1

Makenna Bright

Senior Inquiry Seminar

Dr. Homza

6 April 2020

Step #5A-Artifacts and Analysis of Pupil Learning

Overview of Inquiry and Pupil Learning Goal

My Inquiry question was as follows: What happens to grade 1 mathematical

comprehension when the students are asked to practice a think-aloud strategy while solving word

problems throughout the math lesson(s)? In my first lesson, I introduced the think-aloud strategy

I wanted the students to learn. I defined a “think-aloud strategy” as a strategy of thinking out

loud in order to help a person solve problems and learn things. First, I modeled the strategy

multiple times for the students, and then, I had the students practice their own think-alouds to

help them solve a math problem. I wanted the students to learn what this strategy was and how to

use it to help them solve a mathematical word problem. In the think-aloud, I wanted the students

to learn how to systematically explain what they know from the problem, what they need to

figure out or solve for, and then solve the problem using mathematical thinking and strategies,

such as counting on, counting on fingers, etc. I wanted them to verbally break the problem down

before solving it on paper so that they knew what to write down and how to accurately solve the

problem before doing any writing. Basically, my pupil learning goal was that I wanted the

students to learn how to use this strategy to solve mathematical problems verbally, so they could

then show their mathematical comprehension on paper as well.

 2

Evidence of Pupil Learning

Partial transcripts of recorded think-alouds and copies of student worksheets (in same order):

Student #1: Kourtney (first worksheet below)

Kourtney: If you have 7 crayons and you need to go to 10, you can count 7 fingers…and
then you can see how many fingers are left.
Teacher: How many fingers are left?
K: 3
T: What’s the answer to how many purple crayons there are?
K: 3
Student #2: Natasha (second worksheet below)
Natasha: I know I have 10 fingers on my hand, and if I show like four, I can see six
fingers left.
Teacher: How do you know that you’re trying to get to 10?
N: …I know I have 10 fingers…
T: So what’s the answer?
N: 10
T: 10 purple crayons?
N: No. The answer is 10. 4+6=10, so it’s 10.
T: How many purple crayons does she have?
N: 4 green
T: …So how many of her crayons are purple?
N: 6
Student #3: Luke (third worksheet below)
Luke: So, I know that 5+4 is 9 and then you add one more to that is 10 so that means
6+4=10.
Teacher: How do you know you’re trying to get to 10?
L: because I looked at the paper.
T: and what does it say?
L: Khloe has 10 crayons to color with…(continues to read the problem on the worksheet)
T: So how did you start the problem in your head?
L: with 9+5…
T: 9+5?
L: No, 5+4.
T: So what’s the answer?
L: 10
T: The question is asking, “how many of her crayons are purple?” What’s the answer to
that question?
L: 6 purple crayons
 3

Process of Analysis

Evaluation rubrics used to analyze think-alouds and worksheets:

Think-Aloud Rubric:


Score 2 points-meeting 1 point-partially 0 points-not meeting
expectation/standa meeting
rd
Comprehension Student is able to Student is able to -Student does not
of the word verbally explain explain one aspect know what the math
problem what the question of the problem (i.e. question is asking
is asking and what the total or what is and/or how they
they need to do to known or what they should go about
figure it out (i.e. need to figure out) solving it (do not
what is the total but not able to know what is
they are, what is discern all three known, what is
known and what is unknown, and the
unknown/what are total)
they trying to OR
figure out) -Student does not
explain how he/she
arrived at the
numbers in their
equation (never
explains the total,
what is unknown, or
what is known)
Problem-solving Student verbally Student verbally Student does not
process explains strategy explains strategy, verbally explain
used to solve the but uses it strategy used to
problem incorrectly solve problem and
-Ex: (counting on, -Ex: counting on only gives the
using fingers from 0 answer
manipulatives, instead of counting
etc.) on
-adding incorrect
amounts together
-subtracting
amounts instead of
adding
Answer Student verbally N/A Student did not
solved the problem verbally answer the
correctly problem or answered

it incorrectly

 4

Worksheet Rubric:
Score 2 points-meeting 1 point-partially 0 points-not
standard meeting standard meeting standard
Problem- The student Student only wrote The student did not
solving process showed their work the numerical write down their
(show work) in solving the equation without strategy and only
problem showing how they wrote the answer
-showed a pictorial solved it
representation of
the problem
(drawing, tally
marks,
boxes/cubes, etc.)
-student may or
may not show an
equation with their
pictorial
representation
Answer The student solved N/A Student did not
the problem solve the problem
correctly in writing correctly in writing

Explanation of the above forms of analysis:

I chose to analyze both the written evidence and the audio evidence using two different

rubrics because in the research I did on think-alouds, the researchers often used this method of

evaluation (Bernadowski, 2016). When I was thinking about what I wanted the students to learn,

I decided I wanted them to break down the math word problems to help them work out the right

answer. I wanted them to really comprehend the problem before writing down their work and

their answers. So, in my think-aloud rubric I broke it down by comprehension of the problem

(stating the total, the known quantity, and the unknown quantity or what is to be solved for), the

problem-solving process (stating the way in which the student solved the math problem), and the

correctness of the answer given. I wanted the students to show their comprehension of the

problem but also be able to explain their problem-solving process as well as correctly solve the

problem. The next rubric I created was for the worksheets that the students completed. For the
 5

worksheets, I wanted the students to show me how they solved the problem as well as a solution

to the problem in writing. I intended for this written data to prove that the think-aloud strategy

was beneficial in helping them work out the problem and ultimately arrive at the correct answer.

Overall, I wanted the students to cognitively explain their thinking process in order to expose

misconceptions or mistakes so that they would not make the same mistakes in their actual written

work.

I wanted the students to talk about the aspects of the problem in order to organize their

thinking, so my rubrics used to analyze the data to reflect this goal. Executive functioning was

another big piece of this inquiry for me in that I wanted the students to use think-alouds to

organize their thinking. The fact that think-alouds lead to greater comprehension and practice of

cognitive and executive functioning skills is something the research on think-alouds discusses at

length (Rosenzweig, Krawec, & Montague, 2011). In analyzing my data, I used my subjective

opinion to grade their verbal work as well as their written work. To analyze, I first went through

their think-alouds, listening for the elements in my rubric above. Then, I looked at their

worksheets and graded their answers and work based on the criteria listed in my rubric above. I

used my rubrics to decide whether the students succeeded in including all the parts I wanted to

see in their think-alouds and their worksheets and to what degree they completed these

requirements. I wanted to hear them processing the problem and how to solve it as well as see

their problem-solving process and solution on the worksheet. I also wanted the answer they were

giving in both the worksheet and the think-aloud to be correct when given orally and in writing

as this would prove whether the strategy helped them solve the problem.
 6

Pupil Learning

Student Results/Scores:
Think-aloud Kourtney Natasha Luke
Comprehension of 2 points (meets the 1 point (partially 1 point (partially
the word problem standard) meets the standard) meeting the
standard)
Problem-solving 2 points (meets the 2 points (meets the 2 points (meets the
process standard) standard) standard)
Answer 2 points (meets the 2 points (meets the 2 points (meets
standard) standard) standard)
Total 6 points 5 points 5 points

Worksheet Kourtney Natasha Luke

Problem-solving 2 points (meets 2 points (meets 2 points (meets
process (show standard) standard) standard)
work)
Answer 2 points (meets 2 points (meets 2 points (meets
standard) standard) standard)
Total 4 points 4 points 4 points
 7

Explanation of above results:

Disclaimer: My worksheets had two different word problems on them (one on the front

and one on the back). I did not have time to record think-alouds for each student for both word

problems, so I decided to have Kourtney perform a think-aloud for problem #1 on the worksheet

while Natasha and Luke performed think-alouds for problem #2 on the worksheet. When I

analyzed both the verbal and written evidence, I did so for #1 only for Kourtney and #2 only for

Luke and Natasha as those went along with each student’s think-aloud respectively.

Starting with the first think-aloud criterion (comprehension of the problem), only one of

the three students verbally broke down the word problem into three parts in her think-aloud.

Kourtney was the only student to meet the standard for this criterion when she began her think-

aloud saying “If you have 7 crayons and you need to go to 10, you can count 7 fingers…and then

you can see how many fingers are left.” She verbally discussed the total (10), the known amount

(7), and she also implied what she was trying to solve for by saying “you can see how many

fingers are left.” Although all of the students identified the total (10) and what equation could be

used to solve the problem, Natasha and Lucas did not verbally state what quantity was known in

the word problem and what quantity was unknown and in need of solving. They both focused

instead on the mathematical equation and how to solve the problem without actually thinking out

loud about the actual word problem and breaking down each part of it.

Moving on to the second criterion (problem-solving process), all three students could

clearly explain their problem-solving process verbally. Both Kourtney and Natasha used their

fingers to count and solve the problem. They both looked at their fingers to see the difference

between the total and the known quantity in the word problem. Luke, on the other hand, used

number sense and the connection between addition and subtraction to solve the problem by
 8

starting with 5+4, which he knew was 9, and then adding one more (6+4) to get to the total of 10.

The students practice this skill often in math class with my SP, so I was not surprised that they

could all verbally explain how they solved the problem satisfactorily. For the third think-aloud

criterion (answer), I listened to see if the students arrived at the correct answer to the question,

“How many of her crayons are purple?” As long as the student came to the correct conclusion (3

for word problem #1 and 6 for word problem #2), I gave them full marks on this criterion.

Although all three students arrived at the correct answer, both Luke and Natasha told me

the total number of crayons (10) when I asked for the answer to their word problem (6). These

students failed to work out what the problem was ultimately asking in their think-alouds. The

answer in the problem was not the total (10), even though that is what the equation equaled,

because it was already given in the problem. The question at the end of the word problem asked

for the number of purple crayons in Khloe’s (or Rancelly’s) possession, so the answer was 6

purple crayons in problem #2 (and 3 purple crayons in problem #1). This shows that the students

focused more on the equation than the word problems themselves. In order to address this in

future lessons, I would have explicitly taught vocabulary such as “answer”, “unknown”,

“known”, and “total” at the beginning of the lesson. I might have even created a checklist of

these words to use to analyze the students’ think-alouds, as well.

The first worksheet criterion was the problem-solving process, or the ability of the

students to show their work and how they solved the problem in writing. All three students

received top marks for this criterion as they each gave a color-coded pictorial representation of

the equation. Natasha even wrote both an equation and drew a pictorial representation of the

crayons on her paper, while Luke and Kourtney incorporated their pictorial representations into

the equation itself. All of the three students also wrote down the correct answer to the word
 9

problems, so they all received a score of two on this criterion as well. All of the students had

previous practice with these criterion in math class with my SP, so these results were not a

surprise. However, I do think the think-aloud helped students think about and focus on the

problem itself and solve it correctly the first time, which is not always the case for these students

in math class. On the other hand, I do believe I could have challenged the students a bit more

with the word problems I gave them, as they have had a lot of practice making 10 in the math

curriculum used at Angier.

Possible Evolution of Inquiry Focus

My overall inquiry focus was: What happens to grade 1 mathematical comprehension

when the students are asked to practice a think-aloud strategy while solving word problems

throughout the math lesson(s)? In my original inquiry question, my focus was on assessing the

mathematical comprehension of the students after introducing the think-aloud strategy. If I were

to continue my inquiry, I would change the inquiry focus to assess both mathematical

comprehension as well as the problem-solving process of the students. Comprehension is an

essential step in solving math word problems, but the process used to solve the problem is just as

important. Both my think-aloud rubric and my worksheet rubric include the “problem-solving

process” step in them as criteria, so I assessed this in my analysis of these pieces of evidence. To

reflect this step of analysis in my inquiry question, I would change the question to: What

happens to grade 1 mathematical comprehension and problem-solving skills when the students

are asked to practice a think-aloud strategy before solving word problems throughout the math

lesson(s)? I also changed the question to “before solving” instead of “while solving” as I had the

students complete their think-alouds before writing anything down. I did this because I wanted

the students and myself to hear the thought processes as well as any misconceptions the students
 10

may have had before they started to write anything down. I also figured it would be easier for

them to explain their thinking coherently when asked to focus on only one thing at a time instead

of trying to focus on both speaking and writing at the same time.

Relation to Teaching for Social Justice and Other Questions

In my first inquiry lesson and in my plans for my overall inquiry unit, I attempted to

address all six social justice principles. The first Social Justice Principle (enabling significant

work for all students within learning communities) was addressed in the overall design of my

inquiry lesson. In my lesson, I worked with three students of different levels of ability. One of

the students in my small group was an Emergent Bilingual student. One student was a student

who struggles in math sometimes, and the final student in my group was a student who has mild

behavioral issues. This diverse group got to work together with me to solve the same relevant

math word problems. Each student had a chance to explain their thinking to their peers and me.

Social Justice Principle Number Two is: Build on what students take to school with them:

knowledge and interests, culture and linguistic resources. I addressed this principle in my inquiry

design by including relevant and personal details in the word problems I wrote for my math

lesson. In their think-alouds, the students had the opportunity to voice their own unique thoughts

and ideas on how to solve these word problems. My inquiry focus overall allowed for the

students to use their voices to express their thoughts out loud. Hopefully, this made them feel

heard and gave them a chance to use their background knowledge of math to solve the word

problems. Also, the focus of the problems was crayons, which is a common tool used by first

graders, making it relevant to their lives.

Social Justice Principle Number Three is: Teaching skills, bridging gaps. This principle

was addressed by my inquiry in the connection of think-alouds and math word problems. In my
 11

inquiry, I taught the students to connect their thoughts with the work that they do. The verbal

component of my lesson connected the students’ cognitive processes with relevant math

problems. The ability to connect one’s thoughts in problem-solving is an essential and useful

skill to be practiced both in school and in life for all people.

In order to address Principle Number Four—work with (not against) individuals,

families, and communities—I worked with the students to solve word problems by thinking

aloud and writing out their answers. I also planned to have the students work with each other to

practice these skills in subsequent inquiry lessons. I worked with my Supervising Practitioner to

plan some of the details of my inquiry, such as the mathematical topic/skills, the students in the

group, and the subject of the word problems. I also consulted with my SP about the students and

the best ways in which to teach each of them. Finally, I used resources and research from an

online community of educators about think-alouds to help plan my inquiry lessons.

I addressed Principle Number Five (diversifying modes of assessment) in the very focus

of my inquiry. The fundamental focus of my inquiry includes a verbal mode of assessment, a

think-aloud. Along with recording and assessing the students’ think-alouds, I gave the students

math worksheets to complete. I then used these worksheets as another mode of assessment when

analyzing my evidence. In my first inquiry lesson, I diversified modes of assessment by

incorporating two types of evidence/assessment (audio and written).

Finally, my inquiry this semester addressed Social Justice Principle Number Six: Make

activism, power and inequity explicit parts of the curriculum. The word problems I wrote for my

first lesson included culturally diverse names. I also wanted to include more discussion of social

justice issues, such as income inequality or class inequality. I planned to incorporate these issues

in my word problems for the second and third lessons, after I was confident the students
 12

understood the basic concept of a think-aloud. As mentioned above, the think-alouds also gave

the students an opportunity to practice using their voice to solve relevant word problems, giving

them power and agency in the classroom.

Some questions that came up for me as I was completing and analyzing my first inquiry

lesson and the data collected include: Would it have made more sense to analyze my think-

alouds using a checklist or both a checklist and a rubric (instead of just a rubric)? How could I

have incorporated culturally-relevant issues of social justice in my word problems for first

graders? I was surprised by how well the students did in their think-alouds, so I also wondered

how I could have challenged the students more with my word problems in future lessons.

Although the students did well, most of them did not break down the word problem as I had

wanted them to in their think-alouds, so how could I have made this criterion more explicit in my

instruction and modeling (in future lessons or in my first lesson)?