Part One: Rational Number Interview

1. Please find attached record sheet

2. Report on students rational number understandings

Part- Whole
Zoe possesses a deep and sophisticated understanding of part-whole construct
of fractions. Her responses to the pie model (question 1) demonstrate ability to
identify equivalent sized fraction as being proportions of a whole. Zoe
demonstrates fluency in understanding set models to be a set of fractional parts
which make up a whole (question 2). Able to use iteration strategies in question
3 through counting fractional parts such as four thirds to determine the
relationship between the parts (numerator) and the whole (denominator) using
visuals to represent this. Zoe was able to correctly name a piece of the fraction
in relation to the whole.

Measures
Question 4 showed Zoes solid understanding of fractional sizes as she was able
to compare and order common unit fractions on a number line. Zoe struggled
with ordering mixed fractions as she was unable to recognise nine-quarters as 2
wholes and an additional quarter, resulting in incorrect placement on the number
line. Strong understanding of equivalent fractions to compare fractional size (eg.
three-fifths as equivalent to six-tenths, therefore placed them on the same
point). Student was unable to attempt question 6 demonstrating lack of
knowledge of in dividing fractions.

Operators
Zoe also struggled with fraction operations in question 7 and was only able to
multiply fractions with whole numbers using division strategies (eg. x 6 was
found by completing 6 divided by 2). Showing lack of understanding in fraction
multiplicative strategies.

Quotients
Question 8 demonstrated Zoes knowledge of equalising as she was able to
determine how to divide wholes (pizzas) into fraction values to achieve equal
distribution among children. Zoe knew to divide whole amounts by the amount of
children and correctly identified fractional amount of pizza each child would
receive. However, when comparing boys and girls pizza intake student failed to
use strategies of fraction renaming as a comparison point to determine the sizes
of pizza received by boys versus girls, rather assumed more slices = more pizza.

Rates & Ratios

Zoe showed some understanding of rates and ratios in question 9. She knows the
ratio 2:3 means a total of 5 as well as using between and within multiplication
strategies to determine new values while maintaining the correct ratio. Zoe had
difficulty converting ratios into percentages and showed limited knowledge of
relationships between ratios, fractions and percentages in question 9e.

Decimals
Student correctly compared and ordered decimal values with no difficulty.
However again showed limited knowledge of relationship between fractions and
decimals through incorrectly naming the fraction two tenths as the decimal 2.1.
Zoe possesses a solid understanding of units of measure as she quickly knew
1000ml to be equivalent to 1L. Able to recognise continuous data and determine
what each line represented on the jug through dividing the total amount by the
number of lines.
3. Evaluation of interviews as an assessment strategy

Interviews are a type of formative assessment which present certain strengths

and weaknesses, for both student and teacher. Harlen and James (1997) noted
the definition of assessment to be activities undertaken by students that
provide information to be used as feedback to modify teacher and learning
activities. Interviews are an excellent method to achieve this, as they allow the
teacher to obtain in-depth information about the individuals conceptual
constructions which later informs the teachers selection of instruction and
mathematical content (Van del Walle, 2014; Clarke, Clarke, & Roche, 2011). The
National Council Teaching Mathematics (1995) advocate the power of interviews
stating that they go beyond focusing on how well a student uses a memorised
algorithm or procedure and also elicit, assess and respond to students
mathematical understandings.

Through open and personal dialogue, teachers are able to gain great insights into
students mathematical understandings, thought processes and their level of
sophistication. (Lewis, Gibbons, Kazemi, & Lind, 2015; McDonough, Clarke, &
Clarke, 2002). Interviews are specifically useful for identifying misconceptions
which are not always apparent within a written assessment. (Clarke, Clarke, &
Roche, 2011). Additionally, Harlen and James (1997) mention that interviews allow the
teacher to provide students with specified feedback about their understandings
and skill development in a timely and effective manner.

Furthermore, children relish this one-on-one time with their teacher to show
them what they can do
without distraction and influences of peers, especially powerful with quite
children (McDonough, Clarke & Clarke, 2001; Clarke, Clarke, & Riche, 2011).
Through application of talk moves such as revoicing teachers are able to probe
students to verbalise their thinking during problem solving (Chapin & OConnor,
2007) Interviews provide insights into tasks appropriate for the child and allow
teachers to develop realistic expectations of what children know and can do
(Clarke, Clarke, & Roche, 2011).

However, conducting diagnostic interviews prevents students benefiting from

listening to mathematical processes and justifications created by their peers. At
times the information collected may seem contradictory as students may do
something correctly in one context but not another. Therefore much reliance is
placed on the teacher to use effective questioning and then make a judgement
about whether a pupil first into one level/criterion or another. Interviews can be
both intimidating and stressful for students and are also time intensive
considering teacher must attend to twenty plus students.

Overall interviews are an essential part of teaching mathematics as they provide

a wealth of informative feedback on childrens mathematical knowledge and
guide future lesson planning so student achievement may be enhanced.
(McDonough, Clarke & Clarke, 2001; Suurtamm, Koch, & Arden, 2010).
Part 2: Rich assessment task and rubric
Hay There Task
4. Provide your solution to the task (300 words). If you handwrite and/or
draw your solution create an image file (e.g. jpg) and drop it into the text box
below. Alternatively type into the text box.
Design your rubric for assessment of work samples

Category and Score Description

4 Student efficiently employs partitioning strategies to
A generalisable strategy determine the total amount of hay both cows and
that would apply horses will receive. Student demonstrates successful
efficiently as the use of strategies through use of clear pictures and
conditions of the task words. Able to use these strategies so cows and horse
were changed receive the same portion of hay and specifies the
amount. Uses concepts of fraction equivalence in
order to determine which animal receives greater
amount of hay. Clear mathematical justification of how
final results were obtained.
3 Students use partitioning strategies in order to
A productive strategy distribute hay equally amongst both animals. Student
that may be correct but uses some pictures and words to determine fraction of
does is cumbersome or hay received by both cows and horses. Student
does not generalise struggles to use mathematical strategies of fractional
easily equivalence to evaluate which animal receives more
hay. Some mathematical justifications shown for their
processes.
2 Student recognises partitioning as a strategy to solve
A strategy that contains but fails to identify the fraction amount each animal
some elements of a should receive. Images are unclear with little written
productive strategy explanation. Attempts shown to determine which
animal received more hay however does so
incorrectly. Mathematical justifications and sparse and
do not sufficiently explain processes.
1 Shows some effort to distribute hay equally but little
Little or no signs of or no understanding of partitioning concepts. Student
mathematising the has not drawn pictures representative of the
problem conditions within the problem. Student provides little
or no justification for their representations and shows
no logical efforts to determine which animal received
larger amount of hay.
5. Critical evaluation of open, rich tasks with rubrics as an
assessment strategy

Rich tasks such as the hay activity are a type of summative assessment as they
measure learning achieved at a certain time in a systematic way for the purpose
of reporting (Harlen & James, 1997). Van de Walle (2014) states that open, rich
tasks which include real world authentic problems permit students to
demonstrate knowledge and skills in an in depth manner. Students are not
restricted to use procedural methods learnt in class but are able to explore and
develop their own mathematical thinkings and procedures which promotes
levels of self-confidence, pride and satisfaction in their efforts. During this
mathematical process of both solving and sharing, students are able to achieve a
new level of depth and generalisation in their thinking as they use mathematical
principles and reasoning to justify their workings. As students explain their
thinking to others during discussions they also develop a sense of ownership of
their mathematical learning (Leatham, Lawrence & Mewborn, 2005).

Using open-ended tasks in the classroom is extremely helpful as it permits

teachers to grain insights into varied conceptual understandings students
possess, through their elicitation of sophisticated reasoning, problem solving and
rich discussion (Leatham et al., 2005). This process communicates to students
that when engaging in mathematics we are not simply repeating equations and
formulas but using reasoning, problem solving and communication skills. As
students learn to anticipate this expectation for discussion and questioning by
the teacher students become increasingly metacognitive and critical in their
thinking. (McDonough, Clarke, & Clarke, 2002).

Use of summative assessment such as rubrics are undoubtedly a valuable tool

for scoring as they clearly describe what criteria we expect students work to
reach (Van de Walle, 2014). These are also helpful in communicating with
parents about childs achievements. Van de Walle (2014) further notes that
criteria on rubrics shared with students ahead of time allows the teacher to
convey clearly to students what they should strive to achieve. Rubrics place less
emphasis on counting up rights and wrongs to achieve a grade, rather they help
students understand what they did well and what they could have done better,
alleviating pressure and increasing student motivation (Van de Walle, 2014).
Furthermore these items have the potential to assist teachers in meeting
particular curriculum standards through specifically stating criterion to be
achieved (Leatham et al., 2005).

However creating tasks which are authentic, meet curriculum demands and the
needs of students can be both challenging and time-consuming. Van de Walle
(2014) explains that these types of assessments dont always identify
misunderstandings and thereby assessment information are not of much help in
designing future instructional interventions to improve learning progress.
Leatham (et al., 2005) points out that open ended items do not allow teachers to
alter teaching content or revisit the material marked as typically they are
conducted at the conclusion of learning, and therefore students accumulate
debts of knowledge. Research suggest students who give correct pen to paper
answers something have little or no understanding of the concepts and
relationships which the tests were designed to measure (Clarke, Clarke, & Roche,
2011). Alternatively, children may sometimes have a strong conceptual
knowledge of a topic but are unable to demonstrate this in written assessment
(Clarke, Clarke, & Roche, 2011).

Overall rich, open-ended tasks are fundamental in teaching of mathematics as

they permeate the classroom with deep mathematical discussion and
demonstrate the importance of mathematical justifications. While they may not
be the most efficient assessment to inform future teaching, they are invaluable
for rich discussions which develop fluency of conceptual understanding and
varied ways of problem solving.
6. References

Chapin, S. H., & OConnor, C. (2007). Academically productive talk: Supporting

students' learning in mathematics. In W. G. Martin, M. Strutchens, & P. Elliot (Eds.), The
learning of mathematics (pp. 113-139). Reston VA: NCTM.
https://matamatamaths.wikispaces.com/file/view/CHAPINOCONNOR+Academically+Produ
ctive+Talk.PDF

Clarke, D., Clarke, B., & Roche, A. (2011). Building teachers expertise in
understanding, assessing and developing childrens mathematical thinking: the power of
task-based, one-to-one assessment interviews. ZDM, 43(6-7), 901-913.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11858-011-0345-2

Harlen, W., & James, M. (1997). Assessment and Learning: differences and
relationships between formative and summative assessment, Assessment in Education:
Principles, Policy & Practice, 4:3, 365-379, DOI: 10.1080/0969594970040304

Leatham, K., Lawrence, K., & Mewborn, D. (2005). Getting Started with Open-
Ended Assessment.Teaching Children Mathematics, 11(8), 413-419. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/41198578

Lewis, R. M., Gibbons, L. K., Kazemi, E., & Lind, T. (2015). Unwrapping students
ideas about fractions. Teaching Children Mathematics, 22(3),158-168.

McDonough, A., Clarke, B., & Clarke, D. (2002). Understanding, assessing and
developing children's mathematical thinking: the power of a one-to-one interview for pre-
service teachers in providing insights into appropriate pedagogical
practices. International Journal Of Educational Research, 37(2), 211-226.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0883-0355(02)00061-7

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. 1995. Assessment standards for

school mathematics.
Reston, VA: NCTM

Suurtamm, C., Koch, M., & Arden, A. (2010). Teachers assessment practices in
mathematics: classrooms in the context of reform. Assessment in Education: Principles,
Policy & Practice, 17(4), 399-417, DOI: 10.1080/0969594X.2010.497469

Van de Walle, J. (2014). Elementary and middle school mathematics: Teaching

developmentally (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.