Observation:
Analysis:
- How many students used their voice during class? Who did and who did not? What was the percentage of students who spoke?
- 11 out the 25 students (44%) used their voice in front of the whole class, but everyone used their voice during partner and group discussions. Overall, students who were confident in the material were the ones who volunteered to speak in front of the class. Students who are generally quieter and not as confident in the material did not speak in front of the class.
- Was there an observable difference between talkers and non-talkers by gender, race, seating pattern, or achievement?
- For students speaking in front of everyone, from students who spoke in front of the class, it was diverse among gender and where students sit in the class. Generally students who have higher grades/have better achievement in the class spoke more often. About half of the student’s race who spoke was white, and the other half were either Asian, Hispanic, or Middle-Eastern.
- Was there an observable difference between those who were directed to respond, those who always gave correct responses, and those who gave irrelevant responses?
- Only one student gave an incorrect response, but the incorrect response was more due to a small mistake, but used the correct idea. The teacher drew on this idea to prompt another student to give the correct response. This student that gave the incorrect response has a lower achievement in the class, but had understood this material better. I noticed students who volunteered a relevant or correct response also would respond to the teacher’s question.
- Did an individual or small group dominate? Explain.
- Two students at the far right table aka group 1 dominated the responses more than other students. These two students generally have better achievement and understanding of material. These students also volunteer consistently in class.
- How did responses, statements, questions, and so differ?
- Students’ responses were pretty consistently correct and appropriate when in front of the class. In conversations with peers, some students were consistently on-task or were barely on-task. Questions were more often individual questions directed just towards the teacher during group discussion, rarely being asked in front of the whole class.
- Was there an observable difference in characteristics between those who talked about the mathematics and those who talked about non-subject matter?
- Generally those who were talking about mathematics were of higher achievement and the group that talked about non-subject matter most often was a group of all boys. Overall students were pretty consistently talking about mathematics, staying on topic.
Reflection:
From
observation and analysis I noticed that group discussion was relatively
successful and led to good classroom discussion with relatively correct and
appropriate responses. I think something major I noticed is that even though
most students were relatively on-task in peer discussion, it’s important to
know sometimes students will be off-task, but to walk around and guide students
back to the mathematical material. In relation to this, a class seating arrangements
is very vital for on-task peer discussion, especially having at least one
student in each group that will keep the peer discussion on-task. Using these
can help discussion and communication in the classroom to help achieve mathematical
goals for each lesson.
