Virginia Lopez-Pech

CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS

Introduction

The Building to Learn Project was conducted with Kindergarten classes during the 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 school years where the objective of this project was to address the need for Kindergarten students to develop critical thinking and problem solving skills. The main results of the project were increased district test scores and critical thinking and creativity development for the majority of students. This chapter presents and interprets data that was collected during the development of this project.

Results

Changes that occurred throughout this project were documented and recorded by the teacher through photographs, anecdotal records and district assessments for Language Arts and Math. In addition, surveys of students and parents were conducted to measure changes that occurred.

The teacher polled 20 students from her Kindergarten class on several areas related to the project. Examples of some of the questions and the responses follow.

1. Would you like more, less or no object building in your classroom?

Figure 1 - Number of student responses to each option: more, less or none, is labeled on each blue vertical bar and reflected on the vertical wall. The numbers at the left represent percentages.

All students responded that they would like to have more building in their classroom.

2. What have you learned from building (DBL) about your environment (the earth)?

Students responded in the following manner:

We have to take care of our planet 10 students

We have to try not to waste 12 students

We have to recycle 13 students

We have to take care of our sea animals 16 students

Figure 2 - Number of student responses given to the above question are labeled on each blue vertical bar and reflected on the vertical wall. The numbers at the left represent the number of students who responded to the choices noted on the bottom.

Students responded that they had learned that there is a need to take care of the earth, that people should not waste, that they should reuse and respect sea life.

The teacher polled 20 parents of Kindergarten students on several areas related to the project Learning including differences they had noted in their children. Examples of some of the questions and the responses follow.

Have you noticed an increase in your child’s vocabulary? If yes, what new words does he or she use?

Figure 3 - Number of parent responses to each option, yes or no, is labeled on each blue vertical bar and reflected on the vertical wall. The numbers at the left represent the number of parents who responded to the choices noted on the bottom.

The vast majority of parents, 19 of 20, stated they had noticed an increase in their child’s vocabulary. Parents who noted an increase in their child’s vocabulary provided the following words as examples:

§ shelter

§ protection

§ survival

§ movement

§ environment

Anecdotal records by the teacher noted that students vocabulary was increasing as they became more familiar with terms used in the project. Students used the vocabulary regularly along with other higher level words as part of their every day speech.

Is object building in the classroom an appropriate teaching tool?

Figure 4 - Number of parent responses to each option, yes or no, is labeled on each blue vertical bar and reflected on the vertical wall. The numbers at the left represent the number of parents who responded to the choices noted on the bottom.

Of the parents who responded, 14 stated that building objects in the classroom was an appropriate teaching tool. The six parents who did not believe that building objects should be part of Kindergarten curriculum said they preferred traditional methods of teaching rather than project methods.

District Assessments were used throughout the school year to determine a child’s progress. Children were rated on a scale from 1-4. The rating scale was as follows:

1 = Not Proficient

2 = Approaching Proficiency

3 = Proficient

4 = Advanced Proficient

The following graph demonstrates the results of the district writing and math assessments for 3 consecutive years. For the 2005-2006 school year DBL was not implemented. The following two years, 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 DBL was used as a teaching methodology. Results of three years of district assessments for Writing are shown in Figure 5 and for Math in Figure 6.

Figure 5 - Student year end scores for three consecutive years are labeled on each colored vertical bar and reflected on the vertical wall. The numbers at the left represent the number of students. Colored bars represent the school year. SY means School Year.

In figure 5 which shows the district writing assessments the blue columns are student scores for the 2005-2006 school year. The purple columns show results for the 2006-2007 school year. The off-white columns indicate results for the 2007-2008 school year.

Results were as follows:

Year Below Proficient Proficient & Advanced

2005-2006 45% 55%

2006-2007 25% 75%

2007-2008 25% 75%

Figure 5 shows that students scored higher during the two years that the project was implemented as part of the Kindergarten curriculum as compared to the previous year, 2005-06, when the project was not in use. The results indicate that this teaching style increased student assessment scores.

Figure 6: Student year end scores for three consecutive years are labeled on each colored vertical bar and reflected on the vertical wall. The numbers at the left represent the number of students. Colored bars represent the school year. SY means School Year.

In figure 6 which shows the district math assessments the blue columns show student scores for the 2005-2006 school year. The purple columns show results for the 2006-2007 school year. The off-white columns indicate results for the 2007-2008 school year.

The results were as follows:

Year Below Proficient Proficient & Advanced

2005-2006 40% 60%

2006-2007 10% 90%

2007-2008 15% 85%

As with Writing assessments, students scored higher in Math during the two years that the project was implemented as part of the Kindergarten curriculum as compared to the previous year, 2005-06, when the project was not in use.

Conclusion

The Learning to Build project showed positive results in the development of verbal and problem solving skills. Students were engaged in the Design- Based Learning process and learned about their environment. Parents noticed an increase in their child’s vocabulary and the majority of parents felt that using building in the classroom was an appropriate teaching tool. Comparing district writing and math assessments for the two years the project was implemented with the previous school year clearly demonstrated significant increases.

The teacher noticed an increase in student interest and developed a more flexible attitude. The teacher learned new teaching strategies and applied them in a student-centered classroom. In short, Design Base Learning had an obvious impact.