Kristy Donaldson EDUC 351 Student Work Analysis

This paper is based off of my first taught lesson that was focused on students learning how to properly solve multiplication fraction problems through the use of tape strip diagrams. The formative assessment that the students were given dealt with solving a multiplication fraction problem that related to the lesson, and then solving the assessment question by answering the question and using the tape diagram to support their answer and demonstrate their understanding of the concept. The lesson objectives were: Students will create a tape diagram that correctly represents the fractions used when planning the layout of their art poster. Students will solve the problem that is posed by multiplying unit fractions by non-unit fractions. Students will explain how to solve real world problems with the visual representation of the tape diagram. Students were expected to reach all of the objectives throughout the lesson and then display their understanding of the concept with the final assessment question. The students were presented with the question below to solve and show conceptual understanding of the mathematical concept: On the other of the poster you are including information about the animals that live in the tropical rainforests. However, 2/5 of that section on animals is just about the different types of birds that live in the rainforest. How much of the entire poster is just about birds?

At the start of the assessment question, students were prompted to use art supplies to distinguish between the fractions while using the tape diagram, label the tape diagram, and also write the number problem down and show how they solved the problem through the use of an algorithm. The students were then evaluated through the criteria listed in the rubric below: Target (3) Used mathematical reasoning to correctly answer the question. Acceptable (2) Only answered the question partially correct, but showed understanding of the mathematical concept of multiplying unit fractions by nonunit fractions. Tape diagram vaguely shows how they solved the problem. However, the tape diagram was still used. Used numbers or art to accurately label the tape diagram. Developing (1) Did not answer the question correctly. Points Given

Correctness of Answer

Used Tape Diagram to solve problem

Used the tape diagram to effectively show how they solved the problem.

Did not use the tape diagram as a way to demonstrate how they solved the problem

Accurately Labeled Tape Diagram Total Score

Used art tools as well as numbers to accurately label the tape diagram.

Did not label the tape diagram with numbers or art supplies.

The evaluation criteria aimed for students to reach a target grade. In order for a students work to receive a target grade, or a 3, they had to meet the criteria needs of all three sections on the scoring rubric; correctness of answer, used tape diagram to solve problem, and accurately labeled tape diagram. For a student to receive a target grade they needed to use mathematical reasoning to correctly answer the question, use the tape diagram to effectively to show how they solved the problem, and use art tools as well as numbers to accurately label the tape diagram. For a student to receive an acceptable grade, or a 2, they needed to only answer the question partially correct but show an understanding of

the mathematical concept of multiplying unit fractions by non-unit fraction, use the tape diagram to vaguely show how they solved the problem, and use numbers or art tools to accurately label the tape diagram. If a student received a developing grade, or a 1, they would not have answered the question correctly, or use the tape diagram as a way to demonstrate how they solved the problem, and wouldnt have labeled the tape diagram with numbers or art supplies. The criteria was created so that a student could clearly demonstrate that they have a conceptual understanding of multiplying unit by non-unit fractions as well as display this understanding through procedural fluency, mathematical reasoning and problem solving skills. As a whole, the class demonstrated a solid knowledge of the concept of multiplying fractions by non-unit fractions when it came to using an algorithm. Through their assessments students showed that they knew how to correctly set up an algorithm for the math problem and then solve the problem correctly. Almost the entire class arrived at the correct answer through this procedure of writing down the fractions, multiplying them, and then arriving at the solution. Therefore, almost the entire class would have received a target grade for the correctness of answer criteria listed in the rubric. However, as the students then attempted to use the tape diagram as a support to their mathematical reasoning, they started to struggle to properly use and label the tape diagram. About one third of the student work that was selected correctly showed the use of the tape diagram to help the students problem solve and use mathematical reasoning to arrive at the right answer. The students that showed this higher quality of work correctly divided the tape diagram into the correct fraction and also used different art tools to shade in the fractions to show that they understood the concept of multiplying unit fractions by nonunit fractions. These students would have received a target grade because they used the tape diagram to effectively show how they solved the problem. The other two thirds of the class used the tape diagram to help them solve the problem, but how they used the tape diagram only vaguely showed problem solving skills and conceptual understanding. These student would have received an acceptable

grade because although they attempted to use the tape diagram to support their answer, they did not use it to the full extent or shade in all of the fractions properly. Although the entire class attempted to use the tape diagram as a way to demonstrate their conceptual understanding, not everyone was successful. The last evaluative criteria that the students were scored on was how accurately they labeled the tape diagram. Looking at the entire classes work samples, not one student used both numbers and art tools to accurately label the tape diagram. Not one of the students in the class labeled the tape diagram with numbers to show mathematical reasoning. Therefore, none of the students could be given a target grade on this section of the evaluation criteria. However, almost the entire class used some sort of art tool to label their tape diagram. Although most of the class used art tools to label their diagram, only about one third accurately used the art tools. The rest of the class shaded in incorrect fractions on the tape diagram that did not accurately display an understanding of the connection between the diagram and the algorithm that they correctly solved. Due to this inaccurate use of the tools as well as the absence of using numbers to label the tape diagram, most of the students would receive either an acceptable or developing grade for the accuracy of labeling the tape diagram criteria section on the rubric. Across the whole class, there was a clear understanding of how to solve a math problem through an algorithm but less of an understanding of the concept of multiplying unit fractions by non-unit fractions through the use of diagrams. This displayed a lack of connect between the algorithm and the diagram and how both mathematical tools coincide and display conceptual understanding of the math concept. After reviewing the student work samples, there were two students that represented an area of struggle when it came to the conceptual understanding of multiplying unit fractions by non-unit fractions. Both students showed partial understanding in the concept because they were both able to correctly solve the algorithm that the assessment problem presented. Both students accurately showed that x 2/5 = 2/10 by writing the math problem at the top of the page. Although they were able to

solve the math correctly, when they tried to use the tape diagram to show accurate mathematical reasoning they struggled in properly dividing the tape diagram to represent the algorithm that they solved. Both students struggled to walk through the problem step by step and divide the tape diagram in to proportional fractions that clearly demonstrated that they were multiplying the of the diagram by 2/5. One of the students divided the diagram into ten equal parts, but then shaded in four of those parts. The other student divided the tape diagram into eight equal parts and then shaded in four of those parts. By shading in the four parts, both students demonstrated that they were confused on how the tape diagram was related to the math problem that they were solving. Although they didnt show a mathematical error because they solved the math problem correctly, they did show a lack of understanding that the tape diagram needed to accurately show that they had shaded in 2/10. Based on my analysis of these two student work samples I would redesign a targeted learning objective for these individuals so that they could build on their conceptual understanding of multiplying unit fractions by non-unit fractions. In order for these students to turn their partial understanding into a full understanding I would present them with the following learning objectives: Students will accurately label and divide a tape diagram after given a multiplication problem of a unit fraction by a non-unit fraction. Student will show conceptual understanding of the connection between diagrams and math algorithms. These objectives would relate to the following Common Core Math Standard: CCSS.Math.Content.5.NF.B.6 Solve real world problems involving multiplication of fractions and mixed numbers, e.g., by using visual fraction models or equations to represent the problem.

In order to re-engage students on the concept of multiplying unit fractions by non-unit fractions I will create new strategies and learning tasks. One of the strategies I will use for these students to develop their conceptual understanding would be to present them with word problems and number problems and have them solve them through a tape diagram and not an algorithm. The students understand how to solve a fraction problem through an algorithm, but they need to deepen their understanding of how to properly model a fraction problem. I would first walk through multiple problems with the students and have them divide and label diagrams with me to help them understand the process of labeling diagrams and how to decode an algorithm to then be represented in model form. In order to re-arrange students in learning how a model and a math problem directly connect I would have them work to link a math problem to a model that correctly demonstrates the right answer. By doing this, I will be pushing students to deeply examine a math problem as well as how tape diagrams need to be properly labeled and divided to represent the same answer as the math problem. I would use the Smart Board to show the students different pictures of tape diagrams and then have a chart with math problems in it. They would then be asked to drag the correct picture to the matching math problem and explain how they arrived at their conclusion. After working on a Smart Board activity and walking through the steps of how to accurately divide a tape diagram and label it to represent a math problem, I would then assess the students on their understanding. An assessment I would use in order to monitor students during the lesson would be to have them solve math problems with tape diagrams on an individual whiteboard. This way if students made an error or needed to correct a labeling error, they could easily fix their error. Students would be presented with an algorithm and then asked to solve the problem by accurately dividing and labeling a tape diagram, and then hold up their white board to be checked by the teacher. Although this is an informal, quick assessment, it would show the teacher just how much of the lesson the students are understanding and what else they need to do to re-engage the students understanding or to solve any misconceptions that they might still have.

After the re-engagement lesson, the two students that showed confusion during the first lesson showed that they were strengthening their mathematical understanding of how diagrams relate to math problems. The two students that showed confusion in the first lesson showed a real interest in the Smart Board activity. While doing the activity they were able to present to the teacher exactly where their misunderstanding was coming from and were then able to take full advantage of the strategies presented to them. At first when the two students were asked to solve the math problem with just a tape diagram instead of an algorithm they showed confusion and answered similarly to the problems posed to them in relation to their assessment on the previous lesson. However, because the students walked through the process of labeling the tape diagram with the teacher and dividing the tape diagram into the correct fractions, they were then able to apply this knowledge to their assessment at the end of the lesson. When the students worked with the white boards, they were able to solve the problems and edit them as the teacher corrected their answers. By writing on the white boards and working through the problem with the teacher, the students that previously showed struggle in accurately labeling and dividing a tape diagram to represent a multiplication problem of multiplying unit fractions by non-unit fractions, now showed a better understanding of the mathematical concept. Throughout most of the assessment part of the re-engagement lesson the students were able to color in the correct fractions of the diagram and label it to show that they understood the underlying reasoning of the algorithm that they already knew how to solve.