1 / 7

Agenda – Coaches Sessions

Develop sample student work commentaries to support teachers' understanding of quality argumentation criteria for the Leap Frog problem. Generate exemplary argumentation responses and identify ways to implement this tool with teachers.

myrtice
Download Presentation

Agenda – Coaches Sessions

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Agenda – Coaches Sessions • Goal: To develop sample student work commentaries to support teachers’ understanding of quality argumentation criteria • Steps: • Reviewing a prototype based on the Leap Frog problem and conversation • Writing exemplary argumentation responses • Generating argumentation commentaries with student work • Identifying ways to use this with your teachers, and next steps to further develop the tool

  2. Leap Frog Commentaries on Student Work • Review the commentaries on student arguments w/ the Leap Frog problem • Do these reflect your group thinking from our coaches meeting? Working Descriptions for our Categories. • High Quality: On the whole, this fully demonstrates that the claim is true or false. The claim is clearly stated. Sufficient evidence and warrants are provided. Precision is adequate. • Adequate: Most elements of quality mathematical arguments are present, but some might be lacking or insufficient. • Low Quality: Argument overall does not provide justification for the claim. Missing many elements of quality mathematical argument. Precision may be lacking.

  3. Problems • Group 1: Who ate more? 1. A chocolate bar is made up of 12 equal pieces. Tom ate ¾ of a chocolate bar. Sarah ate 2/3 of the same kind of chocolate bar. 2. Draw a representation of both chocolate bars to show how much Tom and Sarah ate. 3. Tom said that he ate more chocolate than Sarah. Is he correct? Explain your thinking? • Group 2: Laura says that ¼ of the rectangle is shaded. Do you think she is correct? Defend your answer.

  4. Sharing Commentaries • Do the commentaries clearly identify the strengths and weaknesses of the student argument? • Do the commentaries align with the criteria for quality mathematical argumentation?

  5. Sharing Commentaries Group 1: Group 2:

  6. Creating Commentaries on Student work/Argumentation • With your group, read over the student work samples. • Sort them into 3 categories: • High: Strong example. On the whole, this fully demonstrates that the claim is true or false. The claim is clearly stated. Sufficient evidence and warrants are provided. Precision is adequate. • Adequate: Most elements of quality mathematical argument are present, but some might be lacking or insufficient. • Low: Not strong example. Argument overall does not provide justification for the claim. Missing many elements of quality mathematical argument. • Select one or two samples from each category. Write up commentary.

  7. Using this Tool with Teachers • In what ways might this be a useful tool? (Now, or some future version of it?) • How might you use this tool with your teachers? • What do you need to do to support these uses?

More Related