The Workshop Model: Optimizing the Mini-lesson

1. The Workshop Model:Optimizing the Mini-lesson By: Lori Grabel & Klarisa Konstantinovsky Education 703.22 – Spring 2009 Dr. O’Connor- Petruso

2. Table of Contents • Introduction Statement of the Problem Review of Related Literature Statement of the Hypothesis • Methods Participants Instruments Experimental Design Procedure • Graphs • Discussion • Implications • Threats to Internal and External Validity

3. Statement of the Problem •    Due to grades falling and illiteracy rising, this research is based primarily on the “Workshop Model”; more exact the reading and writing workshop as described in www.tqnyc.org: “The workshop model intends for the students to learn reading and writing skills through much participation amongst themselves and their peers”, which follows whole-word learning and is in direct opposition of the phonics methodology.

4. Review of Related Literature Pros of the Workshop Model • Gives teachers the opportunity to model skill or strategy (Adriana, 2006) (Robb, L) • Instructional mini-lesson allows teachers and students to succeed (Popham, 1972) • Students taught using the Workshop Model are more likely to read for pleasure (Lause, 2004) • Personalizes the class for each student (Carmichael) • Allows for conferences with students (Furr, 2003)

5. Review of Related Literature Cons of the Workshop Model • As per a teachers contract, they cannot be excessively micromanaged (Callaci, 2005) • Teacher should decide how to teach his/her own students (Krasner, 1976) • Teachers need to have the freedom to modify lessons and activities as needed (Lieberman, 2000)

6. Statement of the Hypothesis (HR1) • The Workshop Model’s rigorous time schedule will enhance the discipline to provide the optimum opportunity for third and fifth grade readers and writers (students) in a Title 1 school to gain knowledge and higher test scores.

7. Participants • Thirty-six third and fifth grade students in a Title 1 public school in Brooklyn, New York.

8. Instruments • Consent form to the principal of the Title 1 public school where the research will be conducted • Consent form to the parents/guardians of the student of interest • Surveys to other 3rd and 5th grade teachers regarding their opinion of the effectiveness of the Workshop Model • Surveys to students about their opinion of the Workshop Model • ELA Predictive Exam (Pre-test) • ELA Exam (Post-test)

9. Experimental Design • Quasi Experimental: Two groups • Individuals are not randomly assigned. • Two-Groups: Designated treatment group (X1) & control group (X2) • Nonequivalent control group design O X1 O O X2 O

10. Procedure • Research conducted between September 2008 and May 2009. • Students’ independent reading levels assessed in September 2008, November 2008, January 2009, and March 2009. • ELA predictive exam given in October 2008. • New York State ELA exam given in January 2009. • Parent consent forms given out in April 2009, followed by student and colleague surveys. • Between October 2008 and May 2009 the workshop model was manipulated in the fifth-grade ELL classroom while the third-grade classroom adhered to the Teacher’s College guidelines.

11. Survey ResultsAccording to the line of best fit there is a strong correlation rxy=0.83 between reading levels and books read weekly, which would shows that more books read weekly increases a students reading level.

12. Correlation coefficient is rxy=0.17, which means that there is no significant relationship between September reading levels and September ELA predictive percentage of points obtained.

13. Test Results3rd Grade ELA Pre and Post Test Scores

14. 5th Grade ELA Pre and Post Test Scores

15. Discussion • There is no significant difference between classrooms that adhere to the time constraints of the workshop model and those that do not • No direct research to prove or disprove our findings • Benefits to the workshop model

16. Implications • Academic and social differences • ELL vs. Non-ELL Students • Larger sample size • Long-term study • Further research is needed

17. Threats to Internal Validity • History: Students can lose focus at the drop of a pencil; anything beyond the control of the teacher and administration might occur on the day of the test, as well as to parents and peers while filing out the questionnaires. • Instrumentation: One group of students (ELL) is given time and a half while the other is not. Both groups are administered the practice exam and exam in exactly the same way. • Selection: The groups are fifth and third graders in which a few of the students have been left-back, therefore varying the maturity level.

18. Threats to External Validity • Pretest-Treatment: Some students react differently to practice exams but the score of the real exam does tend to go up. • Selection-Treatment Interaction: The students are not random. All the ELL fifth graders are in one group and the second group is randomly picked. The students came from a majority (85%) of African-American households. • Multiple Treatment: Though the teaching for both groups are based on teaching/learning standards, students with IEP’s receive extra help, and ESL students receive extra differentiated instruction. • Treatment Diffusion: Classmates and schoolmates communicate with each other. • Experimenter Effects: Personal bias may occur within our research without our knowledge.

19. References • O’Connor-Petruso, S. (2008). Threats to Internal and External Validity Powerpoint. Brooklyn College, Graduate Department of Education.

20. To TC or not to TC? The question still remains!