Kharrod Action Research Final

Running head: EFFECTS OF MATH WORKS STATIONS AND GUIDED MATH
Effects of Math Workstations and Guided Math on Student Differentiation and Progress on
Second Grade Students
Keri G. Harrod
University of New England
December 17, 2015
!1
EFFECTS OF MATH WORKS STATIONS AND GUIDED MATH
!2
Abstract
This action research study explored the effects of implementing a math workshop model
with differentiated math workstations and guided math on student achievement and engagement.
Additionally, the study investigated whether classroom management would improve and
behavior issues would decrease with the employment of this model. The participants in the study
were 19 students in an inclusive second grade classroom. Research was conducted during a four
week period which included one day of pre-intervention assessment, four weeks of workstation
and guided math interventions, and one day of post-intervention assessment. A mixed-methods
data collection approach was utilized that included curriculum-based assessments, teachercreated assessments, student self-evaluations, and teacher field notes. The results of the study
indicated that, for the majority of the lower level students in the class, achievement increased.
However, achievement for the average and high students remained somewhat constant. Overall,
the class experienced greater engagement and behavior issues decreased. Despite the limitations
of this study, the findings support continued implementation of the math workshop model with
math workstations and guided math components to increase student engagement and
achievement.
!3
Table of Contents
Effects of Math Work Stations and Guided Math on Student Differentiation and Progress on
Second Grade Students ....................................................................................................................5
Problem Statement.......................................................................................................................6
Research Questions .....................................................................................................................7
Hypothesis ...................................................................................................................................7
Literature Review ...........................................................................................................................8
Methodology..............................................................................................................................15
Research Design ........................................................................................................................16
Data Collection Plan ..................................................................................................................17
Data Analysis .............................................................................................................................20
Sample Selection .......................................................................................................................22
Results ...........................................................................................................................................22
Findings .....................................................................................................................................24
Discussion..................................................................................................................................40
Limitations ................................................................................................................................49
Summary and Further Research ................................................................................................50
Action Plan ....................................................................................................................................51
Conclusion .....................................................................................................................................53
!4
References .....................................................................................................................................55
Appendix A: Everday Math Assessments......................................................................................58
Appendix B: Teacher-created Assessments ...................................................................................69
Appendix C: STAR Fall Assessment .............................................................................................75
!5
Effects of Math Work Stations and Guided Math on Student Differentiation and Progress on
Second Grade Students
In todays elementary classrooms, teachers are expected to tailor instruction to best fit
each individual child. No longer is one-size-fits-all instruction appropriate; rather instruction
should be differentiated so each student can learn at their own pace and ability level. Instead of
passively listening to teachers dictate rote learning methods, students are expected to be active
participants in learning. This active participation can only occur when learning is differentiated.
According to Ravitch (2007), differentiated instruction allows teachers to maximize each
student's growth by recognizing that students have different ways of learning, different interests,
and different ways of responding to instruction (p. 75).
While differentiation is not a new classroom concept, it is often academically low
students in a primary classroom that receive the most attention from the teacher. Differentiation,
however, needs to be provided to all students in a heterogenous classroom setting (Tomlinson,
2001). One way to ensure that all students are challenged and provided with learning
experiences at their ability level is to implement independent, inquiry-based learning
opportunities, such as workstations. Creating independent, inquiry-based stations allows
students to take charge of their own learning; thus making students learning more authentic
(Willoughby, 2000). According to Tomlison (2001), students should regularly be allowed to
make choices and these choices should be paired with tasks that match their individual learner
profile. Creating stations allows a teacher to create student partnerships where students have the
ability to work independently with materials to reinforce already learned concepts. Additionally,
!6
when used in a math setting, workstations allow teachers to promote an activity which
reinforces and/or extends prior instruction, allowing children the opportunity to develop their
mathematical understanding (Diller, 2011, p. 7). Diller goes on to state that when students are
able to work independently using math workstations, the teacher is able to observe students,
work one-on-one, or meet with a small, guided math group to further differentiate instruction
(Diller, 2011).
Problem Statement
The math curriculum, Everyday Math, used by the teachers school district is one that
provides options for differentiated instruction, but primarily focuses on whole group instruction
with independent practice following the lesson. There is little room for differentiated instruction.
Students at the lower end of the academic spectrum often need repeated exposure to
mathematical concepts to achieve understanding, while average and high math students are often
not challenged and become unengaged and disruptive once their independent practice is
complete.
Based on the initial STAR assessment and teacher observations, the students participating
in the study are academically diverse with some even being below beginning of the year
expectations for second grade. According to STAR data, 36.8 percent of students in the class
scored below a second grade level in the math portion of the assessment. When taught the initial
lessons of the math curriculum at the beginning of the year, the wide range of abilities made it
difficult for the teacher to provide additional help to the struggling students, as well as more
challenging work for the few secure students. Furthermore, those students who had completed
additional work and were allowed to move on to a previously learned math game posed a
!7
classroom management challenge to the teacher.

Participants Involved
The researcher of this study is an elementary school teacher with five years experience
who is currently in her fourth year teaching second grade at a grade 2 through 4 elementary
school in a coastal town in southern Maine. The towns population is predominately Caucasian
and made up of middle to upper-middle class families. Due to the proximity to the ocean, the
number of residents in the town swells from approximately 12,000 to more than 50,000 people in
the summer. Since there are rental properties available in the winter months, this town is seeing
an increase in lower class families moving their children into the school district to receive
educational services.
Research Questions
Based on the classroom data and observations, the researcher poses the following
questions in this action research study. First, how does student achievement and engagement
improve when instruction is differentiated using guided math and math workstations? Second,
how will classroom management improve once stations are implemented; in what ways does it
allow intervention with struggling students?
Hypothesis
After implementing and utilizing math workstations and guided math, individual student
achievement will increase when students receive differentiated instruction based on their needs
and abilities. Additionally, student behavior issues will be reduced for all students due to the
active engagement of math workstations.
!8
Literature Review
In classrooms across the nation, teachers struggle to provide instruction that will promote
academic success for all of their students. The old method of teaching to the middle ignores
the needs of struggling and advanced students and focuses only on the average students learning.
Therefore, teachers must turn to differentiated instruction to encourage academic growth for all
learners. According to Tomlinson (2001), differentiated instruction provides different avenues
to acquiring content, to processing or making sense of ideas, and to developing products so that
each student can learn effectively (p. 1).
While differentiation has been a tenet of the writing and reading workshop models, it has
only recently been considered as an instructional practice for math. With the adoption of the
Common Core State Standards, math instruction has changed from memorizing and practicing
procedures to instruction that emphasizes mathematical practices and conceptual
understanding (Andreason & Hunt, 2012, p. 240). Would incorporating differentiation into
math instruction promote the understanding the Common Core standards require and increase
student achievement? The math workshop model with guided math and math workstation
components seeks to answer that question.
Why Differentiate?
Although differentiation has been part of the educational lexicon for more than a decade,
it is an instructional practice that remains relevant to todays heterogeneous classrooms.
According to Tomlinson and Sousa (2010), differentiated instruction is widely adopted not
because it is a fad, but because one-size-fits-all instruction is unsuccessful in reaching the broad
spectrum of students in todays classrooms (para. 13). In her book on differentiation in mixed-
!9
ability classrooms, Tomlinson (2001) emphasizes that differentiation is not only creating abilitylevel learning opportunities for average students, but for advanced and struggling learners, as
well. According to Willoughby (2000), the best learning happens when students are pushed
slightly beyond the point where they can work without assistance (para. 4) and this point is
different for students below grade level and those who are advanced; hence, through
differentiated instruction teachers can meet students where they are (para. 4).
Critics of differentiation believe that it is just a fad that frustrates teachers and increases
their workloads. In his article denouncing differentiation, Schmoker declares that differentiated
instruction corrupts both curriculum and instruction (2010, para. 4). Schmoker (2010) goes on
to state instructors found it almost impossible to provide sustained, properly executed lessons
for every child or group (para 4). Dobbertin (2012) agrees fuzzy activities are often a
mainstay of differentiated classrooms (para. 12) and can end up being a frantically assembled
collection of worksheets, coloring exercises, and specious kinesthetic activities (para. 14).
Although Dobbertin (2012) believes that some teachers struggle with differentiating instruction
for their students, she recognizes that success is possible when teachers set clear learning
targets for students and align their assessments and activities to reflect the objectives of those
learning targets (2012). In her article, Dobbertin (2012) shares the success of middle school
math teacher whose student declares, You dont have to be doing the same things as other
people all the timeI can learn it just how I need to learn it (para. 9). Thus debunking
Schmokers belief that differentiated instruction cannot provide the tenets of a successful lesson
clear objectives and assessment, repeated instruction, multiple checks for understanding,
guided practice, and continuing adjustments to instruction (para. 13). Rather, Tomlinson and
!10
Sousa declare that these very elements are the essential building blocks of successful
differentiated instruction (2010).
Math Differentiation
In her book, Tomlinson (2010) states that differentiated instruction allows teachers to
modify the content students learn, the processes that help them develop their understanding, and
the products by which they demonstrate what they have learned. In other words, differentiation
allows teachers to offer different approaches to what students learn, how they learn it, and how
they demonstrate what theyve learned (Tomlinson, 2001, p.4-5). Nowhere is this approach
more appropriate then in a math workshop.
The math workshop structure is similar to that of a reading or writing workshop. It starts
with a mini lesson, an activity period, and a reflection (Heuser, 2000, p.36). According to
Heuser (2000), math workshops encourage authentic learning in a variety of ways. First math
workshops allowing children to physically interact with their environment (Heuser, 2000, p.
35). Workshops also encouraging students to construct their own knowledge and give them
choice to ensure that they are working at an optimal level of understanding and
development (Heuser, 2000, p.35), Finally, Heuser (2000) states that workshops provide time
and encouragement to reflect and communicate their understanding and allow for multiple
experiences to construct this knowledge (p. 35).
Although many teachers use the workshop model to teach language arts, traditional
teaching methods still reign when it comes to math. According to Kobelin (2009), most math
programs are designed with the expectation that all children will be working at a similar level.
She goes on to stress that even the more progressive programs, such as Everyday Math, which
!11
are less lock-step and offer more open-ended lesson plans, are designed for use with straight
level groupings (Kobelin, 2009, p. 11). However, research has shown that workshops
outperform non-workshop models. The Mathematics Workshop Project, a three-year long study
in Glenview, Illinois done in collaboration with DePaul University, has shown that when teachers
use a math workshop model, 1st and 2nd grade students outperform comparable non workshop
classrooms in five out of seven measures of developmental structure and growth (Heuser, 2000,
p.36). Additionally, students in workshops developed greater readiness in understanding math
concepts (Heuser, 2000).
When students are in a non-differentiated math learning environment, those who lack
facility with mathematics are often inclined to hide and participate minimally (Dean &
Zimmerman, 2012, para. 5). Additionally, the students in this type of heterogeneous classroom
know whos the most talented and whos the most challenged (Dean & Zimmerman, 2012,
para. 6). In a study of fourth and fifth graders in an independent school in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, differentiated math instruction with a guided choice component allowed teachers
to provide the right level of challenge for each student without demoralizing lower-achieving
students (Dean & Zimmerman, 2012, para. 10). According to the study, the five year averages
for student achievement (from 2000-2005) only showed 0.8 percent of students being below
average; 32 percent were in the average range; and over 67 percent of students scored above
average (Dean & Zimmerman, 2012). Thus proving that the extra attention provided by the
teacher in small, guided math groups with the struggling students did not limit the instructional
achievement and growth of the more advanced math students (Dean & Zimmerman, 2012).
!12
Supporting Math Workshop through Workstations and Guided Math

The implementation of the math workshop is often daunting for many teachers. Using
math workstations, teachers are better able to organize, implement, and manage the different
components of the math workshop. According to Diller (2011), math workstations let children
practice solving various mathematical concepts while a teacher observes and interacts with
individuals at work or meets with a small group for differentiated math instruction (p.7). Math
workstations allow students to work individually or in pairs on concepts already taught while the
teacher is able to work with a small, guided math group to reinforce the new concepts introduced
in the whole group mini lesson.
At workstations, students are asked to use problem solving and reasoning to represent
their understanding in multiple ways (Diller, 2011). Using clear learning targets or I can
statements at each workstation, students work on a focused activity that has already been
introduced previously in whole group instruction (Diller, 2011). Clear learning objectives at the
math workstations allow children of different developmental levels to construct knowledge
appropriate to their abilities (Heuser, 2000, p. 35). Thus, workstations provide the opportunity
for all students to explore and develop mathematical understanding through independent
practice (Diller, 2011, p. 12).
In combination, the math workshop with math workstations along with guided math,
promotes an array of differentiated instructional practices. This structure allows teachers to
modify instruction based on the three basic forms of differentiationprocess differentiation,
content differentiation, and product differentiation.
!13
Process differentiation. According to Andreasen & Hunt (2012), workstations provide

process differentiation by allowing students access to different representations of a concept.
Students may work on developing understanding of a concept through processes such as graphic
organizers, concrete models, or journals (Tomlinson, 2001). Math workstations also allow for
process differentiation through tiered instruction. Students may do the same activity at a math
workstation, but it will be tiered to a specific skill level (Kobelin, 2009, p.14). For example,
lower ability students may play a math game with one die, while other students use two or three
dice to play the same game (Kobelin, 2009).
Content differentiation. Math workstations differentiate by content by providing
instruction based on each students level of readiness, interest, or learning profile (Tomlinson,
2001). According to Andreasen & Hunt (2012), this does not mean that the tasks at a
workstation reduce the complexity or rigor of a concept or even change what concept is being
taught, but rather changes how a student approaches the content (p. 241). Students who have a
strong understanding of a concept may be allowed to work on a more advanced skill in the
concept, while a lower ability student may need scaffolding to work on the basic understanding
of the concept with teacher support in a guided math group (Kobelin, 2009). All students may be
working on the same math concept, such as telling time, but they are approaching it differently
(Andreasen & Hunt, 2012).
Product differentiation. In a math workstation, teachers are able to differentiate by
product by allowing students to demonstrate understanding of a concept in more than one way.
Teachers typically use products as a way in which to assess student knowledge, understanding,
and skill (Tomlinson, 2001, p. 85). In a workstation, the product may allow the student to show
!14
their knowledge in pictures, numbers, or words (Kobelin, 2009, p. 15). When using open-ended
tasks, Kobelin (2009) discovered that some of her students used concrete drawings to show
understanding, while others used more abstract equations to answer the task (p.16). Both
products assessed student understanding, but Kobelin was also able to gauge each students level
of understanding of that concept.
Lastly, an added benefit of the math workshop model with math workstations is that it
allows for smoother class management. According to Jones (2007), the use of workstations in
her classroom not only allowed her to differentiate instruction based on students needs and
abilities, but also reduced the number of behavior problems previously encountered during
instruction. According to Diller (2011), problems in discipline tend to occur when students are
asked to work without the teachers support on things that they dont find interesting or relevant
(p. 16). When students are actively involved in hands-on activities [they usually] behave better
and interrupt the teacher less often (Diller, 2011, p.16).
Summary
Through the review of literature associated with math differentiation, specifically the
math workshop model with math workstations and guided math, it is clear that evidence supports
an increase in student achievement through differentiated instruction. However, it is also evident
that specific elements are necessary in order for this type of differentiation to be successful.
First, workstations must be an independent exploration of previously learned concepts (Diller,
2011). Next, workstations must provide clear learning targets so students understand the
learning expectation and stay focused on the learning at hand (Diller, 2011; Dobbertin, 2012).
Lastly, students must be able to reflect and communicate their understanding at the end of the
!15
workshop instructional time. This can be done either as a verbal share or using exit slips with a
reflection component to assess whether students need additional support after the workshop
rotations are complete (Ensign, 2012, p.161). With the additional components mentioned, this
literature review supports the current studys hypothesis that after implementing and utilizing
math workstations and guided math, individual student achievement will increase when students
receive differentiated instruction based on their needs and abilities. Additionally, student
behavior issues will be reduced due to the active engagement of math workstations for all
students.
Methodology
Due to the prescribed nature of the districts chosen math program, Everyday Math,
current math instruction primarily focuses on whole group instruction with limited differentiated
instruction options available. Students who need repeated exposure to the mathematical concepts
being taught are often left behind as the program moves onto the next skill. Conversely, students
who are already secure in the concepts being taught to the whole class are not challenged to
further develop their mathematical thinking. Additionally, both the low students and the high
students often tune out due to their lack of engagement and develop behavioral issues that are
disruptive to the rest of the class instruction.
In order to address these problems, the research study addressed the following questions.
First, how will student achievement and engagement improve when instruction is differentiated
using guided math and math workstations? Second, how will classroom management improve
once stations are implemented; in what ways will it allow intervention with struggling students?
!16
Through the use of guided math and differentiated math workstations, the study hypothesized
that student achievement would increase and behavior issues would decrease.
The proposed project used a mixed-methods design in order to combine the collection of
quantitative and qualitative data in a single study (Mills, 2014, p.7). Concrete data was gathered
through formal assessments to address the quantitative aspect of the mixed-methods study.
Additionally, the teacher collected qualitative observational data as an active participant observer
in order to gauge change in student behavior, as well as used the students own self-reflections on
their behavior.
Research Design
The intervention used a math workshop model that involved math workstations and
guided math as a means to increase student achievement. After a whole group mini lesson,
students worked independently on the new skill, met with the teacher to further understanding of
that skill, or worked independently at a math workstation with a partner to continue to develop
the skills and concepts learned in previously taught lessons. Small groups and partnerships were
created based on ability levels. Students received differentiated instruction based on needs
assessed prior to the intervention beginning. It was also hypothesized that this structure would
help with classroom management and behavior issues that arose during current whole group
instruction because all students were actively engaged in differentiated learning tasks within their
small groups or partnerships.
The math workstations were specifically designed to address the second grade math
expectations in the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) developed by the National Governors
Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers (2010). Each
!17
day, students rotated through one or two workstations, depending on whether or not they were in
a guided math group with the instructor. Each workstation had differentiated game or activity
options that students completed with a partner of a similar ability level.
Data Collection Plan
In order to gauge whether students achievement or behavior changed during the course of
the intervention, data was collected prior to the intervention, as well as during and after the
intervention. At this stage of the academic school year, instruction had not covered all of the
second grade expectations for mathematics determined by the Common Core State Standards
(National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School
Officers , 2010). The overall standard areas reviewed were operations and algebraic thinking
(OA), number and operation in base 10 (NBT), and measurement and data (MD). The following
standards were used to determine an increase in academic achievement:
2.OA.2: Add within 20 fluently; subtract within 20 fluently; know sums of two 1digit numbers automatically.
2.NBT.2: Count by 1s; count by 5s, 10s, and 100s.
2.NBT.4: Record comparisons using greater than, less than, or equals; compare and
order numbers.
2.NBT.8: Mentally add 10 to and subtract 10 from a given number.
2.MD.8: Solve problems involving coins and bills; read and write monetary
amounts.
Everyday math assessments. These formal assessments were created by the districts
math curriculum and were based on the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) grade level
!18
expectations for mathematics. Used as quantitative data, the Beginning-of-Year and Unit 1
assessments provided the concrete data needed to provide an initial base line for student
achievement. The Unit 2 and Unit 2 Cumulative assessments were used as an informal
assessment data source during the course of the intervention period (Appendix A).
Teacher-created assessments. According to Mills (2014), teacher-made tests allow
teachers to monitor and adjust instruction (p. 100). Used as both formal and informal
assessments, these teacher-created pieces allowed the instructor to determine the success of a
particular teaching or curriculum innovation (Mills, 2014, p.101). In order to better gauge
student achievement before and after the proposed intervention, the teacher created pre- and
post-assessments (Appendix B) based on the CCSS expectations to determine changes in
achievement levels.
Teacher field notes. Used as a measure of qualitative data, field notes allow a
participant observer to have a written record of observations (Mills, 2014). To recognize
whether or not student behavior improves, the teacher needed to use all three strategies
recommended by Mills (2014) when recording field notesobserve and record everything;
observe and look for nothing; and look for the paradoxes (p. 88-89). The field notes allowed the
teacher to determine whether or not the students were on task, working cooperatively, and
working quietly. In addition, the teacher had the ability to record any additional observations
regarding student behavior.
Student self-evaluations. A self-evaluation was created by the teacher as a method to
determine changes in student behavior during the implementation of the study. Students took the
age-appropriate self-evaluation at the beginning of the implementation of workstations, as well
!19
as during and after the implementation. This qualitative data source was combined with teacher
observations to gauge if math workstations reduced the amount of behavior issues due to
increased student engagement. Due to the age of the respondents, this self-evaluation used
words and pictures to aid students in their responses. Similar to a questionnaire, the selfevaluation allowed the teacher to gather a large amount of information from students without the
need to individually interview students. However, if answers need further clarification, the
teacher interviewed individual students (Mills, 2014).
According to Mills (2014), data validity is when the data collected is able to accurately
gauge what is being measured. Since the quantitative data that will be collected (Everyday
Math assessments and teacher-created assessments) is designed based on CCSS expectations, its
validity is strong. The validity of the qualitative data sources (teacher field notes and student
self-evaluations) is based on the data sources transferability, dependability, and confirmability
(Mills, 2014). The datas transferability was confirmed because the data can be transferred to a
literacy setting using word work stations in place of math workstations. The dependability of the
data sources was proven through triangulation and reviewed by multiple auditors prior to
implementation (Mills, 2014). Several colleagues reviewed both the quantitative and qualitative
data sources prior to implementation. Feedback included utilizing the same behavioral
identifiers on the teacher field notes that were a part of the student self-evaluations.
Additionally, the colleagues encouraged an open response section on student self-evaluations to
focus on areas of improvement. Lastly, the confirmability of the data sources was secure based
on triangulation of data (Table 1) and the regular recording of reflections/musings that were
done via teacher field notes (Mills, 2014, p.116).
!20
Table 1
Data Source Triangulation Matrix
Questions
D.S.1
D.S.2
D.S.3
Do workstations
increase student
achievement?
Everyday Math
Assessments
Teacher-created
assessments
Teacher Field Notes
Does guided math

increase student
achievement
Everyday Math
Assessments
Teacher-created
assessments
Teacher Field Notes
Will behavior issues

decrease?
Teacher Field Notes
Student self-evaluations
Data Analysis
Due to the mixed-methods nature of the study, both quantitative and qualitative data was
collected. Since the qualitative data reflected the behavioral portion of the study and the
quantitative data reflected the academic achievement being tracked, there was no correlation
between the two sets of data. By assigning a number to each student, individual student data was
collected without breaching confidentiality. All of the data collected was primary source data
since it was collected as a part of the study. Although STAR assessment data was originally
considered as a primary quantitative data source for this study, discussions with colleagues
encouraged a change to secondary source status. Since students will not take the STAR
assessment again until after the study is completed, the validity of the STAR data would be in
question.
Quantitative Data Organization and Display. Since the quantitative data that was
collected was graded as Meets or Does Not Meet the Common Core standards being tested, each
question answered by a student under a standard was assessed with a coding value of 1 for Does
!21
Not Meet and a 2 for Meets the standard. Using a table, assessment scores are displayed by
standard and compare the number of students meeting the standard at three assessment intervals
the pre-assessments, the assessments conducted during the study, and the post-assessments.
Overall class growth is displayed pre- and post-assessment by determining the percentage of
students who meet all of the standards at the beginning and end of the study. These results are
displayed via a pie charts and tables.
Qualitative Data Organization and Display. The teacher field notes were collected
during the study required the identification of themes. This was done using the methods
described in Mills (2014): reading/memoing, describing, and classifying (p. 142). By looking for
patterns regarding what affects classroom management and behavior, the teacher was able to take
action to correct these issues. These themes are displayed using a concept map.
Regarding the student self-evaluations, each question are assigned a code to of 3 to Yes, a
2 to Sort of, and a 1 to a No response to questions such as "I got started right away" or "I worked
quietly with my partner." This allowed for change over time to be shown statistically using a
table to show the data. The students written responses were analyzed in a manner similar to the
field notes. Additionally, students' behavior reflections will be cross-checked with the
observational data collected via the teacher field notes. Since students were assessed by the
teacher using the same questions shown on the student self-reflections, the numerical data
collected showed the difference between teacher and student perceptions of behavior. This data
is represented via table comparison during the pre- and post-assessment intervals mentioned in
the quantitative data section.
!22
Sample Selection
The participants in the study are the 19 students in an inclusive second grade classroom.
There are 11 boys and 8 girls in the class ranging in age from 7 to 8 years old. Approximately
90% of the students in the class are Caucasian with the remaining 10% being of African
American descent. Four out of the 19 students are new to the school district and have either
moved from nearby towns or have switched from private to public school. According to the
observations of the first grade teachers in the school district, overall this grade of second graders
is academically lower than those in previous years. Based on STAR assessment data collected at
the beginning of the 2015-16 academic year, 36.8 percent of the students in the survey were
assessed at a first grade level for math; 36.8 percent of the students were at a second grade level;
and 26.3 percent were assessed at a third grade level (Appendix C).
Results
Through the implementation of a math workshop model with math workstations and
guided math, the intervention aimed to increase student achievement, as well as improve
classroom management. Following whole group mini lessons, students worked independently on
the new skill, met with the teacher to further understanding of that skill, or worked independently
at a math workstation with a partner to continue to develop the skills and concepts learned in
previously taught lessons. Ability-based partnerships were created based on student needs
assessed prior to the intervention beginning.
In order to gauge any changes to student achievement, data was collected at the
beginning of the intervention (referred to as pre-assessments) and at the end of intervention
(referred to as post-assessments). All pre-intervention data was collected on the first day of the
!23
study; post-intervention data was collected on the final day of the study. This data resulted from
student responses to teacher-created assessments (Appendix B), as well as the curriculum-based
assessment through Everyday Math (Appendix A). The assessment results provided by the
curriculum-based assessments were used as informal assessments to gauge guided math
interventions and to develop additional math workstations. Additionally, informal assessment of
student achievement was documented in teacher field notes. The focus of the data assessed was
based on Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for second grade in mathematics. Students
were assessed as either meeting the standard (Meets), partially meeting the standard (Partially
Meets) or not meeting the standard (Does Not Meet). The following standards were specifically
addressed to gauge any changes to student achievement:
2.OA.2: Add within 20 fluently; subtract within 20 fluently; know sums of two 1digit numbers automatically.
2.NBT.2: Count by 1s; count by 5s, 10s, and 100s.
2.NBT.4: Record comparisons using greater than, less than, or equals; compare and
order numbers.
2.NBT.8: Mentally add 10 to and subtract 10 from a given number.
2.MD.8: Solve problems involving coins and bills; read and write monetary
amounts.
To determine whether workstations would decrease student behavior issues, students
were asked to complete a self-evaluation of their behavior at the beginning of the study (labeled
as pre-intervention) and at the end of the study (labeled post-intervention). In her field notes, the
!24
teacher used the same evaluation scale as those on the students self-evaluation in order to cross
check student and teacher perceptions of changes in behavior.
Findings
In Figures 1 through 10 and Tables 2 and 3, the data presented focuses on whether student
achievement increased due to math workstations and guided math. These two research questions
were combined since they both focused on a change in achievement levels. Specifically, Figures
1 through 10 reflect what percentage of the whole class met, partially met, and did not meet each
standard assessed.
Figure 1 presents the results of the students pre-assessment for CCSS 2.NBT.2
(Appendix B). This standard focused on students ability to count within 1000, as well as skipcount by 5s, 10s, and 100s. In the first set of questions, students were asked to fill in partial
number grids to show the ability to count by ones and 10s. The second set of questions required
students to recognize and complete the counting patterns in a string of numbers. Patterns
included counting by 5s, 10s, and 100s. Under this standard, 42% of students met the
expectations, 47% partially met the expectations, and 11% did not meet the expectations.
Meets
Partially Meets
!25
Does Not Meet
11%
42%
47%
Figure 1. Pre-assessment of standard 2.NBT.2. Standard

assesses students ability to count by 1s; count by 5s,
10s, and 100s.
In Figure 2 the results of the students post-assessment for CCSS 2.NBT.2 (Appendix B)
is presented. This standard focused on students ability to count within 1000, as well as skipcount by 5s, 10s, and 100s. In one set of questions, students were asked to fill in partial number
grids to show their ability to count by ones and 10s. The second set of questions required
students to recognize and complete the counting patterns in a string of numbers. Patterns
included counting by 5s, 10s, and 100s. With this standard, 47% of students met the expectations
and 53% partially met the expectations. All students either met or partially met the expectations
in the post-assessment.
Meets
Partially Meets
!26
Does Not Meet
47%
53%
Figure 2. Post-assessment of standard 2.NBT.2. Standard

assesses students ability to count by 1s; count by 5s,
10s, and 100s.
Figure 3 represents the results of the students pre-assessment for CCSS 2.NBT.4
(Appendix B). This standard focused on students ability to compare two three-digit numbers
based on meanings of the hundreds, tens, and ones digits using >, =, and <. The set of questions
under this standard required students to compare numbers, compare the sums of numbers, and
compare monetary amounts. In the pre-assessment 95% of students met expectations with only
5% partially meeting expectations.

Meets
Partially Meets
!27
Does Not Meet
5%
95%
Figure 3. Pre-assessment of standard 2.NBT.4. Standard assesses

students ability to record comparisons using greater than, less than,
or equals, and compare and order numbers.
The pie chart in Figure 4 presents the results of the students post-assessment for CCSS
2.NBT.4 (Appendix B). This standard focused on students ability to compare two three-digit
numbers based on meanings of the hundreds, tens, and ones digits using >, =, and <. Under this
standard, the set of questions required students to compare numbers, compare the sums of
numbers, and compare monetary amounts. In the post-assessment, 95% of students met
expectations with only 5% partially meeting expectations. There was no change in the pre- and
post-assessment results.
Meets
Partially Meets
!28
Does Not Meet
5%
95%
Figure 4. Post-assessment of standard 2.NBT.4. Standard assesses

students ability to record comparisons using greater than, less than,
or equals, and compare and order numbers.
The Figure 5 pie chart presents the results of the students pre-assessment for CCSS
2.NBT.8 (Appendix B). This standard focused on students ability to mentally add and subtract
10 or 100 to a given number up to 1000. The questions related to this standard, required students
to fill in a partially number grid with digits missing. Students needed to recognize when the
missing digit required adding or subtracting by 10. In the pre-assessment 95% of students met
the standard and 5% partially met the standard.
Meets
Partially Meets
!29
Does Not Meet
5%
95%
Figure 5. Pre-assessment of standard 2.NBT.8 Standard assesses

students ability to mentally add 10 to and subtract 10 from a given
number.
Figure 6 presents the results of the students post-assessment for CCSS 2.NBT.8
(Appendix B). This standard focused on students ability to mentally add and subtract 10 or 100
to a given number up to 1000. The questions related to this standard, required students to fill in a
partially number grid with digits missing. Students needed to recognize when the missing digit
required adding or subtracting by 10. In the post-assessment 89% of students met the standard
and 11% partially met the standard.
Meets
Partially Meets
!30
Does Not Meet
11%
89%
Figure 6. Post-assessment of standard 2.NBT.8 Standard assesses

students ability to mentally add 10 to and subtract 10 from a given
number.
The results of students pre-assessment for CCSS 2.OA.2 (Appendix B) is presented in

Figure 7. This standard focuses on students ability to fluently add and subtract within 20.
Students answered multiple addition and subtraction questions, including problems that focused
on knowing combinations of 10 and doubles facts to 20. In the pre-assessment, 58% of students
met the expectation, 26% partially met the expectation, and 15% did not meet the expectation.
Meets
Partially Meets
!31
Does Not Meet
16%
26%
58%
Figure 7. Pre-assessment of standard 2.OA.2. Standard assesses

students ability to add within 20 fluently; subtract within 20 fluently;
and know sums of two 1-digit numbers automatically.
Figure 8 presents the results of the students post-assessment for CCSS 2.OA.2
(Appendix B). This standard focused on students ability to fluently add and subtract within 20.
Students answered multiple addition and subtraction questions, including problems that focused
on knowing combinations of 10 and doubles facts to 20. In the post-assessment 42% met the
expectation and 58% partially met the expectation. All students either met or partially met
expectation in the post-assessment.
Meets
Partially Meets
!32
Does Not Meet
42%
58%
Figure 8. Post-assessment of standard 2.OA.2. Standard assesses

students ability to add within 20 fluently; subtract within 20 fluently;
and know sums of two 1-digit numbers automatically.
The results of the students pre-assessment for CCSS 2.MD.2 (Appendix B) is illustrated
in Figure 9. This standard focused on students ability to solve problems involving coins and
bills, as well as read and write monetary amounts. Students answered questions regarding coin
identification, adding coins together, and writing amounts in cents notation. Only 16% of
students met the expectation, 58% partially met the expectation, and 26% percent did not meet
the expectation.
Meets
Partially Meets
!33
Does Not Meet
16%
26%
58%
Figure 9. Pre-assessment of standard 2.MD.8. Standard assesses

students ability to solve problems involving coins and bills and read
and write monetary amounts.
Figure 10 presents the results of the students post-assessment for CCSS 2.MD.8
(Appendix B). This standard focused on students ability to solve problems involving coins and
bills, as well as read and write monetary amounts. Students again answered questions regarding
coin identification, adding coins together, and writing amounts in cents notation. At the end of
the intervention, 47% met expectation. Students who partially met expectations were at 42%,
and those who did not meet expectations were at 11%.
Meets
Partially Meets
!34
Does Not Meet
11%
47%
42%
Figure 10. Post-assessment of standard 2.MD.8. Standard assesses

students ability to solve problems involving coins and bills and read
and write monetary amounts.
In Table 2 the net change results for individual students for each standard assessed in the
pre- and post-assessments (Appendices B) is shown. Column 1 shows the number assigned to
each student in order to maintain confidentiality. Columns 2 through 6 show the net changes in
achievement by each standard. Multiple questions for each standard were provided on both
assessments. If a student answered a question correctly, they were given a 3 (Meets). If a
question was partially correct, students received a 2 (Partially Meets). Lastly, if a question was
answered incorrectly, students received a 1 (Does Not Meet). These scores were averaged by
standard for each student. The scores in boldface represent the biggest net changes, both
positively and negatively.
!35
Table 2
Individual Student Results by Standard (Net Change)
Student
2.NBT.2
2.NBT.4
2.NBT.8
2.OA.2
2.MD.8
+0.4
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
+0.4
-0.5
-1
+0.5
-0.4
-0.5
+0.5
+0.4
+0.5
-0.5
10
+0.5
-0.5
11
+0.7
12
+1
+1.4
13
-1
-1
-0.4
14
+0.5
+1
-1
+0.5
+0.7
15
-0.5
-0.4
16
+1
+0.7
17
+1.5
+0.4
18
+0.3
19
+1
+1.5
Note: Net change that is > 0.5 are in boldface.
!36
The data in Table 3 shows combined net change by individual student. The highlighted
students show the largest amount of net change.
Table 3
Combined Net Change Results by Student
Student
Combined Net Change
+0.4
-0.5
-0.1
-1.4
+0.4
10
11
+0.7
12
+2.4
13
-0.4
14
+1.7
15
-0.9
16
+1.7
17
+1.9
18
+0.3
19
+2.5
Note: Net change that is > 0.9 are in boldface.
!37
The data in Figure 11 illustrates the percentage of students who experienced a growth in
achievement, a decline in achievement, or no change to their achievement levels. This data is
based on the combined net change data found in Table 3. Out of 19 students, 9 students (48%)
experienced growth, 5 students experienced negative growth (26%) and 5 students showed no
change in achievement (26%).
50
Percentage
37.5
25
12.5
Growth
Decline
Figure 11. Whole Class Combined Net Change (percentage).
No Change
!38
In Tables 4 and 5, the research question of whether behavior issues will decrease with the
implementation of math workstations is addressed. Since the data collected for Tables 4 and 5
was qualitative and subjective in nature, it is represented via tables to show a side-by-side
comparison of students and teacher attitudes and opinions at both the beginning and end of the
intervention.
Student self-evaluation results are shown both pre- and post-intervention in Table 4.
Students rated themselves as either meeting, partially meeting, or not meeting workstation
expectations. The following expectations were assessed: getting started right away, staying on
task, working cooperatively; and working quietly. Pre-Intervention evaluations were done at the
completion of workstations on the first day of the intervention. Post-intervention results were
assessed on the final day of the intervention data collection period. Student answers were
compiled and reflected as a percentage of the whole class.
Table 4
Student Self Evaluation Results (Pre- and Post-intervention)
Pre-Intervention
Post-Intervention
Meets
Partially
Meets
Does Not
Meet
Meets
Partially
Meets
Does Not
Meet
Started right
away
79%
16%
5%
71%
29%
0%
On task
95%
5%
0%
76%
24%
0%
Worked
cooperatively
89%
11%
0%
94%
6%
0%
Worked
quietly
53%
42%
5%
71%
4%
1%
!39
Table 5 uses the same criteria to illustrate teacher self-evaluation results are shown both
pre- and post-intervention. The teacher rated each student as either meeting, partially meeting, or
not meeting workstation expectations in her field notes. The following expectations were
assessed: getting started right away, staying on task, working cooperatively; and working quietly.
Pre-Intervention evaluations were done at the completion of workstations on the first day of the
intervention. Post-intervention results were assessed on the final day of the intervention data
collection period. Student ratings by the teacher were compiled and reflected as a percentage of
the whole class.
Table 5
Teacher Evaluation Results (Pre- and Post-intervention)
Pre-Intervention
Post-Intervention
Meets
Partially
Meets
Does Not
Meet
Meets
Partially
Meets
Does Not
Meet
Started right
away
79%
21%
0%
95%
5%
0%
On task
37%
53%
10%
79%
21%
0%
Worked
cooperatively
74%
26%
0%
100%
0%
0%
Worked
quietly
63%
37%
0%
100%
0%
0%
!40
Discussion
Student Achievement by Standard. This action research explored the effects of math
workstations and guided math on student achievement. The effects of math workstations and
guided math were measured via the same pre- and post-assessments since the interventions
occurred concurrently. Math workstation and guided math interventions focused on five specific
mathematical standards. For each standard, whole class achievement was reviewed.
The standard with the greatest amount of positive net change is 2.MD.8 which relates to
monetary problems involving coin identification and addition. Out of 19 students, 9 experienced
growth. Only 3 students experienced a decrease in the expectations for the standard, and 6
students experienced no change during the intervention.
Also of note is standard 2.OA.2 relating to the ability to fluently add and subtract within
20. This standard reflects the greatest decrease in ability, with 6 out of the 19 students in the
class showing a negative net change. However, the greatest net change of +1.5% is shown by
two of the 19 students in this particular standard.
With regard to the greatest positive individual growth, students 12, 14, 16, 17, and 19
showed the most growth during the intervention period with growth greater than or equal to 1.
Conversely, only student 6 showed a significant amount of negative individual growth.
However, the remaining 4 students with negative growth had a net change of less than 1.
Overall, 9 out of 19 students experienced positive growth; 5 students experienced negative
growth, and 5 students exhibited neither positive or negative growth during the intervention.
Standard 2.NBT.2. In Figures 1 and 2, the pre-assessment and post-assessment data for
standard 2.NBT.2 is compared. This standard focused on students ability to count within 1000,
!41
as well as skip-count by 5s, 10s, and 100s. In the pre-assessment, 42% of students met the
expectations, 47% partially met the expectations, and 11% did not meet the expectations. In the
post-assessment, 47% of students met the expectations and 53% partially met the expectations.
The percentage of students who met expectations increased by 5%. The number of students who
partially met expectation increased by 6%. All students either met or partially met the
expectations in the post-assessment; whereas, 11% did not meet expectations at the beginning of
the intervention.
When looking at individual student achievement under this standard in Table 2, four
students experienced a positive net change in achievement and three students experienced a
negative net change. While the net change for six of the students was +/-0.5, one student
experienced a significant increase in achievement at the end of the intervention (+1).
Overall, the impact of intervention on this standard for the whole class was positive. This
is a skill that students have had some exposure to in first grade, but needed repeated practice;
math workstations helped provide that practice. Additionally, working in a guided math group
with those students who originally did not meet the expectations helped boost understanding of
this concept. This was especially true for student 16 in Table 2 who participated in guided math
in addition to the math workstation intervention in this standard.
Standard 2.NBT.4. The data presented in Figures 3 and 4 reflects whole class
understanding of this concept. This standard focused on students ability to compare two threedigit numbers based on meanings of the hundreds, tens, and ones digits using >, =, and <. In the
pre-assessment 95% of students met expectations with only 5% partially meeting expectations.
The results of the post-assessment were identical. There was no change in achievement in this
!42
standard. When looking at Table 2 at the individual net change in student results, only 3 students
had any change in this standard; two students experienced positive change and one had a decline.
Since the vast majority of the class was secure in this expectation, it is not surprising that the
aggregated data remained constant. While the workstation associated with this standard was
engaging, it did not provide any added benefit to the class achievement.
Standard 2.NBT.8. This standard focused on students ability to mentally add and
subtract 10 or 100 to a given number up to 1000. The data presented in Figures 5 and 6 reflect
students pre- and post-assessment understanding of this concept. In the pre-assessment 95% of
students met the standard and 5% partially met the standard. However, in the post-assessment
89% of students met the standard. This is a decrease of 6% from the pre-assessment.
Additionally, 11% partially met the standard; this is an increase from the pre-assessment of 6%.
It is important to note that while whole class achievement decreased in this standard, this resulted
primarily from students making computational errors or not checking work carefully in the postassessment. Overall, students showed a strong understanding both pre-and post-assessment of
this expectation. In Table 2, individual student net change only occurred for 3 students; one
student experienced a positive change and two experienced a negative change. All in all, student
achievement remained relatively constant in this standard.
Standard 2.OA.2. Figures 7 and 8 depict the whole class understanding of this standard
which focused on students ability to fluently add and subtract within 20. In the post-assessment
42% met the expectation compared to 58% in the pre-assessment; this is a 16% decrease from
the pre-assessment. However, in the post-assessment 58% partially met the expectation
compared to the pre-assessment results of 26%; this is an increase of 36%. Although the number
!43
of students meeting expectations decreased by a significant amount (16%), it is important to note

that all students either met or partially met expectation in the post-assessment. In the preassessment 16% of students did not meet expectations. Upon reviewing student answers on the
post-assessment, it was apparent that the majority of students who experienced a decrease from
meets to partially meets did so primarily due to computational errors and not checking work
prior to completion.
In Table 2, individual student change under this standard shows that four students
experienced a positive net change, while five experienced a negative net change. Two of the
students who experienced positive change made significant gains in this standard (+1.5). All of
the students who showed growth were a part of a guided math group working on increasing
fluency with math facts, especially doubles facts and combinations of 10. Therefore, despite the
decrease shown in the post-assessment data, there was a significant growth in student
achievement for those students with the extra support of guided math.
Standard 2.MD.8. In Figure 9 and 10, the pre- and post-assessment whole class data is
presented. This standard focused on students ability to solve problems involving coins and bills,
as well as read and write monetary amounts. This standard was a huge area of weakness for the
class overall. In the pre-assessment only 16% of students met the expectation, 58% partially met
the expectation, and 26% percent did not meet the expectation. However, in the post-assessment,
this standard experienced the largest overall gain in achievement. At the end of the intervention,
47% of students met the expectation, resulting in an increase of 31%. Students who partially met
expectations were at 42%; this is a decrease of 16%. However, only 11% of students did not
meet expectations at the end of the intervention. Thus, a large number of students who were
!44
partially meeting expectation at the beginning of the intervention moved up to meeting the
expectation. Additionally, students who were not meeting expectations moved up to partially
meeting expectations. Only one student increased from not meeting to meeting expectations in
this standard (Student 12). This particular student had difficulty with coin recognition at the
beginning of the study, but was secure at the end of the study after some individual direct
instruction from the teacher.
This growth in achievement is further exhibited in Table 2 when looking at the net change
of each individual student under this standard. Overall, 13 students experienced a net change
with regarding to recognizing coins and reading and writing monetary amounts. Out of those 13
students, 10 students experience a positive net change and only 3 experienced a negative change.
This growth in student achievement can be attributed to both the guided math groups further
exposing students to this skill, and the multiple math workstations devoted to working with
money.
Overall Student Growth. To further analyze whether student achievement increased
during the intervention, Table 3 shows the combined net change for individual students. Out of
the 9 students who experienced an increase in achievement, five experienced significant gains
(greater than 1.7). Of particular note, students 12 and 19 showed a combined growth of 2.4 and
2.5 respectively. When looking at those students who experienced a negative combined net
change, it is important to note that only one student had a negative change greater than 1. The
remaining four students had a change that was less than 1. The remaining five students remained
constant.
!45
Overall, the majority of the students who experienced the greatest growth in achievement
were low ability students who participated in guided math and math workstations. Students 8,
14, 16, 17, and 19 all started the year significantly below second grade expectations and have
made great strides since the beginning of the intervention. Students 11 and 12 were weak only in
one or two standards (2.NBT.2 and 2.MD.8) and were able to increase understanding
significantly in those areas (Table 2). The only low ability student who received guided math
support to show negative growth was Student 6 who experienced a significant decrease. This
negative change may have resulted from the student needing to take her post-assessment on two
different days due to a reading intervention previously scheduled.
Other than Student 6, the remaining students who showed a negative net change (students
3, 5, 13, and 15) or no change (students 2, 4, 7, 9,and 10) tended to be those students with
average to strong math abilities prior to the intervention. This lack of growth or decrease in
achievement is primarily due to mistakes in computation and not carefully checking answers
prior to handing in their work.
Figure 11 demonstrates whole class combined net change by percentage. Overall, the
math workstation and guided math interventions increased achievement for approximately 47%
of the students in the class. On the other hand, 26% experienced a decrease in achievement and
26% experienced no change. Thus, the math workstation and guided math increased
achievement for the majority of the 19 students in the class.
Decrease in Behavior Issues. In Table 4, the students perception of their behavior
during math workstations is evaluated. Students were asked to evaluate themselves based on
four behavior expectations getting started right away; staying on task; working cooperatively;
!46
and working quietly. At the beginning of the intervention period (pre-intervention), students
perception of meeting expectations is extremely high. Students believed they got right to work
(79%), were on task (95%), and worked cooperatively (89%). The only area where they did not
believe that they were meeting expectations was working quietly (53%).
However, at the end of the intervention (post-intervention), students evaluated themselves
more rigorously. The percentage of students who believed that they only met expectations for
getting started right away was 71%; this is down 8% from pre-intervention results. With regard
to staying on task, only 76% believed they met expectations. This is a 19% decrease from preintervention evaluations. Conversely, students recognized that they made significant growth in
meeting the expectations of working cooperatively (growth of 5%) and working quietly (growth
of 18%).
As students became more proficient at the logistics of math workstations, their
expectations of what behaviors should look like during that time became higher, as well.
Overall, students became more critical of their behaviors and believed that they could continue to
improve.
In Table 5, the pre- and post-intervention teacher evaluation results are detailed. At the
beginning of the intervention, the teachers evaluation of student behavior was much lower than
post-intervention evaluations. With regarding to getting started right away, the percentage of
students meeting the expectation rose from 79% to 95% for an increase of 16%. In terms of
being on task at the workstation, students who met expectations went from 37% pre-intervention
to 79% post-intervention; this is an increase of 41%. Students who met the expectation for
working cooperatively grew from 74% to 100% for an increase of 26%. Lastly, students who
!47
met the expectation of working quietly grew from 63% to 100%; this was an increase of 37%.
Overall, the teachers evaluation of student behavior at the end of the intervention was
significantly higher then the behavior at the start of the intervention. It is also important to note
that none of the students were labeled as not meeting expectations post-intervention and that
100% of the students met the expectations of working cooperatively and quietly at the
completion of the intervention.
Finally, Figure 12 represents a concept map detailing the positive results on student
behavior due to the workstation intervention. Through the analysis of the teacher field notes,
positive behavior is noted not only in the behavior expectations evaluated by students and the
teacher, such as cooperating, using appropriate noise levels, and being on task, but other positive
benefits occurred, as well. Specifically, all students are now appropriately challenged, and
student engagement has increased, along with student confidence. In addition, students have
shown more respectful behavior toward each other, and students are experiencing a more
positive attitude toward math. Thus, student engagement and behavior has increased during the
implementation of the intervention.
Increased Confidence
Respect
Attitude Toward Math
!48
Appropriately Challenged
On Task
Student Behavior
Engagement
Appropriate Noise
Cooperation
Figure 12. Harrods Concept of Positive Effects of Workstations on Student Behavior
!49
Limitations
While the study was successful on the whole, there were limitations that may have
hindered performing the interventions to their full extent. One limitation was the time in which
the intervention was to occur. Due to the limited time allotted to teaching math during the day, it
was often difficult to get to two rotations of the math workstations completed. The math
curriculum used, Everyday Math, often required extra time for the teaching and practice portion
of the lesson, thus shortening the time available for workstation and guided math intervention.
Additionally, since the math workshop time is divided into two separate parts of the day, there
were often interruptions to the classroom schedule, such as fire drills and whole school
assemblies.
An additional limitation occurred when students had difficulty transitioning from one
workstation to the next. In order to properly teach students how to transition to the second
workstation rotation, time was needed for implicit instruction. This required a whole class
discussion of strategies for transitioning and guided practice.
Another limitation of the study was student absences. When students were absent, the
ability-based partnerships often had to be readjusted; thus affecting small group intervention.
Students who were absent also missed extra guided math support from the instructor.
A final limitation of the study was the overall ability levels of the students. While the
intervention aimed to provide differentiated learning opportunities for all of the students, it was
difficult to provide enough guided support due to the large number of students needing help with
the reading portion of the math curriculum. A significant number of students require literacy
intervention in the classroom and often struggled with independent practice when the teacher
!50
was working with a group. Although many of the students have mathematical sense, reading
ability levels often hindered true understanding of concepts.
Summary and Further Research
Overall, the effects of math workstations and guided math on student achievement and
behavior appears to be positive. While the academic achievement increased primarily, and most
significantly, for the lower, struggling students, there was enough overall growth to warrant
further implementation of the intervention. Thus answering the question of whether student
achievement will increase with guided math and math workstations.
In order to guarantee growth for all students and not have higher ability students decline
or remain stagnant in their achievement, further research is needed. Additional challenges may
need to be developed to encourage higher students to grow academically. Also, post-intervention
assessments need to provide an option for students to exceed expectations.
With regard to the impact of the intervention on student behavior, it is extremely evident
that student behavior and engagement has undeniably increased. Students of all ability levels are
now engaged, thus reducing interruptions and misbehavior during the additional instruction
performed during guided math. Higher ability students are now challenged and less disruptive,
while lower ability students have a new-found confidence in their abilities to do math-based
exercises.
!51
Action Plan
The importance of differentiated instruction is undeniable and research actively supports

its use (Dean & Zimmerman, 2012; Diller, 2011; Heuser, 2000) . Differentiated instruction is
widely adopted not because it is a fad, but because one-size-fits-all instruction is unsuccessful
in reaching the broad spectrum of students in todays classrooms (Tomlinson and Sousa, 2010,
para. 13). Although the Everyday Math curriculum provides differentiated teaching practices,
higher level students were not completely engaged and lower math students tended to lose focus
when they did not understand. While Everyday Math uses games and activities as a component
of its instruction, these activities were mostly focused on the current instruction and did not
provide repeated practice for those struggling students. Also, games were often not played due
to the time constraints of the instructional day. Thus, the implementation of the research study
proposed to fix these issues through the use of the differentiated math workshop model with
guided math and math workstations. The hypothesis was that student engagement would
improve and , as well as student achievement and behavior.
The initial study and data collection took place from October 23, 2015, and continued for
four weeks. Due to the interruption of Thanksgiving break, the study was completed on
November 30, 2015. The study showed that achievement for most of the lower performing
students increased, while behavior issues decreased for the whole class overall. Higher
performing students and average students showed fewer achievement increases. This data
proved that this intervention strategies warrant further implementation and research.
!52
Additionally, student attitudes appeared to be more positive toward math. This aspect of the
research also warrants continued implementation of the intervention.
The researcher will continue to use the guided math and math workstations in addition to
curriculum-based instruction. Further differentiation options will be provided for each game or
activity at each workstation to challenge the higher students to advance their mathematical
thinking and reasoning. The researcher will also provide more choice at workstations giving
students more then one option for each mathematical skill or concept. These additional
components to the intervention will be completed by the end of January.
One limitation of the intervention was that time constraints often made participating in
two math workstations each day challenging. In addition, the transitions between workstations
required too much time since many of the activities needed extensive re-organization and clean
up. Therefore, the model of the intervention will be slightly changed to focus on one workstation
rotation each day. The additional workstation options and choices should continue to engage
students while allowing the researcher additional time to implement guided math with struggling
students. These options will come from the extension activities available through the Everyday
Math curriculum, teacher-created games found on teacher resource websites, and activities
provided from the enrichment teacher in the school. Additionally, the teacher will implement
guided math groups for the average to high students to add to student understanding of the skills
practiced in workstations. To assess whether these changes help increase student achievement
for the average to high students, the researcher will use curriculum-based assessments to
determine any changes to student understanding.
!53
While the intervention plan and materials were informally shared with the rest of the
second grade staff at the school during the course of the study, the findings of the initial
intervention show that a more structured intervention across the grade is warranted. During the
next scheduled grade-level meeting on January 6, 2015, the researcher will present her finding to
the second grade team and suggest ways in which each classroom may begin to formally
implement the math workshop model. The enrichment teacher will be invited to participate in
this meeting and provide further feedback and suggestions on how to reach the higher level
students to increase their performance and maintain their level of engagement.
Lastly, the teacher will present her preliminary study findings to the administration and
staff at the bi-annual teacher slam on December 16, 2015. The teacher slam is a time where
the administration encourages staff to share new instructional practices and receive feedback and
suggestions from colleagues regarding these new practices. As the staff continues to struggle to
find time to provide Response to Intervention to struggling students in each grade, the math
workshop model with guided math and math workstations may be a viable solution.
Conclusion
Through the implementation of guided math and math workstations in a math workshop
model, the researcher was able to provide differentiated learning opportunities to increase student
engagement and decrease student behavior issues. Additional benefits of the study included an
increase in student confidence, a greater number of students with a positive attitude toward math,
and an increase in cooperation and respect among students.
Although the study showed that achievement increased significantly for most of the lower
level students who participated in both components of the study, student achievement showed

little change for those of average or high ability. In order to determine whether student
achievement will increase for this group of students, the researcher will continue to implement
the intervention during the remainder of the year with modifications to the content of the
workstations, along with additional guided math support to those average to high students.
Despite its limitations, the effects of this study have been positive and warrant continued
implementation and research.
!54
!55
References
Andreasen, J.B., & Hunt, J.H. (2012). Using math stations for commonsense
inclusiveness. Teaching Children Mathematics, 19 (4), 238-246. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5951/teacchilmath.19.4.0238
Dean, S., & Zimmerman, M. (2012). Math groups that make sense. Educational
Leadership, 69 (5). Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-
leadership/feb12/vol69/num05/Math-Groups-That-Make-Sense.aspx
Diller, D. (2011). Math work stations: Independent learning you can count on, K-2.
Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.
Dobbertin, C.B. (2012). Just how I need to learn it. Educational Leadership, 69 (5),
66-70. Retrieved from www.ascd.org/.../feb12/.../Just_How_I_Need_to_Learn_It
.aspx
Ensign, J. (2012). Teacher-initiated differentiation. Teaching Children Mathematics. 19
(3), 158-163. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5951/teacchilmath.
19.3.0158
Geoffroy, J. (2009). Essential principals for embarking on differentiated instruction.
ASCD Express, 4 (25). Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/ascd-express/
vol4/425-geoffroy.aspx
!56
Heuser, D. (2000). Reworking the workshop for math and science. Educational
Leadership, 58 (1) 34-37. Retrieved from www.ascd.org/.../
Reworking_the_Workshop_for_Math_and_Science.aspx
Jansen, H. (2005). Intervention strategies for mathematics teachers. Teaching Today.
Retrieved from http://www.glencoe.com/sec/teachingtoday/subject/
intervention_strategies.phtml
Jones, D.J. (2007). The station approach: How to teach with limited resources. Science
Scope, 30 (6), 16-21. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/
225991826?accountid=12756
Kobelin, M. (2009). Multi-age made me do it: A teacher tackles differentiation in math
instruction. Schools: Studies in Education, 6 (1), 10-22. doi:10.1086/597653
Mills, G.E. (2014). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher (5th edition).
Upper Saddle Rive, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State
School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for Mathematics.
Washington, DC: Authors. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/Math/
Ravitch, D. (2007). Edspeak: A glossary of education terms, phrases, buzzwords, and
jargon. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
Russell, J. (2014). The name of the game is learning. ASCD Express, 9 (20). Retrieved
from http://www.ascd.org/ascd-express/vol9/920-russell.aspx
!57
Schmoker, M. (2010). When pedagogic fads trump priorities. Education Week, 30 (5),
22-23. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/
2010/09/29/05schmoker.h30.html?qs=schmoker+inmeta:Pub_year%3D2010
Tomlinson, C.A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms
(2nd edition). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Tomlinson, C.A., & Sousa, D. (2010). When pedagogical misinformation trumps reason
[Letter to the editor]. Education Week, 30 (12), 28. Retrieved from http://
www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/11/17/12letter-b1.h30.html?qs=tomlinson
+inmeta:Pub_year%3D2010
Willoughby, J. (2000). Differentiating instruction: Meeting students where they are.
Teaching Today. Retrieved from http://www.glencoe.com/sec/teachingtoday/
subject/di_meeting.phtml.
!58
Appendix A: Everday Math Assessments
NAME
DATE
Beginning-of-Year Assessment
Fill in the missing numbers.
1 28, 29,
2 55, 60,
, 70,
, 32,
, 95, 105,
, 34
, 80,
, 125
Write the amount.
Copyright McGraw-Hill Education. Permission is granted to reproduce for classroom use.

PHOTO: United States Mint image
Beginning of Year Assessment
0070_0074_EM4_AH_G2_U10_BOY_136608.indd 71
Program: Everyday Math
Component: AH Assessment Masters
71
2/21/14 3:55 PM
!59
NAME
DATE
Beginning-of-Year Assessment (continued)

Write the missing numbers.
17
18
28
29
40 41
42
43
51
52
53
62
63
60
8 Fill in the empty frames.
Rule
Add 10
72
40
70
90
Assessment Handbook
0070_0074_EM4_AH_G2_U10_BOY_136608.indd 72
2/17/14 7:05 PM
NAME
!60
DATE

9 Solve.
Unit
a. 7 + 1 =
b.
c. 6 + 4 =
d. 6 + 6 =
e. 3 +
=5
= 10 - 5
pencils
f. 6 - 1 =
10 Use <, >, or =.
Unit
a. 8 + 2
3+7
b. 4 + 4
c. 14 - 7
12 - 9
crayons
11 Write at least five names for 10 in the box.
10
Beginning of Year Assessment
0070_0074_EM4_AH_G2_U10_BOY_136608.indd 73
73
2/17/14 7:05 PM
NAME
!61
DATE

Solve. Write a number model.
12 Jace had 4 ice cubes in his cup. He added 3 more.
How many ice cubes are in his cup now?
ice cubes
Number model:
13 Dayton had 16 carrots. He gave 8 carrots to his sister.
How many carrots did he have left?
carrots
14 Write the time.
a.
b.
11
12
10
11
2
8
6
2
3
4
7
74
4
7
12
10
Number model:
Assessment Handbook
0070_0074_EM4_AH_G2_U10_BOY_136608.indd 74
2/17/14 7:05 PM
NAME
DATE
!62
Lesson 1-13
Unit 1 Assessment
1 Count by ones. Fill in the missing numbers.
a. 45,
, 48,
b. 96, 97,
, 99,
c. 115, 116,
2 If you have 3 dimes, how many cents do you have?
Total:
67
70
74
4 a. Write the number 6 in the correct place on the number line.
10
b. Explain how you knew where to write the number.

Coins: United States Mint image
3 Fill in the missing numbers.
Assessment Handbook
B( 0 B7B$ + B* B8
B/
LQGG
30
Grid Layer
Bleed
Trim
Safety Zone
NAME
!63
Lesson 1-13
DATE
Unit 1 Assessment (continued)

23
86
6 Start at 120 and skip count by 5s. Circle your counts.
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
7 Write <, >, or =.
< is less than
a. 17
> is more than
b. 25
,
c.
d. 37
= is the same as
,
,
73
e. Explain how you know which is the greater number for 7d.
Assessment Masters
B( 0 B7B$ + B* B8
B/
LQGG
$0
Grid Layer
Bleed
Trim
Safety Zone
!64
NAME
DATE
Lesson 1-13

8 Beth is playing Fishing for 10. She has a 5 in her hand.
a. What card should she fish for?

b. Complete the number model to show her total after she gets
the card she fished for.
5+
= 10
9 How many
s? Label odd or even.
a.
b.
Assessment Handbook
B(0 B7B$+B* B8
B/
LQGG
$0
Grid Layer
Bleed
Trim
Safety Zone
NAME
!65
Lesson 2-13
DATE
Unit 2 Assessment
1 Add.
a. 4 + 4 =
d. 8 +
b. 3 + 7 =
e.
+ 6 = 12
c.
f.
= 10
+ 1 = 10
9+
= 18
2 Mallory knew that she could use 8 + 2 = 10 to figure out the
3 For each fact, write a helper fact. You can use a double ten
frame to help.
a. 7 + 8 = ?
12
b. 7 + 9 = ?
Helper fact:
Helper fact:
7+8=
7+9=
sum for 8 + 4. Explain Mallorys thinking. You may use a double

ten frame.
Assessment Handbook
B(0 B7B$+B* B8
B/
LQGG
30
!66
NAME
Lesson 2-13
DATE
Unit 2 Cumulative Assessment

112
117
2 Count by 5s.
5,
120
3 Count by 10s.
80,
4 Write all the double facts.
Assessment Masters
B(0 B7B$+B* B8
B/
LQGG
15
30
NAME
DATE
!67
Lesson 2-13

4
a. Write an addition fact

for the domino.
b. Write the turn-around

fact.
5 Write at least five names in the 12 box.
12
6 Take an even number of pennies.
How many pennies did you take?

How do you know that the number of pennies is even?
Write a number model with your number of pennies as the sum.

Use equal addends.
Assessment Masters
B(0 B7B$+B* B8
B/
LQGG
13
$0
NAME
DATE
!68
Lesson 2-13
Unit 2 Cumulative Assessment (continued)

5 Write all the combinations of 10. Include the turn-around facts.
= 10
= 10
= 10
= 10
= 10
= 10
= 10
= 10
= 10
= 10
= 10
Order varies.

United States Mint image
6 How much money?
16
Assessment Handbook
BB(0B7B$+B*B8B/BLQGG
30
Vendor: Quad Graphics
Grade: 2
PDF Pass
!69
Appendix B: Teacher-created Assessments

Pre-assessment
Name:____________________________
Date:_________________
Math Pre-Assessment
1.
17
29
2.
43
44
56
65
2.NBT.2, 2.NBT.8
3.
Complete the following problems:
a) 8 + 2 = ______
e) 9 + 5 = ______
b) 6 + 7 = ______
f) 8 + 8 = ______
c) 10 = ______ + 4
g) 9 + _____ = 18
d) 10 2 = ______
h) 14 7 = ______
2.OA.2
Page 1
5.
!70
Complete each skip counting pattern:
a)
45
b)
535 540 545
55
c)
280 290
d)
300 400
e)
320
360 380
2.NBT.2
6.
Compare the numbers below using:
>
<
a) 12 _______ 21
b) 9 + 3 _______ 8 + 4
c) 7 + 7 _______ 13
d) 13 6 _______ 11 5
e) D, D, D _______ 25
f) D, D, N, P, P, P _______ Q, P, P
2.OA.2, 2.NBT.4, 2.MD.8

Page 2
7.
!71
How much money is below?
______________
2.MD.8
8.
______________
2.MD.8
Page 3
!72
Post-Assessment
Name:____________________________
Date:_________________
Math Post-Assessment
15
1.
24
36
2.
72
73
85
94
2.NBT.2, 2.NBT.8
3.
Complete the following problems:
a) 6 + 4 = ______
e) 9 + 6 = ______
b) 8 + 7 = ______
f) 9 + 9 = ______
c) 10 = ______ + 3
g) 8 + _____ = 16
d) 10 4 = ______
h) 12 6 = ______
2.OA.2
Page 1
5.
!73
Complete each skip counting pattern:
a)
45
b)
535 540 545
55
c)
280 290
d)
300 400
e)
320
360 380
2.NBT.2
6.
Compare the numbers below using:
>
<
a) 23 _______ 32
b) 9 + 4 _______ 3 + 8
c) 6 + 6 _______ 14
d) 16 7 _______ 12 3
e) D, D, N, N _______ 35
f) D, D, D, N, P, P _______ Q, D, P
2.OA.2, 2.NBT.4, 2.MD.8

Page 2
7.
!74
______________
2.MD.8
8.
______________
2.MD.8
Page 3
!75
Appendix C: STAR Fall Assessment
Summary Report
2 of 2
Printed Sunday, October 18, 2015 4:51:35 PM

School: Coastal Ridge Elementary School
Reporting Period: 9/8/2015 - 6/24/2016

(2015-2016)
Grade: 2
Summary
Student Totals
PR Distribution
Students
GE Distribution
Test Type
Students
Avg. SS
Percentile
Percent
GE
Tested
Not Tested
19
0
447
-
Below 25th
25th to 49th
2
5
10.5
26.3
0.0 - 0.9
1.0 - 1.9
Students
0
7
Percent
0.0
36.8
50th to 74th
75th & Above
5
7
26.3
36.8
2.0 - 2.9
3.0 - 3.9
4.0 - 4.9
5.0 - 5.9
6.0 - 6.9
7.0 - 7.9
8.0 - 8.9
9.0 - 9.9
10.0 - 10.9
11.0 - 11.9
12.0 - 12.9+
7
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
36.8
26.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

Kharrod Action Research Final

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Kharrod Action Research Final

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Running head: EFFECTS OF MATH WORKS STATIONS AND GUIDED MATH

EFFECTS OF MATH WORKS STATIONS AND GUIDED MATH

EFFECTS OF MATH WORKS STATIONS AND GUIDED MATH

EFFECTS OF MATH WORKS STATIONS AND GUIDED MATH

EFFECTS OF MATH WORKS STATIONS AND GUIDED MATH

EFFECTS OF MATH WORKS STATIONS AND GUIDED MATH

EFFECTS OF MATH WORKS STATIONS AND GUIDED MATH

classroom management challenge to the teacher.

EFFECTS OF MATH WORKS STATIONS AND GUIDED MATH

EFFECTS OF MATH WORKS STATIONS AND GUIDED MATH

EFFECTS OF MATH WORKS STATIONS AND GUIDED MATH

EFFECTS OF MATH WORKS STATIONS AND GUIDED MATH

EFFECTS OF MATH WORKS STATIONS AND GUIDED MATH

Supporting Math Workshop through Workstations and Guided Math

EFFECTS OF MATH WORKS STATIONS AND GUIDED MATH

Process differentiation. According to Andreasen & Hunt (2012), workstations provide

EFFECTS OF MATH WORKS STATIONS AND GUIDED MATH

EFFECTS OF MATH WORKS STATIONS AND GUIDED MATH

EFFECTS OF MATH WORKS STATIONS AND GUIDED MATH

EFFECTS OF MATH WORKS STATIONS AND GUIDED MATH

EFFECTS OF MATH WORKS STATIONS AND GUIDED MATH

EFFECTS OF MATH WORKS STATIONS AND GUIDED MATH

EFFECTS OF MATH WORKS STATIONS AND GUIDED MATH

Teacher Field Notes

Does guided math

Teacher Field Notes

Will behavior issues

Teacher Field Notes

EFFECTS OF MATH WORKS STATIONS AND GUIDED MATH

EFFECTS OF MATH WORKS STATIONS AND GUIDED MATH

EFFECTS OF MATH WORKS STATIONS AND GUIDED MATH

EFFECTS OF MATH WORKS STATIONS AND GUIDED MATH

EFFECTS OF MATH WORKS STATIONS AND GUIDED MATH

Does Not Meet

Figure 1. Pre-assessment of standard 2.NBT.2. Standard

EFFECTS OF MATH WORKS STATIONS AND GUIDED MATH

Does Not Meet

Figure 2. Post-assessment of standard 2.NBT.2. Standard

EFFECTS OF MATH WORKS STATIONS AND GUIDED MATH

Does Not Meet

Figure 3. Pre-assessment of standard 2.NBT.4. Standard assesses

EFFECTS OF MATH WORKS STATIONS AND GUIDED MATH

Does Not Meet

Figure 4. Post-assessment of standard 2.NBT.4. Standard assesses

EFFECTS OF MATH WORKS STATIONS AND GUIDED MATH

Does Not Meet

Figure 5. Pre-assessment of standard 2.NBT.8 Standard assesses

EFFECTS OF MATH WORKS STATIONS AND GUIDED MATH

Does Not Meet

Figure 6. Post-assessment of standard 2.NBT.8 Standard assesses

The results of students pre-assessment for CCSS 2.OA.2 (Appendix B) is presented in

EFFECTS OF MATH WORKS STATIONS AND GUIDED MATH

Does Not Meet

Figure 7. Pre-assessment of standard 2.OA.2. Standard assesses

EFFECTS OF MATH WORKS STATIONS AND GUIDED MATH

Does Not Meet

Figure 8. Post-assessment of standard 2.OA.2. Standard assesses

EFFECTS OF MATH WORKS STATIONS AND GUIDED MATH

Does Not Meet

Figure 9. Pre-assessment of standard 2.MD.8. Standard assesses

EFFECTS OF MATH WORKS STATIONS AND GUIDED MATH

Does Not Meet