We have spent the bulk of the semester thinking about grouping, and whether a teacher's grouping strategy has an effect on student achievement. Looking back over the course, it's become clear to me that in our case, the grouping strategy employed definitely helped us create, what we consider, to be an amazing final product. I don't think any one of us could have created the ARPP, blog, and Web 2.0 Demo in the quality that was expected by ourselves. Furthermore, our unique talents and background knowledge helped us to create a product that came together seamlessly. It seemed like a challenge at first - we all teach in different content areas, in different school settings, and SES areas, but we used those differences to propel our debates. One conversation that stands out in particular was when we set out to define self-efficacy. We concluded on this
After completing the literature review, our action research team defines self-efficacy as the targeted sense of oneself in a given content area. For example, a student who says she is bad at math has low self-efficacy in that content area. Self-efficacy is determined by a number of factors including cultural norms and expectations. As typically understood, this is seen when society puts an emphasis on math and science for boys, and art and reading for girls. We will be measuring this through our pre and post survey, where we will directly ask our students how confident they feel in our respective content areas.
This definition comes right from our ARPP. I think this paragraph shows how we came together as a team to define the core of our action research.
No comments:
Post a Comment