DATA COLLECTION METHODS
Quantitative and qualitative data were collected for my study to show student growth in math achievement and engagement through the implementation of differentiated math instruction. Data was collected and monitored over the course of a six-week collection period. Over this period of time, students covered two main topics: fractions and decimals (comparing, ordering, adding, subtracting, and multiplying). The six data points that triangulated to represent this growth included Attitude Surveys, Pre and Post Tests, Multiplication Timed Tests, Student Engagement Rubric, Anecdotal Notes, and Practice Pages/Exit Tickets.
Attitude Survey
Prior to beginning my action research, I wanted to see how my students felt about math before I introduced the differentiated math instruction model. Students completed a digital survey with statements selected to gauge their attitudes on our previous math instructional model and math in general. Students read statements pertaining to math and content delivery and marked them as either agree, disagree, or neutral. The results from the first attitude survey served as a data point for my rationale as to why my current method of math instruction was not beneficial for the majority of my students. My students completed the same survey at the end of the data collection process. This data showed me whether or not my action research was successful in boosting engagement and meeting the individual needs of each student.
Reasoning:
This math attitude survey was selected for my population of students because of the simplicity and transparency it provided. Students were encouraged to honestly select how they reacted to each of the statements independently at their seats. However, before they began the survey, I went over the questions with them and explained what it meant to agree, disagree, or feel neutral about a statement to avoid any misrepresentation due to the wording. My students put a lot of thought into each statement and advocated when they needed help interpreting what something meant. This math survey best fit the needs of my students because of the first person language. All of the statements chosen were “I” statements such as “I feel...” because this was common language we used with our daily learning goals. Another reason I chose to incorporate a math survey into my action research was to monitor my students’ feedback on their perceived engagement, confidence, and needs being met throughout the study. I compared the results from the first survey to the second to see how their attitudes on math changed after differentiated math instruction was introduced.
Topic Pre and Post Tests
Pre and post-tests were used to collect data on the students’ understanding of the content prior to and at the conclusion of the study. The pre-test and the post-test were identical and covered two main topics: fractions and decimals. Due to the timing of the data collection period, the pre-test was made up of three different assessments: two formatives and one summative. I hand selected questions from these assessments that aligned with the content I covered over the six-week data collection period to be included on the assessments.
Reasoning:
This data collection method was crucial to my study because it measured growth in the specific content areas I was teaching. The pre and post-tests were best for my population of students because it gave them an opportunity to show what they knew and gave me direction of where to start the lessons. It also helped me monitor the progress my students were making throughout the entirety of the study by providing me with baseline data. It was important for my students to take the pre-test prior to beginning my action research to assist me in grouping students into one of the three ability groups: below level, on level, or above level. The pre-test showed me which math concepts needed more practice and helped me to identify specific needs amongst my students. This data informed my instructional decision making throughout the study and helped me differentiate in my small groups.
Multiplication Timed Tests
Two weeks into my research I decided to administer a multiplication timed test. The multiplication timed test was made up of 94 questions ranging from facts 0-12. I gave each student 10-minutes to complete as many questions as they could in the time allotted. After scoring each test, I pulled out three to four multiplication facts each student needed to work on. These facts then helped me decide which math games they would play in our workstation rotation.
Reasoning:
This data collection method was chosen for my population of students because I recognized after week two a lack of fact fluency in multiplication from the majority of my students. Based on my observations, my students struggled with recalling basic multiplication facts which slowed them down when converting, adding, and subtracting fractions. These timed tests served as a data point so I could differentiate within the ability math groups, ensuring each student was working on facts they had not yet mastered.
Student Engagement Rubric
A student engagement rubric was used to assess and monitor student engagement during workstations. The workstations were put in place for students to practice multiplication and division fact fluency while engaging in cooperative learning and math conversations. This rubric provided my students and me with common language and clear expectations for them while moving through the guided math rotations. This rubric was made up of five criteria: Effort/Time on Task, Participation, Cooperation, Noise Level, and Conversations. It was broken down into four categories: advanced, mastery, basic, and no attempt at mastery. Prior to beginning my action research, I scored my students on this rubric to gather baseline data which allowed me to monitor student engagement progress throughout my study.
Reasoning:
This data collection method was selected for my population of students in order to assess and monitor student engagement. The five points of the rubric were selected based on my observations of areas to work on prior to my action research and my expectations for this rotation. I wanted my students to have a clear understanding as to what the workstation should look like and sound like. Because of the criteria I chose, I was able to use this data to interpret whether or not student engagement increased after the introduction of differentiated math instruction.
Data Informed Instruction
There were three main data collection methods I used to inform my daily instruction: anecdotal notes, practice pages, and exit/entry tickets.
Anecdotal Notes
Anecdotal notes were utilized everyday to assist in planning instruction for the following days. These notes were taken during small group instruction time. I focused on group needs and individual needs. I made sure to note the students who understood the concepts and those who needed more assistance or practice. For example, these notes helped me to determine whether I was going to need to spend another day on the concept or if we were ready to move on. I was also able to identify themes and common misconceptions from group to group and use this information to make adjustments for the next day. These notes also helped me track participation and engagement during small group instruction.
Practice Pages
Independent practice was one of our daily rotations in our differentiated math instruction model. This time served as an opportunity for my students to practice what they learned during our small group rotations. It provided me with formative data to assess whether or not the students mastered a concept. The practice pages also gave me the opportunity to provide my students with feedback and carve-out time for reteaching if necessary. I utilized the information gathered from their practice pages each day to assist me in planning for the following days.
Exit/Entry Tickets
I utilized exit and entry tickets on seven occasions to inform my instruction. The exit tickets served as a quick check to see if my students were ready to move on or not. They were administered at the end of a lesson and allowed me to quickly assess student understanding. The entry tickets consisted of 2-4 questions and served as a tool to assess prior knowledge or refocus attention on a concept. I used entry tickets as a warm up, then we would go over the questions as a whole group before jumping into the mini lessons. This sparked a lot of discussion and gave my students a platform to show what they learned the day before. It also gave me a chance to address any misconceptions before jumping into new content.