KSDE Standard 8 artifact portion of KPTP Task 3

Table 3.3.1 Narrative Reflection of Preassessment, Formative Assessments, and Summative Assessment (limited to 3 pages) Pre-assessment The pre-assessment revealed that most students in the class had only a rudimentary grasp of adding multi-digit numbers using both the partial-sum algorithm and the traditional, U.S. standard algorithm. (objective #2, #3) Regarding problem solving, most of the class have mastery of identifying addition word problems, but are weak in identifying subtraction word problems, especially if the subtraction operation is hidden behind addition key words. (objective #1) The results of the pre-assessment was closely aligned to my initial prediction of what students weaknesses are, therefore the lesson plan will proceed as planned, with a little alteration in supplementing math concept of the connection/relationship between addition and subtraction. The pre-assessment revealed that most students in the class had only a rudimentary grasp of adding multi-digit numbers using both the partial-sum algorithm and the traditional, U.S. standard algorithm which was objective #2 and #3. In problem solving, which is objective #1, most of the class have mastery of identifying addition word problems, but are weak in identifying subtraction word problems, especially if the subtraction operation is hidden behind addition key words The results of the pre-assessment was closely aligned to my initial prediction of what students weaknesses are, therefore the lesson plan will proceed as planned, with a little alteration in supplementing math concept of the connection/relationship between addition and subtraction. Due to the very low academic skills of a couple students in the subgroup, about 5 students in the subgroup will work with much smaller numbers such as 2 digit numbers and sometimes even 1 digit number (depending on the student and the task or skill.) Student A will be among those 5 students. Those 5 students will almost always have another adult support either the cooperating teacher or the special education paraeducator.

Overall analysis of results.

Discuss the results in reference to the learning objectives.

Describe how pre-assessment data was used to proceed with instruction for all students.

What is the plan to differentiate for all learners? Formative Assessment

Overall analysis of results.

Discuss the results in reference to the learning objectives. Are students learning what was intended they learn?

Discuss any adaptations based on the results of formative assessments.

Identify differentiation needed to help all students meet the goals and objectives of this unit.

During my informal formative assessment (observation of students), I was surprised to discover that most students are meeting objectives #2, #3, and #7. Those objectives are ones that are the basic math computation skills. These specific results for objectives #2, #3,and #7 based off of the informal formative assessment do not match what I had expected based on the pre-assessments. I later realized that with the pre-assessment it was not the skills that students did not understand, it was the format of the tests, because of its multiple components to fill in. For the formal formative assessment, I assigned pages 39, 40 and 45 of the Everyday Math student math journal for independent practice. This formative assessment targeted learning objectives #1, #3, and #7. Overall, about 90% of the class are able to meet objectives #3 and #7, but less than 50% of the class are able to meet #1. I think the answer to this question is yes and no. When looking at objectives #2, #3, and #7, which are objectives describing basic math skills, then yes, students are mastering these learning objectives. However, when examining objectives #1, #4, #5, which are higher level thinking, the answer is no. Especially objective #1, I was astounded to discover that even some of the higher achieving students were having difficulties in being able to fluently use the graphic organizers/diagrams to solve number stories problems. I think the missing piece in students understanding is the algebraic thinking, which is where is the unknown number (or where to place the unknown number), and in relation to that is comprehending the word problem to determine operation. I felt my lesson plans were often changed based on the informal formative assessment (observations of students), because my informal formative assessment data did not match my pre-assessment data. Based on my pre-assessment data, I had thought that students would need lots of practice with basic math computation skills using the partial sum and the traditional standard algorithm. That was not the case. Another modification I had to make was to slow down with the problem solving portion of the lesson. Originally I had planned to spend equal amounts of time on both problem solving and computation, but during the lessons I often spent too much time with problem solving. If I had realized students needed much more time practicing and seeing problem solving demonstrated I would have planned better handson student centered activities geared toward problem solving. In meeting objectives 1, 4, and 5, I think more time, more teacher-lead and teacher-guided practice is needed to help all students to meet those three learning objectives. I also think sentence frames or stems to help student explain how they determine and understand math word problems. I think I should also do more think-alouds in problem solving and guide students to do think-alouds in problem solving. In meeting objectives #2, #3 and #7, I think hands-on games that are fact practice and drill but yet engaging and entertaining will be useful for meeting those objectives.

Summative Assessment

What did the disaggregated data of the assessment reveal?

Discuss the results in reference to the learning objectives.

Did all students learn what was intended they learn? Explain.

The results of the summative assessment surprised me. As a whole, the class average gained 18% on the post assessment compared to the pre-assessment. Looking at the subgroup data, the average of the subgroup gained 29% comparing the post assessment to the preassessment. Student A gained 11% in her post assessment, and Student B gained 30% in his post assessment. Furthermore, in her pre-assessment, Student A was given an adaptive version of the pre-assessment (see task 2 for details) but she completed the same postassessment as the other students, and only with minimal support from other adults (readaloud word problems to her, she did the computation independently). In my opinion, the gains in the post-assessment data shows two possibilities: one, the students memories retained some of the information from the pre-assessment, and two, that despite my worries, the instructional activities used was actually successful! However, I do feel the sameness in format of the pre- and post assessment (where to put the numbers) is a contributing factor to student gains. Looking at the results of the post-assessment in reference to the learning objectives, I noticed the following trends that continue to confirm the data/results from formative assessments (observations, everyday math journal). One, not all students are fluent with the problem solving graphic organizers/diagrams (objective#1). Many are still stumped by determining whether to add or subtract in a word problem, and many are still stumped by the algebraic thinking, when the unknown number isnt the end/result but rather the missing subtrahend in the problem. Two, nearly all of the students have mastered adding double digit numbers (objectives 2, 3). They are better at using traditional standard algorithm than partial sum, but all are able to add double digit fluently. Lastly, due to time constraints, even though I assessed objectives 4 and 5, I feel I did not spend enough time during the lessons to even scratch the surface to those learning objectives. Furthermore, I wasnt able to compare gains with learning objectives 4, 5, and 6 because those three objectives were not tested on the preassessment. Including objectives 4, 5 and 6 into the lesson itself were a struggle because of trying to fit Blooms higher level thinking with the districts sequencing guide. Even though I knew Blooms higher level thinking aligns with common core standards it was tough figuring out how to incorporate the KPTP requirements to go along with district sequencing guides. I think the answer to this question is yes and no. When looking at objectives #2, #3, and #7, which are objectives describing basic math skills, then yes, students are mastering these learning objectives. However, when examining objectives #1, #4, #5, which are higher level thinking, the answer is no. Especially objective #1, I was astounded to discover that even some of the higher achieving students were having difficulties in being able to fluently use the graphic organizers/diagrams to solve number stories problems. I think the missing piece in students understanding is the algebraic thinking, which is where is the unknown number (or where to place the unknown number), and in relation to that is comprehending the word problem to determine operation.