My goal for my professional growth plan was to increase the focus and richness of the mathematical discourse in my

classroom in order to help students think critically about problems in a real world context. Several indicators for the
achievement of this goal were identified last fall as well as two specific SMART goals in relation to test scores. Specific
actions/strategies were put into place to put my plan into action.
The first specific action/strategy was to incorporate rich mathematical tasks that allowed for a base for classroom
discourse. While this is the heart of the CCSS for math, finding mathematical tasks that are open enough for students to
have discussions about them is not as easy as one may think. Many tasks that we came across were very leading or
scaffolded. Initially we thought this was a good thing, however, we realized that if we wanted our students to think like
mathematicians we needed to stop pointing them in the right direction all the time and let them stumble some. This,
itself, was extremely frustrating for many of our students. Many (to be honest, most) of our students simply wanted to
be led to the correct answeror shown several examples of how to do something and then sent off to practice it on
their own. I modified my approach in my own room and started to chunk the tasks into smaller portions for groups to
work on with some interruptions to come together for whole class discussions. This seemed to help the kids build
confidence over time and eventually the frustration levels tapered off. I adopted the strategy of giving students several
minutes of private think time before they were allowed to start working with their groups so those students who
needed a little bit extra processing time werent overtaken by the outspoken ones in their group right away. Initially,
incorporating one or more tasks each week was exhausting and frustrating, however, the students began to support
their reasoning with various types of mathematical representations and gained confidence in starting tasks and finding
entry points to problemswhich is exactly what my goal was. Evidence of their use of multiple representations and
examples of some of the tasks I used can be viewed in the PGP Artifacts document that Ive uploaded.
Naturally it follows that if we want the students to be partaking in quality mathematics discourse, then they need to
have the vocabulary and confidence to do so. Therefore, the next specific action/strategy was to develop and
implement activities to introduce and teach vocabulary terms for each unit of study in both Math 8 and Algebra I. I
knew it was important not to simply have the students copying definitions from their books, so I sought out other ways
to help them become familiar with new math terms including word sorts, completing Venn diagrams, doing word
analysis, and doing various activities with our classroom word wall. We also spent a great deal of time throughout the
year discussing scary math words and having students restate them in normal words to build their confidence. This
very much supported one of my goals that I would hear students using precise math vocabulary when explaining
solutions and reasoning. Evidence of some of these vocabulary activities may be viewed in the PGP Artifacts document
that Ive uploaded.
We also decided that part of our plan would be for students not only to participate in mathematical discourse orally, but
also to provide opportunities for students to justify mathematical reasoning through writing. Like all classes, my
students completed a formal writing prompt each marking period using the district paragraph template and the super
six. More often, however, these writing opportunities were used as a two-fold formative assessmentfirst for me to
gauge whether or not the students grasped a particular concept or were hooked by a misconception, and second, for me
to gauge whether or not my students were using precise mathematical vocabulary that we had discussed in class and
had been referring to on our word wall within each unit. As the year progressed, Ive seen steady growth in the usage of
mathematical vocabulary in most students writing.
The last action/strategy that was implemented was to use the template from the 5 Practices Book to make a plan for
discussions while students were working on tasks. Once I fully committed to using these five steps, I realized why open
ended tasks were so frustrated before. I used to think I was prepared. I had read over the activity and tried it out
myself. I thought about how I wanted to wrap it up at the end. I knew what the homework assignment would be
after. I understand now that the single most important part of my planning for tasks and what I want students to get
out of them is the practice of anticipating--predicting how students might approach the task and developing
expectations about the correct and incorrect strategies students might use as well as how these strategies relate to the
mathematical learning goals of the task. Before doing any task in my classroom I now make sure that I have sat down
and worked through each step through the lens of a Math 8 student or Algebra I student. I think of the errors that might
occur and what questions I can ask to help clear misconceptions without telling answers. I think of what solution paths
students will take and how I can respond to push their thinking. The next step, monitoring-- the practice of paying close
attention to students mathematical thinking as they work on the task, identifying the mathematical learning potential of
various strategiesis where the hard work comes in. While students are working I am intently eavesdropping and
furiously scribbling notes on my clipboard. At times I may interrupt a group to have some restate or to ask question, but
for the most part I keep to myself. Also during this time I am working on the practice of selecting particular students to
share their work with the rest of the class to get certain ideas on the table while remaining in control of which students
present and what the mathematical content of the discussion will likely be. I now know that I cannot leave the
discussion up to random kids that raise their hands. I prepare some students by letting them know that their idea is
important and that I will be asking them to share it later. Some students I simply call on. Many times I ask for
volunteers knowing full well who it is that I am going to ask to share. The final two steps are: sequencing--the practice
of making decisions about how to order the students presentations to increase the chances that the mathematical
learning goals for task are achieved, and connecting--the practice of helping students develop relations among
presentations and evaluate different approaches for various problems, making sure students presentations build on
each other to develop mathematical ideas. These are the two practices that I am still not completely comfortable with.
I know that building these skills takes time and these will continue to be part of my focus in the future. Evidence of
some of these templates that Ive completed may be viewed in the PGP Artifacts document that Ive uploaded.
The combination of these actions/strategies was a focused effort to increase student test scores as measure by two
specific SMART goals:
1. During the 2012-2013 school year, all students will improve their math writing skills by one level as measured
by an increase in score level on writing prompts based on the MEAP Analytic Rubric for Informational writing.
2. During the 2012-2013 school year, all students will improve their ability to solve applied problems by 15% as
measured by an increase in the percentage of students scoring 80% or better on unit performance tasks.
In response to Goal #1, as the graph below illustrates,
all but 13% of students gained at least one level from
September to March. A small percentage (3%) gained
3 levels. I feel that the action steps and strategies
that were put into place as a part of my PGP were
very effective. The growth of my students as
mathematical writers was very evident in most cases.
My goal for all students growing by one level was not
met, however, and my initial reaction was that it may
be due to having special education and ESL students
on our team. Upon further analysis, though, I no
longer think this is the case.

Below are the graphs from the sub group analyses based on my students writing scores. Note that the number above
each percent is the actual number of students for that sector of the graph. According to these graphs only three
13%
61%
23%
3%
Writing Across the Curriculum
Change in Level - All Students
+0 Levels
+1 Level
+2 Levels
+3 Levels
2
12%
11
65%
3
17%
1
6%
Writing Across the Curriculum
Change in Level - Special Education
+0 Levels
+1 Level
+2 Levels
+3 Levels
1
17%
5
83%
Writing Across the Curriculum
Change in Level - ESL
+0 Levels
+1 Level
+2 Levels
+3 Levels
1
10%
9
90%
Writing Across the Curriculum
Change in Level - Latino Students
+0 Levels
+1 Level
+2 Levels
+3 Levels
1
25%
3
75%
Writing Across the Curriculum
Change in Level - African American Students
+0 Levels
+1 Level
+2 Levels
+3 Levels
1
50%
1
50%
Writing Across the Curriculum
Change in Level - Asian American Students
+0 Levels
+1 Level
+2 Levels
+3 Levels
students from the ESL and special education population combined did not show growth over the course of the year. If
we include all the subgroups the total changes to five. So where did the rest of the 13% come from?


Five of the students who make up this percentage came
from the subgroup analysis and were really only threeone
student is ESL, Special Education and Asian American. Five
of the other students were advanced math students who
started and ended the year at grade level and five other
general math students remained stagnanttwo of which
had excessive absences and one joined us from another
school mid-February.




0 0 3 0
58
50
42
79
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s

S
c
o
r
i
n
g

8
0
%
Student Growth: Unit Assessment Tasks (All Students)
Pre Task
Post Task

My next steps in regards to this area of my PGP are to focus on the two groups that remained stagnant throughout the
year. First, what can I do to push the writing of the advanced math students who started the year at grade level but
remained there all year? My first step will be to hone in on the elements of style that should be present when doing
academic writing for mathematics. Second, how can I help students focus on how their writing is growing in math so
they can be aware if they are growing as they should? My thinking is that by having the students do more reflection on
their writing in math like they do in language arts, maybe some of the kids who are not moving along like the should will
see what their writing should look like at various points throughout the year.
In response to Goal #2, as can be seen from the graph below, from each pre task to post task, there is at least a 20%
increase in students scoring 80% or above for each unit.
After further breaking down the
data and doing the subgroup
analyses, some other points have
come to mind. First, the same goal
was met for the special education
subgroup. The assessment tasks are
allowing this group to demonstrate
their learning and thinking in various
ways besides the typical testing
environments and it is proving to be
very useful in helping to assess their
learning. Second, the data for the
ESL subgroup is only comprised of general math students since there are no ESL kids in advanced math, hence no Unit 4
Post Task data. The same goes for African American and Asian American Students. However, with the latter two
subgroups, it should also be noted that no students scored above 80% on the Unit 3 Post Task either.
I am extremely pleased with the growth of my students and their overall ability to tackle a mathematics tasks. I see a
huge improvement in their confidence and their ability to communicate their mathematical ideas. My next steps
include continuing the same steps as I implemented this year. I strongly feel that as students get more used to seeing
tasks and get more used to finding entry points and multiple solutions their scores will continue to improve. In addition,
Students Not
Showing Growth
Sub Group(s) Score
9/12
Score
3/13
Blomquist, Andrew
Advanced 3 3
Boynton, Annie
2 2
Cempura, Anne
2 2
Cook, David
Advanced 3 3
Cooper, Riley
Latino 2 2
Finch, Keegan
Advanced 3 3
Grey, Hunter
Advanced 3 3
Kew, Nick
Special Ed.,
Asian American,
ESL
1 1
Kissick, Austin
Special Ed. 1 1
Oliva, Zach
1 1
Ritchie, Savannah
Advanced 3 3
Wilhelm, Max
2 2
Wolford, Austin
1 1
43
7
53
21
14
62
1
20
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
September March
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
Prompt Date
Student Writing Scores
Below
Approaching
At
Above
0 0 0 0
53
38
23
50
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s

S
c
o
r
i
n
g

8
0
%
Student Growth: Unit Assessment Tasks
(Special Education)
Pre Task
Post Task
as mentioned previously, I need to personally spend more time focusing on the sequencing and connecting practices. I
can grow my skills at these practices by observing others and working with my PLC partners.



























0 0 0 0
43
29
14
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s

S
c
o
r
i
n
g

8
0
%
Student Growth: Unit Assessment Tasks (ESL)
Pre Task
Post Task


























0 0 0 0
75
50
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s

S
c
o
r
i
n
g

8
0
%
Student Growth: Unit Assessment Tasks
(African American Students)
Pre Task
Post Task
0 0 0 0
50
100
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s

S
c
o
r
i
n
g

8
0
%
Student Growth: Unit Assessment Tasks
(Asian American Students)
Pre Task
Post Task
0 0 1 0
40
0
10
30
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s

S
c
o
r
i
n
g

8
0
%
Student Growth: Unit Assessment Tasks
(Latino Students)
Pre Task
Post Task