Part I

Summary of Class
I completed my data collection assignment in placement one. I completed
placement one in third grade at Tallwood Elementary School. My cooperating
teacher team-taught, meaning she only taught math and content. Content switched
between social studies and science. Because my cooperating teacher team teaches,
I focused on her homeroom class for my data project. The homeroom class is a
general education class with a total of fourteen students (one student was added
after taking the pretest, however). There is one student with a 504 plan for his
ADHD. There is only one student who could be classified as ESL, but his parents
declined an ESL plan. There are ten female students and four male students. There
are six Caucasian students, five African American students, two Hispanic students,
and one multiracial student. I chose to do my data collection project on a geometry
unit in math. I completed my project using the first part of the geometry unit,
which covers M.A. 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 3.4.3, and 3.4.4. The SOLs are listed below for
convenience.
3.11 The student will identify and draw representations of points, lines, line
segments, rays, and angles.
3.12 The student will
a) define polygon;
b) identify and name polygons with 10 or fewer sides; and
c) combine and subdivide polygons with three or four sides and name
the resulting polygon(s).
I used Socrative to create my pre-assessment. There were twenty questions
on the pre-assessment due to the length of the unit. There were two questions for
most parts of each standard to help with the chances of students simply guessing
and getting the answer correct even though they do not know the content. The
whole pre-assessment was multiple choice, and it was administered on the
student’s individual Chromebooks. No students in this class need tests read aloud
to them. On the pre-assessment, there were approximately nine questions covering
3.11. Only one question was asked for points due to the assumption that students
would be familiar with this term. There was one question for 3.12a, and eight
questions for 3.12b. The students were asked one question on subdividing and one
question on combining (3.12c) at the suggestion of my cooperating teacher who
explained to me that they often have no background knowledge for this standard
and would not need more than one question to pre-asses.
 After giving my students the assessment, I went over the data before
building some of my lesson plans, so that the lessons could accurately address
what each student knew. The only question that all of my students got correct was
the question asking them to identify a triangle. All but one student answered the
question asking them to identify a point correctly as well. This told me that I would
not need to spend time describing either triangles or points to the students, and I
could move on to other polygons and lines, line segments, rays, and angles. 60-
75% of my students could also correctly identify two different angles. This tells me
that I will need to spend more time designing plans which will help the students
identify specifically the difference between lines, line segments, and rays, as those
questions were some of the lowest scores. Only two other questions received a
50% or above correct answer for the class average. One question asked the
students to identify a hexagon and the other question asked them to identify a
pentagon. Comparing these questions with other responses from the same students,
I believe the high percentage is due to guessing as opposed to actual knowledge of
the polygons, however. Both combining and subdividing questions received a very
low class average, and I knew I would need to spend more instructional time on
these concepts than on polygons or lines. Only one student passed the pre-
assessment with a 70%; the data shows that this student understood most of the
polygons but struggled with understanding lines. During the days when polygons
were being taught, I made sure to have enrichment activities for this student. Two
other students received a 50%, but it appeared that they were able to guess
accurately, as the data shows that they would get one answer correct, but then use
that same answer for a different question (example: correctly identified a line, but
then answered line when the picture displayed a ray on the next question). This
told me that these students still needed instruction even on the material that they
appeared to answer correctly. Overall, I believed that there are only two concepts
that I do not need to teach–triangles and points.

Part II
There were five days of direct instruction following the pre-assessment. The
students took a post-assessment on the sixth day. On day one, we began with
points, lines, line segments, rays, and angles. I began to teach this concept with the
use of the Total Physical Response strategy. Total Physical Response (TPR) is a
method of teaching language or vocabulary concepts by using physical movement
to react to verbal input. TPR aims to create a brain link between speech and action
to boost language and vocabulary learning. I told the students we were going to do
math ninja. For each math concept in standard 3.11, there was a certain physical
move that I demonstrated for my students while saying the proper term. For
example, the TPR (or ninja move) for ray would involve the students making a fist
with one hand and holding it to their chest while extending the other arm and hand
in an open pose mimicking the motion of a line that goes on forever in one
direction. This was practiced a few times following day one of instruction to help
them memorize the vocabulary and definitions for 3.11. I have observed that this
class needs movement incorporated into learning because they have trouble sitting
still, and they enjoy displaying their learning through movement. Using TPR also
helps keep the attention of students who tend to get distracted during lecture
lessons or paperwork. The TPR was done as a whole group the first few times, and
then I put students in groups with one student who I knew had a strong grasp of the
moves and one student who may have a harder time remembering. This allowed
the students to help each other and it allowed me as the teacher to walk around and
listen/watch the different groups so that I could monitor who was still struggling
with the concepts. This strategy was utilized prior to differentiation so that I could
build more of a baseline for the students who caught on quickly and actively used
the TPR, and those students who struggled to connect the movements to the
vocabulary.
One of the things that the pre-assessment data told me was that the students
needed to practice the instant recognition of lines, line segments, and rays. They
mostly understood points and angles, so we did not spend a lot of time or
classwork on those concepts. Instead worksheets, small group time, technology,
and whole group instruction centered on the difference between the three other
concepts. After using TPR to initially introduce all of the concepts, I leaned
heavily on hands-on games, small group instruction, and student-centered
technology practice to help the students understand the concepts. Specifically, I
used a game entitled “Four in a Row” for hands-on, fun learning, which is so
important for my students who need movement and a reason to learn. This game is
played in pairs. Partners take during rolling a die and covering either a point, line,
line segment, or ray on the grid depending on what number they roll. The first
player to get four in a row wins the game. This helps students with instant
recognition and incorporates the use of motor skills. Using IXL Learning1, students
also practiced their recognition and naming skills. IXL is an excellent student-
centered technology resource. Teachers may assign an online practice by starring a
skill. I chose a specific skill on IXL that included a learning video for students who
needed a refresher before they began their assignment. Students may be asked by
their teacher to reach a specific percentage on IXL, which is helpful for
differentiation, as IXL will automatically offer challenge or “gifted” problems once
students pass a certain percentage. Typically, I assign IXLs and ask students to get
100%, but if the concept is more challenging, I will ask students to get only an
80%, and if they wish to, they may continue to get a 100% (student often try to get
100% because they unlock rewards and ribbons). When learning this concept, I
also pulled small groups during math rotations. I chose my small groups based on
the pre-assessment data for questions 9-17. Those who got 6 to 8 problems wrong
were put into one group, those who got 4-5 problems wrong were in another group,
and my final group was those who got 3 or fewer problems wrong. Those in the 6
to 8 category outnumbered my other groups, so I split them into two different
groups, as there are four rotations. During small group time, I typically gave each
student three to give problems either pulled from task cards on that certain skill or
from a worksheet that was similar to the one that they would do that day, so that
they were familiar with the format. IXL learning was used both before my
differentiation and following my differentiation. Examining the IXL data allowed
me to see which students were consistently recognizing points, lines, line
segments, etc., and which students were taking much longer. Going through the
data allowed me to assign advanced IXL practices for certain groups of students
while allowing my lower students to continue basic recognition.
One of the strategies/activities that I used the most throughout this whole
unit was an acrostic to help the students remember all of the polygons
TQPHHOND (The, Queen, Practices, Hip, Hop, Over, Nine, Days; or, Triangle,
Quadrilateral, Pentagon, Hexagon, Heptagon, Octagon, Nonagon, Decagon). This
strategy was designed to align with SOL 3.12 b); it was evident from the pre-

1
IXL Learning uses insights from student work in the curriculum and the Real-Time Diagnostic
to generate personalized guidance for each learner. These personalized action plans seamlessly
link students to the skills that will help them build on their knowledge and remediate gaps in
understanding. Teachers may also assign individual skills in all subjects to learners.
assessment data, that the students struggled to identify polygons with four or more
sides. We practiced the strategy every day during whole group instruction, and I
had the students write down the strategy on their desks anytime they needed to
remember the names of the polygons. We used a version of White-Board-Wipeout
to do this review; I would have the students write using a whiteboard marker,
erase, and then do it again multiple times. This simple strategy was extremely
effective. The students found it entertaining, which helped them remember it
because they were motivated to do so. Part of the SOL involves the students
knowing all of the polygons up to ten sides, and this activity helps them. All of my
students used this strategy when it came time for test-taking, and all of them did
well on polygons by referencing the strategy. Repetition in general was a large part
of my unit, and I found it effective since I had a few students who really struggle
with listening the first or even the second time when I teach something. Students
learned this strategy before my differentiated lesson, which was helpful when it
came time to design ThinkDot activities. My Tier II group still needed the constant
repetition of the acrostic, while my Tier III group was ready to branch out and
come up with their own acrostic.
On day five, I differentiated instruction during small group time using
ThinkDot activities. Before the ThinkDot activity, there was a brief whole group
lesson to review combining and subdividing. This type of differentiation was based
on readiness. I differentiated based on readiness, because this is one of the most
successful and helpful forms of differentiation. According to an article by
Education Digest, “there is ample evidence that students are more successful in
school and find it more satisfying if they are taught in ways that are responsive to
their readiness levels” (Cox, 2000, p. 52). By this point in the unit–before the
students began the differentiated lesson–students had been introduced to all of the
material in the SOLs that I included on the pre-assessment. I used the pre-
assessment to split students into groups to complete either a Tier II or Tier III
ThinkDot, but I also used data from the four previous days of instruction, such as
the IXLs, worksheets, small group problems, and exit/entrance tickets. It was clear
from the data that I only needed two tiers of differentiation, and that Tier I–
students who are not quite ready for a given skill–was not necessary. Using tiers is
a research-based approach to differentiation. “A lesson tiered by readiness level
implies that the teacher has a good understanding of the students’ ability levels
with respect to the lesson and has designed the tiers to meet those needs” (Adams
& Pierce, 2006. P. 19). Tiers are formed and assigned “based on [the teacher’s]
assessment of [their] students’ ability to handle the material particular to the
lesson” (Adams & Pierce, 2006, p. 19). The lesson began using food pairs to find
their partner. After finding their partner, the students were asked to take turns
giving each other combining polygon problems. They were told to ask one
combining question and one subdividing question (students were able to use their
whiteboards; if they were having trouble, they could ask the teacher to help them
come up with questions). After that introduction, the students were split into their
pre-arranged groups, and the teacher pulled one group, while the other two groups
worked on the ThinkDot activities. I used flexible grouping for my differentiation,
because “flexible grouping arrangements…create opportunities to meet individual
needs” (Pierce & Adams, 2004, p. 59). When students are grouped, they do not
necessarily realize who the lower or higher group may be, but the teacher is easily
able to distinguish between the groups and instruct and support based on that
understanding.
During small group time with the teacher, the students completed polygon
puzzles and were asked to complete a few questions on subdividing. During the
ThinkDot activity students in my Tier II groups needed more direction, so I spent
most of my time floating between those three groups. During the activity, I noticed
that they had problems with the questions that were longer and required more
reading, and they didn’t require as much assistance on the other more
straightforward questions. These groups also needed much more prompting, as
they would often get stuck on whose turn it was to roll the dice, or they would get
confused about who needed to answer a certain question. During the activity, the
Tier III group seemed to really be enjoying the activity. One of their favorite parts
was coming up with their own acrostic to try and remember all of the polygons. I
noticed during the activity that none of the students realized that they had different
ThinkDots than anyone else. After the ThinkDot activity I realized that a few of
my Tier II students needed more combining and subdividing practice, so the
following day we used Quizizz and Blooket to review that concept in a fun way. I
began with Quizizz as it can be set to teacher-paced. In this mode, students answer
one question at a time, and when everyone in the class has answered, the overall
rankings pop up on the board in the front of the room. This allows the teacher to
see if they need to go over the problem, or if there was 100% accuracy. If the
teacher needs to address the problem, they may use the pen for the board, explain
the problem for the students to see, and then click the button to move on to the next
question. Additionally, on the following day, I kept whole group instruction to two
or three practice problems together, and then we began rotations early so that I
could call only the students who needed additional help to my small group table.
At the small group table the following day, I focused on dividing the same shape in
different ways, to help the students understand the basics of subdividing before
they moved on to dividing different polygons. When reviewing combining, I used
a group of pre-drawn shapes that were all connected, and I had them first pick two
polygons and then trace the lines to combine them before finally naming the
polygon. This helped the students to understand that they should only count the
outside sides when two polygons are combined, and I could easily erase their
whiteboard marker if they drew the lines in the wrong place.

Part III
Below is a copy of my pre-assessment data, post-assessment data, and a
graph laying out the scores for each student for both assessments. I used my pre-
assessment as my post-assessment as well, but I changed a few of the pictures that
asked the students to identify lines; I did this because my previous pictures
included labeled points, which my cooperating teacher told me was not something
they learned in third grade, so it would be better to use something else.
Additionally, I changed my “define a polygon” answer choices to be more concise
with grade-level vocabulary.
All of my students passed the post-assessment, and all of them but one
scored a 90% or above. I believe there were a few reasons for the students’ success
on the assessment. First, I used repetition often throughout the unit, and we
practiced our strategies for both lines and polygons almost every day before the
start of whole group. Second, I taught learning strategies that the students could
easily refer back to when completing their assessment. Instead of just teaching the
material using practice problems. I watched many of my students using their TPR
(karate moves) during the test to help them remember the differences between
lines. Additionally, I chose instructional materials and practice materials that
required the students to consistently recognize the same concept over and over
again. Instead of a worksheet or small group task cards that asked them different
questions each time, I chose interactive materials that asked the same question but
in a different way. I believe this helped students remember concepts. Only one
student scored below 90%. This student scored a 75%, which is still a P (passing)
in the Virginia Beach grading scale. The student had missed one instructional day
and one review day, but I allowed them to take the assessment because they
wanted to. Since the assessment was not our official geometry unit test, I allowed
the student to take it to see what remediation might be necessary. We remediated in
a small group format, specifically going over the strategy that the class used to
remember polygons (The, Queen, Practices, Hip, Hop, Over, Nine, Days), since
polygons are where they struggled the most. When the student took the official
geometry unit test a day later, they scored a 90%.
The combining question on the post-assessment was the most missed
question, with four students who chose the incorrect answer. I believe this is
because we began learning combining and subdividing only two days before the
post-assessment, and some students forgot that when combined, straight lines are
counted as one line. I would modify a few things if I were to change the unit or
teach it again in the future. First, I would take one more day on lines. I think the
geometry karate that we practiced every day helped the students, but next time I
would like for them to spend more time with the material either using IXL or
worksheets or games as learning materials. Second, I would definitely spend more
time on subdividing and combining and less time on polygons. The students caught
on to polygons quite quickly, and they struggled more when it came to subdividing
and combining. Additionally, I would specifically spend more time on whole group
instruction for combining and subdividing. I limited whole group instruction and
spent more time on individual work or fun reviews, but I think the students would
have benefited more from using ClassFlow1 2or another platform to practice
problems with me in a whole group setting.
Overall, I am pleased with the results, and we did not have to do any specific
remediation following the post-assessment except for the one student who had
missed two days. The only review I completed following the post-assessment was
a mini-lesson on subdividing and combining, as well as a fun review activity
before the students took their official geometry test. If I were to do specific

2
With ClassFlow, teachers can create content-rich lessons that feature a mixture of interactive
whiteboard presentation and device-based quizzing, polling, and responses. They can then
deliver these lessons via an interactive whiteboard or directly to whatever web-enabled devices
students might be using.
remediation, I would have created two more whole group lessons on combining
and subdividing, and then I would have broken the students up into my usual math
rotation groups. In this rotation, they would have completed a rotation with me at
the small group table completing subdividing and combining problems using
physical polygon shapes, a worksheet at their desk, an IXL or similar activity in an
online format, and a hands-on game or activity on the carpet. Below are the graphs
that display the data from both the pre and post-assessments.

References
Adams, C. M., & Pierce, R. (2006). Differentiating instruction: A practical guide
to tiered lessons in the elementary grades. PRUFROCK PRESS INC..
Cox, S. G. (2008). Differentiated instruction in the elementary classroom. The
Education Digest, 73(9), 52.
Pierce, R. L., & Adams, C. M. (2004). Tierdless lessons: One way to differentiate
mathematics instruction. Gifted Child Today, 27(2), 58-65.
ST = Student

Below is my pre-assessment:
Below are my post-assessment questions:
Below are my class materials:
These IXLs are not the only ones we completed, but they are an example of what
the platform entails: