EDUC530 IPPR Paper
Based on the results from the three IPPR pre-tests and post-tests, students improved significantly following the presentation of my lesson and activities. It appeared that the students benefited a great deal from the manipulative tools that I incorporated into my lessons. These tools allowed students to physically see and touch the concepts that they were being taught.
My first IPPR involved a lesson on place value for which I used a place mat and Cuisenaire rods as the manipulative tools. Students were granted the ability to use these tools to assist them on their pre-tests. I passed out the short quizzes to each student and informed them that the purpose of the quiz was to show me what they already know. I explained to them that the quizzes would not be graded and that they should do the best they can. The students had utilized similar manipulative tools for a place value unit that took place earlier in the school year. They effectively utilized the tools to help them solve the problems on the quiz. Some of the students demonstrated overconfidence, as they rushed to finish the quiz. These students made mistakes that could have been avoided if they did not rush. Since students had not seen this topic for a few months, the lesson helped to remind them of key concepts and strategies that would help improve their pretest grades.
Following the lesson, I administered the posttest, which was very similar in format to the pretest. Based on the results of the posttests, it was evident that the activities and manipulative tools in my lesson helped to improve students’ grades, as all students met the objective. According to the Problem Solving Evaluation Table, I would rate all of the students that I worked with as “average” or “above average.” All of the students grasped the concept, however, some of them took longer to make generalizations. For future math instruction for the students that I taught, I would