Research

🔍 Strategy Question Planner

Critical Thinking & Problem Solving Effective Communication Collaboration Self Directed Learning CCSS.Math.Content.4.NBT.B.5 CCSS.Math.Content.4.NBT.B.6 CCSS.Math.Content.4.NF.B.4 Product Core Content Essential Question Critique and Revision Submission Required

Small groups choose one investigable question from a short menu, such as which method is fastest to explain, which method makes regrouping easiest to track, or which method is most efficient for certain number sizes. They write a hypothesis, select a fair set of matching multiplication problems, decide how they will record evidence in a table, and note what counts as strong evidence, confusing evidence, or an anomaly. Groups then give feedback to 2 peers, receive feedback, and revise their plan so another team could follow it.

Plan day

Day 4

Duration

55 min

Grouping

Small Group

Steps

6 steps

Lesson plan

6 steps · 55 min

#	What teachers do
1	Launch the planning task by briefly revisiting the essential question and showing a simple example of an investigable question, a hypothesis, and a fair comparison using matched multiplication problems. Define key words students will use today such as hypothesis (a smart prediction), anomaly (a result that does not fit the pattern), and evidence table (a chart for recording results). (6 min)
2	Have small groups choose one question from the menu or adapt one approved question about comparing area models, partial products, and the standard algorithm. Groups discuss which method feature they want to investigate, make a shared decision, and write one clear question that another team could understand. (7 min)
3	Groups write a hypothesis and explain why they think that outcome might happen using place value language, regrouping ideas, efficiency, or explanation clarity. Then they select a fair set of matching problems that fit the question, including at least one 2-digit by 2-digit problem and one up to 4-digit by 1-digit problem if appropriate to their question. (10 min)
4	Groups design their evidence table and planning sheet by listing what they will compare, how they will record accuracy, speed or ease of explaining, and what counts as strong evidence, confusing evidence, or an anomaly. Ask groups to include simple success criteria and sentence starters so their plan is peer-checkable and ready for the next checkpoint. (8 min)
5	Run a two-peer feedback round where each group swaps plans with another group, reads the plan, and leaves specific notes on fairness of comparison, place value accuracy, clarity, and whether another team could follow the directions. Groups complete a second quick feedback exchange with a different peer pair, then discuss what suggestions they will use. (8 min)
6	Groups revise their plan based on peer feedback and complete a final self-check before turning it in or saving it for the next activity. Close with a short share-out in which a few groups name one revision they made and how it improved their investigation plan. (6 min)

Preparation (8 items)

Prepare a question menu with 3-5 student-friendly investigable options such as fastest to explain, easiest way to track regrouping, or most efficient for certain number sizes.
Create or copy a planning organizer that includes spaces for the question, hypothesis, matched problem set, evidence table, definitions of strong evidence/confusing evidence/anomaly, and revision notes.
Prepare a short set of sample multiplication problems that match current unit work, including 2-digit by 2-digit and up to 4-digit by 1-digit problems, so groups can choose fair comparisons quickly.
Make a peer feedback checklist focused on four look-fors: accurate place value, fair matched problems, clear explanation, and evidence another team could collect from the plan.
Post or project key vocabulary with brief definitions and visuals for hypothesis, evidence, anomaly, efficiency, regrouping, and peer-checkable.
Pre-plan student groups and assign roles if needed, such as reader, recorder, discussion leader, and feedback manager, to support balanced participation.
Prepare 1 brief model example of a completed mini-plan to show the difference between a vague question and a testable question.
Gather materials such as clipboards or notebooks, pencils, colored markers, planning sheets, timers, and digital devices if groups will draft plans electronically.

Student-facing instructions

You will work with your group to plan a fair investigation about multiplication strategies. First, choose one question from the menu about area models, partial products, and the standard algorithm. Next, write a hypothesis, or smart prediction, about what you think you will find and why. Then choose a fair set of matching multiplication problems, build an evidence table, and decide what will count as strong evidence, confusing evidence, or an anomaly, which is a result that does not fit the pattern. You will use your planning sheet, sample problem bank, math notebook, and feedback checklist. After your group drafts the plan, you will give feedback to two peers, receive feedback from others, and revise your plan so another team could follow it clearly in the next activity. Your goal is to create a clear, accurate, and peer-checkable strategy investigation plan.

Success criteria

Your group is done when you have: 1) written one clear investigable question about comparing multiplication methods; 2) written a hypothesis that includes a reason using math ideas such as place value, regrouping, efficiency, or explanation clarity; 3) chosen a fair matched set of multiplication problems that fit the question; 4) created an evidence table with labels for what you will record; 5) identified what counts as strong evidence, confusing evidence, and an anomaly; 6) received feedback from two peers and revised at least one part of your plan; and 7) checked that another group could follow your plan without asking many questions. You can also say how confident you feel about your plan and name one part you improved after feedback.

Facilitator notes

Keep the pacing tight so the activity stays focused on planning rather than solving every problem. Remind students that fairness matters: the problems should be matched closely enough that they are really comparing methods, not comparing easier and harder numbers. A common pitfall is choosing a question that is too broad, so coach groups to narrow their focus to one feature such as explanation speed, tracking regrouping, or efficiency for a certain problem type. Another common issue is selecting too many problems; encourage 3-5 strong examples rather than a long list. Support varying reading levels by offering a visual organizer, reading the question menu aloud, and providing sentence starters such as 'We predict ___ because ___' and 'This is a fair comparison because ___.' For students needing more support, provide pre-sorted problem cards and a partially completed evidence table. For students ready for more challenge, invite them to justify why one problem might produce an anomaly or to refine how they will measure explanation quality. Listen for correct use of place value language connected to CCSS.Math.Content.4.NBT.B.5 and prompt students to explain how the methods show the same multiplication ideas in different forms. During feedback rounds, model kind and specific comments such as 'Your question is clear, but your problems are not matched yet.' Save revised plans because they will feed directly into the next checkpoint and later student products for reflection and Fluency Fest.

Resources

No resources yet