Capstone Project
Data Collection
Pre-tests and Post-tests
The first method of data collection was a pre-test and post-test of both math Topics eleven (Figure 1) and nine (Figure 2). This means students took the same test before and after the unit was taught. There were two seperate pre-tests for each math Topic because there were two different topics taught during the study. Each pre-test and post-test came from the fourth grade curriculum. This data collection method was formal.
There were a total of twenty questions which assessed six different state standards for the Topic eleven test. There were a total of thirteen questions which assessed five different state standards for the Topic nine.
According to the Topic eleven pre-test, the average score was 4/20. The highest score was a 12/20 and the lowest score was 2/20. This communicated to me that this was new content being taught to students. This gave me information into what problems they knew and what problems students would need to be slowly introduced. This also showed which students could already understand the math skill. Based on the data, I grouped my homogeneous groups and differentiated my math instruction in the beginning of the unit. Towards the middle of the unit, I created homogenous groups based on student's writing.
Topic nine standards were in the category of Geometry. According to this pre-test data, the average score was 4/13. The highest score was a 6/13 and the lowest score was 1/13. This indicated that students did not completely understand the content. This again showed which students understood Geometry. I used this data to differentiate my instruction by grouping students into homogeneous skill groups during the beginning of the unit. I knew which standards would need more time to teach than others based on the pre-test data.
These pre-tests and post-tests were best for the population of my study because I needed to know how much my students knew about the math skill. This data influenced my instruction during the study by knowing what levels my students were at. If I noticed a significant gap in the standard I would take longer to teach it. For example, the content in standards 4.2.2.a. and 4.4.1.a. (Figure 1) needed more time to teach students about the concept of line plots because this was the first time they had seen line plots. In addition, the content in the standard 4.3.1.f. (Figure 2) needed more time to teach students as well since it was a brand new skill taught to students. Students had never measured angles using a protractor before fourth grade.
Figure 1 - Topic 11 Breakdown
Figure 2- Topic 9 Breakdown
Math Journal Entries
Figure 3 - Math Journals Rubric
The next data collection method was math journal entries. This data collection method was informal. During this method, students would write about the question that was posed in their math journals. For example, if a lesson was focused on different type of angles, students would receive a picture of an angle and explain what type an angle it is in their math journals. Each day I would read the math journal entries and provide written feedback to each student.
During the study, the math journals were graded on a rubric scale (Figure 3) based on the use of vocabulary and the level of understanding written. Before writing in math was used, I gave students a pre-test and a post-test of their writing to see growth of deeper understanding.
The pre-test of their writing was given to students before the study began and the post-test was given to students at the end of the study. Students had to respond in writing about a question they had knowledge on for the pre-test and post-test question. The pre-test writing question was: How are fractions and decimals the same? How are fractions and decimals different? Explain your thinking. The post-test writing question was: Write everything you know about this triangle. The triangle provided was a standard equilateral triangle.
According to the pre-test writing entries, there were a few different themes presented. One student wrote in their math journals with a score of three. This student was a high ability learner. Seven students scored a two with showing some understanding of the topic. Nine students received a score of one with showing little understanding of the topic. This communicated over half of my class could not describe or explain their answer with deep understanding.
Math journals were best chosen for my study's population because I knew my students had an interest in writing. During the school year my students had shown me that they liked expressing themselves in writing. I used math journals to hook their love of writing to math. I was able to collect informal data about how students were doing in each lesson where the math journals were used. The writing communicated how students were showing their deep understanding of each topic. This was used to monitor how students were approaching their answer during the course of each unit. I understood how students came to an answer with their explanation. I was able to see what depth students were using their math vocabulary.
Student Interviews
The last data collection method used was student interviews (Figure 4). This data collection method was informal. (Student interviews were used because of the students' math surveys before the study began.) One of the big ideas communicated was students did not like math because it was boring or hard so I chose to implement math journals.
To be exact, 15/19 students said they "do not like math" and 4/19 students said they "do like math". Three of the 15/19 students who did not like math provided the reason of “it gets super hard” and “because it is really hard”. One student presented the reason of “It’s boring and long”. My conclusion from this data was over half of my students did not like math because it was challenging and boring. I had given students written feedback on their math journals. I knew my students needed motivation to write about math since I knew they did not like math.
I decided to conduct student interviews with my students instead of a student attitude survey because I wanted to know what my students thought about math and math journals after the study. I took notes on the students' thoughts on math and the math journals.
Student interviews were best for my population in the study because I knew what my students felt about math. I was able to have a conversation with students about why they liked or disliked math and math journals. During the interviews, I could ask clarifying questions and get insight to what my students thought about math and engagement in the classroom. I used this information to best plan out my lessons to include more support for these students with the math journals. Math journals was one of the strategies I used to engage my students to show their deep understanding. I knew many of my students enjoyed writing so I predicted math journals would be a good fit for my students to tie their interests with math.