Design+Project+Report+3

Put the 'Place' in Place Value!


 * __ Revisions since Report 2 __**

In Report 2, I changed the percentage for my goal statement. Since then, I’ve realized based on your comment, that there isn’t very much difference between 100% and 98%. I just went off what the data from previous years had shown. So to take your advice and give more leeway, I am going to change it to 95%.


 * __ Goals, objectives and task analysis, and Report 2 __**

95% of all second grade students will pass place value assessments with 80% accuracy while demonstrating an understanding of all-encompassing skills.


 * __ Plan for one-to-one formative evaluation __**

I can see that each learner is eager to learn the material. The students understand the material when it is introduced in a group setting and scaffolded. However, once they are on their own, they become a little less confident. Each student has a good attitude about math and want to participate. They have the support from both school and home to give them the positive influence they need. For the one-to-one formative evaluation, I evaluated each student in a setting that wouldn’t feel intimidating. The materials that I used with the students for the one-to-one formative evaluation were tangible manipulatives such as base ten blocks and their book. I worked closely with each student to discuss the material at a pace that was comfortable for them while using the book and manipulatives for the student to feel they are just ‘having fun’. While this is happening, I was asking for them to show me how they arrived at the answers to certain questions from the book as well as to a number of questions that test each of the concepts.


 * __ Results of one-to-one formative evaluation __**

Formatively evaluating each student individually has turned out to be a very beneficial and fundamental part of the learning process. I was able to see the concepts that each individual student did and did not understand. The students definitely seemed a lot more confident after working in both the guided and independent small groups. The students also seemed to have a good grasp on each of the concepts. Their level of understanding was effectively shown in their individual evaluation. 78% of the students scored an 85% of higher on the formative evaluation. 9% of the students scored between a 60%-84% and 3% got a 59% or lower and did not pass. Based on this information, I have made some revisions to the guided learning and guided learning groups. I reorganized the students in each group based on how they performed on this formative evaluation. Also, I gave each group work based on the concepts they need to focus on.


 * __ Materials and assessments for small-group evaluation __**
 * __ Characteristics of small-group learners __**

The small group learners all like working with each other. In the independent small groups, they built chemistry while they were together with the motivation to work towards a common goal of learning the material. They helped each other learn and understand the material in a way that I can’t do because they are hearing the explanation in a different way from their peers. They’ve all take on a leadership role because they have stepped into a different perspective of learning. I can tell they they’ve taken control of their learning and they like that. In the guided learning groups, the students are equally as motivated. They are excited to be working so closely with the teacher and want to show off what they know of have begun to understand.


 * __ Instruments for small-group evaluation __**

For the small-group evaluation, I chose to use observation to help the in the evaluation process. Using observation as the main instrument in conjunction with their books and their base ten blocks created a fearless and confident environment. By using the same materials they have been using throughout the entire learning process, it helped familiarize them with these tools and allowed them to become comfortable with them. Since the students felt comfortable, the observation didn’t intimidate them. Each small-group had the same base evaluation with an extra portion that was unique to each group.


 * __ Procedures for small-group evaluation __**

In the small-group evaluation, the procedure used was similar to the one-to-one evaluation. I gave each student a dry erase board and eraser as well as base ten blocks. I sat in front of the students and asked questions to test each concept with a focus on what that group was concentrating on. Students would need to use the base ten blocks and/or the dry erase board and marker to show their answer. Randomly, I would ask a different student each time to explain their answer to me.


 * __ Summary of small-group evaluation __**

The data from the small-group evaluation showed very promising results. Each group obviously had to learn each concept, but each group had a specific concept of difficulty that they were focusing on to improve. Each small-group showed vast improvement in all areas, including their area of difficulty. Each student showed at least 9% or more growth on this evaluation in comparison to the one-on-one evaluation.

After summarizing and reflecting on the small-group evaluation, I was very proud of the results I saw. One of the main focus’s for the counties and the state is ‘growth.’ It is known that perfection is not always attainable. So ‘growth’ is what the school districts want to see in order to make sure that learning is taking place. The fact that I am seeing such a great amount of growth from each of my students shows that they are learning and truly understanding the concepts that are being taught to them. I’ve learned that focusing in on a concept and allowing students to take some of the learning into their own hands can go a long way. I’ve also learned that using different learning styles and environments can increase the level of learning success because you have a better chance of reaching every student. If a student didn’t understand in one setting, if gives them the chance of understanding it in another.
 * __ Discussion of small group data __**


 * __ Revisions for instruction and assessment __**

The revision I plan to make for the next version of my unit would have to do with the time management aspect. Getting used to a new format for the class was challenging and getting the timing of both the whole group and small group was a little tricky at first. For the next version, I would work out the flow and timing a little better. As far as the actual instruction and assessment goes, I was very pleased with how it went and I would use the same materials for the next version.

Morrison, Ross, Kemp & Kalman. (2010). Designing Effective Instruction, 6th ed.Wiley.
 * __ Relevant current references __**

Sweller, Van Merrienboer ,& Paas. (1998). Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3). Retrieved from []