MATH WORKSHOP

Data Points that Helped Monitor Student Progress 

I chose attitude survey likert scales, pre and post-test assessments, and fluency checks as my data collection methods. I conducted a brief attitude survey to gauge how students felt about math prior to the implementation of my action research and after. I conducted a likert survey to gain valuable knowledge from a kindergartener at a developmentally appropriate level. Students were given the same likert survey pre-action research and again post action research. All of the students completed the survey with my CADRE associate in a small group setting to allow for honest answers to be picked. The last question on the survey was an open-ended question that the students could tell me what would make math all that they wanted. I found this question very beneficial. I felt as though the last question was the most beneficial because they told me ways math would be more fun for themselves. I was a co-pilot in their learning at this point. They were able to help determine instructional methods, with me.

 

I chose to have my students complete a pre and post-test assessment to track gains and measure student progress from the being of instruction to the end. Each student was given the pre and post-test assessment in a small group setting under my instruction. There were no manipulatives given to students for the pre-test. Students were asked to complete the pre-test with skills or strategies they already had. For the post-test students were allowed to use manipulatives and strategies or skills that they had learned over the unit to complete their post-test. The pre and post-test consisted of 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. This data collection allowed me to conduct qualitative data analysis.

 

I collected fluency checks three times, once after each big unit focus. They consisted of 20 addition and subtraction problems in various formats. I used this data to track simple math fact fluency throughout the unit. I used each check to determine which strategies were being used by students. I also was able to see which strategies were not being used. I decided to track this data through a sample group of students. There were five students chosen to be apart of the sample group. These five of the nineteen students were picked based on students whose addition and subtraction fluency were below 50% accurate, students who scored within the 50%-80% accuracy, and finally, students who mastered the fluency check the first time, in order, to track data across each of these groups. Given that students were in a well balanced small group with comparable skills the sample group, allowed for quick data to be collected and turned into instructional decisions for each group. Through the sample group, I was able to see the growth of the particular students who were chosen and monitor or assess data with complete accuracy from one check to the other throughout the unit, as well. Through the two data points of strategies being used and strategies not being used, I was able to take this information to guide my instruction and check their skills in the overarching unit study of addition and subtraction within 10.

 

The use of fluency checks provided qualitative data. The likert scale was the mathematical survey given to see if the implementation of math workshop and small group strategies would improve student attitudes toward math. Both the pre and post-test assessment and likert scale survey provided quantitative data for this action research. Through the use of attitude survey likert scales, pre and post-test assessments, and fluency checks I monitored student progress. Below I have included a visual representation of each data point used, in order, to collect and monitor data.

 

Below I have included a visual representation of each data point used, in order, to collect and monitor data:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why These Data Collection Methods Were Chosen

Based on the students within my classroom the attitude likert surveys, pre and post-test assessments, and fluency tests were the most beneficial qualitative and quantitative data to collect, in my action research, to clearly show impact through data. The likert scales allowed me to gain knowledge of their feelings towards math pre and post math workshop. If the majority did not like math, then I needed to make it more fun and engaging in order to see higher achievement success during math. I conducted an attitude survey with my students before beginning my action research and again at its conclusion. Each time the questions were read aloud to students, in small groups, and they chose the appropriate face (frown face to show disagreement, straight face for in the middle, or a smiling face to show agreement). It was important for the questions to be read aloud as I didn't want the reading proficiency of my students to be a barrier to their honest answers. I chose to have students respond by choosing an appropriate face because, for kindergarteners, it was a developmentally appropriate choice, which allowed them to determine their answer choices without being read. This assessment was conducted in small groups with my CADRE associate so the students would feel safe and comfortable, especially if they were answering questions about our classroom. I wanted them to answer honestly, without any worry about me seeing or knowing their answers. The pre and post-test allowed for me to gauge where my student's needs were to guide instruction through unit four. Through the tests, I learned where my students were and what they had learned, such as strategies and mathematical knowledge. I was able to see if my instructional strategies and small group instruction impacted students through the use of teacher given tests such as the pre and post-test assessments. If my instructional strategies were successful, the likert scale surveys would show improved feelings towards mathematics as well as showing a qualitative growth. I was able to see my quantitative growth through the fluency checks of my student’s math facts, which were assessed three times throughout the unit and their pre and post-test assessments. I chose to collect data on a sample group of students within my classroom to spot check some high, medium, and low students for growth and strategy usages. I also chose to assess only a sample group of students with intentions to value student time and decrease the time spent away from instruction being taught at the back table. This was the best way to gain data based on my population. I believe this is true because each one the students were placed within a developmentally appropriate and balanced group, therefore, testing every student each time would have gotten repetitive and time-consuming. My population of students struggled to stay focused and engaged on quizzes and tests. Therefore, choosing a sample group allowed me to chose students from each differentiated group that could handle repetitive quizzes every couple of weeks. The knowledge gained was helpful in seeing which skills needed to be retaught within each group and which skills were retained from one big idea to another.

 

How Progress Was Monitored Throughout the Study 

Through the course of the study, student progress was monitored at certain checkpoints throughout the unit. I used the pre-test scores to determine ability groups for workstation rotations, which determined grouping the entire action research period. However, fluency checks were given three times, each of them was given after a big idea was taught and completed. These fluency tests were administered every two weeks, roughly. The administration of these fluency checks allowed me to monitor my students' progress. I was looking for the use of new strategies, fluency improvements, and strengths of student’s skills from checkpoint to checkpoint. The fluency checks monitored progress throughout the unit that helped determine which instructional strategies would be implemented to produce growth throughout the unit each day. On top of fluency checks, each day students completed individual worksheets that worked alongside the daily instruction. These worksheets provided valuable information and allowed me to monitor student knowledge outside of small group rotation. These worksheets monitored student progress throughout the entire unit. Each day I would look at them and determine which concepts needed to be reviewed, retaught, or challenged for the following day instruction during each differentiated small group rotation.

 

How Data Collection Was Used to Inform Decision Making

The data collected throughout the entire study helped me determine what items of instruction needed to be modified and differentiated to challenge or develop on-level skills. The pretest guided my initial ability grouping. The groups remained the same throughout the entire study due to assessment through fluency checks and my observation of each student during daily small group instruction. Fluency checks also guided the decision-making process as to what new strategies or manipulatives needed to be implemented, in order, to help students see improvement on the next fluency check, not limited to my sample group students. The Likert scale survey informed my decisions on specific things to help make math more enjoyable for students, such as the implementation of multiple math concepts, activities, structure, and the length of math instruction. Through the Likert scale, I was reassured, by my students, that the current whole group instructional time was too long. Therefore, the implementation of small group instruction for 15 minutes and whole group instruction of five to twenty minutes allowed for a differentiated method of instruction for all students.