Assessment Commentary

1. Analyzing Student Learning a. Identify the specific standards/objectives from the lesson plans measured by the assessment chosen for analysis. Lesson Plan 1 Illinois Goals, Learning Standards and Benchmarks 3.MD.7.a Find the area of a rectangle with whole number side lengths by tiling it, and show how that the area is the same as would be found by multiplying the side lengths. Performance Objective: SWBAT find the area of a rectangle by using a formula. (H.O.) Lesson Plan 2 Illinois Goals, Learning Standards and Benchmarks 3.MD.7.a Find the area of a rectangle with whole number side lengths by tiling it, and show that the area is the same as would be found by multiplying the side lengths. Performance Objective: SWBAT find the area of a rectangle by using a formula. (H.O.) Lesson Plan 3 Illinois Goals, Learning Standards and Benchmarks 3.MD.7.c Use area models to represent the distributive property in mathematical reasoning. Performance Objective: SWBAT use the distributive property to determine the area of regular rectangles. Lesson Plan 4 llinois Goals, Learning Standards and Benchmarks 3.MD.7.c Use area models to represent the distributive property in mathematical reasoning.

Performance Objective: SWBAT use the distributive property to determine the area of regular rectangles. a. Provide the evaluation criteria you are using to analyze the student learning. An overall class percentage of 85% on the review was chosen to signify readiness for the summative assessment. As requested by my cooperating teacher, I used the 14-5 Practice worksheet as a summative assessment for the 4 lesson learning segment. Because the distributive property plays a small role in ISAT testing, an 80% mastery was chosen to signify readiness to move onto the next topic. b. Provide a graphic (table or chart) or narrative summary of student learning for your whole class. Be sure to summarize student learning for all evaluation criteria described above.
Student 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Class Average 14-5 Assessment 100 80 40 100 100 83 100 94 89 100 89 100 100 100 100 89 89 50 83 100 67 94 89

This table indicates the scores taken for the 14-5 Practice worksheet; the

summative assessment for this learning segment. The review was worth 18 points, with each question worth 3 points. The class averaged 89% on the assessment, indicating readiness to move forward. d. Use evidence found in the 3 student work samples and the whole class summary to analyze the patterns of learning for the whole class and differences for groups or individual learners relative to conceptual understanding procedural fluency reasoning/problem solving skills

Consider what students understand and do well, and where they continue to struggle (e.g., common errors, confusions, need for greater challenge). Conceptual understanding throughout this learning segment proved strong. Students labeled and drew representative models of the distributive property accurately, and it is no doubt these models aided procedural fluency. As evidence, it is clear through J.O.'s work that his understanding of the concept was solid. J.O. Earned full points for numbers 1-3, with points awarded for correct design of each of the 3 algorithms covered in the learning segments. He missed number 4 however, and it is interesting to note that he neglected to identify and label the side lengths of each of the provided models. This indicates that he is reliant on visual representations of the distributive property to succeed. Each student work sample indicates that students are capable of generating all 3 algorithms to represent the application of the distributive property to finding the area of a rectangle. The learning segment initially included a lesson in problem solving, but in the interest of time and maintaining pace with other classrooms, the lesson was altered to include more procedural practice. The work samples of both J.O. and C.L. are indicative of this shortcoming, as both students showed deficiencies on #5: Reason. J.O. Is a low performing student who scored low average on his MAP testing and was singled out for additional support throughout the learning segment. This additional support is depicted in clip 2 of the video. J.O.'s problem solving skills seem show a disconnect between his thought process and the question itself, as his explanation reflects none of the figures included in the question. C.L is an average student that scored an average rating on the MAP test. While problem solving, it is clear that he understood the concept, and had found a solution to it, he lacked the ability to explain why his answer was an appropriate solution, or how it related to the initial question. J.G. Is representative of our higher functioning students who are in the MAE program, and scored high average on the MAP test. J.G. shows mastery of the learning segment conceptually and procedurally. On #5: Reason, J.G. shows a complete understanding of the distributive property. Her

response indicates knowledge that one need only find the sum of two side lengths to determine if a rectangle can be split a particular way. In addition, J.G.'s language clearly conveyed a complete understanding of the problem and defense of her solution.

2. Feedback to Guide Further Learning Refer to specific evidence of submitted feedback to support your explanations. a. In what form did you submit your evidence of feedback for the 3 focus students? Written directly on work samples or in a separate document; In audio files; or

In a video clip from the instruction task (provide a time-stamp reference) or in a separate video clip? Written feedback is standard in my classroom, and the 3 student work samples for the summative assessment provide examples of this practice. Feedback on 14-5 Practice; the tool used as the summative assessment, includes written feedback for numbers 4 and 5. J.O. successfully solved numbers 1 and 2, and showed understanding of all 3 algorithms used to represent the distributive property applied to rectangles. Because she neglected to label side lengths and find the area for #4, I wrote Could you label the side lengths of these to help you find the answer?. This type of response is in keeping with my practice of questioning student rather than simply telling them. J.O. failed to label the rectangle for #5 as well, so I included the question Where did you get these numbers? as feedback. Like J.O., C.L. failed to label side lengths for #5. Despite the fact that C.L.'s answer was partially correct, he fails to adequately explain Lee's error, or how he determined the answer. Feedback included the questions What would be?, and How does 3 x 5 and 3 x 1 relate to the rectangle above?. J.G. received a 100% on her assessment, but to challenge her further, I included feedback for her response to #5. To improve her communication skills, I included Why did you add 2 + 5?, Tell me why!. In addition, I was sure to add Great answer! Whether written or verbal, feedback is always positive. Like my instruction, it often involves questioning to provoke thought. Throughout direct instruction in the video clip, I use a great deal of non-verbal communication as feedback, as well as vocal inflection. Verbal responses include: Agreed (1:10, 3:03, 11:29, 12:41, 13:08, 14:31), Correct (3:28), Absolutely (8:32, 9:14), Good (6:50), That's good (11:19), That looks good then, doesn't it? (14:07), That looks good to me (13:51), Oh! (15:28, 15:23), and variations of Right, Alright, and O.K. (0:46, 1:10, 1:24, 1:46, 2:03, 2:41, 3:44, 4:26, 5:38, 5:53, 6:12, 6:47, 6:52, 7:32, 9:02, 11:07, 12:51, 14:27, 16:51). In addition, I frequently repeat a student answer with a nod and a positive tone to signal a correct answer (0:55, 1:02, 1:24, 1:46, 2:16, 2:25, 2:35, 3:27, 3:44, 5:35, 5:53, 6:47, 7:12, 8:18, 8:26, 9:08, 9:30, 9:38,

11:41, 14:18).

a. Explain how feedback provided to the 3 focus students addresses their individual strengths and needs relative to the standards/objectives measured. All feedback from 9:42 onward was directed to J.O.,the lowest performing student within the focus group. As a whole, feedback was offered with greater inflection to communicate encouragement and build confidence. I also feign surprise twice at 15:28 and 15:23 when I say Oh!. As I assisted J.O., I referred him to the base ten models and ensured that he was counting square units to discover the answer. This approach connected the process to lessons 1 and 2 and reinforced the geometric measurement focus of the learning segment in its most basic form. The written comments on the 14-5 Practice assessment mirrors this feedback. As J.O. provided side lengths that were divorced from the measurements provided in #5, I included the question Where did you get these numbers to bring his focus back to geometric measurement. During the partner activities, I checked on C.L. periodically, as he sometimes holds back until I can validate the quality of his work. While looking at his work, I simply talked through the steps and said yep after confirming the successful completion of each step. For written feedback, C.L.'s error on the 14-5 Practice assessment showed an incomplete understanding of use of the distributive property; the final goal of the learning segment focus. In response to # 5, I wrote What would be?, and How does 3 x 5 and 3 x 1 relate to the rectangle above?. J.G.'s feedback was primarily the written response to the word problem on the 14-5 Practice assessment. Feedback included Why did you add 2 + 5?, and Tell me why!. As she achieved a perfect score, I challenged her to be more explicit with her reasoning and to polish her ability to explain the process involved in applying the distributive property to finding area.

b. How will you support students to apply the feedback to guide improvement, either within the learning segment or at a later time? In building J.O.'s confidence in his own abilities, I will continue to use enthusiasm and inflection in my voice to motivate him. I will encourage J.O. to engender that sense within himself. I'll encourage him to use selftalk to build his own confidence over time. With confidence, J.O.'s performance will undoubtedly improve. To redress the errors observed in the assessment, I will require J.O. to use manipulatives and graphic representations to solve problems involving geometric measurement. Before he is capable of understanding the distributive property on a conceptual level, he will need to master this skill, and apply it to multiplication. I'll employ similar techniques with C.L. Because he requires periodic checks to verify his work, in the future I'll talk him through checking his own work. I will encourage him to ask and answer

his own questions to determine his level of comprehension. To help C.L. gain a more complete understanding of the distributive property, I will employ the use of manipulatives. By using unit counters to build arrays, C.L. will more readily see the relationship between 1 large array and two smaller ones derived from it. To aid J.G. in the future, I will partner her with an average performer during the next problem solving lesson. As part of this activity, she will be required to edit another student's written response, and use her own feedback to improve her own work. Acting as a peer tutor should provide J.G. the opportunity to deepen her conceptual understanding of the distributive property, as well as the ability to use mathematical language to convey that understanding.

3. Evidence of Language Understanding and Use

Refer to examples from the clip(s) (with time stamps) and/or student work samples as evidence. Explain the extent to which your students were able to use language (selected function, vocabulary, and additional identified demands) to develop content understandings.

Throughout lessons 1 and 2, students were repeatedly called upon to define both perimeter and area in an attempt to solidify the difference between the two. In addition, while describing rectangles, students were expected to identify rectangles as A rectangle with side lengths of, or A rectangle with a length of...and a width of.... This requirement supported the focus on geometric measurement for the learning segment. In lesson 3, when T.S. Says we Do 4 x 10 (0:40), I ask what it means to do 4 x 10. T.S. Then replies We multiply. I also require students to identify product as the correct name for a multiplication answer. This addresses the importance of multiplication to the larger goal of applying the distributive process to finding the area of rectangles. At 2:50, J.G. identifies that to complete the operation, you have to Find the sum. Prompting students to connect the procedure with the concept (3:19), students are required to identify The distributive property. Students also demonstrate (8:18) the correct label for a side length by supplying 4 cm wide. Lesson 4 had similar requirement to lesson 3, but added an additional requirement by using algorithm to describe the formulas for determining area using the distributive property.

4. Using Assessment to Inform Instruction

a. Based on your analysis of student learning presented in prompts 1cd, describe next steps for instruction

for the whole class

Conceptual understanding will be addressed in the beginning of the lesson rather than later. In addition, students will be encouraged to use manipulatives and graphic representations while practicing the procedures required for each lesson. This will provide additional support for students who need reinforcement in geometric measurement, as well as the relationship between rectangles generated while applying the distributive process. Most importantly, whole class performance indicates that 50% of the class, like J.O. and C.L., failed the problem solving question on the assessment. As a result, problem solving and written responses can no longer be eliminated if mastery is to be achieved.

for the 3 focus students and other individuals/groups with specific needs
J.O. will be supplied with manipulatives or graphic representations at the onset of each lesson. Each time he begins to operate without them he will be redirected to verify his work using them. C.L. And J.G. Would benefit from becoming activity partners. C.L. could use an additional support to improve his problem solving, while J.G. would benefit and enrich her written responses by operating as a peer tutor. This is in contrast to their current partners, with whom they share ability levels. In addition to peer support, J.G. Should be challenged with additional writing prompts that scaffold both the levels of complexity and expectations for mastery. The majority of the class has been supported well by the use of graphic representations, as evidenced by the 89% level of mastery achieved on the adjusted assessment scores. This practice will continue to supply the foundation for overall lesson design in the future.

Consider the variety of learners in your class who may require different strategies/support (e.g., students with IEPs, English language learners, struggling readers, underperforming students or those with gaps in academic knowledge, and/or gifted students needing greater support or challenge).

a. Explain how these next steps follow from your analysis of student learning. Support your explanation with principles from research and/or theory. The next steps for instruction in this topic are indicated by placement of student achievement and ability within the framework of Bloom's Taxonomy. Whether whole class instruction or as a tool for differentiation, the use of models supports learners at the Application level. At this stage of cognitive development, students are fully capable of performing concrete operations. Determining area using multiplication falls within this category, and the visual representation will serve as a visual representation of quantities necessary for multiplication. The use of manipulatives should also provide a springboard from which students may transition to more abstract

representations. The majority of the class presents with a level of understanding equivalent to Bloom's Analysis level of cognitive development. At this level, students are capable of breaking down concepts in their component parts. The distributive property is the embodiment of this level. Using manipulatives and graphic representations provide a bridge from the concrete procedure of multiplication to the more abstract application of the distributive property. The relatively high performance on most problems within the assessment, coupled with the overall low outcomes for the problem solving question signify that most students are in an emergent level of cognitive development; transitioning between Application and Analysis.