Mini-Action Research Results

It was the Beatles who sang, "We all get by with a little help from our friends." For my mini-action research study, I wanted to see if my sixth grade mathematics students would also do better with a little help from their friends. There are twenty-three students in my class. Three students have tested in the 95-99th percentile in math on the Measure for Academic Progress (MAP) Test, one student tested in the 10th percentile and one student who is in the cognitively disabled program does not participate in my math class. One student is African-American, one is Hispanic, three are Native American and the remaining students are Caucasian. Sixty percent of the 312 students in our school receive free and reduced hot lunch.

I have twenty-five years of experience as a teacher and seven years of experience as a sixth grade teacher, but this is the first year I have taught at Rusch Elementary School in Portage, WI, a city of almost 10,000 residents. Previously, I taught a multi-age class of 2nd, 3rd, and 4th grade students. Often students had to work together while I taught a separate lesson to the other grades. This year, I missed having time to work with small groups of students, and I do not have an aide to assist me with students working independently. Therefore, I was intrigued by a high school geometry teacher's use of groups. She described how she used cooperative groups to review and recorrect math tests.

For my research, I read an article in The Chronicle of Higher Learning (2009) entitled "Demonstrating the Power of Group Math." The Illinois Professor of the Year and winner of other awards, M. Vali Siadat uses a technique he terms the Keystone Method. Students work in cooperative groups and then take a quick assessment after each lesson. Students “view the classroom as a learning community,” and “the group work also gets students deeply engaged in the subject matter.” I also read an article “Gen Y: Who They are and How They Learn" (Black, 2010) describing key characteristics of students born between the years 1981 and 2001. In addition, to being savvy with technology, Gen Y students lack basic skills and learn better in groups and teams.

For my study, I formed teams of three and four students. I asked for volunteers who would be willing to serve as group leaders. After the first lesson, students worked on math journal pages in cooperative groups. Afterwards, students answered two questions. First, “Why was it more helpful or less helpful working in a group yesterday?" Sixteen students said it was more helpful, one student said it was both more and less helpful, one student said she was absent but she thought it would be more helpful, and two students said it was less helpful. After some modifications and more practice working in their groups, I then asked students to rate cooperative group work on a scale of 1-5. Eleven students gave the work a 5 (the highest rating), seven students gave it a 4, one student gave it a 3, one gave it a 2, and there were also two 1’s (the lowest rating).

The two students who rated rated the cooperative groups less helpful after the first day were the same students who gave it a 1 rating after the second round. The third student who was moved into their group also gave it a low rating of 2.

Student test scores on the unit test were more varied than the previous unit test. While there were 5 students who scored 100% on the second unit test and no students who scored 100% on the previous test, there were also six students who scored below 80% on the second unit test after cooperative group work and only 2 students who scored lower than 80% on the previous test.

In analyzing my data, I would like to review my reflections after each day of the study (see second attachment). The cooperative group method gave me more time to observe the students as they worked because I was not asked for problem solving help very often. After the second day of lessons, the students and I also realized we had to be more viligent about referring to the objectives of each lesson and preparing for a short independent quiz the morning after each lesson. Students asked for and received an extra five minutes at the end of the lesson to review their work.

While most students rated working in cooperative groups highly, three students consistently gave it lower scores. This may have been my fault because the group leader was the only student chosen as a leader who had a mathematics MAP score below 229. I thought it was a positive statement that this student felt she could be a leader and help others in mathematics, and she did score 15% higher on the unit test than she did on the previous unit test. In addition, I switched a student who was having difficulties in another group with a student who did not like working in this group after the first day. The student who had difficulties in another group may just have difficulty working with others.

Part of the reason more students (6 vs. 2) scored below 80% may be the material covered (statistics vs. algebra), but I also found that 4 of the students were absent at least two days during the two week period before the test. In addition, after discussing the matter with the students, I feel I should have worked with the students who performed poorly on a review before the test instead of allowing them to remain in a cooperative group.

Overall, I learned how my students and I benefitted from working in cooperative groups. I also learned to make the groups more flexible, and also have some students work with me when they are having extreme difficulty or have missed some days of school. Students who helped others as leaders also helped themselves learn more. All the group leaders scored higher on the second unit test than they did on the first. Since I have conducted this action research study, I sometimes allow students to choose partners and groups, sometimes I choose groups without leaders and sometimes I choose student leaders. I will continue to experiment with cooperative math groups in the future.