You are on page 1of 1

# Percentage

Totals

Analysis

Application

Comprehension

Content Outline

Knowledge

## NUMBER AND OPERATIONS Objective 1

The student applies mathematical process standards to develop and
use strategies and methods for whole number computations in order
to solve problems with efficiency and accuracy.
1. solve one-step and two-step problems involving multiplication and division
within 100 using strategies based on objects; pictorial models, including
arrays, area models, and equal groups; properties of operations; or recall of
facts
2. determine the total number of objects when equally sized groups of
objects are combined or arranged in arrays up to 10 by 10

## 3. represent multiplication facts by using a variety of approaches such as

repeated addition, equal-sized groups, arrays, area models, equal jumps on a
number line, and skip counting
4 recall facts to multiply up to 10 by 10 with automaticity and recall the
corresponding division facts

1
1

## 5. determine the number of objects in each group when a set of objects is

partitioned into equal shares or a set of objects is shared equally

20%

6.67%

6.67%

6.67%

6.67%

## ALGEBRAIC REASONING Objective 2

The student applies mathematical process standards to analyze and
create patterns and relationships.
1. represent and solve one- and two-step multiplication and division
problems within 100 using arrays, strip diagrams, and equations
2. describe a multiplication expression as a comparison such as 3 x 24
represents 3 times as much as 24
3. determine the unknown whole number in a multiplication or division
equation relating three whole numbers when the unknown is either a missing
factor or product

3
1
1

20%

6.67%

6.67%

Did the test blueprint show an appropriate representation of different levels of complexity
for each objective? As a Math Instructional Coach for my district I am required to build
assessments using the STAAR Blueprint as outlined by TEA. In doing this I don't have to
think of the complexity but rather how they breakdown questions and percentages based
on readiness and supporting SE's. As I reflect on this assessment I do think there was an
appropriate representation of complexities within the assessment. Percentages were only
13% off of one another and the levels of complexity created a fair and equitable
assessment that was based solely on the SE's assessed.
Did the blueprint show an appropriate representation of different levels of complexity for
each objective overall? Each objective on the assessment whether it be readiness of
supporting was well represented with the levels of complexity. When I think about the SE's
assessed I think that what was required of the student for each abjective represented a
balanced and equitable assessment. Items of course were embedded with process skills
which could increase the level of complexity based on the process skills intent.

What would you do differently if you were constructing an exam over the same objectives
this year? If creating this assessment again then I would try and get at least 4 questions for
the readiness skills and 2 for the supporting skills. Sometimes when an objective is
represented only once on an assessment data can be a bit misleading. The only
possibilities would be to receive 0% or 100%. I don't know that this type of data is
something you could use as reliable and valid. While being fair and equitable, assessments
must also meet a certain level of reliability and validity within the representation of the
objectives assessed.
Why would a teacher constuct a blueprint BEFORE a unit of study is developed? A test
blueprint is the perfect way of seeing instructionally how you should teach the objectives
you are presenting to the students. One common error that teachers make is they teach
SE's on a complexity level that is different than the way it will be assessed. This approach
creates a massive breakdown in the students ability to be successful on a test item.
Creating a blueprint like this before a unit began would require teachers to unpack the
standards in which they would have more clarity to the depth and complexity of the
individual objectives being taught withing this lesson. This approach would increase the
understanding by the teacher and create a filter down effect, due to better preperation, for
student understanding.

## GEOMETRY AND MEASUREMENT Objective 3

The student applies mathematical process standards to analyze
attributes of two-dimensional geometric figures to develop
1. determine the area of rectangles with whole number side lengths in
problems using multiplication related to the number of rows times the
number of unit squares in each row

Total
Percentage

15

20%

33.33%

26.67%

20%

100%

20%

## Knowledge: Students will be given opportunities during instuction to build their

knowledge base of schema through mutliple instuctional strategies used to practice skill
based learnings. (workstations/flashcards/fact development)
Comprehension:
Students will be given opportunities during instruction to show what they know about
problem solving by breaking down word problems and determining whether or not it is a
multiplication or division problem.
Application: Students will have
opportunities to determine appropriate strategies or representations to apply to word
problems, whether it be a pictorial models, arrays, area models, equal groups, repeated
Analysis: Students will be required to represent
and solve problems that are one and two step using multiple representations. Students
will need to be exposed to questions that have answer choices that are different
representations of the following (arrays, strip diagrams, and equations). When students
are looking at these representations they will need to understand how to analyze and
answer choice and connect it to a specific word problem.