Nicole Steele 1

Micro Understanding of Mathematics Education - Case Study

CASE STUDY A

Paragraph 1: Student Demographic Information

The student I have chosen for this assignment is a 3rd grader named *Natasha
(pseudonym used to protect student identity). Natasha is eligible for special education with a
disability in the category of Specific Learning Disabilities in Mathematics/Problem Solving and
Math Calculation. Natasha is nine years old. She receives special education services via the
elementary resource program for two-five hours per school week. She also receives the following
supplementary aids/services: visual supports (desk copy of key words and list of steps in solving
problems), and break math problems down into smaller steps. Her annual IEP goals are as
follows:
 Natasha will add and subtract multi-digit numbers with 85% accuracy by May 21, 2019.
 Given an addition or subtraction word problem, Natasha will choose the correct operation
and solve with 80% accuracy by May 21, 2019.
According to recent observations of Natasha in the general education classroom along
with information from her general education teachers, Natasha does not have major concerns in
other academic areas. Natasha has a hard time maintaining focus in her classes, and often gets
distracted when asked to do independent tasks or when being instructed with the whole group.
She is currently reading at a level N (using Fountas and Pinnell guidelines) and the average of
her same-aged peers is around a level O, so she is performing around average in reading among
her peers. In regard to other academic subjects, she struggles maintaining focus and attention
throughout the class period. For example, her social studies general education teacher stated that
she does not do well in Social Studies because she cannot maintain attention on the subject for
long periods of time, not because she cannot handle the cognitive demand of the class. When
redirected multiple times or if there is another individual (student teacher, paraprofessional) to
check in with her and help her maintain focus, she does much better. This type of behavior
remains pretty constant throughout her other classes.
She approaches mathematical work in the general education classroom in a similar way.
She is often working on different academic content than her peers, so she is to work
independently without redirection which can be a struggle for her. Her current math class is
divided into stations – one with direct instruction, one with paraprofessional support, and one
with independent work. She does not go to the station for paraprofessional support because they
are working on fact fluency with multiplication, which she is not working on at this time. While
most of her peers in the third grade are working on multiplication and division facts, she is
working on subtraction and addition fact fluency, so when not she is not being directly
instructed, she is doing individual work which she often does not do because of her lack of
attention to the tasks.
She approaches mathematical work in the resource room classroom with ease. The
mathematical content we do in the resource room classroom is more at her level, and easier than
the general education curriculum (e.g., in the resource room, we are currently working on double
digit addition and subtraction facts. In the general education classroom, they are working on
multiplication and division). Natasha does well when working one on one with teachers or in
small groups with her peers. This helps her remain focused on the content at hand. I selected this
student because she had a specific learning disability in both categories related to mathematics.
Nicole Steele 2

She has other academic strengths, which made me interested in her understanding of
mathematics on a larger scale.

Paragraph 2: Assessments
I have given the following assessments: KeyMath3 and a grade two and grade three Easy
CBM Assessment. KeyMath3 is a norm-referenced assessment, which means the nature of the
assessment is to compare and rank individuals who take the test with their peers (same age or
same grade). I selected the KeyMath3 exam because of the nature of her disability along with her
age group, and I wanted to better understand her skill level in the following overall categories:
Basic Concepts, Operations, and Applications. I think understanding this information will give
me a better understanding of Natasha’s strengths and where her weaknesses may lie, and
hopefully find out where some of her mathematical knowledge breaks down in order to build it
back up in interventions later.
I selected the CBM assessments that I did because of her grade level, along with because
of her mathematical knowledge. I started giving her the grade three assessment, which was very
difficult for her. There were four questions on the first page, and she answered one question
correctly. There were four questions on the second page, and she refused to do this page because
she did not know how. She is not developing grade level math ideas and is still working on
younger foundational skills, so the grade level three CBM was deemed too difficult, so I gave her
a grade two CBM. Out of 10 questions I gave her with grade level two CBM questions, she was
able to answer eight of them correctly.

Paragraph 3: Strengths and Evidence from Assessments to Support Strengths

Using the KeyMath3 assessment results, her relative strengths were in the following
categories: Data Analysis and Probability, Addition and Subtraction, and Multiplication and
Division. These were the subtests where she scored the highest, however, she did not score on
grade level or near grade level for any subtest. Her highest score was on her Multiplication and
Division subtest, where she scored at a grade equivalent of 2.6. However, before starting this
part of the assessment, Natasha showed frustration and said she did not know how to complete
multiplication and division problems. I prompted her to just try her best and use the knowledge
she had learned in class and try to answer the questions. She answered the first three incorrectly,
and it was evident from observing her during the assessment that she was just writing a number
down that she saw in the problem as the answer (e.g., the first question was 6 x 1 and she
answered 1, the second question was 4 x 2 and she answered 4, the third question was 5 x 3 and
she answered 3). However, this caused her to get some answers correct, which meant I had to
continue the test until she hit her correct ceiling (e.g., the fourth question was 3 x 0 and she
answered 0, which was correct; the sixth question was 6 / 1 and she answered 6 which was
correct, etc.). Because of this, I would not consider it a strength for her because she got most of
the answers correct because of good guessing, and would actually consider it a weakness.
She scored in the 2.5 grade equivalent range for the Data Analysis and Probability
subtest. She did well with this test, and it proved to be a relative strength for her while taking the
assessment and in her results. She felt more confident in this section and was more easily and
accurately able to answer the questions. She did a great job of interpreting information on graphs
and in data tables, and was able to comprehend and accurately address the question asked in
these types of problems (e.g., she was able to read a complex mileage chart and show me where
Nicole Steele 3

two points came together, she was able to distinguish which number was representing data in a
graph, she was able to read a bar graph accurately, etc.).
She also showed a relative strength in the Addition and Subtraction subtest, scoring in the
2.1 grade level equivalent range. Natasha was able to quickly and accurately solve one-digit
addition and subtraction problems using her known strategies (using her fingers, counting up,
and counting back). When given two-digit problems, she was able to more accurately answer
addition problems than subtraction, but struggled to complete both of them and hit her ceiling
within two-digit problems. She seemed to feel relatively confident in this section. She does
practice these skills the most within her current math class, so she was very familiar and
comfortable with the questions being asked and was able to complete the problems quickly. This
information was consistent with the CBM test given. She was able to accurately answer most
addition and subtraction problems that were single digit or even multi-digit that did not involve
regrouping. Once regrouping was involved, she was unable to complete the problems accurately.
Also given the CBM assessment, she was able to answer comparing questions very effectively
(e.g., questions that asked her to use the greater than, less than, or equal to symbol).
While giving the assessment, Natasha was very attentive, on-task, focused, and tried
extremely hard. It took her a very long time to complete each question and she was really
thinking about the answers before stating anything to me, which showed me that she was
motivated and trying her hardest. However, she did not seem very confident in herself when
giving me the answers. She seemed to question herself and her thought process multiple times
before coming to an answer and did not seem confident that she knew how to complete the
question asked.

Paragraph 4: The student’s weaknesses or areas of instructional concerns and evidence from
assessments to support those weaknesses
Using the KeyMath3 assessment results, Natasha’s biggest weaknesses or areas of
concern were in the following subtests: Numeration, Mental Computation and Estimation, and
Applied Problem Solving. Her biggest instructional concern is in the area of Mental Computation
and Estimation. She scored in the K.1 grade level equivalency range for this subtest. She was
only able to answer two questions correctly and had a lot of trouble with this portion of the test.
When giving this test, I could see the frustration on her face because she could not mentally
compute the answers and give me a correct response. When the test was over, she was very
relieved to move on to a new subtest. This seemed like a high stress and very difficult area for
Natasha.
She scored in the K.8 grade level equivalency range for the Applied Problem-Solving
subtest. One of her disability categories is currently in Mathematics/Problem Solving, so it made
sense that this was an area of concern for Natasha. In this test, she had a hard time identifying
shapes, identifying which items were used in the same way and finding the one that did not
belong, selecting the next item in a pattern, understanding number pairs, etc. This weakness also
was shown in the CBM given to Natasha. In the CBM’s, she had a hard time identifying shapes
and putting shapes together. She also was unable to use number pairs as a strategy to solve her
addition problems and just focused on using the strategies of using her fingers, counting up, and
counting back. She also struggled with multi-step problems. For example, there was a multi-step
single digit addition problem, and she saw the first two numbers, added them together and
ignored the last number in the problem. This resulted in her getting the incorrect answer.
Nicole Steele 4

She scored in the 1.2 grade level equivalency range for the Numeration subtest. This area
is an instructional weakness. She had trouble identifying items numbered in a line, ordering
numbers, adding boxes of 10, counting by 10s, finding unknown numbers in a number sequence,
and using stacks to make cubes. She was able to count starting from one with accuracy but could
not effectively count up starting from another number, and had a hard time counting up by more
than one at a time (e.g., counting by 5’s, counting by 10’s). Also, as stated above in the previous
section, she had trouble within multi-digit addition and subtraction facts when it came to
regrouping numbers. She was able to effectively solve problems if they did not involve
regrouping but was unable to accurately regroup within her problems to arrive at the correct
answer. Also, on her CBM assessments, when given multiplication or division problems, she
automatically gave up and did not even attempt to solve them. If there was a portion of a
question that asked for a simple multiplication problem, she automatically assumed she did not
know and made a guess. This shows me that multiplication and division are areas of weakness
and areas of unknown for Natasha.

Paragraph 5: Discussion of Contextual Issues

Natasha is identified as having a Specific Learning Disability in Math Calculation and
Mathematics/Problem Solving. In other academic areas, she seems to do well, but frequently has
issues maintaining focus on material. She is almost on grade level for reading among her peers,
and she has a strength in that area. She also writes very well and has a good understanding of
spelling knowledge and systems. She also has strong phonics skills and a solid literacy
development. There are no language development/proficiency issues in regard to Natasha. Her
home environment does not seem to negatively affect her educational experience.

Paragraph 6: Information Learned from Assessments to Guide Instruction and Instruction

Planning
Throughout giving this assessment, I learned where some of Natasha’s weaknesses lie
and where I can build on some of her strengths. This will guide my instructional planning in
order to meet her individual needs by using her strengths to her advantage and focus on working
on her weaknesses. I believe that using manipulatives and more concrete references will enhance
Natasha’s understanding of the process in regard to problems (especially word problems) and
may help her identify more concrete strategies in solving those problems. I also think Natasha
would benefit from having more modeling and guiding problems with scaffolding rather than a
focus on individual work. However, I think when given individual tasks it is going to be
important to check for accuracy at the outset of an independent task involving practice of
computation problems, because it is important that correction is made immediately so Natasha
will not reinforce and rehearse common errors she is making. I also think Natasha would benefit
from a template that provides boxes to be filled in when completing computation problems in
order to cue the student to the correct procedure. This should be faded and eliminated as she
gains mastery, but I believe it will help her gain a more solid understanding at this time.
Nicole Steele 5

Case Study B

Targeted Mathematical Area: Mental Math Computation for addition and subtraction

Anticipated Targeted Time

Anticipated Duration: 12 weeks (1 semester)
Sessions: 24 sessions
Frequency: 2 sessions per week

Rationale:
Natasha had relative strengths in the areas of data analysis and probability and also
addition and subtraction based on the results from the KeyMath-3 assessment. However, Natasha
scored the lowest in the area of mental math and estimation on the KeyMath-3 assessment.
Although she did not score at grade level for any of the subtests, she scored the lowest on this
subtest which leads me to believe that she needs interventions in this area to help her move
forward in her mathematical understanding. Natasha’s goal for this intervention is to be able to
think about math in new ways and develop new strategies to work through mathematical
equations.

Intervention Periods
Amount of time per sessions: 30 minutes
Frequency: 2 sessions per week for 12 weeks (24 sessions total)

Rationale:
Natasha has a Specific Learning Disability in the categories of Mathematics/Problem
Solving and Math Calculation. Her current IEP goals are as follows:
 Natasha will add and subtract multi-digit numbers with 85% accuracy by May 21, 2019.
 Given an addition or subtraction word problem, Natasha will choose the correct operation
and solve with 80% accuracy by May 21, 2019.
Based upon teacher observation with Natasha during math, it is evident that Natasha does not
have a good understanding of strategies to use when doing math problems. She currently uses her
fingers to add and subtract and relies heavily on this strategy. Even when given a problem such
as 5 + 1, she needs to use her fingers to come up with the correct response. In addition, when
given problems such as 10 + 5, she is not able to answer without using her fingers or counting up
out loud. Because of this, I would like to help give her other strategies to use besides just using
her fingers or counting up in every situation. I believe that using number talks in the classroom
would give Natasha (as well as other students) a better understanding and knowledge of other
strategies to use such as: adding up to find the difference, adjusting 1 number to create an easier
number equation, removal in parts, using friendly numbers, adding up in chunks, etc. I am
hoping that doing various number talks in the classroom will help Natasha be able to identify the
strategies that work for her and help her develop a better overall mathematical understanding.

Anticipated Intervention Format

I believe that this intervention will work best in a small group setting. I do not think using
number talks with Natasha in an individual format would be beneficial because I believe it will
help her to hear how other students come up with strategies and think about mathematics to solve
Nicole Steele 6

the problems. A group of 4 students (including Natasha) come down to the resource room
classroom every other day for math support, so I will hope to use this as our main form of
intervention and support from now until the end of the year and see how students respond to this
and how they progress/show growth. I will use 30 minutes of the time they come down for math
support for this, and use the other time to support the students with their general education work
and IEP goals.

Outline of Intervention Periods

Before beginning interventions, I will give students a pre-assessment to develop a
baseline for where students are at before starting interventions. This will help me identify where
to start and what number talk to start with. It will also help me understand if they are making
growth and if the interventions are effective in helping them understand mental math
computations. During the pre-assessment, I will give students problems and explain that they
must solve them mentally. This means they cannot write things down, they cannot use counters,
manipulatives, or pictorial representations to get to their answer. They must solve it mentally and
then tell me their answer. I will ask the questions verbally and also write down the problem on a
white board or a piece of paper that is placed in front of the student, and then I will write down
their responses on a separate paper that I will keep privately from the student. I will complete
this pre-assessment one-on-one with each student before starting our intervention periods. There
will be a series of questions on this pre-assessment for them to answer, and after each of them
have completed the assessment, we will come back together to discuss the importance of mental
math and real-life applications in which they may need to use mental math strategies.
I would start each of my intervention periods with a number talk. I would develop
guidelines of how number talks work and explain what they are and what their purpose is in the
classroom before starting to implement them. I will start with number talks that the students will
be able to answer quickly and accurately to both build confidence and an understanding of the
expectations and norms of a classroom number talk (e.g., I may start with something like 5 + 1).
My number talks will be in addition and subtraction and will increase in difficulty if appropriate
as the weeks of the intervention period go on.
Each intervention period I will do two number talks. As the number talks are going on, I
will take notes about which strategies the students are using and what answers the students are
giving directly on the board. This is how I will formatively assess how students are doing and
which strategies they are using to answer mental math problems. After the two number talks, I
will give students a chance to explore and practice new strategies that they have learned in the
number talks. During this time, I will allow the students to work together, to ask questions, and
get extra support from myself or others when needed.
At the end of each week, I will write a summary of which strategies each student was
using throughout the series of number talks we did this week. I will also make note of any other
important information about how the students are doing during the intervention periods. I have
attached the note sheet I will use at the end of each week.

Rationale:
Understanding mental math is a concept that is becoming less and less important to
students (and teachers) because of the development of technology such as calculator applications
on phones and easy access to calculators. However, understanding how to compute mental math
problems is an important skill for students. I believe this intervention would help Natasha by
Nicole Steele 7

giving her more strategies to use when solving problems independently. I hope that it will allow
her to see how other students think about math problems and come up with other ways to come
up with answers to problems besides using her fingers. I am hoping to be able to discuss the
following strategies as part of our number talk interventions: adding up to find the difference,
adjusting 1 number to create an easier number equation, removal in parts, using friendly
numbers, and adding up in chunks. I believe looking at problems in these ways and learning to
use these strategies will help Natasha (as well as the other students) when it comes to
independent math work.
Nicole Steele 8

Progress Monitoring Note Sheet:

Date Student Strategies being used Notes
Week 1: Natasha

Meagan

Amanda

Week 2: Natasha

Meagan

Amanda

Week 3: Natasha

Meagan

Amanda

Week 4: Natasha

Meagan

Amanda

Week 5: Natasha

Meagan

Amanda
Nicole Steele 9

Date Student Strategies being used Notes

Week 6: Natasha

Meagan

Amanda

Week 7: Natasha

Meagan

Amanda

Week 8: Natasha

Meagan

Amanda

Week 9: Natasha

Meagan

Amanda

Week 10: Natasha

Meagan

Amanda
Nicole Steele 10

Date Student Strategies being used Notes

Week 11: Natasha

Meagan

Amanda

Week 12: Natasha

Meagan

Amanda
Nicole Steele 11

Mental Math -- Pre-Assessment

10 Frames:

Addition:
2 + 2 = _______ 3 + 1 = _______

4 + 1 = _______ 5 + 2 = _______

5 + 1 = _______ 5 + 6 = _______

Subtraction:
5 - 1 = _______ 3 - 2 = _______

5 - 4 = _______ 10 - 1 = _______

8 - 4 = _______ 4 - 2 = _______
Nicole Steele 12

Case Study C

Throughout my intervention periods, my case study student, Natasha, was on task. She
often has difficulty remaining focused which was evident throughout the intervention as well, but
she was on task for the majority of the time. It was a very small group and I was able to redirect
her attention and keep her focused the majority of the time. The other students in the group were
also on task. The students in this group are at varying ability levels when it comes to
mathematics, but all have disabilities in the mathematics/problem solving area, so I thought it
would be beneficial for all of them.
I started by giving the three students in the group a mental math pre-assessment. I thought
it would be really interesting to see how the students did with this, and I really wanted to use the
pre-assessment to inform my decision of the type of number talk I did. I gave the assessment to
each student individually. A copy of the assessment I gave is attached. However, I used the copy
of the assessment as my monitoring guide and wrote the problems down for the students on the
white board. I did not give students any manipulatives or paper to work through their problems
on. I could see that this caused them a bit of anxiety, but I just asked them to do the best they
could. I informed them that I knew this may be difficult for them, but I wanted to see what they
could do and I just expected them to try their best. The students struggled with this. I believe
they struggled with this task because they are not used to not having a scrap piece of paper to
write on or manipulatives to help them work through problems. Natasha especially relies on
writing things down and she employs that strategy often, along with using her fingers. However,
the students really did try their best and gave me their best effort.
Throughout the pre-assessment, Natasha used the strategies of counting all or using her
fingers for every question. This shows me that this is a strategy she is comfortable with and uses
often, but she was still not able to complete all of the questions correctly even when using her
known strategies. For this reason, I really wanted to try to get her to explore some new strategies
with my intervention period that I thought would really help her. I decided that the goal of this
first intervention would be for them to understand making 5 in a 10 frame.
I wanted to start with a very simple number talk so I started with a 10 frame. The students
were initially confused because they have never seen or done a number talk before. I started by
explaining the expectations and what a number talk was. I continued with reiterating that I just
wanted to see what they knew and have discussions about the strategies we all use when trying to
solve math problems. The first number talk we did was a 10 frame with two in the top and two in
the bottom to make 4. I was hoping that this would get students thinking deeper and get their
confidence up. I gave them all time to think about it, and once they all showed me the symbol
that meant they had an answer, I called on Natasha. She told me the answer was 4 and explained
that she counted them all and used her finger to point to the ones she counted. I wrote on the
board 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 4 and made a note that she counted all. Another student in the group (A.P.)
said that saw 2 on the top and 2 on the bottom and knew that was 4, so I wrote 2 + 2 = 4. The
other student in the group (M.E.) said that she also counted them all, but when she showed us on
the board, she counted them column by column whereas Natasha counted them top to bottom.
The next 10 frame I showed was 4 on the top and 1 on the bottom. This is where I was
really hoping to get students thinking about making 5. However, the students really used the
same strategies as the previous 10-frame, either counting all or counting the top + the bottom. I
tried to ask prompting questions to get students to think about it differently, and asked things like
“Is there any other way you think you could show that this frame shows 5?” and other questions
Nicole Steele 13

similar to that nature, but students were not sure and were sitting pretty quietly. Looking back, I
don’t know if I should have done this, but I decided to model for them how I thought about this
problem. I modeled using a think aloud and showed them on the board how I thought about this
10-frame using a make 5 strategy. I showed that I knew the top row is 5 because I know it’s a 10-
frame and 5 + 5 = 10, and I saw 1 on the bottom and moved it to the top and then I saw 5. I asked
students if they understood this, and they said yes. I reiterated my think aloud again to help
ensure they had an understanding of that strategy. I wanted to see if they could apply it on their
own, so I gave the students another 10-frame. This time I put 4 on the top and 3 on the bottom. I
then asked Natasha if she could come up and show me how she could use the strategy I used on
the last problem of making 5 to find the answer to this problem. At this point, the intervention of
the actual number talk was over, and I was just asking the students to explore another strategy
that I had taught them. Natasha was able to show that she could move 1 from the bottom up to
the top to make 5, and then counted on for the two left at the bottom to get 7. Later, I did one
more exploration 10-frame with just Natasha to see if she could apply it again. This time I did 3
on the top and 4 on the bottom. Natasha was able to tell me that she took 2 from the bottom and
moved them up top and counted on again to get 7.
This intervention did not go exactly as expected, and although I think it started off as a
number talk, it did not really work as a number talk intervention and turned into more of a
teaching moment and exploration which is not what I wanted. If I was to do this again, I would
hope that I could find more prompting questions to get students to see more strategies on their
own. However, in the moment, I had tried multiple prompting questions and it was not working
so I made the decision to model my own think aloud strategy, which I’m not sure if I should have
done. However, I do think that at the end of the intervention, Natasha and the other students did
have a better understanding of making 5 in a 10-frame and I believe with more intervention
periods, I can see success in getting this group of students to employ other strategies such as
making 5 or making 10 in order to make problems easier for them.