DENNISON MASTERS PORTFOLIO 1

Math Statement

My experience with teaching math has shown me how much further I have to

go before I can consider myself a proficient math educator. This artifact is a case

study of a third grade student who was struggling with multiplication and division.

According to the Alaska Mathematics Standards for third grade (2012),

students should be working on solving problems in multiplication and division,

understanding the properties of multiplication and division, as well as the

relationship between the two, and representing problems of multiplication and

division. The concept of multiplication is introduced in second grade according to

the Alaska Mathematics Standards (2012) and the opportunity to teach the use of

manipulatives and other various tools for problem solving are among the standards

for second grade. The constructivist approach says that when we give students the

tools they need and guide them in exploring the underlying concepts, they will

understand and enjoy math. This was the approach used in the classroom I

observed. The research about the constructivist approach in math is highly

regarded, which is why the student I observed for my case study was confusing for

me. She was taught by a well-organized, highly skilled teacher, yet did not seem to

understand the concepts. The constructivist approach is highly effective for most

students but low performing students that require special attention in the area of

math benefit from clearly structured, direct instruction that moves from concrete to

representational to the abstract, known as the CRA sequence (Kroesbergen & Van

Luit, 2002). It’s important that we teach the concept of multiplication and division

because this knowledge will be built on as students learn fractions, ratios, and
DENNISON MASTERS PORTFOLIO 2

proportions. It is natural for students to slowly wean themselves from using models

and representations when they are developmentally ready to internalize the

mathematic concept. The deficits in understanding become clear usually around

fifth grade as most students use symbols in place of visual models (Milton, Flores,

Moore, Taylor, & Burton, 2019). The biggest red flag came when students were

asked to divide two by two. Almost all students knew that anytime you divide a

number by itself, the answer is one. The student I was working with used a strategy

she had memorized to use manipulatives to find the answer. When questioned

about the rationale behind her strategy, she could not answer. She had memorized

the steps and simply repeated them as needed.

General use, short-term Tier 2 programs are usually provided to schools by

the district and lay a foundation for how to approach teaching students with

mathematic deficits. Fuch, Fuch, and Malone (2018) found that by applying the

Taxonomy of Intervention Intensity’s seven principles in a way that is specific to

each student’s need, increased the effectiveness of the Tier 2 intervention programs.

While the program itself is generalized, the approach in which it is delivered is

personalized. Often educators will have students use manipulatives during problem

solving. This can be helpful if a student is on the cusp of knowing how to find the

solution and the manipulatives help them investigate their thinking. Unfortunately,

these tools are often more confusing than they are helpful. For a student that is

struggling with the concept they are working on, teaching them how to use these

tools to solve a problem could just become another system that needs to be

memorized in order to complete the task. Deeper understanding is not a guarantee. I

DENNISON MASTERS PORTFOLIO 3

believe this was the case with the student I observed. Educators would benefit from

being more thoughtful in how these valuable tools are presented to students and

assessing student concept knowledge using them (Puchner, Taylor, O’Donnell, &

Fick, 2008). Even though my host teacher had an excellent way of presenting new

tools, the additional information was too much for this student. Zhang, Xin, Ping,

Harris, and Ding (2014) also assert that educators can help guide students that

struggle in math with strategies that match their strengths. Given the research I

have found since observing my case study, it would have been more beneficial to

focus on the one or two strategies this student was most comfortable with, so she

could feel confident with her approach and spend less of her focus on memorizing

steps and more focus on the actual math problems she was working through. When

teachers attempt to match a strategy to a student, they provide an opportunity of

clarity that is less overwhelming than multiple options. In the same vein, group

discussions of strategies are often not helpful for students with mathematic deficits

because they cannot internalize the method discussed. Tasks must be carefully

designed and opportunities for reflection must be provided.

The opportunity to do a case study for a struggling student was eye opening

for me. Math is something I have never struggled with and I thought I would breeze

through teaching it because I enjoy it. It turns out, I think math is one of the harder

classes for me to teach because I don’t easily identify with why a person would

struggle with concepts that are simple to me. It was a good for me to focus on a

student and find ways to assess her abilities and consider strategies to help her

move forward successfully.

DENNISON MASTERS PORTFOLIO 4

References

Alaska Department of Education & Early Development. (2012). Alaska Mathematics

Standards Grade 3. Retrieved from

https://education.alaska.gov/akstandards/math/gradelevel/math_standard

s_grade_3.pdf

Alaska Department of Education & Early Development. (2012). Alaska Mathematics

Standards Grade 2. Retrieved from

https://education.alaska.gov/akstandards/math/gradelevel/math_standard

s_grade_2.pdf

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Malone, A. S. (2018). The taxonomy of intervention

intensity. Teaching Exceptional Children, 50(4), 194-202.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059918758166

Kroesbergen, E. H. & Van Luit, J. E. H. (2002). Teaching multiplication to low math

performers: Guided versus structured instruction. Instructional Science,

30(5). 361-378. Retrieved from

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eft&AN=50778355

1&login.asp&site=ehost-live

Milton, J. H., Flores, M. M., Moore, A. J., Taylor, J. J., & Burton, M. E. (2019). Using the

concrete-representational-abstract sequence to teach conceptual

understanding of basic multiplication and division. Learning Disability

Quarterly, 42(1), 32-45. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948718790089

Puchner, L., Taylor, A., O’Donnell, B., & Fick, K. (2008). Teacher learning and

mathematics manipulatives: A collective case study about teacher use of

DENNISON MASTERS PORTFOLIO 5

manipulatives in elementary and middle school mathematics lessons. School

Science & Mathematics 108(7), 313-325. DOI: 10.1111/j.1949-

8594.2008.tb17844.x

Zhang, D., Xin, Ping, Y., Harris, K., & Ding, Y. (2014). Improving multiplication

strategic development in children with math difficulties. Learning Disability

Quarterly, 37(1), 15-30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948713500146