DIFFERENTIATED MATH INSTRUCTION
RATIONALE
HISTORY
My capstone project, differentiated math instruction, was implemented during math time in my first grade classroom. I taught in a suburban Omaha school district. According to the Nebraska Department of Education, the racial breakdown of my building for the 2017-2018 school year was 3 American Indian/Alaskan Native students, 5 Asian students, 4 African American students, 9 Hispanic students, 9 students of two or more races and 306 Caucasian students. My building was granted Title I funding due to the number of students who received free and reduced lunch. With this in mind, 11% of my students in my classroom qualified for free and reduced lunch. Three of my students received Title I math support due to their AimsWebPlus data at the beginning of the school year. Knowing this, I had to provide interventions for these students that other students in my class did not need in order to be successful during daily math instruction. All students in my class were a part of my research study. My class had 19 first graders. All of my students spoke English both at home and in school. None of my students received special education services, but three of my students were in the Student’s Assistance Team (SAT) program. These students were referred to this program due to academic or behavioral concerns. Although none of my students received special education services, there was a 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 without teacher assistance throughout math time. This resulted in extra planning to ensure I had interventions in place for students who struggled to be independent, and an activity in place for students who finished early.
NEED
First Data Point
Based on the data I collected from my students, differentiated math instruction was a need for my class. The first data point that supported the need for differentiated math instruction was the AimsWebPlus number comparison fluency assessment. AimsWebPlus is an online assessment tool that all first grade teachers in my district used to assess students in number comparison fluency and math fact fluency. According to AimsWebPlus, eight of my students scored below the 40th percentile in number comparison fluency. One of my students scored as on-level. Ten of my students scored in the above level range. This spread of assessment scores supported my desire to target math instruction in my classroom because whole-group, on-level instruction was only effective for 58% of my students.
Second Data Point
The second data point that showed a need for differentiated math instruction was from the AimsWebPlus math fact fluency assessment. Eight of my students scored below the cut score (11) in math fact fluency. Three of my students scored as on-level. Eight of my students scored in the above level range. This showed that there was a wide variety of ability in math fluency. Some students struggled with basic computations, while others were fluent. The AimsWebPlus number comparison fluency data and the math fact fluency data demonstrated that several of my students needed dramatic interventions in both of these areas, while others were on or above grade level expectations.
Third Data Point
The third data point that focused on math achievement in my classroom was from our district adopted math curriculum enVision. Based on the three enVision unit tests the students had taken, eight out of nineteen students passed all three tests. Therefore, these students were ready to move forward onto different content. Yet, this indicates that several students were still struggling to master the skills that were assessed on unit tests. With this in mind, during daily math instruction, there was a large gap in achievement. I had students who finished their work quickly, accurately and independently with ease, and students who struggled to complete their work correctly without teacher assistance. As their teacher, it was often difficult to balance whole-group instruction during math time because there was a significant difference in understanding among my students.
Fourth Data Point
The fourth data point I utilized to assess my students was a timed math test. Timed math tests assisted my students in identifying signs and building automaticity when solving math facts. The timed test consisted of twenty subtraction and addition facts to ten. They had one minute to complete as many problems as they could. The timed math test showed that 5 students finished less than ten problems accurately, 2 students completed exactly ten problems accurately, 10 students completed more than ten problems accurately and 2 students completed all twenty problems accurately. These results showed that my students had a variety of understanding and automaticity when solving addition and subtraction problems to ten.
Fifth Data Point
My fifth data point was a math attitude survey. I decided to implement a math attitude survey to gather information on how my students felt about daily math instruction. The math attitude survey consisted of one statement, “I feel happy when I learn and work on math in class”. They answered this question by circling a happy face or a sad face. The happy face showed that they agreed with the statement and liked daily math instruction, and the sad face showed that they disagreed with the statement and disliked daily math instruction. Eleven of my students circled the happy face, and eight students circled the sad face. As their teacher, this told me that eleven of my students circled the happy face because they genuinely liked math and/or it came easy to them. On the other hand, eight of my students circled the sad face because they did not enjoy daily math instruction and/or it was difficult for them. Knowing my students’ attitudes toward math, it was important that I met the needs of students who both liked and disliked daily math instruction.
Conclusion
In conclusion, these five data points led me to exploring different ways to meet the varied needs in my classroom. I needed to challenge my high achieving students, grow my on-level students and support the needs of my students who were below level. Differentiated math instruction was a promising way to meet the needs of my students, and to ensure all students made growth in their math achievement.
IMPORTANCE
My capstone project assisted me in meeting the needs of all of my students through differentiated math instruction. I had the opportunity to meet with small groups of students and provide interventions, on-level instruction or enrichment. Not all of my students were fully benefiting from whole-group math instruction; this was supported by the data I collected. 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. Differentiated math instruction provided me with the opportunity to step outside of my comfort zone, and implement a structure that I had never utilized before.