MATH WORKSHOP
Data Collection:
Math Attitude Likert Scale
Through the process of analyzing data, I found more students identified math as being their favorite subject after the implementation of the action plan. The excitement for math helped spread a willingness to explore, fail, and succeed in a comfortable setting for all students. With the ability to feel safe and vulnerable when exploring math concepts enabled a sense of growth and enjoyment of math for my students. When students started enjoying math more student scores and behavior reflected such. The enjoyment of math changed student behavior and attitudes towards math, which, increased achievement. When students were being met within small group attention was given directly to areas in which they needed. This allowed for fewer distractions and more instruction in which more productivity occurred for each math concept, within unit four.
The math attitude Likert surveys were given before the action plan started. I interviewed nineteen kindergarten students and recorded their answers. I wanted to get a better understanding of how my students felt about math and items I needed to address in order to see math achievement. It was given again at the end of my action research study. Before the action research, the majority of the students stated they did not enjoy math (74%). After the conclusion, most students strongly agreed that math was their favorite subject. The implementation of the math workshop model changed students’ feelings completely around. The data showed that 95% of the students enjoyed math after the implementation of the model. Before the action plan, students were asked to state whether or not they felt they were good at math, 32% of the students stated, no. After the action plan, many of the students flipped their decision and felt as though they were really good at math. Before the action plan, 79% of the students strongly disliked seatwork. After the action research study, 89% of the students’ attitudes were altered and stated that they enjoyed their seatwork. At the beginning of the action plan, students were asked if they enjoyed guided reading workshop better than the initial math structure; 95% of the students voiced that they did. By the end of the action plan, 100% of students stated that they enjoyed the math workshop model implemented more than our guided reading workshop. Prior to the implementation of the math workshop, I asked students to choose from three different implementations that would make math better to them personally. Those particular choices were the implementation of games, hands-on activities, or shorter whole group instruction time. The most important part of collecting this data was comparing the results of their feelings before and after the implementation of the action plan. Based on the research and data collected the implementation of student choice through the use of games, hands-on activities, and shorter whole group instruction time math became a favorite subject for many students. I was able to meet all of my students' wishes through the implementation of the math workshop model.
Below is a graph showing the comparison of all the students’ answers for each of the five questions. The data shows the pre-action plan and post action plan results.
Pre and Post Teacher Created Tests
Students were given a pre-test with twenty-seven problems; seven addition problems, six subtraction problems, seven partner identification, three shape identification problems, and four counting problems. The questions came directly from the unit test form B provided by our Math Expressions curriculum. Seventeen out of nineteen students (89%) showed growth from pre-test score to their post-test score. Two of nineteen students (11%) scored the same as their pretest. The students who received the same score on pre-test as post-test also received pull out intervention support each day, for math, to support their skills development. They both received the same score because of a missed problem, where they forgot to count the sum. Both individuals chose the pair that matched the picture, but not the sum. This error led to a missed point on their post-test giving them a final score of 96%. This was a simple mistake that these two individuals would be able to answer correctly if re-given test. If reviewed again students would catch the mistake and answer this particular question correctly. Prior to math workshop implementation five of nineteen (26%) students were meeting grade-level standards, within unit four, with a score of 80% or above. Post-test data shows that seventeen of nineteen (89%) students not only improved their scores but received an 80% or better. Two of those students did not see improvement, however, they still received an 80% or better. The two students who did not score above 80% made huge growth. One student was one correct question away from receiving an above 80% test score. The other student who did not meet this goal received pull out support for intervention, daily. This student demonstrated growth but was still below expected proficiency. Despite in-class instruction and small group intervention mastery was not met. This student was taught a different math curriculum during her resource pull out time. Therefore, as she missed many instructional days at the small group table.
Through analyzation, the pre and post-test showed that students’ addition, subtraction, pairing, shape identification, and number identification improved. The improvement came from the differentiated instruction provided through small group rotations, implementation of games related to daily and weekly concepts, and individual seatwork supported by another adult. All students received a better teacher to student ratio while in math workshop rotations. Each strategy taught during small group was an intervention that helped guide and builds number sense to master addition and subtraction problems. Students went from limited tools or strategies to help guide them to an answer for addition and subtraction word problems. Through small group instruction students also began approaching math problems by utilizing physical or visual manipulatives or supports. After further analyzing this data, each individual student grew from their pretest to their post-test. This data showed me that my students benefited from the differentiated instruction provided through the math workshop model.
Below is a graph showing all nineteen students’ pre and post-test scores, in comparison. You will also see a pie graph that shows how many students grew or stayed the same. Lastly, you will see a pie graph in which data is provided on what percentage of students were meeting grade level standards prior to and post the action research study implementation.
Fluency Checks
A sample of students was chosen to have a fluency check recorded after each big idea was taught after the initial fluency check was given. A sample group was chosen in order to see the growth of particular students. These individuals chosen in the sample group were students whose addition and subtraction fluency was below 50% accurate, within the 50%-80% accuracy range, and finally, students who mastered the fluency check the first time. It was taken using a pre-formulated assessment guide provided by the unit four Math Expressions curriculum guide. It consisted of twenty questions, ten of which were an addition equation and ten of which were subtraction equations. The format changed from the first to second check. The format, then, remained the same for the third check. Each of the assessments had ten addition problems on the front and ten subtraction problems on the back. Student D and E decreased from the first to second fluency check, but increased again on the last fluency check. Data collected shows that for these individuals the change of format was confusing. The format change led to students misreading if questions were addition or subtraction. These particular individuals went from using visual strategies on fluency check one to mental math on fluency check two. Critical examination of this data suggested this change could have been a reason for the decrease in fluency from one to the other. By the last fluency check data showed that Student D and E mastered fluency in addition and subtraction, which led me to conclude the format was expected and understandable allowing students to use their learned strategies and manipulatives to solve problems. Students A, B, and C increased in fluency accuracy from check to check. The students met a new growth each time they were given a fluency check. Through data analysis, these students used their newly learned strategies to help guide them to growth and almost mastered all addition and subtraction problems by the final fluency check. One particular student showed a 95% increase in the fluency checks. The student who increased drastically on fluency checks initially completed subtraction and addition problems mentally. By fluency check three this particular student had a toolbox of new strategies to use in order to solve. When this student was struggling or confused with mental math they chose one of the new strategies learned during small group rotation to help complete the fluency check problems. As time went on you could see the different strategies blossoming. Each fluency check provided formative data on which students were using learned strategies and which were not to help them master the provided skills. This ongoing student data was used to determine the efficacy of instruction and student growth. Many of the students went from limited addition and subtraction solving strategies to demonstrating a myriad of skills through the implementation of fluency checks. Data supported, when strategies such as visual circles were used, each sampled student in the group had a higher fluency test score than from the fluency checks taken and solved without strategies learned during group. Through the data analysis of fluency checks, the implementation of various manipulatives helped students see growth from check to check. It showed that the implementation and use of differentiated instruction to expose students to new strategies were helpful and impactful on student success. The implementation of small group instruction allowed for various manipulatives and strategies to be introduced in order to help students develop fluency with addition and subtraction problems. Overall, most student’s fluency checks increased from check to check but all increased to at least a 95% accuracy from fluency check one to fluency check three. Most students used their newly learned strategies to perform at such a high level, on these problems.
Below is a graph displaying student A-E and their fluency check scores from beginning to end:
Conclusions for Data Collection:
Students’ data demonstrated increased student proficiency in math from prior to the action plan to post action plan. This increased achievement was shown through the data points of the pre and post-test, attitude Likert scale, and fluency checks. The implementation of a math workshop model supported seventeen students in achieving 80% or above on the post-test.
In the triangulation of my data, between the pre and post-test, Likert scale assessment, and fluency check they all had the same commonality of math achievement growth. Student's end results for all three data points tracked over the six-week implementation showed an overall growth. Students grew dramatically from pre-action plan to post action plan. While examining and analyzing data, mastery in fluency checks enriched student achievement growth demonstrated on the post-tests. Because of extra practice, skills, and strategies introduced and tracked through fluency checks 100% of students demonstrated mastery on the thirteen addition and subtraction problems given within the unit four post-test. The positive changes demonstrated on student attitude survey further enriches the successful growth demonstrated by students. As they experienced more success and altered structure to support student learning, students began to feel more positively toward math and math workshop. Over time students demonstrated a more positive attitude toward hard or challenging tasks presented to them. Therefore, the three data points collected each work to confirm one another. They each support the success of the math workshop model and its influence on increased student achievement. The data provided insight on how powerful small group differentiated instruction could be on students who are at various levels and demand for specific needs.
Following my action research, I was left with some lingering questions. I wondered, how much did Exact Path or other math games help students with their math achievement. Unfortunately, this data was not collected or previously thought about until after the action plan was conducted. The use of Exact Path was a supplement that helped guide students in math concepts, based on their map scores. It would be interesting to see the correlation between Exact Path and math achievement. However, to make this possible I would have to track data on the different concepts each student completed daily. I believe this could be something that might help influence intervention lessons and grouping, if the study was conducted again.
The other point with which I wanted clarification was with regard to student time on task. Was there time on task improvement? My assessment of the action research study’s success would have been more solid if I had collected data on student behaviors and on-task time during independent work stations. Students prior to action plan would easily get off task, express behavior outbursts, and had less excitement for math. If given the opportunity again I would like to see the change over time through hard data. The collection of time on task would show the engagement of students and create accountability for me to track behavior in correlation with student growth through math achievement. Even though there were still questions to be answered I concluded, with multiple data points, the use of math workshop was effective in my classroom. In the collection of data, math workshop promoted an environment for math achievement and growth to occur through the use of small group differentiated instruction, daily.
