From Engagement to Understanding: Supporting Students with Building Thinking Classrooms
Katerina Saveleva, LaGuardia Community College
Bio
Ekaterina Saveleva teaches Topics in Biology, SUNY Biology, and SUNY Psychology courses at the college level. Before becoming a teacher, she earned a Ph.D. in Molecular Genetics and worked in science education at a natural history museum. As an educator, she aims to create a classroom where learning feels engaging rather than burdensome. She strives to help students become independent thinkers who communicate their ideas confidently and develop curiosity and critical-thinking skills that extend beyond the classroom.
Course Setting
I teach at the Academy of American Studies in Queens, where my students are primarily 11th- and 12th-grade students enrolled in College Now Topics in Biology, SUNY Biology, and SUNY Psychology courses. The student population is diverse, and many students are bilingual or multilingual learners. Classes are held before the regular school day begins, requiring students to engage in rigorous academic thinking early in the morning. Students balance demanding academic schedules, extracurricular commitments, and the transition to college readiness while participating in these advanced courses.
Problem of Practice
How might I use Building Thinking Classrooms practices to increase student engagement and support deeper comprehension of the material through active collaboration and discussion?Strategy
I implemented the strategies of Vertical Non-Permanent Surfaces (VNPS) and Visibly Random Grouping (VRG) to increase student engagement and examine their effect on student comprehension. These strategies are based on the research of Peter Liljedahl, whose work emphasizes that students demonstrate higher levels of thinking, discussion, persistence, and participation when working collaboratively at vertical whiteboards rather than sitting passively at desks. He found that vertical non-permanent surfaces encourage students to begin tasks more quickly, share ideas more openly, take academic risks, and remain more engaged because their thinking becomes visible to both peers and the instructor. Visibly random grouping also promotes equitable collaboration by encouraging students to work with different classmates and exchange diverse perspectives.
Each lesson began with a short-response question and a brief mini-lesson. Using numbered cards, students were placed into random groups of no more than three students and worked collaboratively at vertical whiteboards on a thinking task aligned with clearly defined success criteria.
Before beginning the activity, I reviewed group expectations and assigned specific student roles, including Success Criteria Manager, Board Scribe, and Reading Specialist, to help maintain focus and accountability within each group. During the activity, I circulated throughout the classroom to monitor engagement, facilitate discussion, and support student reasoning through questioning.
Documentation
Vertical Non-Permanent Boards Resources
Students are working collaboratively at their vertical whiteboards, carefully following the rubric, annotating questions, and writing their names on the board to demonstrate accountability and participation.
Student Work
These are examples of work produced on the VNPS through the use of VRGs.
Measuring Impact
Comparing Student Performance
The bar graph compares student exit-ticket scores on BTC and non-BTC days and shows slightly higher performance during BTC implementation, with more students achieving the maximum score.
Comparing Student Participation
The graph compares student participation rates on BTC and non-BTC instructional days and demonstrates higher participation during BTC implementation across both lesson days.
Analysis
The implementation of BTC strategies positively impacted student engagement and participation in my classroom. Students worked collaboratively with peers they do not typically work with, which encouraged the exchange of ideas and increased interest in the lesson. During BTC activities, students appeared more willing to discuss concepts aloud, ask questions, and contribute to group thinking. After completing the task, groups participated in a whole-class share-out, and students completed a Claim, Evidence, Reasoning (CER) exit ticket that was evaluated using a rubric to assess comprehension and alignment with the lesson objective. Student survey responses also supported these observations, with many students describing random groups as “quite effective” or “very effective” for their learning experience.
The strategies addressed my Problem of Practice most successfully by increasing engagement and active collaboration. I implemented BTC lessons on two instructional days and compared student engagement and comprehension data with two non-BTC instructional days. While participation rates were higher during BTC implementation, I did not observe a significant difference in overall comprehension based on CER responses. This demonstrated that while BTC strategies enhanced interaction and participation, additional refinement may be needed to strengthen content mastery and written explanations.
One challenge was maintaining truly random groupings efficiently. Time management was also difficult because setting up vertical whiteboard activities required additional instructional time.
Recommendation
I would recommend using Building Thinking Classrooms strategies, particularly Vertical Non-Permanent Surfaces (VNPS) and Visibly Random Grouping (VRG), to increase engagement and discussion in college-level high school courses. These strategies are especially effective for lessons involving problem-solving and collaborative thinking. For successful implementation, the process should become a consistent classroom routine so students are familiar with station locations, procedures, and assigned group numbers. Establishing routines and clear expectations helps transitions run efficiently and allows students to focus more actively on discussion, collaboration, and course content.
Resources
- Peter Liljedahl. (2021). Building thinking classrooms in mathematics, grades K–12: 14 teaching practices for enhancing learning.
- Peter Liljedahl. (2016). Building thinking classrooms: Conditions for problem solving. In P. Felmer, E. Pehkonen, & J. Kilpatrick (Eds.), Posing and solving mathematical problems: Advances and new perspectives (pp. 361–386). Springer
- VPN Resources: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1nXSfMdiL1u5EEdGR-VzdSSRya1R7hbFwFmHPI9GMoQI/edit?usp=sharing
- Additional Student Work: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1g4UffAfQfZvwVD0kHgvQFrTUX7qJ56lwgrx9h0ObrX4/edit?usp=sharing