1. The Workshop Model:Optimizing the Mini-lesson By: Lori Grabel & Klarisa Konstantinovsky Education 702.22 – Spring 2009 Dr. O’Connor- Petruso

2. Table of Contents Introduction - Statement of the Problem - Review of Related Literature - Statement of the Hypothesis Method - Participants (N) - Instruments Appendices - Appendix A: Consent Forms - Appendix B: Surveys

3. 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.

4. The Teacher’s College format of the model itself is a scripted and timed method of teaching or facilitating learning: Each reading and writing workshop must consist of: • Teaching Point:  Address the standards. • Connection:  Activate prior knowledge and focus attention on the lesson for 1 minute. • Mini-lesson:  Demonstrates the teaching point as if you were working independently for 10-15 minutes. • Link:  Review and clarify key points before sending them to work independently or in a group. • Active Engagement:  Students work independently or in groups while you are conferring or assessing individual or small groups of student readers or writers for 20-30 minutes based on your mini-lesson. • Mid-Workshop Interruption:  Remind the students of the Teaching Point and compliment for no more than 1 minute. • Share:  Two or three students get to share what they wrote or read, linked to the day's lesson for 1- 2 minutes. • Closure / Link:  Review and clarify key points for 1 minute. • Homework:  Should be based on the teaching point of the day's lesson.

5. Purpose of the Thesis •   Through this research the hope is to find out if such a rigorous structure of teaching is most beneficial for students or if more could be learned and retained without a time limitation and other restraints. Bibliography Workshop Model.  (n.d.).  Retrieved September 30, 2008, from http://www.tqnyc.org/NYC052376/whatisworkshop_new.html

6. 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)

7. 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)

8. Statement of the Hypothesis • 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.

9. Participants • Forty-eight third and fifth grade students in a Title 1 school in Brooklyn, New York.

10. Instruments • Consent form to the principal of the Title 1 school where the research will be conducted • Consent form to the parents/guardians of the student of interest • Surveys to parents to obtain additional information about the participants • 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

11. Appendix A: Consent Forms Parental consent form ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PLEASE SIGN AND RETURN TO YOUR CHILD’S TEACHER. Permission to participate in the thesis paper Child’s name _________________________________________ _________ I give my permission for my child to participate in the anonymous thesis/research paper over the course of the school year of 2009 Parent/Guardian Signature: ____________________ Date:_________ Principal Consent Form Permission granted: ____________________________________

12. Appendix B: Surveys - Survey to parents/guardians I prefer that my child receives more direct reading instruction during school hours. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree - Survey to teachers Students will score higher on standardized tests if they receive more direct reading instruction. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree - Survey to students I like reading independently in school. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

13. Threats to Internal and External 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. • Pretest-Treatment: Some students react differently to practice exams but the score of the real exam does tend to go up.

14. Threats to Internal and External Validity • 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.

15. 90% of the 3rd grade class’s reading level went up from September to January.

16. Correlation is 0.17123814, which means that there is no significant relationship between September reading levels and September ELA predictive percentage of points obtained.

17. There is a strong correlation (0.83470564) between reading levels and books read weekly, which would shows that more books read weekly increases a students reading level.

18. To TC or not to TC? That is the question!