1. Describe the overall purpose of this unit.

Why did you choose these standards and

essential questions?
The purpose of the Linear Equations and Inequalities unit is to slowly expose students into their
first math course in high school, since most students start off in Math I. Linear Equations and
Inequalities are part of our everyday lives, but most students don’t know how to apply it in real
life. The standards and essential questions in our Unit Planner Phase 1 closely aligns with Linear
Equations and Inequalities. Because there are many ways to solve a problem, one of the
standards we choose is A.REI.1. The standard asks students to justify their step when solving an
equation. Over the course of the unit, we want students to think about equations in context
outside of a classroom. Our essential equations ask students to ponder about the reasonableness
of their solution (i.e. time can’t be negative) and how linear equations exist in the real world (i.e.
trying to pick the best cell phone plan).

2. How do your summative assessments align with your chosen standards and essential
questions?
We based each question on our traditional assessment with each standard listed in our Unit
Planner Phase 1. For example, the 1st question is based off of A.CED.4 and the 22nd question is
based off of A.CED.1. One of our essential questions asks students to think about negative
coefficient in inequalities. Question 18 closely aligns with that particular essential question since
the variable has a negative coefficient with it. In the performance assessment every standard we
listed was hit. Students had to make their own equation (A.CED.1), solve the equation (A.REI.3,
A.CED.4), and justify each step when solving the equation (A.REI.1). Essential questions that
aligned with this performance assessment included “How do linear equations/inequalities exist in
the real world?” and “How do I check the reasonableness of my solution(s)?”

3. How did you choose and design your test questions?

Reiterating from question 2, we choose our test questions by the standards we wrote in the Unit
Planner Phase 1. We included a variety of test questions besides having the first 20 questions
being multiple choice. Based off of Wormeli’s suggestion on using a variety of
questions/prompts, we included matching, fill-in-the-blanks (with a word bank), select all that
apply, and true/false for selected response questions. Wormeli also discussed the use of including
common errors in the answer choices. (Wormeli, 2018). For example, a test question has a
negative coefficient for an inequality problem. They must remember to switch the inequality sign
when dividing by that negative number. One of the constructed responses is a “find the mistake”
type of question. I find that unique instead of asking a student to solve another equation and
having them explain their steps.

4. Why did you design your performance-based assessment in the way you did?
Hailey and I discussed the use of creativity within each individual student. Thus, we wanted
something that would showcase their work. This is why we created a performance assessment
based on students creating a scenario relating it to the real world. After deciding on what we
were going to do, we looked at the Lenz et al. chapter on creating an effective performance
(Lenz et al., 2015). The first step was to let students know their own outcome and standard
outcome. The second step was the task, which is the performance assessment as a whole. The
third step was creating the rubric to give to the students. All of the steps helped create the
performance assessment and its rubric.

5. Describe the alignment of your evaluation criteria to your standards and essential
questions.
We described seven criteria for the performance assessment rubric. The first criterion was about
having the answer in context. This aligned with “How do linear equations/inequalities exist in
the real world?” The second criterion was about their explanation of steps. This aligned with the
standard A.REI.1. The third criterion was about their mathematical terminology and notation.
This aligned with all of the standards and closely aligned with the eight standards for
mathematical practices. The fourth criterion is about student strategy, which also aligns with the
mathematical practices. The fifth and sixth criteria is about table of values and graphing. This
aligns with “What information does the equation of a line give me?” and “What types of
relationships can be modeled by linear graphs?” The last criterion is about a picture shown in
context of the scenario. This aligns with “How do linear equations/inequalities exist in the real
world?” The rubric Hailey and I created closely resembles the “How to Design a Rubric” from
Wormeli’s chapter on designing an effective rubric. We identified skills that we wanted students
to master. The second step is the evidence, or what the assessment is. In this case, it’s the
performance assessment. The third step was naming the giving an explanation of the highest
performance in each criteria. After that, we went on to labeling each level, used four labels, and
provided a descriptor of each level in the criteria (Wormeli, 2018).

6. How do your formative assessments support and build students’ ability to be successful
on the summative assessments?
Students will be exposed on all of the questions that are in the summative assessments, meaning
there aren’t any “surprises” in the assessments. For example, one of the formative assessments is
a “find the mistake” activity on equations and inequalities. In the traditional assessment, there is
a problem very similar to that activity (mentioned in question 3). The second example is using
the cold calling method that was in our formative assessment. One by one, students will justify
one step of an equation during the formative assessment. If they’re incorrect, someone would
help them explain the right answer. In the performance assessment, there is a criterion about
having to explain each step of the equation they made. These two formative assessments will
help the student be successful in both of the summative assessments.

7. How did you consider the needs of students in designing your assessments?
We considered students that do not have the ability to write. In the performance assessment,
students have the option to print out all of their work and paste it on the poster board or actually
hand write their work on the board. In the traditional assessment, we considered students that get
distracted easily. Thus, each question shows up one at a time on Canvas. I would consider other
things that are not said explicitly, such as if a student wants a paper/pencil test instead of an
online test. The traditional assessment is a timed test. Canvas has an option where certain
students get extended time, which is beneficial for students that have IEPs. In our formative
assessments, we considered a variety of ways to make sure student learning for every student is
attainable. For example, using whiteboards could help most of the students or walking around the
classroom and being active could help other students.

8. How did you avoid bias and promote an ethical approach to instructional design?
Hailey and I avoided bias by not putting in any examples that students would not know about it
(i.e. having a problem about American Football and a student doesn’t know anything about
football) and tried to explain questions clearly and thoroughly. For example, in our traditional
assessment, there is a question about water boiling. We added more information about that
question such as water boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit. A student may not have known water
boils at this temperature in Fahrenheit if they are used to Celsius. We also evaluated every
assessment using the criteria that the “Internal and External Bias Review Committee” in West
Virginia use in Witte’s chapter on Assessment Bias (Witte, 2012). Since the assessment is on
Canvas, students should first be exposed on how Canvas works. To promote an ethical approach
to instructional design, I would recommend finding a rubric or criteria (like the one for West
Virginia’s bias committee) to avoid bias when making assessments.

9. How did you use the principles of Understanding By Design (UbD) in this project?
The first stage of UbD is “Desired Results.” According to Wiggins, this step refers to all the
learning goals for this unit, from “transfer,” “meaning,” and “acquisition” from the Unit Planner
(Wiggins, 2011). Using this stage, Hailey and I distinguished the differences of each term and
worked on the Unit Planner. The second stage of UbD is to make assessments. In the assessment
stage, Hailey and I considered the material covered in this unit and asked ourselves: “What
would be a good traditional test question for each standard to serve as an indicator for the whole
unit?” and picked 25 questions to represent this unit. For the performance assessment, Hailey and
I considered the questions: “Are the assessments aligned to all Stage 1 elements?” and “What
performances and products will reveal evidence of meaning-making and transfer?” that were in
UbD for stage two (Wiggins, 2011). This was talked more upon in question 2 when I stated each
standard and how they related to the performance assessment.

10. Reflect on the process of planning with a Professional Learning Team. What did you
find beneficial? Did you have any challenges?
Hailey and I meet up once a week after class to plan and discuss the Backwards Design Plan. We
assigned each other tasks to complete before the new week started and came back to discuss the
addition of the plan. We texted each other when we needed help or clarification on something. I
found pinging ideas off each other for the plan was very beneficial. For example, Hailey first
thought of the performance assessment and I added on to her ideas (I added “reasonable” table of
values criteria and having students to justify each step). Overall, Hailey and I didn’t have any
challenges because we worked well together.
 References
Lenz, B., Wells, J., & Kingston, S. (2015). Transforming schools using project-based deeper
learning, performance assessment, and common core standards.

Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2011). The understanding by design guide to creating high-
quality units.

Witte, R. H. (2012). Classroom assessment for teachers.

Wormeli, R. (2018). Fair isnt always equal: Assessment and grading in the differentiated
classroom.