12 vues

Transféré par api-271054773

- 10121-problemsolving6
- Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-Einheitsaufnahme Schwank, Inge:
- Dynamics
- FREEMathProblemSolvingAssessmentPack(1)
- math rubric 1
- velasco roma grace manr4-c 10326641uscole-ec7
- Modern Methods and Material Science
- WhyCRA_
- Sample Resumes - Chronological and Functional
- last booklet dragged 2
- ACABC Entrepreneur
- The Inquiry Teaching Model
- bmumbyobservation4
- lessonoverviewtwoweekpracticumdec
- Other Common Methods
- video analysis
- School Violence Action Guide
- 7 sound i
- cstp 1 yegiazaryan 5
- problembased

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 5

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

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

6

2

4

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.

- 10121-problemsolving6Transféré parNav Mehrgan
- Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-Einheitsaufnahme Schwank, Inge:Transféré parVikas Saini
- DynamicsTransféré parAmeya Virkud
- FREEMathProblemSolvingAssessmentPack(1)Transféré parVijaya Sri
- math rubric 1Transféré parapi-376376215
- velasco roma grace manr4-c 10326641uscole-ec7Transféré parapi-221542409
- Modern Methods and Material ScienceTransféré parBint-e-Qaiser
- WhyCRA_Transféré parLah Tahzan
- Sample Resumes - Chronological and FunctionalTransféré parPPLNews
- last booklet dragged 2Transféré parapi-401626338
- ACABC EntrepreneurTransféré parPrakash Kc
- The Inquiry Teaching ModelTransféré parmiqbal11uppal
- bmumbyobservation4Transféré parapi-240273723
- lessonoverviewtwoweekpracticumdecTransféré parapi-272373060
- Other Common MethodsTransféré parjulo_05
- video analysisTransféré parapi-270016434
- School Violence Action GuideTransféré parWhitney Carter
- 7 sound iTransféré parapi-302276550
- cstp 1 yegiazaryan 5Transféré parapi-378391496
- problembasedTransféré parapi-227661327
- word problem lessonTransféré parapi-301858309
- Engineering IdeaTransféré parYekie Wookie
- Employee CounsellingTransféré parjabin issac
- digital media artifact lesson planTransféré parapi-273922747
- ued495-496 corbitt anne weekly evaluation wk 6 p1Transféré parapi-398529616
- lessonplan3mucociliaryclearanceTransféré parapi-224611110
- appendix 3Transféré parapi-284385297
- g1l18 home linkTransféré parapi-429400906
- Causes of ConflictsTransféré pargirija21
- wardani.pdfTransféré paremi

- TestingTransféré parNisha Kashyap Chandel
- Algo-Lab-1Transféré parDipanjan Bhattacharya
- Miguel Sidrauski, Joseph Stiglitz, Karl Shell - Capital Gains, Income and Savings.pdfTransféré parGonzalo A. del Fierro
- Flink Batch BasicsTransféré parOzioma Ihekwoaba
- AMSOIL MTF - Synthetic Manual Synchromesh Transmission FluidTransféré paramsoildealer
- FSM-Good Concept by Selva KumarTransféré parUjjwal Kant
- Formwork.pdfTransféré parKandarp Rajyaguru
- Quant Finance InterviewsTransféré parAzwin Lam
- Ch4 2 Watertreatment SettlingTransféré parSUBHAM Kumar
- Old Church SlavonicTransféré parfunmaster
- Master Memory MapTransféré pargamerhobbista
- 360Bind for SAP BusinessObjects Automated Regression TestingTransféré pargoiffon sebastien
- Lecture 03Transféré parsjeyarajah21
- Acer_Extensa_5235_5635_5635Z_Quanta_ZR6_sch_[ET]Transféré parszviki
- 3. RTU_SASTransféré parNitin Kumar
- Question-Bank PPC MK 16marksTransféré parKannan Muthusamy
- test2-solTransféré parburmansoft
- NagVis 1.7 Documentation_6Transféré parmalickdiatta
- Rates HomeworkTransféré parperwinsharma
- Miller 7th Ed ReviewerTransféré parcloud
- Mcp 9600Transféré parantonioclj
- Theory of Brown Dwarfs & Giant PlanetsTransféré parrambo_style19
- AHP TutorialTransféré parAbhishek Kumar
- Bth Mhefinal6!15!000Transféré parcaterineflorez
- Full TextTransféré parfarhadgolisurveyor
- An Atlas of Thermal Data for Biomass and Other FuelsTransféré parAamirMalik
- Torque Comparisons on 3d ModelsTransféré paranon_768201406
- Air to Air Heat ExchangerTransféré parAnonymous lswzqlo
- CC6052 Lecture Wk04 Decisions 2012Transféré parguineapi9
- Formula 2 PfTransféré parAnwar Hossain