Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 5

EdTPA MAED 3224

About the School:


1. School Name: Elon Park Elementary School
Suburban School
11425 Ardrey Kell Rd, Charlotte, NC 28277
2. The principal requested that students are broken into groups based on their math and reading
ability. These groups practice math together and held whole group lessons once a week. During
math groups an outside teacher would come in and pull the higher level group aside and work
on higher level math skills and thinking. Fortunately this did not affect my whole group lesson
the day it was taught.
3. As a cooperating teacher I had to keep in mind that the end of the quarter was approaching
during my IMB Block. The grades were due October 24th and the teacher had the grades for
math complete. I had to keep in mind that near the end of the quarter it would be difficult for
the teacher later on if I introduced new information to the students. I was able to work with the
teacher on what the students needed to relearn so they could strengthen their skills for the end
of the year standardized test.
About the Class Featured in This Assessment:
1. In the morning for morning work students work on math problems for fifteen minutes. The
math lessons lasts daily for about an hour sometimes more.
2. Elon Park uses ability grouping for mathematics as well as reading. Data is recorded with
standardized testing the year before and that is how students are placed in a specific classroom.
Throughout the school year the teacher collects data from the students from assessment tests
given grade wide and the data is entered in the iPad for the principal to see. This data is used in
the classrooms to form groups. This affects the class because the majority of the lesson time the
students are in groups.
3. No textbook is used for mathematics instruction.
4. Other resources students use is DreamBox. DreamBox was purchased by Elon Park and is used in
the classroom during small group instruction. DreamBox is an online software provider that
focuses on mathematics education at the elementary level. Students also use manipulatives
such as base ten blocks and premade smart board activities. These activities were made by the
teacher for the students that focuses on the math objective they are learning that day. Students
also play math games using cards and rolling dice.
About the Students in the Class Featured in This Assessment:
1. Grade Level: Third
2. Number of
a. Students: 21
b. Male: 10
c. Female: 11

Learning Segment Overview


Central Focus: The purpose of the lesson is to have students read and understand two step word
problems by showing their work and picking the correct operation to use.
CCSSM:
3.OA.8 Solve two step word problems using the four operations. Represent these problems using
equations with a letter standing for the unknown quantity. Assess the reasonableness of answers using
mental computation and estimation strategies including rounding.
Lesson Learning Objective:
Students will be able to solve two step word problems using the four operations.
Instructional Strategies/Learning Tasks you used:
To begin with the whole group lesson I started with using a Prezi presentation about word
problems. I used this whole class instruction time to model the process and explain the concepts
explicitly. I used discussion with the class and with the students partners as the focal point of the lesson
so the students could share the different approaches they used to each problem. Before we moved to
guided practice as a class we discussed words that are clue words in word problems that would help us
determine what operation we should use. As a class we also discussed how word problems would try
and trip us up so that as thinkers we can be aware and not be fooled by any tricks. Many of the students
discussed how some word problems have unnecessary information for solving the problem and how
some word problems are worded more difficulty than others. As a class we reviewed how operations
are connected to each other. We reviewed how addition is an inverse operation of subtraction.
After our class discussion I posted a word problem on the board. It read Will played eight
games of basketball with his friends. If Will scored three points each game, how many points did he
score total? I then asked the students to do a think-pair-share. The students thought about the
problem and wrote it down on their white board. After the think aspect they paired up with their
partners which were predetermined by table groups. The two partners then discussed how they would
set up the equation. When the students came to a conclusion they would write the correct equation on
their white board. Each student would have the equation their partner and them decided on. After
giving the students a couple of minutes to come up with their equation and complete the think-pairshare I then asked them to solve and hold up their answer. I was looking for student interaction. I was
walking around the classroom making sure that each student was involved, on task and discussing their
ideas. I heard many people quickly come to a conclusion, but I also heard some students discussing
different ideas and why they think that way. There was no one correct way to set up the problem
because you could set it up using addition (3+3+3+3+3+3+3+3) or multiplication (3x8). After the boards
were shown I called on one student to come to the board and discuss how they got their answer from
the problem. The student then played the teacher role to the class explaining how they read the word
problem and how they got their answer. I first asked them to underline the important words in the
problem and cross out the unnecessary words. After the student did that I asked them to solve.
It was important during whole class instruction that I used questions on their grade level. Even
though multiplication problems as well as two step word problems were new to them it was important
not to make the problems too difficult. As a teacher if I chose the difficult problems it would only
frustrate the student during the learning process and it could potentially turn it into a negative one. It
was important to work up to harder problems and master the basics first. Using the whiteboards

allowed me to quickly assess the students independent performance levels. If I saw that the class was
struggling I would then shape my review of the problem differently so the students could come to a
clear understanding.
Part C: Whole Class Assessment:
When I analyzed the student learning I measured how the students were solving the two step
word problems and if they were using mental computation and estimation strategies including rounding.
This addresses the standard chosen for the lesson (3.OA.8).
The entire class did very well on this assignment, not one student missed all three, the most
missed was only two. After reviewing the information from the students I noticed that the ones missed
were carless errors and reading through the information too fast. Below represents a bar graph of
classroom data for the lesson evaluation.
Number of Questions Missed
Student Missed 3 Questions
Student Missed 2 Questions
Student Missed 1 Question
Student Missed 0 Questions

Number of Students
0
4
8
9

Percentage of Class
0%
19%
38%
43%

As you can see in the table above the majority of the class (43%) missed zero questions. However, close
to the majority (38%) of the class missed one question.
Different learning patterns that I noticed were most of the students were not comfortable with the
standard algorithm. The teacher mentioned to me that the standard algorithm was not taught to them
until this year, but it was required for them to master it. Most of the students drew pictures to solve the
problems while a couple of the students used the standard algorithm to solve the problem. I noticed the
students who used the standard algorithm missed more than the students who drew pictures and
graphs to solve.
The weakness of the class as a whole was reading too quickly through the problem. While the
assessment did have a few tricky parts that required tough reading, the students focused more on their
drawings. While their drawings showed the correct
Part D: Define the evaluation criteria
For the evaluation I determined whether or not the answer was correct. If the answer was
correct I determined if they used an equation to solve or if they used a picture or a model. If the student
used the correct model and the correct operation, but still got the answer wrong, it was marked wrong.
This is because on standardized testing they only look for the correct answer and do not give partial
credit for correct thinking and a wrong answer.
Students showed conceptual understanding by going through the problems and circling the
words they needed to use for the problem. This showed that the students mastered the skill of
understanding what mathematical operation they needed to use and how the words in the problem
related to that mathematical operation. Students showed Procedural Fluency by proving on their paper
that they understood how to effectively solve the problem using the standard algorithm or by drawing a
diagram. Students showed Reasoning/ Problem Solving by correctly carrying out the problem with the
correct form of operation and why they chose that operation.

Part G:
I.
Conceptual understanding is where the students showed a lot of weakness. The main issue was
not that the students did not understand the wording of the problem, but that some of them read too
fast. For example on Sophies work on problem number 1 where it reads Riley made 4 trays of cupcakes
for the bake sale. Each tray had 3 vanilla cupcakes and 2 chocolate cupcakes. How many cupcakes did
Riley make for the bake sale? Sophie chose to draw a picture model. In the picture model she drew
three trays instead of four. Each tray had the correct amount of cupcakes displayed, but because she
forgot to draw the fourth tray her answer was incorrect. After I followed up with Sophie she showed
clear understanding of her mistake and how the word problem was supposed to work out.
Procedural Fluency was where only a few students showed weakness. Two students Mariam and
Chris who test lower on the mathematical benchmarks showed procedural fluency by not carrying out
the assessment efficiently and in a timely manner. The two students got distracted during the
assessment. I noticed Chris staring off into space and while I asked him if he needed any help he
returned back to work. The lesson had to end in time for their IRA lesson so these two students did not
complete their work. Chris had the problem written out but not solved, and Miriam had the answer but
no work to show how she got her answer.
Reasoning/ Problem Solving was another higher weakness that four out of the twenty one
students showed. Many of the problem solving weaknesses was a product of speeding through the
assessment and not taking enough time to read through the questions. Many of the students who did
this showed understanding of the problem but did not follow through. For example one student, Ryan,
misread the question and added all of the numbers together instead of subtracting the product of two
numbers from the total.
Below is a chart that represents the students miscalculations on the assessment based on conceptual
understanding, procedural fluency and reasoning or problem solving. Out of 21 students 9 students got
all of the problems correct showing the correct work. This chart is based off of the 12 students that
missed one or more problems. The percentage shows out of the entire class (x/21).
Mathematical Proficiency
Conceptual Understanding
Procedural Fluency
Reasoning/ Problem Solving

# of students who missed


6
2
4

% of class who missed


29%
9%
19%

II.
Bailey was the student that I chose to do the reengagement lesson with. I did notice that Bailey
was the first student who was finished and was very fidgety during the assessment portion. Bailey
struggled with conceptual understanding as well as reasoning and problem solving. For example Bailey
read through the problem showing an understanding of the correct numbers he needed to use, but he
carried out the problem solving incorrectly. The problem read Craigs goal was to read 25 books during
the school year. He reads 8 before winter break and 9 before spring break. How many will he need to
read after spring break in order to meet his goal? Bailey solved by using the standard algorithm. He
subtracted 25-8 and got 17. He then subtracted 9-17 and got 12. Bailey chose to solve this problem by
using subtraction. He would have gotten the problem correct if he double checked his math.
Bailey struggled with conceptual understanding with the first problem. When I was grading all of the
students work I was very confused with how Bailey came up with his answer. The first problem read,
Riley made 4 trays of cupcakes for the bake sale. Each tray had 3 vanilla cupcakes and 2 chocolate

cupcakes. How many cupcakes did Riley make for the bake sale? Bailey showed his work using the
standard algorithm. Bailey added 4+3 and got 7. He then added 7+2 and got 9 for his final answer. This
showed me that he misread the problem and did not understand what operation he needed to use. The
problem should have been solved by adding 3+2=5 and multiplying 5*4 to get the total number of
cupcakes.
For the re-engagement lesson I used the same objective and standard as the whole class lesson.
It was important that we review his mistakes and talk about different ways to solve the problems. When
working with Bailey during the reengagement lesson I was relieved to find that he knew how to solve
the problem and knew how to interoperate word problems, he just rushed through his work.
We used a discussion and a review strategy. During the re-engagement lesson we used a white
board and the old assessment that Bailey took. When working, he used a blank assessment from before.
Bailey and I would walk through the first problem having him first write down the important words and
numbers on his whiteboard, then decided what two steps the problems needed to take, and solving the
problem. After he solved the problem correctly, we looked at the way he solved the problem on the
assessment and compared answers. Each correct answer we compared with his test we also reviewed
how he got the incorrect answer the first time. To assess Baileys understanding of word problems for
the reassessment I gave him another worksheet with only two problems. I told Bailey he had all of the
time he needed to take the assessment. I asked Bailey to show his work and to underline the key words
in the word problem so that he could solve.
III
After analyzing and looking over Baileys work I saw that he understood the information correctly
and displayed his work correctly showing mastery of the objective. Bailey underlined key words and
showed his work in pictures as well as the standard algorithm. Bailey showed a change in mathematical
understanding by looking for the important terms in the word problem and also by understanding the
two different steps of a two-step word problem. For the two problems Bailey showed understanding of
the two steps by showing the standard algorithm in two steps. In his first assessment he tried to do the
two step word problem in one step. In the second he showed clear understanding of the two steps it
took to get to the correct answer. I was very pleased with how Bailey mastered the objective and took
his time during his work. I noticed that when I walked away he focused more on his assessment and
checked his answers. I do believe that seeing other students finish first creates pressure on other
students still taking the assessment.