A Typical Hundred Chart<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n However, there is a problem when students use directional language in relation to the chart. For example, if a student is asked to add 10 more while pointing to 46 on a typical hundred chart, they would move their finger down the chart to land on 56. While the number is increasing, the visual movement on the chart contradicts the language\u2014’ up’ for increasing and ‘down’ for decreasing\u2014which can create confusion. This ‘directional conflict’ can be especially problematic for students with disabilities (Randolph & Jeffres, 1974, p. 203, as cited in Bay-Williams & Gletcher, 2017). In response, I began using a bottom-up version of the hundred chart (Figure 2). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Figure 2<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n A Bottom-Up Hundred Chart<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Now, when students talk about adding 10 more, they move their finger ‘up’ the chart, and the language matches the movement\u2014’ going up’ corresponds with the number value increasing. Bay-Williams & Gletcher (2017) suggest that this alignment between language and visual representation helps students more easily grasp concepts of ‘more’ and ‘less.’ This change has made a noticeable difference in my classroom. By matching the directional language to the chart’s visual movement, students gain a better understanding of mathematical concepts. And while this solution works well for English speakers, it highlights how language plays a crucial role in shaping our cognitive processes. For example, in right-to-left languages, a different hundred chart orientation would be necessary to align with their directional language. This reinforces the idea that language influences not just communication but the way we think and understand the world around us.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Boroditsky says that “the kind of language that swims around you, the grammatical forms that swim around you and that are in your environment change what you attend to, even when you’re looking at new events, unrelated to what you’ve just been hearing about” (SAR, 2017, 33:52). In this example, Boroditsky is referring to test subjects identifying who committed an act, with their perceptions shaped by the grammatical structure of the language they had been exposed to prior to the experiment. However, this also resonated with me in terms of the power teachers wield. The words I choose, the order in which I say them, and even my tone may influence what my students focus on and how they interpret information. It’s mind-blowing to consider the extent of that impact.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At the 34:05 mark, the conversation shifts to the language of counting and numbers, which is something I have often thought about. In grade 2, the expectations for students jump drastically\u2014from knowing numbers 1 to 20 to knowing numbers 1 to 100. This is a huge leap, and it has caused me to wonder how other languages handle counting. The only other language I am somewhat familiar with is French, and I have wondered if the French approach to numbers over 50 allows French students to have a better, worse, or the same number sense of numbers between 50 and 100. When counting in French, understanding the computation behind larger numbers is essential. For instance, the number seventy-two is translated as “soixante-douze” (sixty-twelve), making me wonder whether this method helps French speakers develop better number sense. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, in my experience teaching grade 1 students to count between 11 and 20, I’ve often felt that there should be a better system. Numbers 11 and 12 are especially tricky, 13-15 are slightly easier, but even 16-19 present challenges. What exactly is a “teen”? Why don’t we have a counting system that works more like “10-1, 10-2, 10-3” to help students build a clearer understanding of numbers 11-19? Schiltz et al. (2024) discuss this in terms of “the transparency of the number system of a particular language (e.g., in Russian’ ‘one-ten’ for ’11’ is transparent, while “eleven” in English is not)” (p. 2416). From my experience teaching grade 1 students, I have found that the English words for 11 to 19 make numerical thinking more challenging for young students. I suspect that Russian-speaking students, with their more transparent system, might develop number sense more easily.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At 42:47 in the recording, Boroditsky explains one method of researching for causality between language and thinking. This process involves training people to speak in new ways and then observing changes in their thinking. I find this idea fascinating, and it reminds me of the work I do with my students around growth mindset language. Instead of letting a child say, “I can’t do that,” I encourage them to say, “I am still working on learning how to do this,” or “I can’t do this yet<\/em>.” To help emphasize the power of the word “yet,” I use the picture book The Magical Yet<\/em> by Angela DiTerlizzi. This book introduces students to “a most amazing thought rearrange-er” (DiTerlizzi & Alvarez, 2020, p. 8)\u2014the magical creature known as The Magical Yet<\/em>. The story shows how language can change how we think, or as the book puts it, how it can act as a “thought rearranger-er.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n During the Q&A session, Boroditsky responds to a question from the audience about whether teaching literature can enhance brain development.\u00a0 The answer given by Boroditsky is that “there’s some suggestion that reading fiction improves your theory of mind, so theory of mind is this ability to read other people’s minds and infer their intentions and think about what it is they might be thinking” (SAR, 2017, 53:32).\u00a0 This was an intriguing concept for me to hear.\u00a0 As an elementary teacher, I practice this every day. I read to my students, and we discuss the characters’ emotions and motivations. Although research on this is still in its early stages, hearing Boroditsky’s statement reinforced just how powerful literature can be.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although not in chronological order, I have saved what I think is the most powerful statement of the talk for the end. At the 18:38 mark, Boroditsky states, “Language has this causal power. You can change how people think by changing how they talk” (SAR, 2017). This is the key takeaway, and as an elementary educator, I find it extremely profound and encouraging.<\/p>\n\n\n\n References:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Bay-Williams, J. M., & Fletcher, G. (2017). A bottom-up hundred chart? Teaching Children Mathematics, 24<\/em>(3), e1-e7. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.5951\/teacchilmath.24.3.00e1<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Boroditsky, L. (2011). How language shapes thought<\/a>. Scientific American, 304<\/em>(2), 62-65.<\/p>\n\n\n\n DiTerlizzi, A., & Alvarez, L. (2020). The magical yet (First ed.). Disney-Hyperion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n SAR School for Advanced Research. (2017, June 7). Lera Boroditsky, how the languages we speak shape the ways we think<\/em> [Video]. <\/em>YouTube. https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=iGuuHwbuQOg<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Schiltz, C., Lachelin, R., Hilger, V., & Marinova, M. (2024). Thinking about numbers in different tongues: An overview of the influences of multilingualism on numerical and mathematical competencies. Psychological Research, 88<\/em>(8), 2416-2431. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s00426-024-01997-y<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Lera Boroditsky’s SAR lecture from May 2017 was fascinating and thought-provoking, prompting numerous connections to my own experiences and ideas. She begins (00:35) with a powerful image\u2014language as a ‘magical’ ability unique to humans. This struck me immediately, especially as Continue reading Does Language Shape the Way We Think? Task 2<\/span>![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/keizern\/files\/2025\/01\/Screenshot-2025-01-18-at-9.17.58-AM.png\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/keizern\/files\/2025\/01\/Screenshot-2025-01-18-at-9.18.59-AM.png\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n