UNIT

REFLECTION
Anna Perrin

This fall, I collaborated with a fellow intern to develop an Inverse Variation unit plan for eighth
grade Algebra students using the Connected Mathematics Project book Thinking with
Mathematical Models. This spring, I worked independently to create a Linear Equations and
Graphs unit plan for seventh grade Algebra students using the CME Project book Algebra 1.
Both of these unit plans were created using backwards design, a method of designing
educational units by setting goals (specifically, what skills and understandings are expected of
students in the unit) before choosing instructional methods and forms of assessment.

In planning both units, I found that the process of mapping the mathematical content helped
me to become more cognizant of the connections between the topics within a unit and the big
ideas that surround them. In both of my units, one of the most interesting aspects of the unit
planning process was examining the directionality of these connections. More specifically, it
helped me to understand how the key ideas, skills, and understandings were intertwined and
supported each other. Rather than seeing linear and inverse variation as isolated topics, I
identified big ideas that run parallel through each, which helped me to plan lessons to solidify
these connections for students. Additionally, the mapping and researching process supported
my preparation for using the backwards design method by focusing my attentions on the key
ideas throughout the unit as a whole.

The backwards design method that I used in creating these unit plans has three stages. First,
the educator identifies the desired results, including skills and understandings, with a focus on
the big ideas of the unit. Next, the educator decides what will qualify as acceptable evidence

UNIT REFLECTION

Anna Perrin
on the culminating assessment and how that assessment will be formatted. Finally, the
educator designs tasks that will help students to achieve the desired results, considering
teaching methods and lesson sequence. My use of backwards design throughout this year has
increasingly shown me the effectiveness of this method in ensuring that my teaching of the
content is focused and connected to the learning goals and standards.

With this method, I saw the importance of long-term planning as an educator. Rather than
planning lessons day by day as I have seen in the past, where the teachers focus seems to be
on individual lessons, the backwards design method orients the teacher toward the big picture
first, then focusing attention on the lesson tasks needed to create that picture. One concern I
had with using the backwards design method was misidentifying the key understandings of the
unit, which would misguide the entire process of creating the unit. In my fall unit plan, this
concern manifested itself in trying to cover all student learning in few goals. My fall unit had
four primary learning goals:
1. Students will be able to describe the relationship between the two variables that have
an inverse relationship.
2. Students will be able to describe patterns of change seen in tables or graphs and explain
how they relate to other representations of data (table, graph or equation).
3. Students will be able to express an inverse relationship as an equation and explain the
structure of the expression.
4. Students will be able to explain the differences between linear and inverse
relationships.

UNIT REFLECTION

Anna Perrin

My spring unit also had four primary learning goals:
1. Students will be able to write linear equations (using a point-tester).
2. Students will be able to sketch graphs of linear equations.
3. Students will be able to determine the slope of a line from its equation.
4. Students will be able to determine if two lines intersect.

One observable difference between by fall and spring unit goals is that my spring goals are
more concise. In reflecting on my goals, I noticed that this is in part because the spring goals
were skill-based, while the fall goals focused primarily on the conceptual understandings. In
writing my spring goals, my aim was to increase clarity particularly for the students, but I also
see now that this meant that my goals (as written) did not fully capture the understandings that
I expected of students and held as goals in my own mind. These expectations were captured
elsewhere in my unit plan, within the Common Core Standards and Standards for Mathematical
Practice relevant to the material, such as Interpret expressions that represent a quantity in
terms of its context. In writing the unit plan, I approached the unit goals as a reference for
students to track their achievement of the skills, and the Common Core State Standards as a
means for making the important mathematical ideas visible to teachers. This decision was made
in order to improve clarity for students; I found that my seventh graders (spring unit) were
better able to communicate their own progress toward the listed goals than my eighth graders
in the fall.

UNIT REFLECTION
Anna Perrin

I found that my spring goals were easier to formally assess than my fall goals. That said,
although the written spring goals that were tested on the culminating assessment were focused
on skills, students were also formatively assessed on understandings throughout the unit. In my
spring unit, I had a better understanding that it is difficult, if not impossible, to fully assess
students on all of the understandings and skills expected of them within a single class period
while still providing individual students with the support they need. This led me to better
incorporate the use of formative assessment throughout the unit. In both units, I planned
multiple opportunities for students to demonstrate competence with different levels of
understanding.

In the fall unit plan, these were addressed generally, but not specifically, with the goal of
allowing flexibility to modify these formative assessments in response to student thinking
during each specific lesson. For example, in one lesson I found that students were struggling to
articulate the relationship between bridge length and breaking weight in connection to the
multiple representations that can be used to represent this relationship. In response, I gave
students an exit slip that removed the context of the problem, asking students to describe how
they could tell that a given graph, table, and equation all represented the same relationship.
This allowed me the opportunity to diagnose where the students were experiencing confusion
within the lesson. In my spring unit plan, I recognized that this flexibility was important, but
that I would feel better prepared by planning formative assessment opportunities in advance,
while retaining the ability to alter these in response to observed student progress.

UNIT REFLECTION
Anna Perrin

As I have grown in my skills of planning formative assessment opportunities, I have also grown
in my ability to design these assessments to better elicit evidence of learning. One major way in
which this has occurred is that I have worked to isolate student thinking about different
concepts within separate sections of a problem. This has better enabled me to identify levels of
student understanding on each topic, and reducing the amount of interpretation required. In
this way, I have a clearer window into student thought processes throughout the course of
enacting my unit plans. This has given me the opportunity to better prepare students for the
skills and understandings expected in the culminating assessment. With the backwards design
method of unit planning, at this point in the unit I have already determined what these skills
and understandings are, so with my analysis of student thinking I can better adapt my
upcoming lessons to support student learning outcomes.

The most important factor in being able to successfully adapt my lessons has been to have
already developed a coherent sequence of lessons that scaffold student learning toward
reaching the Common Core Standards of understanding. In both unit plans, this sequence was
guided firmly by the sequence in the textbooks, but paced and adapted in response to
perceived student needs. One factor in this was my learning in creating interesting and
engaging math lessons that also support my planned unit scaffolding. This is a skill which I have
developed over the course of the year, particularly by working to make lessons more hands-on
and incorporating accessible and relevant contexts. More recently, I have been learning to
break away from the textbook sequence and presentation mode on occasions when I find the
textbook lacking in some way. Most commonly, I have found that the CME textbook does not

UNIT REFLECTION
Anna Perrin

consistently scaffold ideas, nor does the suggested pacing allow time to do so effectively. With
the backwards design method of planning, my focus is on designing lessons and their sequence
in order to most productively meet the units goals; this focus has been influential in my
understanding of lesson sequencing and construction. One particular example when I found this
to be effective was in the planning of my technology lesson in the spring, using the online
calculator Desmos. I suspected in my unit planning that my students would need additional
support in identifying the connections between equations and their graphs, a skill necessary to
reach all four unit goals. The integration of technology seemed to encourage students to
actively engage in the material, while also making connections tangible, which is often difficult
to do using traditional learning methods. Had I not been focused on the unit goals when
designing my lesson sequence, I may not how been able to implement this lesson to such
success.