____________________________________________________________________________

Next Steps and Action and Assessment Plan Phase #2

Phase #1 Summary Leading to New Changes
By Maria Llamas, Spring/Summer 2016
Phase 1 of my action research in many ways has allowed me as a teacher-researcher to
realize many aspects of my implementations. Positively, it has brought to light the possibility of
bringing about academic progress for many of my students. Despite this it has also made me
aware of the need to seek and polish my methods in order to continue supporting my students in
attaining greater academic success nearing grade level criteria, as in Math lab 3 and 4 students
did grow academically but still performed the majority at or below 63%. Beyond this the method
revision is also aimed at being able to better meet the needs of my students that showed no
increase between pre and post-tests or showed decrease in academic performance. Although
there were not many students that showed decreased or stayed the same, the fact there were some
further motivates me as a teacher and researcher to devise ways to polish my implementation.
In regards to autonomy, positively, students overall did show greater ownership of their
learning in a variety of ways. For example, students were less likely to inquire a teacher's
directly during Math Lab, usually as evidenced in their journals because they were now more
likely to practice problem solving skills and work/collaborate with others to reach consensus.
Beyond this however, many students usually stayed strictly abiding within the given framework
of the instructions at each of the center with only few variations. Thus it is my goals to be able to
encourage my students to be encouraged to be more willing to try different approaches to
learning they may have not otherwise, interpretation of activities and tasks during Math Lab.
In regards to perceptions and motivations, overall Phase 1 indicated a consistency in the
positive perceptions of students towards Math Lab, and the activities within it. 100% of students
(even those that did not exhibit extensive academic growth) indicated a desire to continue math
lab mentioning is as a fun and educational way for learning math concepts. Thus, for Phase 2
my goal is to be able to further encourage students to maintain positive perceptions and
specifically to continue these in relation math itself not just math lab or activities but attribute
positivity to themselves as learners and math even more than they have already initially begun
doing so.

Phase 2: Action and Assessment Plan and Rationale

My plans for Phase 2 in many ways are to continue Math Lab once a week. However,
since based on my data positive perceptions are now more consistent, my focus now will be on
having this increase in positive perceptions and motivation support even greater academic
progress and autonomy in the classroom. In regards to academic progress, although there has
been growth in pre and post-test from Phase 1 and in regards to autonomy, although students are
becoming more and more able to problem solve and collaborate, the goal is to support students
further in reaching grade level academic progress and exhibiting further autonomy through the
forms such as risk taking, innovative learning, etc., in activities they are involved in during Math
Labs. Phase #2 will be implementing all Phase #1 implementations with some revisions and
additions for 2 more Math Labs in a 2-week interval.
General Implementations and the number of times they will be implemented during Phase #2 are
following: An asterisk (*) indicates that the implementation is explained and justified for Phase
#2 below. Those without an asterisk will be continued from Phase #1.
Pre-Test (1 time)
Perception Wheel*
(pre and post MLC and ML,
4 times)
Journals (2 times)
Math Lab Creations (MLC)*
(1 time)
Share Time* (2 times)
Peer Feedback* (2 times)
Recognition* (3 times)
Math Lab (1 time)
Post Test (1 time)
I Can...Checklist*
(Self-Monitoring System)
(Throughout entirety of
Phase #2)

Academic Progress
I will be maintaining my methods of Math Whizz, Math Labs, and pre and post-tests as
these sources of data have been valuable and supportive of the majority of my students growth.
Following are the new and/or revised implementations in a series of steps. Rationale and source
support for each follows after their description:
Step 1: Recognition
Step 2: Peer/Teacher Feedback
Step 1: Recognition
Academically students are showing growth but not all students are, so in order to better
meet their needs I will be having students see more tangible effects of their academic
performance. For example, I will be hosting more in class recognition of students for their
academic success. Recently, between phase 1 and phase 2 I observed English Language Arts
(ELA) instruction more carefully (since this was one area I explored as my original needs
assessment and as this is the strongest academic areas for the students), and noticed that they are
accustomed to having recognition of their scores. Most recently in ELA, we changed the
recognition from recognizing all students, to only recognitions students scoring 88% to 100%
and noticed an increase in their performance overall. I will thus be implementing a similar format
now for Math Lab also recognizing students scoring of 88-100%, of course including having
them justifying their work.
According to the Intel Teach Programs published article on recognition of student work,
when students are given appropriate recognition, they begin to realize even further that their
work and efforts are important and truly matter (Instructional strategies: Recognition of student
work, 2012, 1-2). Recognition, as the article mentioned need not be in the form of extrinsic
rewards as well, it can at times take the form of work being displayed, and/or allowing students
to share work, etc. (Instructional strategies: Recognition of student work, 2012, 1-2). This is
consistent in my action research because student will be verbally recognized in an effort to
communicate and share with them the importance of their efforts in Math Lab activities, student
work during Math Lab Creations will then be used in the math lab to follow, and students will be
able to share their work from both Math Lab Creations and regular Math Lab with classmates
(Instructional strategies: Recognition of student work, 2012, 1-2). As a teacher researcher, I
hope to be able to support my students in increased academic progress but specifically authentic
learning, learning they find both meaningful and relevant to their life and experience, as the Intel
Teach Programs published article described, recognition supports in "Giving students an
opportunity to have their work affirmed and recognized by others [making] learning authentic
and worthwhile" (Instructional strategies: Recognition of student work, 2012, 1)
Format of Recognition to be implemented:
Students are accustomed to being recognized in English Language Arts for two
categories, 100% results and 88% results. These two categories are written and represent the
Leaderboard. Thus, for this action research I will also create a leaderboard for Math Labs titled:

Math Leaderboard. The two categories this leaderboard will include will be Gold Star
Mathematician and Silver Star Mathematician. Students can attain recognition under these
categories through evident behavior and academic monitoring, effort, autonomy, collaboration,
etc. Good behavior, academic monitoring, effort, autonomy, collaboration, etc. will have students
be able to write their name in the Silver Star Mathematician category. Students on the Silver Star
Mathematician category that exhibit repeated good behavior, academic monitoring, effort,
autonomy, collaboration, etc. will be able to add stars next to their names (once they reach three
stars their name gets transferred to the Gold Star Mathematician category). Exceptional behavior,
academic monitoring, effort, autonomy, collaboration, etc. will have students be able to write
their name in the Gold Star Mathematician category. Students on the Gold Star Mathematician
category that exhibit repeated exceptional behavior, academic monitoring, effort, autonomy,
collaboration, etc. will be able to add stars (up to three) next to their names (reaching three stars
in their category by the student name would be the highest honor available). The names of
students on this list would be read and recognized during class.
Step 2: Peer/Teacher Feedback:
In Phase 1, I did not allot much time to go over pre-tests for fear exposing or skewing the
post-test scores. However, I also didnt emphasize or go over enough rationale of answers for the
Math Whizzes with the students themselves. The only time I went over in detail concepts
individually was usually during student conferences. In Phase #2, I will allot time for more
teacher feedback both whole class and individually, but also peer feedback. The rationale is
students have given each other feedback in ELA through posting and comments online during
literature groups. Students have learned ways to address others posts/comments, thus I will use
this format to have students respond to one another's ideas during Math Lab and Math Whizzes.
In this way students will also be attaining greater autonomy or becoming co teachers in the
classroom.
In regards to peer evaluations and feedback, according to research by Spiller, being able
to allow implementation of this in the classroom can not only allow for increased student
collaboration to surge, but it also allows students to be able to help reduce one another gaps in
learning (Spiller, 2012, 11). Not only this, but peer feedback also support in making feedback be
more immediate and overall formative learning [to being] enhanced (Spiller, 2012, 11-12).
This is especially significant in my research because based on phase 1 results I noticed students
evidently did have gaps within understanding of certain subjects, however, these gaps were not
as easily evident to me until the one on one conferences or the post test in particular (Spiller,
2012, 11). Unfortunately I was only meeting with about 1/3 of the class one on one and only
about once a week. In addition the post-tests results were available only twice in the four weeks
of implementation. Thus, in hopes of having greater immediacy for the students to be supported
on a more continual basis I will be attempting to implement peer feedback.
Moreover, I also wanted to research more on specifically how and in what group size
peer support would be more beneficial for my students. According to Carters, Cushings,
Clarks and Kennedys 2005 research, feedback and support from not just one peer but two
peers is what allows for increased social and academic outcomes for students with and without
disabilities (Carter, Cushing, Clark, Kennedy, 2005, 15-25). Their study looking specifically at
effects of peer support on students with disabilities academic and social progress also revealed
that the interactions with the peers also allowed for greater academic success in terms of
finishing tasks (Carter, Cushing, Clark, Kennedy, 2005, 15-25).

Further, research by Stone, Deci, and Ryan in 2008, focused not only on feedback, but
specifically on what kind of feedback is most useful for students overall academic development
(Stone, Deci, Ryan, 2008). The ideal feedback to provide for our students, according to this
research, is one that is both sincere and specific is what is most ideal in the classroom (Stone,
Deci, Ryan, 2008).
Format of Peer Feedback to be implemented:
Therefore, students will be allowed to be given feedback on their creations and work,
especially after Math Lab Creations by 2 peers in addition to the feedback from me theyll
receive during everyday interaction and teacher-student conferences. Students will also receive
whole class feedback during Share Time.
Overall in regards to academic progress as one of my research focuses, my Sub-question
1: How does student choice affect academic progress in mathematics? will now be How can
academic choice, peer/teacher feedback, and student recognition in the classroom affect
academic progress in mathematics?.

Autonomy
In regards to autonomy, I will continue having student teacher conferencing and having
students complete the reflection/feedback forms. One reason for keeping most things similar is
because the journaling, conferencing and feedback forms indicated that students were
collaborating and using problem solving techniques more often during Math Lab then other
times during the school day. The only changes in respect to these items would be focusing on the
questions that have been most useful for both my students and concepts of data collecting. In
addition, during the conferencing I will focus more on discussing feedback form information
verbally (almost as a comparison etc.) and pre and post-test items, in order to better clarify
student responses. I will also have conferencing include goal setting items for students to
practice aiming and focusing on their own academic progress. Nevertheless, there are three
major revisions in order for me to better support my students autonomy in the classroom.
Following are the new and/or revised implementations in a series of steps. Rationale and source
support for each follows after their description:
Step 1: Math Lab Creations
Step 2: I Can...Checklist/Self-Monitoring System
Step 3: Share Time
Step 1: Math Lab Creations
Students have stayed for the most part within the guidelines of the instruction I provide
during the Math Centers, in an effort to allow students to take on more responsibility over their
learning at the centers I will modify Math Lab for one week and have Math Lab for Math Lab,
which will be in essence having students prepare the center activities for the class next Math
Lab. This implementation will be called Math Lab Creations, since students will be creating the
next Math Lab. Students as usual on this day will distribute themselves at the centers of choice
but instead of working on a particular task I give, they will only be given a topic and they will
devise activities that could be done in order to reinforce and better learn that given concept at the
center they have chosen. In this form, children will be creating their center ideas for the
following week. One of the findings that supported the addition of this implementation included
the autonomy findings mentioning that overall students seem to enjoy the ability to decide their
tasks as well as create their own activities or projects in the centers. Math Lab Creations thus, is
an attempt at having all centers, not just the Learning and Designing Center be inclusive of
student innovation and opportunities to explore further and create. The goal is that having
students choose their center of choice and also create and choose activities for the centers to
provide will further motivate greater autonomy.
In regards to Math Lab Creations, this change in Math Lab from Phase #1 consists
primarily in the fact the students are creating and designing the activity choices for Math Lab
itself. According to research by Stone, Deci, and Ryan in 2008, student autonomy can be
encouraged when we are able to give student choices, but specifically choices that still contain
some structure (Stone, Deci, Ryan, 2008, 12). Thus, my goal is to implement Math Lab
Creations with still some general structure for students to feel secure yet still open to take risks
(Stone, Deci, Ryan, 2008, 12).
Beyond the idea of formatting Math Lab Creations with structure, the preparation prior to
it and the occurrences prepared after I hope to also encourage autonomy. Reinders article from
2010 mentioned that it is important to know that although supporting students autonomy is

helpful it is often hard to know how to support this (Reinders, 2010, 39). Some suggestions that
the article includes to truly support their autonomy development, are giving students the
opportunity to be involved in identifying their needs, setting their goals, planning their learning,
selecting their own learning strategies, and also in assessment and revision, among others
(Reinders, 2010, 39). Specifically, in Math Lab Creations students will be setting goals, planning
and selecting their own learning as they choose which center to design and as a class they will be
part of the selection process (assessment and revision, etc.).
Step 2: I Can...Checklist/Self-Monitoring System
Moving forward with Phase 2, I would like to implement as one of my data tools a
checklist for students to have both during Math Lab instruction and also regular instruction. The
checklist would be developed from students themselves indicating things such as I encountered
a problem and tried to solve it on my own or ask a friend before asking the teacher, I decided
to try something new today, etc. The checklist may also indicate things based on the common
core mathematical practices, such as usages of skills of critical thinking, attention to precision,
explaining, etc. The checklist could also have students documenting their progress in relation to
pretest and posttests, possibly having them graph this, etc. The goal is to provide students with a
self-monitoring system to hold them more accountable for what they are doing. The reasoning
behind this sort of implementation is mainly because the students have shown great ownership
over their progress academically in ELA instruction again and this has seemed to support them in
improving anemically and being more self-sufficient during ELA, specifically ACHIEVE 3000
time. Students are accustomed to graphing their academic progress on a weekly basis and
analyzing this in relation to their growth over a month and yearly as well. Thus, this new
implementation would be in hopes of having students begin to monitor their progress in
mathematics as well.
In regards to the self-monitoring system, I will be having students maintaining a control
over their I can...Checklist. I hope this method will encourage students to take on more
ownership and control over their approaches during Math Lab and possibly also be applied to
other content areas throughout each school day. As Spiller included in 2012, Having students
assessing their work but also reflecting on the quality of their work and learning on a regular
basis can really promote further learning (Spiller, 2012, 3-4). Beyond promoting
responsibility, the students will also be calculating their totals on a daily basis and doing so
hopefully will allow them to begin reflecting on what they have or have not done throughout the
day in order to inspire them to do better or continue improving the next day, etc. The idea of
emphasizing the importance of self-monitoring is also supported by Reinders research from
2010, mentioning that ways to support students autonomy in the classroom include letting them
take on greater control in the assessment process as well as self-monitoring, both of which the I
Can...Checklist allows for students to do.
Upon further research, beyond only autonomy, the idea of self-regulation according to
Zumbrunns, Tadlocks, and Roberts 2011 research, can also be beneficial for improving
academic achievement and motivation, both of which this action research centers upon
(Zumbrunn, Tadlock, Roberts, 2011, 1-28). This same research also defines what self-regulation
implies and in particular, mentioned phases that can lead and support this self-regulation
(Zumbrunn, Tadlock, Roberts, 2011, 1-28). "Self-regulated learning is a process that assists
students in managing their thoughts, behaviors, and emotions in order to successfully navigate
their learning experiences" (Zumbrunn, Tadlock, Roberts, 2011, 4). This is critical for my

research as the goal beyond effects on mathematics learning, I hope the skills this action research
emphasizes may also be applicable for students in future learning experiences as a whole as well.
In addition, three main phases are described, one being forethought and planning, the second,
performance monitoring and the third being centering upon reflections on performance
(Zumbrunn, Tadlock, Roberts, 2011, 1-28). In my action research I aim to support planning by
having students journal writing regarding their goals, plans, and expectations of Math Labs.
Further, in regards to performance monitoring, I will be having students monitoring their
progress through the I Can...Checklist. Students will also be monitoring their academic
perception through the perception wheel. Lastly, in regards to reflection on performance,
students will be reflecting upon their Math Lab work through journal writing, feedback forms,
giving feedback to peers, sharing with others, class discussions, and also during student
conferences. An image of the I Can...Checklist follows:

Step 3: Share Time

In an effort to further have students being more autonomous in the classroom, I will be
allotting time for sharing, where students are encouraged to share or teach the class about
something they have worked on at a center during math lab, etc. The reasoning behind
implementation of this is the fact that throughout phase 1 students during and after math lab
often sought to share with other students who were not part of their working group and/or center
different things they developed, such as game boards, pixies, etc. In an effort to foster and allow
this to occur naturally but in a formal format that can allow students to teach others and become

autonomous in their own learning but also in contributing to that of others, share time will be
initiated.
Share time will also serve to have students not only share ideas and attain feedback from
peers, but also for the class to select and choose activities from Math Lab Creations that they
would like to see on the next Math Lab. This is significant to my research focus as it will allow
choice to continue to be embedded in more aspects of math lab, both the center student select and
now also the activities the center presents or has available. The hope is that continual increase in
choice will further nurture autonomy, as it will be student based and mostly developed by them,
will also supporting academic progress and motivation.
In regards to share time, I wish to implement share time after Math Lab Creation and
regular Math Lab for student to be able to not only discuss with their classmates about their
progress and efforts, but also for this to serve as an opportunity to further recognize and allow
them to become aware that their work is important, much as the Intel Teach Program published
article in 2012 mentioned (Instructional strategies: Recognition of student work, 2012, 1-2).
This would be of great support to my research focus for it could allow for me to gain insight in
regards to seeing if having students
Overall, in regards to autonomy and my research focus my Sub-question 2: How does
student choice affect students autonomy?, due to my findings and planned next steps will now
be How can academic choice and class share time affect students autonomy?.

Motivation/Perceptions
Overall the majority of my students that were anxious or had negative perceptions of a
concept prior to math lab demonstrated to be much more positive after they had experienced
math lab and 100% of my students revealed a desire to continue math lab. Despite this positive
outcome, I realized that the data collection tool I was utilizing and the wording I used for the
perception wheel was a little vague at times, which made it difficult to fully understand students
perceptions. I also lacked background information on students perceptions chosen, such as to
why they chose these adjective to describe them. I also lacked information in regards to students
definition of the terms, such as, was challenging a negative or positive response for them? Was
anxious something exciting or something fear or nerve racking? Thus, the only changes I am
implementing in this section will be revisions to my set up of this data collection tool I have
already started and that seem to have encouraged my students to be more positive. Other than
this, I will maintain the journal entries, students conferences, and reflection/feedback form
questions dealing with perceptions. The only minor data collection revision follow:
Step 1: Perception Wheel Modification
Step 1: Perception Wheel Modification
One of the modifications I am implementing is making my perception wheel more
detailed in regards to the categories, for example instead of just having challenged as a choice, I
will be having students distinguish if it is challenged with a negative connotation, as in they are
overwhelmed, or a positive one as in they are up for the challenge. Students will be indicating
negative by adding a subtraction symbol (-) after their name when signing the perception wheel,
or an addition symbol (+) for indicating challenge with a positive connotation. I will also be
having students do this for the anxious category to be able to distinguish between people that are
anxious as in excited, a positive connotation, and who are anxious as in fearful or nervous, a
negative connotation. In this way, I will have more explanation for students motives in voting or
selecting these categories.
As mentioned previously, this modification will be in hopes of being better able to
pinpoint if students perceptions are more negative or positively based, and to better serve in
helping me as both a teacher and researcher in better meeting the needs of each student.
Thus, in regards to my action research, Sub-question 3: How does student choice affect
students motivation and perceptions of success in mathematics? will stay the same because
based on the fact students over the course of the four Math Labs students perceptions have
become increasingly more positive and maintained as well, as evidenced in my Perception
Sections of my commentaries, student journal entries, and student-teacher conferences. An
image/sample of the revised Perception Wheel follows:

Research Questions/Sub-Questions:
My Original Questions/Revisions:
How does providing my 4th and 5th grade students with academic choice in mathematics
instruction affect their autonomy and academic learning?
Sub-question 1: How does student choice affect academic progress in mathematics?
Revision: How can academic choice, peer/teacher feedback, and student recognition in the
classroom affect academic progress in mathematics?
Sub-question 2: How does student choice affect students autonomy?
Revision: How can academic choice and class share time affect students autonomy?
Sub-question 3: How does student choice affect students motivation and perceptions of
success in mathematics?
No Revision: This Sub-Question would stay the same because based on the fact students over the
course of the four Math Labs students perceptions have become increasingly more positive and
maintained as well, as evidenced in my Perception Sections of my commentaries.

General Timeline:
Throughout: I Can...Checklist (Self-Monitoring System)
May 31st, 2016: Journal Entry
May 31st, 2016: Pre-Test/Pre-MLC Perception Wheel
June 2-3rd, 2016: Math Lab Creations (MLC)
June 3rd, 2016: Share Time
June 7th, 2016: MLC Recognition
June 7th, 2016: Post MLC Perception Wheel
June 7th, 2016: Reflection/Feedback Forms
June 7th, 2016: Journal Entry
Pre-ML Perception Wheel
June 8th, 2016: Math Lab (ML)
June 8th, 2016: Math Whizz
Peer Feedback
June 8th, 2016: Share Time
June 8th, 2016: ML Recognition
June 8th, 2016: Post ML Perception Wheel
June 9th, 2016: Journal Entry
June 9th, 2016: ML Reflection/Feedback Forms
Student-Teacher Conferences
June 9-10th, 2016: Post-Test
June 14th, 2016: Recognition
June 20-24, 2016: Complete AR Project and Presentation
IRB Submission
June 27-July 1st, 2016: Polishing, Revising of AR Project and Presentation

July 3rd, 2016: Action Research Submission

July 3rd-July 11th 2016: Action Research Presentation Preparation
July 14th, 2016: Action Research Presentation