What happened for the learners?
Empowered learners in the house whoop whoop!!
The group of target learners:
BEFORE inquiry:
- very quiet
- accepted anything that was presented
- dialogue with each other and teacher minimal in small group time
- almost no questions asked
- focus was not on any specific part of maths learning
- did not have access to assessment results or analysis
- nervous about sitting tests - lack of confidence
DURING and AFTER inquiry in action:
- began to question more with a closer focus on the number strand (IKAN analysis prompted this)
- discuss how they'd found the teaching/learning/testing/results
- identify what areas were strengths and work ons
- went the next step to find support for work ons
- students were empowered: I could tell this by the way they asked questions, compared their own data as well as peers in group. Having access then understanding their data created proactive learners, in particular in the number strand (analysis of IKAN, Gloss results and now PAT in Term 4)
Please click on above links I've made to blog posts that show or describe this in action. Also look at these latest results from our PAT tests. I have gathered specifically data for the number strand. (All year we had a close focus on IKAN and part on Gloss)
Key:
NS T1 = Number strategy Term 1
NS T4 = Number strategy Term 4
NK T1= Number knowledge Term 1
NK T4= Number knowledge Term 4
A - H: individual students who make up target group. Where no bar is present this equates to have '0' correct - zero.
NS T1 NS T4 NK T1 NK T4
What did I do to make this happen?
There are the normal good practices of classroom teacher that are utilised to support my inquiry. The looking closely at group work through to independent learning on sites was maintained as per normal Manaiakalani classrooms.
Points of difference to make it happen:
- Building a sense of trust between teacher and student, student to student. This to build up student's sense of self-efficacy when analysis and discussion of data would start. Student self efficacy and student achievement relate
- Small group work included 1-2 sessions regularly to simply look at our data from IKAN's and Gloss. Plotting our results in a graph to show comparative data was hugely motivating for the target learners. Using colour coding - this seemed to have greater impact that just number comparisons.
- IKAN tests no longer one screen and one run through. Now on own device with headphones, with the chance to run through test a second time.
- MARKING IKAN, students marked their own test with the opportunity to circle those that were 'silly mistakes' made in the speed of the test.
- OPPORTUNITY was continually provided to provide evidence that did 'know' what the question was asking therefore bettering their results when they initiated the conversation and provided evidence to the teacher.
- EXPLAIN READY, a problem with interpreting what was being asked in word problems became evident in mid-year gloss tests. An additional practice was now to use 'Screencastify' to explain how we were solving problem. This was analysed along side what the question was actually asking. These discussions around interpreting the word problem and our screen cast of solution were carried out in groups for support and learning from our artefacts (screencasts). It became very clear to students AND teacher what parts if not in whole we were misinterpreting.
Wonderings about what next
- With those remaining from the target group, 6 out of 8 I need to pass onto 2018 teacher the key actions from my inquiry to ensure this acceleration continues.
- More focused planning around other strand areas need to be implemented as most shift was made in the number strand.
- Collating data in 2018 from these target students to track further progress
- Creating a 'directory' for students to access once they have analysed their assessment data. The next step AFTER they identify their strengths and weaknesses, especially a directory that supports them outside 9 - 3pm of school hours.
