Testing a 60-Minute Math Workshop for Year 5/6 (Ages 9-11): What Worked, And What I Need Your Feedback On
Last Wednesday, I propped my coffee mug on the front desk of my Year 6 class just after morning break, and watched 24 kids shuffle in, stepping over the rogue football that got left by the door and digging out pencils from the bottom of their backpacks. As the school’s upper primary math lead, I’ve spent the last term tinkering with a new 60-minute workshop prototype for kids aged 9 to 11 – the age where too many kids decide once and for all that they’re just “not a math person.” This one’s built around planning a class camping trip on a $500 budget, no worksheets, no single right answer.
I split them into mixed-ability groups of three, handed out printed price lists: $12 a head for the inland campsite, $18 for the one with the lake, $25 for a pack of shared tents, $12 per person for food, plus a flat $80 fee for the bus. Groups can add any extra gear or activities they want, as long as they stay under the total budget. The plan was 5 minutes for intro, 40 minutes for group work, 15 minutes for sharing back, adding up to a clean 60 minutes.
The first surprise came 10 minutes in. Mia, who starts every test with “I’m bad at this, can you help me,” leaned across the table to her group and said, “We’re only sleeping there one night, who cares if the sleeping bag has a brand logo? We can save $50 to go kayaking.” She was the one adding up all the costs, not the two higher-ability kids in her group. No one told her to take that role – she just claimed it, because it mattered to her group’s plan. Then Jake, who finishes every worksheet in five minutes and gets full marks every time, came over to my desk three times in 10 minutes, twisting the sleeve of his neon green hoodie, asking “Is this total right? Did I do the multiplication wrong?” He couldn’t wrap his head around the fact that there were five different correct total costs, depending on what the group prioritized. He kept saying it wasn’t real math.
By the time we got to sharing back, the 15 minute slot ran over by eight minutes. Every group had a different argument for why their plan worked best. One group cut the activity budget entirely to get the lake campsite, another added a $25 contingency fund for broken gear or extra snacks, and no one was arguing that someone else was wrong – they were just talking through why they made the choices they did. By the time the bell rang for lunch, half the kids were still lingering by the door debating whether the lake was worth the extra cost.
I ran the same workshop with a Year 5 class on Friday, and brought it home to test on my own 10 year old, who’s in Year 5 and has had math anxiety since he messed up a times table presentation in front of the class last year. He thought it was fun, and even asked to plan a second trip with a higher budget after dinner, but he said the three-digit multiplication for the bus hire made him nervous. That got me thinking about all the little kinks I can’t see on my own, after only testing it with two classes. So I’m asking for feedback from other parents and teachers to get it right before I share it as a free resource next term.
The first big question I have is about the 60 minute length. My school does block scheduling for upper primary, so a full hour works fine for us, but I know most primary schools still run 40 to 45 minute math periods. Would splitting this into two 30 minute sessions – one for planning, one for sharing – kill the momentum, or would that work better for most classrooms? I’ve tried it both ways with small after-school groups, and the full 60 minutes keeps energy high, but I want it to be usable for as many people as possible.
The second question is around differentiation. Right now, I use mixed-ability groups and let kids split the work however they want. For kids who struggle with big numbers, that usually means they handle adding smaller costs like snacks, while kids who are more comfortable take on multiplication for bigger expenses. But a few other teachers who saw the prototype suggested I make two versions of the price list: one with whole, round numbers for kids working below level, and one that adds percentages for discounts and GST for kids who need more challenge. As a parent, what would you want for your kid? If your child struggles with math, would you rather they work in a mixed group with peers, or get a simplified task that lets them contribute without stress? If your kid is advanced, do you think open-ended problem solving is enough of a challenge, or do you want extra layers to dig into?
Third, assessment. Right now, I just walk around the room and take notes on what skills each kid is using – who can add up multiple numbers, who adjusts their plan when they go over budget, who can explain their reasoning. But most schools require some sort of formal grade for math. Is that something that matters to you? Would you want a quick, low-stakes reflection sheet that kids can fill out to get a mark, or would you rather this stay ungraded, just a chance to practice real math? I don’t want to turn it into another test, because that defeats the whole point, but I also know teachers need to track progress for reporting.
I’ve already seen enough to know the core idea works: kids who swear they hate math will participate fully, no one asks “when am I ever gonna use this?” because it’s a trip they could actually go on. But every kid and every class is different, and I don’t want to roll out something that doesn’t work for most people. I’ve got a binder full of scribbled notes on what went right and what felt clunky, but I’m missing the input of everyone else who spends time with 9 to 11 year olds every day. If you’ve got a kid this age, or teach Year 5 or 6, what would you change? What’s the one thing you wish more math activities got right for this age group? I’m reading every comment, and all feedback will go into the final version.
Please indicate: Thinking In Educating » Testing a 60-Minute Math Workshop for Year 5/6 (Ages 9-11): What Worked, And What I Need Your Feedback On