DIFFERENTIATED MATH INSTRUCTION
ACTION PLAN
WHAT WAS IMPLEMENTED?
The purpose of my study was to determine if the implementation of differentiated math instruction would increase student achievement. First, a pre-test was conducted. The data from the pre-test was referenced when creating groups before the beginning each math topic. Four math topics were covered throughout the duration of this study. Student interviews were also conducted to provide information about feelings associated with math in the classroom. Towards the end of the study, a Writing 1-120 math intervention was put into place for a small group of students who struggled with this concept on a previous district common assessment (DCA). The math block occurred every day from 10:00-11:00 A.M. Before the study began, I would teach a whole-group lesson, and then students would be dismissed to work on their assignment independently, as I walked around, observed, and answered questions. If students finished before the math block ended, they were asked to get their math folder and work until the end of the block. The content within the folders was the same for all students.
As a result of this study, the math block in my classroom became more differentiated and structured. From 10:00-10:15 A.M., I taught a whole-group mini lesson that exposed my students to the learning goal. From 10:15-10:30 A.M., I worked on the daily assignment with students who struggled at my teacher table, while other students worked independently at their seats. The students who came to my teacher table were determined by the pre-test taken prior to the math topic. At 10:30 A.M., students would turn in their daily assignment, and begin working in their math folders. The content within the folders were differentiated and based on the daily learning goal. Once they were finished with the content in their folders, students then played a math game that was also differentiated and based on the daily learning goal. Working with folders and the games concluded at 10:50 A.M. From 10:50-11 A.M., the teacher and students participated in a closing activity that assessed progression towards the learning goal.
WHAT STRATEGIES WERE CHOSEN?
Educators are consistently challenged with teaching to all students, while also meeting individual needs. The math workshop cultivates high expectations and provides individualized instruction (Sampson et al., 2014). When implementing the math workshop, teachers are encouraged to look at three indicators: the content being taught, the students’ current level of understanding and assessment data. Math workshop can look different in classrooms, depending on student needs (Blanke & Sammons, 2013). With this in mind, implementing differentiated math instruction should support the content, student needs and assessment results. Assessment results were the primary indicator when grouping students for math in my classroom. Students were grouped based on their performance on pre-tests taken before each topic. Groups changed depending on the content and student needs.
WHY WERE THESE STRATEGIES BEST FOR MY POPULATION?
Prior to beginning the study, not all of my students were fully benefiting from whole-group math instruction; this was supported by the data I had collected. With this in mind, there was significant amount of academic diversity in my classroom. I had students who finished their work accurately and independently with ease, and there were students who struggled to complete their work accurately and without teacher assistance throughout math time. This resulted in extra planning to ensure I had interventions in place for students who struggled to finish their assignment accurately, and an activity in place for students who finished early. In addition, my struggling students needed daily interventions and my achieving students needed to be challenged. Unfortunately, I could not accomplish either of these tasks during whole-group instruction, alone. Differentiated math instruction provided me with the opportunity to meet my students’ needs, organize instruction and allow students of all academic levels to learn and apply mathematical content.
HOW WERE DIVERSE LEARNING NEEDS ADDRESSED?
Using differentiated math instruction, I addressed the significant amount of academic diversity in my classroom by differentiating the math folders and the math games. Students would use a certain folder or game based on their current understanding of the math topic. For example, when a student had a strong knowledge of the math topic based on their pre-test performance, the student would use the folder and game with the challenging content. Likewise, the students who needed intense interventions based on their performance on the pre-test met with me at the teacher table, while other students worked independently at their seats.
HOW WERE EQUITY AND ACCESSIBILITY FOSTERED?
To ensure equity was fostered in the classroom, I made closure a significant part of my study. Prior to the study, and as a first year teacher, I often struggled with closure and remembering to include it at the end of my math block. Differentiated math instruction provided a more structured math block. Therefore, closure created a time for formative assessment that assisted me in determining students who understood the content, and students who would need reteaching. Throughout my math block, I only met with my small group of struggling students. These students would meet with me as my on-level and enrichment students would work independently at their seats. Closure was a whole-group activity at the end of the math block and facilitated on the rug. Due to the fact that it was whole-group, I was able to see and formatively assess all of my students, not just my struggling students. Students would often use whiteboards to complete a problem that was written on the board at the front of the room. As my students would hold up and show their answers on their whiteboards, it was easy for me to efficiently assess student progress going forward. Most importantly, I was able to quickly address any misconceptions that students had.
​
Before my study, my whole-group instruction was only benefiting my on-level students. My on-level students could access the content through whole-group instruction, but my struggling students and my high achieving students were being neglected. Therefore, I needed to implement instruction that all of my students could access and learn from. Through differentiated instruction, I was able to organize the instruction so that each student could reach the learning goal at their own level.
HOW WERE MULTIPLE PERSPECTIVES SUPPORTED?
Researching differentiated math instruction and the writing of my Literature Review opened my eyes to multiple perspectives and best practices throughout my study. For example, the research lead me to grouping students by their academic level. According to scholars, differentiated math instruction should be guided by the content, student needs and assessment. Assessment results were the primary indicator when grouping students for math in my classroom. Students were grouped based on their performance on pre-tests taken before each topic. Groups changed depending on the content and student needs.
HOW WERE INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS INVOLVED?
Both internal and external stakeholders made a significant impact throughout my research and implementation. The math specialist within my building allowed me to interview her for my research to ensure I utilize best practices. When beginning my action research in my classroom, my grade-level team found resources and assisted me in differentiating instruction according to the curriculum. Collaboration with my team allowed me to explore instructional strategies to address student needs. My CADRE associate assisted me in numerous ways. First, she helped me narrow my study to differentiated math instruction. She scanned the curriculum, and assisted me in developing the pre-test and post-test given to my students at the start and end of my action research. My CADRE associate also facilitated my student interviews at the beginning and end of my study. I have continually collaborated with my CADRE cohort and my capstone professor throughout the process to ensure I met expectations, and successfully completed my study according to the capstone guidelines. For example, in class, there were several instances where we discussed our research and worked together to finalize our actions plans. In addition, throughout the last several months of meeting together, my CADRE cohort was an excellent resource when looking for understanding on student needs, strong instruction and implementation of best practices. Several other CADRE classmates were also implementing differentiated math instruction in their classrooms, so I was able to use them as a resource as I navigated my action research and data for my product. My action research would not have been as smoothly executed without the guidance of my internal and external stakeholders.