Conclusion - Reflection
I set out to learn about the effect on achievement that project-based learning would have in my ninth grade classroom. What I found was that there are more questions to pursue.
What type of pedagogical style is most effective?
Based on my action research and findings, I can say that both have great attributes that students like. Both also have drawbacks. To say that one is better than another is doing a disservice to our students. There are a lot of students who prefer and would learn better with a particular style over another. They are the best person to answer this question of which style is better.
How should I teach math in my classroom?
This question is still being grappled with by many math teachers. Just as students have a preference for which learning style they view as more effective for them, I believe teachers have a preference of teaching styles that they are more proficient in. To say that I should only teach this way or that way would be selfish. What I have learned is that I ought to try a variety of ways of teaching and incorporate different styles in order to meet the needs of my students.
How can we prepare high school students in math through project-based learning?
The realities of a high school student are they need to take the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) and the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT). The math required to do well is very specific. How can we prepare students to be successful in these assessments, while doing project-based learning that may not cover these specific things? One thing that has stuck out and that I have seen is how teachers at the school take time out to address the precise procedure and fact through direct instruction and a worksheet. Incorporating all the concepts that students have to learn in projects is extremely time consuming in designing and implementing. However, what I also believe to be true is to develop the student as a mathematician. Instead of training students how to memorize and repeat steps, they ought to be able to defend and apply their knowledge. Touching on multiple areas of learning and outcomes will hopefully prepare a more well-rounded student that would be successful in the high stakes test and beyond.
If I had to do this again, what would I do differently?
There are two main things that I would do differently. First, I would randomly select students to be in either group. This would give my findings more validity because of the sample size and diversity. I could spend time more evenly between the groups, instead of neglecting a smaller group in favor of the larger one. While there wouldn’t be much choice in this decision, I still think that I could provide choice throughout the lessons to give students a chance to cater to their preferences. Another thing I would change is to eliminate the variables that could be attributing to the reasons why one group scored lower or higher on the assessment. I would keep the problem and lecture group doing problems that would involve both procedural fluency and adaptive reasoning. The project-based group would be assessed through presentations of learning, not through paper-based quizzes. I feel with these variables accounted for, any difference between the groups could be better ascribed to the pedagogical styles of learning.
What type of pedagogical style is most effective?
Based on my action research and findings, I can say that both have great attributes that students like. Both also have drawbacks. To say that one is better than another is doing a disservice to our students. There are a lot of students who prefer and would learn better with a particular style over another. They are the best person to answer this question of which style is better.
How should I teach math in my classroom?
This question is still being grappled with by many math teachers. Just as students have a preference for which learning style they view as more effective for them, I believe teachers have a preference of teaching styles that they are more proficient in. To say that I should only teach this way or that way would be selfish. What I have learned is that I ought to try a variety of ways of teaching and incorporate different styles in order to meet the needs of my students.
How can we prepare high school students in math through project-based learning?
The realities of a high school student are they need to take the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) and the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT). The math required to do well is very specific. How can we prepare students to be successful in these assessments, while doing project-based learning that may not cover these specific things? One thing that has stuck out and that I have seen is how teachers at the school take time out to address the precise procedure and fact through direct instruction and a worksheet. Incorporating all the concepts that students have to learn in projects is extremely time consuming in designing and implementing. However, what I also believe to be true is to develop the student as a mathematician. Instead of training students how to memorize and repeat steps, they ought to be able to defend and apply their knowledge. Touching on multiple areas of learning and outcomes will hopefully prepare a more well-rounded student that would be successful in the high stakes test and beyond.
If I had to do this again, what would I do differently?
There are two main things that I would do differently. First, I would randomly select students to be in either group. This would give my findings more validity because of the sample size and diversity. I could spend time more evenly between the groups, instead of neglecting a smaller group in favor of the larger one. While there wouldn’t be much choice in this decision, I still think that I could provide choice throughout the lessons to give students a chance to cater to their preferences. Another thing I would change is to eliminate the variables that could be attributing to the reasons why one group scored lower or higher on the assessment. I would keep the problem and lecture group doing problems that would involve both procedural fluency and adaptive reasoning. The project-based group would be assessed through presentations of learning, not through paper-based quizzes. I feel with these variables accounted for, any difference between the groups could be better ascribed to the pedagogical styles of learning.