Today we started a new segment. We introduced the students to the skateboarder applet, one of the new pCSDTs. I was unsure at first, but the skateboarder applet compliments and builds off the virtual bead loom very well. We focused on points with the virtual bead loom, and now we are focusing on lines with the skateboarder.
We administered the pre-test for the skateboarder, gave a quick introduction to lines, and let the students play with the skateboarder applet. We didn't introduce to them the scripting aspect of the program today. We only showed them how to change the length, slope, and location of the lines by changing their endpoints. We gave them the task of trying to keep their skateboarder on the screen for the longest amount of time. Many kids had fun, but some of them complained that the program was too slow. The program was running very slow, and I am not sure if this was because of the poor graphics cards in the computers or for another reason.
At the BGC, the students who did not finish their beadwork last week worked on it some more. They were very excited to have something to take home that they had made. Some of the students who finished last week even wanted to make another one.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Session 4 Fall 2010: 11/10
This session started with a quick review session. Most of the time today was used for the students to create virtual representations of the physical bead strips they would create. Surprisingly, all the students were able to finish designs by the time we had to go to the BGC. They become very immersed in their work when they have something to focus on that they enjoy doing. They can really get quite a lot accomplished if they put their minds to it. We printed out the designs each of the students made so they could work on it at the BGC.
At the BGC we taught the students how to make their bead strips on their looms. Most of the students got a good start, and a couple of them even finished their designs already.
At the BGC we taught the students how to make their bead strips on their looms. Most of the students got a good start, and a couple of them even finished their designs already.
Session 3 Fall 2010: 11/3
There was no school the previous week, so it has been two weeks since we last met with the students. We had to take a small step backwards to make sure the students retained the information we had been teaching them. We had a fairly in depth review session to ensure this, then we let the kids get on the computers and create their own patterns and designs. This exercise was to get the students more familiar with the virtual bead loom tool so they would be able to create a virtual version of the physical bead strip they would make in a week.
At the BGC, we had the students create more designs with the graph paper. We didn't want them to start making physical beadwork until they had created a bead strip design with the virtual bead loom.
At the BGC, we had the students create more designs with the graph paper. We didn't want them to start making physical beadwork until they had created a bead strip design with the virtual bead loom.
Session 2 Fall 2010: 10/20
Our second session began with a review of the cultural background covered the previous week. I just want to be sure the students retain the information, rather than reading it once and forgetting it. After the cultural background, we did an exercise to demonstrate the virtual bead loom. We told the students at what coordinates to put various points on the grid, and after all the points had been placed, they created a smiley face. This exercise was to show the students that various shapes and patterns can be made from a simple combination of points.
At the BGC we had the students use colored pencils to create patterns using graph paper. Each square on the paper represented a bead. this exercise was to prepare the students for creating their own patterns with the virtual bead loom during the next session.
At the BGC we had the students use colored pencils to create patterns using graph paper. Each square on the paper represented a bead. this exercise was to prepare the students for creating their own patterns with the virtual bead loom during the next session.
Session 1 Fall 2010: 10/13
After a couple postponements, we were able to start our program on October 13. Since it was our first session, it was a bit disorganized, but I think it went well. We administered a pre-test to all the students who had not yet taken it, and made sure all program participants filled out the math interest survey. This took a bit longer than we wanted because the ACCS teaching staff wasn't completely sure what our plan was.
After all the pre-tests and surveys were finished, split everyone into groups and started covering the cultural background of the virtual bead loom. That used all our time at the ACCS, so we then went to the BGC.
At the BGC, we had the students create the bead looms they would use in the future to create their physical beadwork. All the students finished their looms much quicker than we had planned, so we had them work on their homework until their parents arrived to pick them up.
After all the pre-tests and surveys were finished, split everyone into groups and started covering the cultural background of the virtual bead loom. That used all our time at the ACCS, so we then went to the BGC.
At the BGC, we had the students create the bead looms they would use in the future to create their physical beadwork. All the students finished their looms much quicker than we had planned, so we had them work on their homework until their parents arrived to pick them up.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Data Analysis
I have finally finished grading the pre and post tests from Troy and have entered that data into a spreadsheet. Unfortunately, the data I have is not the complete set from the summer. My house was burglarized and my backpack with most of the pre and post tests from the summer were taken. I had not gotten a change to digitize these before this happened, so everything that was in my bag was lost.
The initial pre test that was administered at the very first session was the only one I had that was not in my backpack when it was stolen. I was able to administer that test at the final session to try and recover some of the data that was lost, but I don't think it was replicated quite the same way as the original tests. Since the post test was administered six weeks after the pre test, and three weeks after the conclusion of the sessions applying the concepts on the test, some concepts could have already been forgotten.
The program also started with 18 students, while at the end there were only seven, so the little data I gathered may not have been representative of the whole group. One of the students present at the last session began the program a few sessions later than the rest. Of the six people who were present during the course of the whole program, only two of them had improved scores over the pre test, while the other four had slightly lower scores than they did on the pre test.
As I mentioned before, I think the length of time between the administration of the post test and the conclusion of the sessions applying those concepts could have been one of the reasons for the poor post test scores. Another reason could have been due to the kids' attitudes towards the tests. I administered many tests over the course of the program: one at the beginning of each session and one at the end, so there was a test almost every two to three sessions. The farther into the program we got, the more complaints I received about the tests. Eventually, some of the kids would rush through the tests without trying to apply themselves or answer the questions. Some of them tried to do the same thing on the final post test, even after I explained my situation to them.
I would still like to comment about the success of some of the other sessions, even though I do not have any official conclusive data. Some of the students had said at the end of our final session that cultural history was boring, but I think that in the long run it kept them more interested in the math concepts than they would have been if I had just tried to teach them the material. The interactivity of the CSDTs really helps to interest the kids in what they are doing, rather than focusing on the math concepts.
One of the things I did notice about my teaching that I would like to improve upon is that the kids were able to understand the concepts behind the math, but they weren't necessarily able to apply that to answering the questions that were on the pre and post tests. I would have liked to help them better make the connection between the concept and answering the questions.
I think the program in Troy was an overall success, even if we don't have hard data to support that. Even though the students were not able to retain all the knowledge they had gained over the summer, I still think they benefited from the program. If I can improve my teaching skills to allow the students to apply the concepts they learn, I think the students will learn much more and be able to retain the information.
The initial pre test that was administered at the very first session was the only one I had that was not in my backpack when it was stolen. I was able to administer that test at the final session to try and recover some of the data that was lost, but I don't think it was replicated quite the same way as the original tests. Since the post test was administered six weeks after the pre test, and three weeks after the conclusion of the sessions applying the concepts on the test, some concepts could have already been forgotten.
The program also started with 18 students, while at the end there were only seven, so the little data I gathered may not have been representative of the whole group. One of the students present at the last session began the program a few sessions later than the rest. Of the six people who were present during the course of the whole program, only two of them had improved scores over the pre test, while the other four had slightly lower scores than they did on the pre test.
As I mentioned before, I think the length of time between the administration of the post test and the conclusion of the sessions applying those concepts could have been one of the reasons for the poor post test scores. Another reason could have been due to the kids' attitudes towards the tests. I administered many tests over the course of the program: one at the beginning of each session and one at the end, so there was a test almost every two to three sessions. The farther into the program we got, the more complaints I received about the tests. Eventually, some of the kids would rush through the tests without trying to apply themselves or answer the questions. Some of them tried to do the same thing on the final post test, even after I explained my situation to them.
I would still like to comment about the success of some of the other sessions, even though I do not have any official conclusive data. Some of the students had said at the end of our final session that cultural history was boring, but I think that in the long run it kept them more interested in the math concepts than they would have been if I had just tried to teach them the material. The interactivity of the CSDTs really helps to interest the kids in what they are doing, rather than focusing on the math concepts.
One of the things I did notice about my teaching that I would like to improve upon is that the kids were able to understand the concepts behind the math, but they weren't necessarily able to apply that to answering the questions that were on the pre and post tests. I would have liked to help them better make the connection between the concept and answering the questions.
I think the program in Troy was an overall success, even if we don't have hard data to support that. Even though the students were not able to retain all the knowledge they had gained over the summer, I still think they benefited from the program. If I can improve my teaching skills to allow the students to apply the concepts they learn, I think the students will learn much more and be able to retain the information.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Final Thoughts and Suggestions
For the last session, I administered a final post test to the kids and then asked them what they liked and disliked about the program, and what things could be changed in the future. I wanted to try and get as much information as I could so the CSDT program can continue to improve.
Almost all of the students said that rhythm wheels was their favorite tool. They really enjoyed making and listening to the beats, as well as the CD that was made for each of them. Some of the others enjoyed working with the graffiti grapher and creating the shirts from their designs.
The biggest thing the students disliked were the pre and post tests. They thought there were too many and that they were too hard. Some said they liked the tests because it was quiet during that time. Another thing some disliked was the reading of the cultural and historical backgrounds behind the tools because they felt it took too long. It was good to hear that they wanted to jump right into the tools, but i think the cultural references help the kids make more of a connection and learn better from the material.
One of the suggestions they had to improve the program was to make the tests easier and to ask more arithmetic questions rather than some of the conceptual questions that were asked on the tests I administered. Another they suggestion they had was to go on field trips to places like the New York State Museum in Albany, the zoo, or Puerto Rico.
I think it would be fun for the kids to find a way to incorporate learning about math and the CSDTs into a field trip they would enjoy. If I had to change something about the way I ran the program, I would try to use crafts that were more interactive for the kids for some tools. The kids liked all the physical artifacts they were able to create, but there are things that could be done to improve each one.
Weaving the baskets was very engaging for the kids, but it was difficult to incorporate their digital designs into their physical baskets. The kids were very excited to see their shirts with their graffiti grapher designs on them when they were finished, but I think it would have been more engaging if the shirts could have been done while the kids were present, or even let them help with some of it. This would add to the magic of creating their own shirt with their own design. The kids also liked the CDs that were created with their beats, but if there were a way to involve the kids more in the creation of the artifact I think they would enjoy it that much more.
Having looked at the NYS math requirements for each grade and having worked with these kids for eight weeks, I think the CSDTs are better targeted towards students in fifth to eighth grades. Many of the kids I worked with this summer were going into third or fourth grade, so they had barely experienced many of the math concepts we covered in the program. They had a much more difficult time understanding the math concepts in general than did the older students who were 11 or 12 and going into fifth or sixth grade.
Another thing I might change about the program is the venue. The program I taught this summer was strictly voluntary, so it was difficult to maintain enrollment. It was also during the summer, and many of the kids are not in "learning mode" and are less receptive to being taught. If the program was taught at a school as an after school program or something similar, the kids might be more receptive to learning. I think a program taught during the school year will also have greater success than one taught during the summer.
I am still working on digitizing my data from the summer, but once I am done I will post again and make a final conclusion about the success of the program.
Almost all of the students said that rhythm wheels was their favorite tool. They really enjoyed making and listening to the beats, as well as the CD that was made for each of them. Some of the others enjoyed working with the graffiti grapher and creating the shirts from their designs.
The biggest thing the students disliked were the pre and post tests. They thought there were too many and that they were too hard. Some said they liked the tests because it was quiet during that time. Another thing some disliked was the reading of the cultural and historical backgrounds behind the tools because they felt it took too long. It was good to hear that they wanted to jump right into the tools, but i think the cultural references help the kids make more of a connection and learn better from the material.
One of the suggestions they had to improve the program was to make the tests easier and to ask more arithmetic questions rather than some of the conceptual questions that were asked on the tests I administered. Another they suggestion they had was to go on field trips to places like the New York State Museum in Albany, the zoo, or Puerto Rico.
I think it would be fun for the kids to find a way to incorporate learning about math and the CSDTs into a field trip they would enjoy. If I had to change something about the way I ran the program, I would try to use crafts that were more interactive for the kids for some tools. The kids liked all the physical artifacts they were able to create, but there are things that could be done to improve each one.
Weaving the baskets was very engaging for the kids, but it was difficult to incorporate their digital designs into their physical baskets. The kids were very excited to see their shirts with their graffiti grapher designs on them when they were finished, but I think it would have been more engaging if the shirts could have been done while the kids were present, or even let them help with some of it. This would add to the magic of creating their own shirt with their own design. The kids also liked the CDs that were created with their beats, but if there were a way to involve the kids more in the creation of the artifact I think they would enjoy it that much more.
Having looked at the NYS math requirements for each grade and having worked with these kids for eight weeks, I think the CSDTs are better targeted towards students in fifth to eighth grades. Many of the kids I worked with this summer were going into third or fourth grade, so they had barely experienced many of the math concepts we covered in the program. They had a much more difficult time understanding the math concepts in general than did the older students who were 11 or 12 and going into fifth or sixth grade.
Another thing I might change about the program is the venue. The program I taught this summer was strictly voluntary, so it was difficult to maintain enrollment. It was also during the summer, and many of the kids are not in "learning mode" and are less receptive to being taught. If the program was taught at a school as an after school program or something similar, the kids might be more receptive to learning. I think a program taught during the school year will also have greater success than one taught during the summer.
I am still working on digitizing my data from the summer, but once I am done I will post again and make a final conclusion about the success of the program.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)