Your Math Journal is collected at the end of each unit. Before you hand it in, run this check — it is the same lens I read with, so anything you catch here is something we never need to have a conversation about. Ten minutes with this list is usually worth more than one extra entry.
The check
Coverage
- There is an entry for every class in the unit
- Entries were written close to the day, not reconstructed the night before collection — reconstructed entries always show
- All four prompts appear across the unit: what we did, what clicked, what is foggy, what I would try
- At least one entry records a conjecture of my own — dated and testable, even if it later fell to a counter-example
Quality
- Every entry names at least one specific moment — a method, a classmate’s idea, a place I got stuck (see What a Strong Entry Looks Like)
- Foggy things are located, not just felt — “I forget to test whether my critical point is a maximum or a minimum”, not “optimization is confusing”
- At least one entry admits a real difficulty, not just victories
- My own part is named, not hidden inside “we” — what I tried, suggested, avoided, or misread
Growth
- Each entry ends with one concrete “what I would try”
- At least one earlier “try” item shows up later as a thing I actually tried — with a sentence about how it went
The last two boxes are the whole game
Anyone can write “I will check my work more.” The journal becomes evidence of growth the day a later entry says “I nudged our optimal width a millimetre each way, and the volume dropped on both sides — the critical point held” — a loop from intention to attempt to result. That loop is exactly what Showing Growth will ask you to point at, so leave yourself things to point at.