The Workshop Model:The Workshop Model:Optimizing the Optimizing the

Mini-lessonMini-lesson

By:By:Lori GrabelLori Grabel

&&Klarisa Konstantinovsky Klarisa Konstantinovsky

Education 703.22 – Spring 2009Education 703.22 – Spring 2009Dr. O’Connor- PetrusoDr. O’Connor- Petruso

Table of ContentsTable of Contents

IntroductionIntroductionStatement of the ProblemStatement of the ProblemReview of Related LiteratureReview of Related LiteratureStatement of the HypothesisStatement of the Hypothesis

MethodsMethodsParticipantsParticipantsInstrumentsInstrumentsExperimental DesignExperimental DesignProcedureProcedure

GraphsGraphs DiscussionDiscussion ImplicationsImplications Threats to Internal and External ValidityThreats to Internal and External Validity

Statement of the ProblemStatement of the Problem

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

Review of Related LiteratureReview of Related Literature

Pros of the Workshop ModelPros of the Workshop Model

Gives teachers the opportunity to model skill or strategy Gives teachers the opportunity to model skill or strategy (Adriana, 2006) (Robb, L)(Adriana, 2006) (Robb, L)

Instructional mini-lesson allows teachers and students to Instructional mini-lesson allows teachers and students to succeed (Popham, 1972)succeed (Popham, 1972)

Students taught using the Workshop Model are more Students taught using the Workshop Model are more likely to read for pleasure (Lause, 2004)likely to read for pleasure (Lause, 2004)

Personalizes the class for each student (Carmichael)Personalizes the class for each student (Carmichael)

Allows for conferences with students (Furr, 2003)Allows for conferences with students (Furr, 2003)

Review of Related LiteratureReview of Related Literature

Cons of the Workshop ModelCons of the Workshop Model

As per a teachers contract, they cannot be As per a teachers contract, they cannot be excessively micromanaged (Callaci, 2005)excessively micromanaged (Callaci, 2005)

Teacher should decide how to teach Teacher should decide how to teach his/her own students (Krasner, 1976)his/her own students (Krasner, 1976)

Teachers need to have the freedom to Teachers need to have the freedom to modify lessons and activities as needed modify lessons and activities as needed (Lieberman, 2000)(Lieberman, 2000)

Statement of the Hypothesis Statement of the Hypothesis (HR1)(HR1)

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

ParticipantsParticipants

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

InstrumentsInstruments

Consent form to the principal of the Title 1 public school Consent form to the principal of the Title 1 public school where the research will be conductedwhere the research will be conducted

Consent form to the parents/guardians of the student of Consent form to the parents/guardians of the student of interestinterest

Surveys to other 3Surveys to other 3rdrd and 5 and 5thth grade teachers regarding their grade teachers regarding their opinion of the effectiveness of the Workshop Modelopinion of the effectiveness of the Workshop Model

Surveys to students about their opinion of the Workshop Surveys to students about their opinion of the Workshop ModelModel

ELA Predictive Exam (Pre-test)ELA Predictive Exam (Pre-test)

ELA Exam (Post-test)ELA Exam (Post-test)

Experimental DesignExperimental Design

Quasi Experimental: Two Quasi Experimental: Two groupsgroups Individuals are not randomly assigned.Individuals are not randomly assigned. Two-Groups: Designated treatment Two-Groups: Designated treatment

group (Xgroup (X11) & control group (X) & control group (X22) )

Nonequivalent control group Nonequivalent control group designdesign

O XO X11 O O

O XO X22 O O

ProcedureProcedure

Research conducted between September 2008 and May 2009. Research conducted between September 2008 and May 2009.

Students’ independent reading levels assessed in September Students’ independent reading levels assessed in September 2008, November 2008, January 2009, and March 2009. 2008, November 2008, January 2009, and March 2009.

ELA predictive exam given in October 2008. ELA predictive exam given in October 2008.

New York State ELA exam given in January 2009. New York State ELA exam given in January 2009.

Parent consent forms given out in April 2009, followed by student Parent consent forms given out in April 2009, followed by student and colleague surveys. and colleague surveys.

Between October 2008 and May 2009 the workshop model was Between October 2008 and May 2009 the workshop model was manipulated in the fifth-grade ELL classroom while the third-manipulated in the fifth-grade ELL classroom while the third-grade classroom adhered to the Teacher’s College guidelines. grade classroom adhered to the Teacher’s College guidelines.

Survey ResultsSurvey Results

According 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.

Reading Levels & Books

0123456

0 5 10 15

Feb Reading Levels

Boo

ks re

ad w

eekl

y

Books Read

Linear (Books Read)

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.

Reading Level & % Points

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 5 10 15

September Reading Levels

Pred

ictiv

e %

Poi

nts

%Points Obt

Linear (%Points Obt)

Test ResultsTest Results

33rdrd Grade ELA Pre and Post Test Scores Grade ELA Pre and Post Test Scores

55thth Grade ELA Pre and Post Test Scores Grade ELA Pre and Post Test Scores

DiscussionDiscussion

There is no significant difference There is no significant difference between classrooms that adhere to between classrooms that adhere to the time constraints of the workshop the time constraints of the workshop model and those that do notmodel and those that do not

No direct research to prove or No direct research to prove or disprove our findingsdisprove our findings

Benefits to the workshop modelBenefits to the workshop model

ImplicationsImplications

Academic and social differencesAcademic and social differences

ELL vs. Non-ELL StudentsELL vs. Non-ELL Students

Larger sample sizeLarger sample size

Long-term studyLong-term study

Further research is neededFurther research is needed

Threats to Internal ValidityThreats to Internal Validity

History:History: Students can lose focus at the drop of a Students can lose focus at the drop of a pencil; anything beyond the control of the teacher pencil; anything beyond the control of the teacher and administration might occur on the day of the and administration might occur on the day of the test, as well as to parents and peers while filing out test, as well as to parents and peers while filing out the questionnaires. the questionnaires.

Instrumentation:Instrumentation: One group of students (ELL) is One group of students (ELL) is given time and a half while the other is not. Both given time and a half while the other is not. Both groups are administered the practice exam and groups are administered the practice exam and exam in exactly the same way. exam in exactly the same way.

Selection:Selection: The groups are fifth and third graders in The groups are fifth and third graders in which a few of the students have been left-which a few of the students have been left-back, therefore varying the maturity level.back, therefore varying the maturity level.

Threats to External ValidityThreats to External Validity

Pretest-Treatment:Pretest-Treatment: Some students react differently to practice Some students react differently to practice exams but the score of the real exam does tend to go up. exams but the score of the real exam does tend to go up.

Selection-Treatment Interaction:Selection-Treatment Interaction: The students are not The students are not random. All the ELL fifth graders are in one group and the random. All the ELL fifth graders are in one group and the second group is randomly picked. The students came from a second group is randomly picked. The students came from a majority (85%) of African-American households. majority (85%) of African-American households.

Multiple Treatment:Multiple Treatment: Though the teaching for both groups are Though the teaching for both groups are based on teaching/learning standards, students with IEP’s based on teaching/learning standards, students with IEP’s receive extra help, and ESL students receive extra differentiated receive extra help, and ESL students receive extra differentiated instruction. instruction.

Treatment Diffusion:Treatment Diffusion: Classmates and schoolmates Classmates and schoolmates communicate with each other. communicate with each other.

Experimenter Effects:Experimenter Effects: Personal bias may occur within our Personal bias may occur within our research without our knowledge. research without our knowledge.

References• O’Connor-Petruso, S. (2008).

Threats to Internal and External Validity Powerpoint. Brooklyn College, Graduate Department of

Education.

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