You are on page 1of 7

Running Head: Framework Reflection Aegerter 1

Eric Aegerter
Professor An
TED636
Week 2 Framework Reflection
National University
15 September 2018
Running Head: Framework Reflection Aegerter 2

California Common Core State Standards for Math (CCCSSM) demonstrate a

new idea in mathematics, an idea that is highly criticized by many, including the parents

of my students. This new idea, however, if implemented correctly by school districts and

staff, has the potential to change the future for many American students. It is the idea

that ALL American students will be college-ready by not just memorizing facts, but truly

knowing the “why” behind mathematics. This is called conceptual understanding.

The three principles of CCCSSM are “focus, coherence, and rigor” (Board of

Education, 2016, p. 2). This means, respectively, that there are less standards so that

teachers focus more deeply on the anchors, each grade level builds off the previous

ones with some overlap, and students are taught to not only know how to solve math

problems but also apply them to real world situations. Moreover, there are no longer just

content standards being taught to students, but standards for mathematical practice as

well. These are the standards that teach students the necessary tools to be

mathematicians.

For my first CCCSSM learning activity for conceptual understanding, I will

examine the fourth grade math standard 4.NF.A. This standard, in a nutshell, is about

finding equivalent fractions and understanding that, although two fractions may have

different denominators and numerators, the fractions themselves can still be the same

size as long as the same whole is used. Thus, I would use the “pizza party” activity from

Georgia’s math standards. I would divide students into groups of four and provide each

group with pieces of a circle and each one would be the same size. However, each

student would have a different amount of “slices.” I would pose the problem: Suppose

you and your friends had a pizza eating contest and one of you ate 3/6 of your pizza,
Running Head: Framework Reflection Aegerter 3

the other ate 2/3, another at ½, and the last person had 4/6 of their pizza. Two of you

tied for first place and two of you tied for second place. Who did you tie with? Students

would then use their fraction manipulatives to place on top of each other pieces to find

out who ate which amount. This activity is meant to be hands-off for the teacher, and

primarily student-led.

The other strategy I would like to try would be “Numberless Word Problems” in

the standard 4.OA.3. These types of problems are meant to provide scaffolding to

students, which I happen to value heavily, particularly because of the highly transient

population I happen to work with. What’s more, I find that students often attack word

problems with whatever type of math they are comfortable with, regardless of what the

problem actually said. They are not naturally critical thinkers in most cases, it has to be

taught to them. Numberless word problems make it impossible for them to do this. They

HAVE to think critically. SFMP.2. “Use quantitative reason” is the primary mathematical

practice standard that they get out of this type of problem. Thus, I would put a slide up

on the TV that states “Michael saw some caterpillars while he was on a walk. Each

caterpillar had the same number of legs.” I would ask probing questions that would lead

to student thinking and discussion such as “What does this statement make you picture

in your mind? How many legs do you think each caterpillar has”? I would then show two

or three slides of the type of caterpillar I want to use. We would discuss more, and

ultimately come to the conclusion that each caterpillar had six legs. The next slide would

state “Michael saw some caterpillars while he was on a walk. Each caterpillar had six

legs.” More questions such as “How many caterpillar legs did Michael see on his walk

then? How do you know? Do we have all of the information we need to answer this
Running Head: Framework Reflection Aegerter 4

question?” I would put the next slide up that state “Michael saw four caterpillars while he

was on a walk. Each caterpillar had six legs.” My final question “How many caterpillar

legs did Michael see on his walk? How do you know? What type of math did you use to

find this answer?” Students will learn to be analytical about future math problems that

have numbers from the start.

The concepts laid down by CCCSSM seem extremely practical and useful to me.

I wasn’t around in the days before common core, but I don’t see how anything before it

could be superior. Personally, I wish my teachers had taught me to understand the

intricacies of math rather than all of the shortcuts they possible could so that I would get

the right answer. Even when I was getting the right answers, I had no clue how I got

there other than the shortcuts. I feel that I’ve been cheated out of a real education just

because of the time I went to school. I am happy to be teaching kids math rather than

procedures to find answers to problems on a test.

NGSS

The Next Generation Science Standard (NGSS) are revolutionary and much

different from all of the other standards, particularly in the way that they are laid out. As

it is state in the California Science Framework 2016, “Each page consists of boxes

arranged in four rows (figure 1 .13): (1) the title of the core concept being covered; (2)

one or more performance expectations; (3) a foundation box containing the three

dimensions of the NRC Framework; and (4) a connection box” (p. 63). It does not simply

list the name of a standard and give a short description like you would see in math,

ELA, or even social studies. If you are able to learn to read and understand the other

content standards, that does not mean that you will be able to understand the NGSS
Running Head: Framework Reflection Aegerter 5

standards; it will take some practice. Nonetheless, these new standards are meant to

make scientific inquiry more natural and hands-on for students, tapping into their innate

curiosity about the world around them.

The first activity I would conduct would be about the standard 4-PS3-1 “Use

evidence to construct an explanation relating the speed of an object to the energy of

that object” (California State Board of Education, 2013, p. 254). My activity will be

simple and fun, yet effective for learning the concepts needed for the student to

demonstrate mastery of the standard. Each student will have a science journal for

recording observations. For this particular standard, students will work with a partner.

Each partner will receive a toy car and something to use as a ramp (miniature white

boards possibly). Students will be asked to explain why the car isn’t moving when it is

sitting on their flat table. After a rich discussion on this topic, students will be asked to

consider what might make the car move. Once they’ve decided on what makes the car

move, they will find ways to get it to move faster using their ramp and a stack of books

to adjust the height from which the small car will roll. In this way, the students will learn

about the concept of gravitational energy and kinetic energy. They will also be working

with ELA and ELD standards embedded into the lesson through the use of writing skills.

My next activity would be for the standard 4-PS3-3 “Ask questions and predict

outcomes about the changes in energy that occur when objects collide” (California State

Board of Education, 2013, p. 254). This standard is closely related to the previous

standard, only it explores deeper into the various mediums through which energy is

transferred and the potential consequences of such transfers. As stated in the Science

framework, energy is often defined as “’the ability to do work’,” but the framework
Running Head: Framework Reflection Aegerter 6

recommends to alternative definition of “’the ability to injure you’” (California State Board

of Education, 2013, p. 255). In this way, students can relate common injuries from

falling down to gravitational energy, getting hit with a baseball as kinetic energy, and so

on. So, for this standard, I would use weighted spheres of various weights, and

demonstrate to students how to use ramps to release these spheres simultaneously so

that they will collide. Students will then work in groups of four, trying every possible

combination of weights and recording their observations and findings. This will provide a

fun student-led experiment that will allow students to investigate real life science.

The NGSS framework is the first real attempt to allow students the opportunity to

become scientists. They are able to investigate, use their senses, and formulate

observations and predictions with real life manipulatives. Possibly the most important

part about NGSS, besides the fact that it actually teaches science, is that students are

having fun. Students become more bought it when they get to lead discussions. They

enjoy learning when they get to come to a conclusion by themselves after countless

wrong answers were experienced. They get to see why something works and why some

things don’t. They aren’t told, they are taught.


Running Head: Framework Reflection Aegerter 7

References

California Department of Education. (2013). Mathematics framework: instructional strategies.

Sacremento, CA: California Department of Education.

California State Board of Education. (2003). Science content standards for California Public Schools.:

Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education

Georgia Department of Education. (2015). Mathematics Georgia standards of excellence (GSE) K-5.

Atlanta, GA: Georgia Department of Education.

You might also like