As we cross into the "less than two months before conference" time frame, I find myself examining just where I am headed with my Action Research and how I will transition from having a paper with tons of information into a succinct presentation to share with others. This week I did some final reflections with my students. I shared some of the data with them and asked for feedback about why we saw some of the results that we did. They said that the math stations kept things fun and they liked being at the back table with me in a small group. That bit of feedback was pretty encouraging. The kids feel as good as I do about how this is going!
But.... then I asked if we should continue guided math or go back to a whole-group instruction model. I did the almighty closed-eyed vote with my second graders and discovered that only less than half of my class wanted to stay with guided math. What?! They just sounded so positive (which reflected so nicely to some of my data analysis). I then dug deeper and asked if anyone wanted to share why they didn't want to keep going with guided math. The majority of responses were based on the partner station. There has been too much arguing, people not playing by the rules, taking too much time to decide on a game, etc. Most of the responses touched on the cooperative learning aspect of these rotations and not so much on the actual math instruction. It was certainly an ah-ha moment for me! This is very typical in the social development in 7- and 8-year-olds but I had been pretty blind to it while working diligently with my group at the back table. In order to continue in a more positive way, I need to address these concerns from students and go back to a modeling refresher on how the partner station should work.
No comments:
Post a Comment