EDD/581 ACTION RESEARCH PROPOSAL (Frank J. Ball Sr.)

1. 1 Action Research Proposal EDD/581 ACTION RESEARCH PROPOSAL(Frank J. Ball Sr.)

2. Section 1Background • Problem Statement • Problem Description • Purpose of Project • Writers Role Action Research Proposal

3. Problem Statement • Problem Statement The problem is that a significant number (23%) of third-grade students at ABC Elementary School are not proficient in math, based on state assessments. that a significant number (23%) of third grade students at ABC School are not proficient in math, based on state assessments. e problem is that a significant number (23%) of third grade students at ABC School are not proficient in math, based on state assessments. Image by: gembaacademy.com Action Research Proposal

4. Problem Description • Problem Description • Describe the problem statement in greater detail in this section. • These statistics show that students are not receiving the educational requirements that they need in lower grades, thus adding more strain in the upper grade levels. • The problem statement indicates that in the third grade at ABC Elementary, 20 students out of 87 are not proficient in math according the 2014 CRCT test results. • This is but one elementary school in the Georgia public school system. Image by: ceptara.com Action Research Proposal

5. Purpose of the Project Purpose of the Project The purpose of this project will be to focus on the detailed description and analysis of mathematics classroom practices that result in students’ development of proficiency in third-grade mathematics. The products of this project will be (a) an enhanced understanding of the mechanics “teaching for mathematical proficiency” (b) research tools that will support teaching for robust mathematics learning (c) setting practical tools that can be used on a larger scale for benchmarking and improving teaching practices. Image by: pdatc.org Action Research Proposal

6. Writer’s Role • Writer’s Role • Describe how you relate to the topic. • Children are our future and we need to ensure that we are providing the best educational resources possible so that they can and will be able to compete in the their future. • Describe why you picked this topic. • My passion is to change the way that we educate younger students so that they are prepared to meet the course loads that they will face in upper grades, college and what will be expected from them in a 21st century workforce. • Describe how this topic influences or is influenced by your role in your current setting. • Working as the program director for Engineering for Kids Northeast Georgia gives me the perfect opportunity to affect students in grades K through eight. Starting in the third grade level when state mandated standards requirements begin influenced my decision to pick this topic and role. Image by: yorksolutions.net Action Research Proposal

7. Section 2Problem Documentation • Teacher/Paraprofessional Survey • Student Survey • Literature Review • National Rankings • Georgia Third-Grade Math Standards Action Research Proposal

8. Problem Documentation • Problem Documentation • The first section of the survey is designed for the teachers and paraprofessionals at ABC Elementary who have direct and daily contact with the third-grade students. • Will the new Milestone Testing that is replacing the criterion-referenced competency test (CRCT) give a better prospective of the proficiency outlook? Please explain your answer in detail. Image by: themopolis.com Action Research Proposal

9. Action Research Proposal Problem Documentation • How did you prepare your students for standards testing and what obstacles did you face? • With the change to the new Milestones Testing how will you adjust your teaching style to achieve the standards? • What support do you expect from administration and your team leaders in helping you to prepare your students for the new standards testing? • Do you feel that the curriculum chosen for this year will help you to adequately prepare all students to become proficient in the math standards expected? Please give a detailed response.

10. Action Research Proposal Problem Documentation • The next set of questions are to be used to survey the ABC third-grade students to evaluate their opinions on preparing for the testing standards. • Can you show me how you start your math class? • What is the first thing that you do? • What usually happens when someone doesn’t understand something? • Do many students not understand the same thing or just one or two students? • 3) What happened the last time in math class? • How often do you think you will use math outside of class? • 4) Do you think that you will need math? Image by: rch.org

11. Action Research Proposal Literature Review • Author: Paul Bambrick-Santoyo • Title: A Case for Uncommon Schools: Born to Run. • Purpose: To review the proficiency standards of students’ in math and literacy in the new Springsteen Charter School, Newark, New Jersey. • Pertinent Findings: After five years in operation state testing results showed significant improvement in literacy, yet almost the same proficiency levels in math. • Author: Sheryl Cochran • Title: Kansas City Center School District’s Boone Elementary was failing. • Purpose: In 2008, Boone had numbers so low they had to make significant changes or the State of Missouri would begin to place sanctions on them. • Pertinent Findings: Using an AR and identifying the issues Ms. Cochran put into place an action plan the brought testing scores up 15% in the first year and 25% in the second year. In 2013 Boone won the National Center for Urban School Transformation Silver Award.

12. Action Research Proposal Literature Review • Author: Victor Bandeira de Mello • Title: Mapping State Proficiency Standards ONTO NAEP Scales. • Purpose: To show where states’ standards lie on the NAEP scale. • Pertinent Findings: A review from 2005 through 2009 allows states to compare the stringency of its criteria for proficiency and allows states to analyze the rigor of their standards over the selected period of time. • Author: Angela Chan-Turrou • Title: Mathematical Proficiency and Perseverance in Action: The case of Maria and Andrew. • Purpose: To analyze a pair of students in the second grade engaged in algebraic reasoning. • Pertinent Findings: That a young student is not limited in learning mathematics as long as they are given mathematics related opportunities.

13. Action Research Proposal Literature Review • Author: Stacey Merola Ph.D. • Title: High School Success Pilot Programs: Mathematics Coaches • Purpose: To provide an overview of case studies conducted as part of the evaluation of the Mathematics Instructional Coaches pilot program. • Pertinent Findings: The pilot program reported positive changes for both teachers and students utilizing new and engaging activities and techniques. • Author: Silvia DiMarco • Title: Mathematics in the middle: Shaping the proficiency footprint. • Purpose: The lack of academic rigor in middle school mathematics, resulting on the impact of student proficiency and the ability to pursue higher level mathematics courses. • Pertinent Findings: Several knowledge gaps from pervious grade levels hindered performance in current grades.

14. Action Research Proposal Literature Review • Author: Staff Writer • Title: Small Urban Ohio Charter School nearly doubles math and reading proficiency. • Purpose: Students need personalized and differentiated learning to build mastery. Using tools developed through School Improvement Network (now known as Edivation and Observation 360) refined their program to help raise student achievement. • Pertinent Findings: Hope Academy increased student proficiency in reading from 34.8% to 61.5% among eighth-grade students and at the same time increased math proficiency from 47.8% to 80.8%.

15. Action Research Proposal National Rankings

16. Action Research Proposal Georgia Third-Grade Math Standards

17. Section 3Solution Strategy • Action Goals • Selected Solutions • Calendar Plan Action Research Proposal

18. Action Goal • Action Goal Academic Area: Mathematics Goal: Increase the proficiency of third-grade students on end of year standards testing by 5% and reduce the percentages of quarterly failing grades earned by third-grade students by 5%. Image by: automationprimer.com Action Research Proposal

19. Selected Solutions Selected Solutions Have instructors submit (2) lesson plans per month containing differentiated lessons. Benchmark test students in October, December, and February to obtain learning gap data. Use benchmark testing data to set up paraprofessional tutoring with students showing learning gaps. Collect absentee data and set up parent / teacher conferences to discuss excessive absenteeism. Integrate technology (Cool Math Games, Math Lab.com, Success Maker, and Khan Academy) into classroom activities to assist students experiencing learning gaps. Action Research Proposal

20. Calendar Plan Calendar Plan Brief Action Research Proposal

21. Action Research Proposal Calendar Plan Extended • August 1- 17 • Preplanning with teachers and paraprofessionals. Conduct survey, collect data and conference about action research. • August 18 – 29 • Start of school, conduct student surveys, conduct classroom observations, initial benchmark testing, teacher/parapro meetings. • September 2 – October 20 • Integrate the use of technology (Cool Math Games, Khan Academy, Success Maker, and Math Lab.com) into classroom activities. • October 20 – 31 • First benchmark testing of all four third-grade classes. • November 3 – 7 • Review Benchmark testing, review absentee reports, use data and set-up parent / teacher conferences. • Allow parents access to Khan Academy and Success Maker at home for additional help. • November 10 – December 19 • Review teachers’ differentiated lesson plans, make adjustments as needed, collaborate with team, continue with integrated technology use.

22. Action Research Proposal Calendar Plan Extended • January 5 – 9 • Mid-year Benchmark Testing in all four third-grade classes. • January 12 – 16 • Review Benchmark testing, review absentee reports, use data and set-up parent / teacher conferences. • January 19 – February 20 • Review teachers’ differentiated lesson plans, make adjustments as needed, collaborate with team, continue with integrated technology use. • February 23 – February 27 • Last Benchmark testing. • March 2 – 6 • Review Benchmark testing, review absentee reports, use data and set-up parent / teacher conferences. • March 9 – 13 • Review teachers’ differentiated lesson plans, make adjustments to fit end of year needs scheduled around standards test. Review practice standards test and adjust teaching strategies to meet the needs against benchmarks. Adjust technology use (Success Maker, Khan Academy, Cool Math Games, and Math Lab.com) around any learning gaps needed for standards testing.

23. Action Research Proposal Calendar Plan Extended • March 16 – April 17 • Use classroom observations, ensure that differentiated lessons geared towards standards are utilized. Observe learning patterns of students using technology programs during stations activities. • April 20 – 24 • Year end state Milestones Testing. • May 1 -8 • Collect test results • May 11 – 22 • Collect all data and write comprehensive report on action plan. • May 25 – 29 • Using the collected data write any revisions to action plan that would be needed. • June 1 – 5 • Present findings and report to principal, superintendent, and school board.

24. Section 4Outcomes & Evaluation • Expected Outcomes • Measurement of Outcomes • Analysis of Results • Presentation of Results Action Research Proposal

25. Expected Outcomes • Expected Outcomes • Gain an enhanced understanding of the mechanics “teaching for mathematical proficiency”. • Research tools that will support teaching for robust mathematics learning. • Setting practical tools that can be used on a larger scale for benchmarking and improving teaching practices. • Increase the proficiency of third-grade students on end of year standards testing by five percent. Action Research Proposal

26. Measurement of Outcomes Measurement of Outcomes Pre research survey of instructors and students. (See surveys in problem documentation.) Pre and post Benchmark testing to measure and evaluate math comprehension to standards. (See appendices.) Collection of attendance records. Collection of differentiated lesson plans. Classroom Observations and field notes. Year end state Milestone Standards Testing. Image by: measuringgupblog.com Action Research Proposal

27. Analysis of Results Analysis of Results Examine and chart absences throughout the year. Examine, chart and document the quarterly benchmark testing to review and alter action plan if necessary. Examination of the data will include comparison of last years’ end of year standards testing to this years end of year standards testing by compiling class averages and also comparing the schools statewide ranking this year. Document the results through the use of spreadsheets, graphs and charts. Image by: appianinsight.com Action Research Proposal

28. Action Research Proposal Presentation of Results Presentation of Results Project results and associated documentation should be presented to the school principal and school board in the form of a written report. Parents of participating students should be presented with the results using a PowerPoint or Prezi demonstration, including graphs and charts that show all significant results. Teachers and colleagues should be given access to the same presented documentation and reports as the principal and school board to review. Image by: psychologytoday.com

29. References Action Research Proposal

30. References Bambrick-Santoyo, Paul. (2003) A Case Study for Uncommon Schools: Born to Run; Newark, New Jersey: North Star Academy. Cochran, Sheryl. (2014) Kansas City Center School District’s Boone Elementary was failing; Chandler, Arizona: Pearson Education Breakthrough Results. Bandeira de Mello, Victor. (2011) Mapping State Proficiency Standards ONTO NAEP Scales; Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Chan-Turrou, Angela. (2012) Mathematical Proficiency and Perseverance in Action: The case of Maria and Andrew; Journal of Mathematics Education, Vol. 3, No. 2 (Fall – Winter). Merola, Stacey (2011) High School Success Pilot Programs: Mathematics Coaches; Austin, TX; Texas Department of Education. DiMarco, Silvia (2010) Mathematics in the middle; Shaping the proficiency footprint; Perth, Australia: James Cook University. Staff Writer. (2014) Small Urban Ohio Charter School nearly doubles math and reading proficiency; Wheeling, WV: WTRF News. Hendricks, C. (2009). Improving Schools through Action Research: A comprehensive guide for educators (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Peterson, Paul & Kaplan, Peter. (2013) Despite Common Core, States Still Lack Common Standards. Cambridge MA: Harvard Kennedy School - Program on Education Policy & Governance: Education Next, Fall 2013, Vol. 13, No. 4. Barge, John D. Dr. (2013) Common Core Georgia Performance Standards – Third Grade. Atlanta, GA; Georgia Department of Education. Greenes, C. & Stiff, L. (2013) Houghton Mifflin Math Grade 3; Boston MA: Houghton, Mifflin, Harcourt. Mpjoweh, Jude (2014) Mixed Operations – Algebra – Fractions to Decimals 3rd Grade Math 4 Children; www.math4children.com Action Research Proposal

31. Appendix Action Research Proposal

32. Action Research Proposal Appendix Glossary • Appendix A (Part 1 & 2) • October Benchmark • Greenes, C. & Stiff, L. (2013) Houghton Mifflin Math Grade 3; Boston MA: Houghton, Mifflin, Harcourt. • Appendix B • Mixed Operations October Benchmark • Mpjoweh, Jude (2014) Mixed Operations 3rd Grade Math 4 Children; www.math4children.com • Appendix C (Part 1 & 2) • Mid Year Benchmark • Greenes, C. & Stiff, L. (2013) Houghton Mifflin Math Grade 3; Boston MA: Houghton, Mifflin, Harcourt.

33. Action Research Proposal Appendix Glossary • Appendix D • Mid Year Algebra Benchmark • Mpjoweh, Jude (2014) Algebra 3rd Grade Math 4 Children; www.math4children.com • Appendix E • Mid Year Fractions – Decimals Benchmark • Mpjoweh, Jude (2014) Fractions to Decimals 3rd Grade Math 4 Children; www.math4children.com • Appendix F (Part 1 & 2) • February Benchmark • Greenes, C. & Stiff, L. (2013) Houghton Mifflin Math Grade 3; Boston MA: Houghton, Mifflin, Harcourt. • Appendix G (Part 1, 2 & 3) • End of Year Benchmark • Greenes, C. & Stiff, L. (2013) Houghton Mifflin Math Grade 3; Boston MA: Houghton, Mifflin, Harcourt.

34. Action Research Proposal Appendix A (Part 1)

35. Action Research Proposal Appendix A (Part 2)

36. Action Research Proposal Appendix B

37. Action Research Proposal Appendix C (Part 1)

38. Action Research Proposal Appendix C (Part 2)

39. Action Research Proposal Appendix D

40. Action Research Proposal Appendix E

41. Action Research Proposal Appendix F (Part 1)

42. Action Research Proposal Appendix F (Part 2)

43. Action Research Proposal Appendix G (Part 1)

44. Action Research Proposal Appendix G (Part 2)

45. Action Research Proposal Appendix G (Part 3)

46. Third-Grade Math Proficiency Action Research Proposal ABC Elementary School By: Frank J. Ball Sr. EDD 581: Action Research and Evaluation Professor Terence Osner Action Research Proposal