MATH WORKSHOP

 

What was implemented?

For my project, I implemented a math workshop model. The three main components of the math workshop model included: a whole group mini-lesson, small group instruction, independent work, and workstations. The components chosen for my math workshop instructional model allowed all students to complete work at a developmentally appropriate level. Students below-level were provided intervention instruction with verbiage at their content knowledge level, manipulatives to help enrich their solving abilities, and step by step guidance through the solving process. On-level students were provided with extra practice activities, enriched verbiage, and guidance to solutions. Above-level students received enriched and challenging tasks through in-class small group and a pullout interventionist. Students who were above level received a small group instruction on concepts and standards within unit four, but at higher Bloom's Taxonomy levels. These students were asked to challenge their own content knowledge through deeper conceptual thinking. There were five students who received the small group instruction by our math interventionist for twenty minutes and me for ten minutes. They were supported and guided through instruction and supplemented by Exact Path that provided instruction at their exact level. I met with these students each day during our quiet time in order to prepare them for their instruction with our grade level math interventionist. I also worked with them each day to present instruction of the daily concepts. Therefore, I was able to implement a daily rotation with three groups during our blocked out math time and then my fourth group stated above at another time in our day. I met my below-level students first, on-level students next, and finally my above level students. Each group rotated from small group instruction, workstation, and independent work every 15 minutes. Each math workshop day included a warm up for 15-20 minutes, and then the math workshop began and lasted 45 minutes. Math Workshop concluded with a wrap-up of the lesson which lasted roughly 5 minutes, dependent on the daily lesson. This structure allowed for me to target my students who really needed the extra instruction. They received instruction first, before their independent work and workstation rotations. I implemented appropriate leveled instruction with each of my groups. Each group’s instruction was based on instructional level, which was differentiated and focused around the main content for each day. Research supported my implementation of mini-lessons, differentiated small group instruction, independent practice, and workstations. Research suggested small group differentiation allowed for more one-on-one interaction with students, students to find success in independent work, and workstations provided a motivating and differentiated way for students to access math content.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why were these strategies chosen?

In the implementation of math workshop within my classroom there were four main components. These four components, implemented each day during math workshop were mini-lessons, differentiated grouping, independent practice, and workstations.

 

Mini-Lessons

Mini-lessons were used because of their ability to provide a base lesson to all of the students. The use of a mini-lesson enhanced engagement and allowed for me to target specific content in a short amount of time, efficiently. The mini-lesson gave me a lot of control, compared to the students, which was gradually released during Math Workshop rotations. Through the use of mini-lessons, I was able to get a feel for where my students’ understanding of content was before Math had started for the day. I chose to use a mini-lesson model because of the behavioral issues that were occurring during a 60-minute whole group lesson. I believed that this lesson would serve as a great spurt of information that would engage and not bore students. The implementation of mini-lessons provided the opportunity to engage all students and keep their attention for the entire lesson versus bits and pieces of a math lesson.

 

Differentiated Small Group Instruction

During Math Workshop, each group would rotate through the teacher to meet, and work on concepts that were appropriate for their differentiated group. Students would meet with the teacher for 15 minutes; students received a focused lesson that was developmentally appropriate for that day. Each group focused on the same content, talked about in the mini-lesson, and was adapted to meet the group’s needs. These groups were formed through observations and assessments. In small group instruction, we used whiteboards or the table to practice daily skill, games, and manipulatives. I chose to implement small group instruction because of the wide range of knowledge my students showcased to me on MAP scores and original pre-unit four assessment. Students needed different levels of support in various areas of the unit. Therefore, through the incorporation of small group instruction, I was able to differentiate instruction and meet students where they were at. I did this by utilizing the core foundation of Blooms Taxonomy for each group. The way I asked questions, gave math equations, and the manipulatives provided for each group was differentiated. My students were given manipulatives including cubes, counting circles, tens blocks, one's cubes, and various other materials from around the room. Depending on the group, the manipulatives were added or removed, based on the students’ demonstration of mastery. I challenged my above level students with using conceptual thinking and my lower performing students were challenged to represent math problems while utilizing various manipulatives. My on level students were challenged and provided both manipulatives and higher conceptual thinking skills to promote higher order thinking.  

 

Based on the research found through my study of math workshop, small group differentiation allowed for a deeper content exploration and smaller teacher to student ratio. Research showed that differentiated instruction to a small group would allow the teacher to target specific objectives, standards, or daily content based on specific student needs. I chose this method of instruction because of the wide mathematical gaps my students had presenting in math. Many of my students were showing above grade level knowledge while others were below grade level expectations. There were students who simply needed extra practice to achieve and maintain grade level expectations. The use of differentiated small group instruction allowed me to meet my students exactly at their target level. Each daily content being presented was differentiated from group to group. I differentiated through the use of manipulatives, word verbiage, and questioning. Each group received the same daily content within their 15-minute small group instructional time, the presentation was the differentiated part. For example, my below grade level group received support through hands-on manipulatives and step by step directions to get to their solutions. My on level group received fewer manipulatives but more choice on ways to get to their solutions. Manipulatives for them were items such as drawings, fingers, or visual representations. My above grade level students received complex multi-stepped questions, were challenged to solve mentally and asked to explain their solutions using appropriate math vocabulary to demonstrate their a deeper level of content knowledge.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Independent Practice

During the independent practice students in this station rotation of Math Workshop worked on daily skills that were learned within their small group instruction and ability based worksheets or activities. Each worksheet completed was differentiated to their particular ability or content knowledge for the day. This rotation allowed students to take what they learned, and worked on, during small group time and apply their newly gained knowledge to paper, independently.

 

Workstations

During the workstation rotation, students were able to complete activities or games with partners within their differentiated ability groups. Each group had a game or activity to complete each day that was aligned to the material taught and reviewed in their small group instruction, mini-lesson, and independent practice time. My students who received pull out instruction because they were hitting objectives and standards above grade level worked at the Exact Path station two or three times a week. This was on IPads which helped to motivate students and helped enrich their exposure to more challenging math content. This station allowed students to collaborate in small groups to problem solve, reason, and expand their mathematical knowledge with peers. I felt as though this was a time for students to learn through play alongside their peers to build a deeper understanding of the material being learned.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why were these strategies best for the population outlined in the rationale?

The incorporation of workstations was ideally the best for the individuals in my classroom because of the wide range of achievement from student to student. Not all students were being met appropriately through the instruction of a whole group math lesson I was doing the first half of the year. Students who were performing above level were becoming bored and exhibiting behavioral issues during whole group instruction. Students who were on level had difficulty staying engaged because of the distractions around them; because of these distractions, these students began performing at a level closer to students who were below level. The struggling students had difficulty understanding concepts and were not given appropriate attention to help keep them from falling further behind. By implementing a short mini-lesson, high performing students were able to stay with the whole group, on level students were engaged and participating, and below level, students were supported, appropriately, through content for the day. The use of differentiation during Math workshop rotations helped to meet all of the students at their academic level. The incorporation of math workshop allowed me to support all of my students at each of their targeted areas of need all while supporting them through the unit material presented daily.

 

When was this implemented?

The Math Workshop Model was implemented after lunch each instructional day. A mini whole group lesson was taught from 12:40-1:00. The Math Workshop instructional model took up the rest of our math block which was from 1:00-1:45. Then followed up by a five-minute wrap-up. Math Workshop Instructional Model is made up of components such as small group instruction, independent work, and workstations. During Math Workshop time students met with me where I was able to make the daily content appropriate for their learning abilities. I made sure that the content delivered through the instruction was “just right” for each student, within their small group rotation. Students who were not at my back table engaging in small group instruction were either completing independent work or at a workstation. In Math Workshop expectations and rules were established so that collaboration, problem-solving, and reasoning could help individuals develop skills to meet academic achievement. I delivered the “just right” instruction to each group depending on observations made the day before. I would assess how students did on the concepts for the day and make the judgment call as to what needed to be the highlight of instruction for the day. I did this through the use of whiteboards, manipulatives, and questioning.   

 

How were diverse learning needs addressed throughout the study?

The overarching strategy used to address learning needs throughout the study was differentiation. In the Math Workshop Instructional Model, differentiation was applied to increase math achievement within each differentiated small group. The ability groups were formed based on the data collected through observations and assessments. Pre-and Post-test scores, observations during whole group mini-lessons, and Exact Path data aided in the decision making of the small ability groupings. Exact Path helped guide students through lessons that were developmentally appropriate for their content knowledge. Each student’s lessons and lesson progression was determined, through the program, and tailored to the individual, by having the student MAP Math scores as a base. This allowed me to know that instruction was differentiated and on target for each student, no matter what. The program assessed and evaluated the appropriate material to be displayed to them daily. This acted as a reteach, reinforcement, or extension of material being learned. Students were on Exact Path two or three times a week in the placement of their workstation. Exact Path allowed students to move through lessons at their own pace based on their demonstrated abilities. Students had to pass a test to move on through the content presented in the Exact Path program. This was a form of instruction that I used to supplement and enrich instructional concepts that were not being taught on a daily basis within math expressions.

 

During small group instruction, I adapted the content to meet student needs appropriately through differentiation of the lesson being taught each day. I was able to deliver lesson objectives to each group at an appropriate level based on their abilities through differentiation of lesson. Support, games, manipulatives, multiple strategies were given to each small group but particularly to students who were performing below level. Differentiation was included in independent work and workstations to each group. The independent worksheet or activity was differentiated based on observations from the day before or within small group instruction. The students received the same worksheet to complete at their seat, however, depending on observation. I would modify or simplify the work that was needed to be completed. The expectations on the worksheet varied based on which group they were in.

 

What were the culturally responsive practices that positively impacted student learning?

The Math Workshop Instructional Model fostered a culturally responsive classroom environment in which students were positively impacted by increased achievement. Math Workshop is an exceptional way to address equity and accessibility for students.  Through the small group, instruction students were provided equity because the content was delivered at varying levels, in order to meet the instructional needs of students. Students were also able to view math content being presented in a small group from multiple perspectives, from their peers. Students were able to collaborate, share, and complete work together providing insight on how to solve a problem differently than their shoulder buddy. It was a great time for students to see that each of them could learn and think differently and still get the correct answer. Students then took this understanding and collaboration with their workstations. During workstations, they not only had my perspective, interventionist teacher perspectives but their peers. Math Workshop fostered equity because each student was presented content in a way to match their developmentally appropriate level. All students were respected and viewed as capable learners every day. The environment in which instruction was conducted was warm, respectful, and collaborative. All students were able to access content and were supported by multiple perspectives such as interventionists, paras, technology educators, and myself, in a developmentally appropriate model during small group instruction, independent work, mini-lessons, or workstations because of the differentiation and collaboration that occurred.

 

Stakeholders

Throughout the study, I was continuously collaborating with other stakeholders internally and externally to transform student learning environments and academic achievements. The collaboration with a specialist within my building allowed for classroom push in support to my students along with enrichment pullouts for my higher-level students. I was able to collaborate with our grade level math intervention specialist to learn the most effective teaching strategies to plan a “just right” lesson for each small group instruction, along with each mini-lesson. These individuals provided extra hands each day to make Math Workshop instruction possible. I also worked with my librarian to incorporate Exact Path so that we had accurate data to formulate appropriate ability groups and supplement small group instruction. My Librarian was also very helpful in finding IPad apps that targeted the exact content being taught daily to my students. I had tremendous support and engagement with my CADRE Associate who helped me integrate and create the activities to make workstations possible. My associate provided an extra hand in accessing and collecting data to help tailor instructional content to each group, based on the assessment reports. Many of my CADRE peers researching Math Workshop helped in collaboration of activities, lessons, assessments, data points, and structure. I had also visited two other Kindergarten teachers within my district to seek their structure of Math Workshop. The collaboration and communication with them allowed me to incorporate this model within my own classroom to resemble two models I observed. These external stakeholders provided me with structure key points, activities, instructional methods, and workstation ideas. I learned greatly from these two individuals that served as a positive external stakeholder in my process of the implementation of Math Workshop. Without these particular stakeholders, I would not have been able to successfully implement the components of Math Workshop.