Two years ago, during her interview on Mount Ida, Kate’s future colleagues introduced her to their summer read: Building Thinking Classrooms in Mathematics, Grades K–12 by Peter Liljedahl. The book encourages educators to challenge traditional approaches to teaching mathematics and instill confidence in their students. Kate was fascinated by the idea of innovating her teaching style, but more importantly, she was impressed with her future colleagues. “These were people that I wanted to work with because they were interested in trying new things,” Kate enthuses, “and exploring ways of teaching that were new, research-based, and innovative.”

Kate earned her BS in mathematics from Lafayette College, a BA in psychology from Muhlenberg College, and a master’s in education in curriculum and instruction from Kutztown University. With a background in both public and independent school teaching, as well as experience in collegiate student affairs, she brings a well-rounded perspective to the classroom.

Kate has implemented a few of Liljedahl’s fourteen research-backed principles each year. These practices include: collaborating in randomly assigned small groups, working on vertical surfaces, assigning thinking tasks, moving around the room to eliminate the classroom front, providing prompts verbally, and only answering questions that allow students to continue thinking. Some of these challenges to traditional teaching come more naturally than others, but they’re making a big impact on the students. There is a learning curve, but these methods encourage students to think more, collaborate more, and be unafraid of mistakes. Embracing the discomfort in trying new things has ultimately led to growth and a deeper learning state.

Research like Liljedahl’s is transforming classrooms—and so is artificial intelligence, though its overall impact is a topic for debate. Kate doesn’t believe AI has impacted her teaching style yet, but it is something the department frequently discusses. While some teachers are energetic about the possibilities, some are more resistant—she acknowledges that regardless of her stance on AI, students need to learn how to use it effectively and responsibly.

In a recent calculus project, she asked her students to analyze a certain function and its relation to a real-life application. There’s a growing consensus that AI can serve as a powerful brainstorming tool, so she encouraged her students to experiment. Once they had their ideas, AI use was no longer permitted, and students were tasked with asking themselves: “Do these ideas make sense? Is this useful? Could the context apply to my function?” This shift to critical thinking encourages students to acknowledge that AI technology is a tool that requires thoughtful consideration over blind use.

Kate reflects, “They came up with some good ideas, and I was surprised that I couldn’t really tell if they had used the AI or not since we had made it optional. I asked them outright after the project was graded, and two of them told me that they used AI. I think there’s this feeling that it’s subversive somehow. Even when the teacher gives you permission, you’re not supposed to use it.”

The Mathematics Department is still in the early stages of experimenting with AI—and so are the students. While many know how to use it for basic tasks, most are still learning how to refine their queries and fine-tune the results they’re looking for—all while beginning to understand the broader implications and responsibilities of AI use.

With the current conversation of AI use in the classroom, Liljedahl’s research, and countless other factors, the future of Emma Willard School’s math classrooms is ever-evolving. In Kate’s past teaching experiences, procedural fluency has always taken precedence over conceptual understanding, which she credits to the pressure of covering substantial material in a limited time. Procedural fluency, or the mechanics of solving an equation, is an important part of the math curriculum, but it doesn’t always have to come first. Kate believes that conceptual understanding, or understanding the “why,” can happen before you know the “how.” This modification encourages curiosity and reasoning to be equally as important as rote memorization.

Amid these shifts in her classroom, students remain engaged and motivated. While Emma Willard naturally attracts inquisitive and curious students, Kate keeps them interested through real-world applications and innovative teaching techniques. She shares, “I think that is fulfilling for a lot of students. Even if students don’t value the mechanics of algebra, they value the ability to look at something that they’ve never seen before and make sense out of it.” Kate looks forward to implementing the remaining strategies from Building Thinking Classrooms while continuing to keep her teaching approach fresh, creative, and grounded in research.  

This piece originally appeared in the Spring/Summer 2025 issue of Signature Magazine.