“Lincoln  Portfolio”  
Hannah  Burdick    
SPED  424  
November  21,  2016  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table  of  contents  
 
Description  for  unit  of  instruction  
Pre-­‐assessment  
Pre-­‐assessment  Results  
Lesson  Plans  
Post-­‐assessment  
Post-­‐assessment  Results  
Overall  reflection  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Description  for  unit  of  instruction:  
 
What  I  taught:    
 
  The  “big  idea”  of  what  I  expected  the  learners  to  understand  was  how  to  multiply.  In  
order  to  help  them  learn  this  I  taught  them  the  Commutative  Property  of  Multiplication.    
Beyond  what  I  was  assigned  to  do  during  this  process,  I  also  implemented  in  my  lesson  plans  for  
the  students  to  identify  the  factors  and  product  of  a  problem  and  learn  how  to  figure  out  a  
multiplication  problem  using  the  array  model.  The  “big  idea”  I  was  teaching  was  multiplication  
using  standards  CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.B.5,  CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.A.3,  and  
CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.A.4.    
 
Why  I  taught  it:  
 
After  speaking  with  our  student’s  teacher  she  informed  my  partner  and  I  that  we  had  a  
group  of  students  who  were  functioning  below  their  peers  and  needed  help  in  learning  their  
multiplication.  Once  I  discussed  this  with  my  partner  we  decided  our  students  most  likely  
lacked  a  foundational  understanding  of  what  multiplication  is  and  its  relationship  to  addition.  
Using  the  array  model  we  taught  them  that  multiplication  is  a  method  used  to  add  multiple  
groups  of  numbers  together.  Once  they  understood  the  structure  of  a  multiplication  problem;  
having  two  or  more  factors  and  a  product  and  knowing  how  to  make  a  picture  of  a  
multiplication  problem  we  felt  that  they  would  be  able  to  work  towards  the  actual  
memorization.    
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Pre-­‐assessment:  
 
  The  goal  of  a  pre  assessment  is  to  have  a  reference  point  of  where  students  are  at  
academically  in  order  to  create  a  lesson  plan  and  instruction  method  to  best  meet  their  needs.  
Additionally,  it  provides  insight  into  what  has  been  mastered  and  what  information  still  needs  
attention.  The  pre-­‐assessment  scores  will  be  compared  to  a  post  assessment  to  determine  the  
growth  which  has  taken  place  based  on  the  standards  used  for  instruction.    
 
Reliability,  Validity  and  Bias:  
 
As  a  whole  our  test  was  reliable,  valid,  and  unbiased.  There  was  one  matching  question  
that  did  not  have  the  correct  answer  to  be  matched  with.  As  a  result,  that  question  needed  to  
be  taken  out  and  not  counted  towards  our  student’s  scores  because  it  was  impossible  to  get  
that  part  of  the  question  correct  and  therefore  not  assess  their  knowledge.      
 
 
 
Administration  conditions:    
 
The  test  was  administered  on  Monday  November  7th,  2016  via  an  individual  worksheet.  
The  students  were  given  roughly  45  minutes  to  complete  the  assessment,  which  was  
significantly  more  time  than  necessary.    Every  student  completed  the  assessment  within  a  
twenty-­‐minute  time  frame  which  left  time  for  us  to  do  an  activity  using  playdough.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Pre-­‐assessment  (TEACHER  COPY):  
 
Directions:  Solve  the  equation,  write  the  answer  below.  
 
CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.A.4  
 
Solve  the  equation    
1.   3  x  1  =  3  
 
2.   3  x  5  =  15  
 
3.   6  x  8  =  48  
 
4.   6  x  9  =  54  
 
CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.B.5  (Commutative  and  Distributive  property)  
 
Re-­‐write  the  problems  using  the  commutative  property  of  multiplication.  
 
5.   3  x  4  =  12    
4  x  3  =  12                                                                                          
 
 
6.   2  x  4  =  8    
              4  x  2  =  8  
 
 
7.    4  x  9  =  36    
            9  x  4  =  36      
 
 
 
8.   2  divided  by  0  =  0  
 
9.   2  divided  by  1  =  2            
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Test  Items     Standard  represented    
1   CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.A.4  
2   CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.A.4  
3   CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.A.4  
4   CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.A.4  
5   CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.B.5  
6   CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.B.5  
7   CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.B.5  
8   CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.B.5  
9   CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.B.5  
 
 
Standard     Test  items  that  assess  that  Standard  
CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.A.4   1,  2,  3,  4  
CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.B.5   5,  6,  7,  8,  9  
 
 
 
Pre-­‐assessment  reflection:  
In  retrospect,  I  would  increase  the  number  of  questions  as  well  as  the  range  of  
standards  used  so  that  it  would  better  reflect  what  the  students  know  and  do  not  know.  By  
increasing  the  number  of  questions  and  standards  a  more  accurate  assessment  would  have  
been  achieved  and  potentially  the  needs  of  the  students  would  have  been  better  met.    
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Pre-­‐assessment  results:  
 
According  to  the  data  in  table  3  the  mean  of  the  student’s  scores  was  52%,  the  median  
is  44.4%,  and  the  mode  was  a  44.4%.  There  is  a  difference  of  3  points  between  the  highest  and  
lowest  score  which  is  a  33.33%  range.    
   
 
Data  Analysis:  
Using  the  data  you  can  see  that  all  of  the  students  got  items  1,  2,  8,  and  9  correctly.  Those  
questions  were  created  using  two  different  standards.  Given  the  data  we  can  see  that  what  the  
students  do  understand  about  said  standards  they  understand  really  well.  For  example  they  
understand  division  using  0  and  1,  which  is  Standard  CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.A.4.  But  the  
same  standard  was  used  for  question  2  and  3  and  none  of  the  students  got  those  two  questions  
correct.  The  second  standard  used  was  CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.B.5  and  the  same  
phenomenon  happened  with  the  test  items  modeled  after  that  standard.  All  four  students  got  
questions  8  and  9  but  only  one  student  got  questions  5,  6,  and  7  correct.    
 
 
 
Summary  of  Data:  
Given  this  data  we  can  see  that  what  the  students  do  understand  about  each  standard  they  
understand  really  well  such  as  division  using  0  and  2.  Whereas  the  parts  that  are  missing  in  
their  understanding  such  as  multiplication  with  missing  factors  and  not  understanding  the  
commutative  property  of  multiplication,  affected  virtually  every  student.    
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table  1  
Pre-­‐Assessment   Item   scores
4

3
Students  Correct

2

1

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Item  Number  Pre
 
 
 
 
 
Table  2  

Pre-­‐Assessment:   Standards
12

10

8
Items  

6

4

2

0
3.OA.A.4 3.OA.B.5  
Standard
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table  3  
 
 
Pre-­‐Assessment   Overall  Score  
9  
8  
7  
6  
5  
Score

4  
3  
2  
1  
0  
Brinlee

Taylor

Tino

 

Charly
 
Student  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Reflection  of  results:  
 
  Based  on  the  pre-­‐assessment  results  we  were  able  to  see  that  the  students  had  
mastered  dividing  with  0  and  1.  Other  than  that  we  were  able  to  spend  our  time  specifically  on  
multiplication  facts  and  skills.  This  adjusted  our  unit  design  by  allowing  us  two  lessons  for  
multiplication  instead  of  one  lesson  on  multiplication  and  another  on  division  using  1  and  0.  
Due  to  our  pre  assessment  data  results  I  determined  that  the  students  didn’t  understand  the  
basics  of  multiplication  including  the  terminology  and  also  that  multiplication  is  in  essence  
repeated  addition.    As  a  result,  I  knew  that  it  would  require  that  I  include  teaching  with  visual  
methods  including  drawing  out  full  pictures,  and  using  manipulatives  instead  of  teaching  them  
tricks  for  just  memorizing  the  facts.    
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Lesson  plan  #1  
 
 
Date  Taught:  11/14/16  
 
Topic:  Representing  Multiplication  and  Division    
 
Standard:  CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.A.3  and  CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.A.4    
Objectives:  SWBT  multiply  and  divide  whole  numbers  using  representational  strategies.  Also  
recognize  an  unknown  number  in  an  equation  to  make  it  true.    
Student-­‐Friendly  Objective:  I  can  multiply  numbers  by  drawing  the  array  strategy.  I  can  divide  
numbers  using  the  measurement  strategy.  I  can  find  the  missing  number  in  a  sentence  to  make  
it  true.    
 
Assessment  Plan:  Students  multiplied  and  divided  numbers  using  the  different  models.  Then  
students  explained  the  model  to  their  partner.  As  a  group,  students  will  agree  with  thumbs  up  if  
a  number  sentence  is  true  or  give  a  thumbs  down  if  it  isn’t  true,  then  explain.    
 
Materials  Needed:  White  boards,  markers    
 
Key  Vocabulary:  Number  set,  array  model,  measurement  model    
 
Anticipatory  Set  (Gain  attention/motivation/recall  prior  knowledge):  
Where  do  you  use  multiplication?  And  division?  (5  minutes  group  discussion)  
Examples:  teaching,  kickball  teams,  cutting  a  cake  at  a  birthday  party,  how  often  do  you  
get  to  be  the  star  student  in  kindergarten  in  one  school  year  if  there  are  30  students,  
how  often  do  you  get  to  feed  the  class  snake  in  1  school  a  year  if  there  are  30  students      
Instructional  Inputs:  
Q:  What  is  multiplication?  (Hannah  3-­‐5  minutes)  
A:  Multiplication  is  the  group  or  set  of  numbers  combined  with  another  set  of  numbers.    
Q:  Are  the  numbers  getting  bigger  or  smaller?  
A:  Yes!  Bigger    
Q:  What  is  division?  (Mariah  3-­‐5  minutes)  
A:  Sharing  out  something  or  “undoing  multiplying”    
Q:  Are  the  numbers  getting  bigger  or  smaller?  
A:  Smaller    
 
Modeling:    
Hannah:  demonstrate  the  array  model  (Group  5-­‐7  minutes)    
Mariah:  demonstrate  measurement  division    (Group  5-­‐7  minutes)  
 
Guided  Practice:  
 
Teacher:  Draw  four  multiplication  problems  using  the  array  model  on  the  white  board.    
Student:  The  student  will  fill  in  the  blank  space  with  dots,  then  write  the  problem  out  using  
standard  numbers.  Ex.  4x5=20    
Explain  in  their  own  words  how  they  solved  the  problem.    
 
Teacher:  Draw  four  division  problems  using  the  measurement  model  on  the  white  board.    
Student:  The  student  will  count  how  many  equal  groups  can  be  made,  because  they  know  the  
size  in  the  group.  Explain  in  their  own  words  how  they  solved  the  problem.    
(The  number  you  start  with  divided  by  the  size  of  the  groups  equals  the  number  of  groups.)  
Ex.  20  divided  by  4  people  in  in  each  group  equals  5  groups  total.    
 
 
Closure:  
Ticket  to  recess:  Students  will  be  given  a  multiplication  and  division  problem  to  shoot  in  
a  basket  before  they  leave  class.    
Students  will  receive  flash  cards  before  they  leave  the  class.    
 
Independent  practice/application:  
Using  flash  cards  students  will  practice  their  multiplication  and  division  facts  of  numbers  1-­‐10.  
 
Reflection:  
 
Two  things  that  I  felt  went  well  were  the  use  of  manipulatives,  as  well  as  the  method  we  
chose  to  teach  multiplication.  We  used  white  boards  and  the  array  model  to  better  meet  
the  needs  of  this  particular  group  of  students  who  were  the  group  that  the  teacher  said  
struggles  with  multiplication  still.  By  using  the  white  boards  and  markers  each  student  was  
able  to  demonstrate  individually  the  concepts  we  were  teaching  and  also  having  a  sense  of  
independence.  Using  the  array  model  we  gained  insight  into  what  the  students  did  and  did  
not  understand  about  the  foundational  principle’s  involved  in  multiplication  which  is,  at  its  
core,  repeated  addition.  The  visual  nature  of  the  array  model  allows  students  to  understand  
better  that  multiplication  is  adding  a  group  or  groups  of  numbers  together  to  make  a  larger  
number.    
Additionally,  two  things  that  could  have  been  improved  were  our  co-­‐teaching  and  our  
time  management.  Due  to  an  inability  to  see  the  holes  in  our  lesson  prep  until  we  were  
actually  teaching,  there  was  confusion  between  both  my  partner  and  I  as  to  the  direction  
we  were  going  at  certain  points  and  this  in  turn  translated  to  confusion  on  the  student’s  
part.  For  example,  I  was  initially  supposed  to  begin  with  a  specific  anticipatory  set,  through  
talking  with  the  students  I  felt  that  it  may  be  better  to  discuss  what  multiplication  is  and  
then  to  our  previously  planned  anticipatory  set.  Not  understanding  my  thought  process  
Mariah,  tried  changing  the  direction  of  the  discussion  back  to  the  anticipatory  set.  Once  we  
were  off  task  it  made  it  difficult  to  re-­‐group.  Lastly,  our  time  management  as  a  team  was  
not  as  we  had  planned.  The  intent  of  the  lesson  was  to  really  focus  on  division  with  a  short  
introduction  of  multiplication.  We  spent  about  30-­‐35  minutes  discussing  the  array  model  of  
multiplication  and  about  five  minutes  of  division  which  left  only  two  minutes  for  our  “exit  
ticket”  to  recess,  which  we  both  felt  like  would  have  been  a  fun  and  exciting  opportunity  for  
the  students  to  go  over  what  they  learned  for  the  day.    
My  suggestion  for  improvement  for  next  class  period  is  to  actually  role-­‐play  our  lesson.  
By  talking  to  each  other  prior  to  class  I  believe  we  will  find  the  “holes”  in  our  lesson  and  its  
preparation  before  we  are  actually  in  front  of  the  students.  I  would  also  suggest  that  Mariah  
and  I  discuss  an  effective  way  of  reminding  each  other  of  time  in  a  way  that  does  not  
detract  from  the  lesson  or  side  track  students.  This  could  include  a  head  nod,  or  a  tap  on  
the  wrist.    
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Commutative  property  of  multiplication  
 
Lesson  Plan  #2  
Date  Taught:  11/14/16  
 
Topic:  Commutative  property  of  multiplication  
 
Standard:  CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.B.5  (Commutative  and  Distributive  property)  
 
Objectives:  Teach  students  the  definition  of  the  commutative  property  of  multiplication.  Also  
recognize  an  unknown  number  in  an  equation  to  make  it  true.  
 
Student-­‐Friendly  Objective:  I  know  the  definition  of  the  commutative  property  of  
multiplication.  
 
Assessment  Plan:  Students  will  be  able  to  explain  in  their  own  words  the  commutative  
property  of  multiplication  then  match  notecards  with  their  complimentary  card  that  displays  
the  commutative  property  of  addition.  
 
Materials  Needed:  Flashcards,  whiteboards/markers,  pencils,  paper.  
 
Key  Vocabulary:  array,  factors,  multiplication,  identity  property  of  multiplication,  product.  
 
Anticipatory  Set  (Gain  attention/motivation/recall  prior  knowledge):  
•   Walk  from  the  teacher’s  lounge  to  the  side  doors,  and  back  to  the  teacher’s  lounge.    
Instructional  Inputs:  
•   Q:  Is  going  from  the  teacher’s  lounge  to  the  side  doors  the  same  as  going  from  the  side  
doors  to  the  teacher’s  lounge?  
•   A:  Yes,  no  matter  which  location  you  started  at,  the  path  was  the  same.    
Modeling:  
•   Using  the  array  model  demonstrate  that  2  x  4=  4  x  2  
•   Identify  the  product  and  the  factors.    
•   Reiterate  that  when  you  switch  the  factors  you  always  get  the  same  product.    
Guided  Practice:  
•   Take  students  through  the  process  step-­‐by-­‐step  
•   Components  to  help  students  successfully  master  or  take  steps  towards  mastery  of  the  
objective  
•   Include  checking  for  understanding  during  guided  practice;  how  will  you  check  for  
understanding?  
•   Using  the  equation  35  x  5  =  175,  show  them  the  equation  5  x  35  =  175  and  175  x  5  =  35  
and  ask  which  of  the  two  represent  the  commutative  property.  
•   Once  they  have  chosen  the  correct  answer,  have  the  students  create  their  own  problem  
that  displays  the  commutative  property  of  multiplication.    
•   Explain  to  students  that  there  are  notecards  around  the  room.  They  must  find  the  
notecard  that  matches  the  notecard  they  have  been  given  that  displays  the  
commutative  property  of  multiplication.  Whoever  finds  the  most  matches  wins.    
Closure:  
•   Review  or  summary  of  critical  objectives    
•   Q:  Does  switching  the  order  of  the  factors  affect  the  product  in  a  multiplication  
problem?  
•   A:  No,  you  will  always  get  the  same  answer.    
•   Q:  Why  is  knowing  the  commutative  property  of  multiplication  important?  
•   A:  Because  you  are  able  to  memorize  double  the  multiplication  facts  by  understanding  
order  doesn’t  matter.    
 
Independent  practice/application:  
•   Students  will  explain  in  their  own  words  the  commutative  property  of  multiplication  
then  match  notecards  with  the  complimentary  card  that  displays  the  commutative  
property  of  addition.  
 
Reflection:  
 
In  the  execution  of  our  lesson  plan  today  two  things  that  went  well  were  our  activities,  and  
our  co-­‐teaching  strategy.  We  chose  to  begin  our  lesson  with  a  movement  activity,  which  
displayed  how  a  student  can  “commute”  from  one  space  to  another  starting  from  two  different  
places  and  still  get  to  the  destination.  They  were  therefore  able  to  make  that  same  connection  
with  the  commutative  property.  No  matter  which  factor  they  started  with  they  would  still  get  
the  same  product.  We  also  played  a  matching  game  in  the  gym,  which  not  only  gave  the  
students  the  opportunity  to  practice  their  multiplication  facts  but  also  demonstrate  the  
commutative  property  with  a  healthy  competition  between  classmates.    
Two  things  that  could  have  been  improved  were  our  closure,  and  splitting  up  our  lesson  
more  evenly  between  the  two  teachers.  Our  closure  activity  went  from  what  it  was  supposed  to  
be,  which  was  reviewing  the  commutative  property  of  multiplication  and  its  related  vocabulary  
to  introducing  a  new  topic  that  created  confusion  and  disorganization.  As  previously  
mentioned,  in  addition  to  our  closure  I  felt  that  we  could  have  split  up  the  lesson  more  evenly  
between  teachers  so  it  was  less  “one  teach  one  assist”  and  more  of  an  even  interaction  for  each  
teacher  and  the  group  of  students.    
Post-­‐assessment:  
 
  A  post  assessment  is  used  to  compare  where  your  students  began  to  where  they  are  at  
after  the  unit  has  been  taught.  By  using  a  post  assessment  you  gain  the  ability  to  see  the  
effectiveness  of  your  teaching.  Furthermore,  you  can  better  adjust  your  instruction  to  fortify  
their  foundational  understanding.  In  the  post  assessment  I  wanted  the  students  to  understand  
the  terms:  factor,  product  and  Commutative  Property  of  Multiplication.  Additionally,  the  
expectation  was  that  each  student  would  demonstrate  his  or  her  understanding  of  said  terms  
by  whatever  means  the  instructor  feels  are  best.  This  may  include  multiple  means  of  
representation  such  as  drawing,  verbally,  or  writing.      
 
Reliability,  Validity,  and  Bias  
The  post  assessment  was  reliable,  valid,  and  unbiased.  It  is  reliable  in  that  it  measures  
the  standards  by  which  we  modeled  our  lessons.  For  example  standard    
CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.A.3,  and  CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.A.4  were  used  in  the  first  
lesson  plan  and  again  on  the  post  assessment  and  standard  CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.B.5  was  
used  on  the  second  lesson  plan  and  again  in  the  post  assessment.    
   
Administration  conditions  
 
  The  post  assessment  was  again  administered  individually  and  on  a  worksheet.  Students  
were  again  given  45  minutes  to  complete  the  assessment  and  had  more  time  than  was  
necessary  to  finish  it.  All  students  completed  the  assessment  within  15  minutes.    
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Post  assessment  (TEACHER  COPY)  
 
CCSS.Math.Content.3.OA.A.4  
 
1.   5  X  7  =  35  
 
2.   5  X  4  =  20  
 
 
CCSS.Math.Content.3.OA.A.3  
CCSS.Math.Content.3.OA.C.7  
 
3.   Using  the  array  model  show  3  X  4  =  12  
 
 
OOOO  
OOOO  
OOOO  
 
4.   Circle  the  product  of  this  multiplication  problem  
 
9  X  4  =  36  
 
5.   Using  the  array  model  show  what  the  product  of  4  X  5  =  20  
 
 
OOOOO  
OOOOO  
OOOOO  
OOOOO  
 
 
CCSS.Math.Content.3.OA.B.5  
6.   Circle  which  of  these  problems  shows  the  commutative  property  of  multiplication.  
 
A.   6  X  4  =  24  
4  X  6=  24  
 
B.   1  X  10  =  10  
1  X  10  =  10  
 
C.   8  X  4  =  32  
4  X  32=  8  
 
7.   Give  your  own  example  of  a  multiplication  problem  that  shows  the  commutative  
property  of  multiplication.    
 
 
8.   Circle  the  factors  of  the  multiplication  problem.    
 
 
7  X  4  =  28  
 
 
9.   Fill  in  the  blank:  
 
The  commutative  property  of  multiplication  means  you  can  switch  the  FACTORS  of  a  
multiplication  problem  to  get  the  same  product.    
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Standard     Test  Items  that  Assess  that  Standard    
CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.A.3   3,  4,  5  
CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.A.4   1,  2  
CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.B.5   6,  7,  8,  9,    
CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.C.7   3,  4,  5,    
 
 
Test  Items     Standard  represented    
1   CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.A.4  
2   CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.A.4  
3   CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.A.3  
CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.C.7  
4   CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.A.3  
CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.C.7  
5   CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.A.3  
CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.C.7  
6   CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.B.5  
7   CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.B.5  
8   CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.B.5  
9     CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.B.5  
 
 
Reflection:  
 
If  given  the  opportunity  I  would  have  changed  the  wording  of  some  of  the  questions  on  
the  assessment  so  as  to  make  it  more  age  appropriate.  On  questions  such  as  8  and  9  the  
students  were  asked  to  use  or  identify  the  word  factor.  All  of  the  students  got  9  correctly  but  
not  everyone  got  question  8  correctly.  This  showed  that  the  exam  questions  were  not  a  matter  
of  testing  their  knowledge  because  they  knew  what  a  factor  was  but  rather  testing  whether  or  
not  they  understood  the  wording  of  the  question.  Given,  that  assessments  are  to  test  
knowledge  base  I  would  like  to  create  an  assessment  that  is  a  platform  to  do  so.    
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Post-­‐assessment  Results  
  According  to  the  data  seen  in  figure  6  the  mean  of  the  scores  is  80.35%,  the  range  is  6.5  
or  72.22%,  and  the  median  is  5.5  or  61.11%.    
 
 
 
Data  Analysis:  
 
The  post  assessment  shows  that  the  students  understood  standards  
CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.A.3,  CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.B.5,  and  
CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.C.7  but  still  need  a  significant  amount  of  work  learning  standard  
CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.A.4.  Based  on  each  assessment  question  the  students  still  need  to  
learn  how  certain  concepts  can  mean  the  same  things  but  look  different.  For  example  all  of  the  
students  knew  that  in  the  commutative  property  of  multiplication  you  switch  the  factors  and  
get  the  same  product,  however  when  the  students  were  asked  to  apply  this  knowledge  by  
identify  the  factors  and  the  product  not  all  of  them  circled  the  correct  answers.  This  showed  
that  the  students  need  more  time  learning  how  to  apply  their  knowledge  and  identify  it  in  
different  situations.    
  The  data  demonstrates  that  students  still  need  a  lot  of  help  transitioning  from  
manipulatives  and  pictures  to  the  memorization  of  the  multiplication  facts.  For  example  all  of  
the  students  correctly  answered  question  number  three  which  asks  them  to  draw  an  array  
model  but  only  one  student  got  questions  one  and  two  correctly  which  call  for  the  answers  to  
multiplication  problems.  This  showed  that  they  understand  the  foundation  upon  which  
multiplication  comes  from  but  cannot  apply  it  to  equations.  I  believe  these  results  are  due  to  a  
lack  of  time  and  repetition  spent  on  learning  the  multiplication  facts.    
 
 
Figure  4    

Post  Assessment  Item   Number  
4
3
Students  Correct
2
1
0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Item  Number
Pre   Post  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure  5    

Post  Assessment:  Standards  
12

10

8
Items

6

4

2

0
3.OA.A.3 3.OA.A.4 3.OA.B.5   3.OA.C.7
Standards
 
 
 
 
Figure  6    

Post  Assessment  Overall  Score  
9

7

5
Scores

3

1

-­‐1 Brinlee Taylor Tino Charly
Student

Pre Post
 
 
 
 
 
Reflection  of  results:  
 
  Based  on  the  results  of  this  data  I  would  spend  slightly  less  time  on  teaching  the  array  
model  and  commutative  property  and  spend  more  time  on  the  memorization  of  multiplication  
facts.  By  spending  a  little  less  time  on  the  foundational  skills  and  more  on  the  repetition  of  the  
multiplication  problems  we  would  have  been  able  to  help  the  students  transition  to  the  
application  of  the  concepts  being  taught  and  they  would  have  more  likely  been  closer  to  where  
their  peers  are  at  in  this  unit.  From  this  analysis  I  learned  that  our  units  must  constantly  be  
ready  to  be  modified  and  improved  based  on  the  needs  of  our  students  and  what  the  data  
shows.  When  we  fail  to  make  these  changes  as  necessary  we  fail  to  teach  to  the  needs  of  our  
students.  By  using  both  the  pre  and  post  assessment  data  I  was  better  able  to  understand  what  
worked  and  what  did  not  work  as  far  as  what  methods  I  used  in  teaching  my  students.  At  times  
they  learned  faster  or  slower  than  I  expected,  which  I  would  not  have  known  had  I  not  assessed  
the  data.  By  using  data  and  not  feeling  alone  I  am  better  able  to  understand  my  students  more  
clearly  and  learn  to  better  cater  to  their  needs.  For  example  I  thought  they  would  have  easily  
been  able  to  translate  the  vocabulary  we  used  to  an  actual  multiplication  problem  and  identify  
its  parts  when  in  reality  they  only  understood  the  words  I  was  saying  and  not  the  application.    
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Overall  reflection:  
 
 
 
  The  unit  honed  in  on  multiplication,  more  specifically  the  Commutative  Property  of  
Multiplication  and  representing  multiplication  and  division  as  specified  in  standard  
CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.A.4.  The  intention  of  our  unit  was  to  build  our  students  
foundational  understanding  of  multiplication  by  using  manipulatives  to  demonstrate  that  
multiplication  is  adding  a  group  of  numbers  together  a  given  number  of  times,  essentially  
repeated  addition.  We  later  identified  the  terms  used  when  learning  multiplication  such  as  
factors,  and  products.  As  the  last  part  of  our  multiplication  unit  we  illustrated  the  commutative  
property  so  that  the  students  would  know  that  switching  the  order  of  the  factors  will  still  give  
you  the  same  product.    
  I  believe  that  much  of  our  student’s  growth  was  achieved  by  asking  informal  assessment  
questions  during  instruction  and  then,  in  turn,  directing  our  teaching  based  on  those  questions.  
Having  smaller  groups  and  sufficient  time,  we  were  able  to  make  sure  that  students  understood  
the  material  being  presented.  Given  that  our  students  were  progressing  more  slowly  than  their  
peers  I  believe  that  they  needed  explicit  instruction  that  could  only  be  given  in  a  smaller  group.  
I  believe  there  was  a  lack  of  growth  with  certain  standards  because  there  was  less  time  spent  
on  those  standards.  For  example  CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.OA.A.4  was  taught  in  our  first  lesson  
plan.  Our  intent  was  to  spend  30  our  of  our  45  minute  lesson  on  that  standard  but  we  spent  
more  than  35  minutes  on  teaching  the  array  model  and  the  last  few  minutes  on  the  common  
core  standard.    
From  our  unit  I  learned  that  instruction  must  be  thoroughly  prepared  for.  By  this  I  mean  
to  refer  to  the  importance  of  understanding  a  topic  both  deeply  and  on  a  surface  level.  When  
we  are  prepared  by  first  personally  understanding  a  topic  we  will  then  have  the  ability  to  allow  
the  lesson  to  go  where  it  needs  to  go  in  order  to  fulfill  the  academic  needs  of  our  students.  For  
example  if  we  prepare  a  lesson  and  have  a  set  expectation  of  how  the  lesson  will  go,  and  only  
stick  to  that  expectation  we  will  more  often  than  not  overlook  the  role  we  have  to  instruct  
based  on  student’s  needs.    
  Based  on  my  teaching,  I  found  I  was  challenged  in  my  attempt  to  balance  the  various  
needs  of  students  as  well  as  incorporating  the  input  of  others  into  my  teaching.    My  students  
were  in  various  places  and  have  different  needs  as  far  as  their  learning  styles  and  where  they  
are  at  academically.  In  teaching  as  a  profession  there  are  a  large  number  of  those  in  our  sphere  
of  influence.  This  often  means  that  we  have  to  coordinate  with  other  teachers,  parents,  and  
educators  to  make  sure  that  things  are  being  taught  in  the  classroom  that  will  benefit  the  
student.  The  experience  of  teaching  this  unit  was  a  great  practice  run  for  my  senior  practicum.      
I  worked  with  a  partner  who  has  completely  different  expectations  of  how  a  lesson  should  be  
taught.    As  a  result,  we  had  to  make  changes  to  accommodate  each  other  in  certain  aspects  of  
the  lessons.  This  skill  will  enable  me  to  be  a  better  team  member  in  both  my  practicum  and  
future  career.  In  addition  to  those  specific  struggles  I  had  in  my  teaching  experience  something  
positive  became  clear.    I  learned  through  teaching  was  that  I  can  teach  and  be  successful  if  I  
continue  to  be  open  to  things  I  need  to  improve.  I  was  able  to  experience  the  things  I  have  to  
offer  to  the  world  of  education  in  real  time  and  felt  rejuvenated  to  carry  on  in  my  quest  to  
become  a  teacher.  This  positive  experience  will  help  me  to  be  more  confident  moving  on  to  my  
senior  practicum  and  student  teaching  because  I  know  that  through  humility  I  can  become  the  
best  teacher  I  can.    
  Through  this  semester  I  have  learned  several  things  about  myself  as  a  teacher  and  
person.  As  a  teacher  I  have  learned  that  in  order  to  be  a  true  educator  I  cannot  just  worry  about  
my  own  success  but  also  the  success  of  my  peers  and  the  families  I  come  in  contact  with.  As  a  
teacher  it  is  my  responsibility  to  educate  peers  and  families  about  best  practices  so  that  
together  we  can  make  positive  changes  happen.  As  a  person  I  have  learned  that  sometimes  
success  does  not  always  mean  being  the  best  but  rather  possessing  the  ability  to  wade  through  
hard  experiences  and  specifically  hard  classes  while  at  the  same  time  helping  others  along  their  
path.  I  previously  viewed  success  as  something  flashy  and  I  only  considered  it  “success”  if  
others  publicly  acknowledge  it  as  such.  Through  my  participation  in  this  course  specifically  I  
learned  that  success  can  sometimes  mean  hunkering  down  during  the  hard  times  when  others  
give  up;  in  short,  doing  your  best  even  when  you  find  yourself  way  out  of  your  comfort  zone.