I.

Reflective Response
A. Report of Students Performance in Terms of Stated Objectives (after lesson is taught)
After reviewing the data chart below, I found that the majority of the students did very well on the assessment. Nine
students received a perfect score of 16/16 total points or 100%. Four students received a score of 15/16 total points or a
93%. One student received a score of 14/16 or an 87%. Three students received a score of 13/16 or an 81%. Three students
received scores of 12/16 or a 75% on the assessment. One student received a total score of 11/16 or a 68% on the
assessment. The lowest score on the assessment was a 5/16 or 31%. The first problem on the assessment was an addition
word problem. Three students out of the total twenty two students got the correct answer to the problem but did not draw
the correct bar model. Problem number two on the assessment was a subtraction word problem. Ten out of the total twenty
two students received a 0 or 1 points on this question out of 2 total points. Nine out of these ten students got the answer
right. One student did not get the answer right. All ten students set up the bar model incorrectly. Problem three on the
assessment was an addition word problem. Five students out of the total twenty two students got the answer to this
problem correct but incorrectly drew the bar model. Problem four on the assessment was a subtraction word problem. Eight
students out of the total twenty two received a 0 or 1 points on this question out of 2 total points. Seven out of the eight
students wrote the correct answer but incorrectly drew the bar model. One student both wrote the incorrect answer and
drew the bar model incorrectly. Problem five on the assessment was an addition numerical problem. Two out of the total
twenty two students got the correct answer to this problem but either drew the bar model incorrectly or did not draw a bar
model at all. Problem six on the assessment was an addition numerical problem. The same two students out of the total
twenty two students got the correct answer to this problem but either drew the bar model incorrectly or did not draw a bar
model at all. Problem seven on the assessment was a subtraction numerical problem. Five students out of the total twenty
two students received 0 to 1 points out of two points on this question. Four of the five students wrote the correct answer but
drew the bar model incorrectly. One student did not write the correct answer or draw a bar model. Problem eight on the
assessment was a subtraction numerical problem. Four of the same students as problem seven out of the total twenty two in
the class received 0 to 1 points out of two points on this question. Three of the four students wrote the correct answer but
drew the bar model incorrectly. One student did not write the correct answer or draw a bar model.
In terms of the strengths, students conveyed the most strength when finding the answer to the problem. In problem one,
all three students who did not receive the total two points, did receive one point for answering the problem correctly. In
problem two, the nine out of the ten students who did not receive the total two points, did receive one point for answering
the problem correctly. In problem three, all five students who did not receive the total two points, did receive one point for
answering the problem correctly. In problem four, seven out of the eight students who did not receive the total two points,
did receive one point for answering the problem correctly. In problems five and six, the same two students who did not

receive the total 2 points for these problems, did receive one point for answering these problems correctly. In problem
seven, four out of the five students who did not receive the total two points, did receive one point for answering the
problem correctly. And last, in problem eight, three out of the four students who did not receive the total two points, did
receive one point for answering the problem correctly. Based off this data, it is evident that students knew whether the
problem was an addition problem or a subtraction problem and how to find the answer. After asking myself why I believe
the students exceeded in this area I came to the conclusion that it was because they have had practice in the area of word
problems in previous chapters. With that being said, students would read the problems and circle key words. When students
circled the key words such as, in all, left, etc., they could answer the problem before even drawing the bar model. Another
strength, after evaluating the assessment data, was the students ability to draw the correct bar model and write the correct
answer to the numerical addition problems. For both problems five and six, only two students out of the total twenty two
students in the class incorrectly drew the bar model. After asking myself why I believe this was a class strength I came to
the conclusion that these numerical addition problems were easier for the students to clearly see. Students did not get
tricked with wording like they had in the word problems. Students knew when we add you put two parts together,
providing me with the correct drawing of the bar model.
In terms of weaknesses, students struggled in the area of labeling the bar model that they drew. I found that most
students mixed up the concept part, part, and whole. Students could not decipher which numbers should go above the bar
and which numbers should go below the bar (both part numbers go above the bar and the whole number goes below the
bar). After asking myself why I think this was a weakness for the class, I came to the conclusion that student did not fully
understand which numbers were the part, other part, or whole given in the problem. I felt that although they might have
known what the problem was asking for they did not understand that when finding an addition problem both parts will
ALWAYS be above the bar and the whole is what you are looking for or the question mark. Same goes for subtraction, I
believe students could generally, not all the time, decipher if the problem was an addition or subtraction problem but did
not understand that in these types of problems you are ALWAYS given the whole and a part and must find the other part or
place the question mark above the bar in a part section. Another weakness I determined after evaluating the assessment data
involved students labeling their bar model with just the numerical problem above the bar. Another conclusion I came to in
terms of weaknesses throughout the assessment was the lack of labeling the bar model. The last weakness I determined
after reviewing the results of the assessment was students absence of drawing the bar model. After asking myself the why
students did not include a bar I came to the conclusion that they must have circled the key words and quickly used the
numbers in the word problem to solve. I used easy numbers so students would grasp the concept of bar model, however,
some students didnt see the point, and some students even verbalized this to me. These students would say why would
we draw the bar model when we already know the answer? In terms of the last four problems, students may not have
included bars because I did not have any directions at the top of the page. Although I verbally instructed the students to
draw bar models they may have missed the instructions.

After determining the areas of weakness for the students who completed this assessment, I found error patterns. Many
students had difficulty deciphering among which numbers given were part or whole and where they should be placed on
the bar model. For example, in problem four, two students who did not receive the total two points, wrote the numbers ten
and three on the top of the bar for the following subtraction problem: There are 10 birds on a branch. 3 birds fly away.
How many birds are left? In this particular subtraction problem the students should have had 7 and 3 or 7 and a question
mark above the bar model and the number 10 below the bar model. In addition, I found that for problems two, seven, and
eight, students drew the bar model for the subtraction numerical and word problems as addition problems, again mixing up
the placement of part, part, and whole. In addition, one student drew the bar model for problem number one as a
subtraction bar model when it was supposed to be drawn as an addition bar model. Problem number one read, Lydia has
three blocks. Kai has 4 more blocks than Lydia. How many blocks does Kai have? This particular student mixed up the
part, part, and whole placement of the numbers given in the problem. This student wrote the number 4 and a question mark
on the top of the bar model and the number 3 on the bottom of the bar model. Another error problem I determined after
evaluating the assessment data involved students labeling their bar model with just the numerical problem above the bar.
For example, in problem one a student wrote 4+3=7 above the bar model without labeling anything below the bar model.
The numbers 4 and 3 should have been above the bar model and 7 should have been below the bar model, without the plus
or equals sign, in the following problem: Lydia has three blocks. Kai has 4 more blocks than Lydia. How many blocks
does Kai have? This same error appeared in problems three, five, and six as well. Another conclusion I came to in terms of
error patterns throughout the assessment was the lack of labeling the bar models. For example, in problem four, two
students knew that the subtraction problem required two separate bars to be drawn. However, these students did not label
the bar models with the necessary numbers. Problem four read, There are 10 birds on a branch. 3 birds fly away. How
many birds are left? Students drew two separate bars on top of each other but did not include the numbers 10 and 3
anywhere on the bar models that were drawn. This error pattern was evident in problems one and two as well. The last
error pattern I determine after reviewing the results of the assessment was students lack of drawing the bar model. In
problems four, five, six, seven, and eight, one student in each problem did not draw the bar model at all.
These error patterns tell me a lot about the students learning. In terms of the first error pattern that involved students
having difficulty with the placement of numbers and whether they are a part, another part, or a whole, I found students
were quick to just place the numbers on the bar model without visualizing how the bar model should look. I say this
because I watched a few students not even take the time to read the problem before I saw them writing the numbers on the
bar model they drew. I watched these same students read the problem after drawing the bar model and do the addition or
subtraction problem in their heads. Because the assessment involved easy addition and subtraction problems, students were
more concerned with doing mental math to answer the problem then drawing the bar model correctly. After asking myself
why this might have happened, I came to the conclusion that in terms of the word problems, students were so used to
circling key words that they knew what the problem was asking for and what two numbers they had to work with. Although

circling key words is a great strategy, many times in word problems, they might be using keywords associated with either
addition or subtraction but dong the exact opposite. It is important students gain the skill of drawing the bar so they are
able to see the picture and know EXACTLY what they were given (part, part, and/or whole). In terms of the numerical
problems, I felt students were not associating the numbers in either the addition or subtraction problems as part, another
part, or a whole. I say this because so many times did I find that students were writing the whole numbers above the bars,
part numbers below the bars, etc. If students were taught a deeper understanding of how addition problems ALWAYS give
you two parts and you are looking for the whole and how subtraction problems ALWAYS give you a whole, a part, and you
are looking for the other part, I think students would have done much better on the last few problems of the assessment.
Another error problem involved students writing the numerical addition problem above the bar (4+3=7). A student
explained to me that the bar they drew was showing the total amount of blocks that Kai had. This student seemed to think
that by putting the linear problem above the bar model we would understand that that was how many blocks Kai had. For
the students who did not label their bar models, I would ask them why they were not labeling it and they would say it does
not make any sense at all. One student was refusing to write in the numbers for fear that he would be wrong, however, this
student was able to come up with the correct answer so I know this child understands the foundation of addition and
subtraction. One student would not draw the bar models. When I would ask the student to draw the bar model this child
would state that they already knew the answer. Again, because the numbers were so simple, this person was more focused
on getting the answer then using the bar modeling strategy.

Remediation Plan
After reviewing the reoccurring error problems I realize my remediation plan must focus mainly on where the part, the
other part, and the whole are placed on the bar model and why. Each chapter that focuses on bar modeling in this particular
unit continues to get more difficult. I have been working with my teacher on ways the students could better comprehend
where the part, the other part, and the whole, are located on the bar model. Right when the students sit down for math I am
drawing a bar model on the board and asking the students where would the question mark go in a subtraction problem? I
would then ask why. Each student is to answer by saying at a part because in subtraction we have the whole we have one
part and we are looking for the other part. Then I might ask another student to come up and I would say where does the
question mark go in an addition problem? Each student will answer this by saying under the whole bar because in an
addition problem we already have one part and the other part and we are looking for the whole. I have been taking the first
ten minute of math class to review these concepts and I will call numerous students up to the board and ask the same
questions many times. I found this method has really kept their attention and they see it almost as a fun game that I find

refreshes their brains before completing more difficult bar model problems. I have noticed a huge difference. Students are
finally interested in finding out which numbers in the word problems are a part, another part, or a whole. The students are
able to tell me what they are looking for and why. Knowing why, has opened their eyes and even the students who were
refusing to put the numbers on the bar model or draw the bar model at all have significantly improved. In addition, I might
want to consider practicing numerous problems in a we do fashion. I would put a problem up on the SMART board and
have the students use their desks or white boards to complete the problem and we would go over each step in the problem,
paying specific attention what the problem is asking us to find. As we complete problems together I will be scaffolding the
students learning. I may also consider having each student put example problems of each bar model in their math journals.
This pictorial strategy will give students a resource to look back at for assistance. For the students who are drawing a
subtraction bar model when it is supposed to be an addition bar model, I will focus these students on circling key words.
Finding key words in a word problem will give these students specific words to focus on so that when they get to drawing
the bar model they will know whether they are drawing an addition or subtraction bar model. For more advanced students,
who are not interested in drawing the bar models, who claim they already know the answer I could use more difficult
numbers that would require them to draw the bar model to help answer the problem. As a teacher I might also consider
splitting students up into small groups based on their understanding of the bar models. During this time, I would work with
the groups that need more assistance to eliminate the gap in learning and the more advanced groups would receive more
challenging problems/tasks related to bar modeling. For example, I might consider them playing memory with a partner or
consider making a jeopardy game. For the struggling students, I would continue using manipulative/real life objects so
they could see the part, part, whole in a problem. After examining the reasons why I believe the students exceeded in areas
and did not exceed in other areas, I concluded that I must show give deeper more meaningful instruction when it comes to
rules that are always present: Addition problems ALWAYS have a part, another part, and you are looking for the whole,
while subtraction problems ALWAYS give you the whole, and a part, and you are looking for the other part. I feel I could
show this by using real objects to portray this. Besides just using the connecting cubes in the lesson I should use objects
like apples, candy bar, etc. I would have different stations with real objects around the room and students would rotate
through the stations and record on a sheet I give them whether the object is representing an addition or a subtraction
problem. On this response activity sheet, students will be asked to explain why they feel the object it representing either an
addition or subtraction problem and draw a picture showing what they observed at the station. I would assess students
progression after these remediation strategies through a similar activity sheet. Except this time, the activity sheet will have
clear directions of what each part of the assessment is asking the students to do.

B. Personal Reflection
1. How could this lesson be improved?
The main way in which this lesson could be improved would be emphasizing part, the other part, and the whole.
Students needed more practice with where the question mark goes or what the problem is asking us to find.
Students were confused with which numbers we were given and whether they were parts or the whole.

2. Was I able to pace my lesson to fit the time?

I finished the majority of my lesson during the 45 minutes. With that being said, I was unable to fit the closure
into that 45 minutes. The game I have, who has ended up being the introduction to the days following lesson
and did not take more than ten minutes.

3. Did the students correctly use the connecting cubes to represent the problem?
I would say over half of the class was able to use the connecting cubes represent the problem I gave them. With
that being said, I found a few students were struggling with the color coordination. Students were able to add
the two different colored parts together to find the whole but struggled with subtraction. With subtraction, the
students did not understand why they were just using one color when they were taking away blocks and two
colors when comparing.

Student

Problem 1

Problem 2

Problem 3

Problem 4

Jacoby
Sean
Emily
Mateah
Kyra
Anthony
Nicole
Max
Wyatt
Steven
Mason
Rachael
Tyler
Greta
AJ
Colton
Dillan
Abigail
Filip
Alex
McKenna
Mazie

1/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
1/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
1/2
2/2
2/2
2/2

1/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
1/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
1/2
2/2
2/2
0/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
2/2

1/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
1/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
1/2
2/2
1/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
1/2
2/2
2/2
2/2

1/2
1/2
2/2
2/2
1/2
2/2
1/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
0/2
2/2
1/2
2/2
1/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
1/2
2/2

Problem 5

2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
1/2
2/2
1/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
Bar Model Chart

Problem 6

Problem 7

Problem 8

Problems
correct out
of 16

Total
Score
(%)

2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
1/2
2/2
1/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2

2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
1/2
2/2
1/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
0/1
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
1/2
2/2
2/2
1/2
2/2

2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
1/2
2/2
1/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
0/1
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
1/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2

12/16
15/16
16/16
16/16
12/16
16/16
12/16
16/16
15/16
16/16
16/16
5/16
16/16
11/16
16/16
14/16
15/16
13/16
13/16
15/16
13/16
16/16

75%
93%
100%
100%
75%
100%
75%
100%
93%
100%
100%
31%
100%
68%
100%
87%
93%
81%
81%
93%
81%
100%