Slow Down First to Speed Up Learning

Teaching Students That Are Grade-Levels Behind

When students are several grade levels behind, it can sometimes feel impossible to teach grade-level content. At my Title I school, it’s common to see students struggle with multiplication, rounding, and even writing simple sentences. Some still count on their fingers and others have a hard time spelling. So I understand when teachers ask, “How can I teach grade-level material when my students are years behind?”

As teachers, we could accept defeat but I believe a more productive approach is to ensure our students are fluent in the basic foundational skills needed for that day’s lesson. Fluency in education refers to the ability to understand and apply academic concepts and skills with accuracy and efficiency. Developing fluency requires deliberate practice, which takes some time and effort.

Whenever I mention this to other teachers, I often hear the following:

“Basics aren’t in the standards so that’s not my responsibility. Students should already know this anyway.”

“We have a curriculum to cover. We don’t have time to reteach the basics.”

But what if I told you that building foundational skills is part of teaching the standards? In fact, it often takes about the same amount of time as pushing ahead without addressing the basics, yet leads to far better results.

Let me clarify with a classroom example.

Classroom Example

A few weeks ago, I was teaching students how to calculate the average atomic mass using mass spectra. That may sound complicated if you’re not familiar with chemistry but bear with me. That’s not the point. 

To successfully calculate average atomic mass, students first need to be able to do the following:

• Convert percentages into decimals
  
• Round numbers correctly

These are skills students are expected to know by high school. But many of my students struggle with them. So I have two choices:

1. I can jump straight into chemistry and assume students already know the math. After all, they should be able to do it by now, right? It’s not technically part of the chemistry standards so it’s not my responsibility. Either they know it or they don’t.
2. I can take the time to review the basics, like converting percentages into decimals and rounding numbers correctly before moving into the chemistry lesson.

Let’s see how Option 1 plays out.

Just a note that these scenarios are based on a block schedule. At my school, classes run about 90 minutes each.

Option 1: Jump Straight Into Chemistry

Let’s say I decided to go straight into chemistry. Today’s lesson: calculating average atomic mass using the I Do, We Do, You Do model.

I Do: I start by modeling how to calculate average atomic mass step by step. I project a mass spectrum on the board and demonstrate the process:

1. Convert each percent abundance into a decimal.
   
2. Multiply each isotope’s mass by its decimal abundance.
   
3. Add the results and round to get the average atomic mass.

As I go through the steps, I notice confused looks. Many students aren’t comfortable converting percentages into decimals and their understanding of rounding is shaky. They have a general idea, but it isn’t concrete. Still, I push forward because I feel the pressure to stay on pace with the curriculum.

We Do: Now it’s their turn to try one with me. I project a new example on the board and we begin solving it together. A few hands go up. 

“Miss, how do you turn percentages into decimals again?”

I pause to re-explain how to convert percentages into decimals. 

“Wait, how do you know whether to round up or down?”

I pause again to review how to round. 

At this point, because I’ve had to stop repeatedly to reteach basic math skills, my explanation of how to calculate average atomic mass becomes fragmented and disorganized. The flow of the lesson is disrupted and is now less effective.

In addition, students experience cognitive overload because their working memory is consumed by trying to recall basic math skills while simultaneously trying to learn the new material. As a result, their understanding of the calculations stays at a surface level. They can follow the steps but lack fluency and confidence. This causes frustration (which might invite some behavioral issues as well).

Despite knowing they need more support, I move on because I feel pressured to stay on pace. After all, we have chemistry to cover!

You Do: Now it’s time for students to solve problems on their own. But each one takes much longer than expected because they are still struggling with foundational skills that should be automatic. Students’ working memory is occupied with recalling basic math procedures instead of focusing on the chemistry. This slows their progress and lowers their confidence.

To make matters worse, several students are raising their hands with questions about basic math, so instead of circulating to check understanding, I end up playing whack-a-mole and addressing the same issues over and over.

By the end of the I Do, We Do, You Do process, students have managed to complete only a few problems, and the experience has been frustrating for everyone. As the teacher, I can technically say that I have covered the standard, but now I have no choice but to review the content again because students did not understand it the first time.

Option 2: Cover the Basics Before Jumping Into Chemistry

Now, let’s rewind but this time, taking the time to build fluency in the basics before jumping into chemistry.

I still use the I Do, We Do, You Do model, but instead of starting with average atomic mass, we begin with the basics: converting percentages into decimals.

• I Do: I model how to convert percentages into decimals. On the board, I write 75% = 0.75 and explain, “We move the decimal point two places to the left.” Then I model a few more examples, saying my thought process out loud so students can follow the pattern.
  
• We Do: We practice together using mini whiteboards. I call out examples and ask students to show their answers at the same time. This allows me to quickly spot misconceptions and correct them on the spot.
  
• You Do: Students then work through a short set of practice problems independently. Most students quickly become fluent, while a few who still struggle get additional support in a small group.

I repeat this same process for rounding. Altogether, the review takes about 35 minutes. To an outsider, it might look like I “lost” a day of chemistry. But what happens next proves otherwise.

Before introducing average atomic mass calculations, I start by having students retrieve what we practiced earlier in the period. “Turn 25% into a decimal,” I say, and whiteboards immediately go up showing 0.25. “Round 15.684 to the nearest tenth,” I continue, and the class answers together. Their quick, accurate responses tell me they’ve got it.

Now it’s time for chemistry using the I Do, We Do, You Do model to go over how to calculate average atomic mass.

I Do: I pull up the mass spectrum and introduce the concept of average atomic mass. But this time, the math doesn’t get in the way. Students already know how to convert percentages into decimals and how to round correctly, so they can give their full attention to the chemistry.

I model the calculation step by step while thinking aloud. Students track each move carefully, nodding as the process unfolds. No one looks confused or hesitant.

We Do: We work through a new example together. I ask students to solve each step on their mini whiteboards as I guide them through the process. Because they no longer have to think about basic math procedures, their mental energy can focus on understanding what the calculation means and why it matters. When misconceptions come up, they are usually about the chemistry rather than simple math. Everything flows smoothly.

You Do: Students work independently and the classroom feels calm and focused. Instead of frustration or confusion, there’s a sense of confidence as students see that they can handle the chemistry calculations on their own. And if there are any questions, most likely it is chemistry-based and not math-based.

The same I Do, We Do, You Do structure that fell apart before now works beautifully, simply because we took the time to strengthen the foundation first.

That 35-minute investment in the basics pays off. Instead of spending class time playing whack-a-mole, I’m guiding students through meaningful chemistry discussions. And most importantly, they’re actually learning and building confidence.

The Payoff of Slowing Down

In the end, spending time on the basics saves us time in the long run. When we skip foundational skills, we end up reteaching the same content later, often with more frustration for both students and teachers. But when we intentionally build fluency on the basics first, lessons run smoother and students feel more confident. Covering the basics may seem like taking a detour, but it’s really the fastest route to meaningful learning.