Context

The "Geometry Jeopardy" assignment was created for CI 4900, Student Teaching, during the Spring of 2008 semester. It was created under the advisement of Dr. Jane Norwood as a lesson during Math within the classroom. The "Geometry Jeopardy" was used as a Geometry Review for the students at Elizabeth Lane Elementary in Ms. Leona Ingram's Fourth Grade classroom.

The lesson was taught with the use of the SMART Board; and used throughout the fourth grade classrooms. The Geometry Jeopardy was created for the Review Session and ended up being turned into a Writing Jeopardy and a North Carolina Jeopardy.

Impact of Student Learning

The "Geometry Jeopardy" lesson plan was created to allow students to experience math with the help of technology. Students learned how to use the Smart Board technology, while also, reviewing for their major test in Geometry (Mathematics, Competency Goals 2 and 3). Students worked together collaboratively to solve the questions and answered as a team unit (English Language Arts, Competency Goal 1). Students used technology, mathematics and language arts while practicing their terminology, their vocabulary, and of course, their mathematical computations.

Alignment

The following NCDPI Elementary Education Standards were met by:

NCDPI Standard 2, Indicator 1 was met by showing knowledge of number sense, numeration, and numerical operations in order to express geometry. Students needed basic addition, subtraction, multiplication and order of operations in order, to be able to learn area and perimeter accordingly.

NCDPI Standard 2, Indicator 2 was met by having knowledge of geometry and measurement. In order to help students review for a geometry unit, the teacher must understand the construction of simple geometric figures, and be able to model how to solve geometric problems using area and perimeter.

NCDPI Standard 7, Indicator 1 was met by aligning the lesson with the North Carolina Standard Course of Study and the LEA pacing guides for fourth grade.

NCDPI Standard 7, Indicator 4 was met by implementing a variety of teaching and communication strategies by calling on different students to allowing students to work collaboratively together to working out each problem if a student answered incorrectly.

NCDPI Standard 7, Indicator 5 was met by assisting students in developing multiple learning strategies. Students had to think critically about each problem before raising their hands to answer; however, had to think fast in order to receive points before the other team.

NCDPI Standard 8, Indicator 6 was met by modeling Standard English through each problem on the SMART board.

NCDPI Standard 9, Indicator 1 was met through developing instruction to help students problem solve. Students were able to build new knowledge of geometry by applying their prior knowledge and working to solve each problem.  Students learned how to apply their prior knowledge and adapt to a variety of problems.

NCDPI Standard 9, Indicator 3 was met through instuction by communicating and explaining each problem in detail. Students communicated clearly with the peers at their table, and had to select one teammate to give the answer. In order to solve the problem, students needed to use the correct language to get the answer correctly right.

NCDPI Standard 11, Indicator 4 was met by incorporating Social Studies into Mathematics. I used Students' names into the problems, and provided students with real-life examples of what could happen with geometry such as, reading a street map, or what real life street signs looked like.

NCDPI Standard 16, Indicator 8 was met by giving my ideas of incorporating technology into Geometry Jeopardy to the other fourth grade teachers and dissemilating them into Writing Jeopardy and North Carolina State Jeopardy.

NCDPI Standard 16, Indicator 9 was met by collaborating with the other fourth grade teachers to develop community and a new lesson from a lesson I'd already come up with.

The following NETS-T Technology Standards were met by:

NETS Technology Standard II, Indicator C was met by being able to identify the SMART board and its technology and being able to evaluate the resource's use within the lesson. I located the position of the SMART board and realized that I needed to change the location of the desks in order to maximize the team usage of the Jeopardy board on the SMART board.

NETS Technology Standard III, Indicator A was met facilitating the SMART board and enhancing the experience of the lesson by allowing students to touch the SMART board and clicking on the questions by themselves.

NETS Technology Standard III, Indicator B was met by addressing the diverse needs of students. Some of our students are on a lower-level of knowledge with Mathematics; so I adapted the lesson to fit their needs. All of our students can physically touch the board; however, for some, they may not be tall enough to reach the highest level of questions. Students were able to help one another and work collaboratively together to support each other as learners.

NETS Technology Standard III, Indicator C was met by applying technology to develop the student's higher order skills by having questions from all levels of Bloom's Taxonomy. Each of the questions progressively got harder and more thought-provoking for students; and allowed students to think critically about each question.

NETS Technology Standard III, Indicator D was met by managing student learning activities in a technology-enhanced environment by allowing students to use technology collaboratively together.