Nelson

Brock- ETEC 5243

ID Integration Paper Relationships in Triangles Recap of Student ID Model The goal of the 5C Step ID Model is to create a learning environment in which the learner will have optimum opportunity to increase their knowledge and/or learn a new procedure. This model was originally based on cognitive learning theory. While using this ID Model, I realized that it also contained some constructivist learning theory approaches. Another goal of this model was to create a system to evaluate or critique the learning that is taking place with the learner as well as the design process itself.

The 5C Step ID Model

CRITIQUE Learners Deliver Instruction Develop delivery mode Develop media Community of Learners Individual Learners Content

Facilitator(s)

Goals, Objectives, Aims Learner characteristics Learner environment Measuring progress

ID Process

Scope and Sequence

Summary of Steps The first main step is Consider. This step includes establishing goals and objectives for the instructional unit. Learner characteristics and environment are analyzed. Consideration is given to how to measure progress of the learner throughout the instructional unit.

Nelson Brock- ETEC 5243

Conceive step includes creating ideas of delivery and how the learners will be organized in the learning process. Which content to include in the unit will be decided during this step. How much of the content (scope) and when it will be presented (sequence) will be determined at this time. The delivery mode will be built during the Construct step. Any media and instruction will be assembled during this step. Also, formative and summative evaluations will be constructed or accessed at this time. During the Cultivate step instruction is delivered and individual learners are monitored as to what is being learned. A community of learners can be assembled at this time to optimize learning opportunities. Learners are assessed during the Critique stage as well as during the Cultivate stage. Also, during the Critique stage, the facilitators, content, and the ID Process itself are also evaluated as to their effectiveness to the learning process. This would include a summative evaluation of the learners.

Objectives of the Instructional Unit The objectives of the instructional unit are: Construct perpendicular bisectors, angle bisectors, medians, and altitudes of triangles. Define points of concurrency related to triangles. Define and identify the type of lines (segment) that intersect at a point of concurrency. Determine if certain points of concurrency can occur inside or outside a triangle.

Nelson Brock- ETEC 5243

Apply facts about points of concurrency and lines of concurrency in determining certain measurements of triangles.

Target Audience for Instructional Unit The target audience of learners for this instructional unit is ninth grade pre-AP geometry students. Other possible target audiences may include any geometry student from ninth grade and up. I will present this unit to my second year students. Last year I taught all of these students in pre-AP Algebra 1. These students are highly functional and are quick to learn new concepts. I do have to slow these students down a bit so they will communicate their thinking in an appropriate and concise way. Sometimes they may want to give an answer, but I want them to give me the process that produced that answer.

Integration of the ID Model to Instructional Unit Consider Stage: In the Consider stage I established the goals and objectives of the unit. Most of the objectives are dictated by the state, but I do have some freedom to extend my instruction to deeper understanding of the concepts. I believe the deeper a student is guided into the learning and application of a concept; then that student should achieve a better understanding of that concept. I considered my audience and looked back at previous attempts to teach the same concepts. The concept of four different sets of concurrent lines intersecting at four different points provides a challenge. In years past I rushed through this section and believe that sufficient understanding was not achieved.

Nelson Brock- ETEC 5243

Guiding students through activities that allows them to compartmentalize the various terms and definitions according to the attributes would be required. Conceiving Stage: In conceiving instruction for this unit I used some new approaches. During this past year I have implemented a 1:1 ratio of a laptop computer to each student in my classroom. It was time to incorporate more interactivity in my lessons. The current students are trained to use the computer in my classroom and are familiar with the use of Geometers Sketchpad. Students can also create sketch files and upload them to their Gaggle digital locker for access from other remote locations from the classroom. The constructivist theory is reflected in the use of Geometers Sketchpad in that students use their prior knowledge to construct a personally meaningful understanding of new content that is the focus of learning (Brown and Green, 2006, p.51). I did conceive what the body of learners would look like. In my classes, I prefer whole group discussion as well as individual self-pace activities. Providing ample time for each can be a challenge. With this unit I tried to balance these types of learning situations by providing whole group discussion as they follow the teacher in creating dynamic sketches and by providing individual assignments with Quizlet.com and Mr. Brocks Geometry Web Pages. The content used in this instruction was a mixture of old and new material. I have taught this unit for a number of years and have created or acquired various pieces of instruction pertaining to this unit. I chose to focus on the vocabulary and construction parts of the unit. I wanted the students to have a solid understanding about the parts of the triangle that they would be working with to solve real world problems.

Nelson Brock- ETEC 5243

Unfortunately, I assumed that since I had taught these students algebra skills last year, they would be able to apply that old knowledge to these new geometric concepts. I did not put much emphasis on the algebraic thinking of the concepts in teaching this unit. I would regret that omission after facilitating this unit. I used the opportunity to design web pages from my ETEC 5213 graduate class to facilitate the creation of instructional web pages to incorporate into my instructional unit. I titled these web pages Mr. Brocks Geometry Pages. I used Geometers Sketchpad software to create dynamic graphics that could be added to the web pages. This allowed the student to actively determine the solutions for some of the questions posed during instruction. Building the instruction was one of my obstacles, especially in managing the scope of the unit. I did not want to use very many days to focus on this unit, but I wanted to give students plenty of time to put to practice what they were learning. I focused on the types of four segments used in triangles and their points of concurrency. I sequenced the unit using three lessons. The first lesson introduced the students to the vocabulary and definitions of the lines they would use. The second lesson would build on the first lesson by defining the points of concurrency of the lines they learned about in lesson one. The third lesson would give students an opportunity to apply the concepts from the first two lessons in real world situations. To measure progress I implemented an online flashcard application, Quizlet.com, to help determine students mastery of the terms in this unit. To help make this more enjoyable and help with their cognitive learning, Quizlet provides learning games and tests to encourage mastery.

Nelson Brock- ETEC 5243

I would deliver this instructional unit to my students after covering a unit on comparing sides and angles of triangles. I took the opportunity to test the web pages on a couple of students before Thanksgiving break. I observed them as they navigated through the pages. They told me that the web pages provided them with ample information to study the points of concurrency. I would put them to the test later. Construct Stage: The delivery mode that I chose for this lesson was a mixture of lecture, self-paced study using web pages, and individual construction activity. The media that I chose was based on need of having an instructional component that could be used by a number of different facilitators, whether they teach geometry or not. The online tutorial videos would provide instruction for the manual constructions activity in lesson two. I also used material that I had created earlier, but needed refining. These were used in the third lesson. The media for the first two lessons were developed this semester using materials created for ETEC 5213, Introduction to Educational Media. In constructing the formative assessments, I chose to create a worksheet for the students to construct the four types of lines that relate in triangles. I placed four triangles on a Word document. The Geometers Sketchpad files that would be created by the students would serve as an assessment piece, as well as the online quiz generated by Quizlet.com. A unit test that I have constructed in the past would serve as a summative evaluation. This assessment uses questions available in materials from the textbook used in this course. I did modify some of the questions by cutting and pasting from various forms of the test.

Nelson Brock- ETEC 5243 Cultivate Stage:

With the instruction constructed it was time to deliver. As I stated earlier, this unit was taught immediately after another unit on comparing sides and angles of triangles. I combined the two units for the summative assessment. I took three days to teach the three lessons contained in this unit. I also allowed for an extra day of review before giving the assessment. I did not get an opportunity to work and assess individual learners on a one to one basis except when helping a few at lunch during my planning period. Time is a commodity in my classroom. Many students do work together when preparing for assessments. I encourage students to reach beyond the teacher in receiving instruction. I have them to seek out each other, their parents, and the Internet when they have questions or concerns. I also encourage students to email or call me at home if they have a question. Critique Stage: Besides evaluating the learners during the cultivate stage with formative assessments, I gave a summative assessment over this unit and the one taught before it. The scores from this assessment encouraged me. I had retained scores from the previous year of a set of geometry classes with demographic data that paralleled the three classes that I assessed this year. The following is a comparison of those unit test scores using the same assessment: _______2009_______________ Period 1 Period 4 Period 7 5 8 4 8 6 9 4 7 4 2 3 2 3 21 21 23 _________2010_________________ Period 1 Period 4 Period 7 A 9 13 17 39 B 6 7 5 18 C 4 1 5 D 1 1 F 20 20 23 63

A B C D F

17 23 15 5 5 65

Nelson Brock- ETEC 5243

I was pleased with the increase in students scores on this unit from the previous year. I could also sense that students had a better understanding of the content when I would speak with them one on one. There was an area that I did see a deficiency. I had not spent very much time on the algebraic thinking and representation of the algebraic relationships during this unit. My focus had been on identification and comparisons. I guess I had hoped that students would remember their algebra skills from last year. I could tell they were struggling with the algebraic equations on problems 10 and 11 on the unit assessment. These problems pertained to writing equations for medians, perpendicular bisectors, and altitudes. As far as correctly identifying the attributes and applying their knowledge about those relationships to the triangles the students were right on target. I had the opportunity before this paper was due to give and receive the results of the quarterly geometry assessment given by my school district. The students mastery of the objectives set forth in the Relationships in Triangles unit was reflected in the report for the district assessment. In the report shown below the percentages of correct responses that are shown in black and green represent satisfactory to exceptional results. The scores in red are questions that students did not score satisfactory. Most of the questions that had red score results are from material that we have not covered at the time of the assessment. The questions highlighted pertain to the Arkansas Geometry Frameworks Standard T.2.G.3 - Identify and use the special segments of triangles (altitude, median, angle bisector, perpendicular bisector, and midsegment) to solve problems. This standard was the basis for this instructional unit. Question #13 (highlighted in

Nelson Brock- ETEC 5243

pink) pertained to midsegments. I did not include midsegments in this unit. It is being covered in a current unit of Parallel Lines and Proportional Parts. That is the reason the students did not score as well on that question. The lower scores on question #4 reflect my earlier observation from the unit assessment of a need to review algebraic thinking and representation. This assessment is set on a higher level of blooms taxonomy than my unit test.

As the facilitator of this unit I am responsible for the implementation of the instruction. By following the instructional plan and observing the results of the students I can verify the effectiveness of my instruction. I was pleased with the outcome of the

Nelson Brock- ETEC 5243

instruction using the new unit that was constructed. Although, there is room for improvement as pointed out in the previous paragraph. Another lesson will need to be added to address the algebraic representation of the relationships in triangles. The previous sentence would be a great example of critiquing content (the next to last step in the 5C Step Model). Critiquing the instructional model itself and the process it represents is the last step in the 5C Step Model. I would say that this journey of developing an instructional model and integrating it into developing an instructional unit has definitely been a process. I had used the basis of the ADDIE Model to create my own take of designing instruction. What I named it and how many steps I used really are not the most important aspects of the model. What is important is whether I was effective in creating and implementing instruction that allowed the learner to play an active role in their own learning. I believe that I did have success in creating a learning environment for the student to participate. I realize that I am the gateway of content. I need to be more conscientious of the many facets of the objectives that I am trying to facilitate. The lack of focus on algebraic representation is a prime example of leaving out content that is important to the learner. I hope to be able to use this instructional model in the future. In fact, I hope to create and refine many instructional models. I will probably use more of a constructivist approach to future instructional designs. I tend to gravitate to that learning theory most of the time. With the 5C ID Model I was trying to focus just on the cognitive theory. I was not successful in just staying with that theory. A good ID model should contain a mixture of all three (Behaviorist, Cognitive, and Constructivist).

10

Nelson Brock- ETEC 5243

References Brown, A., & Green, T. D. (2006). The essentials of instructional design: Connecting fundamental principles with process and practice. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc. Brock, N. (2010). Mr. Brocks geometry pages. Retrieved from http://www.comp.uark.edu/~nbb002/geompages.html

11