The Workshop Model:Optimizing the

Mini-lesson

By:Lori Grabel

&Klarisa Konstantinovsky

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

Table of Contents

IntroductionStatement of the ProblemReview of Related LiteratureStatement of the Hypothesis

MethodsParticipantsInstrumentsExperimental DesignProcedure

Graphs Discussion Implications Threats to Internal and External Validity

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.

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)

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)

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.

Participants

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

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)

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

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.

Survey 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 Results

3rd Grade ELA Pre and Post Test Scores

5th Grade ELA Pre and Post Test Scores

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

Implications

Academic and social differences

ELL vs. Non-ELL Students

Larger sample size

Long-term study

Further research is needed

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.

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.

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!