Received an email that DS teacher quit Friday.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The workshop model is one of those things that has been researched to be effective for student learning--and there is reasonably good evidence it does when implemented correctly under good conditions. But teachers need time to implement it well, and classroom conditions that are conducive to its success. That's not where we are at right now.

Not really. Or no better than others teaching methods.

+1 on the not really. Show me the research.

The primary evidence for the workshop/guided math model is related to the impact of flexible ability grouping on achievement--so when students receive math instruction targeted closely to their current ability in a given sub-math topic and then allowed to practice in class they perform higher than when the whole group of mixed ability children are taught as a whole at the same level. A 2018 meta-analysis--which is a statistical analysis of all available studies-- of studies on differentiation shows there are positive effects on mathematics achievement when you do within class, flexible homogenous ability groupings (which is what the Guided Math/Workshop model is) compared to traditional whole group instruction. Study: Marjolein I. Deunk, Annemieke E. Smale-Jacobse, Hester de Boer, Simone Doolaard, Roel J. Bosker, Effective differentiation Practices:A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on the cognitive effects of differentiation practices in primary education, Educational Research Review, Volume 24,
2018,
Pages 31-54,


Small group instruction time in guided math/workshop model is designed to include the evidence based strategies of multiple problem solving approaches, visual representations of problems alongside notational representations and immediate assessment of individual understanding: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/MPS_PG_043012.pdf) These are often included in traditional whole group instruction, but it is a lot harder to assess individual understanding in real-time in a group of 30 than in a group of 5-6.

The problem with implementation of the workshop model though is very real--and comes in when the behavior management issues are such that the children aren't actually practicing what they were taught during the others' small group instruction. And to do it well, teachers have to have accurate assessment of students' understanding levels in order to create the groups. When it doesn't work, it's worse than whole group traditional instruction because there's less overall instructional time.

There's a other isolated specific studies too supporting guided math--but they are fairly small---
In one experimental study, Guided Math (i.e. workshop model) was more effective for lower performing students in gen ed than traditional, structured whole group instruction, but equally effective for all other groups (except special ed)
Kroesbergen, E.H., van Luit, J.E. Teaching multiplication to low math performers: Guided versus structured instruction. Instructional Science 30, 361–378 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019880913714.

In another quasi experimental study: Look to Statement 6 for outcome findings. After teachers received professional development in guided math, student outcomes were higher in guided math than their prior traditional approach. But it's not a very rigorous study
http://www.ibii-us.org/Journals/JESD/V2N2/Publish/V2N2_7.pdf

I imagine you are an administrator getting your Ed.D in educational leadership - you people are like cancer.

No, I work in a research organization and have a PhD in cognitive psychology--just have been doing educational data research for my work lately. I have looked up things on math because I volunteer as a math coach. But I have encountered l people who study educational leadership and thought they were smart and caring people. Not as likely to jump to conclusions as you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The workshop model is one of those things that has been researched to be effective for student learning--and there is reasonably good evidence it does when implemented correctly under good conditions. But teachers need time to implement it well, and classroom conditions that are conducive to its success. That's not where we are at right now.

Not really. Or no better than others teaching methods.

+1 on the not really. Show me the research.

The primary evidence for the workshop/guided math model is related to the impact of flexible ability grouping on achievement--so when students receive math instruction targeted closely to their current ability in a given sub-math topic and then allowed to practice in class they perform higher than when the whole group of mixed ability children are taught as a whole at the same level. A 2018 meta-analysis--which is a statistical analysis of all available studies-- of studies on differentiation shows there are positive effects on mathematics achievement when you do within class, flexible homogenous ability groupings (which is what the Guided Math/Workshop model is) compared to traditional whole group instruction. Study: Marjolein I. Deunk, Annemieke E. Smale-Jacobse, Hester de Boer, Simone Doolaard, Roel J. Bosker, Effective differentiation Practices:A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on the cognitive effects of differentiation practices in primary education, Educational Research Review, Volume 24,
2018,
Pages 31-54,


Small group instruction time in guided math/workshop model is designed to include the evidence based strategies of multiple problem solving approaches, visual representations of problems alongside notational representations and immediate assessment of individual understanding: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/MPS_PG_043012.pdf) These are often included in traditional whole group instruction, but it is a lot harder to assess individual understanding in real-time in a group of 30 than in a group of 5-6.

The problem with implementation of the workshop model though is very real--and comes in when the behavior management issues are such that the children aren't actually practicing what they were taught during the others' small group instruction. And to do it well, teachers have to have accurate assessment of students' understanding levels in order to create the groups. When it doesn't work, it's worse than whole group traditional instruction because there's less overall instructional time.

There's a other isolated specific studies too supporting guided math--but they are fairly small---
In one experimental study, Guided Math (i.e. workshop model) was more effective for lower performing students in gen ed than traditional, structured whole group instruction, but equally effective for all other groups (except special ed)
Kroesbergen, E.H., van Luit, J.E. Teaching multiplication to low math performers: Guided versus structured instruction. Instructional Science 30, 361–378 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019880913714.

In another quasi experimental study: Look to Statement 6 for outcome findings. After teachers received professional development in guided math, student outcomes were higher in guided math than their prior traditional approach. But it's not a very rigorous study
http://www.ibii-us.org/Journals/JESD/V2N2/Publish/V2N2_7.pdf

I imagine you are an administrator getting your Ed.D in educational leadership - you people are like cancer.

Seriously, go teach in the classroom or get out of the building. You are the problem, not the solution.

Wow, you asked me for research. I did work to provide it. I am not an adminstrator but a f**ing volunteer math coach who works in a research organization. You are seriously the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The workshop model is one of those things that has been researched to be effective for student learning--and there is reasonably good evidence it does when implemented correctly under good conditions. But teachers need time to implement it well, and classroom conditions that are conducive to its success. That's not where we are at right now.

Not really. Or no better than others teaching methods.

+1 on the not really. Show me the research.

The primary evidence for the workshop/guided math model is related to the impact of flexible ability grouping on achievement--so when students receive math instruction targeted closely to their current ability in a given sub-math topic and then allowed to practice in class they perform higher than when the whole group of mixed ability children are taught as a whole at the same level. A 2018 meta-analysis--which is a statistical analysis of all available studies-- of studies on differentiation shows there are positive effects on mathematics achievement when you do within class, flexible homogenous ability groupings (which is what the Guided Math/Workshop model is) compared to traditional whole group instruction. Study: Marjolein I. Deunk, Annemieke E. Smale-Jacobse, Hester de Boer, Simone Doolaard, Roel J. Bosker, Effective differentiation Practices:A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on the cognitive effects of differentiation practices in primary education, Educational Research Review, Volume 24,
2018,
Pages 31-54,


Small group instruction time in guided math/workshop model is designed to include the evidence based strategies of multiple problem solving approaches, visual representations of problems alongside notational representations and immediate assessment of individual understanding: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/MPS_PG_043012.pdf) These are often included in traditional whole group instruction, but it is a lot harder to assess individual understanding in real-time in a group of 30 than in a group of 5-6.

The problem with implementation of the workshop model though is very real--and comes in when the behavior management issues are such that the children aren't actually practicing what they were taught during the others' small group instruction. And to do it well, teachers have to have accurate assessment of students' understanding levels in order to create the groups. When it doesn't work, it's worse than whole group traditional instruction because there's less overall instructional time.

There's a other isolated specific studies too supporting guided math--but they are fairly small---
In one experimental study, Guided Math (i.e. workshop model) was more effective for lower performing students in gen ed than traditional, structured whole group instruction, but equally effective for all other groups (except special ed)
Kroesbergen, E.H., van Luit, J.E. Teaching multiplication to low math performers: Guided versus structured instruction. Instructional Science 30, 361–378 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019880913714.

In another quasi experimental study: Look to Statement 6 for outcome findings. After teachers received professional development in guided math, student outcomes were higher in guided math than their prior traditional approach. But it's not a very rigorous study
http://www.ibii-us.org/Journals/JESD/V2N2/Publish/V2N2_7.pdf

Are you one of the CO/math coach people coming in and lecturing me and admin on how we need to only teach with workshop model? And then when we ask how exactly you see this being implemented in precalc and beyond at other schools, because we know it’s not, you look at us blankly and talk about the success you had in elementary and middle school? I’m so sick of hearing about workshop model from people with little to not classroom teaching experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The workshop model is one of those things that has been researched to be effective for student learning--and there is reasonably good evidence it does when implemented correctly under good conditions. But teachers need time to implement it well, and classroom conditions that are conducive to its success. That's not where we are at right now.

Not really. Or no better than others teaching methods.

+1 on the not really. Show me the research.

The primary evidence for the workshop/guided math model is related to the impact of flexible ability grouping on achievement--so when students receive math instruction targeted closely to their current ability in a given sub-math topic and then allowed to practice in class they perform higher than when the whole group of mixed ability children are taught as a whole at the same level. A 2018 meta-analysis--which is a statistical analysis of all available studies-- of studies on differentiation shows there are positive effects on mathematics achievement when you do within class, flexible homogenous ability groupings (which is what the Guided Math/Workshop model is) compared to traditional whole group instruction. Study: Marjolein I. Deunk, Annemieke E. Smale-Jacobse, Hester de Boer, Simone Doolaard, Roel J. Bosker, Effective differentiation Practices:A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on the cognitive effects of differentiation practices in primary education, Educational Research Review, Volume 24,
2018,
Pages 31-54,


Small group instruction time in guided math/workshop model is designed to include the evidence based strategies of multiple problem solving approaches, visual representations of problems alongside notational representations and immediate assessment of individual understanding: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/MPS_PG_043012.pdf) These are often included in traditional whole group instruction, but it is a lot harder to assess individual understanding in real-time in a group of 30 than in a group of 5-6.

The problem with implementation of the workshop model though is very real--and comes in when the behavior management issues are such that the children aren't actually practicing what they were taught during the others' small group instruction. And to do it well, teachers have to have accurate assessment of students' understanding levels in order to create the groups. When it doesn't work, it's worse than whole group traditional instruction because there's less overall instructional time.

There's a other isolated specific studies too supporting guided math--but they are fairly small---
In one experimental study, Guided Math (i.e. workshop model) was more effective for lower performing students in gen ed than traditional, structured whole group instruction, but equally effective for all other groups (except special ed)
Kroesbergen, E.H., van Luit, J.E. Teaching multiplication to low math performers: Guided versus structured instruction. Instructional Science 30, 361–378 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019880913714.

In another quasi experimental study: Look to Statement 6 for outcome findings. After teachers received professional development in guided math, student outcomes were higher in guided math than their prior traditional approach. But it's not a very rigorous study
http://www.ibii-us.org/Journals/JESD/V2N2/Publish/V2N2_7.pdf

I imagine you are an administrator getting your Ed.D in educational leadership - you people are like cancer.

Seriously, go teach in the classroom or get out of the building. You are the problem, not the solution.

Wow, you asked me for research. I did work to provide it. I am not an adminstrator but a f**ing volunteer math coach who works in a research organization. You are seriously the problem.

HS math teacher again. I just read this and called it. A math coach…those are the latest people coming in and telling us better ways to do our job even though they don’t have any experience. It’s a main reason I am thinking of retiring early. They create work and then create meetings wanting to look at all of their data. That’s all education is about now. New methods and data. Not about teaching.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The workshop model is one of those things that has been researched to be effective for student learning--and there is reasonably good evidence it does when implemented correctly under good conditions. But teachers need time to implement it well, and classroom conditions that are conducive to its success. That's not where we are at right now.

Not really. Or no better than others teaching methods.

+1 on the not really. Show me the research.

The primary evidence for the workshop/guided math model is related to the impact of flexible ability grouping on achievement--so when students receive math instruction targeted closely to their current ability in a given sub-math topic and then allowed to practice in class they perform higher than when the whole group of mixed ability children are taught as a whole at the same level. A 2018 meta-analysis--which is a statistical analysis of all available studies-- of studies on differentiation shows there are positive effects on mathematics achievement when you do within class, flexible homogenous ability groupings (which is what the Guided Math/Workshop model is) compared to traditional whole group instruction. Study: Marjolein I. Deunk, Annemieke E. Smale-Jacobse, Hester de Boer, Simone Doolaard, Roel J. Bosker, Effective differentiation Practices:A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on the cognitive effects of differentiation practices in primary education, Educational Research Review, Volume 24,
2018,
Pages 31-54,


Small group instruction time in guided math/workshop model is designed to include the evidence based strategies of multiple problem solving approaches, visual representations of problems alongside notational representations and immediate assessment of individual understanding: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/MPS_PG_043012.pdf) These are often included in traditional whole group instruction, but it is a lot harder to assess individual understanding in real-time in a group of 30 than in a group of 5-6.

The problem with implementation of the workshop model though is very real--and comes in when the behavior management issues are such that the children aren't actually practicing what they were taught during the others' small group instruction. And to do it well, teachers have to have accurate assessment of students' understanding levels in order to create the groups. When it doesn't work, it's worse than whole group traditional instruction because there's less overall instructional time.

There's a other isolated specific studies too supporting guided math--but they are fairly small---
In one experimental study, Guided Math (i.e. workshop model) was more effective for lower performing students in gen ed than traditional, structured whole group instruction, but equally effective for all other groups (except special ed)
Kroesbergen, E.H., van Luit, J.E. Teaching multiplication to low math performers: Guided versus structured instruction. Instructional Science 30, 361–378 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019880913714.

In another quasi experimental study: Look to Statement 6 for outcome findings. After teachers received professional development in guided math, student outcomes were higher in guided math than their prior traditional approach. But it's not a very rigorous study
http://www.ibii-us.org/Journals/JESD/V2N2/Publish/V2N2_7.pdf

I imagine you are an administrator getting your Ed.D in educational leadership - you people are like cancer.

Seriously, go teach in the classroom or get out of the building. You are the problem, not the solution.

Wow, you asked me for research. I did work to provide it. I am not an adminstrator but a f**ing volunteer math coach who works in a research organization. You are seriously the problem.

HS math teacher again. I just read this and called it. A math coach…those are the latest people coming in and telling us better ways to do our job even though they don’t have any experience. It’s a main reason I am thinking of retiring early. They create work and then create meetings wanting to look at all of their data. That’s all education is about now. New methods and data. Not about teaching.

I told you what I do--I do data and policy analysis as my full-time job. I am a math coach for STUDENTS one day a week. Not teachers. As a volunteer. I am a volunteer who comes in and works with the elementary school students at my neighborhood school DURING MATH WORKSHOP TIME while the teacher provides instruction to the others. Because I do research all the time I was curious about the evidence base for the strategy. Jeez. You are jumping to a lot of conclusions here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The workshop model is one of those things that has been researched to be effective for student learning--and there is reasonably good evidence it does when implemented correctly under good conditions. But teachers need time to implement it well, and classroom conditions that are conducive to its success. That's not where we are at right now.

Not really. Or no better than others teaching methods.

+1 on the not really. Show me the research.

The primary evidence for the workshop/guided math model is related to the impact of flexible ability grouping on achievement--so when students receive math instruction targeted closely to their current ability in a given sub-math topic and then allowed to practice in class they perform higher than when the whole group of mixed ability children are taught as a whole at the same level. A 2018 meta-analysis--which is a statistical analysis of all available studies-- of studies on differentiation shows there are positive effects on mathematics achievement when you do within class, flexible homogenous ability groupings (which is what the Guided Math/Workshop model is) compared to traditional whole group instruction. Study: Marjolein I. Deunk, Annemieke E. Smale-Jacobse, Hester de Boer, Simone Doolaard, Roel J. Bosker, Effective differentiation Practices:A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on the cognitive effects of differentiation practices in primary education, Educational Research Review, Volume 24,
2018,
Pages 31-54,


Small group instruction time in guided math/workshop model is designed to include the evidence based strategies of multiple problem solving approaches, visual representations of problems alongside notational representations and immediate assessment of individual understanding: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/MPS_PG_043012.pdf) These are often included in traditional whole group instruction, but it is a lot harder to assess individual understanding in real-time in a group of 30 than in a group of 5-6.

The problem with implementation of the workshop model though is very real--and comes in when the behavior management issues are such that the children aren't actually practicing what they were taught during the others' small group instruction. And to do it well, teachers have to have accurate assessment of students' understanding levels in order to create the groups. When it doesn't work, it's worse than whole group traditional instruction because there's less overall instructional time.

There's a other isolated specific studies too supporting guided math--but they are fairly small---
In one experimental study, Guided Math (i.e. workshop model) was more effective for lower performing students in gen ed than traditional, structured whole group instruction, but equally effective for all other groups (except special ed)
Kroesbergen, E.H., van Luit, J.E. Teaching multiplication to low math performers: Guided versus structured instruction. Instructional Science 30, 361–378 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019880913714.

In another quasi experimental study: Look to Statement 6 for outcome findings. After teachers received professional development in guided math, student outcomes were higher in guided math than their prior traditional approach. But it's not a very rigorous study
http://www.ibii-us.org/Journals/JESD/V2N2/Publish/V2N2_7.pdf

I imagine you are an administrator getting your Ed.D in educational leadership - you people are like cancer.

Seriously, go teach in the classroom or get out of the building. You are the problem, not the solution.

Exactly. Go reteach/remodel the workshop model, because the kids did not understand the assignment 😒

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The workshop model is one of those things that has been researched to be effective for student learning--and there is reasonably good evidence it does when implemented correctly under good conditions. But teachers need time to implement it well, and classroom conditions that are conducive to its success. That's not where we are at right now.

Not really. Or no better than others teaching methods.

+1 on the not really. Show me the research.

The primary evidence for the workshop/guided math model is related to the impact of flexible ability grouping on achievement--so when students receive math instruction targeted closely to their current ability in a given sub-math topic and then allowed to practice in class they perform higher than when the whole group of mixed ability children are taught as a whole at the same level. A 2018 meta-analysis--which is a statistical analysis of all available studies-- of studies on differentiation shows there are positive effects on mathematics achievement when you do within class, flexible homogenous ability groupings (which is what the Guided Math/Workshop model is) compared to traditional whole group instruction. Study: Marjolein I. Deunk, Annemieke E. Smale-Jacobse, Hester de Boer, Simone Doolaard, Roel J. Bosker, Effective differentiation Practices:A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on the cognitive effects of differentiation practices in primary education, Educational Research Review, Volume 24,
2018,
Pages 31-54,


Small group instruction time in guided math/workshop model is designed to include the evidence based strategies of multiple problem solving approaches, visual representations of problems alongside notational representations and immediate assessment of individual understanding: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/MPS_PG_043012.pdf) These are often included in traditional whole group instruction, but it is a lot harder to assess individual understanding in real-time in a group of 30 than in a group of 5-6.

The problem with implementation of the workshop model though is very real--and comes in when the behavior management issues are such that the children aren't actually practicing what they were taught during the others' small group instruction. And to do it well, teachers have to have accurate assessment of students' understanding levels in order to create the groups. When it doesn't work, it's worse than whole group traditional instruction because there's less overall instructional time.

There's a other isolated specific studies too supporting guided math--but they are fairly small---
In one experimental study, Guided Math (i.e. workshop model) was more effective for lower performing students in gen ed than traditional, structured whole group instruction, but equally effective for all other groups (except special ed)
Kroesbergen, E.H., van Luit, J.E. Teaching multiplication to low math performers: Guided versus structured instruction. Instructional Science 30, 361–378 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019880913714.

In another quasi experimental study: Look to Statement 6 for outcome findings. After teachers received professional development in guided math, student outcomes were higher in guided math than their prior traditional approach. But it's not a very rigorous study
http://www.ibii-us.org/Journals/JESD/V2N2/Publish/V2N2_7.pdf

I imagine you are an administrator getting your Ed.D in educational leadership - you people are like cancer.

Seriously, go teach in the classroom or get out of the building. You are the problem, not the solution.

Exactly. Go reteach/remodel the workshop model, because the kids did not understand the assignment 😒

Wow, that's the last time I'll provide research when people ask for it! One more time: I am not an administrator. I am a person who works for a research organization who has a PhD in cognitive psychology but a BS/MS in math. I volunteer to help a teacher out during math classes each week. I independently== out of my own interest--- researched the evidence for the guided math workshop model they use so I could understand it more. Basically the research says it's effective but hard to implement-- and that's basically what I see in the classroom too. I normally support teachers 100, but I have to admit if y'all are teachers I'm bothered by the way you're jumping to conclusions without evidence about me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The workshop model is one of those things that has been researched to be effective for student learning--and there is reasonably good evidence it does when implemented correctly under good conditions. But teachers need time to implement it well, and classroom conditions that are conducive to its success. That's not where we are at right now.

Not really. Or no better than others teaching methods.

+1 on the not really. Show me the research.

The primary evidence for the workshop/guided math model is related to the impact of flexible ability grouping on achievement--so when students receive math instruction targeted closely to their current ability in a given sub-math topic and then allowed to practice in class they perform higher than when the whole group of mixed ability children are taught as a whole at the same level. A 2018 meta-analysis--which is a statistical analysis of all available studies-- of studies on differentiation shows there are positive effects on mathematics achievement when you do within class, flexible homogenous ability groupings (which is what the Guided Math/Workshop model is) compared to traditional whole group instruction. Study: Marjolein I. Deunk, Annemieke E. Smale-Jacobse, Hester de Boer, Simone Doolaard, Roel J. Bosker, Effective differentiation Practices:A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on the cognitive effects of differentiation practices in primary education, Educational Research Review, Volume 24,
2018,
Pages 31-54,


Small group instruction time in guided math/workshop model is designed to include the evidence based strategies of multiple problem solving approaches, visual representations of problems alongside notational representations and immediate assessment of individual understanding: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/MPS_PG_043012.pdf) These are often included in traditional whole group instruction, but it is a lot harder to assess individual understanding in real-time in a group of 30 than in a group of 5-6.

The problem with implementation of the workshop model though is very real--and comes in when the behavior management issues are such that the children aren't actually practicing what they were taught during the others' small group instruction. And to do it well, teachers have to have accurate assessment of students' understanding levels in order to create the groups. When it doesn't work, it's worse than whole group traditional instruction because there's less overall instructional time.

There's a other isolated specific studies too supporting guided math--but they are fairly small---
In one experimental study, Guided Math (i.e. workshop model) was more effective for lower performing students in gen ed than traditional, structured whole group instruction, but equally effective for all other groups (except special ed)
Kroesbergen, E.H., van Luit, J.E. Teaching multiplication to low math performers: Guided versus structured instruction. Instructional Science 30, 361–378 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019880913714.

In another quasi experimental study: Look to Statement 6 for outcome findings. After teachers received professional development in guided math, student outcomes were higher in guided math than their prior traditional approach. But it's not a very rigorous study
http://www.ibii-us.org/Journals/JESD/V2N2/Publish/V2N2_7.pdf

I imagine you are an administrator getting your Ed.D in educational leadership - you people are like cancer.

Seriously, go teach in the classroom or get out of the building. You are the problem, not the solution.

Exactly. Go reteach/remodel the workshop model, because the kids did not understand the assignment 😒

Wow, that's the last time I'll provide research when people ask for it! One more time: I am not an administrator. I am a person who works for a research organization who has a PhD in cognitive psychology but a BS/MS in math. I volunteer to help a teacher out during math classes each week. I independently== out of my own interest--- researched the evidence for the guided math workshop model they use so I could understand it more. Basically the research says it's effective but hard to implement-- and that's basically what I see in the classroom too. I normally support teachers 100, but I have to admit if y'all are teachers I'm bothered by the way you're jumping to conclusions without evidence about me.

HS math teacher back again. Instead of doing this, why don’t you apply to be a substitute? You could work as little or as much as you like and actually help teachers AND students. There are students every day in classes where they can’t find a substitute. You really want to make a difference and have time to volunteer? Substitute. You will even get a little pay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The workshop model is one of those things that has been researched to be effective for student learning--and there is reasonably good evidence it does when implemented correctly under good conditions. But teachers need time to implement it well, and classroom conditions that are conducive to its success. That's not where we are at right now.

Not really. Or no better than others teaching methods.

+1 on the not really. Show me the research.

The primary evidence for the workshop/guided math model is related to the impact of flexible ability grouping on achievement--so when students receive math instruction targeted closely to their current ability in a given sub-math topic and then allowed to practice in class they perform higher than when the whole group of mixed ability children are taught as a whole at the same level. A 2018 meta-analysis--which is a statistical analysis of all available studies-- of studies on differentiation shows there are positive effects on mathematics achievement when you do within class, flexible homogenous ability groupings (which is what the Guided Math/Workshop model is) compared to traditional whole group instruction. Study: Marjolein I. Deunk, Annemieke E. Smale-Jacobse, Hester de Boer, Simone Doolaard, Roel J. Bosker, Effective differentiation Practices:A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on the cognitive effects of differentiation practices in primary education, Educational Research Review, Volume 24,
2018,
Pages 31-54,


Small group instruction time in guided math/workshop model is designed to include the evidence based strategies of multiple problem solving approaches, visual representations of problems alongside notational representations and immediate assessment of individual understanding: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/MPS_PG_043012.pdf) These are often included in traditional whole group instruction, but it is a lot harder to assess individual understanding in real-time in a group of 30 than in a group of 5-6.

The problem with implementation of the workshop model though is very real--and comes in when the behavior management issues are such that the children aren't actually practicing what they were taught during the others' small group instruction. And to do it well, teachers have to have accurate assessment of students' understanding levels in order to create the groups. When it doesn't work, it's worse than whole group traditional instruction because there's less overall instructional time.

There's a other isolated specific studies too supporting guided math--but they are fairly small---
In one experimental study, Guided Math (i.e. workshop model) was more effective for lower performing students in gen ed than traditional, structured whole group instruction, but equally effective for all other groups (except special ed)
Kroesbergen, E.H., van Luit, J.E. Teaching multiplication to low math performers: Guided versus structured instruction. Instructional Science 30, 361–378 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019880913714.

In another quasi experimental study: Look to Statement 6 for outcome findings. After teachers received professional development in guided math, student outcomes were higher in guided math than their prior traditional approach. But it's not a very rigorous study
http://www.ibii-us.org/Journals/JESD/V2N2/Publish/V2N2_7.pdf

I imagine you are an administrator getting your Ed.D in educational leadership - you people are like cancer.

Seriously, go teach in the classroom or get out of the building. You are the problem, not the solution.

Exactly. Go reteach/remodel the workshop model, because the kids did not understand the assignment 😒

Wow, that's the last time I'll provide research when people ask for it! One more time: I am not an administrator. I am a person who works for a research organization who has a PhD in cognitive psychology but a BS/MS in math. I volunteer to help a teacher out during math classes each week. I independently== out of my own interest--- researched the evidence for the guided math workshop model they use so I could understand it more. Basically the research says it's effective but hard to implement-- and that's basically what I see in the classroom too. I normally support teachers 100, but I have to admit if y'all are teachers I'm bothered by the way you're jumping to conclusions without evidence about me.

HS math teacher back again. Instead of doing this, why don’t you apply to be a substitute? You could work as little or as much as you like and actually help teachers AND students. There are students every day in classes where they can’t find a substitute. You really want to make a difference and have time to volunteer? Substitute. You will even get a little pay.

HS math teacher you should be ashamed for jumping on a school volunteer who is teaching kids without any compensation. The person is making a difference by donating time to work one on one with kids which frees up people like you to teach other kids in smaller groups. If you took the time to read the person’s post he said he/she said he had a full time job. Presumably one with more career potential than being a sub.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The workshop model is one of those things that has been researched to be effective for student learning--and there is reasonably good evidence it does when implemented correctly under good conditions. But teachers need time to implement it well, and classroom conditions that are conducive to its success. That's not where we are at right now.

Not really. Or no better than others teaching methods.

+1 on the not really. Show me the research.

The primary evidence for the workshop/guided math model is related to the impact of flexible ability grouping on achievement--so when students receive math instruction targeted closely to their current ability in a given sub-math topic and then allowed to practice in class they perform higher than when the whole group of mixed ability children are taught as a whole at the same level. A 2018 meta-analysis--which is a statistical analysis of all available studies-- of studies on differentiation shows there are positive effects on mathematics achievement when you do within class, flexible homogenous ability groupings (which is what the Guided Math/Workshop model is) compared to traditional whole group instruction. Study: Marjolein I. Deunk, Annemieke E. Smale-Jacobse, Hester de Boer, Simone Doolaard, Roel J. Bosker, Effective differentiation Practices:A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on the cognitive effects of differentiation practices in primary education, Educational Research Review, Volume 24,
2018,
Pages 31-54,


Small group instruction time in guided math/workshop model is designed to include the evidence based strategies of multiple problem solving approaches, visual representations of problems alongside notational representations and immediate assessment of individual understanding: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/MPS_PG_043012.pdf) These are often included in traditional whole group instruction, but it is a lot harder to assess individual understanding in real-time in a group of 30 than in a group of 5-6.

The problem with implementation of the workshop model though is very real--and comes in when the behavior management issues are such that the children aren't actually practicing what they were taught during the others' small group instruction. And to do it well, teachers have to have accurate assessment of students' understanding levels in order to create the groups. When it doesn't work, it's worse than whole group traditional instruction because there's less overall instructional time.

There's a other isolated specific studies too supporting guided math--but they are fairly small---
In one experimental study, Guided Math (i.e. workshop model) was more effective for lower performing students in gen ed than traditional, structured whole group instruction, but equally effective for all other groups (except special ed)
Kroesbergen, E.H., van Luit, J.E. Teaching multiplication to low math performers: Guided versus structured instruction. Instructional Science 30, 361–378 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019880913714.

In another quasi experimental study: Look to Statement 6 for outcome findings. After teachers received professional development in guided math, student outcomes were higher in guided math than their prior traditional approach. But it's not a very rigorous study
http://www.ibii-us.org/Journals/JESD/V2N2/Publish/V2N2_7.pdf

I imagine you are an administrator getting your Ed.D in educational leadership - you people are like cancer.

Seriously, go teach in the classroom or get out of the building. You are the problem, not the solution.

Exactly. Go reteach/remodel the workshop model, because the kids did not understand the assignment 😒

Wow, that's the last time I'll provide research when people ask for it! One more time: I am not an administrator. I am a person who works for a research organization who has a PhD in cognitive psychology but a BS/MS in math. I volunteer to help a teacher out during math classes each week. I independently== out of my own interest--- researched the evidence for the guided math workshop model they use so I could understand it more. Basically the research says it's effective but hard to implement-- and that's basically what I see in the classroom too. I normally support teachers 100, but I have to admit if y'all are teachers I'm bothered by the way you're jumping to conclusions without evidence about me.

HS math teacher back again. Instead of doing this, why don’t you apply to be a substitute? You could work as little or as much as you like and actually help teachers AND students. There are students every day in classes where they can’t find a substitute. You really want to make a difference and have time to volunteer? Substitute. You will even get a little pay.

HS math teacher you should be ashamed for jumping on a school volunteer who is teaching kids without any compensation. The person is making a difference by donating time to work one on one with kids which frees up people like you to teach other kids in smaller groups. If you took the time to read the person’s post he said he/she said he had a full time job. Presumably one with more career potential than being a sub.

+1 someone with a PhD in cognitive psych and a BS degree in math would be someone schools would be dying to have, particularly since there is such a shortage of teachers with STEM qualifications. This HS teacher sounds dim and mean.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The workshop model is one of those things that has been researched to be effective for student learning--and there is reasonably good evidence it does when implemented correctly under good conditions. But teachers need time to implement it well, and classroom conditions that are conducive to its success. That's not where we are at right now.

Not really. Or no better than others teaching methods.

+1 on the not really. Show me the research.

The primary evidence for the workshop/guided math model is related to the impact of flexible ability grouping on achievement--so when students receive math instruction targeted closely to their current ability in a given sub-math topic and then allowed to practice in class they perform higher than when the whole group of mixed ability children are taught as a whole at the same level. A 2018 meta-analysis--which is a statistical analysis of all available studies-- of studies on differentiation shows there are positive effects on mathematics achievement when you do within class, flexible homogenous ability groupings (which is what the Guided Math/Workshop model is) compared to traditional whole group instruction. Study: Marjolein I. Deunk, Annemieke E. Smale-Jacobse, Hester de Boer, Simone Doolaard, Roel J. Bosker, Effective differentiation Practices:A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on the cognitive effects of differentiation practices in primary education, Educational Research Review, Volume 24,
2018,
Pages 31-54,


Small group instruction time in guided math/workshop model is designed to include the evidence based strategies of multiple problem solving approaches, visual representations of problems alongside notational representations and immediate assessment of individual understanding: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/MPS_PG_043012.pdf) These are often included in traditional whole group instruction, but it is a lot harder to assess individual understanding in real-time in a group of 30 than in a group of 5-6.

The problem with implementation of the workshop model though is very real--and comes in when the behavior management issues are such that the children aren't actually practicing what they were taught during the others' small group instruction. And to do it well, teachers have to have accurate assessment of students' understanding levels in order to create the groups. When it doesn't work, it's worse than whole group traditional instruction because there's less overall instructional time.

There's a other isolated specific studies too supporting guided math--but they are fairly small---
In one experimental study, Guided Math (i.e. workshop model) was more effective for lower performing students in gen ed than traditional, structured whole group instruction, but equally effective for all other groups (except special ed)
Kroesbergen, E.H., van Luit, J.E. Teaching multiplication to low math performers: Guided versus structured instruction. Instructional Science 30, 361–378 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019880913714.

In another quasi experimental study: Look to Statement 6 for outcome findings. After teachers received professional development in guided math, student outcomes were higher in guided math than their prior traditional approach. But it's not a very rigorous study
http://www.ibii-us.org/Journals/JESD/V2N2/Publish/V2N2_7.pdf

I imagine you are an administrator getting your Ed.D in educational leadership - you people are like cancer.

Seriously, go teach in the classroom or get out of the building. You are the problem, not the solution.

Exactly. Go reteach/remodel the workshop model, because the kids did not understand the assignment 😒

Wow, that's the last time I'll provide research when people ask for it! One more time: I am not an administrator. I am a person who works for a research organization who has a PhD in cognitive psychology but a BS/MS in math. I volunteer to help a teacher out during math classes each week. I independently== out of my own interest--- researched the evidence for the guided math workshop model they use so I could understand it more. Basically the research says it's effective but hard to implement-- and that's basically what I see in the classroom too. I normally support teachers 100, but I have to admit if y'all are teachers I'm bothered by the way you're jumping to conclusions without evidence about me.

HS math teacher back again. Instead of doing this, why don’t you apply to be a substitute? You could work as little or as much as you like and actually help teachers AND students. There are students every day in classes where they can’t find a substitute. You really want to make a difference and have time to volunteer? Substitute. You will even get a little pay.

I have about 3 hours I can spare a week (I work partially remotely at a full-time job so on the days that I work at home I run up to the neighborhood school to help with math ). I asked the school what they need me most for and it is working with small groups doing math instruction in workshops. I used to run Math Olympiad teams, but I wanted to help kids who struggle with math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The workshop model is one of those things that has been researched to be effective for student learning--and there is reasonably good evidence it does when implemented correctly under good conditions. But teachers need time to implement it well, and classroom conditions that are conducive to its success. That's not where we are at right now.

Not really. Or no better than others teaching methods.

+1 on the not really. Show me the research.

The primary evidence for the workshop/guided math model is related to the impact of flexible ability grouping on achievement--so when students receive math instruction targeted closely to their current ability in a given sub-math topic and then allowed to practice in class they perform higher than when the whole group of mixed ability children are taught as a whole at the same level. A 2018 meta-analysis--which is a statistical analysis of all available studies-- of studies on differentiation shows there are positive effects on mathematics achievement when you do within class, flexible homogenous ability groupings (which is what the Guided Math/Workshop model is) compared to traditional whole group instruction. Study: Marjolein I. Deunk, Annemieke E. Smale-Jacobse, Hester de Boer, Simone Doolaard, Roel J. Bosker, Effective differentiation Practices:A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on the cognitive effects of differentiation practices in primary education, Educational Research Review, Volume 24,
2018,
Pages 31-54,


Small group instruction time in guided math/workshop model is designed to include the evidence based strategies of multiple problem solving approaches, visual representations of problems alongside notational representations and immediate assessment of individual understanding: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/MPS_PG_043012.pdf) These are often included in traditional whole group instruction, but it is a lot harder to assess individual understanding in real-time in a group of 30 than in a group of 5-6.

The problem with implementation of the workshop model though is very real--and comes in when the behavior management issues are such that the children aren't actually practicing what they were taught during the others' small group instruction. And to do it well, teachers have to have accurate assessment of students' understanding levels in order to create the groups. When it doesn't work, it's worse than whole group traditional instruction because there's less overall instructional time.

There's a other isolated specific studies too supporting guided math--but they are fairly small---
In one experimental study, Guided Math (i.e. workshop model) was more effective for lower performing students in gen ed than traditional, structured whole group instruction, but equally effective for all other groups (except special ed)
Kroesbergen, E.H., van Luit, J.E. Teaching multiplication to low math performers: Guided versus structured instruction. Instructional Science 30, 361–378 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019880913714.

In another quasi experimental study: Look to Statement 6 for outcome findings. After teachers received professional development in guided math, student outcomes were higher in guided math than their prior traditional approach. But it's not a very rigorous study
http://www.ibii-us.org/Journals/JESD/V2N2/Publish/V2N2_7.pdf

I imagine you are an administrator getting your Ed.D in educational leadership - you people are like cancer.

Seriously, go teach in the classroom or get out of the building. You are the problem, not the solution.

Exactly. Go reteach/remodel the workshop model, because the kids did not understand the assignment 😒

Wow, that's the last time I'll provide research when people ask for it! One more time: I am not an administrator. I am a person who works for a research organization who has a PhD in cognitive psychology but a BS/MS in math. I volunteer to help a teacher out during math classes each week. I independently== out of my own interest--- researched the evidence for the guided math workshop model they use so I could understand it more. Basically the research says it's effective but hard to implement-- and that's basically what I see in the classroom too. I normally support teachers 100, but I have to admit if y'all are teachers I'm bothered by the way you're jumping to conclusions without evidence about me.

HS math teacher back again. Instead of doing this, why don’t you apply to be a substitute? You could work as little or as much as you like and actually help teachers AND students. There are students every day in classes where they can’t find a substitute. You really want to make a difference and have time to volunteer? Substitute. You will even get a little pay.

HS math teacher you should be ashamed for jumping on a school volunteer who is teaching kids without any compensation. The person is making a difference by donating time to work one on one with kids which frees up people like you to teach other kids in smaller groups. If you took the time to read the person’s post he said he/she said he had a full time job. Presumably one with more career potential than being a sub.

+1 someone with a PhD in cognitive psych and a BS degree in math would be someone schools would be dying to have, particularly since there is such a shortage of teachers with STEM qualifications. This HS teacher sounds dim and mean.

DP. The workshop model is entirely inappropriate for high school. The HS math teacher sounds rightfully fed up.

I assume the parent volunteer is volunteering at an elementary school. Personally, I'm glad our elementary school dropped the workshop model after 2nd grade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That sucks, and I'm sorry. There must be something really difficult going on in that teacher's life right to make such a decision.

She probably got fed up with the a-hole parents.

Honestly, this is probably accurate.

I wouldn't blame her.

Not this late in the year. It’s unprofessional and rude. Anyone can work another 6 weeks. That’s a really $hitty thing to do to her students. Just finish the damn year and move on.

You have no idea what might be going on with her or her family. Just STFU.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The workshop model is one of those things that has been researched to be effective for student learning--and there is reasonably good evidence it does when implemented correctly under good conditions. But teachers need time to implement it well, and classroom conditions that are conducive to its success. That's not where we are at right now.

Not really. Or no better than others teaching methods.

+1 on the not really. Show me the research.

The primary evidence for the workshop/guided math model is related to the impact of flexible ability grouping on achievement--so when students receive math instruction targeted closely to their current ability in a given sub-math topic and then allowed to practice in class they perform higher than when the whole group of mixed ability children are taught as a whole at the same level. A 2018 meta-analysis--which is a statistical analysis of all available studies-- of studies on differentiation shows there are positive effects on mathematics achievement when you do within class, flexible homogenous ability groupings (which is what the Guided Math/Workshop model is) compared to traditional whole group instruction. Study: Marjolein I. Deunk, Annemieke E. Smale-Jacobse, Hester de Boer, Simone Doolaard, Roel J. Bosker, Effective differentiation Practices:A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on the cognitive effects of differentiation practices in primary education, Educational Research Review, Volume 24,
2018,
Pages 31-54,


Small group instruction time in guided math/workshop model is designed to include the evidence based strategies of multiple problem solving approaches, visual representations of problems alongside notational representations and immediate assessment of individual understanding: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/MPS_PG_043012.pdf) These are often included in traditional whole group instruction, but it is a lot harder to assess individual understanding in real-time in a group of 30 than in a group of 5-6.

The problem with implementation of the workshop model though is very real--and comes in when the behavior management issues are such that the children aren't actually practicing what they were taught during the others' small group instruction. And to do it well, teachers have to have accurate assessment of students' understanding levels in order to create the groups. When it doesn't work, it's worse than whole group traditional instruction because there's less overall instructional time.

There's a other isolated specific studies too supporting guided math--but they are fairly small---
In one experimental study, Guided Math (i.e. workshop model) was more effective for lower performing students in gen ed than traditional, structured whole group instruction, but equally effective for all other groups (except special ed)
Kroesbergen, E.H., van Luit, J.E. Teaching multiplication to low math performers: Guided versus structured instruction. Instructional Science 30, 361–378 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019880913714.

In another quasi experimental study: Look to Statement 6 for outcome findings. After teachers received professional development in guided math, student outcomes were higher in guided math than their prior traditional approach. But it's not a very rigorous study
http://www.ibii-us.org/Journals/JESD/V2N2/Publish/V2N2_7.pdf

I imagine you are an administrator getting your Ed.D in educational leadership - you people are like cancer.

Seriously, go teach in the classroom or get out of the building. You are the problem, not the solution.

Exactly. Go reteach/remodel the workshop model, because the kids did not understand the assignment 😒

Wow, that's the last time I'll provide research when people ask for it! One more time: I am not an administrator. I am a person who works for a research organization who has a PhD in cognitive psychology but a BS/MS in math. I volunteer to help a teacher out during math classes each week. I independently== out of my own interest--- researched the evidence for the guided math workshop model they use so I could understand it more. Basically the research says it's effective but hard to implement-- and that's basically what I see in the classroom too. I normally support teachers 100, but I have to admit if y'all are teachers I'm bothered by the way you're jumping to conclusions without evidence about me.

HS math teacher back again. Instead of doing this, why don’t you apply to be a substitute? You could work as little or as much as you like and actually help teachers AND students. There are students every day in classes where they can’t find a substitute. You really want to make a difference and have time to volunteer? Substitute. You will even get a little pay.

HS math teacher you should be ashamed for jumping on a school volunteer who is teaching kids without any compensation. The person is making a difference by donating time to work one on one with kids which frees up people like you to teach other kids in smaller groups. If you took the time to read the person’s post he said he/she said he had a full time job. Presumably one with more career potential than being a sub.

+1 someone with a PhD in cognitive psych and a BS degree in math would be someone schools would be dying to have, particularly since there is such a shortage of teachers with STEM qualifications. This HS teacher sounds dim and mean.

DP. The workshop model is entirely inappropriate for high school. The HS math teacher sounds rightfully fed up.

I assume the parent volunteer is volunteering at an elementary school. Personally, I'm glad our elementary school dropped the workshop model after 2nd grade.

Yes, I apologize to the volunteer. I jumped on you and I was wrong. I’m not ashamed, but an example of a teacher who has reached her max and possibly breaking point. This thread is about teachers quitting mid year and hearing the words math coach and workshop model prompted a strong and misplaced reaction. It’s being pushed at my high school and we are constantly in meetings now with math coaches. I hope it’s working out better if you are volunteering with little kids.

No, I am not planning on quitting mid year. Sorry I joined in the off topic discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The workshop model is one of those things that has been researched to be effective for student learning--and there is reasonably good evidence it does when implemented correctly under good conditions. But teachers need time to implement it well, and classroom conditions that are conducive to its success. That's not where we are at right now.

Not really. Or no better than others teaching methods.

+1 on the not really. Show me the research.

The primary evidence for the workshop/guided math model is related to the impact of flexible ability grouping on achievement--so when students receive math instruction targeted closely to their current ability in a given sub-math topic and then allowed to practice in class they perform higher than when the whole group of mixed ability children are taught as a whole at the same level. A 2018 meta-analysis--which is a statistical analysis of all available studies-- of studies on differentiation shows there are positive effects on mathematics achievement when you do within class, flexible homogenous ability groupings (which is what the Guided Math/Workshop model is) compared to traditional whole group instruction. Study: Marjolein I. Deunk, Annemieke E. Smale-Jacobse, Hester de Boer, Simone Doolaard, Roel J. Bosker, Effective differentiation Practices:A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on the cognitive effects of differentiation practices in primary education, Educational Research Review, Volume 24,
2018,
Pages 31-54,


Small group instruction time in guided math/workshop model is designed to include the evidence based strategies of multiple problem solving approaches, visual representations of problems alongside notational representations and immediate assessment of individual understanding: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/MPS_PG_043012.pdf) These are often included in traditional whole group instruction, but it is a lot harder to assess individual understanding in real-time in a group of 30 than in a group of 5-6.

The problem with implementation of the workshop model though is very real--and comes in when the behavior management issues are such that the children aren't actually practicing what they were taught during the others' small group instruction. And to do it well, teachers have to have accurate assessment of students' understanding levels in order to create the groups. When it doesn't work, it's worse than whole group traditional instruction because there's less overall instructional time.

There's a other isolated specific studies too supporting guided math--but they are fairly small---
In one experimental study, Guided Math (i.e. workshop model) was more effective for lower performing students in gen ed than traditional, structured whole group instruction, but equally effective for all other groups (except special ed)
Kroesbergen, E.H., van Luit, J.E. Teaching multiplication to low math performers: Guided versus structured instruction. Instructional Science 30, 361–378 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019880913714.

In another quasi experimental study: Look to Statement 6 for outcome findings. After teachers received professional development in guided math, student outcomes were higher in guided math than their prior traditional approach. But it's not a very rigorous study
http://www.ibii-us.org/Journals/JESD/V2N2/Publish/V2N2_7.pdf

I imagine you are an administrator getting your Ed.D in educational leadership - you people are like cancer.

Seriously, go teach in the classroom or get out of the building. You are the problem, not the solution.

Exactly. Go reteach/remodel the workshop model, because the kids did not understand the assignment 😒

Wow, that's the last time I'll provide research when people ask for it! One more time: I am not an administrator. I am a person who works for a research organization who has a PhD in cognitive psychology but a BS/MS in math. I volunteer to help a teacher out during math classes each week. I independently== out of my own interest--- researched the evidence for the guided math workshop model they use so I could understand it more. Basically the research says it's effective but hard to implement-- and that's basically what I see in the classroom too. I normally support teachers 100, but I have to admit if y'all are teachers I'm bothered by the way you're jumping to conclusions without evidence about me.

PP here (16:50, p. 23). I posted about the difficulty of implementing math workshop. I appreciate your posts, thank you.

I have taken a few of the FCPS classes on Math Workshop. Targeted, small group instruction makes sense. Flexible grouping makes sense. As you say, it is hard to implement. If I only had to plan for math it might be doable, but there is also Morning Meeting, Writer's Workshop, Reading Workshop, science, social studies and an intervention block, not to mention any administrative tasks. I have an hour a day for planning, but two of those are scheduled CTs which IMO are not that productive.

There just isn't enough time to assess, evaluate, plan, gather/create materials, and implement Math Workshop effectively. We (my grade level team) are basically planning day to day.

As far as student behaviors, I find that in a class of almost 30 students it is rare that all students are able to be self-guided for long periods of time. In a class that has ~1/5 who become disruptive, it is very difficult to meet with small groups without interruption.