ShayAne Hakala

EDUC 5145
11/19/14
Major Assignment:
Student Work Analysis
Subsequent to review, I find that the student work, with both its understandings and
misconceptions, to be grade level and developmentally appropriate for 3rd grade. In asking 3rd
graders to complete the Subtracting 3-Digit Numbers worksheet, they are given an opportunity
to construct their learning and practice the task of adding and subtracting within 1000. As these
five work samples are representative of their peers it is important to speculate on their
achievement levels. Of the five, 2 students performed the task with scores of 88% or more. One
student had an average score of 45%, and finally 2 students did not show understanding of the
task with scores of 31 percent. This data would suggest that out of a class devised of 25 students,
40% are achieving the learning goals, 20% are on their way to reaching the learning goals, and
40% are at risk of failing.
Connie is one of the students among the 40% who are achieving the learning goals. As
her work establishes, Connie is using the standard algorithm when solving for addition and
subtraction problems. She is appropriately using regrouping and place value knowledge in order
to subtract smaller numbers from the larger. She has a solid understanding of math facts and
number concepts. Her work shows that she understands the concept of and differences between
addition and subtraction. Connie also exhibits perseverance as she attempts all 42 problems.
Although Connie is an achieving student, she has some attention to precision issues by making
simple mistakes in her work. She also shows that she has little concept knowledge of estimations

as she does not use the estimation to check her work as instructed. Overall, Connie demonstrates
both conceptual and procedural knowledge for adding and subtracting 3-digit numbers, but needs
more instruction on estimations.
Steve is also among the 40% of students who are achieving the learning goals. His work
shows that he is either rushing for the answer and makes small procedural mistakes, or he is
confused by the strategy provided in the instructions. On the first page, Steve attempts to use the
standard algorithm and makes procedural mistakes. However, on the second page Steve uses a
front end estimation strategy to subtract 3-digit numbers. Although this work is not written on his
paper, Steve first rounds the 2 numbers to the nearest hundreds place and subtracts them. He then
rounds the original number to the nearest tens place and subtracts the tens leaving him with one
3-digit number, which he writes down. Steve then finds the difference between the 2 ones place
values and subtracts that difference from the one 3-digit number resulting in the correct answer.
However, Steve does eliminate steps when he has the opportunity; he sometimes finds the
difference between the two tens place values thus making his problem only 2 steps long rather
than 3. Steve has done his work as a combination of the directions in order to find the difference
and to estimate simultaneously. He shows great understanding of math facts, place value,
estimations, and the use of an alternative strategy. However, Steve could work on attention to
precision, legibility in his writing, and showing his work or thinking. Due to his high accuracy
and exceptional application of strategy, it is likely that Steve is an advanced learner in math. That
said it might be beneficial for Steve to learn and use the standard algorithm for subtraction as the
digits increase.
Genara, representative of the students who are near reaching the learning goals, is
attempting to use the standard algorithm on the first page of the worksheet. She demonstrates

knowledge of some subtraction facts, the concept of place value, and perseverance in attempting
all 42 problems. When used, she does use the regrouping strategy appropriately; however, her
math facts (9s in particular) provide an incorrect answer. Conversely, on page 2 Genara has
stopped showing her work for the regrouping strategy in most problems. She can subtract with
accuracy when the problem does not require regrouping, and she does demonstrate an
understanding of regrouping in addition; however, it is clear she lacks conceptual knowledge in
regrouping. Genara also does not use estimations to check her work. Her work shows that she
understands estimations, but had she used estimations she would have identified and possibly
self-corrected many of her mistakes.
Karen and Juan are students of concern. Based on their work, they have misconceptions
regarding subtraction with regrouping. Karen clearly demonstrates knowledge of regrouping
with addition, place value, and math facts. Karen does well conceptually with regrouping, but
she makes many mistakes in her procedure. She often shows the regrouping steps but then fails
to reduce the regrouped number thus resulting in a wrong answer. She did not estimate the
answer for self-correction although her work would suggest she understands the concept. Juan
has a good understanding of place value, is perseverant, and demonstrates knowledge in the
process of regrouping. Juans mistakes are based in his lack of knowledge for math facts and not
consistently showing his work in order to guide his answer. Juan also does not use the
estimations strategy; however, his answer would suggest that this concept is outside of his
current understanding.
In general the class understands place value, the concept of regrouping with addition, and
the concept of subtraction without regrouping. The class shows they are on their way to
understanding subtraction with regrouping and that a majority understand the concept of

regrouping although their procedure is not fluent. The majority of the class struggles with
estimations by either not using the strategy or by not answering the question specific to
estimations. Some students seem to need additional support in learning their math facts, or need
new strategies in order to support their learning style. This is known due to the 40% of students
who make computation errors despite their correct regrouping procedure. Some students need a
math vocabulary review for the word sum as they nearly all missed the question containing the
word but did not make mistakes in the addition problems.
On the following day of instruction, I would recommend that the students review passed
vocabulary such as sum prior to a mini vocabulary quiz. I would have the students go over the
vocabulary with their small groups in study groups. Then they would individually take the quiz. I
would then use the quiz in order to assess whether the students were unsure of the vocabulary or
if they were confused by the questions wording. After the quiz I would do a mental math game
particularly focusing on subtraction and 9s math facts. One such way is to play Quizmo for
subtraction. This is a game where students are presented with math sentences, such as 9-5=?,
until they make a bingo out of the correct answer on a bingo board. In doing so, students get
practice with the math facts necessary for them to be successful in subtraction. Next, I would
have students present their worksheet strategies on the white board in order to open a discussion
about regrouping with subtraction. I would first select students who would be a good model for
the group such as Connie or Steve. I would ask all students to use their white boards to copy the
strategy, along with the example given, as to encourage engagement and understanding for the
procedure. I would then ask the students to explain why they agree, need more information, or
disagree with the strategies shown/written. I would then have students with misconceptions
volunteer to show their strategies to prompt self-correction. I would again repeat having students

explain their thinking. In doing so, I would hope student would catch their own mistakes and
misconceptions by viewing an example of correct procedures and strategies. I would then ask
students to work together in their table groups to identify, explain, and correct their work. I
would focus a lesson on estimations after all students showed understanding for regrouping as I
think the combination of the two confuses them.
At this time I would select students who struggled most to join me for a targeted lesson.
In giving them targeted instruction they will be able to view material for an additional time,
practice the task with more support, and clarify any misconceptions they might have had. With
this group I would use base 10 manipulatives in order to demonstrate why regrouping is essential
when subtracting. I would model who to solve one problem while they watched, then have them
follow along as we solve another, and then have them solve one together as a table group as I
watch. I would not have students correct their worksheet, but rather I would have them practice
with the manipulatives on new problems to encourage positive self-image. If students seemed to
understand this concept quickly I would model how to solve a problem and then convert it into a
number sentence. I would ask that they do the same with problems they have already solved,
then with new problems. In doing so their instruction is chucked into smaller, more obtainable
pieces while they have ample practice with the concepts of regrouping in subtraction.