Pre-Test and Post Test
I critically examined my practices by examining my data that was collected. My pretest/post test showed growth between the two tests. The pink shows students scoring 80% or higher, whereas the pink shows those scoring below 80%. During the pretest, I only had six students reach an 80% or higher. During the post test I had 16 students reach an 80% or higher. This shows that implementing a rotation during guided math time solely devoted to fact fluency had an impact on student learning. The rotation was 15 minutes per day. That comes out to a total of 75 minutes per week of practice based on fact fluency. This means that implementing math games into the classroom has a positive affect on students’ ability to increase fact fluency in the classroom. My ten students who did not score above 80% on their post test did significantly improve their scores from their pretest to their post test. What this means is these students will still need some intensive intervention in regards to fact fluency. Next steps for these students will be to play the games during teacher time with me so I can identify what areas they are still struggling with. I will then be able to implement the supports they need.
Observational Notes
I focused on observational notes as one of my data collection pieces. In the beginning of February when I first introduced the games, it took my students a whole week to understand the games. I would often hear them talk about how hard the game was, or they did not understand why they were having to play the particular game. Students were using their fingers to count for basic math operations. There was a huge sense of frustration and confusion among my students. A lot of this frustration came from my lower level students and it was simply because they did not have a good understanding of number sense or an understanding of their basic math facts. Because the games were too hard, it negatively impacted engagement in the classroom. I had more students off task during guided math time.
When I realized my students were frustrated with the games, I had to reevaluate how I was teaching the games and I needed to model the rules and expectations more clearly for students. I included visuals of instructions and explicitly modeled each of the games. As time went on, they were more eager to learn the games each week. They started having a deeper understanding of number sense and they started to learn their math facts which made the games fairly easy to play. I saw less of my students using their fingers to count. By the end of the study, all of my students were engaged and stayed on task during guided math. They would have deep number talk conversations during their guided math time. My students were able to explain their thinking and reasoning to their peers and they were also to explain each other’s mistakes.
Likert Scale
Students were given a Likert scale at the beginning of February. They were asked to answer questions about how easy or how hard they found math to be and also how many times on average they found themselves spacing off during math class.
Students opinions changed from the beginning of February to the beginning of March. Before the math games were in place, four students found math to be easy, 8 found it to be neither easy or hard, and 7 found math to be hard. After playing the math games, 7 students found math to be easy, 7 found it to be neither easy or hard, and 3 found it to be hard. The math games improved students outlook on math and more students began to find the content easy.
Ten students said they found themselves spacing off 0-1 times during math class when they were given the Likert scale in February. It is interesting that in March, only 7 students said they found themselves spacing off 0-1 times during math. That means that 3 students found themselves spacing off more after the games were in place. It is important to note that the 3 students who said they found themselves spacing off more after the games were introduced were the top 3 students academically in my class. This shows that they were disengaged with the games because they had already mastered the skills. It will be important for me to differentiate my games so I’m challenging my higher level students.
After taking a look and analyzing the results from my Likert scale, if I were to give this to students in the future, I would make some changes. Instead of using the word “easy” I might say how confident do you feel in math class. Just because something is “easy” does not mean students have a deeper understanding of it and are confident with what they are doing. Also, in regards to engagement “easy” for my higher level students could be related to boring because they are not being challenged enough. Also, “easy "doesn't necessarily mean the games are effective and helping students develop a deeper understanding of number sense and fact fluency.
Self – reporting spacing off allowed students to take ownership over their own learning. They had to be honest with themselves and their performance during math class. However, I am not sure how honest some of my students were being. They might have put a lesser number of times because they knew I would be seeing the results.
Triangulation of Data
Looking at the data all together, the researched based games led to a greater number of students improving their scores on their multiplication tests, higher engagement in the classroom and time on task, and also a improved attitude during math time. Before implementing the games, my data showed me that students were not proficient in their basic multiplication facts, they were off task and not engaged during math time, and also they found math to be hard. After implementing the math games, a greater number of students were proficient in their math facts, they were engaged and on task during math time, and they found math to be easier.