1 / 19

Impact of Gap Closing Strategies on Grade 9 Applied Math Performance in Toronto Schools

A study evaluated the effectiveness of Gap Closing (GC) strategies compared to Non-Gap Closing (NGC) methods in Grade 9 Applied Math within the Toronto District School Board. Results indicated that GC students experienced an average positive change in performance (M=5.8%) from pre-test to post-test, while NGC students showed a decline (M=-2.1%). Significant differences were observed across various intervention groups, with no intervention performing the lowest. Both male and female GC students did not exhibit significant differences in improvement. Teacher and student survey findings highlighted attitudes toward math and perceptions of ability crucial to learning outcomes.

osric
Télécharger la présentation

Impact of Gap Closing Strategies on Grade 9 Applied Math Performance in Toronto Schools

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Grade 9 Applied Math Strategy Toronto District School Board Research Report – August, 2011

  2. The Gap Closing students (GC) had a higher percentage change from PRE-test to POST-test (M=5.8%, SD=(16%) than Non-Gap Closing students (NGC) (M=-2.1%, SD=19%). This difference was significant, t(300) = 3.12, p < .05, two-tailed.

  3. Analysis of Variance revealed a significant difference between the four Gap-Closing groups - No Intervention, Whole Class intervention, Small Group intervention, and Individual Intervention, F(3, 298) = 3.97. Further analysis showed that the group that received No intervention had a significantly lower percentage change than the group that had Individual intervention, t(70) = -2.82, p <.05, two-tailed; than the group that had Whole Class intervention, t(238) = -2.78, p<.05, two tailed; and than the group that had Small Group intervention, t(94) = -2.11, p<.05, two-tailed. No other significant differences were found. [this means that there is no statistical difference between any of the three groups that received gap-closing]

  4. Gap-Closing Males (GC Males) and Gap-Closing Females (GC females) showed no significant differences in their percentage change from PRE-test to POST-test. t(248) = 0.47, p > .05

  5. Student Survey: Math is Boring Results: Students who used Gap Closing Strategy

  6. Student Survey: I like math. Results: Students who used Gap Closing Strategy

  7. Student Survey: Students so well in math because they have natural ability. Results: Students who used Gap Closing Strategy

  8. Student Survey: When I have trouble with a math question I create a diagram or make a model. Results: Students who used Gap Closing Strategy

  9. Student Survey: When I struggle with a math problem, I give up. Results: Students who used Gap Closing Strategy

  10. Student Survey: To learn mathematics, I try to remember every step in a procedure. Results: All students.

  11. Teacher Survey Results

  12. Teacher Survey Results

More Related