| Date |
Members Present |
Focus Problem |
Type of Strategy |
Example: |
9-14-09
Problems: Barn Yard Animals K-1, Lizards and Beetles 2-4
STrategies:
Direct Model- some drew the creatures and even added legs..they direct representation of the problem.
Guess and Check, Trial and Error- found that they needed reminders to check answers or recheck if th
ey have all the facts
Manipulatives- cubes were used at all levels, even some 3rd and 4th grader students
Derived Facts- some did representation using circles and tree diagrams
Algorithm- 4 /54
students wanted ways 'to do'the problem
if no easy way some gave up
Recording Sheets- teachers found that using a # for each student was the easiest way to document strategies
Assessments- teachers used the 'Number of the Week" activities to access student achievment and needs. they looked at samples and used ideas from the students
Sharing out time- some teachers are spending extra time and doing some 1:1 since new to students, also did some partner share.
Teachers used scratch pads/ math notebooks and true and false statements in their class sharing
Questions from Team:
1. Can we share strategies with other members of the grade level team? ( many teachers are asking to try the 'number of the week")
2. In regard to number choices on the problems posed..is it ok for the teachers to direct the choices for specific students or groups? ( some students wanted to do them all, found that students needed to have it modeled how to insert the different number choices into the problem, good idea to have the student use the same number choices but have to cshow a different strategy).
3. REviewed the common language in defining or naming the math symbols.( '=' use the waords, 'same as')
FAVORITE INSIGHT:
When the student could not figure out how to get the right number of creatures to get 36 legs. He drew the creatures and had 36 legs but was short one creature so he drew one more lizard and wrote 'dead' beside it...so correct number of creatures but did not need to count his legs since he was dead. CREATIVE????
|
|
|
|
|
| 10/19/09 |
Karla Beckman
Melissa Coates
Lisa Hoefer
Nancy Cook
|
Annie's Pencils
Differentiatiated Instruction:
Grade 1- #27
Grade 2-# 12.27,43,136,447 ( choice of two)
Grade 3-# 136,112,43,447,453 ( Choice of three)
Grade 4-# 27,136,447 ( did all three)
|
Direct Modeling
Direct Modeling with 10's
Counting by 10's
Direct Place Value
|
tally marks
boxes with digit 10 written in
10.20.30,40, 43
1 2 3 4
27 is 2 tens and 7 extras 2 boxes
|
| Team spent time reviewing strategies and planning for follow up problems based on the student data. |
|
Follow up Problems:
Grade 1- Multiplication
Grade 2- Multiplication
Grade 3- JSU & JCU
Grade 4- SSU
|
|
|
| 11/16/09 |
Karla Beckmann
Nancy Cook
Lisa Hoefer
Heather Kaufman
Melissa Coates
|
This meeting was spent sharing about how Number of the Week was working at each grade level. Specific discussion points were the number choice, routines for classrooms, and assessment.
This meeting also focused on thet Iowa Core and the need to ensure that our curriculum and curriculum materials spiral the curriculum and provide solid number sense concepts.
|
Team decided to continue to improve upon the strategies used for Number of the Week. Team members will incorporate some of the things that are working well for the other team members. |
|
| 12/21/2009 |
Melissa Coates
Karla Beckman
Carol Tjaden
Lisa Hoefer
Heather Kaufman
Nancy Cooke
Sara Henkle
|
Focous Problem Measurement Division:
Christmas Cookies
If we have ________ number of Christmas Cookies and we can put 10 on a plate, How many plates of cookies will we have?
Then each grade added choices to differentiate for ability.
|
Grade 1: extended the problelm by doing it for 3 weeks just changing the numbers and subject areas to toys in Santa's pack etc... Teacher reported that she felt that the students were really getting a better understanding by doing this extension.
Grade 2: students were still at all levels from using manipulatives and direct modeling to essay writing about their thinking. Felt more problems were needed
Grade 3: reported that students were using tallys, count by ten, groups of ten, .One student tried to explain to the class that the ones don't count because there is not enough to make a ten so the other number tells you how many tens ( ex. 45) the kids thought he was really smart, but couldn't grasp his idea.
Grade 4: reported lots of tens and tally's/ The top kids did it as a division algorithm problem
|
After we discussed the methods the remainder of the time was in discussion about what is working and what is not working adn what our goals should be.
It was great to have Sara and Heather there to share about their experiences in training and with other schools.
Questions:
The DI number choices for each problem, do they need to be in order of difficulty?
Is it OK for the techer to model their thinking ( Think Aloud))? Can this be a form of 'direct instruction' for a strategy?
How many years till the teacher feels they really have professional confidence with CGI? ( 5 year)
We need more confidence that CGI is teaching the benchmarks. How do we develop more CGI problems that tie directly to the district benchmarks?
Do we give all types of problems at each grade level? ( yes, do not do them ini a routine so that the kids do not think, mix it up. Yes, kids can handle all the types of problems if the digits are easy enough.
Should we be differentiating just like we do with guided reading groups? ( yes, and groups should be flexible and not all the same.)
How much time should we spend on sharing? ARe the other kids learning when a kid is sharing? Do they really listen? ( vary the methods you use for sharing: pair share, kid A draws problem, Kid B explains, teacher draws problem and kid explains, have days when all problems have to be done with no paper or pencil, chunk it so day 1 they write or draw and day 2 they peer share and day 3 they group share, teacher start a strategy and have a student finish it, etc..
What about the student who does not get the problem? Does the techer go sit with them? What happens with the other kids that need monitoring or help? ( it is OK for a kid to not get it everytime..repetition will give them more exporsure. This is like ' concept previews')
GOAL FOR YEAR 1:
kNOW THE PROBLEM TYPES AND STRATEGIES. DO A VARIETY OF PROBLEMS.
|
| 1-18-2010 |
N. Cook,
L. Hoefer
K. Beckman
M. Coates
C. Tjaden
S. Henkel
H. Kaufman( enjoying sunshine in Florida)
|
We used this meeting to review progress with " Number of the Week"
GOAL:
Extend so other techers in the grade level are using #of the Week. Peer observations will be encouraged. We discussed inviting other grade levels to observe.
WOW:
" I feel like I am teaching kids to be thinkers. They are doing things I would never teach at this level when they do Number of the Week."
|
Grade 1: Shared samples of student work with the #30. Nancy had purposely put a clock on as one of the options and was using the information gathered as a pretest for time. |
Grade 1:
Direct modeling with tallys, addition, subtraction, multiplication., etc..
WOW:
(3x10)+(2x8)-16=30 student did the problem and could explain the thinking. The WOW is that this is notone of the 'recognized' top mathstudents..one who is quiet and does not usually offer to expand their thinking..
Grade 2
Working with daily during opening. Find that they need to allow 15 minuites. They are presently adding problems with elapsed time to make the #. A real challenge.
Grade 3: They have all the teachers in the grade level doing the # of the Week. They are doing it weekly , but not daily. The whole grade uses the same numbers.
Grade 4: reported that did their first number of the week. They did 1/2 and the students reacted very positively.
|
| 2-15-2010 |
C. Tjaden-Admin
H. Kaufman-AEA
N. Cook-1st
Karla Beckman-3rd
M. Coates-4th
Absent:
Hoeffer-2nd
Sara Henkel-AEA
|
8+4=_+5 |
4th grade reported that all the students got it correct with no prompts. We felt that it was algorithm thinking and not relational because the problem digits were too low.
3rd grade reported thal all got it correct except one student. That student when asked to explain that the + sign was not placed correctly and should be at the end, but if you left it where it was then the answer would be 7.
|
4th grade felt that it was algorithm thinking and not relational because the problem digits were too low. So the teacher gave them more problems with high numbers and students still did not make errros but were able to complete with out written computation.
3rd
Teacher also felt the numbers were too low, but glad that students were reading the problem correctly and using the = sign as 'same as'. Teacher gave them more examples and used digits with regrouping in the hundreds. Most did not go to relational thinking and went straight to algorithms.Especially those students wanting the 'right' answer.#rd and 4th agreed that students are much better, but WE MUST HAVE THIS CGI AS A PRIORITY AT LOWER ELEMENTARY
|
| 3-22-10 |
H.Kaufman
S. Henkel
C. Tjaden
M. Coates
K Beckman
L.Hoeffer
N.Cook
|
8+4=_=5
Equality
Sequence Lesson for Relational Thinking
|
|
Discussioin Points:
1.We need to do more 'number of the week' it is a great entry into CGI
2.Are there guidelines for number selection on Number of the week ? Do we use the student thinking patterns as a guide for number selection?
3. Verbage-all using 'same as' for equal
4.Teacherswant training. Teachers are asking CGI team to demonstrate. Grades are doing peer observations to wathch CGI teach lessons and observe student responses.
5. Regrouping and place valule seem easier for the kids with CGI
6. Top kids when they move to relational thinking do not need to be taught, they figure it out on their own, like regrouping. Teachers have observed that their lower students seem to be grasping math better than the low kids from prior years.
7. When selecting DI choices for numbers, start with the mifddle number and then do two easier and two harder.
|
| |
|
|
First Grade |
Did a'cold' equality problem and only 4 got it correct. When did the sequence lesson, students bought into it and asked for more problems. Teacher had to make up more problems. Need to do more # of the Week and do the sequencing as needed so teacher builds confidence with number selection and sequence |
| |
|
|
2nd Grade |
Sequence pattern lesson was too easy, students did not relate to it. Kids that do the 'relational thinking" are hungry for more and request more problems. Experimented with the algebriac prlems from 4th grade and used their balance scales with 2nd grade. Kids really liked them and now request more unknowns. They have no problem with 2x=16. |
| |
|
|
3rd Grade |
Found the sequence lesson was too easy and students did not see purpose in it. Needs to be done at beginning of the school year. Purpose was 'relational thinking" not computation, but feelt most of the kids move right to computation. Questioned if teacher used larger numbers would the students do even more computation or would it force them to do relational? It was decided that kids first do computational and move to relational. |
| |
|
|
4th Grade |
Sequence lesson was too easy and all kids got the equality problem correct. For more information, had all the students in the grade do the problems. Also gave the students the True/False problems from the Chart#3 in the "Meaning of the Equal Sign" article. |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.