D021 Task 3

docx

School

Western Governors University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

D021

Subject

Mathematics

Date

Apr 3, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by kclinedinst

D021 Task 3: Leadership of Curriculum Design and Instruction Kyle Clinedinst Student ID-001029234 Western Governors University January 25, 2024

A. Evaluate the attached “Summative Assessment” by doing the following: 1. Identify the strengths and weaknesses of the attached “Summative Assessment” in relation to cultural responsiveness, and justify why you classified each as a strength or weakness (NELP 4.3). Before looking at how the summative assessment is or is not culturally responsive, I need to define this term. Culturally responsive is “using cultural characteristics, experiences, and perspectives, of ethnically diverse students as conduits for teaching them more effectively.” (Gay, 2002). After evaluating the attached Summative Assessment, I have found some parts to be strengths and some parts to be weaknesses. A strength that is noticeable with the Summative Assessment is how it correlates with the Illinois State Standards. The assessment is titled ¨Division Unit¨ and it assesses the student knowledge of standard 4.NBT.6 (Find whole- number quotients and remainders with up to four-digit dividends and one-digit divisors), 4.NBT.3 (use place value to round), and 4.OA.2 + 4.OA.3 (Solve one or more step word problems using division strategies.) (Illinois State Learning Standards/Mathematics Grade 4). There are multiple examples of where the students would need to use place value and their knowledge of division to solve problems. Questions 1-20 would be culturally responsive because there is little to no background knowledge needed rather than simply understanding place value and division. However, 20 questions are strictly ¨skill and drill¨ and do not require a higher level of thinking to solve. A glaring weakness of this assessment is the number of low-level thinking questions. Out of the 23 questions, only 3 are word problems that require a higher level of thinking. According to Bloom’sTaxonomy, there are 4 quadrants, each with a different level of thinking. Our goal as educators is to give students experiences and learning tools to use in each quadrant. The quadrants of rigor are “acquisition, application, assimilation, and adaptation.” (Bloom, 1956). The majority of this assessment is from quadrant A, acquisition. The 3-word problems at the end of the assessment would apply quadrant B, application, but these questions raise the issue of cultural responsiveness. I believe, of the 3-word problems, only one is culturally responsive. Question #22 asks about a party and how many slices of pizza each person would get. This question is culturally neutral as all ethnicities and cultures would understand the situation and allow educators to measure the skill being assessed. Question #22 would be a strength only if this test were modified for ELL students. For example, if a student spoke Spanish, this question would need to be translated from English to Spanish to measure the student's ability to divide accurately. Questions #21 and #23 would not be culturally responsive. First, the question about the basketball team would not assess the target skill of applying division strategies for the students that do not have background knowledge of

sports and more specifically basketball. If the students didn't know that a starting lineup had 5 players, they would not be able to solve this problem. Next, the questions about the heifers and bulls would be unfair to students who do not have an agricultural background. If the students don´t know that heifers and bulls are both farm animals, they would not be able to solve this problem. 2. Identify the strengths and weaknesses of the attached “Summative Assessment” in relation to accessibility, and justify why you classified each as a strength or weakness (NELP 4.3). One strength of the “Summative Assessment” is that it correlates with the target standards. The first aspect of a test or assessment being accessible for all students is determining a “target construct” and aligning the test or assessment to the “targeted construct.” (Russell, 2011). The goal of this assessment is to check the student's understanding and ability to solve division problems with or without remainders. This was done with both calculation problems and word problems. Another visible goal of this assessment is to evaluate the student's ability to estimate by rounding. To me, this could be a strength and weakness of the assessment. A strength of the estimating problems is that the teacher can determine which students know how to round. The weakness is how the directions of these estimating problems are worded. For example, for questions 6-8, the directions read “Estimate to solve the following problems:” But this does not specify if the student should round to the nearest ten or hundred. Question #6 is 179 ÷ 9. If the goal is to test students' clean understanding of factors, this question makes sense because one would know that 180 is divisible by 9. But, if the goal is to check the students’ ability to round accurately, and then divide, this question is not clear and accessible. If a student rounds 179 to the nearest hundred and gets 200, then this number is not easily divisible by 9. Another weakness of this assessment is the layout. The questions are very close and there is not much room for a student to show their work. It is an important teaching tool for an instructor to see a student’s work. If a student were to make a calculating error, a teacher can spot the mistake in their work, and help the student fix their mistake. Without ample space to show their work, checking for mistakes isn’t possible. The students could be using scrap paper, but this still makes it difficult to check students’ work. Often, students throw away scrap paper, or if the teacher does collect it, the students write all over the paper and it’s hard to match their work to the correct question from the test.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

3. Analyze how well the attached “Summative Assessment” aligns with the attached “Curriculum Map” to support data informed instructional improvement (NELP 4.3). The Summative Assessment doesn’t clearly state which unit it assesses from the Curriculum Map. After looking at the standards and how they align with the Curriculum Map, I have determined that this assessment is from Unit 1. There are several alignment issues I would address to better improve instruction. First, a minor detail would be to add the Unit in which this assessment covers to the front of the assessment. This way, when gathering data, the teacher can refer to Unit 1’s assessment to quickly check for student understanding and find areas of weakness that need to be addressed. Another alignment issue is how the standards being assessed match both the curriculum map and the Illinois State Standards. As mentioned in my second task, the Curriculum Map omits 2 standards, one of which this assessment addresses. 4.OA.2 (Multiply or divide to solve word problems) is not in the Curriculum Map but is on this assessment. That raises the question of how well this standard was taught during the unit. Also, 2 standards were on the Curriculum Map, but it did not specify which Unit they were taught. Again, one of these standards, 4.NBT.3 (Use place value understanding to round multi-digit whole numbers to any place) is being assessed in this assessment. (Illinois State Department of Education, n.d.) These standards need to be on the curriculum map and in Unit 1 lessons before being on the Summative Assessment. 4. Recommend specific steps you would take to collaborate with teachers who are implementing the attached “Summative Assessment” address each of the weaknesses you identified in parts A1–A3 (NELP 4.4). a. Justify how the steps in part A4 would be effective in addressing the identified weaknesses (NELP 4.4). There are several steps I would take to address each of the weaknesses identified in parts A1-A3. First, and most importantly, I would address the issue of the Curriculum Map omitting standards and not specifically stating when standards are taught. A Curriculum Map should be so detailed that a new teacher can walk into the classroom and have confidence in what they are teaching and when they are teaching it. This Curriculum Map is too vague. All the state standards need to be added and included in one or more Units. As I mentioned in Task 2, the Curriculum Map should state each lesson for each Unit. These lessons need to include tier 2 and 3 activities, enrichment options, vocabulary, differentiated strategies, formative assessment, and a pacing guide. Once this is established, then the Summative Assessment would be evaluated to make sure that it aligns with the Curriculum Map.

Next, the formatting of the Summative Assessment should be adjusted giving the student more space to show their work. The justification of this step is to allow the teacher to check student work. If a student were to show a lack of understanding of simple division skills, long division, or rounding, the teacher can check their work to find the mistakes. Then, the teacher can address these mistakes with the student. If multiple students are making the same mistake, the teacher can evaluate their instruction and make modifications as needed. This can’t be done unless the teacher can see the students work. Another suggestion would be to rewrite the estimating questions. If the purpose of the estimating questions is to assess the student's abilities to round first, and then divide, the directions should state either round to the nearest ten or hundred. My justification for this suggestion is that students could round correctly and still get the wrong answer. For example, question 8 is 352 ÷ 5. One student could round 352 to 400, then divide by 5 to get 80. Another student could round 352 to 350, then divide by 5 to get 70. I’m assuming that this assessment calls for students to round to the nearest 10 based on the other questions, so if a student rounds correctly but gets 80 in the example above, that would be marked as wrong. Most students wouldn’t have masterly level knowledge of factors at this level and may not know to round to the nearest ten unless it was clearly stated in the directions of this assessment. Finally, I would address the word problem. First, questions #21 and #23 are not culturally responsive. As stated above, without an athletic or agricultural background, students would not understand key aspects of these questions. I would suggest changing these problems to fit the unique and different cultural and ethnic needs of the students. If the questions were to remain on the assessment, going over some key vocabulary before the assessment would be crucial. For example, going over what a heifer and bull are and how in basketball a starting lineup is the first 5 players that start the game. Furthermore, I would suggest reading the word problems aloud to all students who would like this modification, not just students who require this per their IEP. All state tests for grades 3-5 read the math questions aloud to all students. This ensures that their math skills are being assessed, not their reading skills. I would do the same for all word problems on math assessments, whether they be administered by the state, district, or school.

B. Evaluate the attached “Unit of Instruction: Division” by doing the following: 1. Identify the strengths and weaknesses of the attached “Unit of Instruction: Division” in supporting equity, and justify why you classified each as a strength or weakness (NELP 4.2). There was a quote from the WGU Modules that I liked dealing with equity. “Equality means every student gets the same thing, but equity means every student gets what he or she needs to succeed.” (WGU, n.d.) The Unit of Instruction has some great strengths that value the needs of every student and some weaknesses that could be addressed. The first strength is in part 7, accommodations. Each lesson states that student with attention challenges will have the opportunity to stand at their desk. They will also receive redirection and be allowed to take breaks throughout the lesson. “Brain Breaks” are essential for all elementary students, especially those with attention or behavior concerns. Also, this section states that students with learning challenges will be conferenced during independent work or checked on for understanding. This is a great tier 2 strategy to check for understanding and support the needs of all students. Another strength is how the Unit of Instruction is organized and aligned with the standards. Each lesson correlates with a state standard, and each standard corresponds to the Curriculum Map. Also, lesson implementations are directly related to and teach the target standards. (A need for more differentiation instruction may be beneficial for some lessons, but this will be addressed in the weaknesses.) Furthermore, the lessons are organized clearly and easy to understand. A new, or less confident teacher could teach a lesson from this Unit of Instruction. I also like how each lesson has a short summative assessment. These can be used as exit tickets to check for understanding. This unit has several weaknesses that should be addressed. First, the lesson implementation gives little to no student collaboration for most lessons inside this unit. After the introduction and modeling, there is guided practice and feedback, then independent practice. Student collaboration is key to student success. “Collaboration has shown to be more effective than lecture or skill and drill, helps motivate students, and increases active participation.” (Martinez-Moyano, 2006). In the guided practice and feedback section on the lesson implementation, students should have more opportunities to collaborate and work together. Another weakness is the lack of manipulatives. Elementary students need to be hands- on and actively engaged in their learning. A wide variety of manipulatives would be beneficial for the equity of all students. Many lessons have just “Math text and paper for each student” listed under materials. During the guided practice, many lessons can have manipulatives such as counter, whiteboards and markers, base ten blocks, place value cards, and more. Then,

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

after using the manipulatives, they can take these skills learned to their independent work. Some students would benefit from using manipulatives during independent work to model how to solve division problems. Also, lesson plan day 2 had the use of popsicle sticks as manipulatives during the modeling/demonstration. It seems that the teacher is modeling using manipulatives, but the students are not given the same opportunities to use such manipulatives. Finally, in part 9 of the lessons, potential areas of difficulty and correction procedures are a weakness. Many lessons use this section to justify sending homework home with students who are struggling. Though an opportunity to work on skills at home is important, it’s hard for teachers to rely on this as a correction procedure. Many students do not have the support systems at home for such opportunities. It’s hard for fourth graders to work on their skills at home without the support of parents and families. Also, in the last lesson of this unit, the use of recess time is given as a correcting procedure. Recess at this age is so important for students' brain development and social and emotional skills. Taking away recess usually has a detrimental effect on students' performance. 2. Identify the strengths and weaknesses of the attached “Unit of Instruction: Division” in relation to engagement, and justify why you classified each as a strength or weakness. The Unit of Instruction has a good amount of engaging elements embedded. The way the lessons are set up allows for the teacher to introduce the activity and then model it for the students. This is a great start to a lesson. It allows the students to learn the objectives of each lesson and then to see how to solve specific problems. Many students are visual and or auditory learners and this would engage them. Next, the lessons have built-in guided practice and feedback. This allows the students to experiment and work with the skill at hand. Though a weakness of this Unit is the lack of manipulatives and collaboration during this guided practice, this will be addressed later. During the guided practice, the teacher is working with the students. This is a great opportunity for the teacher to address any misconceptions and common mistakes. After guided practice, the teacher allows the students to work independently. An obvious strength of this independent practice is it allows the teacher to check for understanding and work either one-on-one or in small groups with the students who need more practice. I really like how Lesson Plan: Day 6 has students play the “clip and cover bingo” after finishing the independent practice. This collaboration is great for all students, especially those who lack social or language skills. I also like how the lessons have a closing/review built in. This allows the teacher to do a quick formative assessment of the student's knowledge. The

setup of the lessons is a strength, though I would add more rigor and student-led opportunities in many areas. The first weakness of the Unit of Instruction is the lack of manipulatives. As I mentioned in part B1, elementary students need to use various hands-on manipulatives to actively engage their learning. Many lessons only use paper and pencil and seem very teacher led. The lack of manipulation doesn’t allow the students to explore different math skills and strategies. When teaching 4th-grade students to divide, they need to use visualization skills to understand equal groups and how many are in each group. This can be done with manipulatives to allow students to manipulate objects and visualize their work. The next weakness of this unit is the lack of student collaboration. Students learn better from their peers than from a teacher. When the teacher acts as the facilitator and allows students to explore their mathematical thinking with their classmates, they learn to bounce ideas off of each other, and problem-solving skills. This also works on student's social skills. One of my favorite quotes is “The longer we talk, the more students we lose.” (Biffle, 2015). The more teachers lecture students, the less engaged they are. 3. Identify the strengths and weaknesses of the attached “Unit of Instruction: Division” in relation to digital literacy, and justify why you classified each as a strength or weakness (NELP 4.2). As a unit review, the students play a PowerPoint Jeopardy game, and the use of this digital tool is a strength. This use of technology is important in today's world because not only are the students required to use them as part of their education, technology is a huge part of our student’s future. Jeopardy is an engaging way to review a unit, assess students' abilities, and use a digital format. The game aligns with the standards taught throughout the unit and I’m assuming that the higher point questions deal with higher level thinking. This has differentiation built into the game. However, Jeopardy was the only digital tool found in this unit. Though a smartboard may be used by the teacher as modeling throughout this unit, it is not stated in the instructions. Also, this unit does not show any opportunities for students to use the smartboard or any other digital tool during the lessons. There are many great digital resources available to support student's needs. Some resources I’ve used in my classroom to support multiplication and division are Reflex Math, Prodigy, Kaun Academy, Kahoot, Multiplication Wizard, and Zearn. Most of this unit is based on the use of paper and pencil. As stated in Task 1 and Task 2, West

Oak Cove Elementary continues to score below the state average on state math tests. These tests are all online, so students should be familiar with the use of a computer or Chromebook and be familiar with using online tools to manipulate and answer questions. 4. Recommend specific steps you would take to collaborate with teachers who are implementing the attached “Unit of Instruction: Division” address each of the weaknesses you identified in parts B1–B3 (NELP 4.4). a. Justify how the steps in part B4 would be effective in addressing the identified weaknesses (NELP 4.4). The weaknesses of the Unit of Instruction can be fixed. The layout and organization of this unit are solid and a great starting point. The areas of weakness can be addressed with building and team collaboration. The first step I would take would be to look at the Units of Instruction for all grade levels. If the same issues are school-wide, they would be addressed as a building, if it was just a fourth-grade issue, we would have a fourth-grade team meeting to address the issues. My justification for checking all grade’s Units of Instruction is that if these weaknesses are school-wide, the students are going to be below the state average by the time they get to fourth grade. If we can address these issues, there is a good chance students go into fourth grade closer to being on track. To start, I would complement the Unit of Instruction for all the strengths mentioned above. As I stated earlier, there are a lot of strengths to this unit. I would then ask the teacher about what areas they believe we could improve. I would then show my suggestions as to what should be improved. As a team, we would discuss the areas in which we need to improve. I would allow the teachers to decide what area of weakness they feel needs corrected first. This will allow the teacher to feel more invested in our school-wide meetings and actively take action to correct the areas of weakness. As a team, we would look at one specific area of weakness every month. These changes will take time and won’t happen right away. Then, we would focus on the area that we think needs to be improved first. I would let the teacher decide, again to give them ownership and a sense of purpose. We would then dive into the area in which the teacher chose. For example, if the teacher selects a lack of manipulatives as the most important improvement, we would focus on this for a month. I would use professional research to show the need for manipulatives. At the meeting, I would ask grade-level teachers to get together and come up with a list of manipulatives for each unit and standard. We would look at the manipulatives that we have as a school and what manipulatives we lack. The manipulatives we don’t have, I would be responsible for acquiring them. Next, as grade levels, I would ask the teacher to add the

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

manipulatives to the materials needed for each unit. The justification for these school-level and grade-level meetings would be the fact that manipulatives allow students to explore their ideas and visualize their thinking while working on math skills. After we corrected the first area of concern, a lack of manipulatives, we would do the same for each area of weakness. This would give the teachers and students the tool needed to be successful.

Sources Biffle, Chris. Whole Brain Teaching for Challenging Kids (and the Rest of the Class, Too!) . C. Briffle, 2015. Bloom, B.S. (1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook: The Cognitive Domain. David McKay, New York. Gay, G. (2018). Culturally responsive teaching : theory, research, and practice (Third edition.). Teachers College Press. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx? direct=true&db=cat07141a&AN=ebc.EBC5309048&site=eds-live&scope=site . Illinois State Department of Education. (n.d.). Common Core Standards For Mathematics. Math Standards. Retrieved January 18, 2024 https://www.isbe.net/Documents/math-standards.pdf Martinez-Moyano, I.J. (2006). Exploring the dynamics of collaboration in interorganizational settings. In: Schuman (Ed.), Creating a Culture of Collaboration. Jossey-bass, San Francisco, pp. 69–85 Michael Russell. (2011). Assessing Students in the Margin: Challenges, Strategies, and Techniques . Information Age Publishing. https://search-ebscohost-com.wgu.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx? direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=469720&site=eds-live&scope=site . WGU. (n.d.) Leadership of Curriculum Design and Instruction [Evaluating for equity]

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

D021 Task 3

Related Documents