Phase 2-Implementations-Results-Maria Llamas

Phase 2 Implementations and Results
By: Maria Llamas, Spring/Summer 2016

Phase #2 implementation and results are organized by the following:
Organization of Phase 2 Implementation
PRE Phase #2 Section/PRE Math Lab Creations
(MLC) :
This section described implementations that were carried
Pre-Phase 2
out prior to implementation of Math Lab Creations
(MLC) and some results from these implementations.
Math Lab Creations (MLC):
out during Math Lab Creations (MLC) and some results
from these implementations.
Math Lab Creations
POST Math Lab Creations (MLC):
out after Math Lab Creations (MLC) and some results
from these implementations.
PRE Math Lab (ML):
out before Math Lab (ML) and some results from these
implementations.
Math Lab Implementation
Analysis of both Math Lab

Creations and the
Implementation of Math Labs
Summary
Math Lab (ML)

out during Math Lab (ML) and some results from these
implementations.
POST Math Lab/POST Phase #2 Section:
out after Math Lab (ML) and some results from these
implementations. In addition this section includes result
analysis of PRE Phase #2 implementations that were
introduced prior to Math Lab Creations (MLC), but were
carried on throughout all of Phase #2.
Further Analysis of both MLC and ML:
This section described results of reflection/feedback
forms in relation to student preferences of MLC and/or
ML.
Summarized Results and Analysis:
This section describes the overall results and analysis in
relation to the main three topics of the Action Research
guiding questions: effect of choice in relation to
Academic Achievement, Autonomy, and
Motivation/Perceptions.
PRE Phase #2 Section/PRE Math Lab Creations (MLC):

This section described implementations that were carried out prior to implementation of
Math Lab Creations and some results from these implementations. The implementations are
included as a series of 6 steps.
Step 1: Pre-Test for Phase #2,
Step 2: a journal entry,
Step 3: content instruction,
Step 4: Pre MLC Perception Wheel,
Step 5: selection of Math Lab Creations centers, and
Step 6: introduction to the I CanChecklist.
Result analysis of the Pre-Test and journal entry are considered after description of their
implementation. Result analysis of the I Can...Checklist will occur in the POST Math
Lab/POST Phase #2 Section, as this was an implemented throughout all of Phase #2.
Step 1: Pre-Test
In order to also be able to assess students general knowledge in the initiation of Phase 2,
students took a Pre-Test. Questions of the Pre-Test were read and displayed in class to the class
and students submitted their results on a google form that can be found on the following link
http://goo.gl/forms/CMb6U0YxrgkDtFM83. The Pre-Test was inclusive of the following
concepts: recognizing and determining types of angles, calculating/finding angle measures,
recognizing types of triangles, describing/defining line characteristics (perpendicular/parallel),
and line symmetry analysis. The Pre-Test included a total of 8 questions, which is consistent
with the format students are used to for their regular English Language Arts test, in which as
evidenced by my needs assessment in my Introduction is a content area students have been very
successful in. The 8 questions that were read and displayed for students follow:
Results and Analysis of Pre-Test

Pre-Test results served as quantitative data. A total of 22 students out of 23 students who
took the Pre-Test received scores below 63%, as evidenced on Graph #1: Phase #2: Pre-Test
Scores. Thus, the majority of students showed below grade level proficiency in the math content
the Pre-Test focused on (recognizing and determining types of angles, calculating/finding angle
measures, recognizing types of triangles, describing/defining line characteristics
(perpendicular/parallel), and line symmetry analysis). Although these results were very low, I
anticipated this as my students have usually performed this way in other Pre-Tests from Phase #1
and as my needs assessment in my introduction indicated, many of them have usually performed
below 75% on state and district wide tests as well. These continuous low scores were what
compelled me in including a sub-question in my action research focus regarding analyzing if
student's choice could support my students academic achievement. Thus, the Pre-Test scores
motivated me as a researcher to continue my planned implementations that involved greater
student choice, since student choice seemed to support achievement in English Language Arts
for my students, as discussed in detail in my introduction. My hope at this stage of
implementation, was that the student choice during Math Lab and Math Lab Creations (to be
explained in detail later on) would serve to increase math learning, and that this learning be
expressed and evidenced by student scores being closer to 75% on the Post-Test.
Graph #1: Phase #2: Pre-Test Scores
Step 2: Journal Entry

Pre-Phase #2 then continued with a journal entry response focused on student ideas and
expectations for the initial implementations and continuation of Math Labs (term used for the
days in which students would learn/review math through visiting of rotation centers). Students
were instructed to respond to the following three questions:

1. What do you most look forward to in regards to the new sessions of Math Lab coming
up?
2. What center would you like to work on and what are some ideas/thoughts you have
planned?
3. What might be some challenges you will face and how could you face them?
Results and Analysis of Journal Entry
Overall, students journal entries provided qualitative data that suggested that the students
were motivated to participate in Math Lab Creations and/or Math Lab, and were already
planning ways in which to persevere through potential challenges ahead as autonomous learners.
Students motivation was evident by their writings of phrases such as looking forward to make
are (sic) own activitys (sic)[and] sharing to my class and I am looking forward to being
able to deseignn (sic) [my] own math lab. Ive wanted to do that for a while. Beyond motivation
to participate in Math Lab Creations/Math Lab, students also reflected a sense of autonomy
through their mention of how they would prepare and/or face challenges. Students included, I
whould (sic) try harder, Keep Trying!!, practice and practice and practice, and/or
practice it at home to overcome it. Students described a lack of fear or avoidance of
challenges, which is also indicative of students increased acceptance of a growth mindset, as
students even mentioned that they didnt mind challenges, Because trying new things makes
your brain stronger. Others mentioned I can struggle through it, when referring to the
challenges ahead and they included their desire to creating challenges for themselves, creating a
problem [that is] maybe a little advanced...not more easy (sic), [so I can] work on more
harder (sic) things. Students also exhibited appreciation and valuing of cooperation in the
classroom with their inclusion of comments such as, Im going to be in a group or with
someone to help and make what we need to do togeter (sic). From these journal entry responses,
I was able to realize that beyond my research focus on autonomy, allowing students to take
ownership of their learning, could also bring forth another positive implication in the classroom,
which is collaboration and the valuing of others ideas in order to support ones own learning.
Step 3: Content Instruction
Following students journal entry responses, content instruction occurred. Math content
for Phase #2 was taught to students in a direct instruction format. The content included:
recognizing and determining types of angles, calculating/finding angle measures, recognizing
types of triangles, describing/defining line characteristics (perpendicular/parallel), and line
symmetry analysis. Since this was a direct instruction component of the implementation, no
specific data was collected for Phase #2 purposes, thus, there are no result analysis for this
section. Nevertheless, this direct instruction was needed in order to expose my students to the
content they would be revisiting throughout Phase #2s entirety, as well as for them to be able to
formulate some general, initial perceptions on this math content and on themselves as learners.
Step 4: Pre MLC Perception Wheel

Students after direct instruction were then able to pinpoint which category or categories
best described their thoughts of themselves as learners, in respect to the content areas being
assessed on the Pre-Test. This was done at this time, because students had had the opportunity of
being exposed to the content that would be the focus for Phase #2 through the Pre-Test and the
direct instruction, thus, they were able to formulate some perception on how they feel at this
point in regards to their presumed ability to learn and understand the content. Even if this
perception would or would not change later on, I was interested in having my students pinpoint
their initial thoughts so that I could assess what kind of mindset, either negative or positive they
would be bringing with them in the following implementations. Students could select up to
two categories maximum.
The categories students were able to select from were as follows:
Challenged-Negative
Challenged-Positive
Anxious-Negative
Anxious-Positive
Motivated
Happy
Confident
Prior to having students select, as a class, we defined each category. For example,
Challenged-Negative would signify that as a learner they are finding the material overwhelming
in a way that hinders them or forces them to feel incapable of being successful. ChallengedPositive, would pinpoint that the student recognizes the content is rigorous and possibly a little
overwhelming, but they are willing to take on the challenges ahead in order to succeed. AnxiousNegative signified that the student perceived the content as causing of extreme nervousness or
perhaps even fear. Anxious-Positive served to categorize thoughts of yearning, almost impatience
to continue learning. Motivated served to denote students that were ready to continue learning
and developing in the content areas being taught. Happy denoted students that were content with
their abilities and with facing the learning ahead. Confident was to pinpoint students that were
sure of themselves and their already attained or gained learning, and that also felt ready to grasp
the learning to come as well. An image of the Perception Wheel used follows:
Results and Analysis of the Pre-MLC Perception Wheel:

Data collected for perceptions was qualitative, but was analyzed through quantifying of
results. Although there were seven categories students could select from, I decided to categorize
my data into two. One category, seen in purple below, signifies negative perceptions, whether
my students indicated they felt challenged-negative or anxious-negative. The latter in blue, is
inclusive of the other five categories which all represent positive perceptions. Since my main
goal was to support my students in attaining positive perceptions of themselves as learners and
content, in order to motivate them to learn further, I was not as concerned whether students felt
happy or confident, as much as I was if they indicated they had some negative perception. As
evidenced by Graph #2: Perception Wheel Results: Pre Math Lab Creations, in regards to
perceptions, 21% of my students demonstrated some negative perceptions towards the content
being learned and themselves as learners. From these results, my hope was that post MLC this
percentage of negative perceptions would be lower than 21%.
Graph #2: Perception Wheel Results: Pre Math Lab Creations
Step 5: I Can...Checklist
Students were each given a checklist titled: I Can...Checklist, as a way for them to
practice self-monitoring of their behavior, autonomy, and approach to learning. Students were
instructed to add checkmarks to each area that they fulfilled on a daily basis. The purpose of this
checklist was to have students begin to be a part of their own evaluation of their actions in the
classroom. This was also in an effort that through this my students could take greater ownership
what they do or dont do in the classroom. The checklist also served as a way for students to see
their own progress and things they could potentially strive to work on, on a daily basis. As a
teacher this was a great way to check students ability to monitor themselves, as well as to
measure students autonomy on a daily basis. Students could add check marks throughout the
day if they preferred, but they were all reminded at least once a day, towards the end of the
school day, to finish writing in all the checkmarks for each category and to find the total number
of checkmarks they accumulated for that particular day. An image of students checklist follows
along with the checklist categories in text for visual clarity.
Categories of Checklist:
I Can Checklist Self-Monitoring System
Personal Best:
I can try my personal best before asking others for help
Ask Others/Use Resources:
I can ask a peer(s) or used other resources to help me resolve my question(s)
New/Challenge:
I can try new approaches and/or challenged myself
Initiative:
I can take initiative
Persevere:
I can try many times to understand and solve a math problem.
Strategize/Feedback:
I can make a plan, called a strategy, to solve the problem and discuss other students strategies
too.
Mathematically Represent:
I can use math symbols and numbers to represent/explain/solve/justify problems
Manipulatives/Diagrams:
I can use math tools, pictures, drawings, and objects to solve/explain problems
Double Checking:
I can check to see if my strategy and calculations are correct and/or make sense
Prior Knowledge:
I can use what I already know about math to solve the problem.
I can use a strategy that I used to solve another math problem.
Reasoning:
I can think and reason through a math problem before attempting to solve it
Results and Analysis of I Can...Checklist:
Students used the checklist throughout the entirety of Phase #2 on a daily basis, thus,
checklists were not collected or analyzed until the very end of Phase #2. Data collected from this
implementation was quantitative. Results and analysis of the checklist can be found in the POST
Math Lab/POST Phase #2 Section.
Step 6: Math Lab Creation Center Selection

During Phase #1 implementations, my students grew accustomed to Math Lab procedures
of selecting a center to participate in from the three possible centers. Once at their center,
students during Math Lab would find a set of activities and general guidelines and instructions.
Students would then work on the activities (students were allowed to be creative in their
interpretation and/or meeting of the expectations), and then finalize their centers work with
completion of a Math Whizz, a short quiz to assess their math content learning at their center.
The Math Whizz was the one constant for all centers.
For Phase #2 since the focus was on increasing student autonomy and achievement
further, students were introduced to something we in the classroom referenced as Math Lab
Creations. Prior to Math Lab Creations, students, much like in Math Lab, were allowed to select
from a total of three centers: Math Technology Center, Manipulative and Exploration Center, or
Learning and Designing Center. Students were explained that the following day they would go to
their chosen center but instead of finding instructions or guidelines, they would be designing
activities for that center. This creation piece was an important component of Phase #2 because
this would be an opportunity for my students to exhibit autonomy (one of my AR focuses), but
also to explore content in ways they would find best suiting their needs, be it art work, writing,
etc. The hope was that if students were able to explore and create activities to learn from
themselves, they would be more likely to find them appealing and or motivating (another AR
focus) to complete/do, and thus, hopefully a genuine desire to learn math content, through these
activities, could be fostered in my students.
There were also specific guidelines in regards to the type of activities students would
design. One of these was the fact that the designed activities would have to be corresponding to
the centers criteria. For example, for the Math and Technology Center, students had to design a
technology based activity or activity involving some technology piece; for the Manipulative and
Exploration Center they would need to design a lesson involving math manipulatives or other
forms of manipulatives/items, and/or some sort of exploration that could be solved through
problem solving; and lastly, for the Learning and Designing Center, they would have to design a
set of guidelines and specifications for what students would be creating. All activities designed
for the center had to be teaching and/or reviewing Phase #2 math content. Students were told that
their designs could then be shared and if selected by their peers after a selection process, could
be part of the following week's Math Lab. The students signed up for their centers on the white
board under the center name they wished to work on. No specific data was collected from the
students selection of centers for Phase #2 purposes, thus, there are no result analysis for this
section.
Math Lab Creations:

This section describes implementations that were carried out during Math Lab Creations
(after PRE Phase #2/PRE MLC implementations), and some results from these implementations.
(Recall that the I Can...Checklist also continues to be in implementation on a daily basis but I
did not analyze any results from this until after Phase #2 implementations were complete.)
Math Lab Creations
The goal was for each student to create an original activity for the center they had chosen
(a technology based activity for the Math Technology center, etc.) that could be used to support
the learning of these concepts mentioned. Students were told that they would have an
opportunity to present their activities to the class as proposals for next week's official activities
for the centers during regular Math Lab. Essentially, students in Math Lab Creations were
creating the activities for their own Math Lab the following week, in order to hopefully support
them in their autonomy and taking even more ownership over their learning. Students on this day
went to their selected centers and worked for a period of about 40-55 minutes at their center.
Students were able to work in any group format they chose (pairs, large group, small group,
individually, etc.). Qualitative data, from teacher-researchers general observations, was attained
for this implementation
Results and Analysis of Math Lab Creations:
Overall students during Math Lab Creations exhibited great initiative, creativity,
autonomy in learning, and knowledge of content. This was evidenced by my observations (this
would also be supported by students checklist results for this day, as described on the I
Can...Checklist write up that will be discussed in detail POST Math Lab/POST Phase #2, as the
checklists were collected after all Phase #2 implementations). Evidence of students autonomy
and initiative during MLC was the fact that all students developed activities for their selected
center and in addition to this, 16 students out of the 27 present for MLC also prepared a
presentation for their activity, had peer feedback, revised their activity and presented to the class
their plan. These results were supportive of the fact that during MLC, students were encouraged
and motivated to learn enough so that they were willing to go beyond the simple requirements
and do additional math work and presentation. In addition, these 16 students included students
that were not usually very active participants verbally in class during math instruction. Thus, it
seems as if MLC was able to motivate these usually passive students, to the extent that they
would be more willing to share and take on new risks in the classroom. Students autonomy and
motivation during MLC was also evidenced by their journal entries pre and post MLC, but this
will be described in the Journal Entry sections.
POST Math Lab Creations (MLC):

This section described implementations that were carried out after Math Lab Creations
(MLC) and some results from these implementations. Implementations included the following 6
steps:
Step 1: POST MLC Perception Wheel,
Step 2: MLC Peer Feedback,
Step 3: MLC Share Time,
Step 4: MLC Recognition,
Step 5: Journal Entry, and
Step 6: MLC Reflection/Feedback Form.
Results and analysis of these implementation follow their descriptions below, with the
exception of MLC Recognition. Recognition was continued throughout MLC and ML, so results
and analysis of this will be found in the POST Math Lab/POST Phase #2 Section.
Step 1: POST MLC Perception Wheel
I gave my students a second opportunity to share their perceptions because I wanted to be
able to gain insight on students thoughts of themselves as learners, in respect to the content
areas being assessed on the Pre-Test (content which the MLC centered on as well). I wondered if
MLC had caused any change in their initial thoughts. I hoped the results would indicate
increased positive perceptions, because this would support the possibility that MLC was
increasing students motivation to learn and feel capable of being successful in the classroom,
which was one of my AR focuses (motivation and student perception). Students could select up
to two categories maximum in which to write their names in.
The categories students were able to select from are the same ones students had as choice
initially in the PRE MLC Perception Wheel, so that I could be better able to compare the two
data. (Categories: Challenged-Negative, Challenged-Positive, Anxious-Negative, AnxiousPositive, Motivated, Happy, Confident)
Results and Analysis of the Perception Wheel:
Data collected for perceptions was qualitative, but was analyzed through quantifying of
results. As evidenced by Graph #: Perception Wheel Results: Pre Math Lab Creations, in regards
to perceptions, 21% of my students demonstrated some negative perceptions towards the content
being learned and themselves as learners prior to MLC. However, after Math Lab Creations,
there was an evident decrease in negative perceptions and increase in positive perceptions. As
evidenced by Graph #3: Perception Wheel Results: Post Math Lab Creations, the 21% decreased
to 14% of my students having negative perceptions. These results suggest MLCs positive impact
on students perceptions on content. Graph #4: PRE and POST MLC Perception Wheel Results
reflects these percentages side by side. This data was valuable for my action research focus on
motivation and student perceptions, as it suggested that having MLC and choices in students
learning could indeed help my students gain a new outlook on the concepts they were learning
but also on themselves and their capacity to learn.
Graph #3: Perception Wheel Results: Post Math Lab Creations
Graph #4: PRE and POST MLC Perception Wheel Results
Step 2: MLC Peer Feedback

Students were then given the choice or option to share their created activity with their
classmates. Students that wished to share their activity were told that they would first
present/have a conference with two peers who would listen to them explain their creation. After
listening, these two people would provide feedback, ask clarification questions, and/or give them
suggestions for improvement of their activity.
Results and Analysis of MLC Peer Feedback:
16 students in addition to completing MLC specifications also prepared a presentation for
their activity, had their peer feedback conference with two other students, selected by the teacher
from volunteers, and revised their activity prior to presenting to the class their plan during MLC
Share Time. All other data acquired from this implementation was qualitative in nature from
teacher-researcher observations. Students worked well and were on task for the duration of their
conferences that lasted from 4-7 minutes. Data on students perception of MLC Peer Feedback
and ML Peer Feedback (to be discussed in later discussions) was also attained in students
Reflection/Feedback Responses and Student-Teacher Conferences, so result analysis can be
found under POST Math Lab/POST Phase #2 Section.
Step 3: MLC Share Time
Once students shared their activities to two peers, students would then have some time to
process and make the necessary modifications to their activity(ies), based on the peer feedback
they received. Students would then present to the entire class. The protocol for presentations was
that the class would listen while the presenter introduced themselves by name, provided the
center their activity would be an option for, and then described their activity. Students used
things they made, wrote, drew, etc., to support them in their presentation. After each presenter
concluded, the class could ask 3 to 5 clarifying or general questions. The presenters were
thanked, given a round of applause by the class, and then invited to return to their seat. Students
were then told to put their heads down/close their eyes and asked to vote, If you think this
would be one of the activities you would like to have for next weeks Math Lab raise your hand.
Then, the teacher, I, would count the hands and annotate the total. Students would then ask to
vote, If you think this this activity is a great idea, but maybe could use a little improvement or
maybe be more suited for another time, raise your hand now. Again students votes were then
calculated and written down. This same procedure was carried on for each student who wished to
present their idea(s) to the class.
Results and Analysis of MLC Share Time:
16 students in addition to completing MLC specifications also prepared a presentation for
presenting to the class their plan during MLC Share Time. All other data acquired from this
implementation was qualitative in nature from teacher-researcher observations. Students one by
one presented their ideas using pictures, games they created, etc. Data on students perception of
MLC Share Time was also attained during Student-Teacher Conferences, so result analysis can
be found in the POST Math Lab/POST Phase #2 Section.
Step 4: MLC Recognition
If students were on task, helping others, monitoring their behavior, and/or showing great
autonomy and responsibility over their learning during Math Lab Creations, as well as content
understanding as they explained to others, they were notified to write down their name on the
Math Leader Board. The idea of a leaderboard during MLC was in hopes of having students be
motivated to see their names on the board, and for this recognition to encourage them to continue
trying their best and performing their academic best in all tasks. Thus, I hoped the leaderboard
would be both serving motivation and academic achievement in the classroom. The Math
Leader Board included two categories: Gold Star Mathematician for students who exhibited
exceptional behavior/initiative, etc., and a Silver Star Mathematician section, for students
exhibiting good behavior/initiative, etc. Students who presented were also able to write their
name on the list (they were not told this until after all presentations were given). Students, who
consistently or repeatedly showed exceptional or good behavior, could get additional stars
added by their names. If they had their name under the Silver Star Mathematician portion for
example, for good behavior, and they showed repeatedly good behavior, students could also
get three additional stars by their name. Once students on the Silver Star Mathematician portion
attained three stars by their name, then they would get their name transferred to the Gold Star
Mathematician category. If they were already on the Gold Star Mathematician category, they
would just keep accumulating stars by their names if they showed repeatedly exceptional
behavior.
Results and Analysis of MLC Recognition:

The data collected for this implementation was student perceptions of this list, largely
qualitative in nature. Data was gathered from reflection/feedback forms and Student-Teacher
conferences (which occurred post ML), so results and analysis takes place in the POST Math
Lab/POST Phase #2 Section.
Students after Math Lab Creations then responded to the following questions focused on
their experience and thoughts regarding MLC:
1. What were some challenges and/or successes you had at your center? How did you overcome
the challenges?
2. Did you think you were more or less in control of your learning and/or the activity you were
creating than usual? Why do you say this?
3. Did you take any risks? More or less than usual? Why do you think this was the case?
4. What ideas or designs did you have/create for your center? What are your thoughts about
these?
5. Describe your thoughts on learning about angles and shapes? How well do you think you
know the content?
Results and Analysis of Journal Entry:
Students continued to show great autonomy and control over their learning, as well as an
embrace and acceptance for difficulties in their learning process, through their journal responses.
For example, students willingness to try new approaches and overcome challenges is reflected
by comments such as, I took a couple risks one of them did not work. But one of my other risks
did work. I took a really big risk and completed it, and Shapes where hard but I got through it
and Angles where fun I don't really understand yet but it's ok. Students also described their
regained motivation to learn math concepts, I made my own football center. I liked it because I
could make whatever I wanted. It was with angles and shapes. Usually math is really boring this
time it was not boring because I got to make my own center. Moreover, students began making
connections between math and the real world, such as the students mentioning, If you were to
become an engineer, then you could use some angles and geometry. My thoughts on angles? I
think it's very important to learn about angles and geometry. Such (sic) as clocks. If you see it as
a 90 degree angle you should say it would be 12:15 or so. This was significant because students
were showing evidence of the content understanding through applying it to other aspects we did
not directly discuss in class. This showed evidence of students higher level understanding of the
concepts which I hoped would serve and allow the students to better display their learning during
their Post-Test later on. Students also related the concepts being learned with things they were
familiar with and/or had experience with, such as a fortune teller, My partner and I made a math
oragomi (sic) fortune teller. My thoughts about these are you can make different angles and
shapes out of the fortune teller. Like when we were making the fortune teller in the process, we
made a right angle. These types of connections further implied that students were willing to see
math around them in things that were not math related specifically, such as a fortune teller. This
suggested a greater acceptance of math in my students and also possibly motivation or at least a
willingness to learn mathematics.
Step 6: MLC Reflection/Feedback Form
After Math Lab Creations then reflected and responded to the following questions online
on the following Google Form: http://goo.gl/forms/OjLujl0p73Vym9832
Results and Analysis of MLC Reflection/Feedback Form:
After students completed their reflection/feedback forms, some key questions were
analyzed in more depth. (Additional question(s) and analysis from this reflection/feedback form
is included in the Further Analysis of both Math Lab Creations and Math Lab Section as well.)
Because my goal in my implementations was to allow students a greater voice and have
choices in the classroom, after MLC, although I was desirous to continue MLC and ML days, I
wanted to know if my students also shared this view. As my introduction included, even in
English Language Arts, where students did have choice, it wasnt often that my students were
able to discuss their thoughts on what we had them work on. For me, choice inevitably meant
that my students be heard and their thoughts on implementations be considered, in order for the
choice to be not simply an option, but options students wanted to have. When students were
asked if they wished to continue having Math Lab Creations (if they wanted to continue having
the opportunity of creating math labs), 22 out of 27 students (total number of students who
completed the reflection form) indicated they would like to, as evidenced by Graph #5: Would
you like to continue having Math Lab Creations?. In regards to their perceptions on MLC in
general, all 27 students that completed the reflection form stated they thought MLC was alright
or they liked it a lot, no students indicated they disliked it, as evidenced by Graph #6: What do
you think about Math Lab Creations?.
Graph #5: Would you like to continue having Math Lab Creations?
Graph #6: What do you think about Math Lab Creations?
Some specific comments that supported students positive perceptions of MLC include
students mention of words such as, fun or happy repeatedly. Some specific student
responses to describing MLC include the following:
Math lab makes me happy and it's fun cause (sic) I can have fun with my friends and do math
that's fun. Yeah never thought that existed,
I love math lab because it gives me a chance to choose my learning,
[Math Lab] it is a (sic) educational, fun, creative way to learn, and Student A (which will be
discussed in the Conclusion Reflection Section of this Action Research) mentioned,
Usually I HATE math and now I get to create it my way so it is more fun for me.
The reflection/feedback form also included having students defining math for them
personally. The intent for asking this was to have students putting in words what math made
them think about, feel, etc. This would hopefully allow me insight on their personal perceptions
of math and to see if motivation to learn math had or had not been supported thus far. I would be
asking this question again also towards the end of Phase #2 for both the students to compare their
potential change and for me to also see this as well. Students personal definitions of math in
general, were also very positive (even more so than results found in Phase #1). For example, one
student included, math means every thing (sic) to me. Students also showed indications of
being able to realize the relevance of math in their daily lives, for example two students included,
Math is like life when you get money and you go to spend it you do math in life everywhere
you do math kids might not see it but it is all around you (sic), and Math is tool to help you
understand real life problems and it doesn't even have to be a problem it could be something else,
like to help you understand something.
Students perceptions of MLC in regards to its helpfulness, were also very positive, as 26
out of 27 students mentioned MLC was at least a little helpful for their learning, as evidenced in
Graph #7: How helpful do you think Math Lab Creations is and can be for you in order to
understand math concepts, in this case for angles/triangles/line characteristics?. This was
significant because students were realizing that these implementations of choice were not just
fun or motivating but were also contributing to actual learning. The hope beyond me seeing the
effectiveness of MLC in supporting academic learning and achievement was to have students
realize that learning could be fun and based on choice as in MLC and ML days. Based on
students responses, I realized the majority of them were realizing this.
Graph #7: How helpful do you think Math Lab Creations is and can be for you in order to
understand math concepts, in this case for angles/triangles/line characteristics?
In regards to students sense of autonomy, and control over their learning, post MLC, 21
students out of 27 indicated that they felt during MLC they had a lot or complete/extreme control
over their learning, as evidenced by Graph #8: Rank yourself in terms of control over your
learning during Math Lab Creations.
Graph #8: Rank yourself in terms of control over your learning during Math Lab
Creations
In contrast, only 15 out of the same 27 students indicated they had complete/extreme or a
lot of control over their learning during regular instruction days, as evidenced by Graph #9: Rank
yourself in terms of control over your learning during math instruction when we DO NOT have
Math Labs. These results were significant indicators that choice that students were experiencing
on MLC and ML days was effectively allowing my student to feel more empowered and in
control of their learning. Having my students feel in control was very important for me because it
could allow my students to realize that they could make a difference in their own performance in
the classroom, they could decide how successful they wanted to be through effort. I need to have
my students believe they could control these aspects so that they could be reminded that the
academic achievement they had exhibited on my needs assessment of below grade level, was not
something outside of their power that could not be changed, it was changeable and it could be
changed and/or at least improved by themselves, if they truly believed it.
Graph #9: Rank yourself in terms of control over your learning during math instruction
when we DO NOT have Math Labs
PRE Math Lab:

This section describes the implementations that were carried out before Math Lab and
some results from these implementations. The implementations include 3 steps:
Step 1: PRE ML Perception Wheel,
Step 2: Content Instruction, and
Step 3: Math Lab Center Selection.
Analysis/results of the Perception Wheel follow its description however other
implementations although implemented did not have any specific data collected for Phase #2
purposes, thus, there are no result analysis for these two sections.
Step 1: PRE ML Perception Wheel
Students were able to pinpoint once again which category or categories best described
their thoughts of themselves as learners, in respect to the content areas being assessed on the PreTest (content which the MLC centered on as well). Students could select up to two categories
maximum. The categories students were able to select from area as follows: ChallengedNegative, Challenged-Positive, Anxious-Negative, Anxious-Positive, Motivated, Happy, and/or
Confident. The reason for implementation of this once again, was so that students and I after ML
could reference and compare if in fact any perception changes had occurred. The continual goal
of this was to see students perceptions becoming increasingly more and more positive once they
engaged in Math Labs and had choice in the classroom. This was also done not long after the
Post-MLC perception wheel in order to see if students were being consistent in what perceptions
they selected or if they were randomly selecting categories. If students were being consistent,
then the results would be very similar if not the same from the Post-MLC Perception Wheel.
Before Math Lab students in regards to perceptions were the same as they had indicated
post Math Lab Creations at approximately 14% negative and approximately 86% positive, as
evidenced by Graph #10: Perception Wheel Results: Pre Math Lab. These results were the ones I
hoped to attain as they supported the indication that students were being consistent and true to
their perceptions of content. In addition, something less than 14% negative perceptions
(approximately 7%) became what I hoped for in the Post-ML Perception Wheel since during
Math Lab students would have choice in the classroom once again and be engaged with content
in ways they found most appealing. 7% was my initial expected results since during MLC
student negative perceptions had decreased 7% from 21% to 14%, so I anticipated that ML
would continue with at least a 7% decrease from 14% to 7%.
Graph #10: Perception Wheel Results: Pre Math Lab
Step 2: Content Instruction

Math content for Phase #2 was taught to students in a direct instruction formats. The
content included: recognizing and determining types of angles, calculating/finding angle
measures, recognizing types of triangles, describing/defining line characteristics
(perpendicular/parallel), and line symmetry analysis. No specific data was collected for Phase #2
purposes, thus, there are no result analysis for this section. However, content instruction
continued to be essential for me to continue exposing students to the specific content and types
of questions students would need to understand in order for them to effectively engage in Math
Lab. Some things we reviewed included line of symmetry and developing some examples of
objects that have symmetry, as well as finding angle measures of different angles, etc. Without
this necessary background of content, students even with choice, I believed, would not be able to
successfully understand the center activities, and thus may not be as motivated and autonomous,
especially if they became frustrated.
Step 3: Math Lab Center Selection
Following content instruction students were explained that their votes from MLC Share
Time were calculated and the most voted activities were used to create the activities for this
weeks Math Lab. For each center the top 3-5 activities presented were used to create the
centers task (students were aware some modifications to their activities may have occurred but
all activities were based and/or inspired by their original ideas). Students were explained each
centers task and allowed to sign up for which center they would like to visit the following day
on the whiteboard under the center names. Center tasks are provided under the Math Lab section
following. No other specific data was collected from the students selection of centers for Phase
#2 purposes, thus, there are no result analysis for this section. This was however a crucial
implementation because this is where students were able to exercise choice and select which
center they would like to visit in order to learn the content. In essence, students ability to select
which center they wished to visit during Math Lab was a form of differentiation of learning
where student could pick which center they would find most suitable for them to learn and
engage in.
Math Lab:
This section described implementations that were carried out during Math Lab and some
results from these implementations. Implementations included two steps:
Step 1: Math Lab itself, students visit of their selected rotation center and completion
of the center activities, and
Step 2: Math Whizz.
Results and Analysis for these implementations follow their description.
Step 1: Math Lab
Students attended the center they had chosen the day before. At each of their centers they
had particular instructions/tasks to complete. The activities for each center were created and
inspired based on the top voted students creations from Math Lab Creations. The tasks for each
of the three centers are as follows:
Manipulative and Exploration Center
Manipulative and Exploration Center had students working on some card challenges and
a gameboard of their choice. Each student would receive the following set of instructions:
Possible cards students could select:
Game:
Angle Touchdown!
Game:
Shape and Angle Fun!
Math and Technology Center

The Math and Technology Center included having the students solving and working on
some challenges on cards and a technology based presentation of one of them. Each student
would receive the following set of instructions:
Possible cards students could select from:
Learning and Designing Center

The Learning and Designing Center had students work on creating some math problems
and an original work piece. Each student would receive the following set of instructions:
Results and Analysis of Math Lab (ML):

Overall students during Math Lab exhibited continual initiative, creativity, autonomy in
learning, and knowledge of content. Students initiative and autonomy was evidenced by the fact
that during ML I had students working at their center, without any incidences of misbehavior and
without really any support of me to aid in problem resolution. (Students autonomy would also be
later evidenced by students checklist results for this day, as will be described on the I
Can...Checklist write up.) Not having students coming up for questions or clarifications
allowed me to visit each center and observe students work. This allowed me to realize MLs
support of students content understanding through informally assessing their work. For
example, I came across a pair of students at the Manipulative and Exploration Center working on
the following game board two students worked on.
(The object of the game was to attain a touchdown, or get across to the finish line using at
least 5 angles to move each students symbol. Students would be either an O symbol or an
X. Students would have card to select from indicating movement forward or retreating, i.e.
retreat 90 degrees, etc.) Seeing students apply their angle understanding in the game not only
supported my hopes of Math Lab increasing academic achievement but also allowed me to see
that students were applying their learning almost naturally as their game continued at a smooth
pace. This natural progress suggested students actually understood concepts and had the
procedural fluency to respond and apply them quickly.
Step 2: Math Whizz

Students post their Math Lab center tasks were able to work on the Math Whizz
individually. After this, they had an opportunity to discuss their thoughts with a partner and
finally, we as a class went over this Math Whizz. Students then had the opportunity to revise and
make the necessary corrections based on their newly attained knowledge, etc. The Math Whizz
was the same for all three centers and served as a way to assess student understanding of the
content. Each student received the following Math Whizz:
Results and Analysis of Math Whizz:

In regards to academic achievement on the Math Whizz, a total of 14 students received
100%, 3 students missed one question (either a portion of a definition incorrect or a minor
computational error), and 6 students had an incomplete Math Whizz, out of the 23 students who
were present to take the Math Whizz. These results suggest that the discussions with peers and
class allowed for increased reflections and opportunities for academic improvement in students
as 17 of the 23 students were able to show in depth content understanding with few or no errors.
In regards to my action research focuses, this showed evidence of Math Lab contributing to my
students academic achievement as the majority of my students attained 75% or above which
would indicate they were at grade level on this content. These Math Whizz results also
encouraged me to expect an increase in students Post-Test scores in relation to the Pre-Test as
they were showing evidence of academic conceptual understanding.
When students were asked about their thoughts on being able to have an opportunity to
discuss their thoughts on the Math Whizz with peers and as a class, 14 of 24 students indicated
they preferred this approach to doing the Math Whizz alone. Students supported this opinion
with their mention that they liked it, because having different opinions is fine but sharing and
going over it helps learn what mistakes I made it also helps you kinda (sic) refresh what you
learned that day, and if I am confused I can get help from doing it as a class. These results
were expected since I had noticed in my observations during Math Lab that students began to
work collaboratively with others. Nevertheless, seeing my students willingness to learn in a
cooperative manner that would serve to support increased success, was not initially in my action
research focus, but was a positive addition to the evidence autonomy and academic success
evidenced.
POST Math Lab/POST Phase #2 Section:

This section described implementations that were carried out after Math Lab and some
results from these implementations. These implementations are included as a series of 6 steps:
Step 1: POST-ML Perception Wheel,
Step 2: ML/MLC Recognition,
Step 3: Journal Entry,
Step 4: ML Reflection/Feedback Form,
Step 5: Post-Test for Phase #2, and
Step 7: Student-Teacher Conferences.
Results and analysis of these are included after their descriptions (the Recognition section
includes analysis of recognition in MLC and ML, the Post-Test section includes comparison to
Pre-Test results, and the Student Teacher Conferences section includes analysis of MLC and ML
implementations). In addition, this section includes result analysis of PRE Phase #2
implementations that were introduced prior to Math Lab Creations, but were carried on
throughout all of Phase #2, such as the I CanChecklist.
Step 1: POST ML Perception Wheel
Students were able to pinpoint once again which category or categories best described
their thoughts of themselves as learners, in respect to the content areas being assessed on the PreTest (content which the MLC centered on as well). Students could select up to two categories
maximum. The categories students were able to select from area as follows: ChallengedNegative, Challenged-Positive, Anxious-Negative, Anxious-Positive, Motivated, Happy, and/or
Confident.
Post Math Lab students negative perceptions decreased once again, this time not a 7%
decrease but a 10% decrease. Negative perceptions went from 14% to 4%, suggesting an increase
in student confidence and motivation to continue learning, as evidenced by Graph #11:
Perception Wheel Results: Post Math Lab.
Graph #11: Perception Wheel Results: Post Math Lab
Step 2: ML/MLC Recognition

If students were on task, helping others, monitoring their behavior, and/or showing great
autonomy and responsibility over their learning during Math Lab, they were notified to write
down their name on the Math Leader Board. The Math Leader Board included two
categories: Gold Star Mathematician for students who exhibited exceptional
behavior/initiative, etc., and a Silver Star Mathematician section, for students exhibiting good
behavior/initiative, etc. Students who presented were also able to write their name on the list
(they were not told this until after all presentations were given). Students, who consistently
showed exceptional or good behavior, could get additional stars added by their names. If they
had their name under the Silver Star Mathematician portion for example, for good behavior,
and they showed repeatedly good behavior, students could also get three additional stars by their
name. Once students on the Silver Star Mathematician portion attained three stars by their name,
then they would get their name transferred to the Gold Star Mathematician category. If they were
already on the Gold Star Mathematician category, they would just keep accumulating stars by
their names if they showed repeatedly exceptional behavior.
Results and Analysis of MLC and ML Recognition:

In regards to recognition, 23 students of the 23 students that were able to respond to the
reflection form, mentioned that they liked recognition through the Math Leader Board, including
the Gold and Silver Star Mathematician sections, a lot or thought it was alright, as evidenced by
Graph #12: What do you think about Recognition of Gold and Silver Star Mathematicians?.
Graph #12: What do you think about Recognition of Gold and Silver Star
Mathematicians?
Students also supported their selection with their inclusion of phrases such as, I like the
recognition of gold and silver star list is good because when you honor somebody for doing
something it makes feel more proud about themselves and I like it a lot because it puts self
confidence in others to try their best. These comments serve as possible indications that
students felt empowered with the recognition and more capable of success in the classroom. This
confidence and pride students mentioned highlights the possible effect recognition can have on
students motivation, as well as the control and autonomy over their learning they can be
encouraged to possess, as they grow in their belief in themselves as students and as learners.
When students were asked their thoughts on the idea of recognition in the classroom through the
list, during student-teacher conferences, 22 out of 27 students said they liked it and 5 thought it
was alright. 26 of the 27 students thought it should be continued in the classroom. Students
during the conference also mentioned things such as the fact that when they are struggling with a
problem, the list and especially if your name is on it, kind of gives you confidence, almost
reminding you that you got this. The list can also serve to see if people improve they said.
These comments further support the potential positive effects that the recognition list can have
supported in regards to motivation to continue learning.

Phase two then continued with a journal entry response focused on student ideas and
thoughts on Math Lab. Students were instructed to respond to the following five questions:
1. What were some challenges and/or successes you had at your center? How did you
overcome the challenges?
2. Did you think you were more or less in control of your learning and/or the activity you
were creating than usual? Why do you say this?
3. Did you take any risks? More or less than usual? Why do you think this was the case?
4. What ideas or designs did you have/create for your center? What are your thoughts
about these?
5. Describe your thoughts on learning about angles and shapes? How well do you think
you know the content?
Results and Analysis of Journal Entry:
Journaling continued to suggest students increased confidence in themselves,
motivation, and recognition of the power of collaboration. One student mentioned they overcame
challenges, By believing in myself that I can do it. And the math labs aren't so bad there not
even difficult it's inspiring me to do math in fun ways. In regards to collaboration, students
included comments such as, someone has your back like you can have someone to help you like
a partner [during Math Lab].
Step 4: ML Reflection/Feedback Form
Students after Math Lab Creations then reflected and responded to the following
questions online on the following Google Form: http://goo.gl/forms/VQbhX2vf1UNDJ4Rk2
Results and Analysis of MLC Reflection/Feedback Form:
After students completed their reflection/feedback forms, some key questions were
analyzed in more depth. (Additional question(s)and analysis from this reflection/feedback form
is included in the Further Analysis of both Math Lab Creations and Math Lab Section as well.)
In regards to students perceptions on Math Lab, students expressed positive perceptions
overall. 13 students out 24 included that they liked it a lot. 0 students indicated that they disliked
Math Lab as evidenced by Graph #13: What do you think about Math Lab?.
Graph #13: What do you think about Math Lab?
All 24 students found Math Lab to be at least a little or very helpful for them in gaining
understanding of the math content Phase #2 focused on, as indicated by Graph #14: How helpful
do you think Math Lab is and can be for you in order to understand math concepts, in this case
angles/triangles/line characteristics?
Graph #14: How helpful do you think Math Lab is and can be for you in order to
understand math concepts, in this case angles/triangles/line characteristics?
When students were asked what about Math Lab they liked, 8 students included that they
liked the fact they could choose the center to explore learning in. Another 7 included that this
was also one reason in addition to the fact activities were fun and/or inspired by them, and
MLC/ML and the centers were something different. Only one student indicated dislike for Math
Lab. The results suggest that students enjoyed Math Lab because of the autonomy it allowed, the
choice, the attention to their voice and interests, and the novelty of it, as indicated by Graph #15:
If you like Math Lab, what is it about Math Lab that makes you like it? Pick the choice that you
feel MOST STRONGLY about.
Graph #15: If you like Math Lab, what is it about Math Lab that makes you like it? Pick
the choice that you feel MOST STRONGLY about.
Overall, in addition to this, 24 out of 24 students who were able to respond to the
reflection/feedback form, indicated their desire to continue Math Lab, as seen in Graph #16:
Would you like to continue having Math Lab?.
Graph #16: Would you like to continue having Math Lab?
Students supported their decisions with their mention that they, love to do/create math,
and Choosing [their] own center Students in fact mentioned that their least favorite part was
that they felt Math Lab was not long enough, I would like it if we had more time to work on
because my lest (sic) fav (sic) part was stoping (sic). Students view of math in general,
continued to be very positive. Some specific comments include students mentioning that math to
them meant, creativity to live! and A tool to help you learn.
In regards to students sense of autonomy and control over their learning, post ML, 18
out of 24 students indicated that they felt they had a lot or complete/extreme control over their
learning during ML, as evidenced by Graph #17: Rank yourself in terms of control over your
learning during Math Lab. Only 9 of the 24 however, indicated they thought this was the case
during regular instruction, as indicated by Graph #18: Rank yourself in terms of control over
your learning during math instruction when we DO NOT have Math Labs.
Graph #17: Rank yourself in terms of control over your learning during Math Lab.
Graph #18: Rank yourself in terms of control over your learning during math instruction
when we DO NOT have Math Labs.
Step 5: Post Test

In order to also be able to assess students knowledge, students took a Post Test. The test
was the same as the Pre-Test they had taken at the beginning, inclusive of the following
concepts: recognizing and determining types of angles, calculating/finding angle measures,
recognizing types of triangles, describing/defining line characteristics (perpendicular/parallel),
and line symmetry analysis. Questions of the Post-Test were read and displayed to the class
(images of these are under the Pre-Test section) and students submitted their results/responses on
a google form that can be found on the following link
http://goo.gl/forms/YYJMFScAjSWL1Z6s2. The Post-Test included a total of 8 questions, which
is consistent with the format students are used to for their regular English Language Arts test, in
which as evidenced by my needs assessment in my Introduction, is a content area students have
been very successful in.
Results and Analysis of Post-Test:
Results for the Post-Test indicated that we had 5 students at or above grade level and 18
students still scoring below 63%, as evidenced on Graph #19: Phase #2: Post Test Scores.
Graph #19: Phase #2: Post Test Scores
A comparison of students post and pre test scores can be seen in Graph #20: Pre Test
Scores and Post Test Scores.
Graph #20: Pre Test Scores and Post Test Scores.
Despite the fact the majority of the students still were below grade level, as indicated by
Post-Test scores in red, this does not imply students did not show growth academically from PreTest to Post-Test. In fact, as evidenced by Graph #21: Phase #2: Percent Increase/Decrease
between Pre- and Post-Test Scores, more than half of the students, 12, showed improvement in
their scores, up to 52% increase. We did have 7 out of 23 students decrease in their performance
from Pre-Test to Post-Test. There are various possible indications of these results.
In regards to academic achievement, it seems that students overall are increasing
academically however the improvement has not been enough to attain or reach grade level
percentage criteria yet (75% or above). With further implementation and time for Phase #2
implementations, it would be interesting to see if students would slowly get closer and closer to
meeting grade level. Nevertheless, the students that stayed the same or decreased in performance
may have done so in response to a variety of factors. One of which may be the fact most
questions were multiple choice, and if on the Pre-Test they guessed (as some indicated) and were
lucky enough to have their guesses be correct, these results could be higher than the Post-Test,
even if they did attain content learning. Another possibility is the fact that the students may be
struggling with test taking in general and lacking test taking strategies such as the possibility of
double checking their work before submitting. This seems to be the more logical possible factor
contributing to these results as many students who lacked improvement understood the content
as evidenced by their conference with me, as well as by their written justifications on the test, but
they had computational errors and/or selected the wrong answer choice. For example, one
student got of the questions dealing with identifying perpendicular and parallel lines wrong,
but when asked to define these two terms she was able to write what they meant and how she
would identify shapes with these lines. She mentioned parallel lines are when lines go in the
same directions but do not touch for example. Another student when answering the short
answer question, A Ferris Wheel turns 35 degrees before it pauses. It then turns another 85
degrees before stopping again. If it will turn completely one time in total, how many more
degrees must it turn to complete the turn? clearly understood one full turn was 360 degrees and
calculated the degrees left over, but made a computational error and wrote 250 degrees instead of
240 degrees. These results overall suggest the need in the future, if time permitted for a Phase #3,
to focus on more test preparation and strategies for students during test taking, so they do not
rush through answering the test, and/or are better able to manage the stress of taking the test
itself. Nevertheless, more than half of the students did show increased performance on the PostTest in comparison to the Pre-Test.
Graph #21: Phase #2: Percent Increase/Decrease between Pre- and Post-Test Scores
The I Can Checklist implementation is described in detail in the PRE Phase #2/PRE
MLC Section. The checklist was something that was used throughout the entirety of Phase #2
and collected after the students took the Post Tests, but before they had their Student-teacher
Conferences, and is thus why its results and analysis of these follow now.
Results and Analysis of the I CanChecklist:
Students commented on both their perceptions on the I can...Checklist and its
efficiency in nurturing their control over their learning (autonomy) in the reflection/feedback
forms. In regards to students evaluation of the checklist itself, the majority of students, 20 out of
24, liked the checklist a lot or thought it was alright as evidenced by Graph #22: What do you
think about the I CanChecklist.
Graph #22: What do you think about the I CanChecklist.
Students comments also supported their positive views of the I Can Checklist. One
student included, they liked it a lot, Because it just inspires u to do good and now you can do
it. Another stated, I like it a lot because it helps self recognition (sic). Even students that were
not overly thrilled of the checklist still found some value in it. One student included: I'm not
crazy about it but I like it. These students comments reveal that their like of the checklist,
possibly stems from the fact it allows for them to self-regulate, which constitutes autonomy, as
well as the fact it can also serve as motivator to do good or keep on learning. Nevertheless,
some students, 4 out of 25, included they did not like the checklist. Despite this however, even
those that did not like the checklist, recognized the checklist as helpful in their learning. 23 out of
25 students included, as evidenced by Graph #23: How helpful was the checklist in letting you
have control over your own behavior in the classroom?, they found the checklist very or
somewhat helpful.
Graph #23: How helpful was the checklist in letting you have control over your own
behavior in the classroom?
Beyond students perceptions and thoughts on the checklist itself, analysis of students
total results on the checklist on a daily basis, served as possible indicators of the effectiveness of
Math Lab Creations and Math Lab in regards to autonomy and learning application. Students
placed check marks corresponding to each of the following acts when they did them throughout
each day:
I Can Checklist
Self-Monitoring System
Personal Best:
I can try my personal best before asking others for help
Ask Others/Use Resources:
I can ask a peer(s) or used other resources to help me resolve my question(s)
New/Challenge:
I can try new approaches and/or challenged myself
Initiative:
I can take initiative
Persevere:
I can try many times to understand and solve a math problem.
Strategize/Feedback:
I can make a plan, called a strategy, to solve the problem and discuss other students strategies
too.
Mathematically Represent:
I can use math symbols and numbers to represent/explain/solve/justify problems
Manipulatives/Diagrams:
I can use math tools, pictures, drawings, and objects to solve/explain problems
Double Checking:
I can check to see if my strategy and calculations are correct and/or make sense
Prior Knowledge:
I can use what I already know about math to solve the problem.
I can use a strategy that I used to solve another math problem.
Reasoning:
I can think and reason through a math problem before attempting to solve it
As indicated by Graph #24: Math Lab Creation and/or Math Lab Checkmark Totals in
Comparison to Other Regular Instruction Day Totals, out of a total of 25 students, 22 of them
had the total number of checkmarks of their Math Lab and/or Math Lab Creations days as the
third, second, or the highest of all two weeks day totals. All 25 students had these two days of
implementations as 5th highest or better. These indications suggest that students were more
autonomous, more self-driven and motivated to learn, as well as applying of greater reason and
problem solving techniques during Math Lab/Math Lab Creations implementation days.
Graph #24: Math Lab Creation and/or Math Lab Checkmark Totals in Comparison to
Other Regular Instruction Day Totals
Two specific examples of students totals are following: One student had an average of 2
to 7 checkmarks daily, but on Math Lab Creations day had 15 and on Math Lab day had 11.5
checkmarks. Even students such as the following, who were more consistent, for example with 9
to 10 checkmarks a day, still had 13 on Math Lab Creations and 12 on Math Lab. Thus, overall,
students results supported the fact that the Math Labs (MLC/ML) possibly could be helpful to
increase autonomy and the academic strategies students use (supporting academic achievement).
Step 7: Student-Teacher Conferences
Each student then had their own conference with the teacher, I. The conference consisted
of the following: Having students write down something they learned, a problem, type of
triangle, type of line, etc., and labeling it using a mathematical term we learned during the course
of Phase #2. Then, we reviewed Pre and Post-Test questions and discussed future goals, etc.
Following this, students were asked whether they liked or disliked share time and why, whether
they liked or disliked recognition and why, and whether they liked or disliked peer/class
feedback and why. The following form was used for the conference annotations (an addition sign
indicated like and subtraction sign dislike).
Results and Analysis of Student-Teacher Conferences:

The conferences centered on discussing with the students their perceptions on share
times, peer feedback, recognition, which has been previously analyzed/described to some extent,
and also having students describe a concept and/or vocabulary term they learned (this was
written under the problem section).
27 students were present to have a conference and 26 out of the 27 students were able to
accurately describe, explain, and label a concept of their choice that they learned from class. This
data is contradicting slightly from the results from the Post-Test. Although many students
improved on their Post-Test, in comparison to the Pre-Test, some students stayed the same or
decreased in their numerical score as well. Nevertheless, based on the student conferences 26/27
students did show understanding of the content, conceptually. Thus, perhaps, students scores
numerically did not reflect their conceptual academic gain as effectively as the Student-Teacher
Conferences did. This idea is supported also by the fact many of the errors students made on the
Post-Test, once students went over the test, were found and easily corrected by the students
themselves, (some students had computational errors rather than conceptual and others had the
right explanation for concepts but selected the wrong numerical answers, again more errors on
procedural than conceptual). All of this leads to wondering if perhaps students are gaining
greater academic achievement, even beyond the numerical scores resulting, but perhaps are not
able to show it in totality through the current Post-Test format. I wonder if perhaps this suggests
that students could benefit from increased test taking strategies, such as double checking work,
increased familiarity with multiple choice and short answer exams, etc.?
The conference also included a large focus on students perceptions of share time and
peer feedback. Share time was implemented in Phase #2 after Math Lab Creations, when
students presented their created original activities to the class/peers. Student feedback was
presented prior to share time when students described to two peers their activity for ideas on
improvement, clarifications, etc. Also, the students gave presenters feedback on their activity
when they shared with the whole class, and they voted for the activity to be used next week or
for having it used later or another time. Students also had the chance to give one another
feedback post Math Lab the following week as they shared their Math Whizz ideas with one
another and verbally reasoned and explained their thought and answers to one another.
18 students mentioned they liked share time, 8 thought it was alright and 1 did not like it.
Students who liked share time supported their choices mentioning things such as share time,
gets you inspired, it allows kids to express what they want to do, and I get to make my own
[activities to present]. These quotes suggest the value students attribute to having that choice of
creating their own activities (autonomy) and also the potential that sharing has to motivate them
to further their learning. The students that said it was alright or did not like it commented that
they did not mind the sharing but they sought to alter the presentation format, because at times it
seemed to take too long to let everyone present, or some presenters were unprepared or were
describing activities others had already developed. These results suggest that the idea of share
time is supported by the majority of students but in the future, when implemented, having share
time have clearer expectations for presenters would be ideal in regards to preparation and timing
of share.
During the student conference students also described their thoughts on Peer Feedback
as well. 20 students included they liked it, 5 said it was alright and 2 mentioned they did not like
it. Students that liked it included that having the time for peer feedback can help you make
[your activities] better, while also kinda (sic) [giving] you a second opinion, as you are able
to know what others think. In a journal entry, another student included, Well I saw a lot of
sharing and they showed a light to a (sic) idea I started working... Thus, overall, students found
the peer feedback useful for improvement and continual personal development which can be
supportive of autonomous and responsible learners in the classroom as well as motivated ones.
Further Analysis of both MLC and ML:

This section described results of reflection/feedback forms in relation to student
preferences of MLC and/or ML.
Both Math Lab Creations and Math Lab
When students were asked to compare MLC to ML post MLC, and post ML, in both
occasions, the majority of the students favored MLC, as indicated by Graph #25: Post Math Lab
Creations: Which do you prefer? and Graph #26: Post Math Lab: Which do you prefer?. These
results are interesting because this suggests that students are possibly gravitating towards
increased control over their learning, as is the case during MLC more than ML. Students
supported their views with mentions of things such as the following, math lab creation made
feel like I was helping math lab...not just doing the activitys (sic), and it's fun when we make
our own to learn from it. No students suggested that they preferred neither. Some students did
support ML or both in general, as well. Some comments in support of students positive
perceptions and motivation to learn through MLC and ML implementations include their
mention that [MLC and ML] are both a fun way to learn. These results allow me to realize that
my students are in favor of increased choice and autonomy in the classroom. This also possible
implies that students felt more empowered and in control of their learning as well as possibly
more motivated to learn during Math Lab Creations than Math Lab. Thus, taking this in
consideration, if time were available I would be allowing my students more MLC days, maybe
two before each Math Lab, etc., in order to have them exercising this autonomy they seem to
have developed as well as to encourage further motivation to learn.
Graph #25: Post Math Lab Creations: Which do you prefer?
Graph #26: Post Math Lab: Which do you prefer?
Summarized Results and Analysis:

This section describes the overall results and analysis in relation to the main three topics
of the Action Research guiding questions, the effect of choice in relation to: Academic Progress,
Autonomy, and Motivation/Perceptions.
Academic Progress
Overall, in regards to academic progress, students demonstrated improvement, as
evidenced by their Post-Test scores, Math Whizz results, and Student-Teacher Conference
results. In regards to the Post-Tests, 12 students out of 23 showed positive growth, 17 out of 23
students attained near to/or 100% on their Math Whizz, and 26 out of 27 students were
successful in explaining and labeling a concept we learned, during their student-teacher
conference.
Initially in Phase #1 I was purely focused on academic achievement and helping my
students reach grade level criteria. Although in some sense I still continued to focus on this,
beginning Phase #2, my ultimate goal was focusing on student development and academic
progress rather than just achievement (Sub-question 1: How can academic choice, peer/teacher
feedback, and student recognition in the classroom affect academic progress in mathematics? ).
I wanted to see students grow and improve, even if the growth was minimal. I also hoped that the
increased choice and freedom that Math Lab Creations would bring could foster and support this
growth to some extent. The results in this regard were very positive, as the majority of my
students were able to show growth in their tests, whizzes, etc. However, it was interesting that
when I looked at my other data sources that did not directly speak to academic progress; I was
able to get a better understanding of my students learning and their roles in their progress. For
example, the I Can...Checklist was primarily to support my students in their autonomy in the
classroom, but I realized that it also supported academic growth, as it served to remind students
to try their best, use their problem solving techniques, etc. Even the perception wheels had an
effect in my students. The increased positive perception allowed increased motivation in my
students to learn, which allowed them to be in engaged and trying their best in their work, which
could have very likely also supported academic progress. In addition, as students progressed
academically, they experienced success and recognition, such as through recognition in the Math
Leaderboard. This recognition may have also led to further motivation and further academic
growth, since students felt more capable and confident in their abilities as learners. Overall, I
learned that choice in the classroom as in Math Lab Creations and Math Lab can support student
motivation to learn, which supports academic progress, which further motivates students and
allows them to gain the confidence to become independent, autonomous learners.
Autonomy
Overall, in regards to autonomy, there were various indications of an increase in students
sense of control over their learning, and their willingness to take risks and face challenges, as
evidenced by students I Can...Checklist totals, students journal entries, and students
rankings of their sense of control over their learning (reflection/feedback form responses). In
regards to the I Can...Checklist, 15 students out of 25 had the highest number of checkmarks
on MLC and/or ML days. In addition, in student journal entries, students included phrases such
as I can struggle through it, suggesting students increased willingness to face challenges and
be independent learners. Further, 21 students out of 27 indicated they felt in complete control or
close to during MLC while only 15 thought of themselves in this way during regular instruction.
Moreover, 18 students out of 24 indicated they felt in complete control or close to during MLC
while only 9 thought of themselves in this way in regular instruction. Even students perception
selections indicated in the perception wheels, although not directly speaking to autonomy,
suggested that my students were becoming surer of themselves and their abilities, as an increase
in positive perceptions, including confident, happy, and motivated, occurred during Phase 2.
From the beginning of my implementation my goal for both phase #1 and phase#2 was to
see how choice that Ive embedded in Math Lab Creations and math Lab could support students
in taking more control over their learning (Sub-question 2: How can academic choice and class
share time affect students autonomy?). Results showed that students not only were taking more
risks and trying new things in the classroom, but also that students were beginning to be more
conscientious of their acts in the classroom as they themselves were monitoring the checklist.
Thus, I was not only pleased by the results, but also gaining the realization that as students
gained autonomy, they were able to also feel more confident and progress academically. Even
further success then supported them in becoming even more autonomous. In this sense my three
main focuses on my action research, academic progress, autonomy, and motivation were all
related and one supporting of the other in a positive, continuous cycle.
Motivation
Overall, in regards to motivation there was an increase apparent, as evidenced by several
data sources including students reflection/feedback form responses, Perception Wheel results,
and journal entries. Students inclusion of comments such as, By believing in myself that I can
do it. And the math labs aren't so bad there (sic) not even difficult it's inspiring me to do math in
fun ways, a desire to continue learning math seemed prevalent. In addition, students also added
that [MLC and ML] are both a fun way to learn, and the majority of students mentioned that
they would like to continue MLC and ML days. Moreover, students perceptions of content were
more positive post MLC and ML. prior to MLC there were 21% negative perceptions and after it
there were 14%. Prior to ML there were still 14%, but after ML there were only 4%. These
results reflect an overall increase in positive perceptions and genuine yearning to further
learning.
From the beginning of my implementation in Phase #1 to now, my ultimate goal was to
analyze whether choice could affect motivation and perceptions my students had ( Sub-question
3: How does student choice affect students motivation and perceptions of success in
mathematics?). Specifically, I hoped that choice could nurture positive perception of content and
increased motivation to learn math. The results showing data of increased positive perception
and decreased negative perceptions allowed me to realize that giving student choice and a voice
in the classroom can lead them in becoming more involved and willing to participate in learning.
Interestingly, the increased motivation and positive perception allowed them to want to continue
learning, but also to gain successes as they progressed academically, as evidenced in the
whizzes, and test scores. The success students had academically then also allowed them to feel
capable and confident and more likely to take risks. This nurtured my third aspect of my action
research, autonomy. Thus, motivation and perception in the classroom became the framework
that phase #1 really showed evidence of supporting, and its continual development to Phase #2
really allowed both autonomy and academic progress to take place.
In conclusion, I realized my students increasing autonomy and motivation served to
nurture academic progress, as much as academic progress served to nurture motivation and
greater autonomy.

Phase 2-Implementations-Results-Maria Llamas

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Phase 2-Implementations-Results-Maria Llamas

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Phase 2 Implementations and Results

By: Maria Llamas, Spring/Summer 2016

Math Lab Implementation

Analysis of both Math Lab

Math Lab (ML)

PRE Phase #2 Section/PRE Math Lab Creations (MLC):

Results and Analysis of Pre-Test

Graph #1: Phase #2: Pre-Test Scores

Step 2: Journal Entry

were instructed to respond to the following three questions:

Step 4: Pre MLC Perception Wheel

Results and Analysis of the Pre-MLC Perception Wheel:

Graph #2: Perception Wheel Results: Pre Math Lab Creations

Step 6: Math Lab Creation Center Selection

Math Lab Creations:

POST Math Lab Creations (MLC):

Graph #4: PRE and POST MLC Perception Wheel Results

Step 2: MLC Peer Feedback

Results and Analysis of MLC Recognition:

Graph #6: What do you think about Math Lab Creations?

PRE Math Lab:

Graph #10: Perception Wheel Results: Pre Math Lab

Step 2: Content Instruction

Possible cards students could select:

Math and Technology Center

Possible cards students could select from:

Learning and Designing Center

Results and Analysis of Math Lab (ML):

Step 2: Math Whizz

Results and Analysis of Math Whizz:

POST Math Lab/POST Phase #2 Section:

Graph #11: Perception Wheel Results: Post Math Lab

Step 2: ML/MLC Recognition

Results and Analysis of MLC and ML Recognition:

Step 3: Journal Entry

Graph #13: What do you think about Math Lab?

Step 5: Post Test

Graph #19: Phase #2: Post Test Scores

Graph #22: What do you think about the I CanChecklist.

Results and Analysis of Student-Teacher Conferences:

Further Analysis of both MLC and ML:

Graph #25: Post Math Lab Creations: Which do you prefer?

Graph #26: Post Math Lab: Which do you prefer?

Summarized Results and Analysis:

Anda mungkin juga menyukai