Ontariosummerlearning.org



GECDSB 2016Summer Learning ProgramResearch StudyTable of ContentsIntroduction1Code Summer Learning Program1Research on Summer Learning Program1Overview of the Greater Essex County District School Board’s Summer Learning Program1Program Aims5 Student Selection5Educator Selection5Focus on Math 5Focus on Robotics and Coding5Focus on Technology and Twitter5Focus on Community Partners 5Greater Essex County District School Board Study1Study Overview5Methods of Data Collection5Observations5Interviews 5Surveys5Academic Achievement Data Collection5Artifacts and Documents5Program Results1Assessing Program Aims5The Impact of the GECDSB Summer Learning Program 5Student Impact5Parent Impact5Teacher Impact5Associate Researchers’ Journey1Associate Researchers’ Observations5Conclusion 1IntroductionThe Greater Essex County District School Board is in its seventh year of operating Camp Wonder, a three-week program that combines learning and recreation to help limit summer learning loss in students. The thirty sites operating throughout the school board include sites that focus on blended mathematics and literacy, French Immersion, First Nations, Metis and Inuit (FNMI) and new this year, English Language Learners (ELL). The program engages over 700 students and more than 60 educators. As the program continues to evolve each year, Camp Wonder introduced a specific mathematics focus on counting, quantity and operational sense. The literacy focus was making inferences and connections. Educators used Twitter to share their daily experiences with parents, the other camp sites and the local community. Lego WeDo kits were added to the resources provided to each camp. An emphasis on developing a Growth Mindset (Dweck, 2006 and (GECDSB’s A Thumbnail Sketch for Elementary Programs: 2015-2016 p. 5-7) continued. CODE Summer Learning ProgramIn 2010 the first Summer Literacy Learning Project began with the main goal of studying the effects of a summer literacy program on the reading levels of invited primary students. These invited students were experiencing challenges in their literacy learning. The original project had two integrated components – the actual learning program and a research protocol designed to examine the effects of summer learning loss. According to the Council of Ontario Directors of Education (CODE), "the key expectation for the SLP is for district school boards to develop and implement an engaging summer literacy/numeracy/FNMI program for invited students. Providing rich summer programs helps to reduce summer learning loss and, in some cases, increases student achievement" (Summer Learning Program Planning Guide, 2014). The key aspects of the Summer Learning Program as outlined by CODE are as follows:Provide a program for students, identified by their classroom teacher and/or principal, who would benefit from a summer learning program.Increase parental involvement and provide opportunities for parents to learn more about how their children learn and how to support learning at home.Increase student achievement and close achievement gaps for participating summer students.Develop opportunities for teachers to gain expertise and experience in teaching primary literacy/numeracy/FNMI expectations and outcomes.Develop and use learning resources that build literacy or numeracy skills and are appropriate to the learning levels of the summer students (Summer Learning Program Planning Guide 2014, p. 16) Research on Summer Learning ProgramsResearch indicates that for a specific demographic of student, summer learning loss is a significant problem and can have a cumulative effect over time (Alexander, Entwisle and Olson, 2007). Across Canada and the United States, studies show that, although summer learning programs vary in their design, they have the potential to reduce summer learning loss and in some cases support achievement gains (Jacob and Lefgren, 2004; McCombs, Kirby and Mariano, 2009; Augustine, McCombs, Schwartz and Zakaras, 2013). The Council of Directors of Education of Ontario, described the target student as coming from low socio-economic areas with limited access to summer enrichment activities (Summer Learning Program Planning Guide Summer, 2014). Researchers have deemed the most effective programs to be those that focus on intensive mathematics and literacy interventions as well as enrichment activities like sports, recreation and arts (McCombs, Kirby and Mariano, 2009; Augustine, McCombs, Schwartz and Zakaras, 2013). Overview of GECDSB Summer Learning ProgramThe Summer Learning Program run by the Greater Essex County District School board, is referred to as Camp Wonder. Now in its 7th year of operation, the three-week program aims to reduce summer learning loss in the 700+ participating students. There are 30 learning sites across the school board that include mathematics, literacy, French Immersion, FNMI and, new this year, English as a Second Language. This year also saw the introduction of the Lego WeDo program and a focus on electronic sharing via Twitter.Year 1Year 2Year 3Year 4Year 5Year 6Year 7Literacy Sites344571410Math Sites000251214French Immersion0000222FNMI0000111ELL0000004Number of Educators68814305860Number of Students608080140300600700Figure 1. GECDSB Summer Learning Program Growth from 2010-2016. Over the course of the three-week program, students engage in a variety of math and/or literacy learning as well as various recreation activities. The program starts each morning with breakfast being provided to all students before the academic portion of the day begins. Math and literacy instruction encompasses the first half of the day, lasting between three to three-and-a-half hours. This carefully planned instruction is a mix of whole and small group instruction, hands-on activities, centers and technology integration that is aimed at intensively moving students along literacy and math learning continuums. In conjunction with this learning, there are six parent engagement sessions that aim to bridge the gap between home and school and empower parents as key resources in their children’s learning. During these sessions, parents are actively involved in working alongside their child to share in their learning and the one-of-a-kind Camp Wonder experience. Prior to the start of the Summer Learning Program, parents are given an opportunity to come and meet the teachers who will be running the Camp Wonder program at their child’s school and become familiar with the program. The Greater Essex County District School Board partners with many community organizations such as the University of Windsor, St. Clair College (Windsor campus) and the F. T. Sherk Aquatic & Fitness Centre (Leamington Kinsmen Recreation Centre, Leamington Ontario) to offer recreation activities for the latter half of the day. These activities include, sports, cooperative games and swim instruction. The Canadian Tire Jumpstart program involved all the campers from all the sites, city and county, coming together for one day. The program entails a total of 45 hours of academic instruction and 33 hours of recreation time over the three weeks. Program AimsThe Greater Essex County District School Board outlines its aims for the 2016 Summer Learning Program as:Developing a Growth Mindset in studentsInquiry-Based learningBlended Literacy and Numeracy programsParent EngagementInfusing FNMI perspectives Including English as a Second Language SitesDuring the 2016 Summer Learning Program, data was collected from parents, teachers and students through a variety of methods including: interviews, surveys, observations and artifact collection. This data collected indicates that all aims established by CODE, as listed above, as well as the GECDSB’s aims, were met at all levels of the GECDSB’s program. Educators, in an end-of-term survey, were asked if they believed they met the aims of the GECDSB Camp Wonder and 98% stated they were successful in achieving the purposes of the program by meeting all or most of the aims. Student SelectionStudents were selected for the Summer Learning Program by their homeroom teachers as well as their school principals. Educators and administrators are asked to make their student recommendations by considering several aspects of the student’s profile including, behaviour, academic achievement and attendance. It is strongly suggested that students should not be those that exhibit any consistent behaviour problems while at school that may be disruptive to the Summer Learning Program environment. Students should typically be a level 2 or 3 student who, with the right interventions and work, could make gains in their academic achievements. Educator SelectionAll Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario contract teachers were sent an email inviting them to apply for a position at Camp Wonder. Following this process, the invitation to apply was extended to GECSDB occasional teachers. The educators were selected through a process that included submitting an application and completing an interview. The 2016 SLP hired 46 teachers to fill 24 literacy, blended, or math sites; 4 French Immersion teachers for 2 sites; 4 FNMI teachers for 2 sites; 8 ELL teachers for 4 sites. The program had 42 teachers returning from last year. Also noteworthy, is that 20 of those 42 have participated in SLP for 4 or more years. As a system, we are noticing the impact of SLP professional learning in developing teacher-leaders. Researchers noted that of those 42 returning teachers, 13 are participating as their school’s Math Lead and supporting system math learning. When asked in their end of program survey 48 of 53 (90.57%) educators who responded stated they would return to the Summer Learning Program in 2017. Focus on MathematicsThe GECDSB recently (April 2016) completed a Math Task Force Report. Based on the findings of this report the GECDSB aimed to create a specific math focus within the Summer Learning Program this year. They specifically chose to look at the Number Sense & Numeration strand from the Ontario Curriculum and focused on: adding, subtracting, counting and quantity. Nearly half of the 2016 Camp Wonder sites (14 of 30 camps) were dedicated to math. In 2013 there were two dedicated math sites, five in 2014, and twelve last year. The educators were supported with GECDSB Summer Math Kits containing manipulatives, tasks cards, fifteen trade books selected for their relationship to mathematics concepts, and other classroom supplies. In the Math Kit Resource Guide information from A Guide to Effective Instruction in Mathematics K-6 (Volume 3) Why Use Manipulatives? was included. In addition there was a chart (and QR code link) of questions to extend students learning while using manipulatives. Ideas such as seeking an alternative method, posing new challenges, promoting group interaction and encouraging sense-making were included. Educators were given two professional books: Math and Literature Grades 2-3 by Marilyn Burns (2004) and Number Talks: Helping Children Build Mental Math and Computation Strategies by Sharon Parrish (2014).Focus on Robotics and CodingA new addition to the resources provided to each camp were LEGO Education: WeDo Construction? kits. GECDSB supplemented a CODE grant so that all elementary schools could have access to at least one kit during the regular school year. In a For Your Action introductory letter to all schools, Superintendent Clara Howitt wrote, “Ontario schools and boards have recognized that connecting students with the stimulating possibilities presented through Lego robotics leads to opportunities that stimulate new and inventive, curriculum-linked learning opportunities in the areas ofScience, Technology, and Mathematics, with a special focus on robotics, mathematics and coding” (undated).Each kit contains: a USB hub that sends power and coding data from a computer to the model; a motor; a tilt sensor; a motion sensor; and a wide variety of LEGO pulleys, gears, and bricks. For many campers this was their first chance to build a model following directions but more importantly, to code a sequence of commands to carry out specific actions. A QR code linked to an extensive list of pdf files for instructions to build various models, user guides, and instructional videos were assembled by GECDSB staff (). While LEGO has been in many classrooms, the use of coding robots and challenging tasks has not. Some GECDSB schools have participated in First Lego League (FLL) competitions () held locally since 2014. The inclusion of these kits and Lego Mindstorms EV3 kits to every school this past spring will exponentially increase the number of students who engage in coding. A 2005 study conducted by Brandeis University’s Center for Youth and Communities found that FLL students, when compared with Non-First students (with similar backgrounds and academic experiences) were: more than 3 times as likely to major specifically in engineering; roughly 10 times as likely to have had an apprenticeship, internship or co-op job in their freshman year; significantly more likely to expect to achieve a post graduate degree; more than twice as likely to expect to pursue a career in science and technology; nearly four times as likely to expect to pursue a career specifically in engineering; and more than twice as likely to volunteer in their communities (). Students at Camp Wonder were able to spend time over many days building helicopters with moving blades, hungry alligators with chomping mouths, drumming monkeys, and dancing birds. In several camps a volunteer took charge of learning about the coding. One volunteer worked at home learning the characteristics of the various coding blocks in order to be “one step ahead of the kids” and eagerly looked forward to centre time each day. The addition of this kit managed by a volunteer not only provided a quality educational experience for the campers but enabled the educators to conduct/manage their small group or individual learning sessions easily. An example of student learning with the Lego WeDo kits is as follows: a student explained how connecting two pulleys with the use of an elastic band meant the motor could move the gears and the gears moved the pulleys and two birds danced around. When asked a scaffolding “What if?’ question he surmised that only one bird would dance if the elastic was removed and immediately was able to test out his theory. In addition to the LEGO kits, two camps used DASH? robots and Wonder Workshop? apps to program the robot’s movements and sounds. This combination of hardware and software provided the campers with instant results of their actions on the dashboard or coding rather than the time campers needed to build their LEGO models and then program them. Two grade 3 campers at one location created how-to-videos for another camp. The girls first wrote the key ideas and hints for coding with DASH and then practiced their demonstration before taping it. At another camp students who worked with the Lego kit quickly transferred their knowledge of WeDo block coding over to the DASH coding blocks and became the experts helping other campers learn how to direct DASH and that robot was soon darting all around the camp classroom. Focus on TechnologyThe GECDSB widely supported and encouraged the use of technology during Camp Wonder. Students explored and learned through the use of devices such as iPads, SMARTboards and Apple TV. Apps such as Chatterpics?, Explain Everything ? and Pic Collage ? were platforms used to record a camper’s thinking and work. This work could be displayed/projected through Apple TV ? to the camp’s SMARTboard or TV screen and was shared with other campers and family members during Parent Engagement sessions. Remind? was used to inform families of camp activities. Tweets and blog entries were shared with families and sent to other camps. Several challenges were specifically sent out to another camp as a shared learning experience, such as finding out how many items were in an estimation jar. Then campers in both locations shared their estimations and thinking back and forth. Some educators instigated communication connections between or amongst camps and shared resources and images of student work. When surveyed 50 of the 56 (89.29%) teacher respondents felt they had effectively or very effectively integrated technology into their summer programs. Focus on TwitterEducators were highly encouraged to share their learning and activities each day at Camp Wonder through Twitter. Two unique hashtags were created, #campwonder2016 and #slpmathpics, so that educators could easily share with one another and find what other Summer Learning Program sites were doing, even if they did not directly follow them on Twitter. Specifically, educators were asked to attach the #slpmathpics hashtag to all photos related to students and mathematics at Camp Wonder. This allowed for an associate researcher to categorize the use of different manipulatives across the 30 Camp Wonder sites by monitoring the Twitter feed. Educators in the GECDSB were actively involved in sharing through Twitter the daily learning and activities that took places across Camp Wonder. Using Keyhole.co, a real-time hashtag tracking application, it was calculated there were 500 tweets generated by 63 unique twitter users that included the #campwonder2016 hashtag. There were 53 individual tweets using the #slpmathpics hashtag that demonstrated how the students participating in the Summer Learning program were actively engaged in mathematics based learning. The activities ranged from Number Talks, as based on the book by Sharon Parrish, and math centers to problem solving and spatial reasoning activities. Some of the photos showed multiple types of manipulatives used in solving the same problem. All types of manipulatives used were recorded. The photos tweeted confirmed that the educators at Summer Learning Program sites across the school board were accessing and using math kits items in a variety of ways. The most common mathematics manipulative used by students in the tweets with the #slpmathpics hashtag were counters (including shaped counters and bingo style) which appeared in 23% of the tweets shared. Connecting cubes were shown in use in 17% of the #slpmathpics tweets and money, both bills and/or coins, were present in 13% of the #slpmathpics tweets. Overall, 17 different manipulatives were shown being used by students, as well as a variety of mathematics mentor texts such as, How Many Jelly Beans: A Giant Book of Giant Numbers by Andrea Menotti (2012) and Two of Everything by Lily Toy Hong (1993). When asked, 87.50% (49 of 56) of Summer Learning Program educators who responded to the end-of-program teacher survey, indicated that Twitter had a positive impact on their program as well as their professional learning. Focus on Community PartnersAs one of the CODE aims for the Summer Learning Program is to engage community partners, GECDSB continues to develop its relationships with outside community partners. During the fifteen days of Camp Wonder a variety of partnerships that span a variety of the camp’s needs were accessed. The University of Windsor, St. Clair College and Sherk Centre provided recreation activities and swimming on 12 of the 15 camp days. Canadian Tire’s Jump Start program partners with Camp Wonder for a one-day recreation activity hosted by St. Clair College, which saw all 721 participating students gather together for a day of fun physical activities. The United Way partnered with schools, providing a nutritious lunch that was dropped off daily. Forgotten Harvest made daily deliveries to all sites with fresh fruit for the students which supplemented both the breakfast and snack offerings available to students. When surveyed 49 of the 56 (87.50%) educators stated that the breakfast program was effective or very effective and 52 of 56 (92.86%) educators stated the snack program was effective or very effective. Focus On English Language LearnersIn response to the recent influx of new Canadians and increased population of English Language Learners, the GECDSB Summer Learning Program included four new ESL sites. According to demographic data provided by schools, the majority of these students had arrived in Canada within the last six months and some as early as weeks before the commencement of the SLP.The program design of the ESL sites mirrored that of the regular SLP program with a total of 15 program days containing academic programing in the morning and recreation in the afternoon. The elements of the program reflected the core aims and foci of the SLP but contained several distinct elements that served to leverage and support the learning needs of the unique group of students. This report highlights the key elements of the ESL Summer Learning Program as well as impact on student social-emotional learning, language acquisition and numeracy.Terms and DefinitionsESL – English as a Second Language. Refers to the program or instructional setting.ELL – English Language Learners. Refers to the student or learner.SLP – Summer Learning Program. Refers to the entire program, all learning sites.SLP-ESL – Summer Learning Program for English as a Second Language. Refers to the sites specifically for English Language Learners.Purpose and Research QuestionsIn an attempt to build a greater understanding and thus effectively respond to the learning strengths and needs of English Language Learners one of the purposes of this study is to better understand the learning profile of the ELL students participating in the SLP. Another focus of this study is to assess the impact of the SLP on the academic and social-emotional skill development of ELL students and identify the effective strategies used to support their learning.What is the learning profile of GECDSB ELL/ELD students?What is the impact of the GECDSB Summer Learning Program on the academic and social-emotional skills development of English Language Leaners?What are effective strategies and structures of the SLP-ESL program?MethodsData was collected using multiple methods and included: Observations and documentationMarker student observation, documentation and interviewsLearning Environment ScansStudent InterviewsEducators InterviewsCollection of ArtifactsDemographic Data Collection via DatabasesObservations were conducted over the three week program at all four sites. Over 40 hours of observations and documentation were gathered. The observations included a Learning Environment protocol (Appendix A) which aimed to organize the characteristics of these unique learning environments (Needs Reference). Observations also included documentation of students and the collection of student work. Initial informal interviews were done with educators at the beginning of the program. Educators were asked about their impressions, expectations, plans and goals. A follow-up interview was conducted at the end of the program and educators also completed anonymous feedback surveys. The post surveys and interviews examined the following areas: program design, instruction and student impact.Students were documented during large group, small group, paired, guided and individual activities. At times, the observer engaged with students in order to better understand their thinking or the activity. Any notes and observations were shared with the student and educators. Student work was documented (photos or video) and some artifacts were collected and analyzed in order to better understand what if any changes occurred over the duration of the program. Four marker students were selected in the program. The purpose of selecting these marker students was to develop a more comprehensive understanding of their leaning profile. Of the total hours spent observing the classrooms, a minimum of 20min was spent observing, interviewing or documenting the marker students. The interviews of marker students were sometimes conducted with the aid of volunteer translators.Student ProfilesThere were a total of 82 student in the ESL-SLP. Generally, the SLP targets students in primary grades (1-3). In the regular SLP program there were 621 students were in the primary grades. The ESL-SLP included 68 students in early years and primary and 14 students in junior and intermediate grades. Coordinators and administrators identified that the purpose of this flexibility was to allow for inclusion and integration and to be responsive to the need of the ELL population while being mindful of the core purpose and principle of the SLP. English Language Development has been identified as… Marker student interviews were conducted in English and sometimes with the aid of volunteer translators. The responses to interview questions indicated that these marker students had no or limited prior schooling before enrolling as a student with the GECDSB. However, it is important to consider that the marker students were early primary students. Although one student did describe having some form of schooling, the narrative of that experience is unclear (See Marker Student Interview - Appendix C). Program ImpactBased on the data collected through observations and student artifacts there was a notable shift in marker student’s social and emotional skills development. Specifically in their ability to follow general school and classroom rules and routines. Observations at the beginning of the program, which were supported by teacher interviews described students having difficulty following routines and teacher directions. Simple classroom routines and procedures (lining-up, turn taking when asked questions, sharing classroom materials) were difficult for students to follow. Teacher interviews indicated that at the beginning of the program many students were not able to engage in the school routines and demonstrate learning behaviours. By the end of the program, observation notes and teacher interviews indicated that students were able to follow routines and directions with few prompts and models. Teacher interviews indicated that Program CharacteristicsRelationships and TrustThe data suggests that a preexisting relationship between the student and the teacher was a central factor of the program. There were two teachers at each of the SLP-ESL sites. At least one of the two teachers had taught or was connected to the students in the previous school year. This existing connection served to quickly create a learning environment based on familiarity, predictability and trust. Students and parents identified that the concept of ‘summer learning’ or ‘summer camp’ was generally unfamiliar and having a relationship with the teacher was a significant and in most cases the primary reason they elected to participate in the program. Interviews with teachers echoed these anecdotes. The teachers also indicated that knowing the students prior to the program helped to accelerate the learning because they were not spending time getting acquainted with the children and identifying their learning strengths and needs. Teachers explained that they were able to dive into the learning and essentially extend and deepen the learning from the school year. “It was easy to get right into the program because I knew the kids; their personalities, social needs, learning goals. Getting to know students well enough to provide just the right instruction is challenging enough when you don’t speak the same language, knowing my students helped me to do more with them.” SLP-ESL Teacher“My favourite thing about Camp Wonder is Miss. Knight. She is why I came here.” ELL StudentIntentional Integration and Community BuildingEach of the SLP-ESL sites also had a partner site: either a numeracy or literacy site who occupied a classroom down the hall and shared all common spaces. At each of the sites students were integrated with their peers for portions of the day. This integration was designed by the educators and took various forms. In some cases the students shared spaces during breakfast and lunch as well as a bus to recreation. In these cases students reported limited social interaction and relationships with their peers outside of their ESL class. In other cases students were integrated for specific instructional blocks. These learning blocks included teacher directed activities and some cooperative learning activities. For example, students participated in competitive and cooperative physical games or as reading buddies. In these cases students reported some social interaction with peers outside of their class.In one case students were integrated for specific learning blocks based on the academic and social needs of the students. The decisions of how and when to integrate students were thoughtfully designed by the teachers of both sites. Through interviews, the educators described how they intentionally created opportunities for integration that were both academically and socially meaningful for all students. They wanted to encourage authentic integration so as to avoid the separation that they noticed in the common areas like lunchroom or bus. In this particular case, teachers of both sites provided modelling, coaching and feedback that encouraged positive social interaction. The teachers identified that they felt it was important to build understanding and empathy but also wanted to avoid having their SLP-ESL students perceived as “poor, sad and unfortunate”. They actively sought out tools and opportunities that created a cooperative learning environment with the intention of empowering all learners. For example, students at the SLP-Lit/Num. site discussed text, conducted peer interviews and received coaching and feedback that focused on building an understanding of the perceptive of their peers. While students at SLP-ESL site conducted surveys with the peers and lead games that encouraged oral communication, leadership and positive social-emotional skill development. Cooperation vs CompetitionAt each of the sites, a range of activities were employed to meet various learning goals. Observational data taken from the beginning of the program noted that competitive activities and games resulted in a higher instances of conflict between students. It is hypothesized that in the context of winning and losing, children need to develop or are developing social and emotional skills like perseverance, conflict-resolution, humility and resilience. The development of these skills can supported by teachers and peers but in the absence of targeted modelling, coaching and support students have difficulty coping with winning and losing which leads to greater instances of conflict. Educators substantiated this observation through their own reflections and noted that based on these early interactions they intentionally constructed cooperative games which encouraged the development of positive social and emotional skills. Over the weeks educators noted that this had a positive impact on the learning environment of the SLP-ESL. In addition, educators described that they approached competitive games with proactive coaching, direct feedback and debriefing which focused on developing key social and emotional skills. Educator feedback described this strategic instruction as being significant in supporting both a positive learning environment and social interactions.Merging SEL and LiteracyOne of the key aspects of the SLP-ESL program was the merging of Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) through literacy instruction. Educator data revealed a significant student need in the development of social and emotional skills. Reflections and interviews gathered from educators indicated that student behaviour consistently showed difficulty coping with regulating emotions and behaviour, establishing positive relationships, articulating and understanding feelings, and effectively applying other learning skills. The Educators of the SLP-ESL infused social and emotional skill building into many aspects of their program. Although the practices at each of the sites varied, there was a mixtures of strategies aimed at supporting these skills. The following are some examples of what was documented:Use of social and emotional themes textsDaily emotion check-insSmall group discussion Group and individual coachingPractice through playTargeted planning and instructionCultural Connections“The purpose of building an understanding of our students is so that we develop an appreciation of who they are.” SLP-ESL Teachers worked to ensure that students’ cultural backgrounds were respected, honoured and considered in daily programming. Multiple opportunities to include families in the program provided a bridge for all students to begin to understand each other’s cultural heritage. Customized Professional LearningAll Educators of the GECDSB-SLP received two days of professional development that included a range of themes and topics. Regardless of their role or assignment, all Educators received training on how to support English Language Learners. Part of the professional learning also included topics that centered on building an awareness of mental health issues and ways in which to support positive social and emotional skill development. Educator feedback indicated that this training was an important in supporting the objectives of the program. The reflections and interviews also revealed that the professional partnerships between the educators were a significant source of professional learning. Educator feedback indicated that these partnerships were an integral part of the program. Leverage Language Learning Through PlayClassroom observations revealed that leveraging language learning through play was an effective means of engaging students and stretching oral language. Play centers were constructed to encourage oral language but also centered on role playing various social and emotional skill building themes, and scenarios. Students were observed acting in the role of a character. Educator interview data demonstrated reflections that students felt comfortable to ‘try on’ different characters and the words that they might say in those roles.Methods of Data Collection ObservationsThree researchers collected data during a three-week period. The two associate researchers each visited two math camp sites (Camps A & B; Camps C & D) and the researcher visited 4 ELL sites. Camp A, an urban location had 4 teachers, 1 volunteer and 20+ students. Camp B, an urban location, has 4 teachers, 2 volunteers and 20+ students. Camp C, a suburban location had 2 teachers, 1 volunteer and 20+ students. Camp D, a county location had 2 teachers, 2 volunteers and 20+ students. The two associate researchers observed 6 morning sessions at each site. Researchers observed math and literacy activities, parent engagement sessions, breakfast times, and DPA activities. An additional focus on gathering information regarding the use of manipulatives was carried out for three weeks. The associate researchers created personal notes based on their observations, took photographs and videos, and had access to Camp blogs and Camp Tweets, especially those marked #slpmathpics (see Twitter subsection). The associate researchers conducted mathematics assessment interviews with several students using Leaps & Bounds?. These assessments were in addition to marker students selected by the camp educators as part of their initial testing in June. During the final week of camp, the associate researchers interviewed all campers present at Camps A, B, C, and D. After the camp ended all three researchers examined the data produced from the on-line teacher survey. InterviewsInterviews were conducted with select families over the course of the three weeks. In the first week of camp parents were asked: (1) why they permitted their child to attend camp; (2) any previous contact with the SLP; and (3) what they hoped their child would gain from the experience. In the second week of camp families were asked to describe what their camper was sharing about their SLP experience. In the third and final week parents were asked: (1) what one thing did they think their child gained from this experience; (2) what their child will do the rest of the summer (a parallel question to a Student interview); (3) would they enroll their child in the 2017 SLP; (4) anything they could think of to make the camp better; and finally, (5) if the scenario existed that SLP would end what would they say was important about it to ensure it continued. The responses were coded and examined.During the third week of SLP students at Camps A, B, C, and D were interviewed. The five questions asked were: (1) what did you like about Camp Wonder??(2) what will you tell your friends about Camp Wonder??(3) what would you be doing if you weren't at SLP? (a parallel question to the Parent interview);?(4) do you think Camp Wonder should be longer??and (5) would you come back again next year??SurveysAn educator surveys was administrated to all in attendance at a PD session on the fourth last day of camp. This survey had a 93% return rate. Questions focused on assessing the aims of the program, successes and barriers of the program, and the recreational components of the program. In addition, questions sought to examine the professional learning experiences of the educators with regards to their participation in the camp. Several questions were added to gather information about knowledge and use of manipulatives as well as the introduction of robotics kits. Academic Achievement Data CollectionAs stated in the Ontario Ministry of Education document, Growing Success: Assessment, Evaluation, and Reporting in Ontario Schools, First Edition, Covering Grades 1 to 12 (2010), “the primary purpose of assessment is to improve student learning. Assessment for the purpose of improving student learning is seen as both “assessment for learning” and “assessment as learning”. The GECDSB documents, A Thumbnail Sketch for Elementary Programs (2015-2016, p. 17) and Elementary Administrators (2015-2016, p.8) state, assessment for learning occurs before instruction begins. For the SLP, data is collected regarding a student’s academic achievement in reading and mathematics at the end of the regular school year before camp began. The educators met with their campers for a half-day session near the end of June and part of that time is used as assessment for learning. The assessment devices used were: Diagnostic Reading Assessment? Kit (DRA) and Leaps and Bounds?. In addition, information was provided by the regular classroom teacher as part of a Class Profile. In the Fall of 2016 participants in the program and two teachers from each camp home school were invited to participate in a half-day follow-up workshop. The goals of this workshop were: to provide an opportunity for SLP teachers to meet and share information with the campers’ classroom teachers; to share research results; and to share some of the best practices and resources. In addition a carousel format was used for SLP and receiving teachers to learn more about: parent engagement, inquiry, Growth Mindset, blending literacy and numeracy, small group instruction, Levelled Literacy Intervention (LLI), robotics, FNMI camps, and French Immersion camps. Artifacts and DocumentationA wide variety of artifacts and documentation was collected during the three weeks of Camp Wonder for all campers as part of assessment for, as, and of learning. At the end of the three weeks co-ordinators were asked to collect camper report cards and an artifact that demonstrated a particular aspect of each campers’ growth. This information was shared by the camp educators with the receiving students’ classroom teachers at the fall workshop. The purpose of this time was to begin a new cycle of assessment, providing the receiving teacher valuable “assessment for learning” for the coming school year. The associate researchers collected and examined samples of student work from the four sites (Camps A, B, C, and D). Samples of co-constructed work (family-camper) from the Parent Engagement sessions were collected and examined. Photos of student work, photos of displays, blog entries, tweets, and camp newsletters were collected. The wide variety of samples were examined to determine the extent to which the SLP was meeting the aims set out by the GECDSB and CODE. Observations of daily camp activities provided the associate researchers with rich examples of the steps in assessment for learning and as learning mentioned in Growing Success (2010). These steps are: plan assessment concurrently and integrate it seamlessly with instruction; share learning goals and success criteria with students at the outset of learning to ensure that students and teachers have a common and shared understanding of these goals and criteria as learning progresses; gather information about student learning before, during, and at (or near) the end of a period of instruction, using a variety of assessment strategies and tools; use assessment to inform instruction, guide next steps, and help students monitor their progress towards achieving their learning goals; analyse and interpret evidence of learning; give and receive specific and timely descriptive feedback about student learning; and help students to develop skills of peer and self-assessment (p. 28 – 29). At the end of camp, the ‘report card’ was a record of learning, identifying strengths and weaknesses but not the ranking of campers (Earl, 2007). Often the reports were a combination of student self-reflection on their growth and teacher assessments of learning. For example: “At camp I learning the meaning of patterns, there can be two in one – colour and shape. I know how important it is to love yourself from The Greedy Triangle. Strategies I’m using and working on are doubling, counting on and decomposing numbers.”“At Camp Wonder I learned lots of new math strategies and Number Talks. Strategies that I am using are counting on and making tens. Working on using 100 chart to grow patterns.” Sticking with the challenge of finding ways to make 20 – over an hour of hard work – that’s resilience. “At Camp Wonder I learned not to give up, making my cat house was hard but I kept trying.” Resilience at the pool is awesome – head under the water, swimming across the water. Wow! Recognizing and creating patterns was a strength at camp. Working on using double facts to solve patterns. Program ResultsAssessing Program AimsAn examination of the extensive and varied data collected (classroom observations, collections of student work product, collections of family-student work product, Tweets, Blogs, Camp Newsletters, report cards, parent interviews, student interviews, administrator interviews and educator surveys) indicated that the CODE program aims for SLP were effectively employed at all levels. Survey data showed that the aims were clearly articulated by educators. When given the change to identify the purpose of the SLP 48 educators provided clear and concise comments. When asked if the SLP met its purpose 51 of 52 educators (98.1%) answered Yes. The Impact of the GECDSB Summer Learning ProgramStudent ImpactData regarding student achievement was collected from all participating sites. Language based achievement data was collected through Diagnostic Reading Assessments?. The DRA assessments were completed with selected marker students in the two weeks prior to the start of Camp Wonder. Mathematics based assessment or achievement data was collected through Leaps and Bounds? Grade 1-2 Kits. Selected marker students were assessed using Leaps and Bounds in the first week of the Summer Learning Program. Based on the test results educators used this information to guide their instruction at the small group and individual level. In addition, data collected from classroom assessments demonstrated growth, towards the learning goal(s) of the site. One of the main objectives of the Summer Learning Program is to limit Summer Learning Loss in students. While the data collected by the GECDSB indicates that the program supports this aim on all levels, it is important to note the full range of impact the Summer Learning Program has on students. When surveyed 55 of 56 (98.21%) educators believed the SLP was an effective or very effective impact on the campers. In looking at the parent interviews, 45% of parents identified increased confidence and/or an improved growth mindset as the main thing their child took away from Camp Wonder. The power of Camp Wonder is in the fact that, while the data shows students are busy making academic gains, improving their confidence and growth mindset amongst many other skills, they are also enjoying themselves. Overwhelmingly, students want to be at Camp Wonder. From the student interviews conducted with students at four camps, 87.5% said they didn’t want Camp Wonder to end after three weeks. In addition, 89% of students stated they would like to return to Camp Wonder next year. Parent ImpactFor the 2016 Summer Learning Program, one of the GECDSB’s framework objectives was assessing the parental perceived benefits of Camp Wonder for their children. Several parents from each of the four targeted sites were interviewed three times throughout the program. During the first week of Camp Wonder, parents were interviewed in the morning when they dropped off their children to gather information about why they agreed to let their children participate in the program, their previous experience with Camp Wonder and their hopes for the children participating in the program. During the mid-way point, parents were asked what their children were sharing about their time spent at Camp Wonder when they talked to their families in the evening. During the final week, parents were asked: what experiences their child had this summer that they may not have otherwise had; to suggest ways to improve the program; and why they thought the Summer Learning Program was important, amongst other questions. Based on the researchers’ observations and the data collected through weekly interviews with selected parents, it was evident that parents largely support the Summer Learning Program. Parents who selected to complete Parent survey questions were asked if they could enroll their child/children in Camp Wonder 2017 and 92% said yes they would. Several parents of campers who had aged out of the camp even asked if another camp could be created for older students and if siblings could attend.Parents were given multiple opportunities for engagement through six parent engagement activities that took place at each camp. It is understood that, “When parents are engaged and involved, everyone benefits, and our schools become increasingly rich and positive places to teach, learn and grow” (Supporting the Ontario Leadership Strategy, 2012, p.1). The nature of each parent engagement session was determined by the teachers at each location and varied from site to site. All of the parent engagement sessions observed by the researchers offered some form of food to both the adults and children, as well as an activity that had the parents (or other family members such as a grandparent) helping and working with their children. The importance of these hands-on, informal, parent engagement sessions is supported by research that indicates, “Schools that successfully engage parents are inclusive… They work at building positive relationships and a welcoming school climate and at providing parents with practical strategies to build a stronger educational culture in their homes” (Capacity Building Series K-12, Parent Engagement. October, 2012.p.1). For example, one morning at Site A, parents were invited to stay for breakfast and help make play dough, while enjoying grilled cheese sandwiches, fresh fruit and juice. Parents were actively engaged in helping to make the play dough. One parent who was unable to stay for the session made a point of thanking the staff for inviting him and apologized for not being able to stay due to previous commitments. At another session the following week at Site B, parents joined their children for a hot bowl of oatmeal for breakfast, before spending the morning trying to build a bridge that would support 21 sorting manipulatives after reading the book 21 Elephants and Still Standing (April Jones Prince, 2005). The 13 parents stayed for over two hours as they listened to the read aloud and then helped their children plan, construct and test their bridges. At Site C 10 family members joined the campers in a challenge to build a tower using spaghetti, marshmallows, and a metre of masking tape. In addition to working to complete the task the families were given direction on how to tweet out their results. To consolidate the experience and learning all participants met together and viewed everyone’s posts on a large TV screen. Camp educators made connections to mathematical thinking and strategies as well as commenting on the talk they overhead as the challenge progressed. Phrases such as: “It’s OK. No big deal!” “Maybe if we do it like this!” “Our first experiment didn’t work” “Can you try this?” “It was fun” and “It’s falling, let’s fix it!” were added to a chart paper and became the introduction to the family members to Growth Mindset (Dwerk, 2006). Everyone watched a video explaining the ideals of Growth Mindset and were given a postcard-sized poster outlining important considerations and phrases to use with children in their homes. At Site D ‘Camp Wonder Wednesdays’ and ‘Family Fridays’ were catchphrases used to announce a Parent Engagement session. A second week session saw parents invited to blog with the campers. In conversations with several parents in attendance a researcher noted the parents had a better understanding of the role devices such as iPads have in school. For example one parent stated, “At home, the kids just play games on our iPad. It keeps them busy. Some of the games I think are educational but others definitely aren’t. Now that I know about Explain Everything and Pic Collage and see that they are tweeting out what they are learning I get why teachers use them with my kids.”These parent engagement sessions helped parents learn broad strategies for supporting their children at home with their learning. The idea that “‘You don’t need to know how to do the homework to help’ can begin to open up the concept of engagement for many parents.” (Capacity Building Series K-12, Parent Engagement. October, 2012.p.6). The Camp Wonder approach to learning and community partnerships innately fosters these empowering relationships between parents, educators and students. The importance of this relationship was highlighted by Harris & Goodall, 2007, “Education is a triangle with three legs: parents, child, school and if any of the legs falls, the triangle falls as well.” Based on the data collected from interviews, parents from four camps (3 city or suburbs and 1 county location) were initially asked “Why are you letting your child attend the Summer Learning Program?” The response categories, in order of popularity, were: (1) it is a good experience and fun (34.78%); (2) to improve my child’s academic and/or learning skills (26.08%); (3) it was recommended by the school &/or the teacher (21.74%); (4) the child wanted to come &/or they liked school (21.74%); (5) the parents worked, camp was free, there was swimming, and the parents trusted the teachers (21.74%); (6) the social aspects of the camp (17.39%); and finally, (7) so their children had something to do so they wouldn’t be bored (17.39%). One parent shared why it was such an easy decision to permit her child to attend when she said, “It was a great experience last year for my son so my son and daughter are coming this year. They get to swim. I work and this camp doesn’t cost anything. But the most important thing is we know the teacher from last year’s camp and I like it that it is teachers running the camp. The camps with high school students running them aren’t as safe or as well run. I totally trust the teachers so I bring my kids here.”When asked about any previous experience with or knowledge of Camp Wonder almost half the parents surveyed said they had none (47.83%) and the other half had a child participate previously with Camp Wonder (47.83%). One parent said they were aware of the program without their child attending it and another parent said their child was invited previously but on that occasion did not attend. When asked to identify one thing they hoped their child would gain from Camp Wonder: 56.52% of parents said maintain or improve academic &/or learning skills; 30.43% said they hoped their child would have fun and enjoy their time at Camp Wonder; 26.09% said they wanted their child’s swimming skills to improve; and 21.74% hoped their child’s social skills would improve. In the middle of the three week session parents were asked to share what the students were telling them about their Camp Wonder days. The vast majority of students (72.22%) told their parents about their daily swimming and the Jump Start. It should be noted that not all the swimming comments from the students were positive. The next most popular topic campers talked to their parents about was the academic activities (language, math, centres, etc.) of camp (55.56%). Campers talked about the social aspects of camp (being with friends, making friends) and the breakfast and lunch times of the day (both 16.67%). Students also mentioned Growth Mindset activities (11.11%), the camp teachers (5.56%), and the Parent Engagement activities (5.56%) according to the interviewed parents. Parents who answered, “What one thing did you think your child gained from this experience?” responded enthusiastically by saying their child improved their confidence or developed their Growth Mindset (45.46%); their child socialized with friends and had fun at camp (36.37%); their child benefited from the language &/or mathematics activities presented (36.37%); and their child benefitted from swimming &/or Jump Start day (18.18%). The significance Camp Wonder played (in particular the morning academic activities) in a camper’s summer can be compared to the other activities parents mentioned when asked what their child will do during the rest of the summer. The overwhelming majority of children would be inside or outside their homes. Outdoor activities including such items as visiting parks, playing at friends’ homes, swimming in pools, and attending other summer camps and indoor activities such as playing with siblings and friends, watching TV and playing on their devices describes the rest of a camper’s summer. When we asked if the parents had any suggestions to improve the camp, parents asked if siblings could attend the camp and if a camp could be started for older students. Although not a suggestion, one parent wanted to keep the three-week length. Perhaps the most passionate parent answers came in response to the imaginary scenario that “If the Board needed to make budget cuts and Camp Wonder was on the chopping block, what would you say to make sure it continued?” Parents mentioned the quality of the program and positive experiences provided as the number one answer (54.55%); tied for second place was the positive impact on their child’s academic learning (36.36%), and their child’s growth with socialization skills and confidence (36.36%). One parent summed it up when she said, “It is a way for kids who struggle a bit to have fun and yet still learn and when theyreturn in September they will remember more. The fact that the camp starts right up the next week after school ends is important. The kids don’t get into summer mode. They are still interested in learning. Then it only goes for three weeks so the kids don’t think they are missing their whole summer and we can still get away and do things as a family. That’s perfect. My child had difficulties with school but here she doesn’t think she does. She feels good about herself and that is the most important thing for me. The board should figure out it won’t cost them as much from September to June to help kids if they help kids in the summer with this camp. The board should be pro-active for these kids rather than re-active.” At the fall follow-up workshops receiving classroom teachers mentioned the positive effects the summer program had on their students. A teacher reported a conversation with a parent of one of her campers. The parent stated she was grateful for the opportunity her child had to participate in SLP. She noted an increase in her daughter’s confidence and willingness to take risks in “EVERYTHING!” Her daughter had an easier transition to the new school year than before and her attitude towards school was now very positive. In terms of the recreation, she has gone from being scared to take her water wings off to putting her head under water and not wanting to get out of the pool.? Her time at SLP was the highlight of her summer.?Teacher ImpactThe 60+ participating educators received formal professional development opportunities in the lead-up to Camp Wonder as well as on-going experiences throughout the program. Educators were withdrawn from their regular classrooms and provided with two full days of professional development and planning time in the two months leading up to the start of Camp Wonder. During a pre-camp PD session, educators received information about counting, operational sense and quantity. They were provided information on Exploration Stations for Investigating Number Sense, adding, subtracting, counting, and quantity using information from Guide to Effective Instruction, Number Sense and Numeration K-3 and several examples from Elementary and Middle School Mathematics: Teaching Developmentally (4th Edition; John Van de Valle and Karen Karp). An optional third professional development opportunity was offered during after-school hours to those educators who were new to Camp Wonder this year. An overview of the program was given and all educators present were given a copy of Mindsets in the Classroom: Building a Culture of Success and Student Achievement in Schools by Mary Cay Ricci (2013).The impact of the Summer Learning Program on educators was assessed though a survey conducted during the last week of Camp Wonder. The survey was given electronically during a whole group staff meeting after a Camp Wonder day and remained available online until the end of the week to give all educators an additional opportunity to complete it. From the data collected in this survey, 90.57% of educators indicated they would return to teach in the Summer Learning Program next year. As one respondent wrote, “Third year in program and will definitely be back. Best personal PD and amazing opportunity to network. Plus the amazing campers!!” When asked the impact of SLP on themselves, 53 of 55 (96.36%) agreed the opportunity was helpful or very helpful to them as professionals. One educator described the impact as, “Educator networking is a tremendous fringe benefit of the program. Relationships started during the program can become long-time cross-school collaborations.” Educators were given the opportunity to state which mathematical elements of SLP had an impact on their professional growth in mathematics. The choices were: Manipulatives, Tasks, Assessments, Resources, and Other. When asked the impact of manipulatives had on their program the overwhelming response of 92.86% (52 of 56 responders) selected Helpful or Very Helpful/Very Effective. The impact of the math tasks presented by the teachers was rated slightly higher than the manipulatives impact with 94.55% rating (52 of 55) for Effective or Very Effective. The impact of mathematics resources the SLP program were rated third overall with 49 of 56 educators (87.50%) selecting Effective or Very Effective. As a follow-up open-ended question, educators were asked, “Regarding manipulatives, what (if anything) will you adopt in your classroom practice?” and 35 educators responded, some with multiple ideas. Of these 35, all the respondents (100%) used manipulatives in the classroom, no one said they would not use them or use them less. Almost 30% (10 of the 35, 28.57%) said they would continue to use them without specifying any change due to their Camp Wonder experience. However, of the remaining 25 educators who responded, all of them stated the use of manipulatives would change when they returned to the classroom. Teachers stated they would use them differently than they had in the past by: (1) teaching how to use them; (2) use them in different ways (for example, open-ended questions, in play, in games, in centres, etc.); (3) use them more often, use all of them; and (4) give students more access to them. Several teachers stated they require assistance to use them better. One teacher’s comment, in particular, was especially thought provoking – “Work on removing the stigma surrounding them (manipulatives) in the older grades.” As a follow-up to the data collected at Camp Wonder and the questions this data raises, the use of manipulatives across the divisions requires additional examination to determine the obstacles to overcome for successful use in all elementary classrooms during the regular school year.As part of the Camp Wonder research focus regarding the use of manipulatives, educators were asked three additional survey questions. They were: (1) how did you use mathematics manipulatives in your program?; (2) in your opinion, what is the purpose of mathematics manipulatives?; and (3) regarding math manipulatives, what (if anything) will you adopt in your classroom practice? Educators were asked how they used manipulatives (open response) in their mathematics program at Camp Wonder and 46 responded, some with multiple ideas. Over half (54.35%) of the educators described manipulative use as: to solve problems, for student inquiry, to practice, at centres, when campers had free choice, for math games, and to explore. Over a third (34.78%) of the educators described using manipulatives to teach a math concept (for example: for lessons, as models, talking about them, the how and the why of manipulatives). Over a quarter (26.09%) of the educators stated they used manipulatives as a foundation of their program and in so doing they were used daily and for a variety of activities. Ten percent (10.87%) of the educators specifically stated manipulatives helped their students “see” math and “show” the students’ thinking and learning. Less than 5% or 2 educators stated manipulatives were used as a support, when the student needed help and not used all the time.Educators were asked, in their opinion, what was the purpose of mathematics manipulatives (Open Response) and 41 responded, some with multiple ideas. Almost half of the educators (47.62%) stated they believed manipulatives aid (for example: assist, explore, learn, help, enhance, reinforce) students’ understanding of a math concept (for example: math thinking, math learning). The second (41.46%) most frequent purpose was to aid (for example: assist, support, help) students solve problems. The process of visualization (for example: see the math, visualize math, visualize concept, see their learning) was tied as the third most frequent purpose (21.43%) with showing/demonstrating (for example: how to answer a problem, show thinking, communicate thinking, represent thinking, express thinking, demonstrate thinking, show what they know, demonstrate learning, display). Three of the educators mentioned in their responses they changed their opinions regarding the purpose of manipulatives to be one for all students to use not just for struggling students. Further examination is needed to determine if of teachers’ use of “seeing” when describing the purpose of manipulatives is, in fact, visualizing or is “seeing” referring to the concrete visual nature of manipulatives. The process of visualization, one of the seven intelligences in the work of Dr. Thomas Armstrong (1999), is not, according to Small (2013) one of the mathematical processes included in the Ontario Mathematics Curriculum (2005). Small defines visualization as “a process of representing abstract concepts as mental images.” To make math concepts meaningful these images are remembered and manipulated (p.29). As stated in the Mathematics Curriculum (2005), “students will investigate mathematical concepts using a variety of tools and strategies, both manual and technological. Manipulatives are necessary tools for supporting the effective learning of mathematics by all students. These concrete learning tools invite students to explore and represent abstract mathematical ideas in varied, concrete, tactile, and visually rich ways (italics added) (p. 25). In addition, an examination of the educators’ views regarding the purpose of manipulatives should be filtered through the idea of concreteness fading (Fyle, McNeil, Son, & Gladstone, 2014). This would determine if the multiple use of the term “seeing” in the survey responses refers to first, the concrete visual aspect of manipulatives and then “seeing” as visualization as the abstraction or something different. This determination would provide information on a possible starting point to further develop teacher understanding of manipulatives in the continuum of concreteness fading as part of the GECDSB focus on mathematics instruction.Associate Researchers’ JourneyThe two associate researchers for the 2016 Summer Learning Program were first time hires. Neither one had taught at Camp Wonder previously. One associate researcher taught at a hosting school and was familiar with previous campers but not the camp itself. The other associate researcher taught at a non-hosting school and was not familiar with the camp itself. In developing a research question they looked to the GECDSB upcoming mathematics focus and what they could contribute. They decided on the use of manipulatives as a starting point. Their initial foray into research lead them to discussions examining their understanding of the term ‘manipulatives’ and the Ministry phrase ‘tools and representations’ as well as the idea of ‘concreteness fading’ (Fyle, McNeil, Son, & Gladstone, 2014). Looking to create an observation checklist for manipulatives use in the classroom, an email was sent to Dr. Marian Small asking what questions they might pose. A quick response from Dr. Small (personal communication, June 27, 2016) with the introduction “Here is a starter” gave them ten questions to consider. An examination of her books added four more questions. In the end Small’s questions will lead them on an inquiry that extends beyond the three weeks of Camp Wonder.As the associate researchers began their observations they soon discovered the inadequacies of the prepared checklist. The genesis of a mathematics activity was usually a book. Educators were provided with fifteen math-themed books in the SLP kit. In the June PD day educators were given time to ‘play’ with manipulatives in game situations and a demonstration of how to form math activities around a piece of literature. From the book a question or problem was created for the children to solve. In all cases at the observation camps students could chose whatever manipulative they wanted to help them and so the question of “Do students get a choice or are they always told which manipulative to use?” was redundant. The documentation of their work and their thinking more often than not would include representations. Students and teachers used devices to record the work and when work was shared with the rest of the campers the identification of strategies was highlighted and praised. Teachers modelled positive Growth Mindset language through the activity. Still other checklist questions led to a deeper examination of their own mathematical knowledge. Dr. Small’s question of “Are manipulatives used procedurally or to solve thinking problems?” lead them to wonder as teacher researchers, “What would it look like if a student used manipulatives procedurally?” and as classroom teachers, “What do I need to do within my classroom environment and in my teaching to foster my students’ procedural use of manipulatives?” As time went on other questions developed such as, “What would a mathematics lesson/activity look like when the use of manipulatives rather than a book or problem or curriculum expectation was the genesis?” and “What place does virtual manipulatives have and is it different than concrete manipulatives?” and “How does the concreteness fading model look in classrooms?” and “Does it look difference in Early Years, Primary, Junior, and Intermediate classrooms?” As the associate researchers worked to complete this report it was obvious that their learning about the use of manipulatives would not be completed any time soon. It is as if Dr. Small’s use of “Here is a starter” was coming true. Associate Researchers’ Additional Observations The value of the volunteers at each camp is important to note. They helped with breakfast and breakfast clean-up so teachers could begin the day’s program. They worked one-on-one and with small groups. They were also observed supporting students in the ELL program and helping with snack preparation. At two camps the use of the WeDo Lego? kit was under the supervision of a volunteer. An examination of the data from the teacher survey revealed 78% of educators indicated volunteers were helpful or very helpful in the running of Camp Wonder. Educators specifically described the role of the volunteer(s), if they had one, as “integral” or “One per site is almost essential” and “extremely helpful and supportive of the program goals”.Consideration should be given to sharing the information from parent and student surveys as well as the teacher survey with the educators of Camp Wonder. Observations from Parent Engagement activities and the final day of camp showed that many students and their families purposefully thanked the educators for their time spent at camp but a follow-up report on results could be shared with all teachers of Camp Wonder.ConclusionThe Summer Learning Program, Camp Wonder, of the Greater Essex County District School Board offers continues to be of the highest quality programming available to the children of Windsor and Essex County. Based on the well-defined aims of the program, it continues to evolve and grow to include more students, parents, educators and community partners. The high quality of this program, which strives to meet the needs of the whole child, has led to positive gains in all areas of the program. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download