagram is slightly different.”  So to hear children and students taking that up is really great. And it just—a big shift in the amount of time that you hear the teacher talking versus the amount of time you hear children talking and what you're able to take away as the teacher or the educator formatively about what they know and understand based on what you're hearing them say. And so [in] classrooms where this has become the norm, you see fewer instances where the teacher has to use linking and press because students are picking this up naturally. Mike: As we were sitting here and I was listening to y'all talk, Amber, the thing that I wanted to come back to is [that] I started reflecting on my own practice and how often, even if I was orchestrating or trying to sequence, it was teacher-student-teacher-student-teacher-student. It bounced back to me, and I'm really kind of intrigued by this idea, teacher-student-student-student-teacher—that the discourse, it's moving from a back and forth between one teacher, one student, rinse and repeat, and more students actually taking up the discourse. Am I getting that right? Amber: Yes. And I think really the thought is we always want to talk about the mathematics, but we also have to have something for the community. And that's why the linking is there because we also need to hold kids accountable to the community that they're in as much as we need to hold them accountable to the mathematics. Mike: So, Amber, I want to think about what does it look like to take this practice up? If you were going to give an educator a little nudge or maybe even just a starting point where teachers could take up linking and press, what might that look like? If you imagined kind of that first nudge or that first starting point that starts to build this practice? Amber: We have some checklists with sentence stems in [them], and I think it's taking those sentence stems and thinking about when I ask questions like, “How did you get that?” and “How do you know this about that answer?”, that's when you're asking about the mathematics. And then when you start to ask, “Do you agree with what so-and-so said? Can you revoice what they said in your own words?”, that's holding kids accountable to the community and just really thinking about the purpose of asking this question. Do I want to know about the math or do I want to build the conversation between the students? And then once you realize what you want that to be, you have the stem for the question that you want to ask. Mike: Same question, Melissa. Melissa: I think if you have the teacher who is using good tasks and asking those good initial questions that encourage thinking, reasoning, explanations, even starting by having them try out, once a student gives you a response, asking, “How do you know?” or “How did you get that?” and listening to what the student has to say. And then as the next follow-up, thinking about that linking move coming after that. So even a very formulaic approach where a student gives a response, you use a press move, hear what the student has to say, and then maybe put it back out to the class with a linking move. You know, “Would someone like to repeat what Amber just said?” or “Can someone restate that in their own words?” or whatever the linking move might be. Mike: So if these two practices are new to someone who's listening, are there any particular resources or recommendations that you'd share with someone who wants to keep learning? Amber: We absolutely have resources. We wrote an article for the NCTM's MTLT [Mathematics Teacher: Learning and Teaching PK-12] called “Discourse Actions to Promote Student Access .” And there are some vignettes in there that you can read through and then there [are] checklists with sentence stems for each of the linking and press moves. Melissa: Also, along with that article, we've used a lot of the resources from NCTM's Principles to Actions [Professional Learning] Toolkit.   that's online, and some of the resources are free and accessible to everyone. Amber: And if you wanted to dig in a bit more, we do have a book called Making Sense of Mathematics to Inform Instructional Quality. And that goes in-depth with all of our rubrics and has other scenarios and videos around the linking and press moves along with other parts of the rubrics that we were talking about earlier. Mike: That's awesome. We will link all of that in our show notes.  Thank you both so much for joining us. It was a real pleasure talking with you. Amber: Thanks for having us.  Melissa: Thank you. Mike: This podcast is brought to you by The Math Learning Center and the Maier Math Foundation, dedicated to inspiring and enabling all individuals to discover and develop their mathematical confidence and ability. © 2024 The Math Learning Center | www.mathlearningcenter.org References and Resources: NCTM: https://pubs.nctm.org/view/journals/mtlt/113/4/article-p266.xml#:~:text=Discourse%20actions%20provide%20access%20to,up%20on%20contributions%20from%20students ERIC: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1275372 https://www.nctm.org/PtAToolkit/ https://www.nctm.org/uploadedFiles/Conferences_and_Professional_Development/Annual_Meetings/LosAngeles2022/Campaigns/12-21_PtA_Toolkit.pdf?utm_source=nctm&utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=LA2022&utm_content=PtA+Toolkit

Rounding Up Season 2 | Episode 15 – Making Sense of Story Problems Guest: Drs. Aina Appova and Julia Hagge Mike Wallus: Story problems are an important tool that educators use to bring mathematics to life for their students. That said, navigating the meaning and language found in story problems is a challenge for many students. Today we're talking with Drs. Aina Appova and Julia Hagge from [The] Ohio State University about strategies to help students engage with and make sense of story problems.  Mike: A note to our listeners. This podcast was recorded outside of our normal recording studio, so you may notice some sound quality differences from our regular podcast. Mike:   Welcome to the podcast, Aina and Julia. We're excited to be talking to both of you.  Aina Appova: Thank you so much for having us. We are very excited as well.  Julia Hagge: Yes, thank you. We're looking forward to talking with you today.   Mike: So, this is a conversation that I've been looking forward to for quite a while, partly because the nature of your collaboration is a little bit unique in ways that I think we'll get into. But I think it's fair to describe your work as multidisciplinary, given your fields of study.  Aina: Yes, I would say so. It's kind of a wonderful opportunity to work with a colleague who is in literacy research and helping teachers teach mathematics through reading story problems.  Mike: Well, I wonder if you can start by telling us the story of how you all came to work together. And describe the work you're doing around helping students make sense of word problems.  Aina: I think the work started with me working with fifth-grade teachers, for two years now, and the conversations have been around story problems. There's a lot of issues from teaching story problems that teachers are noticing. And so, this was a very interesting experience. One of the professional development sessions that we had, teachers were saying, “Can we talk about story problems? It's very difficult.” And so, we just looked at a story problem. And the story problem, it was actually a coordinate plane story problem. It included a balance beam, and you're supposed to read the story problem and locate where this balance beam would be. And I had no idea what the balance beam would be. So, when I read the story, I thought, “Oh, it must be from the remodeling that I did in my kitchen, and I had to put in a beam, which was structural.”  Aina: So, I'm assuming it's balancing the load. And even that didn't help me. I kept rereading the problem and thinking, “I'm not sure this is on the ceiling, but the teachers told me it's gymnastics.” And so even telling me that it was gymnastics didn't really help me because I couldn't think, in the moment, while I was already in a different context of having the beam, a load-bearing beam. It was very interesting that—and I know I'm an ELL, so English is not my first language—in thinking about a context that you're familiar with by reading a word or this term, “balance beam.” And even if people tell you, “Oh, it's related to gymnastics”—and I've never done gymnastics; I never had gymnastics in my class or in my school where I was. It didn't help. And that's where we started talking about underlying keywords that didn't really help either because it was a coordinate plane problem. So, I had to reach out to Julia and say, “I think there's something going on here that is related to reading comprehension. Can you help me?” And that's how this all started. ( chuckles ) Julia: Well, so Aina came to me regarding her experience. In fact, she sent me the math problem. She says, “Look at this.” And we talked about that. And then she shared frustration of the educators that she had been working with that despite teaching strategies that are promoted as part of instructional practice, like identifying mathematical keywords and then also reading strategies have been emphasized, like summarizing or asking questions while you're reading story problems. So, her teachers had been using strategies, mathematical and also reading, and their students were still struggling to make sense of and solve mathematical problems. Aina's experience with this word problem really opened up this thought about the words that are in mathematical story problems. And we came to realize that when we think about making sense of story problems, there are a lot of words that require schema. And schema is the background knowledge that we bring to the text that we interact with.  Julia: For example, I taught for years in Florida. And we would have students that had never experienced snow. So, as an educator, I would need to do read alouds and provide that schema for my students so that they had some understanding of snow. So, when we think about math story problems, all words matter—not just the mathematical terms, but also the words that require schema. And then when we think about English learners, the implications are especially profound because we know that, that vocabulary is one of the biggest challenges for English learners. So, when we consider schema-mediated vocabulary and story problems, this really becomes problematic. And so, Aina and I analyzed the story problems in the curriculum that Aina's teachers were using, and we had an amazing discovery.  Aina: Just the range of contexts that we came across from construction materials or nuts and bolts and MP3 players—that children don't really have anymore, a lot of them have a phone—to making smoothies and blenders, which some households may not have. In addition to that, we started looking at the words that are in the story problems. And like Julia said, there are actually mathematics teachers who are being trained on these strategies that come from literacy research. One of them was rereading the problem. And it didn't matter how many times I reread the problem or somebody reread it to me about the balance beam. I had no kind of understanding of what's going on in the problem. The second one is summarizing. And again, just because you summarized something that I don't understand or read it louder to me, it doesn't help, right? And I think the fundamental difference that we solve problems or the story problems … In the literacy, the purpose of reading a story is very different. In mathematics, the purpose of reading a story is to solve it, making sense of problems for the purpose of solving them. The three different categories of vocabulary we found from reading story problems and analyzing them is there's “technical,” there's “sub-technical” and there's “non-technical.” I was very good at recognizing technical words because that's the strategy that for mathematics teachers, we underline the parallelogram, we underline the integer, we underline the eight or the square root, even some of the keywords we teach, right? Total means some or more means addition.  Mike: So technical, they're the language that we would kind of normally associate with the mathematics  that are being addressed in the problem. Let's talk about sub-technical because I remember from our pre-podcast conversation, this is where some light bulbs really started to go off, and you all started to really think about the impact of sub-technical language.  Julia: Sub-technical includes words that have multiple meanings that intersect mathematically and other contexts. So, for example, “yard.” Yard can be a unit of measurement. However, I have a patio in my backyard. So, it's those words that have that duality. And then when we put that in the context of making sense of a story problem, it's understanding what is the context for that word and which meaning applies to that? Other examples of sub-technical would be table or volume. And so, it's important when making sense of a story problem to understand which meaning is being applied here. And then we have non-technical, which is words that are used in everyday language that are necessary for making sense of or solving problems. So, for example, “more.” More is more. So, more has that mathematical implication. However, it would be considered non-technical because it doesn't have dual meanings.  Julia: So, by categorizing vocabulary into these three different types, [that] helped us to be able to analyze the word problems. So, we worked together to categorize. And then Aina was really helpful in understanding which words were integral to solving those math problems. And what we discovered is that often words that made the difference in the mathematical process were falling within the sub-technical and non-technical. And that was really eye-opening for us. Mike: So, Aina, this is fascinating to me. And what I'm thinking about right now is the story that you told at the very beginning of this podcast, where you described your own experience with the word problem that contained the language “balance.” And I'm wondering if you applied the analysis that you all just described with technical and sub-technical and the non-technical, when you view your own experience with that story problem through that lens, what jumps out? What was happening for you that aligns or doesn't align with your analysis?  Aina: I think one of the things that was eye-opening to me is, we have been doing it wrong. That's how I felt. And the teachers felt the same way. They're saying, “Well, we always underline the math words because we assume those are the words that are confusing to them. And then we underline the words that would help them solve the problem.” So, it was a very good conversation with teachers to really, completely think about story problems differently. It's all about the context; it's all about the schema. And my teachers realize that I, as an adult who engages in mathematics regularly, have this issue with schema. I don't understand the context of the problem, so therefore I cannot move forward in solving it. And we started looking at math problems very differently from the language perspective, from the schema perspective, from the context perspective, rather than from underlining the technical and mathematical words first. That was very eye-opening to me.   Mike: How do you think their process or their perspective on the problems changed either when they were preparing to teach them or in the process of working with children?  Aina: I know the teachers reread a problem out loud and then typically ask for a volunteer to read the problem. And it was very interesting; some of the conversations were how different the reading is. When the teacher reads the problem, there is where you put the emotion, where the certain specific things in the problem are. Prosody?  Julia: Yes, prosody is reading with appropriate expression, intonation, phrasing.  Aina: So, when the teacher reads the problem, the prosody is present in that reading. When the child is reading the problems, it's very interesting how it sounds. It just sounds the word and the next word and the next word and the next word, right? So that was kind of a discussion, too. The next strategy the math teachers are being taught is summarizing. I guess discussing the problem and then summarizing the problem. So, we kind of went through that. And once they helped me to understand in gymnastics what it is, looking up the picture, what it looks like, how long it is, and where it typically is located and there's a mat next to it, that was very helpful. And then I could then summarize, or they could summarize, the problem. But even [the] summarizing piece is now me interpreting it and telling you how I understand the context and the mathematics in the problem by doing the summary. So, even that process is very different. And the teacher said that's very different. We never really experience that.  Mike: Julia, do you want to jump in?  Julia: And another area where math and reading intersect is the use of visualization. So, visualization is a reading strategy, and I've noticed that visualization has become a really strong strategy to teach for mathematics, as well. We encourage students to draw pictures as part of that solving process. However, if we go back to the gymnastics example, visualizing and drawing is not going to be helpful for that problem because you are needing a schema to be able to understand how a balance beam would situate within that context and whether that's relevant to solving that word problem. So, even though we are encouraging educators to use these strategies, when we think about schema-mediated vocabulary, we need to take that a step further to consider how schema comes into play and who has access to the schema needed, and who needs that additional support to be able to negotiate that schema-mediated vocabulary.  Mike: I was thinking the same thing, how we often take for granted that everyone has the same schema. The picture I see in my head when we talk about balance is the same as the picture you see in your head around balance. And that's the part where, when I think about some of those sub-technical words, we really have to kind of take a step back and say, “Is there the opportunity here for someone to be profoundly confused because their schema is different than mine?” And I keep thinking about that lived experience that you had where, in my head I can see a balance beam, but in your head you're seeing the structural beam that sits on the top of your ceiling or runs across the top of your ceiling.  Aina: Oh yeah. And at first, I thought the word “beam” typically, in my mind for some reason, is vertical.  Mike: Yeah. Aina: It's not horizontal. And then when I looked at the word balance, I thought, “Well, it could balance vertically.” And immediately what I think about is, you have a porch, then you see a lot of porches that balance the roof, and so they have the two beams …  Mike: Yes! Aina: … or sometimes more than that. So, at no point did I think about gymnastics. But that's because of my lack of experience in gymnastics, and my school didn't have the program. As a math person, you start thinking about it and you think, “If it's vertically, this doesn't make any sense because we're on a coordinate plane.” So, I started thinking about [it] mathematically and then I thought, “Oh, maybe they did renovations to the gymnasium, and they needed a balance beam.” So, I guess that's the beam that carries the load.  Aina: So, that's how I flipped, in my mind, the image of the beam to be horizontal. Then the teachers, when they told me it's gymnastics, that really threw me off, and it didn't help. And I totally agree with Julia. You know when we do mathematics with children, we tell them, “Can you draw me a picture?” Mike: Uh-hm. Aina: And what we mean is, “Can you draw me a mathematical picture to support your problem-solving or the strategies you used?” But the piece that was missing for me is an actual picture of what the balance beam is in gymnastics and how it's located, how long it is. So yeah, yeah, that was eye-opening to me.  Mike: It's almost like you put on a different pair of glasses that allow you to see the language of story problems differently, and how that was starting to play out with teachers. I wonder, could you talk about some of the things that they started to do when they were actually with kids in the moment that you looked at and you were like, “Gosh, this is actually accounting for some of the understanding we have about schema and the different types of words.”  Aina: So, the teacher would read a problem, which I think is a good strategy. But then it was very open-ended. “How do you understand what I just read to you? What's going on in the story problem? Turn to your partner, can you envision? Can you think of it? Do you have a picture in your mind?” So, we don't jump into mathematics anymore. We kind of talk about the context, the schema. “Can you position yourself in it? Do you understand what's going on? Can you retell the story to your partner the way you understand it?” And then, we talk about, “So how can we solve this problem? What do you think is happening?” based on their understanding. That really helped, I think, a lot of teachers also to see that sometimes interpretations lead to different solutions, and children pay attention to certain words that may take them to a different mathematical solution. It became really about how language affects our thinking, our schema, our image in the head, and then based on all of that, where do we go mathematically in terms of solving the problem?  Mike: So, there are two pieces that really stuck out for me in what you said. I want to come back to both of them. The first one was, you were describing that set of choices that teachers made about being really open-ended about asking kids, “How do you understand this? Talk to your neighbor about your understanding about this.” And it strikes me that the point you made earlier when you said context has really become an important part of some of the mathematics tasks and the problems we create. This is a strategy that has value not solely for multilingual learners, but really for all learners because context and schema matter a lot.  Aina: Yes. Mike: Yeah. And I think the other thing that really hits me, Aina, is when you said, “We don't immediately go to the mathematics, we actually try to help kids situate and make sense of the problem.” There's something about that that seems really obvious. When I think back to my own practice as a teacher, I often wonder how I was trying to quickly get kids into the mathematics without giving kids enough time to really make meaning of the situation or the context that we were going to delve into. Aina: Exactly. Mike, to go back to your question, what teachers can do, because it was such an eye-opening experience that, it's really about the language; don't jump into mathematics. The mathematics and the problem actually is situated around the schema, around the context. And so, children have to understand that first before they get into math. I have a couple of examples if you don't mind, just to kind of help the teachers who are listening to this podcast to have an idea of what we're talking about. One of the things that Julie and I were thinking about is, when you start with a story problem, you have three different categories of vocabulary. You have technical, sub-technical, non-technical. If you have a story problem, how do you parse it apart? OK, in the math story problems we teach to children, it's typically a number and operations.  Aina: Let's say we have a story problem like this: “Mrs. Tatum needs to share 3 grams of glitter equally among 8 art students. How many grams of glitter will each student get?” So, if the teacher is looking at this, technical would definitely be grams: 3, 8, and that is it. Sub-technical, we said “equally,” because equally has that kind of meaning here. It's very precise, it has to be exact amount. But a lot of children sometimes say, “Well that's equally interesting.” That means it's similarly or kind of, or like, but not exact. So, sub-technical might qualify as “equally.” Everything else in the story problem is non-technical: sharing and glitter, art students, each student, how much they would get. I want the teachers to go through and ask a few questions here that we have. So, for example, the teacher can think about starting with sub-technical and non-technical, right?  Aina: Do students understand the meaning of each of these words? Which of these could be confusing to them? And get them to think about the story, the context and the problem. And then see if they understand what the grams are, and 8 and 3. And what's happening. And what do those words mean in this context? Once you have done all this work with children, children are now in this context. They have situated themselves in this. “Oh, there's glitter, there's an art class, there's a teacher, they're going to do a project.” And so, they've discussed this context. Stay with it as a teacher and give them another problem that is the same context. Use as many words from the first problem as you can and change it up a little bit in terms of mathematical implication or mathematical solution. For example, I can change the same problem to be, “Mrs. Tatum needs to buy 3 grams of glitter for each of her 8 art students. How many grams of glitter does she need to buy?” So, the first problem was [a] division problem now becomes a multiplication problem. The context is the same. Children understand the context, especially children like myself, who are ELL, who took the time to process to learn new words, to understand new context, and now they're in this context. Let's use it. Let's now use it for the second piece. So, Mike, you've been talking about two things going on. There's a context, and then there's problem-solving or mathematical problem-solving. So, I believe posing the same question or kind of the same story problem with different mathematical implications gets at the second piece. So, first we make sense of the problem of the context schema. The second is, we make sense of that problem for the purpose of solving it.  Aina: And the purpose of solving it is where these two problems that sound so familiar and situate in the same context but have different mathematical implications for problem-solving. This is where the powerful piece, I think, is missing. If I give them a division problem, they can create a multiplication problem with the same Mrs. Tatum, the art students, the glitter. But what I'd like for them to do and what we've been discussing is how are these two problems similar?  Mike: Uh-hm. Aina: This kind of gets at children identifying some of the technical. So, the 3 is still there, the 8 is still there, you know, grams are still there. But then, “How are these two story problems different?” This is really schema-mediated vocabulary in the context where they now have to get into sub-technical and non-technical. “Oh, well there there's 3, but it's 3 per student. And this, there were 8 students, and they have to all share the 3 grams of glitter.”  Aina: So, children now get into this context and difference in context and how this is impacting the problem-solving strategies. I'd love for the teachers to then build on that and say, “How would you solve the first problem? What specifically is in the story problem [to] help you solve it, help you decide how to solve it, what strategies, what operations?” And do exactly the same thing for the second problem as well. “Would you solve it the same way? Are the two problems the same? Will they have the same solutions or different? How would you know? What tells you in the story? What helps you decide?” So, that really helps children to now become problem-solvers. The fun is the mathematical variations. So, for example, we can give them a third problem and say, “I have a challenge for you.” For example, “Mrs. Tatum needs to buy 3 grams of glitter for each of her 8 art students for a project, but she only has money today to buy 8 grams of glitter. How much more glitter does she need to still buy for her students to be able to complete their art project?” Again, it's art, it's glitter, it's 8 students, there's 3, the 8. I didn't change the numbers, I didn't change the context, but I did change the mathematical implication for their story problem. I think this is where Julia and I got very excited with how we can use schema-mediated vocabulary and schema in context to help children understand the story, but then really have mathematical discussions about solutions.  Mike: What's interesting about what you're saying is the practices that you all are advocating and describing in the podcast, to me, they strike me as good practice helping kids make meaning and understand and not jumping into the mathematics and recognizing how important that is. That feels like good practice, and it feels particularly important in light of what you're saying.  Julia: I agree. It's good practice. However, what we found when we reviewed literature, because one of the first steps that we took was what does the literature say? We found that focusing instructional practice on teaching children to look for key mathematical terms tends to lead to frequent errors. Mike: Yep. Julia: The mathematical vocabulary tends to be privileged when teaching children how to make sense of and solve word problems. We want to draw attention to the sub-technical and non-technical vocabulary, which we found to be influential in making sense of. And as in the examples Aina shared, it was the non-technical words that were the key players, if you will, in solving that problem.  Mike: I'm really glad you brought up that particular point about the challenges that come out of attempting to help kids mark certain keywords and their meanings. Because certainly, as a person who's worked in kindergarten, first grade, second grade, I have absolutely seen that happen. There was a point where I was doing that, and I thought I was doing something that was supporting kids, and I was consistently surprised that it was often like, that doesn't seem to be helping.  Julia: I also used that practice when I was teaching second grade. The first step was circle the keywords. And I would get frustrated because students would still be confused in the research that we found. When you focus on the keywords, which tend to be mathematical terms, then those other words that are integral to making sense of and solving the story problem get left behind. Mike: The question I wanted to ask both of you before we close is, are there practices that you would say like, “Here's a way that you can take this up in your classroom tomorrow and start to take steps that are supportive of children making sense of word problems”?  Julia: I think the first step is adding in that additional lens. So, when previewing story problems, consider what schema or background knowledge is required to understand this word, these words, and then what students would find additional schema helpful. So, thinking about your specific students, what students would benefit from additional schema and how can I support that schema construction?  Mike: Aina, how about for you?  Aina: Yeah, I have to say I agree with Julia. Schema seemed to be everything. If children don't understand the context and don't make sense of the problem, it's very hard to actually think about solving it. To build on that first step, I don't want teachers to stop there. I want teachers to then go one step further. Present a similar problem or problem that includes [the] same language, same words, as many as you can, maybe even same numbers, definitely same schema and context, but has a different mathematical implication for solving it. So maybe now it's a multiplication problem or addition problem. And really have children talk about how different or similar the problems are. What are the similarities, what are the differences, how their solutions are the same or different? Why that is. So really unpack that mathematical problem-solving piece. Now, after you have made sense of the context and the schema … as an ELL student myself, the more I talked as a child and was able to speak to others and explain my thinking and describe how I understand certain things and be able to ask questions, that was really, really helpful in learning English and then being successful with solving mathematical problems. I think it really opens up so many avenues and to just go beyond helping teachers teach mathematics.  Mike: I know you all have created a resource to help educators make sense of this. Can you talk about it, Julia?   Julia: Absolutely. Aina and I have created a PDF to explain and provide some background knowledge regarding the three types of vocabulary. And Aina has created some story problem examples that help to demonstrate the ways in which sub-technical and non-technical words can influence the mathematical process that's needed. So, this resource will be available for educators wanting to learn more about schema-mediated vocabulary in mathematical story problems.   Mike: That's fantastic. And for listeners, we're going to add this directly to our show notes. I think that's a great place for us to stop. Aina and Julia, I want to thank both of you so much for joining us. It has absolutely been a pleasure talking to both of you.  Aina: Thank you.  Julia: Thank you. Mike: This podcast is brought to you by The Math Learning Center and the Maier Math Foundation, dedicated to inspiring and enabling all individuals to discover and develop their mathematical confidence and ability. © 2024 The Math Learning Center | www.mathlearningcenter.org

Rounding Up Season 2 | Episode 13 – Rough Draft Math Guest: Dr. Amanda Jansen Mike Wallus: What would happen if teachers consistently invited students to think of their ideas in math class as a rough draft? What impact might this have on students' participation, their learning experience, and their math identity? Those are the questions we'll explore today with Dr. Mandy Jansen, the author of “Rough Draft Math,” on this episode of Rounding Up.  Mike: Well, welcome to the podcast, Mandy. We are excited to be talking with you.  Mandy Jansen: Thanks, Mike. I'm happy to be here.  Mike: So, I'd like to start by asking you where the ideas involved in “Rough Draft Math” originated. What drove you and your collaborators to explore these ideas in the first place?  Mandy: So, I work in the state of Delaware. And there's an organization called the Delaware Math Coalition, and I was working in a teacher study group where we were all puzzling together—secondary math teachers—thinking about how we could create more productive classroom discussions. And so, by productive, one of the ways we thought about that was creating classrooms where students felt safe to take intellectual risks, to share their thinking when they weren't sure, just to elicit more student participation in the discussions. One way we went about that was, we were reading chapters from a book called “Exploring Talk in School” that was dedicated to the work of Doug Barnes. And one of the ideas in that book was, we could think about fostering classroom talk in a way that was more exploratory. Exploratory talk, where you learn through interaction. Students often experience classroom discussions as an opportunity to perform. "I want to show you what I know.” And that can kind of feel more like a final draft. And the teachers thought, “Well, we want students to share their thinking in ways that they're more open to continue to grow their thinking.” So, in contrast to final draft talk, maybe we want to call this rough draft talk because the idea of exploratory talk felt like, maybe kind of vague, maybe hard for students to understand. And so, the term “rough draft talk” emerged from the teachers trying to think of a way to frame this for students.  Mike: You're making me think about the different ways that people perceive a rough draft. So, for example, I can imagine that someone might think about a rough draft as something that needs to be corrected. But based on what you just said, I don't think that's how you and your collaborators thought about it, nor do I think that probably is the way that you framed it for kids. So how did you invite kids to think about a rough draft as you were introducing this idea?  Mandy: Yeah, so we thought that the term “rough draft” would be useful for students if they have ever thought about rough drafts in maybe language arts. And so, we thought, “Oh, let's introduce this to kids by asking, ‘Well, what do you know about rough drafts already? Let's think about what a rough draft is.'” And then we could ask them, “Why do you think this might be useful for math?” So, students will brainstorm, “Oh yeah, rough draft, that's like my first version” or “That's something I get the chance to correct and fix.” But also, sometimes kids would say, “Oh, rough drafts … like the bad version. It's the one that needs to be fixed.” And we wanted students to think about rough drafts more like, just your initial thinking, your first ideas; thinking that we think of as in progress that can be adjusted and improved. And we want to share that idea with students because sometimes people have the perception that math is, like, you're either right or you're wrong, as opposed to something that there's gradients of different levels of understanding associated with mathematical thinking. And we want math to be more than correct answers, but about what makes sense to you and why this makes sense. So, we wanted to shift that thinking from rough drafts being the bad version that you have to fix to be more like it's OK just to share your in-progress ideas, your initial thinking. And then you're going to have a chance to keep improving those ideas.  Mike: I'm really curious, when you shared that with kids, how did they react? Maybe at first, and then over time? Mandy: So, one thing that teachers have shared that's helpful is that during a class discussion where you might put out an idea for students to think about, and it's kind of silent, you get crickets. If teachers would say, “Well, remember it's OK to just share your rough drafts.” It's kind of like letting the pressure out. And they don't feel like, “Oh wait, I can't share unless I totally know I'm correct. Oh, I can just share my rough drafts?” And then the ideas sort of start popping out onto the floor like popcorn, and it really kind of opens up and frees people up. “I can just share whatever's on my mind.” So that's one thing that starts happening right away, and it's kind of magical that you could just say a few words and students would be like, “Oh, right, it's fine. I can just share whatever I'm thinking about.”  Mike: So, when we were preparing for this interview, you said something that has really stuck with me and that I've found myself thinking about ever since. And I'm going to paraphrase a little bit, but I think what you had said at that point in time was that a rough draft is something that you revise. And that leads into a second set of practices that we could take up for the benefit of our students. Can you talk a little bit about the ideas for revising rough drafts in a math classroom?  Mandy: Yes. I think when we think about rough drafts in math, it's important to interact with people thinking by first, assuming those initial ideas are going to have some merit, some strength. There's going to be value in those initial ideas. And then once those ideas are elicited, we have that initial thinking out on the floor. And so, then we want to think about, “How can we not only honor the strengths in those ideas, but we want to keep refining and improving?” So inviting revision or structuring revision opportunities is one way that we then can respond to students' thinking when they share their drafts. So, we want to workshop those drafts. We want to work to revise them. Maybe it's peer-to-peer workshops. Maybe it's whole-class situation where you may get out maybe an anonymous solution. Or a solution that you strategically selected. And then work to workshop that idea first on their strengths, what's making sense, what's working about this draft, and then how can we extend it? How can we correct it, sure. But grow it, improve it. Mandy: And promoting this idea that everyone's thinking can be revised. It's not just about your work needs to be corrected, and your work is fine. But if we're always trying to grow in our mathematical thinking, you could even drop the idea of correct and incorrect. But everyone can keep revising. You can develop a new strategy. You can think about connections between representations or connections between strategies. You can develop a new visual representation to represent what makes sense to you. And so, just really promoting this idea that our thinking can always keep growing. That's sort of how we feel when we teach something, right? Maybe we have a task that we've taught multiple times in a row, and every year that we teach it we may be surprised by a new strategy. We know how to solve the problem—but we don't have to necessarily just think about revising our work but revising our thinking about the ideas underlying that problem. So really promoting that sense of wonder, that sense of curiosity, and this idea that we can keep growing our thinking all the time.  Mike: Yeah, there's a few things that popped out when you were talking that I want to explore just a little bit. I think when we were initially planning this conversation, what intrigued me was the idea that this is a way to help loosen up that fear that kids sometimes feel when it does feel like there's a right or a wrong answer, and this is a performance. And so, I think I was attracted to the idea of a rough draft as a vehicle to build student participation. I wonder if you could talk a little bit about the impact on their mathematical thinking, not only the way that you've seen participation grow, but also the impact on the depth of kids' mathematical thinking as well.  Mandy: Yes, and also I think there's impact on students' identities and sense of self, too. So, if we first start with the mathematical thinking. If we're trying to work on revising—and one of the lenses we bring to revising, some people talk about lenses of revising as accuracy and precision. I think, “Sure.” But I also think about connectedness and building a larger network or web of how ideas relate to one another. So, I think it can change our view of what it means to know and do math, but also extending that thinking over time and seeing relationships. Like relationships between all the different aspects of rational number, right? Fractions, decimals, percents, and how these are all part of one larger set of ideas. So, I think that you can look at revision in a number of different grain sizes.  Mandy: You can revise your thinking about a specific problem. You can revise your thinking about a specific concept. You can revise your thinking across a network of concepts. So, there's lots of different dimensions that you could go down with revising. But then this idea that we can see all these relationships with math … then students start to wonder about what other relationships exist that they hadn't thought of and seen before. And I think it can also change the idea of, “What does it mean to be smart in math?” Because I think math is often treated as this right or wrong idea, and the smart people are the ones that get the right idea correct, quickly. But we could reframe smartness to be somebody who is willing to take risk and put their initial thinking out there. Or someone who's really good at seeing connections between people's thinking. Or someone who persists in continuing to try to revise. And just knowing math and being smart in math is so much more than this speed idea, and it can give lots of different ways to show people's competencies and to honor different strengths that students have.  Mike: Yeah, there are a few words that you said that keep resonating for me. One is this idea of connections. And the other word that I think popped into my head was “insights.” The idea that what's powerful is that these relationships, connections, patterns, that those are things that can be become clearer or that one could build insights around. And then, I'm really interested in this idea of shifting kids' understanding of what mathematics is away from answer-getting and speed into, “Do I really understand this interconnected bundle of relationships about how numbers work or how patterns play out?” It's really interesting to think about all of the ramifications of a process like rough draft work and how that could have an impact on multiple levels.  Mandy: I also think that it changes what the classroom space is in the first place. So, if the classroom space is now always looking for new connections, people are going to be spending more time thinking about, “Well, what do these symbols even mean?” As opposed to pushing the symbols around to get the answer that the book is looking for.  Mike: Amen. Mandy: And I think it's more fun. There are all kinds of possible ways to understand things. And then I also think it can improve the social dimension of the classroom, too. So, if there's lots of possible connections to notice or lots of different ways to relationships, then I can try to learn about someone else's thinking. And then I learn more about them. And they might try to learn about my thinking and learn more about me. And then we feel, like, this greater connection to one another by trying to see the world through their eyes. And so, if the classroom environment is a space where we're trying to constantly see through other people's eyes, but also let them try to see through our eyes, we're this community of people that is just constantly in awe of one another. Like, “Oh, I never thought to see things that way.” And so, people feel more appreciated and valued.  Mike: So, I'm wondering if we could spend a little bit of time trying to bring these ideas to life for folks who are listening. You already started to unpack what it might look like to initially introduce this idea, and you've led me to see the ways that a teacher might introduce or remind kids about the fact that we're thinking about this in terms of a rough draft. But I'm wondering if you can talk a little bit about, how have you seen educators bring these ideas to life? How have you seen them introduce rough draft thinking or sustain rough draft thinking? Are there any examples that you think might highlight some of the practices teachers could take up?  Mandy: Yeah, definitely. So, I think along the lines of, “How do we create that culture where drafting and revising is welcome in addition to asking students about rough drafts and why they might make sense of math?” Another approach that people have found valuable is talking with students about … instead of rules in the classroom, more like their rights. What are your rights as a learner in this space? And drawing from the work of an elementary teacher in Tucson, Arizona, Olga Torres, thinking about students having rights in the classroom, it's a democratic space. You have these rights to be confused, the right to say what makes sense to you, and represent your thinking in ways that make sense to you right now. If you honor these rights and name these rights, it really just changes students' roles in that space. And drafting and revising is just a part of that.  Mandy: So different culture-building experiences. And so, with the rights of a learner brainstorming new rights that students want to have, reflecting on how they saw those rights in action today, and setting goals for yourself about what rights you want to claim in that space. So then, in addition to culture building and sustaining that culture, it has to do—right, like Math Learning Center thinks about this all the time—like, rich tasks that students would work on. Where students have the opportunity to express their reasoning and maybe multiple strategies because that richness gives us so much to think about.  And drafts would a part of that. But also, there's something to revise if you're working on your reasoning or multiple strategies or multiple representations. So, the tasks that you work on make a difference in that space. And then of course, in that space, often we're inviting peer collaboration.  Mandy: So, those are kinds of things that a lot of teachers are trying to do already with productive practices. But I think the piece with rough draft math then, is “How are you going to integrate revising into that space?” So eliciting students' reasoning and strategies—but honoring that as a draft. But then, maybe if you're having a classroom discussion anyway, with the five practices where you're selecting and sequencing student strategies to build up to larger connections, at the end of that conversation, you can add in this moment where, “OK, we've had this discussion. Now write down individually or turn and talk. How did your thinking get revised after this discussion? What's a new idea you didn't have before? Or what is a strategy you want to try to remember?” So, adding in that revision moment after the class discussion you may have already wanted to have, helps students get more out of the discussion, helps them remember and honor how their thinking grew and changed, and giving them that opportunity to reflect on those conversations that maybe you're trying to already have anyway, gives you a little more value added to that discussion.  Mandy: It doesn't take that much time, but making sure you take a moment to journal about it or talk to a peer about it, to kind of integrate that more into your thought process. And we see revising happening with routines that teachers often use, like, math language routines such as stronger and clearer each time where you have the opportunity to share your draft with someone and try to understand their draft, and then make that draft stronger or clearer. Or people have talked about routines, like, there's this one called “My Favorite No,” where you get out of student strategy and talk about what's working and then why maybe a mistake is a productive thing to think about, try to make sense out of. But teachers have changed that to be “My Favorite Rough Draft.” So, then you're workshopping reasoning or a strategy, something like that. And so, I think sometimes teachers are doing things already that are in the spirit of this drafting, revising idea. But having the lens of rough drafts and revising can add a degree of intentionality to what you already value. And then making that explicit to students helps them engage in the process and hopefully get more out of it.  Mike: It strikes me that that piece that you were talking about where you're already likely doing things like sequencing student work to help tell a story, to help expose a connection. The power of that add-on where you ask the question, “How has your thinking shifted? How have you revised your thinking?” And doing the turn and talk or the reflection. It's kind of like a marking event, right? You're marking that one, it's normal, that your ideas are likely going to be refined or revised. And two, it sets a point in time for kids to say, “Oh yes, they have changed.” And you're helping them capture that moment and notice the changes that have already occurred even if they happened in their head.  Mandy: I think it can help you internalize those changes. I think it can also, like you said, kind of normalize and honor the fact that the thinking is continually growing and changing. I think we can also celebrate, “Oh my gosh, I hadn't thought about that before, and I want to kind of celebrate that moment.” And I think in terms of the social dimension of the classroom, you can honor and get excited about, “If I hadn't had the opportunity to hear from my friend in the room, I wouldn't have learned this.” And so, it helps us see how much we need one another, and they need us. We wouldn't understand as much as we're understanding if we weren't all together in this space on this day and this time working on this task. And so, I love experiences that help us both develop our mathematical understandings and also bond us to one another interpersonally.  Mike: So, one of the joys for me of doing this podcast is getting to talk about big ideas that I think can really impact students' learning experiences. One of the limitations is, we usually spend about 20 minutes or so talking about it, and we could talk about this for a long time, Mandy. I'm wondering, if I'm a person who's listening, and I'm really interested in continuing to learn about rough draft math, is there a particular resource or a set of resources that you might recommend for someone who wants to keep learning? Mandy: Thank you for asking. So, like you said, we can think about this for a long time, and I've been thinking about it for seven or eight years already, and I still keep growing in my thinking. I have a book called “Rough Draft Math: Revising to Learn” that came out in March 2020, which is not the best time for a book to come out, but that's when it came out. And it's been really enjoyable to connect with people about the ideas. And what I'm trying to do in that book is show that rough draft math is a set of ideas that people have applied in a lot of different ways. And I think of myself kind of as a curator, curating all the brilliant ideas that teachers have had if they think about rough drafts and revising a math class. And the book collects a set of those ideas together.  Mandy: But a lot of times, I don't know if you're like me, I end up buying a bunch of books and not necessarily reading them all. So, there are shorter pieces. There's an article in Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School that I co-wrote with three of the teachers in the Delaware Teacher Study Group, and that is at the end of the 2016 volume, and it's called “Rough-Draft Talk.” And that's only 1,800 words. That's a short read that you could read with a PLC or with a friend. And there's an even shorter piece in the NCTM Journal, MTLT, in the “Ear to the Ground” section. And I have a professional website that has a collection of free articles because I know those NCTM articles are behind a paywall. And so, I can share that. Maybe there's show notes where we can put a link and there's some pieces there.  Mike: Yes, absolutely. Well, I think that's probably a good place to stop. Thank you again for joining us, Mandy. It really has been a pleasure talking with you.  Mandy: Thank you so much, Mike. Mike: This podcast is brought to you by The Math Learning Center and the Maier Math Foundation, dedicated to inspiring and enabling all individuals to discover and develop their mathematical confidence and ability. © 2024 The Math Learning Center | www.mathlearningcenter.org

Rounding Up Season 2 | Episode 11 – Translanguaging Guest: Tatyana Kleyn Mike Wallus: Over the past two years, we've done several episodes on supporting multilingual learners in math classrooms. Today we're going back to this topic to talk about “translanguaging,” an asset-focused approach that invites students to bring their full language repertoire into the classroom. We'll talk with Tatyana Kleyn about what translanguaging looks like and how all teachers can integrate this practice into their classrooms.  Mike: Well, welcome to the podcast, Tatyana. We're excited to be talking with you today.  Tatyana Kleyn: Thank you. This is very exciting.  Mike: So, your background with the topic of multilingual learners and translanguaging, it's not only academic. It's also personal. I'm wondering if you might share a bit of your own background as a starting point for this conversation.  Tatyana: Yes, absolutely. I think for many of us in education, we don't randomly end up teaching in the areas that we're teaching in or doing the work that we're doing. So, I always like to share my story so people know why I'm doing this work and where I'm coming from. So, my personal story, I work a lot at the intersection of language migration and education, and those are all three aspects that have been critical in bringing me here. So, I was actually born in what was the Soviet Union many, many years ago, and my family immigrated to the United States as political refugees, and I was just 5½ years old. So, I actually never went to school in the Soviet Union. Russian was my home language, and I quickly started speaking English, but my literacy was not quick at all, and it was quite painful because I never learned to read in my home language. I never had that foundation.  Tatyana: So, when I was learning to read in English, it wasn't meaning making, it was just making sounds. It was kind of painful. I once heard somebody say, “For some people, reading is like this escape and this pure joy, and for other people it's like cleaning the toilet. You get in and you get out.” And I was like, “That's me. I'm the toilet cleaner.” ( laughs ) So, that was how reading was for me. I always left my home language at the door when I came into school, and I wanted it that way because I, as a young child, got this strong message that English was the language that mattered in this country. So, for example, instead of going by Tatyana, I went by Tanya. So, I always kind of kept this secret that I spoke this other language. I had this other culture, and it wasn't until sixth grade where my sixth-grade teacher, Ms. Chang, invited my mom to speak about our immigration history.  Tatyana: And I don't know why, but I thought that was so embarrassing. I think in middle school, it's not really cool to have your parents around. So, I was like, “Oh my God, this is going to be horrible.” But then I realized my peers were really interested—and in a good way—and I was like, “Wait, this is a good thing?” So, I started thinking, “OK, we should be proud of who we are and let just people be who they are.” And when you let people be who they are, they thrive in math, in science, in social studies, instead of trying so hard to be someone they're not, and then focusing on that instead of everything else that they should be focusing on as students.  Mike: So, there's a lot there. And I think I want to dig into what you talked about over the course of the interview. I want to zero in a little bit on translanguaging though, because for me, at least until quite recently, this idea of translanguaging was really a new concept, a new idea for me, and I'm going to guess that that's the case for a lot of the people who are listening to this as well. So, just to begin, would you talk briefly about what translanguaging is and your sense of the impact that it can have on learners?  Tatyana: Sure. Well, I'm so glad to be talking about translanguaging in this space specifically, because often when we talk about translanguaging, it's in bilingual education or English as a second language or is a new language, and it's important in those settings, right? But it's important in all settings. So, I think you're not the only one, especially if we're talking about math educators or general elementary educators, it's like, “Oh, translanguaging, I haven't heard of that,” right? So, it is not something brand new, but it is a concept that Ofelia García and some of her colleagues really brought forth to the field in the early 2000s … around 2009. And what it does is instead of saying English should be the center of everything, and everyone who doesn't just speak English is peripheral. It's saying, “Instead of putting English at the center, let's put our students' home language practices at the center. And what would that look like?” So, that wouldn't mean everything has to be in English. It wouldn't mean the teacher's language practices are front and center, and the students have to adapt to that. But it's about centering the students and then the teacher adapting to the languages and the language practices that the students bring. Teachers are there to have students use all the language at their resource—whatever language it is, whatever variety it is. And all those resources will help them learn. The more you can use, when we're talking about math, well, if we're teaching a concept and there are manipulatives there that will help students use them, why should we hide them? Why not bring them in and say, “OK, use this.” And once you have that concept, we can now scaffold and take things away little by little until you have it on your own. And the same thing with sometimes learning English.  Tatyana: We should allow students to learn English as a new language using their home language resources. But one thing I will say is we should never take away their home language practices from the classroom. Even when they're fully bilingual, fully biliterate, it's still about, “How can we use these resources? How can they use that in their classroom?” Because we know in the world, speaking English is not enough. We're becoming more globalized, so let's have our students grow their language practices. And then students are allowed and proud of the language practices they bring. They teach their language practices to their peers, to their teachers. So, it's really hard to say it all in a couple of minutes, but I think the essence of translanguaging is centering students' language practices and then using that as a resource for them to learn and to grow, to learn languages and to learn content as well.  Mike: How do you think that shifts the experience for a child?  Tatyana: Well, if I think about my own experiences, you don't have to leave who you are at the door. We are not saying, “Home language is here, school language is there, and neither shall the two meet.” We're saying, “Language, and in the sense that it's a verb.” And when you can be your whole self, it allows you to have a stronger sense of who you are in order to really grow and learn and be proud of who you are. And I think that's a big part of it. I think when kids are bashful about who they are, thinking who they are isn't good enough, that has ripple effects in so many ways for them. So, I think we have to bring a lens of critical consciousness into these kind of spaces and make sure that our immigrant-origin students, their language practices, are centered through a translanguaging lens.  Mike: It strikes me that it matters a lot how we as educators—internally, in the way that we think and externally, in the things that we do and the things that we say—how we position the child's home language, whether we think of it as an asset that is something to draw upon or a deficit or a barrier, that the way that we're thinking about it makes a really big difference in the child's experience.  Tatyana: Yes, absolutely. Ofelia García, Kate Seltzer and Susana Johnson talk about a translanguaging stance. So, translanguaging is not just a practice or a pedagogy like, “Oh, let me switch this up, or let me say this in this language.” Yes, that's helpful, but it's how you approach who students are and what they bring. So, if you don't come from a stance of valuing multilingualism, it's not really going to cut it, right? It's something, but it's really about the stance. So, something that's really important is to change the culture of classrooms. So, just because you tell somebody like, “Oh, you can say this in your home language, or you can read this book side by side in Spanish and in English if it'll help you understand it.” Some students may not want to because they will think their peers will look down on them for doing it, or they'll think it means they're not smart enough. So, it's really about centering multilingualism in your classroom and celebrating it. And then as that stance changes the culture of the classroom, I can see students just saying, “Ah, no, no, no, I'm good in English.” Even though they may not fully feel comfortable in English yet, but because of the perception of what it means to be bilinguals.  Mike: I'm thinking even about the example that you shared earlier where you said that an educator might say, “You can read this in Spanish side by side with English if you need to or if you want to.” But even that language of you can implies that, potentially, this is a remedy for a deficit as opposed to the ability to read in multiple languages as a huge asset. And it makes me think even our language choices sometimes will be a tell to kids about how we think about them as a learner and how we think about their language.  Tatyana: That's so true, and how do we reframe that? “Let's read this in two languages. Who wants to try a new language?” Making this something exciting as opposed to framing it in a deficit way. So that's something that's so important that you picked up on. Yeah.  Mike: Well, I think we're probably at the point in the conversation where there's a lot of folks who are monolingual who might be listening and they're thinking to themselves, “This stance that we're talking about is something that I want to step into.” And now they're wondering what might it actually look like to put this into practice? Can we talk about what it would look like, particularly for someone who might be monolingual to both step into the stance and then also step into the practice a bit?  Tatyana: Yes. I think the stance is really doing some internal reflection, questioning about what do I believe about multilingualism? What do I believe about people who come here, to come to the United States? In New York City, about half of our multilingual learners are U.S. born. So, it's not just immigrant students, but their parents, or they're often children of immigrants. So, really looking closely and saying, “How am I including respecting, valuing the languages of students regardless of where they come from?” And then, I think for the practice, it's about letting go of some control. As teachers, we are kind of control freaks. I can just speak for myself. ( laughs ) I like to know everything that's going on.  Mike: I will add myself to that list, Tatyana.  Tatyana: It's a long list. It's a long list. ( laughs ) But I think first of all, as educators, we have a sense when a kid is on task, and you can tell when a kid is not on task. You may not know exactly what they're saying. So, I think it's letting go of that control and letting the students, for example, when you are giving directions … I think one of the most dangerous things we do is we give directions in English when we have multilingual students in our classrooms, and we assume they understood it. If you don't understand the directions, the next 40 minutes will be a waste of time because you will have no idea what's happening. So, what does that mean? It means perhaps putting the directions into Google Translate and having it translate the different languages of your students. Will it be perfect? No. But will it be better than just being in English? A million times yes, right?  Tatyana: Sometimes it's about putting students in same-language groups. If there are enough—two or three or four students that speak the same home language—and having them discuss something in their home language or multilingually before actually starting to do the work to make sure they're all on the same page. Sometimes it can mean if asking students if they do come from other countries, sometimes I'm thinking of math, math is done differently in different countries. So, we teach one approach, but what is another approach? Let's share that. Instead of having kids think like, “Oh, I came here, now this is the bad way. Or when I go home and I ask my family to help me, they're telling me all wrong.” No, again, these are the strengths of the families, and let's put them side by side and see how they go together.  Tatyana: And I think what it's ultimately about is thinking about your classroom, not as a monolingual classroom, but as a multilingual classroom. And really taking stock of who are your students? Where are they and their families coming from, and what languages do they speak? And really centering that. Sometimes you may have students that may not tell you because they may feel like it's shameful to share that we speak a language that maybe other people haven't heard of. I'm thinking of indigenous languages from Honduras, like Garífuna, Miskito, right? Of course, Spanish, everyone knows that. But really excavating the languages of the students, the home language practices, and then thinking about giving them opportunities to translate if they need to translate. I'm not saying everything should be translated. I think word problems, having problems side by side, is really important. Because sometimes what students know is they know the math terms in English, but the other terms, they may not know those yet.  Tatyana: And I'll give you one really powerful example. This is a million years ago, but it stays with me from my dissertation. It was in a Haitian Creole bilingual classroom. They were taking a standardized test, and the word problem was where it was like three gumballs, two gumballs, this color, what are the probability of a blue gumball coming out of this gumball machine? And this student just got stuck on gumball machine because in Haiti people sell gum, not machines, and it was irrelevant to the whole problem. So, language matters, but culture matters, too, right? So, giving students the opportunity to see things side by side and thinking about, “Are there any things here that might trip them up that I could explain to them?” So, I think it's starting small. It's taking risks. It's letting go of control and centering the students.  Mike: So, from one recovering control freak to another, there are a couple of things that I'm thinking about. One is expanding a little bit on this idea of having two kids who might speak to one another in their home language, even if you are a monolingual speaker and you speak English and you don't necessarily have access to the language that they're using. Can you talk a little bit about that practice and how you see it and any guidance that you might offer around that?  Tatyana: Yeah, I mean, it may not work the first time or the second time because kids may feel a little bit shy to do that. So maybe it's, “I want to try out something new in our class. I really am trying to make this a multilingual class. Who speaks another language here? Let's try … I am going to put you in a group and you're going to talk about this, and let's come back. And how did you feel? How was it for you? Let me tell you how I felt about it.” And it may be trying over a couple times because kids have learned that in most school settings, English is a language you should be using. And to the extent that some have been told not to speak any other language, I think it's just about setting it up and, “Oh, you two spoke, which language? Wow, can you teach us how to say this math term in this language?”  Tatyana: “Oh, wow, isn't this interesting? This is a cognate, which means it sounds the same as the English word. And let's see if this language and this language, if the word means the same thing,” getting everyone involved in centering this multilingualism. And language is fun. We can play with language, we can put language side by side. So, then if you're labeling or if you have a math word wall, why not put key terms in all the languages that the students speak in the class and then they could teach each other those languages? So, I think you have to start little. You have to expect some resistance. But over time, if you keep pushing away at this, I think it will be good for not only your multilingual students, but all your students to say like, “Oh, wait a minute, there's all these languages in the world, but they're not just in the world. They're right here by my friend to the left and my friend to the right” and open up that space.  Mike: So, I want to ask another question. What I'm thinking about is participation. And we've done an episode in the past around not privileging verbal communication as the only way that kids can communicate their ideas. We were speaking to someone who, their focus really was elementary years mathematics, but specifically, with multilingual learners. And the point that they were making was, kids gestures, the way that they use their hands, the way that they move manipulatives, their drawings, all of those things are sources of communication that we don't have to only say, “Kids understand things if they can articulate it in a particular way.” That there are other things that they do that are legitimate forms of participation. The thing that was in my head was, it seems really reasonable to say that if you have kids who could share an explanation or a strategy that they've come up with or a solution to a problem in their home language in front of the group, that would be perfectly legitimate. Having them actually explain their thinking in their home language is accomplishing the goal that we're after, which is can you justify your mathematical thinking? I guess I just wanted to check in and say, “Does that actually seem like a reasonable logic to follow that that's actually a productive practice for a teacher, but also a productive practice for a kid to engage in?”  Tatyana: That makes a lot of sense. So, I would say for every lesson you, you may have a math objective, you may have a language objective, and you may have both. If your objective is to get kids to understand a concept in math or to explain something in math, who cares what language they do it in? It's about learning math. And if you're only allowing them to do it in a language that they are still developing in, they will always be about English and not about math. So, how do you take that away? You allow them to use all their linguistic resources. And we can have students explain something in their home language. There are now many apps where we could just record that, and it will translate it into English. If you are not a speaker of the language that the student speaks, you can have a peer then summarize what they said in English as well. So, there's different ways to do it. So yes, I think it's about thinking about the objectives or the objective of the lesson. And if you're really focusing on math, the language is really irrelevant. It's about explaining or showing what they know in math, and they can do that in any language. Or even without spoken language, but in written language artistically with symbols, et cetera.  Mike: Well, and what you made me think, too, is for that peer, it's actually a great opportunity for them to engage with the reasoning of someone else and try to make meaning of it. So, there's a double bonus in it for that practice.  Tatyana: Exactly. I think sometimes students don't really like listening to each other. They think they only need to listen to the teacher. So, I think this really has them listen to each other. And then sometimes summarizing or synthesizing is a really hard skill, and then doing it in another language is a whole other level. So, we're really pushing kids in those ways as well. So, there's many advantages to this approach.  Mike: Yeah, absolutely. We have talked a lot about the importance of having kids engage with the thinking of other children as opposed to having the teacher be positioned as the only source of mathematical knowledge. So, the more that we talk about it, the more that I can see there's a lot of value culturally for a mathematics classroom in terms of showing that kids thinking matters, but also supporting that language development as well.  Tatyana: Yes, and doing it is hard. As I said, none of this is easy, but it's so important. And I think when you start creating a multilingual classroom, it just has a different feel to it. And I think students can grow so much in their math, understanding it and in so many other ways.  Mike: Absolutely. Well, before we close the interview, I invite you to share resources that you would recommend for an educator who's listening who wants to step into the stance of translanguaging, the practice of translanguaging, anything that you would offer that could help people continue learning.  Tatyana: I have one hub of all things translanguaging, so this will make it easy for all the listeners. So, it is the CUNY New York State Initiative on Emergent Bilinguals. And let me just give you the website. It's C-U-N-Y [hyphen] N-Y-S-I-E-B.org. And I'll say that again. C-U-N-Y, N-Y-S-I-E-B.org, cuny-nysieb.org. That's the CUNY New York State Initiative on Emergent Bilinguals. And because it's such a mouthful, we just say “CUNY NYSIEB,” as you could tell by my own, trying to get it straight. You can find translanguaging resources such as guides. You can find webinars, you can find research, you can find books. Literally everything you would want around translanguaging is there in one website. Of course, there's more out there in the world. But I think that's a great starting point. There's so many great resources just to start with there. And then just start small. Small changes sometimes have big impacts on student learning and students' perceptions of how teachers view them and their families.  Mike: Thank you so much for joining us, Tatiana. It's really been a pleasure talking with you.  Tatyana: Yes, it's been wonderful. Thank you so much. And we will just all try to let go a little bit of our control little by little. Both: ( laugh)  Tatyana: Because at the end of the day, we really don't control very much at all. ( laughs )  Mike: Agreed. ( chuckles ) Thank you.  Tatyana: Thank you. Mike: This podcast is brought to you by The Math Learning Center and the Maier Math Foundation, dedicated to inspiring and enabling all individuals to discover and develop their mathematical confidence and ability. © 2024 The Math Learning Center | www.mathlearningcenter.org

In today's episode of Building Texas Business, Mike Vellano joins us to share the things he has learned from building his company, Vortex. As the CEO who has steered Vortex's innovative growth, Mike offers a look inside deal-making - including acquiring their significant European branch. Beyond mechanics, it's a celebration of relationships that drive success. We explore personal connections too - from Mike's early job to his passion for Tex-Mex. Plans for an Italian sabbatical link work ambitions with heritage. Mike's gratitude for support systems and understanding of sacrifice offers a holistic view of leading an expanding company. Join us for stories of commitment, strategy and groundedness through change. Mike's experience navigating Vortex's eventful voyage provides actionable insights for any enterprise. SHOW HIGHLIGHTS Mike shares his journey of strategic acquisitions and company growth, emphasizing the significance of people, process, and technology in building a successful enterprise. We explore the legacy of Mike's family in the water infrastructure industry and how this history has influenced his professional path and the founding of Vortex Companies. Chris discusses the challenges and motivations behind starting Vortex in 2015, drawing parallels with the entrepreneurial spirit exemplified by figures like Kobe Bryant. Mike reflects on the transformation from a hands-on CEO to a leader who empowers his team and how he leverages team strengths through delegation. We touch on the importance of maintaining a company's core values, with a focus on the "win as a team" philosophy and the role it plays in Vortex's culture. Mike provides insights on the integration process of new companies and people into Vortex's culture, emphasizing the value of internal sourcing for successful expansion. We discuss the recent acquisition of a foundational manufacturing company and the strategic considerations behind taking calculated risks in business. Mike expresses his personal love for Tex-Mex cuisine and his anticipation for a sabbatical in Italy, highlighting the balance between professional aspirations and personal heritage. Chris and Mike explore the intuitive and emotional aspects of business negotiations and the importance of emotional intelligence in steering deals to success. Mike details the complex nature of legal matters in international deals and the reliance on expert legal counsel to navigate antitrust issues and other legal challenges. LINKSShow Notes Previous Episodes About BoyarMiller About Vortex Companies GUESTS Mike VellanoAbout Mike TRANSCRIPT (AI transcript provided as supporting material and may contain errors) Chris: In this episode, you will meet Mike Vellano, founder and CEO of Vortex companies. Mike and his team have built Vortex through a series of strategic acquisitions since 2015, 17 in total by focusing on people, process and technology. Mike, I want to welcome you to building Texas business. Thanks for taking the time to join me. Mike: You got it, man. Great to be here. Chris: Yeah, let's kind of just dive right in. You're the CEO of Vortex companies. Let's start by just telling the audience you know what that company is and what it's known for. Mike: Vortex is a comprehensive and full portfolio of products and services that serve to repair wastewater and storm water assets, pipes, structures, anything that you, anything that lives in a municipal or a commercial industrial application, and we do it all non-intrusively and through what's called trenchless technology Okay yeah. So find a pipe without excavating. Chris: Okay. Mike: So we get to save the environment a little bit every day. Chris: That's good, I like that. So tell us like this how did you find your way into this industry? Mike: So I'm a, my background, I got a. I have a picture of my great grandfather, paul Villano, laying a water main. In 1925, Italian immigrant came to this country installing a water main and I mean just connected to New York. My family actually fixed that same water main years later. I'm not a finance guy or I don't have an MBA. I'm a. I founded Vortex and I've spent my entire career in this industry, other than you know, cooking in a restaurant and college or bagging a few groceries. I've been married to this trade and and moving that forward, my family was in. My family had a pipe supply business and a and it was in trench shoring and open excavation. My father was one of the pioneers in this industry. In 1994, brought a technology here with my family. The business was actually called trenchless technology and and I left the family business to go to go at a quick stop at a trenchless services business. And then you know the vision to get this thing going. Chris: Wow, so so in. I guess there's a lot of ways. It's kind of a continuation of the family business. Mike: Yeah, I mean, if you look at, my grandfather was using an old steam cable machine to lay a water main to. You know my family delivering and supplying, you know, frames and covers and fire hydrants One of the first water work suppliers in the country to my, my, my father and his brothers and my own goals, who are all entrepreneurs, watching them expand it and bring new technology to, and all of them you know, sort of systematically advancing with the industry, with water infrastructure and buried assets and now vortex is. You know we're an innovative, we're an, we do a lot of R&D and technology development and we and we get to do some really great things with in some pretty, some pretty tough areas. Chris: So it's interesting you mentioned innovation and and R&D. What are some of the things that that you do to kind of instill the innovative side or innovative spirit within the company? Mike: You know, I think, if I think about you know our core values, we have this, our most. Our core values are centered around this, this statement or mantra, called. You know we win big together and then, as we drive down into our culture, we have that. You know we actually have that trademark. It's a big part of what we do. We sign off emails on it and we rally around it if you go into an office, but winning big is thinking big. You know that's a big part of our marketing strategy and you know what we have, the way we think about products that work in infrastructure. You know they don't always come from the lab to the field. They come from the field and they're perfected in a lab and and we have a lot of great people that are that have dedicated their career to this industry, that we've worked with for a long time, and I think everybody at Port Texas is an innovator and I think our culture drives that. Chris: That's great, yeah, so it sounds like you kind of encourage it at all levels, not just some one department that's responsible for things. But are there any things that you do to kind of allow a you know a process for the ideas from the field to bubble up? How do you create that I guess in engagement or pride for people to speak up? Mike: You know, I think having, I think having what what you know Tretches technology is innovative in itself. I mean we're taking liners and pregnant with resin and going through a manhole and we're essentially performing angioplasty in a sewer application. You know we're. When we're coding a large, you know 16 foot diameter culvert with a geopolymer, I mean there's, those solutions don't aren't solved with a material only, it's a system. So it's people, process and technology. I think the way that we innovate and encourage innovation is really, is really through. You know, it can be reactive, it can be proactive. And we started our geopolymer business. We really focused on how the field you know the material led to really, you know, try a ton of innovation and perfection in the field. That was driven by most of our superintendents and most of our group people. So, you know, I think it's, I think it's a combination and it's a, it's chemistry. It's, it's, you know, some of it's organic chemistry, but there is engineering and there is some real science behind it. But there is an art form to what we do. You know there is. You cannot perfect this technology in a closed environment. You need to be able to deal with a lot. You know pipes are pipes of all kinds of construction and diameters, and and condition. Chris: Gotcha, Let me take you back down to the building. You said the beginning. You mentioned that you kind of, you know, broke off and started this. What year was that? Mike: So that would have been 2015. Chris: 15. So you know, that's, you know, the one of the questions I like to ask. You know, guys like you is okay, you had to take, get, I guess, the intestinal fortitude to be ready to kind of take that step, say, okay, I'm actually going to do this on my own. What? How did you know you were ready? What were some of the things looking back that you know, you thought, you know you go, man, that was really tough and had I known it would have been this tough, I may not have done it. Mike: Yeah, I think you know I read it when you're in, when you're in YPO or you're in some of the organizations that are involved. You get some really great case study. And you know there was an article about Kobe Bryant and somebody asked Kobe Bryant how you know how he thought, if he thought he would ever play in the NBA. He's like well, my dad played in the NBA. You know my dad was an entrepreneur, was a CEO. You know I saw that, I saw that spirit and all with all my uncles and my family and my grandfather was in great uncle brought products to this country and innovated waterworks supply and we're one of the first in the country to do something like that. So my risk profile was kind of set out at birth. I mean, I don't, seeing it being around it, seeing your name and the pride of having that on the side of a truck or the side of a building was always something that I wanted to either stay in the business or grow it or, you know, have something that I could, you know, not only make my family proud of but also build on my own and I think, the real working for my family and you know, working for my family, you know we always say we're. You know I would never change that experience. But working around entrepreneurs, and then the stop that I made before I started Vortex, you know, allowed me to get to, you know, the MBA I never wanted you know working around private equity and doing some things that allowed me to recognize, you know, the principles of business that some family businesses don't always fully capture, like HR or fleet management or things that are, or how you know how you manage a P and L and things that are typically, you know, you know, managed at a page in my Italian family, a patriarchal level or you know, however that comes to bear. So I think I always, you know well, my wife, I remember coming home and she had 12, you know Ford envelopes and was like, what are these? And you know I was like, well, we finance some trucks, it's gonna be okay. You know, we had no money in our bank account. So I think some of that stuff is easier for me just because I, you know, back to the like, I had somebody that modeled that risk profile and that ability to say, hey, just go take some chances and you create your own lock and you work. Chris: That's a great story. I mean, it's unique. You're right, cause it sounds like you almost didn't have a choice in it. Right, you were just brought up through from birth to understanding how entrepreneurs work, the risk about it. But yeah, as you were talking, and that has to put a whole another level of pressure on you to say, yeah, this is what I, this is what we do in the Vellano family, I better make sure it works, cause everyone else looking back uncles, grandfathers, and they've all made it work. I better make this work. Mike: That has to be a whole another level of pressure 100%, and I think that's, I think that's, I think that is a driving principle, right, you know people, you can harness pressure and use it, use it effectively. I mean, sometimes I probably run myself a little too hard, but I still am afraid to be late to work. Chris: You know it's just. I love that, yeah, Especially in today's world right that the CEO is afraid to be late and there's that level of kind of accountability that, as a leader, you want to instill in everybody in the organization. Mike: What are some of the? Chris: things you do to kind of to do that to demonstrate that. I mean, obviously it starts with you know your actions, but how do you try to show up as a leader to make sure that those values that you grew up with get infiltrated throughout the organization? Mike: Yeah, I remember going to the first management meeting with my family and and you know we it was you know if you've been around Italians, you, there's always a big dinner. There's always, you know, more appetizers than entrees on the table, good wine, or you know definitely a few cocktails, and you know you sit there and you go and you run and you come in town for a meeting and I remember one of our branch managers. I remember one of our branch managers showing up late and my dad locking the door and just saying you know it's like that, it's two minutes late, it's like, well, we, this meeting started at seven o'clock. Chris: And. Mike: I've done that a couple of times. I'm mellowing out a little bit, but when I first started this business, I mean as a 30 year old guy, you know you're trying to prove a point and you realize that there's better way. You know that's not always the way to do it, but that left a left an impression on me. I think you know there are definitely times where I get overextended and I got to move calls around and I'm not. I want to be, I want to be more, but this is. It's a big job with a lot of responsibility and you got to prioritize differently. But I think you know our core values are you know we are a driven business and I think them seeing drive and our organization, not only by me but our team I mean our team is our team is a very close group, you know. I think, like when we went through our core values, we talked about how teams win. You know families fight, you know, so I don't know he's, I don't. You know we think like a family, but we work like a team, we are a team and I think them knowing that we are going to win as a team, I think that, look, they know that we're all going to get up, that nobody's, that nobody's fallen behind. And I think in a dynamic organization where that's a driven organization and you know they see every time they walk into a vortex office, they see that core value, that we are driven and core values are for all. You know some people. We stand behind ours and I think some of them have become a little cliche, but I think that's how we keep people. I think that's how we, I think that's a model that comes from our entire executive team down to the organization. Chris: Yeah, I would say you know we talk about core values. In my experience, if you identify them right, then their behavioral characteristics for the behavior that you, as the organization, want to see, expect to see and, almost you know, demand to see for those that are going to be successful in your organization. So you talk a lot about I love the win as a team and I thought it was. I love that family's fight, tim's win, that's a good one. I'm going to use that again. But so culture is definitely important to any organization. It sounds like it is. You know, obviously, the years with that. The win is a team mantra. To me, that, then, means that the hiring and onboarding process is critical to making sure you're getting the right people during the interview process as you're bringing them on and building the team. So what are some of the things that you do at Vortex to try to make sure you've got the right processes in place in the interview and integration process to add successful members to the team? Mike: I think that onboarding is we have a great HR person that our onboarding process when we first started was where are we going to grab a steak and or where are we going to where's a fun place to do an interview? And we've created some. We Brooke has really helped us to kind of formalize some things, and our head of shared services that to make that first day you know that first day at Vortex their most exciting day. I mean that's it's got to be. You know whether it's the type of swag they get or their waybook or whatever those things are, and what their introduction is to an organ, to a high performing organization. I mean they got to feel like they're. They got to feel that fire and that encouragement day one. You know when you I think that if you build your team right and you build your people, you know we have we've acquired seven companies now and our executive team has leadership across our. The leadership across our organization has come from those, has come from those transactions and those folks have moved into pretty dynamic roles in the industry and high level leadership roles. So we've brought some of their core values along. But we've also elevated several members of you know an acquisition we did in Maine. We have three people running different parts of the business. Our COO has mentored several you know of our younger project managers and sales people into roles that they're going to be leaders in our business and we have the same role, you know, for me as sort of a sales support role that you know young men that started around 22,. One of those guys is is our is our senior VP of services now and he's been with us for 12 or 14 years through through other places. So I think we focus on you know it is and it's a sink or swim Sometimes. We're, sometimes, you know we do, we do sort of police, our crew and we in our drive gets in the way of really understanding, you know, and wanting everybody to be more than maybe they should be in some cases. But yeah, I think that was a bit of a ramble but hopefully I answered your question. Chris: Oh yeah, you did. I think it's great. So I think in that answer that you hit on a couple of things. I want to follow up on 17 acquisitions in that sense 25. Yeah, that's small to large. Mike: I know that we've got. Chris: Yeah, I know that you recently just closed a new transaction, so it sounds like there's been a lot of growth through acquisition. You know entrepreneurs or people that started a company. I mean, they're faced with right. You know, how do I grow? Do I grow organically? Do I grow by acquisition? Do I do both When's it right? So what are some of the things I guess that you could share from your kind of strategic thinking about? When you felt it was right to make those acquisitions, how did you vet that to go Okay, this is a good fit, knowing, I guess, there's no sure bet. Mike: Yeah, we're acquiring businesses from $1 million to $15 million, $20 million in revenue. So a few of these businesses have been smaller tuck-ins or technologies or somebody would call them an asset deal. So we have, and in all of those we've never hired a banker. We source them internally because we either have a customer or a vendor relationship and we have some, you know, we have some. We have a little bit of a matrix that we use, you know, in the sense of do they have personnel, do they have technologies? Do they support the things that we do? Are there people innovative enough to expand? And, if we can, we add value. We're not going to buy a business that we can't grow organically or turn into something that is truly going to make that business better and make our business better. Sometimes it's technology and sometimes it's, but there is always an organic element to everything that we do. We start, we add crews every day, we implement our technology developments into our own service businesses or into others, and a true differentiator in how we go to market, like how we go to market up until, you know, up until this recent transaction, which is a products company, a subsidiary that I can get into that in a few minutes, but this is the biggest, the largest acquisition we've made and most of our product product's business was developed and grown organically through some smaller, what I would call partnering opportunities with. You know our we're so proud of our business out in Utah. You know we grew we've grown that business, by you know, 20 times from when we acquired it in 2019 with because we had a partner that understood the chemistry, we understood the operation and commercial side and together, you know, great products and a great strategy work. So that's been our that's been a big part of our strategy. And the product side and the services side. We've bought, we've acquired some mature businesses. We just bought a business in the UK that we're really excited about. It's got an excellent market opportunity. It's a service business but they fit our DNA. They're not afraid to do, they're not afraid to go out and work with difficult customers or on difficult projects or take on emergency jobs. You know we live in a municipal world and we really do focus on selling. We go after negotiated work. We don't just go and low bid work like a lot of, like a lot of municipal contractors do or have to do because they don't have the resources or you know, or some of the, I think, some of the talent that we have to go utilize procurement networks or emergency contracts. So it's a steady diet of acquiring to build on or just doing it. Crash roots organic. Chris: Gotcha. So then the next question comes. You do all these acquisitions. Acquisitions sound great and sexy and you go close a deal, but it will only be successful if you are successful in the integration process. You've done 17 of different sizes. It sounds like you've gotten pretty good at the integration process, so I want to talk to you about something about that. It's clearly not happening by accident if you're good at it. So what are some of the tips that you could share about what you all have done there? Processes you've you've developed I'm sure they haven't all been successful. You've learned from some failures, so talk to us about that, tell us kind of you know how that's evolved and vortex for you and your team to make sure you get the integration piece right. Mike: I think we start integrating a deal before it's close and I think that's important and I don't think that's a strategy that can be. I don't know if you can hear that thing. No. I don't know, and I don't know if that's a. I don't think that's a strategy that everyone has a luxury to support. But part of our story is we you know we've never hired as never hiring a banker. We are very familiar with the acquisitions that we're going in to make, both from a personnel perspective, the technologies that they support and how they think about the world. You know we want, we want these acquisitions to be as excited to join vortex as we are to acquire them. The other thing that we don't do is buy 100% of anything. We're typically partnering with a seller that is going to come into the business and continue on and you know we and we do a really good job of I think of, of, you know creating the right level of support. I'm understanding what their skill sets are. At a seller come to me after we bought his company and say you know what? I always wanted to own a business but I never wanted to run it and I'm like, ok, I can see that, but let's put you in a row Like you're. We're here because you were doing something right. Let's figure out what you're, what you're good at, and I think you know our team collectively took a step back and was like this is what he's going to be good at. And he's been and he's one of our best in that role now and still a shareholder and had enough, you know, hasn't had enough. You know really believed in what we're doing and we believed in him as a in this role. And you know, some of a big part of integration is understanding what everyone's thinking and being transparent and saying, hey, you know, you really think of this. We need to get you a better finance person, like, yeah, your finance person can go do this. We were not here to. I think our real focus is finding people and the other thing that we don't do and we buy cash flowing businesses that have good roots and have good people and we don't buy distress businesses. We're not. That's just not who we are and that's understanding what your capabilities are. We don't we want to manage. We want to manage a business, to grow it and build it and make it better. Like I said before, and I think when you really look at, hey, this is we. As you grow up, you know you you'll learn to deal with those, with those situations. We just had a business in Colorado. We kind of took a step back and said, hey, we're breaking even here. This is a distraction. Maybe we can move these assets somewhere else and focus somewhere else, and this is how we can do it in a way that will be more productive for everybody involved. So I think a big part of integration is really understanding our deals and having that luxury by being part of the diligence and really, I think, starting integration almost before we close an acquisition. Chris: Yeah Well, and what I hear you saying is look, we're very thoughtful about and transparent about, the process, and those are two key elements, I think, to anything being successful, so that you're going to have clear communication. It also sounds like you take a little page out to Jim Collins. Good to grade and get the right people on the bus, but in the right seat. Yeah, so your example of I want to always want to be an owner but didn't want to run it. I mean, that's someone that probably should be on the bus, obviously, but he just sure on the right seat for him. Mike: Yeah, I think that you know it's the my father would call it the Holy Trinity. It's sales, operations and finance. But you know, good to grade is that's one of the one of the big takeaways of our best businesses have just really a really great balance across all three of those, all three of those areas. I mean anything R&D, anything project level, any good strategy you have to have. You have to hit all three of those areas. Chris: Yeah for sure. So you talked about a lot of these acquisitions being either vendors or partners that you have interacted with over time, so that, in first to me, you do a really good job at Vortex of creating some really strong relationships with your vendors and your business partners, you know. So let's talk about that a little bit. What are some of the things you do to create in your people, I guess, to foster those strong relationships that sometimes lead to these add-on acquisitions and then become part of the team? Any tricks or things there you really encourage? Mike: You know, like you made the comment about innovation before, I mean, I think everybody, you know we have 800 employees now I think we have, you know, 700 of them want to be investment bankers. I get calls all the time hey, you know someone's supposed to say, hey, you know this, hey, I bet you that guy would be really interesting in this. You know, in this role, or we should look at this company, you know, I think, and some of those have come to fruition and look, you know, when you do that many deals in that time frame which seems like a lot more than it is, but you know, we did four deals in COVID which was crazy, but we all. But you know, I think a big part of that is, yeah, I think a big part of that is like we look at hundreds of deals. I mean we still we can turn. You know we're not going to get into early diligence, like there's some things I can look at with our team and our team is in the higher, you know, the more involved, the more involved we get with a company. You know we might say you know, man, these guys don't even know how to order material, like they're unorganized. You know, I know they want to put like, this is going to be a lot to fix. You know, maybe we can work together and there's been times where we've worked with companies for years three, three, four years talking to them about a deal why we work parallel as a vendor or them as a sub, and then they become an acquisition and I think we both got better together. You know, I think that some of that stuff is, but there's that's also a luxury in our strategy, but that makes our strategy sound. You know, we don't have, we don't have. You know you look at these deals and, hey, if half of them went well with our organic growth which is in the, you know just, you know, high teens to 20s and archaegers in the mid 20s, you know it's, it's, it's a great story. I think that was like as you should be. Chris: So let's talk a little bit. You know more about you and your evolution as a leader. You talked about it a minute ago, just referencing how you're probably a little bit harder, maybe from the lessons you saw from your dad, and you've evolved. Let's dig in a little bit there. I mean, how would you describe your leadership style and how do you think that's changed and evolved? You know, over the year since you started, you know this company and and grown into where it is today. Mike: You know, I think I know what. I know what I'm not, and I know that I have to surround myself with people, that that you know you backfill by weakness, I think. But at the same time, you know our CFO has been my partner for 15 years. You know we've had, we have, people in our team that we've worked with for all of that and even before and even going back 20 years in some cases. You know, I think leadership, I think leadership to me has evolved as I've really understood what I'm truly. You know what I'm really good at, and having enough and sort of having, I think, being intentional and having some humility and being able to say, hey, I'm not. You know, I believe in the one minute manager. I don't need a ton of detail, I just need to know what the issue is, and I've gotten better at really understanding why that detail is important. But, you know, as a leader, I think I think gaining perspective and, you know, and listening, I think YPO has helped me in a lot of ways. You know, being around, I think peer development is something that I never, you know that was not. That's not something. When you grow up in an Italian family in upstate New York. You know, therapy isn't something I don't know. That's something I don't know if I knew the meaning of that word until I was married, but those aren't things you don't. You don't share family business, you don't share problems, you fix problems, and I think that I think in some ways, that's good. Like you know, you, I know I want to run into I think I wanted to run into every birding building until about five years ago, and I've started to realize that there's people on my team that are better at things, that I am and can execute on that. So you know, I think it's a combination of a lot of things, but I do enjoy leading, I do love my team and I, like I love seeing them be successful. Chris: That's good. Now I think it like I said, I think it starts with drive right. You have to have the drive and the want to and a little bit of that risk profile to take the risk and then I think over time you learn maybe humility and empathy and you can let others do some things, backfill where you're not as strong or you want to provide the opportunity. Mike: But yeah, don't get me wrong, the New York Italian does come out. Chris: It's a, it's a, it's real, so Well let's, we'll test that a little bit then on, say, because I like to ask people you know I'm a big believer in I think we learned from failure right and so you know, is there a situation or decision or circumstance you can think of? You know there was a failure right when you got it wrong but you were able to recover, or what you learned from that moving forward that made you better, stronger, you know, leader person, whatever that might be. Mike: I think I, you know, I probably learned from the. You know we always say when we're hiring somebody from a competitor, you know, try to be a good leaver. I think the way I left my family business was probably not. You know it was. It's never perfect. If I could go back, I'd probably. I would probably do that differently. You know there's been technologies that I have died on a hill for and you take a step back and you go. God, why did I think that would work? You know, and I think now I'm having conversations that people had with me 15 years ago where they're going, hey, what do we should buy this company? I'm like, yeah, you know, I'm like that's not the right company for us. And I think there's times where I know I need to explain myself better. But yeah, I think there's been some. We've had. I've had some bad partners that we had to buy out and that I separated with. And you know, when you're going through that, you realize like, hey, this is this guy you know you want to. It's all there fall in your point, in the finger and then, as you get past it, you go you know, I didn't. I perspective in time or time changes perspective, right? So, yeah, I think there's certainly no shortage of things that I failed at. Chris: Gotcha. Well, the other thing I kind of like to ask people as we start to wrap things up is if you think about one or two things you would impart to an aspiring entrepreneur that if you're going to, if you're going to go chase that dream, you know here, here are a thing or two that I think you should keep in mind. Or you know, maybe it's a do this and don't do that type of thing. What would be that from you to kind of that generation, next generation of entrepreneurs, man? Mike: I love move fast and break stuff. Like and you know what, like when I did at first, I felt like we're breaking more. I feel like we've got a point where we move, really we move. It seems like we're moving at the speed of light. But, you know, something like this deal we just closed, which is, you know, sort of a dream deal for us. It's a company that is a founding, founding manufacturer business. It's applied, they're one of the largest producers of liners in our space and have go back to Eric Wood, who's really a, you know, a founding father of our business, who started a company called in situ forum. And you know, we've been working on this deal for two and a half years. I mean, this isn't like 90 days. We got the book and we hired a big New York law firm and our banker, you know, handled all the conversation and we walked in the door. You know, and and here are the changes we're going to make Like we have a foundational, innovative, pioneering you know industry giant that we want to, that we want to take to what we want to take into into its next evolution. And, you know, I think about moving fast. I think move fast breaks, but maybe we're not moving as fast as you think, but at the same time, you know, I do think that's a big you know. Don't be afraid to risk. Focus on what you're good at, because in the minute don't get distracted from that. And and don't be afraid to partner with. You know you're going to have some bad partners, but you'll. You'll if you can find the right ones. That means all the difference. Chris: That's really good. You know the point to that. Similar with employees. Right, you're going to make some bad decisions, whether it's a partner or personnel. But once you realize that move fast, right to cut, because a bad employee can be kind of road culture or a bad partner obviously can run a business down. But once you know that definitely want to move fast. Mike: Yeah, I mean, if it seems like it's, if it seems like you know, bring a raincoat. If it's raining every day, you know we're sitting here having these calls, like this business every month is having the same challenges. Okay, you know, you know, and we've gotten the point of my partners and the key leadership on our team where we look each other in the eye and we go all right, it's, yeah, we need to make a change, and then you know that that leads to some quick and real thoughtful action. So, yeah, I totally agree. Chris: Well, let's appreciate all that. I mean, I think, your success at more taxing your teams I know it takes more than just you in seven acquisitions since 2015 and the growth up to 800 employees is is anything. It's very impressive. So congrats on all that and the new acquisition. I want to ask a few personal questions Just before as we wrap up. What was your first? Mike: job. That was actually my icebreaker at my integration meeting today. My first job was was that Vellano brothers? Chris: Okay, doing what? Mike: I was I think it was counting T bolts because I wasn't old enough to drive a forklift or picking up paper. I remember my father told me hey, I want you to go pick up paper on the. I'll give you a dollar for every piece of paper you pick up on the warehouse floor. And I went out and I had like a grocery bag. I'm like gotta be $1,000. I think you gave me here's five bucks. Go buy a soda. That's right. That was my first job. Chris: Okay, I know you're from New York. You've been in Texas a while, so I ask all my guests do you prefer Tex max or barbecue? Mike: I prefer Tex max. Okay, I like a margarita. I like some good, proper cheats, texas cheese enchiladas and a good margarita. Chris: That's right. So last question is if you could take a 30 day sabbatical, where would you go? What would you do? Italy, no hesitation there. Mike: Anywhere in Italy would be okay. Chris: Very good, very good. Well, that's a popular answer, by the way, but I guess you have family ties that would make it your answer to you. Mike: So some family ties, and I like one that makes both of us. Chris: So, mike, thanks again for taking the time to come on the podcast. Really enjoyed getting to know you and hear your story and wish you nothing but the best of success in 2024. Mike: Awesome. Thank you for your time. I appreciate it. Chris: All right, we're going to end the recording there. Special Guest: Mike Vellano.

If you missed the other episodes with thoughtbot Incubator Program partcipants and founders Mike Rosenthal and Chris Cerrito of Goodz, you can listen to the first episode (https://podcast.thoughtbot.com/s3e2incubatorgoodz) and the second episode (https://podcast.thoughtbot.com/s3e4incubatorgoodz), and the third episode (https://podcast.thoughtbot.com/s3e6incubatorgoodz) to catch up! Lindsey Christensen and Jordyn Bonds catch up with the co-founders of Goodz, Chris Cerrito and Mike Rosenthal, where they share insights from their journey during the Incubator program, including the usefulness of the application process in aligning their vision and the challenges and benefits of user interviews and the importance of not overreacting to single user feedback and finding a balance in responding to diverse opinions. They reveal the varied reactions of users to Goodz's product, highlighting the different market segments interested in it. As the Incubator program nears its end for Goodz, Chris and Mike reflect on their achievements and future plans. They've made significant progress, such as setting up an e-commerce site and conducting successful user interviews. The co-founders discuss their excitement about the potential of their product and the validation they received from users. Mike mentions the importance of focusing on B2B sales and the possibility of upcoming events like South by Southwest and Record Store Day. Transcript: LINDSEY: Thanks for being here. My name's Lindsey. I head up marketing at thoughtbot. If you haven't joined one of these before, we are checking in with two of the founders who are going through the thoughtbot Startup Incubator to learn how it's going, what's new, what challenges they're hitting, and what they're learning along the way. If you're not familiar with thoughtbot, we're a product design and development consultancy, and we hope your team and your product become a success. And one way we do that is through our startup incubator. So, today, we are joined by our co-founders, Mike Rosenthal and Chris Cerrito, Co-Founders of the startup Goodz. And we also have another special guest today, Danny Kim, from the thoughtbot side, Senior Product Manager at thoughtbot. So, I think, to start off, we'll head over to the new face, the new voice that we've got with us today. Danny, tell us a little bit about your role at thoughtbot and, specifically, the incubator. DANNY: Yeah, sure. First of all, thanks for having me on, and thanks for letting me join in on all the fun. I'm one of the product managers at thoughtbot. I typically work for the Lift-Off team. We usually work with companies that are looking to, like, go into market with their first version MVP. They might have a product that exists and that they're already kind of doing well with, and they kind of want to jump into a new segment. We'll typically work with companies like that to kind of get them kicked off the ground. But it's been really awesome being part of the incubator program. It's my first time in helping with the market validation side. Definitely also, like, learning a lot from this experience [laughs] for myself. Coming at it specifically from a PM perspective, there's, like, so much variation usually in product management across the industry, depending on, like, what stage of the product that you're working in. And so, I'm definitely feeling my fair share of impostor syndrome here. But it's been really fun to stretch my brand and, like, approach problems from, like, a completely different perspective and also using different tools. But, you know, working with Mike and Chris makes it so much easier because they really make it feel like you're part of their team, and so that definitely goes a long way. LINDSEY: It just goes to show everyone gets impostor syndrome sometimes [laughter], even senior product managers at thoughtbot [laughter]. Thanks for that intro. It's, you know, the thoughtbot team learns along the way, too, you know, especially if usually you're focused on a different stage of product development. Mike, it's been only three weeks or a very long three weeks since last we checked in with you, kind of forever in startup time. So, I think the last time, we were just getting to know you two. And you were walking us through the concept, this merging of the digital and physical world of music, and how we interact with music keepsakes or merchandise. How's my pitch? MIKE: Good. Great. You're killing it. [laughter] LINDSEY: And has anything major changed to that concept in the last three weeks? MIKE: No. I mean, I can't believe it's only been three weeks. It feels like it's been a long time since we last talked. It's been an intense three weeks, for sure. No, it's been going really well. I mean, we launched all sorts of stuff. I'm trying to think of anything that's sort of fundamentally changed in terms of the plan itself or kind of our, yeah, what we've been working on. And I think we've pretty much stayed the course to sort of get to where we are now. But it's been really intensive. I think also having sort of Thanksgiving in there, and we were kind of pushing to get something live right before the Thanksgiving break. And so, that week just felt, I mean, I was just dead by, you know, like, Thursday of Thanksgiving. I think we all were. So, it's been intense, I would say, is the short answer. And I'm happy, yeah, to get into kind of where things are at. But big picture, it's been an intense three weeks. LINDSEY: That's cool. And when we talked, you were, you know, definitely getting into research and user interviews. Have those influenced any, you know, changes along the way in the plan? MIKE: Yeah. They've been really helpful. You know, we'd never really done that before in any of the sort of past projects that we've worked on together. And so, I think just being able to, you know, read through some of those scripts and then sit through some of the interviews and just kind of hearing people's honest assessment of some things has been really interesting. I'm trying to think if it's materially affected anything. I guess, you know, at first, we were, like, we kind of had some assumptions around, okay, let's try to find, like...adult gift-givers sounds like the wrong thing, adults who give gifts as, like, a persona. The idea that, like, you know, maybe you gift your siblings gifts, and then maybe this could be a good gift idea. And I think, you know, we had a hard time kind of finding people to talk in an interesting way about that. And I think we've kind of realized it's kind of a hard persona to kind of chop up and talk about, right, Chris? I don't know [crosstalk 04:55] CHRIS: Well, it also seemed to, from my understanding of it, it seemed to, like, genuinely stress out the people who were being interviewed... MIKE: [laughs] CHRIS: Because it's kind of about a stressful topic [inaudible 05:03], you know, and, like, especially -- LINDSEY: Why? [laughs] CHRIS: Well, I think, I don't know, now I'm making assumptions. Maybe because we're close to the holiday season, and that's a topic in the back of everybody's mind. But yeah, Danny, would you disagree with that? Those folks, from what we heard, seemed like they were the most difficult to kind of extract answers from. But then, if the subject changed and we treated them as a different persona, several of those interviews proved to be quite fruitful. So, it's just really interesting. DANNY: Yeah. It really started, like, you kind of try to get some answers out of people, and there's, like, some level of people trying to please you to some extent. That's just, like, naturally, how it starts. And you just, like, keep trying to drill into the answers. And you just keep asking people like, "So, what kind of gifts do you give?" And they're just like, "Oh my goodness, like, I haven't thought about buying gifts for my sister in [laughs], like, you know, in forever. And now, like [laughs], I don't know where to go." And they get, like, pretty stressed out about it. But then we just kind of started shifting into like, "All right, cool, never mind about that. Like, do you like listening to music?" And they're like, "Yes." And then it just kind of explodes from there. And they're like, "This last concert that I went to..." and all of this stuff. And it was much more fruitful kind of leaning more towards that, actually, yeah. LINDSEY: That's fascinating. I guess that speaks to, especially at this stage and the speed and the amount of interviews you're doing, the need for being, like, really agile in those interviews, and then, like, really quickly applying what you're learning to making the next one even more valuable. MIKE: Yeah. And I think, you know, like, we launched just a little sort of website experiment or, like, an e-commerce experiment right before Thanksgiving. And I think now, you know, we're able to sort of take some of those learnings from those interviews and apply them to both sort of our ad copy itself but also just different landing pages in different language on the different kind of versions of the site and see if we can find some resonance with some of these audience groups. So, it's been interesting. LINDSEY: Are you still trying to figure out who that early adopter audience is, who that niche persona is? MIKE: I think we -- CHRIS: Yes, we are. I think we have a good idea of who it is. And I think right now we're just trying to figure out really how to reach those people. That, I think, is the biggest challenge right now for us. MIKE: Yeah. With the e-commerce experiment it was sort of a very specific niche thing that is a little bit adjacent to what I think we want to be doing longer term with Goodz. And so, it's weird. It's like, we're in a place we're like, oh, we really want to find the people that want this thing. But also, this thing isn't necessarily the thing that we think we're going to make longer term, so let's not worry too hard about finding them. You know what I mean? It's been an interesting sort of back and forth with that. CHRIS: From the interviews that we conducted, you know, we identified three key personas. Most of them have come up, but I'll just relist them. There's the sibling gift giver. There was the merch buyers; these are people who go to concerts and buy merchandise, you know, T-shirts, albums, records, things along those lines to support the artists that they love. And then the final one that was identified we gave the title of the 'Proud Playlister'. And these are people who are really into their digital media platforms, love making playlists, and love sharing those playlists with their friends. And that, I would say, the proud playlister is really the one that we have focused on in terms of the storefront that we launched, like, the product is pretty much specifically for them. But the lessons that we're learning while making this product and trying to get this into the hands of the proud playlisters will feed into kind of the merch buyers. MIKE: Yeah. And I think that, you know, it's funny, like, this week is kind of a poignant week for this, right? Because it's the week that Spotify Wrapped launched, right? So, it's like, in the course of any given year, it's probably, like, the one week of the year that lots and lots and lots of people are thinking about playlists all of a sudden, so trying a little bit to see if we can ride that wave or just kind of dovetail with that a bit, too. LINDSEY: Absolutely. And do you want to give just, like, the really quick reminder of what the product experience is like? MIKE: Oh yeah [laughs], good call. CHRIS: This is a prototype of it. It's called the Goodz Mixtape. Basically, the idea is that you purchase one of these from us. You give us a playlist URL. We program that URL onto the NFC chip that's embedded in the Good itself. And then when you scan this Good, that playlist will come up. So, it's a really great way of you make a playlist for somebody, and you want to gift it to them; this is a great way to do that. You have a special playlist, maybe between you and a friend or you and a partner. This is a good way to commemorate that playlist, turn it into a physical thing, give that digital file value and presence in the physical world. LINDSEY: Great. Okay, so you casually mentioned this launch of an e-commerce store that happened last week. MIKE: It didn't feel casual. LINDSEY: Yeah. Why [laughter]...[inaudible 09:45] real casual. Why did you launch it? How's it going? MIKE: I don't know. Why did we launch it? I mean, well, we wanted to be able to test some assumptions. I think, you know, we wanted to get the brand out there a little bit, get our website out there, kind of introduce the concept. You know, this is a very...not that we've invented this product category, but it is a pretty obscure product category, right? And so, there's a lot of sort of consumer education that I think that has to go on for people to wrap their heads around this and why they'd want this. So, I think we wanted to start that process a little bit correctly, sort of in advance of a larger launch next year, and see if we could find some early community around this. You know, if we can find those core people who just absolutely love this, and connect with it, and go wild around it, then those are the people that we're going to be able to get a ton of information from and build for that persona, right? It's like, cool, these are the people who love this. Let's build more for them and go find other people like this. So, I think, for us, it was that. And then, honestly, it was also just, you know, let's test our manufacturing and fulfillment and logistics capabilities, right? I mean, this is...as much as we are a B2B, you know, SaaS platform or that's what we envision the future of Goodz being, there is a physical component of this. And, you know, we do have that part basically done at this point. But we just, you know, what is it like to order 1,000 of these? What is it like to put these in the mail to people and, you know, actually take orders? And just some of that processing because we do envision a more wholesale future where we're doing, you know, thousands or tens of thousands of this at a time. And so, I think we just want to button up and do some dry runs before we get to those kinds of numbers. CHRIS: I think it also it's important to remember that we are talking in startup time. And while this last week seems like an eternity, it's been a week [laughs] that we've had this in place. So, we're just starting to learn these things, and we plan on continuing to do so. MIKE: Yeah. But I think we thought that getting a website up would be a good way to just start kind of testing everything more. LINDSEY: Great. Danny, what went into deciding what would be in this first version of the site and the e-commerce offering? DANNY: I mean, a lot of it was kind of mostly driven by Chris and Mike. They kind of had a vision and an idea of what they wanted to sell. Obviously, from the user interviews, we were starting to hone in a little bit more and, like, we had some assumptions going into it. I think we ultimately did kind of feel like, yeah, I think, like, the playlisters seem to be, like, the target market. But just hearing it more and hearing more excitement from them was definitely just kind of like, yeah, I think we can double down on this piece. But, ultimately, like, in terms of launching the e-commerce platform, and the storefront, and the website, like, just literally looking at the user journey and being like, how does a user get from getting onto a site, like, as soon as they land there to, like, finishing a purchase? And what points do they need? What are the key things that they need to think through and typically will run into? And a lot of it is just kind of reflecting on our own personal buyer behavior. And, also, as we were getting closer to the launch, starting to work through some of those assumptions about buyer behavior. As we got there, we obviously had some prototypes. We had some screenshots that we were already working with. Like, the design team was already starting to build out some of the site. And so, we would just kind of show it to them, show it to our users, and just be like, hey, like, how do you expect to purchase this? Like, what's the next step that you expect to take? And we'd just kind of, like, continue to iterate on that piece. And so... LINDSEY: Okay. So you were, before launching, even showing some of those mockups and starting to incorporate them in the user interviews. DANNY: Yeah, yeah. I mean, we tried to get it in there in front of them as early as possible, partially because, like, at some point in the user interviews, like, you're mostly just trying to first understand, like, who are our target customers? Who are these people? And we have an assumption of or an idea of who we think they are. But really, like, once you start talking to people, you kind of are, like, okay, like, this thing that I thought maybe it wasn't so accurate, or, like, the way that they're kind of talking about these products doesn't 100% match what I originally walked into this, you know, experiment with. And so, we, like, start to hone in on that. But after a certain point, you kind of get that idea and now you're just like, okay, you seem to be, like, the right person to talk to. And so, if I were to show you this thing, do you get it, right? Like, do you understand what's happening? Like, how to use this thing, what this product even does. And then also, like, does the checkout experience feel intuitive for you? Is it as simple as, like, I just want to buy a T-shirt? So, like, I'm just going to go by the T-shirt, pick a size, and, you know, move on with my life. Can we make it as seamless as that? LINDSEY: And so, you mentioned it's only been a week since it's been live. Have you been able to learn anything from it yet? And how are you trying to drive people to it today? MIKE: Yeah, I think we learned that sales is hard [laughs] and slow, and it takes some time. But it's good, and we're learning a lot. I mean, it's been a while since I've really dug deep in, like, the analytics and marketing kind of metrics. And so, we've got all the Google Tag Manager stuff, you know, hooked up and just, you know, connecting with just exploring, honestly, like the TikTok advertising platform, and the YouTube Pre-Rolls, and Shorts. And, like, a lot of stuff that I actually, since the last time I was heavily involved in this stuff, is just totally new and different. And so, it's been super interesting to see the funnel and sort of see where people are getting in the site, where people are dropping off. You know, we had an interesting conversation in our thoughtbot sync yesterday or the day before, where we were seeing how, you know, we're getting lots of people to the front page and, actually, a good number of people to the product page, and, actually, like, you know, not the worst number of people to the cart. But then you were seeing really high cart abandonment rates. And then, you know, when you start Googling, and you're like, oh, actually, everybody sees very high cart abandonment rates; that's just a thing. But we were seeing, like, the people were viewing their cart seven or eight times, and they were on there sort of five times as long as they were on any other page. And it's this problem that I think Danny is talking about where, you know, we need to actually get a playlist URL. This gets into the minutiae of what we're building, but basically like, we need to get them to give us a playlist URL in order to check out, right? And so, you sort of have to, like, put yourself back in the mind of someone who's scrolling on Instagram, and they see this as an ad, and they click it, and they're like, oh, that thing was cool. Sure, I will buy one of those. And then it's like, no, actually, you need to, you know, leave this, go into a different app, find a play...like, it suddenly just puts a lot of the mental strain. But it's a lot. It's a cognitive load, greater than, as you said, just buying a T-shirt and telling what size you want. So, thinking through ways to really trim that down, shore up the amount of time people are spending on a cart. All that stuff has been fascinating. And then just, like, the different demographic kind of work that we're using, all the social ads platforms to kind of identify has been really interesting. It's still early. But, actually, like, Chris and I were just noticing...we were just talking right before this call. Like, we're actually starting to get, just in the last 12 hours, a bunch more, a bunch, but more people signing up to our email newsletter, probably in the last 12 hours that we have in the whole of last week. Yeah, I don't know, just even that sort of learning, it's like, oh, do people just need time with a thing, or they come back and they think about it? CHRIS: Yeah. Could these people be working on their playlists? That's a question that I have. MIKE: [chuckles] Yeah, me too. CHRIS: It's like, you know, I'm making a playlist to drop into this product. It's really interesting. And I think it gives insight to kind of, you know, how personal this product could be, that this is something that takes effort on the part of the consumer because they're making something to give or to keep for themselves, which is, I think, really interesting but definitely hard, too. DANNY: Yeah. And I also want to also clarify, like, Chris just kind of said it, like, especially for viewers and listeners, like, that's something that we've been hearing a lot from user interviews, too, right? Like, the language that they're using is, like, this is a thing that I care about. Like it's a representation of who I am. It's a representation of, like, the relationship that I have with this person that I'm going to be giving, you know, this gift to or this playlist to, specifically, like, people who feel, like, really passionate about these things. And, I mean, like, I did, too. Like, when I was first trying to, like, date, my wife, like, I spent, like, hours, hours trying to pick the coolest songs that I thought, you know, were like, oh, like, she's going to think I'm so cool because, like, I listen to these, like, super low-key indie rock bands, and, like, you know, so many more hours than she probably spent listening to it. But that's [laughs] kind of, like, honestly, what we heard a lot in a lot of these interviews, so... LINDSEY: Yeah, same. No, totally resonates. And I also went to the site this week, and I was like, oh damn, this is cool. Like, and immediately it was like, oh, you know, I've got these three, you know, music friends that we go to shows together. I'm like, oh, this would be so cool to get them, you know, playlists of, like, music we've seen together. So, you might see me in the cart. I won't abandon it. MIKE: Please. I would love that. CHRIS: Don't think about it too long if you could -- [laughter]. LINDSEY: I won't. I won't. CHRIS: I mean, I would say I'm really excited about having the site not only as a vehicle for selling some of these things but also as a vehicle for just honing our message. It's like another tool that we have in our arsenal. During the user interviews themselves, we were talking in abstract terms, and now we have something concrete that we can bounce off people, which is, I think, going to be a huge boon to our toolset as we continue to refine and define this product. MIKE: Yeah, that's a good point. LINDSEY: Yeah. You mentioned that they're signing up for, like, email updates. Do you have something you're sending out? Or are you kind of just creating a list? Totally fine, just building a list. MIKE: [laughs] No. CHRIS: It's a picture of Mike and I giving a big thumbs up. That's, yeah. [laughter] MIKE: No. But maybe...that was the thing; I was like, oh great, they're signing up. And I was like, gosh, they're signing up. Okay [laughter], now we got to write something. But we will. LINDSEY: Tips to making your playlist [crosstalk 19:11] playing your playlist -- MIKE: Yeah [crosstalk 19:13]. CHRIS: Right. And then also...tips to making your playlists. Also, we're advancing on the collectible side of things, too. We are, hopefully, going to have two pilot programs in place, one with a major label and one with a major artist. And we're really excited about that. LINDSEY: Okay. That's cool. I assume you can't tell us very much. What can you tell us? MIKE: Yeah. We won't mention names [chuckles] in case it just goes away, as these things sometimes do. But yeah, there's a great band who's super excited about these, been around for a long time, some good name recognition, and a very loyal fan base. They want to do sort of a collection of these. I think maybe we showed the little...I can't remember if we showed the little crates that we make or not, but basically, [inaudible 19:52] LINDSEY: The last time, yeah. MIKE: So, they want to sell online a package that's, you know, five or six Goodz in a crate, which I think will be cool and a great sort of sales experiment. And then there's a couple of artists that we're going to do an experiment with that's through their label that's more about tour...basically, giving things away on tour. So, they're going to do some giveaway fan club street team-style experiments with some of these on the road. So, first, it's ideal, provided both those things happen, because we definitely want to be exploring on the road and online stuff. And so, this kind of lets us do both at once and get some real learnings as to kind of how people...because we still don't know. We haven't really put these in people's hands yet. And it's just, like, are people scanning these a lot? Are they not? Is this sort of an object that's sitting on their shelf? Is it...yeah, it's just, like, there's so much we're going to learn once we get these into people's hands. LINDSEY: Do you have the infrastructure to sort of see how many times the cards are scanned? CHRIS: Mm-hmm. Yep, we do. MIKE: Yeah. So, we can see how many times each one is scanned, where they're scanned, that sort of thing. CHRIS: Kind of our next step, and something we were just talking about today with the thoughtbot team, is building out kind of what the backend will be for this, both for users and also for labels and artists. That it will allow them to go in and post updates to the Goodz, to allow them to use these for promotion as people, you know, scan into them to give them links to other sites related to the artists that they might be interested in before they move on to the actual musical playlist. So, that's kind of the next step for us. And knowing how users use these collectibles, both the kind of consumer Good and the artist collectibles that we were just talking about, will help inform how we build that platform. LINDSEY: Very cool. And right now, the online store itself that's built in Shopify? MIKE: Yeah. The homepage is Webflow that Kevin from the thoughtbot team really spearheaded in building for us. And then, yeah, the e-commerce is Shopify. LINDSEY: Y'all have been busy. MIKE: [laughs] LINDSEY: Is there anything else maybe that I haven't asked about yet that we should touch on in terms of updates or things going on with the product? MIKE: I don't know. I don't think so. I think, like Chris said, I mean, we're just...like, now that the site has kind of stood up and we're really switched over to kind of marketing and advertising on that, definitely digging into the backend of this kind of SaaS platform that's going to probably be a big focus for the rest of the, you know, the program, to be honest. Yeah, just some other things we can do on the next front that could eventually build into the backend that I think can be interesting. No, I guess [laughs] the short answer is no, nothing, like, substantial. Those are the big [crosstalk 22:26] LINDSEY: Yeah. Well, that was my next question, too, which is kind of like, what's next, or what's the next chunk of work? So, it's obviously lots more optimization and learning on the e-commerce platform, and then this other mega area, which is, you know, what does this look like as a SaaS solution? What's the vision? But also, where do we start? Which I'm sure, Danny, is a lot of work that you specialize in as far as, like, scoping how to approach these kinds of projects. DANNY: Yeah. And it's interesting because, I mean, we were just talking about this today. Like, part of it is, like, we can, like, really dig into, like, the e-commerce site and, like, really nailing it down to get it to the place where it's like, we're driving tons more traffic and also getting as low of a, like, cart abandonment rate as possible, right? But also, considering the fact that this is in the future, like, large-scale vision. And there's, like, also, like, we're starting to, I think, now iron out a lot of those, like, milestones where we're kind of like, okay, like, we got, like, a short-term vision, which is, like, the e-commerce site. We got a mid-term vision and a potential long-term vision. How do we validate this long-term vision while also still like, keeping this short-term vision moving forward? And, like, this mid-term vision is also going to, like, help potentially, either, like, steer us towards that long-term or maybe even, like, pivot us, like, into a completely different direction. So, like, where do you put your card, right? Like, how much energy and time do we put into, like, each of these areas? And that's kind of, like, the interesting part of this is starting to talk through that, starting to kind of prioritize, like, how we can maximize on our effort, like, our development and design effort so that things just kind of line up more naturally and organically for our future visioning, so... MIKE: Yeah. A lot of different things to juggle. I saw there was a question. Somebody asked what the URL is, but I don't seem to be able to [crosstalk 24:10]. LINDSEY: The same question as me. We got to drop the link for this thing. MIKE: Yeah, getthegoodz.com. CHRIS: That's G-O-O-D-Z. LINDSEY: Get in there, folks MIKE: Yeah, get [crosstalk 24:23]. LINDSEY: And let us know how it goes. MIKE: Yeah, please [laughs]. Any bugs? Let us know. Yeah. I think that those...yeah, I mean, it's a good point, Danny, in terms of juggling kind of the near-term and longer-term stuff. You know, it's a good kind of reminder our big focus, you know, in the new year is going to be fundraising, right? We're already talking to some investors and things like that. So, it's like, okay, yes, as you said, we could tweak the cart. We could tweak the e-commerce. Or, like, can we paint the big picture of what the longer-term version of this company is going to be in a way that makes it compelling for investment to come in so that there can be a long-term version of this company? And then we can build those things. So yeah, it's definitely a balance between the two. LINDSEY: Oh, also, just casual fundraising as well. [crosstalk 25:06] MIKE: Yeah, yeah. LINDSEY: [laughs] MIKE: But it's hard. It's like, you wake up in the morning. It's like, do I want to, like, write cold emails to investors? Or do I want to, like, look at Google Analytics and, like, tweak ad copy? That's actually more fun. So, yes. LINDSEY: Yeah, life of the founder, for sure. All right. So, that's getthegoodz (Goodz with a z) .com. Check it out. We'll tune in and see what happens with the e-commerce site, what happens with the SaaS planning the next time that we check in. But Chris, Mike, Danny, thank you so much for joining today and sharing what's been going on over the last few weeks: the good, the bad, the challenge, the cart abandonment. And, you know, best of luck to you over the next few weeks, and we'll be sure to check in and see how it's going. AD: Did you know thoughtbot has a referral program? If you introduce us to someone looking for a design or development partner, we will compensate you if they decide to work with us. More info on our website at: tbot.io/referral. Or you can email us at referrals@thoughtbot.com with any questions. Transcript:  LINDSEY: Thank you to our viewers and listeners. We are catching up once again with one of the startups going through the thoughtbot Incubator. My name is Lindsey Christensen. I'm joined today by Jordyn Bonds, who heads up the thoughtbot incubator, as well as our Co-Founders of Goodz, Chris Cerrito and Mike Rosenthal. Welcome, everybody. MIKE: Thanks, Lindsey. LINDSEY: Before we get started, before we put Chris and Mike back in the hot seat, at the top here, Jordyn, we have a special announcement for our viewers and listeners. JORDYN: Application window is open for session 1 of 2024, folks. You can go to thoughtbot.com/incubator and apply. And Chris and Mike can tell you how easy or hard applying was. MIKE: It was easy. It was totally easy. It's a very straightforward process. CHRIS: Yeah, it was way more straightforward than a lot of applications that we've dealt with in the past, for sure. JORDYN: Ha-ha. And if you've got a business idea that involves software but you haven't gotten anything out there yet, come talk to us. We will help you make sure that it's a good idea and that there are people who might buy it, and maybe get you even a little further than that. MIKE: We actually have a friend who's considering applying. I'll tell him applications are open. He's worried his idea is not big enough to actually be a business idea, so we'll see. CHRIS: Even the process of doing the application was really helpful for us because it helped us get aligned on exactly what we were doing, yeah. JORDYN: I love that. And I found that to be true when I was a founder applying to some of these things, in particular, applying for an SBIR grant was one of the most challenging things that we did, but it was so productive. I was so annoyed by it at the time, and then I cribbed from that thing. It actually sort of forced us to make a business plan [laughs], and then, basically, we ran it, and it was great [laughs]. CHRIS: Yeah. I think that was, for us, that was our point where we were like, "Is this idea fleshed out enough to move forward?" And we were like, "Yes, it is. Let's go. Let's do this." JORDYN: So, use the application as a forcing function, everybody. It will help you clarify your thinking. LINDSEY: Yeah. Jordyn, what would you say to Mike's friend who's questioning if their idea is big enough? How do you respond to that sentiment? JORDYN: That is a fascinating sentiment because I feel like so much more often, I am trying to help founders with the opposite problem where they think this thing is so big that they are not thinking about what step 1 is going to look like. They're just, like, in 10 years, we're going to be the next Amazon, and I'm like, "Maybe [laughter]. Let me help you figure out how to get to that giant vision." So, I don't come across the "Is this big enough to be a business?" question as often. And, I don't know, what would I say? I guess I need the details. LINDSEY: It could be a perfect fit MIKE: It could be. JORDYN: It could be a perfect fit. LINDSEY: In a way, that's what you're answering, right? MIKE: Right. LINDSEY: In some of this work. MIKE: That is true. So, yeah, you guys would certainly...just thinking through the process we've gone through the last two months, it would definitely help them flesh that out. LINDSEY: Which is a great segue. MIKE: Great segue. LINDSEY: Chris and Mike, we're actually coming up to the end of your incubator time. CHRIS: It's so sad. LINDSEY: Can you believe it? MIKE: It's gone by really fast. I mean, eight weeks is not a long time, but it has gone by very, very fast. CHRIS: It felt like a very long time in the middle of it. MIKE: [laughs] CHRIS: But now that it's over, it feels like a blink that it's coming to a close. MIKE: I don't know. It's funny. I think we had some note in our retro today that was like, maybe the very end of the year is not the best time to do an accelerator just because you have, like, the holidays kind of jumping in here in the end. So, that might have helped make it feel like a... I feel like the end of the year always feels like a rush anyway. So, I think just life gets a little bit busier this time of year, too, but yeah. CHRIS: Yeah, my gingerbread man decorating game is, like, really down this season because we've been so busy. Tragic. LINDSEY: Chris, can you remind our viewers and listeners who might not be familiar what was the idea that you and Mike have been exploring with the incubator or, like, what did you come in with? CHRIS: So, with Goodz, what we're trying to do is make little, physical collectibles objects that connect back to the digital content that a user loves. The idea being that today, we are awash in these digital files, links, so many things on our desktops, on our phones, on our devices, and it's really hard to tell which part of those are really, really important to us. So, by giving them a presence in the physical world, that denotes that's something that's really important, worth keeping, worth sharing, and showing off to your friends and family. And to start this off, mostly because Mike and I are both kind of music nerds, we're starting off with a music focus, but at some point, we're hoping to move into other realms, too. LINDSEY: And a lot of the incubator, as repeat listeners will know, is focused on really kind of evolving user interviews all the way through and narrowing in on, you know, a core audience, a core market. Mike, how has that evolution been? I think the last time we chatted was around three weeks ago. What has the latest iteration of user interviews looked like in terms of the people you're talking to and even what you're asking them? MIKE: It's been a really fascinating process. I mean, I'm trying to think of where we were exactly the last time we talked to you, but I think we'd probably just launched the e-commerce site that we had been experimenting with putting up. LINDSEY: Yeah, exactly. MIKE: And so, and we really then started cranking on user interviews kind of once that was live. And so, moving away from the conceptual and more into like, "Okay, share your screen. Here's the link. Like, tell me what you think is going on here," and really sort of getting users who had never, you know, never heard our pitch, never been involved with us to sort of try to wrap their heads around what we are and what we're doing just based on that website and trying to sort of make iterative changes based on that. You know, for me, because I had not done user interviews very much in the past, like, it's very tempting, like, you get sort of 1 note from 1 person in 1 interview, and you're like, oh, we need to change this word. That word didn't make any sense to them, or this thing needs to be blue instead of pink. I think, for me, it was like, all right, how do we kind of synthesize this data in a responsible way? And it emerged naturally, which, I mean, Jordyn and all thoughtbot folks said that it would, but you sort of started hearing the same things again and again. And we never really got to a place where, like, you heard the exact same things from everyone. But there were enough buckets, I feel like, where we're like, okay, like, this part really isn't making that much sense to people, or, like, we do really need to, you know, structure this differently to convey. So, it was a bunch of that kind of work over the last three weeks or so and sort of just getting a sense of like, are we conveying our message? It's hard. I mean, it's a new, like, we're not the only people making physical products with NFC chips in them, but it is not the most common, like, product. Like, it is kind of a new category out there. And so, really trying to understand just right off the bat, do people get it? And you get wildly different answers [laughs] as to whether they get it or they don't, which has been fascinating, too. JORDYN: Yeah. [crosstalk 7:12] LINDSEY: Chris or Jordyn, anything to add there? JORDYN: Yeah. You get the best, like, bootcamp in the don't overreact to a single user interview experience in some ways because we [laughs]...it would literally be like, interview in the morning someone says this thing. Interview in the afternoon, someone says the exact opposite thing [laughter]. And you're like, okay [laughs], like, which one of these things are we going to respond to, if either of them? CHRIS: Yeah. It's hard. As somebody with, like, a strong desire to please, it's hard to reign yourself in and want to change things immediately, but it definitely makes sense to do so in the long run. MIKE: But yeah, but, I mean, like I said, I do feel like it kind of came down to buckets. It's like, okay, you're that. I can, like, categorize you with all those other people and you with all those other people. And yeah, I hear you. I'm like, yeah, it's tempting to want to please them all. But I think with this one, we're fighting hard to be like...or we sort of have a philosophy that this product is emphatically not for everyone because, at the end of the day, you get a lot of people who are like, "Wait, you're just putting a link to a streaming playlist on a physical object? Why don't I just text someone the link?" And sometimes that breaks down by age group, like, 18-year-olds being like, "What are you talking about, old man? LINDSEY: [laughs] MIKE: Like, why the hell would I do that? It makes no sense." But it sort of skews all over the age ranges. But then there'll be other people who are 18 or 20 years old who are like, "Wow, I never had cassettes when I was growing up," or "I never got to make, you know, mixtapes or CD-Rs for people." And like, you know, so it's, yeah, it's about finding the people who are the early adopters. As Jordyn has said a lot, it's like, we need to find those early adopters and, like, make them love us, and then other people will come later. CHRIS: I mean, some of the most gratifying moments, I think, are there's been some interviews where people have been so excited that after the interview, they've gone and purchased our products, which is just, like, the coolest feeling ever. LINDSEY: Wow. MIKE: Yeah, it's pretty cool. LINDSEY: Are you open to sharing a little bit more about what those buckets or what those segments look like? CHRIS: I mean, I think there's folks who outright just get it almost immediately, and I think those people tend to be hardcore music collectors, hardcore music fans, Jordyn and Mike, please feel free to jump in if you disagree with any of this. They just get it right off the bat. Then I think there's, in my experience, there's another bucket of people who are a little more hesitant, and maybe they wouldn't buy it, but they seemed really excited about the idea of getting one as a gift, which is really interesting. They're like, "I don't know if I'd buy this, but I'd really like to have one." And then there is another segment, like, which Mike just mentioned, of folks who just don't see the value in this whatsoever, which is totally fair. MIKE: Yeah, totally. I think it's also...I see it almost as, like, a matrix. There's, like, desirability, and, like, technical understanding because people were like, "I technically understand what this is, and I do not want it in my life." Or like, "I get what this is and, oh my God, I have to have that," or like, "I don't really understand what you're talking about, but, man, I love physical stuff. Like, sure I want..." you know, it's like, it goes across those two planes, I think. JORDYN: I will say that it, I think you alluded to this before, Mike, but, like, we're going to run a whole analysis of...because we did a ton of interviews, and we haven't actually done that, like, sort of data-driven thing of like, are there trends in the demographics somewhere that we're not getting? Because the pattern has not been there. Like, someone will talk to an 18-year-old, you know, at 1:00 p.m. who is just, like, "Why on earth would I ever want this?" And then I, like, you know, will talk to a 21-year-old who is like, "I love this." And it's like, why? Like, this is the answer. The thing we're trying to get out now is, like, what is the difference between those two people? It's not a demographic thing that we can see from the outside, so what is it instead? But with consumer stuff like this, often, you don't necessarily...you don't need that in such great detail when you're starting. You just kind of, like, throw it out there and see who grabs it, and then you start to build sort of cohorts around that. And that is kind of what these interviews have shown us is that there are people who will grab it, and that was part of what we were trying to validate. Are there people who Mike and Chris do not know personally who will, like, get this and be psyched about it immediately? And that is, you know, check unequivocally true. Like Chris said, there are people that we were, you know, that we had recruited on this user interviews platform [chuckles] who then just turned around and bought the product because they were so psyched about it. One of the guys I interviewed was like, "Can I invest in your company right now?" Like, during the interview, and I was like, "Maybe?" [laughs] CHRIS: There was, like, another person who wanted to work for us immediately... JORDYN: Yes, great. CHRIS: Which was really interesting and kind of awesome. JORDYN: Yeah, they're like, "Are you hiring?" You're just like, okay. So, it's validating that there are people all over that spectrum. Like, where those trends lie, though, which is, I think, what you were asking, Lindsey, not as straightforward and in a fascinating way. So, we still have a little more, like, number crunching to do on that, and we may have an answer for you later. LINDSEY: That's exciting. Exactly. I'm curious: what are the connecting dots between the folks who are really into it, and how might that impact how you approach the business? MIKE: Yeah, it's hard. It's definitely going to be a niche to start. And so, we got to figure out kind of got to crack the code on how we find those people. LINDSEY: And, Mike, I think you had also mentioned last time that, you know, you or both of you have a network kind of in the music industry, and you've been floating the idea past some people there. Have you been having more of those conversations over the last few weeks, too? MIKE: We have, yeah. Well, so yeah, we've had a couple more just kind of straight-up pitch calls versus like, "Hey, there's this cool thing we're doing," and having those people be like, "Cool. Let's do a pilot." And so, they're ordering, you know, 500 or 1,000 units at a time, which is rad. LINDSEY: Whoa. MIKE: For the first...yeah. LINDSEY: Okay, very cool. MIKE: Yeah. The first two or three of those should happen in January or maybe early February, but yeah, those are done and in production and arriving soon. So, that's really exciting with some cool bands. We won't say the names in case it doesn't [laughs] work out, but it does look like it's going to work out. LINDSEY: And so, it's specific bands that are creating merch for their fans. MIKE: Yeah, yeah. So, we're working with one artist manager on a band that he manages, and then we're working with a record label. And they're going to try with a couple of smaller artists. And so, yeah, it's actually really good for us. One is going to be straight-up sales, most likely, and it's, like, selling these things. And the other ones will be given away as kind of promo items on tour artists, which is also a really interesting use case for us, too, that we're excited about and using them as a way to sort of get email addresses and, like, fans engaged and stuff, so... And then yeah, then I had another conversation, and they want to talk about doing some pilots. So far, like, that side of things is going great. We're sort of 3 for 4 in terms of initial calls leading to pilots right off the bat, which is kind of unheard of from [laughs] my experience. LINDSEY: Yeah, I'd say so. No, a lot of very good signals. MIKE: Really good signals. But then we were able to turn some of those into user interview conversations, actually, as well over the course of the last couple of weeks, which has been really helpful, like, talking to manager and label-type people about what they might want out of a software product that is associated with this because we're not just thinking about making physical products but sort of coupling that with an online toolset. And that part, we haven't gotten as far along as we did with the direct-to-consumer e-commerce, but it's been fascinating. LINDSEY: So, what has been happening with the online shop? As you noted the last time we talked, it was just a baby less than a week-old Shopify site getting, you know, some first hits of people going around maybe putting things in their basket. I'm sure a lot has happened over the last few weeks. What kind of work, what kind of insights have you seen around the site? CHRIS: We've been, I mean, we've been selling stuff at a slow but steady pace. It's been great because it's enough to, you know, because our product really straddles the line between physical and digital; there's a lot of physical aspects to this that we need to figure out and kind of the level of orders that we've been getting have been really...it's, like, the perfect number to think about fulfillment issues, things like what kind of package does this go in? How do we mail this out? Things along those lines, just very basic, practical questions that needed to be answered. But yeah, it's been great. We actually, I mean, we hit our goal for the amount of these that we wanted to get in people's hands before Christmas, which is pretty awesome. And we continue now with the lessons learned. I think our plan is to try and make a push for Valentine's Day because these seem like they would be a great Valentine's Day present: make a playlist; share it with your loved one; share it with a friend; share it with somebody you don't like at all. Who knows? LINDSEY: [laughs] CHRIS: But yeah, that's kind of our next sales push, we think. LINDSEY: The hate playlist. CHRIS: [inaudible 15:40] hate playlist. MIKE: Yeah, perfect. Real passive-aggressive. CHRIS: Just Blue Monday, like, by New Order, like, 14 times. LINDSEY: [laughs] Yeah, every song is just like a sub-tweet... MIKE: [laughs] LINDSEY: About something they've done and [inaudible 15:53] Have you updated the site? Like, how do you decide what gets updated on the site? [laughter] Everyone laughed. MIKE: It was a little haphazard, I would say, there for a minute. But -- CHRIS: We got the site up very, very quickly. And from my perspective, I've been dealing a lot with the physical side of things, just getting great product photos up there, which is, like, something that thoughtbot has actually been super helpful with. You know, everybody on the team is starting to submit photos of their Goodz in the real world and using their Goodz, which is great. And we continued to update the site with that but also making sure our text made sense, refining copy in response to things that people said during user interviews. The checkout process, the process of adding the URL that we point the Good to that, we did a bunch of experimentation there based on what people were saying during user interviews. So, it has been a little haphazard, but we have made a bunch of changes. LINDSEY: Jordyn, has there been any experiment, like, structured experimentation around the site or how you're getting people to the site? JORDYN: Mike actually did a little bit of ad funnel work that I don't think we've, like, even remotely scratched the surface of. So, I wish I could say that was conclusive, but I think we've found a little bit more...here are plenty of sales that are from people that nobody here knows. MIKE: True. JORDYN: So, people are finding out about this somehow [laughs]. But I think it's a little bit, like, word-of-mouth sort of chain of events is our sense so far. I wanted to say, though, about the site, we did get what Chris was saying about, like, this experiment was, in part, about fulfillment and figuring out how fulfillment would work and packaging, and not just messaging and not just closing the sale with consumers, but also, just, like, how do you fulfill these? But one of the really fun things we've managed to do in the last, since we talked last time, which I can't even believe...I feel like this wasn't even a gleam in our eyes for this project, but we managed to get out, like, stood up and out the door, and working in production in the last few weeks is a way for folks to actually assign the URL to their mixtape themselves. Previously, the plan had just been for Chris and Mike to do that, which is fine but a little bit unscalable, right? CHRIS: That was a huge dream or, like, that was high on our wish list. And we didn't think we'd get to it. And it's been pretty amazing that we have, yeah. JORDYN: Yeah, so that was one thing that is an update to the site. So, then we had to do a little bit of, like, micro iterating, on, like, the messaging around that. Like, how do you communicate to people? This is, like, a little bit of an abstract challenge, right? Like, here's this object. It's going to point to a digital thing. How do you tell the physical object which digital thing it's pointing to [laughs]? So, a lot of our recent interviewing has been to sort of get inside the mind of the consumer about how they're thinking about that and how we can best communicate that to them. So that's been a lot of the, like, recent iteration is getting that mechanism stood up and then the messaging around it. CHRIS: It's also really cool because it adds to the utility of the object itself in the sense that now our Goodz, when a user gets one, they can add a URL to their Good themselves, but they can also change that URL. So, it's much more malleable. JORDYN: Which is something that in one of our early user interviews was, like, a hot request [laughs], and we were like, "Someday, someday." And it's, you know, I should actually go back to her and be like, "Someday is today." [laughter] MIKE: Well, yeah, and just as Chris was saying, it just makes it so much easier to ship these out without having to manually load them, and you could sell them, and yeah, retail outlets, like, it just opens up a lot of opportunities for us for them. LINDSEY: And Mike mentioned that some of the, like, kind of future looking aspirations for the solution are, you know, how might you figure out the B2B, like, SaaS aspect of it? Jordyn, is that something that's been explored at all at this point, or is it early? JORDYN: That experiment I just described is actually sort of the link between the two projects. It sort of proves the concept and proves the value in some ways, and it has given us a little bit more visibility into sort of how we're going to execute some of this technical stuff. Like, how easy, how difficult is it going to be? These little experiments all build your confidence around your ability to do those things and what it's going to look like. And so, this experiment absolutely feeds into that question. But I would say it was really this week where we got to have a really fun brainstorming sort of blue sky conversation about that that I don't think would have been nearly as both creative and blue sky or rooted in reality as it was if we hadn't done these experiments and hadn't talked to so many...we had so much work...we could participate in a conversation like that so much more confidently and creatively because all of us had a lot more shared context. So, we really got to dream big, like, what is a SaaS platform built around these physical objects? And I don't want to, you know, I'm not going to give it away at this moment because we had a lot of, like, really cool ideas. It's one part talking to the B2B customer, which, you know, you mentioned earlier, getting what their pain points are, and what they're looking for, what they need, but then also dreaming big about now we understand the technology a little bit more and how it feels to use it. What does that unlock in our brains? The analogy I used in that conversation and that I use all the time is like, the users of Twitter invented hashtags, right? Twitter did not invent hashtags. And so, hey, everybody out there, newsflash: users invented hashtags, not Twitter or something else, if you didn't realize that Twitter was where those things kind of emerged. But there was just a user behavior that was happening in the wild, and Twitter was just very good at making that easier for them, looking at that and being like, "Oh, hey, is this a thing you all want to do? Here, we'll make that even more useful for you." And it was part of Twitter's early success that they were able to do that. And so, that was the kind of thinking we were trying to employ here is, like, now that we have these objects and we understand a little bit more how it feels to use them, you get these second order effects. What does that then make us think of? What is then possible to us that we wouldn't have been able to dream of previously because we didn't quite get it? So, that was really happening this week. LINDSEY: So, as the incubator time wraps up, what are the kind of final activities or deliverables, one, that Goodz wants and you know that they're going to get? What are the parting gifts as we send you out into the next phase? MIKE: Yeah, well, loads of stuff. I mean, we're getting all that code that [SP] Guillermo and the guys worked on to let people set their own playlist settings. And we've got that up in a GitHub repository now. And we've got a bunch of great design work that's all being handed over, like Chris was saying, product shots that a bunch of the team members were taking, synthesizing all the user interviews. We're actually sort of making some kind of final reports on those, so it's kind of more usable, actionable data for us. The whole website, you know, that didn't exist before. And that will sort of continue to grow as the entire website for Goodz moving forward. I don't know. That's a lot. What else was there, Chris? CHRIS: As a result of all that, I mean, one of the things I'm most excited about is now we have a small user base who actually has the physical products that, hopefully, we can get them to answer questions. That's huge for what's coming next. Starting the path towards the SaaS platform, too, it's really helped narrow our scope and think about, you know, how to make that successful or if it will be successful. LINDSEY: Yeah, that sounded like a big discussion this week that I know has been on your minds from the beginning. Wait, the last time, also, you said you were starting to get emails, too. Have you emailed anyone yet, or are you still holding on to them? MIKE: Oh. No, I still haven't sent a newsletter out [laughs], actually, but we have Mailchimp set up. Yeah, no, we've got a good kind of core of our, yeah, early folks on there. We'll start getting a newsletter out with some sort of regularity. We're building up the socials very slowly just focusing on Instagram mostly right now and trying to get back into that game. It's been a long time since I've had to do kind of social marketing stuff. And so, it's a lot of work, as it turns out, but we'll get all that cooking. I think this was just such a sprint, working with the thoughtbot folks and trying to get all this stuff done. Before the end of the year, now we can sort of take a breath and start engaging folks in the new year. LINDSEY: Yeah. Well, so, do you know what you want to do next or what the next phase looks like? Are you going to do fundraising? MIKE: We're certainly going to continue to have some fundraising conversations. We've had some conversations emerge over the last, you know, since we've been in thoughtbot, again, not the greatest time of year to try to be raising a round. But we're also not, like, desperately, urgently needing to do that right this second. I think, you know, part of it is the fundraising landscape, you know, doesn't look amazing. And we're still sort of building out a lot of traction, and sort of every week, there's some new, exciting thing, or we've got some new, big artists who wants to do something. So, I think, in some ways, to the extent that we can bootstrap for a little while, I think we will, yeah. So, we will focus on...I'd like to get back to focusing on, like, B2B sales. I'd like to hit the ground in January and just start talking to a bunch of music industry folks. And thinking ahead a little bit, sort of Q1 and Q2, like, what are the big tentpole events? You know, you got South by Southwest coming up in March. You got Record Store Day in April, or whenever it is. But, you know, there's, like, a bunch of those sorts of things that it's like, oh, let's not let those things suddenly be tomorrow. Like, right now, they're all still two or three/four months out. Like, let's make sure we're queued up for those things and see what happens. And Jordyn has been giving really good advice on the fundraising side where it's just like, just keep getting cool stuff like that and just do almost like little drip campaigns with funders who aren't maybe giving you the time of day or think it's too early, and just kind of keep going back to them. Like, the best excuse to go back to funders is like, "Hey, we just closed this new thing. We just launched this new thing. We just got this thing working. Hey, we're launching with this major band," Like, enough of those happen, and I think the fundraising will happen more organically. It's a strategy. CHRIS: I think we're really lucky in the fact that, you know, now, at this point, we're not talking about vapourware, you know, like, these are actual things that actually exist that, like, anybody could go onto our site right now and buy, which is awesome. And because of that, the product's going to continue to evolve, and, hopefully, our sales record will continue to evolve, too. LINDSEY: Amazing. Well, that feels like a good place to wrap up, maybe. Are you going to hang around in our incubator Slack, the thoughtbot incubator Slack for all our past founders? MIKE: Yes. Emphatically, yes. LINDSEY: Okay. We're holding you to it then [laughs]. CHRIS: I'm excited about that. We met with the other founders yesterday for the first time, and it was a really great and interesting conversation. It was cool seeing how diverse all these projects are and how folks are working on things that we had no idea about and how we're working on stuff that they have no idea about, and it was really great. It felt like a good cross-pollination. MIKE: Agreed. LINDSEY: That's awesome to hear. Jordyn, any final thoughts? JORDYN: [inaudible 26:58] out there listening and watching and want to join this community of founders [laughs], don't you want to have office hours with Chris and Mike? LINDSEY: All right, thoughtbot.com/incubator. You can apply for session 1 of the 2024 incubator program. And yeah, you two, if you have more recommendations, referrals, definitely send them our way. Chris, Mike, Jordyn, thank you so much once again for joining and catching us up on all the exciting developments for Goodz. MIKE: Thank you. LINDSEY: A lot of really cool milestones. JORDYN: I got to say, so much good stuff. And like, you know, just wrapping it all up almost diminishes the impact of any single one of those things that we just talked about, but it's, like, pretty amazing. People out there, apply to the incubator but also go buy yourself a Goodz mixtape. It's cool with playlists on it. MIKE: It's a good point. JORDYN: Give it to your BFF. Come on. LINDSEY: Getthegoodz.com. MIKE: Getthegoodz.com. Awesome. LINDSEY: All right. Thanks, Chris and Mike. AD: Did you know thoughtbot has a referral program? If you introduce us to someone looking for a design or development partner, we will compensate you if they decide to work with us. More info on our website at: tbot.io/referral. Or you can email us at referrals@thoughtbot.com with any questions. Special Guests: Chris Cerrito, Jordyn Bonds, and Mike Rosenthal.

Rounding Up Season 2 | Episode 10 – Place Value Guest: Dr. Eric Sisofo Mike Wallus: If you ask an educator to share some of the most important ideas in elementary mathematics, I'm willing to bet that most would include place value on that list. But what does it mean to understand place value really? And what types of language practices and tools support students as they build their understanding? Today we're digging deep into the topic of place value with Dr. Eric Sisofo from the University of Delaware.  Mike: Welcome to the podcast, Eric. We're glad to have you with us.  Eric Sisofo: Thanks for having me, Mike. Really excited to be here with you today.  Mike: I'm pretty excited to talk about place value. One of the things that's interesting is part of your work is preparing pre-service students to become classroom elementary teachers. And one of the things that I was thinking about is what do you want educators preparing to teach to understand about place value as they're getting ready to enter the field?  Eric: Yeah, that's a really great question. In our math content courses at the University of Delaware, we focus on three big ideas about place value with our novice teachers. The first big idea is that place value is based on the idea of grouping a total amount of stuff or bundling a total amount of stuff into different size units. So, as you know, we use groups of ones, tens, hundreds, thousands and so on, not just ones in our base 10 system to count or measure a total amount of stuff. And we write a numeral using the digit 0 through 9 to represent the amount of stuff that we measured. So interestingly, our novice teachers come to us with a really good understanding of this idea for whole numbers, but it's not as obvious to them for decimal quantities. So, we spend a lot of time with our novice teachers helping them think conceptually about the different groupings, or bundlings, that they're using to measure a decimal amount of stuff. In particular, getting them used to using units of size: one-tenth, one-hundredth, one-thousandth, and so on. So, that's one big idea that really shines through whether you're dealing with whole numbers or decimal numbers, is that place value is all about grouping, or bundling, a total amount of stuff with very specific, different-size units.  Eric: The second big idea we'd help our novice teachers make sense of at UD is that there's a relationship between different place value units. In particular, we want our novice teachers to realize that there's this 10 times relationship between place value units. And this relationship holds true for whole numbers and decimal numbers. So, 10 of one type of grouping will make one of the next larger-sized grouping in our decimal system. And that relationship holds true for all place value units in our place value system. So, there might be some kindergarten and first-grade teachers listening who try to help their students realize that 10 ones are needed to make one 10. And some second- and third-grade teachers who try to help their students see that 10 tens are needed to make 100. And 10 hundreds are needed to make 1,000, and so on. In fourth and fifth grade, we kind of extend that idea to decimal amounts. So, helping our students realize that 10 of these one-tenths will create a one. Or 10 of the one-hundredths are needed to make one-tenth, and so on and so on for smaller and smaller place value units. So, that's the second big idea. Eric: And the third big idea that we explicitly discuss with our pre-service teachers is that there's a big difference between the face value of a digit and the place value of a digit. So, as you know, there are only 10 digits in our base 10 place value system. And we can reuse those digits in different places, and they take on a different value. So, for example, for the number 444, the same digit, 4, shows up three different times in the numeral. So, the face value is four. It's the same each digit in the numeral, but each four represents a different place value or a different grouping or an amount of stuff. So, for 444, the 4 in the hundreds place means that you have four groupings of size 100, the four in the tens place means you have four groupings of size 10, and the four in the ones place means you have four groupings of size one.  Eric: So, this happens with decimal numbers, too. With our novice teachers, we spend a lot of time trying to get them to name those units and not just say, for example, 3.4 miles when they're talking about a numeral. We wouldn't want them to say 3.4. We instead want them to say three and four-tenths, or three ones and four-tenths miles. So, saying the numeral 3.4 focuses mostly just on the face value of those digits and removes some of the mathematics that's embedded in the numeral. So, instead of saying the numerals three ones and four-tenths or three and four-tenths really requires you to think about the face value and the place value of each digit. So those are the three big ideas that we discuss often with our novice teachers at the University of Delaware, and we hope that this helps them develop their conceptual understanding of those ideas so that they're better prepared to help their future students make sense of those same ideas. Mike: You said a lot there, Eric. I'm really struck by the point two where you talk about the relationship between units, and I think what's hitting me is that I don't know that when I was a child learning mathematics—but even when I was an adult getting started teaching mathematics—that I really thought about relationships. I think about things like add a zero, or even the language of point-something. And how in some ways some of the procedures or the tricks that we've used have actually obscured the relationship as opposed to shining a light on it. Does that make sense?  Eric: I think the same was true when I was growing up. That math was often taught to be a bunch of procedures or memorized kinds of things that my teacher taught me that I didn't really understand the meaning behind what I was doing. And so, mathematics became more of just doing what I was told and memorizing things and not really understanding the reasoning why I was doing it. Talking about relationships between things I think helps kids develop number sense. And so, when you talk about how 10 tenths are required to make 1 one, and knowing that that's how many of those one-tenths are needed to make 1 one, and that same pattern happens for every unit connected to the next larger unit, seeing that in decimal numbers helps kids develop number sense about place value. And then when they start to need to operate on those numerals or on those numbers, if they need to add two decimal numbers together and they get more than 10 tenths when they add down the columns or something like that in a procedure—if you're doing it vertically. If they have more of a conceptual understanding of the relationship, maybe they'll say, “Oh, I have more than 10 tenths, so 10 of those tenths will allow me to get 1 one, and I'll leave the others in the tens place,” or something like that. So, it helps you to make sense of the regrouping that's going on and develop number sense so that when you operate and solve problems with these numbers, you actually understand the reasoning behind what you're doing as opposed to just memorizing a bunch of rules or steps. Mike: Yeah. I will also say, just as an aside, I taught kindergarten and first grade for a long time and just that idea of 10 ones and 1 ten, simultaneously, is such a big deal. And I think that idea of being able to say this unit is comprised of these equal-sized units, how challenging that can be for educators to help build that understanding. But how rich and how worthwhile the payoff is when kids do understand that level of equivalence between different sets of units. Eric: Absolutely, and it starts at a young age with children. And getting them to visualize those connections and that equivalence that a 10, 1 ten, can be broken up into these 10 ones or 10 ones can create 1 ten, and seeing that visually multiple times in lots of different situations really does pay off because that pattern will continue to show up throughout the grades. When you're going into second, third grade, like I said before, you've got to realize that 10 of these things we call tens, then we'll make a new unit called 100. Or 10 of these 100s will then make a unit that is called a thousand. And a thousand is equivalent to 10 hundreds. So, these ideas are really critical pieces of students understanding about place value when they go ahead and try to add or subtract with these using different strategies or the standard algorithm, they're able to break numbers up, or decompose, numbers into pieces that make sense to them. And their understanding of the mathematical relationships or ideas can just continue to grow and flourish.  Mike: I'm going to stay on this for one more question, Eric, and then I think you're already headed to the place where I want to go next. What you're making me think about is this work with kids not as, “How do I get an answer today?” But “What role is my helping kids understand these place value relationships going to play in their long-term success?”  Eric: Yeah, that's a great point. And learning mathematical ideas, it just doesn't happen in one lesson or in one week. When you have a complex idea like place value that … it spans over multiple years. And what kindergarten and first-grade teachers are teaching them with respect to the relationship, or the equivalence, between 10 ones and 1 ten is setting the foundation, setting the stage for the students to start to make sense of a similar idea that happens in second grade. And then another similar idea that happens in third grade where they continue to think about this 10 times relationship between units, but just with larger and larger groupings. And then when you get to fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh grade, you're talking about smaller units, units smaller than 1, and seeing that if we're using a decimal place value system, that there's still these relationships that occur. And that 10 times relationship holds true. And so, if we're going to help students make sense of those ideas in fourth and fifth grade with decimal units, we need to start laying that groundwork and helping them make sense of those relationships in the earlier grades as well.  Mike: That's a great segue because I suspect there are probably educators who are listening who are curious about the types of learning activities that they could put into place that would help build that deeper understanding of place value. And I'm curious, when you think about learning activities that you think really do help build that understanding, what are some of the things that come to mind for you?  Eric: Well, I'll talk about some specific activities in response to this, and thankfully there are some really high-quality instructional materials and math curricula out there that suggest some specific activities for teachers to use to help students make sense of place value. I personally think there are lots of cool instructional routines nowadays that teachers can use to help students make sense of place value ideas, too. Actually, some of the math curricula embed these instructional routines within their lesson plans. But what I love about the instructional routines is that they're fairly easy to implement. They usually don't take that much time, and as long as you do them fairly consistently with your students, they can have real benefits for the children's thinking over time. So, one of the instructional routines that could really help students develop place value ideas in the younger grades is something called “counting collections.”  Eric: And with counting collections, students are asked to just count a collection of objects. It could be beans or paper clips or straws or unifix cubes, whatever you have available in your classroom. And when counting, students are encouraged to make different bundles that help them keep track of the total more efficiently than if they were just counting by ones. So, let's say we asked our first- or second-grade class to count a collection of 36 unifix cubes or something like that. And when counting, students can put every group of 10 cubes into a cup or make stacks of 10 cubes by connecting them together to represent every grouping of 10. And so, if they continue to make stacks of 10 unifix cubes as they count the total of 36, they'll get three stacks of 10 cubes or three cups of 10 cubes and six singletons. And then teachers can have students represent their count in a place value table where the columns are labeled with tens and ones. So, they would put a 3 in the tens column and a 6 in the ones column to show why the numeral 36 represents the total. So, giving students multiple opportunities to make the connection between counting an amount of stuff and using groupings of tens and ones, writing that numeral that corresponds to that quantity in a place value table, let's say, and using words like 3 tens and 6 ones will hopefully help students over time to make sense of that idea. Mike: You're bringing me back to that language you used at the beginning, Eric, where you talked about face value versus place value. What strikes me is that counting collections task, where kids are literally counting physical objects, grouping them into, in the case you used tens, you actually have a physical representation that they've created themself that helps them think about, “OK, here's the face value. Where do you see this particular chunk of that and what place value does it hold?” That's a lovely, super simple, as you said, but really powerful way to kind of take all those big ideas—like 10 times as many, grouping, place value versus face value—and really touch all of those big ideas for kids in a short amount of time.  Eric: Absolutely. What's nice is that this instructional routine, counting collections, can be used with older students, too. So, when you're discussing decimal quantities let's say, you just have to make it very clear what represents one. So, suppose we were in a fourth- or fifth-grade class, and we still wanted students to count 36 unifix cubes, but we make it very clear that every cup of 10 cubes, or every stack of 10 cubes, represents, let's say, 1 pound. Then every stack of 10 cubes represents 1 pound. So, every cube would represent just one-tenth of a pound. Then as the students count the 36 unifix cubes, they would still get three stacks of 10 cubes, but this time each stack represents one. And they would get six singleton cubes where each singleton cube represents one-tenth of a pound. So, if you have students represent this quantity in a place value table labeled ones and tenths, they still get 3 in the ones place this time and 6 in the tenths place. So over time, students will learn that the face value of a digit tells you how many of a particular-size grouping you need, and the place value tells you the size of the grouping needed to make the total quantity. Mike: That totally makes sense. Eric: I guess another instructional routine that I really like is called “choral counting.” And with coral counting, teachers ask students to count together as a class starting from a particular number and jumping either forward or backward by a particular amount. So, for example, suppose we ask students to start at 5 and count by tens together. The teacher would record their counting on the board in several rows. And so, as the students count together, saying “5 15, 25, 35,” and so on, the teacher's writing these numerals across the board. He or she puts 10 numbers in a row. That means that when the students get to 105, the teacher starts a new row beginning at 105 and records all the way to 195, and then the third row would start at 205 and go all the way to 295. And after a few rows are recorded on the board, teachers could ask students to look for any patterns that they see in the numerals on the board and to see if those patterns can help them predict what number might come in the next row. Eric: So, students might notice that 10 is being added across from one number to the next going across, or 100 is being added down the columns. Or 10 tens are needed to make a hundred. And having students notice those patterns and discuss how they see those patterns and then share their reasoning for how they can use that pattern to predict what's going to happen further down in the rows could be really helpful for them, too. Again, this can be used with decimal numbers and even fractional numbers. So, this is something that I think can also be really helpful, and it's done in a fun and engaging way. It seems like a puzzle. And I know patterns are a big part of mathematics and coral counting is just a neat way to incorporate those ideas. Eric: Yeah, I've seen people do things like counting by unit fractions, too, and in this case counting by tenths, right? One-tenths, two-tenths, three-tenths, and so on. And then there's a point where the teacher might start a new column and you could make a strategic choice to say, “I'm going to start a new column when we get to ten-tenths.” Or you could do it at five-tenths. But regardless, one of the things that's lovely is choral counting can really help kids see structure in a way that counting out loud, if it doesn't have the, kind of, written component of building it along rows and columns, it's harder to discern that. You might hear it in the language, but choral accounting really helps kids see that structure in a way that, from my experience at least, is really powerful for them. Eric: And like you said, the teacher, strategically, chooses when to make the new row happen to help students, kind of, see particular patterns or groupings. And like you said, you could do it with fractions, too. So even unit fractions: zero, one-seventh, two-sevenths, three-sevenths, four-sevenths all the way to six-sevenths. And then you might start a new row at seven-sevenths, which is the same as 1. And so, kind of realize that, “Oh, I get a new 1 when I regroup 7 of these sevenths together.” And so, with decimal numbers, I need 10 of the one-tenths to get to 1. And so, if you help kids, kind of, realize that these numerals that we write down correspond with units and smaller amounts of stuff, and you need a certain amount of those units to make the next-sized unit or something like that, like I said, it can go a long way even into fractional or decimal kinds of quantities. Mike: I think you're taking this conversation in a place I was hoping it would go, Eric, because to be autobiographical, one thing that I think is an advance in the field from the time when I was learning mathematics as a child is, rather than having just a procedure with no visual or manipulative support, we have made progress using a set of manipulative tools. And at the same time, there's definitely nuance to how manipulatives might support kids' understanding of place value and also ways where, if we're not careful, it might actually just replace the algorithm that we had with a different algorithm that just happens to be shaped like cubes. What I wanted to unpack with you is what's the best-case use for manipulatives? What can manipulatives do to help kids think about place value? And is there any place where you would imagine asking teachers to approach with caution? Eric: Well, yeah. To start off, I'll just begin by saying that I really believe manipulatives can play a critical role in developing an understanding of a lot of mathematical ideas, including place value. And there's been a lot of research about how concrete materials can help students visualize amounts of stuff and visualize relationships among different amounts of stuff. And in particular, research has suggested that the CRA progression, have you heard of CRA before?  Mike: Let me check. Concrete, Representational and Abstract. Am I right? Eric: That's right. So, because “C,” the concrete representation, is first in this progression, this means that we should first give students opportunities to represent an amount of stuff with concrete manipulatives before having them draw pictures or write the amount with a numeral. To help kindergarten and first-grade students begin to develop understandings of our base 10 place value system, I think it's super important to maybe use unifix cubes to make stacks of 10 cubes. We could use bundles of 10 straws wrapped up with a rubber band and singleton straws. We could use cups of 10 beans and singleton beans … basically use any concrete manipulative that allows us to easily group stuff into tens and ones and give students multiple opportunities to understand that grouping of tens and ones are important to count by. And I think at the same time, making connections between the concrete representation, the “C” in CRA, and the abstract representation, the “A,” which is the symbol or the numeral we write down, is so important. Eric: So, using place value tables, like I was saying before, and writing the symbols in the place value table that corresponds with the grouping that children used with the actual stuff that they counted will help them over time make sense that we use these groupings of tens and ones to count or measure stuff. And then in second grade, you can start using base 10 blocks to do the same type of thing, but for maybe groupings of hundreds, thousands, and beyond. And then in fourth and fifth grade, base 10 blocks are really good for tenths and hundredths and ones, and so on like that. But for each of these, making connections between the concrete stuff and the abstract symbols that we use to represent that stuff. So, one of the main values that concrete manipulatives bring to the table, I think, is that they allow students to represent some fairly abstract mathematical ideas with actual stuff that you can see and manipulate with your hands. Eric: And it allows students to get visual images in their heads of what the numerals and the symbols mean. And so, it brings meaning to the mathematics. Additionally, I think concrete manipulatives can be used to help students really make sense of the meaning of the four operations, too, by performing actions on the concrete stuff. So, for example, if we're modeling the meaning of addition, we can use concrete manipulatives to represent the two or more numerals as amounts of stuff and show the addition by actually combining all the stuff together and then figuring out, “Well, how much is this stuff altogether?” And then if we're going to represent this with a base 10 numeral, we got to break all the stuff into groupings that base 10 numerals use. So, ones, tens, hundreds if needed, tenths, hundredths, thousandths. And one thing that you said that maybe we need to be cautious about is we don't want those manipulatives to always be a crutch for students, I don't think. So, we need to help students make the transition between those concrete manipulatives and abstract symbols by making connections, looking at similarities, looking at differences. Eric: I guess another concern that educators should be aware of is that you want to be strategic, again, which manipulatives you think would match the students' development in terms of their mathematical thinking? So, for example, I probably wouldn't use base 10 blocks in kindergarten or first grade, to be honest. When students are just learning about tens and ones, because the long in a base 10 block is already put together for them. The 10-unit cubes are already formed into a long. So, some of the cognitive work is already done for them in the base 10 blocks, and so you're kind of removing some of the thinking. And so that's why I would choose unifix cubes over base 10 blocks, or I would choose straws to, kind of, represent this relationship between ones and tens in those early grades before I start using base 10 blocks. So, those are two things that I think we have to be thoughtful about when we're using manipulatives. Mike: My wife and I have this conversation very often, and it's fascinating to me. I think about what happens in my head when a multi-edition problem gets posed. So, say it was 13 plus 46, right? In my head, I start to decompose those numbers into place value chunks, and in some cases I'll round them to compensate. Or in some cases I'll almost visualize a number line, and I'll add those chunks to get to landmarks. And she'll say to me, “I see the standard algorithm with those two things lined up.” And I just think to myself, “How big of a gift we're actually giving kids, giving them these tools that can then transfer.” Eventually they become these representations that happen in their heads and how much more they have in their toolbox when it comes to thinking about operating than many of us did who grew up learning just a set of algorithms. Eric: Yeah, and like you said, decomposing numerals or numbers into place value parts is huge because the standard algorithm does the same thing. When you're doing the standard addition algorithm in vertical form, you're still adding things up, and you're breaking the two numbers up by place value. It's just that you're doing it in a very specific way. You're starting with the smallest unit first, and you add those up, and if you get more than 10 of that particular unit, then you put a little 1 at the top to represent, “Oh, I get one of the next size unit because 10 of one unit makes one of the next size.” And so, it's interesting how the standard algorithm kind of flows from some of these more informal strategies that you were talking about—decomposing or compensating or rounding these numbers and other strategies that you were talking about—really, I think help students understand, and manipulatives, too, help students understand that you can break these numbers up into pieces where you can figure out how close this amount of stuff is to another amount of stuff and round it up or round it down and then compensate based off of that. And that helps prepare students to make sense of those standard algorithms when we go ahead and teach those. Mike: And I think you put your finger on the thing. I suspect that some people would be listening to this and they might think, “Boy, Mike really doesn't like the standard algorithm.” What I would say is, “The concern I have is that oftentimes the way that we've introduced the algorithm obscures the place value ideas that we really want kids to have so that they're actually making sense of it.” So, I think we need to give kids options as opposed to giving them one way to do it, and perhaps doing it in a way that obscures the mathematics. Eric: And I'm not against the standard algorithm at all. We teach the standard algorithms at the University of Delaware to our novice teachers and try to help them make sense of those standard algorithms in ways that talk about those big ideas that we've been discussing throughout the podcast. And talking about the place values of the units, talking about how when you get 10 of a particular unit, it makes one of the next-size unit. And thinking about how the standard algorithm can be taught in a more conceptual way as opposed to a procedural, memorized kind of set of steps. And I think that's how it sounds like you were taught the standard algorithm, and I know I was taught that, too. But giving them the foundation with making sense of the mathematical relationships between place value units in the early grades and continuing that throughout, will help students make sense of those standard algorithms much more efficiently and soundly. Mike: Yeah, absolutely. One of the pieces that you started to talk about earlier is how do you help bring meaning to both place value and, ultimately, things like standard algorithms. I'm thinking about the role of language, meaning the language that we use when we talk in our classrooms, when we talk about numbers and quantities. And I'm wondering if you have any thoughts about the ways that educators can use language to support students understanding of place value? Eric: Oh, yeah. That's a huge part of our teaching. How we as teachers talk about mathematics and how we ask our students to communicate their thinking, I think is a critical piece of their learning. As I was saying earlier, instead of saying 3.4, but expecting students to say three and four-tenths, can help them make sense of the meaning of each digit and the total value of the numeral as opposed to just saying 3.4. Another area of mathematics where we tend to focus on the face value of digits, like I was saying before, rather than the place value, is when we teach the standard algorithms. So, it kind of connects again. I believe it's really important that students and teachers alike should think about and use the place value words of the digits when they communicate their reasoning. So, if we're adding 36 plus 48 using the standard addition algorithm and vertical format, we start at the right and say, “Well, 6 plus 8 equals 14, put the 4 carry the 1 … but what does that little 1 represent, is what we want to talk about or have our students make sense of. And it's actually the 10 ones that we regrouped into 1 ten. Eric: So, we need to say that that equivalence happened or that regrouping or that exchange happened, and talk about how that little 1 that's carried over is actually the 1 ten that we got and not just call it a 1 that we carry over. So, continuing with the standard algorithm for 36 plus 48, going over to the tens column, we usually often just say, “Three plus 4 plus the 1 gives us 8,” and we put down the 8 and get the answer of 84. But what does the 3 and the 4 and the 1 really represent? “Oh, they're all tens.” So, we might say that we're combining 3 tens, or 30, with 4 tens, or 40. And the other 10 that we got from the regrouping to get 8 tens, or 80, as opposed to just calling it 8. Eric: So, talking about the digits in this way and using the place value meaning, and talking about the regrouping, all of this is really bringing meaning to what's actually happening mathematically. That's a big part of it. I guess to add onto that, when I was talking about the standard algorithm, I didn't use the words “add” or “plus,” I was saying “put together,” “combine,” to talk about the actual action of what we're doing with those two amounts of stuff. Even that language is, I think, really important. That kind of emphasizes the action that we're taking when we're using the plus symbol to put two things together. And also, I didn't say “carry.” Instead, I said, we want to “regroup” or “exchange” these 10 ones for 1 ten. So, I'm a big believer in using language that tries to precisely describe the mathematical ideas accurately because I just have seen over and over again how this language can benefit students' understanding of the ideas, too. Mike: I think what strikes me, too, is that the kinds of suggestions you're talking about in terms of describing the units, the quantities, the actions, these are things that I hope folks feel like they could turn around and use tomorrow and have an immediate impact on their kids. Eric: I hope so, too. That would be fantastic. Mike: Well, before we close the interview, I wanted to ask you, for many teachers thinking about things like place value or any big idea that they're teaching, often is kind of on the job learning and you're learning along with your kids, at least initially. So, I wanted to step back and ask if you had any recommendations for an educator who's listening to the podcast. If there are articles, books, things, online, particular resources that you think would help an educator build that understanding or think about how to build that understanding with their students? Eric: Yeah. One is to listen to podcasts about mathematics teaching and learning like this one. There's a little plug for you, Mike. Both: (laugh) Eric: I guess … Mike: I'll take it. Eric: Yeah! Another way that comes to mind is if your school uses a math curriculum that aims to help students make sense of ideas, often the curriculum materials have some mathematical background pages that teachers can read to really deepen their understanding of the mathematics. There's some really good math curricula out there now that can be really educative for teachers. I think teachers also can learn from each other. I believe teachers should collaborate with each other, talk about teaching specific lessons with each other, and through their discussions, teachers can learn from one another about the mathematics that they teach and different ways that they can try to help their students make sense of some of those ideas. Another thing that I would suggest is to become a member of an organization like NCTM, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. I know NCTM has some awesome resources for practitioners to help teachers continue to learn about mathematical ideas and different ways to teach particular ideas to kids. And you can attend a regional or national conference with some of these organizations. Eric: I know I've been to several of them, and I always learn some really great ideas about teaching place value or fractions or early algebraic thinking. Whatever it is, there's so many neat ideas that you can learn from others. I've been teaching math for so many years. What's cool is that I'm still learning about math and how to teach math in effective ways, and I keep learning every day, which is really one of the fun things about teaching as a profession. You just keep learning. So, I guess one thing I would suggest is to keep plugging away. Stay positive as you work through any struggles you might experience, and just know that we all wrestle with parts of teaching mathematics especially. So, stay curious and keep working to make sense of those concepts that you want your students to make sense of so that they can be problem-solvers and thinkers and sensemakers. Mike: I think it's a great place to leave it. Eric, thank you so much for joining us. It's really been a pleasure talking to you. Eric: Thanks, Mike. It's been a pleasure. Mike: This podcast is brought to you by The Math Learning Center and the Maier Math Foundation, dedicated to inspiring and enabling all individuals to discover and develop their mathematical confidence and ability. © 2024 The Math Learning Center | www.mathlearningcenter.org  

If you missed the first and second episodes with thoughtbot Incubator Program partcipants and founders Mike Rosenthal and Chris Cerrito of Goodz, you can listen to the first episode (https://podcast.thoughtbot.com/s3e2incubatorgoodz) and the second episode (https://podcast.thoughtbot.com/s3e4incubatorgoodz) to catch up! Lindsey Christensen, head of marketing at thoughtbot is joined by Mike Rosenthal and Chris Cerrito, co-founders of the startup Goodz, and Danny Kim, Senior Product Manager at thoughtbot. Mike and Chris discuss the progress of Goodz, focusing on the recent intense weeks they've had. Goodz, a startup merging the digital and physical worlds of music, has stayed on course with its initial concept. Mike details their approach to Thanksgiving and the launch of their e-commerce experiment. He shares insights from recent user interviews, which have influenced their approach and understanding of their target audience. When the discussion turns to the challenges of launching and maintaining their e-commerce platform, Mike and Chris talk about learning from analytics, marketing strategies, and the importance of understanding consumer behavior. They discuss the challenges in balancing short-term and long-term goals, and the upcoming fundraising efforts. Transcript: LINDSEY: Thanks for being here. My name's Lindsey. I head up marketing at thoughtbot. If you haven't joined one of these before, we are checking in with two of the founders who are going through the thoughtbot Startup Incubator to learn how it's going, what's new, what challenges they're hitting, and what they're learning along the way. If you're not familiar with thoughtbot, we're a product design and development consultancy, and we hope your team and your product become a success. And one way we do that is through our startup incubator. So, today, we are joined by our co-founders, Mike Rosenthal and Chris Cerrito, Co-Founders of the startup Goodz. And we also have another special guest today, Danny Kim, from the thoughtbot side, Senior Product Manager at thoughtbot. So, I think, to start off, we'll head over to the new face, the new voice that we've got with us today. Danny, tell us a little bit about your role at thoughtbot and, specifically, the incubator. DANNY: Yeah, sure. First of all, thanks for having me on, and thanks for letting me join in on all the fun. I'm one of the product managers at thoughtbot. I typically work for the Lift-Off team. We usually work with companies that are looking to, like, go into market with their first version MVP. They might have a product that exists and that they're already kind of doing well with, and they kind of want to jump into a new segment. We'll typically work with companies like that to kind of get them kicked off the ground. But it's been really awesome being part of the incubator program. It's my first time in helping with the market validation side. Definitely also, like, learning a lot from this experience [laughs] for myself. Coming at it specifically from a PM perspective, there's, like, so much variation usually in product management across the industry, depending on, like, what stage of the product that you're working in. And so, I'm definitely feeling my fair share of impostor syndrome here. But it's been really fun to stretch my brand and, like, approach problems from, like, a completely different perspective and also using different tools. But, you know, working with Mike and Chris makes it so much easier because they really make it feel like you're part of their team, and so that definitely goes a long way. LINDSEY: It just goes to show everyone gets impostor syndrome sometimes [laughter], even senior product managers at thoughtbot [laughter]. Thanks for that intro. It's, you know, the thoughtbot team learns along the way, too, you know, especially if usually you're focused on a different stage of product development. Mike, it's been only three weeks or a very long three weeks since last we checked in with you, kind of forever in startup time. So, I think the last time, we were just getting to know you two. And you were walking us through the concept, this merging of the digital and physical world of music, and how we interact with music keepsakes or merchandise. How's my pitch? MIKE: Good. Great. You're killing it. [laughter] LINDSEY: And has anything major changed to that concept in the last three weeks? MIKE: No. I mean, I can't believe it's only been three weeks. It feels like it's been a long time since we last talked. It's been an intense three weeks, for sure. No, it's been going really well. I mean, we launched all sorts of stuff. I'm trying to think of anything that's sort of fundamentally changed in terms of the plan itself or kind of our, yeah, what we've been working on. And I think we've pretty much stayed the course to sort of get to where we are now. But it's been really intensive. I think also having sort of Thanksgiving in there, and we were kind of pushing to get something live right before the Thanksgiving break. And so, that week just felt, I mean, I was just dead by, you know, like, Thursday of Thanksgiving. I think we all were. So, it's been intense, I would say, is the short answer. And I'm happy, yeah, to get into kind of where things are at. But big picture, it's been an intense three weeks. LINDSEY: That's cool. And when we talked, you were, you know, definitely getting into research and user interviews. Have those influenced any, you know, changes along the way in the plan? MIKE: Yeah. They've been really helpful. You know, we'd never really done that before in any of the sort of past projects that we've worked on together. And so, I think just being able to, you know, read through some of those scripts and then sit through some of the interviews and just kind of hearing people's honest assessment of some things has been really interesting. I'm trying to think if it's materially affected anything. I guess, you know, at first, we were, like, we kind of had some assumptions around, okay, let's try to find, like...adult gift-givers sounds like the wrong thing, adults who give gifts as, like, a persona. The idea that, like, you know, maybe you gift your siblings gifts, and then maybe this could be a good gift idea. And I think, you know, we had a hard time kind of finding people to talk in an interesting way about that. And I think we've kind of realized it's kind of a hard persona to kind of chop up and talk about, right, Chris? I don't know [crosstalk 04:55] CHRIS: Well, it also seemed to, from my understanding of it, it seemed to, like, genuinely stress out the people who were being interviewed... MIKE: [laughs] CHRIS: Because it's kind of about a stressful topic [inaudible 05:03], you know, and, like, especially -- LINDSEY: Why? [laughs] CHRIS: Well, I think, I don't know, now I'm making assumptions. Maybe because we're close to the holiday season, and that's a topic in the back of everybody's mind. But yeah, Danny, would you disagree with that? Those folks, from what we heard, seemed like they were the most difficult to kind of extract answers from. But then, if the subject changed and we treated them as a different persona, several of those interviews proved to be quite fruitful. So, it's just really interesting. DANNY: Yeah. It really started, like, you kind of try to get some answers out of people, and there's, like, some level of people trying to please you to some extent. That's just, like, naturally, how it starts. And you just, like, keep trying to drill into the answers. And you just keep asking people like, "So, what kind of gifts do you give?" And they're just like, "Oh my goodness, like, I haven't thought about buying gifts for my sister in [laughs], like, you know, in forever. And now, like [laughs], I don't know where to go." And they get, like, pretty stressed out about it. But then we just kind of started shifting into like, "All right, cool, never mind about that. Like, do you like listening to music?" And they're like, "Yes." And then it just kind of explodes from there. And they're like, "This last concert that I went to..." and all of this stuff. And it was much more fruitful kind of leaning more towards that, actually, yeah. LINDSEY: That's fascinating. I guess that speaks to, especially at this stage and the speed and the amount of interviews you're doing, the need for being, like, really agile in those interviews, and then, like, really quickly applying what you're learning to making the next one even more valuable. MIKE: Yeah. And I think, you know, like, we launched just a little sort of website experiment or, like, an e-commerce experiment right before Thanksgiving. And I think now, you know, we're able to sort of take some of those learnings from those interviews and apply them to both sort of our ad copy itself but also just different landing pages in different language on the different kind of versions of the site and see if we can find some resonance with some of these audience groups. So, it's been interesting. LINDSEY: Are you still trying to figure out who that early adopter audience is, who that niche persona is? MIKE: I think we -- CHRIS: Yes, we are. I think we have a good idea of who it is. And I think right now we're just trying to figure out really how to reach those people. That, I think, is the biggest challenge right now for us. MIKE: Yeah. With the e-commerce experiment it was sort of a very specific niche thing that is a little bit adjacent to what I think we want to be doing longer term with Goodz. And so, it's weird. It's like, we're in a place we're like, oh, we really want to find the people that want this thing. But also, this thing isn't necessarily the thing that we think we're going to make longer term, so let's not worry too hard about finding them. You know what I mean? It's been an interesting sort of back and forth with that. CHRIS: From the interviews that we conducted, you know, we identified three key personas. Most of them have come up, but I'll just relist them. There's the sibling gift giver. There was the merch buyers; these are people who go to concerts and buy merchandise, you know, T-shirts, albums, records, things along those lines to support the artists that they love. And then the final one that was identified we gave the title of the 'Proud Playlister'. And these are people who are really into their digital media platforms, love making playlists, and love sharing those playlists with their friends. And that, I would say, the proud playlister is really the one that we have focused on in terms of the storefront that we launched, like, the product is pretty much specifically for them. But the lessons that we're learning while making this product and trying to get this into the hands of the proud playlisters will feed into kind of the merch buyers. MIKE: Yeah. And I think that, you know, it's funny, like, this week is kind of a poignant week for this, right? Because it's the week that Spotify Wrapped launched, right? So, it's like, in the course of any given year, it's probably, like, the one week of the year that lots and lots and lots of people are thinking about playlists all of a sudden, so trying a little bit to see if we can ride that wave or just kind of dovetail with that a bit, too. LINDSEY: Absolutely. And do you want to give just, like, the really quick reminder of what the product experience is like? MIKE: Oh yeah [laughs], good call. CHRIS: This is a prototype of it. It's called the Goodz Mixtape. Basically, the idea is that you purchase one of these from us. You give us a playlist URL. We program that URL onto the NFC chip that's embedded in the Good itself. And then when you scan this Good, that playlist will come up. So, it's a really great way of you make a playlist for somebody, and you want to gift it to them; this is a great way to do that. You have a special playlist, maybe between you and a friend or you and a partner. This is a good way to commemorate that playlist, turn it into a physical thing, give that digital file value and presence in the physical world. LINDSEY: Great. Okay, so you casually mentioned this launch of an e-commerce store that happened last week. MIKE: It didn't feel casual. LINDSEY: Yeah. Why [laughter]...[inaudible 09:45] real casual. Why did you launch it? How's it going? MIKE: I don't know. Why did we launch it? I mean, well, we wanted to be able to test some assumptions. I think, you know, we wanted to get the brand out there a little bit, get our website out there, kind of introduce the concept. You know, this is a very...not that we've invented this product category, but it is a pretty obscure product category, right? And so, there's a lot of sort of consumer education that I think that has to go on for people to wrap their heads around this and why they'd want this. So, I think we wanted to start that process a little bit correctly, sort of in advance of a larger launch next year, and see if we could find some early community around this. You know, if we can find those core people who just absolutely love this, and connect with it, and go wild around it, then those are the people that we're going to be able to get a ton of information from and build for that persona, right? It's like, cool, these are the people who love this. Let's build more for them and go find other people like this. So, I think, for us, it was that. And then, honestly, it was also just, you know, let's test our manufacturing and fulfillment and logistics capabilities, right? I mean, this is...as much as we are a B2B, you know, SaaS platform or that's what we envision the future of Goodz being, there is a physical component of this. And, you know, we do have that part basically done at this point. But we just, you know, what is it like to order 1,000 of these? What is it like to put these in the mail to people and, you know, actually take orders? And just some of that processing because we do envision a more wholesale future where we're doing, you know, thousands or tens of thousands of this at a time. And so, I think we just want to button up and do some dry runs before we get to those kinds of numbers. CHRIS: I think it also it's important to remember that we are talking in startup time. And while this last week seems like an eternity, it's been a week [laughs] that we've had this in place. So, we're just starting to learn these things, and we plan on continuing to do so. MIKE: Yeah. But I think we thought that getting a website up would be a good way to just start kind of testing everything more. LINDSEY: Great. Danny, what went into deciding what would be in this first version of the site and the e-commerce offering? DANNY: I mean, a lot of it was kind of mostly driven by Chris and Mike. They kind of had a vision and an idea of what they wanted to sell. Obviously, from the user interviews, we were starting to hone in a little bit more and, like, we had some assumptions going into it. I think we ultimately did kind of feel like, yeah, I think, like, the playlisters seem to be, like, the target market. But just hearing it more and hearing more excitement from them was definitely just kind of like, yeah, I think we can double down on this piece. But, ultimately, like, in terms of launching the e-commerce platform, and the storefront, and the website, like, just literally looking at the user journey and being like, how does a user get from getting onto a site, like, as soon as they land there to, like, finishing a purchase? And what points do they need? What are the key things that they need to think through and typically will run into? And a lot of it is just kind of reflecting on our own personal buyer behavior. And, also, as we were getting closer to the launch, starting to work through some of those assumptions about buyer behavior. As we got there, we obviously had some prototypes. We had some screenshots that we were already working with. Like, the design team was already starting to build out some of the site. And so, we would just kind of show it to them, show it to our users, and just be like, hey, like, how do you expect to purchase this? Like, what's the next step that you expect to take? And we'd just kind of, like, continue to iterate on that piece. And so... LINDSEY: Okay. So you were, before launching, even showing some of those mockups and starting to incorporate them in the user interviews. DANNY: Yeah, yeah. I mean, we tried to get it in there in front of them as early as possible, partially because, like, at some point in the user interviews, like, you're mostly just trying to first understand, like, who are our target customers? Who are these people? And we have an assumption of or an idea of who we think they are. But really, like, once you start talking to people, you kind of are, like, okay, like, this thing that I thought maybe it wasn't so accurate, or, like, the way that they're kind of talking about these products doesn't 100% match what I originally walked into this, you know, experiment with. And so, we, like, start to hone in on that. But after a certain point, you kind of get that idea and now you're just like, okay, you seem to be, like, the right person to talk to. And so, if I were to show you this thing, do you get it, right? Like, do you understand what's happening? Like, how to use this thing, what this product even does. And then also, like, does the checkout experience feel intuitive for you? Is it as simple as, like, I just want to buy a T-shirt? So, like, I'm just going to go by the T-shirt, pick a size, and, you know, move on with my life. Can we make it as seamless as that? LINDSEY: And so, you mentioned it's only been a week since it's been live. Have you been able to learn anything from it yet? And how are you trying to drive people to it today? MIKE: Yeah, I think we learned that sales is hard [laughs] and slow, and it takes some time. But it's good, and we're learning a lot. I mean, it's been a while since I've really dug deep in, like, the analytics and marketing kind of metrics. And so, we've got all the Google Tag Manager stuff, you know, hooked up and just, you know, connecting with just exploring, honestly, like the TikTok advertising platform, and the YouTube Pre-Rolls, and Shorts. And, like, a lot of stuff that I actually, since the last time I was heavily involved in this stuff, is just totally new and different. And so, it's been super interesting to see the funnel and sort of see where people are getting in the site, where people are dropping off. You know, we had an interesting conversation in our thoughtbot sync yesterday or the day before, where we were seeing how, you know, we're getting lots of people to the front page and, actually, a good number of people to the product page, and, actually, like, you know, not the worst number of people to the cart. But then you were seeing really high cart abandonment rates. And then, you know, when you start Googling, and you're like, oh, actually, everybody sees very high cart abandonment rates; that's just a thing. But we were seeing, like, the people were viewing their cart seven or eight times, and they were on there sort of five times as long as they were on any other page. And it's this problem that I think Danny is talking about where, you know, we need to actually get a playlist URL. This gets into the minutiae of what we're building, but basically like, we need to get them to give us a playlist URL in order to check out, right? And so, you sort of have to, like, put yourself back in the mind of someone who's scrolling on Instagram, and they see this as an ad, and they click it, and they're like, oh, that thing was cool. Sure, I will buy one of those. And then it's like, no, actually, you need to, you know, leave this, go into a different app, find a play...like, it suddenly just puts a lot of the mental strain. But it's a lot. It's a cognitive load, greater than, as you said, just buying a T-shirt and telling what size you want. So, thinking through ways to really trim that down, shore up the amount of time people are spending on a cart. All that stuff has been fascinating. And then just, like, the different demographic kind of work that we're using, all the social ads platforms to kind of identify has been really interesting. It's still early. But, actually, like, Chris and I were just noticing...we were just talking right before this call. Like, we're actually starting to get, just in the last 12 hours, a bunch more, a bunch, but more people signing up to our email newsletter, probably in the last 12 hours that we have in the whole of last week. Yeah, I don't know, just even that sort of learning, it's like, oh, do people just need time with a thing, or they come back and they think about it? CHRIS: Yeah. Could these people be working on their playlists? That's a question that I have. MIKE: [chuckles] Yeah, me too. CHRIS: It's like, you know, I'm making a playlist to drop into this product. It's really interesting. And I think it gives insight to kind of, you know, how personal this product could be, that this is something that takes effort on the part of the consumer because they're making something to give or to keep for themselves, which is, I think, really interesting but definitely hard, too. DANNY: Yeah. And I also want to also clarify, like, Chris just kind of said it, like, especially for viewers and listeners, like, that's something that we've been hearing a lot from user interviews, too, right? Like, the language that they're using is, like, this is a thing that I care about. Like it's a representation of who I am. It's a representation of, like, the relationship that I have with this person that I'm going to be giving, you know, this gift to or this playlist to, specifically, like, people who feel, like, really passionate about these things. And, I mean, like, I did, too. Like, when I was first trying to, like, date, my wife, like, I spent, like, hours, hours trying to pick the coolest songs that I thought, you know, were like, oh, like, she's going to think I'm so cool because, like, I listen to these, like, super low-key indie rock bands, and, like, you know, so many more hours than she probably spent listening to it. But that's [laughs] kind of, like, honestly, what we heard a lot in a lot of these interviews, so... LINDSEY: Yeah, same. No, totally resonates. And I also went to the site this week, and I was like, oh damn, this is cool. Like, and immediately it was like, oh, you know, I've got these three, you know, music friends that we go to shows together. I'm like, oh, this would be so cool to get them, you know, playlists of, like, music we've seen together. So, you might see me in the cart. I won't abandon it. MIKE: Please. I would love that. CHRIS: Don't think about it too long if you could -- [laughter]. LINDSEY: I won't. I won't. CHRIS: I mean, I would say I'm really excited about having the site not only as a vehicle for selling some of these things but also as a vehicle for just honing our message. It's like another tool that we have in our arsenal. During the user interviews themselves, we were talking in abstract terms, and now we have something concrete that we can bounce off people, which is, I think, going to be a huge boon to our toolset as we continue to refine and define this product. MIKE: Yeah, that's a good point. LINDSEY: Yeah. You mentioned that they're signing up for, like, email updates. Do you have something you're sending out? Or are you kind of just creating a list? Totally fine, just building a list. MIKE: [laughs] No. CHRIS: It's a picture of Mike and I giving a big thumbs up. That's, yeah. [laughter] MIKE: No. But maybe...that was the thing; I was like, oh great, they're signing up. And I was like, gosh, they're signing up. Okay [laughter], now we got to write something. But we will. LINDSEY: Tips to making your playlist [crosstalk 19:11] playing your playlist -- MIKE: Yeah [crosstalk 19:13]. CHRIS: Right. And then also...tips to making your playlists. Also, we're advancing on the collectible side of things, too. We are, hopefully, going to have two pilot programs in place, one with a major label and one with a major artist. And we're really excited about that. LINDSEY: Okay. That's cool. I assume you can't tell us very much. What can you tell us? MIKE: Yeah. We won't mention names [chuckles] in case it just goes away, as these things sometimes do. But yeah, there's a great band who's super excited about these, been around for a long time, some good name recognition, and a very loyal fan base. They want to do sort of a collection of these. I think maybe we showed the little...I can't remember if we showed the little crates that we make or not, but basically, [inaudible 19:52] LINDSEY: The last time, yeah. MIKE: So, they want to sell online a package that's, you know, five or six Goodz in a crate, which I think will be cool and a great sort of sales experiment. And then there's a couple of artists that we're going to do an experiment with that's through their label that's more about tour...basically, giving things away on tour. So, they're going to do some giveaway fan club street team-style experiments with some of these on the road. So, first, it's ideal, provided both those things happen, because we definitely want to be exploring on the road and online stuff. And so, this kind of lets us do both at once and get some real learnings as to kind of how people...because we still don't know. We haven't really put these in people's hands yet. And it's just, like, are people scanning these a lot? Are they not? Is this sort of an object that's sitting on their shelf? Is it...yeah, it's just, like, there's so much we're going to learn once we get these into people's hands. LINDSEY: Do you have the infrastructure to sort of see how many times the cards are scanned? CHRIS: Mm-hmm. Yep, we do. MIKE: Yeah. So, we can see how many times each one is scanned, where they're scanned, that sort of thing. CHRIS: Kind of our next step, and something we were just talking about today with the thoughtbot team, is building out kind of what the backend will be for this, both for users and also for labels and artists. That it will allow them to go in and post updates to the Goodz, to allow them to use these for promotion as people, you know, scan into them to give them links to other sites related to the artists that they might be interested in before they move on to the actual musical playlist. So, that's kind of the next step for us. And knowing how users use these collectibles, both the kind of consumer Good and the artist collectibles that we were just talking about, will help inform how we build that platform. LINDSEY: Very cool. And right now, the online store itself that's built in Shopify? MIKE: Yeah. The homepage is Webflow that Kevin from the thoughtbot team really spearheaded in building for us. And then, yeah, the e-commerce is Shopify. LINDSEY: Y'all have been busy. MIKE: [laughs] LINDSEY: Is there anything else maybe that I haven't asked about yet that we should touch on in terms of updates or things going on with the product? MIKE: I don't know. I don't think so. I think, like Chris said, I mean, we're just...like, now that the site has kind of stood up and we're really switched over to kind of marketing and advertising on that, definitely digging into the backend of this kind of SaaS platform that's going to probably be a big focus for the rest of the, you know, the program, to be honest. Yeah, just some other things we can do on the next front that could eventually build into the backend that I think can be interesting. No, I guess [laughs] the short answer is no, nothing, like, substantial. Those are the big [crosstalk 22:26] LINDSEY: Yeah. Well, that was my next question, too, which is kind of like, what's next, or what's the next chunk of work? So, it's obviously lots more optimization and learning on the e-commerce platform, and then this other mega area, which is, you know, what does this look like as a SaaS solution? What's the vision? But also, where do we start? Which I'm sure, Danny, is a lot of work that you specialize in as far as, like, scoping how to approach these kinds of projects. DANNY: Yeah. And it's interesting because, I mean, we were just talking about this today. Like, part of it is, like, we can, like, really dig into, like, the e-commerce site and, like, really nailing it down to get it to the place where it's like, we're driving tons more traffic and also getting as low of a, like, cart abandonment rate as possible, right? But also, considering the fact that this is in the future, like, large-scale vision. And there's, like, also, like, we're starting to, I think, now iron out a lot of those, like, milestones where we're kind of like, okay, like, we got, like, a short-term vision, which is, like, the e-commerce site. We got a mid-term vision and a potential long-term vision. How do we validate this long-term vision while also still like, keeping this short-term vision moving forward? And, like, this mid-term vision is also going to, like, help potentially, either, like, steer us towards that long-term or maybe even, like, pivot us, like, into a completely different direction. So, like, where do you put your card, right? Like, how much energy and time do we put into, like, each of these areas? And that's kind of, like, the interesting part of this is starting to talk through that, starting to kind of prioritize, like, how we can maximize on our effort, like, our development and design effort so that things just kind of line up more naturally and organically for our future visioning, so... MIKE: Yeah. A lot of different things to juggle. I saw there was a question. Somebody asked what the URL is, but I don't seem to be able to [crosstalk 24:10]. LINDSEY: The same question as me. We got to drop the link for this thing. MIKE: Yeah, getthegoodz.com. CHRIS: That's G-O-O-D-Z. LINDSEY: Get in there, folks MIKE: Yeah, get [crosstalk 24:23]. LINDSEY: And let us know how it goes. MIKE: Yeah, please [laughs]. Any bugs? Let us know. Yeah. I think that those...yeah, I mean, it's a good point, Danny, in terms of juggling kind of the near-term and longer-term stuff. You know, it's a good kind of reminder our big focus, you know, in the new year is going to be fundraising, right? We're already talking to some investors and things like that. So, it's like, okay, yes, as you said, we could tweak the cart. We could tweak the e-commerce. Or, like, can we paint the big picture of what the longer-term version of this company is going to be in a way that makes it compelling for investment to come in so that there can be a long-term version of this company? And then we can build those things. So yeah, it's definitely a balance between the two. LINDSEY: Oh, also, just casual fundraising as well. [crosstalk 25:06] MIKE: Yeah, yeah. LINDSEY: [laughs] MIKE: But it's hard. It's like, you wake up in the morning. It's like, do I want to, like, write cold emails to investors? Or do I want to, like, look at Google Analytics and, like, tweak ad copy? That's actually more fun. So, yes. LINDSEY: Yeah, life of the founder, for sure. All right. So, that's getthegoodz (Goodz with a z) .com. Check it out. We'll tune in and see what happens with the e-commerce site, what happens with the SaaS planning the next time that we check in. But Chris, Mike, Danny, thank you so much for joining today and sharing what's been going on over the last few weeks: the good, the bad, the challenge, the cart abandonment. And, you know, best of luck to you over the next few weeks, and we'll be sure to check in and see how it's going. AD: Did you know thoughtbot has a referral program? If you introduce us to someone looking for a design or development partner, we will compensate you if they decide to work with us. More info on our website at: tbot.io/referral. Or you can email us at referrals@thoughtbot.com with any questions. Special Guests: Chris Cerrito and Mike Rosenthal.

If you missed the first episode with thoughtbot Incubator Program partcipants and founders Mike Rosenthal and Chris Cerrito of Goodz, you can go here first (https://www.giantrobots.fm/s3e2incubatorgoodz) to catch up! Startup founders Mike Rosenthal and Chris Cerrito are participating in thoughtbot's eight-week incubator program. Mike, with a background in the music industry, and Chris, experienced in physical computing and exhibit development, are collaborating on a startup that creates physical objects linked to digital content, primarily in music. Their goal is to enhance the connection between tangible and digital experiences, starting with a product that resembles a mixtape, using NFC technology for easy access to digital playlists. This project is unique within the thoughtbot incubator as it's the first pure consumer product and involves both physical and digital elements. The team is engaged in user interviews and market validation, with the aim of launching a physical product with a digital backend. They are exploring various marketing strategies for the product and are in the process of building its technical backend. Transcript: LINDSEY: All right. I'm going to kick us off here. Thanks, everyone, for tuning in. We're doing our first update with two founders that are now going through the Startup incubator at thoughtbot. thoughtbot, if you're not familiar, product design and development consultancy. We'll help you on your product and make your team a success. One of the very fun ways we do that is through the startup thoughtbot incubator, which is an eight-week program. So, with us today, I myself am Lindsey Christensen, marketing for thoughtbot. We also have Jordyn Bonds, who is our Director of Product Strategy and runs the thoughtbot incubator. And then, as I mentioned, we've got two new founders who are going to tell us a little bit about themselves and what they're working on. Mike Rosenthal, let's kick off with you. Can you tell us a little bit about maybe your background and what brings you to present day? MIKE: Sure. First of, thanks for having us. It's been a lot of fun doing this over the last [inaudible 01:03]; it's only two weeks, two and a half weeks, something like that. It feels like a lot more. I come from a music industry background, so worked in sort of marketing and strategy for artists for a long time; worked with a band called OK Go back, sort of starting in 2009 or so. I did a lot of early kind of viral music video stuff. And we were sort of early to the idea of sort of leveraging fan engagement and revenue, honestly, kind of beyond sort of just selling their music and touring, so sort of exploring other ways that artists can make money and connect with their fans and was with those guys for five years. And then, I went on and worked at an artist management company in Brooklyn called Mick Management and ran the marketing department there, so doing similar type of work but for a roster of 2025 major label bands. And so, really got to see fan engagement on all different levels, from really large bands down to baby bands who were just getting started. And then, yeah, started my first startup in 2018, so doing sort of fan engagement work, and NFTs, and blockchain-type stuff working with bands, but then also sports and entertainment properties. Yeah, that kind of brings me here. So, always been sort of on the music side of things, which ties into a lot of what Chris and I are working on now, but more generally, sort of fan engagement and how to, you know, drive revenue and engagement for artists and deliver value for fans. LINDSEY: Very interesting. All right, Chris, going to head over to you. Chris Cerrito, can you tell us a bit about your background? And it sounds like yours and Mike's paths; this isn't the first time you've crossed. CHRIS: No. Mike and I have been working together since 2007, I believe. Yeah, that's a great place to start. I've always been kind of a maker and a tinkerer, always been interested in art materials, how things are put together. And that kind of culminated at grad school, where Mike and I met at NYU, where we both studied physical computing and human-computer interaction, making weird things that kind of changed the way that people interact and play with technology in their day-to-day lives. I think the first project he and I worked on together was a solar robotic band that we played with light in front of a bunch of people. It was very wonderful and confusing at the same time. After grad school, I was lucky enough to become a resident artist and then an exhibit developer at a museum in San Francisco called the Exploratorium, which is a museum of science, art, and human perception. I spent ten years there working on exhibits teaching people things ranging from, let's see, I built a dueling water fountain to teach visitors and users about the prisoner's dilemma. I built a photo booth that used computer vision to teach people about the microbiome that lives on their face, like, just all kinds of weird things like that that fuse the digital and the physical worlds. I loved my time there. And then kind of COVID hit and I realized that everything I had been working on for ten years was locked up in a museum that I no longer had access to. And it really gave me a desire to kind of bring my ideas into the physical world. I wanted to make things that people interact with and use in their lives on a day-to-day basis. And I would say that's really what brought me here to this point. LINDSEY: Very cool. Very interesting backgrounds, in my opinion. What is the new idea? What is the thing that you're bringing into the incubator? Mike, I'll start with you. Tell us a bit about what you're working on. MIKE: Chris and I are working on physical objects that connect to digital content is sort of the broadest way that I could describe it. I think, you know, as Chris kind of mentioned, you know, we've both been working on sort of physical things that have interactivity for a lot of our careers. I think we both come from an era of a lot more physical objects in your life, whether that's, you know, VHS cassettes at your parent's house growing up, or records and tape cassettes, and just sort of physical things that remind you of the things that you love. And I think that, you know, cell phones are great, and the sort of the smartphone era is amazing and having, you know, every single song, and movie, and television show and podcasts, et cetera, in a black box in my pocket is great. But I think we've sort of gotten to a point where it's more of an organizational problem now than anything else. And we sort of forget the actual things that we love in this world. And so, we're working on basically making physical objects to tie to digital content, and we're starting with music. And that's what we've been working on at thoughtbot is sort of how we can create physical things that basically you can tap, and that will take you to streaming content. One of the first things we're working on literally looks like sort of a little mixtape on a piece of wood, and you can just load that up with any sort of playlist that you might have on Spotify, or Apple Music, or YouTube, or whatever, and tap it, and it will take you there. And so, it's just sort of that idea of like, oh, we used to be able to sort of flip through a friend's music collection and judge them ruthlessly, or become even better friends with them based on kind of what you saw there. And we think that the time is ripe for, I don't know, a blend of that nostalgia with actual sort of, like, real-world utility that people could be into this right now. Chris, what am I missing there? CHRIS: I'd say just to expand on that a little bit, it's, you know, we spend so much time in the digital world, but we still exist in the physical. And a lot of the things, like, you might spend a really long time editing a photo for your parents or making a playlist for a friend, and there's, like, a value there that might not translate because it's digital. It's ephemeral. And I think tying these digital assets to a physical thing makes them special. It gives them, like, a permanent place in your life, something to respect, to hold on to, and maybe even pass down at some point. LINDSEY: Yeah, and I think before we logged on, we actually had Jordyn and Mike grabbing cassette tapes from the room there and to show us -- MIKE: [inaudible 06:49] LINDSEY: What [laughs] was some of their collection and to prove some of the power of these physical –- MIKE: Nothing, like, just old mixtapes. LINDSEY: Mementos. MIKE: Yeah. We were just talking about this on our sync with the thoughtbot crew. They're, like, there's sort of two levels of nostalgia. There's nostalgia for people like us who, yeah, [crosstalk 07:09] mixtapes, right? For people who actually grew up with this stuff and still have it lying around or don't but, like, look at something like that that gives you, like, instant flashbacks, right? You're like, oh my God, I remember scrolling on that little j-card or, like, getting a mixtape for my first, you know, boyfriend or girlfriend, and having it just mean everything. So, there's people for whom that was a thing. And there's, you know, generations of people for whom that is, like, their only connection to that is, you know, Stranger Things or, like, you know, the mixtape exists in pop culture as a reference. So, there's still, like, a very strong attachment there, but it's not a personal one, right? It's a cultural one. But I think everybody has that connection. So, that's kind of why we're starting with the mixtape, just because I think everyone can kind of relate to that in some way. LINDSEY: Yeah, no, yeah. When I hear mixtape, it goes immediately to crushes. You make a mixtape for your crush. CHRIS: Exactly. LINDSEY: It's a huge, powerful market, powerful. MIKE: Oh my God, so powerful. I mean, yeah, I don't know anybody -- LINDSEY: What's more motivating? MIKE: [laughs] Yeah, exactly. CHRIS: Or even just I have a really good friend who I don't get to see as often as I'd like. And he and I are constantly sending each other, you know, Spotify links and text messages. And it's great. I love that interaction. But at the same time, you know, I might forget to add that to a playlist, and then it's kind of lost. If I had taken the time to make something and send it to him physically or vice versa, it just becomes so much more special and so much more real. MIKE: Yeah. I mean, honestly, I first made these...I mean, we can go to this origin if we want. But, like, I literally just went on moo.com, right? The business card company. And they let you upload, you know, 50 different images, and they'll send you all of those as business cards. And so, I literally went on and just made business cards of all the album covers of, like, albums that I loved growing up, right? And their cheapest is this little piece of cardboard. But I had 50 of these, and I'd put them all out on my coffee table, just as something I wanted to have around. And people kept coming, you know, friends would come over, and you would just have these conversations that I haven't had in 10 or 15 years, right? Because no one's going to come to my house and pick up my phone and look at my Spotify collection. But if these things are all just sitting out, they're like, "Oh shit, you're into that? Like, I haven't thought about that album in 15 years." Or like, "Oh, I didn't know you were into that. I'm, like, a crazy super fan of that artist as well." And all of a sudden, we're having these conversations that we just weren't having. Yeah, there's something there where it's all been nostalgia coupled with the kind of prompting of conversation and connection that we've kind of lost, I think. CHRIS: And I think just to clarify a little bit on what Mike's saying, is, you know, this mixtape will be our first product launch, and then we're hoping to move into collectibles for artists and labels. So, shortly after we launch this tape, we're hoping to launch some kind of pilot with a label where you will be able to buy a version of this for your favorite music artist at a merch table in a concert, possibly online. Our dream is to have these sitting there on the table with T-shirts, and records, and other things that artists sell so you can express for the artists that you love. This is a way of expressing your fandom. LINDSEY: Jordyn, heading over to you, this feels like maybe the first consumer product that has gone through the incubator, would you say? Or how do you think about it? JORDYN: Yeah, if you're a consumer -- LINDSEY: Or is it different than other types of products? JORDYN: Yeah, the first incubator project we did with Senga was, I think, what you would call prosumer. So, it was sort of a consumer thing but directed at folks who had kind of freelancing in sort of a business context. It's got a lot of dynamics of the consumer. But this one, for sure, is the first pure consumer play. Though now that I'm thinking about it, you know, AvidFirst had some consumer elements to it, but it was, you know, it was, like, more complex tech [laughs] [inaudible 10:46] totally different thing -- LINDSEY: But definitely the first of the physical, physical [inaudible 10:52] JORDYN: Oh, sure, the first of the physical thing. Right. Absolutely. LINDSEY: Does that change any of, like, the approach of the programming, or it's kind of -- JORDYN: I mean, no, not fundamentally, though it does add this layer of operations that you don't have with a pure software play. So, we have to be, there is a thing that needs to get shipped to people in the world, and that takes timelines, and it takes -- LINDSEY: Supply chain. JORDYN: Yeah, exactly. And Chris is doing most of that stuff. I don't want to, you know, this is not, like, the main focus of our team necessarily, but it intersects, right? So, this isn't the first one of these types of products I've worked on personally in my career. But there's something, like, really, for me, very fulfilling about, like, there's software. There's a big component of software. There's also this physical object that needs to exist in the world. And partly, what's so compelling about Goodz is that it gives you the promise of a physical, like, the sort of good aspects of a physical product, a thing you can hold in your hand and look at and really connect with in that physical way. But it has this dynamic digital, like, essential quality as well. So, it's very compelling as a product because it sort of marries the things that we like about both the physical world and the digital world, which is partly why the team was really excited about working on it [laughs]. LINDSEY: Well, that was going to be my next question is, you know, what stood out to you about the Goodz application for the incubator and the interview process that made you and the team feel like this was going to be a great project to work on? JORDYN: Yeah. So, I think just the team really resonated with the sort of idea in general, and it seemed fun. There was, like, it's a very positive thing, right? It isn't so much about solving problems and pain points. And, sometimes the, you know, when you're very focused on solving problems, it can feel a little doomy because you actually have to, like, immerse yourself in the problems of the people that you're making software for. And sometimes, you start to feel like the world is just full of problems. What Goodz is doing is sort of it is solving a problem in a sense, but not in that kind of way. It's really, like, a fun upside kind of thing, which I think a lot of the folks on the team were very excited about. But, like, the software component, actually, is very interesting to us from a technological standpoint as well. There's a lot of opportunity here to do interesting things on the backend with an object that's essentially functioning as a bookmark out in the world. What all can you do with that? There's something super compelling and technically interesting about it. And I think, also, the team was just sort of excited by Chris and Mike, you know, the energy and the kind of background they were bringing to the table was also super interesting. And then, above all else, what I say every time you ask me this question, which is stage fit, y'all, good stage fit. They're right at the beginning. They haven't built the product yet [laughs]. Gotta say it. It's a good stage fit. They know who they're building for broadly but not super specifically. Got a good vision but, like, haven't made that first step with the software. Perfect stage fit for us [laughs]. LINDSEY: Great. So, Chris, we were talking a bit before about how you two have been collaborators in the past, worked on business ideas before. Why bring this idea into the thoughtbot incubator? What are you hoping to, you know, achieve? CHRIS: One of the main reasons why we wanted to bring this into the incubator was just for support, momentum, and then, also, I would say validation for our idea. I mean, we came to the incubator with a very, yeah, I would say it was a fairly developed idea that needed to be proved, and we, quite frankly, needed help with that. You know, Mike and I have our own expertises, but we don't know how to do everything. We're more than willing to jump in where we need to go. But having people with expertise to work with has proven to be incredibly helpful and just having kind of fresh faces to bat ideas around with after he and I have been staring at each other for months now on Zoom calls and meetings. And just, you know, being able to talk about these ideas with fresh faces and new people and get new perspectives has been so very, very helpful. I think something that's also great from the momentum standpoint is that because there's a time limit to this experience, we've got the time that we have with you guys, and we've been able to set goals that I think are very achievable for things we want to occur in the next couple of months, and it feels like we're going to get there. And I think by the end of this, I mean, our hope, and I think we're on track, is to have a functioning physical product that we're going to offer to consumers with a digital backend to support it, which is, in my mind, amazing. That'll totally validate this idea and prove if we have something or not. LINDSEY: I was going to ask if you're open to sharing what those goals specifically are. Is that it? Is it that by the end, you have -- MIKE: Is that it? Lindsey, that's a lot. [laughter] CHRIS: It's a lot. I mean, yeah. I mean, we're going to have a physical object in the world that you can buy via an e-commerce site -- JORDYN: Sounds like we need Lindsey on the team if Lindsey feels like this is so achievable. [laughter] CHRIS: Yeah, yeah. Lindsey...yeah. We're in the beginning [crosstalk 15:47] LINDSEY: I meant, is that the goal? CHRIS: That is the goal. LINDSEY: Is that all? CHRIS: I was going to –- LINDSEY: Is that all you got? CHRIS: Mike, do you agree? MIKE: Yeah. Is that the goal? Yes, that is the goal. I mean, you know, when we sat down with the thoughtbot team kind of week one, you know, they're sort of like, "All right, let's define kind of the experiment." So, we refer to them as experiments, which I think is helpful because, like, what are the experiments that we want to be doing during our time here? And, you know, we talked about it a lot. And yeah, I think it's, you know, having a physical product out in the world, having a website in which to sell it. But also, it's really, like Chris was saying, it's like, it's market validation, and just making sure we actually have something that people want. It's like, you know, running a startup takes so long and, like [laughs], you know, you'll do it for so many years. It's like bands when people say, like, "Oh, that's an overnight sensation." It's like, you know, that band has been slogging it out in tiny, little venues for four years before you ever heard of them. It's like, that's what so much of the startup world feels like to me, too. It's like, "Oh, you're just getting started as a startup?" It's like, "Well, we've been working on this forever." And I know how long this can take. And so, I think we want to learn as early as possible, like, is this something people actually want? Because if they don't, like, we'll just go do something else. I don't want to spend years making something that people don't want. So, I think the biggest goal, for me, is just validation, and then that is sort of how we get there is like, okay, how do we validate this? Cool. Let's identify some, you know, assumptions of personas that we think are people who do actually want this and then try to go sell it to them. And all the implications from that are, okay, well, you need a website where somebody can buy it. You need a physical product that somebody can actually buy. So, all those things sort of come out of that, but, for me, it's like, proving that assumption, is this thing real? Do people actually want this? And everything else is like, okay, how do we prove that? LINDSEY: Jordyn, what does that look like in these first few weeks here? User interviews, I assume, how are the user interviews going? JORDYN: Always. Always. So, you know, we kick it off by just, like, doing the exercise where we list everybody who might want this. And the team, you know, it's a fun product. Everybody brought their own assumptions and ideas to the table on that. You know, we had a lot of different scenarios we were imagining. It's super fun getting that stuff out of people's heads, just, like, what are we all thinking? And then, you know, we get to negotiate, like, okay...I always encourage everyone to think, like, if everyone else on the team was on the moon, you had to make a decision about a market segment to pick; which one would you pick? And then we kind of argue about it in a productive way. It really helps us get at, like, what are the dynamics that we think matter upfront? And then we pick one, or, in this case, we have a few. We have a handful. And we're running interview projects where we just recruit people to talk about people that meet this persona, talk about a specific problem. We're in the middle of that right now. And it's fun, fantastic. These conversations are super interesting. We're validating a lot of the things that Mike and Chris, you know, walked into this with, but we're learning a bunch of new things as well. And, like, really, part of the aim there is to validate that there's a hole in the market that we might fill but also to hear the language people are using to describe this stuff. So, when people talk about buying music, merch, you know, making playlists, et cetera, like, what language do they use to talk about that? So that we make sure we're speaking the language that our customer uses to describe this stuff. And we're, you know, we're right in the pocket of doing that, learning stuff all the time. And it helps us kind of hone the messaging. It helps us know where to go talk to people about it, how to talk about it, but it's, you know, it all kind of fits together. And it's just this, really...the early stages. It's just a bunch of us in a room, a virtual room, in this case, sort of, like, tossing ideas around. But out of it crystallizes this sense of alignment about who this is for, how to talk to them about it, and with a goal. And, you know, Mike and Chris walked in with the exact right mindset about this, which is, yes, it's experiments. We need to validate it. Let's make sure there's a there-there. If there's a there-there, let's figure out where it is [laughs], like, all those things. And we're running these experiments, and it was really [inaudible 19:36]. We got down to business quite quickly here. It was really great. LINDSEY: Like you said, it's not necessarily a problem or, you know, the typical framing of a problem. How do you start those user interview questions around this? Do you feel a gap between the physical and the digital sound? [laughter] JORDYN: No, no. LINDSEY: It's maybe not it [laughs]. JORDYN: Yeah, no. Well, I can tell you what our startup questions are. One of them is, tell me about the last time you bought music merch. Go for it, Lindsey. Tell us. LINDSEY: The last time I bought music merch I went to a Tegan and Sara concert a few weeks ago, and I bought a T-shirt. JORDYN: Tell me about buying that T-shirt. Why'd you buy it? LINDSEY: Because I wanted to remember the show and my time with my friends, and I wanted to support the artists. I know that buying merch is the best way to support your favorite touring artists. JORDYN: So, it's just, you know, we could spend the rest of this time talking [laughter] [crosstalk 20:34], and it would be awesome. So, it's really a lot of things like that. LINDSEY: Gotcha. JORDYN: You don't ask, "What problem are you trying to solve by buying this t-shirt?" Right? Like, that's not, you know, but we ask you to tell us a bunch of stories about when you did this recently. You know, and if you make playlists for friends, you know, that's a different persona. But we would have asked, you know, like, "Tell me about the last playlist you made. You know, who did you share it with? You know, what happened after that? What happened after that? What happened after that?" It's a lot of questions like that. And there's just nothing better. People love to tell you what's going on with them. And it's great [laughs]. LINDSEY: Yeah. As you all have been doing these interviews, Mike and Chris, have you been surprised by anything? Any interesting insights that you're seeing already? CHRIS: I mean, I haven't done really much in the way of user interviews in the past. This is a really new experience for me. And then we're, obviously, not on the calls because that would be weird and probably intimidating for people. But we're getting lots of highlights from folks who are doing them, you know, in our daily sync. And I'm surprised at how many, like, really intense, like, playlist nerds we have found even just in, like, the few people we've talked to, like, in the best possible way. Like, people who are like, "I make playlists all the time." Like, you're talking about, like, a vinyl fan or, like, a...Jordyn, what's the story? It's, like, the guy who there was so much out-of-print vinyl that he started a vinyl label just to get the albums in vinyl. [crosstalk 21:56] JORDYN: Yeah. There were a bunch of releases that he feels really passionately about that were never released on vinyl that he knew would never be released on vinyl. And so, he started a vinyl record label. And we just found this guy [laughter]. CHRIS: Is that indicative that that's, like, an entire persona we're going to, like, target? Absolutely not. But it's just, like, it's amazing that even just in the few user interviews we've done, that we've found so many very passionate people. And it's sent me down, like, a TikTok rabbit hole of, like, TikTok, like, music nerd influencer-type folks who are posting playlists. And they, like, hundreds of thousands of likes on these videos that are literally just, like, screen with text on it that you're supposed to, like, pause the video [laughs] and, like, look at, like, the songs that they're recommending. And it's like, who does that? And it was like, these people do that. And it's like, so there are...it's been very encouraging to me, actually. I was worried that we were going to find not as much passion as we had suspected, and I think the opposite has proven to be true. So, it's exciting. CHRIS: Yeah, I completely agree with Mike. It's been so encouraging. I think, for me, what we're doing is an idea that I'm very excited about and have been very excited about for a long time. But hearing the responses that we're getting makes me confident in the idea, too. That's great. I mean, I think that is everything that a founder needs, you know, is excitement and confidence. MIKE: Well, and just the whole user interview experience has, like, made a lot of my other conversations sort of I've tried to frame parts of them as user interviews because I'm talking to a lot of, like, label folks now, and artists, merch people. And, you know, I ended up just sort of, like, asking them, I mean, yes, trying to explain the product and work on kind of partnership stuff, but a lot of it is really just geeking out with them. And just, like, hearing their thoughts about, like, what they love about merch because these are people that clearly think about this stuff all the time. So, it's definitely kind of, like, tuned my other conversations into trying to get unbiased feedback. LINDSEY: Yeah. Everything is a little user interview now. MIKE: Yeah, exactly. LINDSEY: Get that angle in there. All right, so some early validation and excitement. That's really cool to hear. Any challenges or, you know, other kinds of learnings early on? Anything that's been invalidated? MIKE: I don't know that we're there yet. [inaudible 24:02] Chris, I don't know. I'm happy to find that some things are invalidated, but I don't really feel...you know, some of the personas that we decided or maybe just one of the personas we decided to pursue, I think we're having a hard time having those user interviews kind of really bear fruit, but that's helpful, too, actually. I mean, it's like, okay, well, maybe that's not a group that we target. JORDYN: Yeah. It's about, like [inaudible 24:24]. I encourage folks not to think about this like a 'no, not that,' and instead think of it as like a 'not yet.' And that's, I think, the dynamic here with a couple of the personas we were interested in. It's just been turned into kind of, like, a not yet for reasons that we very quickly figured out, but we'll get there. It's just a matter of figuring out we had some other personas take precedence because they're more sort of red, hot in a way, right? It's just easier to get in contact with these people, or it's, like, clear what they're going for or what they need from the market. So, you know, we have this whole list, and it was not clear at first who was going to kind of stand out. But we've kind of found some focus there, which means, invariably, that there's things that are falling out of the frame for now, and you're kind of de-prioritizing them. But it really is, like, a we'll get to that [laughs]. We'll eventually get to that. LINDSEY: Yeah. And part of the process, who's going to rise to the top right now? JORDYN: Yeah, exactly. LINDSEY: Do you have anything you can show and tell with us today or not yet? MIKE: So, Chris has been hard at work on all the physical side of this stuff and going back and forth with our manufacturing partner and all that good stuff. But we have a final version of the mixtape product. LINDSEY: For when this gets pulled into the podcast, Mike's showing us a physical card. CHRIS: It's a small card, and we call them Goodz. And it's printed on three-millimeter plywood using a UV printing process, super durable. And this is something you can put in your pocket. You're not going to wreck it. I think you could actually (Don't quote me on this.), but I think you can even, like, put it through a washing machine, and it would be fine. Embedded in this card is a chip that can be read by your phone, and that's pretty much what we're working with. MIKE: Yeah, so the idea is you just sort of tap this, and it'll take you to a streaming version of a playlist. And then Chris has also been making these adorable crates. And [crosstalk 26:10] LINDSEY: The little crates I love. MIKE: And we actually have some wooden ones, too, in the testing that's [crosstalk 26:15] LINDSEY: And then the mixtapes get stored in the little crates [crosstalk 26:19] MIKE: Yeah. So, you could have -- LINDSEY: Throw it on your desk. CHRIS: Each crate can hold about, I think, 15 of these things. What's really cool about this product on the physical side is we are using a tried-and-true technology, which is NFC chips. These are things that make Apple Pay work, make Google Pay work. They are in your E-ZPass when you drive through a toll booth. This is stuff that's been around for years. So, we're just kind of leveraging this technology that's been around for so long in a new way. MIKE: Yeah, I think it's similar to kind of the evolution of QR codes, right? It's like they were sort of around forever, and then it was, like, COVID and restaurant menus kind of kicked those into mainstream. Like, NFC has been around for a long time. It's very tried and true. It's affordable. But I want to say Apple only turned it on by default, like, the NFC reader in the iPhone in the last, like, 18 to 24 months, right? Like, it started...like, it's been around for a while, but they're sort of slowly kind of...and now you just sort of see it everywhere. People are using it on the subways in New York to scan for tickets or for accessing stuff. I was also just showing Chris has been prototyping with the ability to sort of keep these on a key ring. So, we have, like, a little chain hole on them. It is [inaudible 27:22] to sort of have this on your backpack or, you know, on a key ring, or something like that. And friends could kind of, like, come up to you and just, like, scan one that looks interesting. CHRIS: And yeah, something that's awesome about this is you don't need an app. You don't need to download anything. As long as your NFC reader is on when you scan this, it will bring you to the music that it's linked to, which I think is awesome. So, I mean, my dream is to have these, like, hanging off of people's backpacks so I can, like, scan them in the subway or, you know, it's such, like, an easy thing to do. And it requires so little technical time on the user's end to be able to do it. LINDSEY: Oh, we got a question here. "So, Moo used to offer NFC cards. What made you decide to do the thicker plywood model?" CHRIS: Durability is really what it comes down to. We wanted something that felt like an object that you can have and treasure. Like, these have weight, you know, these feel like something, not just a piece of paper. This is something that you can have and [inaudible 28:22] your desk, and it's not going to fade in the sunlight. It's not going to disintegrate over time. This is something that's going to last. MIKE: Yeah, the cards would definitely, like, as I would sort of carry them around and show them to people and stuff, the cards would start, you know, breaking. It's like having a business card in your pocket, right? Eventually, it's going to kind of wear out. And plus, we had, like, the stickers were visible on the back of them. And we were, like, having the sticker just completely disappear inside the wood it just feels a little bit more like magic. LINDSEY: Well, thanks for demoing there. I put you on the spot a little bit. But they are...I had seen them in the Slack, and they're very cool [laughs]. So, I had to ask if we could show them off a bit. MIKE: Of course. CHRIS: I think another thing to think about, too, is we've been talking a lot about the user experience. But if and when we get to the point of making these for artists, artists will be able to collect so much data off of the way that people buy and collect and use these things over time, which is something that we're really, really excited about. And also, you know, we're working on a way to make the link in the object updatable over time. So, artists will be able to change what a card points do to inform their users about the latest and greatest thing. LINDSEY: Very cool. Jordyn, what's next on the programming agenda for Chris and Mike? JORDYN: It's really sort of we're in this, like, iterative cycle. So, we're talking to folks. We're working on the website. The conversations we're having with people are informing how we're framing this first experiment with the mixtape, how we're marketing it, who we're marketing it to. I think next up is probably a Google Ad experiment to really see if we can piggyback on some stuff or at least figure out a new consumer product. It's so tough, right? It's also not a thing people are searching for. So, we have to come up with some experiments for how we get people to that website [laughs]. So, you know, Google Ads funnels is just something you kind of have to do because it's very interesting to figure out what people are responding to, what people are searching for. But we're going to have a bunch of other experiments as well and non-experiments. Outbound experiments: can we go to people? Can we get listed in a gift-buying guide for the holidays? Or, like, we don't know. There's a bunch of experiments we need to do around that, which is really just this iteration. We won't stop talking to users but, you know, everything we're hearing from them will inform where we go and how we talk to the folks in those places where we end up. And really, it's just about starting...once this is up and, you know, there's, like, an orderable thing, there's, like, a whole data cycle where we start to learn from the stuff we're testing; we actually have some real data for it, and we can start to tweak, iterate and change our strategy. But the bigger thing, also, is this bigger platform. So, the next thing really, the big next thing, is to sort of start to scope and create an architecture idea. What's it going to take to build the actual backend thing? And it's the thing that thoughtbot really [laughs] excels at, which is software. So, you know, that's the big next kind of project. Once the mixtape experiment is sort of out and in flight and we're getting data, we really need to turn our attention to the technical backend. LINDSEY: Exciting. Another comment/question from Jeff, who maybe needs a user interview. "Love the crate more than the actual albums. Maybe offer collections of artists." MIKE: Yeah, that's the plan. CHRIS: Yeah, definitely. It's a good idea. Yeah, it's, I mean, and labels get to, especially, like, small indie labels get really excited about doing, like, crates worth of collections of different artists or, like, you know, digging through their back catalog, their subscription services. There's a lot of different angles for sure about that idea. LINDSEY: [inaudible 31:55] Chris and Mike, going into this next section of the programming, for anyone watching right now, or watching the recording, or listening to the recording, any action items from them? You know, are you looking for any user interviews or have any survey or any destinations you'd like to send people yet? CHRIS: Not quite yet, but soon, I would say. Well -- MIKE: I mean, [inaudible 32:19] plug the website, I mean, you know, I think we've got, like, an email to sign up from there, right? The URL is getthegoodz.com and I [crosstalk 32:27] LINDSEY: Goodz with a Z. MIKE: Goodz with a Z. CHRIS: With Z. MIKE: So yeah, if you want to go there, you can sign up. I think there's an email signup on there to learn more. LINDSEY: Perfect. All right. getthegoodz.com email sign up. To stay up to date on Goodz and the incubator, you can follow along on the thoughtbot blog. You know, as always, send us any questions you might have, and we're happy to get to those. But otherwise, thanks for listening. And thank you all — Jordyn, Chris, and Mike. Thanks so much for joining today and sharing and being open about your stories so far. MIKE: Thank you. CHRIS: Yeah, thank you, Lindsey. AD: Did you know thoughtbot has a referral program? If you introduce us to someone looking for a design or development partner, we will compensate you if they decide to work with us. More info on our website at: tbot.io/referral. Or you can email us at referrals@thoughtbot.com with any questions.

Mike Perham is the creator of Sidekiq, a background job processor for Ruby. He's also the creator of Faktory a similar product for multiple language environments. We talk about the RubyConf keynote and Ruby's limitations, supporting products as a solo developer, and some ideas for funding open source like a public utility. Recorded at RubyConf 2023 in San Diego. -- A few topics covered: Sidekiq (Ruby) vs Faktory (Polyglot) Why background job solutions are so common in Ruby Global Interpreter Lock (GIL) Ractors (Actor concurrency) Downsides of Multiprocess applications When to use other languages Getting people to pay for Sidekiq Keeping a solo business Being selective about customers Ways to keep support needs low Open source as a public utility Mike Mike's blog mastodon Sidekiq faktory From Employment to Independence Ruby Ractor The Practical Effects of the GVL on Scaling in Ruby Transcript You can help correct transcripts on GitHub. Introduction [00:00:00] Jeremy: I'm here at RubyConf San Diego with Mike Perham. He's the creator of Sidekiq and Faktory. [00:00:07] Mike: Thank you, Jeremy, for having me here. It's a pleasure. Sidekiq [00:00:11] Jeremy: So for people who aren't familiar with, I guess we'll start with Sidekiq because I think that's what you're most known for. If people don't know what it is, maybe you can give like a small little explanation. [00:00:22] Mike: Ruby apps generally have two major pieces of infrastructure powering them. You've got your app server, which serves your webpages and the browser. And then you generally have something off on the side that... It processes, you know, data for a million different reasons, and that's generally called a background job framework, and that's what Sidekiq is. [00:00:41] It, Rails is usually the thing that, that handles your web stuff, and then Sidekiq is the Sidekiq to Rails, so to speak. [00:00:50] Jeremy: And so this would fit the same role as, I think in Python, there's celery. and then in the Ruby world, I guess there is, uh, Resque is another kind of job. [00:01:02] Mike: Yeah, background job frameworks are quite prolific in Ruby. the Ruby community's kind of settled on that as the, the standard pattern for application development. So yeah, we've got, a half a dozen to a dozen different, different examples throughout history, but the major ones today are, Sidekiq, Resque, DelayedJob, GoodJob, and, and, and others down the line, yeah. Why background jobs are so common in Ruby [00:01:25] Jeremy: I think working in other languages, you mentioned how in Ruby, there's this very clear, preference to use these job scheduling systems, these job queuing systems, and I'm not. I'm not sure if that's as true in, say, if somebody's working in Java, or C sharp, or whatnot. And I wonder if there's something specific about Ruby that makes people kind of gravitate towards this as the default thing they would use. [00:01:52] Mike: That's a good question. What makes Ruby... The one that so needs a background job system. I think Ruby, has historically been very single threaded. And so, every Ruby process can only do so much work. And so Ruby oftentimes does, uh, spin up a lot of different processes, and so having processes that are more focused on one thing is, is, is more standard. [00:02:24] So you'll have your application server processes, which focus on just serving HTTP responses. And then you have some other sort of focused process and that just became background job processes. but yeah, I haven't really thought of it all that much. But, uh, you know, something like Java, for instance, heavily multi threaded. [00:02:45] And so, and extremely heavyweight in terms of memory and startup time. So it's much more frequent in Java that you just start up one process and that's it. Right, you just do everything in that one process. And so you may have dozens and dozens of threads, both serving HTTP and doing work on the side too. Um, whereas in Ruby that just kind of naturally, there was a natural split there. Global Interpreter Lock [00:03:10] Jeremy: So that's actually a really good insight, because... in the keynote at RubyConf, Mats, the creator of Ruby, you know, he mentioned the, how the fact that there is this global, interpreter lock, [00:03:23] or, or global VM lock in Ruby, and so you can't, really do multiple things in parallel and make use of all the different cores. And so it makes a lot of sense why you would say like, okay, I need to spin up separate processes so that I can actually take advantage of, of my, system. [00:03:43] Mike: Right. Yeah. And the, um, the GVL. is the acronym we use in the Ruby community, or GIL. Uh, that global lock really kind of is a forcing function for much of the application architecture in Ruby. Ruby, uh, applications because it does limit how much processing a single Ruby process can do. So, uh, even though Sidekiq is heavily multi threaded, you can only have so many threads executing. [00:04:14] Because they all have to share one core because of that global lock. So unfortunately, that's, that's been, um, one of the limiter, limiting factors to Sidekiq scalability is that, that lock and boy, I would pay a lot of money to just have that lock go away, but. You know, Python is going through a very long term experiment about trying to remove that lock and I'm very curious to see how well that goes because I would love to see Ruby do the same and we'll see what happens in the future, but, it's always frustrating when I come to another RubyConf and I hear another Matt's keynote where he's asked about the GIL and he continues to say, well, the GIL is going to be around, as long as I can tell. [00:04:57] so it's a little bit frustrating, but. It's, it's just what you have to deal with. Ractors [00:05:02] Jeremy: I'm not too familiar with them, but they, they did mention during the keynote I think there Ractors or something like that. There, there, there's some way of being able to get around the GIL but there are these constraints on them. And in the context of Sidekiq and, and maybe Ruby in general, how do you feel about those options or those solutions? [00:05:22] Mike: Yeah, so, I think it was Ruby 3. 2 that introduced this concept of what they call a Ractor, which is like a thread, except it does not have the global lock. It can run independent to the global lock. The problem is, is because it doesn't use the global lock, it has pretty severe constraints on what it can do. [00:05:47] And the, and more specifically, the data it can access. So, Ruby apps and Rails apps throughout history have traditionally accessed a lot of global data, a lot of class level data, and accessed all this data in a, in a read only fashion. so there's no race conditions because no one's changing any of it, but it's still, lots of threads all accessing the same variables. [00:06:19] Well, Ractors can't do that at all. The only data Ractors can access is data that they own. And so that is completely foreign to Ruby application, traditional Ruby applications. So essentially, Ractors aren't compatible with the vast majority of existing Ruby code. So I, I, I toyed with the idea of prototyping Sidekiq and Ractors, and within about a minute or two, I just ran into these, these, uh... [00:06:51] These very severe constraints, and so that's why you don't see a lot of people using Ractors, even still, even though they've been out for a year or two now, you just don't see a lot of people using them, because they're, they're really limited, limited in what they can do. But, on the other hand, they're unlimited in how well they can scale. [00:07:12] So, we'll see, we'll see. Hopefully in the future, they'll make a lot of improvements and, uh, maybe they'll become more usable over time. Downsides of multiprocess (Memory usage) [00:07:19] Jeremy: And with the existence of a job queue or job scheduler like Sidekiq, you're able to create additional processes to get around that global lock, I suppose. What are the... downsides of doing so versus another language like we mentioned Java earlier, which is capable of having true parallelism in the same process. [00:07:47] Mike: Yeah, so you can start up multiple Ruby processes to process things truly in parallel. The issue is that you do get some duplication in terms of memory. So your Ruby app maybe take a gigabyte per process. And, you can do copy on write forking. You can fork and get some memory sharing with copy on write semantics on Unix operating systems. [00:08:21] But you may only get, let's say, 30 percent memory savings. So, there's still a significant memory overhead to forking, you know, let's say, eight processes versus having eight threads. You know, you, you, you may have, uh, eight threads can operate in a gigabyte process, but if you want to have eight processes, that may take, let's say, four gigabytes of RAM. [00:08:48] So you, you still, it's not going to cost you eight gigabytes of RAM, you know, it's not like just one times eight, but, there's still a overhead of having those separate processes. [00:08:58] Jeremy: would you say it's more of a cost restriction, like it costs you more to run these applications, or are there actual problems that you can't solve because of this restriction. [00:09:13] Mike: Help me understand, what do you mean by restriction? Do you mean just the GVL in general, or the fact that forking processes still costs memory? [00:09:22] Jeremy: I think, well, it would be both, right? So you're, you have two restrictions right now. You have the, the GVL, which means you can't have parallelism within the same process. And then your other option is to spin up a bunch of processes, which you have said is the downside there is that you're using a lot more RAM. [00:09:43] I suppose my question is that Does that actually stop you from doing anything? Like, if you throw more money at the problem, you go like, we're going to have more instances, I'll pay for the RAM, it's fine, can that basically get you out of these situations or are these limitations actually stopping you from, from doing things you could do in other languages? [00:10:04] Mike: Well, you certainly have to manage the multiple processes, right? So you've gotta, you know, if one child process crashes, you've gotta have a parent or supervisor process watching all that and monitoring and restarting the process. I don't think it restricts you. Necessarily, it just, it adds complexity to your deployment. [00:10:24] and, and it's just a question of efficiency, right? Instead of being able to deploy on a, on a one gigabyte droplet, I've got to deploy to a four gigabyte droplet, right? Because I just, I need the RAM to run the eight processes. So it, it, it's more of just a purely a function of how much money am I going to have to throw at this problem. [00:10:45] And what's it going to cost me in operational costs to operate this application in production? When to use other languages? [00:10:53] Jeremy: So during the. Keynote, uh, Matz had mentioned that Rails, is really suitable as this one person framework, like you can have a very small team or maybe even yourself and, and build this product. And so I guess from... Your perspective, once you cross a certain threshold, is like, what Ruby and what Sidekiq provides not enough, and that's why you need to start looking into other languages? [00:11:24] Or like, where's the, turning point, or the, if you [00:11:29] Mike: Right, right. The, it's all about the problem you're trying to solve, right? At the end of the day, uh, the, the question is just what are we trying to solve and how are we trying to solve it? So at a higher level, you got to think about the architecture. if the problem you're trying to solve, if the service you're trying to build, if the app you're trying to operate. [00:11:51] If that doesn't really fall into the traditional Ruby application architecture, then you, you might look at it in another language or another ecosystem. something like Go, for instance, can compile down to a single binary, which makes deployment really easy. It makes shipping up a product. on to a user's machine, much simpler than deploying a Ruby application onto a user's desktop machine, for instance, right? [00:12:22] Um, Ruby does have this, this problem of how do you package everything together and deploy it somewhere? Whereas Go, when you can just compile to a single binary, now you've just got a single thing. And it's just... Drop it on the file system and execute it. It's easy. So, um, different, different ecosystems have different application architectures, which empower different ways of solving the same problems. [00:12:48] But, you know, Rails as a, as a one man framework, or sorry, one person framework, It, it, I don't, I don't necessarily, that's a, that's sort of a catchy marketing slogan, but I just think of Rails as the most productive framework you can use. So you, as a single person, you can maximize what you ship and the, the, the value that you can create because Rails is so productive. [00:13:13] Jeremy: So it, seems like it's maybe the, the domain or the type of application you're making. Like you mentioned the command line application, because you want to be able to deliver it to your user easily. Just give them a binary, something like Go or perhaps Rust makes a lot more sense. and then I could see people saying that if you're doing something with machine learning, like the community behind Python, it's, they're just, they're all there. [00:13:41] So Room for more domains in Ruby [00:13:41] Mike: That was exactly the example I was going to use also. Yeah, if you're doing something with data or AI, Python is going to be a more, a more traditional, natural choice. that doesn't mean Ruby can't do it. That doesn't mean, you wouldn't be able to solve the problem with Ruby. And, and there's, that just also means that there's more space for someone who wants to come in and make an impact in the Ruby community. [00:14:03] Find a problem that Ruby's not really well suited to solving right now and build the tooling out there to, to try and solve it. You know, I, I saw a talk, from the fellow who makes the Glimmer gem, which is a native UI toolkit. Uh, a gem for building native UIs in Ruby, which Ruby traditionally can't do, but he's, he's done an amazing job at sort of surfacing APIs to build these, um, these native, uh, native applications, which I think is great. [00:14:32] It's awesome. It's, it's so invigorating to see Ruby in a new space like that. Um, I talked to someone else who's doing the Polars gem, which is focused on data processing. So it kind of takes, um, Python and Pandas and brings that to Ruby, which is, is awesome because if you're a Ruby developer, now you've got all these additional tools which can allow you to solve new sets of problems out there. [00:14:57] So that's, that's kind of what's exciting in the Ruby community right now is just bring it into new spaces. Faktory [00:15:03] Jeremy: In addition to Sidekiq, you have, uh, another product called Faktory, I believe. And so does that serve a, a similar purpose? Is that another job scheduling, job queueing system? [00:15:16] Mike: It is, yes. And it's, it's, it's similar in a way to Sidekiq. It looks similar. It's got similar concepts at the core of it. At the end of the day, Sidekiq is limited to Ruby. Because Sidekiq executes in a Ruby VM, it executes the jobs, and the jobs are, have to be written in Ruby because you're running in the Ruby VM. [00:15:38] Faktory was my attempt to bring, Sidekiq functionality to every other language. I wanted, I wanted Sidekiq for JavaScript. I wanted Sidekiq for Go. I wanted Sidekiq for Python because A, a lot of these other languages also could use a system, a background job system. And the problem though is that. [00:16:04] As a single man, I can't port Sidekiq to every other language. I don't know all the languages, right? So, Faktory kind of changes the architecture and, um, allows you to execute jobs in any language. it, it replaces Redis and provides a server where you just fetch jobs, and you can use it from it. [00:16:26] You can use that protocol from any language to, to build your own worker processes that execute jobs in whatever language you want. [00:16:35] Jeremy: When you say it replaces Redis, so it doesn't use Redis, um, internally, it has its own. [00:16:41] Mike: It does use Redis under the covers. Yeah, it starts Redis as a child process and, connects to it over a Unix socket. And so it's really stable. It's really fast. from the outside, the, the worker processes, they just talk to Faktory. They don't know anything about Redis at all. [00:16:59] Jeremy: I see. And for someone who, like we mentioned earlier in the Python community, for example, there is, um, Celery. For someone who is using a task scheduler like that, what's the incentive to switch or use something different? [00:17:17] Mike: Well, I, I always say if you're using something right now, I'm not going to try and convince you to switch necessarily. It's when you have pain that you want to switch and move away. Maybe you have Maybe there's capabilities in the newer system that you really need that the old system doesn't provide, but Celery is such a widely known system that I'm not necessarily going to try and convince people to move away from it, but if people are looking for a new system, one of the things that Celery does that Faktory does not do is Celery provides like data adapters for using store, lots of different storage systems, right? [00:17:55] Faktory doesn't do that. Faktory is more, has more of the Rails mantra of, you know, Omakase where we choose, I choose to use Redis and that's it. You don't, you don't have a choice for what to use because who cares, you know, at the end of the day, let Faktory deal with it. it's, it's not something that, You should even necessarily be concerned about it. [00:18:17] Just, just try Faktory out and see how it works for you. Um, so I, I try to take those operational concerns off the table and just have the user focus on, you know, usability, performance, and that sort of thing. but it is, it's, it's another background job system out there for people to try out and see if they like that. [00:18:36] And, and if they want to, um, if they know Celery and they want to use Celery, more power to Faktory them. Sidekiq (Ruby) or Faktory (Polyglot) [00:18:43] Jeremy: And Sidekiq and Faktory, they serve a very similar purpose. For someone who they have a new project, they haven't chosen a job. scheduling system, if they were using Ruby, would it ever make sense for them to use Faktory versus use Sidekiq? [00:19:05] Mike: Uh Faktory is excellent in a polyglot situation. So if you're using multiple languages, if you're creating jobs in Ruby, but you're executing them in Python, for instance, um, you know, if you've, I have people who are, Creating jobs in PHP and executing them in Python, for instance. That kind of polyglot scenario, Sidekiq can't do that at all. [00:19:31] So, Faktory is useful there. In terms of Ruby, Ruby is just another language to Faktory. So, there is a Ruby API for using Faktory, and you can create and execute Ruby jobs with Faktory. But, you'll find that in the Ruby community, Sidekiq is much widely... much more widely used and understood and known. So if you're just using Ruby, I think, I think Sidekiq is the right choice. [00:19:59] I wouldn't look at Faktory. But if you do need, find yourself needing that polyglot tool, then Faktory is there. Temporal [00:20:07] Jeremy: And this is maybe one, maybe one layer of abstraction higher, but there's a product called Temporal that has some of this job scheduling, but also this workflow component. I wonder if you've tried that out and how you think about that product? [00:20:25] Mike: I've heard of them. I don't know a lot about the product. I do have a workflow API, the Sidekiq batches, which allow you to fan out jobs and then, and then execute callbacks when all the jobs in that, in that batch are done. But I don't, provide sort of a, a high level. Graphical Workflow Editor or anything like that. [00:20:50] Those to me are more marketing tools that you use to sell the tool for six figures. And I don't think they're usable. And I don't think they're actually used day to day. I provide an API for developers to use. And developers don't like moving blocks of code around in a GUI. They want to write code. And, um, so yeah, temporal, I, like I said, I don't know much about them. [00:21:19] I also, are they a venture capital backed startup? [00:21:22] Jeremy: They are, is my understanding, [00:21:24] Mike: Yeah, that, uh, any, any sort of venture capital backed startup, um, who's building technical infrastructure. I, I would look long and hard at, I'm, I think open source is the right core to build on. Of course I sell commercial software, but. I'm bootstrapped. I'm profitable. [00:21:46] I'm going to be around forever. A VC backed startup, they tend to go bankrupt, because they either get big or they go out of business. So that would be my only comment is, is, be a little bit leery about relying on commercial venture capital based infrastructure for, for companies, uh, long term. Getting people to pay for Sidekiq [00:22:05] Jeremy: So I think that's a really interesting part about your business is that I think a lot of open source maintainers have a really big challenge figuring out how to make it as a living. The, there are so many projects that they all have a very permissive license and you can use them freely one example I can think of is, I, I talked with, uh, David Kramer, who's the CTO at Sentry, and he, I don't think they use it anymore, but they, they were using Nginx, right? [00:22:39] And he's like, well, Nginx, they have a paid product, like Nginx. Plus that or something. I don't know what the name is, but he was like, but I'm not going to pay for it. Right. I'm just going to use the free one. Why would I, you know, pay for the, um, the paid thing? So I, I, I'm kind of curious from your perspective when you were coming up with Sidekiq both as an open source product, but also as a commercial one, how did you make that determination of like to make a product where it's going to be useful in its open source form? [00:23:15] I can still convince people to pay money for it. [00:23:19] Mike: Yeah, the, I was terrified, to be blunt, when I first started out. when I started the Sidekiq project, I knew it was going to take a lot of time. I knew if it was successful, I was going to be doing it for the next decade. Right? So I started in 2012, and here I am in 2023, over a decade, and I'm still doing it. [00:23:38] So my expectation was met in that regard. And I knew I was not going to be able to last that long. If I was making zero dollars, right? You just, you burn out. Nobody can last that long. Well, I guess there are a few exceptions to that rule, but yeah, money, I tend to think makes things a little more sustainable for sure. [00:23:58] Especially if you can turn it into a full time job solving and supporting a project that you, you love and, and is, is, you know, your, your, your baby, your child, so to speak, your software, uh, uh, creation that you've given to the world. but I was terrified. but one thing I did was at the time I was blogging a lot. [00:24:22] And so I was telling people about Sidekiq. I was telling people what was to come. I was talking about ideas and. The one thing that I blogged about was financial experiments. I said bluntly to the, to, to the Ruby community, I'm going to be experimenting with financial stability and sustainability with this project. [00:24:42] So not only did I create this open source project, but I was also publicly saying I I need to figure out how to make this work for the next decade. And so eventually that led to Sidekiq Pro. And I had to figure out how to build a closed source Ruby gem, which, uh, There's not a lot of, so I was kind of in the wild there. [00:25:11] But, you know, thankfully all the pieces came together and it was actually possible. I couldn't have done it if it wasn't possible. Like, we would not be talking if I couldn't make a private gem. So, um, but it happened to work out. Uh, and it allowed me to, to gate features behind a paywall effectively. And, and yeah, you're right. [00:25:33] It can be tough to make people pay for software. but I'm a developer who's selling to other developers, not, not just developers, open source developers, and they know that they have this financial problem, right? They know that there's this sustainability problem. And I was blunt in saying, this is my solution to my sustainability. [00:25:56] So, I charge what I think is a very fair price. It's only a thousand dollars a year to a hobbyist. That may seem like a lot of money to a business. It's a drop in the bucket. So it was easy for developers to say, Hey, listen, we want to buy this tool for a thousand bucks. It'll ensure our infrastructure is maintained for the next decade. [00:26:18] And it's, and it's. And it's relatively cheap. It's way less than, uh, you know, a salary or even a laptop. So, so that's, that's what I did. And, um, it's, it worked out great. People, people really understood. Even today, I talk to people and they say, we, we signed up for Sidekiq Pro to support you. So it's, it's, it's really, um, invigorating to hear people, uh, thank me and, and they're, they're actively happy that they're paying me and our customers. [00:26:49] Jeremy: it's sort of, uh, maybe a not super common story, right, in terms of what you went through. Because when I think of open core businesses, I think of companies like, uh, GitLab, which are venture funded, uh, very different scenario there. I wonder, like, in your case, so you started in 2012, and there were probably no venture backed competitors, right? [00:27:19] People saying that we're going to make this job scheduling system and some VC is going to give me five million dollars and build a team to work on this. It was probably at the time, maybe it was Rescue, which was... [00:27:35] Mike: There was a venture backed system called IronMQ, [00:27:40] Jeremy: Hmm. [00:27:41] Mike: And I'm not sure if they're still around or not, but they... They took, uh, one or more funding rounds. I'm not sure exactly, but they were VC backed. They were doing, background jobs, scheduled jobs, uh, you know, running container, running container jobs. They, they eventually, I think, wound up sort of settling on Docker containers. [00:28:06] They'll basically spin up a Docker container. And that container can do whatever it wants. It can execute for a second and then shut down, or it can run for, for however long, but they would, um, yeah, I, yeah, I'll, I'll stop there because I don't know the actual details of exactly their system, but I'm not sure if they're still around, but that's the only one that I remember offhand that was around, you know, years ago. [00:28:32] Yeah, it's, it's mostly, you know, low level open source infrastructure. And so, anytime you have funded startups, they're generally using that open source infrastructure to build their own SaaS. And so SaaS's are the vast majority of where you see sort of, uh, commercial software. [00:28:51] Jeremy: so I guess in that way it, it, it gave you this, this window or this area where you could come in and there wasn't, other than that iron, product, there wasn't this big money that you were fighting against. It was sort of, it was you telling people openly, I'm, I'm working on this thing. [00:29:11] I need to make money so that I can sustain it. And, if you, yeah. like the work I do, then, you know, basically support me. Right. And, and so I think that, I'm wondering how we can reproduce that more often because when you see new products, a lot of times it is VC backed, right? [00:29:35] Because people say, I need to work on this. I need to be paid. and I can't ask a team to do this. For nothing, right? So [00:29:44] Mike: Yeah. It's. It's a wicked problem. Uh, it's a really, really hard problem to solve if you take vc you there, that that really kind of means that you need to be making tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars in sales. If you are building a small or relatively small. You know, put small in quotes there because I don't really know what that means, but if you have a small open source project, you can't charge huge amounts for it, right? [00:30:18] I mean, Sidekiq is a, I would call a medium sized open source project, and I'm charging a thousand bucks for it. So if you're building, you know, I don't know, I don't even want to necessarily give example, but if you're building some open source project, and It's one of 300 libraries that people's applications will depend on. [00:30:40] You can't necessarily charge a thousand dollars for that library. depending on the size and the capabilities, maybe you can, maybe you can't. But there's going to be a long tail of open source projects that just, they can't, they can't charge much, if anything, for them. So, unfortunately, we have, you know, these You kind of have two pathways. [00:31:07] Venture capital, where you've got to sell a ton, or free. And I've kind of walked that fine line where I'm a small business, I can charge a small amount because I'm bootstrapped. And, and I don't need huge amounts of money, and I, and I have a project that is of the right size to where I can charge a decent amount of money. [00:31:32] That means that I can survive with 500 or a thousand customers. I don't need to have a hundred million dollars worth of customers. Because I, you know, when I started the business, one of the constraints I said is I don't want to hire anybody. I'm just going to be solo. And part of the, part of my ability to keep a low price and, and keep running sustainably, even with just You know, only a few hundred customers is because I'm solo. [00:32:03] I don't have the overhead of investors. I don't have the overhead of other employees. I don't have an office space. You know, my overhead is very small. So that is, um, you know, I just kind of have a unique business in that way, I guess you might say. Keeping the business solo [00:32:21] Jeremy: I think that's that's interesting about your business as well But the fact that you've kept it you've kept it solo which I would imagine in most businesses, they need support people. they need, developers outside of maybe just one. Um, there's all sorts of other, I don't think overhead is the right word, but you just need more people, right? [00:32:45] And, and what do you think it is about Sidekiq that's made it possible for it to just be a one person operation? [00:32:52] Mike: There's so much administrative overhead in a business. I explicitly create business policies so that I can run solo. you know, my support policy is officially you get one email ticket or issue per quarter. And, and anything more than that, I can bounce back and say, well, you're, you're requiring too much support. [00:33:23] In reality, I don't enforce that at all. And people email me all the time, but, but things like. Things like dealing with accounting and bookkeeping and taxes and legal stuff, licensing, all that is, yeah, a little bit of overhead, but I've kept it as minimal as I can. And part of that is I don't want to hire another employee because then that increases the administrative overhead that I have. [00:33:53] And Sidekiq is so tied to me and my knowledge that if I hire somebody, they're probably not going to know Ruby and threading and all the intricate technical detail necessary to build and maintain and support the system. And so really you'll kind of regress a little bit. We won't be able to give as good support because I'm busy helping that other employee. Being selective about customers [00:34:23] Mike: So, yeah, it's, it's a tightrope act where you've got to really figure out how can I scale myself as far as possible without overwhelming myself. The, the overwhelming thing that I have that I've never been able to solve. It's just dealing with billing inquiries, customers, companies, emailing me saying, how do we buy this thing? [00:34:46] Can I get an invoice? Every company out there, it seems wants an invoice. And the problem with invoicing is it takes a lot more. manual labor and administrative overhead to issue that invoice to collect payment on the invoice. So that's one of the reasons why I have a very strict policy about credit card only for, for the vast majority of my customers. [00:35:11] And I demand that companies pay a lot more. You have to have a pretty big enterprise license if you want an invoice. And if the company, if the company comes back and complains and says, well, you know, that's ridiculous. We don't, we don't want to pay that much. We don't need it that much. Uh, you know, I, I say, okay, well then you have two, two things, two, uh, two things. [00:35:36] You can either pay with a credit card or you can not use Sidekiq. Like, that's, that's it. I'm, I don't need your money. I don't want the administrative overhead of dealing with your accounting department. I just want to support my, my customers and build my software. And, and so, yeah, I don't want to turn into a billing clerk. [00:35:55] So sometimes, sometimes the, the, the best thing in business that you can do is just say no. [00:36:01] Jeremy: That's very interesting because I think being a solo... Person is what probably makes that possible, right? Because if you had the additional staff, then you might say like, Well, I need to pay my staff, so we should be getting, you know, as much business as [00:36:19] Mike: Yeah. Chasing every customer you can, right. But yeah. [00:36:22] Every customer is different. I mean, I have some customers that just, they never contact me. They pay their bill really fast or right on time. And they're paying me, you know, five figures, 20, a year. And they just, it's a, God bless them because those are, are the. [00:36:40] Best customers to have and the worst customers are the ones who are paying 99 bucks a month and everything that they don't understand or whatever is a complaint. So sometimes, sometimes you, you want to, vet your customers from that perspective and say, which one of these customers are going to be good? [00:36:58] Which ones are going to be problematic? [00:37:01] Jeremy: And you're only only person... And I'm not sure how many customers you have, but [00:37:08] Mike: I have 2000 [00:37:09] Jeremy: 2000 customers. [00:37:10] Okay. [00:37:11] Mike: Yeah. [00:37:11] Jeremy: And has that been relatively stable or has there been growth [00:37:16] Mike: It's been relatively stable the last couple of years. Ruby has, has sort of plateaued. Um, it's, you don't see a lot of growth. I'm getting probably, um, 15, 20 percent growth maybe. Uh, so I'm not growing like a weed, like, you know, venture capital would want to see, but steady incremental growth is, is, uh, wonderful, especially since I do very little. [00:37:42] Sales and marketing. you know, I come to RubyConf I, I I tweet out, you know, or I, I toot out funny Mastodon Toots occasionally and, and, um, and, and put out new releases of the software. And, and that's, that's essentially my, my marketing. My marketing is just staying in front of developers and, and, and being a presence in the Ruby community. [00:38:06] But yeah, it, it's, uh. I, I, I see not a, not a huge amount of churn, but I see enough sales to, to, to stay up and keep my head above water and to keep growing, um, slowly but surely. Support needs haven't grown [00:38:20] Jeremy: And as you've had that steady growth, has the support burden not grown with it? [00:38:27] Mike: Not as much because once customers are on Sidekiq and they've got it working, then by and large, you don't hear from them all that much. There's always GitHub issues, you know, customers open GitHub issues. I love that. but yeah, by and large, the community finds bugs. and opens up issues. And so things remain relatively stable. [00:38:51] I don't get a lot of the complete newbie who has no idea what they're doing and wants me to, to tell them how to use Sidekiq that I just don't see much of that at all. Um, I have seen it before, but in that case, generally, I, I, I politely tell that person that, listen, I'm not here to educate you on the product. [00:39:14] It's there's documentation in the wiki. Uh, and there's tons of, of more Ruby, generic Ruby, uh, educational material out there. That's just not, not what I do. So, so yeah, by and large, the support burden is, is not too bad because once people are, are up and running, it's stable and, and they don't, they don't need to contact me. [00:39:36] Jeremy: I wonder too, if that's perhaps a function of the price, because if you're a. new developer or someone who's not too familiar with how to do job processing or what they want to do when you, there is the open source product, of course. but then the next step up, I believe is about a hundred dollars a month. [00:39:58] And if you're somebody who is kind of just getting started and learning how things work, you're probably not going to pay that, is my guess. And so you'll never hear from them. [00:40:11] Mike: Right, yeah, that's a good point too, is the open source version, which is what people inevitably are going to use and integrate into their app at first. Because it's open source, you're not going to email me directly, um, and when people do email me directly, Sidekiq support questions, I do, I reply literally, I'm sorry I don't respond to private email, unless you're a customer. [00:40:35] Please open a GitHub issue and, um, that I try to educate both my open source users and my commercial customers to try and stay in GitHub issues because private email is a silo, right? Private email doesn't help anybody else but them. If I can get people to go into GitHub issues, then that's a public record. [00:40:58] that people can search. Because if one person has that problem, there's probably a dozen other people that have that same problem. And then that other, those other 11 people can search and find the solution to their problem at four in the morning when I'm asleep. Right? So that's, that's what I'm trying to do is, is keep, uh, keep everything out in the open so that people can self service as much as possible. Sidekiq open source [00:41:24] Jeremy: And on the open source side, are you still primarily the main contributor? Or do you have other people that are [00:41:35] Mike: I mean, I'd say I do 90 percent of the work, which is why I don't feel guilty about keeping 100 percent of the money. A lot of open source projects, when they look for financial sustainability, they also look for how can we split this money amongst the team. And that's, that's a completely different topic that I've. [00:41:55] is another reason why I've stayed solo is if I hire an employee and I pay them 200, 000 a year as a developer, I'm meanwhile keeping all the rest of the profits of the company. And so that almost seems a little bit unfair. because we're both still working 40 hours a week, right? Why am I the one making the vast majority of the, of the profit and the money? [00:42:19] Um, so, uh, I've always, uh, that's another reason why I've stayed solo, but, but yeah, having a team of people working on something, I do get, regular commits, regular pull requests from people, fixing a bug that they found or just making a tweak that. that they saw, that they thought they could improve. [00:42:42] A little more rarely I get a significant improvement or feature, as a pull request. but Sidekiq is so stable these days that it really doesn't need a team of people maintaining it. The volume of changes necessary, I can easily keep up with that. So, I'm still doing 90 95 percent of the work. Are there other Sidekiq-like opportunities out there? [00:43:07] Jeremy: Yeah, so I think Sidekiq has sort of a unique positioning where it's the code base itself is small enough where you can maintain it yourself and you have some help, but primarily you're the main maintainer. And then you have enough customers who are willing to, to pay for the benefit it gives them on top of what the open source product provides. [00:43:36] cause it's, it's, you were talking about how. Every project people work on, they have, they could have hundreds of dependencies, right? And to ask somebody to, to pay for each of them is, is probably not ever going to happen. And so it's interesting to think about how you have things like, say, you know, OpenSSL, you know, it's a library that a whole bunch of people rely on, but nobody is going to pay a monthly fee to use it. [00:44:06] You have things like, uh, recently there was HashiCorp with Terraform, right? They, they decided to change their license because they, they wanted to get, you know, some of that value back, some of the money back, and the community basically revolted. Right? And did a fork. And so I'm kind of curious, like, yeah, where people can find these sweet spots like, like Sidekiq, where they can find this space where it's just small enough where you can work on it on your own and still get people to pay for it. [00:44:43] It's, I'm trying to picture, like, where are the spaces? Open source as a public utility [00:44:48] Mike: We need to look at other forms of financing beyond pure capitalism. If this is truly public infrastructure that needs to be maintained for the long term, then why are we, why is it that we depend on capitalism to do that? Our roads, our water, our sewer, those are not Capitalist, right? Those are utilities, that's public infrastructure that we maintain, that the government helps us maintain. [00:45:27] And in a sense, tech infrastructure is similar or could be thought of in a similar fashion. So things like Open Collective, things like, uh, there's a, there's a organization in Europe called NLNet, I think, out of the Netherlands. And they do a lot of grants to various open source projects to help them improve the state of digital infrastructure. [00:45:57] They support, for instance, Mastodon as a open source project that doesn't have any sort of corporate backing. They see that as necessary social media infrastructure, uh, for the long term. And, and I, and I think that's wonderful. I like to see those new directions being explored where you don't have to turn everything into a product, right? [00:46:27] And, and try and market and sale, um, and, and run ads and, and do all this stuff. If you can just make the case that, hey, this is, this is useful public infrastructure that so many different, um, Technical, uh, you know, applications and businesses could rely on, much like FedEx and DHL use our roads to the benefit of their own, their own corporate profits. [00:46:53] Um, why, why, why shouldn't we think of tech infrastructure sort of in a similar way? So, yeah, I would like to see us explore more. in that direction. I understand that in America that may not happen for quite a while because we are very, capitalist focused, but it's encouraging to see, um, places like Europe, uh, a little more open to, to trialing things like, cooperatives and, and grants and large long term grants to, to projects to see if they can, uh, provide sustainability in, in, you know, in a new way. [00:47:29] Jeremy: Yeah, that's a good point because I think right now, a lot of the open source infrastructure that we all rely on, either it's being paid for by large companies and at the whim of those large companies, if Google decides we don't want to pay for you to work on this project anymore, where does the money come from? [00:47:53] Right? And on the other hand, there's the thousands, tens of thousands of people who are doing it. just for free out of the, you know, the goodness of their, their heart. And that's where a lot of the burnout comes from. Right. So I think what you're saying is that perhaps a lot of these pieces that we all rely on, that our, our governments, you know, here in the United States, but also around the world should perhaps recognize as this is, like you said, this is infrastructure, and we should be. [00:48:29] Paying these people to keep the equivalent of the roads and, and, uh, all that working. [00:48:37] Mike: Yeah, I mean, I'm not, I'm not claiming that it's a perfect analogy. There's, there's, there's lots of questions that are unanswered in that, right? How do you, how do you ensure that a project is well maintained? What does that even look like? What does that mean? you know, you can look at a road and say, is it full of potholes or is it smooth as glass, right? [00:48:59] It's just perfectly obvious, but to a, to a digital project, it's, it's not as clear. So, yeah, but, but, but exploring those new ways because turning everybody into a businessman so that they can, they can keep their project going, it, it, it itself is not sustainable, right? so yeah, and that's why everything turns into a SaaS because a SaaS is easy to control. [00:49:24] It's easy to gatekeep behind a paywall and it's easy to charge for, whereas a library on GitHub. Yeah. You know, what do you do there? You know, obviously GitHub has sponsors, the sponsors feature. You've got Patreon, you've got Open Collective, you've got Tidelift. There's, there's other, you know, experiments that have been run, but nothing has risen to the top yet. [00:49:47] and it's still, it's still a bit of a grind. but yeah, we'll see, we'll see what happens, but hopefully people will keep experimenting and, and maybe, maybe governments will start. Thinking in the direction of, you know, what does it mean to have a budget for digital infrastructure maintenance? [00:50:04] Jeremy: Yeah, it's interesting because we, we started thinking about like, okay, where can we find spaces for other Sidekiqs? But it sounds like maybe, maybe that's just not realistic, right? Like maybe we need more of a... Yeah, a rethinking of, I guess the, the structure of how people get funded. Yeah. [00:50:23] Mike: Yeah, sometimes the best way to solve a problem is to think at a higher level. You know, we, the, the sustainability problem in American Silicon Valley based open source developers is naturally going to tend toward venture capital and, and capitalism. And I, you know, I think, I think that's, uh, extremely problematic on a, on a lot of different, in a lot of different ways. [00:50:47] And, and so sometimes you need to step back and say, well, maybe we're, maybe we just don't have the right tool set to solve this problem. But, you know, I, I. More than that, I'm not going to speculate on because it is a wicked problem to solve. [00:51:04] Jeremy: Is there anything else you wanted to, to mention or thought we should have talked about? [00:51:08] Mike: No, I, I, I loved the talk, of sustainability and, and open source. And I, it's, it's a, it's a topic really dear to my heart, obviously. So I, I am happy to talk about it at length with anybody, anytime. So thank you for having me. [00:51:25] Jeremy: All right. Thank you very much, Mike.

This episode introduces the second participants of the season's thoughtbot's Incubator Program, Mike Rosenthal and Chris Cerrito. Mike has a background in music industry marketing, and Chris is a maker and tinkerer with experience in exhibit development. They're developing a product combining physical objects with digital content, starting with music. Their concept involves creating physical items like wooden mixtapes with NFC chips linking to digital playlists. This blend of physical and digital aims to revive the tangible aspects of fan engagement in a digital era. Their project, named Goodz, is the first pure consumer product in the Incubator program, adding complexities like supply chain and manufacturing considerations. The team is conducting user interviews to validate market interest and refine their messaging. They aim to have a functioning physical product and a supporting digital backend by the end of the program. Challenges include defining the target market and understanding how to attract customers to a new product type. The thoughtbot team is excited about the project due to its fun nature and technical aspects, offering a fresh perspective compared to problem-focused startups. The conversation also explores the broader implications of bridging the digital and physical worlds in fan engagement, with the potential to collect valuable data for artists and create lasting, meaningful connections for fans. Follow Josh Herzig-Marx on LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/in/joshuaherzigmarx/) or X (https://twitter.com/herzigma). Visit his website at joshua.herzig-marx.com (https://joshua.herzig-marx.com/). Follow thoughtbot on X (https://twitter.com/thoughtbot) or LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/company/150727/). Become a Sponsor (https://thoughtbot.com/sponsorship) of Giant Robots! Transcript: LINDSEY: All right. I'm going to kick us off here. Thanks, everyone, for tuning in. We're doing our first update with two founders that are now going through the Startup incubator at thoughtbot. thoughtbot, if you're not familiar, product design and development consultancy. We'll help you on your product and make your team a success. One of the very fun ways we do that is through the startup thoughtbot incubator, which is an eight-week program. So, with us today, I myself am Lindsey Christensen, marketing for thoughtbot. We also have Jordyn Bonds, who is our Director of Product Strategy and runs the thoughtbot incubator. And then, as I mentioned, we've got two new founders who are going to tell us a little bit about themselves and what they're working on. Mike Rosenthal, let's kick off with you. Can you tell us a little bit about maybe your background and what brings you to present day? MIKE: Sure. First of, thanks for having us. It's been a lot of fun doing this over the last [inaudible 01:03]; it's only two weeks, two and a half weeks, something like that. It feels like a lot more. I come from a music industry background, so worked in sort of marketing and strategy for artists for a long time; worked with a band called OK Go back, sort of starting in 2009 or so. I did a lot of early kind of viral music video stuff. And we were sort of early to the idea of sort of leveraging fan engagement and revenue, honestly, kind of beyond sort of just selling their music and touring, so sort of exploring other ways that artists can make money and connect with their fans and was with those guys for five years. And then, I went on and worked at an artist management company in Brooklyn called Mick Management and ran the marketing department there, so doing similar type of work but for a roster of 2025 major label bands. And so, really got to see fan engagement on all different levels, from really large bands down to baby bands who were just getting started. And then, yeah, started my first startup in 2018, so doing sort of fan engagement work, and NFTs, and blockchain-type stuff working with bands, but then also sports and entertainment properties. Yeah, that kind of brings me here. So, always been sort of on the music side of things, which ties into a lot of what Chris and I are working on now, but more generally, sort of fan engagement and how to, you know, drive revenue and engagement for artists and deliver value for fans. LINDSEY: Very interesting. All right, Chris, going to head over to you. Chris Cerrito, can you tell us a bit about your background? And it sounds like yours and Mike's paths; this isn't the first time you've crossed. CHRIS: No. Mike and I have been working together since 2007, I believe. Yeah, that's a great place to start. I've always been kind of a maker and a tinkerer, always been interested in art materials, how things are put together. And that kind of culminated at grad school, where Mike and I met at NYU, where we both studied physical computing and human-computer interaction, making weird things that kind of changed the way that people interact and play with technology in their day-to-day lives. I think the first project he and I worked on together was a solar robotic band that we played with light in front of a bunch of people. It was very wonderful and confusing at the same time. After grad school, I was lucky enough to become a resident artist and then an exhibit developer at a museum in San Francisco called the Exploratorium, which is a museum of science, art, and human perception. I spent ten years there working on exhibits, teaching people things ranging from, let's see; I built a dueling water fountain to teach visitors and users about the prisoner's dilemma. I built a photo booth that used computer vision to teach people about the microbiome that lives on their face, like, just all kinds of weird things like that that fuse the digital and the physical worlds. I loved my time there. And then kind of COVID hit, and I realized that everything I had been working on for ten years was locked up in a museum that I no longer had access to. And it really gave me a desire to kind of bring my ideas into the physical world. I wanted to make things that people interact with and use in their lives on a day-to-day basis. And I would say that's really what brought me here to this point. LINDSEY: Very cool. Very interesting backgrounds, in my opinion. What is the new idea? What is the thing that you're bringing into the incubator? Mike, I'll start with you. Tell us a bit about what you're working on. MIKE: Chris and I are working on physical objects that connect to digital content is sort of the broadest way that I could describe it. I think, you know, as Chris kind of mentioned, you know, we've both been working on sort of physical things that have interactivity for a lot of our careers. I think we both come from an era of a lot more physical objects in your life, whether that's, you know, VHS cassettes at your parent's house growing up, or records and tape cassettes, and just sort of physical things that remind you of the things that you love. And I think that, you know, cell phones are great, and the sort of the smartphone era is amazing and having, you know, every single song, and movie, and television show and podcasts, et cetera, in a black box in my pocket is great. But I think we've sort of gotten to a point where it's more of an organizational problem now than anything else. And we sort of forget the actual things that we love in this world. And so, we're working on basically making physical objects to tie to digital content, and we're starting with music. And that's what we've been working on at thoughtbot is sort of how we can create physical things that basically you can tap, and that will take you to streaming content. One of the first things we're working on literally looks like sort of a little mixtape on a piece of wood, and you can just load that up with any sort of playlist that you might have on Spotify, or Apple Music, or YouTube, or whatever, and tap it, and it will take you there. And so, it's just sort of that idea of like, oh, we used to be able to sort of flip through a friend's music collection and judge them ruthlessly, or become even better friends with them based on kind of what you saw there. And we think that the time is ripe for, I don't know, a blend of that nostalgia with actual sort of, like, real-world utility that people could be into this right now. Chris, what am I missing there? CHRIS: I'd say just to expand on that a little bit, it's, you know, we spend so much time in the digital world, but we still exist in the physical. And a lot of the things, like, you might spend a really long time editing a photo for your parents or making a playlist for a friend, and there's, like, a value there that might not translate because it's digital. It's ephemeral. And I think tying these digital assets to a physical thing makes them special. It gives them, like, a permanent place in your life, something to respect, to hold on to, and maybe even pass down at some point. LINDSEY: Yeah, and I think before we logged on, we actually had Jordyn and Mike grabbing cassette tapes from the room there and to show us -- MIKE: [inaudible 06:49] LINDSEY: What [laughs] was some of their collection and to prove some of the power of these physical –- MIKE: Nothing, like, just old mixtapes. LINDSEY: Mementos. MIKE: Yeah. We were just talking about this on our sync with the thoughtbot crew. They're, like, there's sort of two levels of nostalgia. There's nostalgia for people like us who, yeah, [crosstalk 07:09] mixtapes, right? For people who actually grew up with this stuff and still have it lying around or don't but, like, look at something like that that gives you, like, instant flashbacks, right? You're like, oh my God, I remember scrolling on that little j-card or, like, getting a mixtape for my first, you know, boyfriend or girlfriend, and having it just mean everything. So, there's people for whom that was a thing. And there's, you know, generations of people for whom that is, like, their only connection to that is, you know, Stranger Things or, like, you know, the mixtape exists in pop culture as a reference. So, there's still, like, a very strong attachment there, but it's not a personal one, right? It's a cultural one. But I think everybody has that connection. So, that's kind of why we're starting with the mixtape, just because I think everyone can kind of relate to that in some way. LINDSEY: Yeah, no, yeah. When I hear mixtape, it goes immediately to crushes. You make a mixtape for your crush. CHRIS: Exactly. LINDSEY: It's a huge, powerful market, powerful. MIKE: Oh my God, so powerful. I mean, yeah, I don't know anybody -- LINDSEY: What's more motivating? MIKE: [laughs] Yeah, exactly. CHRIS: Or even just I have a really good friend who I don't get to see as often as I'd like. And he and I are constantly sending each other, you know, Spotify links and text messages. And it's great. I love that interaction. But at the same time, you know, I might forget to add that to a playlist, and then it's kind of lost. If I had taken the time to make something and send it to him physically or vice versa, it just becomes so much more special and so much more real. MIKE: Yeah. I mean, honestly, I first made these...I mean, we can go to this origin if we want. But, like, I literally just went on moo.com, right? The business card company. And they let you upload, you know, 50 different images, and they'll send you all of those as business cards. And so, I literally went on and just made business cards of all the album covers of, like, albums that I loved growing up, right? And their cheapest is this little piece of cardboard. But I had 50 of these, and I'd put them all out on my coffee table, just as something I wanted to have around. And people kept coming, you know, friends would come over, and you would just have these conversations that I haven't had in 10 or 15 years, right? Because no one's going to come to my house and pick up my phone and look at my Spotify collection. But if these things are all just sitting out, they're like, "Oh shit, you're into that? Like, I haven't thought about that album in 15 years." Or like, "Oh, I didn't know you were into that. I'm, like, a crazy super fan of that artist as well." And all of a sudden, we're having these conversations that we just weren't having. Yeah, there's something there where it's all been nostalgia coupled with the kind of prompting of conversation and connection that we've kind of lost, I think. CHRIS: And I think just to clarify a little bit on what Mike's saying, is, you know, this mixtape will be our first product launch, and then we're hoping to move into collectibles for artists and labels. So, shortly after we launch this tape, we're hoping to launch some kind of pilot with a label where you will be able to buy a version of this for your favorite music artist at a merch table in a concert, possibly online. Our dream is to have these sitting there on the table with T-shirts, and records, and other things that artists sell so you can express for the artists that you love. This is a way of expressing your fandom. LINDSEY: Jordyn, heading over to you, this feels like maybe the first consumer product that has gone through the incubator, would you say? Or how do you think about it? JORDYN: Yeah, if you're a consumer -- LINDSEY: Or is it different than other types of products? JORDYN: Yeah, the first incubator project we did with Senga was, I think, what you would call prosumer. So, it was sort of a consumer thing but directed at folks who had kind of freelancing in sort of a business context. It's got a lot of dynamics of the consumer. But this one, for sure, is the first pure consumer play. Though now that I'm thinking about it, you know, AvidFirst had some consumer elements to it, but it was, you know, it was, like, more complex tech [laughs] [inaudible 10:46] totally different thing -- LINDSEY: But definitely the first of the physical, physical [inaudible 10:52] JORDYN: Oh, sure, the first of the physical thing. Right. Absolutely. LINDSEY: Does that change any of, like, the approach of the programming, or it's kind of -- JORDYN: I mean, no, not fundamentally, though it does add this layer of operations that you don't have with a pure software play. So, we have to be, there is a thing that needs to get shipped to people in the world, and that takes timelines, and it takes -- LINDSEY: Supply chain. JORDYN: Yeah, exactly. And Chris is doing most of that stuff. I don't want to, you know, this is not, like, the main focus of our team necessarily, but it intersects, right? So, this isn't the first one of these types of products I've worked on personally in my career. But there's something, like, really, for me, very fulfilling about, like, there's software. There's a big component of software. There's also this physical object that needs to exist in the world. And partly, what's so compelling about Goodz is that it gives you the promise of a physical, like, the sort of good aspects of a physical product, a thing you can hold in your hand and look at and really connect with in that physical way. But it has this dynamic digital, like, essential quality as well. So, it's very compelling as a product because it sort of marries the things that we like about both the physical world and the digital world, which is partly why the team was really excited about working on it [laughs]. LINDSEY: Well, that was going to be my next question is, you know, what stood out to you about the Goodz application for the incubator and the interview process that made you and the team feel like this was going to be a great project to work on? JORDYN: Yeah. So, I think just the team really resonated with the sort of idea in general, and it seemed fun. There was, like, it's a very positive thing, right? It isn't so much about solving problems and pain points. And, sometimes the, you know, when you're very focused on solving problems, it can feel a little doomy because you actually have to, like, immerse yourself in the problems of the people that you're making software for. And sometimes, you start to feel like the world is just full of problems. What Goodz is doing is sort of it is solving a problem in a sense, but not in that kind of way. It's really, like, a fun upside kind of thing, which I think a lot of the folks on the team were very excited about. But, like, the software component, actually, is very interesting to us from a technological standpoint as well. There's a lot of opportunity here to do interesting things on the backend with an object that's essentially functioning as a bookmark out in the world. What all can you do with that? There's something super compelling and technically interesting about it. And I think, also, the team was just sort of excited by Chris and Mike, you know, the energy and the kind of background they were bringing to the table was also super interesting. And then, above all else, what I say every time you ask me this question, which is stage fit, y'all, good stage fit. They're right at the beginning. They haven't built the product yet [laughs]. Gotta say it. It's a good stage fit. They know who they're building for broadly but not super specifically. Got a good vision but, like, haven't made that first step with the software. Perfect stage fit for us [laughs]. LINDSEY: Great. So, Chris, we were talking a bit before about how you two have been collaborators in the past, worked on business ideas before. Why bring this idea into the thoughtbot incubator? What are you hoping to, you know, achieve? CHRIS: One of the main reasons why we wanted to bring this into the incubator was just for support, momentum, and then, also, I would say, validation for our idea. I mean, we came to the incubator with a very, yeah, I would say it was a fairly developed idea that needed to be proved, and we, quite frankly, needed help with that. You know, Mike and I have our own expertises, but we don't know how to do everything. We're more than willing to jump in where we need to go. But having people with expertise to work with has proven to be incredibly helpful, and just having kind of fresh faces to bat ideas around with after he and I have been staring at each other for months now on Zoom calls and meetings. And just, you know, being able to talk about these ideas with fresh faces and new people and get new perspectives has been so very, very helpful. I think something that's also great from the momentum standpoint is that because there's a time limit to this experience, we've got the time that we have with you guys, and we've been able to set goals that I think are very achievable for things we want to occur in the next couple of months, and it feels like we're going to get there. And I think by the end of this, I mean, our hope, and I think we're on track, is to have a functioning physical product that we're going to offer to consumers with a digital backend to support it, which is, in my mind, amazing. That'll totally validate this idea and prove if we have something or not. LINDSEY: I was going to ask if you're open to sharing what those goals specifically are. Is that it? Is it that by the end, you have -- MIKE: Is that it? Lindsey, that's a lot. [laughter] CHRIS: It's a lot. I mean, yeah. I mean, we're going to have a physical object in the world that you can buy via an e-commerce site -- JORDYN: Sounds like we need Lindsey on the team if Lindsey feels like this is so achievable. [laughter] CHRIS: Yeah, yeah. Lindsey...yeah. We're in the beginning [crosstalk 15:47] LINDSEY: I meant, is that the goal? CHRIS: That is the goal. LINDSEY: Is that all? CHRIS: I was going to –- LINDSEY: Is that all you got? CHRIS: Mike, do you agree? MIKE: Yeah. Is that the goal? Yes, that is the goal. I mean, you know, when we sat down with the thoughtbot team kind of week one, you know, they're sort of like, "All right, let's define kind of the experiment." So, we refer to them as experiments, which I think is helpful because, like, what are the experiments that we want to be doing during our time here? And, you know, we talked about it a lot. And yeah, I think it's, you know, having a physical product out in the world, having a website in which to sell it. But also, it's really like Chris was saying, it's like, it's market validation, and just making sure we actually have something that people want. It's like, you know, running a startup takes so long and, like [laughs], you know, you'll do it for so many years. It's like bands when people say, like, "Oh, that's an overnight sensation." It's like, you know, that band has been slogging it out in tiny, little venues for four years before you ever heard of them. It's like, that's what so much of the startup world feels like to me, too. It's like, "Oh, you're just getting started as a startup?" It's like, "Well, we've been working on this forever." And I know how long this can take. And so, I think we want to learn as early as possible, like, is this something people actually want? Because if they don't, like, we'll just go do something else. I don't want to spend years making something that people don't want. So, I think the biggest goal, for me, is just validation, and then that is sort of how we get there is like, okay, how do we validate this? Cool. Let's identify some, you know, assumptions of personas that we think are people who do actually want this and then try to go sell it to them. And all the implications from that are, okay, well, you need a website where somebody can buy it. You need a physical product that somebody can actually buy. So, all those things sort of come out of that, but, for me, it's like, proving that assumption, is this thing real? Do people actually want this? And everything else is like, okay, how do we prove that? LINDSEY: Jordyn, what does that look like in these first few weeks here? User interviews, I assume, how are the user interviews going? JORDYN: Always. Always. So, you know, we kick it off by just, like, doing the exercise where we list everybody who might want this. And the team, you know, it's a fun product. Everybody brought their own assumptions and ideas to the table on that. You know, we had a lot of different scenarios we were imagining. It's super fun getting that stuff out of people's heads, just, like, what are we all thinking? And then, you know, we get to negotiate, like, okay...I always encourage everyone to think, like, if everyone else on the team was on the moon, you had to make a decision about a market segment to pick; which one would you pick? And then we kind of argue about it in a productive way. It really helps us get at, like, what are the dynamics that we think matter upfront? And then we pick one, or, in this case, we have a few. We have a handful. And we're running interview projects where we just recruit people to talk about people that meet this persona, talk about a specific problem. We're in the middle of that right now. And it's fun, fantastic. These conversations are super interesting. We're validating a lot of the things that Mike and Chris, you know, walked into this with, but we're learning a bunch of new things as well. And, like, really, part of the aim there is to validate that there's a hole in the market that we might fill but also to hear the language people are using to describe this stuff. So, when people talk about buying music, merch, you know, making playlists, et cetera, like, what language do they use to talk about that? So that we make sure we're speaking the language that our customer uses to describe this stuff. And we're, you know, we're right in the pocket of doing that, learning stuff all the time. And it helps us kind of hone the messaging. It helps us know where to go talk to people about it, how to talk about it, but it's, you know, it all kind of fits together. And it's just this, really...the early stages. It's just a bunch of us in a room, a virtual room, in this case, sort of, like, tossing ideas around. But out of it crystallizes this sense of alignment about who this is for, how to talk to them about it, and with a goal. And, you know, Mike and Chris walked in with the exact right mindset about this, which is, yes, it's experiments. We need to validate it. Let's make sure there's a there-there. If there's a there-there, let's figure out where it is [laughs], like, all those things. And we're running these experiments, and it was really [inaudible 19:36]. We got down to business quite quickly here. It was really great. LINDSEY: Like you said, it's not necessarily a problem or, you know, the typical framing of a problem. How do you start those user interview questions around this? Do you feel a gap between the physical and the digital sound? [laughter] JORDYN: No, no. LINDSEY: It's maybe not it [laughs]. JORDYN: Yeah, no. Well, I can tell you what our startup questions are. One of them is, tell me about the last time you bought music merch. Go for it, Lindsey. Tell us. LINDSEY: The last time I bought music merch, I went to a Tegan and Sara concert a few weeks ago, and I bought a T-shirt. JORDYN: Tell me about buying that T-shirt. Why'd you buy it? LINDSEY: Because I wanted to remember the show and my time with my friends, and I wanted to support the artists. I know that buying merch is the best way to support your favorite touring artists. JORDYN: So, it's just, you know, we could spend the rest of this time talking [laughter] [crosstalk 20:34], and it would be awesome. So, it's really a lot of things like that. LINDSEY: Gotcha. JORDYN: You don't ask, "What problem are you trying to solve by buying this t-shirt?" Right? Like, that's not, you know, but we ask you to tell us a bunch of stories about when you did this recently. You know, and if you make playlists for friends, you know, that's a different persona. But we would have asked, you know, like, "Tell me about the last playlist you made. You know, who did you share it with? You know, what happened after that? What happened after that? What happened after that?" It's a lot of questions like that. And there's just nothing better. People love to tell you what's going on with them. And it's great [laughs]. LINDSEY: Yeah. As you all have been doing these interviews, Mike and Chris, have you been surprised by anything? Any interesting insights that you're seeing already? CHRIS: I mean, I haven't done really much in the way of user interviews in the past. This is a really new experience for me. And then we're, obviously, not on the calls because that would be weird and probably intimidating for people. But we're getting lots of highlights from folks who are doing them, you know, in our daily sync. And I'm surprised at how many, like, really intense, like, playlist nerds we have found even just in, like, the few people we've talked to, like, in the best possible way. Like, people who are like, "I make playlists all the time." Like, you're talking about, like, a vinyl fan or, like, a...Jordyn, what's the story? It's, like, the guy who there was so much out-of-print vinyl that he started a vinyl label just to get the albums in vinyl. [crosstalk 21:56] JORDYN: Yeah. There were a bunch of releases that he feels really passionately about that were never released on vinyl that he knew would never be released on vinyl. And so, he started a vinyl record label. And we just found this guy [laughter]. CHRIS: Is that indicative that that's, like, an entire persona we're going to, like, target? Absolutely not. But it's just, like, it's amazing that even just in the few user interviews we've done, that we've found so many very passionate people. And it's sent me down, like, a TikTok rabbit hole of, like, TikTok, like, music nerd influencer-type folks who are posting playlists. And they, like, hundreds of thousands of likes on these videos that are literally just, like, screen with text on it that you're supposed to, like, pause the video [laughs] and, like, look at, like, the songs that they're recommending. And it's like, who does that? And it was like, these people do that. And it's like, so there are...it's been very encouraging to me, actually. I was worried that we were going to find not as much passion as we had suspected, and I think the opposite has proven to be true. So, it's exciting. CHRIS: Yeah, I completely agree with Mike. It's been so encouraging. I think, for me, what we're doing is an idea that I'm very excited about and have been very excited about for a long time. But hearing the responses that we're getting makes me confident in the idea, too. That's great. I mean, I think that is everything that a founder needs, you know, is excitement and confidence. MIKE: Well, and just the whole user interview experience has, like, made a lot of my other conversations sort of I've tried to frame parts of them as user interviews because I'm talking to a lot of, like, label folks now, and artists, merch people. And, you know, I ended up just sort of, like, asking them, I mean, yes, trying to explain the product and work on kind of partnership stuff, but a lot of it is really just geeking out with them. And just, like, hearing their thoughts about, like, what they love about merch because these are people that clearly think about this stuff all the time. So, it's definitely kind of, like, tuned my other conversations into trying to get unbiased feedback. LINDSEY: Yeah. Everything is a little user interview now. MIKE: Yeah, exactly. LINDSEY: Get that angle in there. All right, so some early validation and excitement. That's really cool to hear. Any challenges or, you know, other kinds of learnings early on? Anything that's been invalidated? MIKE: I don't know that we're there yet. [inaudible 24:02] Chris, I don't know. I'm happy to find that some things are invalidated, but I don't really feel...you know, some of the personas that we decided or maybe just one of the personas we decided to pursue, I think we're having a hard time having those user interviews kind of really bear fruit, but that's helpful, too, actually. I mean, it's like, okay, well, maybe that's not a group that we target. JORDYN: Yeah. It's about, like, [inaudible 24:24]. I encourage folks not to think about this like a 'no, not that,' and instead think of it as like a 'not yet.' And that's, I think, the dynamic here with a couple of the personas we were interested in. It's just been turned into kind of, like, a not yet for reasons that we very quickly figured out, but we'll get there. It's just a matter of figuring out we had some other personas take precedence because they're more sort of red, hot in a way, right? It's just easier to get in contact with these people, or it's, like, clear what they're going for or what they need from the market. So, you know, we have this whole list, and it was not clear at first who was going to kind of stand out. But we've kind of found some focus there, which means, invariably, that there's things that are falling out of the frame for now, and you're kind of de-prioritizing them. But it really is, like, a we'll get to that [laughs]. We'll eventually get to that. LINDSEY: Yeah. And part of the process, who's going to rise to the top right now? JORDYN: Yeah, exactly. LINDSEY: Do you have anything you can show and tell with us today or not yet? MIKE: So, Chris has been hard at work on all the physical side of this stuff and going back and forth with our manufacturing partner and all that good stuff. But we have a final version of the mixtape product. LINDSEY: For when this gets pulled into the podcast, Mike's showing us a physical card. CHRIS: It's a small card, and we call them Goodz. And it's printed on three-millimeter plywood using a UV printing process, super durable. And this is something you can put in your pocket. You're not going to wreck it. I think you could actually (Don't quote me on this.), but I think you can even, like, put it through a washing machine, and it would be fine. Embedded in this card is a chip that can be read by your phone, and that's pretty much what we're working with. MIKE: Yeah, so the idea is you just sort of tap this, and it'll take you to a streaming version of a playlist. And then Chris has also been making these adorable crates. And [crosstalk 26:10] LINDSEY: The little crates I love. MIKE: And we actually have some wooden ones, too, in the testing that's [crosstalk 26:15] LINDSEY: And then the mixtapes get stored in the little crates [crosstalk 26:19] MIKE: Yeah. So, you could have -- LINDSEY: Throw it on your desk. CHRIS: Each crate can hold about, I think, 15 of these things. What's really cool about this product on the physical side is we are using a tried-and-true technology, which is NFC chips. These are things that make Apple Pay work, make Google Pay work. They are in your E-ZPass when you drive through a toll booth. This is stuff that's been around for years. So, we're just kind of leveraging this technology that's been around for so long in a new way. MIKE: Yeah, I think it's similar to kind of the evolution of QR codes, right? It's like they were sort of around forever, and then it was, like, COVID and restaurant menus kind of kicked those into mainstream. Like, NFC has been around for a long time. It's very tried and true. It's affordable. But I want to say Apple only turned it on by default, like, the NFC reader in the iPhone in the last, like, 18 to 24 months, right? Like, it started...like, it's been around for a while, but they're sort of slowly kind of...and now you just sort of see it everywhere. People are using it on the subways in New York to scan for tickets or for accessing stuff. I was also just showing Chris has been prototyping with the ability to sort of keep these on a key ring. So, we have, like, a little chain hole on them. It is [inaudible 27:22] to sort of have this on your backpack or, you know, on a key ring, or something like that. And friends could kind of, like, come up to you and just, like, scan one that looks interesting. CHRIS: And yeah, something that's awesome about this is you don't need an app. You don't need to download anything. As long as your NFC reader is on when you scan this, it will bring you to the music that it's linked to, which I think is awesome. So, I mean, my dream is to have these, like, hanging off of people's backpacks so I can, like, scan them in the subway or, you know, it's such, like, an easy thing to do. And it requires so little technical time on the user's end to be able to do it. LINDSEY: Oh, we got a question here. "So, Moo used to offer NFC cards. What made you decide to do the thicker plywood model?" CHRIS: Durability is really what it comes down to. We wanted something that felt like an object that you can have and treasure. Like, these have weight, you know, these feel like something, not just a piece of paper. This is something that you can have and [inaudible 28:22] your desk, and it's not going to fade in the sunlight. It's not going to disintegrate over time. This is something that's going to last. MIKE: Yeah, the cards would definitely, like, as I would sort of carry them around and show them to people and stuff, the cards would start, you know, breaking. It's like having a business card in your pocket, right? Eventually, it's going to kind of wear out. And plus, we had, like, the stickers were visible on the back of them. And we were, like, having the sticker just completely disappear inside the wood; it just feels a little bit more like magic. LINDSEY: Well, thanks for demoing there. I put you on the spot a little bit. But they are...I had seen them in the Slack, and they're very cool [laughs]. So, I had to ask if we could show them off a bit. MIKE: Of course. CHRIS: I think another thing to think about, too, is we've been talking a lot about the user experience. But if and when we get to the point of making these for artists, artists will be able to collect so much data off of the way that people buy and collect and use these things over time, which is something that we're really, really excited about. And also, you know, we're working on a way to make the link in the object updatable over time. So, artists will be able to change what a card points do to inform their users about the latest and greatest thing. LINDSEY: Very cool. Jordyn, what's next on the programming agenda for Chris and Mike? JORDYN: It's really sort of we're in this, like, iterative cycle. So, we're talking to folks. We're working on the website. The conversations we're having with people are informing how we're framing this first experiment with the mixtape, how we're marketing it, who we're marketing it to. I think next up is probably a Google Ad experiment to really see if we can piggyback on some stuff or at least figure out a new consumer product. It's so tough, right? It's also not a thing people are searching for. So, we have to come up with some experiments for how we get people to that website [laughs]. So, you know, Google Ads funnels is just something you kind of have to do because it's very interesting to figure out what people are responding to, what people are searching for. But we're going to have a bunch of other experiments as well and non-experiments. Outbound experiments: can we go to people? Can we get listed in a gift-buying guide for the holidays? Or, like, we don't know. There's a bunch of experiments we need to do around that, which is really just this iteration. We won't stop talking to users, but, you know, everything we're hearing from them will inform where we go and how we talk to the folks in those places where we end up. And really, it's just about starting...once this is up and, you know, there's, like, an orderable thing, there's, like, a whole data cycle where we start to learn from the stuff we're testing; we actually have some real data for it, and we can start to tweak, iterate and change our strategy. But the bigger thing, also, is this bigger platform. So, the next thing really, the big next thing, is to sort of start to scope and create an architecture idea. What's it going to take to build the actual backend thing? And it's the thing that thoughtbot really [laughs] excels at, which is software. So, you know, that's the big next kind of project. Once the mixtape experiment is sort of out and in flight and we're getting data, we really need to turn our attention to the technical backend. LINDSEY: Exciting. Another comment/question from Jeff, who maybe needs a user interview. "Love the crate more than the actual albums. Maybe offer collections of artists." MIKE: Yeah, that's the plan. CHRIS: Yeah, definitely. It's a good idea. Yeah, it's, I mean, and labels get to, especially, like, small indie labels get really excited about doing, like, crates worth of collections of different artists or, like, you know, digging through their back catalog, their subscription services. There's a lot of different angles for sure about that idea. LINDSEY: [inaudible 31:55] Chris and Mike, going into this next section of the programming, for anyone watching right now, or watching the recording, or listening to the recording, any action items from them? You know, are you looking for any user interviews or have any survey or any destinations you'd like to send people yet? CHRIS: Not quite yet, but soon, I would say. Well -- MIKE: I mean, [inaudible 32:19] plug the website, I mean, you know, I think we've got, like, an email to sign up from there, right? The URL is getthegoodz.com and I [crosstalk 32:27] LINDSEY: Goodz with a Z. MIKE: Goodz with a Z. CHRIS: With Z. MIKE: So yeah, if you want to go there, you can sign up. I think there's an email signup on there to learn more. LINDSEY: Perfect. All right. getthegoodz.com email sign up. To stay up to date on Goodz and the incubator, you can follow along on the thoughtbot blog. You know, as always, send us any questions you might have, and we're happy to get to those. But otherwise, thanks for listening. And thank you all — Jordyn, Chris, and Mike. Thanks so much for joining today and sharing and being open about your stories so far. MIKE: Thank you. CHRIS: Yeah, thank you, Lindsey. AD: Did you know thoughtbot has a referral program? If you introduce us to someone looking for a design or development partner, we will compensate you if they decide to work with us. More info on our website at tbot.io/referral. Or you can email us at referrals@thoughtbot.com with any questions. Special Guests: Chris Cerrito and Mike Rosenthal.

The Nightly Rant: Examining Society from a Sarcastic Point of ViewWelcome to The Nightly Rant with your hosts, Mike and Torya. In this show, we take a sarcastic look at society and dive into various topics that provoke thought and conversation. Today, we want to discuss the importance of being prepared to answer questions and engage in meaningful dialogue when expressing opinions publicly. We believe that adults should act like adults and handle disagreements in a mature manner. Let's dive into the details.The Importance of Being Prepared to Answer QuestionsMike: "People in general should not ask questions unless they're prepared to hear any answer."Torya: "I'll take what you just said a step further to also include stating your opinion publicly."Mike: "If you state your opinion publicly on something, then you need to be prepared to answer questions. Some people are going to be confused. You put your opinion out there that that is influential. It means something. I don't care who you are. Be prepared to answer questions. That's all."Torya: "Influences at least one other person in the universe."Mike: "Be prepared to answer questions. That's all I ask. Is that bad?"Torya: "Well, why are you asking the questions? What is your goal with asking people questions about their opinion?"Mike: "To understand their viewpoint on that issue."Torya: "Because to tell them how wrong they are, that they're dumb or that their opinion is factually incorrect. No."Mike: "In fact, usually these days especially, I will say your opinion is completely valid, but it isn't one that I completely connect with because I don't understand this aspect."Torya: "Can you explain?"Mike: "And I blah out whatever the question is and then they attempt to answer. And most times they don't even attempt to answer because they don't care. They just growl back at you and it's like, no, I was truly trying to understand where you were coming from."Torya: "Well, then if your intention is to just understand, then no, right, you're not doing it."Mike: "Exactly. There's nothing wrong. Then if your intention is to drag them into a trap and then pounce on them and beat them to death, yeah, that'd be pretty wrong."Torya: "Or at least mean and nasty. Sure."Mike: "Which is wrong sometimes."Torya: "It's fun."Mike: "Well, it can be. I won't lie. It can be."Torya: "Especially when somebody has a really obscure and ridiculous and factually incorrect opinion. But I digress. We don't need to go there."Mike: "Well, yeah, and why can't somebody disagree about that and not make it be such a big deal? I mean, come on, there's a specific incident in my head. And the minuteness of the topic, if you think about it, it was like less than a grain of sand in the grand scheme of everything. Right?"Torya: "We've had disagreements about things way bigger than that and laughing together about something else five minutes later."Mike: "Nothing. That's like nothing. That's what I'm trying to say. It's like fart dust is a bigger deal than that."Torya: "Fart dust pretty bad."Mike: "And yet people who are allegedly adults make it about them and, oh, we need to quit the friendship. And that's literally what people do these days. Grown ass adults. Yeah, grown ass adults just leave and don't talk to you anymore. They don't have even the balls to say I'm going to say it. They don't even have the balls to say, fuck you."Torya: "Wow."Mike: "They don't have the balls to say anything. Yes, I'm the reason never for the E. It's always all me now."Torya: "I feel like all the words are fair game, though."Mike: "But here's the thing. It's like they don't even have the guts to say goodbye. Like, I'm done. That's a woosy move. I mean, those are the kind of people that disappear from their family, too. No BS."Torya: "I had a great idea earlier, and I was thinking that it'd be great if society would just chew up these cocksucking assholes that you're describing. The people who don't function as part of society because they're just too fucking wrapped up in their own self."Mike: "Yeah, they're not adults."Torya: "Chew them up and shit them out into outer space using the Earth's giant rectum. Yeah, the Earth is going to grow a giant rectum and it needs to shit these people out because they're destroying."Mike: "The world in many senses of the word. Yes, they are."Torya: "They're the most hostile people yet. They're the people who will call everybody else hostile."Mike: "Well, and that's the thing. There's also this issue where adults can't be adults, they just can't. Like we're talking about ghosting. That's not an adult move ghosting people. That's a little baby's move ghosting."Torya: "Right?"Mike: "Oh, where's your friend Johnny? Oh, I don't talk to him anymore. It's what the little kid does. It's not what an adult does."Torya: "Right? And then there's poor Johnny crying in the corner because he doesn't know why nobody likes him. And also, Johnny will continue to be an asshole for the rest of Johnny's life because nobody has ever told him why they don't like him."Mike: "Which in my opinion, makes you the asshole for not pointing it out to."Torya: "Right?"Mike: "I mean, if you pointed it out to him and he continued down the pathway, you pointed it out to him, and he gets to continue down the pathway if he wants to."Torya: "You've got to tell people how you feel about things. You know, it's interesting. When I was in Canada, not this most recent time, but the time before, I was hanging out with Alicia, you know, how she has miniature humans. Well, the boy miniature human punched the girl miniature human. And she came screaming and crying to know kid stuff. And Alicia told her that she needed to go tell miniature boy human how it made her feel so that he would apologize to her."Torya: "And she did, and he apologized and then gave her a hug for a five year old. People. Yeah."Mike: "And, you know, the honest truth is there's no reason whatsoever for someone to act like everything's okay when there are obvious signals that everything's not okay. There's no reason for anyone to ever do that to anybody. That's why I think we talk about this all the time. Our relationship works because it takes you longer than me to get there, but we tell each other, well, that bothered me when that happened."Torya: "I know that I'm a little bit irrational. Okay, whatever. Don't even no commenting. Not allowed. I know that I'm a little bit irrational, and sometimes I don't know if I'm actually annoyed with you or if I'm being crazy, so I need to take some time to decipher if I am being crazy."Mike: "But see but that's fair, because that means instead of that even makes you even more reasonable, because instead of putting our relationship through a roller coaster of crap, you take the time to filter it yourself. Here's the thing, though. A lot of people would bitch at you for that, but I commend you for it because you still come forward with the issues to get them fixed. You do."Torya: "Think about it. You're doing something that's annoying the crap out of me. Okay? Not right now. This is a hypothetical you are doing something."Mike: "Well, it's a hypothetical reality. It happens."Torya: "Yeah. Anyway, I could say something right then when you're being annoying in my hyper irrational, super annoyed state sure. Which what would happen bad?"Mike: "Let's just say doom would ensue. Always."Torya: "Nobody needs that. Or I could stew quietly about it for a while and then come back to it the next day when I'm not crazy and decide if I was actually annoyed with you or not. And then if I was actually annoyed with you, I could be like, hey, Mike, you did this thing. Please don't do it again."Mike: "Yeah, you know what, though? I obviously am the same person as you, so I obviously approach that same issue the same way as you. And I, though, have one time only with you, followed the completely reasonable give her the benefit of the doubt approach. I've done it many times, but once and only once did I regret doing it. And you did something like you had a comeback of, like I can't even remember the comeback at this point, but it was really this really sassy."Mike: "You didn't deny that you were doing something and that it would have bothered me. You didn't deny that at all, but instead, you just sort of ignored it. And went like, what about this? And it's like, wow, man. That isn't how we're supposed to deal with each other. We're supposed to deal with each other face to face. We're not supposed to try to duck around one another. And that's how that felt, right?"Torya: "That's why everybody has to calm down."Mike: "Before issues should be correct. Exactly. And that's the thing. There's times when you do have to wait, and there's times when you should take time to think about things. And I think it's more adult like to wait rather than overreact. However, I'm going to say something different. One last thing. When someone does that to you, they overreact. It's best for you to quote overreact back and protect yourself. That's what I think."Torya: "Well, because then you're going to get the whole thing out of the way right there, instead of you stewing that I overreacted and making it a fight the next day and the next day and the next day. I agree with you. If one person has already gone off the deep end, well, you might as well just have the knockdown drag out fight right there. Just get it over with."Mike: "I think we agree with that. And it's healthy. That's the healthy way, and we act like adults about it. And that's the key thing, though. You have to be able to speak your mind without the other person getting offended. And honestly, I think a big thing that most adults just don't have any longer than they used to is the ability to separate things. Just because you're not the most empathetic person in the world doesn't mean you're stupid."Torya: "Yeah, that's what I was going to say before you had something else you had to say. If I didn't take the minute to calm myself or minute or hours or six days, whatever is necessary, all arguments I had with everybody would be like, my fight with the Sam's Club lady where I called them an idiot and."Mike: "They walked wasn't your that wasn't your proudest moment."Torya: "Or my slight disagreement with that soccer mom that one time that I won't repeat."Mike: "Well, what's funny about that? What's funny about that is both of those situations turned out okay in the end, but they had the potential not to be. But here's the thing. By us being reasonable people, 98.5% of the time, you can get away with a slip up like that. And the rest of the people are like, in particular the soccer incident, the rest of the parents, you were like, oh, I'm so sorry that I said that in front of you. And they're like, Are you kidding? I would have said worse to her."Mike: "She deserved what you said. And then everyone that was literally the opinion, they would be like, oh, I would have said worse. Oh, she deserved it. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Not a single person sided with the other person. Not a single person. Now, here's the thing. We still set our apologies to everybody. To everybody."Torya: "Even though the person I exactly."Mike: "Even though they supported us, we still apologized."Torya: "Well, to be fair, I used the worst word Americans can possibly use in front of, like, twelve year old children."Mike: "Well, the twelve year old children were out on the soccer field, though Mitchell."Torya: "Said he heard it."Mike: "Well, it is what it is, man. You did apologize."Torya: "That's what I felt like I needed."Mike: "But you apologized. You did. To everybody. And yet the point is, they were supportive of us because we had always been reasonable people. We didn't yell and scream on the sidelines at our kid, at the referee. We didn't do that stuff. We sat there and we cheered."Torya: "Called the referee a sight."Mike: "We talked to each other."Torya: "Only when you were egged on by other groups of people, though, too."Mike: "We would just talk to each other and ignore everyone. I mean, that's just how we handled things. And so it's sort of annoying that people go down roads that they don't even bother to think about. Well, are they the type of people that would act that way?"Torya: "So can we officially shoot these hyper aggressive snowflake motherfuckers into space?"Mike: "Yeah, with the rectum. You said this already, and I fully agree with you."Torya: "Well, I need to know if other."Mike: "People."Torya: "We're not feeding the rectum Taco Bell."Mike: "Both of those are going to make a great audio club. That's the little shorty. Munch, munch, munch kapow. And we're not feeding in Taco Bell. Just wow. All right. Well, I think we have beaten this topic to death. I didn't even expect us to talk about it for this long. Here's what I want to kind of close up with tomorrow, which is the day after we record this, which will be weeks from the time you hear it."Mike: "We are getting involved in our very first official sporting event together. We are going to play fantasy hockey with the rest of our family. Yes, we are. And we suck at this for my ultimate failure. We're going to learn this quick. So with that, that is all I've got for you people."Torya: "Good night, everyone."Mike: "Hasta La Bye bye."Conclusion and Future OutlookIn this episode of The Nightly Rant, Mike and Torya discuss the importance of being prepared to answer questions and engage in meaningful dialogue when expressing opinions publicly. They emphasize the need for adults to act like adults and handle disagreements in a mature manner. The hosts share personal anecdotes and observations to highlight the negative consequences of ghosting and avoiding confrontation.The conversation delves into the significance of open communication and the ability to separate personal opinions from personal attacks. Mike and Torya stress the importance of understanding different viewpoints and seeking clarification rather than resorting to hostility. They also touch upon the need for self-reflection and taking the time to assess one's own emotions before engaging in discussions.The hosts conclude the episode by announcing their participation in a fantasy hockey league, highlighting the importance of learning new skills and embracing new experiences. They encourage listeners to approach disagreements with maturity and respect, fostering a culture of open dialogue and understanding.Moving forward, it is crucial for individuals to recognize the impact of their words and opinions on others. By being prepared to answer questions and engage in meaningful conversations, adults can foster a more inclusive and understanding society. The Nightly Rant serves as a reminder that communication is key, and it is essential to approach disagreements with empathy and respect.TimestampSummary0:00:15Introduction to the podcast and topic of the day0:01:34Importance of being prepared to answer questions when stating opinions0:03:34Adults making small disagreements a big deal0:05:02Criticism of people who ghost others without explanation0:06:34Society's inability to handle conflicts maturely0:08:25The importance of open communication in a relationship0:09:11The need to address issues face-to-face rather than avoiding them0:10:59Reacting to overreactions to protect oneself0:11:46Having a knockdown drag out fight to resolve conflicts0:12:22Lack of empathy and offense to criticism of empathy0:12:27Torya talks about needing time to calm herself before arguments0:12:55C mentions the soccer incident and how it turned out okay0:13:48They discuss apologizing to everyone involved in the incident0:14:11C talks about how they were always reasonable people0:14:54Torya suggests shooting hyper aggressive people into space0:15:55They mention their upcoming fantasy hockey event0:16:22Closing remarks0:31:54Mike thanks listeners and asks for a rating0:32:06End of transcript

Mike Goldsmith, Staff Software Engineer at Honeycomb, joins Corey on Screaming in the Cloud to talk about Open Telemetry, company culture, and the pros and cons of Go vs. .NET. Corey and Mike discuss why OTel is such an important tool, while pointing out its double-edged sword of being fully open-source and community-driven. Opening up about Honeycomb's company culture and how to find a work-life balance as a fully-remote employee, Mike points out how core-values and social interaction breathe life into a company like Honeycomb.About MikeMike is an OpenSource focused software engineer that builds tools to help users create, shape and deliver system & application telemetry. Mike contributes to a number of OpenTelemetry initiatives including being a maintainer for Go Auto instrumentation agent, Go proto packages and an emeritus .NET SDK maintainer..Links Referenced: Honeycomb: https://www.honeycomb.io/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/Mike_Goldsmith Honeycomb blog: https://www.honeycomb.io/blog LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/mikegoldsmith/ TranscriptAnnouncer: Hello, and welcome to Screaming in the Cloud with your host, Chief Cloud Economist at The Duckbill Group, Corey Quinn. This weekly show features conversations with people doing interesting work in the world of cloud, thoughtful commentary on the state of the technical world, and ridiculous titles for which Corey refuses to apologize. This is Screaming in the Cloud.Corey: Welcome to Screaming in the Cloud. I'm Corey Quinn. This promoted guest episode is brought to us by our friends at Honeycomb who I just love talking to. And we've gotten to talk to these folks a bunch of different times in a bunch of different ways. They've been a recurring sponsor of this show and my other media nonsense, they've been a reference customer for our consulting work at The Duckbill Group a couple of times now, and we just love working with them just because every time we do we learn something from it. I imagine today is going to be no exception. My guest is Mike Goldsmith, who's a staff software engineer over at Honeycomb. Mike, welcome to the show.Mike: Hello. Thank you for having me on the show today.Corey: So, I have been familiar with Honeycomb for a long time. And I'm still trying to break myself out of the misapprehension that, oh, they're a small, scrappy, 12-person company. You are very much not that anymore. So, we've gotten to a point now where I definitely have to ask the question: what part of the observability universe that Honeycomb encompasses do you focus on?Mike: For myself, I'm very focused on the telemetry side, so the place where I work on the tools that customers deploy in their own infrastructure to collect all of that useful data and make—that we can then send on to Honeycomb to make use of and help identify where the problems are, where things are changing, how we can best serve that data.Corey: You've been, I guess on some level, there's—I'm trying to make this not sound like an accusation, but I don't know if we can necessarily avoid that—you have been heavily involved in OpenTelemetry for a while, both professionally, as well as an open-source contributor in your free time because apparently you also don't know how to walk away from work when the workday is done. So, let's talk about that a little bit because I have a number of questions. Starting at the very beginning, for those who have not gone trekking through that particular part of the wilderness-slash-swamp, what is OpenTelemetry?Mike: So, OpenTelemetry is a vendor-agnostic set of tools that allow anybody to collect data about their system and then send it to a target back-end to make use of that data. The data, the visualization tools, and the tools that make use of that data are a variety of different things, so whether it's tracing data or metrics or logs, and then it's trying to take value from that. The big thing what OpenTelemetry is aimed at doing is making the collection of the data and the transit of the data to wherever you want to send it a community-owned resource, so it's not like you get vendor lock-in by going to using one competitor and then go to a different—you want to go and try a different tool and you've got to re-instrument or change your application heavily to make use of that. OpenTelemetry abstracts all that away, so all you need to know about is what you're instrumented with, what [unintelligible 00:03:22] can make of that data, and then you can send it to one or multiple different tools to make use of that data. So, you can even compare some tools side-by-side if you wanted to.Corey: So, given that it's an open format, from the customer side of the world, this sounds awesome. Is it envisioned that this is something—an instrument that gets instrumented at the application itself or once I send it to another observability vendor, is it envisioned that okay, if I send this data to Honeycomb, I can then instrument what Honeycomb sees about that and then send that onward somewhere else, maybe my ancient rsyslog server, maybe a different observability vendor that has a different emphasis. Like, how is it envisioned unfolding within the ecosystem? Like, in other words, can I build a giant ring of these things that just keep building an infinitely expensive loop?Mike: Yeah. So ideally, you would try and try to pick one or a few tools that will provide the most value that you can send to, and then it could answer all of the questions for you. So, at Honeycomb, we try to—we are primarily focused on tracing because we want to do application-level information to say, this user had this interaction, this is the context of what happened, these are the things that they clicked on, this is the information that flowed through your back-end system, this is the line-item order that was generated, the email content, all of those things all linked together so we know that person did this thing, it took this amount of time, and then over a longer period of time, from the analytics point of view, you can then say, “These are the most popular things that people are doing. This is typically how long it takes.” And then we can highlight outliers to say, “Okay, this person is having an issue.” This individual person, we can identify them and say, “This is an issue. This is what's different about what they're doing.”So, that's quite a unique tracing tool or opportunity there. So, that lets you really drive what's happening rather than what has happened. So, logs and metrics are very backward-looking to say, “This is the thing that this thing happened,” and tries to give you the context about it. Tracing tries to give you that extra layer of context to say that this thing happened and it had all of these things related to it, and why is it interesting?Corey: It's odd to me that vendors would be putting as much energy into OpenTelemetry—or OTel, as it seems to always be abbreviated as when I encounter it, so I'm using the term just so people, “Oh, wait, that's that thing I keep seeing. What is that?” Great—but it seems odd to me that vendors would be as embracing of that technology as they have been, just because historically, I remember whenever I had an application when I was using production in anger—which honestly, ‘anger' is a great name for the production environment—whenever I was trying to instrument things, it was okay, you'd have to grab this APM tools library and instrument there, and then something else as well, and you wound up with an order of operations where which one wrapped the other. And sometimes that caused problems. And of course, changing vendors meant you had to go and redeploy your entire application with different instrumentation and hope nothing broke. There was a lock-in story that was great for the incumbents back when that was state of the art. But even some of those incumbents are now embracing OTel. Why?Mike: I think it's because it's showing that there's such a diverse group of tools there, and [unintelligible 00:06:32] being the one that you've selected a number of years ago and then they could hold on to that. The momentum slowed because they were able to move at a slower pace because they were the organizations that allowed us—they were the de facto tooling. And then once new companies and competitors came around and we're open to trying to get a part of that market share, it's given the opportunity to then really pick the tool that is right for the job, rather than just the best than what is perceived to be the best tool because they're the largest one or the ones that most people are using. OpenTelemetry allows you to make an organization and a tool that's providing those tools focus on being the best at it, rather than just the biggest one.Corey: That is, I think, a more enlightened perspective than frankly, I expect a number of companies out there to have taken, just because it seems like lock-in seems to be the order of the day for an awful lot of companies. Like, “Okay, why are customers going to stay with us?” “Because we make it hard to leave,” is… I can understand the incentive, but that only works for so long if you're not actively solving a problem that customers have. One of the challenges that I ran into, even with OTel, was back when I was last trying to instrument a distributed application—which was built entirely on Lambda—is the fact that I was doing this for an application that was built entirely on Lambda. And it felt like the right answer was to, oh, just use an OTel layer—a Lambda layer that wound up providing the functionality you cared about.But every vendor seemed to have their own. Honeycomb had one, Lightstep had one, AWS had one, and now it's oh, dear, this is just the next evolution of that specific agent problem. How did that play out? Is that still the way it works? Is there other good reasons for this? Or is this just people trying to slap a logo on things?Mike: Yeah, so being a fully open-source project and a community-driven project is a double-edged sword in some ways. One it gives the opportunity for everybody to participate, everybody can move between tools a lot easier and you can try and find the best fit for you. The unfortunate part around open-source-driven projects like that means that it's extremely configuration-heavy because it can do anything; it's not opinionated, which means that if you want to have the opportunity to do everything, every possible use case is available to everyone all of the time. So, if you might have a very narrow use case, say, “I want to learn about this bit of information,” like, “I'm working with the [unintelligible 00:09:00] SDK. I want to talk about—I've got an [unintelligible 00:09:03] application and I want to collect data that's running in a Lambda layer.” The OpenTelemetry SDK that has to serve all of the [other 00:09:10] JavaScript projects across all the different instrumentations, possibly talking about auto-instrumentation, possibly talking about lots of other tools that can be built into that project, it just leads to a very highly configurable but very complicated tool.So, what the vendor specifics, what you've suggested there around like Honeycomb, or other organizations providing the layers, they're trying to simplify the usage of the SDK to make some of those assumptions for you that you are going to be sending telemetry to Honeycomb, you are going to be talking about an API key that is going to be in a particular format, it is easier to pass that information into the SDK so it knows how to communicate rather than—as well as where it's going to communicate that data to.Corey: There's a common story that I tend to find myself smacking into almost against my will, where I have found myself at the perfect intersection of a variety of different challenges, and for some reason, I have stumbled blindly and through no ill intent into ‘this is terrible' territory. I wound to finally getting blocked and getting distracted by something else shiny on this project about two years ago because the problem I was getting into was, okay, I got to start sending traces to various places and that was awesome, but now I wanted to annotate each span with a user identity that could be derived from code, and the way that it interfaced with the various Lambda layers at that point in time was, ooh, that's not going to be great. And I think there were a couple of GitHub issues opened on it as feature enhancements for a couple of layers. And then I, again, was still distracted by shiny things and never went back around to it. But I was left with the distinct impression that building something purely out of Lambda functions—and also probably popsicle sticks—is something of an edge case. Is there a particular software architecture or infrastructure architecture that OTel favors?Mike: I don't think it favors any in particular, but it definitely suffers because it's, as I said earlier, it's trying to do that avail—the single SDK is available to many different use cases, which has its own challenges because then it has to deal with so many different options. But I don't think OpenTelemetry has a specific, like, use case in mind. It's definitely focused on, like—sorry, telemetry tracing—tracing is focused on application telemetry. So, it's focused on about your code that you build yourself and then deploy. There are other tools that can collect operational data, things like the OpenTelemetry Collector is then available to sit outside of that process and say, what's going on in my system?But yeah, I wouldn't say that there's a specific infrastructure that it's aimed at doing. A lot of the cloud operators and tools are trying to make sure that that information is available and OpenTelemetry SDKs are available. But yeah, at the moment, it does require some knowledge around what's best for your application if you're not in complete control of all of the infrastructure that it's running in.Corey: It feels that with most things that are sort of pulled into the orbit of the CNCF—and OTel is no exception to this—that there's an idea that oh, well, everything is going to therefore be running in containers, on top of Kubernetes. And that might be unfair, but it also, frankly, winds up following pretty accurately what a lot of applications I'm seeing in client environments have been doing. Don't take it as a criticism. But it does seem like it is designed with an eye toward everything being microservices running on containers, scheduled which, from a infrastructure perspective, what appears to be willy-nilly abandoned, and how do you wind up gathering useful information out of that without drowning in data? That seems to be, from at least my brief experience with OTel, the direction it heads in. Is that directionally correct?Mike: Yeah, I think so. I think OpenTelemetry has a quite strong relationship with CNCF and therefore Kubernetes. That is a use case that we see as a very common with customers that we engage with, both at the prospect level and then just initial conversations, people using something like Kubernetes to do the application orchestration is very, very common. It's something that OpenTelemetry and Honeycomb are wanting to improve on as well. We want to get by a very good experience because it is so common when we come up to it that we want to have a very good, strong opinion around, well, if you're running in Kubernetes, these are the tools and these are the right ways to use OpenTelemetry to get the best out of it.Corey: I want to change gears a little bit. Something that's interested me about Honeycomb for a while has been its culture. Your founders have been very public about their views on a variety of different things that are not just engineering-centric, but tangential to it, like, engineering management: how not to be terrible at it. And based on a huge number of conversations I've had with folks over there, I'm inclined to agree that the stories they tell in public do align with how things go internally. Or at least if they're not, I would not expect you to admit it on the record, so either way, we'll just take that as a given.What I'm curious about is that you are many timezones away from their very nice office here in San Francisco. What's it like working remote in a company that is not fully distributed? Which is funny, we talk about distributed applications as if they're a given but distributed teams are still something we're wrangling with.Mike: Yeah, it's something that I've dealt with for quite a while, for maybe seven or eight years is worked with a few different organizations that are not based in my timezone. There's been a couple, primarily based in San Francisco area, so Pacific Time. An eight-hour time difference for the UK is challenging, it has its own challenges, but it also has a lot of benefits, too. So typically, I get to really have a lot of focus time on a morning. That means that I can start my day, look through whatever I think is appropriate for that morning, and not get interrupted very easily.I get a lot of time to think and plan and I think that's helped me at, like, the tech lead level because I can really focus on something and think it through without that level of interruption that I think some people do if you're working in the same timezone or even in the same office as someone. That approachability is just not naturally there. But the other side of that is that I have a very limited amount of natural overlap with people I work with on a day-to-day basis, so it's typically meetings from 2 till 5 p.m. most days to try and make sure that I build those social relationships, I'm talking to the right people, giving status updates, planning and that sort of thing. But it works for me. I really enjoy that balance of some ty—like, having a lot of focus time and having, like, then dedicated time to spend with people.And I think that's really important, as well is that a distributed team naturally means that you don't get to spend a lot of time with people and a lot of, like, one-on-one time with people, so that's something that I definitely focus on is doing a lot of social interaction as well. So, it's not just I have a meeting, we've got to stand up, we've got 15 minutes, and then everyone goes and does their own thing. I like to make sure that we have time so we can talk, we can connect to each other, we know each other, things that would—[unintelligible 00:16:35] that allow a space for conversations to happen that would naturally happen if you were sat next to somebody at a desk, or like, the more traditional, like, water cooler conversations. You hear somebody having a conversation, you go talk to them, that naturally evolves.Corey: That was where I ran into a lot of trouble with it myself. My first outing as a manager, I had—most of the people on my team were in the same room as I was, and then we had someone who was in Europe. And as much as we tried to include this person in all of our meetings, there was an intrinsic, “Let's go get a cup of coffee,” or, “Let's have a discussion and figure things out.” And sometimes it's four in the afternoon, we're going to figure something out, and they have long since gone to bed or have a life, hopefully. And it was one of those areas where despite a conscious effort to avoid this problem, it was very clear that they did not have an equal voice in the team dynamic, in the team functioning, in the team culture, and in many cases, some of the decisions we ultimately reached as an outgrowth of those sidebar conversations. This led to something of an almost religious belief for me, for at least a while, was that either everyone's distributed or no one is because otherwise you wind up with the unequal access problem. But it's clearly worked for you folks. How have you gotten around that?Mike: For Honeycomb, it was a conscious decision not long before the Covid pandemic that the team would be distributed first; the whole organization will be distributed first. So, a number of months before that happened, the intention was that anybody across the organization—which at the time, was only North America-based staff—would be able to do their job outside of the office. Because I think around the end of 2019 to the beginning of 2020, a lot of the staff were based in the San Francisco area and that was starting to grow, and want more staff to come into the business. And there were more opportunities for people outside of that area to join the business, so the business decided that if we're going to do this, if we're going to hire people outside of the local area, then we do want to make sure that, as you said, that everybody has an equal access, everyone has equal opportunity, they can participate, and everybody has the same opportunity to do those things. And that has definitely fed through pandemic, and then even when the office reopened and people can go back into the office. More than—I think there's only… maybe 25% of the company now is even in Pacific Time Zone. And then the office space itself is not very large considering the size of the company, so we couldn't fit everybody into our office space if we wanted to.Corey: Yeah, that's one of the constant growing challenges, too, that I understand that a lot of companies do see value in the idea of getting everyone together in a room. I know that I, for example, I'm a lot more effective and productive when I'm around other people. But I'm really expensive to their productivity because I am Captain Interrupter, which, you know, we have to recognize our limitations as we encounter them. But that also means that the office expense exceeds the AWS bill past a certain point of scale, and that is not a small thing. Like, I try not to take too much of a public opinion on should we be migrating everyone back to return-to-office as a mandate, yes, no, et cetera.I can see a bunch of different perspectives on this that are nuanced and I don't think it lends itself to my usual reactionary take on the Twitters, as it were, but it's a hard problem with no easy answer to it. Frankly, I also think it's a big mistake to do full-remote only for junior employees, just because so much of learning how the workforce works is through observation. You don't learn a lot about those unspoken dynamics in any other way than observing it directly.Mike: Yes, I fully agree. I think the stage that Honeycomb was at when I joined and has continued to be is that I think a very junior person joining an organization that is fully distributed is more challenging. It has different challenges, but it has more challenges because it doesn't have those… you can't just see something happening and know that that's the norm or that that's the expectation. You've got to push yourself into those in those different arenas, those different conversations, and it can be quite daunting when you're new to an organization, especially if you are not experienced in that organization or experienced in the role that you're currently occupying. Yeah, I think the distributed organizations is—fully distributed has its challenges and I think that's something that we do at Honeycomb is that we intentionally do that twice a year, maybe three times a year, bring in the people that do work very closely, bringing them together so they have that opportunity to work together, build those social interactions like I mentioned earlier, and then do some work together as well.And it builds a stronger trust relationship because of that, as well because you're reinforcing the social side with the work side in a face-to-face context. And there's just, there's no direct replacement for face-to-face. If you worked for somebody and never met them for over a year, it'd be very difficult to then just be in a room together and have a normal conversation.Corey: It takes a lot of effort because there's so much to a company culture that is not meetings or agenda-driven or talking about the work. I mean, companies get this wrong with community all the time where they think that a community is either a terrible option of people we can sell things to or more correctly, a place where users of our product or service or offering or platform can gather together to solve common challenges and share knowledge with each other. But where they fall flat often is it also has to have a social element. Like ohh, having a conversation about your lives is not on topic for this community Slack team is, great, that strangles community before it can even form, in many cases. And work is no different.Mike: Yeah, I fully agree. We see that with the Honeycomb Pollinators Slack channel. So, we use that as a primary way of community members to participate, talk to each other, share their experiences, and we can definitely see that there is a high level of social interaction alongside of that. They connect because they've got a shared interest or a shared tool or a shared problem that they're trying to solve, but we do see, like, people, the same people, reconnecting or re-communicating with each other because they have built that social connection there as well.And I think that's something that as organizations—like, OpenTelemetry is a community is more welcoming to that. And then you can participate with something that then transcends different organizations that you may work for as well because you're already part of this community. So, if that community then reaches to another organization, there's an opportunity to go, to move between organizations and then maintain a level of connection.Corey: That seems like one of the better approaches that people can have to this stuff. It's just a—the hard part, of course, is how do you change culture? I think the easy way to do it—the only easy way to do it—is you have to build the culture from the beginning. Every time I see companies bringing in outsiders to change the corporate culture, I can't help but feel that they're setting giant piles of money on fire. Culture is one of those things that's organic and just changing it by fiat doesn't work. If I knew how to actually change culture, I would have a much more lucrative target for my consultancy than I do today. You think AWS bills are a big problem? Everyone has a problem with company cultures.Mike: Yeah, I fully agree. I think that culture is something that you're right is very organic, it naturally happens. I think the value when organizations go through, like, a retrospective, like, what is our culture? How would we define it? What are the core values of that and how do we articulate that to people that might be coming into the organization, that's very valuable, too, because those core values are very useful to communicate to people.So, one of the bigger core values that we've got at Honeycomb is that—we refer to as, “We hire adults,” meaning that when somebody needs to do something, they just can go and do it. You don't have to report to somebody, you don't have to go and tell somebody, “I need a doctor appointment,” or, “I've got to go and pick up the kids from school,” or something like that. You're trusted to do your job to the highest level, and if you need additional help, you can ask for it. If somebody requires something of you they ask for it. They do it in a humane way and they expect to be treated like a human and an adult all of the time.Corey: On some level, I've always found, for better or worse, that people will largely respond to how you treat them and live up or down to the expectation placed upon them. You want a bunch of cogs who are going to have to raise their hand to go to the bathroom? Okay, you can staff that way if you want, but don't be surprised when those teams don't volunteer to come up with creative solutions to things either. You can micromanage people to death.Mike: Yeah. Yeah, definitely. I've been in organizations, like, fresh out of college and had to go to work at a particular place and it was very time-managed. And I had inbound sales calls and things like that and it was very, like, you've spent more than three minutes on a wrap-up call from having a previous call, and if you don't finish that call within three minutes, your manager will call your phone to say, “You need to go on to the next call.” And it's… you could have had a really important call or you could have had a very long call. They didn't care. They just wanted—you've had your time now move on to the next one and they didn't care.Corey: One last question I want to ask you about before we wind up calling this an episode, and it distills down to I guess, effectively, your history, for lack of a better term. You have done an awful lot of Go maintenance work—Go meaning the language, not the imperative command, to be clear—but you also historically were the .NET SDK maintainer for something or other. Do you find those languages to be similar or… how did that come to be? I mean, to be clear, my programming languages of choice are twofold: both brute force and enthusiasm. Most people take a slightly different path.Mike: Yeah, I worked with .NET for a very long time, so that was, like, the place—the first place that I joined as a real organization after finishing college was .NET and it just sort of stuck. I enjoyed the language. At the time, sort of, what 15 year—12, 15 years ago, the language itself was moving pretty well, there was things being added to it, it was enjoyable to use.Over the last maybe four or five years, I've had the opportunity to work a lot more in Go. And they are very different. So, Go is much more focused on simplicity and not hiding anything from anybody and just being very efficient at what you can see it does. .NET and many other languages such as Java, Ruby, JavaScript, Python, all have a level of magic to them, so if you're not part of the ecosystem or if you don't know particular really common packages that can do things for you, not knowing something about the ecosystem causes pain.I think Go takes away some of that because if you don't know those ecosystems or if you don't know those tools, you can still solve the problem fairly quickly and fairly simply. Tools will help but they're not required. .NET is probably on the boundary for me. It's still very easy to use, I enjoy using it, but it just… I found that it's not that long ago, I would say that I've switched from thinking like a .NET developer, so whenever I'm forming code in my head, like, how I would solve a problem, for a very long time, it was in .NET and C#.I'd probably say in the last 12 months or so, it's definitely moved more to Go just because of the simplicity. And it's also the tool that is most used within Honeycomb, especially, so if you're talking about Go code, you've got a wider audience to bounce ideas off, to talk to, communicate, get ideas from. .NET is not a very well used language within Honeycomb and probably even, like… even maybe West Coast-based organizations, it seems to be very high-level organizations that are willing to pay their money up for, like, Microsoft support. Like, Go is something that a lot of developers use because it's very simple, very quick, can move quick.Corey: I found that it was very easy for me to pick up Go to build out something ridiculous a few years back when I need to control my video camera through its ‘API' to use the term charitably. And it just works in a way that made an awful lot of sense. But I still find myself reaching for Python or for—God help me—TypeScript if I'm doing some CDK work these days. And honestly, they all tend to achieve more or less the same outcome. It's just different approaches to—well, to be unkind—dependency management in some cases, and also the ecosystem around it and what is done for you.I don't think there's a bad language to learn. I don't want this to be interpreted as language snobbery, but I haven't touched anything in the Microsoft ecosystem for a long time in production, so .NET was just never on my radar. But it's clear they have an absolutely massive community ecosystem built around it and that is no small thing. I'd say it rivals Java.Mike: Yeah definitely. I think over the last ten years or so, the popularity of .NET as a language to be built from enterprise, especially at larger-scale organizations have taken it on, and then, like, six, seven years ago, they introduced the .NET Core Framework, which allowed it to run on non-Windows platforms, and that accelerated the language dramatically, so they have a consistent API that can be used on Windows, on Linux, Mac, and that makes a huge difference for creating a larger audience for people to interact with it. And then also, with Azure becoming much more popular, they can have all of these—this language that people are typically used to using Linux as an operating system that runs infrastructure, but not being forced to use Windows is probably quite a big thing for Azure as well.Corey: I really want to thank you for taking the time to talk about what you're up to over there. If people want to learn more, where's the best place for them to go find you?Mike: Typically, I use Twitter, so it's Mike_Goldsmith. I create blogs on the Honeycomb blog website, which I've done a few different things; I've got a new one coming up soon to talk about different ways of collecting data. So yeah, those are the two main places. LinkedIn is usual as ever, but that's a little bit more work-focused.Corey: It does seem to be. And we'll put links to all of that in the [show notes 00:31:11]. Thank you so much for being so generous with your time, and of course, thank you Honeycomb for sponsoring this episode of my ridiculous podcast.Mike: Yeah, thank you very much for having me on.Corey: Mike Goldsmith, staff software engineer at Honeycomb. I'm Cloud Economist Corey Quinn, and this is Screaming in the Cloud. If you've enjoyed this podcast, please leave a five-star review on your podcast platform of choice, whereas if you've hated this podcast, please leave a five-star review on your podcast platform of choice along with an insulting comment that we will then have instrumented across the board with a unified observability platform to keep our days eventful.Corey: If your AWS bill keeps rising and your blood pressure is doing the same, then you need The Duckbill Group. We help companies fix their AWS bill by making it smaller and less horrifying. The Duckbill Group works for you, not AWS. We tailor recommendations to your business and we get to the point. Visit duckbillgroup.com to get started.

Rounding Up Season 2 | Episode 5 – Horizontal Enrichment Guest: Tisha Jones Mike Wallus: At their best, programs with titles such as “gifted and talented” seek to provide enrichment to a subset of learners. That said, these initiatives sometimes have unintended consequences, sending messages about which students are, or are not, capable doers of mathematics. What if there was a way educators could offer problems that extend grade-level learning to each and every student? Today we'll explore the concept of horizontal enrichment with Tisha Jones, MLC's senior manager of assessment.  Mike: Well, thanks for joining us, Tisha. I am excited to explore this idea of horizontal enrichment. Tisha Jones: I am excited to be here and talk about it. Mike: So, we're using the term “horizontal enrichment,” and I think we should define the term and talk about, what do we mean when we say that? Tisha: When we're talking about horizontal enrichment, we are looking at how do we enrich the curriculum, but on grade level. So, not trying to accelerate into the next grade level. But how do we help them go deeper with the content that is at their developmental level currently? Mike: That's really interesting because when I was teaching, I would've said enrichment and acceleration are exactly the same thing, which, I think, leads me to the next question, which is: What are the features of a task that might be designed with horizontal enrichment in mind? Tisha: So, I like to think about horizontal enrichment as an opportunity to engage the practice standards. So, how do we help kids do more of the things that we think being a [mathematician] actually is? So, how can we get them more invested in problem-solving? How can we get them using tools? How can we get them thinking creatively in math and not just procedurally. And, of course, we try to do that on a daily basis in math, but when we're enriching, we want to give them tasks that raise the ceiling of their thinking, where they can approach things in lots of different ways and push their thinking in ways that maybe they haven't, where they can apply the concepts that they're using to solve interesting and novel problems. Mike: I think that's really helpful because you're really clarifying for me, one way that we could “enrich” kids would be to teach them procedures that they might learn in a grade or several grades that are of beyond where they're at right now. But what you're suggesting is that enrichment really looks like problem-solving and novelty and creativity. And we can do that with grade-level ideas. Am I making sense of that correctly? Tisha: Absolutely, and I get excited because I also think that it's fun working a problem where the path is not clear-cut to get to the answer and try some things out and see what happens and look at how can I learn from what I did to make new decisions to try to get to where I'm going? To me, that's bringing in the joy of doing math. Mike: So, this is interesting. I think that maybe the best way to unpack these ideas might be to look at a specific task. So, I'm wondering, is there a specific task that you could help us take a look at more closely? Tisha: Absolutely. So, we're going to take a look at a task from third grade, and it comes out of Concept Quests, which is a supplemental resource that's published by Math Learning Center, and this task is called “The Lasagna Task.” So, I'm just going to read it and then we can talk about what is it asking kids to do. So, it says, “You need to assume that you like lasagna and would like as much lasagna as possible. For each of the ‘Would you rather…?' scenarios below, justify your reasoning with equations, pictures, or both.” So, that's the setup for the kids. And then there's three “Would you rather…?” scenarios. So, the first is, “Would you rather: a.) share three lasagnas between two families or share four lasagnas between three families? b.) Would you rather share four lasagnas between six families or share three lasagnas between four families?” And the last one is, “c.) Would you rather share five lasagnas between three families or share six lasagnas between four families?” Mike: Ahh, this is so great. There's so much to unpack here to step back and try to analyze this. What are some things that you would want us to notice about the way this task is set up for kids? Tisha: So, there's a few things. The first thing is, I love that there's this progression of questions, of scenarios. I think what's also really important is, when you're looking at this on the page, there's no front-loading here. No, “Well, let me tell you about how to do this.” This is just, “I'm going to give you this problem, and I'm going to ask you to just take a stab at it, give it a shot.” So, what we want kids to do is start to learn, how do you approach a problem? What is your first step? What things do you do to make sense of what it's asking? Do you draw a picture? Do you start with numbers? Do you try to find important information? How do you even get started on a problem? And that's so important, right? That's a huge part of the process of problem-solving. And when we front-load for kids, we take away their opportunities to work on those skills. Mike: So, there's a couple things that jump out for me when I've been reading the text of what you were reading aloud to the group. One bit is this language at the end where it says, “For each of the ‘Would you rather…?' scenarios below, justify your reasoning with equations, pictures, or both.” And that language just pops out for me. I'm wondering if you could talk a little bit about the choice of that language in the way that this is set up for kids. Tisha: Ahh, I love that language. So, I think this is amazing for kids because as a teacher, we've all had kids that come up to us and they hand us their paper and they say, “Is this right?” And when we ask them to justify their response, I think we're putting the responsibility back on them to be able to come up to me and say, “I think this is right because of this.” So now, who is owning what they did? The kids are owning what they did, right? And they're owning it because they've gone through this process of trying to prove it not just to somebody else but to themselves. If you're justifying it, you should be able to go back through and say, “Well, because I did this and this is this and because I did this next step and this is how this worked out, this is why I know my answer is correct.” And I love that kids can own their own answers and their own work to be able to determine whether it makes sense or not. Mike: I'm going to read a part of this again because I just think it's worth lingering on and spending a little bit of time thinking about how this question structure impacts kids or has the potential to impact kids. So, I'm going to read it again for the audience: “Would you rather: a.) share three lasagnas between two families or share four lasagnas between three families?” So, listeners, just pause for a second and think about the mathematics in that question, and then also think about what mathematics might come out of it. What is it about the structure of that question that creates space for kids to solve problems, encounter novelty, and make decisions? Well, Tisha, since we can't hear their answer, I would love it if you could share a little bit of your thinking. What is it about the design that you think creates those conditions for kids? Tisha: So, while there is an implied operation, it's not necessarily an obvious operation, right? I think that it is something that easily lends itself to drawing a picture, which, I think, when students start modeling the scenario, they now have … that opens up all kinds of creativity, right? They're going to model in the way that they're seeing it in their head. They're not focused on trying to divide this number by that number. They may not even, at first, realize that they're working with fractions. But by the end of it, because it's something that they can model, there's still a lot of room for them to be able to find success on this task, which I think is really important. Mike: It seems like there's also opportunities for teachers to engage with kids because there's a fair number of assumptions that live inside of this question structure, right? Like three lasagnas for two families, four lasagnas for three families, but we haven't talked about how large those families are, how many people are in each family. Tisha: How much lasagna there is ( chuckles ). Mike: Yeah! Right? Tisha: Absolutely. So, I think it's also fair to say that maybe a kid would decide that the four lasagnas between three families, those are going to need to be bigger pans of lasagna. So, how are they bringing in their world experience with feeding people and having to make these decisions? There's nothing in here that says that the lasagnas have to be the same size or that the families have to be the same size. So, as they're justifying the way that they would go as a teacher, I'm looking for: Is their justification, a sound justification? Mike: Well, the thing that I started to think about, too, is, if you did introduce the variable that, “Oh, this family has three members and this family has, say, 12. Well, how many lasagnas would you need in order to give an equal share to the family with 12 versus the family with three?” There's a lot of ways as a teacher that I can continue to adapt and play with the ideas and really press kids to examine their own assumptions and their own logic. Tisha: Absolutely, yeah. So, I think that's a really great point, too, is that, there's a lot of room to even extend these problems further. Would your answer change if you knew that one family was a family of six people, so you can even push their thinking even further than what's just on the paper. Mike: I keep going back to this notion of justification. And we've talked about the structure of the problems as a way to differentiate for kids, to really press them on justification. But the other side of the coin is, as an educator, [it] really gives me a chance to understand my students' thinking and then continue to make moves or offer tasks that either shine a light on the blind spots that they have or extend some of the ideas in interesting and productive ways. Tisha: Yes, I would agree with that. Mike: So, I want to play with a couple more questions, Tisha. One of the ones that we touched on right at the beginning was this idea that a task can be characterized as enriching and challenging, and yet it can still be at a student's grade level. And I think that really stands out for me, and I suspect it probably might be a challenging idea for educators to get their heads around, especially if you've been a teacher, and for the majority of your career, acceleration and enrichment have meant the same thing. Can you unpack this just a little bit for the audience, this idea of enrichment? Tisha: So, I like to think about enrichment as, how do we help our students think more deeply? There's so much room within a school year for a particular concept, for example. Like, let's say with fractions. There's a lot of room for students to think about things in ways they haven't thought about or ways that maybe we don't ask them to think about things in the curriculum; that, if we don't give them the opportunity, they're not going to, right? With enrichment, it's like we're giving them more opportunities to apply what they're learning about concepts. The other thing that I think is really important about enrichment is that it isn't just for the kids that may be characterize as being your high-level students. Because enrichment is still important. Problem-solving is still important for all kids. No matter where they are computationally, we want to make sure that all kids are getting opportunities to be problem-solvers, to apply their thinking in ways that work for them and not just the ways that we're asking them to through our curriculum. Acceleration, I think, often applies when kids are just well beyond grade level—but enrichment is really for every single kid. Mike: Yeah, I think you answered, at least partly, the question that I was going to pose next, which was a question about access. Because at least with Concepts Quests, which is the MLC supplemental resource, we would describe this as a tool that should be made available to all students, not a particularly small subset of students. And I'm wondering if you can talk a little bit more about the case for that. Tisha: So, if we go back to our lasagna problem, once our kids have had opportunities to read it and make sense out of it, at that point, I truly believe that there is an entry point in these problems for any kid. These are not dependent on computation. So, a student can draw pictures. I believe that all of my students that I've had throughout my years of teaching were capable of drawing a picture to model a problem. Then, I really believe that a good problem can have an entry point for every student. Mike: The other thing that you're really making me think about is, how much we've equated the idea of enrichment, acceleration. We've fused those ideas, and we've really associated it with procedure and calculation versus problem-solving and thinking creatively. Tisha: I think that happens a lot. I think that's a lot of how people think about math. You know, it's who can do it fast, who can get there? But what I think our goal is, is to create students who are not just able to be calculators, but who are able to apply their understandings of multiplication, addition, subtraction, division. They can apply them to novel problems. Mike: Yeah, and the real world isn't designed with a set of “Free set, here's what you should do, repeat directions.” Tisha: ( laughs ) I would love some of those. Where can I find them? Mike and Tisha: ( laugh) Mike: This has been fascinating, and I think we could and probably should do more work on Rounding Up talking about these versions of enrichment that are available for all kids. And I have a suspicion that this conversation is going to cause a lot of folks to reassess, reevaluate, and reflect on how they've understood the idea of enrichment. I'm wondering if we can help those folks out. If I'm an educator who's really interested in exploring the idea of horizontal enrichment in more detail, where might I get started? Or, perhaps, where are there some resources out there that might contain the types of problems that you introduced us to today? Tisha: Well, of course, I have to say Concept Quests. We've put a lot of work into creating some really great tasks. But some other places where you can find tasks that are engaging and help kids to think more deeply are “Open Middle” and “NRICH” and “YouCubed” are just a few resources that I can think of off the top of my head. Mike: Ahh, those are great ones. Tisha, thank you so much for joining us. It's really been a pleasure to have this conversation. Tisha: This has been so fun. Mike: This podcast is brought to you by The Math Learning Center and the Maier Math Foundation, dedicated to inspiring and enabling individuals to discover and develop their mathematical confidence and ability. © 2023 The Math Learning Center | www.mathlearningcenter.org

Rounding Up Season 2 | Episode 4 – Joy in the Elementary Math Classroom Guest: Amy Parks, Ph.D. Mike Wallus: Teaching is a complex and challenging job. It's also one where educators experience moments of deep joy and satisfaction. What might it look like to build a culture of joy in an elementary mathematics classroom? Michigan State professor Amy Parks has some ideas. Today on the podcast, we explore ways educators can construct joyful experiences for their youngest mathematics learners.  Mike: Well, welcome to the podcast, Amy. I'm so excited to be talking with you about joy in the elementary mathematics classroom. Amy Parks: I'm so happy to be here. Mike: So, your article in MTLT was titled, “Creating Joy in PK–Grade 2 Mathematics Classrooms.” And early on you draw a distinction between math classrooms where students are experiencing joy and those that are fun. And you quote Desmond Tutu and the Dalai Lama, who say, “Being joyful is not just about having more fun, we're talking about a more empathic, more empowered, more spiritual state of mind that's totally engaged with the world.” That really is powerful. So, I'm wondering if you could tell me about the difference between classrooms that foster joy and those that are just more fun. Amy: Yeah, I was very struck by that quote when I read it the first time in “The Book of Joy.” And I think one of the reasons that book is powerful for me is that the two people writing it didn't have these super easy lives, right? Particularly the Archbishop Desmond Tutu was imprisoned in the country that was openly hostile to him, and yet he was still really committed to approaching his work and the world with joy. And so, I often think if he could do that, then surely the rest of us can get up and do that. And it also tied into something I often see in elementary classrooms, which is this focus on activities that are fun, like sugary cereal, right? They're immediately attractive, but they don't stick with us and maybe they're not really good for us. I often think the prototypical example is, like, analyses of packets of M&Ms. When I think about the intellectual energy that has gone into counting and sorting and defining colors of M&Ms, it makes me a little sad, given all the big questions that are out there that even really young kids can engage with. And so, yes, I want children to be playful and to laugh and to engage with materials they enjoy. But also, I think there is this quieter kind of joy that comes from making mathematical connections and understanding the world in new ways and grasping the thinking and ideas of others. And so, when I'm pointing toward joy, that's part of what I'm trying to point toward. Mike: So, I want to dig into this a little bit more because one of your first recommendations for sparking joy is this idea that we need to make some room for play. And my guess is that that raises many questions for elementary educators, like “What do you mean by play?” and “What role does the teacher play in play?” Can you talk a little bit about this recommendation, Amy? Amy: Yeah. So, when I have more time than that very short article to talk about, one of the things that I like to bring out to teachers is that we can think of play in sort of three broad buckets. So, one is “free play,” and this is an area where the teacher may not have a lot of roles except to sort of define health and safety limits. So certainly, recess is a place of free play. But there are places at recess where children are encountering mathematical ideas, right? There are walking in straight lines and they're balancing on things and they're seeing whether they all have the same amount of materials and toys. So, those are all mathematical contexts that we can, as teachers later bring in and highlight in places where they can engage. But they're not places where teachers are setting learning goals and reinforcing things. And particularly in the lower grades, we might see also free play opportunities in the classroom. Amy: You know, many kindergarten classrooms have opportunities for free play during the school day. So, while kids are playing in the kitchen for example, or doing puzzles, they may be again encountering mathematical ideas and teachers certainly can capitalize on that. But they're not directing or shaping the play. And then there are these two other categories where the teacher's role is maybe more present. So, one I would call “guided play.” And this is a case where the teacher and the children are really handing responsibility back and forth. So, the teacher might set up a relatively open-ended task like pattern block puzzles or a commercial game that gets at counting or something like that. And so, the teacher has an intended mathematical goal. She has set some limits to keep children focused on that in some way. But the task is in the hands of the kids. They're playing together, they're negotiating roles, they have that more central responsibility. And the learning goals may be a little bit broader and more open because of that. Because since you're not centrally involved, you can't be so specific. Amy: And then the last kind of play I talk with teachers about are “playful lessons.” Children might not have as much choice in the activity that they do. They might not be able to stop and start it or move in certain ways, but teachers are intentionally bringing aspects of play into the mathematics lesson. And that could be by using engaging materials. It could be by creating places for creativity. It could be by creating spaces for social collaboration. It could be just by inviting children to use their bodies in ways that are comfortable to them instead of being really constrained. But the mathematical task might be much more specific and “Build this cube and identify the vertices on it.” So, the task is constrained, but because they're using materials, because they can do it in different ways, there's this playful aspect to it. So, I like to encourage teachers to sort of think those three buckets of play and where kids are getting access to them during the day. Mike: Yeah, I think that's really helpful. Because I did teach kindergarten for a long time, and so I think my definition of play was really the first one that you were talking about, which is free play. But hearing you talk about the other two definitions actually helps open space up for me. I feel like with that broader definition, it helps me consider the choices that I've got in front of me. Amy: Yeah, and if you talk [to]—or read even—mathematicians, they will often talk about playing with ideas. So, there is a part of play that is inherently mathematical, the part that is about experimenting and investigating and trying things out and recognizing that you might be wrong and getting this engagement from others. So, I think sometimes even mathematics lessons that look relatively traditional can also have this playful spirit if we bring that to it. Mike: I would love to talk to you a little bit about the way that choice can be a key component in sparking joy. So, what are some of the options that teachers have at their disposal to offer choice to learners in their classrooms? Amy: Yeah, I think that this is something that's often overlooked. And I think that for kids in school right now, they often have so few choices. Their experiences are often so constrained by adults. And simply by allowing children to choose when they can, we can make experiences more joyful for them. So, one easy thing is who or whether children will work with other people. So yes, there are all kinds of benefits to group tasks and social interactions, but also lots of children are introverts. And being in a small room for six hours a day with 25 other people can be exhausting. And so, simply giving the children the choice to say, “I'm going to do this one on my own,” can be a huge relief to some children. Other children, like, need to talk—just like other adults—talk to others to know what they're thinking. And so, they need these groups. Amy: And then I think also teachers can get really involved in choosing the magic right group, but often there is no magic right group as we know because we're constantly rejuggling these groups because they didn't work in the magic way we thought. And so just letting kids pick their groups, because then they have responsibility for that interaction. And it's not that they never have difficult social interactions, but they've chosen to be with this person and they have to work through it. So that's one. The other thing is letting children choose physically where they work. Some children lie on the floor while they work, or some children stand up at their seat. Allowing some choice in freedom of movement doesn't mean allowing total chaos. And I think even pretty young children can be taught that they can move within limits in the classroom. And I think if children get to stop expending so much energy trying to control their bodies in the ways adults find helpful, they can engage more fully in the academics of the day. Amy: And then, like, choices of materials. So, we can make different things available to kids as they engage with mathematics, choices of problems. They may choose to do some and not others. Lower grades like using centers. If we have multiple centers that all get at the same mathematical idea, maybe it doesn't actually matter whether all kids get to all of them, right? As long as they're engaging with making units of 10, however they're doing that, can work for us. So, I think in general, the more often we can give children choices about anything, the better off all of us are. Mike: I think that last bit is really interesting. I just want to pause for a second on it. Because what you've got me thinking is, if I have options available and they're all really addressing some of the same mathematical goals or a range of goals that I have in my class, this idea that I can release control and invite kids to make choices, that seems like a really practical first step that a teacher could take to think about, “What are the options? What are the goals that they meet?” And then, “To what degree can I offer those as choices?” Amy: Yeah, and in a really basic way, right? Sometimes we might have a game that works with kids on making tens, and then other times we might have a project or even a worksheet. And different kids may be drawn to those different things. There are some kids for whom games might be really exciting, but there are some kids for whom games might be really stressful, and they would just rather do something else. And that's fine because the point isn't actually playing the game, right? Mike: I think that's really interesting. I could get so caught up as a teacher sometimes trying to get the mechanics of getting kids out to places and getting kids started and making sure that kids were doing the thing that I would sometimes lose track of, “My point in doing this is to have kids think about structuring 10 or making sense of fractions.” That's a lovely reminder. I really appreciate that. I think that this is a really nice turning point because this question about choice actually plays into one of the other recommendations you had regarding time on task. So, I would love to have you unpack your thinking on this topic, Amy. Amy: Yeah. Well, you talked about being autobiographical, and this is definitely autobiographical for me because I am very on task. I like to get things done. I like to check things off my list. And that was definitely a force for me when I was teaching. And I think it was something that, one, caused anxiety for me and my kids, and two, limited our opportunities to engage in more playful ways and more joyful ways to follow curiosities because I was so worried about that. And honestly, when it came home to me was when I started teaching university students because I think it is a little harder to clap your hands at 19-year-olds and tell them to get back to work than to do it with 7-year-olds. And what I realized was if I step back and I let my students talk about “The Bachelor” for a minute, they would have the conversation and then they would move on to the mathematical task, and I actually didn't need to intervene. And me intervening would've shifted the emotional tone of the class in a way that would not have been productive for learning, right? Amy: They would've become resentful or maybe felt self-conscious. And now I have this thing in the way as opposed to just letting them have that break. And I think if we pay attention as adults to how we are in staff meetings or how we are in professional development, we recognize we have a lot of informal conversations around the work we do, and that those informal conversations are not distractions. They're actually, like, building the relationships that let us do the work. And it is similarly true for children. And then I think another thing to remember about particularly young children is language learning, social relationships, all of those are things they actually need to develop. That's part of our work as teachers is to help them grow in those things. And so, giving them the opportunity to build those relationships is, in fact, part of our work. Mike: I think that's really interesting because I found myself, as you were talking, thinking through my own day, when I log into Zoom to talk to someone across the country. We don't immediately start just working through our agenda. We exchange pleasantries, we tell a joke or two, we talk about what's going on in our world, and we can have an incredibly productive chunk of time. But there are these pieces of social reality that kind of bind us together as people, right? When I'm talking to my friend Nataki in North Carolina, I'm asking her about her son. That might take two minutes out of 55. We've still done a tremendous amount of work and thought deeply about the kind of professional learning we want to provide to teachers. But there's the reality that if we didn't do that, how are we connected? If we're partnering to do this work, there's something about being connected to the other person that we can't schedule out of the experience of working together. Does that make sense? Amy: Yeah, a hundred percent. And it's true in classroom settings, too. I was thinking the “Batman” movie, the Ben Affleck one was filmed in Detroit, and they happened to be filming right outside the building where I was teaching. And at some point, one of my adult students looked out the window and was, like, there's Ben Affleck. And of course, all my students got up and went to the window. I could have as the teacher been, like, “OK, sit down. We're doing whatever we're doing.” But their minds were all going to be on Ben Affleck out the window. And so instead, we stopped and we watched the movie for a little bit, and that became an experience we came back to as a class over and over in the semester. “Remember when that happened?” And so, yeah, that pressure to be productive I think often interferes with the relationship building that does support good work among adult colleagues and among kids in classrooms. And I would also connect it to the opening conversation on play. Mike: So, before we close the interview, I'm wondering if you have any recommendations for someone who wants to continue learning about how they could design opportunities for joy in their classrooms. Are there any resources that you would point a listener to? Amy: I mean, I have a book on play in early mathematics, and that would certainly be a place that someone could start. But, you know, the other thing that I might do is just look at some of the great materials that are out there, both like physical things like Legos and magnet tiles, which often if you don't have at your school, you can get through thrift stores and things. And just bringing them into classrooms and seeing what kids do with them. Oh, the other thing that I always recommend is looking at some of the resources on “soft starts.” And if you just Google this, you'll see videos and articles. And this is often a really, like, nonthreatening way for teachers who are interested in this but haven't done a lot of play in their classrooms, to begin.  Amy: And the idea is instead of immediately starting with a worksheet or whatever, that you bring in some kind of toy or tool, and maybe children can make some choices about whether they're going to paint or they're going to work on a puzzle, and you just take 15 minutes and that's how you begin the day. And people who have done this, so many people have said it's just been such a lovely culture shift in their classroom, and it also means that children are coming in a little late. It's fine. They can just come in and join, and then everyone's ready to go 15 minutes later, and you really haven't given up that much of your day. So, I think that can be a really, a really smooth entry into this if you're interested. Mike: Well, I want to thank you so much for joining us, Amy. It really has been a pleasure talking with you. Amy: Oh, you, too. It was so fun. Mike: This podcast is brought to you by The Math Learning Center and the Maier Math Foundation, dedicated to inspiring and enabling individuals to discover and develop their mathematical confidence and ability. © 2023 The Math Learning Center | www.mathlearningcenter.org

Rounding Up Season 2 | Episode 3 – Student Engagement Guest: Dr. Meghan Shaughnessy Mike Wallus: When we say students are engaged in a discussion or a task, what do we really mean? There are observable behaviors that we often code as engaged, but those are just the things that we can see or hear. What does engagement really mean, particularly for students who may not verbally participate on a regular basis? Today on the podcast, we're talking with Dr. Meghan Shaughnessy about the meaning of engagement and a set of strategies teachers can use to extend opportunities for participation to each and every student. Mike: Welcome to the podcast, Meghan. We are super excited to have you joining us. Meghan: I'm excited to be here. Mike: So, I want to start with a question that I think in the past I would've thought had an obvious answer. So, what does or what can participation look like? Meghan: So, I think in answering that question, I want to start with thinking about one of the ways that teachers get feedback on participation in their classroom is through administrator observation. And oftentimes those observations are focused on students making whole-group verbal contributions and discussions, particularly with a focus on students sharing their own ideas. Administrators are often looking at how quiet the space is and how engaged students appear to be, which is often determined by looking at students' body language and whether or not that language matches what is often seen as listening body language, such as having your head up, facing the speaker, et cetera. And as I say all of this, I would also say that defining participation in this way for discussions is both a limited and a problematic view of participation. I say limited in the sense that not all participation is going to be verbal, and it certainly won't always include sharing new ideas. Meghan: So, to give a concrete example, a student might participate by revoicing another student's strategy, which could be really important, providing other students a second chance to hear that strategy. A second example is that a student might create a representation of a strategy being shared verbally by a classmate. And this nonverbal move of creating a representation could be really useful for the class in developing collective understanding of the strategy. The traditional view is problematic, too, in the sense that it assumes that students are not participating when they don't display particular behaviors. To turn to a more equitable approach to conceptualizing and supporting participation, I and my colleagues would argue that this includes learning children's thinking body language, including a focus on written pair talk, and supporting contributions. In other words, moving beyond just having students share their own ideas, having students share what they learned from our classmate. Mike: Yeah. I want to dig into this a little bit more. Because this idea that my read on a child's behavior influences my understanding of what's happening, but also my practice, is really interesting to me. You've really had me thinking a lot about the way that a teacher's read on a student's engagement or participation, it has a lot to do with the cultural script for how adults and children are expected to interact, or at least what we've learned about that in our own lived experiences. I'm wondering if you could just talk a little bit about that.  Meghan: Yeah. One way to start answering that question might be to ask everyone to take a minute to think about how you participate in a discussion. Do you use the sort of listening behaviors that teachers are told matter? Are you always sharing new ideas when you participate in a discussion? You also might want to imagine sitting down with a group of your colleagues and asking them to think about when they engage in a discussion outside of class, what does it look and feel like? Are there lots of people talking at once or people talking one at a time? Is everyone that's participating in the discussion sharing new ideas, or are they participating in other sorts of ways? And further, you might imagine asking those colleagues about their discussions outside of class as a child. What did those discussions look and feel like? One of the challenges of being teachers is that we bring our own experiences and sometimes we don't reflect on what children are experiencing. Children's experiences don't necessarily match our own, and we need to be thinking about changing our expectations or explicitly teaching what it means to participate in particular sorts of ways. Yet another layer of challenge here is a tendency to make assumptions about how students from particular cultural groups engage in discussions. You only know what you know. And teachers need opportunities to learn from their students about how they engage in discussions inside and outside of math class, and to be able to think about the connections and disconnections and the opportunities to leverage. Mike: So, you really have me deconstructing some of the norms that were unspoken in my own childhood about being a learner, being a good student. And what you have me thinking is, some of those were voiced, some of those were unvoiced, but I'm really reflecting on how that showed up in the way that I read kids. So, I want to ask you to even go a little bit deeper. Can you share some examples of where our read on the meaning of behaviors might lead to an inaccurate understanding of students' cognitive engagement or the contributions that they might make to discourse? Meghan: Yeah. Some of it can be thinking about sort of traditional behavior reads in a traditional sense. Oftentimes, when children have their heads down or their eyes closed or they're not looking at the speaker, the child is seen as not engaging or participating. But if we think about it, people have lots of different thinking postures, and for some people having their heads down or closing their eyes is actually the way in which they're thinking deeply about the ideas that are being shared in the discussion. And so, engagement might look for them. They may be carefully tracking and thinking about the ideas, but the way that that gets expressed may not be the way that we traditionally think about what engagement should look like in classrooms. Mike: It feels like there's two pieces to this question about reading behavior and interpretation. One piece that you talked about there was just this idea that we need to have conversations with children. The other piece that I kept thinking about is, how might an educator interrogate their own cultural script around participation? Are there questions that educators could ask themselves or practices that they might engage in with colleagues that would help them take these things that are subconscious and unspoken and maybe raise them up? So, if you have an awareness of them, it's easy to recognize how that's influencing your read or your instructional moves. Meghan: Yeah, I think there are kind of two pieces to this. So, one goes back to the idea that I shared about the importance of recognizing our own experiences in school as a student and our experiences out of school, both as a child and as an adult in discussions and trying to think about what are we bringing to our work as a teacher that we might need to interrogate because it may be different than the experiences of children? And at the same time, we need to be having conversations with children about what it looks like to participate in discussions in different sorts of spaces so that we can learn more about what children's experiences are outside of school. The big idea is to recognize that children's experiences are often very different from our own, and we have to be careful at the same time not to make assumptions that all children from particular communities experience participation and discussion in the same way. This can be highly variable. Mike: I think what's really interesting about the work that you and your colleagues have done is, there's an element of it that's really about taking a step back and recognizing these ideas like cultural scripts that we have about participation and really trying to interrogate our own understandings that we've come to, and then how do we interact with kids. But on the other hand, you all have some really practical strategies and suggestions for educators on how they can use an expanded understanding of participation to create more opportunity for kids. So, I'm wondering if we can talk a little bit about some of those things. Meghan: Absolutely. So, I have a set of four different strategies that my colleagues and I have been working on over time. So, I'm going to start by talking about task selection. Sometimes students' cultural backgrounds and experiences in schools may be at odds, particularly around the work of critiquing the ideas of others. And this can in particular be a challenge when the critiquing is about critiquing the teacher's ideas. So, it leads to this question of, “How can we support students in learning to critique in ways that don't dismiss their own culture and experience?” So, our practical solution to working in this space is that we've used written critique tasks. So, when working with students, we'll show a fictitious person's response to a mathematics task and ask students to do three sorts of things. So, one is to describe the student's strategy in their own words. A second thing is to think about and write down the questions that they have about the student's strategy. And then the third piece is for students to think about and record what suggestions they have for the student and how they would convince the student to use those suggestions. Meghan: So, how does this support participation? Well, it can explicitly support the work of critiquing. It's written, and it allows students to think carefully rather than needing to think on the spot. And thirdly, the student is not a classmate, which can reduce the feeling of confrontation that some students feel when engaging in critique. So, one thing that I want to name with this particular strategy around task selection and using a written critique task, is that we've recognized that the way that critiquing is often worked on in mathematics classrooms may be at odds with some students' experiences with critique outside of school. And so, we're not trying to say that students shouldn't be supported in learning to critique mathematical ideas. That's an important part of mathematical work. But rather we're trying to design a structure that's going to not dismiss students' experiences outside of school, but at the same time give them experiences with the mathematical work of critiquing. Mike: Yeah, the questions themselves are powerful, but it seems like the choice to use a fictitious person is really critical to this task design. Meghan: Absolutely. And as a teacher, too, it really does give us a little bit more control in terms of what is the critique that's going to unfold in that particular classroom. Mike: It strikes me that they're able to engage in the task of critique without that feeling of conflict. Meghan: Absolutely. It really opens up space for students to engage in that critiquing work and takes a lot of that pressure off of them. Mike: Let's talk about the second idea. Meghan: Alright. So, the second strategy is to use a deliberate turn and talk. In discussions, some students are ready to share their ideas right away, but other students need a chance to practice verbalizing the ideas that they're about to share. Sometimes students' ideas are not completely formed, and they need to learn how others hear the ideas to refine their arguments. Further, in multilingual classrooms, sometimes students need opportunities to refine their thinking in their home language, and importantly, they also need opportunities to develop academic language in their home language. So, in a deliberate turn and talk, a teacher deliberately pairs students to share their thinking with a partner, and the partner asks clarifying questions. The pairs might be made based on knowledge of students' home language use, their mathematical understandings, or some other important thing the teacher is thinking about as they engage in that pairing. So how might using deliberately paired turn and talks broaden participation in a discussion? Meghan: Well, first, all students are being asked to participate and have the opportunity to refine their own mathematical argument and consider someone else's ideas. In a whole-class discussion, it's not the case that every student is likely to have that opportunity. So, turn and talks provide that opportunity. Second, turn and talks can support a broader range of students in feeling ready and willing to share their thinking in a whole group. Third, these pairs can also set up students who are not yet comfortable sharing their own ideas in whole group to be able to share someone else's idea. So, a way for them to still share ideas in whole group, even though it's not necessarily their own idea that's being shared. Mike: So, what I'm thinking about is, if you and I were engaged in a deliberate turn and talk, what might it look like if I'm a student, you're a student and we've engaged in the norms of the deliberate turn and talk as you described them? Let's just walk through that for a second. What would it look like? Meghan: So, in a pair turn and talk, it really has the structure of partner A, sharing their thinking, and then partner B being responsible for asking questions about the ideas that they just heard in order to further their own understanding of partner's ideas, but also to provide partner A with some feedback about the ways in which they've been expressing their ideas. So, that's pretty different than what often happens in classrooms where kids are invited to share in a discussion and they actually haven't tried verbalizing it yet, right? And they have no way of thinking about, or limited ways of thinking about, how other people might hear those ideas that they're about to share. Mike: I think the other thing that pops up to me is that another scenario that often occurs in turn and talk is it's really turn and tell. Because one person is essentially sharing their thinking and the norms aren't necessarily that they respond, it's just that they share in kind, right? So, this idea that you're actually engaging with someone's idea feels like an important piece of what it looks like to do a deliberate turn and talk versus some of the other iterations that we've just been describing. Meghan: Absolutely. Mike: Well, I'm excited to hear about the third strategy. Meghan: Alright. Our third strategy focuses on supporting participation through connection-making. So, when you think about a typical discussion in a classroom, opportunities for individual students to make explicit connections between ideas shared, are often pretty limited—or at least their opportunities to verbalize or to record in some other way. Often, only one or two students are able to share the connections. And so, a question for us has been how can we provide opportunities for students who are not yet ready to share those connections in whole group or might not have the opportunity? When you think about the fact that 28 students are not going to be able to share connections on a given day to be able to engage in the making of those connections. So, we have two different structures that we have been exploring. The first structure is really a pair share. Students are paired, if possible, with a student who used a different strategy, who has a different solution. Meghan: Each partner explains their strategy, and then together they look for connections between their thinking. So again, this moves beyond the traditional turn and talk because in addition to sharing your thinking, there's a task that the partners are doing about thinking about the connections between those two strategies. A second sort of structure is really using a stop and jot. In this instance, the teacher selects one strategy for students to be thinking about making a connection to, and then each student jots a connection between their strategy or solution and the strategy that the teacher has selected. And they do this in their notebook or in some other written form in the classroom. And so, these two different structures can support participation by having all students have an opportunity to share their own thinking, either verbally with a partner or by recording it in written form. And all students at the same time are having an opportunity to make connections in the classroom. Mike: I think what's interesting about that is to compare that one with the initial idea around critique. In this particular case, I'm going to make a guess that part of the reason that in this one you might actually use students from the classroom versus a fictitious student, is that connecting versus critiquing our two really different kind of social practices. Is that sensible? Meghan: That is sensible. And I would argue that if you're going to be engaging in critique work just to say it, that part of critiquing actually is recognizing, too, what is similar and different about strategies. Mike: Gotcha. Meghan: Right? So, there is that piece in addition to put that out there. Mike: Gotcha. Let's talk about the fourth one. Meghan: Alright. So, the fourth strategy really focuses on broadening participation in the conclusion of a discussion. So, as we all know in a discussion, students hear lots of different ideas, but they don't all get to share their thinking in a discussion, nor do they all get to share what they are thinking at the end of the discussion. But we also know that students need space to consolidate their own thinking and the questions that they have about the ideas that have been shared. At the same time, teachers need access to students' thinking to plan for the next day, particularly when a discussion is not finished at the end of a given math lesson. With all of this, the challenge is that time is often tight at the end of a discussion. So, one structure that we've used has been a note to self. And in a note to self, students write a note to themselves about how they are currently thinking about a particular sort of problem at the end of a discussion. And a note to self allows students to take stock of where they are with respect to particular ideas, similar to a stop and jot. It can create a record of thinking that can be accessed on a subsequent day by students. If those notes yourself are recorded in a notebook. Again, support students and tracking on their own questions and how their thinking is changing over time, and it can provide the teacher with a window into all students' thinking. Mike: Can you talk about the experience of watching the note to self and just seeing the impact that it had? Meghan: So, it was day one of our mathematics program, and we had done a discussion around an unequally partitioned rectangle task, and students were being asked to figure out what fraction of the hole was shaded. And there clearly wasn't enough time that day to really explore all the different sorts of ideas. And so, Darius Robinson, who was one of the co-teachers, invited students to share some of their initial ideas about the task. And the way that Darius then ended up deciding to conclude things that day was saying to students, “I think we're going to do this thing that I'm going to call a note to self.” And he invited the students to open up their notebooks and to record how they were thinking about the different ideas that had gotten shared thus far in the discussion. There was some modeling of what that might look like, something along the lines of, “I agree with … because,” but it really opened up that space then for students to begin to record how they were thinking about otherwise ideas in math class. So, how might using a note to self-broaden participation in a discussion? Well, first of all, students have the opportunity to participate. All students are being asked to write a note to themselves. It creates space for students to engage with others' ideas that doesn't necessarily require talk, right? So, this is an opportunity to privilege other ways of participating, and it also allows for thinking and processing time for all students. Mike: I think the other piece that jumps out for me is this idea that it's normal and to be expected that you're going to have some unfinished thinking or understanding at the end of a particular lesson or what have you, right? That partial understanding or growing understanding is a norm. That's the other thing that really jumps out about this practice is it allows kids to say, “This is where I am now,” with the understanding that they have room to grow or they have room to continue refining their thinking. I really love that about that. Meghan: I think it's so important, right? And oftentimes, we read curriculum materials, we read through a lesson for a particular day and get the sense that everything is going to be tied off with a bow at the end of the lesson, and that we're expecting everybody to have a particular sort of understanding at the end of Section 3.5. But as we all know, that's not the reality in classrooms, right? Sometimes discussions take longer because there are really rich ideas that are being shared, and it's just not feasible to get to a particular place of consensus on a particular day. So, it is for teachers to have access to where students are. But at the same time to feel empowered, to be able to say, “I'm going to pick this up the next day, and that doesn't need to be finished on Monday, but that these ideas that we're working on Monday can flow nicely into Tuesday. And as students, your responsibility is to think about, ‘How are you thinking about the task right now?' Jot some notes so when we come back to it tomorrow, we can pick that up together.” Mike: Well, I think that's the other lovely piece about it, too, is that they're engaging in that self-reflection, but they've got an artifact of sorts that they can come back to and say, “Oh yeah, that's where I was, or that's how I was thinking about it.” That allows for a smoother re-engagement with this or that idea. Meghan: Absolutely. And you can add on the pieces of notation that students might choose to do the next day as well, where they might choose to annotate their notes with notes that said, “Yesterday I was thinking this, but now I think this” as a way to further record the ideas that thinking changes over time. Mike: So, I think before we close this interview, I want to say to you that I watched you do your presentation in Los Angeles at NCTM, and it was really eye-opening for me, and I found myself stuck on this for some time. And I suspect that there are people who are going to listen to this podcast who are going to think the same thing. So, what I want to ask you is, if someone's a listener, and this is a new set of ideas for them, do you have any recommendations for where they might go to kind of deepen their understanding of these ideas we've been talking about? Meghan: Sure. I want to give three different sorts of suggestions. So, one suggestion is to look at the fabulous books that have been put together by Amy Lucenta and Grace Kelemanic, who are the authors of “Routines for Reasoning and Thinking for Teaching.” And I would argue that many of the routines that they have developed and that they share in those resources are ones that are really supportive of thinking about, “How do you broaden participation in mathematics discourse?” A second resource that someone might be interested in exploring is a research article that was written in 2017 by Cathy O'Connor, Sarah Michaels, Suzanne Chapin, and Alan (G.) Harbaugh that focuses on the silent and the vocal participation in learning in whole-class discussion, where they carefully looked at learning outcomes for students who were vocally expressing ideas and discussion as well as the silent participants in the discussion, and really found that there was no difference in the learning outcomes for those two groups of students. And so that's important, I think, for us to think about as teachers. At the same time, I want to be clear in acknowledging that all of what we do as teachers needs to be in relation to the learning goals that we have for students. So, sometimes our learning goals are that we want students to be able to share ideas and discussions. And if that's the case, then we actually do need to make sure that we build in opportunities for students to share their ideas verbally in addition to participating in other sorts of ways. Mike: I'm really glad you said that because what I hear you saying is, “This isn't a binary. We're not talking about … Meghan: Correct. Mike: … verbal participation and other forms of participation and saying you have to choose.” I think what I hear you saying is, “If you've only thought about participation from a verbal perspective, these are ways that you can broaden access and also access your students' thinking at the same time.” Meghan: Absolutely. The third thing to share, which has been a theme across this podcast, has really been the importance of learning from our students and talking with the children with whom we're working about their experiences, participating in discussions both in school and outside of school. Mike: Megan, thank you so much for joining us. It really was a pleasure. Meghan: Thank you, Mike, for the opportunity to really share all of these ideas that my colleagues and I have been working on. I want to acknowledge my colleagues, Nicole Garcia, Aileen Kennison, and Darius Robinson, who all played really important roles in developing the ideas that I shared with you today. Mike: Fabulous. Thank you so much. Mike: This podcast is brought to you by The Math Learning Center and the Maier Math Foundation, dedicated to inspiring and enabling individuals to discover and develop their mathematical confidence and ability. © 2023 The Math Learning Center | www.mathlearningcenter.org

Rounding Up Season 2 | Episode 2 – Empathy Interviews Guest: Dr. Kara Imm Mike Wallus: If there were a list of social skills we hope to foster in children, empathy is likely close to the top. Empathy matters. It helps us understand how others are feeling so we can respond appropriately, and it can help teachers understand the way their students are experiencing school. Today on a podcast, we talk with Dr. Kara Imm about a practice referred to as an empathy interview. We'll discuss the ways empathy interviews can help educators understand their students' lived experience with mathematics and make productive adaptations to instructional practice. Mike: Well, welcome to the podcast, Kara. We're excited to have you join us. Kara Imm: Thanks, Mike. Happy to be here. Mike: So, I have to confess that the language of an empathy interview was new to me when I started reading about this, and I'm wondering if you could just take a moment and unpack, what is an empathy interview, for folks who are new to the idea? Kara: Yeah, sure. I think I came to understand empathy interviews in my work with design thinking as a former teacher, classroom teacher, and now teacher-educator. I've always thought of myself as a designer. So, when I came to understand that there was this whole field around design thinking, I got very intrigued. And the central feature of design thinking is that designers, who are essentially thinking about creating new products, services, interactions, ways of being for someone else, have to start with empathy because we have to get out of our own minds and our own experiences and make sure we're not making assumptions about somebody else's lived experience. So, an empathy interview, as I know it now, is first and foremost a conversation. It's meant to be as natural a conversation as possible. When I do empathy interviews, I have a set of questions in mind, but I often abandon those questions and follow the child in front of me or the teacher, depending on who I'm interviewing. Kara: And the goal of an empathy interview is to elicit stories; really granular, important stories, the kind of stories that we tell ourselves that get reiterated and retold, and the kinds of stories that cumulatively make up our identities. So, I'm not trying to get a resumé, I'm not interested in the facts of the person, the biography of the person. I'm interested in the stories people tell about themselves. And in my context, the stories that kids tell themselves about their own learning and their own relationship to school, their classrooms, and to mathematics. I'm also trying to elicit emotions. So, designers are particularly listening for what they might call unmet needs, where as a designer we would then use the empathy interview to think about the unmet needs of this particular person and think about designing something uniquely and specifically for them—with the idea that if I designed something for them, it would probably have utility and purpose for other people who are experiencing that thing. So, what happened more recently is that I started to think, “Could empathy interviews change teachers' relationship to their students? Could it change leaders' relationships to the teachers?” And so far, we're learning that it's a different kind of conversation, and it's helping people move out of deficit thinking around children and really asking important questions about, what does it mean to be a kid in a math class? Mike: There's some language that you've used that really stands out for me. And I'm wondering if you could talk a little bit more about it. You said “the stories that we tell about ourselves”; or, maybe paraphrased, the stories that kids tell themselves. And then you had this other bit of language that I'd like to come back to: “the cumulative impact of those stories on our identity.” Can you unpack those terms of phrase you used and talk a little bit about them specifically, as you said, when it comes to children and how they think about their identity with relation to mathematics? Kara: Sure. I love that kind of phrase, “the story we tell ourselves.” That's been a pivotal phrase for me. I think stories kind of define and refine our existence. Stories capture this relationship between who we are and who we want to become. But when I'm thinking about stories in this way, I imagine as an interviewer that I'm trying to paint a portrait of a child, typically. And so, I'm trying to interact with this child in such a way that I can elicit these stories, painting a unique picture of this kid, not only as a learner but also as a human. What inevitably happens when you do these interviews is that I'm interested in their experience in math class. When I listen to kids, they have internalized, “I'm good at math, and here's why” or “I'm bad at math, and here's why. I just know it.” But when you dig a little bit deeper, the stories they tell are a little more nuanced, and they kind of live in the space of gray. And I'm interested in that space, not the space of testing and measurement that would land you in a particular identity as meant for math or not meant for math. Mike: I think what I was going to suggest is, why don't we listen to a few, because you shared a couple clips before we got ready for the interview, and I was fascinated by the approach that you had in chatting with these children and just how much information I could glean from even a minute or two of the interview slices that you shared. Why don't we start and get to know a few of these kiddos and see what we can learn together. Kara: Sounds great. Mike: We've got a clip that I'm going to invite you to set it up and give us as much context as you want to, and then we'll play the clip and then we can talk a little bit about it. I would love to start with our friend Leanna. Kara: Great. Leanna is a third-grader. She goes to an all-girls school. I've worked in Leanna's school over multiple years. I know her teacher well. I'm a part of that community. Leanna was kind of a new mathematician to me. Earlier in the day I had been in Leanna's classroom, and the interview starts with a moment that really struck me, which I won't say much more about. And I invited Leanna to join me after school so we could talk about this particular moment. And I really wanted to know how she made sense of what happened. So, I think we'll leave it at that and we'll listen to what happened. Mike: Alright, let's give it a listen. Leanna: Hi, I'm Leanna, and I'm 8 years old. Kara: Hi, Leanna. Today when I was in your class, something interesting happened where I think the kids said to me, and they said, “Do you know we have a math genius in our class?” Do you remember that moment? Leanna: Yeah. Kara: Tell me what happened in that moment. Leanna: Um, they said, “We have a math genius in our class.” And then they all started pointing at me. Kara: And what was that like for you? Leanna: It was … like, maybe, like, it was nice, but also it was kind of like, all the pressure was on me. Kara: Yeah, I was wondering about that. Why do you think the girls today—I mean, I'm a visitor, right?—why do you think they use the word “math genius”? And why did they choose you? What do you think they think of you? Leanna: A mathematician … Kara: Yeah. Leanna: … because I go to this thing every Wednesday. They ask me what I want to be when I grow up, and I always say a mathematician. So, they think that I am a math genius. Kara: Gotcha. Do you think all the girls in your class know that you want to be a mathematician when you grow up? But do they mean something else? They didn't say, “We have a mathematician in our class.” They said, “We have a math genius.” Leanna: Maybe. Kara: Are you a math genius? Do think, what does that even mean? Leanna: Like, I'm really good at math. Kara: Yeah. Do you think that's a true statement? Leanna: Yeah, a little bit. Kara: A little bit? Do you love math? Leanna: Yeah. Kara: Yeah. Have you always loved math? Leanna: Yeah. Kara: And so, it might be true that, like, is a math genius the same as a mathematician? Leanna: No. Kara: OK. Can you say how they're different? Leanna: Like, a mathematician is, like … Like, when you're a math genius, you don't always want to be a mathematician when you grow up. A math genius is when you just are really good at math, but, like, a mathematician is when you really, like, want to be when you grow up. Kara: Yeah. Mike: That was fascinating to listen to. So, my first inclination is to say, as you were making meaning of what Leanna was sharing, what were some of the things that were going on for you? Kara: Yeah, I was thinking about how math has this kind of unearned status, this measure of success in our culture that in this interview, Leanna is kind of pointing to. I was thinking about the mixed emotions she has being positioned as a math genius. It called into mind the model minority myth in which folks of Asian descent and Asian Americans are often positioned as stereotypically being good at math. And people say, “Well, this is such a lovely and respectful stereotype, who cares if it's not true?” But she later in the interview talks about the pressure of living up to this notion of math genius and what means. I think about her status in the classroom and how she has the agency to both take up this idea of math genius, and does she have the agency to also nuance it or reject it? And how that might play out in her classroom? So yeah, those are all the things that kind of come to mind as I listen to her. Mike: I think you're hitting on some of the themes that jumped out for me; this sense that kids who are participating in particular activities have been positioned, either by their participation or by their kids' perceptions of what participation means. And I thought the most interesting part was when she said, “Well, it's nice”—but there was a long pause there. And then she talked about this sense of pressure. What it's making me think about as a practitioner is that there are perhaps ways that as a teacher, if I'm aware of that, that might change something small, some things big about the way that I choose to engage with Leanna in the classroom; that I choose to help her navigate that space that she finds herself in. There's a lot for me there as a practitioner in that small clip that helps me really see her, understand her, and think about ways that I can support her. Kara: Yeah. And, like, from a design perspective, I huddled with her teacher later in the day, and we talked about this interview, and we thought about what would it mean to design or redesign a space where Leanna could feel really proud of who she was as a mathematician, but she didn't feel the kind of pressure that this math genius moniker is affording her. And so, ultimately, I want these interviews to be conducted by teachers so that, as you said, practitioners might show up differently for kids or think about what we might need to think more deeply about or design for kids like her. She's certainly not the only one. Mike: Yeah, absolutely. And I think part of what's hitting me in the face is that the term “empathy interview” really is taking on new meaning, even listening to this first one. Because feeling the feelings that she's sharing with us, feeling what it would be like to be in those shoes, I've had kiddos in my class who have been identified or whose folks have chosen to have them participate in programming. And I have to confess that I don't know that I thought as much about what that positioning meant to them or what it meant about how kids would perceive them. I was just struck by how, in so many subtle ways doing an interview like this, might really shift the way that I showed up for a child. Kara: Yeah, I think so. Mike: Well, let's listen to another one. Kara: OK. Maybe Matthew, should we meet Matthew? Mike: I think we should meet Matthew. Kara: Yeah. Mike: Do you want to set up Matthew and give us a sense of what we might need to know about the context? Kara: Absolutely. Matthew is a fifth-grader who describes, in my conversation with him, several years of what he calls “not good” years in math. And he doesn't enjoy mathematics. He doesn't think he's good at it. He has internalized, he's really blamed himself and taken most of the responsibility for those “bad“ years of learning. When I meet him, he's a fifth-grader, and he has written a mathography at the invitation of his classroom teacher. This is a practice that's part of this school. And in his mathography as a fifth-grader, he uses the word “evolving,” and he tells the story of how he's evolving as a mathematician. That alone is pretty profound and beautiful that he has the kind of insight to describe this kind of journey with mathematics. And he really just describes a fourth-grade teacher who fundamentally changed his relationship to mathematics, his sense of himself, and how he thinks about learning. Mike: Let's give it a listen. Kara: Maybe we'll end, Matthew, with: If people were thinking about you as—and maybe there's other Matthews in their class, right—what kinds of things would've helped you back in kindergarten, first and second grade to just feel like math was for you? It took you until fourth grade, right … Matthew: Yeah. Kara: … until you really had any positive emotions about math? I'm wondering what could we have done for younger Matthew? Matthew: Probably, I think I should have paid a lot more attention. Kara: But what if it wasn't about you? What if it's the room and the materials and the teacher and the class? Matthew: I think it was mostly just me, except for some years it was really, really confusing. Kara: OK. Matthew: And when … you didn't really want in third grade or second grade, you didn't want to be the kid that's always, like, “Hey, can you help me with this?” or something. So that would be embarrassing for some people. Kara: OK. You just made air quotes right, when you did embarrassing? Matthew: Yeah. Kara: Was it embarrassing to ask for help? Matthew: It wasn't embarrassing to ask for help, and now I know that. But I would always not ask for help, and I think that's a big reason why I wasn't that good at math. Kara: Got it. So, you knew in some of these math lessons that it was not making sense? Matthew: It made no sense. Kara: It made no sense. Matthew: And then I was, like, so I was in my head, “I think I should ask, but I also don't want to embarrass myself.” Kara: Hmm. Matthew: But also, it's really not that embarrassing. Kara: OK, but you didn't know that at the time. At the time it was like, “Ooh, we don't ask for help.” Matthew: Yeah. Kara: OK. And did that include asking another kid for help? You didn't ask anybody for help? Matthew: Um, only one of my friends that I knew for a really long time … Kara: Hmm. Matthew: He helped me. So, I kind of got past the first stage, but then if he was absent on those days or something, then I'd kind of just be sitting at my desk with a blank sheet. Kara: Wow, so it sounds like you didn't even know how to get started some days. Matthew: Yeah, some days I was kind of just, like, “I'm not even going to try.” Kara: “I'm not” … OK. Matthew: But now I'm, like, “It's not that big of a deal if I get an answer wrong.” Kara: Yeah, that's true. Right? Matthew: “I have a blank sheet. That is a big deal. That's a problem.” Kara: So having a blank sheet, nothing written down, that is a bigger problem for you than, like, “Oh, whoops, I got the answer wrong. No big deal.” Matthew: I'd rather just get the answer wrong because handing in a blank sheet would be, that would probably be more embarrassing. Mike: Oh, my goodness. There is a lot in a little bit of space of time. Kara: Yeah. These interviews, Mike, are so rich, and I offer them to this space and to teachers with such care and with such a deep sense of responsibility 'cause I feel like these stories are so personal. So, I'm really mindful of, can I use this story in the space of Matthew for a greater purpose? Here, I feel like Matthew is speaking to all the kind of socio-mathematical norms in classrooms. And I didn't know Matthew until this year, but I would guess that a kid like Matthew, who is so quiet and so polite and so respectful, might've flown under the radar for many years. He wasn't asking for help, but he was also not making trouble. It makes me wonder, “How would we redesign a class so that he could know earlier on that asking for help—and that this notion that in this class, mathematics—is meant to make sense, and when it doesn't make sense, we owe it to ourselves and each other to help it make sense?” I think it's an invitation to all of us to think about, “What does it mean to ask for help?” And how he wants deep down mathematics to make sense. And I agree with him, that should be just a norm for all of us. Mike: I go back to the language that you used at the beginning, particularly listening to Matthew talk, “the stories that we tell ourselves.” The story that he had told himself about what it meant to ask for help or what that meant about him as a person or as a mathematician. Kara: Yeah. I mean, I am trained as a kind of qualitative researcher. So as part of my dissertation work, I did all kinds of gathering data through interviews and then analyzing them. And one of the ways that is important to me is thinking about kind of narrative analysis. So, when Matthew tells us the things that were in his head, he tells you the voice that his head is saying back to him. Kids will do that. Similarly, later in the interview I said, “What would you say to those kids, those kids who might find it?” And what I was interested in is getting him to articulate in his own voice what he might say to those children. So, when I think about stories, I think about when do we speak in a first person? When do we describe the voices that are in our heads? When do we quote our teachers and our mothers and our cousins? And how that's a powerful form of storytelling, those voices. Mike: Well, I want to listen to one more, and I'm particularly excited about this one. This is Nia. I want to listen to Nia and have you set her up. And then I think what I want to do after this is talk about impact and how these empathy interviews have the potential to shift practice for educators or even school for that matter. So, let's talk about Nia and then let's talk about that. Kara: You got it. Nia is in this really giant classroom of almost 40 kids, fifth-graders, and it's co-taught. It's purposely designed as this really collaborative space, and she uses the word “collaboration,” but she also describes how that's a really noisy environment. On occasion, there's a teacher who she describes pulling her into a quieter space so that she can concentrate. And so, I think that's an important backstory for her just in terms of her as a learner. I ask her a lot of questions about how she thinks about herself as a mathematician, and I think that's the clip we're going to listen to. Mike: Alright, let's listen in. Nia: No, I haven't heard it, but … Kara: OK. I wonder what people mean by that, “I'm not a math person.” Nia: I'm guessing, “I don't do math for fun.” Kara: “I don't do math for fun.” Do you do math for fun? Nia: Yes. Kara: You do? Like, what's your for-fun math? Nia: Me and my grandma, when we were in the car, we were writing in the car. We had this pink notebook, and we get pen or a pencil, and she writes down equations for me in the backseat, and I do them and she times me, and we see how many questions I could get right in, like, 50 seconds. Kara: Oh, my gosh. What's an example of a question your grandma would give you? Nia: Like, they were just practice questions, like, three times five, five times eight. Well, I don't really do fives because I already know them. Mike: So, we only played a real tiny snippet of Nia. But I think one of the things that's really sticking out is just how dense these interviews are with information about how kids think or the stories that they've told themselves. What strikes you about what we heard or what struck you as you were having this conversation with Nia at that particular point in time? Kara: For me, these interviews are about both storytelling and about identity building. And there's that dangerous thinking about two types of people, math people and non-math people. I encounter adults and children who have heard of that phrase. And so, I sometimes offer it in the interview to find out what sense do kids make of that? Kids have told me, “That doesn't make sense.” And other kids have said, “No, no, my mom says that. My mom says she's not a math person.” So, she, I'm playing into it to see what she says. And I love her interpretation that a math person is someone who does math for fun. And truthfully, Mike, I don't know a lot of kids who describe doing math for fun. And so, what I loved about that she, A: She a described a math person's probably a person who, gosh, enjoys it, gets some joy or pleasure from doing mathematics. Kara: But then the granularity of the story she offers, which is the specific pink notebook that she and her grandmother are passing back and forth in the backseat of the car, tell you about mathematics as a thing that she shares a way of relating to her grandmother. It's been ritualized, and really all they're doing if you listen to it is, her grandmother's kind of quizzing her on multiplication facts. But it's such a different relationship to multiplication facts because she's in relationship to her grandmother. They have this beautiful ongoing ritual. And quite honestly, she's using it as an example to tell us that's the fun part for her. So, she just reminds us that mathematics is this human endeavor, and for her, this one ritual is a way in which she relates and connects to her grandmother, which is pretty cool. Mike: So, I want to shift a little bit and talk about a couple of different things: the types of questions that you ask, some of the norms that you have in mind when you're going through the process, and then what struck me about listening to these is you're not trying to convince the kids who you're interviewing of anything about their current thinking or their feelings or trying to shift their perspective on their experience. And I'm just wondering if you can think about how you would describe the role you're playing when you're conducting the interview. 'Cause it seems that that's pretty important. Kara: Yeah. I think the role I'm playing is a deep listener. And I'm trying to create space. And I'm trying to make a very, very, very safe environment for kids to feel like it's OK to tell me a variety of stories about who they are. That's my role. I am not their classroom teacher in these interviews. And so, these interviews probably look and sound differently when the relationship between the interviewer and the interviewee is about teachers and students and/or has a different kind of power differential. I get to be this frequent visitor to their classroom, and so I just get to listen deeply. The tone that I want to convey, the tone that I want teachers to take up is just this fascination with who they are and a deep curiosity about their experience. And I'm positioned in these interviews as not knowing a lot about these children. Kara: And so, I'm actually beautifully positioned to do what I want teachers to do, which is imagine you didn't know so much. Imagine you didn't have the child's cumulative file. Imagine you didn't know what they were like last year. Imagine you didn't know all that, and you had to ask. And so, when I enter these interviews, I just imagine, “I don't know.” And when I'm not sure, I ask another smaller question. So I'll say, “Can you say more about that?” or “I'm not sure if you and I share the same meaning.” The kinds of questions I ask kids—and I think because I've been doing this work for a while, I have a couple questions that I start with and after that I trust myself to follow the lead of the children in front of me—I often say to kids, “Thank you for sitting down and having a conversation with me today. I'm interested in hearing kids' stories about math and their math journey, and somebody in your life told me you have a particularly interesting story.” And then I'll say to kids sometimes, “Where do you want to start in the story?” And I'll try to give kids agency to say, “Oh, well, we have to go back to kindergarten” or “I guess we should start now in high school” or kids will direct me where they think are the salient moments in their own mathematical journey. Mike: And when they're sharing that story, what are the types of questions that you might ask along the way to try to get to clarity or to understanding? Kara: Great question. I'm trying to elicit deep emotion. I'm trying to have kids explain why they're telling me particular stories, like, what was significant about that. Kids are interesting. Some kids in these interviews just talk a lot. And other kids, I've had to really pepper them with questions and that has felt a little kind of invasive, like, this isn't actually the kind of natural conversation that I was hoping for. Sometimes I'll ask, “What is it like for you or how do you think about a particular thing?” I ask about things like math community, I ask about math partners. I ask about, “How do you know you're good at math and do you trust those ways of knowing?” I kind of create spaces where we could have alternative narratives. Although you're absolutely right, that I'm not trying to lead children to a particular point of view. I'm kind of interested in how they make sense. Mike: One of the things that, you used a line earlier where you said something about humanizing mathematics, and I think what's striking me is that statement you made: “What if you didn't have their cumulative report card?” You didn't have the data that tells one story, but not necessarily their story. And that really is hitting me, and I'm even feeling a little bit autobiographical. I was a kid who was a lot like Matthew, who, at a certain point, I just stopped raising my hand because I thought it meant something about me, and I didn't want people to see that. And I'm just struck by the impact of one, having someone ask you about that story as the learner, but also how much an educator could take from that and bring to the relationship they had with that child while they were working on mathematics together. Kara: You said a lot there, and you actually connect to how I think about empathy interviews in my practice now. I got to work with Rochelle Gutiérrez this summer, and that's where I learned deeply about her framework, rehumanizing mathematics. When I do these empathy interviews, I'm living in this part of her framework that's about the body and emotions. Sometimes kids in the empathy interview, their body will communicate one thing and their language will communicate something else. And so, that's an interesting moment for me to notice how body and motions even are associated with the doing of mathematics. And the other place where empathy interviews live for me is in the work of “Street Data,” Jamila Dugan and Shane Safir's book, that really call into question this idea that what is measurable and what is quantifiable is really all that matters, and they invite us to flip the data dashboard. Kara: In mathematics, this is so important 'cause we have all these standardized tests that tell children about who they are mathematically and who they're about to become. And they're so limiting, and they don't tell the full story. So, when they talk about “Street Data,” they actually write about empathy interviews as a way in which to be humanizing. Data can be liberatory, data can be healing. I feel that when I'm doing these interviews, I have this very tangible example of what they mean because it is often the case that at the end of the interview—and I think you might've had this experience just listening to the interview—there's something really beautiful about having a person be that interested in your story and how that might be restorative and might make you feel like, “There's still possibility for me. This isn't the last story.” Mike: Absolutely. I think you named it for me, which is, the act of telling the story to a person, particularly someone who, like a teacher, might be able to support me being seen in that moment, actually might restore my capacity to feel like, “I could do this” or “My fate as a mathematician is not sealed.” Or I think what I'm taking away from this is, empathy interviews are powerful tools for educators in the sense that we can understand our students at a much deeper level, but it's not just that. It's the experience of being seen through an empathy interview that can also have a profound impact on a child. Kara: Yes, absolutely. I'm part of a collaboration out of University of California where we have thought about the intersection of disability and mathematics, and really thinking about how using the tools of design thinking, particularly the empathy interview can be really transformative. And what the teachers in our studies have told us is that just doing these empathy interviews—and we're not talking about interviewing all the kids that you teach. We're talking about interviewing a select group of kids with real intention about, “Who's a kid who has been marginalized?” And/or “Who's a kid who I don't really know that much about and/or I don't really have a relationship with?” Or “Who's a kid who I suspect doesn't feel seen by me or doesn't feel, like, a deep sense of belonging in our work together?” Teachers report that just doing a few of these interviews starts to change their relationship to those kids. Kara: Not a huge surprise. It helped them to name some of the assumptions they made about kids, and it helped them to be in a space of not knowing around kids. I think the other thing it does for teachers that we know is that they describe to do an empathy interview well requires a lot of restraint, restraint in a couple of ways. One, I'm not fixing, I'm not offering advice. I'm also not getting feedback on my teaching. And I also think it's hard for teachers not to insert themselves into the interview with our own narratives. I really try to make sure I'm listening deeply and I'm painting a portrait of this kid, and I'm empathetic in the sense I care deeply and I'm deeply listening, which I think is a sign of respect, but the kids don't need to know about my experience in the interview. That's not the purpose. Mike: We could keep going for quite a long time. I'm going to make a guess that this podcast is going to have a pretty strong on a lot of folks who are out in the field listening. Kara: Hmm. Mike: If someone was interested in learning more about empathy interviews and wanted to explore or understand more about them, do you have any particular recommendations for where someone might go to continue learning? Kara: Yes, and I wish I had more, but I will take that as an invitation that maybe I need to do a little bit more writing about this work. I think the “Street Data” is an interesting place where the co-authors do reference empathy interviews, and I do think that they have a few videos online that you could see. I think Jamila Dugan has an empathy interview that you could watch and study. People can write me and/or follow me. I'm working on an article right now. My colleagues in California and I have a blog called “Designing4Inclusion,” “4” being the number four, and we've started to document the work of empathy and how it shows up in teachers' practice there. Mike: Well, I want to thank you so much for joining us, Kara. It has really been a pleasure talking with you. Kara: Thank you, Mike. I was really happy to be invited. Mike: This podcast is brought to you by The Math Learning Center and the Maier Math Foundation, dedicated to inspiring and enabling individuals to discover and develop their mathematical confidence and ability. © 2023 The Math Learning Center | www.mathlearningcenter.org

Rounding Up Season 2 | Episode 1 – Practical Ways to Build Strengths-based Math Classrooms Guest: Beth Kobett Mike Wallus: What if it were possible to capture all of the words teachers said or thought about students and put them in word clouds that hovered over each student throughout the day? What impact might the words in the clouds have on students' learning experience? This is the question that Beth Kobett and Karen Karp pose to start their book about strengths-based teaching and learning. Today on the podcast, we're talking about practices that support strengths-based teaching and learning and ways educators can implement them in their classrooms.  Mike: Hey, Beth, welcome to the podcast. Beth Kobett: Thank you so much. I'm so excited to be here, Mike. Mike: So, there's a paragraph at the start of the book that you wrote with Karen Karp. You said: ‘As teachers of mathematics, we've been taught that our role is to diagnose, eradicate, and erase students' misconceptions. We've been taught to focus on the challenges in students' work rather than recognizing the knowledge and expertise that exist within the learner.' This really stopped me in my tracks, and it had me thinking about how I viewed my role as a classroom teacher and how I saw my students' work. I think I just want to start with the question, ‘Why start there, Beth?' Beth: Well, I think it has a lot to do with our identity as teachers, that we are fixers and changers and that students come to us, and we have to do something. And we have to change them and make sure that they learn a body of knowledge, which is absolutely important. But within that, if we dig a little bit deeper, is this notion of fixing this idea that, ‘Oh my goodness, they don't know this.' And we have to really attend to the ways in which we talk about it, right? For example, ‘My students aren't ready. My students don't know this.' And what we began noticing was all this deficit language for what was really very normal. When you show up in second grade, guess what? There's lots of things you know, and lots of things you're going to learn. And that's absolutely the job of a teacher and a student to navigate. So, that really helped us think about the ways in which we were entering into conversations with all kinds of people; teachers, families, leadership, and so on, so that we could attend to that. And it would help us think about our teaching in different ways. Mike: So, let's help listeners build a counter-narrative. How would you describe what it means to take a strengths-based approach to teaching and learning? And what might that mean in someone's daily practice? Beth: So, we can look at it globally or instructionally. Like, I'm getting ready to teach this particular lesson in this class. And the counter-narrative is, ‘What do they know? What have they been showing me?' So, for example, I'm getting ready to teach place value to second-graders, and I want to think about all the things that they've already done that I know that they've done. They've been grouping and counting and probably making lots of collections of 10 and so on. And so, I want to think about drawing on their experiences, A. Or B, going in and providing an experience that will reactivate all those prior experiences that they've had and enable students to say, ‘Oh yeah, I've done this before. I've made sets or groups of 10 before.' So, let's talk about what that is, what the names of it, why it's so important, and let's identify tasks that will just really engage them in ways that help them understand that they do bring a lot of knowledge into it. And sometimes we say things so well intentioned, like, ‘This is going to be hard, and you probably haven't thought about this yet.' And so, we sort of set everybody on edge in ways that set it's going to be hard, which means, ‘That's bad.' It's going to be hard, which means, ‘You don't know this yet.' Well, why don't we turn that on its edge and say, ‘You've done lots of things that are going to help you understand this and make sense of this. And that's what our job is right now, is to make sense of what we're doing.' Mike: There's a lot there. One of the things that I think is jumping out for me is this idea is multifaceted. And part of what we're asking ourselves is, ‘What do kids know?' But the other piece that I want to just kind of shine a flashlight on, is there's also this idea of what experiences have they had—either in their home life or in their learning life at school—that can connect to this content or these ideas that you're trying to pull out? That, to me, actually feels like another way to think about this. Like, ‘Oh my gosh, we've done partitioning, we've done grouping,' and all of those experiences. If we can connect back to them, it can actually build up a kid's sense of, like, ‘Oh, OK.' Beth: I love that. And I love the way that you just described that. It's almost like positioning the student to make those connections, to be ready to do that, to be thinking about that and providing a task or a lesson that allows them to say, ‘Oh!' You know, fractions are a perfect example. I mean, we all love to use food, but do we talk about sharing? Do we talk about when we've divided something up? Have we talked about, ‘Hey, you both have to use the same piece of paper, and I need to make sure that you each have an equal space.' I've seen that many times in a classroom. Just tweak that a little bit. Talk about when you did that, you actually were thinking about equal parts. So, helping students … we don't need to make all those connections all the time because they're there for students and children naturally make connections. That's their job ( chuckles ). It really is their job, and they want to do that. Mike: So, the other bit that I want to pick up on is the subtle way that language plays into this. And one example that really stood out for me was when you examined the word ‘misconception.' So, talk about this particular bit of language and how you might tweak it or reframe it when it comes to student learning. Beth: Well, thank you for bringing this up. This is a conversation that I am having consistently right now. Because this idea of misconception positions the student. ‘You're wrong, you don't understand something.' And again, let's go back to that again, ‘I've got to fix it.' But what if learning is pretty natural and normal to, for example, think about Piaget's conservation ideas, the idea that a young child can or can't conserve based on how the arrangement. So, you put in a, you know, five counters out, they count them and then you move them, spread them out and say, ‘Are they the same, more or less?' We wouldn't say that that's a misconception of a child because it's developmental. It's where they are in their trajectory of learning. And so, we are using the word misconception for lots of things that are just natural, the natural part of learning. And we're assuming that the student has created a misunderstanding along the way when that misunderstanding or that that idea of that learning is very, very normal. Beth: Place value is a perfect example of it. Fractions are, too. Let's say they're trying to order fractions on a number line, and they're just looking at the largest value wherever it falls, numerator, denominator, I'm just throwing it down. You know, those are big numbers. So, those are going to go at the end of a number line. But what if we said, ‘Just get some fraction pieces out'? That's not a misconception 'cause that's normal. I'm using what I've already learned about value of number, and I'm throwing it down on a number line ( chuckles ). Um, so it changes the way we think about how we're going to design our instruction when we think about what's the natural way that students do that. So, we also call it fragile understanding. So, fragile understanding is when it's a little bit tentative. Like, ‘I have it, but I don't have it.' That's another part, a natural part of learning. When you're first learning something new, you kind of have it, then you've got to try it again, and it takes a while for it to become something you're comfortable doing or knowing. Mike: So, this is fascinating because you're making me think about this, kind of, challenge that we sometimes find ourselves facing in the field where, at the end of a lesson or a unit, there's this idea that if kids don't have what we would consider mastery, then there's a deficit that exists. And I think what you're making me think is that framing this as either developing understanding or fragile understanding is a lot more productive in that it helps us imagine what pieces have students started to understand and where might we go next? Or like, what might we build on that they've started to understand as opposed to just seeing partial understanding or fragile understanding from a deficit perspective. Beth: Right. I love this point because I think when we think about mastery, it's all or nothing. But that's not learning either. Maybe on an exam or on a test or on assessment, yes, you have it or you don't have it. You've mastered or you haven't. But again, if we looked at it developmentally that ‘I have some partial understanding or I have it and … I'm inconsistent in that,' that's OK. I could also think, ‘Well, should I have a task that will keep bringing this up for students so that they can continue to build that rich understanding and move along the trajectory toward what we think of as mastery, which means that I know it now, and I'm never going to have to learn it again?' I don't know that all things we call mastery are actually mastered at that time. We say they are. Mike: So, I want to pick up on what you said here because in the book there's something about the role of tasks in strengths-based teaching and learning. And specifically, you talk about ‘the cumulative impact that day-to-day tasks have on what students think mathematics is and how hard and how long they should have to work on ideas so that they make sense.' That kind of blows me away. Beth: Well, I want to know more about why it blows you away. Mike: It blows me away because there's two pieces of the language. One is that the cumulative impact has an effect on what students actually think mathematics is. And I think there's a lot there that I would love to hear you talk about. And then also this second part, it has a cumulative impact on how hard and how long kids believe that they should have to work on ideas in order to have them be sensible. Beth: OK, thank you so much for talking about that a little bit more. So, there's two ways to think about that. One is, and I've done this with teams of teachers, and that's bring in a week's worth of tasks that you designed and taught for two weeks. And I call this a ‘task autopsy.' It's a really good way because you've done it. So, bring it in and then let's talk about, do you have mostly conceptual ideas? How much time do students get to think about it? Or are students mimicking a procedure or even a solution strategy that you want them to use or a model? Because if most of the time students are mimicking or repeating or modeling in the way that you've asked them, then they're not necessarily reasoning. And they're building this idea that math means that ‘You tell me what I'm supposed to do, I do it, yay, I did it.' And then we move on to the next thing.  Beth: And I think that sometimes we have to really do some self-talk about this. I show what I value and what I believe in those decisions that I'm making on a daily basis. And even if I say, ‘It's so important for you to reason, it's so important for you to make sense of it.' If all the tasks are, ‘You do this and repeat what I've shown you,' then students are going to take away from that, that's what math is. And we know this because we ask students, ‘What is math?' Math is, ‘When the teacher shows me what to do, and I do it, and I make my teacher happy.' And they say lots of things about teacher pleasing because they want to do what they've been asked to d,o and they want to repeat it and they want to do well, right? Or do they say, ‘Yeah, it's problem-solving. It's solving a problem, it's thinking hard. Sometimes my brain hurts. I talk to other students about what I'm solving. We share our ideas.' We know that students come away with big impressions about what math means based on the daily work of the math class. Mike: So, I want to take the second part up now because you also talk about what I would call ‘normalizing productive struggle' for kids when they're engaged in problems. What does that mean and what might it sound like for an educator on a day-to-day basis? Beth: So, I happened to be in a classroom yesterday. It was a fifth-grade classroom, and the teacher has been really working on normalizing productive struggle. And it was fabulous. I just happened to stop in, and she stopped everything to say, ‘We want to have this conversation in front of you.' And I said, ‘All right, go for it.' And the question was, ‘What does productive struggle feel like to you and why is it important?' That's what she asked her fifth-graders. And they said, ‘It feels hard at first. And uh, amazing at the end of it. Like, you can't feel amazing unless you've had productive struggle.' We're taking away that opportunity to feel so joyous about the mathematics that we're learning because we got to the other side. And some of the students said, ‘It doesn't feel so good in the beginning, but I know I have to remember what it's going to feel like if I keep going.' I was blown away. I mean, they were like little adults in there having this really thoughtful conversation. And I asked her what … she said, ‘We have to stop and have this conversation a lot. We need to acknowledge what it feels like because we're kind of conditioned when we don't feel good that somebody needs to fix it.' Mike: Yeah, I think what hits me is there's kind of multiple layers we consider as a practitioner. One layer is, do I actually believe in productive struggle? And then part two is, what does that look like, sound like? And I think what I heard from you is, part of it is asking kids to engage with you in thinking about productive struggle, that giving them the opportunity to voice it and think about it is part of normalizing it. Beth: It's also saying, ‘You might be feeling this way right now. If you're feeling like this,' like for example, teaching a task and students are working on a task trying to figure out how to solve it and, and it's starting to get a little noisy and hands start coming up, stopping the class for a second and saying, ‘If you're feeling this way, that's an OK way to feel,' right? ‘And here's some things we might be thinking about. What are some strategies'—like re-sort-of focusing them on how to get out of that instead of me fixing it—like, ‘What are some strategies you could think about? Let's talk about that and then go back to this.' So, it's the teacher acknowledging. It's allowing the students to talk about it. It's allowing everybody … it's not just making students be in productive struggle, or another piece of that is ‘just try harder.' That's not real helpful.  Like, OK, ‘I just need you to try harder because I'm making you productively struggle.' I don't know if anyone has had someone tell them that, but I used to run races and when someone said, ‘Try harder' to me, I'm like, ‘I'm trying as hard as I can.' That isn't that helpful. So, it's really about being very explicit about why it's important. Getting students to the other side of it should be the No. 1 goal. And then addressing it. ‘OK, you experienced productive struggle, now you did it. How do you feel now? Why is it worth it?' Mike: I think what you're talking about feels like things that educators can put into practice really clearly, right? So, there's the fron- end conversation maybe about normalizing. But there's the backend conversation where you come back to kids and say, ‘How do you feel once this has happened? It feels amazing.' This is why productive struggle is so important because you can't get to this amazingness unless you're actually engaged in this challenge, unless it feels hard on the front end. And helping them kind of recalibrate what the experience is going to feel like. Beth: Exactly. And another example of this is this idea of … so I had a pre-service teacher teaching a task. She got to teach it twice. She taught it in the morning. Students experienced struggle and were puffed up and running around, so engaged when they solved it. Beyond proud. ‘Can we get the principal in here? Who needs to see this, that we did this?' And then she got some feedback to reduce the level of productive struggle for the second class based on expectations about the students. And she said the engagement, everything went down. Everything went down, including the level of productive struggle went way down. And so, the excitement and joy went way down, too. And so, she did her little mini-research experiment there. Mike: So, I want to stay on this topic of what it looks like to enact these practices. And there are a couple practices in the book that really jumped out at me that I'd like to just take one at a time. So, I want to start with this idea of giving kids what you would call a ‘walk-back option.' What's a walk-back option? Beth: So, a walk-back option is this opportunity once you've had this conversation—or maybe one-on-one, or it could be class conversation—and a walk-back option is to go look at your work. Is there something else that you'd like to change about it? One of the things that we want to be thinking about in mathematics is that solutions and pathways and models and strategies are all sort of in flux. They're there, but they're not all finished all the time. And after having some conversation or time to reason, is there something that you'd like to think about changing? And really building in some of that mathematical reflection. Mike: I love that. I want to shift and talk about this next piece, too, which is ‘rough-draft thinking.' So, the language feels really powerful, but I want to get your take on, what does that mean and how might a teacher use the idea of rough-draft thinking in a classroom? Beth: So rough-draft thinking is really Mandy Jansen's work that we brought into the strengths work because we saw it as an opportunity to help lift up the strengths that students are exhibiting during rough-draft thinking. So, rough-draft thinking is this idea that most of the time ( chuckles ), our conversations in math as we're thinking through a process is rough, right? We're not sure. We might be making a conjecture here and there. We want to test an idea. So, it's rough, it's not finished and complete. And we want to be able to give students an opportunity to do that talking, that thinking and that reasoning while it is rough, because it builds reasoning, it builds opportunities for students to make those amazing connections. You know, just imagine you're thinking through something, and it clicks for you. That's what we want students to be able to do. So, that's rough-draft thinking and that's what it looks like in the math classroom. It's just lots of student talk and lots of students acknowledging that ‘I don't know if I have this right yet, but here's what I'm thinking. Or I have an idea, can I share this idea?' I watched a pre-service teacher do a number talk and a student said, ‘I don't know if this is going to work all the time, but can I share my idea?' Yes, that's rough-draft thinking. ‘Let's hear it. And wow, how brave of you and your strength and risk-taking. Uh, come over here and share it with us.' Mike: Part of what I'm attracted to is even using that language in a classroom with kids, to some degree it reduces the stakes that we traditionally associate with sharing your thinking in mathematics. And it normalizes this idea that you just described, which is, like, reasoning is in flux, and this is my reasoning at this point in time. That just feels like it really changes the game for kids. Beth: What you hear is very authentic thinking and very real thinking. And it's amazing because even very young children—young children are very at doing this. But then as you move, students start to feel like their thinking has to be polished before it's shared. And then that gives other students who may be on some other developmental trajectory in their understanding, so much more afraid to share their rough-draft thinking or their thoughts or their ideas because they think it has to be at the polished stage. It's very interesting how this sort of idea has developed that you can't share something that you think in math because it's got to be right and completed. And everything's got to be perfect. And before it gets shared, because, ‘Wait, we might confuse other people.' But students respond really beautifully to this. Mike: So, the last strategy that I want to highlight is this one of a ‘math amendment.' I love the language again. So same question, how does this work? What does it look like? Beth: OK, so how it works is that you have done some sharing in the class. So, for example, you may have already shared some solutions to a task. Students have been given a task they're sharing, they may be sharing a pair-to-pair share or a group-to-group share, something like that. It could be whole class sharing. And then you say, ‘Hmm, you've heard lots of good ideas today, lots of interesting thinking and different strategies. If you'd like to provide a math amendment, which is a change to your solution in addition, something else that you'd like to do to strengthen it, you can go ahead and do that and you can do it in that lesson right there.' Or what's really, what we're finding is really powerful, is to bring it back the next day or even a few days later, which connects us back to this idea of what you were saying, which is, ‘Is this mastered? Where am I on the developmental trajectory?' So, I'm just strengthening my understanding, and I'm also hearing … I'm understanding the point of hearing other people's ideas is to go and try them out and use them. And we're really allowing that. So, this is take, this has been amazing, the math amendments that we're seeing students do, taking someone else's idea or a strategy and then just expanding on their own work. And it's very similar to, like, a writing piece, right? Writing. You get a writing piece and you polish and you polish. You don't do this with every math task that you solve or problem that you solve, but you choose and select to do that. Mike: Totally makes sense. So, before we go, I have the question for you. You know, for me this was a new idea. And I have to confess that it has caused me to do a lot of reflection on language that I used when I was in the classroom. I can look back now and say there are some things that I think really aligned well with thinking about kids' assets. And I can also say there are points where, gosh, I wish I could wind the clock back because there are some practices that I would do differently. I suspect there's probably a lot of people where this is a new idea that we're talking about today. What are some of the resources that you'd recommend to folks who want to keep learning about strengths-based or asset-based teaching and learning? Beth: So, if they're interested, there's several … so strengths-based or asset-based is really the first step in building equity. And TODOS, they use the asset-based thinking, which is mathematics for all organization. And it's a wonderful organization that does have an equity tool that would be really helpful. Mike: Beth, it has been such a pleasure talking to you. Thank you for joining us.  Beth: Thank you so much. I appreciate it. It was a good time. Mike: This podcast is brought to you by The Math Learning Center and the Maier Math Foundation, dedicated to inspiring and enabling individuals to discover and develop their mathematical confidence and ability. © 2023 The Math Learning Center | www.mathlearningcenter.org

Rounding Up Season 1 | Episode 20 – Work Places Guest: Lori Bluemel Mike Wallus: When I meet someone new at a gathering and tell them that I work in math education, one of the most common responses I hear is, “I was never good at math in school.” When I probe a bit further, this belief often originated in the person's experience memorizing basic facts. How can we build students' fluency with facts, encourage flexible thinking, and foster students' confidence? That's the topic we'll explore in this episode of Rounding Up.  Mike: One of the challenges that we face in education can be letting go of a practice—even if the results are questionable—when the alternative is unclear. In elementary math, this challenge often arises around building computational fluency. We know that speed tests, drill and kill, and worksheets, those are all ineffective practices. And even worse, they can impact students' math identity. So, today we're going to spend some time unpacking an alternative, a component of the Bridges in Mathematics curriculum called Work Places. We're doing this not to promote the curriculum, but to articulate an alternative vision for ways that students can develop computational fluency. To do that, we're joined by Lori Bluemel, a curriculum consultant for The Math Learning Center.  Mike: Lori, welcome to the podcast. It's great to have you with us. Lori: Thank you. It's good to be here. Mike: Well, let's just start with a basic question: If I'm a listener who's new to the Bridge's curriculum, can you describe what a Work Place is? Lori: The simple answer would be that it's math activities or games that are directly focusing on the skills or the ideas and concepts that students are working on during Problems & Investigations. The best aspect, or the feature about Work Places, is that teachers have an opportunity to be like a fly on the wall as they're listening into their students and learning about what strategies they're using and the thinking process that they're going through. Mike: How do you think practicing using a Work Place differs from the version of practice that children have done in the past? What changes for the child or for the learner? Lori: Well, I always felt like a piece of paper was pretty static. There wasn't a lot of interaction. You could run through it so quickly and be finished with it without really doing a lot of thinking and processing—and with absolutely no talking. Whereas during Work Places, you're discussing what you're doing. You're talking to your partner. You're listening to your partner. You're hearing about what they're doing and the different methods or strategies that they're using. And [there's] nothing at all static about it because you're actively working together to work through this game or this activity. Mike: That is so fascinating. It makes me think of a book that I was reading recently about thinking classrooms, and one of the things that they noted was, there's data that suggests that the more talk that's happening in a classroom, the more learning that's actually happening. It really connects me to what you just said about Work Places. Lori: Yeah, and I feel like that's the big difference between Work Places and doing a worksheet on your own. You can do it completely isolated without any outside interaction, whereas Work Places, it's very interactive, very collaborative. Mike: Yeah. So, as a former classroom teacher who used Work Places on a daily basis, how did you set up norms and routines to make them successful for students? Lori: Well, I actually went through several different methods, or routines, before I landed on one that really worked well for me. One that worked best for me is, at the beginning of the year when we first started doing Work Places, I would take that very first Work Place time, and we would just have a class meeting and talk about what we're doing in Work Places. Why would we even have Work Places? We would create an anchor chart, and we'd have one side that would say “Students.” The other side would say “Teachers.” And then we would talk about the expectations. And the students would come up with those. Then we would talk about me as the teacher, what do they think I should be doing? And again, that would come up with all different ideas. And then we always came back to that final thought of, “We need to be having fun.” Mike: Hmm.  Lori: Math needs to be fun during Work Places. And then we would start in, and students would go to Work Places. They would choose their partner, and then they would get started. And that first few times we did Work Places, I always just kind of watched and listened and walked around. And if I felt like things needed to be slightly different, maybe they weren't talking about math or they weren't really playing the Work Place, then we would call a class meeting. And everyone would freeze, and we'd go to our meeting spot, and we would talk about what I saw. And we would also talk about what was going well and what they personally could do to improve. And then we'd go back to Work Places and try it again. Needless to say, a lot of times those first few times at Work Places they didn't play the games a lot because we were setting up expectations. But in the long run, it made Work Places run very smoothly throughout the rest of the year. Mike: Yeah. The word that comes to mind as I listen to you talk, Lori, is investment.  Lori: Um-hm.  Mike: Investing the time to help set the norms, set the routines, give kids a vision of what things look like, and the payoff is productive math talk. Lori: Exactly. And that was definitely the payoff. They needed reminders on occasion, but for the most part, they really understood what was expected. Mike: I think it's fascinating that you talked about your role and asked the kids to talk about that. I would love if you could say more about why you asked them to think about your role when it came to Work Places. Lori: I wanted them to realize that I was there to help them. But at the same time, I was there to help their peers as well. So, if I was working with a small group, I wanted them to understand that they might need to go to another resource to help them answer a question. They needed to make sure that I was giving my attention to the, the small group or the individual that I was working with at that time. So, by talking about what was expected from me, my hope was that they would understand that there were times when they might have to wait a minute, or they might go to another resource to find an answer to their question, or to help them with the situation that they were in. And that seemed to be the case. I think I alleviated a lot of those interruptions just by talking about expectations. Mike: So, I want to return to something that you said earlier, Lori, 'cause I think it's really important. I can imagine that there might be some folks who are listening who are wondering, “What exactly is the teacher doing while students are engaged in Work Places?”  Lori: Um-hm.  Mike: And I wanted to give you an opportunity to really help us understand how you thought about what your main focus was during that time. So, children are out, they're engaged with the Work Places. How do you think about what you want to do with that time? Lori: OK. So, I often look at the needs of my students and, and think about “What have I seen during Problems & Investigations? What have I seen during Work Places previously? And where do I focus my time?” And then I kind of gravitate towards those students that I want to listen in on. So, I want to again, be like that fly on the wall and just listen to them, maybe ask a few questions, some clarifying questions about what they're doing, get an idea of what strategies or the thinking that they're going through as they're processing the problem. And then from there, I can start focusing on small groups, maybe adjust the Work Place so that they can develop that skill at a deeper level. It helps me during that time to really facilitate my students' practice; help students make the most of their practice time so that as they're going through the Work Place, it's not just a set of rules and procedures that they're following. That they're really thinking about what they're doing and being strategic with those skills as well. So that's my opportunity to really help and focus in on my small groups and provide the support that students need. Or maybe I want them to advance their skills, go a little bit deeper so that they are working at a little bit different level. Mike: You know, I'm really interested in this idea that Work Places present an opportunity to listen to students' thinking in real time. I'm wondering if you can talk about an experience where you were able to tuck in with a small group and listen to their thinking and use what you learned to inform your teaching. Lori: ( chuckles ) One experience kind of stands out to me more than others just because it helped me understand that I need to not assume that my students are thinking about, or thinking in a specific way. So, there was one student, they were playing the Work Place game in grade 3, Loops & Groups, and she had spun a six and rolled, I think, a six as well. So, her problem was to solve six times six. And this student had actually been in front of the class just a few days before, and several times actually when I had worked with her, had solved a problem similar to this by thinking of it as three times six and three times six, which is a great strategy. But what I really wanted this student to develop was some flexibility.  Lori: So, I asked her to explain her thinking, and I fully expected her to solve it: “Oh, yeah. I thought of it as three times six and three times six. And when I add those two together, I get 36.” And she totally shocked me. ( laughs ) She said, “Oh, I, I thought of it as five times six, and I know what five times six is. That's 30. And if I just add one more set of six, I get 36. So, she had already developed another strategy, which was not what I was expecting. With that, her partner was a little bit confused and said, “I don't understand how you could do that.” So, I asked this little girl if she could use tile maybe to explain her thinking to her friends. So, we got out the tile. She set it up and she explained this thinking to her partner. And her partner was still a little bit unsure, not really sure she could use that with her own thinking. But what it did was, in the future, just days later, that partner started trying that particular strategy. So, it taught me several things. First of all, don't assume. You don't always know what students are thinking. And also, students are their peers' best teachers. It really encouraged her partner to try that method just a few days later. Mike: We kind of zoomed really in on a pair of children and, and kind of the impact. The other thing that it makes me think is, by doing the fly on the wall, you as a teacher get a better sense of kind of the themes around thinking that are happening across the classroom. Lori: Yeah. You definitely do get that, that perspective. And I think the questioning that you use also will help draw that out. Asking students to explain their thinking: “How did you solve the problem? How could you check your work? Is there a different strategy that you could use that would help you make sure that the answer you came up with, the first strategy you used, was correct?” Those kinds of questions always seem to really help students kind of pull out that thinking and be able to explain what they were doing. Mike: Lori, thank you so much for joining us today. It has really been a pleasure to have you on the podcast and to be able to talk about this. Lori: You bet. Thank you for having me. It was fun. Mike: I want to thank all of you who've listened in during the first season of Rounding Up. We're going on a short break this summer, but we'll be back for Season 2 in September. Before we go, we're wondering what topics you'd like us to explore, what guests you'd like to hear from, and what questions you'd like us to take up in Season 2. This week's episode includes a link you can use to share your ideas with us. Let us know what you're thinking about, and we'll use your ideas to inform the topics we consider in Season 2.  Mike: This podcast is brought to you by The Math Learning Center and the Maier Math Foundation, dedicated to inspiring and enabling individuals to discover and develop their mathematical confidence and ability. © 2023 The Math Learning Center | www.mathlearningcenter.org

Rounding Up Season 1 | Episode 19 – Building a Broader Definition of Participation Guest: Juanita Silva Mike Wallus: Participation is an important part of learning to make sense of mathematics. But stop and ask yourself, “What counts as participation?” In this episode, we'll talk with Dr. Juanita Silva from Texas State University about an expanded definition of participation and what it might mean for how we engage with and value our students' thinking.  Mike: Welcome, Juanita. Thanks for joining us on the podcast. Juanita Silva: Hi. Thank you for inviting me. I'm excited to talk about this topic. Mike: I think I'd like to start by asking you to just talk about the meaning of participation. What is it and what forms can participation take in an elementary math classroom? Juanita: Well, there's a mixture of nonverbal and verbal communication. And you can add in there gestures [as a] form of communication, not just in an interconnected space, but also thinking about students' respect. And it's not just bidirectional, but there's a lot of things that are kind of added in that space. Mike: So, it strikes me that when I was a classroom teacher, when I look back, I probably overemphasized verbal communication when I was assessing my students' understanding of math concepts. And I have a feeling that I'm not alone in that. And I'm wondering if you could talk about the way that we've traditionally thought about participation and how that might have impacted student learning? Juanita: Yes, this is a great question. In thinking about, “What does this look like, how to participate in the classroom?” Mostly teachers think about this as whole group discussions or in small group discussions. And I emphasize the word “their” discussions, where students can share verbally how they thought about the problem. So, for example, if a student is solving a fraction word problem, the teacher may ask, “OK, so how did you solve this problem? Can you share your strategy with the class? What does that look like?” And so, the student sometimes will say, “If I'm solving a fraction word problem about four parts or four chocolate bars, then I can cut those leftovers into four parts.” So that's usually what we think of, as in our teaching and practice in elementary schooling. We think of that as verbal communication and verbal participation, but there are others. ( laughs ) Mike: Let's talk about that. I think part of what you have pushed me to think about is that a student's verbal communication of their thinking, it really only offers a partial window into their actual thinking. What I'd like to do is just talk about what it might look like to consciously value participation that's nonverbal in an elementary classroom. Like, what are the norms and the routines that a teacher could use to value nonverbal communication, maybe in a one-to-one conversation in a small group or even in a whole group discussion? Juanita: Yes. So, I can share a little bit for each one of those. For example, in a one-to-one environment, the teacher and student can more effectively actually communicate ideas if the teacher attends to that child's thinking in nonverbal ways as well. So, for instance, I've had a student before in the past where he would love to explain his thinking using unifix cubes and to share his thinking on a multiplication problem that was about three sets of cookies. And those sets were in groups of seven. So, there were seven cookies in each bag. And I asked him, “Well, how would you share? Could you explain your thinking to me?” And so, he showed me three sets of seven unifix cubes, and he pointed to each of the seven linking cubes and then wrote on his paper, the number sentence, “seven plus seven plus seven is 21.” And when I asked him if the seven represented the cookies, he simply nodded yes and pointed to his paper, saying and writing the words “21 total.” Juanita: So, I didn't ask him to further explain anything else to me verbally because I had completely understood how he thought of the problem. And in this example, I'm showing that a student's gestures and a student's explanation on a piece of paper should be valued enough. And we don't necessarily need to engage in a verbal communication of mathematical ideas because this honors his ways of thinking. But at the same time, I could clearly understand how this child thought of the problem. So, I think that's one way to think about how we can privilege a nonverbal communication in a one-to-one setting. Mike: That's really helpful. I think that part of the example that you shared that jumps out for me is attending to the ways that a child might be using manipulative tools as well, right?  Juanita: Correct.  Mike: So, it was kind of this interaction of the student's written work, their manipulative tools, the way that they gestured to indicate their thinking … that gave you a picture of how this child was thinking. And you didn't really need to go further than that. You had an understanding as an educator that would help you think about what you might do next with that child. Juanita: Absolutely. And that is one of the tools that I find to be super useful, is to not just have students explain their thinking, but also just listen to their nonverbal cues. And so, paying attention to those and also valuing those is extremely important in our practice. I can share one of my favorites, which is a small group example. And this one is kind of foundational to think of the practice when we're teaching in our elementary math classrooms. It's not just that interactions between student and teacher, but the interactions between students and students can be very powerful. So, that's why this is one of my favorite examples. I had two students at one point in my practice. And this was Marco and José, and they were in fourth grade. They were having a hard time communicating verbally with one another, and José was trying to convince Marco of his strategy to split the leftovers of an equal-sharing problem into three parts instead of halves. Juanita: But his verbal communication of these ideas were not clear to Marco. And José explains to Marco, “You have to cut it into halves.” And Marco would say, “Yes, that is what I did.” Like, frustrated, as if, like, “You have to cut this into halves.” And José would say, and Marco was like, “Yes, that's exactly what I did.” So, this exchange of verbal communication was not really helping both of them showcase how they were trying to communicate. So, then José started to insist, and he said, “No, look.” And then he showed Marco his strategy on his paper. And in his paper, he had split the bar into three parts. And then Marco looked at José and said, “Ah, OK.” Had José not shown this strategy on his paper, then Marco would have never really understood what he meant by “You have to cut it into halves.” And so, I share this example because it really showcases that sometimes what we're trying to say and communicate might come across differently verbally, but we mean something else when we showcase it nonverbally. So, in this instance, José was trying to explain that, but he couldn't figure out how to tell that to Marco. And so, in this instance, I feel like it really showcases the power of the nonverbal communication among students. Mike: I think what's fascinating about that is, conceptually the strategy was right there. It was kind of like, “I'm going to equally partition into three parts.” The issue at hand was the language choice. I'm essentially referring to this equal partition as a half, this second equal partition as a half, and this third equal partition as a half. That's a question of helping figure out what is the language that we might use to describe those partitions. But if we step back and say, “Mathematically, does the child actually understand the idea of equal partitioning?” Yes. And then it seems as though it becomes a second question about how do you work with children to actually say what we call this, or the way that we name fractions is—that's a different question, as opposed to, “Do you understand equal partitioning, conceptually?” Juanita: Yeah. So, you're pointing at something that I've found in my research in the past. Oftentimes students will use the word half. And verbally explaining, use the word to mean that they're trying to equally partition a piece of a bar. They'll say, “Well, I cut it into halves.” And then when we look at the document, they're pointing to the lines, the partition lines, that are within the bar. And that's what they're referring to. So, we know that they don't necessarily mean that the part itself is a half, but that the partition is what they're indicating. It means that it's a half. And it's this idea that it's behind … languages really attained to this development over time, where students really think about their prior experiences, as in, “I've cut items before. And those cuts before have been halves.” And so, that particular prior knowledge can transfer into new knowledge. And so, there's this disjuncture, or there's this complexity, within the language communication and those actions. And that's why it's important not just to value the verbal communication—but also nonverbals—because they might mean something else. Mike: Well, part of what you're making me think about, too, is in practice, particularly the way that you described that, Juanita, was this idea that my prior knowledge, my lived experience led me to call the partitions “half.” And the mathematical piece of that is, like, “I understand equal partitioning. The language that I use to describe partitioning is the language of half.” So, my wondering for you is, what would it look like to value the child's partitioning and value the fact that they used this idea of partitioning when they were thinking about halves—and then also build on that to help them have the language of, “We call this type of a partition a third or a fourth,” or what have you. Juanita: So, this is one of those conundrums that I've talked to and discussed with other colleagues, and we talk about how sometimes they're just not ready for it. And so, when we are trying, and that's the other thing, right? Honoring what they say and taking it as they're saying it. And sometimes it's OK not to correct that. So, because we as the teachers have that, you know, we're honoring their thinking as it is, and eventually that language will develop. It eventually will become where they're no longer calling the partitions halves, and they're calling them appropriately, and they're using the part instead. So, it takes time for the student to really understand that connection. So, if we just say it and we tell them, it doesn't necessarily mean it's going to transfer and that they're going to pick up on that. So, I often try not to tell them, and I just let them explain how they're thinking and how they're saying. Juanita: And if I honor their nonverbal ways, then I definitely can see what they mean by halves, that they're not necessarily thinking of the part, they're thinking of the partition itself. And so, that is a very important, nuanced, mathematical evolution in their knowledge. And that sometimes, we as teachers try and say, “Oh, well, we should just tell him how it is.” Or how we should develop the appropriate language. And in some instances, it might be OK. But I think most often I would defer not to do something like that because like I said, I still can access their mathematical thinking even if they don't have that language yet. ( chuckles ) Mike: That's super helpful. I think we could probably do a podcast … Juanita: On that alone? ( laughs ) Mike: The nuances of thinking about that decision. But I want to ask you before we close about whole group. Let's talk a little bit about whole group and what it looks like to value nonverbal communication in a whole group setting. Tell me your thinking. Juanita: Yeah, so this one is a fascinating one that I've recently come across in my own work. And I have to say, it takes a lot of effort on the part of the teacher to enact these things in the classroom, but it is possible. And so, I'll share an example of what I came across in my practice. So, if this was a bilingual classroom, and the teacher was asking students to participate silently and in written form to attend to each other's mathematical ideas, and they had examples. They had to solve a multiplication area problem individually, and then the teacher would post the student's solutions on a large poster paper and then ask all of the students to go around the room with a sticky note offering comments to each of their peer solutions. And so, what we found was just fascinating because the students were able to really dive deep into the students' solutions. Juanita: So, they were more deeply involved in those mathematical ideas with … when you took out the verbal communication. We had an instance where a student was like, “Well, you solved it this way, and I noticed that you had these little pencil marks on each of those squares.” And the student was saying, “Did you count 25 or did you count 26? I think you missed one.” And so, the gestures and the marks, the pencil marks on the piece of paper, that's how detailed the students were kind of attending to each other's thinking. So, they were students that were offering ideas to other students' solutions. So, they were saying, “Well, what if you thought about it this way?” And they would write their explanation of that strategy of how they would solve it instead of how the student actually did it. And so, it was just fantastical. We were just amazed by how much richness there was to their explanations. Had the teacher done this particular activity verbally, then I wonder how many students would have actually participated. Right? So that was one of our bigger or larger questions, was noticing how many students participated in the level and the depth of their justifications for each other, versus had the teacher done this verbally with the students and had them communicate in a whole group discussion. How many students would've been able to do this? So, it is just fascinating. ( chuckles ) Mike: You touched on some of the things that were coming to mind as I heard you describe this practice, and I'd love your take on it. One of the things that strikes me about this strategy of posting solutions and then asking kids to use Post-it Notes to capture the comments or capture the noticings: Does it have the potential to break down some of the status dynamics that might show up in a classroom if you're having this conversation verbally? What I mean by that is, kids recognize that when someone speaks who they've perceived as, like, “Well, that person understands it, so I'm going to privilege their ideas.” That kind of goes away, or at least it's minimized, in the structure that you described. Juanita: That is correct. So, I do a lot of writing on also thinking about culturally sustaining pedagogies in our teaching of practice of math. And some of the things that we find, is that a lot of the students that do participate verbally tend to be white monolinguals. And that oftentimes the teacher or other students privilege their knowledge over the student of color. And so being able to participate in nonverbal ways in this manner really showcases that everybody's knowledge can be privileged. And so, those kind of dynamics within the classroom go away. And so, it really highlights that everybody is valued equally, and that everybody can contribute to these ideas, and that everybody has a voice. That's one of the reasons why this particular piece is just dear to my heart, is because it really showcases to teachers that this can be done in the classroom. Mike: Yeah, I've said this oftentimes on the podcast. I find myself wanting to step back into my classroom role and try this protocol out. It just feels really powerful. Let me go back to something that I wanted to clarify. So, as we've talked about practices that value nonverbal communication, a question that I've been forming and that I suspect other people might be wondering about is, I don't think you're saying that teachers have to either choose to value verbal or nonverbal communication. Juanita: Yes, that is correct. So, I often do both. ( laughs ) It's a mixture of both. Students will communicate verbally to some extent in the same strategy and nonverbally at the same time. And valuing all forms of communication is most important. In my practice as a bilingual teacher and teaching bilingual students, I've also understood that language can't be the sole focus. And the nonverbal cues also highlighted in that communication are just as important as the language, as the bilingualism, when we're communicating ideas. And so, as teachers, there's a law that we also have to pay attention to. So, it's not just that it's nonverbal or verbal communication, but it's also how we approach the teaching, right? Because we as teachers can definitely take over students' thinking and not necessarily pay attention to what they're actually saying. So, only valuing verbal communication would be detrimental to the student. Juanita: So, it has to be a little bit of both and a mixture of everything. I've had students [who] have tried to show me in gestures alone with no written comments on a piece of paper, and that sometimes can work. I've had instances where students can gesture with their hands and say they're pointing, and they're using both hands as, “This is how many I mean, and this is how I'm partitioning with my fingers. I'm doing three partitions, and I'm using three fingers, and I'm showing you three iterations of that with closing and opening my fists.” And so, there's just so much that kids can do with their body. And they're communicating ideas not just in a formal written format, but also using gestures. So, there's lots of ways that students can communicate, and I think teachers should pay attention to all of those ways. Mike: Yeah. The connection that I'm making is, we've done several podcasts, and I've been thinking a lot about this idea of strengths-based, or asset-based, instruction. And I think what you're saying really connects to that because my interpretation is, gestures, nonverbal communication, using manipulative tools, things that kids have either written or drawn, those are all assets that I need to pay attention to in addition to the things that they might use language to describe. Juanita: That's right. That's right. So, everything. ( laughs ) The whole student. ( laughs ) Mike: Well, I suspect you've given our listeners a lot to think about. For folks who want to keep learning about the practices that value nonverbal communication, what research or resources would you suggest? Juanita: Yeah, so I have two articles, one that's particular to bilingual pre-service teachers, and another one that I just explained within a whole group discussion. That's an article, titled, “Attending to others' mathematical ideas: a semiotic alternative to logocentrism in bilingual classrooms.” So, I can give you both links and you can share those along with the podcast. Mike: That sounds fantastic. We'll put a link to that up when we publish the podcast. I just want to thank you, Juanita. It was lovely to have you with us. I've learned a lot, and I sure appreciate you joining us. Juanita: Thank you. Well, thank you for having me. Mike: This podcast is brought to you by The Math Learning Center and the Maier Math Foundation, dedicated to inspiring and enabling individuals to discover and develop their mathematical confidence and ability. © 2023 The Math Learning Center | www.mathlearningcenter.org

Rounding Up Season 1 | Episode 18 – Why Progressions Matter Guest: Graham Fletcher Mike Wallus: Many educators were first introduced to the content that they teach as a series of items on a checklist. What impact might that way of thinking have on a teacher's approach to instruction? And what if there were another way to understand the mathematics that our students are learning? In this podcast, we talk with Graham Fletcher about seeing mathematics as a progression and how this shift could have a profound impact on teaching and learning.  Mike: Welcome to the podcast, Graham. We're glad to have you with us. Graham Fletcher: Yeah, really excited to just kind of play around, uh, in this space with you here talking about math and supporting teachers so that they can, in turn, support kids. Mike: You bet. So, just as a starting point, we're talking about progressions, and we're talking about some of the work that you've done, building progression videos. I have, maybe, what is kind of a weird opening question: How would you define the term “progression” so that we're all starting with the same understanding? Graham: So, when I think about progression, I think a lot of the times as teachers we can become, like, hyper focused on one grade level. And within that one grade level there can be a progression of where things are learned in a sequential order. It's probably not as linear as we'd like it to be, but I think that little micro progression, or sequence, of learning that we see in one grade level, we start thinking about what that might look like over a grade band, over like K–2 or even K–5. So, there's things that happen within certain grade levels, and that's kind of where progressions happen. How do we move kids through this understanding of learning? And it's that progression of understanding that we tend to want to move kids through, where everything's kind of connected. And that's really where I see progressions. Mike: So, I think you're kind of leading into my second question, which is—I love the work that you've put together on your website. I'm unabashedly going to say that this is a great place for teachers to go. But part of what strikes me is that there are a lot of things that you could have done to support elementary math educators and yet you chose to invest time to build this series of videos that unpack the ideas that underlie processes, like counting or addition and subtraction or fractions. Like, why that? Why was that a thing where you're like, “I should invest some time in putting this together.” Graham: So, I guess we're all teachers at heart, and so I start thinking about how I'm in a place of privilege where I've had an opportunity to work with some really amazing educators that I've stood on their shoulders over the years. And I think about all the times that I've been able to huddle up in a classroom at the end of the day and just listen to those people who are brilliant and really understand those progressions and the smaller nuances of what it is to just understand student thinking and how to keep moving it forward. So, I started thinking about, “Well, what does this look like in one grade level?” But then, when I was starting to think about that whole idea, the big piece for me is: Not every teacher has a person that they can sit next to. And so, if I've had the opportunity to sit down and make sense of these things where, like, on a Friday night (laughs) maybe I'm sitting down with some math books, which most people don't choose to do, I enjoy doing that. Graham: And so, if I've had the opportunity to do that, and I'm able to make these connections, I start thinking about those other teachers who, teachers that teach 75 subjects 54 days a week, right? And we want them to focus solely on math. So, maybe just sharing some of that knowledge to kind of lessen the burden of understanding that content. So, giving them like a 60,000-foot view of what those progressions could look like. And then them saying, “OK, well, wait a minute. Maybe I can do a deeper dive,” where we're giving them those [aha moments] that they might want or need to kind of do that deeper dive. And the big piece for it was, there's always talk about progressions. There's always talk about, “This is the content that you need to know,” content after content after content. But very seldom is it ever in a coherent, consumable manner. So, when I start thinking about teachers, we don't have that time to sit down and give hours and hours and hours to the work. So really, just what is a consumable amount of time to where teachers won't be overwhelmed? And I think that's why I tried to keep them at about 5 to 6 minutes; to where you can go kind of light that fire to go and continue building your own capacity. So, that's kind of where it was. My North Star: just building capacity and supporting teachers in their own growth. For sure. Mike: You know, it's interesting, 'cause when I was a classroom teacher, the lion's share of my time was kindergarten and first grade, with a little bit of time in second grade. So, I was thinking about that when I was watching these because I watched some of the ones for younger kids and I was like, “This makes a ton of sense to me.” But I really kind of perked up when I started watching the ones for kids in the intermediate grades. And I think for me it was kind of like, “Ah, these ideas that I was working on in K and 1, so often, I wasn't quite sure what seeds was I planting or how would those seeds grow in the long term—not just next year, but in the long term. I wonder if that's part of what you think about comes out of a teacher's experience with these. Graham: Yeah, I definitely think so. I think finding that scalability in reasoning and relationships is key for students, and it's key for teachers as well. So, for instance, when we start thinking about, in kindergarten, where kids are sitting and they're practicing counting and they're counting by singular units; singular units of 1, where it's 1, 2, 3. Well, then when we start making that connection into third grade, where kids are counting by fractions instead of going ahead and saying, like, “One-fourth, two-fourth, three-fourths,” really focusing on that iteration of the unit, that rote counting where it's one one-fourth, two one-fourths, three one-fourths. And then, even that singular unit that we're talking about in kindergarten, which now is in fractions in third grade, well that begins to connect in sixth grade when we start talking about unit rate, when we start getting into ratios and proportions. So, that scalability of counting is massive. So, that's just one little example of taking something and seeing how it progresses throughout the grade level. And making those connections explicit becomes really powerful because I know, just in my own experiences, in talking with teachers as well, is when they start making those connections. Bingo, right? So, now when you're looking at students, it's like, “OK, they're able to count by unit fractions. Well, what now happens if we start grouping fractions together and units and we start counting by two-thirds?” So, now you start moving from counting strategies to additive strategies and then additive strategies to multiplicative, and seeing how it all kind of grows together. That scalability is what I'm really after a lot of the time, which falls in line with that idea of teaching through progressions. Mike: Yeah, I think one of the things that's really hitting me about this, too, is that understanding children's mathematical thinking as a progression is really a different experience than thinking about math as a set of procedures or skills that kids need to leave second grade with. It feels really different. I wonder if you could talk about that. Graham: Yeah, absolutely. So, working with Tracy Zager—good friend of mine—we've done a lot of work around fact fluency here over the last three, four years, per se. And one of the biggest things that we have spent a lot of time just grappling and chewing on, is when we have students in second grade and they move to third grade, how do we move students from additive thinking, which is adding of singular units, to multiplicative thinking? So, seeing groups of groups of groups. And so, I think when we start thinking about third grade teachers, I'll go ahead and throw myself under the bus here. Like, as a third-grade teacher, when we start thinking about that idea of multiplication, it becomes skip counting and repeated addition. But then no kids ever really move from skip counting and repeated addition to knowing their multiplication facts. Like, I could sit there and do jumping jacks in class, but kids aren't going to know their facts. Graham: So, then what I would do is, I would jump to having kids try to memorize their facts. And just because kids can memorize their facts doesn't mean that they can reason multiplicatively and seeing those groups of groups. So, I think, thinking of that, what [are] those big jumps in the progression from grade level to grade level? That's probably one of the ones for me that really stands out that I know I struggled for. And we always look back and say, “What are the things I wish I knew back then that I know now?” And I think that jump from additive thinking to multiplicative thinking is a really big jump that is often overlooked, which is now why we have kids struggling in fourth and fifth grade and middle school. 'Cause they're still stuck in additive, but we want them to think multiplicatively and proportionally. But yeah, that's one of those big jumps in terms of a progression that we want kids to make. Mike: Yeah, this is a great transition because I think, like, what we've been exploring is, how if I understand what I'm helping kids think about in the context of a larger story rather than a set of discreet things that I need to check a box on, that has impact on my practice. But I almost wanted to ask you, just on a day-to-day basis, what's your sense of, if I'm a teacher who's absorbed this sense of progression either across my grade level or across a larger band of time, how do you think that changes the way someone approaches teaching? Or maybe the way that they set up tasks with students? Graham: Well, I start thinking about learning objectives as they're handed down, and standards. And a lot of the time standards can become, or learning objectives can become, more of a checklist. And so not necessarily looking at these ideas of learning as a checklist, but how do they connect between the grade levels? And so, I think it's important as much as on the day-to-day practice that we're really down in the trenches and we're doing the work and we're making sure that we're meeting those learning objectives, I think it becomes really important that we provide ourselves that space and grace to zoom back out to that 60,000-foot view and say, “Wait a minute, how are all of these connected?” And I think that's a really big piece that maybe we don't always do when we start thinking, even planning, on a day-to-day or a week or a unit. “Where am I going to be able to zoom out and maybe connect some big ideas around an understanding or around a piece of learning?” And I think it can become cumbersome when we start looking at those learning objectives and they're so granular. But I think when we can zoom out and make connections between them, it lessens a little bit of the burden from having to go ahead. “Well, there's just so much to teach, trying to make those connections.” There is a lot to teach, don't get me wrong here. But I think going ahead and making those connections just lessens that burden for us a little bit. Mike: It's interesting, because I think part of what is coming to mind for me is this ability to zoom out and zoom back in and be able to say, “In what way is this relatively granular learning objective or learning goal serving to advance this larger set of ideas that I want kids to understand about, say, additive thinking as they're making a shift to multiplicative thinking?” And the other connection I'm making is, in what way can I ask a question in this moment that's going to actually advance that larger goal rather than—again, guilty as charged—rather than what I've done often in the past, which is how can I help them just complete the task or get this particular thing right? And if by them getting it right in the moment, I failed to advance their thinking, that's a place where I'd want to take it back. Does that make sense to you? Graham: Yeah, absolutely. I think about tasks and really about when I first would start to use problem-based lessons or three act tasks and start thinking about those lessons. Normally it would be, like, “OK, I just taught the task for no rhyme or reason just to see if kids could get the right answer.” And so, for me, the big piece with that is a shift in my own craft, is looking at that task placement. And so, thinking of, “Are you a teacher who learns math to solve problems or are you a teacher who solves problems to learn math?” A little play on words there. And I think by default, many of us were taught to learn math to go ahead and solve the problems. But when I start thinking about this idea of using tasks and why we use tasks, it's to use … well, to quote Dan Meyer, talking about this headache and aspirin analogy where you have a problem that's your headache, and then from that problem, the math serves the headache, that's the aspirin that you need. Graham: So, when we talk about zooming back out, instead of saving the really good tasks for the end of the unit, what would it look like if we put it on day one of a unit? Knowing that the goal on day one isn't for kids to get the right answer, but it's for us to just pull the veil back and see, “Hey, where are my students thinking?” And what I've realized is that when we don't front-end load or pre-teach things, students will usually fall back to the strategy that they feel safe enough. And if you have a student who, say we're in fourth grade and we're playing with two- by two-digit multiplication, if you have a student on day one of a unit who's doing draw all, count all, great, right? That's what they're doing on day one? But if they're still using that same strategy at the end of the unit, that falls back on me. Graham: Like, what have I done to be intentional enough about moving that student's thinking forward? So, even in the moment when students might not be getting the right answer, it might be wrong answer, but it might be the right thinking. And I think at that moment I need to zoom back out and say, “They don't have the answer yet, but I've still got three or four weeks to get there.” So, now that I know what students are thinking, how can I be intentional? How can I be purposeful about asking the right questions, presenting the right activities and tasks to continue to move that student's thinking forward to the end goal? The end goal isn't on day one of a unit. So yeah, I think that's such a great question because I think a lot of the times we feel as if we fall short or we failed as a teacher if kids aren't getting the right answer. But so often there's beautiful thinking that's happening, it just might not have the right answer. So yeah, big, big change in my practice. Mike: We've been talking about the use of the progression videos that you've built, and I think in my mind I've imagined myself as a classroom teacher, as the consumer. And I think that's a really powerful way to use those. My wondering is, if you have any thoughts about how someone who might be an instructional coach or an instructional leader in a building or a district, if you could wave a magic wand, how you wish folks who have that type of role might take and use the things that you've built? Graham: I can share how I've used them in the past. I don't know, I'm sure there's coaches out there that are probably using the progression videos way better than I'm using them. But many times, I've found that when we start looking at individual standards, it's standards out of context. And granted, the progression videos, if I could go back and redo them, I would love to embed much more context into those progression videos. It would definitely lengthen them, which kind of defeats the original purpose of keeping them short and compact. So, now when we show those videos, what's nice is it's not really a coach in that moment talking with the teachers. The coach can now, after the video, say, “Hey, what was new to you? What was something that, that maybe you didn't recognize?” And also, like, “What are you doing well?” There's so much goodness that's already happening. Graham: I think as coaches, we have to be really mindful, like, there's great things that [are] happening with teachers, let's support and lift up those great things that are already happening with our teachers that we're supporting, just like teachers do with students as well. So, I think showing the videos and asking, “Hey, what's the same, what are you comfortable with? What doesn't sit well with you?” Thinking about kindergarten teachers when they see five frames, it's like, “Whoa, wait a minute. I've never really thought about using five frames.” So, just different ways of thinking it to kind of be a catalyst for the conversation, just a launch point. Mike: Totally makes sense. So, I suspect there are some folks who are going to be listening to this who are, like, “Oh my goodness, I want to go check these things out right now. Or I want to think about sharing them with my teammates that I'm working with on a daily basis.” Walk me through how to find these and any kind of advice that you might have for people as they start to initially poke around and look at what's there. Graham: Well, you can jump on my website, gfletchy.com, with my full name, Graham Fletcher. Just one of those things that we kind of went with growing up. I was called “Fletchy” as a kid. So yeah, at gfletchy.com you can look on progression videos, and then right there you'll see five of them. But as you start poking around, I'm going to harness my inner Brené Brown here and just say, “Vulnerability is the birthplace of professional growth.” And so, no one is ever going to get a new idea and go ahead and try it and then it be successful right on that get-go. So, when you poke around there, give things a try. I love reaching out on Twitter, sharing on Twitter, and just kind of growing in that space. Find a colleague. Or if you are a coach, one of the things I love doing is when coaches ask for ideas, go muck about, find a good task, and then muck about in a third-grade classroom with that task and make yourself vulnerable around the teachers you're supporting. Graham: And that really helps build and solidify that relationship where, “Hey, we're in this together and I'm trying to fumble through this just like you, let's kind of work here together. Give me feedback and, and in the end, I think kids win.” I'm a firm believer that all of us are smarter than one of us. And so, I love finding new things, testing new things with a friend, and trying not to lock myself in a silo. So, that would kind of be it in terms of poking around there. Yeah, find an idea and go share it with a friend and see how it works and keep on tweaking and revising. Mike: I love that. Graham, thank you so much for joining us. It's really been a pleasure. Graham: Yeah, it's been great. I appreciate it. And thanks for the opportunity. Mike: This podcast is brought to you by The Math Learning Center and the Maier Math Foundation, dedicated to inspiring and enabling individuals to discover and develop their mathematical confidence and ability. © 2023 The Math Learning Center | www.mathlearningcenter.org

Mike Brevoort, Chief Product Officer at Gitpod, joins Corey on Screaming in the Cloud to discuss all the intricacies of remote development and how Gitpod is simplifying the process. Mike explains why he feels the infinite resources cloud provides can be overlooked when discussing remote versus local development environments, and how simplifying build abstractions is a fantastic goal, but that focusing on the tools you use in a build abstraction in the meantime can be valuable. Corey and Mike also dive into the security concerns that come with remote development, and Mike reveals the upcoming plans for Gitpod's local conference environment, CDE Universe. About MikeMike has a passion for empowering people to be creative and work together more effectively. He is the Chief Product Officer at Gitpod striving to remove the friction and drudgery from software development through Cloud Developer Environments. He spent the previous four years at Slack where he created Workflow Builder and “Platform 2.0” after his company Missions was acquired by Slack in 2018. Mike lives in Denver, Colorado and enjoys cycling, hiking and being outdoors.Links Referenced: Gitpod: https://www.gitpod.io/ CDE Universe: https://cdeuniverse.com/ TranscriptAnnouncer: Hello, and welcome to Screaming in the Cloud with your host, Chief Cloud Economist at The Duckbill Group, Corey Quinn. This weekly show features conversations with people doing interesting work in the world of cloud, thoughtful commentary on the state of the technical world, and ridiculous titles for which Corey refuses to apologize. This is Screaming in the Cloud.Corey: It's easy to **BEEP** up on AWS. Especially when you're managing your cloud environment on your own!Mission Cloud un **BEEP**s your apps and servers. Whatever you need in AWS, we can do it. Head to missioncloud.com for the AWS expertise you need. Corey: Have you listened to the new season of Traceroute yet? Traceroute is a tech podcast that peels back the layers of the stack to tell the real, human stories about how the inner workings of our digital world affect our lives in ways you may have never thought of before. Listen and follow Traceroute on your favorite platform, or learn more about Traceroute at origins.dev. My thanks to them for sponsoring this ridiculous podcast. Corey: Welcome to Screaming in the Cloud, I'm Corey Quinn. I have had loud, angry, and admittedly at times uninformed opinions about so many things over the past few years, but something that predates that a lot is my impression on the idea of using remote systems for development work as opposed to doing local dev, and that extends to build and the rest. And my guest today here to argue with me about some of it—or agree; we'll find out—is Mike Brevoort, Chief Product Officer at Gitpod, which I will henceforth be mispronouncing as JIT-pod because that is the type of jerk I am. Mike, thank you for joining me.Mike: Thank you for insulting my company. I appreciate it.Corey: No, by all means, it's what we do here.Mike: [laugh].Corey: So, you clearly have opinions on the idea of remote versus local development that—I am using the word remote development; I know you folks like to use the word cloud, in place of remote, but I'm curious to figure out is, is that just the zeitgeist that has shifted? Do you have a belief that it should be in particular places, done in certain ways, et cetera? Where do your opinion on this start and stop?Mike: I think that—I mean, remote is accurate, an accurate description. I don't like to emphasize the word remote because I don't think it's important that it's remote or local. I think that the term cloud connotes different values around the elasticity of environments and the resources that are more than what you might have on your local machine versus a remote machine. It's not so much whether the one machine is local or remote as much of it is that there are infinite numbers of resources that you can develop across in the cloud. That's why we tend to prefer our cloud development environments.Corey: From my perspective, I've been spending too many years now living in basically hotels and airports. And when I was doing that, for a long time, the only computer I bring with me has been my iPad Pro. That used to be a little bit on the challenging side and these days, that's gotten capable enough where it's no longer interesting in isolation. But there's no local development environment that is worth basically anything on that. So, I've been SSHing into things and using VI as my development environment for many years.When I started off as a grumpy Unix sysadmin, there was something reassuring about the latest state of whatever it is I'm working on lives in a data center somewhere rather than on a laptop, I'm about to leave behind a coffee shop because I'm careless. So, there's a definite value and sense that I am doing something virtuous, historically. But it didn't occur to me till I started talking to people about this, just how contentious the idea was. People would love to ask all kinds of fun objections to this where it was, “Oh, well, what about when you're on a plane and need to do work?” It's, well, I spend an awful lot of time on planes and that is not a limiting factor in me writing the terrible nonsense that I will charitably called code, in my case. I just don't find that that idea holds up anywhere. The world has become so increasingly interconnected that that seems unlikely. But I do live in San Francisco, so here, every internet is generally pretty decent; not every place is. What are your thoughts?Mike: I agree. I mean, I think one thing is, I would just like not to think about it, whether I can or can't develop because I'm connected or not. And I think that we tend to be in a world where that is moreso the case. And I think a lot of times when you're not connected, you become reconnected soon, like if your connection is not reliable or if you're going in and out of connectivity issues. And when you're trying to work on a local laptop and you're connecting and disconnecting, it's not like we develop these days, and everything is just isolated on our local laptop, especially we talk about cloud a lot on this podcast and a lot of apps now go way beyond just I'm running a process on my machine and I'm connecting to data on my machine.There are local emulators you could use for some of these services, but most of them are inferior. And if you're using SQS or using any other, like, cloud-based service, you're usually, as a developer, connecting to some version of that and if you're disconnected anyway, you're not productive either. And so, I find that it's just like an irrelevant conversation in this new world. And that the way we've developed traditionally has not followed along with this view of I need to pile everything in on my laptop, to be able to develop and be productive has not, like, followed along with the trend that moved into the cloud.Corey: Right. The big problem for a long time has been, how do I make this Mac or Windows laptop look a lot like Linux EC2 instance? And there have been a bunch of challenges and incompatibility issues and the rest, and from my perspective, I like to develop in an environment that at least vaguely resembles the production environment it's going to run in, which in AWS's case, of course, comes down to expensive. Bu-dum-tss.Mike: Yeah, it's a really big challenge. It's been a challenge, right? When you've worked with coworkers that were on a Windows machine and you were on a Mac machine, and you had the one person on their Linux machine forever, and we all struggled with trying to mimic these development environments that were representative, ultimately, of what we would run in production. And if you're counting costs, we can count the cost of those cloud resources, we can count the cost of those laptops, but we also need to count the cost of the people who are using those laptops and how inefficient and how much churn they have, and how… I don't know, there was for years of my career, someone would show up every morning to the stand-up meeting and say, it's like, “Well, I wasted all afternoon yesterday trying to work out my, you know, issues with my development environment.” And it's, like, “I hope I get that sorted out later today and I hope someone can help me.”And so, I think cost is one thing. I think that there's a lot of inconsistencies that lead to a lot of inefficiencies and churn. And I think that, regardless of where you're developing, the more that you can make your environments more consistent and sound, not for you, but for your own team and have those be more representative of what you are running in production, the better.Corey: We should disambiguate here because I fear this is one of the areas where my use case tends to veer off into the trees, which is I tend to operate largely in isolation, from a development point of view. I build small, micro things that wind up doing one thing, poorly. And that is, like, what I do is a proof of concept, or to be funny, or to kick the tires on a new technology. I'll also run a bunch of random things I find off of JIF-ub—yes, that's how I pronounce GitHub. And that's great, but it also feels like I'm learning as a result, every stack, and every language, in every various version that it has, and very few of the cloud development environments that I've seen, really seems to cater to the idea that simultaneously, I want to have certain affordances in my shell environment set up the way that I want them, tab complete this particular suite of tools generically across the board, but then reset to that baseline and go in a bunch of different directions of, today, it's Python in this version and tomorrow, it's Node in this other version, and three, what is a Typescript anyway, and so on and so forth.It feels like it's either, in most cases, you either get this generic, one-size-fits-everyone in this company, for this project, approach, or it's, here's a very baseline untuned thing that does not have any of your dependencies installed. Start from scratch every time. And it's like, feels like there are two paths, and they both suck. Where are you folks at these days on that spectrum?Mike: Yeah, I think that, you know, one, if you do all of that development across all these different libraries and technology stacks and you're downloading all these repos from JIF-hub—I say it right—and you're experimenting, you tend to have a lot of just collision of things. Like if you're using Python, it's, like, really a pain to maintain isolation across projects and not have—like, your environment is, like, one big bucket of things on your laptop and it's very easy to get that into a state where things aren't working, and then you're struggling. There's no big reset on your laptop. I mean, there is but it takes—it's a full reset of everything that you have.And I think the thing that's interesting to me about cloud development environments is I could spin one of these up, I could trash it to all hell and just throw it away and get another one. And I could get another one of those at a base of which has been tuned for whatever project or technology I'm working on. So, I could take—you know, do the effort to pre-setup environments, one that is set up with all of my, like, Python tooling, and another one that's set up with all my, like, Go or Rust tooling, or our front-end development, even as a base repo for what I tend to do or might tend to experiment with. What we find is that, whether you're working alone or you're working with coworkers, that setting up a project and all the resources and the modules and the libraries and the dependencies that you have, like, someone has to do that work to wire that up together and the fact that you could just get an environment and get another one and another one, we use this analogy of, like, tissue boxes where, like, you should just be able to pull a new dev environment out of a tissue box and use it and throw it away and pull as many tissues out of the box as you want. And they should be, like, cheap and ephemeral because—and they shouldn't be long-lived because they shouldn't be able to drift.And whether you're working alone or you're working in a team, it's the same value. The fact that, like, I could pull on these out, I have it. I'm confident in it of what I got. Like for example, ideally, you would just start a dev environment, it's available instantly, and you're ready to code. You're in this project with—and maybe it's a project you've never developed on. Maybe it's an open-source project.This is where I think it really improves the sort of equitability of being able to develop, whether it's in open-source, whether it's inner-source in companies, being able to approach any project with a click of a button and get the same environment that the tech lead on the project who started it five years ago has, and then I don't need to worry about that and I get the same environment. And I think that's the value. And so, whether you're individual or you're on a team, you want to be able to experiment and thrash and do things and be able to throw it away and start over again, and not have to—like for example, maybe you're doing that on your machine and you're working on this thing and then you actually have to do some real work, and then now that you've done something that conflicts with the thing that you're working on and you're just kind of caught in this tangled mess, where it's like, you should just be able to leave that experiment there and just go work on the thing you need to work on. And why can't you have multiples of these things at any given time?Corey: Right. One of the things I loved about EC2 dev environments has been that I can just spin stuff up and okay, great, it's time for a new project. Spin up another one and turn it off when I'm done using it—which is the lie we always tell ourselves in cloud and get charged for things we forget to turn off. But then, okay, I need an Intel box one day. Done. Great, awesome. I don't have any of those lying around here anymore but clickety, clickety, and now I do.It's nice being able to have that flexibility, but it's also sometimes disconcerting when I'm trying to figure out what machine I was on when I was building things and the rest, and having unified stories around this becomes super helpful. I'm also finding that my overpowered desktop is far more cost-efficient when I need to compile something challenging, as opposed to finding a big, beefy, EC2 box for that thing as well. So, much of the time, what my remote system is doing is sitting there bored. Even when I'm developing on it, it doesn't take a lot of modern computer resources to basically handle a text editor. Unless it's Emacs, in which case, that's neither here nor there.Mike: [laugh]. I think that the thing that becomes costly, especially when using cloud development environments, is when you have to continue to run them even when you're not using them for the sake of convenience because you're not done with it, you're in the middle of doing some work and it still has to run or you forget to shut it off. If you are going to just spin up a really beefy EC2 instance for an hour to do that big compile and it costs you 78 cents. That's one thing. I mean, I guess that adds up over time and yes, if you've already bought that Mac Studio that's sitting under your desk, humming, it's going to be more cost-efficient to use that thing.But there's, like, an element of convenience here that, like, what if I haven't bought the Mac Studio, but I still need to do that big beefy compilation? And maybe it's not on a project I work on every single day; maybe it's the one that I'm just trying to help out with or just starting to contribute to. And so, I think that we need to get better about, and something that we're very focused on at JIT-pod, is—Gitpod—is—Corey: [laugh]. I'm going to get you in trouble at this rate.Mike: —[laugh]—is really to optimize that underlying runtime environment so that we can optimize the resources that you're using only when you're using it, but also provide a great user experience. Which is, for me, as someone who's responsible for the product at Gitpod, the thing I want to get to is that you never have to think about a machine. You're not thinking about this dev environment as something that lives somewhere, that you're paying for, that there's a meter spinning that if you forget it, that you're like, ah, it's going to cost me a lot of money, that I have to worry about ever losing it. And really, I just want to be able to get a new environment, have one, use it, come back to it when I need it, have it not cost me a lot of money, and be able to have five or ten of those at a time because I'm not as worried about what it's going to cost me. And I'm sure it'll cost something, but the convenience factor of being able to get one instantly and have it and not have to worry about it ultimately saves me a lot of time and aggravation and improves my ability to focus and get work done.And right now, we're still in this mode where we're still thinking about, is it on my laptop? Is it remote? Is it on this EC2 instance or that EC2 instance? Or is this thing started or stopped? And I think we need to move beyond that and be able to just think of these things as development environments that I use and need and they're there when I want to, when I need to work on them, and I don't have to tend to them like cattle.Corey: Speaking of tending large things in herds—I guess that's sort of for the most tortured analogy slash segway I've come up with recently—you folks have a conference coming up soon in San Francisco. What's the deal with that? And I'll point out, it's all on-site, locally, not in the cloud. So, hmm…Mike: Yeah, so we have a local conference environment, a local conference that we're hosting in San Francisco called CDE Universe on June 1st and 2nd, and we are assembling all the thought leaders in the industry who want to get together and talk about where not just cloud development is going, but really where development is going. And so, there's us, there's a lot of companies that have done this themselves. Like, before I joined Gitpod, I was at Slack for four years and I got to see the transition of a, sort of, remote development hosted on EC2 instances transition and how that really empowered our team of hundreds of engineers to be able to contribute and like work together better, more efficiently, to run this giant app that you can't run just alone on your laptop. And so, Slack is going to be there, they're going to be talking about their transition to cloud development. The Uber team is going to be there, there's going to be some other companies.So, Nathan who's building Zed, he was the one that originally built Adam at GitHub is now building Zed, which is a new IDE, is going to be there. And I can't mention all the speakers, but there's going to be a lot of people that are really looking at how do we drive forward development and development environments. And that experience can get a lot better. So, if you're interested in that, if you're going to be in San Francisco on June 1st and 2nd and want to talk to these people, learn from them, and help us drive this vision forward for just a better development experience, come hang out with us.Corey: I'm a big fan of collaborating with folks and figuring out what tricks and tips they've picked up along the way. And this is coming from the perspective of someone who acts as a solo developer in many cases. But it always drove me a little nuts when you see people spending weeks of their lives configuring their text editor—VIM in my case because I'm no better than these people; I am one of them—and getting it all setup and dialed in. It's, how much productivity you gaining versus how much time are you spending getting there?And then when all was said and done a few years ago, I found myself switching to VS Code for most of what I do, and—because it's great—and suddenly the world's shifting on its axis again. At some point, you want to get away from focusing on productivity on an individualized basis. Now, the rules change when you're talking about large teams where everyone needs a copy of this running locally or in their dev environment, wherever happens to be, and you're right, often the first two weeks of a new software engineering job are, you're now responsible for updating the onboarding docs because it's been ten minutes since the last time someone went through it. And oh, the versions bumped again of what we would have [unintelligible 00:16:44] brew install on a Mac and suddenly everything's broken. Yay. I don't miss those days.Mike: Yeah, the new, like, ARM-based Macs came out and then you were—now all of a sudden, all your builds are broken. We hear that a lot.Corey: Oh, what I love now is that, in many cases, I'm still in a process of, okay, I'm developing locally on an ARM-based Mac and I'm deploying it to a Graviton2-based Lambda or instance, but the CI/CD builder is going to run on Intel, so it's one of those, what is going on here? Like, there's a toolchain lag of round embracing ARM as an architecture. That's mostly been taken care of as things have evolved, but it's gotten pretty amusing at some point, just as quickly that baseline architecture has shifted for some workloads. And for some companies.Mike: Yeah, and things just seem to be getting more [laugh] and more complicated not less complicated, and so I think the more that we can—Corey: Oh, you noticed?Mike: Try to simplify build abstractions [laugh], you know, the better. But I think in those cases where, I think it's actually good for people to struggle with setting up their environment sometime, with caring about the tools that they use and their experience developing. I think there has to be some ROI with that. If it's like a chronic thing that you have to continue to try to fix and make better, it's one thing, but if you spend a whole day improving the tools that you use to make you a better developer later, I think there's a ton of value in that. I think we should care a lot about the tools we use.However, that's not something we want to do every day. I mean, ultimately, I know I don't build software for the sake of building software. I want to create something. I want to create some value, some change in the world. There's some product ultimately that I'm trying to build.And, you know, early on, I've done a lot of work in my career on, like, workflow-type builders and visual builders and I had this incorrect assumption somewhere along the way—and this came around, like, sort of the maker movement, when everybody was talking about everybody should learn how to code, and I made this assumption that everybody really wants to create; everybody wants to be a creator, and if given the opportunity, they will. And I think what I finally learned is that, actually most people don't like to create. A lot of people just want to be served; like, they just want to consume and they don't want the hassle of it. Some people do, if they have the opportunity and the skillsets, too, but it's also similar to, like, if I'm a professional developer, I need to get my work done. I'm not measured on how well my local tooling is set up; I'm sort of measured on my output and the impact that I have in the organization.I tend to think about, like, chefs. If I'm a chef and I work 60 hours in a restaurant, 70 hours in a restaurant, the last thing I want to do is come home and cook myself a meal. And most of the chefs I know actually don't have really nice kitchens at home. They, like, tend to, they want other people to cook for them. And so, I think, like, there's a place in professional setting where you just need to get the work done and you don't want to worry about all the meta things and the time that you could waste on it.And so, I feel like there's a happy medium there. I think it's good for people to care about the tools that they use the environment that they develop in, to really care for that and to curate it and make it better, but there's got to be some ROI and it's got to have value to you. You have to enjoy that. Otherwise, you know, what's the point of it in the first place?Corey: One thing that I used to think about was that if you're working in regulated industries, as I tended to a fair bit, there's something very nice about not having any of the data or IP or anything like that locally. Your laptop effectively just becomes a thin client to something that's already controlled by the existing security and compliance apparatus. That's very nice, where suddenly it's all someone steals my iPad, or I drop it into the bay, it's locked, it's encrypted. Cool, I go to the store, get myself a new one, restore a backup from iCloud, and I'm up and running again in a very short period of time as if nothing had ever changed. Whereas when I was doing a lot of local development and had bad hard drive issues in the earlier part of my career, well, there goes that month.Mike: Yeah, it's a really good point. I think that we're all walking around with these laptops with really sensitive IP on it and that those are in bars and restaurants. And maybe your drives are encrypted, but there's a lot of additional risks, including, you know, everything that is going over the network, whether I'm on a local coffee shop, and you know, the latest vulnerability that, an update I have to do on my Mac if I'm behind. And there's actually a lot of risk and having all that just sort of thrown to the wind and spread across the world and there's a lot of value in having that in a very safe place. And what we've even found that, at Gitpod now, like, the latest product we're working on is one that we called Gitpod Dedicated, which gives you the ability to run inside your own cloud perimeter. And we're doing that on AWS first, and so we can set up and manage an installation of Gitpod inside your own AWS account.And the reason that became important to us is that a lot of companies, a lot of our customers, treat their source code as their most sensitive intellectual property. And they won't allow it to leave their perimeter, like, they may run in AWS, but they have this concept of, sort of like, our perimeter and you're either inside of that and outside of it. And I think this speaks a little bit to a blog post that you wrote a few months ago about the lagging adoption of remote development environments. I think one of those aspects is, sort of, convenience and the user experience, but the other is that you can't use them very well with your stack and all the tools and resources that you need to use if they're not running, sort of, close within your perimeter. And so, you know, we're finding that companies have this need to be able to have greater control, and now with the, sort of, trends around, like, coding assistance and generative AI and it's even the perfect storm of not only am I like sending my source code from my editor out into some [LM 00:22:36], but I also have the risk of an LM that might be compromised, that's injecting code and I'm committing on my behalf that may be introducing vulnerabilities. And so, I think, like, getting that off to a secure space that is consistent and sound and can be monitored, to be kept up-to-date, I think it has the ability to, sort of, greatly increase a customer's security posture.Corey: While we're here kicking the beehive, for lack of a better term, your support for multiple editors in Gitpod the product, I assumed that most people would go with VS Code because I tend to see it everywhere, and I couldn't help but notice that neither VI nor Emacs is one of the options, the last time I checked. What are you seeing as far as popularity contests go? And that might be a dangerous question because I'm not suggesting you alienate many of the other vendors who are available, but in the world I live in, it's pretty clear where the zeitgeist of my subculture is going.Mike: Yeah, I mean, VS Code is definitely the most popular IDE. The majority of people that use Gitpod—and especially we have a, like, a pretty heavy free usage tier—uses it in the browser, just for the convenience of having that in the browser and having many environments in the browser. We tend to find more professional developers use VS Code desktop or the JetBrains suite of IDEs.Corey: Yeah, JetBrains I'm seeing a fair bit of in a bunch of different ways and I think that's actually most of what your other options are. I feel like people have either gone down the JetBrains path or they haven't and it seems like it's very, people who are into it are really into it and people who are not are just, never touch it.Mike: Yeah, and we want to provide the options for people to use the tools that they want to use and feel comfortable on. And we also want to provide a platform for the next generation of IDEs to be able to build on and support and to be able to support this concept of cloud or remote development more natively. So, like I mentioned, Nathan Sobo at Zed, I met up with him last week—I'm in Denver; he's in Boulder—and we were talking about this and he's interested in Zed working in the browser, and he's talked about this publicly. And for us, it's really interesting because, like, IDEs working in the browser is, like, a really great convenience. It's not the perfect way to work, necessarily, in all circumstances.There's some challenges with, like, all this tab sprawl and stuff, but it gives us the opportunity, if we can make Zed work really well in for Gitpod—or anybody else building an IDE—for that to work in the browser. Ultimately what we want is that if you want to use a terminal, we want to create a great experience for you for that. And so, we're working on this ability in Gitpod to be able to effectively, like, bring your own IDE, if you're building on that, and to be able to offer it and distribute on Gitpod, to be able to create a new developer tool and make it so that anybody in their Gitpod workspace can launch that as part of their workspace, part of their tool. And we want to see developer tools and IDEs flourish on top of this platform that is cloud development because we want to give people choice. Like, at Gitpod, we're not building our own IDE anymore.The team started to. They created Theia, which was one of the original cloud, sort of, web-based IDEs that now has been handed over to the Eclipse Foundation. But we moved to VS Code because we found that that's where the ecosystem were. That's where our users were, and our customers, and what they wanted to use. But we want to expand beyond that and give people the ability to choose, not only the options that are available today but the options that should be available in the future. And we think that choice is really important.Corey: When you see people kicking the tires on Gitpod for the first time, where does the bulk of their hesitancy come from? Like, what is it where—people, in my experience, don't love to embrace change. So, it's always this thing, “This thing sucks,” is sort of the default response to anything that requires them to change their philosophy on something. So okay, great. That is a thing that happens. We'll see what people say or do. But are they basing it on anything beyond just familiarity and comfort with the old way of doing things or are there certain areas that you're finding the new customers are having a hard time wrapping their head around?Mike: There's a couple of things. I think one thing is just habit. People have habits and preferences, which are really valuable because it's the way that they've learned to be successful in their careers and the way that they expect things. Sometimes people have these preferences that are fairly well ingrained that maybe are irrational or rational. And so, one thing is just people's force of habit.And then getting used to this idea that if it's not on my laptop, it means—like what you mentioned before, it's always what-ifs of, like, “What if I'm on a plane?” Or like, “What if I'm at the airport in a hurricane?” “What if I'm on a train with a spotty internet connection?” And so, there's all these sort of what-if situations. And once people get past that and they start actually using Gitpod and trying to set their projects up, the other limiting factor we have is just connectivity.And that's, like, connectivity to the other resources that you use to develop. So, whether that's, you know, package or module repositories or that some internal services or a database that might be running behind a firewall, it's like getting connectivity to those things. And that's where the dedicated deployment model that I talked about, running inside of your perimeter on our network, they have control over, kind of helps, and that's why we're trying to overcome that. Or if you're using our SaaS product, using something like Tailscale or a more modern VPN that way. But those are the two main things.It's like familiarity, this comfort for how to work, sort of, in this new world and not having this level of comfort of, like, it's running on this thing I can hold, as well as connectivity. And then there is some cost associated with people now paying for this infrastructure they didn't have to pay for before. And I think it's a, you know, it's a mistake to say that we're going to offset the cost of laptops. Like, that shouldn't be how you justify a cloud development environment. Like—Corey: Yeah, I feel like people are not requesting under-specced laptops much these days anymore.Mike: It's just like, I want to use a good laptop; I want to use a really nice laptop with good hardware and that shouldn't be the cost. The proposition shouldn't be, it's like, “Save a thousand dollars on every developer's laptop by moving this off to the cloud.” It's really the time savings. It's the focus. It's the, you know, removing all of that drift and creating these consistent environments that are more secure, and effectively, like, automating your development environment that's the same for everybody.But that's the—I think habits are the big thing. And there is, you know, I talked about a little bit that element of, like, we still have this concept of, like, I have this environment and I start it and it's there, and I pay for it while it's there and I have to clean it up or I have to make sure it stopped. I think that still exists and it creates a lot of sort of cognitive overhead of things that I have to manage that I didn't have to manage before. And I think that we have to—Gitpod needs to be better there and so does everybody else in the industry—about removing that completely. Like, there's one of the things that I really love that I learned from, like, Stewart Butterfield when I was at Slack was, he always brought up this concept called the convenience threshold.And it was just the idea that when a certain threshold of convenience is met, people's behavior suddenly changes. And as we thought about products and, like, the availability of features, that it really drove how we thought about even how to think about you know, adoption or, like, what is the threshold, what would it take? And, like, a good example of this is even, like, the way we just use credit cards now or debit cards to pay for things all the time, where we're used to carry cash. And in the beginning, when it was kind of novel that you could use a credit card to pay for things, like even pay for gas, you always had to have cash because you didn't know if it'd be accepted. And so, you still had to have cash, you still had to have it on hand, you still had to get it from the ATM, you still have to worry about, like, what if I get there and they don't accept my cards and how much money is it going to be, so I need to make sure I have enough of it.But the convenience of having this card where I don't have to carry cash is I don't have to worry about that anymore, as long as they have money in my bank account. And it wasn't until those cards were accepted more broadly that I could actually rely on having that card and not having the cash. It's similar when it comes to cloud development environments. It needs to be more convenient than my local development environment. It needs to be—it's kind of like early—I remember when laptops became more common, I was used to developing on a desktop, and people were like, nobody's ever going to develop on a laptop, it's not powerful enough, the battery runs out, I have to you know, when I close the lid, when you open the lid, it used to take, like, five minutes before, like, it would resume an unhibernate and stuff, and it was amazing where you could just close it and open it and get back to where you were.But like, that's the case where, like, laptops weren't convenient as desktops were because they were always plugged in, powered on, you can leave them and you can effectively just come back and sit down and pick up where you left off. And so, I think that this is another moment where we need to make these cloud development environments more convenient to be able to use and ultimately better. And part of that convenience is to make it so that you don't have to think about all these parts of them of whether they're running, not running, how much they cost, whether you're going to be there [unintelligible 00:31:35] or lose their data. Like, that should be the value of it that I don't have to think about any of that stuff.Corey: So, my last question for you is, when you take a look at people who have migrated to using Gitpod, specifically from the corporate perspective, what are their realizations after the fact—I mean, assuming they still take your phone calls because that's sort of feedback of a different sort—but what have they realized has worked well? What keeps them happy and coming back and taking your calls?Mike: Yeah, our customers could focus on their business instead of focusing on all the issues that they have with configuring development environments, everything that could go wrong. And so, a good example of this is a customer they have, Quizlet, Quizlet saw a 45-point increase in developer satisfaction and a 60% reduction in incidents, and the time that it takes to onboard new engineers went down to ten minutes. So, we have some customers that we talk to that come to us and say, “It takes us 20 days to onboard an engineer because of all the access they need and everything you need to set up and credentials and things, and now we could boil that down to a button click.” And that's the thing that we tend to hear from people is that, like, they just don't have to worry about this anymore and they tend to be able to focus on their business and what the developers are actually trying to do, which is build their product.And in Quizlet's example, it was really cool to see them mention in one of the recent OpenAI announcements around GPT4 and plugins is they were one of the early customers that built GPT4 plugins, or ChatGPT, and they mentioned that they were sharing a lot of Gitpod URLs around when we reached out to congratulate them. And the thing that was great about that, for us is, like, they were talking about their business and what they were developing and how they were being successful. And we'd rather see Gitpod in your development environment just sort of disappear into the background. We'd actually like to not hear from customers because it's just working so well from them. So, that's what we found is that customers are just able to get to this point where they could just focus on their business and focus on what they're trying to develop and focus on making their customers successful and not have to worry about infrastructure for development.Corey: I think that really says it all. On some level, when you have customers who are happy with what's happening and how they're approaching this, that really is the best marketing story I can think of because you can say anything you want about it, but when customers will go out and say, “Yeah, this has made our lives better; please keep doing what you're doing,” it counts for a lot.Mike: Yeah, I agree. And that's what we're trying to do. You know, we're not trying to win, sort of, a tab versus spaces debate here around local or cloud or—I actually just want to enable customers to be able to do their work of their business and develop software better. We want to try to provide a method and a platform that's extensible and customizable and gives them all the power they need to be able to just be ready to code, to get to work as soon as they can.Corey: I really want to thank you for being so generous with your time. If people want to learn more, where's the best place for them to find you, other than at your conference in San Francisco in a few weeks?Mike: [laugh]. Yeah, thank you. I really appreciate the banter back and forth. And I hope to see you there at our conference. You should come. Consider this an invite for June 1st and 2nd in San Francisco at CDE Universe.Corey: Of course. And we will put links to this in the [show notes 00:34:53]. Thank you so much for being so generous with your time. I appreciate it.Mike: Thanks, Corey. That was really fun.Corey: Mike Brevoort, Chief Product Officer at Gitpod. I'm Cloud Economist Corey Quinn and this is Screaming in the Cloud. If you've enjoyed this podcast, please leave a five-star review on your podcast platform of choice, whereas if you've hated this podcast, please leave a five-star review on your podcast platform of choice, along with an angry comment detailing exactly why cloud development is not the future, but then lose your content halfway through because your hard drive crashed.Corey: If your AWS bill keeps rising and your blood pressure is doing the same, then you need The Duckbill Group. We help companies fix their AWS bill by making it smaller and less horrifying. The Duckbill Group works for you, not AWS. We tailor recommendations to your business and we get to the point. Visit duckbillgroup.com to get started.

Rounding Up Season 1 | Episode 17 – Asset-Based Approach to Assessment Guest: Tisha Jones Mike Wallus: When you look at the results of your students work, what types of things are you attending to? Many of us were trained to look for the ways that students were not understanding concepts or ideas. But what if we flipped that practice on its head and focused on the things students did understand? Today on the podcast, we're talking with Tisha Jones, senior adviser for content development at The Math Learning Center, about building an asset-based approach to assessment.  Mike: Tisha, first of all, thanks for joining us. We're thrilled to have you with us. Tisha Jones: I'm really excited to be here. Mike: I have a sense that for a lot of people, the idea of asset-based assessment is something that we might need to unpack to offer, kind of, a basic set of operating principles or a definition. So, my first question is, how would you describe asset-based assessment? What would that mean for a practitioner? Tisha: I think the first part of it is thinking just about assessment. Assessment is a huge part of every school that is in this country. So, there are formative assessments, which are ongoing assessments that teachers are doing while students are considered “in the process of learning”—although we know that students really are never not in the process of learning. And then there are also summative assessments, when we want to see if they have demonstrated proficiency or mastery of the concepts that they've been learning throughout that unit. But when we're thinking about assessments, oftentimes the idea of assessment is that we are looking for what students don't know. And asset-based assessment means that we're taking this idea and we're flipping it, and we're saying, “Let's start by looking at what students are showing us that they do know.” And we're trying to really focus on the things that our students are showing us that they're able to do. Mike: So, that's a lot. And I think one of many of the things that's going on for me is that that's a pretty profound mind shift, I think, for a lot of folks in the field; not because they necessarily want to look at their students as a set of deficits, but because most of the training that a lot of us got actually was focused on “What are the deficits?” Tisha: Most of the training when we're talking about kids casually, or with our colleagues or administrators, we're often worried about, “Well, our kids don't know this. Our kids are struggling here.” And that really becomes the way that we see our students, right? And our kids are so much more than that, right? And our kids are coming to us with knowledge, and we can forget that when we're only focused on what they don't know. Mike: There's a great quote that you're making me think about. It's from the 14th century, and the person has said, essentially, “The language that we use becomes the world that we live in.” And I think that's a little bit of where you're going, is that deficit-focused language kind of lives in the DNA of a lot of either the training that we've had or the structures of schools. And so, flipping this is a mind shift, and I think it's really exciting that we're talking about this. I have two things on my mind. I think one is, let's talk about the assessments themselves first. So, if I want to start thinking about using my assessments in an asset-based way, if we just think about the assessments themselves, be they formative or summative, tell me about what you think an educator might do with the assessments that they're using, whether they're coming from a curriculum or whether they're some that they're designing on their own. How should I think about the assessment materials that I have, and are there ways that I should imagine shifting them? Tisha: That's a great question. I think that when you're looking at your assessments, you may or may not need to change them. They might be fine the way that they are. But the way to know is when you see the opportunities kids have to give their answers, what is that going to tell you about what they understand? So, if you have, for example, a problem that is computation, if you have a problem that has just asked the kids for an answer, or if you have a problem that's multiple choice, what are you learning about their thinking, about their understanding from what they put on the paper? Now, I'm not saying don't ever use those questions. They have their purpose. But that is really what I am asking you to do, is to think about “What is their purpose? What is the intention behind the questions on the assessment?” So, are there ways for you to open up the assessment to give kids more ways of showing what they do understand as opposed to limiting them to saying, “You must show something in this way” or “You're either right or you're wrong”? Mike: Yeah, that really hits home for me. And I think one of the operating principles that I'm hearing is, regardless of what assessment tools you're using, creating space for kids to show you how they're thinking is really a starting, foundational, kind of, centerpiece for asset-based assessment. Tisha: Absolutely. And I want to also add that I'm talking a lot about paper and pencil because we think about assessments as paper and pencil. But assessment's also not just paper and pencil. Assessment, especially formative assessment, it's your conversations that you have with kids in class. As far as I am concerned, there is no better way to know what a kid's thinking than to talk to them. Talk to your kids as much as you absolutely, possibly can. Ask them so many questions. Mike: Well, you're bringing me to the second piece about the assessments themselves. One piece is, create space, regardless of whether it's a question in a conversation or whether it's a question in a paper-pencil assessment or what have you, for them to show their thinking. The other thing that it makes me think is, part of my work as an educator is to look at the questions and say, “What are the big ideas that I'm really looking for? And what is it that I'm hoping that I can understand about children's thinking with each of these questions that I'm asking?”  Tisha: Yes. Mike: Beyond just right and wrong. Tisha: Yes, this is hard work. But this, to me, is not extra work. When you think about a gap, sometimes that can feel very disheartening. It can feel like, “I can't close it. My kids don't know this. They're never going to get it.” It almost just drains the joy of teaching out. This is the job, and this is the part that I am hoping we can all get excited about. I am excited to know what my kids understand. I feel like that gives me a better entryway to being a better teacher for them. If we can start to shift how we think about assessing our students to looking for what they know, to me, that feels very different. It feels different for your kids, and it feels different for you. It's much more fun to walk into a classroom thinking about what my kids know than what they don't. Mike: Yeah. And I think you're hinting at the next place that I wanted to go, which is, there's the assessments themselves and both how I use them and how I make space for kids to show their thinking. And then there's “How do I approach the things that kids are showing me in their assessments?” And I think that feels like another one of these mind-shift pieces where, what kept coming to mind for me is, if you and I and a colleague or two were sitting together at a table and we were teaching third grade and we had a set of student work in front of us, part of what I'm thinking about is what would a conversation sound like if we were really taking an asset-based perspective on looking at our students' work? What questions might we ask? What kind of a process might we use to, kind of, really focus on assets as opposed to focusing on deficits and gaps? Tisha: So, as we're looking at the work, I think the best place to start is, if we're talking as colleagues, “What do you see that the kids know? What are they doing well?” Whether you're talking about one kid or whether you're talking about a group of kids or your class collectively, “What are they doing well?” And for me, even just sitting here across from you saying this, that feels like a much brighter place to start. I'm like, “OK, I'm into this conversation about what my kids know,” and I would then start to say, “OK, and how can we build on what they know?” Mike: Ooh, I love that. Keep talking about that. Tisha: So, if we're looking at say, fractions, and we're kind of at the beginning, we could come in and we could say, “Oh, our kids are just not getting it. They don't know anything about fractions.” And that feels very defeating. But if you start with, “OK, well, I can see that they can partition into half, great. OK, so can we get them to fourths? Can we get them to eighths? How about thirds? All right. Can they get it on a rectangle? Can they get it on a circle? Can they get it in this context? Can they get it if it's a sharing situation?” Right? Now, we're brainstorming all of these questions of what can they do next. Mike: And those are actionable things, right? Like … Tisha: Right.  Mike: … in addition to saying, “This is what kids are doing,” thinking about “What I can build from” actually leads to action, it leads me to a path of instruction, and that does feel really different. Tisha: So, if we are here and we take the perspective that our kids don't get fractions, then that could bleed into our instruction in a different way. So, instead of now thinking about what we can do next and how we can keep building them up, we may be thinking about how do we need to water things down? How do I need to make things easier? And we want to make sure that we are not taking away rich mathematical opportunities from our students because our perspective is that they're not able, they have deficits. We want to instead think about “How do we build them up? How do we still make sure that they're getting these rich mathematical problems and opportunities in class and being able to grow them in that way?” Mike: Love that. So, one of the things that really just jumped out, and I want to come back to this because I think the language is so darn important: This idea that an asset-based perspective leads to thinking about instruction as “building upon.” That just seems like such a practical, simple thing. But boy, shifting your mindset and approaching it the way you described it, Tisha, that really does feel profoundly different than a lot of the data conversations that I've sat in over the years. Tisha: At that point, we should be stopping to think, “What do they need next?” But it's hard to make that [determination] based on saying, “Well, they don't know this.” It's much easier to think about what they need next if you're looking for what they do know. And you can say, “Oh, I can make some connections to that and move them maybe even just a little bit to a little bit further, help them take another step.” Mike: It strikes me that what I don't hear you saying is, “We can't acknowledge that there's sometimes going to be a difference between what kids understand and our ultimate goals for them.” That can still be true, but we're looking at their starting point as the starting point and the next steps, rather than just only saying, like, “The gap is this wide.” And even using the language of “gap” is challenging, right?  Tisha: Absolutely.  Mike: Because we're trying to say, like, “Our job is to build, not just to measure.” Tisha: Well, and when you think about talking about a gap, it almost feels like it's the kids' fault.  Mike: Uh-hm.  Tisha: But right now, in our conversation, we are talking about where the responsibility is.  Mike: Oh! Yeah! Tisha: And the responsibility is on me to keep thinking about “How do I help this kid grow?”  Mike: Uh-hm. Tisha: “How do I keep helping this kid grow in their math understanding?” It is not uncommon in elementary schools to group or classify kids based on their abilities. And coming from the best place, right? Like, we're all wanting to help our students. I believe that everybody wants to help their students grow.  Mike: This conversation has really got me thinking a lot, and I suspect that anyone who's listening is in the same place. I'm curious, if I'm a person who's new to this conversation, if these ideas are new, I'm wondering if you have any recommendations about where someone could go to keep learning, be it, uh, a book, a website, something along those lines that could keep me thinking about this and exploring these ideas? Tisha: A good place to start is a book called “The Impact of Identity in K–8 Mathematics: Rethinking Equity-Based Practices.” And that is an NCTM publication. Mike: I love that one. It's fantastic. In fact, I've read it myself. We'll put a link to that in the podcast notes. Tisha: That would be great. I think that it's a great resource for thinking about assessment and just equity-based practices in general. Mike: Fabulous. Tisha, it was lovely having you on. Thank you so much. Tisha: Oh, it's been so much fun. Mike: This podcast is brought to you by The Math Learning Center and the Maier Math Foundation, dedicated to inspiring and enabling individuals to discover and develop their mathematical confidence and ability. © 2023 The Math Learning Center | www.mathlearningcenter.org

多益套組推薦 多益考試前最後衝刺， 賴世雄老師、韓老師、Wesley 老師三位名師幫你好好搶分： https://lihi2.com/OAEzh 快速幫你複習一下這集的主題句 ＆ 單字： 這個煮太老了～ This is overcooked. This was cooked too long. 補充學習 這個沒煮熟 This is undercooked. This hasn't been cooked well. 這個燒焦了 This is burnt / burned. 這個太柴了 This is dry. 這個不夠入味 There's not enough flavor (in this). 情境對話 Mike：這個煮太老了～ This is overcooked. Duncan：會嗎？我喜歡肉煮熟一點。 Really? I like mine a bit well-done Mike：會呀～因為他是牛肉，其實可以不用煮這麼久。 Yeah, but this is beef. You actually don't need to cook it that long. Duncan：好吧～下次快一點起鍋。 Ok. Next time, I'll take it out sooner. Powered by Firstory Hosting

  Rounding Up  Season 1 | Episode 15 – Productive Ways to Build Fluency with Basic Facts Guest: Dr. Jennifer Bay-Williams  Mike Wallus: Ensuring students master their basic facts remains a shared goal among parents and educators. That said, many educators wonder what should replace the memorization drills that cause so much harm to their students' math identities. Today on the podcast, Jenny Bay-Williams talks about how to meet that goal and shares a set of productive practices that also support student reasoning and sense making.  Mike: Welcome to the podcast, Jenny. We are excited to have you.  Jennifer Bay-Williams: Well, thank you for inviting me. I'm thrilled to be here and excited to be talking about basic facts.  Mike: Awesome. Let's jump in. So, your recommendations start with an emphasis on reasoning. I wonder if we could start by just having you talk about the ‘why' behind your recommendation and a little bit about what an emphasis on reasoning looks like in an elementary classroom when you're thinking about basic facts.  Jenny: All right, well, I'm going to start with a little bit of a snarky response: that the non-reasoning approach doesn't work.  Mike and Jenny: ( laugh )  Jenny: OK. So, one reason to move to reasoning is that memorization doesn't work. Drill doesn't work for most people. But the reason to focus on reasoning with basic facts beyond that fact, is that the reasoning strategies grow to strategies that can be used beyond basic facts. So, if you take something like the making 10 idea—that nine plus six, you can move one over and you have 10 plus five—is a beautiful strategy for a 99 plus 35. So, you teach the reasoning upfront from the beginning, and it sets students up for success later on.  Mike: That absolutely makes sense. So, you talk about the difference between telling a strategy and explicit instruction. And I raised this because I suspect that some people might struggle to think about how those are different. Could you describe what explicit instruction looks like and maybe share an example with listeners?  Jenny: Absolutely. First of all, I like to use the whole phrase: ‘explicit strategy instruction.' So, what you're trying to do is have that strategy be explicit, noticeable, visible. So, for example, if you're going to do the making 10 strategy we just talked about, you might have two ten-frames. One of them is filled with nine counters, and one of them is filled with six counters. And students can see that moving one counter over is the same quantity. So, they're seeing this flexibility that you can move numbers around, and you end up with the same sum. So, you're just making that idea explicit and then helping them generalize. You change the problems up and then they come back and they're like, ‘Oh, hey, we can always move some over to make a 10 or a 20 or a 30' or whatever you're working on. And so, I feel like, in using the counters, or they could be stacking unifix cubes or things like that. That's the explicit instruction. Jenny: It's concrete. And then, if you need to be even more explicit, you ask students in the end to summarize the pattern that they noticed across the three or four problems that they solved. ‘Oh, that you take the bigger number, and then you go ahead and complete a 10 to make it easier to add.' And then, that's how you're really bringing those ideas out into the community to talk about. For multiplication, I'm just going to contrast. Let's say we're doing add a group strategy with multiplication. If you were going to do direct instruction, and you're doing six times eight, you might say, ‘All right, so when you see a six,' then a direct instruction would be like, ‘Take that first number and just assume it's a five.' So then, ‘Five eights is how much? Write that down.' That's direct instruction. You're like, ‘Here, do this step here, do this step here, do this step.'  Jenny: The explicit strategy instruction would have, for example—I like eight boxes of crowns because they oftentimes come in eight. So, but they'd have five boxes of crowns and then one more box of crowns. So, they could see you've got five boxes of crowns. They know that fact is 40, they—if they're working on their sixes, they should know their fives. And so, then what would one more group be about? So, just helping them see that with multiplication through visuals, you're adding on one group, not one more, but one group. So, they see that through the visuals that they're doing or through arrays or things like that. So, it's about them seeing the number of relationships and not being told what the steps are.  Mike: And it strikes me, too, Jenny, that the role of the teacher in those two scenarios is pretty different.  Jenny: Very different. Because the teacher is working very hard ( chuckles ) with the explicit strategy instruction to have the visuals that really highlight the strategy. Maybe it's the colors of the dots or the exact ten-frames they've picked and have they filled them or whether they choose to use the unifix cubes and how they're going to color them and things like that. So, they're doing a lot of thinking to make that pattern noticeable, visible. As opposed to just saying, ‘Do this first, do that second, do that third.'  Mike: I love the way that you said that you're doing a lot of thinking and work as a teacher to make a pattern noticeable. That's powerful, and it really is a stark contrast to, ‘Let me just tell you what to do.' I'd love to shift a little bit and ask you about another piece of your work. So, you advocate for teaching facts in an order that stresses relationships rather than simply teaching them in order. I'm wondering if you can tell me a little bit more about how relationships-based instruction has an impact on student thinking.  Jenny: So, we want every student to enact the reasoning strategies. So, I'm going to go back to addition, for example. And I'm going to switch over to the strategy that I call pretend-to-10, also called use 10 or compensation. But if you're going to set them up for using that strategy, [there are] a lot of steps to think through. So, if you're doing nine plus five, then in the pretend-to-10 strategy, you just pretend that nine is a 10. So now you've got 10 plus five and then you've got to compensate in the end. You've got to fix your answer because it's one too much. And so, you've got to come back one. That's some thinking. Those are some steps. So, what you want is to have the students automatic with certain things so that they're set up for that task. So, for that strategy, they need to be able to add a number onto 10 without much thought.  Jenny: Otherwise, the strategy is not useful. The strategy is useful when they already know 10 plus five. So, you teach them this, you teach them that relationship, you know 10 and some more, and then they know that nine's one less than 10. That relationship is hugely important, knowing nine is one less than 10. Um, and so then they know their answer has to be one less. Nine's one less than 10. So, nine plus a number is one less than 10 plus the number. Huge idea. And there's been a lot of research done in kindergarten on students understanding things like seven's one more than six, seven's one less than eight. And they're predictive studies looking at student achievement in first grade, second grade, third grade. And students, it turns out that one of the biggest predictors of success, is students understanding those number relationships. That one more, one less, um, two more, two less. Hugely important in doing the number sense. So that's what the relationship piece is, is sequencing facts so that what is going to be needed for the next thing they're going to do, the thinking that's going to be needed, is there for them. And then build on those relationships to learn the next strategy.  Mike: I mean, it strikes me that there's a little bit of a twofer in that one. The first is this idea that what you're doing is purposely setting up a future idea, right? It's kind of like saying, ‘I'm going to build this prior knowledge about ten-ness, and then I'm going to have kids think about the relationship between 10 and nine.' So, like, the care in this work is actually really understanding those relationships and how you're going to leverage them. The other thing that really jumps out from what you said, this has long-term implications for students thinking. It's not just fact acquisition, it's what you said, research shows that this has implications for how kids are thinking further down the road. Am I understanding that right?  Jenny: That's absolutely correct. So just that strategy alone. Let's say they're adding 29 plus 39. And they're like, ‘Oh hey, both of those numbers are right next to the next benchmark. So instead of 29 plus 39, I'm going to add 30 plus 40, 70. And I got, I went up two, so I'm going to come back down two. And I know that two less than a benchmark's going to land on an eight to that.' Again, it's coming back to this relationship of how far apart numbers are, what's right there within a set of 10, helps then to generalize within 10s or within 100s. And by the way, how about fractions?  Mike: Hmm. Talk about that.  Jenny: ( laughs ) It generalizes to fractions. So, let's take that same idea of adding. Let's just say it's like, two and seven-eighths plus two and seven-eighths. So, if we just pretended those were both threes because they're both super close to three, then you'd have six, and then you added on two-eighths too much. So, you come back two-eighths, or a fourth, and you have your answer. You don't have to do the regrouping with fractions and all the mess that really gets bogged down. And it's a much more efficient method that, again, you set students up for when they understand these number relationships. When you get into fractions, you're thinking about, like, how close are you to the next whole number maybe, instead of to the next 10s number.  Mike: It strikes me that if you have a group of teachers who have a common understanding of this approach to facts, and everyone's kind of playing the long game and thinking about how what they're doing is going to support what's next, it just creates a system that's much more intentional in helping kids not only acquire the facts, but build a set of ways of thinking.  Jenny: Mike, that's exactly it. I mean, here we are, we're trying to make up for lost time. We never have enough time in the classroom. We want an efficient way to make sure our kids get the most learning in. And so, to me that is about investing early in the fact strategies. Because then actually when you get up to those other things that you're adding or subtracting or multiplying or whatever you're doing, you benefit from the fact that you took time early to learn those strategies. Because those strategies are now very useful for all this other math that you're doing. And then students are more successful in making good choices about how they're going to solve those problems that are, oftentimes—especially when, I like to mention fractions and decimals at least once in a basic facts talk because we get back, by the time we get into fractions and decimals—we're back to just sometimes only showing one way. The sort of standard algorithm way. When, in fact, those basic facts strategies absolutely apply to almost-always-more-efficient strategies for working with fractions and decimals.  Mike: I want to shift a little bit. One of the things that was really helpful for me in growing my understanding is, the way that you talk about a set of facts that you would describe as ‘foundational' facts and another set of facts that you would describe as ‘derived' facts. And I'm wondering if you can unpack what those two subsets are and how they're related to one another.  Jenny: Yeah. So, the foundational facts are ones where automaticity is needed in order to enact a strategy. So, to me, the foundational fact strategies are, they're names. Like the doubling strategy or double and double again, some people call it. Or add a group for multiplication, and the addition ones of making 10s and pretend-to-10 strategies. And in those strategies, you can solve lots of different facts. But there's too much going on ( laughs ) in your brain if you don't have automaticity with the facts you need. So, for example, if you have your six facts, and you're trying to get your six facts down. And you already know your fives, like, automaticity with your fives. Then that becomes a useful way to get your sixes. So, if you have six times eight, and you know five times eight is 40, then you're like, ‘I got one more 8, 48.'  Jenny: That's an added group strategy. But if you're not automatic with your fives, this is how this sounds when you're interviewing a child. They're going to use add a group strategy, but they don't know their fives. So, then they're like, ‘Let's see, five times eight is 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 40. Now, what was I doing?' Like, they can't finish it because they were skip-counting with their fives. They lose track of what they're doing, is my point. So, the key is that they just know those facts that they need in order to use a strategy. And that, going back to, like, the pretend-to-10, they got to know 10-and-some-more facts to be successful. They have to know nine's one less than 10 to be successful. So, that's the idea is, if they reach automaticity with the foundational fact sets, then their brain is freed up to go through those reasoning strategies.  Mike: That totally makes sense. I want to shift a little bit now. One of the things that I really appreciated about the article was that you made what I think is a very strong, unambiguous case for ending many of the past practices used for fact acquisition—worksheets and timed tests, in particular. This can be a tough sell because this is often what is associated with elementary mathematics, and families kind of expect this kind of practice. How would you help an educator explain the shift away from these practices to folks who are out in the larger community? What is it that we might help say to folks to help them understand this shift?  Jenny: That's a great question, and the real answer is it depends, again, on audience. So, who is your audience? Even if the audience is parents, what do those parents prioritize and want for their children? So, I feel like [there are] lots of reasons to do it, but to really speak to what matters to them. So, I'm going to give a very generic answer here. But for everyone, they want their child to be successful. So, I feel that that opportunity to show, to give a problem like 29 plus 29, and ask how parents might add that problem. And if they think 30 plus 30 and subtract two to get to the answer, whatever, then that gives this case to say, ‘Well this is how we're going to work on basic facts. We're building up so that your child is ready to use these strategies. We're going to start right with the basic facts, learning these strategies. These really matter.' Jenny: And the example I gave could be whatever fits with the level of their kid. So, it could be like 302 minus 299. It's a classic one where you don't want your child to implement an algorithm there, you want them to notice those numbers are three apart. And so, there's this work that begins early. So, I think that's part of it. I think another part of it is helping people just reflect on their own learning experiences. What were your learning experiences with basic facts? And even if they liked the speed drills, they oftentimes recognize that it was not well-liked by most people. And also, then they really didn't learn strategies. So, I feel like we have to be showing that we're not taking something away, we're adding something in. They are going to become automatic with their facts. They're not going to forget them because we're not doing this memorizing that leads to a lot of forgetting. And bonus, they're going to have these strategies that are super useful going forward. So, to me, those are some of the really strong speaking points. I like to play a game and then just stop and pause for a minute and just say, ‘Did you see how hard it was for me to get you quiet? Do you see how much fun you were having?' And then I just hold up a worksheet ( laughs ). I'm like, ‘And how about this?' You know, again, that emotional connection to the experience and the outcomes.  Mike: That is wonderful. Since you brought it up, let's talk about replacements for worksheets and timed tests.  Jenny: Um-hm.  Mike: So, you advocate for games as you said, and for an activity-based approach. I think that what I want to try to do is get really specific so that if I'm a classroom teacher, and I can't see a picture of that yet, can you help paint a picture? Like what might that look like?  Jenny: I love that question because [there are] lots of good games and lots of places. But again, like I said earlier, this thinking really deeply about what game I'm choosing and for what. What do my students need to practice? And then being very intentional about game choice is really important. So, for example, if students are working on their 10-and-some-more facts, then you want to play a game where all the facts are 10-and-some-more facts. That's what they're working on. And then maybe you mix in some that aren't. Or you play a game with that and then they sort cards and find all the solve the 10 and more, or [there are] lots of things they can do. They can play concentration, where the fact is hidden and the answer is hidden and things like that. So, you can be very focused. And then when you get to the strategies, you want to have a game that allows for students to say, allow their strategies.  Jenny: So, I'm a big fan of, like, sentence frames, for example. So, [there are] games that we have in our ‘Math Fact Fluency' book that are in other places that specifically work on a strategy. So, for example, if I'm working on the pretend-to-10 strategy, I like to play the game fixed-addend war, which is the classic game of war, except, there's an addend in the middle, and it's a nine, to start. And then each of the two players turns up a card. So, Mike, if you turn up a seven, then you're going to explain how you're going to use the pretend-to-10 strategy to add it. And I turned up a six, so I'm going to, I'm going to do this then I'll, you can do it. So, I turned up a six. So, I'm going to say, ‘Well, 10 and six is 16, so nine and six is one less, 15.' I've just explained the pretend-to-10 strategy. And then you get your turn.  Mike: And I'd say, ‘Well seven and 10, I know seven and 10 is 17, so seven and nine has to be one less, and that's 16. Jenny: Yeah. So, your total's higher than mine, you win those two cards, you put them in your deck, and we move on. So, that's a way to just practice thinking through that strategy. Notice there's no time factor in that. You have a different card than I have. You have as much time, and we're doing think-aloud. These are all high-leverage practices. Then we get to the games where it's like, you might turn up a six and a five where you're not going to use the pretend-to-10 strategy for that. You've got to think, ‘Oh that doesn't really fit that strategy because neither one of those numbers is really close to 10. Oh hey, it's near a double, I'm going to use my double.' So, you sequence these games to, if you start with one of those open-ended games, it might be too big of a jump because students aren't ready to choose between their strategies. They have to first, be adept at using their strategies. And once they're adept at using them, then they're ready to play games where they get to choose among the strategies.  Mike: So, you're making me think a couple things, Jenny. One is, it's not just that we're shifting to using games as a venue to practice to get to automaticity. You're actually saying that when we think about the games, we really need to think about, ‘What are the strategies that we're after for kids?' And then make sure that the way that the game is structured, like, when you're talking about the pretend-to-10, with the fixed addend. That's designed to elicit that strategy and have kids work on developing their language and their thinking around that particularly. So, there's a level of intent around the game choice and the connection to the strategies that kids are thinking about. Am I understanding that right?  Jenny: That's it. That's exactly right. That's exactly right. And a huge, a lot of intentionality so that they have that opportunity and a no-pressure, a low-stress, think through the strategy. If they make a mistake, they're peer or themselves usually correct it in the moment, and they get so much practice in. I mean, imagine going through half a deck of cards playing that game.  Mike: Yeah.  Jenny: That's 26 facts. And then picture those 26 facts on a page of paper. And then, and again, in the game that you've got the added benefit of think-aloud, and then you're hearing what your peer has said.  Mike: You know, one of the things that strikes me is, if I'm a teacher, I might be thinking like, ‘This is awesome, I'm super excited about it. Holy mackerel, do I have to figure these games out myself?' And I think the good news is, there's a lot of work that's been done on this. I know you've done some. Do you have any recommendations for folks? There's of course curriculum. But do you have recommendations for resources that you think, help a teacher think about this or help a teacher see some of the games that we're talking about?  Jenny: Well, I'm going to start with my ‘Math Fact Fluency' book because that is where we go through each of these strategies, each of the foundational facts sets and the strategies, and for each one supply a game. And then from those games they're easily adaptable to other settings. And some of the games are classic games. So, there's a game, for example, called ‘Square Deal.' And the idea is that you're covering a game board, and you're trying to make a square. So, you get a two-by-two grid taken, and you score a point or five points or whatever you want to score. Well, we have that game housed under the 10-and-some-more facts. So, all the answers are like 19, 16, 15, and the students turn over a 10 card and another card, and if it's a 10 and a five, they get to claim a 15 spot on the game board.  Jenny: Well, that game board can be easily adapted to any multiplication fact sets, any other addition. I like to do a Square Deal with 10 and some more, and then I like to do Square Deal with nine and some more. There's my effort, again, to come back to either pretend-to-10 or making 10. Where they're like, ‘Oh, I just played 10 and some more. Now we're doing the same game, but it's nine and some more.' So, I feel like there's a lot of games there. And there is a free companion website that has about half of the games ready to download in English and in Spanish.  Mike: Any chance you'd be willing to share it?  Jenny: Yeah, absolutely. So, you can just Google it. The Kentucky Center for Mathematics created it during Covid, actually, as a gift to the math community. And so, if you type in ‘Kentucky Center for Math' or ‘KCM math fact fluency companion website,' it will pop up.  Mike: That's awesome. I want to ask you about one more thing before we close because we've really talked about the replacement for worksheets, the replacements for timed tests. But there is a piece of this where people think about ‘How do I know?' right? ‘How can I tell that kids have started to build this automaticity?' And you make a pretty strong case for interviewing students to understand their thinking. I'm wondering if you could just talk again about the ‘why' behind it and a little bit about what it might look like.  Jenny: So, first of all, timed tests are definitely a mistake for many reasons. And one of the reasons— beyond the anxiety they cause—they're just very poor assessment tools. So, you can't see if the student is skip-counting or not, for example, for multiplication facts. You can't see if they're counting by ones for the addition facts. You can't see that when they're doing the test, and you can't assume that they're working at a constant rate; that they're just solving one every, you know, couple of seconds, which is the way those tests are designed. Because I can spend a lot of time on one and less time on the other. So, they're just not, they're just not effective as an assessment tool. So, if you flip that. Let's say they're playing the game we were talking about earlier, and you just want to know can they use the pretend-to- 10 strategy?  Jenny: That's your assessment question of the day. Well, you just wander around with a little checklist ( chuckles ), you know? Yes, they can. No, they can't. And so, a checklist can get at the strategies, and a checklist can also get at the facts like how well are they doing with their facts? So, once they do some of those games that are more open-ended, you can just observe and listen to them and get a feel for that. If they're playing Square Deal with whatever fact, you know. So, what happens is you're, like, ‘I wonder how they're doing with their fours. We've really been working with their fours a lot.' Well, you can play Square Deal or a number of other games where that day you're working on fours. The fixed-addend war can become fixed-factor war, and you put a four in the middle. So adaptable games and then you're just listening and watching.  Jenny: And if you're not comfortable with that approach, then they can be playing those games, and you can have students channeling through where you do a little mini-interview. It only takes a few questions to get a feel for whether a student knows their facts. And you can really see who's automatic and who's still thinking. So, for example, a student who's working on their fours, if you give them four times seven, they might say, ‘Twenty-eight.' I call that automatic. Or they might, they might do four times seven, and they pause, and they're like, ‘Twenty-eight.' Then I'm like, ‘How did you think about that?' And they're like, ‘Well, I doubled and doubled again.' ‘Great.' So, I can mark off that they are using a strategy, but they're not automatic yet. So that to me is a check, not a star. And if I ask, ‘How did you do it?' And they say, ‘Well, I skip-counted.' Well then, I'm marking down the skip-counted. Because that means they need a strategy to help them move toward automaticity. Mike: I think what strikes me about that, too, is, when you understand where they're at on their journey to automaticity, you can actually do something about it as opposed to just looking at the quantity that you might see on a timed test. What's actionable about that? I'm not sure, but I think what you're suggesting really makes the case that I can do something with data that I observe or data that I hear in an interview or see in an interview.  Jenny: Absolutely. I mean this whole different positioning of the teacher as coaching the student toward their growth; helping them grow in their math proficiency, their math fluency. You see where they're at and then you're monitoring that in order to move them forward instead of just marking them right or wrong on a timed test. I think that's a great way to synthesize that.  Mike: Well, I have to say, it has been a pleasure talking with you. Thank you so much for joining us today.  Jenny: Thank you so much. I am again thrilled to be invited and always happy to talk about this topic.  Mike: This podcast is brought to you by The Math Learning Center and the Maier Math Foundation, dedicated to inspiring and enabling individuals to discover and develop their mathematical confidence and ability.  © 2023 The Math Learning Center | www.mathlearningcenter.org

Rounding Up Season 1 | Episode 14 – Enhanced Tasks for Multilingual Learners Guest: Dr. Zandra de Araujo Mike Wallace: How can educators take concrete steps to enhance tasks for multilingual learners? That's the subject of today's podcast. Today we'll talk with Dr. Zandra de Araujo, the chief equity officer at the University of Florida's Lastinger Center for Learning, about three ways to enhance tasks for multilingual learners and how to implement them in an elementary mathematics setting. We'll also discuss practical strategies and resources for supporting multilingual learners regardless of their age or grade.  Mike: Hey, Zandra. Welcome to the podcast. Zandra de Araujo: Thanks for having me. I'm excited to be here. Mike: I'm super excited to be talking to you. So, I'd love to just start with a quote you and your co-authors wrote. You say, ‘Rather than focus on language before mathematics, research shows that multilingual learners both can and should develop mathematical knowledge and language proficiency simultaneously.' Can you talk a little bit about that statement and share some of the research that informs it? Zandra: Sure. So, basically, if you think about learning a new language, you need to use it to get better at it. And so, in the past, people were more likely to put language first and to hold off on academics until students learned English. And what we've learned since then from brilliant scholars like Judy Moskowitz and others, is that we should simultaneously grow math alongside language development. And there's a couple of reasons for that. One, it helps improve your math learning, your language learning at the same time, which is great. It doesn't put you below grade level for your math learning because you're waiting to catch up with English first. And we know that that proficiency in your first language also will lead to better proficiency in your second language in math and other areas. So, there's only benefits really.  Zandra: And also, if you think about kids who are native English speakers, they're also learning how to talk about mathematics in school and how to use math language. And so, you might as well do it with the whole class and practice discourse and use good multimodal representations and communication skills to enhance everybody's language learning and math learning because you learn through and with language. And so, you can't really put language—or mathematics—on hold completely for kids. It's just not the right thing to do. Mike: I loved where you said you learn through and with language.  Zandra: Um-hm. Mike: Could you just expand upon that? Because it really feels like there's a lot of wisdom in that statement. Zandra: Yeah, I mean, the way that we learn is we listen, we participate, we talk, we discuss. We have to communicate ideas from one person to another. And it's this communication—and communication is not just in one language in one way. And language is more expansive than that. And we need to think about that. And the way you communicate what you've learned is through language. Or you show it visually. But usually as you're showing, you're gesturing and communicating in maybe non-verbal language communication. So, I think we forget that math is inherently language based as we communicate it in schools and as we typically experience it in schools. Mike: Thank you. I want to shift a little bit and talk about the three types of enhancements that you and your co-authors are talking about. So, using and connecting multiple representations, thinking through language obstacles, and contextualizing concepts and problem-solving activities. And what I'd like to do is take time to discuss each one of these. So, to begin, can you talk a little bit about what you mean by using and connecting multiple representations? Zandra: Sure. I tend to put things in my own frame of learning a second language. So, if you think about when you travel to a country that you don't speak the language in fluently, you probably do a lot of gesturing. You look for signs that don't have words in that language, necessarily, if you can't read it. You might draw something, you might do a lot of things. So, visuals and representations are very helpful when we're learning something new or trying to understand something that we already understand, we just can't communicate it. So, in mathematics, a lot of our representations are serving that purpose. They allow us to learn things in a more deep way.  Zandra: So, if you think about, I can show you something like the number five written out. I can show you five unifix cubes, I could show you five tally marks. Those are all different representations that very young children experience. And we're trying to communicate the same concept typically, of five; like the total set of five, the cardinality of five things, typically. And so, kids, when they experience all these different things in different ways, and we connect explicitly across them, it really helps them to understand something in a new or different way. But also, for students who are acquiring English, it allows them to connect the visual with their home language that they're thinking in their brain. And they probably have the words for it in their home language. They may just not understand just the spoken word. But when you see a representation, you have more ideas to anchor on. Mike: Yeah. As you described that, you can see how critically important that would be for multilingual learners and how much that would both support them and allow them to make the connections.  Zandra: Um-hm. And it's not just for multilingual students. I can't imagine the number of times I've been in a classroom and a teacher might model something with base ten blocks and maybe draw on representation of base ten blocks on the board and then never take the extra step to explicitly link it to the numerals that it … Mike: Um-hm. Zandra: … they're representing or the bundles and things like that. But those connections are what we're hoping kids will make. And so, explicitly linking those things and talking across them. And ‘How do you see five here? And how do you see five here?' is really important for all students. But it's especially beneficial if you're still acquiring the language of instruction. Mike: Absolutely. So, let's shift gears and talk a little bit about language obstacles. So, as a monolingual English speaker, this is an enhancement that I'd really like to understand in more depth. Zandra: ( laughs ) As a monolingual also, uh, English speaker that grew up in a Portuguese-speaking household and someone who is trained in mathematics teaching and learning and not in language teaching and learning specifically, this was very interesting to me, too. Essentially, it seems intuitive that you would take away language if that's an obstacle. And that is the main obstacle that students who are acquiring English in school are facing. It's not necessarily that they're below grade level in math. Sometimes they are. But many times they're not. They might be above grade level. But there are specific potential needs for support around English-language proficiency or acquisition. And so, when we think about language obstacles, it's those things that get in the way of learning the mathematics. And there's kind of two ways that you could address them: One is you remove them all, and then two is you scaffold up so that they can access it. Zandra: I'm more in favor of that approach where we scaffold and try to help further their language alongside their mathematics. Because that goes through the very first thing we talked about, is that you're enhancing and developing English alongside mathematics. But there are some times where there's just unnecessary obstacles that are really getting in the way of understanding what you're trying to do in mathematics. And that's kind of what we provided in the article is the list of some of these things. So, for example, a low-frequency term, and we give an example in the article, if you say ‘perusing a menu,' a lot of children do not use that in their day-to-day language, English language learners or otherwise. And so, we might just say, ‘looking at the menu.' It's conveying the same meaning, but it's a more common, frequently used term.  Zandra: So, more students will understand what that means. They're not getting hung up on this word. They're able to actually pursue the math task. Again, you could also say like, “perusing,” oh that's a new word. It means like ‘looking' or ‘reading,' you know, ‘looking over.' And that is certainly an option, but sometimes you just need the kids to understand the task that you're providing, and you don't want to do so much language development on things that are not really going to impact their math. So, as teachers, we make these decisions every day, and I think sometimes we can make these decisions just to eliminate some potential obstacles. There's a lot of other words. A lot of my colleagues and my co-authors have written about words with multiple meanings. Like ‘table.' If you're new to English and you hear table, you're probably going to think of the most commonly encountered table in your life, which is probably like a kitchen table or a table … Mike: Um-hm.  Zandra: … at school and not a mathematical table, which is different. And so, uncovering these things, thinking about them as somebody who's a monolingual English speaker is really important because it just passes by us because it's normal to us. But we need to put ourselves in the shoes of these children as well. Mike: Yeah. I think what it really made me think about is structurally there's lots of challenges if you're trying to make meaning of them for the first time. Like words that have multiple meanings jump out. I found that part of the article really helpful. It helped me see issues with the language structure that having just kind of learned it naturally, they're invisible, right? Zandra: Yeah. I had a colleague at Missouri that taught ESOL classes, and that was her area. And she said, “You say a big, red ball, but you don't say a red, big ball in English.' And I was like, ‘Oh yeah, it's like they're both adjectives,' but we do have patterns that I've never really thought about. But they are common, and you hear them in people that are acquiring the language that like, ‘Oh, it's not how I would say it.' ‘Why not?' And you don't know these rules if you weren't trained in this area. I also had a former graduate student who said—he was Korean—and when he came, he said it was confusing because ‘no, yeah' means ‘yeah.' But' yeah, no' means ‘no.' And it's similar type things that we say, and we don't understand. And ever since he told me that, I'm like, ‘Oh yeah, I totally get that.' And I say it all the time, and I just never noticed how confusing that definitely is. Mike: So, I'm really excited about this last bit, too. I really want to talk about the importance of context and talk a little bit about how context impacts learning, particularly for kids at the elementary level. If I'm an elementary educator using a curriculum, what's your sense of what I might do to build context into my students' mathematical experience? Zandra: So, context helps us make sense of things because we can relate it to our actual uses or things we're familiar with and use that as a sense making tool. So, it's kind of similar to representations in some ways. In elementary school, we're very fortunate that there's so many things that the kids come in contact with because we tend to teach all subject areas in our classrooms. In elementary, we do a lot of counting, for example. And there's so many things that we can count. Or we've been counting every day that we can tie into. That's why a lot of teachers like to use calendar math and things like that because it's interesting, it's something the kids are familiar with. And so that context allows them to think through how they do it in the real world and connect that thinking with the mathematical reasoning, which is really powerful. Zandra: It also is just more interesting to the kids. I think they like it when it's something … I mean, if you want to see a kid get [really] excited, figure out what their pet's name is and make a problem about their, their pet doing something. They get [really] excited because it's, like, personalized to them. And it's not a real deep, meaningful connection. It's not super culturally relevant necessarily, just putting a cat or dog's name in a task. But it's the idea that you're connecting to something that is interesting and matters to the kids, and that they can use that for reasoning and sense making. And that's what we ultimately want. Mike: I'm going to mine what you said for another nugget of wisdom. You said at the beginning, context is a reasoning tool. Did I capture that correctly?  Zandra: Um-hm. Yeah, absolutely. I think I can reason far better with something that I can actually play out and think through the process that I do. And I can connect it to the real world, and then I can think about, like, ‘Oh, what did I actually just do?' Because some things are pretty automatic that we do in every day, and we don't know that they're connected to math or could be. And when we reason through it, it really helps us to reason a little deeper. There's been a lot of math studies—most of them are older now—but about kids who did math in the real world as jobs. Maybe they were, like, working after school when we had real money, ( laughs ) physical money, more frequently, and they could do all these calculations very easily. But they struggled with school mathematics that was decontextualized. So then, as teachers learn how to bring in the context they're familiar with, they know how that works and then they can connect it, the representation to the symbol. So, it's all kind of connected, all three of these enhancements at the end of the day. Mike: Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. So, before we finish, Zandra, I'm wondering if you can point listeners to any kind of additional resources that you think would help them take the conversation that we're having and maybe add some depth to their understanding. Zandra: Sure. So, any three of my co-authors' work is great to find online. Fortunately, I think all three of them consult with the EL Success Forum. It's elsuccessforum.org, I believe. That is a group that has put together amazing banks of resources for teachers and people that work in schools around English language learners, in particular. So, that's a great one that I point a lot of people to. I have a Grassroots Workshop that I made that's on teaching mathematics with English learners that you could find online. And I think beyond that, there's a number of great resources through TODOS: Mathematics for ALL, which is a professional organization. They're an affiliate of NCTM, and they have some amazing resources as well. Mike: That is fabulous. Thank you so much for joining us, Sandra. It has really been a pleasure talking. Zandra: Yeah, likewise. Thanks for having me. I appreciate the opportunity to share about this. Something I'm super passionate about, and I'm always happy to talk about. Mike: This podcast is brought to you by The Math Learning Center and the Maier Math Foundation, dedicated to inspiring and enabling individuals to discover and develop their mathematical confidence and ability. © 2023 The Math Learning Center | www.mathlearningcenter.org

Rounding Up Season 1 | Episode 13 – Keep Calm Guest: Nancy Anderson, EdD   Mike Wallace: We often ask students to share their strategies. But, what does it look like to uncover and highlight the reasoning that informs that strategy? Today on the podcast, we'll talk with Nancy Anderson, a classroom teacher and professional learning developer, about strategies to elicit the reasoning at the heart of the student's thinking.  Welcome to the podcast, Nancy. I am so excited to talk to you today. Nancy Anderson: Thank you. Likewise, Mike. Mike: I'd like to begin with a quote from your article, “Keep Calm and Press for Reasoning.” In it, you state: “Mathematical reasoning describes the process and tools that we use to determine which ideas are true and which are false.” And then you go on to say that “in the context of a class discussion, reasoning includes addressing the strategy's most important ideas and highlighting how those ideas are related.” So, what I'm wondering is, can you talk a little bit about how eliciting a strategy and eliciting reasoning may or may not be different from one another? Nancy: So, when we elicit a strategy, we're largely focused on what the student did to solve the problem. For example, what operations and equations they might have used, what were the steps, and even what tools they might have used. For example, might they have used concrete tools or a number line? Whereas eliciting reasoning focuses on the why behind what they did. Why did they choose a particular strategy or equation? What was it in the problem that signaled that particular equation or that particular operation made sense? And if the strategy included several steps, what told them to go from one step to the next? How did they know that? And then similarly for the tools, what is it in the problem that suggested to them a number line might be an effective strategy to use? And lastly, listening reasoning sort of focuses on putting all those different pieces together so that you talk about those different elements and the rationale behind them in such a way that the people listening are convinced that the strategy is sound. Mike: That's actually really helpful. I found myself thinking about two scenarios that used to play out when I was teaching first grade. One was I had a group of children who were really engaging with the number line to help them think about difference unknown problems. And what it's making me think is, the focus of the conversation wasn't necessarily that they used the number line. And it's like, ‘Why did this particular jump that you're articulating via number line? What is it about the number line that helped you model this big idea or can help make this idea clearer for the other students in the class?' Nancy: Exactly, yes. So, when I think about reasoning, I think about different pieces coming together to form a cohesive explanation that also serves as a bridge to using a particular strategy for one particular problem, [and] as a tool for solving something similar in the future. Mike: So, I have a follow-up question. When teachers are pressing students for their reasoning, what counts as reasoning? What should teachers be listening for? Nancy: Broadly, mathematical reasoning describes the processes and tools that we use to determine which ideas are true and which are false. Because mathematics is based upon logic and reasoning—not a matter of who says it or how loudly they say it or how convincingly they say it, but rather, what are the mathematical truths that undergird what they're saying? That's sort of a broad definition of mathematical reasoning, which I think certainly has its merits. But then I think about the work of teaching, particularly at the elementary level. I think it's helpful to get much more specific. So, when we think about elementary arithmetic, reasoning really focuses on connecting computational strategies to the operations and the principles that lie underneath. So, in the context of a class discussion, when we have a student explain their reasoning, we're really trying to highlight a particular strategy's most important ideas and how those ideas are related, but in such a way that others can listen and say, ‘Oh, I get it. If I were to try the problem again, I do believe that's going to lead to the correct answer.' Or if it was this problem, which is similar, ‘I think I can see how it might make sense for me to use this approach here with these slight adjustments.' So, do you want to take an example? Mike: Yeah, I'd love to. Nancy: So, for example, in a first-grade class, there might be a class discussion about different strategies for adding seven plus eight. And I think in a lot of classes at one point, the teacher would likely want to highlight the fact that you can find that sum using doubles plus one. So, in this particular instance, if a student were to talk about their reasoning, we'd want to encourage that student and certainly help that student talk about the following ideas: the connection between seven plus eight and seven plus seven, and the connection between their answers, namely because the second addend has changed from seven to eight, and noting the connections between the second addend and the answers, namely, if the second addend increases by one, so, too does the sum. And finally, we'd want to emphasize what it is we're doing here. Namely, we are using sums that we know to find sums we don't know. Nancy: So, that's an effective example of what reasoning sounds like in the elementary grades. It's very specific. So even though reasoning is the thing that allows us to move from specific examples to generalizations in elementary mathematics, it's oftentimes by really focusing on what's going on with specific examples   Mike: Uh-hm. Nancy: … that students can begin to make those leaps forward. Some of my thinking lately about what I do in the classroom comes from the book ‘Make It Stick,' which talks a lot about learning processes and principles in general. And one of the points that the authors make in the book is that effective learners see important connections, for whatever reasons, sometimes more readily or more quickly than others. So, what I try to do with my teaching then is to say, ‘OK, well how can I help all learners see those relevant and important connections as well?' Mike: Absolutely. So, it really does strike me that there are planning practices that educators could use that might make a press for reasoning more effective. I'm wondering if you could talk about how might an educator plan for pressing for reasoning? Nancy: One thing that I think teachers can do is anticipate, in a very literal sense, what is it that they want students to say as a result of participating in the lesson? So, I think oftentimes we, as classroom teachers, focus on what we want students to learn, i.e., the lesson objective or the essential aim. But that can be a big jump from thinking about that to thinking about the words we literally want to hear come out of student's mouths. So, I think that that's one shift teachers can make to thinking not just about the lesson objective as you'd write on the board, but literally what you want students to say, such that when you walk around and you sort of listen in on small groups, those moments where you say like, ‘Oh yeah, they're on the right track.' And then I think another key shift is thinking more towards specific examples rather than generalizations. Nancy: So, as an example, suppose that in a third- or fourth- or fifth-grade classroom, students were talking about fraction comparison strategies, and the teacher had planned for a lesson where the objective was to determine if a fraction was more or less than a half by using the generalization about all fractions equal to a half. Namely, that the numerator is always half of the denominator. So, that certainly could be something that we might see in, you know, teacher's guide or perhaps in a teacher's planning book. But that's different than what we'd want to hear from students as the lesson progressed. For example, I think the first thing that we'd want to hear as the students we're talking, is a lot of examples, right? The kinds of examples that are going to lead to that key generalization. Like if a student was talking about nine sixteenths, I think we'd want to hear that student reason that nine sixteenths is more than half because half of 16 is eight and nine sixteenths is a little bit more than eight sixteenths. Nancy: And so, what's effective about that kind of planning is that it alerts you to those ideas when you hear them in the room. And it can then help you think about ‘What are the pieces of the explanation that you want to press on.' So, in this case, the key ideas are finding half of the denominator, connecting that value to the fraction that is equivalent to one half, and then comparing that fraction to the actual fraction we're looking at so that we can bring those key ideas to the fore, and the ideas become a strategy for students to use moving forward. Mike: You're making me think about two things kind of simultaneously. The first is, I'm reflecting back on my own practice as a teacher. And at that time, my grade-level team and I, we tried to really enact the whole idea of anticipating student strategies that comes out in ‘The Five Practices' book. But what you're making me wonder about is, we went through, and we said, ‘Here are some of the ways that children might solve this. This is some of the strategies.' The step we didn't take is to say, ‘We know that there are multiple ways that children could attack this or could think about this, but what's the nugget of reasoning? What would we want them to say in conjunction with the strategy that they had so that we were really clear on if a student is counting on to solve this problem, what's the nugget of reasoning that we want to either press on or encourage. If their direct modeling, again, what's the nugget of reasoning that we want to press on. If they're decomposing numbers? Same thing. So, really it makes me think that it's helpful to anticipate what kids might do. But the place that really, like, supercharges that is that thing that you're talking about is, what's the thing that we want them to say that will let us know that they're onto the reasoning behind it? Nancy: Exactly. And I think the conversations you're having or have had with your colleagues reflects where we are with the field generally. I think that the field of mathematics education is at a place where, for the most part, we're on board with the use of discussion as a pedagogy. I don't think that it's a tough sell to convince a lot of folks that students should be spending some amount of time talking. But I don't think that we as a field are nearly as clear on what to do next. And again, as you alluded to with ‘The Five Practices' book, and while I would certainly agree that all of these are important aspects of classroom talk, I think that they skip over this essential idea of pressing for reasoning. Namely, staying with the student beyond just their initial explanation so that their ideas become clear, not just to others, but also clear to them. Mike: I love that. I want to go in a direction that you started to allude to, but you really got to in, in your article. This idea that there's a certain number of questions for follow-up that can really have a tremendous impact on kids. I'm wondering if you could talk a little bit about that. Nancy: My article and more broadly, my interest in press for reasoning, is motivated in large parts, uh, by my professional interest in figuring out, you know, what it is about discussion that makes it such a powerful tool for learning. So, although we have enough empirical evidence to support discussion as an effective pedagogy in math class, we as a field are much less clear in knowing which of the aspects of discussion are most efficacious for learning. What are the mechanisms of student talk that help students learn math more deeply? I had the good fortune many years ago to find some compelling research by Megan Franke and Noreen Webb and their colleagues at UCLA who did some digging into press for reasoning. And through their studies, they have shown that follow-up questions, questions that press students to clarify and strengthen their initial explanation, are associated with students giving more robust and more accurate explanations. Nancy: What their research revealed is that it takes two to three specific follow-up questions in order to either have the student say, more math and more accurate mathematics. So, I think about that so often in my work in the classroom because so often I'll ask a student to explain their reasoning and because they're learning, the explanation comes out either partially correct or partially complete, and I need them to say more. And I might ask them the first follow-up question and either they or I suddenly start to worry. The student might think, ‘Am I saying something wrong? Am I totally off track here? Uh, I'm not really sure why I did what I did.' And then I, of course, as the teacher, I'm so worried about, ‘Am I putting the student on the spot? Am I losing the rest of the class?' And in those moments, I hear myself say, ‘Two to three follow-up questions, two to three follow-up questions,' as a way to remind myself to stay with the student. That if we really do believe that students learn by talking, then it only makes sense that we should expect them to need more than just one turn to get their ideas out in such a way that are clear and accurate to them as well as to the listeners. Mike: So, that's fascinating, Nancy. I think there's two things that stood out from what you said. One is, as a classroom teacher, I appreciate the fact that you acknowledge that feeling of, ‘Am I losing the class?' [It] is something that always exists when you're trying to question and support. But I think the thing that really jumps out is, we have research that says that this actually does have a tremendous impact on kiddos. So even though it might feel counterintuitive, staying with the press for those two to three questions really does have a tremendous impact. I'm wondering what it might sound like to take a student's initial response and then follow up in a way that presses for reasoning. Nancy: So, suppose a fourth-grade class is working on strategies for multi-digit multiplication, and one particular strategy that the teacher would like to emphasize, or showcase, is compensation. Namely, how we can change one or both factors in a multiplication to create an easier computation and then make an adjustment accordingly. For example, we can multiply 19 times 40 by thinking about 20 times 40, and then subtracting 40. Let's suppose that students are working in groups and—on this computation—and the teacher overhears a student talking to their partner about how they use this exact strategy, and briefly checks in with the student and asks, you know, if they'd be willing to share their strategy with the whole class. And the student agrees. So, the teacher calls on the student to tell us, ‘How did you compute 19 times 40?' And the student says, ‘Well, I did 20 times 40 minus 40, and I did that because 20 times 40 is easier.' Nancy: Great. So, we've got some ideas on the table, and so now let's unpack. So, maybe the first question to ask the student is for them to interpret 19 times 40. What does that mean? Literally, it says 19 times 40, but can they give a context? Can they provide an interpretation of that expression with the hope of getting the idea out that we can think of 19 times 40 as 19 groups of 40. And similarly, 20 times 40 as 20 groups of 40. So, once we have the idea of groups of a number out there, can the student tell again why it made sense for them to think of 20 times 40? Why is that easier? Then another follow-up question to ask is, ‘Well, what's the connection between changing that first factor to 20 and subtracting 40?' Because if you think about it, if you're a listener who's unfamiliar with compensation, that's a pretty big leap to go from changing the first factor by one to a second step of subtracting 40. Huh? Mike: It sure is. Nancy: ( laughs ) Right? Like, how does changing it by one mean you subtract 40. And so, here the students can talk about the fact that we found 20 groups of 40, which is one too many groups. So, we compensate by subtracting 40. So, those are some follow-up questions that I think we'd want to ask. Mike: This example just makes so many connections. I'm struck by the fact that, simultaneously, that press for reasoning is helping the child who came up with the idea really build a stronger vocabulary and a justification, and at the same time, it's actually providing access to that strategy for kids who didn't come up with it, who maybe kind of wondering, ‘What? Where did that come from?' So, really it's beneficial for the child who brought the reasoning to the table and to everybody else. The other thing that jumped out is, even in that question where you said, ‘Can you offer this in context?' That's kind of connecting representations, right? Like the child was articulating something that might show up in equation form and asking them to articulate that in a contextual form. [That] is actually a way of challenging their thinking as well. Nancy: Exactly, yes. For many students—and, unfortunately, many more adults—symbols are just that, their symbols. Yet, we who engage in mathematics know that many times symbols are linked to not just one representation, but several, that there's certainly a literal interpretation of any kind of symbol string or numeric expression. But then we can interpret what those expressions mean by connecting back to the different meanings of the operation. So yeah, like you said, Mike, there's two things going on here at least: Helping the other students learn about this particular approach and trusting that it works, but also to helping the original speakers see what it takes to convince others. And in this case, part of that includes the fact that, ‘Oh, when I talk about multiplication, it's helpful to remind people that multiplication refers to putting groups together. Or that it's helpful to think about multiplication in terms of putting equal groups together.' Mike: Well, before we close the podcast, Nancy, I typically ask a question about resources because I suspect for some folks this conversation is one that they've been thinking about for a while. And for other folks, this idea of thinking past strategies toward a reasoning might be a new idea. So, I'm wondering if you'd be willing to share resources that you think would help support people maybe taking this conversation we've had and deepening it. Nancy: Sure. So, my work in this field rests upon the shoulders of many brilliant mathematics educators and some of whom, uh, are people I admire from afar, like Megan Franke and Noreen Webb and their team at UCLA. And still others who I've had the honor to work directly with and learn from, uh, over the past 20 years. And two educators, in particular, are Suzanne Chapin and Cathy O'Connor of Boston University, who are a mathematics educator and applied linguist, respectively. Mike: I adore their work. I'm just going to cut in and say, I'm excited for the resource you're going to share because I've read some of their stuff and it's phenomenal. Nancy: They were kind enough and generous enough when I was very new in the field to invite me to collaborate with them on a book called ‘Talk Moves,' which is essentially a teacher's guide to facilitating productive math talk. Many years ago, Cathy, Suzanne and I worked together on a research project where we were using discussion in elementary math classes in the city of Chelsea, Massachusetts, and we realized that there really wasn't a how-to guide out there for doing this kind of thing. So, from our work together came the book ‘Talk Moves,' which is now in its third edition and includes written vignettes in the book showing composite examples of teachers and students using ‘Talk Moves' to learn more mathematics, but also includes a set of video clips that were filmed in actual math classes with real-life teachers and real-life students using productive talk moves, including press for reasoning, to help students talk about their reasoning and respond to the reasoning of others. It's a very user-friendly guide for people who want to dig more deeply and see what this thing called productive math talk looks like in action.  Mike: So, I'll add to your plug. I read that back when I was teaching kindergarten and first grade, and it actually had a huge impact on my practice and just understanding at a granular level what this could look like. Nancy, thank you so much for joining us. It really has been a pleasure talking with you today.  Nancy: Oh, it's been a real pleasure for me too, Mike. Thank you so much for having me. Mike: This podcast is brought to you by The Math Learning Center and the Maier Math Foundation, dedicated to inspiring and enabling individuals to discover and develop their mathematical confidence and ability.  © 2023 The Math Learning Center | www.mathlearningcenter.org 

Rounding Up Season 1 | Episode 12 – Open Tasks Guest: Dr. Kim Markworth Mike Wallus: Lately, terms like ‘rich tasks,' ‘multiple entry points,' and ‘low floor,' ‘high ceiling' are being used so often in the world of mathematics education that many educators are confused about their meaning. Today we talk with Kim Markworth, director of content development at The Math Learning Center, about what these terms look like in practice and how they support student learning. Welcome to the podcast, Kim. It's great to have you. Kim Markworth: Thank you, Mike. I'm really honored and excited to be here. Mike: I would love to start this conversation by talking about what it means for a task to be open-ended and have a low floor and a high ceiling. So, is there a way that you think about these terms that might help educators clarify their meaning? Kim: That's a great question, Mike. In truth, when we think about these terms, they're really all interconnected. And I don't know that anyone has really settled on meanings. And lately there's been a bit of a transition from thinking about low floor and high ceiling to low floor and no ceiling at all. And so, when we think about the variations across continua, this really contributes to how we look at tasks and what we appreciate about tasks. And so, when I think about open-ended, this might correspond with high ceiling or no ceiling. We could keep going with the task. There's not really a defined ending point, uh, but instead many pathways where we could take this task further. And when I think about multiple entry points, this might correspond with low floor. And there [are] so many different ways to approach or enter a task. And rich task, probably my favorite term of them all, corresponds to what we've maybe called a problem historically, where we don't have an anticipated solution path or maybe we haven't solved something like this before. We might have multiple solutions to the task. We might have multiple solution paths or viable strategies. We could have opportunities for extension or generalization. And I love tasks that have an unexpected twist or a need to think about something in a unique way, like where your first inclination, your intuition, might be wrong. And all of a sudden you're like, ‘Ooh, this is really something that I wasn't expecting.' Mike: Can you share an example or a few examples with folks who are listening? There's so much that you said just there about the nature of these things. Are you OK telling us a little bit about one or two of them? Kim: Yeah. One task I'm really excited about is a new third grade task that we've been working into our new curriculum. And this task is positioned at the beginning of a unit on multiplication. And so, for third graders, this is really an introduction to multiplication task. And I'm going to apologize to the audience here because this really does require some mental visualization, but I'm going to describe this image that third graders look at, and it involves a pet store. And so, if you can imagine a pet store and going into a pet store, then we have a dog bone display, and these dog bones are hung on three hooks and Annie took, there are two packages—so that the back package isn't visible because it's behind the front package. So, three hooks, two packages per hook, and in each package there are eight dog bones. And those eight dog bones are arranged in a four-by-two array. Kim: And finally, one additional detail here. Each package is labeled $12. And this is a problem-posing situation for kids where we put this image in front of kids and ask them to think about the different mathematical questions that they might ask about this particular image. So ultimately, the question that we ask them to explore is ‘How many dog bones are on display?' Once you have that image in your head, I want you to be thinking about that final question. And the numbers right now are kind of irrelevant for this discussion, but it's highly unlikely that it's something that kids will already know.  Mike: Hmm.  Kim: So, this is a problem-posing situation for the third graders. It's asking them what mathematical questions could you ask about this particular display? And ultimately, we're going to direct them to how many dog bones are on display, but they could explore other questions with additional time. So, how much for all of these dog bones? How much per dog bone? If you had a given number of dogs, how many dog bones would each get? And so, this to me is a task that is open-ended. We could go multiple ways with this, although we are going to focus in the classroom on a particular question. But it's also rich in that kids are going to connect with it, especially if they've been into shops like this. It has multiple entry points. And so, in a lot of ways it really connects to these different terms that you've brought up earlier. Mike: It's interesting because as you describe it, particularly the fact that there's a visual component to this, it really comes clear how there are multiple ways that a child could think about the question or attack the question that you asked. Is there any role for number choice in thinking about how to design a rich task? Kim: Yeah, the numbers are really important. And it's fun to play with different numbers and see how they pan out. And so, in thinking about the dog bone task, we want to keep the numbers accessible. So, when I think about a single peg or a single hook for the dog bone packages, I can think about eight plus eight. And from where kids are coming from, eight plus eight should be accessible. When I think about what I'm seeing with the dog bones, I'm seeing two groups of four in each of the packages. And so, that's a nice way looking at doubles that students might find useful, but I'm also looking at three packages of eight. And so, I could add eight plus eight plus eight, which could bring the teacher very easily to a three times eight multiplication expression. One that is manageable and a great way to introduce multiplication, the times symbol where we're going with all this, but one that is also still accessible for kids to be thinking about as repeated addition. Kim: Ultimately, the numbers get to a final answer of 48 dog bones, and you could think about this in terms of six times eight. But kids aren't going to know six times eight, at least not very commonly in this point of an early introduction to multiplication. But there's various ways that they could get to the eight. We ultimately landed on these numbers: 2, 4, 8, 16, but also this additional number 3, which as a separate prime number really throws some additional mathematical thinking into the mix that elevates the task itself. There's things that are critical to be thinking about as you imagine this task and how it might play out instructionally. It's really important to think about how this stands in the curriculum sequence. So, it is introductory, it's using numbers that the kids are probably not going to know off the top of their heads—related multiplication fact and an answer—but the numbers themselves might elicit different strategies, and the visual might elicit different strategies. And all of this connects to the commutative and associated properties for multiplication and how they might play out with student thinking.  Kim: And so, it's all connected. All these pieces really fit together into what I think is a really interesting and engaging task for students. It's challenging enough, but it's also very accessible simply by counting, kids could count what they see. And the context is engaging for kids as well, because they might be thinking about displays that they've seen and how this corresponds to trips to the store that they've had. Mike: Part of what you've got me thinking, Kim, is there's the design of the task and then there's the element of how a teacher might go about facilitating it. And I think, I want to come back to that, too, because I heard you not only describe the task—the way that it was designed—but you also described some of the ways that a teacher might introduce it, some of the things that they might pose to kids. I wonder if you'd be willing to talk a little bit about facilitation and some of the things about facilitation that can bring a task to life? Kim: So, one of the things that I like to think about in implementing tasks, Mike, is the very intentional letting go, that kids need time to think. They need time to explore. I think all too often as teachers, we have this desire to go in and help and direct. And sometimes we just need to back off and let them think about the different ways that they might approach that, those different entry points, and let them explore and let them take the time to do that. And so, one of the things that I always used to describe to pre-service teachers was the walk away. That I would go up and talk to a group or talk to some partners working together and listen to what they were doing and maybe pose an additional question and then I'd walk away. I didn't want to hear their answer right away. I wanted them to talk about that amongst themselves. But if I stood there, they would start talking to me. And so, I would walk away, move on to a different group, come back later and hear what their thinking was. But it creates that space for letting kids explore, think about, and also not feel the pressure to be getting to a particular answer in a particular timeframe. And I think that's really important for kids to have that freedom. Mike: Yeah. It also strikes me that you're reframing your role for kids, too, in the sense that by walking away, you're sending the signal that ‘I actually have confidence that you and your partners can think about this and reason about this.' Kim: Absolutely. It is putting some power, some agency with the students themselves. ‘You are capable of doing this, you're capable of thinking about this. You do not need me here to be your sounding board or the mathematical authority.' Mike: Kim, can you talk a little bit about the idea of entry points? I'm wondering for teachers in the field, how would you actually define an entry point? What does that look like? Kim: I'm not sure I have a good definition for it, but I do have an analogy, and I would compare it to on-ramps for highways. And when I think about on-ramps, we can all get on the same highway, but we might do it at different places, and we might make choices for where we get on based on our current location or what we know about the on-ramp. But as long as I have a workable vehicle, I can do it. And maybe that's our prior knowledge. But unfortunately, often kids, they don't think that they have a workable vehicle or teachers might even underestimate the child's vehicle that they have. And so, I've probably gone far enough with this analogy, but kids come onto that mathematical highway at different places with particular problems. And I think making sure that we as teachers, as educators, as curriculum designers, that we're thinking about all those different possibilities for getting into a problem and knowing that we can all go to the same place regardless of where we've gotten on. Mike: That's really helpful. So, if I'm an educator and I'm designing a task, or even if I'm facilitating a task that comes with my curriculum, what guidance would you offer to folks to ensure that there are entry points for kids? Kim: I think it really depends on the mathematics and what you're trying to accomplish. And so, with this one in particular—the dog bones visual—I might be asking myself, ‘Can I do it without multiplication since this is an entry point for multiplication. Can I do it without that or could I do it with basic counting skills?' And so, are those viable entry paths open for kids if they don't have where we're going with the task already in their toolkit? When I think about ensuring that there's entry points, I like to think about stripping away the expectations for where you want to go with the task, really allowing kids to have that freedom for exploration. And it's the variety of entry points that leads to the multiple strategies. And when you have multiple strategies, you can make connections between and among those representations. And then you've got something really robust. Or I might go back to that term rich task. And so, it's about can they do it without where you're going, that mathematical goal, and however they encounter that or engage with it, does it still connect to other strategies that will bring them to your mathematical goal? Mike: That is really helpful. What that has me thinking is we have heard in the field about the idea of the five practices and anticipating. But this is a little bit of a twist on that in the sense that you're evaluating the task and saying, ‘What's possible for a kid to get into this task?' I love the example of multiplication. So, for example, if I only have partial or emergent understanding of multiplication, can I still work my way toward an answer to that? And if the answer is no, then what? Kim: Right? But you mentioned partial or emergent understanding, whereas I think this task, actually, you can get in with no understanding of multiplication. I can look at three sets of eight dog bones, add eight plus eight plus eight to get to 24, and then the teacher has that to latch onto to say, ‘We have another way of writing this. I can write three times eight to represent eight being added three times.' And so even that visual structure leads us to something that we can hook on to, to bring forth the connection to multiplication. Mike: I think that's helpful because it means that there's a value and there's a utility to having ways of doing this that you can ultimately connect to the place where you want to go, right? Kim: Yeah. And I think there's opportunities for that kind of reasoning or openness throughout math education; imagining what we can do with tasks to really not just ensure that there's entry points, but value those entry points as really important connections to all students' prior knowledge and where we're going mathematically. Mike: That totally makes sense. Kim: If we can't imagine that our kids are capable of problem-solving and engaging in challenging tasks, then they won't be able to imagine that themselves. And so, in a way, we have to pass along the agency by sometimes just believing ourselves that, ‘Yeah, maybe they can do this,' and giving them that time and seeing what happens. Mike: Before we close the conversation, I'm wondering if you have any resources that you think would help someone listening to this conversation deepen their understanding of designing or implementing rich tasks? Kim: I think the best way to really think about task design and build your own facility is to do some rich tasks and just engage with them as a learner. So, one of the resources that I frequently turn to is the NCTM journals, both old and new. They have really good problems in there. And you can sometimes take one of those and change it in a way that is making it more challenging or making it a more generalizable situation. There's various problem-solving publications. I could certainly plug my own books, ‘Problem Solving in All Seasons' (K–2, 3–5). Mike: I have read it, Kim. Kim: ( laughs ) Mike: I would absolutely recommend it. Kim: Another resource that I love is ‘NRICH.' It's a website NRICH, which is nrich.maths.org. Those are just incredible tasks that really get you thinking in various ways about, [some] good problem-solving experiences. So, what I would recommend for teachers or other people who are interested in this, is to really do that mathematics and then reflect on what made it interesting for you. What surprised you? Were there twists? Were there things, stuck points where you had to get past? And then also to extend the thinking by asking yourself something like, ‘So does this always work? Or when does this work?' And how could you apply the mathematics to more broad situations? And finally, I think it's really important for teachers to put themselves in the minds of their students and sense what might excite them or challenge them. Mike: Thank you so much for joining us, Kim. It's really been a pleasure talking to you. Kim: Thank you, Mike. Mike: This podcast is brought to you by The Math Learning Center and the Maier Math Foundation, dedicated to inspiring and enabling individuals to discover and develop their mathematical confidence and ability. © 2023 The Math Learning Center | www.mathlearningcenter.org

Rounding Up Season 1 | Episode 11 – Successful Curriculum Adoption Guest: Dana Nathanson Mike Wallus: Adopting a new curriculum is not for the faint of heart. What makes this challenging? Well, beyond the materials themselves, a curriculum adoption may represent many things: changes to longstanding practices, beliefs, and classroom culture. On today's podcast, we'll talk with Dana Nathanson, the elementary math coordinator in Leander, Texas, about how leaders can effectively design, manage and sustain a successful curriculum adoption. Welcome to the podcast, Dana. I'm thrilled to have you and be able to talk with you a little bit about the work that goes into adopting and supporting the implementation of a new curriculum.  Dana Nathanson: I'm excited to be here. Thank you for the opportunity.  Mike: Absolutely. So, in your case, we're talking about the work that you did in Leander, Texas, when you supported the adoption of Bridges in Mathematics. I'd love to start by talking about something that feels really critical when a school or a district adopts a new curriculum: the idea of buy-in. How did you think about building buy-in for teachers when you adopted Bridges in Mathematics in your district?  Dana: I think that's an interesting question, because we do hear a lot about, ‘How do you get people to buy in?' And in our district when we think about buy-in, I think about, ‘That's my idea. And so how am I going to get people on board with my idea?' And so, really, we want to kind of flip the script on that and think about ownership. And so, when we think about, ‘How do I get people to kind of own this idea with me?' Then that is really where we see true empowerment. And so, we really approach this with that kind of lens to be thinking about, ‘How do I get people to own this, um, process and own what good math instruction looks like with me?' So that when we do adopt that we are adopting something that aligns with our vision for mathematics and what we want to see students participating in and being a part of in the classroom.  Mike: That really feels different even just to hear you talk about it. Ownership kind of conveys this idea that there's a shared responsibility as opposed to buy-in, which is, can I convince you to do a thing?  Dana: Right, right. And so, to get that ownership, we were at a time in the state of Texas where we were adopting new standards. And so, it was kind of, like, the perfect timing to think about, ‘How are we going to really get a clear picture of what we want math instruction to look like?' So, we did a lot of work with our teachers up front prior to adoption on what are those standards going to look like and how are we … or what do we feel like is the best way to teach math, really, in the younger grades? And so, we did a lot of learning together, a lot of reading. We really grounded ourselves with some of the work of Cathy Seeley, who is a former NCTM (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics) president. She wrote a book, called ‘Faster Isn't Smarter.' And so, we kind of looked at that as a good starting point for, ‘We want all students to have opportunities to make sense of math, do the math and use the math.'  And that kind of became our foundation. It's not just about procedural fluency, but conceptual understanding and then ultimately, transfer. And so, we grounded our work in that and tried to bring people along as far as owning that vision. And then from there, we really looked at what teachers wanted from a resource. And thinking about the use of continuous improvement tools, we used feedback loops, consent-o-grams to—all along the way—so that we could really feel like everybody was owning. They wanted a parent component. They wanted more technology. They wanted practice opportunities through, through games. And so, when we established a rubric together with teachers and administrators, then that really helped us when we came to adoption because we were looking for something that checked all of these boxes.  Mike: Yeah. The story that I make up as I hear you talk about that, is that you had a level of consensus around what you were looking for, which made it a lot easier to make a decision that you felt good about, that you felt like people could own.  Dana: Right. Exactly.  Mike: So, I think anyone listening to this podcast knows that schools and districts have limited resources. So, the thing that I'm wondering about is, what were some of the supports that you prioritized during the first year of your implementation of Bridges?  Dana: So, I'm fortunate to work in a team of, there's three of us at the district level, to support all of our campuses. We have over, well, we have 28 elementaries and we're about to open 29; and so over a thousand elementary teachers that we support. But we knew that the three of us could not do it alone. And so, we are also fortunate that we have an instructional coach at each campus. Now this instructional coach is not specific to math. They support all content areas, but we had to bring them along. We had to get them to own it, and we had to have them feeling comfortable. And then we also created a teacher-leader system where we had a lead teacher from each campus. And we really focused on the instructional coach and the lead teacher as our early adopters or our campus champions to really help us rally—rally everyone around, um, owning this vision for mathematics and also the implementation of a new resource. And what a great opportunity along with the implementation of our new standards. And so, we did pay our teacher leads a stipend for that year. And having the instructional coaches in place was critical because it's those two groups that we would be able to lead and then they would take back to their campuses. Another thing that was also critical in that first year was administrator support. And I know that we're going to talk a little bit more about that, but I just want to highlight the fact that our campus principals were really great about giving teachers time in that first year of implementation to work as a professional learning community together, to have half days to plan and support the new adoption that we had.  Mike: There's a lot that you shared there … Dana: ( chuckles )  Mike: ( chuckles ) that I'd love to dig into a little bit. I think what strikes me about what you said though, particularly at the last part first, is the way that you worked with and supported administrators in really designing a year one where teachers had space and time to actually really devote mental space to thinking about a new curriculum: how it's designed, giving space to plan. That feels like it was an intentional priority that you worked with your administrative team to create.  Dana: Yes, that was very intentional. And it was evident when we began our first Getting Started trainings that summer. And we also trained our ICS (In-Class Support) and our lead teachers first, so that they could kind of get the buzz going for summer professional learning. And I thought it was also great that we were able to have the resources available. If you attended the training, you left with your resources. And teachers were so excited to get all of the great resources that are provided with Bridges. So, that was kind of a draw for them. But then once they had their resources and you start to dig through everything, there's another level of support that is needed. And so, we actually had what we called open houses prior to school starting so that teachers could go around to different teachers' classrooms in the district to see, ‘How did you set up your Number Corner? How did you provide space or how are you structuring space in your classroom for Work Places?' And so, we had a lot of teachers [who] would go around to other teachers' classrooms at other campuses and kind of explore to see and get ideas from each other, which was really powerful. And we created the space up front for that prior to the school year so that they would have that opportunity. And I also want to say at this time, seven years ago, we had a pretty good Twitter presence during this, so that we could also have people online. And I know Twitter's kind of blown up since then, but we were on Twitter a lot, and just being able to share that way, as well.  Mike: So, I love this idea of giving teachers space and time to get their materials and get set up. And the open house idea feels really supportive. One of the things that I sometimes think about is an adoption and an implementation might be a pedagogical shift. There might be a different understanding of the mathematics. But the truth is for a lot of people, the very first thing is, ‘How am I going to find a home for all of these things? What will my classroom look like?' You're kind of attending to that really important need that people have to have met even before they're trying to grapple with the curriculum itself.  Dana: Right. And so, to give that time for them up front to kind of get settled in—with what's this going to look like and how do I make it work—I think was key. And I talked a little bit earlier about the principals being able to provide some half-day plannings for teams throughout the year. But we also offered what we would term ‘power hours' after school. And we would host these in teachers' classrooms. And so, this month we're going to talk about the Work Places because we thought it was so critical that the teachers played all the Work Places so that they would know. And that's how you kind of get their ownership of that, too, as well. And so, we would have these power hours after school, where they would come and play the Work Places, or maybe the next month we're going to do a Math Forum together. That's coming up. And then the next month we're going to go through all of the Number Corner. Now you guys have all these great videos, but this was before you had those for Number Corner. And so, we were just really trying to get teachers in each other's classrooms sharing and making it easier. And we would all make the charts together so that they would have them ready for the next month. And we would see a lot of people on Twitter posting: ‘Here I am at my son's baseball game with my binder, learning.' ( laughs ) But I mean, that's just part of the process, too, right?  Mike: Well, you've really started to address the next thing that I wanted to bring up, which is, when I think about having been an elementary teacher for 17 years, what strikes me is that in education, we sometimes give ourselves really short windows of time to do a complete ‘implementation' quote- unquote. I can't tell you how many times I've heard this year is literacy. Next year is math. Dana: Right. Mike: I think what you're starting to address, but that I wanted to ask you directly is, as an instructional leader, how have you really tried to maintain the integrity of your implementation over time? Maybe just talk a little bit about how you've thought about that process of maintaining and sustaining.  Dana: So again, we leaned heavily, and we still continue to lean heavily, on our instructional coaches at campuses. So, each nine weeks, especially in the first three years of implementation—but even now— we'll dive into what does that curriculum look like for the upcoming nine weeks? And we'll give them ideas and point out specific things that are coming up so that they know how to share or how to kind of pull these things out when they're planning with the different grade levels. And so, we would continue to meet with them, but we always start with that unit introduction.  Mike: Hmm.  Dana: And if teachers can just take the time to read this, and this was another big sell from our department for Bridges, was the built in PD (professional development). If you read those introductions, just, like, how much learning that the teachers can have. So, those first years we really wrapped ourselves around those introductions and the learning together as teams. But we also took, at the time you guys had an Implementation Guide …  Mike: We still do.  Dana: Then I will plug the Implementation Guide. Now it's expanded a lot more. But we took that and we had teachers really pick what's a strength for you on here so that other teachers could come see that modeled for them. And then, what's your area of growth for this nine weeks or for this year? Are you going to focus just on Number Corner, but what parts of Number Corner? Or you want to work on the Work Places, but you're not really implementing the sentence frames correctly. So, whatever that goal is for you, and then the instructional coach and the campus administrator would know what that is, and they're able to support you or come give you feedback on that. And that has really helped us because that gave also administrators, kind of the look-fors that they should see when they walk into classrooms. And our department is fortunate to be able to walk with administrators and our instructional coaches so that we could all kind of participate in this coaching together around what we want it to look like, and then where it's going well. And we bring teachers across campuses and classrooms to see where it's going well, and really having them focus on some goals that they want to set to improve.  Mike: So, I suspect unless Leander is a magical school district that's different from everywhere else, you don't have exactly the same staff that you did … Dana: ( chuckles ) Mike: … seven years ago when you started your process. So, you probably know where I'm going, which is … Dana: Yes. Mike: … how do you account for the fact that teachers, like everyone else, have lives? And sometimes they move on from the grade level that they're teaching or their families move somewhere else. You have new administrators and educators coming in. How do you account for, kind of, that turnover that's just natural in education?  Dana: Right. So, we have the natural turnover. But also we are one of the fastest-growing school districts in Texas. And we continue to open about one school at least, sometimes two a year. So, we know that training and learning together is so important. And so, we have sent our curriculum specialists have participated in many of the Bridges trainers of trainers, trainers of leaders, and for Getting Started. And so, we still offer a two-day for that every summer and also in the fall. And we offer that special session for our new administrators, and we even have turnover in our cabinet. So, we offer that training, and I sit down with superintendents and our area superintendents, because we all have to own, own this. And so that is just a yearly thing that we do. But then also continuing to use our campus champions. We have continued that teacher-leader program. They support our new-to-district teachers as well, and then our instructional coaches. So, it is an ongoing cycle. And I will tell you, at first we kind of say, like, ‘If you can get Number Corner, your Problems & Investigations, and your Work Places down,' then we kind of introduced then the assessment piece the next year and then the intervention piece. So, we have layered it in that way so that it's not so overwhelming for our teachers. And then it just becomes part of your practice.  Mike: Thank you so much for that, Dana. The next piece that I wanted to go to, and you've alluded to it throughout this, is the role that instructional leaders—be they administrators or instructional coaches— play … I was reading a bit from The Wallace Foundation about how critically important principals are. Anthony Mohammad talks about how administrators are the ceiling on where a building can go. Can you talk in a little bit more detail about the kind of work that you did to bring your instructional leaders, particularly your principals, into the process of owning the adoption and the implementation?  Dana: This is still a journey. And so, I want to make sure that I plug that, that even though we are seven years into this adoption, we're still on a journey. Everybody's on a journey. We're not at the end of the race when we think about best practices and instruction in mathematics. But to bring our administrators along, we are fortunate to have instructional leadership meetings every month. And so, we really focus on curriculum with them. We focus on best practices and really, we bring learning to them. And we use a lot of the resources that The Math Learning Center provides. We will learn through some of the blog posts together, reading those together. But really what we wanted upfront before adoption and through the adoption process was for our principals to really own the fact that all students, each and every student, can learn math; and making that accessible to all of our learners. And so that is a mindset. We did a lot of work around the mindset work with Jo Boaler and Carol Dweck. And so, thinking about how then, we wanted—we're not a district that just throws out the direct instruction piece either. We still value that direct instruction. But we want to see that blended with investigating and exploration for our students. And then also having that small group time where they're able to reinforce through Work Places. And so, we really wanted our principals to be firm in the components so that they would know what to see in the classroom, but also firm in the fact that we want to see visual models. What do our standards say? What are the best practices for mathematics say? And the use of manipulatives. And that our Number Corner is meant to be a routine and why we value that for practice for pre-teaching and reinforcing. And what's the value of playing the games in Work Places? So that they would understand these components and really own that they want to see these in the classroom because that's what we know is best practices in mathematics.  Mike: When you think about Bridges, in particular, as a curriculum that you've adopted, were there features of the way Bridges is structured or organized that you really felt like it was important to help people understand going into it? And what I mean by that is, in some ways, Bridges is a departure from a traditional curriculum. And I'm wondering what were the things that you identified that's like, gosh, I've just got to make sure people understand this about how it's designed to work?  Dana: Again, it's kind of the three components that I already alluded to, but really that Number Corner piece. Really thinking about Number Corner as an opportunity for the whole class. And we even kind of connect it to a read-aloud. This is an opportunity for the whole class to come together and to, either it's going to pre-teach some things or it's going to reteach some things. And so how are you making sure that those routines are in place and making sure that we have secured small group time for the Work Places to happen? And that's what we call our small group time, is Work Place time. Because we're talking about how the teacher is floating about the Work Places and observing how they're communicating and playing the game and how they are talking about the math with each other. So, I would say, the Work Places and the Number Corner are really, kind of, the areas that were a little bit harder to bring people along.  Mike: What strikes me about what you said is that you describe the function of those two pieces of the curriculum, Number Corner as a tool to have consistent, long-term opportunities to either reengage with big ideas or pre-engage with big ideas that are coming up. And then the idea that Work Places are an opportunity to practice. But they're so much richer of an opportunity to practice than the worksheets that I remember as a kid, where there were 25 naked number problems and two story problems at the bottom ( chuckles ). They function in the same way in the sense that they're the opportunity for longterm practice. Dana: Right. Mike: And the added bonuses, as you said, when the teacher's moving about the classroom, they can formatively assess and listen to what kids are saying. But they can also jump in and do some miniconferring with children in the moment. Dana: Right. Mike: To help guide them or move them or advance their thinking.  Dana: Exactly. And just thinking about that Work Place time and when teachers are thinking about, ‘Oh, I have to plan something different for this small group.' Well, bring that group together to engage in the Work Place with them so that you are right there observing and having, like you said, that conferring time or that mini-lesson over the Work Place.  Mike: Well, before we close, one of the default questions that I ask anyone who's a guest is, if someone was listening to this podcast and they were charged with leading an adoption or an implementation of a curriculum, what are some of the resources you would recommend for someone who is looking for guidance on how to do this work?  Dana: Well, now I would definitely use the blue ( laughs ) ‘Principles to Actions' NCTM book, because I think this sets the great stage for, what are those teaching practices that we want? But also it talks about the elements. One of the essential elements is specific to curriculum. I didn't mention this earlier, but we also had parents give us feedback along the way. And I think that that is also critical, as well as students. Let your students have some hands-on experiences with the resources so that they're able to even advocate and say, ‘This is how we want to learn math.' There's no denying when you see that students are feeling successful, but also when they are loving what they're doing in the math classroom.  Mike: Well, I was just going to say, everything that you talked about today, I think that the word that comes to mind in addition to ownership is investment. As I've listened to you, I keep thinking, you invested time and energy to make the things that you were looking for come to fruition …  Dana: Uh-hm.  Mike: … to continue the journey, as you said. And without investing in those really important things, the outcome might look really different at this point in time. Dana: Right.  Mike: Well, thank you so much for joining us, Dana. I've learned a lot from the conversation. It's been a pleasure talking to you.  Dana: Thanks, Mike. I appreciate it.  Mike: This podcast is brought to you by The Math Learning Center and the Maier Math Foundation, dedicated to inspiring and enabling individuals to discover and develop their mathematical confidence and ability. © 2023 The Math Learning Center | www.mathlearningcenter.org

Rounding Up Season 1 | Episode 10: Asset-Based Learning Environments Guest: Dr. Jessica Hunt Mike Wallus: Take a moment to think about the students in your most recent class. What assets do each of them bring to your classroom and how might those assets provide a foundation for their learning? Today we're talking with Dr. Jessica Hunt about asset-based learning environments. We'll talk about how educators can build an asset-based learning environment in their classrooms, schools, and school districts. Welcome to the podcast, Jessica. Thanks for joining us. Jessica Hunt: Thank you. I'm so excited to be here today. Mike: Well, I would love to start our conversation asking you to help define some language that we're going to use throughout the course of the podcast.  Jessica: Sure.  Mike: I'm wondering if you can just describe the difference between an asset-based and a deficitfocused learning environment. Jessica: I think historically what we see a lot of is deficit-based thinking. And deficit-based thinking focuses on perceived weaknesses of students—or even a group of students. And it focuses on students as the problem. And as a result, we tend to use instruction in an attempt to fix students or to fix their thinking. So, an asset-based learning environment means focusing on and beginning with strengths as opposed to what we think kids need or how to fix them. So, this means viewing kids as able and recognizing that the diversity of their thoughts, their culture, their experiences—all of these things are valuable and can actually strengthen and add meaning to classrooms and to instruction. I think assetbased learning environments involve a shift in our own mindset as teachers. And, of course, what we hope results from that is a shift in our practice. We talk a lot about growth mindsets for kids. I think I am referring to growth mindsets that teachers have about kids. We can ask, ‘What do students know and how can I use that? Or how can I build upon that through my teaching?' I've never met a kid that didn't bring something to instruction. Every student that I've met [has] had strengths that they bring to mathematics classrooms and to communities to expand their thinking and also that of their peers. Mike: It's fascinating listening to your description. I find myself thinking about how deficit-based many of the systems and structures … Jessica: Yeah. Mike: … and practices are, even though we do these things with positive intent.  Jessica: Yeah.  Mike: Can you just say more about that? How do you see deficit thinking filtering into some of the systems and then impacting the learning environments in our kids? Jessica: Sure. I think two ways that I see deficit thinking filtering into driving—and driving systems in classrooms—involve things like time and priorities. Time and how it's used in classrooms and schools is one area that deficit thinking can impact in a big way. How are systems recommending that teachers actually spend their time with students in the context of a particular day or a week or even a unit of instruction? And I ask that question because I think that it's one thing to state that we have asset-based approach. Yet it's quite another to consider the need to develop meaningful habits within classroom spaces that can really promote student strengths. Mike: So, one of the things that you just said really struck me, which is this idea of habits in the classroom. I'm excited to hear what you're going to say about that. Jessica: I think one of the key habits that we have in asset-based learning environments is this idea of listening to kids. I've never met a student that didn't have viable and valuable ideas about mathematics. The key for me is having the time and space to uncover and understand what those are. So, we've got to have a way to listen to students' thinking. When we do that, when we understand the reasoning and the strengths that they're bringing, that supports us in selecting instructional tools and strategies that leverage both their individual strengths and those that they bring to the group in order to promote learning. Mike: Let's pick up on that a little bit. This idea of listening to kids and understanding their thinking and understanding of what it means about the assets that they bring. For a person who might be listening, help them form an image of what that might look like in an elementary classroom. Talk to me a little bit about on a day-to-day basis, how might this idea of listening to kids or attending to kids' thinking—and really considering the assets—how might that show up? Jessica: One way it shows up is this focus on learning. And before I go on with that, I want to talk a little bit about how learning and a focus on it is a little different than focusing on performance. So, focusing on performance as opposed to learning, risks looking at change as something that's fast and quick as opposed to something that grows and endures. So, part of focusing on learning means that we're looking more at the process as opposed to only examining quick outcomes or products of what students are experiencing in classrooms. It's actually interesting to think about that in terms of educational equity because there's some research that actually suggests that performance gains don't necessarily equate to learning gains. Mike: I think that's fascinating. You're making me think of two things. One, and I'm going to reference this for people who are listening, is ‘Taking Action,' which is NCTM's work. Really trying to say what do some of the really critical principles of high-quality education look like in grades pre-K through 5? And they have a really specific focus on attending to what do we want kids to learn versus simply what's the performance. Jessica: Yes, absolutely. Mike: I also just wanted to key in on something you said, which is that performance can be short-lived, but learning endures. Jessica: It sure does. If we want to focus on learning, it means that we have to be intentional in our classroom practices. And I also think that links to a lot of things. Like you brought up NCTM, and a lot of the things that they advocate for. I think there are some natural linkages there as well. So, for me, being intentional, one key part of that is ensuring that students are doing the thinking so that teachers can listen to and promote that thinking. So, we want the placement of the learning and the thinking on the students for a good percentage of the instructional time. We want to ensure that we're immersing students in content rather than simply presenting it all the time. And I think another part of that listening involves positioning students and the ideas that they're bringing forward as competent. So, I think, together, what all of this means is that we're supporting students to make meaning for themselves, yet definitely not by themselves. Jessica: Teachers have an intentional, key role. And part of that intentionality involves things like slowing down and thinking carefully about how to structure learning experiences. And taking more time and planning and ensuring that students have access to multiple ways to engage in and represent and express their thinking with respect to those tasks and activities that they're using and drawing upon to learn. And I think that asset-based learning environments allow for that intentionality. It allows for that time and space and planning. And in teaching, it allows for that immersion and thinking and listening and positioning of students as the sense-makers, as the doers and thinkers of mathematics. Mike: I think the connection that I'm making is this idea that there are some shifts that have to happen in order to enable asset-based listening and intentionality. One of the things that comes to mind is it really starts with even how you structure or imagine the task itself. If you're posing a problem, that problem isn't accompanied by a ‘Let me show you how to find the answer.' That actually allows kids to think about it. And there might be some divergent thinking, and that's actually a good thing. We want to understand how kids are thinking so we can respond to their thinking. Jessica Absolutely. Mike: That's a big contrast to saying, ‘Let me show you a task, let me show you how to do the task.' It's pretty difficult to imagine listening in that kind of context because really what you're asking them to do isn't thinking about how to solve it. Does that make sense? Jessica: It sure does. And I think for me, or a hunch that I would have, is that that also goes back to this whole idea of teaching and listening and maybe even assessing, if you will, for what we think kids need versus what they're bringing us versus their strengths. I see some connections there in what you're seeing. Mike: Let's talk about that a little bit.  Jessica: Sure.  Mike: Particularly assessment, I think when I was getting ready for this episode, that was the first thing that came to mind. I found myself thinking about previous PLC meetings or data meetings that I've had where even if we were looking at student work, I have to confess that I found myself thinking about the fact that we were looking at what kids didn't understand versus what they did understand. And I tried to kind of imagine how those conversations would've looked from an asset perspective. What would it look like to look at student work and to compare student work and think about assets versus thinking about what do I need to remediate in the type of thinking that I'm seeing?  Jessica: Uh-hm. I hear you there. I think it speaks to something that if we really want to build assetbased learning environments, we need to make some shifts. And I think one of those shifts is how we look at and use data and assessment. Primarily, I think we need to assess strengths and not needs. I heard that a lot as you were talking. How can we focus on assessing strengths and not needs? I say that to a lot of people and they're like, ‘What's the difference?' ( laughs ) Or, ‘That seems so small.' (laughs) But I think it winds up being a really big deal. If you think about it, trying to uncover needs perpetuates this idea that we should focus on what we see as the problem, which as I mentioned earlier, usually becomes the students or particular group of students. And I think it's very problematic because it sets us up as teachers to keep viewing students and their ideas as something that needs to be fixed as opposed to assets that we can build from or learn from in the classroom. Mike: Yeah. One of the other ideas that we've talked about on this podcast in different episodes is the idea of relevancy and engagement. And it strikes me that these ideas about listening to kids for assets are pretty connected to those ideas about relevancy and engagement. Jessica: Yeah, most definitely. I think, again, figuring out, we sometimes call this prior knowledge, but I look at it as when kids come to school, they bring with them their entire experience. So, what are those experiences and what from their eyes are things that are relevant and engaging and things in which they are passionate about themselves? And what do they know about those things? And how might they connect to what others in the classroom know about those things? And how can we, to borrow a term, how can we ‘mathematize' those things ( laughs ) in ways that are beneficial for individual kids and for the community of learners in our classroom? Like, how can we make those connections? I don't think we can answer those types of questions when we use assessment from this place of, ‘What don't students know?' Or ‘How can I get them to this particular place?' If that makes sense.  Mike: It does.  Jessica: I think we can ask those questions from a strengths-based lens that is curious about and passionate about really getting at, again, this whole experience that kids are bringing with them to school. And how we can use that to not only better students learning, but better the classroom community and maybe even better the mathematics that kids are learning in that community. Mike: Absolutely. Jessica: That's, that's interesting to think about. Mike: So, you started to address one of the questions that I was going to ask, which is, I'm imagining that there are folks who are listening to the podcast and they're just starting to think about what are some of the small steps or the small moves that I might make? What small steps would you advise folks to think about if they're trying to cultivate an asset-focused learning environment? Jessica: It's an interesting question, and I would suggest putting into practice some of the bigger ideas that we're getting at in asset-based learning environments themselves. And the first is, look at your own strengths. And when I say who I'm referencing there, it can be a teacher, it can be a school, it can be a district. If you look at your own strengths first, look at how your practices, your structures, your priorities are uncovering and using strengths. And if they're not, why not? Kind of looking at what's there, what capacities do we currently have that we can build on toward asset-based learning environments? And I think I would pair that with just a commitment to, to action, if you will. You know, start small, but start now. If you're a classroom teacher for instance—I tend to go to that ( laughs ), that grade size a lot ‘cause I still very much, uh, identify as a teacher—start with one task or one day, or part of a day, where you can slow down and use your instructional time to listen for kids' strength. Jessica: What brilliance and valuable ways of reasoning are they sharing with you? And what kinds of activity or task or environment did you need to put in place to uncover that? What did you learn about it? What did you learn about yourself in this process? So, we learn about kids and then we learn about ourselves. It becomes sort of this beautiful back and forth between students and teachers where we're all learning about ourselves and about each other. And I think that learning piece is the third thing that I would suggest. Again, going back to let's focus on learning. Let's celebrate our own learning as teachers and schools and districts and et cetera. Reframing your practices and structures will take time. That's OK. But learn to celebrate the steps that you and your communities are taking toward this asset-based model of instruction. And know that, again, you know, when we work to do that, we enable kids as mathematical thinkers and doers. So, we take that problem off kids, and we place it as a challenge in our instructional design, in our experiences and our interactions between teachers and students. So, I think for me, I would really invite folks to take those small steps, uncover your own strengths, learn to listen, and celebrate your own learning. Mike: Before we conclude the episode, I'm wondering if you can recommend any resources for someone who wants to continue learning about an asset-based approach to elementary mathematics? Jessica: Yeah. There [are] so many good examples of this. I think about my own learning as a teacher and a teacher of teachers, ( laughs ) and a researcher. And I think about things like cognitively guided instruction or the work of the The Dream Project in early childhood or even TODOS, where I know they provide a lot of wonderful examples of asset-oriented resources. I'll also do a shameless plug ( laughs ) for my, for my own book, you know, myself … Mike: Plug away!  Jessica: … ( laughs ) and Jenny Ainslie put together, called, ‘Designing Effective Math Interventions: An Educator's Guide to Learner-Driven Instruction.' And that book came off of a project that I did with, uh, National Science Foundation support, where we looked at kids' thinking over time and designed some tasks and activities to support conceptual understanding of fractions. But there are those. Alnd, and so, so many more. But those are the ones that come to mind immediately. Mike: That's fantastic. And we'll share links to those things with the podcast.  Jessica: Great. Mike: I want to thank you so much for joining us, Jessica, it's really been a pleasure talking to you. Jessica: Oh, thank you. It's been an immense pleasure talking with you as well. And thank you for inviting me. I really appreciate it. Mike: This podcast is brought to you by The Math Learning Center and the Maier Math Foundation. dedicated to inspiring and enabling individuals to discover and develop their mathematical confidence and ability. © 2023 The Math Learning Center | www.mathlearningcenter.org

「你過年要去哪？」 英文怎麼說？ 再兩天就要過年了，過年的十天假期你有安排什麼特別的計畫嗎？ “今年過年比較早”、“我要回高雄”、“你買好票了嗎” 英文怎麼說呢？ 這一集文化閒聊，Duncan 要跟我們分享， 他對農曆年最深刻的印象是什麼？是好吃的年菜？還是紅通通喜氣洋洋呢？ 快來聽這一集內容，聽聽看過年要去哪的英文怎麼說。 睡覺前想放鬆聽個床邊故事， 點進試看學英文吧新課程「給大人的床邊英文故事」， 結帳前輸入 story250，還可以再折 250 元喔： https://lihi1.com/2YLTy 我們跟 MixerBox 合作，推出「這句英文怎麼說」專屬的贊助方案囉！ 有每個禮拜會寄給你一次 podcast 電子報 ＆ 幕後花絮腳本的輕鬆學習方案， 也有來跟我們一起錄音的互動方案，和用 8 折優惠購買我們的線上課程方案喔。 歡迎點進我們的贊助方案看看有沒有你喜歡的內容喔： https://pse.is/3zu4hx 快速幫你複習一下這集的主題句 ＆ 單字： 你過年要去哪？ Where will you go for the (Lunar) New Year holidays? Where are you going for the (New Year) holidays? 補充學習 今年過年比較早 The Lunar New Year is early this year. 你會回高雄嗎？ Will you go back / return to Kaohsiung? 你買好票了嗎？ Have you bought your ticket(s)? 情境對話 Duncan：The holiday is just around the corner / almost here. Mike：Yeah, the (Lunar) New Year is a bit early this year. Duncan：Where are you going for the holidays? Mike：I'm going back to Kaohsiung. How about you? Duncan：I'm going to Chiayi. 學英文吧網站 https://ivybar.com.tw/?c=3 或追蹤 iVY BAR 學英文吧的 IG，上面圖文版 podcast 複習也很棒喔！ https://pse.is/39vede 現在我們也有影音版的 Podcast 實境秀喔 https://pse.is/3ahupl Powered by Firstory Hosting

Rounding Up Season 1 | Episode 8 – Unpacking ICUCARE Guests: Dr. Pamela Seda & Dr. Kyndall Brown Mike Wallus: What does it mean to offer our students a culturally relevant experience in mathematics? This is a question on the minds of many, particularly elementary mathematics educators. Today we're talking with Pamela Seda and Kyndall Brown, authors of “Choosing to See: A Framework for Equity in the Math Classroom.” We'll talk with our guests about what culturally relevant mathematics instruction looks like and identify practical steps educators can take to start this important work in their classrooms. Mike: So, hello, Pam and Kyndall. Welcome to the podcast. We're so glad to have you with us. I'm wondering if both of you would be willing to take a turn and just talk a little bit about what brought you to writing the book. Pamela Seda: OK, well I'll start. This book really started with my dissertation research. And when I started my Ph.D. program, I was very well aware of the achievement gap and the lack of opportunities for so many students, and I just wasn't satisfied that there was a gap. I had to find answers. And so, my Ph.D. program was my quest to find answers. In the process of finding answers, I created this framework that came out of my study, and I had the opportunity to think about how to support teachers. Firstly, implement it in my own classroom and then figure out how to help teachers implement this. And it was just one of those things that I knew that there were a lot of people who wanted to do better for their kids, but they weren't quite sure how to do it. And so, therefore, this book was really kind of a nuts-and- bolts place to start. Mike: And, Kyndall, if you can pick up the story, how did the two of you start collaborating around the book? Kyndall Brown: So, I met Pam at the National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics Conference in Boston in 2015. I was doing a keynote presentation focused on equity and mathematics, and Pam was in the audience. And at the end of the presentation, she approached me and suggested that we start doing presentations together. So ever since then, we were collaborating to do presentations at national conferences. I had been approached by a publisher about writing a book focused on equity in mathematics. So often when those of us who've been doing this equity work over the years, what we hear from math teachers in particular is, ‘What does it look like in the math classroom?' In language arts, you can read the literature that's reflective of your student population. And [in] a social studies class, you can study the cultures of the student populations in your classroom. But math teachers were always wondering, ‘What does equity look like in a math classroom?' And so, one of the first things Pam did when we met was, she introduced me to her ICUCARE framework. It just made perfect sense to use her framework. I asked if she would like to collaborate. She said yes, and this is what we did during the pandemic. Mike: Well, I'm wondering if the two of you could just start and unpack the premise of the book and describe the framework that you all have proposed for people who may not have read it yet. Pamela: Well, ICUCARE is the acronym. The first part is, ‘I include others as experts; C, be critically conscious; U, understand your students well; and then the second C is, use culturally relevant curricula.' Kyndall, you want to take it from there? ( laughs ) Kyndall: ( laughs ) Sure. The next principle is, ‘Assess, activate, and build on prior knowledge; then comes release control; and the final principle is, expect more.' Mike: You know, we could do a podcast episode for every component of the ICUCARE framework, but today we're really focused on using culturally relevant curricula. I suspect there are many educators listening who are kind of in the shoes that Kyndall was describing earlier, this idea that they're interested in the work, but they're not sure how to start, particularly in the math classroom. So, I'm wondering if you all could just spend a little bit of time talking about the guidance you would offer folks when it comes to culturally relevant curricula in a math classroom. Kyndall: Well, first of all, in order to make a task or your curriculum culturally relevant, you have to know who it is that you're teaching, right? You can't make assumptions and assume that you know who they are based upon some physical characteristic or some other information that you might have with your students. The first thing you have to do is get to know who they are, what their interests are, what their concerns are, and then you can begin to start making the curriculum culturally relevant. Mike: Hmm. Pamela: I always say, if we're talking about a task, let's start with something that is cognitively demanding; something that is accessible but also cognitively demanding. And so, oftentimes we describe that as a low-floor, high-ceiling task. And it's real important that students have that opportunity to be able to have cognitively demanding tasks. I say that's a good place to start. We can use textbook problems, we can go to websites—things like Jo Boaler and Achieve the Core and Bridges—those kinds of things. And that's a good place to start. And so, then you might say, ‘OK, well how do I know that's culturally relevant?' Well, that's what we start with, the good task, and then we're going to take that and make it culturally relevant. And one way I say to take a baby step is, take that task and then just change the names and put some names in there that are meaningful to your students. Pamela: And I say, put your students' names in there rather than just trying to come up with some ethnic-sounding names. Put your students' names so that they can see themselves in there. Put your school's names, put the other teacher's names. The key is students need to be able to see, ‘I am a part of mathematics, that mathematics is a part of who I am, a part of who we are.' And so, I think that's a very good baby step to take is just put meaningful names in there. I know that it was very effective. My students really enjoyed it. I could tell, like, even I purposely oftentimes would do that on tests to help reduce the anxiety level of taking a test. And my students, you would see them kind of smile and look around for the persons that they saw whose name was mentioned in the problem. Pamela: So, that's a good first step. And then I would say, the next thing you could do after you've changed the names is then change the context. Change the contexts to things that are meaningful. But as Kyndall said, this is going to require you understanding something about your students. And some things that you can do to understand your students: You can interview your students. And one of the things we talk about in our book is empathy interviews that you can do. You can have listening conversations. Just have conversations with your students in the hall. What are they talking about in the hall? What are they talking about at lunch? What are they talking about at the bus stop? Just pay attention to those conversations, those social conversations, to figure out what's important to them. And then just do community walks. Find out what's in the community. What are popular places that kids hang out, that they go? What's meaningful to them and their families? And incorporate those contexts into problems. And then after that, if you've gotten used to changing the context, then I suggest what I call go to a Stage Four Task. And then you try to engage their agency and help them understand that math can be a tool to use. Mike: I would love for you to—either of you—to talk a little bit more about that last bit that you mentioned, Pam, when you talked about ways to build up kids' sense of agency. Would you be willing to indulge and just go a little bit further down into that conversation? Pamela: Absolutely. So oftentimes, even if we have these wonderful contexts that students will solve problems and become engaged problem-solvers, there's always the question is, like, ‘So what now? What do I do with this? Why is this important to even get this answer?' And it has to be more than, ‘Well, it's going to be on the test,' right? ( laughs ) And so, helping students understand and solve problems that help them see that they can be a part of solutions [to] things that are important to them. So, for example, I remember taking a problem. And it was something about increase in numbers. There was something about what percent did this increase? And I changed the context to the housing market because we had just actually had some storms that had come through our state and had created a lot of damage to houses and homes. And so, then the very next step was I started having them think about, ‘Well, how much might it cost to rebuild these homes? Were some houses damaged more than others?' Pamela: And ‘What could you possibly do to help?' Those are just some kinds of things to help kids understand that, ‘Oh, well, I'm not just trying to find percent increase or decrease, but there's some contexts here that matter, and it may cause me to do some more research.' And even thinking about, ‘Well, if there are neighborhoods that were impacted, what are some things that I can do? Could there be some money that we raise? If I'm going to rebuild the house, how much might I need to spend? How much might I need to invest so that this maybe doesn't happen again?' Those are just all different types of questions to help students understand that you can use math as a part of your community. I also talk about an example of how I was teaching a unit on regression equations, and I know this is an elementary audience, but it was just an example of the fact that we give tests all the time. Pamela: We give those state standardized tests, and I decided to use our district's data for the schools in our district, and things like that, to actually do the mathematics. And students care about that. They got to see their state scores, and they got to see the scores of their neighborhood, of friends who maybe go to a school down the street. And then not only did they get to do the math with that, then they got to have some input. I gave them that opportunity to basically talk to fellow students, talk to fellow teachers, talk to fellow administrators about, ‘What do you think should be different now that you've analyzed and looked at this data?' Kyndall: And I would just add that Lisa Delpit, an education scholar, wrote this book in the early 2000s called ‘Multiplication is for White People.' And that's an extremely provocative title, but it was actually a quote from an African American student of ours. And it kind of spoke to that student's math identity. The actual quote was, ‘Multiplication is for white people, addition and subtraction is for Black people,' right? And so that speaks to what that student's identity was about. The ability of certain people to do math based upon their racial or ethnic background. So, it is very easy to go through the U.S. educational system and come to the conclusion that mathematics is pretty much the domain of mostly white, European men, right? Mike: Certainly. Kyndall: When nothing could be further from the truth. There's an excellent book called ‘The Crest of the Peacock: Non-European Roots of Mathematics' that shows very clearly that mathematics is a cultural endeavor. It's a humanistic endeavor that all humans all over the planet have engaged in. And that other cultures have made significant contributions to the field of mathematics. And so, we need to do a lot better job of exposing students to that so that we can make sure that they see mathematics is as much a part of their culture as any other racial or ethnic group. And they need to see examples of people that look like them in the math textbooks, on the walls of their classrooms, as another way to help build that mathematics identity. Mike: You know, and I think that is actually one of the things that I really appreciated about the way that you all structured the book. I know that I've heard other people who have read it say how much they appreciated being able to hear the stories from your own classrooms, the experiences that you had with students, and really being able to put those out there in a way that help people see where there might be pitfalls and where there might be opportunities. I'm curious if either of you would be willing to share a story about culturally relevant curricula and the impact that you saw on a particular student. Kyndall: Well, Pam has a couple of really good stories in that chapter, so I'm going to let her ... Pamela: ( laughs ) Yeah. So, one of the things I talk about is Jasmine. Jasmine was one of my students who, we'll just say we didn't see eye to eye on most things ( laughs ). Jasmine was very openly hostile towards me, and I was expending a lot of my energy just trying to get her to do anything. And she just made it very clear to me she wasn't interested in doing anything I asked her to do. And so I gave her that project that I talked about, where we decided to look at our test scores, our standardized test scores throughout the district, and applied the math content of the standard that we were using to this, to where she got to make an analysis and be able to see if there was a relationship between the percentage of Black students in our school and then our college and career readiness index, and those kinds of things. Pamela: And I was just really amazed about the transformation that happened with her. Because previously, not only was she not willing to work with me, she didn't want to work with her classmates either ( chuckles ). Mike: Mm. Pamela: And she, as a result of working on this project, asked to be a part of a group. When she found out that she had made some mistakes on some of the data, she willingly stayed after school to fix her mistakes. And I even remember the day that the project was due. She stayed late to put her finishing touches on it. And so, I just was amazed. She was just ... became pleasant. And as a result, I wanted to talk with her about the impact that this project had on her. And she said she really wanted to do it. It wasn't like it was just for a grade. She really wanted to learn the information. And the other thing that was kind of interesting is she didn't really see it as math. She didn't really think that what she was doing was really math, even though she was using Excel spreadsheets and she was using formulas. What that told me was how her perception was that school math wasn't what real math was, and that what we were doing that was connected to her community didn't feel like math. And I felt like that's something that we really need to change. Mike: Yeah. Kendall, I saw you nodding on the other ... (this podcast was recorded via Zoom with video) Kyndall: Well, I think the general public has come to believe that the only thing that counts as math is what you do in school, in a math classroom, right? Mike: Uh-hm. Kyndall: That all of these ways that people are engaging in mathematical thinking and reasoning all day, every day, they don't see as math. And so, they don't see themselves as math people, right? Because they were not successful at school math. Right? Mike: Right. Kyndall: And so how do we undo that perception and get people to recognize the myriad of ways that they're engaging in mathematical thinking and reasoning all the time? Mike: Absolutely. Yeah. I was just going to ask you if there's anything in particular you think might be important for an elementary math educator to be thinking about when they're trying to apply the ideas, some of the suggestions that you all have when it comes to ‘Choosing to See.' Is there anything in particular that folks who are operating at the elementary level might consider or might think about that has come to y'all as you've brought the book out into the world and had people interact with it? Pamela: Well, one thing that I've come to understand is that, while we do need to have good tasks—and the work that we ask students to do needs to be meaningful and needs to be accessible—tasks don't teach kids. And we need to think about how do we structure how kids experience the mathematics in our classrooms? And that to me is what the framework does. It's a lens to help teachers think about, ‘How do I engage my students? How do I structure the instruction so that kids have a positive experience around the mathematics?' So, it should not be thought of as, ‘Oh, this is just once I get the math, then I'm going to go and think about this as a add-on.' Mike: Hmm. Pamela: There are myriads of strategies out there. It's not saying that you should throw out everything that you've ever done before. It's just look at the strategies and the things, the rituals and routines that you've been using in your classroom. And think about them in terms of this lens. If you're getting ready to do an activity, you might say, ‘OK, here's a routine that I normally have. How can I adapt it so I can include others as experts, so I'm not the only one that's doing all the talking? How can I engage my students so that I expect more out of them?' Right? So that they're doing more of the work? So, it's really a lens of how to think about the work that you do and the work that they do. Mike: That totally makes sense. Kyndall: Right. And the research shows that tracking begins very early in elementary school, right? And so elementary teachers need to be conscious of all of these different issues so that they can be on guard at the very early stages to not allow that tracking to begin. Mike: For educators or instructional leaders who are new to the conversation, in addition to reading ‘Choosing to See,' are there other resources that you think would be helpful in supporting people in learning more about equity in the mathematics classroom? Pamela: Well, yes, I know that I've just started reading recently, it's a new book this out called ‘Engaging in Culturally Relevant Math Tasks: Fostering Hope in the Elementary Classroom.' And it's by our good friends Lou Edward Matthews, Shelly M. Jones, and Yolanda Parker. It's at Corwin books, and I definitely recommend that that is a great resource. Kyndall: There's a new book that just came out. It's called ‘Middle School Mathematics Lessons to Explore, Investigate, and Respond to Issues of Social Injustice,' by Robert Berry and his colleagues. In 2020, they released a high school version of the book. And in the fall of 2022, they're planning on releasing an upper- and lower elementary version of these books. And the first section of the book is really talking about the kind of pedagogy needed to implement social justice tasks. And then the second part of the book has lessons aligned to the different content strands that are social justice focused, a lot of digital resources. And so, I think that is an excellent resource for teachers. Mike: That's fantastic. Pam and Kyndall, I want to thank you both so much for being here with us today, for sharing the book with us. It's really been a pleasure talking with both of you. Kyndall: Thank you. Pamela: Well, thank you. Mike: This podcast is brought to you by The Math Learning Center and the Maier Math Foundation, dedicated to inspiring and enabling individuals to discover and develop their mathematical confidence and ability. © 2023 The Math Learning Center | www.mathlearningcenter.org

Rounding Up  Season 1 | Episode 7 – Cognitively Guided Instruction: Turning Big Ideas into Practice  Guest: Dr. Kendra Lomax  Mike Wallus: Have you ever had an experience during your teaching career that fundamentally changed how you thought about your students and the role that you play as an educator? For me, that shift occurred during a sweltering week in July of 2007, when I attended a course on cognitively guided instruction. Cognitively guided instruction, or CGI, is a body of research that has had a massive impact on elementary mathematics over the past 20 years. Today on the podcast, we're talking with Kendra Lomax, from the University of Washington, about CGI and the promise it holds for elementary educators and students. Well, Kendra, welcome to the podcast. It's so great to have you on.  Kendra Lomax: Well, thanks for having me.  Mike: Absolutely. I'm wondering if we can start today with a little bit of background; part history lesson, part primer to help listeners understand what CGI is. So, can you just offer a brief summary of what CGI is and the questions that it's attempted to shed some light on?  Kendra: Sure, I'll give it my best try. So, CGI is short for cognitively guided instruction, and it's a body of research that began some 30 years ago with Tom Carpenter and Elizabeth Fennema. And there's lots of other scholars that since then have kind of built upon that body of research. They really tried to think about and understand how children develop mathematical ideas over time. So, they interviewed and studied and watched really carefully what young children did as they solve whole-number problems. So, you may have heard about the book ‘Children's Mathematics,' and that's where you can read a lot about cognitively guided instruction and [it] summarizes some of that research. And they really started with whole-number computation and then have kind of expanded into areas like fractions and decimals, learning about how kids develop ideas about algebraic thinking, as well as early ideas around counting and quantity.  Mike: Uh-hm.  Kendra: So, there's a couple of books that are kind of in the CGI family. ‘Young Children's Mathematics' includes those original authors, as well as Nick Johnson and Megan Franke, Angela Turrou, and Anita Wager. That fractions and decimals work was really led by Susan Empson and Linda Levi. And then, like I mentioned, ‘Thinking Mathematically' is the text by the original authors that kind of talks about algebra. So, in all of those texts that summarize this research, basically, we're trying to understand how do children develop ideas over time? And Tom and Liz really set an example for all of us to follow in how they thought about sharing this research. They had a deep respect for the wisdom of teachers and the work that they do with young children. So, you won't find any sort of prescription in the CGI research about how to teach, exactly, or a curriculum. Because their approach was to share with teachers the research that they had done when they interviewed and listened to all of these many children solving problems, and then learn from the teachers themselves. What is it that makes sense to do in response to what we now know about how children develop mathematical ideas?  Mike: I mean, it's kind of a foundational shift in some ways, right? It reframes how to even think about instruction, at least compared to the traditional paradigm, right? Kendra: Yeah, it's less a study of how best to teach children and really a study and a curiosity about how children bring the ideas that they already have to their work in the math classroom, and how they build on those ideas over time.  Mike: Definitely. It's funny, because when I think about my first exposure I think that was the big aha, is that my job was to listen rather than to impose or tell or perfectly describe how to do something. And it's just such a sea change when you rethink the work of education.  Kendra: Definitely. And it feels really joyful, too, right? You get to be a student of your students and learn about their own thinking and be really responsive to them in the moment, which certainly provides lots of challenges for teachers. But also, I think, just a sense of genuine relationship with children and curiosity and a little bit of joy.  Mike: Definitely. So, I'm wondering if we could dig into a little bit of the whole-number work, because I think there's a bit that we were talking about with CGI, which is really the way in which you approach students, right? And the way that you listen to students for cues on what they're thinking is. But the research did reveal some ways to construct a framework for some of the things you see when children are thinking.  Kendra: So, if you read the book ‘Children's Mathematics,' you might notice or recognize some of those ideas, because CGI is one of the research bases for the Common Core state math standards. So, when you're looking through your grade-level standards and you see that they're suggesting particular problem types, number sizes, or strategies that children might use, much of that is based on the work of cognitively guided instruction, as well as other bodies of research. So, it might sound familiar when you read through the book yourself. And what CGI helps reveal is that there's a somewhat predictable sequence: That young children develop strategies for whole-number operation for working with whole-number computational problems.  Mike: Yeah. Can you talk about that, Kendra?  Kendra: Yeah. So, young children are going to start out with what we call direct modeling, where they are going to directly model the context of the problem. So, if we give them a story problem, they'll act out or model or show or gesture, to show the action of the problem. So, if it describes eating something ( makes eating sounds ), you can imagine, right, the action that goes along with eating? And we're all very familiar with it. So, they're going to show maybe, the cookies, and then cross out the ones that get eaten …  Mike: Uh-hm.  Kendra: … right? So, they're really going to directly model the action or relationship described in the problem. And they're going to also represent all the quantities in the problem, which is different. What they learn over time is to count on or count back. So, some of the counting strategies where they learn, ‘Gosh, I don't want to make all the quantities in this problem.' It becomes too difficult, too cumbersome. And they learn that they could count on from one of the quantities or count back. So, in that cookie example, maybe there are seven cookies on a plate, and I have two of them for dessert, right? ( makes eating sounds) They go away. So, in direct modeling, they're going to show the seven cookies. They're going to remove those two cookies that get eaten, and then count how many are left. Where in counting on—so they have had lots of experiences of direct modeling—they can say, ‘Gosh, I don't really want to draw that seven. I'm going to imagine the seven … ‘  Mike: Uh-hm.  Kendra: ‘ … And I can maybe count backwards from there.'  Mike: So, like, 7, 6, 5.  Kendra: Yeah. Right. So, I don't have to make the seven. I can just imagine it. And I keep track of those two that I'm counting back.  Mike: That totally makes sense. And as a former kindergarten and first-grade teacher, it's an amazing thing to actually see that shift happen.  Kendra: Right? And it's really specialized knowledge that teachers develop to pay attention to that shift. It's easy for everybody else to kind of miss it. But for teachers, it's a really important shift to pay attention to.  Mike: I used to say to parents, when I would try to describe this, it's something that we almost aren't conscious of being able to do. But it's a gigantic step to go from imagining a quantity as a set of ones to imagining a quantity that is a number that you can count back from or count forward from. It's a gigantic leap. Even though to us, we've forgotten what big of a leap that was because it's been so long since we took it.  Kendra: Yeah. That's one thing I love about studying children's mathematics, is, like, you get to experience that wonderment all over again …  Mike: Uh-hm.  Kendra: … in the things that we kind of, as adults, take for granted in how we think about the world.  Mike: Yeah. I think you really clearly articulated the shift that kids make when they move from direct modeling, the action and the quantities, to that kind of shift in their thinking and also their efficiency of being able to count on or count back. Is there more to, kind of, the trajectory that kids are on from there?  Kendra: There is, yeah. So, after children have had lots of experiences to direct model, and then learn to become more efficient with that, and counting on or counting back, then they might start inventing. We call them invented algorithms, which is a fancy way to say that they think about the relationship between quantities and start putting them together and taking them apart in more efficient ways. So, they might use their understanding of groups of 10, right? So, in that example, with the cookies—seven cookies and eating two of them—I might know something about the relationship with fives …  Mike: Uh-hm.  Kendra: … Five and two make a seven. So, they start to develop some sense of how numbers go together, and how the operations really behave. So, in addition, I can kind of add them in any order that I want to, right? So, we see these called in the Common Core standards, Strategies Based on Place Value, Properties of Operation, and the relationship between addition, subtraction, or multiplication, division.  Mike: That's super helpful to actually connect that language in Common Core to what you might see, and how that translates into, kind of, what one might read about in some of the CGI research.  Kendra: Right. It'd be lovely if we all had the exact same ( laughs ) names, wouldn't it?  Mike: Definitely. One of the questions that I suspect people who might be new to this conversation are asking is, what are the conditions that I can put in place? Or what are the things that I might, as a teacher, be able to influence that would help kids move and make some of these shifts. Knowing that the answer isn't direct instruction. I could get a kid to mimic counting on, but if they're still really thinking about numbers in the sense of a direct modeler, they haven't really shifted, right? So, my wondering is, how would you describe some of the ways that teachers can help nudge children, or kind of set up situations that are there to help kids make the shift without telling, or …  Kendra: ( chuckles)  Mike: … like, giving away the game?  Kendra: Totally. Yeah. That's one takeaway that I'm always on the lookout for when people hear about CGI and this trajectory that's somewhat predictable.  Mike: Uh-hm.  Kendra: Let's just teach them the next strategy then, right?  Mike: Right.  Kendra: And what's important to remember is that these are called invented algorithms for a reason.  Mike: Uh-hm.  Kendra: Because children are actually inventing mathematics. It's amazing. Kindergartners are inventing mathematics. And so, our role is really to create the right opportunities for them to do that important work. And like you're saying, when they're ready for the next ideas that they're building on their existing knowledge, rather than us kind of coming in and trying to create that artificially.  Mike: Uh-hm.  Kendra: So, again, like, Liz and Tom really kind of taught us to be students of our students as well as students of teachers.  Mike: Uh-hm.  Kendra: So, what we've learned over time … some of the things that teachers have found really productive for supporting students to kind of move through this trajectory, to create increasingly efficient strategies, is really about thinking about carefully choosing the problems that we've put in front of students.  Mike: Uh-hm.  Kendra: So, paying attention to the context. Is it familiar to them? Is it reasonable for the real world? Are we helping kids see that mathematics is all around them.  Mike: Uh-hm.  Kendra: Paying attention to the quantities that we select. So, if we want them to start thinking about those relationships with five and 10, or as they get older with hundreds and thousands, that we're intentional about the quantities that we choose for those problems.  Mike: Right.  Kendra: And then, of course we know that students learn a lot from not just us, but their relationships and their discussions with their classmates. So, really orchestrating classroom discussions, thinking about choosing students to work together so that they can both learn from one another, and really just finding ways to help students connect their current thinking with the new ideas that we know are on the horizon for them.  Mike: I would love for you to say a little bit more about number choice. That is such a powerful strategy that I think is underutilized. So, I'm wondering if you could just talk about being strategic around the number choices that you offer to kids. Can you say more about that?  Kendra: Sure! It's going to depend on grade level, of course, right?  Mike: Uh-hm.  Kendra: Because they're going to be working with very different quantities early in elementary and then later on … One thing I would say, across all of the grade levels, is to not limit students whenever possible. So, sometimes we want to give problems that kids are really comfortable with, and we know they're going to be successful. But if I'm thinking of how they develop more efficient strategies, sometimes the growth comes in making it a little tricky. So, giving quantities that are just a little bit beyond where they're counting as young children, so they develop the need to learn that counting sequence. Or, as we're working with older students, if we know that particular multiplication facts are less familiar to students. Giving them that nudge by creating story context, where they can really make sense of the action of the relationship that's happening in it, but maybe choosing that times seven that we know has been tricky for kids, right?  Mike: Yep.  Kendra: So, I would just encourage people to not shy away from problems that we know pose some challenge to students. That's actually where a lot of the meat and the rigor happens. And, but then we also want to provide support inside of those, right? So, working with a partner.  Mike: Definitely. Kendra: Or making sure they have access to those counting charts. That's one thing I would say across grade levels.  Mike: Yeah. So, you made me think of something else. It's fascinating to have this conversation, Kendra, 'cause it reminds me of all the things that I had to learn over time. And I think one of the things that I'm wondering if you could talk a little bit more about is, the types of problems and how the problem that you choose for a given group of students might influence whether they're direct modeling or they're counting on or whether they're using invented algorithms. Because I think, for me, one of the things that it took a while to make sense, is that the progression isn't necessarily linear, right? Like, if I'm counting on in a certain context, that doesn't mean I'm counting on in all contexts or direct modeling or what have you. So, I'm curious if you could talk a little bit about problem types and now how those influence what things students sometimes show us.  Kendra: Yeah. I'm glad you brought that up. When we describe, kind of, that trajectory of strategies, it sounds really nice and tidy and organized and like it is predictable in some ways. But like you're saying, it also depends on the kind of problem and the number size that we're putting in front of children. So that trajectory kind of iterates again and again throughout elementary school. So, as we pose more complex problem types … so, for example, the cookies problem where I have seven cookies, I eat two of them and the result is what's at the end of the story, right? The cookies left over.  Mike: Uh-hm.  Kendra: If I now make that problem, I have some cookies on a plate. I ate two of them, and I have five left over. All the kindergarten teachers, actually all the elementary school teachers …  Mike: ( laughs ) Yes.  Kendra: … can automatically recognize that's going to be a more tricky problem, right?  Mike: Uh-hm.  Kendra: Where do I start!? Especially if I'm direct modeling, right? We know they start and follow the exact action of the story.  Mike: Absolutely ( chuckles ).  Kendra: So, as we pose more complex problem types, you're right. You're going to see that they might use less efficient strategies because they're really making sense. They're like, ‘Wait, what's the relationship that's happening in this story? Where do I begin? Where are the cookies at the beginning, middle, and end of this story?' So, we see that happen throughout elementary school. So, it's not that direct modeling is for kindergartners. And that invented algorithms are for fifth grade. It's that as new ideas get introduced, as we make problems more complex, maybe increasing the number size or now we're working with fractions and decimals …  Mike: Uh-hm. Kendra: We see this happen all over again. Kids begin with direct modeling to make sense of the situation. Then they build on that and get a little bit more efficient with some counting kinds of strategies. And then over time with lots of practice with that new problem type, those new numbers, um, they develop those invented algorithms again.  Mike: So, this makes me think of something else, Kendra. How would you describe the role of representation in this process? That could mean manipulatives that students choose to use. It could mean things that they choose to draw, visual models. How does representation play in the process?  Kendra: Yeah. So, oftentimes I hear people say, ‘This student used cubes. That was their strategy.' Or ‘This student used a drawing. That was their strategy.' And that's really not enough information to know the mathematical work that that child is doing. Did they use cubes as a way to count on?  Mike: Uh-hm.  Kendra: Are they keeping track of only one of the quantities but using cubes to do so? Are they doing a drawing that actually represents groups of 10? And they're using ideas about place value inside of it, which is different than if they're just drawing by ones, right? So, there's lots of detail inside of those representations that's important to pay attention to.  Mike: Yeah. I'm thinking about one of my former kindergartners. I remember that I had some work that she had done in the fall, and then I had another bit of work that she had done in the spring. And the fall was this ( chuckles ) very detailed drawing of, like, a hundred circles. And then in the spring, she was unitizing, right? She had a bunch of circles and then within [them] had labeled that each of those were 10. And it just struck me, like, ‘Wow, that is a really tangible vision of how she was drawing in both cases.' But her representation told a really different story about what she understood about math, about numbers, about the base 10 system.  Kendra: Right. And those might be very different starting points. As you, the teacher, you walk over and you see those two different kinds of drawings …  Mike: Uh-hm.  Kendra: … your conversation or your prompt for them … your next step for them might be pretty different.  Mike: Absolutely.  Kendra: Even though they're both drawing.  Mike: Yeah. Well, let me ask you this, 'cause I think I struggled with this a little bit when I first started really thinking about CGI. I had gone to a training and left incredibly inspired and was excited. And one of the things that I was trying to reconcile at that time is, like, I do have a curriculum resource that I'm using, and I wonder how many teachers sometimes struggle with that? I've learned these ideas about how children think, how to listen … what are some of the teacher moves I can make? And I'm also trying to integrate that with a tool that I'm using as a part of my school or my district. So, what are your thoughts about that?  Kendra: That makes a lot of sense. And I think that happens a lot of time in professional learning, where we learn a new set of ideas and then we're wrestling with how do they connect with the things I'm already doing? How do I use them in my own classroom? So, I really appreciate that challenge. I guess one way I like to think about it is that the trajectory that CGI helps us know about how children develop ideas over time is a little bit like a roadmap that I can use regardless of the curricular materials that I have in front of me. And it helps me understand what is on the horizon for that child. What's next for them and their learning? Depending on the kind of strategies that they're using and the kinds of problems that we're hoping to be giving them access to in that grade level, I can look at my curricular materials in front of me and use that roadmap to help me navigate it. So, we were talking about number selection. So, I might take that lens as I look at the curriculum in front of me and think about, ‘Are these the right numbers to be using? What will my students do with the problem …  Mike: Uh-hm.  Kendra: … that is suggested in my curricular materials?' To anticipate how my discussion is going to go and what kinds of strategies I might want to highlight in my discussion. So, I really like to think of it as the professional knowledge that teachers need in order to make sense of their curriculum materials and make informed decisions about how to use those really purposefully.  Mike: Yeah. The other thing that strikes me, that I'm connecting to what you said earlier, is that I could also look at the problem and think about, ‘Does the context actually connect with what I know about my children? Can I somehow shift the context in a way that makes it more accessible to them while still maintaining the structure, the problem, the mathematics, and such?'  Kendra: Right. Yeah. Are there small revisions I can make? Because, uh, I don't envy curriculum writers ( chuckles ) at all because there's no way you can write the exact right problem for every day, for every child across the country. So, as teachers, we have to make really smart decisions and make those really manageable. Because teachers are very busy people.  Mike: Sure.  Kendra: But those manageable, kind of, tweaks or revisions to make it really connected to our students lives.  Mike: Yeah. I think the other thing that's hitting me is that, when you've started to make sense of the progression that children go through, it's a little bit like putting on a pair of glasses that allow you to see things slightly differently and understand that skill of noticing. That's universal. It doesn't necessarily come and go with a curriculum. It's something that's important. Knowing your students is always going to be something that's important for teachers, regardless of the curriculum materials they've got.  Kendra: Yep. That's right.  Mike: So, here's my, I think my last question. And it's really, it's a resource one. So, if I'm a listener who's interested in learning more about CGI, if this is really my first go at understanding the ideas, what would you recommend for someone who's just getting started thinking about this and maybe is walking away thinking, ‘Gosh, I'd like to learn more.' Kendra: Sure. Well, I mentioned the whole laundry list of great texts that you can dig into more. So, ‘Children's Mathematics' being the one on whole-number operation across grade levels. I find that, like, preschool through first- or second-grade teachers have found ‘Young Children's Mathematics' incredibly impactful. It helps connect ideas about counting in quantity with these ideas about problem-solving and operation. And then kind of connects them and helps us think about how to support students to develop those really important early ideas.  Mike: Uh-hm.  Kendra: Anybody who I have talked to that has read ‘Extending Children's Mathematics: Fractions and Decimals' has found it incredibly impactful.  Mike: I will add myself to that list, Kendra. It blew my mind.  Kendra: Yeah, us, too! Everybody who read it was like, ‘Ohhh, I see now.' It points out a lot of really practical ways for us to pay attention. It offers a trajectory much like whole-number about how children develop ideas and also kind of suggests some problems that will help us support students as they're developing those ideas. So, [I] definitely recommend those. And then, ‘Thinking Mathematically' is another great text that helps us connect arithmetic and algebra, as we're thinking about how to make sure that students are set up for success as they start thinking more algebraically. And [it] digs into a little bit of—I talked about young children inventing mathematics—I think even further describes the ways that they invent important properties of operation that can be really interesting to read about.  Mike: That's fantastic. Kendra, thank you so much for joining us. It's really been a pleasure talking to you today.  Kendra: Thanks for having me.  Mike: This podcast is brought to you by The Math Learning Center and the Maier Math Foundation, dedicated to inspiring and enabling individuals to discover and develop their mathematical confidence and ability.  © 2022 The Math Learning Center | www.mathlearningcenter.org

「芳茲滴雞精」年節推出「日月養生雞魚饗宴禮盒」。除了超人氣「日月養生滴雞精」還有百位護理師推薦「日月養生滴魚精」。香醇無腥味！禮盒內附匠人手作「天目釉品茗杯」，下單滿額再抽黃金999金條，詳情請點擊鏈結：https://go.fstry.me/3S2ZQrx —— 以上為播客煮與 Firstory Podcast 廣告 —— 「巴西隊晉級了嗎？」 英文怎麼說？ 世足賽進入最後階段了！你覺得哪一隊會是這屆冠軍呢？ “四強”、“準決賽”、“決賽” 的英文怎麼說呢？ 這一集文化閒聊，Duncan 要跟我們分享， 英國人跟美國人對於足球的說法有很多不一樣， 如果美國人跟他的英國朋友說他是一個 Soccer fan， 英國朋友可能會馬上糾正他的說法喔！為什麼呢？ 快來聽這一集內容，聽聽看巴西隊晉級了嗎的英文怎麼說。 （我們這一集錄音時間是上個禮拜～～所以內容不是最新的比賽資訊 XD，請有在看比賽的大家多多包涵） Duncan 的線上課程「英語腦進化論」， 現在正在火熱預購中（歡呼～～）： https://lihi1.com/6xs97 我們的聽眾結帳前輸入 duncan300，優惠價格再扣 300 元喔！ 我們跟 MixerBox 合作，推出「這句英文怎麼說」專屬的贊助方案囉！ 有每個禮拜會寄給你一次 podcast 電子報 ＆ 幕後花絮腳本的輕鬆學習方案， 也有來跟我們一起錄音的互動方案，和用 8 折優惠購買我們的線上課程方案喔。 歡迎點進我們的贊助方案看看有沒有你喜歡的內容喔： https://pse.is/3zu4hx 快速幫你複習一下這集的主題句 ＆ 單字： 巴西隊晉級了嗎？（可以替換成你喜歡的任何隊伍名字） Did Brazil advance? 補充學習 世足賽 (The) World Cup 十六強 Group/Round of Sixteen 八強 Group/Round of Eight 四強 Final Four 準決賽 semi-final 決賽 championship final match(英）/ game（美） 情境對話 Duncan：I didn't watch the game yesterday. Did Brazil advance? Mike：I also haven't seen it yet. I'll watch it online later. Duncan：I hope they play OK. I think every team this year is playing really great. Mike：Yeah. 學英文吧網站 https://ivybar.com.tw/?c=3 或追蹤 iVY BAR 學英文吧的 IG，上面圖文版 podcast 複習也很棒喔！ https://pse.is/39vede 現在我們也有影音版的 Podcast 實境秀喔 https://pse.is/3ahupl Powered by Firstory Hosting

This week we're exploring the fascinating and controversial topic of flat earth theory....again. This ancient belief, once relegated to the fringes of society, has seen a resurgence in recent years thanks to the power of the internet and social media. On this episode, we'll take a deep dive into the history of the flat earth movement and examine the arguments made by its supporters.  We'll explore the evidence (or lack thereof) supporting the idea that the earth is not a globe, but rather a flat, disc-shaped plane. Whether you're a believer or a skeptic, you won't want to miss this revisit. Join us as we challenge our assumptions about the world around us and explore the flat earth phenomenon. Did we change our minds? *Intro sound clip features comedian Dan Cummins If you have any questions or topics you'd like to see the society cover, please reach out at Contact@hushhushsociety.com   You can find all our audio, blogs and drop sweet ratings at www.hushhushsociety.com Find our Video Content on our Rokfin Leave us a review on Apple, our website, Podchaser or GoodPods You can grab Hush Hush merch and help support the show on Patreon Link up with the society on social media:   Facebook   Instagram   Twitter    Join our Discord and chat with us   TRANSCRIPT Flat Earth 2   [00:01:00]  Dave: Greetings, Hushlings. Welcome back to the Hush Hush Society Conspiracy Hour. Mike: Where we journey into the world of conspiratorial mysteries and dark truths Dave: I'm Declassified Dave Mike: and I'm Mystery Mike and as though is we're joined by our fellow globetard Slick Fronk Sanders. Fronk: The Earth is probably round how you doing? Dave: it's going. Are things going around today? Mike: Quick question flat Earthers. How do boomerangs work on your flat plane? Fronk: Boomerangs are flat.  Dave: that got him. If you didn't notice today, we returned to the great debate in this episode. Is the Earth round? Is the Earth flat? Fronk: Hushling's, uh, in case you weren't [00:02:00] aware, we visited this topic in season three and completely shat all over the flat plane and we believe we should revisit this mother of all modern conspiracies, seeing as though it's such a big part of conspiracy culture. Dave: it's getting even bigger, even though you guys probably most definitely are gonna take a second dumping in this one. Mike: not as bad as the first. Dave: Not  Fronk: Yeah. We'll see. We'll see. Mike: we've discussed how there are different phases to being a flat earther. I'm guess I'm still in stage zero and we were in stage one in May of 2021. let's go up around to stage two But before we search for the horizon and fall off the flat plane and search for God in the sky under the spotlight sun, you can always find us on our social medias, Facebook, [00:03:00] Instagram, and Twitter Dave: You can also find everything hush hush society on our website, www.hushhushsociety.com. From episodes to links to merchandise, and the ability to drop a review or leave us a voicemail. We hope we get some after this episode. Mike: Hmm. Please do. Dave: Yeah. Fronk: And we keep mentioning that we are now also a video podcast. You can not only. To us, but you can watch us, you can see our faces. You can get that expressional action that you might not get from just an audio recording. And to find those episodes, you just gotta go to Rock Fin. It's, it's very simple. Rock fin.com. There's even an app. And in the search bar you just put in Hush Hush Society. You'll find us nice and easy. And there you can find all of our videos. you hit the notification button. You get notifications when our videos come out. Check it out. Mike: And just one last thing before we move on to the flat plane, we just [00:04:00] want to give a quick shout out to our newest patron, Gabrielle May. Thank you so much. We appreciate you. Fronk: Just in case you're new to this, we're gonna do a quick little recap for you on what Flat Earth theory is, and essentially, in a nutshell, the earth is flat rather than round. Pretty self explanatory, although it's made its appearance throughout history. The theory gained popularity around 2009 and has continued to grow ever since. Dave: It is regarded as one of the most controversial conspiracy theories in existence. Why claim that our earth is flat and not a globe easy? That's because it looks flat and feels flat and is surrounded by 200 feet of ice blocking us from traversing across an infinite plane or falling off the edge. Sounds correct, right? Fronk: I mean, yeah, that's what I've been made to believe. That's that's what it seems like Mike: Yeah. Riding on the back of a turtle through the cosmos, but the cosmos [00:05:00] doesn't exist, so where's the turtle going? Anyways,  according to believers, NASA and the ruling elite protect the ice walls from people attempting to climb over and fall from the disc. Can't make it up. They also believe that earth's gravity is an illusion, and that objects are driven up by a mysterious force called dark energy, rather than spinning and being stuck to a surface, Fronk: But on the other hand, there are countless photographs, videos, and images from astronauts and the International Space Station that kind of seem like evidence to show that the Earth is round. But these are not considered real evidence and are allegedly faked by the government or the ruling elites Dave: Now before we move on, flat, earthers already pissed off at our description in the beginning, Fronk: probably. Dave: we wanted to pull you in, but we'll make it as [00:06:00] fair as possible with some of the talking points that we're going to go over.  Now, Hushlings, there is the flat Earth Society as well as thousands of others from around the globe in groups. In addition to independent researchers, even though there is evidence to contradict some of these arguments, they are dismissed as fabrications of around earth conspiracy, along with stars, planets, galaxies, space, and gravity, all being a part of the facade of where we live. Mike: That is my biggest thing when it comes down to a debate between a flat earth and someone who believes that we live on a globe, is that it always results. In a flat earth are saying, well, that's what you've been told. You've been lied to. You're believing a lie that's being told to you, which is the old faithful of all conspiracy theorists, is that you're being lied to. That's all well and good, but at what point do you turn around and say, the [00:07:00] science is being lied to you. Nasa, we know lies to us. We know they fabricate images. We know what they do. But again, that's more of an argument that NASA is filled with bunch of liars. But at what point do you look at it maybe there is evidence that it's a globe or maybe there is evidence that it's a flat plane. There has to be a certain cutoff point where you stop saying, well, you're being lied to. That's what they want you to believe. That's what they're fabricating the science. They're fabricating this. They're fabricating that. How, and this has always been my issue, how do you talk to a flat earth and say, what piece of evidence would it take for you to say that it's a globe Dave: Pictures. Mike: pictures? , but then you show them a picture of this is what our earth looks like. It's a globe. Or you show them video or you show them anything. Well, that's been fabricated. It's always like this deniability to go against what they believe in. Like you, you have to deny [00:08:00] it. You have to deny it because it shakes the entire foundation of what their belief system is, especially when it comes to a flat earth. But then they always revert back to, that's what the Bible says. That's what the Bible says. I'm sorry, we, we've been over the Bible many times. We all know that it's been changed a thousand times and it's a book.  Fronk: not only that, but that's what they're making the Bible say. That's what certain people are interpreting the bible to say, and you can make the Bible say a lot of different things depending on how you decide to interpret it as a person. And if you're interpreting it as, they're telling me about the flat earth and so be it, Dave: This episode is gonna focus a little bit more heavily on some of the things that Mike and Fronk just mentioned, talking about NASA and the why would they lie and why would they fake and indoctrinated us as kids to believe that it's a ball. , and these are major [00:09:00] talking points that I've learned over the last year and a half since we've done this, other than just the physical evidence. We have the physical evidence if you're going to go by the, mainstream. we'll go through a bunch of stuff. I think we'll talk about religion too. So Mike, save those nails, buddy. Mike: We'll look into some of what we just listed and more throughout this episode, and it strongly suggested you listen to our first crack at this crust to understand where some of the historical beliefs come from and a lot of other things about this theory, mainly the science. But let's give this another oscillation, shall we? We're gonna literally hit some of the proposed theories and then firmly spit some facts. be prepared to, uh, confirm or deny your belief. Fronk: Before we completely dive into the flat plane, we're gonna talk about the planet as we've been taught in a traditional sense. Our Native [00:10:00] Earth is a terrestrial rocky planet, correct? Yes or no? I mean, whether it's flat around truth,  It has a dynamic and active surface with mountains, valley, canyons, you name it. All the different geographical structures and a variety of other features. It has water covering 70% of its surface, as well as harboring thousands of life forms, and it has a unique orbiting satellite arm. Dave: it has a circumference. Remember this number Hushlings 24,901 miles. And it shares our solar system with eight, sorry, Pluto, eight other planets and is rotating at around thousand miles an hour while orbiting our home star. Now this is where flat Earthers start to deny our existence on a spinning ball. we're orbiting around our sun at 67,000 miles an hour, all while zipping around the center of the Milky Way, roughly at [00:11:00] around 490,000 miles an hour. And the biggest claim, you can't feel it.   Mike: Well, that's just what we're taught in school. Unfortunately, most of us didn't escape the clutches of the Rockefeller Education System. There's that name again. Yep. He created the General Education Board in 1902 at the cost of 129 million. It's a lot of money back in 1902. It's a lot of money today and provided major funding for schools across the nation and was very influential in shaping the school system. Also, he's quoted as saying, I don't want a nation of thinkers. I want a nation of workers. Sounds like my pause. Fronk: And that speaks some deep truth because school does indoctrinate the nation into the trap of society. Once you hit like 10th grade, you're already filling out college applications, colleges that you're gonna be in debt to for the rest of your life, that you're gonna have to work for the majority of [00:12:00] your life to pay off for that job that you'll be working for the rest of your life. And it's this endless cycle. So that's definitely perpetuated by some global elitist. I get that to an extent, maybe the indoctrination portion of it. Dave: Well, from the beginning. Which classroom have you ever been in that didn't have a globe?    Fronk: In 1928, John D Rockefeller Jr. Financed an expedition to the South Pole as a British secret service. Agent Rockefeller knew perfectly that no South Pole existed, but people were curious about the true shape of the world. From 1956 onward, Antarctica was completely controlled by the Pentagon. Hence the Antarctic Treaty. And anybody visiting this chunk of land without permission was shot on site. Admiral by who we've talked about extensively, died mysteriously in 1957 and perhaps had a timely demise before he could tell the truth about what the South Pole. Mike: When it comes to the[00:13:00] Antarctic treaty and being shot on sight, who is shooting these people on sight? Fronk: Snow snipers. Those drones from Star Wars that landed on Hoth Mike: , that's a lot of land to patrol in order to watch for people.  Dave: remember. Antarctica is 5.2 million square miles as well. Mike: That's what doesn't make sense to me. You're gonna be shot on sight and that's another part of the Antarctic treaty that I also don't understand. Who is physically stopping you from going there? The only thing that's physically stopping you from going to Antarctica is it costs a lot of money. To either charter a boat that would go there. most people don't go there. Most charter boats don't go there. You could do a flyover, but that's only partial. Who is physically stopping you besides your bank account? Dave: I did see a video recently of some guys on a boat that were stopped. I think they were stopped by the New Zealand Navy [00:14:00] or the Australian Navy, and they were turning him around and you can see like. Ice in the distance or something like that. And I don't know if there was just like an iceberg that was out there that they were near, but the allegations on TikTok was got turned around at the bottom of the world, cause I believe it's, there's some degree, and I'm gonna sound uneducated saying this, but I don't know the degree, I think, but there's some degree at the bottom of the world. That you can't go. But the Antarctic treaty, it contradicts itself because the Antarctic treaty was supposed to be a demilitarized zone. No military stuff. No commercial, nothing. It was supposed to be strictly for research. Fronk: So why is the Navy there? Of who? New Zealand? Dave: It was either New Zealand or Australia Fronk: So what is the New Zealand or Australian Navy doing there? Dave: Well, they're close to Antarctica Fronk: Yeah, but isn't a non-military zone. Dave: But there's only military scientists maybe not all military scientists. You got like, Noah [00:15:00] scientists and stuff, and I'm sure NASA is down there, the Nazis, they're all down there. You know, you  got everybody. Antarctica looks like a continent to me, and there's a lot of pictures of it. And are they fake? I am. I'm not on the plane, so I don't know. . Why would it matter and why would they lie? The largest argument of why these elites would lie to us is most likely there's more land, more resources, maybe even unlimited resource. And lands beyond the ice shelf or walls, as well as the suppression of how powerful of beings we are, which can kind of be a different argument that has nothing to do with flat earth as well. thoughts on that? Fronk: I could get behind both of those points to an extent in the shoes of a flat Earth, for example. Yes. If you told me that there was unlimited resources, we're talking oil, we're talking the purest water in the world. We're talking minerals that are used to power the world's [00:16:00] electronics, whatever, energy generating methods that we might have unlimited supply of that which would completely destroy not only the US dollar, but the world economy, which is what the alleged elites thrive off of. And if it's not money that they thrive off of it is leaching our fucking energy. And we've talked about that a lot. And if we were to unlock some sort of crazy. Secret about ourselves or humanity as a whole. That might be incredibly enlightening to a lot of people or disturbing. I could see it going either way, but if, if a bunch of people woke up and they were incredibly enlightened, that could be bad for the reptilian negative energy blood suckers. Dave: I don't think it would go well for anybody. I think we always do ask this question a lot when we talk about this as is, would it change our everyday lives? And we usually say no, but it would, because we [00:17:00] probably have a massive economic shutdown. religions would collapse. There'd probably be some type of total anarchy that would happen and then we'd have our own epiphanies of being like, not really upset that I was wrong, but shit I was lied to as well, part of the Doy group. And that would be a shitty day. would it end everything for me? No, it would change everything for sure. But I think the unlimited resources part, I could see somebody hiding that, , we did talk about Admiral Byrd and Admiral Byrd went through, supposedly into the hollow earth, could he have misinterpreted and gone through a crack and found more land. Who knows? In the writing The Iron Republic, written by EW Barrington and published also in 1902, another one of that year with the education system. It was published in Florida Magazine, and it said that an explorer went through a crack in the ice walls and found an advanced civilization after being lost for over a month at sea. So that [00:18:00] means he went through the ice walls and there was more ocean,  Mike: Have there ever been any, any pictures or video of the ice wall or beyond it? Fronk: Uh, people take pictures of. Ice shelves and try to say that they're the ice walls, but at the same time, those could very well just be ice shelves or very large icebergs Mike: Makes sense. Makes sense.  Dave: I wanna see a flight going around the whole whatever, 76,000 miles it's supposed to actually be. Just banking around the whole rim. But you can't go there because the military will shoot you down in a de militarized. Mike: I still think that there's plenty of ways to get there. And we talked, who do we talk with? That had went to Antarctica? Was it Mark Fronk: on a cruise with like their father. Yeah. Mark O'Connell. Yeah. Dave: Yep. Mike: O'Connell said that , he went to Antarctica with his family. Dave: San Diego Padre's pitcher's there right now.  Fronk: Yeah, but he, he also mentioned that it was like the only [00:19:00] part of Antarctica that they'll let a civilian on and it's like this tiny little peninsula and they've got the little, novelty pole.  Like you could go up and touch it and take a picture with it. Yeah. And they got little stuff, penguins and shit. Dave: could it just be a simple explanation why we don't bring people there? One, you'll die  Fronk: , yes, it's very extreme terrain, there's tons of extreme terrain that we're allowed to go to that you would probably die in if you weren't very well equipped. Mike: Yeah, it makes sense that the only reason that they would be stopping people from going there, besides the massive, endless amounts of resources that they're hoarding from us, would be that they just don't want people going out there and fucking dying.  This brings up another allegation that even the word extraterrestrial means extra terra or more land. Trying to hold some weight to the notion this has been taught to us. We see in the film The Next Level by David Weiss. [00:20:00] He meets with an older woman named Ruth. She's 102, God bless her, from Connecticut, who was in tears claiming that she was taught flat Earth in school, in Hamden, Connecticut, and now feels vindicated and better because of his truths. Dave: she was like, lost it. Mike: like real, real emotional about it. Dave: Yeah. Really emotional about it Mike: Okay. We just mentioned the Rockefeller education system and him saying that he doesn't want a nation of thinkers. He wants a nation of workers. , in the 1920s, if she was taught that the earth was flat, She would've been learning from that education system. Dave: True. Yeah, but I don't think that there's actually, I've looked and looked and looked and couldn't find any definitive evidence that was saying that they actually taught that in schools. Because even in 2022 curriculums across the country are not the same, even across the [00:21:00] same states, depending on the size of your state, they're not the same, especially when you get to advanced levels like college professors are teaching what they want within that curriculum, How in 1920 were they all taught the same thing when there was still tons and tons and tons, tons of schools. , that's the thing that gets me,  she's 102. Could she have just been like, yeah, I saw that once and she saw it on a cartoon in the seventies while she was in her sixties,  Fronk: nonetheless, I do find it difficult to wrap my head around because it was David Weiss who did that interview or whatever, and he brings up a lot of stuff about flat Earth. I listen to a bunch of his talks and shows that he went on to and whatnot, and he brings up all of these points and , he tells people to just, look into it. You gotta look into it yourself. You gotta do your research. , you go to do this research and obviously if you're looking into stuff like this, you're not going to [00:22:00] Google. You're not using Bing, like the go to search engine for anything that you can't find is duck, duck go. And he's been saying that Duck, duck go is starting to censor things of this nature. So, like Dave, I went looking for what the global education was like in the 1910s, the 1920s, and. Again, like you said, no definitive proof. Is it a censorship thing or is it the fact that it was just not taught as flat in the 1920s? Dave: There's also allegations that say that, it was the thirties and even in the sixties through certain education systems. , I almost bought David Weiss's app now. David had contacted us and let us know how he thought about us. I think in the next level, , it almost looks like somebody's trying to sell something and maybe this woman really did feel vindicated Ruth if she's still alive or not. but I don't know, check out the next level. It's an interesting take on flat earth and [00:23:00] there's a bunch of other proponents that I'd never even heard of that have some interesting talking points. Mike: my beef when it comes to David is he did reach out to us. He reached out to us a couple times, especially after our flat Earth episode. And essentially just berated us through email it's the usual argument that I, especially for some odd reason am on the receiving end of arguments with flat earthers is just yelling and anger and just being pissed off consistently. and he was not too happy, as Dave said with how we covered it in our talking points. He said, oh, it's the same talking points. Well, it's the same talking points with flat Earthers too. you talk about the Bible, you talk about nasa, you talk about, it's like, it's, it's the same talking points because we're talking about the same fucking topic.  Of course we're gonna have our sides to it and of, and flat earthers are gonna have their sides to it. It's just the way that it is. That's how you have constructive. [00:24:00] Conversations that go back and forth with conflicting beliefs. Dave: I feel like it's a lot of frustration that , you're just not getting it. Fronk: I feel like he rails Coke and like smashes Globes in his free time, like buys globes from Goodwill and just fucking destroys them in the parking lot and then drives home  Dave: beats them with Louisville slugs. Just smack. Smack.  Mike: I can't wait for our next email correspondence after this one. Fronk: dude. It's not gonna be an email. It's gonna be a voice message and he is gonna be all fucking jacked up out of his mind.    Dave: Before we move on to like the major talking points we gotta talk about what Mike mentioned earlier where a lot of the stuff that is talked about goes back to biblical cosmology and creationism.  Mike: Yeah. And that's always been my biggest talking point with discussions with flat Earthers is explain it to me I will give you my counterpoints and you'll give me your points and we can go [00:25:00] back and forth, but complete your, persuasion of trying to make me see that it's a flat plane. Complete your argument without using the Bible. Every single fucking time. Every single time it ends in, well, it says this in the Bible and it says this, it always ends up being that let's put it this way. I've never met a flat earth that wasn't also at the same time a Bible thumper. Dave: I've met two types. I feel like there are conflicting points to, flat earthers even they step on each other's toes a little bit. They might not, not get along, but I think there are some folks that definitely don't believe in the biblical cosmology and it's just a physical thing. But every time you go back to, if it's a physical thing, that's a structure that's not a planet. It brings me to the question, even a non-religious person. It brings me to the question, well then we're talking about who created it, [00:26:00] not just the science of planets and, gas and particles coming together for, from a accretion. We're talking a whole different thing. Now. We're talking about, well, if it's a structure , and this is not what we think it is and this is not what I think it is, then it had to have been manufactured structure. We build structures. using that type of verbiage, brings even me to being like, , now we're in the religious realm or the faith realm. Fronk: You want me to blow your mind right now? you know what's easier than creating a whole universe writing fucking lines of code. Bam, bam.  Mike: Yeah, there it is. There it is. We should just bring all arguments of flat earth back to simulation theory. Fronk: That's where I, that, yeah. Prove to me that it's even physical and then maybe I'll consider whether, the shape is round or flat. Dave: Let's talk about curves. Fronk: Right. All right. Let's talk about the voluminous crevices and curves that our mother Earth provides. Right. The idea of a flat [00:27:00] earth stems from a number of viewpoints, and the most fundamental is to rely on one's own sense, to determine the true nature of one's surroundings. The world appears flat. Clouds, bottoms look like they're flat. Water looks like it's flat, and the sun moves. The stars are always the same positioned exactly how they always were, and all of these sensory cues indicate that we do, in fact, live on a flat. Dave: I'm not an astrophysicist and I'm not a  Fronk: Are you  sure?  Dave: Maybe, maybe, maybe in my other existence, the 500 of 'em. I'm a failed astrophysicist, but I do have a telescope and I've had it for quite some time and I'm pretty good with it. And it's Fronk: the fuck? Dave: eh, the stars not moving. I know that there's a difference between absolute, uh, motion. A difference between [00:28:00] relative motion, and I'm pretty sure that the way that the stars move, but their whole argument is, is that since everything's spinning at astronomical speeds every night, we would see different stars because we're just whipping around and seeing different things. So why are the stars the same? And it does get you thinking, well, why are the stars the same? Well, I'm not a professional astronomer, so I can't really explain that. But I would say it has something to do with relative motion where everything's moving in conjunction instead of just this vortex of insane speeds..  Fronk: In my peanut globetard brain, I'm more so thinking the speed of light and how long it actually takes for the light from the stars that we're seeing to travel here. I mean, yeah, we've been seeing the same stars for thousands and thousands and thousands of years, but at what point were those stars emitting that light? How long have those stars been dead for, and how long is it gonna take for us to see new stars again? [00:29:00] I can't answer any of those questions for you, but I'm pretty sure that's. Dave: Valid point. Mike: Also in the grand scheme of time, humanity has been around a fucking blink in universal time. again to Fronk's point here, we're seeing the same stars because we're living 80 years and that's it. As opposed to the billions and billions and billions of years that the universe has existed and that that light has traveled and those stars have either been born, exploded, died, and disappeared. , we're seeing nothing, nothing. Dave: Well, that goes back to you being an insignificant being and that being suppressed. There's that argument. We'll have that later. We'll fight about it. Mike: there, there won't be an argument. We are insignificant beings.  Even if you took it back to a creationist argument, we are fucking insignificant. We are insignificant, we're [00:30:00] nothing. If we were something we would still commune with Gods, we would still commune with universal spirits. We would be. Something more than fucking meat sacks traveling through the world going, oh, I wonder what job I'm gonna have next, that I'm gonna work fucking 40 hours a week at and pull in a menial salary and take care of my 5.2 fucking kids, and then eventually retire at the ripe old age of 70 years old. And that's my life. How special am I Dave: Well, that's the system that you're locked in. Mike: system or not? Even if I had no job, even if I was just wandering, enjoying my life, going to these wonderful, exotic places, just doing everything that I wanted to do. At the end of it all 70 to 80 years, that's what I get. That's fucking it. in those 70 to 80 years, when am I seeing God? When am I [00:31:00] seeing a hint of any extraterrestrial, any, any extra dimensional, any religious, fucking spiritual guide? Anything. Anything.  when I'm not, fucked up on drugs, Dave: psychedelics. Fronk: God tier moment. Mike goes, have you ever given an ant food? Throw that bitch in there.  Dave: A lot of people see that as negative, and I don't really see it as negative that we're that insignificant. It's kind of the same argument that I make about the flight paths, which we'll quickly touch on is, well, the, the plane has to keep dipping down to keep going. Have you seen how small a plane is to how big the earth is? Mike: That's one thing that they don't understand is fucking perspective. You don't understand  perspective.  Dave: I'm glad you brought that up because what Frankie said a couple minutes ago about viewpoints perspective, seeing, if the clouds appear flat, water is flat, that's called using an empirical approach or an approach that relies on information [00:32:00] on your senses.  What's your feeble little human garbage eyes can see? And if you can't see the curve, then it doesn't exist. They use mathematics. I am. Stupid with math. The math is if the earth is round, there should be a degree of curvature, eight inches per mile squared. one mile would be eight inches, two miles, 32 inches, three miles, 72 inches, four miles, 128, and so on.  128 inches is about 10 feet of curvature. So that would be, four miles away now? 10 feet. A considerable amount when you're looking at a boat on. Water the water line to the top, say, let's say an aircraft carrier is probably 60 to 90 feet. You'd have to be at least around 20 miles to not just see the flight deck of that ship going over the horizon.  Then you got the whole, you got the bridge, you got everything else. You got all the radar you're probably looking at 120 feet at least to the top of, all of the structures on that ship. How many miles is that? . That's the thing. Another thing with the insignificance is [00:33:00] that we're tiny as fuck. Like how can we see anything? If you're five foot 10 and you're looking at something how far are you actually gonna see Mike: but what about the Zoom, Dave? What about the Zoom? Some of those cameras, they can zoom way, way, way, way in. They take those cameras and they zoom, zoom, zoom, and they go, well, that city is 150 miles away. There's no way that I should see it because of this curvature. And this camera is picking it up perfectly. So how do they work? Dave: I think they use the Chicago skyline for example. And I didn't do the experiment and look on Google Maps , and see the different distances, but you gotta remember the Sears Tower, whatever the fuck it's called now, it's like well over a thousand feet tall. and they're like, well, you can see the whole thing you. In those pictures that are shown as examples, you cannot see the entire Sears Tower. There is hundreds of feet of displacement in Chicago. Like New York has a [00:34:00] very tall fucking skyline. But you could still see those buildings and they're there, and on top of it, you're getting atmospheric disturbance. You're getting a layer of almost a mirage layer.  Mike: Dave was just going over the math of the entire situation, it's 67 feet per 10 miles. Now, before we move on, we have to mention that there are ball earthers or globes or globe tards that do argue that this equation is misused by flat earthers. And is the equation of calculating a parabola, not a full sphere. Dave: The guy who said that this is Misused was something that was found on the Michael Stata podcast and apparently himself and another guy that were on there, one was like an F 18 pilot, and then he's got certain hundreds and hundreds amount of hours as being a pilot. he had mentioned that the equation was misused and used the parabola as an example, that you're talking [00:35:00] about something like this instead of something that's a full circle even if you're talking about it on the curve, , it's still a parabola, even on that surface. Even though the equations are right and the math is right to calculate the curvature of the earth with its circumference that's known.  Might not be accurate. And uh, who did that? Aristophenes did that. And I know Flat Earthers is gonna say that guy didn't even fucking exist. which maybe he did, maybe he didn't. That was 2000 years ago. Who knows? Fronk: just to be fair to the flat earthers, right? We can't nitpick what false history we believe and don't, we do tend to say that history could have been falsified many times. If history has been erased at any point in time there is the possibility that this dude was made. Mike: using this model, a person standing on a spherical surface with eyes five feet, 11 inches above the ground, can [00:36:00] hypothetically see the ground up to about three miles away, but a person at the top of the Eiffel Tower at 896 feet can see the ground up to 36.6 miles away. Dave: Well, they're higher in altitude, Mike: Mm-hmm. . Mm-hmm. . Mm-hmm.  Dave: but the argument is that you can't see using the calculation, you wouldn't be able to see because it's dipping. I think the argument is wrong, and I'm not a mathematician and I'm not good at math, but from what my I see is that almost like some of these people are seeing it smaller than what it is. I don't think they're really getting how big this thing is and how small we are. So even at a 900 feet, Yes, you can see almost 10 times as much in distance, but you're also almost a thousand feet in the air,  Mike: Again,  perspective.   Fronk: If the degree of the [00:37:00] curvature is found to be the same everywhere on earth's surface, and the surface is in fact large enough, the constant curvature demonstrates that the earth is a. Now what about water? James Underdown, executive Director for the Center for Inquiry, Los Angeles worked with the Independent Investigations Group, a nonprofit dedicated to investigating exceptional claims using scientific methods. A boat based target with horizontal stripes was used in one of these tests. Dave: He's quoted as saying we sent a boat out on the water, and the farther it goes, the more the stripes disappear. That was supposed to demonstrate the curvature of the planet, but most flat earthers disagreed generating considerable debate. The biggest reason for these arguments with flat earth, obviously it comes from flat Earth, Dave(David Weiss), and it's all about perspective, as we said. The ground would never obscure distant objects on a flat earth. It should be possible to see all the way to the edge of the [00:38:00] world, right? That is the question that we would be asking. The answer we get is the atmosphere is opaque. Now, using the vernacular atmosphere is almost a conundrum in itself, and you ask, well, why did you use that? Well, we don't have another word for it.  Mike: Why not just make up a word like you fucking make up your own beliefs?  Just fucking do it. Just do it. . Make up a new word. It's very easy. It's done every day.   [00:39:00] Ad break [00:40:00]    Mike: Let's move on to another major fight in this, the position of the sun, sunrise and sunset. In case you were wondering, the sun is always above the Earth's surface in both models, Yet in the flat model, it travels in circles around the Earth's north pole, which is also, its. The seasons are caused by the expansion [00:41:00] and contraction of these circles. What about latitude?  Dave: What about latitude? I mean,  that would  Mike: about latitude  Dave: right? Mike: Hmm. Dave: The largest circumference of latitude on this planet would be the equator. Correct?  Mike: Yep. Dave: And then you have the tropic cancer and the tropic of Capricorn. The midpoints. I don't know that seems pretty, easy to explain. Maybe I'm just stupid. Could  be,  Mike: Globetard Dave: yeah. Fronk: Fucking idiot. Do some research Mike: Look into it. Fronk: where, show me where, show me where I could read about this that isn't on the app.  Mike: In the Bible, Fronk: Oh, yeah. Okay. Okay. All right. Here we go with the fucking Bible again. Mike: and books from the  17 hundreds  Fronk: They considered the sun to be much closer than 93 million miles and possibly even as far as 3000 miles or as close as 300 miles and moves in a circle or a helix pattern because the earth is supposedly accelerating upward, obviously toward the sun [00:42:00] at 9.8 meters per second because they don't believe in gravity, and that explains gravity away. with that being said, the sun must also be accelerating in the same direction as this hypothetical earth vortex. Make sense? You guys got that? Dave: instead of us spinning with things spinning around us and us spinning around something else and then that spinning around something else, which is relative there's a really big graphic that's always shown on every documentary, every video, and it's like the sun being shot out of a. With everything else just like around it, it looks like a DNA strand, most globe tards, know that that's not how motion works with celestial bodies. that one got me and always gets me, is every time that's shown. I'm like, oh God.  Fronk: other astronomical bodies moving in such a pattern? We have like really high powered telescopes Mike: Because space is not real.  Fronk: [00:43:00] Oh, shit. I forgot. I'm, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. You got me.  Okay. All right. All right. Right. All right. Dave: no space. No space. We have to remember that throughout this whole episode, there's no space. Fronk: Yes. Yes. Mike: if you take space out of the equation, introduce God in the Bible, and just ignore all known fucking science for the past like 300 years, you can be a flat earther. Fronk: wait is it no space or it's just the sun and the moon and the earth, or , is it None of that and it's just plain earth with our spinning moon, sun clock sort of thing happening, Which one is it? Do flat earthers believe either the barrel bore theory or the plate theory? Dave: Everything's contained in a system. Fronk: It's one in the same Dave: and everything above us is, I guess, the abyss, because there's a lot of arguments that, like with this Artemis program, whether it's fake or not, we'll talk about NASA in a little bit, but whether it's fake or not, Rockets [00:44:00] don't work in a vacuum apparently. but they're actually using, their own inertia to move in a vacuum. But I guess things don't work that way according to some. That brings us to sunrise and sunset. I don't want to get too far into this cuz this can take hours and hours and hours to argue about, let's talk about sunrise and sunset real quick.  Fronk: Unlike a bunch of these other points, the day and night cycles are actually kind of easily explained on a flat plane. The sun theoretically would move in circles above the North Pole. Or around the North Pole, and when it's over your head, it's day, and when it's not, it's nighttime. The light of the sun is then confined to a limited area on the earth, right? Because it's right above you. This claim never held any weight for me in particular because it can be debunked with science.  On top of this, all of the planets and stars aren't actually what they appear to be like [00:45:00] big rock balls in space or giant balls of gas, but they're actually luminaries. Yet. We also hear a lot of people say, well, we don't know what they. Dave: Stars and planets are one of the biggest things that cannot be explained yet. We can explain them with telescopes. We've been talking a lot about movement. We have to talk about heliocentric model, which is the one that we supposedly live in and not the geocentric model, which is the one that flat earthers live in. When we are confronted with the question of how the earth is able to orbit the sun, and it's not a sphere it's pretty simple. The earth actually doesn't orbit the sun, as we've been saying. This is so, because instead of the sun being the center of our solar system, our planet is actually the center of our solar system or controlled environment. Mike: In reality, we have Helio Centrism, also known as the Heliocentric Model. It's the astronomical model in which the earth and planets revolve around the sun at the center historically, [00:46:00] Helio Centrism was opposed to geo centrism, which placed the earth at the center. now we've hit the firmament. Fronk: In the cosmology of the flat earth. The disc shaped planet is covered by a dome whose edges stopped just beyond the roughly 145 foot high ice wall of Antarctica. And these stars are fixed on this dome while the sun and moon, which are only about 31 miles in diameter, revolve about a 3,100 miles above the earth. Dave: Now, as we said before in biblical cosmology, the firmament is a vast, solid dome or semi solid dome created by God during his creation in the first six days To divide the primal sea into upper and lower portions so that the dry land could appear, which surrounds the earth or frozen water, I've heard this a lot with the biblical cosmology stuff, is that it's explained during day one, day two, day three, and they even say in the Bible, God created the firmament. I [00:47:00] believe it's on ver bran's headstone, as we've mentioned previously. I think it's a lot of wordplay and interpretation,  Mike: We also mentioned back in Hollow Moon, if you've listened to that episode about the Zulu tribe, where the firmament or atmosphere rained down to earth.  Our flat earthers saying that the sky is liquid possibly. Clearly, we know that the Earth's atmosphere is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 0.9% argon and 0.1% of other gases. Dave: Now, quickly, recently, I've heard a lot of arguments in quite a few different shows and videos not just one proponent, but multiple proponents on this theory. And a lot of 'em will say, well, the atmosphere itself is just a different version of water as it is up in space, a whole different version of water. Because they use the example of if you go to the deep oceans or certain lakes, there's different [00:48:00] salinities of water. You'll have heavier water on the bottom, different pockets of water. the atmosphere works the same way and they say, because it has the same elements in it. Now, if our atmosphere is made up of 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, yes, there's hydrogen in that, because if we need water, we need H two O, which does happen in the atmosphere, Fronk: shit. That's why they sent U-boats to space it's water. Dave: oh. Fronk: Oh, Dave: That's it.  You got me.  Mike: done. We're done.    Final thoughts, boys? Fronk: Thank you Hushlings. Dave: Yeah, that's it. Mike: Okay, so we're talking about the firmament currently. Now I just want everyone to know the actual definition of a firmament. So the firmament is the vault or arch of the sky. The firmament isn't necessarily something that is physical. It is something that is viewed. the [00:49:00] arch from one horizon to the other is the sky. That is the firmament. So when everybody's saying, oh, firmament, they're talking about the firmament, they're talking about something that's physically there. No, that's a viewpoint. The firmament refers to horizon. To horizon. The arch of the sky as you see it from one end of your viewpoint to the other Dave: Makes sense. There's a lot of that too, where it said that you're, uh, you have a personal viewing bubble and I think that's misinterpreted as what you're actually, what you can see you go up a 1500 foot mountain, you look around, you can see 360 degrees.  Mike: that's your firmament. Dave: that's your firmament. Fronk: One bar from Suicide Boy's last album. One of them goes Dome. So good. I think she think the earth is flat mouth like the fucking firmament. She got my eyes rolling back. There you go.  Mike: it says it all. Fronk: [00:50:00] It says it all, it says it all your, your mouth has a firmament. Mike: Show me what that firmament do. Fronk: land ho. We have hit the ice walls and the absence of the poles along the edge of our local area exists a massive 150 foot ice wall. This ice wall is on the coast of Antarctica, and The wall is absolutely gargantuan, made up of solid water, ice that surrounds our world and holds our world's oceans in.   And the South Pole does not exist, whereas the North Pole is just a giant mountain called a hyperly that you can't visit. Dave: The ice walls were discovered by Sir James Clark, who was a British naval officer and polar explorer who was amongst the first adventure to Antarctica in an attempt to determine the position of the south magnetic pole between 1768 and 1779. [00:51:00] Upon confronting the massive vertical front of ice heat famously remarked. Mike: "It was an obstruction of such character as to leave no doubt in my mind as to our future proceedings for we might as well sail through the Cliffs of Dover as to penetrate such a mass. That's what she said. It would be impossible to conceive a more solid looking mass of ice. Not the smallest appearance of any rent or fisher. Could we discover throughout the whole of its extent and the intensely bright sky beyond it, but too plainly indicated. The great distance to which it wreaths, southward " Dave: apparently it took him three years or so to do one of the journeys and he circumnavigated the globe at 77,000 miles. what if he did it three times and did [00:52:00] 77,000 miles? That's the one thing that I've always thought is that, was it one trip  Fronk: And he just didn't know Mike: But again, in the 18 hundreds, let's say that this guy goes and he encounters an ice shelf, would he not think that was an ice wall? Dave: yeah, Fronk: like, oh shit. Well this is the edge of the world I suppose. Mike: there's no going past this. My ship can't go through that. Dave: I mean, yeah, that would be logical. Mike: I think this is what we said in the first one, a lot of these arguments for a flat earth revert back to like this 18 hundreds knowledge. Let's look at this book from the 18 hundreds. Look, they mentioned the firmament. Let's look at this. they talk about ice stones and blah, blah, blah. Fronk: The future is a lie. . The truth lies in the 18 hundreds. Reject modernity, Now all of this would of course, imply that Antarctica isn't at all what they say. And we've [00:53:00] mentioned this quite a bit about the Antarctic treaty already and the Antarctic bases and all of the secrets that they hide and you can't go there. You're not allowed There. Only scientists. Yeah. That's where they're hiding the edge of the.  Dave: Let's board a plane real quick and try to go to Antarctica. I know we say we can get there by ship, but two major arguments about airplanes with the flat earth theory is one, there's no round trip flights to Antarctica. And I think we covered this briefly in our first one where we had said, Antarctica fucking sucks. And that's probably why there's no round trip flights and how a lot of the Southern Hemisphere flights cannot be explained. And I believe we went over that a lot in our first episode. And I still stick by all of what I thought about that. Now, the other question that comes up with this theory  one, can you see curve in a commercial aircraft? And two, the aircraft always has to be pitching nose down after a [00:54:00] certain amount of time. Those two arguments come up major in this theory. So I wanna get your thoughts on do planes always have to tip downward as you're flying? Cuz you've all been on flights before, Fronk: No, the plane isn't nose diving or it doesn't feel like it anyway. It doesn't seem like it's nose diving by any means. Dave: but you would feel it. You can feel drop in altitude when you're starting to descend and you feel that, whew, almost that weird weightlessness when they drop a couple hundred feet or a thousand feet pretty quickly. You can feel turbulence, obviously. , I don't think that it necessarily pitches downward after a certain distance because I think, like I said earlier, planes are tiny and the earth is huge. So I don't think there's that much effect of a plane having to move when it's floating on top of a surface of air. Fronk: If a plane pitched downwards while at like max [00:55:00] altitude, wouldn't it just start losing altitude? Wouldn't you just be going towards the ground or am I being peanut brained? Dave: If planes were going in the straight path following the Earth's curve, then they would fly off into space. That's what they say. And I think it's simpler than that. Planes fly in a certain area from 35,000 to 50,000 feet, especially commercial aircraft in a certain layer of air that's thinnest. Which is why they can move as fast as they can, but I don't believe that they're pitching because they're so tiny that everything is going to appear flat at 35,000 feet cuz the earth is so big. Mike: , they're maintaining a certain altitude from the ground, so they're not pitching anything. They're just going with the natural atmosphere of the earth. Dave: Gravity.  Mike: Yeah.    Dave: The plane thing never, never made too much sense to me, especially with the flying off into space. If you didn't compensate for curvature, it's because the Plains Center [00:56:00] mass is always perpendicular with the ground and the plane is so insignificantly small. That you will not notice those changes. You notice left and right banks on planes, , you take a direction moving towards another city, you see it, you feel the whole plane go and you're looking towards the ground. If you're ascending, you feel that inertia you're getting pulled up into the air, especially on takeoffs. Or if you're descending, you feel that, oh, the pilot goes, we're gonna be descending in a couple minutes, and all of a sudden you feel that that drop, you feel that motion left, right, and vertical but you don't feel those nudges that they say that they're doing. So I don't think that that happens. I just think the center mass of that plane is fighting against gravity to keep it up. It's a boat in the sky. Mike: even if they did, that's a continuous compensation. So it's not like they're flying a certain distance and then going, oh, well I'm eight inches above where I was before. I need to adjust. Even if that was the truth, they would just make manual [00:57:00] adjustments as they went. So over that period of time, a half inch, a quarter inch, whatever you wouldn't even be able to tell in the first place if that was the case. Fronk: And that would only be if you were flying like across the world. I'm sure it's even less so if you're flying from somewhere on the east coast down to like Minnesota or something, it's gonna be even less noticeable if you're traveling somewhere that local. Dave: You're only traveling a couple hundred miles. Fronk: Yeah, exactly. Mike: I'm sure the figures are out there, but how many flat earthers are from America versus from the rest of the world? Dave: Good question. Mike: just wondering. Dave: I don't know the answer to that. I would say there's a lot in America. America is a very conspiracy driven country at the moment, and flat earth boils down to every other conspiracy. If you believe wholeheartedly in this, you believe everything else, the lies, everything is fake. Your entire [00:58:00] existence is fake. that's from what I get Fronk: That sucks. And then, and then from that point where do they go with that? They yell at other people about it or We're gonna briefly go over the eclipse aspect of flat earth theory. Now, we all obviously know what eclipses are. That's when the moon aligns with the sun and the earth and blocks out the sun. You know the deal. and remember that the moon is 400 times smaller than the sun. It's also about 400 times closer to the earth than the sun is. Is that coincidence that this astronomical phenomenon happens? Uh, Dave: Well, I can tell you from the flat earth side that that is almost impossible.  Mike: It's pretty impossible either way. Like it's pretty coincidental. I will give it to them that when you're talking about the sun and the moon being these like perfect distances and these perfect sizes and these per that's intriguing to say the least. I will give them. Dave: Which we did go over[00:59:00] Hollow moon theory if the moon was placed here, it was placed here on purpose, but then that would give weight to some type of, maybe not creationism, but some type of external control or external observation, which I think all of us are on the fence with that.  That could be, it could not be, Mike: Again, prove to me that any of this is real Dave: So there's two types of eclipses. There's solar and lunar eclipses. Now, the way solar eclipses work is that the moon orbits in between the sun and the earth. And when that occurs, obviously the moon blocks out the sunlight. You see the corona bought a bing. You have a solar eclipse, and the moon also casts a shadow on the earth. Now, a lot of the times it's told that the moon can't cast this little tiny pin prick shadow that goes across the earth. But if the moon is relatively 200,000 miles away, why couldn't it?  Mike: According to flat Earth theorists, this astronomical phenomenon is [01:00:00] actually a glimpse of a mysterious shadow object that orbits the sun and occasionally passes in front of the moon. From our point of view, could it be planet X Nibiru? No. This object is known as the anti moon. That's new Dave: another random object in our solar system. We could go on and on about eclipses, but we have to talk about one of the biggest fallacies of our education system. Gravity, Mike: not real. Dave: not real. Now, one of the most well agreed upon theories is general relativity. And it is the theory of gravitation developed by our boy Albert Einstein, who was apparently a conman according to flat earthers. And between 1907 and 1915, he figured all this out. The theory of general relativity says that an observe gravitational effect between masses results from their warping of space time. Gravity is still just a theory to us. I guess we can all be on the fence [01:01:00] on it cause we really don't get it. And I think scientists have , admitted that they don't get it,  Mike: Well, didn't recently they say that they had to like rework that entire thought process for some discovery that they had found that the theory of relativity had to be, had to be rethought or it was not necessarily wrong entirely, but partially, I guess., it had to do with the way that a black hole was working, where for the first time they saw a star coming out of a black hole. Fronk: Yeah, I saw that it was being regurgitated. They saw light coming out of a black hole. That's right. Mike: Things are happening, man. Whether you believe in space or not, it's. Pretty wild. Fronk: Newton's love gravitation states every point Mass attracts every single other point mass by a force acting along the line intersecting both points. I don't know what that means. The force is proportional to the product of the two [01:02:00] masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. Exactly. That's what I've been saying this whole Mike: Sounds about right. Thanks boys. Well, what is gravity? According to this theory, it's stated that the earth isn't pulled into a sphere because the force known as gravity exists in a greatly diminished form compared to what is commonly taught, which is that we're being pulled down to the center of the earth while. The flat Earth is constantly accelerating up at a rate of 32 feet per second squared or 9.8 meters per second squared. As we had previously mentioned, this constant acceleration causes what you think of as gravity, but it's actually caused by a universal accelerator known as dark energy or Etheric wind. Never heard of Etheric wind. That's interesting, Fronk: time's that post Taco Bell shit's my etheric wind. Dave: [01:03:00] Furthermore with this we hear words like density and buoyancy a lot in these theories arguments, which is why things fall to the ground that are heavier and explains rockets, which are thought to actually be filled with helium and have a pyrotechnic show. that proves that all things fall at 9.8 meters squared.   Dave: All right boys, we're getting towards the end of our flat earth expedition here. But we have to go back in the sky. That brings us to rockets and satellites. As we just mentioned. Proponents of flat earth theory believe that satellites totally exist, but cannot be seen from the ground and are actually held in the atmosphere by helium balloons. Hence why NASA is the largest consumer of helium and they sometimes crash into the planet, which we call them weather balloons. And I guess that would explain the weather balloon phenomenon.  Fronk: Satellites in low earth orbit are constantly fighting gravity. According to science, some are geographically fixed and keep their [01:04:00] orbit by balancing two factors, their velocity, which is the speed required to travel in a straight line and their gravitational pull to the earth. To resist the stronger gravitational pole, a satellite orbiting closer to the earth requires more velocity. And of course, we're not going to get out of this debriefing without a little bit of NASA sprinkled in that bitch. Mike: Yes, good old nasa, our friends over there, professional cgi. It's widely assumed that humans have never left the Earth's atmosphere. In fact, we've never left earth and entered space because we lack the ability to do so in the first place unless you're a Nazi and a U-boat. Most of what society has been taught about space is completely made up or greatly exaggerated. By the government and or the elites. There's also the claim that humans have never landed on the moon. I'm with that, and that the infamous moon landings witnessed by the entire world in [01:05:00] 1969 were a sham. Fronk: Okay. I'll give them that. A major claim is that any pictures from the Apollo 11 mission that show that our planet as a sphere in the distance were fabricated by the government and nasa and NASA's mission is not to hide the shape of the earth or trick people into thinking it's round or anything else of the sort. Dave: Well, that's what NASA says, right?  We obviously know that there's some type of space travel conspiracy, whether it's more advanced or it doesn't exist. Possibly Nasa's mission is to create the illusion of space travel in order to, cover for the military, and their dominance in space. One thing we forgot to mention that I thought of real quick when you guys were talking is the quick notion on gravity. There's a lot of flat earthers that will say, well, can you jump, when you jump off the earth, you a hundred, 200 pound person jumping off the earth. Do you come back [01:06:00] down? And was it easy to jump? Then why is gravity so strong? Fronk: that's the whole argument of like, why does Gravity hold our planet's, oceans On  Dave: Yeah. Yeah. If it can  hold all this water and all this mass,  why can you jump off your roof and hit the ground? Mike: Because there is a different pull depending on the mass of the object.  Dave: Mike wins a gold star Fronk: gold sticker for you. Mike: boys, let's get into our final thoughts. Everything that was on Reddit, we've been through, we've done this whole thing. I wanna know the final thoughts as we get into stage two of becoming a flat earth. are we now believing that gravity is not real? The sun is a, lamp and uh, and we live on a flat plain, surrounded by an ice wall. Dave, are you a flat earther? Dave: No. sadly, I am not a flat earther. I think it's an [01:07:00] interesting theory that opens up a lot of more conspiracies and there are some valid questions, but I think a lot of it has to do with our lack of actually being able to see things because we are restricted beings. Uh, the one thing about flat earth theory that I find really fascinating is the suppression of information, the hidden things. And I think that's the conspiratorial part that really pulls me, believing that it is a different shape or an infinite plane or a snow globe, or, flatterers is gonna get so mad at me for saying that because we don't believe it's a snow globe. It doesn't look like a pancake. They all have different theories and a lot of it goes back to religion. A lot of it goes to creationism. A lot of it goes back to every other conspiracy you've ever heard of. So for me, still, I still think we live on a planet. the definition of planet is what we live on. Is it a perfect sphere? I think that's proven that it's not a perfect sphere.[01:08:00] I'm not a scientist, but I've done research and research and research and supposedly it takes up to two weeks or so to become a flat earth. I've been doing this research since like the end of July, and I'm still not convinced. wanted to give it a fair shake. Didn't wanna be a douche bag. Would invite any flat earth to come on and talk to us. We'd love to have you on, but You didn't get me yet. Mike: I will take my final thoughts, a complete left turn here. I don't care. I don't care whether it's a giant paella pan or if we live on a dodge ball. I, I don't care. I don't care. Maybe it's the blue pilled part of my brain that still exists. I don't give a shit. It doesn't change anything. I'm still gonna wake up in the morning and have to go to work, have to pay my taxes, and eventually I'm gonna fucking die. That's just the way that it is. I don't care if we live on a flat plane, I don't care if we live on a globe. It's just the way that [01:09:00] it is. but I don't think that we live on a fly plane. I'm just gonna say that I don't think that I, I do think that there is a lot of cover up of our former history. That much I believe is true. I do believe that NASA is filled with a bunch of liars and they do fabricate things including, setting up these videos where they're watching astronauts float around, but the water stays in a cup. That's an interesting one. , I do think that they do composite images together and they are a bunch of liars that I completely agree with. . I love you whether you're a flat earth or not, but no, it's a no for me. Fran, give us your final thoughts. Did you become a flat earther in this episode?   Fronk: No, I didn't. , I'm not gonna go off on a limb and say that I tried to give flat earth theory, the benefit of [01:10:00] the doubt, but I tried to stay open-ended, especially towards like the beginning of the episode. I was just trying to like see it from both sides and I still do to an extent. And you're right in saying that their best argument is the space shit and nasa, but, that can't be all you're going off of here, because that, lends to so much other shit besides just the shape of the planet.  And not only that, if you're like sold on the shape of the planet, then you've been deceived. You know what, I'm gonna pull a flirter and tell you what you've been taught on. The internet is wrong, and it's all code. You've been tricked into thinking that what we live on is physical and that it has shape. There is no shape. I've never even been out of the country. You can't even convince me that Australia's real, let alone the, the, the fucking shape of the  Mike: you're partial flat earther because they don't believe that Australia is real either. Fronk: [01:11:00] Oh, no. Australia's not real Mike: listen, if you're in Australia and you, uh, you live there full time, reach out to us. Send us an email. Even better a voicemail, because I just want to hear the accent. Send us a voicemail and say, Hey, yeah, I exist. I'm here. This is a real place. Dave: Clearly they exist. They're number three on our Spotify Mike: That's right. Thanks Australia. Fronk: No, I, I never tried to doubt Australia. It was a metaphor, but Dave: Our Hustralians down under, Mike: That's hilarious. Dave: , if we offended you we're sorry. Well, I partially am. Mike: I, I, listen, I tried this episode. I think that I was better than the first episode. I didn't sit there and say anybody was an idiot or any of that stuff. like I said, you believe what you wanna believe, but on, at the end of the day, I don't think that it really matters. Fronk: And if it makes you feel [01:12:00] special, by all means,

Rounding Up  Season 1 | Episode 6 – Cultivating a Positive Math Identity  Guests: Nataki McClain and Annelly Rodas  Mike Wallus: Today I'd like to start our episode with a bit of a thought exercise. I'd like you to close your eyes and picture your childhood self, learning math in your elementary school. What are some of the memories and feelings that come to mind? And when you reflect on those memories, what do you think the unspoken messages you may have absorbed about what it means to be good at math were? And then maybe most importantly, how did those early experiences with mathematics shape your belief about yourself as a doer of math? Today on the podcast, we're talking about identity; specifically, math identity. What is it? And how can we as teachers shape our students' math identities. Let's get started.  Mike: Well, hey, everyone. Welcome to Rounding Up. I'm excited to have our friends Nataki and Annelly joining us today. And I think I'll just start by welcoming the two of you. It's great to have you on the podcast.  Nataki McClain: Hi, Mike. Thank you for having us.  Annelly Rodas: Thank you, Mike.  Mike: Absolutely. So the two of you are currently curriculum consultants for the Math Learning Center. And I'm wondering, before we get started with the topic of the day, can you tell us just a little bit about your teaching background and your experience in education? And, Nataki, I'm wondering if you'd be willing to go first?  Nataki: Sure. Well, I have been in education in some capacity for about 25 years. I spent 16 years in the classroom. Fourth grade was my favorite year of all time. And then I've spent eight years as a math specialist. This past year, I am now a curriculum consultant for the Math Learning Center.  Mike: Annelly, how about you?  Annelly: So I started my career as a pre-K teacher at a head start program, and then I moved to the New York City public school system, where I taught second grade and fourth grade. Later, I had the opportunity to work as a math coach at my own school. And I supported pre-K to eight.  Mike: Fabulous. Thanks to both of you. So let's jump into the topic of the podcast: Cultivating a Positive Math Identity. Getting ready for this, what I found myself thinking about is that there is so much conversation in the field right now around math identity. And CTM has position statements about the importance of supporting a positive math identity. There's a ton of research that validates that need. I think I'd like to start by just asking you, from your perspective, how would you describe math identity to a listener who's new to this conversation?  Annelly: I think that it is important to understand that math identity is our own personal view on how we engage with mathematics, right? And it has to do with our disposition and our beliefs on our mathematics ability. I know for me, this topic is really close to my own personal journey in mathematics because I grew up thinking that I was not a math person and that changed with my experiences really late in life. So it has become my mission that kids get to experience math in a different way, and that they feel comfortable engaging with mathematics.  Nataki: And Nelly, um, I have to agree with you. I share a similar experience in that, I guess in my elementary school days, I didn't think of math as something that you got to either enjoy or not. It was just kind of, it's just there and you do it and you learn it. But then in high school I did not have a positive experience. I was made to feel like math was not my thing. And so, Mike, to address that question about what is math identity, it really—to Nelly's point—it really is how you view yourself as a mathematician. And again, my experience in high school was such that I did not feel like I was a mathematician. So to everyone's surprise, when I go off to grad school I'm studying math and now I'm working at the Math Learning Center, right? It's kind of a big deal. And I think it's important that everyone feel like a mathematician.  Mike: Yeah, gosh, you know what you two are saying, I suspect that it resonates with so many people who, whether they're teachers or parents or folks who are just kind of going about living their lives, think this resonates so much. I really resonate with what you said, Nataki, about this idea that math was just there.  Nataki: Uh-hm.  Mike: It was about a series of procedures that you do quickly and that you try to always find the answer as soon as possible. And get it correct the first time. And if you didn't, that meant something about who you were, what your ultimate capacity as a mathematician was.  Nataki: Uh-hm.  Mike: And I think for a lot of folks, that really shapes their belief about what school math is and what math is in general.  Nataki: Absolutely.  Mike: Yeah. So I'm really curious, when you think about the resources that helped you all build your understanding of math identity, what are some of the kind of seminal pieces of work that helped you begin to think about this idea?  Nataki: Well, Anelly and I are reading this book. It's called ‘Choosing to See.' It's written by Pamela Seda and Kyndall Brown. And I have found that this is a relevant resource, especially to our work at the Math Learning Center, because it focuses on equity specifically in the math classroom. And as you're reading it, hopefully you'll find, like we have, that the authors do a really good job in describing those instructional strategies that help teachers to build positive math identities for students. Right away in the introduction, Kyndall Brown outlines a framework for the principles that guide equity, agency, and also identity in the classroom. And he uses an acronym. I see you care. So it's I, the letter C-U-C-A-R-E. And that stands for Including others as experts; being Critically conscious; Understanding your students; Using Culturally relevant curricula; (Assess), activate, and also to build (on) prior knowledge; Releasing control; and Expecting more. And the idea here is to be intentional about what you see, to also be compassionate and purposeful enough to respond. And when we allow this mindset to be prevalent in our classroom, it really does help to support a positive student math identity. But it also serves as a guide to help the teacher understand what, particularly, is at stake. Annelly: And I love that resource. The two of us are, are reading that book and always have conversations about it. But I also think that a starting point for a teacher should be examining their own journey with mathematics, right? Like I talked about how I didn't feel as a mathematician. And I taught, at the beginning of my career, I taught the way that I was taught: very procedural. Expecting quick answers. And the more I started putting my students at the center of my teaching, I started realizing that I was not meeting the needs of all my students. So I would say another research—and I'm going to do a plug in here for our blog—'A Summer Dive into Teacher Math Identity.' That might be something, like a starting point, right? We have to examine our own thinking and our own role before we can create those opportunities for students to develop a positive math identity.  Nataki: I like that, Annelly, that's a good one.  Mike: Hmm. Yeah. I think one thing that jumps out for me is, it would be hard for me to imagine that there's a lot of people who disagree with the aspiration of helping children build an identity about mathematics. That's positive. But I think what's hitting me is you all are kind of highlighting that there are actual practices and things that one does that actually helps build that. And, Annelly, I think I'm really struck by the statement that you made, where you said, ‘I realized that I needed to put kids at the center of my instruction.' And I'm wondering if you can just talk a little bit about, for you, in your journey as a math educator, what did it look like to do that in your classroom?  Annelly: What happened to me was that I started exploring my own math identity at the same time as I was teaching. And one of the things that I noticed is that for me, I need processing time and I needed visuals. So I started playing with that in the classroom to see what my students needed, right? I started bringing in visuals, and we started thinking about—I started thinking about—like, processing time for my kids, giving them time to think, slowing down their thinking. And that made a huge difference for my kids. And it provided a lens where I was pushed to, to think about and really pay attention to, what are the other things that they need? How can I open up space for them to share their thinking? And also, where are the opportunities for them to develop that agency as well? Where they can feel like, ‘I can tackle this,' even though it's hard.  Mike: Hmm. Nataki I, I was going to also offer, like, from your perspective, what did this journey look like for supporting students?  Nataki: Well, kind of similar to Annelly, you know. When I, when I am reflective of my own experiences as a math student, but also reflective in my practices as a teacher, one of the things that I noticed that was missing is the element of fun, right? And also how that fun factor makes room for accessibility. When students start having fun, then the math is accessible to them. And so one of the things that I can say that absolutely was consistent in my classroom, is that we were having fun. Now, of course, fun looks different for different people. And for me, it wasn't just, ‘We're being goofy and being silly.' But fun meant that we are enjoying thinking about the math, doing the math, talking to our friends about the math, looking at math in different ways. In fact, I remember many days when we were at recess and students would come up to me with something that they'd noticed on the playground, right? Being that, ‘Oh, you know, Ms. McClain, that this merry-go-round is a circle. And it's going around and around and around and around. And it spins in the same, in the same distance from the center all the time.' That's something that I didn't teach them. It was something that they noticed because they were having fun on the playground. And they were able to bring in the math concepts from the classroom into their own fun spaces. Mike: You know, one of the things that I find myself thinking about is a really old piece of research. And gosh, I forget the actual researcher. But this idea that teaching is a cultural experience, right? That there are certain cultural narratives around mathematics education that exist just under the surface for lots of people. They're the scripts that they learned when they were in childhood. And that's the picture that shows up in people's heads when they think about math education. So part of the work really is offering kind of a counternarrative to that cultural script. Where I'm going with this is, my cultural script is: Teacher stands in front, shows me what to do, we practice it, and then I go and I sit and do 15 problems, and then two story problems at the end. And that's kind of the cultural script.  Nataki: Right.  Mike: And I suspect that it's fairly difficult to make that kind of cultural script fun. So it makes me wonder, ‘What did your classroom look like to make things fun?'  Nataki: Well, one of the things that was really important to me is that students could see themselves in the math that we are doing. So there wasn't a division problem that wasn't accessible to all students in the beginning, right? So we had to make it accessible. And then I would always find ways to turn everything into a game. To provide, again, that level of fun for kids. So whether it's that I've watched a game show like ‘Jeopardy' … well, ‘How could I use this game show to create a math lesson or a math event or an experience for students?' And so sometimes I could do that in the planning stages. OK, thinking about the content that I wanted students to learn, and then, ‘How can I make it fun? How can I make it engaging?' And then sometimes it just happened in the moment. You know, if you read the room and you discover that, mmm … they're not really having a lot of fun. And again, fun looks different for different people. And for me, I knew that it was fun when all students were engaged and all students had access to the learning.  Mike: So you all are really making me think about the fact that part of building identity is task structure, right? The way that you design tasks, the context that you provide that helps kids connect to it, and also really knowing your kids and knowing the fact that if I'm in second grade, you know, having the agency to actually use some of the materials and have choice around that, that's part of being fun, right? I have a question for you. When you all think about the fact that you also supported a Bridges implementation, what's your lived experience with the places where you see opportunities for building math identity within the structure of the Bridges curriculum. Um, how did that play out for you? How did that connect to the story that you're telling about your own journey?  Nataki: Kids would come barging in the room expecting Number Corner to happen. They were just so excited to discover the next pattern. Or, what are we collecting this month, right? And then, I mean, talk about fun. Work Places was just a natural place for that fun to happen. So I would say Number Corner and Work Places were the places in which I saw kids just really engage. And it was also a great time for teachers to help build that math identity in students, right? To offer supportor just to be there next to students, watching them as they're playing the Work Place games. Those were two components where I saw the most where students really were engaged and having a lot of fun. And not only students. Cause I have to admit that I might have been on a couple of floors, and I might have been caught playing a couple of games, and laughing and chuckling myself ( chuckles ).  Mike: ( chuckles ) Annelly, how about for you? Because I know that you actually, you were not only a Bridges teacher for quite a while, but you also supported the implementation in your building. Annelly: I think that something that we saw when we implemented Bridges was the opportunity to allow kids to show their thinking. And I think that was so big, right? Like in thinking about, ‘There are so many subtle ways.' Like when we ask kids, ‘Can you show me eight on your number rack,' right? We're not dictating how they should think about it. They're jumping in and creating their own strategies and their own learning. And I think that that's an important way to develop that math identity. Because we are telling kids, ‘You can do it. You have all of the skills to do this.' So I see it in that. I see it also in, when we ask kids to write their own math problems—this is something that I've been thinking about a lot—like, when we give kids the opportunity to become authors in the math classroom, we want to hear their ideas and their strategies.  Nataki: Uh-hm.  Mike: How does the role of the teacher shift in a classroom that's really supporting a positive mathematics identity? Part of what's on my mind is that idea of a cultural script, where the teacher is the knower and the place where all of the knowledge lives. And then it's really just kind of beamed out to the kids. What's the shift? If I'm trying to just reconceptualize what teaching looks like in a classroom where I am actively building a positive math identity for my students, how would you describe that?  Annelly: Like, I think that, for that I'm going to connect to my years when I was a coach. I used to love going into classrooms where I wouldn't know where the teacher was.  Nataki: Right.  Annelly: And it's even physical, right? The teacher is not in the front of the room. The teacher might be, like Nataki said, on the floor, playing with the kids. Or at a table, meeting with them. And I think that's a sign that shows you how the teacher is moving away from a teacher-center into a more of a student-center. Also, when we can see kids thinking. Where we can see strategies being named after kids. Again, it seems as something so simple, but it's so powerful for them. It gives them validation that what you are thinking is important. I value your strategies. I used to say, ‘Even if they take you down to a rabbit hole value, their thinking … ‘  Nataki: ( laughs )  Annelly: ( laughs )  Mike: That is really powerful. And, Nataki, how would you answer that question?  Nataki: Everything that Annelly said, I 100 percent agree with. I also think where there are opportunities to ask questions of students, to take those opportunities. Particularly when you have a student who doesn't always get to shine in the class, you know, when that student does something that you think the entire class should hear, find time and find moments to highlight that again. That's giving the student a different feeling about math and a different feeling about where that student finds himself or herself in that math classroom. It makes them feel like they are a mathematician. So I think asking questions and finding moments to allow all students to shine.  Mike: You know, I'm trying to put myself back into the world of a classroom teacher. I wonder if for a lot of folks, part of the hesitation is this fear of, what happens if kids say something that quote unquote is wrong or incorrect? And especially if that happens publicly in front of other children. I think there's this hesitation on the part of people. Because, again, the cultural script is, ‘I'll correct that and show you and tell you exactly what to do.' And I wonder, when you've been faced with that spot where you have used questioning, you've been building discourse, and something just comes out of left field … When you think about a classroom again, where you're supporting identity, what does it look like in that moment for a teacher who's working to support identity, and they have some information that kids are putting out that they're concerned? Like, what do I do?  Nataki: Right.  Mike: Yeah, tell me about your thinking on that.  Nataki: Before we start to build discourse, we need to take some time at the very beginning to build a classroom community where everyone in the room feels free to share their thinking. No matter if it's quote correct or incorrect. And I always find opportunities to kind of press more when those incorrect answers come out, because we can learn a lot from those incorrect answers. We don't just learn from the things that are right. We learn from the things that are incorrect. So can you tell me more about that? Or maybe we could write the ideas on sticky notes and revisit them, right? If there are conjectures, which we talk a lot about in our classroom. Conjectures are always meant to be proven right or wrong, not just in that moment, but for as long as we are in the classroom. We're going to be thinking about the conjecture that Sally made. And the students love—and it's fun for them—when they can prove or disprove Sally's conjecture. That's fun for them. But because we've built the community, it's safe to do that.  Annelly: I love that, Nataki. I think that also creating a culture where it's OK to make a mistake and also modeling from teachers, right? Modeling that, ‘Oh, I made a mistake.' But what I love about math is that I just think, ‘Cross it out and, and kind of like, think about it again.' The one tip that I will give teachers that are just starting with math discourse, and they're afraid to get into gray areas: Do a turn-and-talk and listen to your kids before you ask them to share. And then you can kind of like select which kids are going to share, and you know where they're going. The other thing is that you have to do the math before you do the lesson, right? So that you know where they can go. One of the things that we used to do is, uh, we used to sit down and think about all the different ways that kids can answer a question, like a problem string. What are all the different ways kids can tackle problem strings? And then that gives you kind of like the foundation, right? Granted, you might have some kids that want to be really creative, and they might break it apart into ways that you were not even thinking about. But I think those two are, like maybe two tips, that open up the space for kids to share their ideas.  Nataki: And, Annelly, I think that's an important thing to mention because that anticipation of student responses that comes in the planning. And so it's important for teachers to remember that planning is part of your teaching. That we just don't show up and just start teaching, right? That there has to be some thought that we're giving to the anticipated responses.  Mike: Yeah. I mean, I think when you say that you, gosh, I'm so glad that we talked about this question. I mean, a few things jump out: 1) the idea of positioning student thinking as not being immediately judged right or wrong by the teacher, but as an opportunity to actually build an understanding, to actually have kids justify, to have kids turn to one another and talk about, ‘What is your understanding of this?' And then to build the conversation. So again, it goes back to agency, right? Nataki: Uh-hm.  Mike: You are not the source of right or wrong. You're actually asking them to engage in thinking about that. But I think, Annelly, I'm really keying on what you said earlier about the idea that you have to anticipate where kids might go, because it actually means something. Regardless of whether they've arrived at the correct answer or whether they've arrived at something that shows partial understanding, they're telling you something, and you can use that place to help build an understanding for the whole group. Cause if one kiddo says it, it strikes me that there's probably a fairly good amount of other kiddos who might be thinking the exact same thing.  Annelly: And I think that's another way to build that math identity when we tell them, ‘It's OK if you just have the beginning of an idea' …  Nataki: Uh-hm.  Annelly: … right? ‘Can you share with us? And we can build on that.' Because what Nataki was saying before: We have the power to position kids in a positive light with the rest of the class …  Nataki: Uh-hm.  Annelly: And that it's also so important.  Mike: I just want to thank the two of you for joining us and sharing your thinking. One last question, I think before we have to close things out. You know, if I'm a listener, we've covered a lot of territory in the last bit. If I'm thinking about taking some steps in my classroom, where do you see opportunities for people to get started? Particularly if they're using the Bridges curriculum.  Nataki: I'd say one of the first places—not only a teacher, but any person in, in a school building could start—is taking a look at the blogs that are posted about math identity. One of the blogs, I think Annelly mentioned earlier is, helping teachers to be reflective of their own math journey. And I think that's an important step. So reflection, I would say, is a great place to start. And it starts perhaps by reading the blog.  Annelly: I would say don't be afraid to have conversations with your kids. And letting them lead some of those discussions.  Mike: Hey, thanks so much to both of you for joining us today. It was really a pleasure to hear your thinking and to have you on the podcast.  Annelly: Thank you, Mike, for having us.  Nataki: Yes. Thank you, Mike. This was a lot of fun. But listen, next time … can you bring cookies?  Mike: Hey, you got a deal, my friend. Thanks so much.  Nataki: Thank you. Bye now. Mike: This podcast is brought to you by the Math Learning Center and the Maier Math Foundation, dedicated to inspiring and enabling individuals to discover and develop their mathematical confidence and ability.  © 2022 The Math Learning Center | www.mathlearningcenter.org  

About MikeBesides his duties as The Duckbill Group's CEO, Mike is the author of O'Reilly's Practical Monitoring, and previously wrote the Monitoring Weekly newsletter and hosted the Real World DevOps podcast. He was previously a DevOps Engineer for companies such as Taos Consulting, Peak Hosting, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and many more. Mike is originally from Knoxville, TN (Go Vols!) and currently resides in Portland, OR.Links Referenced: Twitter: https://twitter.com/Mike_Julian mikejulian.com: https://mikejulian.com TranscriptAnnouncer: Hello, and welcome to Screaming in the Cloud with your host, Chief Cloud Economist at The Duckbill Group, Corey Quinn. This weekly show features conversations with people doing interesting work in the world of cloud, thoughtful commentary on the state of the technical world, and ridiculous titles for which Corey refuses to apologize. This is Screaming in the Cloud.Corey: This episode is brought to us in part by our friends at Datadog. Datadog is a SaaS monitoring and security platform that enables full-stack observability for modern infrastructure and applications at every scale. Datadog enables teams to see everything: dashboarding, alerting, application performance monitoring, infrastructure monitoring, UX monitoring, security monitoring, dog logos, and log management, in one tightly integrated platform. With 600-plus out-of-the-box integrations with technologies including all major cloud providers, databases, and web servers, Datadog allows you to aggregate all your data into one platform for seamless correlation, allowing teams to troubleshoot and collaborate together in one place, preventing downtime and enhancing performance and reliability. Get started with a free 14-day trial by visiting datadoghq.com/screaminginthecloud, and get a free t-shirt after installing the agent.Corey: Forget everything you know about SSH and try Tailscale. Imagine if you didn't need to manage PKI or rotate SSH keys every time someone leaves. That'd be pretty sweet, wouldn't it? With Tailscale SSH, you can do exactly that. Tailscale gives each server and user device a node key to connect to its VPN, and it uses the same node key to authorize and authenticate SSH.Basically you're SSHing the same way you manage access to your app. What's the benefit here? Built in key rotation permissions is code connectivity between any two devices, reduce latency and there's a lot more, but there's a time limit here. You can also ask users to reauthenticate for that extra bit of security. Sounds expensive?Nope, I wish it were. tail scales. Completely free for personal use on up to 20 devices. To learn more, visit snark.cloud/tailscale. Again, that's snark.cloud/tailscaleCorey: Welcome to Screaming in the Cloud, I'm Corey Quinn and I'm having something of a crisis of faith based upon a recent conversation I've had with my returning yet again guest, Mike Julian, my business partner and CEO of The Duckbill Group. Welcome back, Mike.Mike: Hi, everyone.Corey: So, the revelation that had surfaced unexpectedly was, based upon a repeated talking point where I am a terrible employee slash expensive to manage, et cetera, et cetera, and you pointed out that you've been managing me for four years or so now, at which point I did a spit take, made all the more impressive by the fact that I wasn't drinking anything at the time, and realized, “Oh, my God, you're right, but I haven't had any of the usual problems slash friction with you that I have with basically every boss I've ever had in my entire career.” So, I'm spiraling. Let's talk about that.Mike: My recollection of that conversation is slightly different than yours. Mine is that you called me and said, “Mike, I just realized that you're my boss.” And I'm like, “How do you feel about that?” He's like, “I'm not really sure.”Corey: And I'm still not entirely sure how I feel if I'm being fully honest with you. Just because it's such a weird thing to have to deal with. Because historically, I always view a managerial relationship as starting from a place of a power imbalance. And that is the one element that is missing from our relationship. We each own half the company, we can fire each other, but it takes the form of tearing the company apart, and that isn't something that we're really set up to entertain.Mike: And you know, I actually think it's deeper than that because you owning the other half of the company is not really… it's not really power in itself. Like, yeah, it is, but you could easily own half the company and have no power. Because, like, really when we talk about power, we're talking about political power, influence, and I think the reason that there is no power imbalance is because each of us does something in the company that is just as important as the other. And they're both equally valuable to the company and we both recognize the other's contributions, as that, as being equally valuable to the company. It's less to do about how much we own and more about the work that we do.Corey: Oh, of course. The ownership starts and stops entirely with the fact that neither one of us can force the other out. So it's, as opposed to well, I own 51% of the company, so when I'm tired of your bullshit, you're leaving. And that is a dynamic that's never entered into it. I'm also going to add one more thing onto what you just said, which is, both of us would sooner tear off our own skin than do the other's job.Mike: Yeah. God, I would hate to do your job, but I know you'd hate to do mine.Corey: You look at my calendar on a busy meeting day and you have a minor panic attack just looking at it where, “Oh, my God, talking to that many people.” And you are going away for a while and you come back with a whole analytical model where your first love language feels like it's spreadsheets on some days, and I look at this and it's like, “Yeah, I know what some of those numbers mean.” And it just drives me up a wall, the idea of building out a plan and an execution thing and then delegating a lot of it to other people, it does not work for my worldview in so many different ways. It's the reason I think that you and I get along. That and our shared values.Mike: I remember the first time that you and I did a consulting engagement together. We went on a multi-day trip. And at the end of, like, three days of nonstop conversations, you made a comment, it was like, “Cool. So, what are we going to do that again?” Like, you were excited by it. I can tell you're energized. And I was just thinking, “Please for love of God, I want to die right now.”Corey: One of the weirdest parts about all of it, though, is neither one of us is in a scenario where what we do for a living and how we go about it works without the other.Mike: Right. Yeah, like, this is one of the interesting things about the company we have built is that it would not work with just you or just me; it's us being co-founders is what makes it successful.Corey: The thing that I do not understand and I don't think I ever will is the idea of co-founder speed dating, where you basically go to some big networking mixer event, pick some rando off the street, and congratulations, that's your business partner. Have fun. It is not that much of an exaggeration to say that co-founding a company with someone else is like a marriage. You are creating a legal entity that without very specific controls and guidelines, you are opening yourself up to massive liability issues if the other person decides to screw you over. That is part of the reason that the values match was so important for us.Mike: Yeah, it is surprising to me how similar being co-founders and business partners is to being married. I did not expect how close those two things were. You and I spend an incredible amount of time just on the relationship for each of us, which I never expected, but makes sense in hindsight.Corey: That's I think part of it makes the whole you managing me type of relationship work is because not only can you not, “Fire me,” quote-unquote, but I can't quit without—Mike: [laugh].Corey: Leaving behind a giant pile of effort with nothing to show for it over the last four years. So, it's one of those conversation styles where we go into the conversation knowing, regardless of how heated it gets or how annoyed we are with each other, that we are not going to blow the company up because one of us is salty that week.Mike: Right. Yeah, I remember from the legal perspective, when we put together a partnership agreement, our attorneys were telling us that we really needed to have someone at the 51% owner, and we were both adamant that no, that doesn't work for us. And finally, the way that we handled it is if you and I could not handle a dispute, then the only remedy left was to shut the entire thing down. And that would be an automatic trigger. We've never ever, ever even got close to that point.But like, I like that's the structure because it really means that if you and I can't agree on something and it's a substantial thing, then there's no business, which really kind of sets the stage for how important the conversations that we have are. And of course, you and I, we're close, we have a great relationship, so that's never come up. But I do like that it's still there.Corey: I like the fact that there's always going to be an option to get out. It's not a suicide pact, for lack of a better term. But it's also something that neither one of us would ever entertain lightly. And credit where due, there have been countless conversations where you and I were diametrically opposed; we each talk through it, and one or the other of us will just do a complete one-eighty our position where, “Okay, you convinced me,” and that's it. What's so odd about that is because we don't have too many examples of that in public society, it just seems like there's now this entire focus on, “Oh, if you make an observation or a point, that's wrong, you've got to double down on it.” Why would you do that? That makes zero sense. When you've considered something of a different angle and change your mind, why waste more time on it?Mike: I think there's other interesting ones, too, where you and I have come at something from a different angle and one of us will realize that we just actually don't care as much as we thought we did. And we'll just back down because it's not the hill we want to die on.Corey: Which brings us to a good point. What hill do we want to die on?Mike: Hmm. I think we've only got a handful. I mean, as it should; like, there should not be there should not be many of them.Corey: No, no because most things can change, in the fullness of time. Just because it's not something we believe is right for the business right now does not mean it never will be.Mike: Yeah. I think all of them really come down to questions of values, which is why you and I worked so well together, in that we don't have a lot of common interests, we're at completely different stages in our lives, but we have very tightly aligned values. Which means that when we go into a discussion about something, we know where the other stands right away, like, we could generally make a pretty good guess about it. And there's often very little question about how some values discussion is going to go. Like, do we take on a certain client that is, I don't know, they build landmines? Is that a thing that we're going to do? Of course not. Like—Corey: I should clarify, we're talking here about physical landmines; not whatever disastrous failure mode your SaaS application has.Mike: [laugh]. Yeah.Corey: We know what those are.Mike: Yeah, and like, that sort of thing, you and I would never even pose the question to each other. We would just make the decision. And maybe we tell each other later because and, like, “Hey, haha, look what happened,” but there will never be a discussion around it because it just—our values are so tightly aligned that it wouldn't be necessary.Corey: Whenever we're talking to someone that's in a new sector or a company that has a different expression, we always like to throw it past each other just to double-check, you don't have a problem with—insert any random thing here; the breadth of our customer base just astounds me—and very rarely as either one of us thrown a flag on something just because we do have this affinity for saying[ yes and making money.Mike: Yeah. But you actually wanted to talk about the terribleness of managing you.Corey: Yeah. I am very curious as to what your experience has been.Mike: [laugh].Corey: And before we dive into it, I want to call out a couple of things that make me a little atypical for your typical problem employee. I am ADHD personified. My particular expression of that means that my energy level is very different at different times of day, there are times where I will get nothing done for a day or two, and then in four hours, get three weeks of work done. It is hard to predict and it's hard to schedule around and it's never clear exactly what that energy level is going to be at any given point in time. That's the starting point of this nonsense. Now, take it away.Mike: Yeah. What most people know about Corey is what everyone sees on Twitter, which is what I would call the high highs. Everyone sees you as your most energetic, or at least perceived as the most energetic. If they see you in person at a conference, it's the same sort of thing. What people don't see are your lows, which are really, really low lows.And it's not a matter of, like, you don't get anything done. Like, you know, we can handle that; it's that you disappear. And it may be for a couple hours, it may be for a couple of days, and we just don't really know what's going on. That's really hard. But then, in your high highs, they're really high, but they're also really unpredictable.So, what that means is that because you have ADHD, like, the way that your brain thinks, the way your brain works, is that you don't control what you're going to focus on, and you never know what you're going to focus on. It may be exactly what you should be focusing on, which is a huge win for everyone involved, but sometimes you focus on stuff that doesn't matter to anyone except you. Sometimes really interesting stuff comes out of that, but oftentimes it doesn't. So, helping build a structure to work around those sorts of things and to also support those sorts of things, has been one of the biggest challenges that I've had. And most of my job is really about building a support structure for you and enabling you to do your best work.So, that's been really interesting and really challenging because I do not think that way. Like, if I need to focus on something, I just say, “Great. I'm just going to focus on this thing,” and I'll focus on it until I'm done. But you don't work that way, and you couldn't conceivably work that way, ever. So, it's always been hard because I say things like, “Hey, Corey, I need you to go write this series of emails.” And you'll write them when your brain decides that wants to write them, which might be never.Corey: That's part of the problem. I've also found that if I have an idea floating around too long, it'll linger for years and I'll never write anything about it, whereas there are times when I have—the inspiration strikes, I write a one- to 2000-word blog post every week that goes out, and there are times it takes me hours and there are times I bust out the entire thing in first draft form in 20 minutes or less. Like, if it's Domino's, like, there's not going to be a refund on it. So, it's kind of wild and I wish I could harness that somehow I don't know how, but… that's one of the biggest challenges.Mike: I wish I could too, but it's one of the things that you learn to get used to. And with that, because we've worked together for so long, I've gotten to be able to tell in what state of mind you are. Like, are you in a state where if I put something in front of you, you're going to go after it hard, and like, great things are going to happen, or are you more likely to ignore that I said anything? And I can generally tell within the first sentence or so of bringing something up. But that also means that I have other—I have to be careful with how I structure requests that I have for you.In some cases, I come with a punch list of, like, here's six things I need to get through and I'm going to sit on this call while we go through them. In other cases, I have to drip them out one at a time over the span of a week just because that's how your mind is those days. That makes it really difficult because that's not how most people are managed and it's not how most people expect to manage. So, coming up with different ways to do that has been one of the trickiest things I've done.Corey: Let's move on a little bit other than managing my energy levels because that does not sound like a particularly difficult employee to manage. “Okay, great. We've got to build some buffer room into the schedule in case he winds up not delivering for a few days. Okay, we can live with that.” But oh, working with me gets so much worse.Mike: [laugh]. It absolutely does.Corey: This is my performance review. Please hit me with it.Mike: Yeah. The other major concern that has been challenging to work through that makes you really frustrating to work with, is you hate conflict. Actually, I don't actually—let me clarify that further. You avoid conflict, except your definition of conflict is more broad than most. Because when most people think of conflicts, like, “Oh, I have to go have this really hard conversation, it's going to be uncomfortable, and, like—”Corey: “Time to go fire Steven.”Mike: Right, or things like, “I have to have our performance conversation with someone.” Like, everyone hates those, but, like, there's good ways and bad ways to them, like, it's uncomfortable even at the best of times. But with you, it's more than that, it's much more broad. You avoid giving direction because you perceive giving direction as potential for conflict, and because you're so conflict-avoidant, you don't give direction to people.Which means that if someone does something you don't like, you don't say anything and then it leaves everyone on the team to say, like, “I really wish Corey would be more explicit about what he wants. I wish he was more vocal about the direction he wanted to go.” Like, “Please tell us something more.” But you're so conflict-avoidant that you don't, and no amount of begging or we're asking for it has really changed that, so we end up with these two things where you're doing most of the work yourself because you don't want to direct other people to do it.Corey: I will push back slightly on one element of that, which is when I have a strong opinion about something, I am not at all hesitant about articulating that. I mean, this is not—like, my Twitter is not performance art; it's very much what I believe. The challenge is that for so much of what we talk about internally on a day-to-day basis, I don't really have a strong opinion. And what I've always shied away from is the idea of telling people how to do their jobs. So, I want to be very clear that I'm not doing that, except when it's important.Because we've all been in environments in the corporate world where the president of the company wanders past or your grand-boss walks into the room and asks an idle question, or, “Maybe we should do this,” and it never feels like it's really just idle pondering. It's, “Welp, new strategic priority just dropped from on high.”Mike: Right.Corey: And every senior manager has a story about screwing that one up. And I have led us down that path once or twice previously. So—Mike: That's true.Corey: When I don't have a strong opinion, I think what I need to get better at is saying, “I don't give a shit,” but when I frame it like that it causes different problems.Mike: Yeah. Yeah, that's very true. I still don't completely agree with your disagreement there, but I understand your perspective. [laugh].Corey: Oh, he's not like you can fire me, so it doesn't really matter. I kid. I kid.Mike: Right. Yeah. So, I think those are the two major areas that make you a real challenge to manage and a challenge to direct. But one of the reasons why I think we've been successful at it, or at least I'll say I've been successful at managing you, is I do so with such a gentle touch that you don't realize that I'm doing anything, and I have all these different—Corey: Well, it did take me four years to realize what was going on.Mike: Yeah, like, I have all these different ways of getting you to do things, and you don't realize I'm doing them. And, like, I've shared many of them here for you for the first time. And that's really is what has worked out well. Like, a lot of the ways that I manage you, you don't realize are management.Corey: Managing shards. Maintenance windows. Overprovisioning. ElastiCache bills. I know, I know. It's a spooky season and you're already shaking. It's time for caching to be simpler. Momento Serverless Cache lets you forget the backend to focus on good code and great user experiences. With true autoscaling and a pay-per-use pricing model, it makes caching easy. No matter your cloud provider, get going for free at gomomento.co/screaming That's GO M-O-M-E-N-T-O dot co slash screamingCorey: What advice would you have for someone for whom a lot of these stories are resonating? Because, “Hey, I have a direct report is driving me to distraction and a lot sounds like what you're describing.” What do you wish you'd known sooner about how to coax performance out of me, for lack of a better phrasing?Mike: When we first started really working together, I knew what ADHD was, but I knew it from a high school paper that I did on ADHD, and it's um—oh, what was it—“The Overdiagnosis of ADHD,” which was a thing when you and I were at high school. That's all I knew is just that ADHD was suspected to be grossly overdiagnosed and that most people didn't have it. What I have learned is that yeah, that might have been true—maybe; I don't know—but for people that do have any ADHD, it's a real thing. Like, it does have some pretty substantial impact.And I wish I had known more about how that manifests, and particularly how it manifests in different people. And I wish I'd known more earlier on about the coping mechanisms that different people create for themselves and how they manage and how they—[sigh], I'm struggling to come up with the right word here, but many people who are neurodivergent in some way create coping mechanisms and ways to shift themselves to appear more neurotypical. And I wish I had understood that better. Particularly, I wish I had understood that better for you when we first started because I've kind of learned about it over time. And I spent so much time trying to get you to work the way that I work rather than understand that you work different. Had I spent more time to understand how you work and what your coping mechanisms were, the earlier years of Duckbill would have been so much smoother.Corey: And again, having this conversation has been extraordinarily helpful. On my side of it, one of the things that was absolutely transformative and caused a massive reduction in our interpersonal conflict was the very simple tool of, it's not necessarily a problem when I drop something on the floor and don't get to it, as long as I throw a hand up and say, “I'm dropping this thing,” and so someone else can catch it as we go. I don't know how much of this is ADHD speaking versus how much of it is just my own brokenness in some ways, but I feel like everyone has this neverending list of backlog tasks that they'll get to someday that generally doesn't ever seem to happen. More often than not, I wind up every few months, just looking at my ever-growing list, reset to zero and we'll start over. And every once in a while, I'll be really industrious and knock a thing or two off the list. But so many that don't necessarily matter or need to be me doing them, but it drives people to distraction when something hits my email inbox, it just dies there, for example.Mike: Yeah. One of the systems that we set up here is that if there's something that Corey does not immediately want to do, I have you send it to someone else. And generally it's to me and then I become a router for you. But making that more explicit and making that easier for you—I'm just like, “If this is not something that you're going to immediately take care of yourself, forward it to me.” And that was huge. But then other things, like when you take time off, no one knows you're taking time off. And it's an—the easiest thing is no one cares that you're taking time off; just, you know, tell us you're doing it.Corey: Yeah, there's a difference between, “I'm taking three days off,” and your case, the answer is generally, “Oh, thank God. He's finally using some of that vacation.”Mike: [laugh].Corey: The problem is there's a world of difference between, “Oh, I'm going to take these three days off,” and just not showing up that day. That tends to cause problems for people.Mike: Yeah. They're just waving a hand in the air and saying, “Hey, this is happening,” that's great. But not waving it, not saying anything at all, that's where the pain really comes from.Corey: When you take a look across your experience managing people, which to my understanding your first outing with it was at this company—Mike: Yeah.Corey: What about managing me is the least surprising and the most surprising that you've picked up during that pattern? Because again, the story has always been, “Oh, yeah, you're a terrible manager because you've never done it before,” but I look back and you're clearly the best manager I've ever had, if for no other reason than neither one of us can rage-quit. But there's a lot of artistry to how you've handled a lot of challenges that I present to you.Mike: I'm the best manager you've had because I haven't fired you. [laugh].Corey: And also, some of the best ones I have had fired me. That doesn't necessarily disqualify someone.Mike: Yeah. I want to say, I am by no means experienced as a manager. As you mentioned, this is my first outing into doing management. As my coach tells me, I'm getting better every day. I am not terrible [laugh].The—let's see—most surprising; least surprising. I don't think I have anything for least surprising. I think most surprising is how easy it is for you to accept feedback and how quickly you do something about it, how quickly you take action on that feedback. I did not expect that, given all your other proclivities for not liking managers, not liking to be managed, for someone to give feedback to you and you say, “Yep, that sounds good,” and then do it, like, that was incredibly surprising.Corey: It's one of those areas where if you're not embracing or at least paying significant attention to how you are being perceived, maybe that's a problem, maybe it's not, let's be very clear. However, there's also a lot of propensity there to just assume, “Oh, I'm right and screw everyone else.” You can do an awful lot of harm that way. And that is something I've had to become incredibly aware of, especially during the pandemic, as the size of my audience at this point more than quadrupled from the start of the pandemic. These are a bunch of people now who have never met me in person, they have no context on what I do.And I tend to view the world the way you might expect a dog to behave, who caught a car that he has absolutely no idea how to drive, and he's sort of winging it as he goes. Like, step one, let's not kill people. Step two, eh, we'll figure that out later. Like, step one is the most important.Mike: Mm-hm. Yeah.Corey: And feedback is hard to get, past a certain point. I often lament from time to time that it's become more challenging for me to weed out who the jerks are because when you're perceived to have a large platform and more or less have no problem calling large companies and powerful folk to account, everyone's nice to you. And well, “Really? He's terrible and shitty to women. That's odd. He's always been super nice to me.” Is not the glowing defense that so many people seem to think that it is. It's I have learned to listen a lot more clearly the more I speak.Mike: That's a challenge for me as well because, as we've mentioned, my first foray into management. As we've had more people in the company, that has gotten more of a challenge of I have to watch what I say because my word carries weight on its own, by virtue of my position. And you have the same problem, except yours is much more about your weight in public, rather than your weight internally.Corey: I see it as different sides of the same coin. I take it as a personal bit of a badge of honor that almost every person I meet, including the people who've worked here, have come away, very surprised by just how true to life my personality on Twitter is to how actually am when I interact with humans. You're right, they don't see the low sides, but I also try not to take that out on the staff either.Mike: [laugh]. Right.Corey: We do the best of what we have, I think, and it's gratifying to know that I can still learn new tricks.Mike: Yeah. And I'm not firing anytime soon.Corey: That's right. Thank you again for giving me the shotgun performance review. It's always appreciated. If people want to learn more, where can they find you, to get their own performance preview, perhaps?Mike: Yeah, you can find me on Twitter at @Mike_Julian. Or you can sign up for our newsletter, where I'm talking about my upcoming book on consulting at mikejulian.com.Corey: And we will put links to that into the show notes. Thanks again, sir.Mike: Thank you.Corey: Mike Julian, CEO of The Duckbill Group, my business partner, and apparently my boss. I'm Cloud Economist Corey Quinn, and this is Screaming in the Cloud. If you've enjoyed this podcast, please leave a five-star review on your podcast platform of choice, whereas if you've hated this podcast, please leave a five-star review on your podcast platform of choice along with an angry comment that demonstrates the absolute worst way to respond to a negative performance evaluation.Corey: If your AWS bill keeps rising and your blood pressure is doing the same, then you need The Duckbill Group. We help companies fix their AWS bill by making it smaller and less horrifying. The Duckbill Group works for you, not AWS. We tailor recommendations to your business and we get to the point. Visit duckbillgroup.com to get started.Announcer: This has been a HumblePod production. Stay humble.

About MikeBeside his duties as The Duckbill Group's CEO, Mike is the author of O'Reilly's Practical Monitoring, and previously wrote the Monitoring Weekly newsletter and hosted the Real World DevOps podcast. He was previously a DevOps Engineer for companies such as Taos Consulting, Peak Hosting, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and many more. Mike is originally from Knoxville, TN (Go Vols!) and currently resides in Portland, OR.Links Referenced: @Mike_Julian: https://twitter.com/Mike_Julian mikejulian.com: https://mikejulian.com duckbillgroup.com: https://duckbillgroup.com TranscriptAnnouncer: Hello, and welcome to Screaming in the Cloud with your host, Chief Cloud Economist at The Duckbill Group, Corey Quinn. This weekly show features conversations with people doing interesting work in the world of cloud, thoughtful commentary on the state of the technical world, and ridiculous titles for which Corey refuses to apologize. This is Screaming in the Cloud.Corey: This episode is sponsored in part by our friends at AWS AppConfig. Engineers love to solve, and occasionally create, problems. But not when it's an on-call fire-drill at 4 in the morning. Software problems should drive innovation and collaboration, NOT stress, and sleeplessness, and threats of violence. That's why so many developers are realizing the value of AWS AppConfig Feature Flags. Feature Flags let developers push code to production, but hide that that feature from customers so that the developers can release their feature when it's ready. This practice allows for safe, fast, and convenient software development. You can seamlessly incorporate AppConfig Feature Flags into your AWS or cloud environment and ship your Features with excitement, not trepidation and fear. To get started, go to snark.cloud/appconfig. That's snark.cloud/appconfig.Corey: Forget everything you know about SSH and try Tailscale. Imagine if you didn't need to manage PKI or rotate SSH keys every time someone leaves. That'd be pretty sweet, wouldn't it? With Tailscale SSH, you can do exactly that. Tailscale gives each server and user device a node key to connect to its VPN, and it uses the same node key to authorize and authenticate SSH.Basically you're SSHing the same way you manage access to your app. What's the benefit here? Built in key rotation, permissions is code, connectivity between any two devices, reduce latency and there's a lot more, but there's a time limit here. You can also ask users to reauthenticate for that extra bit of security. Sounds expensive?Nope, I wish it were. Tailscale is completely free for personal use on up to 20 devices. To learn more, visit snark.cloud/tailscale. Again, that's snark.cloud/tailscaleCorey: Welcome to Screaming in the Cloud. I'm Cloud Economist Corey Quinn, and my guest is a returning guest on this show, my business partner and CEO of The Duckbill Group, Mike Julian. Mike, thanks for making the time.Mike: Lucky number three, I believe?Corey: Something like that, but numbers are hard. I have databases for that of varying quality and appropriateness for the task, but it works out. Anything's a database. If you're brave enough.Mike: With you inviting me this many times, I'm starting to think you'd like me or something.Corey: I know, I know. So, let's talk about something that is going to put that rumor to rest.Mike: [laugh].Corey: Clearly, you have made some poor choices in the course of your career, like being my business partner being the obvious one. But what's really in a dead heat for which is the worst decision is you've written a book previously. And now you are starting the process of writing another book because, I don't know, we don't keep you busy enough or something. What are you doing?Mike: Making very bad decisions. When I finished writing Practical Monitoring—O'Reilly, and by the way, you should go buy a copy if interested in monitoring—I finished the book and said, “Wow, that was awful. I'm never doing it again.” And about a month later, I started thinking of new books to write. So, that was 2017, and Corey and I started Duckbill and kind of stopped thinking about writing books because small companies are basically small children. But now I'm going to write a book about consulting.Corey: Oh, thank God. I thought you're going to go down the observability path a second time.Mike: You know, I'm actually dreading the day that O'Reilly asks me to do a second edition because I don't really want to.Corey: Yeah. Effectively turn it into an entire story where the only monitoring tool you really need is the AWS bill. That'll go well.Mike: [laugh]. Yeah. So yeah, like, basically, I've been doing consulting for such a long time, and most of my career is consulting in some form or fashion, and I head up all the consulting at Duckbill. I've learned a lot about consulting. And I've found that people have a lot of questions about consulting, particularly at the higher-end levels. Once you start getting into advisory sort of stuff, there's not a lot of great information out there aimed at engineering.Corey: There's a bunch of different views on what consulting is. You have independent contractors billing by the hour as staff replacement who call what they do consulting; you have the big consultancies, like Bain or BCG; you've got what we do in an advisory sense, and of course, you have a bunch of MBA new grads going to a lot of the big consultancies who are going to see a book on consulting and think that it's potentially for them. I don't know that you necessarily have a lot of advice for the new grad type, so who is this for? What is your target customer for this book?Mike: If you're interested in joining McKinsey out of college, I don't have a lot to add; I don't have a lot to tell you. The reason for that is kind of twofold. One is that shops like McKinsey and Deloitte and Accenture and BCG and Bain, all those, are playing very different games than what most of us think about when we think consulting. Their entire model revolves around running a process. And it's the same process for every client they work with. But, like, you're buying them because of their process.And that process is nothing new or novel. You don't go to those firms because you want the best advice possible. You go to those firms because it's the most defensible advice. It's sort of those things like, “No one gets fired for buying Cisco,” no one got fired for buying IBM, like, that sort of thing, it's a very defensible choice. But you're not going to get great results from it.But because of that, their entire model revolves around throwing dozens, in some cases, hundreds of new grads at a problem and saying, “Run this process. Have fun. Let us know if you need help.” That's not consulting I have any experience with. It's honestly not consulting that most of us want to do.Most of that is staffed by MBAs and accountants. When I think consulting, I think about specialized advice and providing that specialized advice to people. And I wager that most of us think about that in the same way, too. In some cases, it might just be, “I'm going to write code for you as a freelancer,” or I'm just going to tell you like, “Hey, put the nail in here instead of over here because it's going to be better for you.” Like, paying for advice is good.But with that, I also have a… one of the first things I say in the beginning of the book, which [laugh] I've already started writing because I'm a glutton for punishment, is I don't think junior people should be consultants. I actually think it's really bad idea because to be a consultant, you have to have expertise in some area, and junior staff don't. They haven't been in their careers long enough to develop that yet. So, they're just going to flounder. So, my advice is generally aimed at people that have been in their careers for quite some time, generally, people that are 10, 15, 20 years into their career, looking to do something.Corey: One of the problems that we see when whenever we talk about these things on Twitter is that we get an awful lot of people telling us that we're wrong, that it can't be made to work, et cetera, et cetera. But following this model, I've been independent for—well, I was independent and then we became The Duckbill Group; add them together because figuring out exactly where that divide happened is always a mental leap for me, but it's been six years at this point. We've definitely proven our ability to not go out of business every month. It's kind of amazing. Without even an exception case of, “That one time.”Mike: [laugh]. Yeah, we are living proof that it does work, but you don't really have to take just our word for it because there are a lot of other firms that exist entirely on an advisory-only, high-expertise model. And it works out really well. We've worked with several of them, so it does work; it just isn't very common inside of tech and particularly inside of engineering.Corey: So, one of the things that I find is what differentiates an expert from an enthusiastic amateur is, among other things, the number of mistakes that they've made. So, I guess a different way of asking this is what qualifies you to write this book, but instead, I'm going to frame it in a very negative way. What have you screwed up on that puts you in a position of, “Ah, I'm going to write a book so that someone else can make better choices.”Mike: One of my favorite stories to tell—and Corey, I actually think you might not have heard this story before—Corey: That seems unlikely, but give it a shot.Mike: Yeah. So, early in my career, I was working for a consulting firm that did ERP implementations. We worked with mainly large, old-school manufacturing firms. So, my job there was to do the engineering side of the implementation. So, a lot of rack-and-stack, a lot of Windows Server configuration, a lot of pulling cables, that sort of thing. So, I thought I was pretty good at this. I quickly learned that I was actually not nearly as good as I thought I was.Corey: A common affliction among many different people.Mike: A common affliction. But I did not realize that until this one particular incident. So, me and my boss are both on site at this large manufacturing facility, and the CFO pulls my boss aside and I can hear them talking and, like, she's pretty upset. She points at me and says, “I never want this asshole in my office ever again.” So, he and I have a long drive back to our office, like an hour and a half.And we had a long chat about what that meant for me. I was not there for very long after that, as you might imagine, but the thing is, I still have no idea to this day what I did to upset her. I know that she was pissed and he knows that she was pissed. And he never told me exactly what it was, only that's you take care of your client. And the client believes that I screwed up so massively that she wanted me fired.Him not wanting to argue—he didn't; he just kind of went with it—and put me on other clients. But as a result of that, it really got me thinking that I screwed something up so badly to make this person hate me so much and I still have no idea what it was that I did. Which tells me that even at the time, I did not understand what was going on around me. I did not understand how to manage clients well, and to really take care of them. That was probably the first really massive mistake that I've made my career—or, like, the first time I came to the realization that there's a whole lot I don't know and it's really costing me.Corey: From where I sit, there have been a number of things that we have done as we've built our consultancy, and I'm curious—you know, let's get this even more personal—in the past, well, we'll call it four years that we have been The Duckbill Group—which I think is right—what have we gotten right and what have we gotten wrong? You are the expert; you're writing a book on this for God's sake.Mike: So, what I think we've gotten right is one of my core beliefs is never bill hourly. Shout out to Jonathan Stark. He wrote I really good book that is a much better explanation of that than I've ever been able to come up with. But I've always had the belief that billing hourly is just a bad idea, so we've never done that and that's worked out really well for us. We've turned down work because that's the model they wanted and it's like, “Sorry, that's not what we do. You're going to have to go work for someone else—or hire someone else.”Other things that I think we've gotten right is a focus on staying on the advisory side and not doing any implementation. That's allowed us to get really good at what we do very quickly because we don't get mired in long-term implementation detail-level projects. So, that's been great. Where we went a little wrong, I think—or what we have gotten wrong, lessons that we've learned. I had this idea that we could build out a junior and mid-level staff and have them overseen by very senior people.And, as it turns out, that didn't work for us, entirely because it didn't work for me. That was really my failure. I went from being an IC to being the leader of a company in one single step. I've never been a manager before Duckbill. So, that particular mistake was really about my lack of abilities in being a good manager and being a good leader.So, building that out, that did not work for us because it didn't work for me and I didn't know how to do it. So, I made way too many mistakes that were kind of amateur-level stuff in terms of management. So, that didn't work. And the other major mistake that I think we've made is not putting enough effort into marketing. So, we get most of our leads by inbound or referral, as is common with boutique consulting firms, but a lot of the income that we get comes through Last Week in AWS, which is really awesome.But we don't put a whole lot of effort into content or any marketing stuff related to the thing that we do, like cost management. I think a lot of that is just that we don't really know how, aside from just creating content and publishing it. We don't really understand how to market ourselves very well on that side of things. I think that's a mistake we've made.Corey: It's an effective strategy against what's a very complicated problem because unlike most things, if—let's go back to your old life—if we have an observability problem, we will talk about that very publicly on Twitter and people will come over and get—“Hey, hey, have you tried to buy my company's product?” Or they'll offer consulting services, or they'll point us in the right direction, all of which is sometimes appreciated. Whereas when you have a big AWS bill, you generally don't talk about it in public, especially if you're a serious company because that's going to, uh, I think the phrase is, “Shake investor confidence,” when you're actually live tweeting slash shitposting about your own AWS bill. And our initial thesis was therefore, since we can't wind up reaching out to these people when they're having the pain because there's no external indication of it, instead what we have to do is be loud enough and notable in this space, where they find us where it shouldn't take more than them asking one or two of their friends before they get pointed to us. What's always fun as the stories we hear is, “Okay, so I asked some other people because I wanted a second opinion, and they told us to go to you, too.” Word of mouth is where our customers come from. But how do you bootstrap that? I don't know. I'm lucky that I got it right the first time.Mike: Yeah, and as I mentioned a minute ago, that a lot of that really comes through your content, which is not really cost management-related. It's much more AWS broad. We don't put out a lot of cost management specific content. And honestly, I think that's to our detriment. We should and we absolutely can. We just haven't. I think that's one of the really big things that we've missed on doing.Corey: There's an argument that the people who come to us do not spend their entire day thinking about AWS bills. I mean, I can't imagine what that would be like, but they don't for whatever reason; they're trying to do something ridiculous, like you know, run a profitable company. So, getting in front of them when they're not thinking about the bills means, on some level, that they're going to reach out to us when the bill strikes. At least that's been my operating theory.Mike: Yeah, I mean, this really just comes down to content strategy and broader marketing strategy. Because one of the things you have to think about with marketing is how do you meet a customer at the time that they have the problem that you solve? And what most marketing people talk about here is what's called the triggering event. Something causes someone to take an action. What is that something? Who is that someone, and what is that action?And for us, one of the things that we thought early on is that well, the bill comes out the first week of the month, every month, so people are going to opened the bill freak out, and a big influx of leads are going to come our way and that's going to happen every single month. The reality is that never happened. That turns out was not a triggering event for anyone.Corey: And early on, when we didn't have that many leads coming in, it was a statistical aberration that I thought I saw, like, “Oh, out of the three leads this month, two of them showed up in the same day. Clearly, it's an AWS billing day thing.” No. It turns out that every company's internal cadence is radically different.Mike: Right. And I wish I could say that we have found what our triggering events are, but I actually don't think we have. We know who the people are and we know what they reach out for, but we haven't really uncovered that triggering event. And it could also be there, there isn't a one. Or at least, if there is one, it's not one that we could see externally, which is kind of fine.Corey: Well, for the half of our consulting that does contract negotiation for large-scale commitments with AWS, it comes up for renewal or the initial discount contract gets offered, those are very clear triggering events but the challenge is that we don't—Mike: You can't see them externally.Corey: —really see that from the outside. Yeah.Mike: Right. And this is one of those things where there are triggering events for basically everything and it's probably going to be pretty consistent once you get down to specific services. Like we provide cost optimization services and contract negotiation services. I'm willing to bet that I can predict exactly what the trigger events for both of those will be pretty well. The problem is, you can never see those externally, which is kind of fine.Ideally, you would be able to see it externally, but you can't, so we roll with it, which means our entire strategy has revolved around always being top-of-mind because at the time where it happens, we're already there. And that's a much more difficult strategy to employ, but it does work.Corey: All it takes is time and being really lucky and being really prolific, and, and, and. It's one of those things where if I were to set out to replicate it, I don't even know how I'd go about doing it.Mike: People have been asking me. They say, “I want to create The Duckbill Group for X. What do I do?” And I say, “First step, get yourself a Corey Quinn.” And they're like, “Well, I can't do that. There's only one.” I'm like, “Yep. Sucks to be you.” [laugh].Corey: Yeah, we called the Jerk Store. They're running out of him. Yeah, it's a problem. And I don't think the world needs a whole lot more of my type of humor, to be honest, because the failure mode that I have experienced brutally and firsthand is not that people don't find me funny; it's that it really hurts people's feelings. I have put significant effort into correcting those mistakes and not repeating them, but it sucks every time I get it wrong.Mike: Yeah.Corey: Another question I have for you around the book targeting, are you aiming this at individual independent consultants or are you looking to advise people who are building agencies?Mike: Explicitly not the latter. My framing around this is that there are a number of people who are doing consulting right now and they've kind of fell into it. Often, they'll leave one job and do a little consulting while they're waiting on their next thing. And in some cases, that might be a month or two. In some cases, it might go on years, but that whole time, they're just like, “Oh, yeah, I'm doing consulting in between things.”But at some point, some of those think, “You know what? I want this to be my thing. I don't want there to be a next thing. This is my thing. So therefore, how do I get serious about doing consulting? How do I get serious about being a consultant?”And that's where I think I can add a lot of value because casually consulting of, like, taking whatever work just kind of falls your way is interesting for a while, but once you get serious about it, and you have to start thinking, well, how do I actually deliver engagements? How do I do that consistently? How do I do it repeatedly? How to do it profitably? How do I price my stuff? How do I package it? How do I attract the leads that I want? How do I work with the customers I want?And turning that whole thing from a casual, “Yeah, whatever,” into, “This is my business,” is a very different way of thinking. And most people don't think that way because they didn't really set out to build a business. They set out to just pass time and earn a little bit of money before they went off to the next job. So, the framing that I have here is that I'm aiming to help people that are wanting to get serious about doing consulting. But they generally have experience doing it already.Corey: Managing shards. Maintenance windows. Overprovisioning. ElastiCache bills. I know, I know. It's a spooky season and you're already shaking. It's time for caching to be simpler. Momento Serverless Cache lets you forget the backend to focus on good code and great user experiences. With true autoscaling and a pay-per-use pricing model, it makes caching easy. No matter your cloud provider, get going for free at gomemento.co/screaming That's GO M-O-M-E-N-T-O dot co slash screamingCorey: We went from effectively being the two of us on the consulting delivery side, two scaling up to, I believe, at one point we were six of us, and now we have scaled back down to largely the two of us, aided by very specific external folk, when it makes sense.Mike: And don't forget April.Corey: And of course. I'm talking delivery.Mike: [laugh].Corey: There's a reason I—Mike: Delivery. Yes.Corey: —prefaced it that way. There's a lot of support structure here, let's not get ourselves, and they make this entire place work. But why did we scale up? And then why did we scale down? Because I don't believe we've ever really talked about that publicly.Mike: No, not publicly. In fact, most people probably don't even notice that it happened. We got pretty big for—I mean, not big. So, we hit, I think, six full-time people at one point. And that was quite a bit.Corey: On the delivery side. Let's be clear.Mike: Yeah. No, I think actually with support structure, too. Like, if you add in everyone that we had with the sales and marketing as well, we were like 11 people. And that was a pretty sizable company. But then in July this year, it kind of hit a point where I found that I just wasn't enjoying my job anymore.And I looked around and noticed that a lot of other people was kind of feeling the same way, is just things had gotten harder. And the business wasn't suffering at all, it was just everything felt more difficult. And I finally realized that, for me personally at least, I started Duckbill because I love working with clients, I love doing consulting. And what I have found is that as the company grew larger and larger, I spent most of my time keeping the trains running and taking care of the staff. Which is exactly what I should be doing when we're that size, like, that is my job at that size, but I didn't actually enjoy it.I went into management as, like, this job going from having never done it before. So, I didn't have anything to compare it to. I didn't know if I would like it or not. And once I got here, I realized I actually don't. And I spent a lot of efforts to get better at it and I think I did. I've been working with a leadership coach for years now.But it finally came to a point where I just realized that I wasn't actually enjoying it anymore. I wasn't enjoying the job that I had created. And I think that really panned out to you as well. So, we decided, we had kind of an opportune time where one of our team decided that they were also wanting to go back to do independent consulting. I'm like, “Well, this is actually pretty good time. Why don't we just start scaling things back?” And like, maybe we'll scale it up again in the future; maybe we won't. But like, let's just buy ourselves some breathing room.Corey: One of the things that I think we didn't spend quite enough time really asking ourselves was what kind of place do we want to work at. Because we've explicitly stated that you and I both view this as the last job either of us is ever going to have, which means that we're not trying to do the get big quickly to get acquired, or we want to raise a whole bunch of other people's money to scale massively. Those aren't things either of us enjoy. And it turns out that handling the challenges of a business with as many people working here as we had wasn't what either one of us really wanted to do.Mike: Yeah. You know what—[laugh] it's funny because a lot of our advisors kept asking the same thing. Like, “So, what kind of company do you want?” And like, we had some pretty good answers for that, in that we didn't want to build a VC-backed company, we didn't ever want to be hyperscale. But there's a wide gulf of things between two-person company and hyperscale and we didn't really think too much about that.In fact, being a ten-person company is very different than being a three-person company, and we didn't really think about that either. We should have really put a lot more thought into that of what does it mean to be a ten-person company, and is that what we want? Or is three, four, or five-person more our style? But then again, I don't know that we could have predicted that as a concern had we not tried it first.Corey: Yeah, that was very much something that, for better or worse, we pay advisors for their advice—that's kind of definitionally how it works—and then we ignored it, on some level, though we thought we were doing something different at the time because there's some lessons you've just got to learn by making the mistake yourself.Mike: Yeah, we definitely made a few of those. [laugh].Corey: And it's been an interesting ride and I've got zero problem with how things have shaken out. I like what we do quite a bit. And honestly, the biggest fear I've got going forward is that my jackass business partner is about to distract the hell out of himself by writing a book, which is never as easy as even the most pessimistic estimates would be. So, that's going to be awesome and fun.Mike: Yeah, just wait until you see the dedication page.Corey: Yeah, I wasn't mentioned at all in the last book that you wrote, which I found personally offensive. So, if I'm not mentioned this time, you're fired.Mike: Oh, no, you are. It's just I'm also adding an anti-dedication page, which just has a photo of you.Corey: Oh, wonderful, wonderful. This is going to be one of those stories of the good consultant and the bad consultant, and I'm going to be the Goofus to your Gallant, aren't I?Mike: [laugh]. Yes, yes. You are.Corey: “Goofus wants to bill by the hour.”Mike: It's going to have a page of, like, “Here's this [unintelligible 00:25:05] book is dedicated to. Here's my acknowledgments. And [BLEEP] this guy.”Corey: I love it. I absolutely love it. I think that there is definitely a bright future for telling other people how to consult properly. May just suggest as a subtitle for the book is Consulting—subtitle—You Have Problems and Money. We'll Take Both.Mike: [laugh]. Yeah. My working title for this is Practical Consulting, but only because my previous book was Practical Monitoring. Pretty sure O'Reilly would have a fit if I did that. I actually have no idea what I'm going to call the book, still.Corey: Naming things is super hard. I would suggest asking people at AWS who name services and then doing the exact opposite of whatever they suggest. Like, take their list of recommendations and sort by reverse order and that'll get you started.Mike: Yeah. [laugh].Corey: I want to thank you for giving us an update on what you're working on and why you have less hair every time I see you because you're mostly ripping it out due to self-inflicted pain. If people want to follow your adventures, where's the best place to keep updated on this ridiculous, ridiculous nonsense that I cannot talk you out of?Mike: Two places. You can follow me on Twitter, @Mike_Julian, or you can sign up for the newsletter on my site at mikejulian.com where I'll be posting all the updates.Corey: Excellent. And I look forward to skewering the living hell out of them.Mike: I look forward to ignoring them.Corey: Thank you, Mike. It is always a pleasure.Mike: Thank you, Corey.Corey: Mike Julian, CEO at The Duckbill Group, and my unwilling best friend. I'm Cloud Economist Corey Quinn and this is Screaming in the Cloud. If you've enjoyed this podcast, please leave a five-star review on your podcast platform of choice, whereas if you've hated this podcast, please leave a five-star review on your podcast platform of choice along with an angry, annoying comment in which you tell us exactly what our problem is, and then charge us a fixed fee to fix that problem.Corey: If your AWS bill keeps rising and your blood pressure is doing the same, then you need The Duckbill Group. We help companies fix their AWS bill by making it smaller and less horrifying. The Duckbill Group works for you, not AWS. We tailor recommendations to your business and we get to the point. Visit duckbillgroup.com to get started.Announcer: This has been a HumblePod production. Stay humble.

Mike Simmons, a real estate investor, author of the book Level Jumping (linked below), has shared the stage with some of the greats like Gary V. Has made over $1 million in profits in 12 months!! He knew he wanted to invest in 2003, and bought his first flip in 2008....why did it take so long? Like a lot of people starting out Mike was afraid to tell his spouse because of the difficult conversation. It wasn't until he finally decided he was tired of allowing fear to be his excuse that he dove in. Today, Mike shares his inspiring story of how he left his job, entered the real estate world professionally to begin wholesaling and flipping houses. Episode Links: https://www.mikesimmons.com/ Level Jumping   --- Transcript Before we jump into the episode, here's a quick disclaimer about our content. The Remote Real Estate Investor podcast is for informational purposes only, and is not intended as investment advice. The views, opinions and strategies of both the hosts and the guests are their own and should not be considered as guidance from Roofstock. Make sure to always run your own numbers, make your own independent decisions and seek investment advice from licensed professionals.   Michael: Hey, everyone, welcome to another episode of the Remote Real Estate Investor. I'm Michael Albaum and today with me, I'm joined by Mike Simmons, author, CEO, business coach speaker, and we're gonna be talking about Mike's business, wholesaling and flipping houses, and what we should be aware of if you're going to get into either of those businesses. So let's get into it.   Mike Simmons, what's going on, man? Welcome to the real estate investor.   Mike: Thanks for having me, I appreciate it.   Michael: Oh, my gosh, no, the pleasure is all mine. Super excited to have you on and really excited for our conversation today. So Mike, I know a little bit about your background and a little bit about what you do but for all of our listeners who are not familiar with you, give us a quick and dirty who you are, where you come from, and what is it that you do in real estate today?   Mike: Yeah, no problem. So, you know, I always say that my background is probably the least remarkable. I didn't sell baseball cards, I didn't go around the neighborhood looking for lawns to mow or things to do. I was a normal kid, probably on the lazy side. You know, and my parents were, we're in the automotive industry, and we're very blue collar Michigan, right. So the life that was displayed before me through example, and through explicit, you know, direction from my parents, and the Blueprint was, you got you finish high school, you go to college, or just as maybe even more preferable, you get into a union factory type of environment and it's very secure and you work there for 30 to 35 years, and you retire and you hopefully save some money and you scrimp buy and that's how you that's how life goes. That's just life. That's what people do, that's normal. Yeah, there wasn't one single person in my family or anybody on the horizon that was doing anything remotely entrepreneurial. So I did that I went to school, I went, I finished high school, I got a job with UPS, Teamsters, my parents could not have been happier with me being in the Teamsters and I went down that path, and I got married young, and I was working at UPS and like, unfortunately, UPS is a great company.   But there are injuries that happen because people you know, lift wrong and all that and at 25 years old, 24 years old, actually, I couldn't get out of bed in the morning without going to the chiropractor three times a week as a 24 year old, otherwise healthy man, oh my gosh and I knew I couldn't retire from there, because I was already almost too hurt and crippled to do the job I had to do at that time and I was in my early 20s and so I got another job in the automotive industry. It was a desk job and I started working there and this was, we were the mid to late 90s at this point and the automotive industry, like most industries, were starting to decline starting to have some problems. We were heading toward 2000 where a lot of bad things happen and in, you know, people think about tech and what happened if tech the big boom that happened. But the same thing happened in the automotive industry, essentially, we went from, you know, booming industry to many, many suppliers, going out of business struggling, it was really bad for a while and so I had to look around and ask myself, and I'm one thing I'm good about one thing I one of my superpowers is I'm a very honest, and I can I can very objective about myself and part of that is because it can be a tough thing to do. It's most people I don't think are, are objective about themselves and I'm not saying this to brag, I'm gonna tell you why I'm objective, and it's gonna kind of be like a poor, poor guy. My dad was a Marine, and, and he made it real clear what our shortcomings were on a daily basis as kids and so I have no problem. being real, honest, in a way that say, these this is what I'm not good at.   This is what's not great about me, like I'm very aware, I'm very easy for me to for me to figure that stuff out and so I asked myself at this point in the automotive industry, and things were declining, I didn't have a college education. I would I hire me if I were without a job and I was in the position of HR and I was, you know, somebody like me was across the table. What is there anything about me, that makes me more hirable than the 1000s of people who've been laid off over the last few years and it was easy. There was nothing about me that was remarkable. I had no college experience and I had very little practical experience. So why hire me when there's so many really, really talented people that were being laid off because of the industry. So went back to college, got a degree and I was working I'm kind of fast forwarding a lot, but I got my degree and I doubled my income. Like the minute I retire, graduated, the minute I graduated, I got a job, which literally was twice the annual salary and I was like, here we go, baby. There's no stopping and so just to kind of illustrate how that went, so I went into a company, it was automotive and I was working there for about six, seven years and at one point, it's seven o'clock at night and it's everyone had gone except my team. Everyone had gone home for the night, obviously, it was a five o'clock, most people were gone. It was seven 30 and I'm in at work and there are our client is there too, because there was something going wrong with our program that we are working on and he's there and in we're discussing the problem, and the guy gets really agitated the client, I'm not going to say which automotive company I'm talking about, but it rhymes with board.   Break company, I have an F 150. But he gets in my face and basically start screaming at me like dressing me down, like very much, really like when I was a kid like my dad did write down. Yeah and he was and it was seven o'clock at night. We're all working overtime. We're all clearly busting our butts to solve the problem and he gets in my face. They're screaming at me and he's the client, right? He's a big client and I can't really say anything back, except I'm really sorry. We're working on it and after he walked away, I went to my manager who was there too and I said, what are we doing here? What is happening right now? Why are we here? I'm getting screamed at we're doing our best, like there are issues I get it but nobody, nobody was negligent. We just have we have things that have happened, and we're working through but why are we still here? We should be at home and he said to me, I'll never forget, you need to get your priorities straight and I thought you are correct. I absolutely do, I have young children at home, I have a wife at home. I've been working overtime all week on this project. I didn't say this but in my mind, I'm thinking, you are correct, my priorities are wrong and from that point, I decided to take my side hustle that I was doing, which was real estate, flipping houses not doing a particularly great job at it, but just kind of stumbling through it and I said that is going to become my career priority. My priorities need to get dialed back to my family and make sure I'm at home and I'm spending the evening with them. I'm eating dinner, putting my kids to bed but from a career standpoint, that now becomes my focus and I will get my priorities straight and so he essentially put me on the right track. Inadvertently, he obviously was referring to work priorities but it worked the other way and so I from that day, I started making my side hustle, my main focus and I will say I a year later quit my job and the first year that I was in business and real estate full time that listen to this, this is true and I did this math, the first year that I was in business full time for myself as a real estate investor, my company's gross profits were equal to the total sum of my salary for the previous 25 years that I was working for somebody else, year one, which was a million dollars, I made over a million dollars in my real estate and over the years, like I'm talking going back to 18. When I started working right, I was making very little money and in the middle, I wasn't making a ton toward the end, I was making more but if you just take the average, which is about $40,000 for me, and you times that by 25 and is $1 million. My company grows that in in one year.   Michael: That's crazy, Mike! So where did you take it from there? I mean, are you still flipping houses today where you focus exclusively on that? Give us give us the insider scoop?   Mike: Yep… Yeah, good question. So I was flipping houses. When I was working full time, my wife and I were flipping houses and like I said, we weren't doing a particularly great job of it because she worked full time as a teacher, I was working full time plus as an automotive person and we were getting flips done. But we weren't particularly profitable, like we should have been. We didn't have any processes in place. My wife is extremely risk averse and so I kept trying to do more and do it faster. And she was slowing like brakes, brakes, brakes, right because she was nervous that we were getting ahead of ourselves and she probably saved me from really screwing up bad in the beginning. But at some point, she said, You know what? This is great and you clearly love it. I don't love it as much as you do. In fact, this is making it hard for me to sleep and it's making me hard for me to focus on my day job with the kids and I'm a teacher and that's what I do and I love you, I love the I love real estate but it's the roller coaster, the mental roller coaster is too much and I really would rather you go on without me and let me pull back and I'll just cheer for you from the sidelines and I totally support you and this isn't a negative this is actually a positive I just trust you to do it better without me and I did in and that's when things started taking off because I started doing way more activity like before we would get a house under contract. We would get it quoted out, you know, we would renovate it, we would put up for sale, we'd go through the wholesale process closed, check in the bank, before we started looking for the next day and that's not really a that's not how you scale anything, right?   So when she backed out, I was like, okay and I started putting offers in on multiple houses a day, like I was putting offers on everything and I started getting multiple deals at one time and so I had to learn how to raise money and I had to learn how to manage groups and what a forced me to do was, it forced me to come up with a process in a system that was repeatable and could handle scale. Before that, nothing we did was scalable, is all very manual, we'd go to Home Depot, we'd pick new colors for the walls, we'd pick out different cabinets, different flooring, like everything was custom to the house that we were working on and what I realized was really, really good house flippers who do it at scale, okay, and I'm not talking boutique flippers, who go into a town and they buy a $3 million, you know, historical home, and they like, put it back together with love. It's I'm not talking about that I'm talking about the people that are flipping 20-30 at 100 200 deals, they are not falling in love with every single house and going in there and making it the route, right, it's turning burn a little bit and so I learned how to turn and burn a little bit more in my business and scale it in a in a way that had systems and processes. But I still hadn't hired anybody. It was still just me, what changed the game for me and that changed the game for me in terms of, you know, a racing analogy, but, and again, this is not like I said all this in front of my wife as early as like the last month I've said all of this and she 100% agrees but she was like the governor in a race car, right? They put the restrictor on there. So you can only go so fast. Once that got pulled off. I pushed the gas all the way down to the floor, and I never stopped like, and so things just go faster when you're doing that much volume and back then, you know, now we're talking about 2014 ish timeframe. It was easier to get deals, I'll be honest, like, as someone who coaches people in real estate, I'm not gonna lie. It's harder now than it was back in 2014.   Still possible now, but it was easy back then. So I was getting deals off the MLS and it was going pretty fast. Fast forward another year or so and it started to get harder to get deals off the MLS and I was struggling a little bit and so I had to do some research and figure out and I was I was going to all the meetup groups and I was asking all the other house flippers like, where are you guys finding deals like what's happening? Where are you guys getting your volume from and they were all like, man, it's hard, like we're not getting deals like we're struggling and I'm like, Well, where are you looking? Where are you trying to find deals and everybody said the MLS everybody. I only knew one wholesaler in my market and I reached out to him. I'm like, Dude, I know you're not buying off the MLS. So where are you finding deals? He's like direct mail, I'm going direct to sellers and I'm like, what do you mean, go direct to sellers? How do you do that and so I took him out to lunch. He gave me the down and dirty playbook for how to do direct mail is what I was doing at the time and I started doing that and the deal flow started happening again and I started building and what I realized was and there's a whole story behind it that we don't necessarily have to get into but I changed my model from house flipping to wholesaling and it wasn't because of that guy. To finish in a nutshell, I was overly dependent and this is a huge mistake that new investors make all the time. I was overly dependent on one contractor and one realtor, they were everything the realtors, he found all the deals for me and they ran the numbers and they told me what was a good deal and my contractor was my only contractor and he basically made her are broke my rehab and on the same project as chance would have it. The realtor missed the numbers pretty badly and my contractor started flaking.   Now if you flip houses or renovate houses, or you have rentals, and I say my contractor flake, you probably don't need more information than that you go I'm with you, my contractors flaked too, right. But essentially, he stopped showing up he started charging me for things that he wasn't doing. He started making up half truths about stuff that he did do and so I was forced it and by the way, I was getting deal flow because I was direct mail, right. I had to let both these individuals off my team, to say the least and I had no backup plan and so as these deals were coming in, I reached back out to my wholesaling friend, I'm like, What do I do? I don't know how to wholesale. Can you just tell me what that even means? Like, what do you guys do and he again, gave me the down and dirty playbook and I called a house flipper friend of mine who I had recently talked to and he's like, I can't find anything and I said, Hey, man, I got this deal under contract. Do you want it for 110,000 at the time, that was the price 110,000 he's like, let me take let me look at let me look at the numbers coming back in 10 minutes. He's like I'll take it, I got it under contract for 95,000. I made $15,000 in like 10 minutes and In Michigan at that time, a normal flip 15 to 20,000 is a good flip number. Right, profit. Yeah and I was like I made almost the entire profit with a phone call. That was cool and probably a lot easier sold.   So much easier to do. No, by the way, no contract, right? No realtors. So I got another deal under contract. Ironically, it was also a contract for $95,000 and it was in a similar neighborhood. I called the exact same guy and I told him the exact same thing. I've got a deal for 110,000 It's yours. He said, give me five minutes. Call me back, he said, I'll take it. This all happened within four weeks to deal. I was like, I felt literally talked about love at first sight. I was in love with the model of wholesaling and so I switched my model over to wholesaling and I started, I started scaling it up and what really changed everything for me though, because although I was scaling up and I was starting to have some success, I still wasn't really running it like a true business I was I was a little bit scattered, I was a little bit unfocused and I joined a mastermind, a friend of mine at the time who lived in California, he had a podcast, and I knew him just through podcasting, and I was listening to his podcast one day, and at the end, he signed off, thanked his guest signed off, and I was doing dishes actually, at the time in my house and I saw I let it go, it was it's just kept going because I wasn't able to turn it off. My hands were wet and if it was over, he goes, Hey, if you're still there, I want to let you know about this very exclusive opportunity. I am pulling together some of the best real estate investors from around the country. We're going to form a mastermind, we're going to share ideas, we're going to help each other it's going to be awesome. If you want to get involved, you know, send me an email, whatever.   So I did $25,000 mastermind. Well, I $25,000 bazillion dollars to me at the time, but I was I was doing wholesale deals, right and at the time $25 was like two wholesale deals because I was averaging around 12 $13,000 per deal and I thought, I mean, if I surround myself with these people, will I do two more deals as a result of the relationships and the knowledge that will be exchanged. It seemed reasonable that I would and so I joined and I met someone their mentor, more than one person, but one person in particular, who laid out his company, he just laid it out. This is how I run my company is exactly what I do is what I did right and wrong over the last decade and he had the company I wanted and I said to him, his name's Andy, I said, if I if I see what you did, and I see what you're telling me, I should do and I totally agree with you. But you took you 10 years if I knew everything that you know now, and I apply it proactively. Couldn't I condense that timeframe? Like could I do any year and he said, I don't see why not? That's exactly what I did and I sort of came up with this term that, that I didn't think about a much until I've said it on podcast, and people resonate with it but I think the most powerful thing you can do in business is to use other people who are successful use their hindsight, which is 2020, as they say, right, as your foresight and so I used Andy's hindsight, all the things he did right and wrong, as my foresight going forward and I was able, that's what I was telling you that first year that I was doing the full time because I applied all of Andy's principals and I went from doing a couple of deals here and there to 10 to 15 deals per month and scaled up to a million dollars in that first year.   Michael: That is amazing and so right now your business is focused exclusively on wholesales, are you still doing flips?   Mike: Historically, it's always been wholesales but recently, and I have a business partner to its which is a whole story in itself kind of interesting about hiring and identifying talent. But so my partner and I have started strategically buying properties outright and then doing in Michigan, what we call them land contract, or we basically play the bank, we own the property, and we sell it to them and we hold the note as a company. So we started doing a lot of that. So we do like 100 deals a year, but half of those or more, but at least half would make fantastic land contract deals for us and so, and because of you know, COVID kind of showed us this a little bit and over the last several years that we've been in business, every business has ups and downs every industry has, you know, markets go up and down, right. So revenue kind of fluctuates and we thought how do we level that out a little bit? How do we make the valleys much higher, you know, so they don't go down and so we're doing a lot of this land contract stuff because it's every it's like you know, monthly recurring revenue and so we make the valleys much shallower and the peaks are still there. So we're probably wholesaling half of our deals and the other half we're buying inland contracting out…   Michael: Okay, let's dig into land contracts live because it's just not something I know very much about and we always joke on the podcast that we get to ask self-serving questions of our guests... So walk our listeners through asking for a friend walk us through like how land contract works and why it's so wide, so interesting.   Mike: Yeah, it's pretty straightforward but the concept and I'll kind of give you a peek, like a little bit behind the curtain here, right? The real like mechanics or the real like logic behind it. Me and my partner both as of a year ago, I had about 25 rentals, okay, which I have sold recently and I did it for a couple of reasons. Now, because rentals aren't great, they're great and actually, the rents are higher now than even when I sold them. So rent rents are going up, which is awesome. But for me, I bought them really, and I bought them like 2015, most of them and so the equity in them was very tempting to tap into and I recently have started doing lending on a grander scale, like I've scaled up my lending company, and I wanted to put that equity, that money into my lending company, it's just more of my focus now. But so what we're doing with land contracts, and why one of the reasons why we love them is unlike a rental, we are not responsible for any maintenance, any vacancies like we are, what the bank is to your mortgage, we get the mortgage payment, regardless of whether or not they have a leaky roof or whatever has to happen, right, we don't have to deal with any of that stuff and what we're able to do at least in Michigan, this doesn't work necessarily everywhere, the same way, because the rents aren't high enough in the house prices aren't low enough for to work in a lot of areas.   But for us, if you take someone who's living in a neighborhood, and they're renting, and let's just say they're paying for the sake of round numbers, they're paying $1,000 in rent, okay and they're renting a certain level house in that neighborhood, I can buy a house in that neighborhood that maybe is a little bit in distress that I can go in and buy it inexpensively and put some work into it and if someone were to buy that house with a traditional mortgage, especially a year or two ago, when rates were like high twos, low threes, they could buy that house and their mortgage payment might be $600, right, right. But they can't get approved for a mortgage for whatever reason, right? They have bad credit, or whatever it is, right? But I can buy that house, I can renovate it, and I can sell it to someone and really the pitch to them is listen, you want to own a home, and you're not currently in a position to get approved for a mortgage through a traditional mortgage company. But what if you could have homeownership, and you would pay no more than you were paying when you were renting, right still give me $1,000 give or take. But you own the home and you can build equity and in three to five years you can refinance out at a lower rate and you can own the home and probably drop your payments a little bit. Is it important enough to a person to own the home? If they're if all things being equal rent 1000 I have to pay this company 1000 for the house, but I own the house. That's what we do we buy the houses now, the reality is the interest rates are a lot higher than what you might get at a mortgage company, right. But we're also taking a bit of a risk. These are folks that have defaulted on things in the past and their interest and their credit scores are not great, but they have homeownership at this point and if so they if they have a down payment, and they want to own a home, we can get them into a home for no more than they would pay to rent a home in that neighborhood and three to five years, the goal for them is to fix things in their life and be able to refinance out at a lower rate and move on forever and then. So we're typically an average deal for us might be, you know, we buy it for 50. The ARV is 100, we put 20 into it. So now we're into it for 70 and we sell it for 85, right, we're still a little undervalued. So they're getting some instant equity, they have home ownership but when they go to refi in three, five years, we're getting a $15,000 check or whatever it is at that point, right. So in there's no calls from tenants, and there's no vacancies and none of that stuff. So that that's the that's the allure for US interest…   Michael: Interesting, I mean, isn't that similar, like rent to own or is it different?   Mike: It's similar, but they're not renting, right? a rent to own it, depending on how it's structured. Obviously, you can have some portion of the rent go toward whatever, but you still own the house, right? You still own the house as the person who's having that rent down. We don't own the house, necessarily. We own it, just the way the bank owns your house when you have a mortgage, right. But we're never getting calls from the city for law for Tallgrass. We're not getting calls about the maintenance issues or whatever. We don't have to worry that they didn't, you know, they left and they didn't finish their contract like it's a mortgage and if they if they don't pay their if they don't pay their mortgage, then we will foreclose we can foreclose on them.   Michael: Yep, interesting and so that like when you place these tenants into the home, there's a recorded sale that happens and so you're literally just playing bank, interesting…   Mike: Yep, just playing bank. Yeah, because we both had rentals, both of us and like I said, rental they're awesome but there's just a different level of responsibility for us playing the bank than then playing landlord and that's just what we're choosing to do. We both of us have rentals and it's, it's awesome. I rentals have been fantastic for me. It's just, it's not what we're doing now and we were just like, gonna get rid of the rentals and just wholesale. That's it but then this model presented itself, somebody we mutually knew in the industry is kind of like, hey, I'm doing this and they're doing it in Texas and it works down there too. I don't know that it would work in Los Angeles or San Diego or I don't know that it would probably not as well because the house prices but if you have house prices that you can get a house in a nice in these are like safe blue county collar neighborhoods, we're not talking about like war zones, but by any means I wouldn't buy a house there but in a nice blue collar brick ranch neighborhood, if you can get a house between 50 and 150,000. It could work when they start getting up to a half a quarter of a million, it just doesn't work as well anymore. You can't, the numbers don't work out.   Michael: Okay, okay. Good to know and just out of curiosity, I mean, how many folks end up refinancing out of your mortgage and then truly then own the house versus how many what percentage defaults or you have to go through that?   Mike: Really good question. We started doing this, like, eight months ago. So okay, I don't know, we don't have a loop. Yeah, but the friend of ours who kind of introduced this concept to us. He said about half of them refi out. Very few defaults, very few defaults because it's home, you know, people it's their home, right? They don't default, like they do necessarily on a lease, because it's not as transient. So according to him very few defaults. But we also screen people pretty well to like you would with a rental, like we're not just letting anybody in there, right? If they clearly have a pattern of defaulting on everything they've ever done, we could expect to default to we're not special but people have certain circumstances where their credit cut takes a pretty good hit but it's you know, it's something that is understandable, or it has a you know, story behind it. That makes sense. So I'm not expecting a lot of defaults, how many people will refi out? You know, our plan is to be a little bit more proactive with helping them with credit repair right now, we're not really getting involved in that but I suspect as we do get more involved with helping with that, that the number of people who actually refi out will probably go up, you know, so I don't really know right now how that's gonna go down. We'll see, we'll see how that goes. I don't know. Sure…   Michael: Okay, we'll have to have you back in 24 months to see. See what that looks like…   Mike: For sure, for sure.   Michael: Awesome. Well, Mike, let's shift gears here just for a moment and talk about wholesaling because, I mean, like you were mentioning a bit ago, it's no surprise that deals are a bit tougher to come by today. I think in the industry as a whole it's probably no surprise that wholesalers don't have the best reputation out there. Yeah, so I mean, I have I'm going to share kind of my thoughts on I think what makes you different but curious to get your thoughts and share with our listeners, me what makes you different as a wholesaling company and then what are some things that people can do to protect themselves from the not so great actors out there who are wholesalers?   Mike: The problem with wholesaling and the reason why it can get a bad name Is it is it is advertised and when I say advertised, I mean if you go out on the internet and say how do you become a wholesaler? Should I be a wholesaler? It's billed to people as this no money, no experience and that's how you get started in the industry…   Michael: And no risk…   Mike: Yeah, no risk. You get this, like, this mentality of this person who thinks they're just gonna roll out of bed open up their eyes, and money's gonna pour through the windows of their house if they're a wholesaler and it's not true, obviously. So you asked me what I do that makes me different. Here's what anyone can do to make their business different, but it doesn't it's not, you know, just for wholesaling but you have to run it like a business and a lot of wholesalers are very transactional in their thinking. They only care about the cheque they're getting next they don't care about future checks. They don't care about consistency, or predictability of their of their business and so they treat wholesaling, like this little dirty act they have to do before the real serious business comes along and in the reason why a lot of wholesalers get this bad reputation also is because there's something called daisy chaining in real estate, and most real, most wholesalers I'm doing air quotes if you guys aren't watching.   The reason most wholesalers or a lot of wholesalers have this reputation is they're not really wholesalers as much as they are what's called daisy chains and a daisy chain er is okay I'm a wholesaler I market to sellers I go into a seller's home. I create rapport and trust and in understanding of what's happening. I get a purchase agreement with them and I take that purchase agreement and I market it out to the other real estate investors in my community and some person who sees this takes the pictures, they take the text, and they mark up the price and then they send it out to a bunch of people, a lot of times a lot of the same people at a higher price and it's like called them and so you call them and you say, hey, I'll take it because you didn't see my marketing, you saw their marketing for whatever reason, you say, I'll take it. They don't even know me and I don't know them. But they're representing that they have this this deal under contract and meanwhile, I'm working with my buyers and I come to an agreement with a buyer and then this person calls me who's was also marketing up my contract and says, hey, I want to buy that house and I go, I've already sold it. Well, he's already told his buyer that they can have it for that price. But I already sold it because I have it under contract. Now he has to go back to the buyer and say, sorry, we have to back out of this deal, right and so it looks like a wholesaler is a really bad business person, bad guy, dishonest, whatever, misrepresenting himself, but he never had the deal and so that happens that's runs rampant. That's a real epidemic in the wholesaling world. So you also asked me, How do you tell the difference or how do you how do you avoid the bad ones?   The first question is that because I get people who send me deals, and frankly, I'll look at them if some other wholesaler finds a deal, and they were they offer it out at a price that my company might be able to land contract that house and we want to buy it, we'll do it. So the first question I asked them is, do you have this under contract yourself or are you representing somebody else and a lot of times they do and sometimes they don't? Sometimes they say they do and I say good. Then before I would buy this, I would need to see the agreement between you and the seller, your company in the seller, what's the name of your company, and I verify this stuff because if they don't have it under contract, I don't even care if they say, yeah, it's not me. But the guy who has under contracts a good friend of mine, and he gave me exclusive rights. I want to talk to who has entered a contract always deal with the person who has an order contract with the seller, with the seller, right? All right, that's, that's key. That's huge and we don't, we don't allow daisy chaining, we don't ever allow people to market out our deals, we only market them out and so all of our buyers know, we've told them several times, if someone if we're marketing a house and you see the same house being marketed by someone else, believe me when I tell you, they're not authorized to do that, they will never be able to sell it to you. So and as a wholesaler, I always make sure that I'm dealing with the end buyer, not a middle person, right? So if someone comes to us, though, and says, hey, I've got a buyer, and they're gonna, they'll pay you this much money and it makes sense for us. We'll give them a check like, well, we'll compensate them for bringing that buyer. But we're not going to we're not going to be what's going to be all transparent, we're going to let everyone know what's happening and so transparency in the wholesale process is important between us as the wholesalers and the buyers total transparency. Now, I'll say something that your audience may not love. There is not total transparency between us and the seller and does that mean that we're lying to them? No, it's not it doesn't. But here's what I always tell people to illustrate my point. Nobody loves or trusts me more than my mother, nobody.   My mom has heard me explain what I do as a wholesaler 1000 times and she has been all ears like she's could not be more dialed in to hurts her baby boy and what he does, and she's so proud and so happy and she's listening intently. But if you call my mom and put her on the air right now and said, Could you please explain to me what your son does? How he does it? She wouldn't know she might even tell you. I'm a realtor. She just doesn't know. It doesn't make sense to her. It's just it's too obscure. Right? So when we're in a seller's home, we don't say to them, Mr. Mrs. Seller, I know you're under a lot of duress. You have to move maybe there was a death or divorce or whatever there was right? Something happened in your life is spiraling. Here's the deal. I want to sign a contract, saying that I'm gonna buy your house, but I'm not buying it. I don't even know who's gonna buy it. I don't know where the money is coming from. I don't know who's gonna show up at closing. I'm not even sure if I'm gonna be able to close. Can we sign the deal now? It nobody would say yes. Okay and that's an a character characterization of what a wholesaler does. But on some level, it's facetious, but it's sort of true, right? I'm signing a contract. I don't exactly know who's going to buy it. In my case as a wholesaler and what I think makes what I do ethical is I have the financial backing to buy any house that I put under contract. If worst comes to worst, I can buy it right and that's not that doesn't come in the beginning. new investors don't always have that luxury. But what you can do as an investor and where you can be transparent and you should be transparent is do not sign a contract and imply or explicitly state that you will for sure be closing on the house without exception, you can't say that in most cases.   So what I say is some version of this, Mister seller, when I came here I was prepared to offer you $100,000 for your house, that was the highest number that I was authorized to offer you, you cannot go below 110,000 That is your lowest, that's the number. That's the gap, right… You want 110 minimum, and I was maximum allowed to offer you 100 but here's what I would like to suggest. Let's sign the contract for 110. Okay, I'm gonna go back to my investors and people who make decisions and help me buy these houses and I am going to see if there is interest at that price, I anticipate that there is not going to be but there very well could be but at the very least, if you can give me two weeks to talk to my investors and go to bat for you, and try to make them understand now that I'm here, I see this house is very nice. I didn't know is this nice but it is a very nice house. I think I can get this done but give me two weeks and I will come back to you in two weeks or less by the way and I'll tell you one of two things either, we can't pay 110 and so we need to rip this contract up and just part as friends, because we all knew that that was a possibility or we're going to move forward at this price and everything is good and I guarantee you will close. Okay, can if you couldn't give me two weeks. Now, if you don't want to do that, I totally get it. If you go to a realtor, they're going to want you to sign it like a three month contract where they get three months to market your house. I just want two weeks and if it takes me two days, I'll come back in two days. Either way, I'll be totally honest with you and it will be up to you what we do from that point we rip up the contract or not. It's totally up to you. Is that? Is that something that you can live with just for a week or two and nine times out of 10? They say yes. Now, when I when I go out now I am going out to my buyers and I'm saying hey, I got this this opportunity who's interested, right? If I get crickets and it's like, nope, nope, nope.   Then usually we'll try to figure out what our buyers would pay, right? That's the next question. Okay, you don't want it? It's fine. But what would you pay for this and we start getting that feedback and so we can go back to the seller and say, listen, I was right. 100,000 is the best we can do but I'm totally willing to rip up this contract because you want 110 or we can talk about a reduction or, or the or we get buyers that are like, yeah, I'll do it for that price. That's great, right and it's a little better than we thought and we go back and tell the seller, hey, if we go out to our buyers, and we find out that 110 is a really good price for us still, we'll still make the money we thought we were going to make we always go back and say we'll honor the 110 because I think that's the question I would be thinking in my mind if I'm listening to this interview? Well, what happens if they get really great offers? Do they still always go back and try to get that lower number? No, we don't. If we can make what we thought we would make or pretty close to it, we'll pay a higher price, right? We're, my goal here is to get to heaven not to make an extra $5,000, right. So I'm not trying to be a bad guy. But the key is the ethical wholesalers versus not the ethical ones, prepare the seller for the potential for a renegotiate or a cancellation up front and so when we go back, how often are they irate because we come back and say, hey, we can't do the 110. Almost never, because we very thoroughly explain what we're doing and we prepare them that we may have to come back and discuss the reduction or cancellation. The people honestly, they just want clarity.   They just want to know what's going to happen. What people get mad about are surprises. So when you say oh, great 110 done deal. I can't wait to close with you in a few weeks. This is so exciting and then you come back in three days and say we have to cancel the contract. They're mad 100% of the time, because they weren't you're not clear on what was happening. You surprise them with bad news and nobody likes being surprised with bad news but when you come back and say, hey, remember when we talked a week ago and I said this? Well, we can't do the 110. You know, we tried nine times out of 10 they're totally fine and honestly, seven times out of 10. They say well, what can you do and then we have that discussion. So, man, it's all about setting expectations.   Michael: Yes, 1000 times yes, as funny as you were going through kind of your pitch. I was like, Oh yeah, like that makes sense. That's such a different, like feeling that I got as you were giving as you were giving that Spiel than what I was expecting or than what I've experienced with wholesaler. So I mean, kudos to you and your team. It's clearly it's clearly working for you, so keep up keep up the great work.   Mike: Well, honestly, we have gotten deals, where and I know that sounds cliche, but I swear to you, this happens all the time and it we only know that when people tell us right so my guess is it happens more than we even know but we get deals where they got a higher offer from another wholesaler. But because we come in and we are professional, and we do address their concerns, but we wholesaling is not really about buying houses. It's about solving problems and again, sounds cliche, totally true. You can figure out what their pain point is and you can focus on that the sale of the house is secondary and I know that because we've had sellers tell us listen, we had somebody come along and offer us more than you guys, but we're not going to sell to them, we're going to sell to you because we believe you, we believe what you're saying and we like working with you. So professionalism matters and just to illustrate that point, underline it real quickly, one of our reps went into a house one time, and he was talking to a seller and they were going through the whole thing, it was like halfway through the meeting, and then knock on the door, and the seller says, oh, I forgot.   There's another investor or another, whatever. They call them coming in another person who wants to look at my house and my rep was like, oh, okay, and he kind of stood aside and a guy came in, my rep looked outside, and he saw the guy was driving a Mercedes, nothing wrong with that Mercedes fine but he left it running. He was wearing a suit, he came into the house, briefly said hello, and started walking around, pointing out all the flaws in the house, this is all this has to be replaced. That's no good. Nobody wants that and he shot a number at her with what he would pay and said, think about it and he got in his car and left. Like, everything that guy said, that wasn't verbal screamed, you are not that important to me. I'm way too big of a deal for you and I don't even have time to turn my car off. That's how little I think about what is your situation. I'm just telling you what I need and what I want and what I'll give you and I'm out of here, right and understandably, the seller was floored. She's like, that was the rudest thing I've ever seen, like, that was awful. I feel so like, offended by that. Yeah and of course, my rep was like, yeah, I would be offended too, right. Like, I agree with you. They're horrible. We're great. Let's get back to talking about how great we are. So it matters, like paying attention to their pain points, and not being all about the number. If you start talking about price right off the bat, you can almost guarantee you're not gonna buy the house. Yeah, if you start by listening, and addressing their problems, and let the sale be last. It'll work out for you much, much better.   Michael: I love it, I love it, I love it. Mike, we could go on, I think probably for days talking about this stuff but I want to be very respectful of your time and get you out here. For anyone that wants to learn more about you, your processes your business, where's the best place for them to do that?   Mike: Yeah, thank you for that by the way, I appreciate it. The best place to get a hold of me would be at my on my website, https://www.mikesimmons.com/ . If you go on mikesimmons.com, you can find anything about me and also my podcasts. I have a podcast called just out real estate. You can find the link to that on my on my website as well.   Michael: Right on…   Mike: Which you were on right, you were my guest.   Michael: We had a lot of fun.   Mike: Yeah, we did.   Michael: Well, Mike, thank you again for coming on and sharing so much wisdom with our listeners really appreciate it and I'm sure we'll chat soon, man. I look forward to it.   Mike: Absolutely. Thank you for having me. It was a pleasure.   Michael: Likewise, talk soon.   All right, everyone. That was our show a big thank you to Mike for coming on. Super, super insightful stuff. I learned a ton about the wholesaling business and wholesalers in general, and some really great questions that we as investors can be asking wholesalers to protect ourselves from the downside. So as always, if you liked the episode, feel free to leave us a rating or review wherever it is you get your episodes, and we look forward to seeing the next one. Happy investing…