Prior to whole class instruction on 4th grade Geometry, the 23 students were given a pre-test of a variety of 4th grade Geometry questions. The pretest was a 14 question front and back page that consisted of problems all throughout the Geometry Unit. The results of the pre-test were as suspected showing relatively low scores. The results consisted of a high score of 79% and a low score of 14%, and the average score of all 23 students was a 45% or about 6 out of 14 questions correct. Students specifically scored low in questions 2,4,12 and 14 with percents of 30%,14%,12%, and 28%.

I chose to divide the instruction throughout a two week period to allow for more review on specific topics. The first two days focused on lines, rays, line segments and identifying/labeling the figures. The next two days focused on measuring and drawing angles by using a protractor. Finally, the last day focused on reviewing the past content with hands-on activities and stations to help grab students attention in the learning process. The majority of the lessons involved hands-on, and interactive activities reinforcing the content taught. The last two days involved moving from station to station around the classroom, creating their own angle artwork, and measuring duct tape angles created on a table. Throughout the two weeks, I pulled students to the back table during independent practice to focus on an area that they seem to struggle with. I also began to randomly put angle and figure problems on the board and have students solve to see if they were grasping the content. During these lessons, students were expected to participate in the activities, class discussions, and practice problems and explain their what and why for each problem. I spent the same amount of time on each lesson given that I specifically wanted to focus on. Then, I gave more instruction and practice to help reinforce each concept to give extra instruction as learner needs indicated. Attached are each handout, and assessment used throughout my instruction.

After instruction, the students were given a post-test that was the exact same as the pre-test. The post-test was apart of their summative assessment for Geometry. The post-test had a goal to achieve at least an overall average score of a 80% and at least a 70% in the specific figure/angle domains, specifically questions 2,4,12, and 14. The results of this post-test were more than satisfying with an overall average score of 87%, and a high percent increase of 86%, 83%, 73%, and 83% for questions 2,4,12, and 14. Although two students were not able to meet the set goal, those two students improved tremendously since the pre-test. Attached are the post-test graph and the pre-test/post-test comparison graph that show the percent of each question scored, and the comparison between the two.

 Whenever I began the Student Learning Objective project, I knew that I wanted to do something in the subject of mathematics. In the Danielson Framework for Teaching Category 4, I effectively communicated with my students, colleagues, and cooperating teacher during the process of the SLO project. As I talked with my cooperating teacher, she informed me that I would be teaching an upcoming unit on Geometry. Geometry was a unit in math where students have struggled with on assessments and PSSA’s. I decided to start there and administer a variety of 4^th grade Geometry questions that the class would again see on their summative assessment. On the pre-test assessment, my students scored an average of 45%. Individually on questions 2,4,12, and 14, the students scored a 16%, 30%, 14% and 28%. To my surprise, students had a hard time with the different Geometry figures such as a line, ray, and a line segment. I did suspect students having trouble with measuring and classifying angles because they had no past experience with a protractor. I shared the results with my co-operating teacher about the categories where students scored the lowest percent in, and how I would adjust my instruction prior to teaching the unit. Of the 23 students to take the assessment, only four students received over a 60% on the pre-test assessment.

 My goal for this project was for the entire group of 23 students to receive an overall average score of an 80% on the 14-question assessment. This would mean that they would show an improvement of at least 35% from their pre-test. In the specific question domains, I wanted students to score at least a 70% average in questions 2,4,12, and 14. This would mean that they would show and improvement between 40-56%. I chose 80% as the overall average class score because I believe that my students will be able to attain the goal when taught the material.

After assessing students and reviewing the results, I began setting aside time during instruction, to cover as much material as possible to assure that students were grasping the Geometry content. In the Danielson Framework for Teaching Category 1, I created instructional goals that were appropriate for my classroom of students. As I created my instructional lessons, I attempted to make them hands-on, engaging, and developmentally appropriate for the students. I aligned each lesson with an appropriate PA Geometry Academic Standard as best I could. I stretched the lessons out to one day each and made sure there was enough instruction and practice for each lesson. I then spent 1-2 days reviewing each topic that the students scored low on to give students extra instruction.

In the Danielson Framework for Teaching Category 3, I engaged students in learning Geometry material through hands-on activities and grouping of students. One of the lessons included whole group white board practice on the different figure names and pictures. I used this engaging technique 3 different times to engage students, and informally assess them on how well they were understanding the content. I included a “Line, Ray and Line Segment” worksheet and had students work with a partner to talk through their answers and reasoning for each problem. On day 3, I cut out different angle measurements and had students walk around the room to different tables to measure each angle and record each angle degree. I had students discuss their findings with a partner to promote collaboration. After students learned how to measure and draw angles, I created stations to practice this concept. Those stations included, measuring bubblegum duct tape angles, a drawing angle worksheet, creating angle art, and completing a measuring angle worksheet. I personally believe that the activities that I chose for the unit were the most effective in helping students practice the content and allow for more repetition in order to remember the content.

At the end of the project, I was able to conclude that all my students were able to meet the overall instructional goal of 80%. As an average, the class scored an 87% compared to a 45% which was 7% higher than my goal score. In questions 2,4,12, and 14 my students scored a percent of 86%, 83%, 73%, and 83%. All four questions were above my 70% goal. I have learned that creating interactive lessons, hands-on activities, and group-based instruction, students want to learn and in the process are having fun. This strategy was most effective for a whole class instruction in the concept of mathematics.