Findings
After implementing phase one, I found several emerging themes:
Theme One: Students performed well on the collaborative performance task assessment.
Data analysis of the test scores showed students performed well and the class average was 40/50 pts (see Pick A Car Assessment Scores in Description of Implementation). I was surprised at the results of these test scores because of the difficulty of the unit. Exponential and logarithmic functions tend to be a challenging unit for students because of the abstract nature of the material. I believe the modeling of the exploration activities was an important aspect of the test scores for phase one. I had not originally planned to model three activities but when I observed the students struggling during the first exploration I decided that they needed more guided instruction. One question I am asking myself in relation to students test scores relates to one of my sub-questions: can students transfer their learning outside of a collaborative setting? During the collaborative assessment I noticed that some of my struggling students were disengaged and I find myself wondering if these struggling students would have performed so well without collaborative assistance.
Theme Two: Student personal engagement and cooperation scores are higher than my personal observations.
Modeling problems for the students allowed me to spend most of my time monitoring struggles and successes of collaborating. The data analysis showed that the majority of students gave themselves a score of three for both engagement and cooperation (see Pick A Car Student Self-Assessment Chart in Description of Implementation). In fact, only one student gave herself a score of two for each category. My personal observations, showed that the student who gave herself twos was engaged and cooperating with her group; I would have scored her a three for both categories. She is one of the stronger students in the class and responded with the following to the feedback form:
Theme Three: Lower performing students are still struggling to engage during in-class activities.
A final emerging theme that I noticed is the same students are struggling or succeeding that were prior to the implementation of phase one. For example, one of my struggling students had his head down for the majority of the collaborative assessment. A few minutes before I collected the assessment one of his group members started nudging him to finish, “come on J. This is a big part of our grade,” so he scrambled to copy the solutions his group had come up with before the assessment was due. This accountability is precisely what I was looking for when I decided to implement collaborative assessments during phase one; members of each group encouraging and prodding each other to complete their work. However, the disengagement of the struggling students is an issue that I am trying to address.
A flaw in my implementation of phase one is that I did not design my feedback forms to properly address one of my sub-questions: what are the changes in student attitudes during in-class activities? After analyzing the data, I cannot say for certain what the changes were in student attitudes during the collaborative activities. My observations have shown that the struggling students are disengaged and my feedback forms do not address this disengagement.
After implementing phase one, I found several emerging themes:
Theme One: Students performed well on the collaborative performance task assessment.
Data analysis of the test scores showed students performed well and the class average was 40/50 pts (see Pick A Car Assessment Scores in Description of Implementation). I was surprised at the results of these test scores because of the difficulty of the unit. Exponential and logarithmic functions tend to be a challenging unit for students because of the abstract nature of the material. I believe the modeling of the exploration activities was an important aspect of the test scores for phase one. I had not originally planned to model three activities but when I observed the students struggling during the first exploration I decided that they needed more guided instruction. One question I am asking myself in relation to students test scores relates to one of my sub-questions: can students transfer their learning outside of a collaborative setting? During the collaborative assessment I noticed that some of my struggling students were disengaged and I find myself wondering if these struggling students would have performed so well without collaborative assistance.
Theme Two: Student personal engagement and cooperation scores are higher than my personal observations.
Modeling problems for the students allowed me to spend most of my time monitoring struggles and successes of collaborating. The data analysis showed that the majority of students gave themselves a score of three for both engagement and cooperation (see Pick A Car Student Self-Assessment Chart in Description of Implementation). In fact, only one student gave herself a score of two for each category. My personal observations, showed that the student who gave herself twos was engaged and cooperating with her group; I would have scored her a three for both categories. She is one of the stronger students in the class and responded with the following to the feedback form:
- Question 1: “I think the 1 means you didn't really help at all. I think 2 means you somewhat helped out. And a 3 means you did a lot.”
- Question 2: “because i somewhat helped out but i didn't really do a whole bunch.”
- Question 1: “the rate of how good you did.”
- Question 2: “because scores we deserve.”
Theme Three: Lower performing students are still struggling to engage during in-class activities.
A final emerging theme that I noticed is the same students are struggling or succeeding that were prior to the implementation of phase one. For example, one of my struggling students had his head down for the majority of the collaborative assessment. A few minutes before I collected the assessment one of his group members started nudging him to finish, “come on J. This is a big part of our grade,” so he scrambled to copy the solutions his group had come up with before the assessment was due. This accountability is precisely what I was looking for when I decided to implement collaborative assessments during phase one; members of each group encouraging and prodding each other to complete their work. However, the disengagement of the struggling students is an issue that I am trying to address.
A flaw in my implementation of phase one is that I did not design my feedback forms to properly address one of my sub-questions: what are the changes in student attitudes during in-class activities? After analyzing the data, I cannot say for certain what the changes were in student attitudes during the collaborative activities. My observations have shown that the struggling students are disengaged and my feedback forms do not address this disengagement.