Phase 1 Findings and Reflections
PHASE 1 IMPLEMENTATION
For phase 1, I wanted to test whether it is in fact more beneficial to lead a unit with vocabulary frontloading than the traditional model of activity before concept, concept before vocabulary. I split this phase into two weeks, one with my new idea and the other with the traditional model. My cooperating teacher and I collaborated on some of the lesson planning for this phase because she has more experience with this population and in particular these kids so could give me sound advice on how to shape my plans to best suit these students.
I started week one of phase one with a flashcard matching activity to introduce the relevant vocabulary for the section we were on, trigonometry. In creating and teaching lessons for this unit, I put an emphasis on the vocabulary, giving definitions multiple times and in multiple ways. Inspired by Singapore math methods, I used pictorial learning methods in support of the definitions. At the end of week one, I gave a test on the material. In addition, during discussions with students I reinforced and modeled the proper use of the vocabulary along with diagrams and examples. I also gave worksheets and monitored student-student interactions throughout the week.
In week two, we started the area unit with a hands-on activity involving area blocks of different shapes. The students were given worksheets on which they overlaid the area blocks to match the image. In each round of the activity, a different shape is given the value of one unit of area and the areas of the other shapes are expressed in terms of the base shape. I proceeded through the sections as normal, introducing the vocabulary along with the concepts. I gave worksheets with each section as well as a test at the end of the week. As with week 1, I reinforced the vocabulary during conversations with students, modeling it with examples and diagrams where applicable. I monitored student-student interactions as well. After week 2 and the test, I also gave a small worksheet with student feedback questions as well as problems to solve. One sheet had questions phrased with academic vocabulary; the other version had a question with a picture and limited academic vocabulary.
PHASE 1 RESULTS
During week one, I saw a definite upswing in the use of academic vocabulary during student-student interactions. They were more sure of themselves in using the vocabulary and were more on task as well. The test had a wide range of scores. The average was about 65%. There were some very high scores and some very low scores, but not much in between. Students seemed to have a stronger grasp of vocabulary when it was explained with a picture. The week two test performance was a lot stronger than the week one performance. There are multiple variables that could be the culprit, including the differing formats of the two tests. The average was 82%. This is noticeably higher. The more interesting piece of data came from the student feedback form. More of the form with the picture based problem were turned in than the vocabulary emphasized problem. 71% of respondents agreed with the statement that they would benefit from emphasis on academic vocabulary in lessons. That same 71% agreed with the statement that understood the necessary academic vocabulary to solve the problems. In discussions with some of my students, enlightening comments have been made. One student said that "we do not come to [this school] to think" when in a discussion about multiple choice tests versus short answers. This particular student is actually a bright student who struggles with focus. I have also noticed that the students are very engaged when one of their fellows is at the board doing work. Something very interesting emerged when I triangulated my data. Once I examined my observations, looked at the student feedback forms, and marked the tests, I noticed the same trend emerging across the board. These students tended to perform better and were more confident when they had pictures to work with.
PHASE 1 FINDINGS
1) The pattern led me to the realization that my students are highly visual learners. They grasp concepts and vocabulary better when presented with it in a visual format. That revelation led me to further my literature review and look into the methods used in Singapore to teach math. In Singapore, they use a visual kinesthetic pedagogy to introduce and explore mathematical concept, often using bar diagrams. Based on how many of the pictorial feedback sheets were turned in versus non pictorial as well as performance on tests and bookwork where pictures are used and not used, these students are primarily visual learners. They are skilled at organizing their thoughts using diagrams and figuring out problems spatially with pictures. Also based on test results, they performed better on problems where pictures were given. One of the weaknesses of my design in the early implementation was my unfamiliarity with my students. I used what my cooperating teacher has told me and what I have found out from other staff and faculty at the school to try to shape lessons to this group's needs. I think also that this unfamiliarity led me to overemphasize non pictorial questions, which led my students to be more resistant to my efforts to present the information.
2) The disparity in the test scores from week 1 to week 2 also tells me that I need to rethink my vocabulary forward approach. My card matching activity was moderately successful but not enough to warrant adherence to that methodology. I am going to move in the direction of Singapore math with more concrete exploration of the concept and vocabulary before starting into the pictorial presentation and then finally moving into the abstract. Rather than trying to frontload the vocabulary, I will emphasize it in context because it seems to make more sense to the students and they retain it better. Also, having them brainstorm before giving them the actual definition allows them to have the definition
3) In response to the student feedback forms, I will continue to emphasize the vocabulary as I teach the lessons as I integrate it into my teaching. I will use the context on the sections we are going over to help establish the vocabulary. I have been working on ways to engage the students with the material and ways to incorporate the vocabulary more prominently into my instruction rather than pulling it out of context and just asking the students to learn and remember it before they know why it is important.
PHASE 2 PLANNING
My Phase 1 Findings have led me to rethink my subquestion. My new subquestion is: How do pictorial learning and abstract learning play into my students' ability to interpret academic vocabulary in problems? Rather than looking at pulling the vocabulary out of the concept and presenting it separately, I will be looking at different ways to present the vocabulary within the lessons using various methods such as those inspired by Singapore math. To that end, I will be designing lessons to integrate the vocabulary rather than isolating them first and then reuniting them. Phase 2 will be two weeks, like Phase 1. At the end of each week, I will give a student feedback form in order to assess my planning for the week and get student perspectives on their learning. In response to the comment about not thinking, I have already begun reshaping my planning to encourage thinking and make it more palatable. I am keeping my material at about a Z+1 level so that the students can grasp it but are still challenged. I will be using real word examples, such as pizza for properties of circles, to give the concepts further context and address student concerns about the relatability of the material. In introducing the vocabulary to my students, I will be using detailed diagrams and concrete examples to make it easier to digest. As I am more familiar with my students, my planning better addresses their needs. I have collaborated with one of the more senior students to plan a lesson for her colleagues that might be more exciting for them. I plan on continuing this practice because she offers valuable insights into her colleagues and their mindsets that I might not otherwise have access to. Based on the insights I gained from triangulating my data, I am going to shape my lessons based on the strengths of my students. I am also shaping my tests to these strengths and needs. I will also be pinpointing my data more by designing my assessments to compare each student to him or herself.
For phase 1, I wanted to test whether it is in fact more beneficial to lead a unit with vocabulary frontloading than the traditional model of activity before concept, concept before vocabulary. I split this phase into two weeks, one with my new idea and the other with the traditional model. My cooperating teacher and I collaborated on some of the lesson planning for this phase because she has more experience with this population and in particular these kids so could give me sound advice on how to shape my plans to best suit these students.
I started week one of phase one with a flashcard matching activity to introduce the relevant vocabulary for the section we were on, trigonometry. In creating and teaching lessons for this unit, I put an emphasis on the vocabulary, giving definitions multiple times and in multiple ways. Inspired by Singapore math methods, I used pictorial learning methods in support of the definitions. At the end of week one, I gave a test on the material. In addition, during discussions with students I reinforced and modeled the proper use of the vocabulary along with diagrams and examples. I also gave worksheets and monitored student-student interactions throughout the week.
In week two, we started the area unit with a hands-on activity involving area blocks of different shapes. The students were given worksheets on which they overlaid the area blocks to match the image. In each round of the activity, a different shape is given the value of one unit of area and the areas of the other shapes are expressed in terms of the base shape. I proceeded through the sections as normal, introducing the vocabulary along with the concepts. I gave worksheets with each section as well as a test at the end of the week. As with week 1, I reinforced the vocabulary during conversations with students, modeling it with examples and diagrams where applicable. I monitored student-student interactions as well. After week 2 and the test, I also gave a small worksheet with student feedback questions as well as problems to solve. One sheet had questions phrased with academic vocabulary; the other version had a question with a picture and limited academic vocabulary.
PHASE 1 RESULTS
During week one, I saw a definite upswing in the use of academic vocabulary during student-student interactions. They were more sure of themselves in using the vocabulary and were more on task as well. The test had a wide range of scores. The average was about 65%. There were some very high scores and some very low scores, but not much in between. Students seemed to have a stronger grasp of vocabulary when it was explained with a picture. The week two test performance was a lot stronger than the week one performance. There are multiple variables that could be the culprit, including the differing formats of the two tests. The average was 82%. This is noticeably higher. The more interesting piece of data came from the student feedback form. More of the form with the picture based problem were turned in than the vocabulary emphasized problem. 71% of respondents agreed with the statement that they would benefit from emphasis on academic vocabulary in lessons. That same 71% agreed with the statement that understood the necessary academic vocabulary to solve the problems. In discussions with some of my students, enlightening comments have been made. One student said that "we do not come to [this school] to think" when in a discussion about multiple choice tests versus short answers. This particular student is actually a bright student who struggles with focus. I have also noticed that the students are very engaged when one of their fellows is at the board doing work. Something very interesting emerged when I triangulated my data. Once I examined my observations, looked at the student feedback forms, and marked the tests, I noticed the same trend emerging across the board. These students tended to perform better and were more confident when they had pictures to work with.
PHASE 1 FINDINGS
1) The pattern led me to the realization that my students are highly visual learners. They grasp concepts and vocabulary better when presented with it in a visual format. That revelation led me to further my literature review and look into the methods used in Singapore to teach math. In Singapore, they use a visual kinesthetic pedagogy to introduce and explore mathematical concept, often using bar diagrams. Based on how many of the pictorial feedback sheets were turned in versus non pictorial as well as performance on tests and bookwork where pictures are used and not used, these students are primarily visual learners. They are skilled at organizing their thoughts using diagrams and figuring out problems spatially with pictures. Also based on test results, they performed better on problems where pictures were given. One of the weaknesses of my design in the early implementation was my unfamiliarity with my students. I used what my cooperating teacher has told me and what I have found out from other staff and faculty at the school to try to shape lessons to this group's needs. I think also that this unfamiliarity led me to overemphasize non pictorial questions, which led my students to be more resistant to my efforts to present the information.
2) The disparity in the test scores from week 1 to week 2 also tells me that I need to rethink my vocabulary forward approach. My card matching activity was moderately successful but not enough to warrant adherence to that methodology. I am going to move in the direction of Singapore math with more concrete exploration of the concept and vocabulary before starting into the pictorial presentation and then finally moving into the abstract. Rather than trying to frontload the vocabulary, I will emphasize it in context because it seems to make more sense to the students and they retain it better. Also, having them brainstorm before giving them the actual definition allows them to have the definition
3) In response to the student feedback forms, I will continue to emphasize the vocabulary as I teach the lessons as I integrate it into my teaching. I will use the context on the sections we are going over to help establish the vocabulary. I have been working on ways to engage the students with the material and ways to incorporate the vocabulary more prominently into my instruction rather than pulling it out of context and just asking the students to learn and remember it before they know why it is important.
PHASE 2 PLANNING
My Phase 1 Findings have led me to rethink my subquestion. My new subquestion is: How do pictorial learning and abstract learning play into my students' ability to interpret academic vocabulary in problems? Rather than looking at pulling the vocabulary out of the concept and presenting it separately, I will be looking at different ways to present the vocabulary within the lessons using various methods such as those inspired by Singapore math. To that end, I will be designing lessons to integrate the vocabulary rather than isolating them first and then reuniting them. Phase 2 will be two weeks, like Phase 1. At the end of each week, I will give a student feedback form in order to assess my planning for the week and get student perspectives on their learning. In response to the comment about not thinking, I have already begun reshaping my planning to encourage thinking and make it more palatable. I am keeping my material at about a Z+1 level so that the students can grasp it but are still challenged. I will be using real word examples, such as pizza for properties of circles, to give the concepts further context and address student concerns about the relatability of the material. In introducing the vocabulary to my students, I will be using detailed diagrams and concrete examples to make it easier to digest. As I am more familiar with my students, my planning better addresses their needs. I have collaborated with one of the more senior students to plan a lesson for her colleagues that might be more exciting for them. I plan on continuing this practice because she offers valuable insights into her colleagues and their mindsets that I might not otherwise have access to. Based on the insights I gained from triangulating my data, I am going to shape my lessons based on the strengths of my students. I am also shaping my tests to these strengths and needs. I will also be pinpointing my data more by designing my assessments to compare each student to him or herself.