Planning & Assessment Commentary

Jennifer Radja EPS 513 Fall 2012 National-Louis University

Radja Planning & Assessment Commentary

Planning Commentary
1. Content Focus and Standards Summarize the central focus for the content you will teach in this learning segment. Describe the standards that relate to this content The central focus for this 6th grade math lesson is the Commutative and Associative Properties of Addition. At our school, Tarkington School of Excellence, we are using a math curriculum called Algebraic Thinking for the rst time this year. This concept is part of the curriculums pacing guide and lists the following standards from the Illinois Learning Standards: 6.B.3a Solve practical computation problems involving whole numbers, integers and rational numbers. 8.C.3 Apply the properties of numbers and operations including inverses in algebraic settings derived from economics, business and the sciences. In the new Common Core standards, Commutative and Associative Properties are taught in 3rd grade instead of 6th grade, and they are found in the Operations and Algebraic Thinking section: 3.OA. Understand properties of multiplication and the relationship between multiplication and division. 5. Apply properties of operations as strategies to multiply and divide. Examples: If 6 4 = 24 is known, then 4 6 = 24 is also known. (Commutative property of multiplication.) 3 5 2 can be found by 3 5 = 15, then 15 2 = 30, or by 5 2 = 10, then 3 10 = 30. (Associative property of multiplication.) Knowing that 8 5 = 40 and 8 2 = 16, one can nd 8 7 as 8 (5 + 2) = (8 5) + (8 2) = 40 + 16 = 56. (Distributive property.) In general, the standards require students to know these properties so that they may apply them when they begin algebra concepts later this year. We didnt want to spend too long on them because they are not really being applied to any other lessons or skills in the near future. In teaching these two properties, we want students to understand that numbers can change position or be grouped differently when multiplied or added and this doesnt affect the product or sum.

Radja Planning & Assessment Commentary

As stated in the Danielson framework, it is important to prepare for common student misconceptions. For these concepts, we anticipated that students would see parenthesis and automatically think the Associative Property was being shown. Because we planned to teach the Distributive Property the next day and that also uses parenthesis, we wanted to make sure that we were explicit about parenthesis not being the only indicator of the property. 2. Knowledge of Students to Inform Teaching For each of the categories listed below (a-d), describe what you know about your students prior learning and experiences with respect to the central focus of the learning segment. What do they know, what can they do and what are they are learning to do? Be very specic about how you have gained knowledge about your students. What sources of data have informed you? What teaching experiences have informed you? a) Academic development (e.g., prior knowledge, prerequisite skills, ways of thinking in the subject areas, developmental levels, special educational needs) b) Academic Language development (e.g., students abilities to understand and produce the oral or written language associated with the central focus and standards/objectives within the learning segment) c) Family/community/cultural assets (e.g., relevant lived experiences, cultural expectations, and student interests) d) Social and emotional development (e.g., ability to interact and express themselves in constructive ways, ability to engage in collaborative learning, nature of contributions to a positive literacy learning environment). e) Learning strategies: what instructional and learning strategies have been effective for your students? How do you know? Tarkington has a large student population - about 1200 students - which means I see 130 6th graders each day. It has been difficult to get to know them on an individual level, especially since Im sharing teaching responsibilities with my mentor and co-resident. At this point in the year, my mentor teacher had not done any kind of pre-tests or similar assessments to gauge our students current math abilities. We used their MAP scores from Spring of the previous year and he wanted to wait for the fall MAP scores this year before giving any of his own assessments. In regards to academic development, I did gain some knowledge about my students math skills. Our curriculum includes a multiplication choral drill every day and a weekly timed multiplication quiz to assess students progress in memorizing the facts. Through this, weve been able to see that some students have complete mastery of the facts through 10 while others only know
3

Radja Planning & Assessment Commentary

the facts for 0, 1, and 2. So thinking about the multiplication properties, I knew that some students would be able to do the required multiplication mentally, while others would need to use their multiplication tables or calculators for support. This is also required as part of several students IEPs, so calculators are available at each table. For academic language needed in the lesson, there were some specic terms we would be using. We had discussed the term product as the answer to a multiplication computation in previous lessons and it was included in our Operation Words anchor chart, but I knew it would have to be reviewed for some of our students. In terms of social development and instructional strategies, I observed that students did well in previous Think Pair Shares. I would circulate and listen in on student conversations and was surprised that most students took to it so well. For the most part, they all turn and talk and stay on topic. I have found that cold calling students to share out to whole class holds them accountable for their partner discussions. If given too much time to talk to an elbow partner, their conversations would stray and I would lose their attention, so I had to keep it timed to 10 or 15 seconds. Tarkington also has a large ELL population. My mentor has stressed that its much more helpful for them if we write things down and leave them up for longer than we might think we need to. In making anchor charts, minimal text allows them greater access to the content. We had a little bit of professional development at the beginning of the year around the ELL program in which we learned that ELL students benet from being able to talk our their ideas and ask peers for help articulating ideas.

3. Supporting Student Learning

Respond to prompts a-e below to explain how your plans support your students learning related to the central focus of the learning segment. As needed, refer to the instructional materials you have included to support your explanations. Cite research and theory to support your explanations. a) Explain how your understanding of your students prior learning, experiences and development guided your choice or adaptation of learning tasks and materials, to develop students' abilities to successfully meet lesson segment outcomes. b) How are the plans for instruction sequenced in the learning segment to build connections between students prior learning and experiences and new content skills and strategies?

Radja Planning & Assessment Commentary

c) Explain how, throughout the learning segment, you will help students make connections between skills and strategies in ways that support their abilities to deepen their content learning. d) Describe common developmental approximations and misunderstandings within your content focus and how you will address them. e) Describe any instructional strategies planned to support students with specic learning needs. This will vary based on what you know about your students, but may include students with IEPs, English learners, or gifted students needing greater support or challenge. Because students multiplication skills varied so much, I allowed the use of multiplication tables and calculators at each table. This also told me that I would need to use low number multiplication facts for my examples in direct instruction and explicitly show how each number sentence is equal. Students already know that 2 x 3 is the same as 3 x 2, but this lesson is incorporating the language to describe that phenomenon and contrast it to grouping numbers as well. I used the Think Pair Share strategy to foster engagement for all students and provide ELL students the opportunity to talk out their ideas. I also used the I Do, We Do, You Do format for the lesson as it is provides some direct instruction, some guided support, and then plenty of at-bats during the independent practice. The worksheet provided for the I Do has students identify the property and create number sentences to represent both properties. Doug Lemov has cited the many benets of these strategies in Teach Like A Champion. When these properties are taught, a common misconception is that the Associative Property can be distinguished from the Commutative Property solely based on the use of parenthesis. While that is true for this lesson, the lesson the next day is on the Distributive Property which also uses parenthesis. We wanted to explicitly use the term grouping instead of parenthesis to enforce the concept and not the visual difference. 4. Supporting Student Understanding and Use of Academic Language Respond to the prompts below to explain how your plans support your students academic language development. a) Identify the key academic language demand and explain why it is integral to the central focus for the segment and appropriate to students academic language development. Consider language functions and language forms, essential vocabulary, and/or phrases for the concepts and skills being taught,
5

Radja Planning & Assessment Commentary

and instructional language necessary for students to understand or produce oral and/or written language within learning tasks and activities. b) Explain how planned instructional supports will assist students to understand academic language related to the key language demand to express and develop their content learning. Describe how planned supports vary for students at different levels of academic language development. The key academic language demand is in using the math vocabulary in the lesson: property, commutative, associative, sum, and product. The previous days lesson is on the same properties for addition in which we discussed the terms property, commutative, and associative. The lesson begins by introducing the names of properties and asking students if they recognize the root words and can dene them. This leads to a discussion of the root commute in commutative where we talk about commuting to school. Then we discuss the root associate in associative to connect associating with others in a groups. Anchor charts play a large role here. We already had one made for operation words - all of the key words to look for that tell us to add, subtract, multiply or divide. Then we made an anchor chart for each property with examples for each one. We made sure to limit the amount of text on the charts for our ELL students and used familiar language rather than formal math terms.

5. Monitoring Student Learning a) Explain how the informal and formal assessments you select and/or designed will provide evidence you will use to monitor student progress toward the standards/objectives. Consider how the assessments will provide evidence of students use of content specic skills and strategies to promote rigorous learning. b) Describe any modications or accommodations to the planned assessment tools or procedures that allow students with specic needs to demonstrate their learning. Our main means of assessment is the work students complete during the I Do. We are able to see if their answers are correct or not and we can conference with students to check for understanding. This is the most important part of the lesson to me because I can see exactly where students have gone wrong and provide feedback to steer them back on track. We are able to gain some understanding from the sharing portion of the Think Pair Share, but arent able to reach everyone in the time allotted. The homework for
6

Radja Planning & Assessment Commentary

this lesson was in the same format as the in-class work and just utilized parallel problems to reinforce the concept. We wanted students to be able to distinguish between the properties and also be able to apply them. The distinguishing piece is a low-level skill, but being able to apply the properties by solving problems through representations brings in the rigor and higher-level thinking skills. The assessments did not include any language, so modications were not needed for ELL students. Our Inclusion Special Education teacher made her own modications to the assessment which was mainly a reduction in the number of questions students answered.

____________________________________________________________________

Radja Planning & Assessment Commentary

Assessing Student Learning

The following assessment analysis uses data from a lesson on equivalent fractions I taught during my lead teach. It is not connected to the lesson previously discussed in the planning commentary.

A. Analyzing Student Learning: 1. Summarize student performance in narrative and/or graphic form (e.g., table or chart). 2. Discuss what students appear to understand well and where they continue to struggle, including any misunderstandings, developmental approximations, confusions, or needs (including a need for greater challenge). 3. Consider common patterns across the class as well as groups of students with similar strengths or needs. Cite evidence to support your analysis from the 3 student work samples you selected. 4. Refer to your learning progression analysis you created from your student work samples. Describe individual learning strengths and weaknesses of your high performing and your low performing student. 5. If applicable, describe evidence from the student work samples that demonstrate the extent to which students are able to understand and/or use the language associated with the identied language demand (vocabulary, function/form, and instructional language) in ways that develop literacy skills and strategies. class 312 306 304 314 24/24 18/24 22/30 23/30 correct/total 100 75 73.3 76.7 % correct

Radja Planning & Assessment Commentary

After teaching an introductory lesson on equivalent fractions, my exit slip for the day asked students to nd a fraction equivalent to 2/3 and I asked students to show any work they did. Almost all students wrote the fraction 2/3 and set it equal to another fraction, so they understood that equivalent fractions should be equal to one another. Some students just drew bar models to show the equivalency. There were a few students that simply wrote a fraction and some of them were correct, telling me that students could do the required multiplication mentally. Many of the others that just wrote a fraction were incorrect, leading me to assume they just didnt get the concept. Overall, most students understand the procedure of multiplying the numerator and denominator of a fraction by the same number to nd equivalent fractions. The students who showed the multiplication of the numerator and denominator almost always got the answer correct. If no multiplication was shown, their answer was usually wrong. This showed me how critical that step is for students to understand. As shown in the exit slip on the left, there were a handful of students that showed bar models and the procedural multiplication, so I know they have a conceptual understanding and procedural knowledge. Looking at the exit slip in the middle, you can see this student has the procedural knowledge needed to nd equivalent fractions, but he doesnt yet have the conceptual knowledge because his bar models are not congruent. Looking at the exit slip on the right, I can see that the student understands that the numerator and denominator should be increasing. By showing this pattern of fractions where the numerator and denominator simply increase by one, I can tell that he doesnt understand the proportionality of the numerator and denominator increasing by the same amount. There were a handful of other students that made this same mistake. B. Feedback to Guide Further Learning: Submit evidence of your feedback to the 2 focus students (e.g., written directly on work samples, in audio les, a time stamp reference for video clip(s) in the Instruction task)? If submitted via video, provide the time stamp here. 1. How did the feedback you provided to each of the 2 focus students address the individual students needs and learning objectives? Reference specic evidence of submitted feedback to support your explanation. 2. What opportunities were or will be provided for students to apply the feedback to improve their work, either within the learning segment or at a later time?

Radja Planning & Assessment Commentary

3. (Optional) Using evidence, how well did your language supports or

scaffolding promote academic language for students with varied language levels? For every student that got the exit slip wrong, I pulled them into a small group the next day. I showed them equivalent bar models for 2/3 and 4/6 to show the conceptual equivalency and I also showed them how 2 and 3 can be multiplied to get 4 and 6. I had the exit slips in front of me, so I made sure to refer to each students work on their exit slips when I got to that part of my reteaching. For example, when I began to draw the bar models, I asked the student that drew them incorrectly to explain how his bar models were different from mine so that he could see they needed to be equal. When I moved on to the procedural multiplication step, I asked a student who got that wrong to explain how and why I multiplied in my example. Once I nished the small group reteach, I had every student try a parallel problem right there in front of me so I could see that they were integrating my feedback into their work. When students got it correct, I sent them back to their desk to continue working. If the got it wrong, I provided more targeted feedback and had them try one more problem. C. Using Assessment to Inform Instruction For the prompts below, consider what you know about your students and the effectiveness of your instruction when designing next steps. Be sure to connect your next steps to your analysis of the student performances. 1. Based on your analysis of student performance in the assessment, describe next steps for instruction for the whole class. 2. Describe any individualized next steps for the 2 focus students. 3. Explain how these next steps follow from your analysis of the student performances. Because I was able to reach all of the students that got the exit ticket wrong in small groups the next day, I did not have to change my instruction for the whole class the next day. I did consider where my teaching could be improved if I were to teach this lesson again. I would probably spend more time teaching how to use bar models for conceptual understanding. Then I would progress to the abstract procedure, connecting it to the bar models. I did keep a list of the students I worked with individually and made sure to check in with them the next day as they worked independently on simplifying fractions. They were still continuing with the concept of equivalent fractions, except that they were dividing instead of multiplying and moving away from using models. I checked to see that they were dividing the numerator and
10

Radja Planning & Assessment Commentary

denominator by the same number accurately. If they continued to struggle, I would have them go back and work with concrete manipulatives to strengthen their understanding of fractions themselves. Without that strong foundation, any computations or comparisons of fractions would be difficult. The struggle in providing individualized next steps is nding the time to sit down with those students and reteach when they still need to keep up with the whole class instruction.

11