June 11, 2008 1 Learning and Teaching Learning and Teaching Algebra in a Connected Algebra in a Connected Classroom Classroom Douglas T. Owens Douglas T. Owens 1 , Stephen J. Pape , Stephen J. Pape 2 , , Karen E. Irving Karen E. Irving 1 , , A. Louis Abrahamson A. Louis Abrahamson 3 , , Vehbi A. Sanalan Vehbi A. Sanalan 1 1 The Ohio State University 1 The Ohio State University 2 University of Florida 2 University of Florida 3 Better Education Foundation 3 Better Education Foundation The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant R305K050045 to The Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant R305K050045 to The Ohio State University. The opinions expressed are those of the authors Ohio State University. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the U.S. Department of Education. and do not represent views of the U.S. Department of Education.
Transcript
June 11, 2008 1
Learning and Teaching Learning and Teaching Algebra in a Connected Algebra in a Connected ClassroomClassroomDouglas T. OwensDouglas T. Owens11, Stephen J. Pape, Stephen J. Pape22, , Karen E. IrvingKaren E. Irving11,, A. Louis Abrahamson A. Louis Abrahamson33, , Vehbi A. SanalanVehbi A. Sanalan11
1 The Ohio State University1 The Ohio State University2 University of Florida2 University of Florida3 Better Education Foundation3 Better Education Foundation
The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant R305K050045 to The Ohio State University. Department of Education, through Grant R305K050045 to The Ohio State University. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the U.S. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the U.S. Department of Education.Department of Education.
June 11, 2008June 11, 2008 22
Additional Research TeamAdditional Research Team
Frank Demana,Frank Demana, Co-PI,Co-PI, The Ohio State UniversityThe Ohio State University
Christy Boscardin, Christy Boscardin, Joan Herman, Joan Herman, Hye Hye Sook ShinSook Shin,, David Silver,David Silver, UCLA, CRESSTUCLA, CRESST; ;
Mike Kositzke,Mike Kositzke, Project Program Coordinator, OSUProject Program Coordinator, OSU
Ugur Baslanti,Ugur Baslanti, University of FloridaUniversity of Florida
SSukru Kaya,ukru Kaya, The Scientific and Technological The Scientific and Technological Research Council of TurkeyResearch Council of Turkey
TI Navigator slides adapted from a presentation by TI Navigator slides adapted from a presentation by Eileen Shihadeh, Eileen Shihadeh, Texas InstrumentsTexas Instruments
June 11, 2008June 11, 2008 33
CCMSCCMS Project Overview Project Overview
Interdisciplinary professional Interdisciplinary professional development and research project development and research project
Algebra I and Physical ScienceAlgebra I and Physical Science
Summer Institute – trainingSummer Institute – training
TT33 conference follow-up conference follow-up
June 11, 2008June 11, 2008 44
22-Mar-08
The TI-NavigatorThe TI-Navigator™™ Connected Connected ClassroomClassroom
The TI-Navigator The TI-Navigator System allows the System allows the
teacher to:teacher to: Create a collaborative
learning environment
Engage in formative assessment by way of immediate feedback
Enhance classroom management of TI graphing technology
June 11, 2008June 11, 2008 55
Background of Background of CCMSCCMS StudyStudy
Changing conception of mathematics Changing conception of mathematics competence competence (Kilpatrick, Swafford, & Findel, 2001)(Kilpatrick, Swafford, & Findel, 2001)
Changing roles for teachers Changing roles for teachers includeinclude Thinking beyond skills-based conceptions Thinking beyond skills-based conceptions Setting norms for discourse Setting norms for discourse Using problem solving and inquiry to support Using problem solving and inquiry to support
knowledge constructionknowledge construction Using formative as well as summative Using formative as well as summative
Classroom environments that foster self-Classroom environments that foster self-regulated learning and mastery regulated learning and mastery orientation orientation
understanding, and interactivityunderstanding, and interactivity Improved classroom discourseImproved classroom discourseKnowledge of classmates’ learningKnowledge of classmates’ learning
Teachers: Teachers: Improved pre- and post- assessment of Improved pre- and post- assessment of
student learningstudent learning Increased awareness of student difficultiesIncreased awareness of student difficulties Improved questioningImproved questioning
June 11, 2008June 11, 2008 88
Audience Response Systems in Audience Response Systems in Academic SettingsAcademic Settings
Increases in …Increases in … Student attendance and participationStudent attendance and participation
(Burnstein & Lederman, 2001)(Burnstein & Lederman, 2001) Student comprehensionStudent comprehension (Hake, 1998; (Hake, 1998; Slain et al., Slain et al.,
Technology-facilitated interactive Technology-facilitated interactive engagement in ARS lecture classes is engagement in ARS lecture classes is correlated with student conceptual gains correlated with student conceptual gains (Judson & Sawada, 2002)(Judson & Sawada, 2002)
June 11, 2008June 11, 2008 99
Research QuestionsResearch Questions How does teachers’ use of How does teachers’ use of
connected classroom technology connected classroom technology affect:affect:1.1. Student achievement in algebra 1?Student achievement in algebra 1?
3.3. Student views of mathematics?Student views of mathematics?
June 11, 2008June 11, 2008 1010
Research DesignResearch Design Year 1 (2005-2006) – Algebra IYear 1 (2005-2006) – Algebra I
Randomized assignment to treatment Randomized assignment to treatment and control/delayed treatment groupsand control/delayed treatment groups
Cross-over design – control group Cross-over design – control group provided treatment in second year of provided treatment in second year of participationparticipation
Mixed methodologyMixed methodology
June 11, 2008June 11, 2008 1111
ParticipantsParticipants Initial data – 127 Algebra I teachers and 1,761 Initial data – 127 Algebra I teachers and 1,761
students from 28 states students from 28 states
81 (64%) teachers had complete data at the 81 (64%) teachers had complete data at the end of year 1 (Rx = 39; C = 42)end of year 1 (Rx = 39; C = 42)
1,128 students from 68 classrooms (84% of 1,128 students from 68 classrooms (84% of 81) with adequate data (n>9; Rx=617; 50.2% 81) with adequate data (n>9; Rx=617; 50.2% female; C=511; 56.8% female)female; C=511; 56.8% female)
Initial and final samples were not different Initial and final samples were not different on on teacher demographic characteristicsteacher demographic characteristics
Final sample treatment and control differ: % Final sample treatment and control differ: % free/reduced lunch and school locationfree/reduced lunch and school location
% Minority % Minority (at school (at school level)level)
14.714.7 21.021.0 18.818.8 22.322.3
June 11, 2008June 11, 2008 1414
Teacher Data CollectionTeacher Data Collection
Demographic Information FormDemographic Information Form
Technology Use and Professional Technology Use and Professional Development SurveyDevelopment Survey
Teacher Instructional Practices and Teacher Instructional Practices and Beliefs Survey (TIPBS)Beliefs Survey (TIPBS)
Implementation—Teacher Interviews Implementation—Teacher Interviews (inter-rater reliability ranged from .80 to (inter-rater reliability ranged from .80 to 1.00)1.00)
Level of content implementationLevel of content implementation
June 11, 2008June 11, 2008 1515
Student MeasuresStudent Measures
Algebra I pretestAlgebra I pretest Algebra I posttestAlgebra I posttest
Total scoreTotal score Visual, Mechanical, and Pure Symbolic Visual, Mechanical, and Pure Symbolic
subtestssubtests Student Beliefs about MathematicsStudent Beliefs about Mathematics Motivated Strategies for Learning Motivated Strategies for Learning
short-answer, and 5 extended responseshort-answer, and 5 extended response 11 items overlap between the pre- and post-tests11 items overlap between the pre- and post-tests
TreatmentTreatment ControlControl
XX SDSD SS SDSD
Algebra Pre Algebra Pre (36 maximum)(36 maximum)
18.8018.80 5.005.00 18.3018.30 5.805.80 .81.81
Algebra PostAlgebra Post(37 maximum)(37 maximum)
21.4021.40 7.207.20 18.9018.90 7.207.20 .85.85
June 11, 2008June 11, 2008 1717
Student Views about MathematicsStudent Views about MathematicsTreatment Treatment
Alpha range = 0.73 to 0.80Alpha range = 0.73 to 0.80 4 Resource Management Strategies 4 Resource Management Strategies
SubconstructsSubconstructs Time and Study Environment; Effort Regulation; Time and Study Environment; Effort Regulation;
Peer Learning; Peer Learning; Help Seeking Help Seeking Alpha range = 0.50 to 0.65Alpha range = 0.50 to 0.65
June 11, 2008June 11, 2008 1919
Data AnalysesData Analyses Cronbach’s alpha reliability estimatesCronbach’s alpha reliability estimates IRT analysis conducted to ensure technical IRT analysis conducted to ensure technical
quality of Algebra pre- & post-testquality of Algebra pre- & post-test Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) to Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) to
examine effect of treatment examine effect of treatment Accounting for nested dataAccounting for nested dataPretest data included as covariatePretest data included as covariateTwo-level models consisting of within-class Two-level models consisting of within-class
(level 1) and between-class (level 2)(level 1) and between-class (level 2)
June 11, 2008June 11, 2008 2020
HLM analysesHLM analyses Level 1 Level 1
Level 2Level 2
0 1 ..( )ij j j ij ijY PRE PRE 2~ (0, )ij N
0
1
00 01 02
03 04 05 0
10
( ) ( .)
( ) ( .) (mPreAlg mPreAlg.)
j
j
j j
j j j j
TREAT FreeLunch FreeLunch
Gender Yteach Yteach u
0 ju 2(0, )N ~~
June 11, 2008June 11, 2008 2121
ResultsResults Significant treatment effectSignificant treatment effect (ES=0.30) after (ES=0.30) after
controlling for student pretest scores, teacher’s controlling for student pretest scores, teacher’s years of experience, teacher’s gender, and percent years of experience, teacher’s gender, and percent of free/reduced lunch of free/reduced lunch
Students taught by treatment group teachers performed Students taught by treatment group teachers performed about 2 out of 37 points higher than control studentsabout 2 out of 37 points higher than control students
Level of teacher knowledge about students Level of teacher knowledge about students as a result of TI-Navigator use was positively as a result of TI-Navigator use was positively related to with student performance (ES=0.36)related to with student performance (ES=0.36)
FrequencyFrequency and and level of technology level of technology implementationimplementation as well as as well as level of level of instructionalinstructional changechange with technology were not with technology were not associated with the outcome associated with the outcome
June 11, 2008June 11, 2008 2222
ResultsResults Teaching experience was positively Teaching experience was positively
associated with achievementassociated with achievement
Percentage free/reduce lunch not associated Percentage free/reduce lunch not associated with outcomewith outcome
Students of Students of female teachers performed female teachers performed higherhigher than male teachers (ES = .41) than male teachers (ES = .41)
Level of content coverage (implementation) Level of content coverage (implementation) was not associated with student performancewas not associated with student performance
None of the other teacher survey constructs None of the other teacher survey constructs were associated with student outcomewere associated with student outcome
June 11, 2008June 11, 2008 2323
ResultsResults On On visual dimension, visual dimension, after controlling for after controlling for
percentage of free/reduced lunch, positive percentage of free/reduced lunch, positive association between outcome and …association between outcome and … Treatment status (ES = 0.34)Treatment status (ES = 0.34) Frequency of technology use (ES = 0.32) Frequency of technology use (ES = 0.32) Level of teacher knowledge about students as a Level of teacher knowledge about students as a
result of TI-Navigator use (ES = 0.40) result of TI-Navigator use (ES = 0.40) level of instructional change with technologylevel of instructional change with technology (ES (ES
= 0.48)= 0.48) For For mechanicalmechanical and and pure symbolicpure symbolic
questions, none of the variablesquestions, none of the variables were were positively associated with the outcomepositively associated with the outcome
June 11, 2008June 11, 2008 2424
Results Results (con’t)(con’t)
Treatment positively affected student Treatment positively affected student Self-efficacy/math performance Self-efficacy/math performance expectations with expectations with (ES=0.16)(ES=0.16)
No differences for beliefs about No differences for beliefs about mathematics, confidence, anxiety, or mathematics, confidence, anxiety, or usefulness related to treatmentusefulness related to treatment
No differences for motivation, learning No differences for motivation, learning strategies, or resource management strategies, or resource management strategies related to treatmentstrategies related to treatment
June 11, 2008 25
You may download You may download papers and PowerPoint papers and PowerPoint from the project website from the project website
