DATA COLLECTION ASSIGNMENT 1

Data Collection Assignment:

An Analysis of Teaching Math SOL 4.2

Ethan Voight

College of Arts & Sciences, Regent University

UED 496: Field Experience E-Portfolio

Dr. Jenny Sue Flannagan

April 10, 2023

 DATA COLLECTION ASSIGNMENT 2

Table of Contents

Part One: Introduction……………………………………………………………………………..3

Part Two: Description of Differentiation………………………………………………………….4

Part Three: Post-Assessment Results……………………………………………………………...7

Appendices……………………………………………………………………………………….10

Appendix A: Pre-Assessment Data

Appendix B: Pre-Assessment Original

Appendix C: Worksheet Samples | SOL 4.2a

Appendix D: Worksheet Samples | SOL 4.2b

Appendix E: Worksheet Samples | SOL 4.2c

Appendix F: Pre & Post-Assessment Comparison

References………………………………………………………………………………………..22
 DATA COLLECTION ASSIGNMENT 3

Part One: Introduction

The following data collection project was procured during my placement at Shelton Park

Elementary in Virginia Beach, Virginia. The data presented below comes from a fourth-grade

gifted-cluster classroom with fifteen students. Of those fifteen students, eight were identified as

gifted, and two began the year as ELL students with testing accommodations. The student

population in this classroom consisted of ten boys and five girls, and the school did not qualify as

Title I.

I began teaching math at the start of the fraction unit. This unit built upon students’

foundation in fractions and taught them the connection between division and the broader concept

of equivalent fractions. The unit takes the idea of equivalency and uses it to compare and order

fractions as well as mixed numbers. Students began the unit using length and area models to help

them visualize fractional equivalencies and values. The unit aimed for students to comfortably

manipulate and visualize fractions in various forms to help them compare and order them

without models.

The pre-assessment I used to guide instruction was developed by the Math Specialist at

Shelton Park. The assessment reviewed the foundational fraction skills students should have

learned in third grade, such as naming the fractions of corresponding models, representing

fractions with models, and comparing fractions with like and unlike denominators. While it

touched on most aspects of SOL 4.2, one portion of the standard was not tested. Adding a

question to cover SOL 4.2c would have made the pre-assessment more helpful in determining

students’ understanding of the entire fourth-grade fraction unit rather than determining the

content they retained from the previous year. Nonetheless, the assessment results were used to

develop differentiated small groups. While each group went through the content at the same
 DATA COLLECTION ASSIGNMENT 4

pace, the assessment determined how each group explored the content. The results of the pre-

assessment can be found in Appendix A.

Looking at the data gathered by the pre-assessment, it was clear that I did not need to

teach Group 1 or 2 how to represent shaded figures as fractions or compare fractions to ½. When

it was time to teach those lessons, Group 1 did exploratory activities that allowed them to apply

and build upon their prior knowledge. In contrast, Group 2 did a quick review before engaging in

open-ended activities that allowed them to make connections between models, their fractions,

and equivalencies of ½. Group 3’s scores demonstrated a deficit in the background knowledge

necessary for the upcoming unit. As a result, much of the content was taught through direct

instruction, and there was a focus on solidifying a foundation in fractions early in the unit. It is

important to note that these students still participated in inquiry-based learning but with more

teacher guidance. To further see how the pre-assessment aligned with SOL 4.2 and how it was

used to guide instruction, see Appendix B.

Part Two: Description of Differentiation

Throughout this unit, readiness-based small groups were the focal point of our class’ math

block and the primary differentiation method. They were the means by which students were

introduced to and practiced new concepts at a pace that best fit them, but the groups also offered

a time to remediate students who struggled with a particular worksheet or idea that was

introduced earlier in the week.

It is important to note that the groups were fluid throughout the unit and were based on

students’ performance during large group, table, and independent times. For instance, Group 1

included those students who performed highest on the pre-assessment, scoring between 60 to
 DATA COLLECTION ASSIGNMENT 5

100%. The group started with four students, but by the end of the unit, a student from Group 2

had shown continued progress and moved to Group 1. Group 2, however, included those students

who scored around a 40% on the pre-assessment. This small group began with five students, but

throughout the unit, two students from Group 3 had shown so much progress that they eventually

transitioned into Group 2. Finally, Group 3 started the unit with six students, but it shrank to

four. My reason for shifting these small groups was to push those students who were showing

progress and to focus more intently on those who continued to demonstrate areas of weakness.

It is important to note that the sequence of our unit’s instruction was driven through small

groups. We began the unit with an introduction to properly modeling fractions found in story

problems. Students used Play-Doh to create length models that represented the fractions found in

different story problems. By the end of the week, students were writing story problems with

fractions that they then modeled using either a length or area model. In the second week of

instruction, we started comparing fractions to benchmarks of 0, ½, and 1. This built the

foundation for students to compare fractions with unlike denominators and order them on a

number line from least to greatest and greatest to least without using models. In week three of the

unit, we began using a fraction’s greatest common factor to simplify proper and improper

fractions. Then, we transitioned to students using a fraction’s least common multiple to find the

common denominator of a set of fractions during week four.

Whole group instruction, though a small portion of our math block, was still an integral

part of the differentiation process. Shelton Park mandated fifteen minutes of our math block to a

SHORE routine each morning. SHORE routines were a dedicated time for students to delve into

a thinking exercise pertaining to what they were learning, but the exercise was always presented

in a way that forced students to ask a question or solve a problem. These ice-breakers were great
 DATA COLLECTION ASSIGNMENT 6

opportunities to introduce concepts that would be discussed during small groups or review skills

that students may have struggled with the day before. As a result, our whole group time was

differentiated each day based on how students performed throughout the week.

In addition to differentiated small-group and whole-group instruction, I also assigned

worksheets that targeted the specific learning needs of students based on the pre-assessment data

I accumulated and the standards within the unit. There are samples of a worksheet used to assess

students’ understanding of SOL 4.2a in Appendix C. The “Which Is More?” worksheet allowed

students to compare fractions with unlike denominators using the greater than, less than, or equal

to symbols. Once students compared the fractions, they were asked to explain their answers

using words or pictures. When looking at the worksheets, many students from Groups 1 and 2

used words to explain their reasoning, while all the students within Group 3 drew length models.

It is important to note that this portion of the standard emphasizes the need to compare fractions

with and without models. After grading this worksheet, Group 3 spent a week’s worth of small

group lessons learning basic principles of fractions that would help them compare fractions

without models.

In Appendix D, a worksheet was given to Groups 2 and 3 to assess their progress in

mastering SOL 4.2b, which asks students to represent equivalent fractions. To begin this journey,

we started looking for equivalencies of ½ at the small group table. This was done through an

exploratory exercise using fraction manipulatives. Students would use the manipulatives to find

as many equivalencies of ½ as possible. Afterward, they would work together to write the

fractions that represented the models. Once students had gone through this exercise at the small

group table, they completed the worksheet in Appendix D. It was clear after looking at the

students’ work that many within Group 2 responded to the exercise, while several in Group 3
 DATA COLLECTION ASSIGNMENT 7

continued to struggle. Groups 1 and 2 moved on to discover general principles that could be used

to find equivalencies of any fraction. At the same time, Group 3 continued practicing with length

and area models to help them visualize the concept of equivalency.

Finally, in Appendix E, two worksheets were given to help students practice SOL 4.2c,

which asks students to identify the division statement that represents a fraction. Students from

Groups 1 and 2 received the first worksheet entitled “From Fractions to Division—What Story,”

while students in Group 3 were given the “Domino Division Recording Sheet.” Groups 1 and 2

were given an opportunity to take their understanding of SOL 4.2c and apply it to a word

problem of their making. This allowed students to exercise critical thinking and problem-solving

skills. Once students made their word problem and identified the division statement and fraction

relationship, they were asked to swap with a peer, check their work, and solve their word

problem. Group 3 played a game called Domino Division to help them build the connection

between a division statement and a fraction. Students would work in pairs and take a domino,

visualize it as a fraction, and work together to represent that fraction in different ways. This was

an excellent opportunity for students in Group 3 to visually see the connection between the

fraction, the division statement, and the division problem.

Part Three: Post-Assessment Results

The post-assessment showed growth in student understanding while also highlighting areas

for potential remediation. It is important to note that all students’ scores improved, though some

improved more. Group 3 showed significant growth, with one student scoring a 100% on the

post-assessment despite only scoring a 20% on the pre-assessment and another scoring an 80%

despite getting no questions correct on their pre-assessment. Nearly all students from Group 1
 DATA COLLECTION ASSIGNMENT 8

scored a 100% on the post-assessment, while students in Group 2 scored between a 70 and 80%.

For more details regarding student growth, please see Appendix F.

Despite students' growth, the post-assessment highlighted the need to review SOL 4.2b and

4.2c. One-quarter of the students struggled to represent equivalent fractions, while over half of

the class struggled to identify the division statement that represents a fraction. While I had no

remaining days to remediate, I took the first week of the decimals unit to do a spiral review

during our SHORE routines. One remediation activity we did was to have all the students play

Domino Division (See Appendix E for example). Students were paired up in heterogeneous

groups. Students who answered correctly on the post-assessment with this skill were paired with

those who answered incorrectly. After students filled out their charts, they returned to the carpet,

and volunteers had an opportunity to share their answers with the group. This activity was a great

opportunity for students to teach and learn from each other.

I took a different approach to remediate SOL 4.2b. Rather than take another week of SHORE

routines to review fractional equivalencies, I chose to review the skill within the decimal unit. It

is important to note that a portion of the decimal unit discusses fraction and decimal

equivalencies. By incorporating a spiral review into the new unit, I saved instructional time and

drew students’ attention to the connection between decimals and fractions.

Chris Shore (2022), the Secondary Curriculum & Instruction Coordinator at Murrieta

Valley Unified School District, in arguing for the use of collaborative learning activities, states

that “these skills [critical thinking, creativity, communication, and collaboration] are becoming

increasingly valued because they cannot be automated, so these four attributes will need to be

developed in our students. And collaboration makes the list. In other words, we should not only

be using collaboration to teach math; we should also be using math to teach collaboration” (para.
 DATA COLLECTION ASSIGNMENT 9

9). This sentiment underscores my reasoning behind focusing on collaborative activities both off

and on the small group table, and I believe the post-assessment scores testify to the effectiveness

of forming differentiated, readiness-based small groups. Nonetheless, there are several things I

would do differently if I were to teach this unit again.

First and foremost, I would use a different pre and post-assessment. While I appreciated

using the pre-assessment that the Math Specialist made, it does not accurately assess each facet

of the standard. Almost all of the questions covered SOL 4.2a, only one covered 4.2b, and no

question covered 4.2c. If I were to teach this unit again, I would remake a pre and post-

assessment that hit all aspects of the standard and offered multiple questions that covered the

same skill to ensure an accurate depiction of students’ understanding of each skill set.

Additionally, if given the opportunity, I would give more attention to the connection

between the division statement and fraction. Unfortunately, the class performed inconsistently on

this question, highlighting their need to review the concept. While I briefly addressed this

connection at the beginning of the unit to the whole class, I focused most of my instruction with

this skill on Group 3. If I had taken one day to focus on the division statement and circled back

to it throughout the unit, more students would have acquired a more solid understanding of the

skill.

Finally, in regard to teaching SOL 4.2b, I wish I had pushed Group 3 to articulate how to

find equivalencies rather than focusing on using models to make the connection. While the

physical models help students visualize how fractions with unlike denominators can be

equivalent, they do not help students articulate the principle behind equivalent fractions.

Understanding this principle is essential for students to represent equivalent fractions on their

own.
 DATA COLLECTION ASSIGNMENT 10

Nonetheless, I found this experience extremely rewarding as this project showed me the

value and difficulty of differentiation in such a tangible way. Marieke van Geel et al. (2019)

wrote an article highlighting the difficulty of differentiating well. In their conclusion, the writers

assert that “there is not one ‘successful strategy’ to differentiate properly” (p. 60). Instead, what

they found to be most important was “teachers’ deliberate and adequate choices concerning

instructional approaches and materials, based on well-considered goals and thorough analyses of

students’ achievement, progress, and instructional needs” (p. 60-61). While I know I did not

execute each of these skills perfectly, I found this assignment to be an excellent opportunity to

start refining my ability to differentiate intentionally based on data.

 DATA COLLECTION ASSIGNMENT 11

Appendix A:

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5

Fractions
Identify a Draw a model to Place proper and Final
Pre-Assessment fraction on a
Represent shaded
represent an improper fractions on a
Compare
Data number line
figures as fractions
improper fraction number line
fractions to ½ Score
SOL 4.2a SOL 4.2a SOL 4.2a SOL 4.2a SOL 3.2c, 4.2b

Kyrah Incorrect Correct Correct Incorrect Correct 3/5

Michael G. Correct Correct Incorrect Incorrect Correct 3/5

Meja Incorrect Correct Incorrect Incorrect Incorrect 1/5

Michael K. Incorrect Correct Incorrect Incorrect Correct 2/5

Ava Incorrect Correct Incorrect Incorrect Correct 2/5

Logan Incorrect Incorrect Incorrect Incorrect Incorrect 0/5

Reid Incorrect Incorrect Incorrect Incorrect Incorrect 0/5

Alex Incorrect Incorrect Incorrect Incorrect Incorrect 0/5

Henry Correct Correct Correct Correct Correct 5/5

Gavin Incorrect Correct Correct Incorrect Incorrect 2/5

Charlotte Incorrect Correct Correct Incorrect Correct 3/5

Lilly Incorrect Incorrect Incorrect Incorrect Incorrect 0/5

Ben Incorrect Correct Incorrect Incorrect Correct 2/5

Isaiah Incorrect Incorrect Incorrect Incorrect Incorrect 0/5

Austin Incorrect Correct Correct Incorrect Incorrect 2/5

Small-Group Key:
GROUP 1
GROUP 2
GROUP 3
 DATA COLLECTION ASSIGNMENT 12

Appendix B:
DATA COLLECTION ASSIGNMENT 13
 DATA COLLECTION ASSIGNMENT 14

Appendix C:

Group 1 Sample
 DATA COLLECTION ASSIGNMENT 15

Group 2 Sample
 DATA COLLECTION ASSIGNMENT 16

Group 3 Sample
 DATA COLLECTION ASSIGNMENT 17

Appendix D:

Group 2 Sample
 DATA COLLECTION ASSIGNMENT 18

Group 3 Sample
 DATA COLLECTION ASSIGNMENT 19

Appendix E:

Group 2 Sample
 DATA COLLECTION ASSIGNMENT 20

Group 3 Sample
 DATA COLLECTION ASSIGNMENT 21

Appendix F:

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5

Fractions Identify a
Represent shaded
Draw a model to Place proper and
Compare Final
Pre-Assessment fraction on a
figures as fractions
represent an improper fractions on a
fractions to ½
Data number line improper fraction number line Score
SOL 4.2a SOL 4.2a SOL 4.2a SOL 4.2a SOL 3.2c, 4.2b
Kyrah Incorrect Correct Correct Incorrect Correct 3/5
Michael G. Correct Correct Incorrect Incorrect Correct 3/5
Meja Incorrect Correct Incorrect Incorrect Incorrect 1/5
Michael K. Incorrect Correct Incorrect Incorrect Correct 2/5
Ava Incorrect Correct Incorrect Incorrect Correct 2/5
Logan Incorrect Incorrect Incorrect Incorrect Incorrect 0/5
Reid Incorrect Incorrect Incorrect Incorrect Incorrect 0/5
Alex Incorrect Incorrect Incorrect Incorrect Incorrect 0/5
Henry Correct Correct Correct Correct Correct 5/5
Gavin Incorrect Correct Correct Incorrect Incorrect 2/5
Charlotte Incorrect Correct Correct Incorrect Correct 3/5
Lilly Incorrect Incorrect Incorrect Incorrect Incorrect 0/5
Ben Incorrect Correct Incorrect Incorrect Correct 2/5
Isaiah Incorrect Incorrect Incorrect Incorrect Incorrect 0/5
Austin Incorrect Correct Correct Incorrect Incorrect 2/5

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6

Fractions Post- Draw an area Place proper and Identify a division
Identify a Represent
model to improper
Represent
statement that Final
Assessment fraction on a shaded figures
represent an fractions on a
equivalent
represents a
Data number line as fractions
improper fraction number line
fractions
fraction Score
SOL 4.2a SOL 4.2a SOL 4.2a SOL 4.2a SOL 4.2b SOL 4.2c

Kyrah Correct Correct Correct Correct Correct Correct 6/6

Michael G. Correct Correct Correct Correct Correct Incorrect 5/6

Meja Correct Correct Correct Correct Correct Correct 6/6

Michael K. Correct Correct Correct Correct Correct Correct 6/6

Ava Correct Correct Correct Correct Incorrect Incorrect 4/6

Logan Correct Correct Correct Correct Correct Incorrect 5/6

Reid Incorrect Correct Correct Incorrect Incorrect Correct 3/6

Alex Correct Correct Correct Correct Correct Incorrect 5/6

Henry Correct Correct Correct Correct Correct Correct 6/6

Gavin Correct Correct Correct Correct Correct Incorrect 5/6

 DATA COLLECTION ASSIGNMENT 22

Charlotte Correct Correct Correct Correct Correct Correct 6/6

Lilly Correct Correct Correct Correct Incorrect Incorrect 4/6

Ben Correct Correct Correct Correct Correct Correct 6/6

Isaiah Correct Correct Correct Correct Correct Incorrect 5/6

Austin Correct Correct Correct Correct Incorrect Correct 5/6

 DATA COLLECTION ASSIGNMENT 23

Resources

Geel, Marieke van, Keuning, Trynke, Frèrejeanb, Jimmy, Dolmansb, Diana, Merriënboerband,

Jeroen van, and Visscher, Adrie J. (2019). Capturing the complexity of differentiated

instruction. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 30(1), 51-67.

Shore, Chris. (2022, September 27). Making group work work with less work. The Math Projects

Journal. https://mathprojects.com/author/cshorempj/.