Modified Task 4 Assignment

Spring 2017 MAED 3224

Section A: Context for Learning

1. Grade level: 3rd Grade

2. How much time is devoted each day to mathematics instruction in your

classroom?

About 1 hour and 30 minutes is devoted each day to mathematics instruction in my

classroom.

3. Identify any textbook or instructional program the teacher uses for mathematics
instruction. If a textbook, please provide the title, publisher, and date of publication.

The teacher does not use a textbook for math instruction but she does use two
different programs that help her individualize math instruction during their
independent math time. These two programs are called Tenmarks and Compass
Learning.

4. From your observations, list other resources (e.g., electronic whiteboard,

manipulatives, online resources) the teacher uses for mathematics instruction in
this class. Also, give a specific example including the concept is taught and the
resource(s) the students used.

Some other resources that my teacher uses for math instruction are a SmartBoard,
fraction bar tiles, chromebooks, individual whiteboards, and clocks. The students
used fraction bar tiles when I taught my whole group lesson on comparing fractions
with different numerators and denominators. Students had to compare fractions
with unlike numerators and denominators with partners using these fraction bar
tiles.

5. From your observations, explain how your teacher makes sure the students
learn the standard/objectives conceptually giving a specific example.

The teacher makes sure the students learn the standard/objectives conceptually by
showing the students how to write equations and draw pictures to go along with
their problems they are working on. She makes sure that the students know how to
show their work and underline the important parts in word problems. The teacher
assess the students learning by asking the students questions as they work and by
having the students come up to the Smartboard to write out their equations and
how they solved the problems.

6. What did you learn most about teaching mathematics from observing this
teacher?

I learned from this teacher that you have to know how to accommodate and modify
quickly when teaching math lessons. You have to know multiple different strategies
to show students in order for them to understand how to do a type of problem. I
also learned that you have to expect the unexpected when it comes to teaching in
general.

Section B: Whole Class Lesson

Meet with your IMB teacher and decide what you will teach. Make sure your teacher
understands that your lesson must have a conceptual understanding instruction and
a procedural fluency and/or mathematical reasoning component. You teach just one
lesson.

1. Describe the Central Focus of your lesson (a description of the important

understandings and core concepts that students will develop with this lesson. This
should address conceptual understandings, AND procedural fluency and/or
mathematical reasoning/problem solving skills)

The central focus of my lesson was comparing fractions with unlike denominators.
Throughout my lesson, students will learn how to compare fractions using fraction
tiles to look at unlike denominators. They will use the fraction tiles to help them look
at the different sizes of the fractions with unlike denominators.

2. State the CCSSM Standard and the objective for your whole class lesson.

4.NF.A.2 Compare two fractions with different numerators and different

denominators, e.g., by creating common denominators or numerators, or by
comparing to a benchmark fraction such as . Recognize that comparisons are
valid only when the two fractions refer to the same whole. Record the results of
comparisons with symbols, >, =, or <, and justify the conclusions, e.g., by using a
visual fraction model.

3. Instructional Strategies and Learning Tasks: (summarize the lesson plan

components by briefly describing the instruction and the learning tasks you used.
Include the tasks students will solve during the lesson.)

Throughout the lesson, students worked as a whole class, in partners, and

individually. During the engage part of the lesson, students reviewed the symbols
that we use to compare fractions as a whole class. The explore part of the lesson
focused on having the students work in partners to practice comparing fractions
with unlike denominators and numerators using fraction bars. The students
reconvened as a whole class during the explain part of the lesson while I
demonstrated how to compare fractions with unlike denominators and numerators
using fraction bars just like students did in the explore part of the lesson. For the
evaluate section of the lesson, students worked independently on a worksheet exit
ticket that was picked up for a grade after the lesson.

4. Create a formative assessment that assesses conceptual knowledge AND

procedural fluency or mathematical reasoning. Insert a copy of the assessment with
your solutions here.
 1. First Picture: 5 pieces should be shaded.

Second Picture: 3 pieces should be shaded.

Symbol: <

Sentence: Something along the lines of, is closer to the whole than .

2. First Picture: 1 piece should be shaded.

Second Picture: 4 pieces should be shaded.

Symbol: <

Sentence: Something along the lines of, 4/6 is closer to the whole than .

5. Define your evaluation criteria for mastery of the assessment in a rubric. Make
sure you define separately conceptual AND procedural fluency or mathematical
reasoning parts of this rubric, including the corresponding points. Insert this rubric
here.

In order for students to receive mastery of this lesson, students must earn at least
16 points out of 20 points (80%). Students can earn up to 6 points for procedural
fluency, 8 points for conceptual understanding, and 6 for mathematical reasoning.
The symbols that the students have to draw show procedural fluency, the shapes
that the students have to shade in show conceptual understanding, and the
explaining sentence that students have to write shows mathematical reasoning.

Section C: Results of Whole Class Assessment

1. Create a graphic showing class performance of conceptual, procedural and/or
reasoning of the objective. This can be pie charts, tables, bar graph etc. but must
show performance in each of the above areas separately, according to each
students performance in the formative assessment.

Procedural Conceptual Mathematic

Student Fluency Understandi al Total Special
(Symbols) ng (Pictures) Reasoning Circumstanc
(Sentence) e

A 6 8 0 14/20 ADHD/EC

B 6 8 6 20/20

C 6 6 2 14/20 EC

D 6 8 0 14/20

E 0 4 0 4/20

F 6 8 6 20/20

G 6 8 6 20/20

H 6 8 0 14/20

I 6 8 6 20/20

J 3 8 0 11/20

K 3 6 1 10/20

L 6 6 6 18/20

M 3 8 0 11/20

N 6 8 0 14/20

O 6 8 6 20/20

P 6 6 0 12/20 ESL

Q 0 8 0 8/20
 R 6 8 0 14/20

Mastery (16-20 points)

Needs some review (12-15 points)
Did not understand (0-11 points)

2. Describe common error patterns in each of the areas of patterns of learning -

conceptual understanding, procedural fluency, and reasoning. Refer to the graphic
to support your discussion.

Overall, a majority of the students in the class showed procedural fluency

when answering the two exit ticket problems. 72% of the students in the class, or 13
out of 18 students, showed that they have procedural fluency when it comes to
comparing fractions with unlike denominators and numerators. These students were
able to correctly compare the two fractions given to them by using the picture they
created and the fraction bars they were using during the lesson to choose the
correct symbol that accurately shows the relationship between the two fractions.
Although 72% of the class received all of the possible points that showed they have
procedural fluency, 16% of the students in the class, or 3 out of 18 students,
received half of the possible points, 3 out of 6 points. All three of these students,
students M, K, and J, that were given half of the possible points answered the part of
the first problem that tested procedural fluency correctly but did not answer the
part of the second problem that tested procedural fluency correctly. Two of these
students, students K and J, said that the last two fractions given were equal to one
another. The class had just learned about equivalent fractions and students K and J
remembered that 3rds are in the same family as 6ths so they thought that since
the two denominators used were and 4/6 that these fractions must be equal.
Student K even drew her picture as equal while student J drew the correct picture
but still wrote down the incorrect symbol. Student M said that > 4/6. This student
drew the correct picture to correspond with the fractions given but she thought
about how she knows that 3rds are bigger than 6ths, therefore, must be greater
than 4/6. She did not look at the numerator, only the denominator just like students
J and K. Only 11% of the students in the class, 2 out of 18 students, did not receive
any points showing that they had procedural fluency, students Q and E. Student E
drew the correct picture for the first problem but said that > . This student had
written the correct symbol to begin with but then changed his answer. The student
thought that there were 5 pieces was bigger than 3 pieces but did not reference his
picture and did not think that the pieces made up different wholes. For the second
problem, student E did not draw a picture and said that > 4/6. This student just
simply guessed for the second problem. Student Q also drew the correct pictures for
the first problem but said that > . This student thought about how many pieces
were left and compared those rather than comparing the fractions given, such as
vs. . For the second question, student Q drew the correct picture once again but
said that is equal to 4/6. The student thought about equivalent fractions and
knew that 3rds and 6ths are in the same family so he did not look at the
numerator only the denominator and said that the fractions were equal.
A majority of the class showed that they have a conceptual understanding of
these problems. 72% of the class, 13 out of 18 students, showed conceptual
understanding by receiving all of the possible points on the parts of the problems
that tested conceptual understanding. 22% of the students in the class, 4 out of 18,
showed that they almost have conceptual understanding of the problem while only
5%, or 1 out of 18, of the students in the class show that they do not have a
conceptual understanding of the problems. The students conceptual understanding
was tested by having the students shade in an accurate picture of each of the
fractions given. Most of the students were able to accurately shade in all 4 pictures
correctly while some of the students either shaded in the incorrect amount in some
of the pictures or they did not shade in any of the pictures at all. The students who
shaded in the incorrect amount of the picture(s), students C and K, shaded 3 out of
the 4 pictures correctly. Student C shaded in 3 squares for 4/6 instead of 4 squares
for the second problem on the exit ticket. This student just made a simple mistake
by mis-shading because she received all of the rest of the possible points for the
second problem. Student K shaded only 2 squares for 4/6 instead of 4 squares for
the second problem. This student also said that and 4/6 were equal so since she
thought about her equivalent fraction families the student put in her head that
these two fractions were equivalent before she even shaded in the picture. She
made the picture match what she was thinking in her head rather than shading in
how many pieces of the picture the fraction was actually telling her to shade in.
Students L and P did not receive all of the possible points for the parts of the
problems that tested students conceptual understanding because they simply did
not shade in one of the pictures in the problems. Both of these students neglected
to shade in the picture for in the first problem on the exit ticket. Students L and P
did still choose the correct symbol to accurately represent the relationship between
fractions and . Student E only received half of the possible points for the parts
of the problems that tested conceptual understanding because he simply neglected
to shade in both of the pictures for the second question. He did, however, receive
full possible points for the pictures in the first problem on the exit ticket.
Most of the students in this class struggled with showing mathematical
reasoning on their exit tickets. Only 33%, or 6 out of 18, of the students in the class
were able to create a sentence explaining why they chose their answer by showing
mathematical reasoning. These students received full points, 6 out of 6 points, for
their sentences showing that they have mathematical reasoning. All of these
students also received full points for most of the other parts of the problems on the
exit ticket. These students reasoned that the fraction they chose that was bigger
was closer to the whole than the comparing fraction. The other 66%, or 12 out of
18, of the students in the class did not show mathematical reasoning. These
students were not able to write a sentence explaining why they chose the answer
that they did. Most of these students wrote a sentence like, 4/6 is bigger than .
The students just simply stated what symbol they put between the two fractions.
The students in this class were not used to having to write a sentence explaining
their answer. Students know that the reason one of the fractions is bigger because it
is closer to the whole but they have a hard time putting that into words.

3. Scan and insert here the copies of 2 students first work samples as follows.
Choose the most representative examples from the whole class assessment (no
student names). Then, analyze each students misconceptions.
Student 1 Mathematics Work Sample (student struggles with conceptual
understanding)

Student E struggles with conceptual understanding in this exit ticket. In order

for this student to show conceptual understanding on this exit ticket, he needed to
correctly shade in all of the pictures for problems 1 and 2. Student E correctly
shaded the two pictures that corresponded with the two fractions given in the first
problem but he did not even attempt to shade in the pictures for the second
problem. This student simply did not try to shade in the correct amount of the
pictures for the fractions and 4/6 in the second question.

Student 2 Mathematics Work Sample (student struggles with procedural

fluency or reasoning)
 Student Q struggles with mathematical reasoning. The student did not
receive any points for mathematical reasoning because he was not accurately able
to explain why he chose his answers for questions 1 and 2. Rather than the student
explaining that one fraction is bigger than the other fraction it is being compared to
because that fraction is closer to the whole, the student talked about the fraction of
the pictures in each problem that were not shaded in. Student Q compared to
in question 1 rather than and . For the second problem, the student talked
about how the two fractions given, and 4/6, are equal. The student, once again,
compared the two fractions that were leftover, and 2/6. This student does not
understand that he was only supposed to be comparing the shaded parts of the
picture and the given fractions rather than the fractions that complete the wholes
and the unshaded parts of the pictures.

Section D: Plan for Re-Engagement

Assessment results are irrelevant if you do not act on them. Thus, you are to create
a plan to use the results you described in Part C. You do not have to actually re-
engage the students but you must show that you understand what to do with these
results. Thus, based on the assessment results you described above, group each of
your students into one of these groups: 1) re-engage for conceptual, 2) re-engage
for procedural or 3) re-engage for reasoning 4) mastery/move on.
1. Describe the number of students you will have in each of these groups. (Note: if
a child performed poorly in multiple parts of the assessment, that child will start in
the conceptual group)

Since most of the students in this class showed that they have conceptual
understanding, I will only have the students who struggled with the majority of the
exit ticket, the students who completely did not understand how to do the parts of
the problem that tested conceptual understanding, and the students who partially
got points for the conceptual understanding parts of the problem. I will have 4
students in this group, students E, C, K, and Q.
Over half of the class showed procedural fluency and only a few students
struggled. The students that will be put into this group will be the students who
missed either one or both parts of the problems that tested procedural fluency.
There will only be two students in this group, students J and M. Students E, K, and Q
also struggled showing procedural fluency but they missed multiple other parts of
the exit ticket and have been placed into the conceptual understanding group.
Most of the class did not understand the mathematical understanding parts of
the exit ticket, therefore, a chunk of the class will be placed into this group. The
students that will be placed into this group will have gotten most of the problems in
the exit ticket correct but were not able to explain their answer in a sentence. There
will be 6 students in this group, students A, D, H, N, P, and R.
The rest of the remaining students showed mastery and will be placed into a
group that has shown that they are ready to move on. There will be 6 students in
this group, students B, F, G, I, L, and O.

Do two of the following (B required and then do C or D)

2. Plan to Re-engage for conceptual understanding.

a. Describe your reengagement lesson for this group (objective from
CCSSM, learning tasks, strategies, materials, assessment).
The objective for this re-engagement lesson would be 3.NF.A.3.d. I
would have these students do an activity where they go back and work on
fractions with common denominators. For this small group lesson, we would
need to have fraction bars, white boards, dry erase markers, and erasers.
Since I had them use fraction bars in the main lesson, I would provide them
with fraction bars to use to help them compare fractions with common
denominators as well. I would also have these students practice shading
shapes to represent the fractions that are provided to them and use the
pictures to help them compare the common fractions, as well using the
whiteboards. I would first go over the different symbols we use to compare
fractions or numbers, just like we did in the beginning of the whole group
lesson. I would then demonstrate how to compare a set of fractions with
unlike denominators using the fraction bars, like the fractions 4/6 and . I
would explain to the students that to figure out what fraction bar we need to
use we have to look at our denominator. After I demonstrate how to use the
fraction bars to compare the fractions 4/6 and , I would show the students
how to use a picture of shapes to compare these fractions. I would shade in
one of the shapes to match 4/6 and the other shape to match . I would then
talk myself through how to compare the two pictures; one shape has more
shaded than the other shape. Once I have demonstrated how to compare
fractions using the fraction bars and pictures for the students, I would have
them compare some fractions with me as a group using both the pictures and
fraction bars.
b. Explain why you believe this re-engagement lesson will be effective
based on the error patterns you found in the data. Score here will be based
on how well you describe the connection to the re-engagement lesson and
the error patterns found, effective use of materials, and sound methodology.
I believe that this re-engagement lesson will be effective based on the
error patterns that I found in my data because my data showed that students
who struggled with the conceptual understanding of the lesson had a difficult
time showing procedural fluency and mathematical reasoning. Going back to
review how to use resources and pictures to compare fractions with common
denominators will help the students struggling with conceptual understanding
see different strategies to help them accurately compare fractions with
common denominators and unlike denominators. This lesson will also help
them set up a better base for themselves when it comes to answering and
showing procedural fluency and mathematical understanding.
c. Explain how you will reassess for mastery of the concept.
3. Plan to Re-engage for procedural understanding.
a. Describe your reengagement lesson for this group (objective from
CCSSM, learning tasks, strategies, materials, assessment).
b. Explain why you believe this re-engagement lesson will be effective
based on the error patterns you found in the data. Score here will be based
on how well you describe the connection to the reteach lesson and the error
patterns found, effective use of materials, and sound methodology
c. Explain how you will reassess for mastery of procedural understanding.

4. Plan to Re-engage for reasoning.

a. Describe your reengagement lesson for this group (objective from
CCSSM, learning tasks, strategies, materials, assessment).
The objective for this re-engagement lesson for mathematical
reasoning would still be 4.NF.A.2. I would have these students work with the
fraction bars and use pictures to answer some problems that are similar to
the problems that we did in the whole group lesson. I would provide these
students with the fraction bars to use to help them compare the fractions
provided with unlike denominators. I do not think that I would need to
demonstrate how to do the problems again because these students
understood how to answer these problems, they were just unable to write a
sentence explaining why one of the fractions is bigger than another. I would
have the students walk through the problem compared to 6/8 with me. We
would use the fraction bars to help us see which bar is longer, shade in
shapes to correspond with the provided fractions, and then write the correct
symbol in between the two fractions. Once we got to the explaining part of
the problem, I would talk to the students about how they know that is more
than 6/8. I would ask them questions about the different wholes that
correspond with each fraction. I will emphasize to the students that is more
of a whole than 6/8. I will practice two problems like this with the students
and would then let them answer some problems on their own.
b. Explain why you believe this re-engagement lesson will be effective
based on the error patterns you found in the data. Score here will be based
on how well you describe the connection to the reteach lesson and the error
patterns found, effective use of materials, and sound methodology
I believe that this re-engagement lesson for mathematical reasoning
will be effective based on the error patterns that I found in my data because
this small group lesson emphasizes for students how they know one of the
fractions being compared is bigger than another fraction. These students
understood how to answer the problem correctly but were not able to write
into words why they chose the symbol that they did. This re-engagement
lesson will help students be able to understand and put into words why one of
the compared fractions is bigger than another fraction, because it is closer to
the whole than the other fraction.
c. Explain how you will reassess for mastery of reasoning skills.
Scoring Rubric
Possible
Points

Section A: Context for Learning

A1 1
A2 1
A3 1
A4 5
A5 5
A6 5

Section B: Whole Class Lesson

B1 1
B2 1
B3 10
B4 8
B5 10

Section C: Results of whole class assessment

C1 10
C2 14
C3 6

Section D: Plan for re-engagement

D1 2
D2 10
D3 or D4 10

Total of all scores: 100