When beginning to analyze my quantitative data, I wanted a visual that shows the difference between the pre and post assessment. A bar graph seemed the best way to show the difference between the means from pre to post and a frequency chart allows the readers of the study to clearly see where most of the students' scores fell. The mean was valuable within this data set because the scale of the assessment was out of 8, so there isn't a huge range of scores, so the mean gives a really clear snapshot of where the group of 12 students were at in terms of the content knowledge of the assessment. If the total points were a larger range, outliers could plat a role in making the average scores mean less.
The qualitative data was enjoyable to decipher, because it gave insight into how students were initially thinking about working in small groups (which we did a lot of during the 2 weeks) and how that work effected their perception over the study. I used a color coding system within Google spreadsheet to group answers to the question, What is an important skill when working in a small group, some trends could be seen in the responses. The trends included communication, team work, listening and content knowledge. A frequency table allows the viewer to clearly see the emphasis that students put on specific group skills. A similar approach was taken when sorting through questions #2, Describe how you feel when you are told in class that you will be working in small groups. These responses I sorted into a yes, no and doesn't matter and will be using a frequency table as well to show responses. My research question involves how a Project-Based approach can have an effect in content knowledge and collaboration within small groups. The assessment gives me a clear idea of what specific knowledge was gained during this study and what areas students still had a lack of clarity on. Breaking down the assessment by each question and connecting these questions to specific tasks presented during the 2 week period can help answer my question and inform my instruction as I move forward. The way that students initially think about working in collaborative groups will inform students comfortability with working in groups and I was curious to see the effect of small group exposure throughout the study. A question that arose after doing completing this treatment was to what degree does working in groups effect those students that do not want to work with others? How do you present group based work to a reluctant student? This will definitely be on my mind as I plan future units.
1 Comment
As I had begun to sift through articles about Project-based Learning (PjBL) I thought that there was going to be tons of studies done. The fact is, there are, but most have nothing to do with a secondary math class. Does math engage in PjBL?
I have found articles that have helped form my study, but each time I search for articles I second guess my study. It feels non-focused, a little vague and I continually doubt what I am doing. What I hope to get out of my study is, to see if students at my school, who are for the most part disenfranchised from the educational institution, relate, engage and apply content learning from a unit that closely resembles a PjBL unit. This unit involves food justice and brings in basic math content into context through investigating local neighborhoods and fancy supermarkets, real estate values, demographic shifts and living wage jobs. It's a cool unit that my co-teacher and I created and we just to see if students engage and learn. Below are the recent findings that help me shape my current and future understanding. Article: Building a Framework to Support Project-Based Collaborative Learning Experiences in an Asynchronous Learning Network Perspective: This study about computer science graduate students working collaboratively through an online environment shed a lot of light on how to quantitatively capture collaborative work within small teams. The authors did a marvelous job on assigning specific values for certain types of group interactions and then to share this information with the teams. Inform: The authors focus was not only on the PBCL product but also how teams worked together and contributed. This is an area that highly interests me and while I am at the phase in my own study where it would be difficult to shift my lens into collaboration (and go into the depth that these two authors did), this study will prove valuable if I focus on how students collaborate in future studies. Relate: My interests is on group work. While my study is on PjBL and the effects on content mastery, I feel the real question might revolve around how to foster a collaborative environment and give authentic feedback rather than the implementation of a PjBL unit. Article: Middle School Students as Multimedia Designers Perspective: The way that students built and used cognitive skills were at the forefront of this study. Inform: The mention of the five characteristics of PjBL listed as centrality, a driving question, authenticity, constructive investigation and student autonomy (Thomas, 2000) is at the root of how I think about a PjBL unit. These characteristics ground me as I present the PjBL unit to students and track how they are interacting with the material and scaffolds and what they are gaining in terms of content during the duration of the unit. Relate: My driving question focuses on to what degree to students apply content knowledge following a PjBL unit through an Oregon Work Sample. This study discusses how over the course of the unit, how the cognitive aspect of the students have changed. In much some same thread, that is what my driving question is about. Content knowledge is presented as out PjBL unit is scaffolded, but how they apply their knowledge is the interest. Article: PROJECT-BASED INSTRUCTION: A Review of the Literature on Effectiveness in Prekindergarten through 12th Grade Classrooms Perspective: This is an article about articles, weird I know. The ability to thread different studies within the same focus area is invaluable though. Inform: The data pulled from various articles pushed forward a couple of conclusions that are relevant to my own study. One, in the majority of studies that compared a traditional approach to a PjBL approach, students gained more content knowledge. When student surveys were completed about how they felt about the PjBL unit as compared to traditional units, students were in favor of the PjBL approach. Relate: This article gives me so much in terms of relating to my driving question. Most ideas that I can think about relating to PjBL is in this article in some form. I know I will continue to reference this as I work through my own data. Project-Based Learning (PjBL) is not a new idea. Searching for articles, dates can take me back to studies completed in the early 90's that pushed to quantify the benefits of PjBL. At the center of the "learning that is grounded in experience" philosophy is John Dewey. While John Dewey was not the first to propose an authentic, non-passive learning environment, he did lay the groundwork for seeing students as active participants in the learning process.
As stated by Edutopia, "Although (PjBL) problems are defined in advance by the instructor, they tend to be complex, even messy, and cannot be solved by one "right" or easy-to-find answer". Many current educators see this idea as a part of 21st Century Learning. As humans, we encounter many problems on a daily basis. We navigate these problems, using our knowledge of self and society, mathematics, physics, accounting and a plethora of other techniques and subject areas. The root behind PjBL is that we are offering students an opportunity to work through the mess of a problem, to use critical thinking skills to make connections among content areas and to draw on personal experiences to formulate plans. Suzie Boss and Jane Krauss's book titled Reinventing Project-Based Learning. They begin their book by offering up a few ideas to keep in mind as you "start your journey". This includes: Today's students live and learn in the real world and new contexts encourage the project approach. Students "living and learning in today's world" stresses the importance of an authentic learning activity. As our students are connected in robust ways inside and outside of the classroom, students are more aware of the world around them then they have ever been. Creating learning experiences that connect this global idea leaves students with educational residue rather than papers that end up in the recycling bin. In addition to this thinking, Boss and Krauss state, "New learning contexts set the stage for technology-rich, project-based learning. Teacher teaming, professional learning communities, and interdisciplinary instruction facilitate planning and design. New models for using technology, such as laptop initiatives, expand student access to digital tools". This excerpt resonates heavily with me as it calls for a need to change and adapt our educational practices as the world around us changes. PjBL is trying to do just that by engaging students in relevant problems that build their strength not only within content areas but within the 4 C's of collaboration, communication, creativity and critical thinking. Suzie Boss and Jane Krauss, http://www.iste.org/images/excerpts/REINVT-excerpt.pdf Edutopia, https://www.edutopia.org/project-based-learning-history Viewing math achievement from a National level shows the U.S. has dipped in fluency in recent years, especially in rural and suburban communities over the span of 2013-2015. The average scores have only dropped a few points in both 4th and 8th grade assessments (according to NAEP), but it is hard to stay confident with a downward trend such as this. At the state level the data does not paint a better picture. The trend is on par with the National average, down a few points. Often times when talking 1:1 to students about there experiences in math, a lot of anxiety, confusion and even hatred emerge. These same students share stories of feeling "that they are stupid" in the math classroom because other students can answer more quickly and more accurately than them. This data and past student interviews leave me with a lot of questions about our math education. Is math fluency dependent on speed? Accuracy? If these are not important, what is? Are we truly adhering to the 8 standards of Mathematical Practice that we as a nation have laid out with the adoption of The Common Core? How can we look to places such as Singapore, Finland and Japan to for advice in how to restructure our math programming?
Bringing this to our district and site level is a work in progress. Our district is in place to serve the needs of those that were not able to have their needs met in a traditional environment. This could be do to different learning abilities, conditions or other life/personal factors. Having spent seven years teaching in a traditional school system, the move to an alternative setting such as this was a leap. A lot of strategies that I came in with just didn't work in the alternative setting. Last year as a site we struggled with daily attendance, student buy-in and engagement as well as other factors that can render education useless to the eyes of our parts of our population. We are fortunate to have a very talented and dedicated teaching and supporting staff and we knew that we could all do better, for our students and our own sanity. At the end of last year (the second year of a new administration) we came together as a team and tried to problem solve how we could do better by our students. We developed specific skills classes to act as interventions for reading, writing and math to support students that were below grade level. We implemented cross-content, project based models of co-teaching to support students in the integration of material, kickstarted our CTE (career and technical education) Program through business partnerships and focused in on job ready skills such as collaboration, communication and critical thinking. With this, my focus for my "Driving Question" is very much Project Based Learning Focused. As we have been asked to reflect on our driving questions and the specifics of our passions/interests, these become of great use when beginning to dig into our IRB. The first questions asked on the IRB form involve stating your summary of your driving question and your reasoning for conducting this research. Through our blogs we have begun to tease these questions out.
Another major aspect of the IRB is the ability to think through the repercussions of conducting this research on human subjects. This thinking hits home with the site work our instructional team is going through currently. Our site has begun the shift from teacher-centered learning to student-focused instruction in various degrees. This is a major shift with our population who have mostly experienced a traditional classroom, involving note taking, lectures, right and wrong and the "I do, we do, you do" model. As we end our first week of classes, there is a lot of student push back with the block scheduling, open-ended questions and larger task expectations. Even though our site is working though a scaffolded approach, this shift can be seen as cataclysmic to the students. There are groups of students that expressed excitement with the shift, but overall the consensus is, for lack of a better term, frightened. The trend that we have seen within our student population is the constant validation required, with the most common statement being "Am I right or wrong". With our scaffolded tasks taking form, there is little that we can say is right or wrong or want to for that matter. Instead, we encourage the students to use resources, research tools, communication with others and various other means to come to their own conclusions to create their product. Is what we are trying to do benefitting or harming the students? Our instructional teams opinion is that it will lead to improved engagement, higher levels of rigor and more emphasis on the 4 C's, but will the students see this? It is these questions we must keep at the front of our work, because ultimately we are altering, flexing, collaborating and adapting to meet the needs of our student population but if it doesn't meet the needs of our students, why are we doing it. |
ArchivesCategories |