Copy everything and paste into your Word document.
Whole Class:
My instructional approach was effective in supporting the whole class to achieve the content learning objective of using the crossing-off strategy to find "how many are left." The sample student work shows that students were able to draw or identify objects, cross off the specified number, and count what remained. The progression from the Five Little Monkeys song to the whiteboard practice to the independent problem set provided multiple opportunities for students to engage with the concept through different modalities—kinesthetic (finger counting), visual (whiteboard drawings), and independent practice (problem set). Most students demonstrated the crossing-off strategy correctly across 3 out of 4 problems, meeting the criteria for success outlined in the lesson plan.
Focus Student 2:
FS2's work (IMG_0760) demonstrates that the planned accommodations supported his access to the content. He successfully used the crossing-off strategy on all four problems, with evidence of correct answers on problems 1-3 (writing "2," "3," and "2" respectively). His crossing-off marks show engagement with the strategy, though he sometimes circled groups rather than using individual X marks. This variation suggests he understood the concept of "taking away" but may benefit from additional modeling on the specific crossing-off technique. The use of visual supports and extended wait time, as planned in the lesson, allowed FS2 to participate without requiring verbal responses. His ability to complete the problem set independently—even with some variation in technique—shows progress toward the IEP goal of task initiation.
Focus Student 3:
FS3's work (IMG_0752) shows strong mastery of the learning objective. She correctly completed all four problems (answers: 2, 3, 2, 1) and demonstrated neat, deliberate crossing-off marks throughout. Her careful work reflects her asset of enjoying coloring and taking time with drawings. The strategy of telling FS3 that crossing off "any" of the items was correct—not a specific one—appeared effective, as she confidently marked items without hesitation or erasing. Her independent completion of the problem set without copying suggests that the privacy folder and positive reinforcement for independent attempts helped address her learning need of becoming upset when making errors.
Planning with students' assets and needs in mind directly impacted their ability to access and engage with the lesson content. For FS2, knowing that he is a visual learner who engages with hands-on manipulatives informed my decision to provide car manipulatives during the application problem and to use exaggerated hand motions during Happy Counting. His completed problem set (IMG_0760) shows that he was able to transfer the physical "take away" concept to the crossing-off strategy on paper—evidence that the concrete-to-representational progression supported his learning. Additionally, knowing his IEP goal around task initiation, I provided a visual schedule previewing the lesson steps, which may have contributed to his willingness to attempt all four problems independently.
For FS3, planning with her bilingual asset in mind allowed me to pre-teach vocabulary in Spanish ("quitar," "quedan," "tachar") before the lesson. Her perfect accuracy on the problem set (IMG_0752) suggests she understood the mathematical concept, and removing the language barrier allowed her to demonstrate that understanding. Planning for her learning need—fear of making mistakes—by emphasizing that "any" circle could be crossed off and offering stickers for independent attempts (right or wrong) appeared effective. Her neat, confident crossing-off marks show no evidence of erasing or second-guessing, which contrasts with her typical pattern of copying neighbors when unsure.
Same: I would continue using the Five Little Monkeys song as an entry point because it provided a memorable, kinesthetic connection to the "take away" concept that students could reference throughout the lesson. I would also maintain the accommodation of allowing FS3 to respond in Spanish during partner discussions, as her accurate work suggests comprehension was not the barrier—language production was. The use of manipulatives for FS2 before transitioning to drawings was effective and aligned with the concrete-representational-abstract (CRA) sequence recommended in math instruction for students with learning differences.
Differently: Based on FS2's work showing circling rather than individual X marks, I would provide more explicit modeling of the crossing-off technique specifically—demonstrating one X per item rather than circling groups. As the IRIS Center module on Accommodations states, "Before the team can select an accommodation to help a student meet his learning goals, however, they must first identify the barrier affecting his academic performance" (IRIS Center, Accommodations: Instructional and Testing Supports for Students with Disabilities). For FS2, I initially identified the barrier as needing visual and hands-on supports, but his work suggests an additional barrier: understanding the specific convention of crossing off versus circling. As noted in the peer discussion (Part F), FS2 would also benefit from more 1-to-1 instruction to build trust and ensure understanding. For FS3, while her work was accurate, I noticed during the lesson that she still looked around before starting problems. Next time, I would seat her at the teacher table from the beginning of independent practice rather than partway through, to provide immediate reassurance and prevent the habit of checking neighbors' work.
Tomorrow/Next Week: I would like to extend this lesson by having students create their own subtraction stories using the crossing-off strategy. This connects to the asset-based approach discussed in the course glossary, which emphasizes that "students are valued for what they bring to the classroom." By allowing students to choose their own objects for subtraction stories (FS2 might choose cars, FS3 might choose items she can draw carefully), I can leverage their interests while promoting deeper understanding. I would also implement the peer discussion suggestion (Part F) of scheduling dedicated 1-to-1 time with FS2 and collaborating with his paraprofessional and ISE team members to reinforce the crossing-off strategy in smaller settings. According to the IRIS Center, teachers should "monitor the student's progress regularly because needs can change over time" (IRIS Center, Accommodations: Instructional and Testing Supports for Students with Disabilities). This ongoing monitoring will help me determine if the current accommodations are sufficient or if adjustments are needed.
Next Year: This experience has shown me the importance of understanding each student's IEP goals and assets before planning instruction—not just for compliance, but because it genuinely changes how effectively I can teach. The IRIS Center notes that "teachers can bundle accommodations within the same category or from different categories to meet a student's needs" and recommends "starting with one accommodation will allow the teacher to evaluate its effectiveness and determine whether it is practical for use in the classroom before implementing a second." Next year, I want to apply this principle by introducing accommodations more systematically—starting with one, evaluating its impact, then layering additional supports as needed rather than implementing everything at once. I also recognize the boundaries of my own understanding—I was initially unsure how to support a nonverbal student in math, but the Ed Specialist Consultation taught me that FS2 can demonstrate understanding through pointing, gestures, and his communication board. This assignment pushed me to move beyond assumptions about what students "can't do" and instead focus on creating multiple pathways for them to show what they know.