Pre & Post Tests
Based on the data collected, my students grew intellectually from the pre-test to the post-test. After selecting the link, the graph illustrates one student had a better pre-test than post-test score and six students' scores remained the same. In summary, ten students showed academic growth from the first to the second test. By analyzing the two tests, it was clear that students improved on their addition and subtraction number story skills by learning and utilizing new mathematical skills.
This data illustrated that students benefited from the differentiated instruction provided through the math workshop model. Students were able to gain an understanding of the math concepts because they were put into small groups tailored for their level of skills. While receiving instruction in small groups, students were focused on what was being taught. Students were provided with the support they needed in order to assist them in reaching the daily objective.
While analyzing the data, it was noticed that six students' scores remained the same. I was curious on how that could be. I noticed that one of the students answered all of the questions correctly on the pre-test and two other students only missed one question, while one student missed two questions on both tests. The last student from this group of six, missed three different questions on both tests. I was more intrigued about the students who missed the same amount on the pre- and post-test than the student who scored 100% on both tests. I noticed the students missed different questions on the post-test compared to their pre-test. It was clear that students improved on certain topics missed on the pre-test. I also noticed on the post-test that many students made simple mistakes which unfortunately lead them to the incorrect answers. If students were given the test again, it is my strong belief (based on my thorough observations) that they would all be able to answer said questions correctly, without support.
A paired-sample t-test was conducted to determine if implementation of the math workshop model would increase students' overall achievement. There was a significant difference in the scores prior to implementing summarizing strategies: (M=53.88, SD=31.25), and after implementing (M=85.53, SD=13.59), the summarizing strategies: t(17)=3.706260, p=0.000958430, the observed standardized effect size was large (0.90). This indicated that the magnitude of the difference between the average and μ0 was large. The results suggest that implementing the math workshop model had a positive effect on improving students' overall achievement, math fluency, and engagement. Specifically, the results suggest that the use of math workshop models increased mathematical achievement.
Math Survey
The main purpose of the math survey was to have an understanding on how students felt about math before the math workshop model was implemented. That information was used to shape my instruction. I noticed a lot of the students enjoyed solving math on a computer. Knowing this, I made sure every student was able to be engaged in their learning through technology. I also noticed that only 17.65% of the class enjoyed working independently. After obtaining this information, a rotation was established where students worked on a math sheet together. By working together, they were able to share their ideas and help one another when needed.
Only 17.65% of students could explain their math to others and none of the students enjoyed sharing their math ideas out loud. I was hoping that by putting students in small groups, they would feel more comfortable sharing their ideas and learning with a partner. After the implementation of my research, 88.24% of my students could explain their math to others and 88.24% of students liked sharing their math ideas out loud. It was clear that students felt more confident in their mathematical abilities and/or students felt more comfortable sharing in a small group setting.
There were many interesting things that I found out about my students from this survey. Overall, I discovered by utilizing the math workshop model, students’ level of confidence in math and their attitudes toward math grew tremendously. According to the survey, before the use of math workshop, only 35.29% said they were good at math. That value increased to 68.75% of students believing they were good at math. Also, 29.41% of students believed they knew their math facts on the first survey. 88.24% of students stated that they knew their math facts on the last survey. Although self-evaluations can often be misleading, I would agree with the answers my students said about themselves. I saw a great impact on student achievement and engagement as a result of the math workshop model.
Math Fact Interviews
Every Monday, an interview was established with the students. During this interview, students were shown 20 basic addition and subtraction facts. I recorded how many students were able to answer all 20 facts correctly. They were not assessed on how fast they could answer the questions, only on if the answer was correct. At the beginning of the study, only 4 out of 17 students were able to answer all 20 facts correctly. By looking at the data graph, one can see that there was growth throughout the study. While interviewing my students, I noticed an increase in the ability to use appropriate strategies. Towards the end of my study, students were not relying on their fingers. Most of the students used a strategy taught during the math workshop model.
Student Engagement Observation
Every Wednesday, students were observed throughout the math workshop block. Students were observed on Wednesday because that was the day my associate came to the class. My associate was able to observe students from all angles of the classroom. Data was collected at the same time every week. The graph compares students' week-to-week engagement. By looking looking at the graphs, you can see that there wasn't a significant increase or decrease week-to-week.
If I were to collect data again, I would collect data on students' engagement during whole group instruction and compare it to students' engagement during math workshop rotation. Unfortunately, there was no data taken during whole group instruction, so I do not have proof that students were more engaged during math rotation compared to whole group instruction.
I do know that students were off task during whole group rotations. This is why I needed to change my teaching method. During whole group instruction, students were either bored because they needed enrichment, or students were off task because they needed more support. By looking at the data graph, you can see that the majority of students were engaged during the math workshop model. This showed that rotations were more engaging to students, which in turn, meant that they were learning more during this time.
Exit Tickets
The purpose of incorporating exit tickets was to see if students met the objective for the lesson. The exit tickets drove my instruction for the following day. If all students met the objective, I knew they were ready to move onto the next objective. If students did not meet the objective, I knew I had to incorporate the previous lesson into the following day's instruction. This was easy to do because of my grouping. The majority of students in my "At Target" and "Approaching Target" groups were able to meet the objectives every day. My students in the "Need Support" groups were the ones struggling to meet daily and weekly objectives. This allowed me to really focus on those students every day to keep them engaged and give them the materials they needed to be successful.
Triangulation
After analyzing all the data collected throughout my study, an increase in academic achievement was evident. This was shown through the data points of the pre-test and post-test, math surveys, and the weekly math fact interviews. When reflecting on my data collection, the Math Workshop model was proven to be effective in building students’ math strategies and engagement in math. Students were able to receive instruction in a small group, work and learn with a peer, and interact with math via technology. All of the implementations ultimately led to an increase in academic achievement on tests.
Remaining Questions
After completing my research plan and analyzing the data, I am still curious about a couple of things. In my opinion, there was an increase in student engagement after implementing the Math Workshop model. Unfortunately, I did not collect data during whole group instruction, so I cannot state how much more engagement was gained through the math workshop model. I am also wondering if completing a whole group mini-lesson before rotations would benefit my students. It seemed that they worked best in the small group setting, so I am unsure if a whole group mini-lesson would be beneficial.