S – Task: Student Work Analysis

Shuji Miller

The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley

EDCI 6351: Teaching Mathematics for Understanding

Dr. Victor M. Vizcaino

August 5, 2020
 S – Task: Student Work Analysis

On July 28th, 2020, I administered Foreman and Bennett’s (1995) “S-Pattern Task” activity (see

Appendix A) adapted from Foreman & Bennett’s (1995) Visual Mathematics Course II, lessons 1-10, to three

students: Carlton, Deanna (both 9th grade), and Sam (8th grade). I began by setting up the task via oral

instructions on what the students will be doing. I stated, “today you three will be working individually on a task

I like to call the S-Pattern Task. If you have any questions regarding the task at any point, whether for

assistance, clarity, or because you are confused, please feel free to ask me your question. At the very top of

your activity, you’ll see a series of a figure that changes with each step. The first figure is labeled 1, and the

second 2, and so on. Take a minute to look at how the figure changes throughout each series and see if you

observe any relationships or patterns. After taking a minute to observe the pattern, answer the questions below.

Let’s go ahead and get started!” The task set-up communicated the work expectation of the task as well as the

general procedure and behavior the students would be engaging in. By offering guidance on an initial launch

point of observing and noting a pattern, then proceeding with the task, the high-cognitive demand was

maintained (Stein, Grover, and Henningsen, 1996).

After instructions were provided the students individually began working on the task. As the students

worked, they did not ask many questions. Deanna asked for clarification on question 3, regarding if she was

supposed to describe the 20th figure with 20 squares at the bottom, or anything bigger than the 20th figure. I

simply requested her to reread the question and she was able to emphasize the word stating “larger” than the 20th

figure, then proceeded to continue with her work. The approaches that these three students took were unique.

All three of them were able to discern the pattern fairly quickly and could easily answer questions 1 and 2 as

shown in figure 1. As I walked around and observed them, I asked them to orally explain to me the pattern they

observed. Carlton visualized the figure as shifting columns and rows up by one. Deanna viewed this as an

additive property stating that a column and row are both added. Sam however viewed the overall shape in the

middle as a rectangle and explained that it increases in size by 1 row and column. I believe that these were great

indicators of their mathematical thought processes; Carlton and Deanna viewed the figure more algebraically

while Sam viewed it more as a geometric change. Through this brief interaction and discussion, I was able to
 better anticipate the trajectory in which each student was headed in their thought process and could gain an

inference on their strategic competence via the use of probing questions (NCTM, 2014; Smith and Stein, 2011)
Figure 1: S – Task Questions 1 – 2
Carlton Sam Deanna

As they continued, Sam and Deanna both explained how the 21st figure would be drawn while Carlton

explained the 20th figure. I believe Carlton misread the key instruction of a figure “larger” than the 20th figure

and therefore missed this question, thereby receiving a small deduction for procedural fluency (see Appendix

B), but the description and explanation for their figure among all three students were accurate. It was interesting

to note how they verbally expressed the geometric patterns they observed, and how it was translated into an

algebraic representation in question 4. Deanna and Carlton had very similar approaches with their equation and

its explanation, reflecting a rectangle in the middle with two individual squares on the end as shown in figure 2.

Figure 2: Carlton’s and Deanna’s Question 3 – 4

Carlton Deanna
This is the same verbal description Deanna gave in questions 3 while Carlton did not verbalize his 20th figure in

this manner but still came up with the same algebraic expression. Carlton used a geometric sketch to represent

each element of his algebraic equation while Deanna simply used words. This task offered the availability of

multiple representations and multiple entries into the task which fostered creativity, natural scaffolding, and

deeper mathematical thinking (Smith et al., 1996). Question 3 and 4 were well constructed in this task because

it appropriately sequenced the question in a manner for students to make connections between the pattern they

observed, and apply it by requesting a future figure’s description in a new written representation (Smith & Stein,

2011). They could then translate their pattern observation and written description into an algebraic

representation in question 4. This sequencing, application, and connections across multiple representations

allowed for the students to have a deeper understanding of the pattern to be able to carry forward with the future

questions (Smith & Stein, 2011; NCTM 2014).

Though Deanna and Carlton formed the same verbal description and the same algebraic expressions,

Sam on the other hand took a different approach in question 4 as shown in figure 3.

Figure 3: Sam’s Question 3 – 4

It appears that Sam originally attempted to see an algebraic pattern by constructing a table but could not find a

relationship to describe it into a formula. Then, Sam viewed the figure as a row on the top, a row on the bottom,

and a rectangle in the middle that overlapped the top and bottom rows, and therefore had to subtract off the

overlapping squares. This was explained and represented algebraically and geometrically and provided a unique
insight into his thought processes. Sam visualized this as a construction of various geometric pieces that

overlapped, and his geometric sketch explained his thought processes. He then was able to successfully

translate this representation geometrically. This method made connections across various representations and

thought processes while allowing the incorporation of multiple entries into the task thereby expanding

discussion opportunities if presented in a classroom setting (Smith et al., 1996).

As they proceeded to apply their new found formula in problem 5, all three students were able to

procedurally use their equation appropriately, as shown in figure 4, and successfully applied their understanding

to extend the problem to a new situation (NCTM, 2014).

Deanna and Carlton received a small deduction on conceptual understanding (see Appendix B) because in

question 5, though procedurally correct, when asked to explain how we can figure out the term for a figure with

9802 squares, they simply stated that we set the prior equation equal to 9802 with no conceptual connection on

why this works. This form of explanation could be further fostered via small-group discussion or use of
purposeful questioning during the task in the future or a full-class setting. Sam on the other hand proceeded to

explain how the equation represented the total squares, and if there are 9802 total squares, they can be equaled

to one another where the variable signifies the term number. Sam was able to articulate the procedural aspect of

setting the equation to 9802 and connect it with its conceptual reasoning of the algebraic expression, thereby

awarding him a 4 on conceptual understanding (see Appendix B). Sam extended his understanding of both

reasonable and unreasonable solutions as well when taking into consideration both positive and negative values

of n, and the inappropriateness for -99 to be a possible answer. Through the tasks’ request to explain the

reasoning behind the procedure, fluency between procedural and conceptual ideas can simultaneously be

deepened at a greater extent by forming connections between the two fields (NCTM, 2014).

For the final question, all three students recognized that the pattern was not a linear pattern, but rather a

quadratic one as shown in Figure 5.

Deanna was able to algebraically understand it was a quadratic due to the 𝑥 2 while Sam articulated not only this

algebraic property of quadratics, but also how the rate of change between the total squares did not remain

constant. Carlton simply stated that the relationship was a quadratic with no further explanation. I believe that

this further displays a conceptual weakness in Carlton thereby signaling a need for a brief intervention on the

relationship between procedures and concepts. Though his procedural strength is great, his ability to connect
ideas to his procedures did not excel as much as the other two students. The use of tools such as graphing

technology may have allowed for the students to visualize a graphical representation on why this relationship

was not linear, thereby incorporating technological application and use within the lesson. Remediation through

the use of other tools and representations can be a helpful resource in helping students overcome misconceptions

or bridge learning gaps (NCTM, 2014).

Many of the small conceptual misunderstandings caused within this group of students could be easily

remediated through the use of purposeful questioning, small-group talks, think-pair-shares, and other cognitively

stimulating discussions. The use of classroom discourse helps facilitate these cognitive ideas and allows for

students to serve as natural supports in deepening their mathematical understanding (NCTM, 2014). This task

strongly incorporates the use of multiple representations, multiple entry levels, use of a variety of tools, thereby

making this procedure with connection task optimal for student discourse (Smith & Stein, 2011). If this task

were to be implemented again in the future, I would encourage the use of technology such as spreadsheets or

graphing technology to assist in pattern finding, and encourage greater classroom discourse to help facilitate

conceptual connections across procedures (NCTM, 2014). I was thoroughly impressed by the mathematical

strength these students had, and hope in the future that I can play a more significant role in developing their

mathematical understanding.
 References

Foreman, L.C. & Bennett, A.B., Jr. (1995). Visual mathematics: Course II, lessons 1-10. Salem, OR: Math

Learning Center.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2014). Principles to actions:

Ensuring mathematical success for all. Reston, VA: Author.

Smith, M. S., & Stein, M. K. (2011). 5 practices for orchestrating productive mathematical discussions.

Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Stein, M.K., Grover, B.W. & Henningsen, M (1996). Teachers constructing meaning in school-based

mathematics reform: The case of cooperative learning groups. Paper presented at the Annual

Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta.

APPENDIX A
 APPENDIX B

Scoring Guide of S – Task Analysis

Element Carlton Deanna Sam

Procedural Fluency (4) 3.5 4 4

Conceptual Understanding (4) 3 3.5 4

Problem Solving/Strategic 4 4 4

Competence (4)

10.5 11.5 12

Total /12