Vonnahme Master’s Portfolio 1

Mathematics

Samantha Vonnahme

ED 698 Master’s Portfolio Spring 2024

University of Alaska Southeast

Vonnahme Master’s Portfolio 2

At the time I was in elementary school, math was taught in a straightforward manner. I

knew that every problem had one answer and the route to get that answer was through the

memorization of times tables, flash cards, and formulas. The faster I was, the better. While I

dimly recall hundred’s blocks, tens sticks, and one cubes, most of my recollection involves

standing up as a class to skip count, memorizing dots on a number to recall quantity, and timed

addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division quizzes.

The teaching methods that are highlighted in the case study involving a kindergarten

class learning how to use hundred’s charts and tens frames are distinctly different than those I

experienced as a child. Many now know this new way of learning as “new math”, and numerous

adults are confounded at a first glance of math work from modern classrooms. I used to agree

with the general outcry, “How can they change math?” My experience with one way of knowing

something caused me to deeply question the methods I witnessed in the classroom I observed

for the case study. It was not apparent why it was necessary for children to talk about what

they were seeing or what they were thinking. I wondered at the practicality of using various

tools to solve a single problem. It seemed like it took too much time and the responses from

the class were predictable and boring.

Even in the midst of my observations and then in my subsequent experience as a

teacher, my perspective shifted and I began to appreciate the intention to provide students

with different strategies to approach mathematical questions. I also learned that this approach

was backed by research in brain science and classroom studies. Bay-Williams & Kling (2019) cite

one study showing strategy groups of students outperform peers who are not learning strategy

and another that showed strategy practice significantly improves retention. They also claim that
Vonnahme Master’s Portfolio 3

learning several strategies must be a significant part of math instruction from the start. Fisher

et al. (2018) write about the plasticity of our brains and how practicing different approaches

helps establish stamina. In kindergarten and 1st grade, the grades I teach now, this foundation is

vital to the later success of a greater number of students in math. Number sense and

foundational facts are two areas in kindergarten and 1st grade where the practice of providing

different strategies and ways of thinking cannot be stressed enough. The case study shows a

small window into the way these two tactics play out in a real classroom and help remind me of

methods I have since neglected.

I currently follow the units and lessons outlined and prepared in the iReady® math

curriculum provided by my district. iReady® aligns their lesson content with Alaska standards

and the kindergarten and 1st grade sequence is similar, yet with different scopes. Both grades

involve adding and subtracting, place value, shapes, time, money, and patterns. In this paper I

will focus on the number sense developed in kindergarten through the use of number names

and counting and counting to tell the number of objects, and the foundational facts explored

and developed in 1st grade. These foundational facts are adding and subtracting one and two,

doubles up to 20, and making ten. The case study involves an aspect of number sense by using

hundred’s charts and tens frames as tools for practice in counting. Hundred’s charts and tens

frames are also helpful tools for visualizing what one more and one less, or two more and two

less, are in 1st grade. Kindergarten is not exempt from these foundational facts, they only come

later in their learning for the year.

In a split class like I have this year, math instruction is usually done in small groups so

that I can teach specific grade-level content. This year I have the class split into four groups with
Vonnahme Master’s Portfolio 4

two for each grade and those two organized according to skill and ability. At the end of center

rotations, I end up teaching the same two lessons twice. I tend to choose small group

instruction over whole-group lessons because it is easier to assess understanding and engage a

greater number of students, something I noticed was difficult in my observations from the case

study. At that time, the classroom was experiencing many behavioral disruptions, and though I

was able to focus on positive learning displayed by many of the students, I did note that there

were those who seemed to be displaying minimal growth, or none at all. In contrast, I can

assess a number of mathematical standards in smaller groups, such as those that deal with

being able to explain why a problem should be completed in a certain way or making sense of

problems through appropriate tools and dependable reasoning for using a specific strategy.

Assessment is such an important part of math instruction that I will discuss its

implementation before touching on the ways that we work on number sense and foundational

facts. After all, instruction and assessment are not separate from one another, as assessment,

and being aware of each student’s level of understanding, is often what informs where

instruction should go next. Additionally, math is not about content coverage. It is of utmost

important that students master and can think flexibly about numbers and foundational facts

before they are able to move onto other higher-level lessons.

As our district pushes for greater growth and skill in literacy, it has been a difficult year

for me in terms of tracking the results I acquire from student math assessment. In the case

study, I found it easier to observe and record my findings when I was not the one teaching the

lesson. Now, I have not yet found a system that allows me to record notes and standard growth

or mastery in the busyness of each day. It may just be that I need to be more intentional about
Vonnahme Master’s Portfolio 5

blocking out time in which to accomplish this, but I do know it is not efficient to gather all the

data via indirect observation and then try to keep track of each individual solely relying on my

memory. Bay-Williams & Kling (2019) write that various assessments will do better to provide

accurate and specific data.

My goal is to utilize a clipboard and sheet method, with student names and the standard

or strategy in question clearly written, for future assessment. Using this tool I can gather data in

various ways, as supported by claims from Fisher et al.(2018) and Wiggins & McTighe (2011)

that people learn through a range of different means. These means could be iReady paper

quizzes, one-on-one checkups, observing math game play, student sharing of work, and whole

group think-alouds. I cannot recall what the classroom teacher did to assess the

kindergarteners from the case study, but I think it would prove beneficial to interview other

teachers about the recording methods they have found to work.

To begin counting and cardinality in kindergarten, I use many different manipulatives

because of the propensity for this age to engage in hands-on experience, as noted by Wood

(2017). These hands-on tools are so significant that in the first few weeks of school we do

several explorations of math tools, such as counters and unifix cubes, to teach expectations,

care routines, and give students handling practice. Other manipulatives we use are pattern

blocks, counting frogs, number lines, five-frames, and 10’s frames. I notice that as the year

progresses, students begin to recognize smaller numbers without having to count the objects

one at a time; they are developing number sense.

One method I do not use that I would like to improve on is the routine of quick look.

This is when a teacher allows the students to see a number of objects on a card or slide, often
Vonnahme Master’s Portfolio 6

represented as a dice or tens frame, and shows it to the students for a brief moment before

removing it from their sight. Students are then asked how many dots they saw and sometimes

what those dots looked like. In the habit of this practice, students begin to recognize quantity

without counting by ones. They may also see that objects do not have to be arranged in a

certain way to equal the same number. I also lack in this practice using tens frames as a tool.

My class knows how to fill the tens frame up “correctly”, but we have not used this tool to

show other ways of showing numbers—a skill that can later help when learning about number

partners for ten.

When transitioning from number sense to knowledge of addition and subtraction, both

levels benefit from being given the opportunity to share thinking, whether that is sharing with

the teacher, a partner, or the whole group. Wiggins & McTighe (2011) write that students are

not showing true fluency unless they can make connections among facts, explain things in their

own words, and apply their learning to new situations. The iReady® curriculum incorporates

this very well through their lessons, and the students in the case study often expressed their

thoughts in each lesson, but I do not do very well in its implementation. In our small groups I

will ask the students how they know whether or not something is true, or how they got a

particular answer, but I do not spend enough time in this type of beneficial discussion. As

students speak, they engage in standards three and six—constructing viable arguments and

critiquing the reasoning of others and attending to precision. I think we would do well to have

more time during the week to participate in whole group thinking and sharing that would aid in

the acquisition of at least these two standards.

Vonnahme Master’s Portfolio 7

The foundational facts learned in kindergarten and 1st grade influence student ability to

think flexibly about other problems they encounter. Bay-Williams & Kling (2019) write that they

must have sufficient time and experience before moving on. My kindergarten students are only

beginning to learn about number partners for ten, but the 1st grade students have been

swimming through number partners for ten, doubles, and plus or minus one and two for

months. It has been a struggle to spend the necessary amount of time to reach automaticity or

fluency with these foundational facts, and for that reason, we have yet to move on. Bay-

Williams & Kling (2019) agree that re-sequencing of a math curriculum may be needed in cases

like mine. Strategies like near doubles, counting on, how far apart, relationships between

addition and subtraction will be out of their reach until they grasp foundational facts. That is

not to say that every single one of the 1st grade students require intervention, only that the

majority of them do.

One more practice that benefits number sense and foundational fact learning is to

couch questions and problems in a relatable context. Bay-Williams & Kling (2019) write about

research that suggests beginning with the concrete and moving to the abstract is actually more

effective. Many of my 1st grade students will often make the mistake of looking at the numbers

in an equation and disregard context clues to produce an incorrect answer—a sign that transfer

is not occurring, according to Wiggins & McTighe (2011). By providing story problems early on, I

hope to get students to notice more of the details and to use prior knowledge to assist the

transition from concrete problems, like how many students in the class love hotdogs, to an

abstract equation looking for a missing addend. Fisher et al. (2018) make it clear that the
Vonnahme Master’s Portfolio 8

knowledge students already possess will be foundational to new learning. Additionally, work at

school must connect to their current lives in order to provide purpose.

New ways of doing math are based on old knowledge of children: each one is different

and they learn in different ways. There are still elements of rote memorization in the way I

teach math, but rather than taking a central position, this approach is mixed with unique ways

of seeing the same problem and learning from others the ways in which it can be solved.
Vonnahme Master’s Portfolio 9

References

Bay-Williams, J., & Kling, G. (2019). Math fact fluency: 60+ games and assessment tools to

support learning and retention. ASCD & National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Fisher, D., Frey, N., Quaglia, R.J., Smith, D., Lande, L. (2018). Engagement by design. Corwin.

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2011). The understanding by design guide to creating high-quality

units. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Wood, C. (2017). Yardsticks: Child and adolescent development ages 4-14. Center for

Responsive Schools, Inc.