Planning in mathematics is a craft. It involves sequencing content logically, anticipating misconceptions, building in time for consolidation, and creating opportunities for mathematical discourse. Standard 4 asks us to plan deliberately and implement with responsiveness — designing with intent, then reading the room and adapting.
Volume: Cylinders, Pyramids & Compound Shapes
This lesson demonstrates planning across a full 60-minute structure: whakatauki → prior knowledge bridge → conceptual development → guided practice → common mistakes → independent differentiated work → exit ticket. The sequence is deliberate at every stage and maps to the NZ Curriculum level 5 Measurement strand.
A structured peer observation combining the Hikairo Schema with Rolleston College's "Teaching Qualities" framework, rated across three domains — Cultural Responsiveness, Explicit Teaching, and Active Learning. Explicit Teaching was the agreed focus for this visit.
- Good solid relationships and boundaries in class
- Humour used often to move students along
- Connected checking your answers to other subjects
- Incentives used to encourage learning (e.g. going outside)
- Noise level good, lots of on-task behaviour
- Move around the room a bit more
- Allow students to come to the whiteboard and show their answers
- Try a starter team-puzzle activity, feeding back to the class
Learners settled with 6 Do Now questions on the whiteboard. Names used, warm tone throughout. Answers reviewed collaboratively — teacher explains thinking, not just answers. Exercise books for note-taking; examples well-discussed with learners actively involved. Lesson moving at a good pace. Teacher roams and supports all learners.
Observer note: could algebraic rules be written down explicitly, rather than inferred from examples only?
Low-level behaviour appropriately ignored. Wana learners without textbooks noted as a challenge for the independent work phase.
Three further lessons follow the same deliberate planning structure as the volume lesson above — whakatauki opening, conceptual build, guided practice, and a Codebreaker extension task — while using tukutuku, wharenui, and waka hourua as the planned context throughout, rather than an add-on. Full lessons on Standard 1.
- How do my lesson plans show intentional sequencing and progression?
- What range of teaching approaches am I using and why?
- How do I adjust my teaching when learners aren't progressing as expected?
- What does a well-planned mathematics lesson look like for me?
Planning with purpose — what the lesson structure taught me
Building this lesson made me realise how much I used to under-plan the middle section of a lesson. I would plan the opening and the task, but not map out how I was going to move from concept introduction to independent practice — that transition was where learners would often get lost, and where I would lose the thread.
The structure I've settled on — whakatauki, prior knowledge, concept, guided example, common mistakes, independent work, exit ticket — is not rigid, but it gives every lesson a coherent arc. Having the common-mistakes slide as a named, deliberate phase was a significant change for me. Previously I would address errors reactively. Building it into the plan made error-discussion feel normal and expected rather than corrective, which changed the tone of those moments considerably.
The exit ticket is the element I am still developing in my planning. I have been using it to see broadly who understood and who didn't, but I am not yet consistently using that data to shape the following lesson's opening. That is my next target: a tighter feedback loop between end-of-lesson evidence and next-day planning.