Featured Speakers:
- Dr. Saroja Warner, Senior Director of Responsive and Sustaining Education, WestEd
- Aleata Hubbard, Senior Research Scientist for Learning and Technology, WestEd
- John Jacobs, Senior Technical Assistance Specialist for Responsive and Sustaining Education, WestEd
Host:
- Danny Torres, Associate Director of Events and Digital Media, WestEd
Danny Torres:
Well, hello, everyone, and welcome to the 27th session of our Leading Together series. In these 30-minute learning webinars, WestEd experts are sharing research and evidence-based practices that help bridge opportunity gaps, support positive outcomes for children and adults, and help build thriving communities. Today’s topic, Centering Student Identity in Math EdTech. Our featured speakers today are Dr. Saroja Warner, senior director of Responsive and Sustaining Education, Aleata Hubbard, senior research scientist for Learning and Technology, and John Jacobs, senior technical assistance specialist for Responsive and Sustaining Education. Thank you all very, very much for joining us. My name is Danny Torres. I’m associate director of Events and Digital Media for WestEd. I’ll be your host.
Now I’d like to take a moment to introduce WestEd. As a nonpartisan research, development, and service agency, WestEd works to promote excellence, improve learning, and increase opportunity for children, youth, and adults. Our staff partner with school, district, and state leaders, policymakers and others, providing a broad range of tailored services, including research and evaluation, professional learning, technical assistance, and policy guidance. We work to generate knowledge and apply evidence and expertise to improve policies, systems, and practices. Now I’d like to pass the mic over to Saroja. Saroja, take it away.
Dr. Saroja Warner:
Thank you, Danny. And I am really excited to be here with you all today. My name is Saroja Warner. And I’m joined by my colleagues, as Danny just introduced, Aleata and John. And we’re really excited to spend the next 25 minutes with you exploring a question that’s becoming more and more important in our work, how do the math edtech tools we choose shape students’ sense of belonging? Rochelle Gutierrez reminds us that schooling can actually convince students they are no longer mathematical. And that’s really what’s at stake here. Whether the experiences we design, including through edtech, help students see themselves as math people or push them away from that identity. Today’s session is about designing for belonging in math edtech, especially in the decisions we make around selecting and using digital tools.
We know that edtech is playing a bigger role than ever in math classrooms, but alongside those opportunities, there are also real risks. Tools can unintentionally send messages about who is good at math, whose thinking matters, and who belongs. So our goal today is to introduce a practical resource, the Digital Design Companion, that can help you bring an equity and belonging lens into those decisions, whether you’re evaluating, selecting, or using math tools. We’ll start by briefly grounding in why this matters, then walk through the tool itself, and finally, look at what this can actually look like in practice. Before we jump in, I would love to get a quick sense of your experience. So I’m going to launch a quick poll. So consider this question. When you think about math edtech tools that your students use, how often do they reflect and affirm students’ identities and experiences? Almost always, sometimes, rarely, or you’re not sure or haven’t considered this? So just take another couple seconds to make a choice here. And then, my colleague Danny will show us the poll results.
I have some hunches. Aha, my hunches played out. So this is really insightful. I’m seeing a lot of responses in “sometimes” and “I’m not sure, I haven’t considered this category,” with “rarely” and “almost always” in sort of close second places. This is actually where a lot of folks are. When my colleagues and I talk to different folks across the country, this is pretty consistent. And what this tells us is that, even though we’re using math edtech all the time, we don’t always have a clear lens for thinking about how these tools reflect or don’t reflect our students’ identities and experiences. And that matters, because every tool is sending messages about who belongs in math, about whose thinking is valued, about what it means to be successful.
So before we dive into the Digital Design Companion, let’s take a few minutes to ground in why this is so important for students’ experiences and outcomes. A core question for today is what messages do math tools send about who belongs? Even when we’re not explicitly thinking about it, every digital tool is communicating something to students, through the tasks, the feedback, the pacing, and even the visuals. So as we go through this session, I want you to keep this question in mind. What might students be learning about themselves as math learners through these tools? One way to think about this is that tools can send very different kinds of messages. On one side we have affirming messages. Things like, “my thinking matters,” “I can grow in math,” “math connects to my world.” But on the other side, tools can send limiting messages, often unintentionally. “Speed is what matters most” might be one, or “there’s only one right way,” or “some students are just better at math.”
For example, a tool that emphasizes timed responses might unintentionally signal that being fast is what makes you good at math, rather than thinking deeply or trying different strategies. The key point here is not that the tools are good or bad, but that design choices matter and they shape students’ experiences. And this matters because students’ sense of belonging is directly connected to how they engage in pursuits in math. When students feel like they belong, they’re more likely to take risks, stay engaged, and see themselves as capable. When they don’t, they may disengage, even if they have the ability to succeed. So if edtech is a regular part of the math experience, it’s also playing a role in shaping those outcomes. So the question becomes, how do we actually evaluate this in a practical way? I’m gonna own my little stumble just now was, this is very personal to me because of my own experiences as a math student. And so it’s funny how all these years later, I can still feel some kind of way when I talk about this more theoretically or conceptually. So with that, I’m going to pass the mic to my colleague Aleata.
Aleata Hubbard:
Thank you, Saroja. So this is where the Digital Design Companion comes in. At its core, it’s a practical tool designed to help educators and leaders bring an equity and belonging lens into discussions about math edtech. So it’s not about compliance or checking boxes that you did everything a certain way. It’s really more about making something that’s often invisible, like these implied messages of who belongs or doesn’t in math, more visible and easier to discuss. And it’s also designed to be flexible. So you can use it whether you’re selecting a new tool, reviewing an existing one, or having conversations with vendors about the tool in your system.
And so the Digital Design Companion is organized around a set of key domains that help us understand how dimensions of digital tools shape students’ experiences in math. And so what makes this tool especially useful is that for each domain, each domain and dimension, there come these very concrete look-fors or things to notice. So instead of just asking, “Is a tool equitable?” which is hard to answer and a little bit vague, we can get more specific and granular with the questions we’re asking about the tool. So just a little example here. If we’re thinking about the domain of agency and we’re considering the features that are built into an edtech tool, we might want to look to see are there choice-based tasks that let students select topics that they wanna focus in on. So that’s our look-for. So this Design Companion is really helping us translate equity, those domains, into observable features, the dimensions, that we can actually see and discuss. And then the what to notice are those look-fors that help you tie those two pieces together.
All right, so now I wanna walk you through the components a little bit more in detail. And so the Companion is organized around a set of eight key domains that you see listed there on the left. And they help us understand how dimensions of digital tools, what you see on the right, shape students’ experiences in math. And the eight key domains are grounded in culturally responsive and sustaining education. So for example, the first domain, “Framing the Experience,” looks at how tools reflect students’ identities, languages, and lived experiences. The second one looks at learning goals and whether tools maintain high expectations while also allowing multiple ways for students to show their thinking. And there are other domains that focus on student agency, feedback and assessment, representation in the materials themselves.
And so the Companion also pushes us to look at the specific dimensions of the edtech products, what you see on the right. So things like their features and the AI systems built into them, the user experience and sort of how it’s designed, data use and monitoring that are built into the systems, and then also how the systems are used in implementation. So here we wanna say, we don’t wanna just look at the content that’s in the tools, but all the different features and dimensions of them. And so the overall idea here is that, instead of looking at the tool as a whole like “Is this tool useful for my students or not?” we wanna break it down into these key domains and dimensions so we can more clearly see what the tools are actually offering for students.
All right, so now we wanna move into making this a little bit more concrete and actually show you all some examples from the Design Companion. So to do this, I want you to imagine that you’re reviewing a math edtech product. It could be something that you’re considering adopting right now, something that’s already in use in your school system. And the question I want you think about is, how could this Design Companion help you in that process of reviewing the tool or making decisions about which ones to adopt or not? And so we’re gonna walk through a few examples of pages from the Design Companion. So the first one focuses on the domain of framing the experience. And that relates, again, to student identity and relevance. And the intent here with looking at this domain is to think about whether the task in the edtech tool is reflecting students’ cultures, communities, and lived experiences, or are the tasks mostly generic and disconnected for students.
And then, the Companion points us to look for features. That’s that first blue column. Like diverse contexts and authentic representations. Or if we go into the UX design, it might have us look for examples where the tool uses language that avoids deficit framing. And so each of these columns has bullets for you to hone in on on what to look for. So now I’m gonna hand it over to John to walk you through a few more examples.
John Jacobs:
Great, thank you, Aleata. Just keeping going what Aleata was talking through here, you know, we’re evaluating a hypothetical or reflecting on our hypothetical math edtech product. And one of the other ones, just to share with you all, is the second dimension, “Learning Goals and Outcomes.” You can see the two there in the green box. Having to do with high expectations, multiple pathways, and with AI personalization safeguards. Right under that, we kinda further expand on that a little bit with the intent and sharing some of the goals in the form of a question here. Here it says, “Are goals rigorous, culturally relevant, and open to multiple demonstrations of learning?” And then, you know, each of these dimensions further operationalizes it and poses some indicators that you might be seeing in an edtech product that is being intentional around the messages it’s sending and the types of engagement it’s supporting.
So features and AI systems, for example, if you look at the second one from the top, “Prompts that encourage explanation, reasoning and revision,” so just like in our traditional curriculum, we wanna make sure in math we’re supporting that metacognition, taking that asset-based lens, that the thinking students are arriving with, their cultural reference points are relevant, useful, and important to come out through their engagement with math. And then I’m gonna skip user experience and just kinda highlight another one from the “Data and Monitoring” section there, just as another example. And if we’re valuing that kind of explanation and reasoning, you know, we should also look for evidence of learning that goes beyond just correctness, just the right answer. And so we should be thinking about the extent to which the product is gathering assessment information on that process students engage in.
And then one more here, number three, focusing on “Instructional Strategies.” This has to do with agency, voice, and building student critical consciousness in AI-mediated environments. And again, the intent right underneath of that further builds on that and kind of articulates the goal in the form of a question, “Do the activities build belonging and voice and does AI amplify rather than suppress student agency?” So I’ll choose just two here to highlight. We have the dimensions there, “Features and AI Systems.” Here, one thing you might look at is “Open-ended investigations connected to real-world or community issues.” This has to do with that critical consciousness piece that math should be, if it’s culturally relevant and responsive and sustaining, helping students make sense of the world around them. They should be understanding and utilizing math skills and thinking to explore, discover, name, understand, act on the world around them. And just as we would want that in traditional curriculum, we want that here in edtech products as well.
And then another example here in the “User Experience” column, “Design that prioritizes human dialogue over automation.” We wanna make sure that we are helping build that classroom community of learners through edtech, just as we might with traditional curriculum. We know and understand that edtech has a lotta potential for individualized learning and that’s important, and we also wanna make sure that students are connecting with each other as a core component of what it means to be culturally relevant and responsive in our classrooms. So some of the questions to guide adoption and procurement decisions. These are example questions that we hope to generate. As Aleata said, this isn’t a compliance tool. This isn’t a check the box, and we’re not focused on any type of overall score that we have here, right? Some of the questions we’d hope to generate are “Whose identities are reflected in this edtech product?” We know that across curricula and in math, included in that, typically we center white, able-bodied, of a certain class, a certain gender, typically male, as doers of math, to just name the dynamic we’re working to disrupt here through cultural responsiveness.
So we wanna be conscious of the identities that are reflected in the products. We wanna also recognize the asset base, the funds of knowledge that all students bring to the classroom. Therefore, we wanna think about, “How does this edtech product support multiple ways of thinking in a classroom?” And then lastly, this is not a new issue in schools and classrooms, but we need to maintain a focus on it, “What data are collected, and how is that data used about our students?” These are just examples of some of the key questions we really think can come out of and should come out of using a product like this. So some of the key takeaways that we wanna leave you all with today, and I kinda said this first one already, the edtech sends messages about belonging. The identities, experiences, cultures, languages that are reflected in our curriculum send messages about who belongs, who’s right, who’s good, who’s a doer of math. And it’s important and necessary that we pay close attention to that when we’re evaluating math edtech products.
It is the adult educator’s responsibility to evaluate those messages. We have the ability to look at our curricula, our edtech products, and identify the identities that are being centered, the messages that are being sent, the biases that are baked in, and to take action to address those. That’s our responsibility to do. And you know, the Digital Design Companion is meant to be a place to help generate those types of questions and to help support the collaborative work of identifying quality culturally relevant math edtech products. So for potential next steps, we would love it if you all would access the tool. You can do that via this QR code that’s on the left or via a link that I believe will get put in the chat. Thank you so much, Danny, for doing that. Please access the tool. Please take a look at it. Try it on with a product, whether it’s hypothetical or real-life. Take a look at it and use it as a starting point, a launching point, to bring a couple questions into your next decision related to edtech, whether it’s a procurement decision or an implementation decision or an instructional improvement conversation, to think critically about how we’re using these products in our classroom and whether they support culturally relevant and equitable practice and ends for our students.
And I believe I’m passing it to Danny. I do wanna say thank you all so much for coming. We really know that this is a space that is moving very, very quickly in the world, in classrooms, and we really hope that this tool helps give you all a sense of that you’re getting your footing and getting your bearings as you evaluate a whole host of tools that have been coming at us as educators and will continue to come without a doubt.
Danny Torres:
Well, thank you, Saroja, Aleata, and John for a great session. And thank you to all our participants for joining us. We really appreciate you being here. Feel free to reach out to Saroja via email if you have any questions about the work we discussed today. You can reach out to Saroja at [email protected]. And you can learn more about the REAL Mathematics Digital Design Companion by visiting us online at WestEd.org/digital-design-companion.
You can check out recordings of our past Leading Together webinars online. We’ve covered a range of topics, including literacy, generative AI, assessment, special education, and mathematics. Our next session is May 12, and we’ll be focusing on supporting multilingual learners with disabilities. To access our Leading Together webinar series recordings or to register for upcoming events, visit us online at WestEd.org/leading-together. If you’re interested in learning more about WestEd and staying connected, you can sign up for WestEd’s email newsletter to receive updates about research, free resources, services, and more. Subscribe online at WestEd.org/subscribe, or you can scan the QR code displayed on the screen here. You can also follow us on LinkedIn and Bluesky. With that, thank you all very much. See you next time.