Student ID# 110136197

EVALUATION

Context
The Professional Experience 3 Practicum was undertaken at Moana Primary School in a year 3 classroom.
The class was comprised of 28 students, 3 of which from indigenous backgrounds. There were 4 students
involved in a separate reading group, which they attend for 45 minutes each day. One of the students in the
reading group has mild Asperger’s, which affects his ability to learn. The classroom tables are either placed
in rows or groups with seating plans completed by the teacher to ensure students are given the opportunity
to work most efficiently with minimal distractions.

The mathematics unit focused on the topic “Shape” in the Measurement and Geometry strand in the
Australian Curriculum, covering Content Descriptor “Make models of three-dimensional objects and
describe key features (ACMMG063)” (ACARA, 2017). The corresponding elaboration “Exploring the
creation of three-dimensional objects using origami, including prisms and pyramids” was also considered
(ACARA, 2017).

Particular aspects and skills of Number and Algebra were embedded and integrated into the math's unit on
3D shapes as pre-requisite skills or assumed knowledge that students would have acquired prior to this
unit. This includes “describing, continuing, and creating patterns” in the Australian Curriculum, which
students needed to apply when creating a 2D pattern or net to construct an object. To do this, students also
needed to have a sound understanding of number and counting to be able to count the properties of 2D
shapes and 3D objects in the tasks leading upto the final assessment.

The Assessment Task

Overview
There were multiple assessments throughout the unit beginning with an initial prior knowledge lesson to
ask questions and uncover any misconceptions to inform teaching for the following activities. Formative
assessments were undertaken initially, which was simply revision for some students, while others were
learning for the first time.

Investigations and problem solving activities were undertaken by students as formative assessments to
help them understand properties, names, and use of three-dimensional shapes in the environment by using
a range of methodologies. Concrete materials and objects were used as physical aids as well as
representations that were pictorial in nature including relatable images and visual aids to help stimulate
ideas and contextualize the topic for students.

The final assessment was summative, encapsulating all of the mathematical skills they had developed in
the activities throughout the duration of the unit. The task involved students investigating and creating

Studies in Mathematics Education 2

 Student ID# 110136197
different nets that they could use to construct a prism in the shape of a building to place in a miniature
three-dimensional city.

While activities were taking place with students actively working, formative assessments were undertaken
every lesson involving observations, conversations, questioning, marking and checking students work
regularly to gain an insight as to who was understanding and to ensure the feedback given was relevant.
Common errors were identified in the initial stages of the unit, thus extra activities were added to support
the learning and understanding of all students before continuing.

Execution
Prior to the summative assessment task, a range of learning activities and experiences for students to
develop understandings were undertaken to ensure when introducing the summative task, it would be
relevant to the students as it is contextualized for them.

During the assessment the teacher circulated around the classroom asking the students what type of
building they have selected for the city. As this was an informal summative assessment, the teacher gave
subtle hints and asked questions to get students to re-think and to guide the students through the activity. If
more than one student finished early, they may challenge themselves by working in partners to try and
create another 3D shape building to add to the city, however the teacher checked their individual buildings
for quality prior.

The assessment task and overall experience concluded with a slideshow showing some real images of
buildings in the environment for students to identify as well as a short follow-up discussion and opportunity
to answer any last questions. Feedback was given to the class as a collective statement on how hard
everyone worked to make their buildings realistic as well as the problem solving and changes made to
construct their buildings.

Justification of and Reflection on the Strategy

The assessment tasks and activities within the mathematics unit were planned and executed using
elements of the Primary Connections (2017) 5E’s teaching and learning model which includes; Engage,
Explore, Explain, Elaborate and Evaluate. This was an effective framework to use as it encourages a
deeper level of thinking for students when given the opportunity to explore, evaluate and explain.

The prior knowledge activity, used as a formative/diagnostic assessment, employed “engage” in the 5E’s
model. Students sat in a circle with approximately 20 different real-life objects in the middle and were asked
to classify them. As different pairs were chosen, students began more engaged as they could see how the
topic was unfolding. A pair share opportunity was offered to give everyone a chance to verbally express
how they would have classified the objects (Alber, R 2017).

Studies in Mathematics Education 2

 Student ID# 110136197
During the activities and formative assessments leading up to the final summative assessment, the teacher
identified how varied the students were in regards to; what they already knew about shapes, their abilities
to construct three-dimensional shapes in a variety of ways, count the number of properties, and identify the
shapes in the environment. Student A was able to transfer her knowledge between activities to further
develop her understandings (Appendix 1). Student B could draw the net needed to make a cube, but did
not interpret or complete the second half of the task properly, thus could not identify more than one net to
create a cube (Appendix 2). Student C along with another 21 students in the class, did not identify objects
in the environment that were the same shape as the three-dimensional shapes discussed in the classroom,
even after a class brainstorm and activity (Appendix 3). Student C struggled with activities throughout the
unit but successfully completed the summative task at the end (Appendix 4). Student D presented varied
and inconsistent learning throughout the activities in the unit, and had a great example that highlighted the
need for students to posses understanding and fluency in the ability to accurately measure in order to
create exact nets (Appendix 5).

The activities undertaken throughout the unit gave students ample opportunity to engage in free play in
their table groups and explore different real-life and mathematical two-dimensional and three-dimensional
shapes and objects including; objects around the classroom, polydrons, boxes, nets, equipment, materials,
and interactive maths computer games (Van Hiele, 1999). This strategy was important in giving students an
opportunity to physically touch and feel the different properties of objects and shapes, and construct ideas
and meanings in their own terms as well as make connections about three-dimensional shapes and
understand that they are all around us (Van Hiele, 1999). It was interesting to observe through the activities
allowing students to play, explore and investigate, how many of them actually constructed three-
dimensional shapes with materials they were given, without even being asked to. These activities employed
principles from Vygotsky, theorist behind social constructivism, who emphasizes social learning as allowing
students to learn from each other (Woolfolk & Margetts 2013). This proved effective in the classroom, as
the teacher cannot always be attending to all students at once, so allowing them to work together and
transfer their knowledge was an efficient method in this situation (Woolfolk & Margetts 2013).

Van Hiele (1999), also advocates the idea of children learning about geometry through play, explaining that
such play gives teachers a chance to observe what children do with the shapes and to assess informally
how they think and talk about shapes (Van Hiele, 1999). Pittalis, M, and Constantinos, C. (2010) support
activities that allow the manipulation of different representations of three-dimensional objects and how
taking part in these activities enhances students geometric abilities. Using hands on objects and teaching
the topic using a variety of modes was effective in engaging learners of different learning styles and abilities
and also assisted in differentiating lessons to help those who needed support.

Deb Lasscock (2017), a mathematics-teaching professional from Flinders University, encouraged the use
of getting students to fail, in order to get them to succeed (Appendix 6). This strategy was implemented in
activities building upto the summative task. An example of this was asking students to construct a net, that

Studies in Mathematics Education 2

 Student ID# 110136197
doesn’t make a full cube (Appendix 6). During this activity it was noted that many students actually began
to make full cubes. Students presented many emotions during this task, especially confusion. The key
element in this activity, was time. Lasscock (2017) emphasized that it is important to give students time to
be confused, as that is when they begin to problem solve, and have that sudden moment where they work
it out. While some students still presented confusion after completing the task, it was when they were asked
to make a full cube that it began to make sense. It was through doing something wrong, that the students
were able to figure out how to make it right, and used problem solving skills and fluency to get there
(Appendix 6). Lasscock (2017) explains, that is when the real learning begins.

The final summative assessment task was undertaken by asking students to construct a three-dimensional
prism, as they would see it in the environment. Rather than asking students to create a plain three-
dimensional shape with no context or real world connections, the strategies in the wording of this task
reflected principles by Sullivan (2011), who emphasized that two of the key principles for effective teaching
of mathematics are making connections, and fostering engagement. This activity facilitated the student’s
development of understanding the mathematics concepts because they were excited about what they were
creating, and were putting time and effort into making it look presentable, appealing and ensuring it was
constructed properly. The task was also produced in a way that helped differentiate for varied levels in
ability (Johnson, B 2014). For students who wanted to challenge themselves, they had the option of
creating their own net and constructing it as they would see it in the environment. For those who were
struggling, they had options of using a pre-designed net or they could construct a cube, as that was
something all students displayed competence in throughout the unit.

Constructive feedback was given to students verbally during the activity, by giving suggestions and asking
questions to get the students thinking about their buildings, and whether what they are doing, will work. If
there wasn’t such a tight time constraint to get the unit completed, the teacher could have given some really
great written feedback for students to reflect on in their work books, however for the nature of the activity,
conversations and questioning seemed adequate.

Conclusion and Recommendations

In terms of the students learning, it would be a great idea to continue the work done in creating the
miniature city and get students to see if they can put two shapes together to create another type of building.
For example, a cube and a square based pyramid can be put together to create the base and roof of a
house. If there weren’t such tight time constraints, I would have liked students to create pyramids as well as
more complex prisms.

I learned so much from planning and teaching this unit in math's and creating the assessment tasks. It can
be overwhelming with how many resources are available to teach math's, but I have learned how important
it is to filter through them and be selective in your choices.

Studies in Mathematics Education 2

 Student ID# 110136197

I learned that it is great to have a solid set plan of where you would like to go in terms of the learning, but it
is important to be pro-active in understanding students responses and knowing when they need a little
more assistance in a particular area, and also when its time to move past a topic.

If I were to use this assessment in the future, I would plan it in a way that is actually easier to assess. With
related concepts where students are making and constructing, this will definitely be something I take a little
more into consideration.

If I were to do this again with another group of students I would get them to construct two objects rather
than just one, and I will give students the net rather than getting them to create their own as this wasted a
bit of time in the beginning. I would also focus a little more on getting more evidence on what each student
has done which will make the assessment process more efficient.

1768 words

Studies in Mathematics Education 2

 Student ID# 110136197
APPENDIX 1 – Student A work samples and annotations

Studies in Mathematics Education 2

 Student ID# 110136197
APPENDIX 2 – Student B work samples and annotations

Studies in Mathematics Education 2

 Student ID# 110136197
APPENDIX 3 - Class Brainstorm – 3D Shapes in the environment

Studies in Mathematics Education 2

 Student ID# 110136197
APPENDIX 4 – Student C work samples

Studies in Mathematics Education 2

 Student ID# 110136197
APPENDIX 5 – Student D work samples

Studies in Mathematics Education 2

 Student ID# 110136197
APPENDIX 6 – Failing to Succeed Activity.

Studies in Mathematics Education 2

 Student ID# 110136197
REFERENCE LIST

"5Es Teaching And Learning Model - Primaryconnections: Linking Science With Literacy".
Primaryconnections.org.au. N.p., 2017. Web. 10 Apr. 2017.

Alber, Rebecca. "Deeper Learning: A Collaborative Classroom Is Key". Edutopia. N.p., 2017. Web. 11 June
2017.

Bell, B. (1993), “Part 2 Children’s Science”, in Children’s Science, Constructivism and Learning Science,
Deakin University, pp. 11 to 21.

Johnson, Ben. "Differentiated Instruction Allows Students To Succeed". Edutopia. N.p., 2017. Web. 1 June
2017.

Sullivan, P. (2011) Teaching Mathematics: Using Research-Informed Strategies. 1st ed. Camberwell,
Victoria 3124: ACER Press, 2011. Web. 4 June 2017.

Van Hiele, Pierre. "Developing Geometric Thinking Through Activities That Begin With Play". Teaching
Children Mathematics 5.6 (1999): 310-316. Web. 17 Sept. 2016.

Woolfolk, A & Margetts, K 2013, Educational Psychology, 3rd ed, Australasian ed, Pearson Education,
French Forest, NSW, Australia.

Studies in Mathematics Education 2