|
Deeper Learning Competencies
|
Critical Thinking & Problem Solving
|
- I can solve the mystery budget by choosing a sensible decimal addition/subtraction strategy to check balances and detect simple mismatches in receipts or the spending log, and I can state what the numbers show
- I look for one obvious pattern or inconsistency I can explain using the math in the evidence I see.
|
- I can investigate the evidence by using structured steps to apply decimal addition/subtraction across multiple records and verify running totals, showing where the $500 does not match
- I can look for repeated reasoning (like consistent errors in calculations or totals) and use ratio/rate reasoning to compare amounts (e.g., who spent more/less) and justify a tentative claim.
|
- I can refine my thinking by using structure and repeated reasoning to test multiple theories, checking each one with decimal calculations and explaining what remains inconsistent
- I can use ratio/rate reasoning to compare quantities across clues, identify relationships in tables/receipt amounts, and revise my claim when new evidence proves a different pattern.
|
- I can independently construct and test a strong explanation for what happened to the missing $500 by organizing evidence, using decimal operations consistently, and applying ratio/rate reasoning to support comparisons (most/least)
- I can look for regularity across the full investigation, critique my own and others’ reasoning for errors in structure or assumptions, and clearly explain how the patterns in the data lead to my final verdict.
|
|
Deeper Learning Competencies
|
Effective Communication
|
- I can clearly explain my initial mystery theory using evidence from the clues and show the basic decimal addition/subtraction work that supports my claim about the missing $500.
|
- I can communicate a more complete explanation by organizing key evidence (receipts, spending log, and mismatched totals) and using decimal calculations plus ratio/rate comparisons to justify my reasoning step-by-step.
|
- I can present a logically connected argument that uses structure and repeated reasoning (patterns in totals, tables, or receipt amounts) to revise my theory and clearly point out why the records do or do not balance.
|
- I can confidently deliver a claim-based explanation at the detective press conference by using precise math evidence (decimals and ratio reasoning), anticipating audience questions, and critiquing or improving my team’s reasoning using feedback over time.
|
|
Deeper Learning Competencies
|
Collaboration
|
- I can work with my team by taking a clear role and following our shared plan (e.g., evidence sorting, recording calculations, or updating the mystery timeline) while listening to teammates’ ideas during detective huddles.
|
- I can collaborate by contributing my own math evidence to group decisions and asking focused questions when something doesn’t add up (for example, after decimal addition/subtraction shows totals that should match).
|
- I can co-lead parts of the investigation by using structure in the records (receipts, spending log, or tables) to propose and revise a team theory, and I can explain how our evidence supports “who spent the most/least” with reasons that connect to the math.
|
- I can independently and constructively resolve disagreements by comparing competing claims, critiquing reasoning using math evidence, and revising our case file/poster so the final verdict clearly reflects our best joint argument and regular patterns we found.
|
|
Deeper Learning Competencies
|
Content Expertise
|
- I can use decimal addition and subtraction to compute purchase/refund totals from the clue receipts and record my results with correct units (dollars and cents) and a clear remaining-balance amount within the $500 budget
- I can identify one obvious mismatch or inconsistency in the records (for example, a receipt total that doesn’t fit the spending log) and explain it using the numbers I calculated.
|
- I can build a clear sequence of calculations that connects multiple clues (receipts, spending log, cash box notes) to explain how the totals changed and why the remaining balance does or does not equal $500
- I can use ratio/rate reasoning from a given table or equivalent amounts to compare who spent more/less, and I can describe the pattern or structure I used (e.g., repeated add/subtract steps or consistent proportional relationships).
|
- I can look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning by checking my work across the whole case file (not just one receipt), using structure to catch errors and justify which records are accurate or mistaken
- I can use ratio/rate reasoning to set up and interpret equations or diagrams that match the clue context, then argue how those relationships support my claim about who spent the most/least and why the budget did not match.
|
- I can independently test and refine a full “case explanation” by critiquing evidence and comparing alternative theories using math evidence, including decimal reasoning and ratio/rate comparisons
- I can clearly present how repeated reasoning and structural patterns led to my final conclusion (with step-by-step math that verifies the missing $500) and explain why my chosen reasoning is more valid than competing claims.
|
|
Deeper Learning Competencies
|
Self Directed Learning
|
- I can use a checklist and teacher/model examples to organize my work for the Budget Crime Scene (e.g., what to calculate, what evidence to record, and what to verify) and follow steps to check my decimal addition/subtraction answers.
|
- I can set a clear personal goal for what I need to figure out next (like fixing a mismatch in totals) and use feedback from my partner/teacher to revise my case notes with correct math and updated evidence.
|
- I can monitor my own reasoning during repeated clue analysis by tracking patterns and structure (tables/receipts/balances) and independently decide what calculation or ratio comparison I need to prove or disprove my theory.
|
- I can direct my learning independently by revising my claims across the investigation using evidence-based feedback loops (checking for regularity, critiquing errors, and strengthening arguments) so my final verdict clearly shows the math behind what happened to the missing $500.
|