Teach and Move On is a fundamental cornerstone of the Mathnasium teaching methodology and is a huge driving force behind the student success stories we see in our centers day after day. Throughout the 11 years of Mathnasium’s existence, Teach and Move On has come to mean different things to different center owners. I want to explicitly define Teach and Move On as a teaching practice wherein a team of Instructors physically rotates around the center as they help students, with each Instructor disengaging from a student once a concept has been taught and moving on to help others. I also want to address some of the most common misconceptions and points of confusion regarding Teach and Move On as well as shed some light on where we’re headed in terms of improving training and other resources that support the rotation of Instructors as a team.
Over the years, I’ve seen two main interpretations of Teach and Move On in the field (with variations): either with a stationary Instructor in a pod providing individual instruction to a fixed number of students, or (as stated earlier) with the entire team actively standing and moving around the center, serving all students in the room at a given time. The latter incarnation is Teach and Move On. Through in-center observation and training, it’s what we’ve found to be most effective and efficient out in the field in terms of affecting overall student progress, allowing you to manage student teacher ratios so all students consistently receive the individualized attention Mathnasium is known for.
The confusion over proper implementation of Teach and Move On is understandable. Whether consciously or not, many people (Mathnasium franchisees and center staff included) associate supplementary education with tutoring, an education model that involves one-on-one instruction provided by a stationary teacher. From an aesthetic standpoint, many consider the pod seating arrangement to be more appealing, as it’s less reminiscent of a school classroom environment, and places more visual emphasis on the personalized aspect of instruction. However, based on our evaluation of different center setups and franchisees’ experiences, pod table units will no longer be included as a recommended table set up simply because it has proven to encourage Instructors to stay put rather than to move around the teaching space. As part of our commitment to provide better training and support for Teach and Move On, we have updated the Operational Guides to include center layouts that best support a teaching model with rotating Instructors. These layouts are all built on table units of two tables placed end-to-end. This ensures face-to-face instruction, eliminates unusable space associated with pod corners, and allows instructors to easily move around the center. Please refer to the Operational Guides [1] for our updated recommendations.
Also, while Mathnasium University Course 101 serves as an adequate primer on the basic principles of Teach and Move On, there remain gaps. In the training videos, I demonstrate Teach and Move On while working with three students. The intent was to highlight concise explanations and the students’ individual reactions (both indicators of effective teaching), not to imply that it was preferred for Instructors to remain stationary with a small fixed group of students. To better demonstrate team instruction, we plan on releasing instructions that more clearly explain how to implement Teach and Move On, with a tentative release date in November 2013. We will follow this up with a Teach and Move On training video (scheduled for release in the first half of 2014) that presents a more precise demonstration of how this methodology should be executed on the floor.
There are several benefits to the “rotating Instructor” model intrinsic to Teach and Move On. When a staff member remains in the student’s pod area after providing assistance, the presence of an authority figure close by can serve as a mental crutch for many students. In contrast, the very act of Instructors physically moving on from students once they have been helped promotes a sense of space and separation that encourages students’ intellectual independence, helps build their confidence, and promotes further progress.
Students benefit by learning from multiple voices—one or two voices may resonate better with a particular student than others. Establishing an educational framework that promotes students’ exposure to multiple perspectives—all based on the Mathnasium Method—paves the way for a robust, individualized learning experience.
Also, we’ve all been there—sometimes students require more one-on-one instruction on a given day, at a given time. A single Instructor working in a pod with students may get caught up assisting one needy student, leaving other students in the pod waiting. You may have quieter or less motivated students who won’t necessarily seek out help even when it’s sorely needed. Multiple well-trained Instructors rotating as they read and own the teaching floor ensures that all students receive responsive and proactive attention when needed, even when the Instructor in closest proximity to a student in need is otherwise occupied.
Some of you may have had different experiences in implementing a rotating Instructor model. It’s critical to note that Teach and Move On must be bolstered by a team approach and clearly defined staff roles and responsibilities for proper execution. This teaching framework can only function when all Instructors are aware that they’re accountable for the success of all students in the center (not just those in their immediate area) and it’s their responsibility to actively rotate and read the floor, engaging students when appropriate. Designating a Lead Instructor to manage the flow of the center by staying on top of each student’s goals for the day, proactively checking in with the students to see that those goals are being met, and assisting students (or directing other Instructors to do so) when necessary frees up Center Directors’ time to attend to non-instructional aspects of day-to-day operations while monitoring the overall center environment.
It is the Center Director’s responsibility to train and manage center staff so that this teaching model is executed properly. As Teach and Move On is a methodology unique to the Mathnasium system, odds are that your Instructors have never taught in this manner until they started working at your center, so consistent observation and adequate training is key. Once Instructors complete the required Mathnasium University courses, continue to incorporate Teach and Move On training into your individual instruction coaching and regular staff meetings. Ongoing evaluation and feedback solidify the necessity of a team approach to the teaching model as well as address any issues you’ve noticed on the floor. Proactively check in with your staff members to see how they’re feeling about their workload and provide them with coaching as needed.
When it comes down to it, parents turn to Mathnasium because they want results that their children have been unable to achieve elsewhere. Implementing Teach and Move On allows your students to achieve their educational goals through one-on-one, individualized instruction in a group environment. We are currently working on improved and more concise training tools and other resources to support all Mathnasium franchisees and staff as they implement Teach and Move On at their centers and we will keep you informed as these tools become available for use. Keep watching Mathnasium Matters and your inboxes for these updates in the coming months.
8 Comments To "Zeroing in on Curriculum and Instruction: Teach and Move On"
#1 Comment By John Van Horn On October 10, 2013 @ 11:59 am
Larry,
After your discussion of this topic at tune up training last week I stopped by my center and re-arranged the center to break up the pod structure. Besides making my instructors uncomfortable this week 🙂 it really does make a difference in how the instructors interact with the students. Thanks for the advice @ tune up training and its repetition here.
#2 Comment By Ryan Booth On October 12, 2013 @ 8:01 am
Larry,
While I appreciate your explanation, I would like to point out that, at my training in 2009 (conducted by you and Mary Feldman), the idea of instructors sitting and working with individual students was clearly presented as the preferred option. Pods were presented as the preferred center setup, and the idea of straight tables was presented as an inferior setup that might be necessary only if there were insufficient space for pods. The IKEA shopping list at the time called for franchisees to buy black Herman chairs for students and white ones for instructors. After my initial training, I was then sent to an apprenticeship that also assigned students to sitting instructors. Training materials from that time consistently refer to Teach and Move On in the context of the individual instructor (e.g. the instructor is to teach, move on to another student, and then come back).
In sum, the Teach and Move On system you describe above is not the system that you and Mary trained me to run. I do not believe that it is fair to characterize the situation as simply “confusion” on my part as to the meaning of Teach and Move On. This is actually a change in the Mathnasium Method.
I have several concerns related to this shift which I hope can be addressed as HQ attempts to provide assistance to franchisees like me who now find themselves using an outdated instructional model.
1) Loss of rapport. I want my instructors, over the course of an hour, to ask students about their day, their weekend plans, the movie they just saw, etc. My students often feel like failures at math, so I want them to feel that my center is a welcoming place where people care about them as individuals. I am concerned that rotating instructor model may make kids feel like a cog on a wheel, and I would like guidance on how to mitigate that.
2) Loss of instructional opportunity. When a student works with a single instructor for a particular day, that instructor is fully aware of exactly what the students has done for the session. That makes it easier for the instructor to “teach off the page,” challenge the student to do something using mental math, etc. I am concerned that much of that might be lost in a rotating instructor model, as each instructor cannot be aware of exactly what the other instructors have done with student. I am afraid that this shift will turn my instructors more into simply “checkers,” and they will end up actually teaching less.
3) Instructor fatigue. I do not want to stand for four hours at a time, and I know that my instructors do not wish to do so either. I fear that the rotating instructor model would make the job much less attractive to potential applicants.
4) Loss of eye contact. When I am sitting with a student, their eyes are on the same level as mine. This makes it easy to see when a student is confused, when the “light bulb” goes on, etc. When I am standing, I lose eye contact with the student and can’t “read” the student nearly as well. That loss of eye contact also makes instruction much less personal, which goes back to point #1.
At this point, I think that it will be difficult for me to make the switch before the end of the school year. I don’t want any of what I have written to be perceived disagreement with the new Teach and Move On policy, because I do see advantages to instructor rotation. What I would like, as training materials are developed, is to make sure that my transition is smooth and I can continue to maintain the high quality of our instruction for which my center has developed a reputation in the community.
#3 Comment By Mary Feldman On October 14, 2013 @ 8:49 am
Ryan, thank you for your comments.
As is often done in younger franchises, we had tolerated a system parallel to the original rotating Instructor model until recently. Now that we have reached the size and business stage we are in, it’s become very important to move forward with consistency. Hence, the article above.
To further clarify, Teach and Move On has always been a required teaching practice in the Mathnasium Operations Manual and a method that has been reinforced throughout our training programs and here on Mathnasium Matters. Improvements in defining the logistics of Teach and Move On and training for its proper execution are certainly needed. That is what we have begun here. As mentioned, keep watching Mathnasium Matters for new training tools and resources on this topic.
#4 Comment By Chris Lee On October 17, 2013 @ 4:29 am
Mary can you address Ryan’s main concern/question in his well written response?
“What I would like, as training materials are developed, is to make sure that my transition is smooth and I can continue to maintain the high quality of our instruction for which my center has developed a reputation in the community.”
#5 Comment By Melissa Hardison On October 19, 2013 @ 9:06 am
I agree with Ryan Booth 100%.
In addition to the IKEA furniture layout initially recommended for those of us who have been around for a while, a couple of years ago the option of the triangle corner piece was introduced in order to eliminate the dead corner problem. As well, the IKEA rolling instructor chairs were recommended. These additions, which I incorporated into my center layout, further ‘lock’ the instructor into a seated, stationary position.
Our center maintains a Game Plan, introduced to us at a convention two years ago, for each student. This is strictly enforced, and it allows us to monitor specific concerns about each student and how the dedicated instructor was able to handle those concerns. I am unclear about how this would continue to be a valuable piece of information under a rotating instructor model for center directors who can’t possibly work with every student who comes into Mathnasium.
The seated instructor model firmly establishes the responsibility for maintaining the Game Plan and for ensuring that binder refreshes are part of a daily routine.
Finally, I have observed the following at other centers that were using this model (which I believed at the time to be in conflict with the recommended model): a natural human tendency for instructors to engage in conversations among themselves and temporarily ignore the students at the tables. This problem can obviously be managed by the center director, but the pod model eliminates, or certainly minimizes, the need to have to manage this at all. In one case that I observed, it was the center director (but not the owner) who was guilty of engaging in too much conversation.
It would seem to me that a reasonable compromise might be for those of us who have invested in the pod model, in terms of furnishings, center layout, instructor training, and success stories, we could modify slightly the new model. Once we have attained a certain minimum number of enrolled students, say 80-100, we could designate one lead instructor to float the room and assist if a seated instructor gets into the aforementioned situation of ‘getting caught up assisting one needy student.’ I assume that role in my center now, and I believe it is very effective. If our enrollment exceeds 115 students, and I anticipate it will this spring, I have plans to designate my lead instructor to be a second floater.
#6 Comment By Lynette Groves On October 21, 2013 @ 9:39 am
While I understand the need to standardize certain practices, I would like to voice my concern with the recommended model. I am not sure that roaming instructors is the best option. Looking at the pros and cons of the different models, I am very concerned with switching.
I have had experience with both models. I had purchased my second center with the roaming instructor model, while at my first center we had the stationary model.
I would like to add that my biggest concern with the roaming model is that too many students can come in and get little to no attention at all. When you have roaming instructors, there is not an instructor who is responsible for a particular student’s visit. So because some students do not ask for help, they get over looked. At the same time the needy students still monopolize the instructors, pod style or not. It is very important to me that one person is responsible for a student while they are in the center, and roaming instructors are not meeting that need. And to have a Lead Instructor to make sure every students needs are met while in the center is not the best use of instructor resources, especially when smaller groups meet this need perfectly.
I am a firm believer in Teach and Move on. And I know it is a required practice. I believe Teach and Move on does work in a pod style environment. When an instructor is working with another student in the pod, their focus is on the new student, giving the previous student the opportunity to try something on their own. I see it work all the time.
Most of my concerns were addressed above in Ryan and Melissa’s comments, so I am not going to bring that up here. I am looking forward to seeing a response to our valid concerns.
#7 Comment By Larry Martinek On October 21, 2013 @ 3:45 pm
High quality instruction is what we are all after, and is the result of hiring the right people to administer the Mathnasium Method through proper training and management. Neither the rotating nor the stationary Instructor models alone inherently guarantee high quality.
With upcoming additions and updates to instruction materials as well as training courses for their use, we are continually improving the tools available to franchisees to support everyone in their mission to properly train and manage their teams. All improved systems will support team instruction and rotation as Teach and Move On. If franchisees have suggestions for tools and resources, please feel free to click on the Suggestion Box link on the right hand side of Mathnasium Matters to share with HQ, and they will be passed on to the Education Department.
#8 Comment By Jennifer Krull On November 8, 2013 @ 8:19 am
We, too, have been using the pods. We tried full-blown Teach and Move on for one day. It was chaotic, but I’m willing to try again. My question, Larry, is how do you save your back?! Two of us were popping ibuprofens by the end of the shift. Do centers who use this successfully have a lot of instructor chairs so there is always a place to sit?
I’d like to give this another try. I’ve seen problems where the work level isn’t balanced with pods. There are all the disadvantages listed here of Teach and Move on (with roaming instructors), and I’ve seen them, too. But I trust Larry enough to believe that if he says it works, then it must just be a matter of implementing it and training for it properly.
Jennifer