After analyzing video recordings and written notes about each group during instruction, the data showed me that almost all of my class was engaged throughout the note station, fact practice station, and teacher station. In the note station, students showed engagement by watching my flipped video, reading and filling in their notes, and also working on the examples or following the specific directions after the video. Although there would be times students would talk, I was able to see on video and through my notes that the students would talk about math examples or ask questions about the examples. When it came to off task behavior in this group, I had one student who would sometimes have a head down or "space off". Since I was able to see this happening, I was able to redirect behaviors of individuals by showing specific evidence of actions that could take away from the student's learning.

When it came to fact practice station, students were engaged as they collaborated with one another when checking their work or playing a game with the group. Students in this group talked a lot, but they controlled their voices at a whisper, and they did not take away from other students' learning. Off task behavior that I saw in this group was writing while laying down. Although a student would lay down while practicing math facts, I was able to address the point that handwriting, organization, and concentration could be negatively affected if students were not sitting correctly on the ground.

Lastly, in the teacher station, I noticed that this group was never off task, and that all students were engaged 100% of the time. I believe that small groups allowed all students to feel comfortable to share, and working with like ability students made students feel comfortable to speak up since it was not in front of the whole class. When they worked on example problems by themselves, students gave effort, even when they did not know how to do something. For example, when we worked with solving for variables with inverse operations, a student who was usually afraid to ask for help was able to ask for help by using the "hand up" feature on ClassKick. This feature allowed me to help other students during independent work without others knowing. Overall, engagement was increased in math instruction after the implementation of math rotations.

After analyzing the topic 6 pre-test, I was able to see that only 3 people understood how to plug in values for variables. Another misconception I was able to see from the pre-test was that students knew about parenthesis in the order of operations, but they did not know the order from multiplying and dividing, and adding and subtracting. As a class, the average pre-test was a 39%. After knowing that students struggled with orders of operations, and solving for variables, I knew that I had to do more modeling and asking for verbal confirmation on how to solve for a variable. After students were able to understand what a variable was and how to plug numbers into an equation, students were able to solve for expressions with variables because they knew their facts and the process of plugging in values for variables too. When going over the order of operations I used PEMDAS (parenthesis, exponents, multiply or divide, add or subtract), as a reference when working on examples. After students understood the process after I modeled with them, they were able to understand how to solve multi-step problems. I knew that I met students' needs and increased achievement because the average post-test score was a 95%.

When looking at the topic 15 pre-test, the average student score was a 52%. Now that students knew what a variable was and how to plug in values for variables, they were going to solve for variables. According to the pre-test, 7 of my students knew how to solve for variables in addition and subtracting equations, but almost all of them struggled when it came to multiplication and division equations. One area that I saw students do well in was knowing that numbers got bigger on a number line moving right, and numbers got smaller going left. When it came to inequalities on a number line, I knew that I was able to spend less time on that skill, and that I could focus more on solving for variables. When solving for variables, I referenced "inverse operations" multiple times, and I had students practice verbally what it meant and when to use them in examples. After students were able to understand inverse operation, it made solving for variables easier for them. Again, I knew that I was meeting students' needs during rotation because all of my students scored a 100% on their post-tests.

In topic 17, we later moved into ordered pairs and graphing them on a coordinate grid. After analyzing the pre-tests, the biggest misconception about this topic was knowing how to graph certain points according to the ordered pair. After knowing that students struggled with graphing ordered pairs, I knew that I had to break down vocabulary with them. One idea that I had them do was hand motions to represent the x-axis and y-axis on a coordinate grid. Students were able to show me that that x-axis moved left and right, and the y-axis moved up or down. After knowing the directions for ordered pairs, I had students practice explaining to me how to graph an ordered pair before doing it. After students knew how to graph ordered pairs, it made the rest of the topic less stressful to them. When it came to graphing and solving linear equations, students recalled their "solving for variables" skills from the last topic, and I noticed many students note that this skill was similar to something they learned in the previous topic. After analyzing the post-test, I was able to see that students showed academic achievement, as the average score was a 98%.

Lastly, students took a cumulative test over the three topics mentioned. After analyzing the data from the cumulative test, I was able to see that all students passed and made an improvement from their previous cumulative test. This cumulative test was called Summative 3, and the lowest score was a 71%. Eight students scored between 80%-89%, and 8 students scored between 90%-100%. I knew math rotations increased achievement because after looking at the previous cumulative test when instruction was given whole group, the class range of scores was 52%-95%. After implementing rotations, the range of test scores of their cumulative test was 71%-100%.

Overall, all students grew in academic achievement in math. All students were able to show growth from pre-test to post-test in all topics we covered. In our math curriculum, every topic builds off one another. This means that the skills learned the previous topic will also be used during the next topic. When looking at the pre-tests, students showed a retention of skills from each topic to the next. I knew that students were understanding the content because of the fact their pre-tests showed growth each time. The ability of students to retain information and to improve from pre-test to post-test strengthens the case that all students achieved academic success in math.