DIFFERENTIATED MATH INSTRUCTION
DATA COLLECTION
PRE-TEST AND POST-TEST
The pre-test and post-test were used to collect data on the students’ understanding of the content prior to the study and at the end of the study. This data collection method was crucial to my study because it measured student growth in the content areas that I was teaching. Both the pre-test and post-test were identical, and covered four topics: comparing numbers to 100, adding tens and ones, subtracting tens and ones and length. It was important for my students to take the pre-test prior to beginning my action research to ensure that I could group them based on their performance. The pre-test identified their specific needs, and I was able to address those needs when the topics began to vary. This data informed my instructional decisions during the course of the study by providing a better understanding of what my students knew, and where they needed additional practice. Therefore, groups changed throughout my study, and I was able to consistently differentiate content depending on student needs. I was able to monitor student progress during the course of the study through the post-test component of the data collection method. For example, the post-test allowed me to measure student growth, and monitor students who were successful with the content and students who needed more practice. Overall, this type of pre-test and post-test was best for my students because both tests provided me with a succinct overview of their understanding and progress throughout my study.
DISTRICT COMMON ASSESSMENT (DCA)
The Writing 1-120 District Common Assessment (DCA) was used as a data collection method in my action research to determine if repeated, small group interventions would be successful. The Writing 1-120 DCA was an assessment that all first grade students in my district needed to complete and master by the end of the school year. It was a district-wide expectation that all first grade students write their numbers from 1-120 by the end of the year. With this in mind, students were given this assessment, and had to write their numbers in one sitting. When first taking the assessment in December, I noticed that several of my students did not pass the DCA, and struggled with the concept. Some of these struggling students would skip an entire row of numbers at the beginning of the assessment, so they would be incorrect as they continued to write their numbers. One of these students was visibly overwhelmed, and stopped writing their numbers towards the beginning of the assessment. Therefore, towards the end of my action research, I routinely met with five of my students to practice writing and reading numbers 60-120. The DCA was best for this small group of students because they needed an intense intervention in writing numbers 1-120 to assist them in being successful going forward. The reason I only had students focus on the second-half of the assessment was because that is where I felt the most error was on their first assessment. Writing their numbers increased in difficulty once they got to 100, so I felt that writing and reading numbers 60-120 would be best to focus on throughout the intervention. This intervention did not take place throughout the entirety of my action research because the district mandated curriculum covered topics including adding tens and ones and subtracting tens and ones. During those topics, students were getting substantial practice with reading and writing numbers. They did not show a particular need for the intervention until moving onto length towards the end of my action research. Student progress was monitored throughout this intervention by keeping track of how often each student practiced writing their numbers 1-120. This data collection method informed my decision making by measuring their growth from when they initially started practicing, to their last time practicing before taking the assessment for a second time.
STUDENT INTERVIEWS
The student interview was given prior to beginning my action research and at the end of my action research to gain student perspectives on the math block. The same question was asked before and after my action research: “How do you feel about math in the classroom?” Before implementing differentiated math instruction, I wanted to understand how students felt about the initial instruction (whole-group). Therefore, the student interviews were chosen as a data collection method and best for my students because they allowed me to be given feedback directly from my students, and I used that feedback to improve my teaching going forward. I wanted my students to be engaged and feel like they could access the content during the math block. After my CADRE associate administered the student interviews, I felt that some of my students perceived they were struggling in math and did not feel confident in their abilities. The data collected informed my decision making because I knew that I needed to address student attitudes and perceptions to ensure that each student was learning to their fullest potential, and felt confident throughout the math block. In conclusion, the student interview was a successful data collection method, especially because my CADRE associate was able to meet with my students and ask the questions. I did not want my students to feel pressured to answer a specific way because I was conducting the interview. With this in mind, I feel that my students were honest with my CADRE associate, and I was given valuable feedback on the math block before and after implementing differentiated math instruction.