The Workshop Model_ Optimizing the Mini-lesson

Document Sample
The Workshop Model_ Optimizing the Mini-lesson Powered By Docstoc
					The Workshop Model:
   Optimizing the
             Lori Grabel
       Klarisa Konstantinovsky

   Education 703.22 – Spring 2009
       Dr. O’Connor- Petruso
Table of Contents
     Introduction
             Statement of the Problem
             Review of Related Literature
             Statement of the Hypothesis
     Methods
             Experimental Design
     Graphs
     Discussion
     Implications
     Threats to Internal and External Validity
Statement of the Problem
     Due to grades falling and illiteracy rising,
    this research is based primarily on the
    “Workshop Model”; more exact the reading
    and writing workshop as described in “The workshop model
    intends for the students to learn reading
    and writing skills through much
    participation amongst themselves and their
    peers”, which follows whole-word learning
    and is in direct opposition of the phonics
Review of Related Literature
         Pros of the Workshop Model

   Gives teachers the opportunity to model skill or strategy
    (Adriana, 2006) (Robb, L)

   Instructional mini-lesson allows teachers and students to
    succeed (Popham, 1972)

   Students taught using the Workshop Model are more
    likely to read for pleasure (Lause, 2004)

   Personalizes the class for each student (Carmichael)

   Allows for conferences with students (Furr, 2003)
Review of Related Literature

    Cons of the Workshop Model
   As per a teachers contract, they cannot be
    excessively micromanaged (Callaci, 2005)

   Teacher should decide how to teach
    his/her own students (Krasner, 1976)

   Teachers need to have the freedom to
    modify lessons and activities as needed
    (Lieberman, 2000)
    Statement of the Hypothesis
   The Workshop Model’s rigorous
    time schedule will enhance the
    discipline to provide the
    optimum opportunity for third
    and fifth grade readers and
    writers (students) in a Title 1
    school to gain knowledge and
    higher test scores.

   Thirty-six third and fifth grade
    students in a Title 1 public
    school in Brooklyn, New York.
   Consent form to the principal of the Title 1 public school
    where the research will be conducted

   Consent form to the parents/guardians of the student of

   Surveys to other 3rd and 5th grade teachers regarding
    their opinion of the effectiveness of the Workshop Model

   Surveys to students about their opinion of the Workshop

   ELA Predictive Exam (Pre-test)

   ELA Exam (Post-test)
Experimental Design

   Quasi Experimental: Two
       Individuals are not randomly assigned.
       Two-Groups: Designated treatment
        group (X1) & control group (X2)
   Nonequivalent control group
              O X1 O
              O X2 O
   Research conducted between September 2008 and May 2009.

   Students’ independent reading levels assessed in September
    2008, November 2008, January 2009, and March 2009.

   ELA predictive exam given in October 2008.

   New York State ELA exam given in January 2009.

   Parent consent forms given out in April 2009, followed by student
    and colleague surveys.

   Between October 2008 and May 2009 the workshop model was
    manipulated in the fifth-grade ELL classroom while the third-
    grade classroom adhered to the Teacher’s College guidelines.
                            Survey Results
   According to the line of best fit there is a strong
correlation rxy=0.83 between reading levels and books
read weekly, which would shows that more books read
      weekly increases a students reading level.

                                Reading Levels & Books
Books read weekly

                                                         Books Read
                    2                                    Linear (Books Read)
                        0   5              10       15
                            Feb Reading Levels
                                        Reading Level & % Points

Predictive % Points
                       60                                          %Points Obt
                       40                                          Linear (%Points Obt)
                            0       5             10         15
                                September Reading Levels

 Correlation coefficient is rxy=0.17, which means that
there is no significant relationship between September
    reading levels and September ELA predictive
             percentage of points obtained.
           Test Results
3rd Grade ELA Pre and Post Test Scores
5th Grade ELA Pre and Post Test Scores

   There is no significant difference
    between classrooms that adhere to
    the time constraints of the workshop
    model and those that do not

   No direct research to prove or
    disprove our findings

   Benefits to the workshop model

   Academic and social differences

   ELL vs. Non-ELL Students

   Larger sample size

   Long-term study

   Further research is needed
Threats to Internal Validity
   History: Students can lose focus at the drop of a
    pencil; anything beyond the control of the teacher
    and administration might occur on the day of the
    test, as well as to parents and peers while filing out
    the questionnaires.

   Instrumentation: One group of students (ELL) is
    given time and a half while the other is not. Both
    groups are administered the practice exam and
    exam in exactly the same way.

   Selection: The groups are fifth and third graders in
    which a few of the students have been left-
    back, therefore varying the maturity level.
Threats to External Validity
   Pretest-Treatment: Some students react differently to practice
    exams but the score of the real exam does tend to go up.

   Selection-Treatment Interaction: The students are not
    random. All the ELL fifth graders are in one group and the
    second group is randomly picked. The students came from a
    majority (85%) of African-American households.

   Multiple Treatment: Though the teaching for both groups are
    based on teaching/learning standards, students with IEP’s
    receive extra help, and ESL students receive extra differentiated

   Treatment Diffusion: Classmates and schoolmates
    communicate with each other.

   Experimenter Effects: Personal bias may occur within our
    research without our knowledge.
• O’Connor-Petruso, S. (2008). Threats
    to Internal and External Validity
    Powerpoint. Brooklyn College,
    Graduate Department of
  To TC or not to TC?
The question still remains!

Shared By: