This is for high school grade Robotic/Manufacturing Class In Connecticut State I will be using Portfolio Assessment rubric in this class Justify what you gained or learned through using portfolio assessment and how it improves student performance This is

1

What Makes This TEAM Reflection Paper Successful? Some specific examples/ evidence that contributed to the success of this paper are provided below.

Module Four: Online: Assessment Grade: 4 Subject: Math

Criteria I: Development of New Learning (How the teacher developed new learning and what was

learned)

How the teacher developed new learning:

 Reading publications: Common Formative Assessment by Ainsworth and Viegut, Mathematics

Assessment edited by Jean Kerr Stenmark, and the NCTM magazine, Teaching Children Mathematics,

 Collaborating with mentor and district math specialist

What the teacher learned:

 There are different uses of formative assessments, “assessments for learning…not to assign a grade” and

summative assessments. Using formative assessments, teachers “can analyze results solely to inform

instruction.”

 She needed to incorporate “performance assessments that require students to create a product or

construct a response which would be highly engaging and open-ended.”

 Student progress can be measured by giving a pre and post assessment that contained the same

questions.

Criteria II: Impact on Practice (How the teacher’s practice is different)

 The teacher created and then implemented a “comprehensive pre-assessment that would also serve as a

post assessment …that included a progression of pictorial versus abstract representations of fractions.”

 The teacher integrated periodic probes [formative assessments] “to further plan for differentiating task-

oriented flexible groups.”

 “Since results from my assessments showed that about three-fourths of the class had widely ranging

misconceptions, I decided to alter my teaching strategies. I moved several students onto an additional

activity/game to reinforce the concepts that they already mastered. I also re-taught several concepts of

adding fractions with unlike denominators and re-taught how to write about them.”

Criteria III: Impact on Students (How student performance/learning has improved as a result of

changes in the teacher’s practice.)

 “The pre-assessment showed that only 4 percent of my class of 22 students scored proficient or higher

which is a dramatic difference from the post-assessment in which 64 percent of the same 22 students

scored proficient or better. What is even more striking is the fact that on the post-assessment, the

average percentage was 71, which is in the proficient range, while on the pre-assessment, the average

percentage was 23, which is in the below basic range.”

 “Differentiation of the lesson material following the probes is the main reason that I feel there was such

a dramatic improvement in the overall scores between the pre and post assessments.”

 “The probes demonstrated that activities related to real life problem solving were beneficial for those

students that achieved mastery, as evidenced by their consistent independent work, enthusiasm and

level of engagement. I observed that they sought successive situations in which to apply their knowledge

of adding and subtracting fractions.”

2

Module Four: Assessment Grade: 4 Subject: Math

Indicator: 1. Teachers use multiple measures to analyze student performance and to inform subsequent planning and instruction by: Using and/or designing a variety of formative and summative assessments and criteria that directly align with the learning objective and value the diversity of ways in which student learn. Goal: I will learn to use information gathered from formative and summative math assessments to

develop and implement differentiated lessons and strategies for learning so that the percentage of

students scoring ‘below basic’ in adding and subtracting fractions with unlike denominators will

increase to ‘proficient’ or higher as measured by pre- and post- assessments.

Initial Summary:

As I reviewed the CCT Performance Profile and specific indicators with my mentor, I realized that my

mathematics instruction relied almost exclusively on summative assessments. Although I

differentiate my mathematics instruction, it is not consistently grounded in ongoing formative

assessments. My usual classroom practice is to give a summative assessment after teaching a unit,

unless I am conducting a specific Scientific Research-Based Intervention (SRBI) with my collaborative

team that pertains to specific skills based on results from CMT and Math predictors’ data. I evaluate

students on the unit objectives, predicating future instruction on repeating or revisiting some

lessons, or conducting limited small group work with different contexts and manipulatives. I realize

that my students would benefit from more varied assessment tools. Except for a unit on

multiplication basic facts and the specific SRBI interventions for subtraction with regrouping,

estimation, and measurement, I do not use a wide variety of methods to assess my students.

Reflection Paper:

This module began with an analysis of my current math teaching practice and with an examination

of the CCT Performance Profile. Although I understood the difference between formative and

summative assessments, and the use of these as best practice, I was not using assessments regularly

to inform my teaching. In discussions with my mentor, most of my math units for the year focused

on teaching lessons that were differentiated as the lesson progressed, but were structured mostly

as whole class instruction. In addition, I only used summative assessments to evaluate and measure

students’ mastery of the knowledge and skills of the material at the end of each unit. Therefore,

with the help of my mentor, I saw the benefits of using multiple measures to assess students’

learning and performance. These multiple measures had to be both formative and summative, to

3

directly align with the learning objectives, and to support my students’ varied learning needs. This

would drive my daily planning and instruction for a comprehensive set of lessons promoting my

students’ knowledge of a variety of fraction concepts and ultimately leading to their understanding

of fractions with unlike denominators.

Based on my prior knowledge of my students’ understanding of fraction concepts, coupled with

additional student weakness with fractions, and my analysis of my CCT profile, I sought to create a

fraction unit of differentiated tiered instruction based on their needs and learning styles using

formative and summative assessments. In order to design effective assessments towards this goal, I

engaged initially in reading various sources about the uses of formative and summative assessments

in order to have a foundation of understanding. I began with Common Formative Assessments: How

to Connect Standards-Based Instruction and Assessment by Larry Ainsworth and Donald Viegut. In

this book, Ainsworth and Viegut offered the view that “classroom formative assessments” are

typically not used to assign grades, but as “assessments for learning,” which one could analyze the

results solely to inform instruction. This made much more sense to me, and was a relief. Also, I

came to understand the value of giving a pre and post assessment that contained the same

questions, and with the help of my district mathematics specialist, created one to be used in the pre

and post phase of instruction.

Ainsworth and Viegut also described additional forms of common formative assessments, such as

performance assessments. The authors highlighted the need for performance assessments that

actively required the student to create a product or construct a response, which would be highly

engaging and open-ended. Likewise, Ainsworth and Viegut recommended the use of planned

accelerations to accommodate capable students “going above and beyond.” Lastly, Ainsworth and

Viegut emphasized that ongoing assessments can lead to effective teaching methods of

differentiated strategies that provide interventions and acceleration that meet individual students’

needs. Readings published by The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics in Mathematics

Assessment: Myths, Models, Good Questions, and Practical Suggestions, edited by Jean Kerr

Stenmark, further strengthened the view that ongoing instruction was the best preparation for

assessment, and similarly that for teachers, ongoing assessment was the best foundation for

instruction.

In addition to the various professional texts I read, I collaborated with the district mathematics

specialist to find resources and materials to differentiate instruction based on my assessments. With

her assistance, I created a comprehensive pre-assessment that would also serve as my post-

assessment. This was beneficial because the assessment first evaluated equivalent fractions as a

basis for additional questions which used an underlying concept of addition and subtraction of

fractions with unlike denominators. The assessment was well-constructed because questions 4-6

contained pictorial representations and questions 7-10 did not. A shift in design such as this meant

that different learning styles were accommodated while there was a progression of pictorial versus

abstract representations of fractions. Further insights came from articles suggested by the district

4

math consultant, such as the NCTM magazine Teaching Children Mathematics. From this ample

resource, I gleaned ideas about activities that gave a more hands-on, physical approach for

instruction, such as having students jump on number lines taped to the classroom floor or asking

students to solve real life problems as accelerated fraction work. This resource also assisted me in

finding multiple manipulatives, such as fraction strips, magnetic fractional pizzas, and most

importantly, pattern blocks, both paper and wooden.

The pre-assessment given at the beginning of this module helped me to target my instruction and

focused my teaching to the grade-level expectations. Evidence provided by this assessment showed

me that only 4 percent of the 22 students taking the pre-assessment scored at or above the

proficient range. More importantly, 78 percent of the class scored at the below basic range of 59

percent or lower on the pre-assessment. Based on the data from the pre-assessment, I found it

necessary to instruct the whole class in all of the assessed areas. As I instructed my students and

observed their performance, I gave periodic probes to further plan for differentiating task-oriented

flexible groups. I conducted the module cycle as an initial probe that informed the creation of

groupings, followed by two additional probes as follow-ups to ascertain student mastery of the skill

and concept before moving on to the next one. If students did not master it, I conducted additional

small group work in the morning or one-on-one interventions to assist the student toward mastery.

Several interesting things occurred during the scaffolded instruction. In two lessons in which

students were asked to use pattern blocks to represent fractions equal to one whole, students

wrote about their designs using algebraic terms, which in turn led to a fraction number sentence

that had to be solved. I observed that many students were not familiar with algebraic terms. Also,

after grading the second set of formative assessments, only a small handful of students (six of 23)

fully grasped all of the concepts. This was interesting to note because most of these were students

that generally have a strong understanding of numerical and proportional reasoning skills and

concepts. Furthermore, two of the students that struggled regularly benefitted from the hands-on

use of the pattern blocks and participation in trades of blocks. Based on my assessment, I concluded

that many students could not find equivalent fractions without a pictorial representation and

needed to move and trade manipulatives as a critical factor for initial fraction work.

Since results from my assessments showed that about three-fourths of the class had widely ranging

misconceptions, I decided to alter my teaching strategies. I moved several students onto an

additional activity/game to reinforce the concepts that they already mastered. I also re-taught

several concepts of adding fractions with unlike denominators and re-taught how to write about

them. I instructed most of the class in this way using SMART Board technology, and divided students

into working groups after that. Students who mastered the skills worked on enrichment activities

involving fraction concepts, independently and as partners.

The initial differentiated lessons with multiple groupings were difficult to manage, especially when

some students within the re-taught grouping finished quickly while their peers struggled. Even when

5

assisted by a teacher’s aide, it was challenging to work with the students who struggled, or required

additional reinforcement, or needed further forms of engagement, while I worked with other

subsets of students. At that point, after grading other formative assessments, coupled with

observations made in my journal, I was again left with two groups, some of whom understood the

concepts, and some who did not. I decided to use a small strategy group focused on writing about

the problems using the algebraic and fraction representations. Based on the probes and

observations, I recognized two students who required more intensive one-on-one instruction.

As I taught successive lessons, it was interesting to use probes as a means to understand student

learning or the lack of it. I noticed that several students who consistently do well in math and have a

strong number sense would not initially use the strategies offered to get the correct answer. I might

not have known this without using ongoing probes. Likewise, the probes demonstrated that

activities related to real life problem solving were beneficial for those students that achieved

mastery, as evidenced by their consistent independent work, enthusiasm, and level of engagement.

I observed that they sought successive situations in which to apply their knowledge of adding and

subtracting fractions. For example, students were asked to create a stained glass window that

consisted of initially 24 triangles arranged in a hexagon and then a 96-triangle hexagon. Students

had to use four different pattern blocks and four different colors to complete the symmetrical

design. Then, students had to add the fractions of each pattern block by color, using trades to get it

to equal to one whole

Overall, the use of varied, ongoing formative assessments led to a lesson-by-lesson approach, which

in turn led to an evaluation of student progress that identified specific follow up intervention

strategies and/or support or enrichment. Differentiation of the lesson material following the probes

is the main reason that I feel there was such dramatic improvement in the overall scores between

the pre and post-assessments. As I mentioned earlier, the pre-assessment showed that only 4

percent of my class of 22 students scored proficient or higher, which is a dramatic difference from

the post-assessment in which 64 percent of the same 22 students scored proficient or better. What

is even more striking is the fact that on the post-assessment, the average percentage was 71, which

is in the proficient range, while on the pre-assessment the average percentage was 23, which is in

the below basic range. I attribute student growth, by-and-large, to the continuous collection of data

provided to me by the various formative assessments and observations. This module increased my

awareness that although the achievement of my students is critical, individual student struggles

with organizational and behavioral skills impacts the acceptance and inclusion of new strategies and

understandings of concepts. I noticed this often throughout the process as several students

exhibited anxiety about taking the assessments. I observed that many students would do fine with

small group work, but would not apply the same strategies independently. It was important that the

students came to see the assessments as an integral part of the lessons. Moreover, they appeared

to worry less about their use, and saw the formative assessments as a bridge to further assistance, a

demonstration of what they learned, or as an invitation to further enrichment.

6

As I reflect on my work during the module, I drew several conclusions about the usefulness of

assessments for teaching and learning. First, my understanding of their use deepened as they

became the basis for all my lesson probes. Each probe aligned with a specific skill from the pre-

assessment. Moreover, these aligned probes guided the next lesson’s flexible groupings, which

allowed me to differentiate my instruction based on students needs as demonstrated by their

ongoing performance. This instruction allowed students to express their learning through different

tasks ranging from teaching of pre-requisite skills, such as equivalent fractions through hands-on

applications with manipulatives to real-life problem solving.

Secondly, with the exception of the post-assessment, my use of assessments in general shifted from

summative to formative assessments; constructed so that students demonstrated their learning in

different ways ranging from pictorial representations of adding and subtracting fractions with unlike

denominators to abstractions to find the answer.

Thirdly, the completion of this module led me to more consistently and concretely understand the

achievements and struggles of my students related to their study of fractions. For example, I have a

13 probe, fraction “creature” assessment, a pre and post-assessment, and many individual

probes. Also, the use of spreadsheets to collect and analyze the data aided my examination of

emerging trends and patterns that informed my ongoing and future instruction.

Regular reflection about the process of student learning assessments afforded me the opportunity

for insight into non-academic factors such as organizational, behavioral, and social/emotional skills.

I also realized that the use of assessments must guide my instruction, be aligned with the learning

objectives, and created in such a way that allows for students to demonstrate the ways in which

they learn best. No longer will I consider the summative assessment as the most important unit

assessment, but will look at the collective evidence of my observations and formative assessments

to drive differentiated instruction.