Thinking Classrooms: A Book, An Idea, A Call To Action in Math Classrooms!

The phrase thinking classrooms has stormed the field of math education in the past year or so. From networking events to classrooms, book talks to conferences, that phrase keeps surfacing! So, what’s all the buzz?

Institutional Norms Versus Classroom Norms

The book Building Thinking Classrooms by Peter Liljedahl quietly hit the market in Fall 2020. At that time, there wasn’t much in-person classroom learning happening, so it makes sense why interest has peaked in our post-pandemic, back-to-school efforts. Based on 15 years of research, Liljedahl dropped this reformation bomb, motivated by what he calls the institutional norms of the school.

“These normative structures that permeate classrooms in North America, and around the world, are so entrenched that they transcend the idea of classroom norms and can only be described as institutional norms—norms that have extended beyond the classroom, even the school building, and have become ensconced in the very institution of school” (Liljedahl, 2021).

If true, consider the work cut out for a singleton teacher in a classroom of roughly 30 preprogrammed, systemically inclined, norm-abiding students. Seems like change is an impossible task.

Walking Away From Institutional Norms

I recently saw Peter Liljedahl speak at the 2024 NCTM conference in Chicago about his book, which provides 14 practices that are said to achieve the impossible. Full disclosure, I’m not a fan of list books–7 ways to do this, 12 ways to do that–Bleh. Luckily, his talk didn’t dwell on the list. Instead, it took on a more general theme of effective math instruction. That is, creating a positive and supportive math community within the classroom. My greatest takeaway was his insistence that teachers should literally walk away from student questions. I’ve heard teachers say things like, “ask 3 before you ask me” or “what does your group think?” But, in practice, they might not always stick with the plan. As teachers/helpers/caregivers, we often succumb to student pleas for help. Liljedahl says when you walk away, you actually send a message: I believe in you! 

From his interview in MidSchoolMath he further explains, “At its outset, notice that, especially when you give students a hint, if you linger, you make them very uncomfortable. A hint is supposed to be cryptic. They actually need to talk with each other to process what you just said” (Liljedahl, 2025).

So, if we drop a hint, we need to give processing time without the expectations created by hovering. If we can release the students from our presence, then they have the freedom to think. Further, if other students are around, they can all grapple with the hint together. This develops collaboration skills. This builds confidence.

Building Thinking Classrooms

Of course, if you do read the book, you’ll learn how to create a classroom environment that supports walking away. Thinking classrooms are de-centered, randomly grouped, stand-and-think-together style classrooms that value collaboration, sharing, and making thinking visible. If you can imagine such a space, with small groups clustered around vertical whiteboards, routinely solving non-routine problems, it’s less farfetched to walk away from a student question. A thinking classroom is a far cry from rows of siloed desk-a-tears expressing feelings of apathy, disinterest, learned helplessness, and general unproductive struggle. 

In the same MidSchoolMath interview, Liljedahl explains the two most important ideas underlying his research. In other words, two ideas that might shape a teacher’s mindset or belief when trying the 14 practices.

Number one: If students are not thinking, they’re not learning.

Number two: What we do as a teacher impacts what students do as learners. We must start to recognize that our actions have important consequences on what students do in the classroom in explicit and implicit ways. And one of the things that kept coming up repeatedly in the data was that students don’t listen to what we say. (Lilejdahl, 2025, p. 7)

Wait, students don’t listen to what we say? Well, yeah! That’s why we’ve been told for years to shift from “sage on the stage” to “guide on the side.” Or, from knowledge transmitter to learning facilitator. As for student thinking, he clarifies that the thinking he wants to see is “analytic, critical, and creative” (p. 7). That sounds like the highest levels of Bloom’s taxonomy! That also sounds like NCTM’s communication standard.

You see, Building Thinking Classrooms has 14 teaching practices to ensure that all barriers that might interfere with your attempts to change are addressed. After all, we’re fighting against institutional norms! As such, Liljedahl leaves nothing to chance; he takes nothing for granted.

14 Practices to Build a Thinking Classroom

Essentially, to build a thinking classroom, do the following:

1. Provide thinking tasks (i.e., low floor, high ceiling, non-routine)
2. Form visibly random groups
3. Use vertical, non-permanent surfaces (e.g., dry-erase board)
4. De-front the classroom (e.g., guide on the side)
5. Answer only keep-thinking questions
6. Give thinking task early, standing, and verbally
7. Give check-your-understanding questions for homework
8. Mobilize knowledge
9. Asynchronously use hints and extensions to maintain flow
10. Consolidate from the bottom
11. Have students write meaningful notes
12. Evaluate what you value
13. Help students see where they are and where they are going
14. Grade based on data (not points)

The list definitely reads like Tao Te Ching–concise and elusive. In the book, these ideas are fully elaborated in simple and often humorous language. Plus, he backs it up with research and provides ample examples.

My Personal Experience With Thinking Classrooms

As a long-time practitioner, I often used open-ended tasks in small collaborative groups to drive learning in my classroom. Coupled with the playful use of deadlines, grading, and feedback, I felt pretty good about the learning experiences I was creating. After all, NCTM’s vision for math education reform began in 1989 with the release of Curriculum and Evaluation Standards. 

It got me wondering: Do I do anything that would conflict with the 14 practices? I can honestly say yes and no. For example, I always found asking open-ended, non-curricular questions a silly waste of time. Why would I spend precious class time noticing and wondering about a pumpkin farm when I’ve got a lesson on quadratic equations to teach? As someone versed in finding or creating open-ended questions, I’d prefer to notice and wonder about a free throw because then I can connect it to parabolas. Liljedahl insists that the non-curricular tasks level the playing field because no prior knowledge is needed. In other words, as you build the proper etiquette around group learning, you must give students practice without causing them stress or anxiety over math content knowledge. Ok, that makes sense! Gradual release. Got it! “He shoots, he scores!”

Another possible difference is in our grouping strategies. In my classroom, I make “strategic” random groups via a seating chart (i.e., balance skill, behavior, etc.) and keep them the same for an entire unit. My goal is to immerse students in collaborative learning. They sit in desk clusters, discuss homework, participate in small group discussions during lessons, and, yes, solve non-routine problems together. That’s quite different from using cards or popsicle sticks to form standing groups around whiteboards during the launch of a task to ensure visible randomness. Further, I rarely used standing whiteboards.

Instead, I’d give the task to each member of the group, at their seats, with the following instructions:

• Everyone works together
• All submit their work
• One is graded randomly for the group
• If yours is missing, you get a 0
• If you dislike the group score, you can resubmit yours with corrections made

This worked great! Students would work together, hold each other accountable, and often resubmit to improve their grades (and understanding).

I know Liljedahl would squawk at my grouping practices. “No matter how strategic a teacher is in their groupings, when there is a mismatch between their goals and students’ individual goals [e.g., working with friends], it means some students will be unhappy and will disengage” (Liljedahl, 2021). But take my word for it, they worked! An administrator once evaluated me on the same day I created a new seating chart. Yup, brand new groups! She commented on how well the students worked together and was floored when I told her it was their first day together. 

My strategic grouping worked because I followed advice from a much earlier JRME publication regarding micro-identities. “Learning occurs on a microscale: In moments during a lesson…mathematical identities can shift in dramatic ways in response to minor changes in context so that a student, in one moment, might be engaged in an identity that undermines learning and then later engaged in an academically productive identity” (Wood, 2013).”

My takeaway was 1) student behaviors shift from moment to moment, 2) based on environment/context/culture, and 3) I orchestrate that environment/context/culture. I spent every stinking minute of every stinking day reinforcing my values.

Balancing Fidelity With Autonomy

You see, I have also been fighting the institution’s norms my entire career. The policies I use are the ones that work for me in my classroom, based on my teaching style and values. Incidentally, I also did project-based learning instead of a traditional midterm exam. I also gave students daily opportunities to project their scratchwork onto the screen using a doc cam because I wanted everyone to see what their math looks like when they scribble, erase, and sketch their way through a complex problem. In contrast, Liljedahl’s non-permanent surfaces make ideas light, fleeting, and impermanent.

I’m certainly not claiming that my way is better than Liljedahl. I’m simply speaking to the administrators, evaluators, directors, etc., who jump on an education trend with merit and insist that all teachers use it to fidelity. There is no one right way. And we are all professionals with degrees, experience, styles, values, etc., contributing to how we teach. Sure there are harmful practices. Let’s identify them, discuss why they’re harmful and offer possible solutions to get around them. Ahem, that’s solutions, plural! We don’t need Bob Dylan to remind us that “The Times They Are a Changin’”; on that note, we need to help teachers continually adapt, evolve, and tweak their teaching practices. That doesn’t happen in a to-fidelity environment.

If you’re unsure how to build a “thinking classroom,” I highly recommend you read the book! If you’re like me and have had success with small group learning, I’m not sure the book will transform your classroom, but it might give you a few new ideas!

Works Cited:

Liljedahl, P. (2021). Building thinking classrooms in mathematics: 14 teaching practices for enhancing learning, grades K-12. Corwin Press.

Liljedahl, P. (2025). How the Building Thinking Classrooms’ 14 teaching practices can transform your math instruction [Interview by Scott Laidlaw]. MidSchoolMath Product Catalog 2025, 7-9.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. NCTM.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (n.d.). Process standards. NCTM. https://www.nctm.org/Standards-and-Positions/Principles-and-Standards/Process/

Wood, M. B. (2013). Mathematical micro-identities: Moment-to-moment positioning and learning in a fourth-grade classroom. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 44(5), 775–808.