Understanding Language/SCALE

Stanford Graduate School of Education

UNDERSTANDING LANGUAGE/
STANFORD CENTER FOR ASSESSMENT,
LEARNING, AND EQUITY

Stanford University
Graduate School of Education

Principles for the Design of Mathematics Curricula:

Promoting Language and Content Development

Jeff Zwiers
Jack Dieckmann
Sara Rutherford-Quach
Vinci Daro
Renae Skarin
Steven Weiss
James Malamut

February 28, 2017

Version 2.0

This work, created by Understanding Language/Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and
Equity at Stanford University, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License. 2017.
 Understanding Language/SCALE
Stanford Graduate School of Education

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to express their gratitude to several colleagues who contributed greatly
to this project. First and foremost, we would like to thank Kenji Hakuta for his dedication
and guidance. Without his leadership and commitment this project would not have been
possible. The project also benefitted from the discussions, iterative feedback cycles, and
general support provided by Maura Dudley, Rebecca Bergey, and Magda Chia.

Resources produced by UL/SCALE at Stanford University are available electronically at

http://ell.stanford.edu.
Recommended citation:
Zwiers, J., Dieckmann, J., Rutherford-Quach, S., Daro, V., Skarin, R., Weiss, S., &
Malamut, J. (2017). Principles for the Design of Mathematics Curricula:
Promoting Language and Content Development. Retrieved from Stanford
University, UL/SCALE website:
http://ell.stanford.edu/content/mathematics-resources-additional-resources

This work, created by Understanding Language/Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and 2
Equity at Stanford University, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License. 2017.
 Understanding Language/SCALE
Stanford Graduate School of Education

OVERVIEW
The purpose of this document is to nudge the field forward by offering support to
the next generation of mathematics learners and by challenging persistent assumptions
about how to support and develop students’ disciplinary language. Our goal is to provide
guidance to mathematics teachers for recognizing and supporting students' language
development processes in the context of mathematical sense making. We provide a
framework for organizing strategies and special considerations to support students in
learning mathematics practices, content, and language. The framework is intended to help
teachers address the specialized academic language demands in math when planning
and delivering lessons, including the demands of reading, writing, speaking, listening,
conversing, and representing in math (Aguirre & Bunch, 2012). Therefore, while the
framework can and should be used to support all students learning mathematics, it is
particularly well-suited to meet the needs of linguistically and culturally diverse students
who are simultaneously learning mathematics while acquiring English.

OUR THEORY OF ACTION

Systemic barriers for language learners persist not only in tasks and materials, but
in educators’ presentational language, expectations for peer interactions, and assessment
practices. Only through intentional design of materials, teacher commitments,
administrative support, and professional development can language development be built
into teachers’ instructional practice and students’ classroom experience. Our theory of
action for this work is grounded in the interdependency of language learning and
disciplinary learning, the central role of student agency in the learning process, the
importance of scaffolding routines that foster students’ independent participation, and
the value of instructional responsiveness in the teaching process.

Mathematical understandings and language competence develop

interdependently. Deep disciplinary learning is gained through language, as it is the
primary medium of school instruction (Halliday, 1993). Ideas take shape multi-modally,
through words, texts, illustrations, conversations, debates, examples, etc. Teachers,
peers, and texts serve as language resources for learning (Vygotsky, 1978). Content
teachers (implicitly/explicitly) teach the language of their discipline. Instructional attention
to this language development, historically limited to vocabulary instruction, has now
shifted to also include instruction around the demands of argumentation, explanation,
analyzing purpose and structure of text, and other disciplinary discourse.

Students are agents in their own mathematical and linguistic sense-making. One
prevailing assumption is that mathematical language proficiency means using only formal
definitions and vocabulary. Although that is how math is often more formally presented in
textbooks, this type of language does not reflect the process of exploring and learning
This work, created by Understanding Language/Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and 3
Equity at Stanford University, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License. 2017.
 Understanding Language/SCALE
Stanford Graduate School of Education

mathematics. Another common assumption is that developing the language of the

discipline requires continuous “time-outs” from the content, and multiple detours into “math
language” mini-lessons. However, through successive and supportive experiences with
math ideas, learners make sense of math with their existing language toolkit
(Moschkovich, 2012), while also expanding their language repertoire with tools and
mathematics conventions as they come to see these tools (e.g., definitions, properties,
procedures) as useful in accomplishing a meaningful goal.1

We challenge both of these assumptions because we see “language as action” ( van Lier
& Walqui, 2012): in the very doing of math, students have naturally occurring opportunities
to learn and notice mathematical ways of making sense and talking about ideas and the
world. It is our responsibility as educators to structure, highlight, and bolster these
opportunities, making explicit the many different ways that mathematical ideas are
communicated, rather than acting as “the keepers’” or “the givers” of language. A
commitment to help students develop their own command of the “mathematical register” is
therefore not an additional burden on teachers, but already embedded in a commitment to
supporting students to become powerful mathematical thinkers and ‘do-ers’ (Lee, Quinn &
Valdés, 2013).

Scaffolding provides temporary supports that foster student autonomy. Some

educators hold a more traditional assumption that students will learn the English
language and disciplinary language by merely being immersed in them over time, with
little additional support. This presents serious equity and access issues that cannot go
unchallenged. Disciplinary language development occurs when students use their
developing language to make meaning and engage with challenging disciplinary content
understandings that are beyond students’ mathematical ability to solve independently.
However, these tasks should include temporary supports that students can use to make
sense of what is being asked of them and to organize their thinking. Learners with
emerging language – at any level – can engage deeply with central disciplinary ideas
under specific instructional conditions (Walqui & van Lier, 2010). Temporary supports, or
scaffolds, can include teacher modeling, supporting students in making charts with
mathematical information from a word problem, providing manipulatives or graphic
organizers to support sense-making, identifying and drawing upon students’ inner
resources, and structured peer interactions. Immediate feedback from intentionally-
designed peer interaction helps students revise and refine not only the way they
organize and communicate their own ideas, but also the way they ask questions to
clarify their understandings of others’ ideas.

1
A meaningful goal might be explaining a problem solving technique, modeling a solution, or
justifying an argument.
This work, created by Understanding Language/Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and 4
Equity at Stanford University, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License. 2017.
 Understanding Language/SCALE
Stanford Graduate School of Education

Instruction supports learning when teachers respond to students’ verbal and

written work. The mathematics language routines described later in this document help
both teachers and students keep one eye and ear on language as much as possible,
focusing attention to student language that support in-the-moment teacher, peer, and self-
assessment (Cazden, 2001). Teachers can adapt and respond more effectively to what
students are saying and doing as they develop disciplinary language and content
understanding concurrently.

Based on their observations of student language, teachers can make adjustments to their
teaching and provide additional language scaffolding where necessary. Teachers can
select from the “heavier” or “lighter” supports provided in the curriculum as appropriate.
When selecting from these supports, teachers should take into account the language
demands of the task in relation to their students’ English language proficiency.

OUR FRAMEWORK
This framework includes four design principles for promoting mathematical
language use and development in curriculum and instruction. The design principles and
related routines work to make language development an integral part of planning and
delivering instruction while guiding teachers to amplify the most important language that
students are expected to bring to bear on the central mathematical ideas of each unit. The
design principles, elaborated below, are:

Design Principle 1: Support sense-making

Design Principle 2: Optimize output
Design Principle 3: Cultivate conversation
Design Principle 4: Maximize linguistic and cognitive meta-awareness

These four principles are intended as guides for curriculum development and planning and
execution of instruction, including the structure and organization of interactive
opportunities for students, and the observation, analysis, and reflection on student
language and learning. The design principles motivate the use of mathematical language
routines, described in detail below, with examples. The eight routines included in this
document are:

MLR1: Stronger and Clearer Each Time

MLR2: Collect and Display
MLR3: Critique, Correct, and Clarify
MLR4: Information Gap
MLR5: Co-Craft Questions and Problems
MLR6: Three Reads
MLR7: Compare and Connect
This work, created by Understanding Language/Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and 5
Equity at Stanford University, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License. 2017.
 Understanding Language/SCALE
Stanford Graduate School of Education

MLR8: Discussion Supports

---------------------------------------------------------
DESIGN PRINCIPLES FOR PROMOTING MATHEMATICAL LANGUAGE USE AND
DEVELOPMENT IN CLASSROOMS

Principle 1

SUPPORT SENSE-MAKING: Scaffold tasks and amplify language so students

can make their own meaning.

Students do not need to understand a language completely before they can start
making sense of academic content and negotiate meaning in that language. Language
learners of all levels can and should engage with grade-level content that is appropriately
scaffolded. Students need multiple opportunities to talk about their mathematical thinking,
negotiate meaning with others, and collaboratively solve problems with targeted guidance
from the teacher (Cazden, 2001; Moschkovich, 2013). In addition, teachers can foster
students’ sense-making by amplifying rather than simplifying, or watering down, their own
use of disciplinary language.

Teachers should make language more “considerate” to students by amplifying

(Walqui & van Lier, 2010) rather than simplifying speech or text. Simplifying includes
avoiding the use of challenging texts or speech. Amplifying means anticipating where
students might need support in understanding concepts or mathematical terms, and
providing multiple ways to access those concepts and terms. For example, organizing
information in a clear and coherent way, providing visuals or manipulatives, modeling
problem-solving, engaging in think-alouds, creating analogies or context, and layering
meaning are all ways to amplify teacher language so that students are supported in taking
an active role in their own sense-making of mathematical relationships, processes,
concepts and terms.

Several routines can be used to Support Sense-Making. In particular, MLR2 - Collect and
Display, MLR6 – Three Reads, and MLR8 – Discussion Supports.

Principle 2

OPTIMIZE OUTPUT: Strengthen the opportunities and supports for helping

students to describe clearly their mathematical thinking to others, orally,
visually, and in writing.

This work, created by Understanding Language/Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and 6
Equity at Stanford University, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License. 2017.
 Understanding Language/SCALE
Stanford Graduate School of Education

Linguistic output is the language that students use to communicate their ideas to
others. Output can come in various forms, such as oral, written, visual, etc. and refers to
all forms of student linguistic expressions except those that include significant back-and-
forth negotiation of ideas. (That type of conversational language is addressed in the third
principle.)

Students need repeated, strategic, iterative and supported opportunities to

articulate complex mathematical ideas into words, sentences, and paragraphs (Mondada,
2004). They need spiraled practice in (a) making their ideas stronger with more robust
reasoning and examples, and (b) making their ideas clearer with more precise language
and visuals. They need to make claims, justify claims with evidence, make conjectures,
communicate their reasoning, critique the reasoning of others, and engage in other
mathematical practices. Increasing the quality and quantity of opportunities to describe
mathematical reasoning also will allow teachers to frequently formatively assess students’
content learning and language use so that teachers can provide feedback and differentiate
instruction more effectively.

Several routines can be used to Optimize Output. In particular, MLR1 – Stronger and
Clearer, MLR3 – Critique, Correct, and Clarify, MLR4 – Info Gap, MLR5 – Co-craft
Questions and Problems, and MLR7 – Compare and Connect.

Principle 3

CULTIVATE CONVERSATION: Strengthen the opportunities and supports for

constructive mathematical conversations (pairs, groups, and whole class).

Conversations are back-and-forth interactions with multiple turns that build up

ideas about math. Conversations act as scaffolds for students developing mathematical
language because they provide opportunities to simultaneously make meaning and
communicate that meaning (Mercer & Howe, 2012; Zwiers, 2011). They also allow
students to hear how other students express their understandings. When students have a
reason or purpose to talk and listen to each other, interactive communication is more
authentic. For example, when there is an “information gap,” in which students need or
want to share their thoughts (which are not the same), students have a reason or purpose
in talking and listening to each other.

During effective discussions, students pose and answer questions, clarify what is
being asked and what is happening in a problem, build common understandings, and
share experiences relevant to the topic. As mentioned in Principle 2, learners must be
supported in their use of language, including within conversations, to make claims, justify
claims with evidence, make conjectures, communicate reasoning, critique the reasoning of
This work, created by Understanding Language/Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and 7
Equity at Stanford University, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License. 2017.
 Understanding Language/SCALE
Stanford Graduate School of Education

others, and engage in other mathematical practices – and above all, to make mistakes.
Meaningful conversations depend on the teacher using lessons and activities as
opportunities to build a classroom culture that motivates and values efforts to
communicate.

Many routines can be used to Cultivate Conversation. In particular, MLR1 – Stronger and
Clearer, MLR3 – Critique, Correct, and Clarify, MLR4 – Info Gap, MLR5 – Co-craft
Questions and Problems, MLR7 – Compare and Connect, and MLR8 – Discussion
Supports.

Principle 4

MAXIMIZE META-AWARENESS: Strengthen the ”meta-” connections and

distinctions between mathematical ideas, reasoning, and language.

Language is a tool that not only allows students to communicate their math
understanding to others, but also to organize their own experience, ideas, and learning for
themselves. Meta-awareness is consciously thinking about one's own thought processes
or language use. Meta-awareness develops when students and teachers engage in
classroom activities or discussions that bring explicit attention to what students need to do
to improve communication and/or reasoning about mathematical concepts. When students
are using language in ways that are purposeful and meaningful for themselves, in their
efforts to understand – and be understood by – each other, they are motivated to attend to
ways in which language can be both clarified and clarifying (Mondada, 2004).

Meta-awareness in students is strengthened when, for example, teachers ask

students to explain to each other the strategies they brought to bear to solve a challenging
multi-step problem. They might be asked, “How does yesterday’s method connect with the
method we are learning today?,” or, “What ideas are still confusing to you?” These
questions are metacognitive because they help students to reflect on their own and
others’ learning of the content. Students can also reflect on their expanding use of
language; for example, by comparing the differences between how an idea is expressed in
their native language and in English. Or by comparing the language they used to clarify a
particularly challenging mathematics concept with the language used by their peers in a
similar situation. This is called metalinguistic because students reflect on English as a
language, their own growing use of that language, as well as on particular ways ideas are
communicated in mathematics. Students learning English benefit from being aware of how
language choices are related to the purpose of the task and the intended audience,
especially if an oral or written report is required. Both the metacognitive and the
metalinguistic are powerful tools to help students self-regulate their academic learning and
language acquisition.
This work, created by Understanding Language/Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and 8
Equity at Stanford University, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License. 2017.
 Understanding Language/SCALE
Stanford Graduate School of Education

Many routines can be used to develop and formatively assess students’ meta-cognitive
and meta-linguistic awareness. In particular, MLR2 - Collect and Display, MLR3 – Critique,
Correct, and Clarify, MLR5 – Co-craft Questions and Problems, MLR6 – Three Reads,
MLR7 – Compare and Connect, and MLR8 – Discussion Supports, lend themselves well
to having students place extra attention on the language used to engage in mathematical
communication and reasoning.

MATHEMATICAL LANGUAGE ROUTINES

The following mathematical language development routines were selected

because they are the most effective and practical for simultaneously learning
mathematical practices, content, and language. These routines also can be used in most
lessons and across grade levels. A 'math language routine' refers to a structured but
adaptable format for amplifying, assessing, and developing students' language. The
routines emphasize the use of language that is meaningful and purposeful, not inauthentic
or simply answer-based. These routines can be adapted and incorporated across lessons
in each unit to fit the mathematical work wherever there are productive opportunities to
support students in using and improving their English and disciplinary language.

These routines facilitate attention to student language in ways that support in-the-
moment teacher-, peer-, and self- assessment. The feedback enabled by these routines
will help students revise and refine not only the way they organize and communicate their
own ideas, but also ask questions to clarify their understandings of others’ ideas.

Mathematical Language Routine 1: Stronger and Clearer Each Time

Purpose: To provide a structured and interactive opportunity for students to

revise and refine both their ideas and their verbal and written output (Zwiers,
2014). This routine provides a purpose for student conversation as well as fortifies
output. The main idea is to have students think or write individually about a
response, use a structured pairing strategy to have multiple opportunities to refine
and clarify the response through conversation, and then finally revise their original
written response. Throughout this process, students should be pressed for details,
and encouraged to press each other for details. Subsequent drafts should show
evidence of incorporating or addressing new ideas or language. They should also
show evidence of refinement in precision, communication, expression, examples,
and/or reasoning about mathematical concepts.

Example 1 – Successive Pair Shares

1. PRE-WRITE: Have students, individually, look at a problem and write down

This work, created by Understanding Language/Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and 9
Equity at Stanford University, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License. 2017.
 Understanding Language/SCALE
Stanford Graduate School of Education

their idea/reasoning for solving the problem a certain way, or any thoughts
or questions about it, in complete sentences if possible. This is the pre-write
sample; there will be a post-write to see if the sharing with others makes a
difference. [Optional scaffold: Provide part of an initial draft for students to
begin with that contains the language needed for an important idea.]
2. THINK TIME: Then give a minute for students to think about what they will
say to the first partner to explain what they are doing, or did, to solve it.
(They can’t look at what they wrote while talking).
3. STRUCTURED PAIRING: Use a successive pairing structure. (For
example: Have students get into groups of 6 or 8, with inner circles of 3 or 4
facing outer circles of 3 or 4). Remind students that oral clarity and
explaining reasoning are important. Even if they have the right answer or
they both agree, the goal is either (1) to be able to clearly explain it to others
as a mathematician would or (2) for the other person to truly understand the
speaker’s ideas. Goal (1) is appropriate when students are further along in
the development of a concept; goal (2) is appropriate closer to when
students are first introduced to a concept.
4. IN PAIRS: When one partner is listening, he or she can ask clarifying
questions, especially related to justifying (Why did you do that?). The other
person then also shares and the listener also asks clarifying questions to
draw more language and ideas out of quiet partners, if needed.
5. SWITCH: Partners switch one, two, or three more times, strengthening and
clarifying their idea each time they talk to a new partner. Optionally, turns
can emphasize strength (focus on math concepts and skills) or clarity (how
to describe the math to others). Scaffolds can be removed with each
successive pairing to build student independence.
6. POST-WRITE: Have students return to seats and write down their final
explanations, in sentences (they can use drawings, too, explained by
sentences). Turn in.

Example 2 – Convince Yourself, a Friend, a Skeptic

Students create three iterations of a mathematical argument or justification for
three different audiences.
1. For the first draft, students explain or justify their argument in whatever way
initially makes sense to them.
2. In the second draft, students are encouraged to explain WHAT they know
and HOW they know it is true. Their explanations should include words,
pictures, and numbers. They trade their written arguments with a peer who
acts as a “friend” giving feedback on these components (WHAT and HOW).
3. In the third draft, students are encouraged to explain WHY what they know is
This work, created by Understanding Language/Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and 10
Equity at Stanford University, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License. 2017.
 Understanding Language/SCALE
Stanford Graduate School of Education

true by supporting their claims with evidence. Their explanations should

include words, pictures, numbers, and examples. They should include
examples that look like they might not be true but actually are. They should
anticipate and address counter-arguments. They trade their written
arguments with a peer who acts as a “skeptic” giving feedback on these
components (WHY, examples, counter-arguments).

Mathematical Language Routine 2: Collect and Display

Purpose: To capture students’ oral words and phrases into a stable, collective
reference. The intent of this routine is to stabilize the fleeting language that students
use in order for their own output to be used as a reference in developing their
mathematical language. The teacher listens for, and scribes, the language students
use during partner, small group, or whole class discussions using written words,
diagrams and pictures. This collected output can be organized, revoiced, or explicitly
connected to other language in a display that all students can refer to, build on, or
make connections with during future discussion or writing. Throughout the course of
a unit, teachers can reference the displayed language as a model, update and revise
the display as student language changes, and make bridges between student
language and new disciplinary language. This routine provides feedback for students
in a way that increases sense-making while simultaneously supporting meta-
awareness of language.

Example 1 – Gather and Show Student Discourse (Dieckmann, 2017)

During pair/group work, circulate and listen to student talk during pair work or
group work, and jot notes about common or important words and phrases,
together with helpful sketches or diagrams. Scribe students’ words and
sketches on visual display to refer back to during whole class discussions
throughout the unit. Refer back to these words, phrases, and diagrams by
asking students to explain how they are useful, asking students to clarify their
meaning, and asking students to reflect on which words and visuals help to
communicate ideas more precisely.

Example 2 – Number Talks (Humphreys & Parker, 2015)

1. INDEPENDENT THINK: Present students with a numeracy problem to be
solved without paper for 1-2 minutes
2. WHOLE CLASS SHARE-OUT: Have students share the method or strategy
they used to arrive at an answer
3. DISPLAY STUDENT IDEAS: As students share their strategies, create a
visual display for each of their methods or have students create their own
This work, created by Understanding Language/Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and 11
Equity at Stanford University, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License. 2017.
 Understanding Language/SCALE
Stanford Graduate School of Education

visual displays
4. ASK PROBING QUESTIONS: Ask students to compare and contrast the
displayed methods (See MLR7), the benefits and drawbacks of displayed
methods in different contexts, and/or to apply a certain student’s method to a
new problem.

Mathematical Language Routine 3: Critique, Correct, and Clarify

Purpose: To give students a piece of mathematical writing that is not their

own to analyze, reflect on, and develop. The intent is to prompt student
reflection with an incorrect, incomplete, or ambiguous written argument or
explanation, and for students to improve upon the written work by correcting
errors and clarifying meaning. Teachers can model how to effectively and
respectfully critique the work of others with meta-think-alouds and press for details
when necessary. This routine fortifies output and engages students in meta-
awareness.

Example 1 – Critique a Partial or Flawed Response

1. PRESENT: Present a partial/broken argument, explanation, or solution
method. Teacher can play the role of the student who produced the
response, and ask for help in fixing it.
● Given response could include a common error.
● Given response should include an ambiguous term or phrase,
or an informal way of expressing a mathematical idea.
2. PROMPT: Prompt students to identify the error(s) or ambiguity, analyze
the response in light of their own understanding of the problem, and work
both individually and in pairs to propose an improved response.
3. SHARE: Pairs share out draft improved response.
4. REFINE: Students refine their own draft response.

Example 2 – Always-Sometimes-Never
Use a structure or graphic organizer to evaluate or critique whether
mathematical statements are always, sometimes, or never true.
(Examples: 'A rectangle is a parallelogram' or 'A negative integer minus
another negative integer equals a positive integer'.) Use the graphic
organizer to frame and assess the reasoning process as students work
toward evaluating and improving a response.

Mathematical Language Routine 4: Information Gap

This work, created by Understanding Language/Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and 12
Equity at Stanford University, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License. 2017.
 Understanding Language/SCALE
Stanford Graduate School of Education

Purpose: To create a need for students to communicate (Gibbons, 2002).

This routine allows teachers to facilitate meaningful interactions by giving
partners or team members different pieces of necessary information that must be
used together to solve a problem or play a game. With an information gap,
students need to orally (and/or visually) share their ideas and information in order
to bridge the gap and accomplish something that they could not have done
alone. Teachers should model how to ask for and share information, clarification,
justification, and elaboration. This routine cultivates conversation.

Example 1– Info Gap Cards

In one version of this activity, Partner A has the general problem on a card,
and Partner B has the information needed to solve it on the “data card.” Data
cards can also contain diagrams, tables, graphs, etc. Partner A needs to
realize what is needed and ask for information that is provided on Partner B’s
data card. Partner B should not share information unless Partner A
specifically asks for it. Neither partner should read their cards to one another
nor show their cards to their partners. As they work the problem, they justify
their responses using clear and connected language.
1. READ, then THINK-ALOUD: The problem card partner (Partner A) reads
his or her card silently and thinks aloud about what information is needed.
Partner B reads the data card silently.
2. QUESTION 1: Partner B asks, “What specific information do you need?”
Partner A needs to ask for specific information from Partner B.
3. QUESTION 2: When partner A asks, Partner B should ask for
justification: “Why do you need that information?” before telling it to
Partner A.
4. EXPLANATIONS: Partner A then explains how he or she is using the
information to solve the problem. Partner B helps and asks for
explanations, even if he or she understands what Partner A is doing.
5. FOLLOW-UP: As a follow-up step, have both students use blank cards to
write their own similar problem card and data card for other pairs to use.

Example 2 – Info Gap Games

Students play a guessing game or matching game in which they have a real
reason to talk (e.g., students need to work together to develop a strategy to
win a game; each student is provided with different information; one student
has something in mind and other students use their understanding of a

This work, created by Understanding Language/Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and 13
Equity at Stanford University, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License. 2017.
 Understanding Language/SCALE
Stanford Graduate School of Education

mathematical concept to guess what it is).

EXAMPLE: Guess my ratio. One student identifies a ratio between two
distinct features/objects in the room (or within a given set of objects) and
keeps the features/objects secret; other students try to figure out which
features/objects are in the identified ratio.

Mathematical Language Routine 5: Co-Craft Questions and Problems

Purpose: To allow students to get inside of a context before feeling

pressure to produce answers, to create space for students to produce the
language of mathematical questions themselves, and to provide
opportunities for students to analyze how different mathematical forms can
represent different situations. Through this routine, students are able to use
conversation skills to generate, choose (argue for the best one), and improve
questions, problems, and situations as well as develop meta-awareness of the
language used in mathematical questions and problems. Teachers should push
for clarity and revoice oral responses as necessary.

Example 1 – Co-Craft Questions

1. PRESENT SITUATION: Teacher presents a situation – a context or a stem for a
problem, with or without values included. (Example: A bird is flying at 30 mph)
2. STUDENTS WRITE: Students write down possible mathematical questions that
might be asked about the situation. These should be questions that they think are
answerable by doing math. They can also be questions about the situation,
information that might be missing, and even about assumptions that they think
are important. (1-2 minutes)
3. PAIRS COMPARE: In pairs, students compare their questions. (1-2 minutes)
4. STUDENTS SHARE: Students are invited to share their questions, with some
brief discussion. (2-3 minutes)
5. REVEAL QUESTIONS: The actual questions students are expected to work on
are revealed, and students are set to work.

Example 2 – Co-Craft Problems

1. PAIRS CREATE NEW PROBLEMS: Students get into pairs and co-create problems
similar to a given task.
2. STUDENTS SOLVE THEIR OWN PROBLEMS: Students solve their own problems
before trading them with other pairs.
3. EXCHANGE PROBLEMS: Students solve other pairs’ problems, and check solutions and
methods with the pair who created each problem.
4. TOPIC SUPPORT: Teacher can provide possible topics of interest to students, or
brainstorm as a whole class for 2 minutes before pairing up.
This work, created by Understanding Language/Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and 14
Equity at Stanford University, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License. 2017.
 Understanding Language/SCALE
Stanford Graduate School of Education

Example 3 – Co-Craft Situations

1. PRESENT REPRESENTATION: Teacher presents a mathematical
representation (graph, equation, function, table, etc.) with no labels.
2. STUDENTS WRITE: Students write stories or situations that correspond to the
mathematical representation.
3. PAIRS COMPARE: Students explain how events in their partner’s story or
aspects of their partner’s situation correspond to specific parts of the
mathematical representation. They can ask clarifying questions or for more detail
to do this.
4. REVISE STORIES: Students revise their stories adding details and clarification
where needed.

Mathematical Language Routine 6: Three Reads

Purpose: To ensure that students know what they are being asked to do,
create opportunities for students to reflect on the ways mathematical
questions are presented, and equip students with tools used to negotiate
meaning (Kelemanik, Lucenta & Creighton, 2016). This routine supports reading
comprehension, sense-making, and meta-awareness of mathematical language.
It also supports negotiating information in a text with a partner in mathematical
conversation.

Example 1
Students are supported in reading a situation/problem three times, each time with
a particular focus:
1. Students read the situation with the goal of comprehending the text
(describe the situation without using numbers),
2. Students read the situation with the goal of analyzing the language used
to present the mathematical structure.
3. Students read the situation in order to brainstorm possible mathematical
solution methods.
This routine works well in conjunction with Mathematical Language Routine 5, in
which the question stem is tentatively withheld in order to focus on the
comprehension of what is happening in the text.

Example 2 – Values/Units Chart

Students use text-annotation to make sense of mathematical text using a two-column
graphic organizer.

This work, created by Understanding Language/Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and 15
Equity at Stanford University, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License. 2017.
 Understanding Language/SCALE
Stanford Graduate School of Education

1. On the first read, students read through mathematical text and underline any
words or phrases that represent a known or unknown value or amount. They list
these numbers, unknowns, and variables in the left column of their graphic
organizer (Values).
2. After the second read, in the right column (Units), students write the meaning of
the value in context.
3. After the third read, students work in pairs to create mathematical expressions
using only the right column. If they get stuck, encourage them to help press each
other to make their right column descriptions more specific.

EXAMPLE: It costs $3 per person to go to the Zoo. Alexandra’s family has a coupon
for a $5 discount. There are p people in Alexandra’s family. Write an expression for
how much it would cost for them to go to the zoo.

Value (numerical or unknown) Units (reference to context)

3 $ per person to go to zoo

5 $ discounted from cost

p number of people in family

C cost for family to go to zoo

cost for family to go to zoo is ($ per person to go to zoo) * (number of people in family) - ($ discount)
C=3*p-5
C = 3p - 5

Mathematical Language Routine 7: Compare and Connect

Purpose: To foster students’ meta-awareness as they identify, compare,

and contrast different mathematical approaches, representations,
concepts, examples, and language. Students should be prompted to reflect on
and linguistically respond to these comparisons (e.g., exploring why or when one
might do/say something a certain way, identifying and explaining
correspondences between different mathematical representations or methods,
wondering how an idea compares or connects to other ideas and/or language.)
Teachers should model thinking out loud about these questions. This routine
supports meta-cognitive and meta-linguistic awareness, and also supports
mathematical conversation.

This work, created by Understanding Language/Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and 16
Equity at Stanford University, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License. 2017.
 Understanding Language/SCALE
Stanford Graduate School of Education

Example 1 – Compare and Connect Solution Strategies

Tell students their job is to understand one another’s solution strategies by
relating and connecting other students’ approaches to their own approach.
1. SET-UP: Ways to set this up so that multiple strategies are likely to be
generated by each pair of students:
• I solve it one way, you solve it another
• Divide and conquer: you do one and I do another
• I have a piece of info, you have a piece of info
2. WHAT IS SIMILAR, WHAT IS DIFFERENT: Students first identify what is
similar and what is different about the approaches. This can also be an
initial discussion about what worked well in this or that approach, and
what might make this or that approach more complete or easy to
understand.
3. MATHEMATICAL FOCUS: Students are asked to focus on specific
mathematical relationships, operations, quantities and values. For
example:
● Why does this approach include multiplication, and this one
does not?
● Where is the 10 in each approach?
● Which unit rate was used in this approach?
● Who can restate ___’s reasoning in a different way?”
● “Did anyone solve the problem the same way, but would explain it
differently?”
● “Did anyone solve the problem in a different way?”
● “Does anyone want to add on to _____’s strategy?”
● “Do you agree or disagree? Why?”

Example 2 - Which One Doesn’t Belong?

Pairs of students are provided with sets of four numbers, equations, expressions,
graphs, or geometric figures. They must decide together how to group the sets so
that three of the items fit within a category they have created and one does not. Both
partners should be prepared to explain to a different group how they agreed on a
category and justify which item did not fit.

Mathematical Language Routine 8: Discussion Supports

Purpose: To support rich and inclusive discussions about mathematical ideas,

representations, contexts, and strategies (Chapin, O’Connor, & Anderson, 2009).
. The examples provided can be combined and used together with any of the
other routines. They include multi-modal strategies for helping students make
sense of complex language, ideas, and classroom communication. The
examples can be used to invite and incentivize more student participation,

This work, created by Understanding Language/Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and 17
Equity at Stanford University, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License. 2017.
 Understanding Language/SCALE
Stanford Graduate School of Education

conversation, and meta-awareness of language. Eventually, as teachers

continue to model, students should begin using these strategies themselves to
prompt each other to engage more deeply in discussions.

Example 1 – Whole Class Discussion Supports

● Revoice student ideas to model mathematical language use by restating
a statement as a question in order to clarify, apply appropriate language,
and involve more students.
● Press for details in students’ explanations by requesting for students to
challenge an idea, elaborate on an idea, or give an example.
● Show central concepts multi-modally by utilizing different types of sensory
inputs: acting out scenarios or inviting students to do so, showing videos
or images, using gesture, and talking about the context of what is
happening.
● Practice phrases or words through choral response.
● Think aloud by talking through thinking about a mathematical concept
while solving a related problem or doing a task. Model detailing steps,
describing and justifying reasoning, and questioning strategies.

Example 2 – Numbered Heads Together

1. STUDENTS COUNT OFF – Each group of students count off by the
number of students in the group so that every group has a 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.
2. POSE A QUESTION/PROBLEM – Teacher presents a question or
problem that requires explanation or justification.
3. HEADS TOGETHER – Students have a certain amount of time to make
sure that everyone in the group can explain or justify each step or part of
the problem. They can create notes together during this stage.
4. REPORTING – Teacher calls a random number from 1-4. At that point,
groups are no longer allowed to talk or write to each other but the
reporters are allowed to use the notes that have already been created.
The students with the number called are the reporters for their group. The
teacher asks the reporters, one at a time, to explain the next step of the
problem, to agree/disagree with the previous reporter, or to justify the
reasoning of their group in some way. Correct answers are not revealed
or agreed upon until every reporter shares.

This work, created by Understanding Language/Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and 18
Equity at Stanford University, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License. 2017.
 Understanding Language/SCALE
Stanford Graduate School of Education

References

Aguirre, J.M. & Bunch, G. C. (2012). What’s language got to do with it?: Identifying

language demands in mathematics instruction for English Language Learners. In

S. Celedón-Pattichis & N. Ramirez (Eds.), Beyond good teaching: Advancing

mathematics education for ELLs. (pp. 183-194). Reston, VA: National Council of

Teachers of Mathematics.

Cazden, C. (2001). Classroom Discourse: The Language of Teaching and Learning.

Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Chapin, S., O’Connor, C., & Anderson, N. (2009). Classroom Discussions: Using Math

Talk to Help Students Learn, Grades K-6 (second edition). Sausalito, CA: Math

Solutions Publications.

Dieckmann, J. (forthcoming). Highlighting, Valuing and Augmenting Language Variability

in Math Learners: Design Brief. Understanding Language/Stanford Center for

Assessment, Learning, and Equity. Stanford, CA.

Gibbons, Pauline (2002). Scaffolding Language, Scaffolding Learning: Teaching Second

Language Learners in the Mainstream Classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1993). Towards a language-based theory of learning. Linguistics and

Education, 5, 93-116.

Humphreys, C., & Parker, R. (2015). Making Number Talks Matter: Developing

Mathematical Practices and Deepening Understanding, Grades 4-10. Stenhouse

Publishers.

Kelemanik, G, Lucenta, A & Creighton, S.J. (2016). Routines for reasoning: Fostering

the mathematical practices in all students. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

This work, created by Understanding Language/Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and 19
Equity at Stanford University, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License. 2017.
 Understanding Language/SCALE
Stanford Graduate School of Education

Lee, O., Quinn, H. & Valdés, G. (2013). Science and language for English Language

Learners in relation to the Next Generation Science Standards and with

implications for Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and

Mathematics. Educational Researcher, 42(4), 223-233.

Mercer, N. & Howe, C. (2012). Explaining the dialogic process of teaching and learning:

The value and potential of sociocultural theory. Learning, Culture, and Social

Interaction, 1(1), 12-21.

Moschkovich, J.N. (2013). Principles and guidelines for equitable mathematics teaching

practices and materials for English Language Learners. Journal of Urban

Mathematics Education, 6(1), 45-57.

Moschkovich, J. N. (2012). Mathematics, the Common Core, and language:

Recommendations for mathematics instruction for ELs aligned with the Common

Core. Proceedings of the “Understanding Language” Conference. Stanford, CA:

Stanford University. Available online at http://ell.stanford.edu.

Mondada, L. & Pekarek Doehler, S. (2004). Second Language Acquisition as Situated

Practice: Task Accomplishment in the French Second Language

Classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 88, 501-518.

van Lier, L. & Walqui, A. (2012). Language and the common core state standards.

Understanding Language Conference, Stanford, CA.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Walqui, A. & van Lier, L. (2010). Scaffolding the academic success of adolescent

English language learners: A pedagogy of promise. San Francisco: WestEd.

Zwiers, J. (2011). Academic Conversations: Classroom Talk that Fosters Critical

Thinking and Content Understandings. Portland, ME: Stenhouse

This work, created by Understanding Language/Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and 20
Equity at Stanford University, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License. 2017.
 Understanding Language/SCALE
Stanford Graduate School of Education

Zwiers, J. (2014). Building academic language: Meeting Common Core Standards

across disciplines, grades 5–12 (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

This work, created by Understanding Language/Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and 21
Equity at Stanford University, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License. 2017.