DIFFERENTIATED MATH INSTRUCTION
DATA ANALYSIS
PRE-TEST AND POST-TEST
The pre-test (yellow) was taken prior to beginning differentiated math action research in the classroom. It was meant to gather information on the students and their content knowledge at the time of the assessment. The pre-test had thirteen total questions, and was a collection of questions from four math topics: comparing numbers to 100, adding tens and ones, subtracting tens and ones and length. Math groups were created before the start of each topic based on pre-test scores from the beginning of implementation. The post-test (blue) was given at the end of the study. It was identical to the pre-test, and was given to measure growth from the beginning of my action research, to the end of my action research. Based on the data, 16/19 students improved their scores from pre-test to post-test, 3/19 students’ scores stayed the same and 0/19 students’ scores decreased. The graph portrays that a majority of student improved based on the growth between pre-test and post-test. I wonder, however, why a few students did not improve their scores, but stayed the same? This may be because they continued to excel in their current knowledge, but did not grasp new content as strongly as I would have hoped during my study. This data explained that a majority of my students benefited from six weeks of differentiated math instruction, while three of my students’ growth was not present on this graph.
DISTRICT COMMON ASSESSMENT (DCA)
The math block within my classroom became more structured as a result of implementing differentiated math instruction. Due to the structured environment, I was able to target specific student needs and consistently meet with small groups of students. After taking the writing from 1-120 assessment in December, I noticed that a high number of students in my classroom struggled with this task. It was a district expectation that first-grade students should be able to write their numbers from 1-120, by the end of the year. This was assessed through a district common assessment (DCA), and was graded on the first-grade report card. Therefore, I wanted to address this area of need in my classroom during the math block. After finishing Topic 11 (Subtracting Tens and Ones), I began routinely meeting with five of my students who did not pass the original assessment, and had them trace the numbers 60-120. When they were done, they read the numbers back to me. Each student participated in this intervention four times before retaking the assessment. Although only two students were able to write their numbers from 1-120 without error, the other three students showed significant growth from their first attempt to their second attempt. If I would have started this intervention sooner, would every student be successful in writing their numbers from 1-120 in the small group? Starting the intervention sooner may have helped each student write their numbers to 120. I can conclude, however, the students felt more confident, and had strategies to apply going into their second attempt. For instance, since students had to trace and read the numbers to me throughout the data collection, students felt confident counting from 1-120 as they wrote their numbers.
STUDENT INTERVIEWS
Student interviews were administered before and after differentiated math instruction was implemented in the classroom. The students who participated in interviews were asked, “How do you feel about math in the classroom?” I asked this question because I wanted to know and understand my students’ feelings toward math in the classroom. Prior to implementation, Student X thought math was “hard” and was “confused”, and Student Y expressed that they “really like it” and they “feel good” about math. Based on these answers, as their teacher, I was hoping that differentiated math instruction would assist me in better meeting the needs of students who did not feel confident in math, and help the students who felt confident feel more independent. I asked the same students the same questions when my action research had concluded. Student X stated that they now felt “happy” because they get to play a game with partners. Student Y said “I feel kind of frustrated because whenever my math mat is hard, I can’t really figure it out. I calm down and figure it out step by step”. I wonder why Student Y felt more frustrated after the implementation of differentiated math instruction? This may be because being in the enrichment math group, Student Y was encouraged to be more independent than they were prior to implementation during whole-group instruction. While the struggling students met with me at the teacher table, this students was asked to work independently at their seat. Based on these answers, I can conclude that differentiated math instruction in the classroom was a more positive experience for Student X, and allowed Student Y to engage in problem-solving techniques to, overall, be more successful.
PRACTICES AND INTERACTIONS OF THE RESEARCHER
As an educator, I experienced an immense amount of growth throughout implementing differentiated math instruction in my classroom. I had to be flexible, and make changes throughout my research to assist my students in being successful. For example, the Writing 1-120 DCA became a significant part of my study, and was not developed until the end of my study due to students needs. A substantial amount of planning was necessary to ensure that my practice remained consistent with differentiating instruction. For instance, to ensure that the lesson, the content within the folders and the games were differentiated, it took extra time, patience and substantial preparation.
TRIANGULATION
Based on my data collection, differentiated math instruction was successful and students grew in their learning from the start to the end of the experience. The differentiated groups, content, and games provided each student with a chance to access the content, depending on their initial level of understanding. The pre-test guided my differentiated groups, and supported students showed growth on their post-test. The structured math block provided an opportunity to meet student needs, specifically writing numbers from 1-120. By routinely meeting with these students, they were able to perform better when retaking their assessment. Lastly, differentiated math instruction provided an overall positive experience for the students I interviewed, who also benefited from the action research. Based on the three data points I utilized within my action research, each data point confirms that when executed together, they were successful in my classroom. They enriched my math block and instruction, and explained the growth that occurred within my students and their learning. For example, the positive reactions from the post student interview explain the growth that most of my students experienced through the post-test.