Design for Instruction

In this unit, two key MCCL learning targets are addressed (see below),
both of which are aligned with three CCSS for Mathematics standards.
LT1. MA.09.GAP.01.03 Geometric Transformations
LT2. MA.03.GCS.01.03 Drawing Polygons on a Coordinate Plane
Each learning goal (denoted LG) is designed to either meet or scaffold
towards at least a score of proficient (3.0) for the above learning
targets.
Prior to the start of this unit, I reviewed student files in order to
determine if any students had been certified as proficient, or lower, for
the learning targets being addressed in my unit. This review showed
that while some students were proficient on an earlier, building block,
learning target (MA.03.GCS.01.03) all students showed as having no
scores with regards to the main learning target (MA.09.GAP.01.03) for
this unit.
Student File Review Results:
Learning
Target
Stude
nt ID

LT 1

LT2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS

NS
NS
D
NS
NS
NS
P
NS
D
D
P
P
D

14

NS

NS

Key:
NS
D
P
Note:

No Score
Developi
ng
Proficient

1.0 to
2.0
3.0 to
4.0

In general, when the student file

indicates No Score this often means
that the learning target is new to the
student, and thus a student would be
expected to have no prior knowledge or
experience with that content.

With the file review demonstrating that all students had no score
for the LT1, and 7 students were noted as developing or proficient for
LT2, students were given an informal multiple-choice quiz to ascertain
there current performance level with LT2, and a constructed response
activity was designed to address the learning goals for LT1. The preassessments were given during lesson one of the unit, one in form of
an informal quiz, and the other part of a group discussion activity. The
lesson introduced students to the new vocabulary related to LT1, via
the Moving Ms. Pac-Man activity. This activity allowed me to ascertain
which students may be familiar with the content from LT1, even if this
did not correspond with their records.
Pre-Assessment Results (Kahoot! Informal Quiz):
Question Number & Learning Goal Alignment
Q1
LG
1

Q2
LG
1

Q3
LG
1

Q4
LG
1

Q5
LG
1

Q6
LG
1

Q7
LG
1

Q8
LG
1
LG
3

Q9
LG
1
LG
3

Q1
0
LG
1

Q1
1
LG
1

Q1
2
LG
1

Q1
3
LG
1

10

11

12

13

14

Stude
nt ID

Key:
N
Y

Incorrect Answer
Kahoot!
Informal Quiz - Overall Student Performance
Correct
Answer
Question Left
Blank

31%

Correct Answers

Incorrect Answers
69%

While student records indicated that 50% of students were

proficient or developing in terms of LT2, most students were able to
demonstrate some level knowledge pertaining to this learning target.
The results from Q8 and Q9 were particularly helpful in demonstrating
which students would need more support with this learning target, and
who would not. However, since this was a multiple-choice quiz, and
because I made the instructional decision to provide direct instruction
in between particularly troubling questions (e.g. question 1), I must
3

Stude
nt ID

Moving Ms. Pac- Man Activity

& Learning Goal Alignment
Video Video 2 Video 3 Video 4
1
LG2
LG2
LG2
LG4
LG3
LG3
LG3

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

ensure I incorporate explicit

opportunities to practice,
develop, and attain this
foundational learning target
(LT2) necessary for students
to have success with LT1.
This support is particularly
important for the 8 students
who answered fewer than 10
questions correctly.

Given my findings from

the student file review, I
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
knew most, if not all,
students would not know the
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
content for the main learning
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
target (LT1) coming into the
lesson. As such, I designed
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
the Moving Ms. Pac-Man
activity to act as both a preN
N
N
N
N
N
N
assessment, and an
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
introduction to this new
learning target. In this
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
activity, students were
shown four videos that
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
demonstrate three
geometric transformations:
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
translations, reflections, and
rotations. The first video shows the three transformations combined
and students are asked to describe the movements they see. The
second
Key: video demonstrates just translations, and again students are
asked to describe how the figure is moving. This continues with the
next
two videos
adding one amore transformation each time.
Video
1: Demonstrates
sequence of geometric
transformations.
Moving
Ms.2:Pac-Man
Activity Results (Constructed Response):
Video
Demonstrates
translations
Video 3: Demonstrates
reflections
Video 4: Demonstrates
rotations

Unable to accurately
identify or describe the
transformation(s) using
mathematical vocabulary

During the Ms. Pac-Man activity, the majority of students were unable
to correctly identify all the geometric transformations as a translation,
reflection, or rotation (LG2). During video 3 which demonstrated
reflections, 7 students were able to use the correct vocabulary to
describe the movement. Student 14 correctly observed that it was
just like symmetry which prompted several other students to agree
with this connection. However, when asked to demonstrate accuracy or
precision, students were unsure as to how to mathematically describe
these movements (LG3, LG4). Moreover, although students got better
as the activity continued at describing, in their own words, how the
figure was moving, students had a harder time articulating what they
were seeing than I had originally expected.
These results, combined with my finding about my students in
Contextual Factors Analysis (CFA) that my students find articulating
their thoughts mathematically challenging. As such, it is important that
I create opportunities in my unit for students to go beyond solving
problems, by including learning experiences that help them practice
these skills. Since my students utilize graphic organizers to arrange
their ideas in their ELA classes, I will ensure that I thoughtfully
incorporate these into my unit. As noted in my CFA, while most, if not
all students, feel comfortable sharing their ideas with the whole class,
most students seem to prefer, and benefit from, working in pairs or in
5

smaller groups. Finally, while all students have access to a range of

dynamic software as part of the MLTI program, few students have had
opportunities to use these programs in their mathematics classroom.
During the unit prior to this lesson, I did introduce students to
GeoGebra as a means of exploring geometric properties and
relationships. Many students enjoyed using GeoGebra, so I intend on
build on this experience by including this as on option for at least one
of the required assignments.