1

Running head: EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING

Evidence of Student Learning

Kristen White
Towson University

2
EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING

Part A
Carney Elementary is a public, inclusive elementary school that is located in Baltimore,
Maryland directly outside of the city. There are a total of 573 students enrolled, with a capacity
set at 574. The demographics range from the type of education received, to the socio-economic
status, culture, and age of each student. Carney Elementary offers general education alongside
special education in both self-contained and inclusive classrooms; the school educates pre-K
through grade five. The median household income of each student ranges from $30,000 to
$50,000; most of the students live within the surrounding area while some travel longer distances
in order to have their specific educational needs met. The student population is comprised of
Caucasian students, which holds the majority, African American, Asian/Pacific Islander, and
blends of various races. All in all, Carney Elementary prides itself in having a diverse
professional and student body.
Carney Elementary exhibits teamwork and collaboration on a daily basis. There is
constant communication between various staff members in order to provide each and every
student with the supports and challenges that they deserve to ensure that all receive a proper
education. When walking through the halls, one can easily see administrators, general educators,
special educators, instructional assistants, and service providers working as partners to solve any
issues that may arise. Regarding the classroom model, there are many versions that total in
thirty-one classrooms. The average class size for general education classrooms is twenty-two
students, whereas the special education classrooms average ten students. Carney promotes
inclusion and the least restrictive environment to the greatest extent possible; there are a few

3
EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING
teachers who solely work with students in these inclusive settings. In addition, Carney
Elementary also offers resource rooms and self-contained classrooms.
The classroom used for the purpose of my Evidence of Student Learning is an
intermediate special education, self-contained classroom comprised of fourteen students. This
intermediate class is for students who are in grades 3-5; there is a primary class for grades 1-2, as
well as a kindergarten class. All of the special education classrooms are referred to as CALS
(communication and learning support) which is a specific type of special education assistance.
Of the fourteen students in my room, four are girls and ten are boys. Their exceptionalities
include autism, an intellectual disability, a chromosomal disorder that shows symptoms of
autism, and one student diagnosed as having multiple cognitive disabilities. Regarding their
cultural and linguistic differences, each student either speaks and/or understands the English
language; there are no English Language Learners (ELLs). Four of the students are of African
decent, one is Asian, and one comes from a strong Russian heritage. Other than these
differences, there are no outstanding cultural discrepancies among the students. In terms of their
oral and written language development, one is completely non-verbal while another students
speech is extremely limited; both use text-to-speech devices for communicating. In addition,
there are four students who are verbal, but use communication books for additional support; the
other eight students do not have oral language delays or impairments. Written language
development is of concern within this group, however, it is not the primary focus of this project
because the lessons that I wrote were for mathematics.
For my math lessons, I honed in on seven students. The math block is at the end of the
day; the other seven students are dispersed into inclusion settings or are taught in a separate
resource room. Of the seven students that I taught, one is nonverbal, three use communication

4
EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING
books, and all are diagnosed with autism and have an individualized education program (IEP).
The Maryland Common Core State Standard that I used is intended for grade 3 which is the
curriculum that the students follow. The standard used was 3.NBT.2 which states, Fluently add
and subtract within 1000 using strategies and algorithms based on place value, properties of
operations, and/or the relationship between addition and subtraction. The essential skills
needed for this unit, as stated by the MCCSS, are the knowledge of and ability to apply strategies
of decomposing and composing numbers, partial sums, counting up, and counting back by tens.
Students were broken up into four separate homogenous groups; one student worked
individually. Each group was given a different objective for each day; the objectives were
contingent on the students readiness levels and IEP goals. The two groups that worked on
single-digit subtraction were given the same objectives because they possessed similar abilities
while also having complementary IEP goals. For example, Devin and Nnenna were in separate
groups, but each have an IEP goal that states that they will solve addition and/or subtraction
problems by combining sets of concrete objects. For these two groups, the Day 1 objective was,
Given a single-digit amount, students will use magnetic manipulatives and concrete objects to
take away a specified amount and tell how many are left in order complete single-digit
subtraction problems. Day 2 varied slightly in that they were not given an original amount to
start with, but had to use magnetic manipulatives and concrete objects to identify an original
amount in order to complete single-digit subtraction problems. For day 3, these students were
simply given single-digit subtraction problems without any initial prompts. For the two students
who worked on two-step addition, their Day 1 objective was, Given two-step addition problems,
Sarah and Mikey will use base ten manipulatives to identify that the two digits of a two-digit
number represent amounts of tens and ones. For Day 2, the objective stated, Given two-step

5
EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING
addition problems, Sarah and Mikey will use base ten manipulatives to identify how many tens
and ones make up the sum of two numbers. In order to scaffold my instruction, I provided
Sarah and Mikey with problems that slightly increased in difficulty on Day 3. The final
objective stated, Given problems with larger numbers in the tens column, Sarah and Mikey will
use base ten manipulatives to solve two-step addition problems. The final group was Keith who
worked on his own. I developed his lesson based on his IEP goal of making sets of 1-10; for the
unit, he practiced single-digit addition. His Day 1 objective stated, Given single-digit addition
problems, Keith will use magnetic manipulatives to show the amounts and identify the sum with
minimal assistance. His Day 2 objective changed marginally in that he was asked to identify
the sum independently. For Day 3, similar to the subtraction groups, Keith was given singledigit addition problems without any initial prompts. All of these objectives aligned with each
students mathematics IEP goals, as well as the MCCSS standard and essential skills used
for the unit. Students were able to demonstrate their knowledge through both guided and
independent practice; all were able to apply strategies in order to compose and decompose
numbers. Furthermore, all seven students perform significantly below grade-level, so objectives
were modified to meet them where they are as opposed to forcing them to learn skills that are out
of their current reach.
Part B
In order for learning to transpire, I first had to conduct a pre-assessment to gauge
students prior knowledge, abilities, and instructional needs. For the pre-assessment, the
students were given simple equations to complete independently. Two of the groups worked on
single-digit subtraction, one group worked on two-step addition, and the solitary student worked
on single-digit addition. The students were able to use either pencil and paper or magnetic

6
EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING
manipulatives on a white board to complete each problem. In all but one case, the students
required assistance to complete the problems; one girl was able to independently complete twostep addition. From the pre-assessment, I had a clearer picture of the students abilities which
allowed me to prepare appropriate lessons.
Throughout each lesson, I utilized questioning and observations to serve as my
formative assessments. Each small group only had fourteen minutes of instructional time each
day, so I used what I thought would be quick and efficient to measure student learning. After
each anticipatory set, I asked comprehension questions such as, What are we going to work on
today?, and What does the minus sign mean? As the lessons progressed, I asked questions
such as, What do you do next?, and How many do you have altogether? I then went on to
observe each student attempt to complete a given equation; my aim was to provide the least
amount of assistance as possible. Based on my observations, I was able to deduce how well the
students were grasping the new material. This type of informal formative assessment was
extremely beneficial because I was able to check their knowledge on the spot along with how
well I was teaching each concept. If a student was having trouble, I could adjust my presentation
to break down the task into smaller steps, or to focus on a specific area such as how to carry the
1 in two-step addition. I ended each lesson by allowing each student to complete a problem
independently, which served as my summative assessment. There were no formal tests or
homework assigned because the students only had three days of instruction. Therefore, using
independent practice as my summative assessment made the most sense in order to evaluate
student understanding. In addition, this type of summative assessment aligned with the
MCCRS standard and essential skills. As aforementioned, the unit was built around the
MCCSS standard 3.NBT.2 which states that students will fluently add and subtract within 1000

7
EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING
using strategies based on place value and/or the relationship between addition and subtraction.
By using independent practice as my summative assessment, I was able to gain a clear picture of
the degree of student learning. In mathematics, it is easy to see what a student knows by
watching him/her complete a problem without assistance. In regards to the essential skills as
stated by the MCCSS for the standard that I used, all students displayed their abilities to
decompose and compose numeric amounts, and to count up and back by ones. The two students
who completed two-digit addition were able to show that they could count up by tens. It must be
noted that not every student was able to fully complete his/her independent practice due to time
restraints and/or disruptive behaviors.
All of my assessments (pre, formative, and summative) aligned with one another, the
unit goals and objectives. A pre-assessment of guided/independent practice, formative
assessments such as observations and questioning, and a summative assessment of independent
practice align with one another in that there is a repetitious flow. From beginning to end, a
student was presented with like material in order to foster the most growth in a restricted amount
of time. Starting off with a problem such as 4 2, then engaging in guided practice with
problems such as 12 7, followed by a chance to independently try a problem such as 9 3
provides a student with ample practice at mastering a specific skill set. The goal of the unit was,
Given base ten and magnetic manipulatives, students will complete single-digit addition, twostep addition, or single-digit subtraction problems. All of the assessments lined up with the goal
in that depending on which group a student was in, he/she was afforded the opportunity to learn
and practice one of the types of equations. No other equations were used. The assessments lined
up in accordance to the objectives; I attempted to gradually decrease my modeling and
scaffolding with the aim being to challenge the students. The objectives for each group

8
EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING
increased in independence as the days progressed, so I wanted to translate this independence into
my assessments.
The Universal Design for Learning was embedded into each lesson and assessment
throughout the entire unit. Students were able to use their communication devices and/or books
when needed which gave these students equal opportunities to contribute and answer the
questions that I asked for my formative assessment. Additionally, students were given choice in
deciding what type of manipulative they would like to use, which made the learning more
engaging and personal. For students who struggle with their written expression, the use of
manipulatives replaced the use of pencil and paper; students were able to use these manipulatives
during their independent practice (summative assessment). Furthermore, the MCCSS standard,
essential skills, and objectives were modified to meet the needs of the students.
To collect data, I kept a sheet of paper in front of me with each of the students names
written down. Pre-assessment data was collected by observing and noting whether or not the
students were able to complete the given equations; this was a simple Y for yes or N for no.
For the formative assessment data, I made a mark of either F (full assistance), P (partial
assistance), or I (independent) next to each name for each attempted problem. Using this
method of data collection allowed for quick scoring and a simple way of detecting how
independently the students were able to complete their work. To collect data for the summative
assessment, I made a notation of whether or not the students were able to follow the correct steps
to completing the problem; Y for yes and N for no. An additional notation was made for
whether or not the students got the problem correct; R for right or W for wrong. For a
scoring tool to assess learning I created graphs out of the data that I collected and calculated

9
EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING
percentages (see Part D). The results were very impressive in the short three day period; only
two students did not meet the standards or essential skills for the unit.
Part C
To ensure that the students understood what the expectations were for each lesson, the
objectives were verbalized and discussed in age appropriate language. Each rotation began
with an anticipatory set wherein the students were welcomed to the table, were informed on what
they would be working on, and were able to review conceptual vocabulary such as minus means
to take away. In order to understand their expectations for achievement aligned with the
MCCRS standard, essential skills and knowledge, their IEP goals, and objectives, students
were told that they would be either counting up or back in order to complete addition or
subtraction problems. As aforementioned, objectives were modified to meet the individual IEP
goals of each student, while still following the 3.NBT.2 standard of being able to fluently add
and subtract within 1000 using strategies based on the relationship between addition and
subtraction.
Pre-assessment data was analyzed to determine where to begin instruction for each
student. For example, Sarah already knew how to complete regrouping addition problems, so the
objective for her was to use manipulatives to further her visual understanding. On the other
hand, Mikey, who was in the same small group as Sarah, did not know how to regroup in
addition, so the objective for him was to first understand the place values of tens and ones by
following my direct instruction and modeling. Without the pre-assessment data, I would have
been blind to the students abilities and readiness levels. To assess if the objectives were
appropriate for each day, I reviewed the previous days data. This allowed me to gain a clear

10
EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING
picture of what components I needed to review, along with what the students could do with less
assistance than the day before. In order to motivate and engage the students, I began each
lesson by introducing the topic, reviewing the relevant vocabulary, allowing students to choose
their manipulatives, and asking each student if he/she was ready. Another means of motivation
that I used was providing positive reinforcement in the form of praise whenever a student
retained his/her focus and gave forth his/her best effort. I tried to further engage students by
allowing them to work on the same problem together when appropriate. The intention for this
method was to provide students with a peer leadership role. For example, Nnenna and Britney
took turns answering the same equation and were able to help one another count the
manipulatives on the white board. For Keith, I attempted to motivate him by reminding him that
he would earn the iPad at the end of the lesson if he maintained safe hands. I also motivated
and engaged students by reminding them that they would be given a two minute sensory break at
the end of each lesson. The point of the sensory break is to encourage the students to fulfill their
sensory needs in order to be more ready and focused for instructional learning.
To introduce the new content for each group, I reviewed the relevant vocabulary (i.e.
subtraction, addition, plus, minus, tens value, ones value) and described the importance of
knowing how to add or subtract. I restated the daily objectives in student-friendly terms so that
they would have an idea as to what they would be working on. For example, Sarah and Mikeys
Day 1 objective stated, Given two-step addition problems, Sarah and Mikey will use base ten
manipulatives to identify that the two digits of a two-digit number represent amounts of tens and
ones. I restated this by saying, Today we are going to use these blocks to see how many ones
and tens we have in a number. I then asked each student if he/she was ready, and allowed each
to choose a magnetic manipulative of interest. For the group that did not use the white board, the

11
EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING
students were able to briefly play with the base ten manipulatives. I proceeded by modeling
the first problem while verbally walking my students through the process; I was sure to
provide explicit instruction to avoid any unnecessary confusion. After modeling, I had each
student complete a couple of problems with my guided assistance. During this stage, I asked
questions such as, How many do you take away?, How many do you put in the box?, How
many are left?, and What place value do you start with? Based on the students answer, I was
able to assess how well he/she understood my instruction and the material being presented.
During this time, I provided explicit feedback so each student would know where he/she had a
gap in understanding. As previously stated, independent practice was used as my summative
assessment. Upon completion of independent practice problems, I provided feedback and
remodeled how to complete specific parts of an equation as necessary. Throughout the entire
unit, I encouraged critical and creative thinking by asking students open-ended questions.
This was an advantageous method to paint a clear picture of how well the students were grasping
the concepts being presented. If a student struggled with an answer or looked at me inquisitively,
I asked a either a close-ended question, or a more direct open-ended question while
simultaneously pointing to the part of the equation being addressed. I only provided the answer
after three failed attempts by a student.
At the end of each lesson, I reviewed the data from the formative assessments to check
for student understanding. This revision also allowed me to modify my instruction and/or
objectives for the following day. I reviewed and reminded the students of all of the new
strategies that they had learned which would enable them to correctly complete addition or
subtraction problems. Most of the students moved from F (full assistance) to P (partial
assistance) or I (independent) at the end of the unit regarding their needs with completing their

12
EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING
equations. Some of the students showed minimal to no improvement; however, with continued
practice and proper behavior interventions put in place, I strongly believe that all of the students
will grasp these mathematical concepts. The students who have behavior goals on their IEPs
were the ones who struggled the most with the unit (i.e. Keith and Britney).
All of the students have an IEP and displayed varying levels of difficulty when learning
the new concepts. For this reason, I differentiated instruction to meet the individual needs of
each student. Each objective for each small group had specific and measurable components to
allow students to learn the concepts being presented to the greatest extent possible. Students
were able to work on their individual IEP goals while practicing equations in formats that best fit
their learning styles. Kinesthetic and visual learners benefitted from using magnetic and/or base
ten manipulatives to represent the addition or subtraction; they were able to feel and see the
differences in the quantities of the manipulatives. Auditory learners benefitted from counting up
(addition) or down (subtraction) while using their fingers to keep track of the number being
equated. Students who struggle with written expression were not required to actually write
anything down. Instead, they were able to use manipulatives to represent a numeric expression.
Students who struggle with oral expression were able to practice how to properly say a number
and how to read an equation. This was attained through modeling; I broke down the
components of the words and had students repeat what I said. For example, Britney would say,
Four minus equals two, so I would redirect her by having her repeat each part of the equation
with me until she said it in the correct format of, Four minus two equals. To ensure that
students understood how to use a strategy effectively and appropriately, I scaffolded instruction
by first reviewing vocabulary and modeling how to complete a problem, then slowly integrating
more independence on the part of the student. Throughout each specific lesson, I provided

13
EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING
clear, consistent feedback which was both positive and constructive. I made sure to never
insult a student or make them feel inadequate; if they gave a wrong answer, I simply restated the
question while simultaneously pointing to the part of the equation that they needed to focus on.
Moreover, I constantly observed students eye contact, facial expressions, and processes of
going through each problem. When necessary, I refocused students by reminding them of their
classroom rules such as, eyes are watching, mouths are quiet, and hands and feet are still.
By the end of the unit, most students were able to complete their objectives according to
their learning goals, the MCCRS standard, and the essential skills and knowledge of the
standard. Even though some students did not make adequate progress, they were still acquainted
with the new concepts and skills. The important points of the unit include the methods that I
used to engage and instruct each student, as well as the learning that transpired. I was able to
model effective strategies for how to complete simple equations with the hopes that the students
would learn the concepts in order to close the knowledge gap between them and their general
education peers. Utilizing differentiated instruction was beneficial for the students because they
were able to learn in a style that was the most meaningful and productive. Students were also
provided with brief instruction intervals which assisted with maintaining focus and motivation;
sensory breaks are imperative for this group of students. Due to the instruction that I provided,
the small group rotation model, and the learning environment, most students displayed gains in
their academic abilities. With continued and consistent practice, I believe that every student will
advance in his/her mathematic skills. Appropriate assessments such as questioning, observing,
and independent practice will lead to greater success.
Part D

14
EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING
The following chart displays whether or not the students were able to complete a
given equation when pre-assessed. As shown, only one out of the seven students was able to
accurately complete her equation. The other six students were novices to the type of equation
they were given, so they did not possess any prior knowledge or skill set that would allow them
to accurately compute the problem.
Student
Mikey
Sarah
Nnenna
Britney
Devin
Peter
Keith

Type of Equation
Two-Step Addition
Two-Step Addition
Single-Digit Subtraction
Single-Digit Subtraction
Single-Digit Subtraction
Single-Digit Subtraction
Single-Digit Addition

Able to compute? Yes/No

No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No

The following chart displays the students formative assessment data from both day
one and day two. Each student was given either two or three problems depending on the time
restraints and amount of assistance needed. If a student was unable to complete any part of the
problem independently then he/she received an F for full assistance. If a student was able to
complete a portion of the problem independently, such as knowing the amount to begin with, or
what column to add first, then he/she received a P for partial assistance. If a student was able to
complete the entire problem on their own, then he/she received an I for independent. The goal
was to have students compute their equations with as much independence as possible. As
depicted in the chart, some students were able to improve from day one to day two, while most
performances stayed the same. Nnenna, Devin, and Peter showed the most growth within the
two day formative assessments; each was able to transition from full/partial assistance on day
one to relatively complete independence on day two. Sarahs performance was completely the

15
EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING
same during the two days, but she was the most independent overall. Mikey, Britney, and Keith
showed minimal improvements, yet they did not digress.
Student
Mikey
Sarah
Nnenna
Britney
Devin
Peter
Keith

Type of Equation
Two-Step Addition
Two-Step Addition
Single-Digit Subtraction
Single-Digit Subtraction
Single-Digit Subtraction
Single-Digit Subtraction
Single-Digit Addition

Day 1
F, F, P
P, I, I
F, P, P
F, F, F
F, F, F
F, F, F
F, F

Day 2
F, P, P
P, I, I
P, I, I
P, F, P
P, I, I
I, P
F, P, F

The following chart displays each students summative data from day three. On this
day, I did not provide any prompts or assistance; I simply gave each student an equation similar
to the ones that he/she had practiced during the previous two days. I encouraged each student to
complete the equation to the best of his/her ability. Mikey, Sarah, Devin, and Peter were given
pencil and paper assessments while Nnenna, Britney, and Keith used the magnetic manipulatives
on the white board. I marked Y for yes and N for no if they used the correct steps to solve the
problem, and marked R for right and W for wrong to indicate if they were able to compute the
correct answer.
Student
Mikey
Sarah
Nnenna
Britney
Devin
Peter
Keith

Type of Equation
Two-Step Addition
Two-Step Addition
Single-Digit Subtraction
Single-Digit Subtraction
Single-Digit Subtraction
Single-Digit Subtraction
Single-Digit Addition

Correct Steps? Y/N

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N

Answer? R/W
R
R
R
W
R
R
W

16
EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING
The chart below shows each students percentage change/growth from the preassessment given prior to the unit to the summative assessment given on day three.
According to the data, most students exhibited a dramatic increase in their performance from day
one to day three. To calculate the percentage of student growth from the pre to post
assessments, I used the summative assessment percentage for each student and then subtracted
the percentage that each student earned on the pre-assessment.
Student
Mikey
Sarah
Nnenna
Britney
Devin
Peter
Keith

Pre-Assessment %
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%

Summative %
100%
100%
100%
50%
100%
100%
0%

Growth %
100%
0%
100%
50%
100%
100%
0%

As indicated by the chart, four out of the seven students showed a substantial increase in
their learning. On day one, Mikey, Nnenna, Devin, and Peter were unable to compute the
equations that I presented; they all looked at me blankly and needed full assistance. However,
only three days later, they were able to accurately compute the equations on their own. Sarah
was already able to complete two-step addition, and maintained her ability. Britney still requires
partial assistance, but is able to use the correct steps when going through a single-digit
subtraction problem. Her trouble lies in her inability to compute the correct numbers. For
example, when using her magnetic manipulatives for a problem such as 5 4, she will verbally
say that she needs to start with five, but will put up nine manipulatives. With redirection she is
able to correct her mistakes, but that was not the point of the summative assessment. Keith, on
the other hand, has the ability to complete single-digit addition, but his behavioral needs tend to
interfere. Valuable instructional time was spent on redirecting Keith while blocking his

17
EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING
aggressions and/or disruptions. He was able to accurately compute some problems with
assistance during the formative assessments, but did not display these skills during the
summative assessment.
To disaggregate the data based on the contextual factors of the school, the students in
the small groups were either African American, Caucasian, non-verbal or used a communication
book. All students are diagnosed with autism, have an IEP, and come from a middle to middleupper class family. Two of the three African American students did not make sufficient progress
while the other one showed significant improvements. Of the four Caucasian students, three
showed substantial improvements while one maintained her skill set. The one non-verbal student
was able to count proficiently with his communication device which allowed him to learn how to
successfully complete single-digit subtraction. The students who used communication books
benefitted from doing so, yet one of these students did not meet the standard expectations for the
unit.
When analyzing the patterns of achievement, I can conclude that the students who had
the greatest percent increase in their learning (Mikey, Nnenna, Devin, and Peter) are the ones
who do not have behavior goals on their IEP. Although these students are diagnosed with autism
and perform below grade-level, they were able to maintain their focus and meet the MCCSS
standards and essential skills and knowledge for the unit. Whether or not these students were
computing two-step addition or single-digit subtraction, they were able to apply the strategies of
decomposing or composing numbers. The one student (Sarah) who maintained 100% from the
pre-assessment to the summative assessment also does not have behavior goals on her IEP. She
already possessed knowledge of how to complete two-step addition, so I slowly incorporated
three-digit addends to challenge her further. She easily met the MCCSS standards for the unit

18
EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING
along with the essential skills and knowledge; she fluently added within 1000 by using strategies
based on place value and applied strategies to compose numbers. When analyzing patterns for
a lack of achievement, I noticed that the two students who did not meet the MCCSS standard
for the unit were the two who have behavior goals on their IEP. In addition, both of these
students lose focus more easily than the others and require constant redirection. Britney was able
to show a 50% increase in her learning due to her ability to apply strategies for decomposing
numbers; she partially met the essential skills and knowledge required for success. Keith did not
display any percentile increase in his learning which may indicate that he does not possess the
essential skills or knowledge of applying appropriate strategies to compose numbers. However,
as aforementioned, he was able to compute a problem with partial assistance during the
formative assessment which tells me that he does own some of the necessary skills, but that his
inattention and/or behavior needs impeded his success.
For future instruction, to aid students in demonstrating the necessary growth to
meet MCCSS standards, I would implement different instructional techniques,
interventions, and varying forms of assessment. For one, I would provide more scaffolding to
ensure that students are being met where they are while being challenged appropriately. I would
provide more visuals and every day examples with the hopes that students would retain a better
grasp of the concept being taught. Although the magnetic and base ten manipulatives worked for
the students to a degree, I believe that utilizing different materials that hold more personal
interest for students would be more beneficial. Another instructional strategy that I would
implement would be to give each small group more time than the allotted thirteen to fifteen
minutes. For students who need more explicit and differentiated instruction, having more time to
ask questions and practice concepts would be extremely helpful. In regards to interventions, I

19
EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING
think that providing instruction in a calmer environment with fewer stimuli would be of greater
value for students such as Keith. With surrounding small group rotations taking place, as well as
a multitude of objects within reach, Keith may have been more distracted than he would be in a
different setting. I do not think that students receiving special education should be instructed in a
secluded setting; however, it may be in the best interest of the student in situations such as this. I
have witnessed Keith perform well when other students were not around, and when he was not
facing a classroom full of colors and toys. An assessment modification that I would make to
address the lack of student achievement would be to provide students with assessments that best
fit their overall needs. During this unit, each student was given the same type of assessments
regardless of the type of equation they were learning. In the future, I would give students the
option of using technology to practice their mathematical skills; there are copious amounts of
applications and software in the virtual world that were created specifically for students with
special needs. Furthermore, each of these seven students enjoys using the computer, so they may
be more successful with using one to demonstrate their learning. Another assessment strategy
that I would use would be to provide students with a choice board on which they could choose
how they want to demonstrate their learning. Students would be able to choose using a
computer, using tangible manipulatives, writing on the chalk/white board, creating a visual, or
using a pencil and paper. This would also help to ensure that my lessons are aligned with UDL
guidelines and are differentiated.
Part E
Upon reflection on all aspects of my unit plan for small group instruction in
mathematics, I feel that, overall, the unit was successful. The data compiled from the preassessment, formative assessments, and summative assessments have shown me that five out of

20
EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING
the seven students were able to meet the MCCSS standard and essential skills and knowledge.
One of the remaining two students was able to partially meet the standard and essential skills and
knowledge. Although there were time restraints and a multitude of distractions within the
classroom, the overall assessments represented effective instructional strategies.
During lesson one, students were provided with explicit instruction and modeling of the
new concepts being taught. They were not expected to already have the knowledge base to
independently compute the equations. This instruction was effective because students were
able to practice multiple problems with guided support. Although their day one performances on
the formative assessments (not including Sarah) did not demonstrate their abilities to
independently complete the given equations, they were engaged and on-task. During lesson two,
students continued to be provided with explicit instruction, guided practice, and modeling, yet
they were not given the same amount of prompts as on day one. Their performances on the day
two formative assessments proved the instruction to be effective in that they all used more
independence when completing the equations. They did not have the opportunity to rely so
heavily on my guidance which gave them the opportunity to become more self-sufficient. When
challenged appropriately, students will amaze both teachers and themselves with how well they
can work out a problem on their own. With proper scaffolding, students gain the opportunity to
be instructed in a manner that is neither too easy nor too difficult.
During day three, students were able to practice equations with minimal instructional
support, and were then asked to answer a problem on their own. This instructional strategy
was effective because students were given the chance to incorporate the skills that they had
practiced during the previous three days and apply them to one equation. The data from these
summative assessments shows that all students, except one, adequately learned the concepts that

21
EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING
were taught, and were able to apply the necessary skills and knowledge. With continued and
varied instruction, I know that all of the students will be able to complete these problems with
100% accuracy in the future.
The instruction of this unit influenced student learning to a great extent. Each
student has an IEP with specific mathematical goals, so instruction was modified to meet the
needs of each small, homogeneous group. All aspects of instruction were differentiated with the
students needs in mind. Sarah and Mikey were able to use the base ten manipulatives to
compute two-step addition problems; neither needed the assistance of a communication device.
Nnenna, Britney, Devin, and Peter were able to learn how to complete single-digit subtraction by
using their favorite magnetic manipulatives on the white board. This type of visual aid was
beneficial for these students because they require more explicit, step by step instruction. Britney
and Devin were able to use their communication books while Peter was able to use his iPad to
count the objects. Without his iPad, Peter would not be able to showcase his abilities. Keith was
provided with the one-on-one instruction that he requires. Although he did not meet the MCCSS
standards or essential skills and knowledge, he was still exposed to the new content and was
provided with multiple opportunities to practice. By modeling and scaffolding instruction for all
seven students, I was able to meet them where their exact needs were which allowed me to tailor
explanations as needed. Students benefitted by verbally or electronically repeating the specific
equations and steps to me. During day two, I provided less assistance by asking questions such
as, What comes next?; this type of questioning allowed students to think actively about what
they were learning and what they needed to do to complete the next step of the equation.
Furthermore, by providing students with a two minute sensory break at the end of each lesson,
they were able to regain their focus for their next rotation, and maintain their impulse control.

22
EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING
Based on the implications acquired from the student achievement data, future
instructional activities would be modified to better fit the needs of the students. In the
future, I would like to provide math instruction during a different time of the day. During this
unit, students had math as their last activity which is when they are the most tired and mentally
checked-out. Seeing as how mathematics is such an integral part of education, students should
have the opportunity to acquire and practice new skills when they are at their peak time of
performance. I would like to have math be either in the beginning of the day when they have yet
to be bogged down by any incidents that may happen throughout their day, or after lunch when
they are fed and full of energy. Another aspect that I would change would be to provide students
with more instructional time in order to have more practice with their computations. Students
with disabilities already have enough distractions and emotional needs that can interfere and
hinder their learning, so having only a total of fifteen minutes is not enough time to learn new
concepts. I would like to rework the daily schedule to ensure that students are provided with at
least thirty minutes per day. For this type of classroom, whole group instruction would not work,
so I would definitely keep the small groups in place.
When creating a unit for any type of classroom, especially special education, it is
imperative to collaborate with other professionals who work with the same students and/or
population. Both before and throughout this unit, I constantly collaborated with the special
educator (my mentor) to gain perspective on what works and does not work for the individual
students. Through our observations, we were able to adjust the rotations so that Keith would
have his math instruction before the other students; however, the math rotations are still
scheduled for the end of the day. Although this change was not put in place during my
instruction, it will be adjusted in the near future. Another professional with whom I collaborated

23
EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING
to gain perspective was an inclusion teacher. This teacher works with the students who have
IEPs and are included in general education. Her perspective was helpful because she showed me
what the third grade general education students were learning in math, which allowed me to
properly adjust my instruction for my below grade-level students. I wanted to be sure that I
followed the grade three curriculum and MCCSS standards while providing the necessary
modifications and adaptations that my students required. Constant collaboration and reflection is
imperative for effective instruction and student learning to transpire.
Two personal professional learning goals based on CEC standards surfaced as I
reflected on my instruction and the experiences that I gained from this unit. CEC standard 2learning environments is an aspect of this unit that I want to focus on further. I do not think that
the learning environment used for this unit was advantageous for all students. In fact, I believe
that it hindered a few due to the small space, noise, and overload of external stimuli. In the
future, I would like to instruct these students in a more contained, quiet atmosphere to allow for a
greater amount of student learning. CEC standard 4- assessment is another aspect of this unit
that could use improvements in the future. Upon review of the data, I noticed that my ability to
format appropriate assessments is lacking. I strongly believe that this is mostly due to my lack of
experience and knowledge of the individual students strengths and needs. Administering more
effective assessments in the future will allow me to gain superior data to gauge student learning.

24
EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING