Is there a connection between the data produced from your Cycles and the research reported in your Literature Review?
Portions of my Literature Review focused on giving students choice in both methods of learning concepts as well as how they will show their learning. The differentiated instruction involving small groups, large groups, and individual practice, as well as using tactile manipulatives, digital technology tools and pencil and paper gave students a lot of chances to utilize the methods they felt worked best for them.
How did your AR project turn out for you? Describe as a practitioner, how did this project improve your practice.
I felt that Cycle 1 was a tremendous success. The gains most of my students made were very exciting! I learned a lot about differentiated instruction throughout my research and implementation and have continued to use differentiation as often as possible with my students.
Cycle 2 did not turn out as I’d hoped. The initial idea was good in theory, but I did not model my expectations well enough and I felt that the projects were rushed because we couldn’t devote our entire math block each day to working on them since I still had other standards to teach. If I had it to do over again I would have spent more time giving examples and making sure the students had a better understanding of my expectations.
Is a personal learning environment or an LMO something that could be part of your AR project in the future? Why or why not.
I think a personal learning environment and/or LMO would help significantly for students to have access to instructions, rubrics, examples of student work and other valuable information as they work on their projects. I like the idea of all of the information being in one place and readily accessible to both students and their parents. It’s also nice for the teacher to know that everyone has access to the same information and has heard the same instructions.