Modified Task 4 Assignment 

Spring 2018 MAED 3224 

  
Section A: Context for Learning 
1. Grade level: 4th 

2. How much time is devoted each day to mathematics instruction in your classroom? 

-1 hour to 1 hour and 20 minutes 

3. Identify any textbook or instructional program the teacher uses for mathematics instruction. 
If a textbook, please provide the title, publisher, and date of publication. 

-none, the instructional program is teacher created 

4. From your observations, list other resources (e.g., electronic whiteboard, manipulatives, 
online resources) the teacher uses for mathematics instruction in this class. P
​ rovide one 
example of how a resource was used to teach a concept. 

-Base Ten Blocks were used to model the relationship of hundredths, tenths, and one 
whole for teaching decimals.  

5. From your observations, explain how your teacher makes sure the students learn the 
standard/objectives conceptually giving a specific example. 

-My teacher uses strategic small groupings to target the specific weaknesses that 
students show through their work on exit tickets. The groupings for the rotations change 
everyday based on the students performance the day before. Two of the other math rotations 
will also have work that will allow students to individually or in groups practice the math skill 
that they are working on (Partner group and Math Challenge group). 

6. What did you learn most about teaching mathematics from observing this teacher? 

-What I learned most was that sometimes you have to evaluate how your students are 
doing and understanding a concept, and then reteach if necessary. For example, I was asked to 
teach on comparing fractions because my cooperating teacher knew that she had some 
students that were still struggling with comparing fractions. I learned that, since mathematics 
skills build upon one another, sometimes it is necessary to slow down or take a step back so 
that students have a good foundation to build upon. 

Section B: Whole Class Lesson 

 
1. Describe the Central Focus of your lesson (a description of the important understandings 
and core concepts that students will develop with this lesson). 
 -Students will compare fractions by creating fractions models, comparing the fractions 
to benchmark fractions, or creating common denominators. They will also compare fractions 
using >, =, or <. 

2. State the CCSSM Standard and the objective for your whole class lesson. 

-4.NF.A.2- ​Compare two fractions with different numerators and different denominators, 
e.g., by creating common denominators or numerators, or by comparing to a benchmark 
fraction such as 1/2. Recognize that comparisons are valid only when the two fractions refer to 
the same whole. Record the results of comparisons with symbols >, =, or <, and justify the 
conclusions, e.g., by using a visual fraction model. 

3. Instructional Strategies and Learning Tasks: (summarize the lesson plan components by 
briefly describing the instruction and the learning tasks you used. Include the tasks students will 
solve during the lesson.) 

-I reviewed different strategies for comparing fractions with the students (creating 
fraction models, comparing to benchmark fractions, and creating common denominators). The 
students then played “Fraction War”, which is played like the card game. Students each got half 
of a deck of pre-made cards with fractions written on them. Each student flips a card. The 
students then must compare the fraction to determine which fraction is larger. The student with 
the larger fraction gets to have both cards. If the fractions are equivalent, each student gets one 
card. I also required students to write down the number sentence of each pair of cards, using 
the correct <, =, or > symbol. I then called the students back together to discuss the activity. I 
asked them if there were any fractions that they had a difficult time with and if there were times 
that a partner group disagreed upon which fraction was larger. I then again reviewed the 
strategies that they can use to compare fractions. Students were then given an exit ticket to 
access their understanding. 

4. Create a formative assessment that assesses conceptual knowledge, procedural fluency, 

and problem solving. 

 
5. Define your evaluation criteria for mastery of the assessment in a rubric. Make sure you 
define separately conceptual understanding, procedural fluency, and problem solving parts of 
this rubric, including the corresponding points. ​Insert this rubric here.  

I graded the exit ticket as follows: 

-Conceptual Understanding: 4 Points​- was their a fraction model or a sentence that 

explained their thinking? There were times that there was a fraction model, but it did not 
demonstrate understanding, do I gave them 2 points rather than 4. 

- Procedural Fluency: 2 Points​- Did the students come to the right answer? 

-Problem Solving: 4 Points​- Did the student write out a number sentence and use the <, 
=, or > symbols?  

Section C: Results of Whole Class Assessment 

1. Create a graphic showing class performance of conceptual understanding, procedural 
fluency, and problem solving of the objective. This can be pie charts, tables, bar graph etc. but 
must show performance in each of the above areas separately, according to each student’s 
performance in the formative assessment.  
Student  Conceptual  Procedural  Problem Solving  Total (10 pts) 
Understanding  Fluency (2pts)  (4pts) 
(4pts) 

A  2  0  4  6 

B  4  2  4  10 

C  4  2  4  10 

D  2  0  4  6 

E  0  0  4  4 

F  4  2  4  10 

G  2  0  4  6 

H  2  0  4  6 

I  2  0  2  4 

J  2  0  4  6 

K  4  2  4  10 

L  2  0  4  6 

M  0  0  4  4 
 
2. Describe common error patterns in each of the areas of patterns of learning - conceptual 
understanding, procedural fluency, and problem solving. Refer to the graphic to support your 
discussion.  
 
Two out of Thirteen students demonstrated no conceptual understanding in their 
response and 7 out of 13 students demonstrated some procedural fluency in their response. 
The two students who did not demonstrate procedural fluency did not draw a fraction model. 
The sentences they wrote did not demonstrate any understanding of how they came to the 
answer they did. The seven students who partly demonstrated procedural fluency drew fraction 
models and drew them correctly. However, they still came to the conclusion that ⅔ > than ⅘. This 
demonstrates that while they can draw a fraction model, they do not conceptually understand 
how to use the model to compare fractions. 
Nine of the Thirteen students did not demonstrate procedural fluency. I gave them two 
fractions to compare that are close (⅔ and ⅘). The comparison of these fractions required 
students to think more critically about the sizes of a part of a whole. These students do not 
understand that in a fraction comparison where each fraction is one part away from making a 
whole, the whole that is broken into the most parts (in this case ⅘) is the larger fraction, because 
the parts are smaller. 
Twelve of the Thirteen students were able to demonstrate problem solving. These 
students are well verse at writing number sentences and using the <, =, and > symbols. The one 
student who got partial credit for problem solving wrote the fractions down but did not write a 
symbol in between. This student has been able to use these symbols before, so I believe he got 
distracted in his work or was rushing to complete his exit ticket.  
 
3. Scan and insert here the copies of​ 2 students​ first work samples as follows. Choose the 
most representative examples from the whole class assessment (​no student names​). Then, 
analyze each student’s misconceptions. 
 
Student 1 Mathematics Work Sample (​ student struggles with conceptual understanding) 
Student E 

 
This student struggles with conceptual understanding. He drew no fraction model to 
help him reason through the problem and his sentence does not explain his reasoning, rather it 
is just rewriting the number sentence out into a sentence. He also changes his answer when 
writing out the sentence. This makes me believe that the student is guessing rather than using 
reasoning to come to an answer. 
 
Student 2 Mathematics Work Sample (​ student struggles with procedural fluency or problem 
solving) 

 
This student struggles with both procedural fluency and problem solving. He does not fill 
in his answer in his number sentence. He received partial credit for problem solving setting up 
the number sentence, but not completing it. While he does write a sentence explaining his 
thinking, his thinking is flawed. This student seems to think that just because both numbers are 
above ½, that means they are the same. He needs additional instruction to better understand 
that two fractions can be similar but not necessarily the same.  
  
Section D: Plan for Re-Engagement 
Assessment results are irrelevant if you do not act on them. Thus, you are to create a plan to 
use the results you described in Part C. You do not have to actually re-engage the students but 
you must show that you understand what to do with these results. Thus, based on the 
assessment results you described above, group each of your students into one of these groups:  
Group 1 - re-engage for conceptual 
Group 2 - re-engage for procedural  
Group 3 - re-engage for problem solving 
Group 4 - mastery/ready to move on 
 
1. Describe the number of students you will have in each of these groups. (Note: if a child 
performed poorly in multiple parts of the assessment, that child will start in the conceptual 
group) 
Group 1- Conceptual- Students D, I, and M 
Group 2- Procedural Fluency- Student A, D, G, H, J, and L 
 Group 3- Problem Solving- None, need to start at conceptual 
Group 4- Mastery- Students B, C, F, and K 
 
2. Plan to re-engage for conceptual understanding. 
 
a. Describe your re-engagement lesson for this group (objective from CCSSM, learning 
tasks, strategies, materials, assessment).  
-The CCSSM will be the same as above (4.NF.A.2). The teacher will model 
drawing fraction models and using them to solve fraction comparison problems. The 
students will each get a different fraction and then draw a fraction model of that 
fraction. The students, guided by the teacher, will then compare these fractions to one 
another to determine which one is the largest, which is the smallest, and which is in 
between. This will be repeated several times. The students will individually complete and 
exit ticket where they will draw fraction models for two fractions and then compare them 
to determine which is larger. 
Materials: dry erase boards, dry erase markers, exit ticket, pencils. 
 
b. Explain why you believe this re-engagement lesson will be effective based on the 
error patterns you found in the data. Score here will be based on how well you describe 
the connection to the re-engagement lesson and the error patterns found, effective use 
of materials, and sound methodology.  
-I believe the additional practice of drawing fraction models and the reasoning 
that goes on with drawing those models will help these students be more successful in 
their problem conceptual understanding of comparing fractions. 
 
c. Explain how you will reassess for mastery of the concept.  
-I will have students complete an exit ticket where they must draw a fraction 
model for each fraction. They will then use those fraction models to determine which 
fraction is larger. They will complete a number sentence using <, =, and > symbols. The 
fractions they will be comparing are 3/6 and ⅞.  
  
3a. Plan to Re-engage for procedural understanding. 
 
a. Describe your re-engagement lesson for this group (objective from CCSSM, learning 
tasks, strategies, materials, assessment).  
The CCSM will be the same as above (4.NF.A.2). The students will be given a 
series of fractions along with the corresponding fraction models. The teacher will 
demonstrate the thinking process of evaluating fraction models. The lesson will include 
fraction models where the model does not provide a clear answer. The teacher will 
model thinking where in using common numerators or denominators in comparing 
fractions. Students will work with partners to answer a series of fraction comparison 
number sentences in which the fraction models are included. Some they will be able to 
solve using the number sentences and some they will have to go a step further and use 
 common denominators or common numerators in order to solve the problem. The 
assessment will be an exit ticket where they will be asked to compare two fractions 
where the fraction models are provided. They will be asked to explain their thinking in a 
sentence. 
Materials: Fraction Model Sheet, pencils, exit tickets 
 
b. Explain why you believe this re-engagement lesson will be effective based on the 
error patterns you found in the data. Score here will be based on how well you describe 
the connection to the re-engagement lesson and the error patterns found, effective use 
of materials, and sound methodology.  
-While these students do not have a problem drawing fraction models, they have 
difficulties using them to come to the correct answer. I believe that additional instruction in the 
use of fraction models and comparing numerators/denominators will be beneficial to helping 
these students come to the correct answers. 
 
c. Explain how you will reassess for mastery of the concept.  
  -I will use an exit ticket where they are asked to compare ⅚ and ⅝. They will be 
given the fraction models on the exit ticket. I will require the students to write a sentence 
explaining how they came to their answer.  
 
 
Scoring Rubric 
  Possible 
Points 

Section A: Context for Learning    

A1  1 
A2  1 
A3  1 
A4  5 
A5  5 
A6  5 

Section B: Whole Class Lesson    

B1  1 
B2  1 
B3  10 
B4  8 
B5  10 

Section C: Results of whole class assessment    

C1  10 
C2  14 
 C3  6 

Section D: Plan for re-engagement    

D1  2 
D2  10 
D3a or D3b  10 

Total of all scores:   100