Introduction

Rainbow Elementary School (RES) (pseudonym) is located in the lower part of Rainbow near the Aloha Stadium.  RES serves grades kindergarten to sixth grade. In the School Year (SY) 2014-2015 it was documented that out of the 324 students enrolled 11.2% received Special Education services and 20.5% were classified as English Language Learners (ELL). RES’s student population consists majority of Micronesians, Samoans, Native Hawaiians, and Filipinos. Additionally, some of RES’s initiatives for the current school year has been to increase achievement in writing and mathematics.

During my experience as a student teacher at RES, I have found that many students struggle in math when it comes to solving word problems. Many students are able to do the computation when the word problem is explicated explained but when working individually many students do not know where to begin. A generative strategy has been implemented into my practicum setting since the beginning of the 2015-2016 school year. Fung, Lussier, Moran, & Swanson (2014) claim that generative strategies focus on directing students to paraphrase key components of text within a word problem (p.112). This strategy provides students with an outline of how to solve the problem by having students pull apart the information into three categories:    

What am I going to solve?

What do I know?

Work space.

In my practicum setting of 6^th graders, I have noticed that the majority of the students do rely on this strategy and use it when working on their math problem of the day (Do Now). Although it helps students to structure the information many still lack still the appropriate vocabulary to clarify the operation needed in the word problem. Mayer states (1992), that knowing how to recognize and represent relational statements within word problems is significantly correlated with a students’ problem-solving performance. To promote/create higher student achievement I will be using direct instruction during the Do Now’s. According the Ultimate Student Teaching Guide (2015), “Direct instruction is usually used for skill work and does have a series of steps” (p.251). I have observed that many students seek and need designated steps in order to understand how to solve math problems.

The purpose of the Do Now is to transition and refocus students for math block. The Do Now question is also used to gauge whether or not the students will have difficulty with the concept covered. For the purpose of this trial, the Do Now’s were centered around the concept of percentages and ratios. Likewise, if the students were able to complete part or all of the problem correctly, they were able to gain points on ClassDojo. ClassDojo ties into my practicum’s classroom management system, where my mentor exchanges the student’s points to classroom cash. Essentially, the Do Now sets the foundation of the lesson and fosters student participation.

Through the continued use of these applied strategies for word problems along with direct instruction, I predict to see progress in students’ comprehension. I hope that through direct instruction students will take what they have learned and apply it Module Nine “Ready to Go On?” assessment. Within the structure of this assessment is a section dedicated to word problems, where students have both multiple choice and open-ended questions. Some of the potential obstacles that may prevent the project from being successful is lack of willingness/effort among my focus students. Students in the controlled group may become off task and or will not try to solve the problem since I will not be working one-on-one with them.

Methodology

            This action research project was conducted in my 6^th grade practicum classroom of 20 students. All students initially took part and participated in the activities and data collection. Prior to implementing this action research project, I assessed students’ math journals and previous math assignments to better help define my project. I was able to determine math difficulties with word problems through students’ previous “Ready to Go On?” math assessments. These assessments are taken after each module and provides students with a mixed review of the previous lessons.

My action research plan consisted of a total of six days, which is equivalent to one full week of instruction in math, since science is taught all day on Wednesdays. I administered the pre-test on day 1 (Friday), to first be able to assess and group the students into either the Controlled Group A or the Testing Group B. To meet the criteria to either be in Controlled Group A or Testing Group B students had to have missed a minimum of four vocabulary words and two word problems on the pre-test. The pre-test consisted of 25 operation-based vocabulary words and three word problems.

Students were informed of my action plan a week prior to implementation and were notified that I would be using their work to evaluate the effectiveness of direct instruction. Students in Testing Group B were also asked to reflect on their progress in relation to achievement.

*First day of direct instruction

            Posted above, is a chart that represents the full week’s schedule and the time it took for Testing Group B to complete each task. The times varied due to the level of difficultly of the task. It is noteworthy to mention that some students finished before the time allotments. Also, after each Do Now, I conducted the same process as I did with the testing group with the whole group, where I explicitly explained and went through the word problem. In essence, each Do Now activity lasted between ten to fifteen minutes due to working in small group and through instructing students as a whole group.

As noted with the asterisk, the first day of direct instruction occurred on Monday where I worked with Ashlyn, Samantha, and Tyler (pseudonyms). I had a total of three students each in Testing Group B and in Controlled Group A. It is from students’ pre-test that I generated multi-step word problems based off of the following vocabulary: equivalent, percent, ratio, doubled, and how much. These five operation-based vocabulary words were unanimously missed on the pre-test.

            With each Do Now activity I modeled how to determine the operation with the testing group through direct instruction. Each day I provided Testing Group B with a printed copy of the Do Now, while Controlled Group A had to copy and determine the operation from the word problem from the whiteboard. By providing the copy, it optimized the time spent in small group and provided me with clean, organized data.

In Testing Group B, students continued to utilized the generative strategy used previously in class, but additionally focused on the vocabulary component for the “what do I know” section. For instance, Day 2’s Do Now was, “Hendrick wants to enlarge a phot that is 4 inches wide and 6 inches tall. The enlarged photo keeps the same ratio. How tall is the enlarged photo if it is 12 inches wide?” To begin with, I had the testing group read the word problem aloud and had them walk through their generative strategy. This process helped students to identify what they know and what they are trying to solve. Through the generative strategy students identified key vocabulary words that they may or may have not known, such as ratio. Students then wrote “ratio” on the side on their paper along with the definition I provided. Based off of that definition, I modeled how to setup a ratio in order to solve the word problem. These are the steps I took with each Do Now activity.

            Throughout the week I documented students’ progress through the use of tally marks. After each word problem I collected data on whether they were able to complete the problem with accuracy, while also recording whether they were in the testing or controlled group. These formative assessments helped to guide me on the level of instruction and difficulty I should give for the following day.

            Likewise, student reflections assisted in structuring and implementing this action research plan. On Day 2, after the math lesson, Testing Group B wrote on their math difficulties and the challenges of solving word problems. Ashlyn (pseudonym) wrote, “For me word problems are sometime hard because I don’t understand or don’t know the meaning of the word…Sometimes I over think problems and miss the littlest of things. Right now I use context clues in the problem about using the right sequence.” The consensus from the students’ initial reflections was that word problems are challenging but becomes easier once they know what to solve.

Results

            Over the course of the week, I collected data that supports the effectiveness of direct instruction. There were four types of data collected during this study; pre- and post-test scores, observational notes (tally’s), student reflections, and a summative module test. During this study, all students participated in the Do Now’s throughout the week, but I only collected data from my two focus groups of six students.

            This chart breaks down the success of each day’s Do Now according to if the student was able to get the correct answer and process. This data constantly shows success through direct instruction of word meanings. The students in Controlled Group A consistently had around two students per day that got the Do Now wrong, whereas in Testing Group B there were only two times students were not able to correctly solve the problem. During check in’s on Wednesday, Robert (pseudonym) from the controlled group shared that sometimes he is able to get part of the answer, but it not always able to solve the rest.

            The evidence above, represents the pre- and post-test data gathered and includes the class average and averages of each group per category. The data reflects that both groups made gains from their initial pre- to post-test. In turn indicates that there was student growth in vocabulary knowledge and word problems. I believe that both groups were able to make gains through direct instruction because after working with Testing Group B, I would return to instruct the whole class of the process. I have determined that this can be attributed to Controlled Group A’s success in the post-test. Also, this data can be used as an indicator that there is success with direct instruction in both small and whole groups. If it were to be compared this data displays greater gains in small group instruction verses whole group. 

            Furthermore, after my action plan concluded I assessed to see if students continued to implement and use these strategies on their Module 8 “Ready to Go On” test. This assessment provided eight word problems for student to solve, and five of which relate directly to the vocabulary covered in the Do Now’s. The class’s total average on the Module 8 test was 22%. In Controlled Group A, only one of the three students attempted to solve these problems. Kelley (pseudonym) (from the control group) was able to correctly solve two problems. Overall, the controlled group’s score averaged at 15% for this assessment. In Testing Group B, all three students attempted to solve the word problems. By a small margin, the testing group scored higher with an 19% accuracy. Though this data insinuates that neither groups are proficient in percentages or ratios, it can be inferred that Testing Group B has gained confidence in attempting and working through word problems.

Implications

            Before starting this study, students were introduced to Do Now’s at the beginning of the school year. From my observations prior to my action research plan, students seemed to participate in the Do Now’s but struggled to decipher how to solve word problems. Students used the generative strategy when thinking aloud but did not always write it into their categories. In my ethical theory, I believed that students’ performance would improve through the use of explicit instruction of word meaning. From my findings, it has led me to believe that direct instruction does help students to determine which steps to take in mathematics.

            I will continue to maximize student outcomes by implementing direct instruction when it is deemed appropriate. Direct instruction is one of the many methods I will practice as a teacher, but my instruction will always be tapered to my students and their needs. From this study, I have realized the importance of knowing your students’ needs and their learning styles. I do not think I would have been successful without considering all of these factors. According the Ultimate Student Teaching Guide (2015), “Learning is constructed as learners assimilate new experience with prior knowledge” (p.13). I believe that through constructing learning experiences that are active and meaningful student learning outcomes will be greater.

I will continue to address equity and social justice within my teaching by using various teaching strategies and methods. According to teachervision.com, “Methodology is the way(s) in which teachers share information with students. The information itself is known as the content; how that content is shared in a classroom is dependent on the teaching methods.” From my experience I have learned that direct instruction is a great method to use in math, since it is a step by step process. Though it might not be suitable for all content areas, it can be utilized for those that are applicable. With all teaching methods I plan to monitor student achievement through formative and summative assessments to better adjust my delivery of the concept(s).   

References

(Personal communication, March 01, 2016.)

Lesson Methodologies. (n.d.). Retrieved from: https://www.teachervision.com/curriculum-planning/teaching-methods/48355.html?page=4

Daniels, K.N, Patterson, G.C, & Dunston, Y.L. (2015). Strategies for Effective Teaching. In The ultimate student teaching guide (2nd ed.). North Carolina: Sage Publications.

Mayer, R. E., Lewis, A. B., & Hegarty, M. (1992). Mathematical misunderstandings: Qualitative reasoning about quantitative problems. In J. I. D. Campbell (Ed.), The nature and origins of mathematical skills (pp. 137–154). Amsterdam, Netherlands: North-Holland.

Swanson, H. L., Moran, A., Lussier, C., & Fung, W. (2014). The Effect of Explicit and Direct Generative Strategy Training and Working Memory on Word Problem-Solving Accuracy in Children at Risk for Math Difficulties. Learning Disability Quarterly, 372, 111-123.