# Classroom Observation

MathEd, Section 4

Classroom Observation

October 11, 2010

According to Van de Walle, Karp, and Bay-Williams, "Students should not just think of remainders as 'R 3' or 'left over.' Remainders should be put in context and dealt with accordingly" (p. 158). I find this statement particularly interesting because the mathematics lesson that I observed in my 5th grade classroom focused on long division with remainders. This concept was taught to the students utilizing the "R 3" or "left over" method. Despite the fact that this strategy may be in disagreement with Van de Walle and his colleagues, I feel that the lesson was effectively taught and fulfilled many categories of a productive mathematics lesson. In particular, my mentor teacher did a fine job of using a variety of grouping structures throughout the lesson along with using beneficial models to support learning.

Most educators are aware of the benefits of using a variety of grouping structures such as individual, pairs, small groups, and whole group instruction. When a teacher effectively employs flexible groupings, he/she is "allowing students to collaborate on tasks [and] provides support and challenge for students, increasing their chance to communicate about mathematics and build understanding" (Van de Walle, Karp, & Bay-Williams, p. 67). In this particular lesson, the students were paired up with their seat partner and were then given a blue bag with manipulative blocks and other materials in it. For each aspect of the lesson, the students were instructed to work together with their partner and discuss methods. Once the students began working on the set of four practice problems, they were reminded each time to "show work and work together!" Van de Walle and his colleagues imply that sometimes students work in partner groups because "the nature of the task best suits only two people working together..." (p. 67). I feel that the activity used to learn this lesson is best structured for individual or partner work due to the limited amount of manipulative blocks in each bag. The partners were able to verbally discuss with each other the methods, issues, and discoveries that they experienced throughout the lesson. At one point, however, an issue arose where there were not enough "1 block" manipulatives for a given problem. The solution was for two partner groups to come together to form a small group of four. I was unsure about how well this type of grouping would function given the character of the assignment but it turned out to work just fine. In this type of group structure, more students were able to share their thoughts with one another and clarify problems that one partner may not have had the ability to do. Groups are normally selected based on students' varying academic abilities (Van de Walle et. al), and although this was not specifically the case, it inevitably worked out that in a group of four students, not all were at the same academic level. Through experiencing our own MathEd activities during class time, it is clear that using a variety of grouping structures is beneficial. My peers and I have been given the opportunity to work independently, work with partners, and work with our small group tables on a variety of tasks, sometimes even circulating the room while completing them. I have been able to develop an idea of advantages and disadvantages to each type of grouping structures by analyzing the productivity and accuracy displayed by each group.

Not all students learn at the same rate and not all students learn in quite the same way. As a future educator, it is important to understand this and to do the best I can to use a full range of instruction methods to increase instructional effectiveness. Two ways in which I can accomplish this is by using a variety of grouping structures and by using an assortment of models. The lesson that I observed in my 5th grade classroom on long division with remainders productively demonstrated many of the categories that would classify an effective lesson.

Source:

Van de Walle, John A., Karp, Karen S., and Bay-Williams, Jennifer M. Elementary and Middle School Mathematics, Teaching Developmentally. Seventh Edition. Pearson Education, Inc. 2010.

Full Text  Tag

### Recent Entries

What Are Minerals? Unit Lesson Plans
Mineral Handout.docx@font-face { font-family: "Courier New"; }@font-face { font-family: "Wingdings"; }@font-face { font-family: "Cambria"; }@font-face { font-family: "Trebuchet MS"; }@font-face…
K-6 Teaching Reflection
@font-face { font-family: "Cambria"; }@font-face { font-family: "Big Caslon"; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;…
Unit Scholarly Knowledge/Resource Review
@font-face { font-family: "Cambria"; }@font-face { font-family: "Big Caslon"; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;…

### Program Outcomes

TEPF Portfolio
The Portfolio uses evidence to showcase the overall capabilities and development of the teacher.
Domain A: Planning And Preparing For Student Learning
The Penn State teacher plans instruction and assessments based upon robust knowledge of subject matter, students and their learning and development, curriculum goals and standards, and the community.
Domain B: Teaching
The Penn State teacher actively encourages students' development and learning by creating a positive classroom learning environment, appropriately using a variety of instructional and assessment strategies and resources, including instructional technologies.
Domain C: Analyzing Student Learning & Inquiring into Teaching
The Penn State teacher continually and systematically inquires into the quality of their teaching and the conditions of schooling in order to enhance student learning and development.
Domain D: Fulfilling Professional Responsibilities
The Penn State teacher exhibits the highest standards of professionalism in all that he/she does.