As previously mentioned, prompt 1 was conducted after the mid-term exam.
After lesson 1, PTs' SCK was reassessed through the mid-term exam (posttest 1, March 7).
This suggests that the PTs' difficulties found in the pretests remained in the mid-term exam but changed significantly from the mid-term to the final exam.
Further evidence revealed that only 48%% of the PTs could generate a meaningful number sentence in the mid-term exam (see Table 2).
This took place in lesson 2 after the mid-term exam (April 6), through a chapter titled "Algebraic Thinking" (Reys et al. 2009).
Instructor M was largely responsible for creating lessons for the final third of the course, which was comprised of seven classes following the second mid-term exam.
PTs' learning progresses were assessed through three diagnostic tests (a pretest, a mid-term exam, and a final exam) and two prompts, which informed the upcoming lesson design.
Indeed, PTs' improved understanding was confirmed by their performance on the final exam (see Table 2) where 96%% of the PTs generated correct number sentences (as opposed to 48%% on the mid-term exam) and 60%% provided meaningful explanations (as opposed to 16%% on the mid-term exam).
In the fifth week, during the lab sessions, each student was asked to generate two practice questions for the coming mid-term exam on which other students could work (Fig. 3).
3 tables of 2 plates of 5 mangos (3 × 2) × 5 = 3 × (2 × 5) Houghton Mifflin 3rd grade Posttest I (mid-term exam) String Upright bass strings come in sets of 4. Suppose one box holds 2 sets of strings.
I found I liked the UNIX and Perl programming class, and after all this time, I was pleased to find that I could still take an in-class mid-term exam.
