the connected algebra classroom a randomized control trial
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
The Connected Algebra Classroom: A Randomized Control Trial

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 22

The Connected Algebra Classroom: A Randomized Control Trial - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 57 Views
  • Uploaded on

The Connected Algebra Classroom: A Randomized Control Trial. Douglas T. Owens 1 , Stephen J. Pape 2 , Karen E. Irving 1 , Vehbi A.Sanalan 3 , Christy Kim Boscrdin 4 , Louis Abrahamson 5 1 The Ohio State University 2 University of Florida 3 Erzincan University, Turkey 4 CRESST/UCLA

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' The Connected Algebra Classroom: A Randomized Control Trial' - rhonda-holden


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
the connected algebra classroom a randomized control trial

The Connected Algebra Classroom: A Randomized Control Trial

Douglas T. Owens1, Stephen J. Pape2, Karen E. Irving1, Vehbi A.Sanalan3,Christy Kim Boscrdin4, Louis Abrahamson5

1 The Ohio State University

2 University of Florida

3 Erzincan University, Turkey

4 CRESST/UCLA

5 Better Education Foundation

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.  The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the U.S. Department of Education.

additional research team
Additional Research Team

Frank Demana,Co-PI,The Ohio State University

Joan Herman, Hye Sook Shin,David Silver,UCLA, CRESST;

Clare Bell, & Melissa Shirley,OSU

Mike Kositzke,Project Program Coordinator, OSU

Ugur Baslanti,University of Florida

Sukru Kaya,The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey

TI Navigator slides adapted from a presentation by Eileen Shihadeh, Texas Instruments

ICME-11 TSG 22

ccms project overview
CCMS Project Overview
  • Professional development and research project
  • Algebra I and Physical Science
  • Classroom connectivity technology
  • Summer Institute – training
  • T3 conference follow-up, annually

ICME-11 TSG 22

slide4

The TI-Navigator™ Connected Classroom

The TI-Navigator System allows the teacher to:

  • Create a collaborative learning environment
  • Engage in formative assessment by way of immediate feedback
  • Enhance classroom management of TI graphing technology

ICME-11, TSG 22 12 July 2008

ICME-11 TSG 22

theoretical framework
Theoretical Framework
  • Social-constructivist models of teaching and learning
  • Technology-assisted formative assessment
  • Classroom environments that foster self-regulated learning and mastery orientation
  • Classroom discourse processes
  • Classroom environment centeredness constructs

ICME-11 TSG 22

prior research roschelle penuel abrahamson 2004
Prior Research (Roschelle, Penuel, & Abrahamson, 2004)
  • Students:
    • Increased student engagement, understanding, and interactivity
    • Improved classroom discourse
    • Knowledge of classmates’ learning
  • Teachers:
    • Improved pre- and post- assessment of student learning
    • Increased awareness of student difficulties
    • Improved questioning

ICME-11 TSG 22

research questions
Research Questions
  • How does teachers’ use of connected classroom technology affect:
    • Student achievement in algebra 1?
    • Self-regulated learning strategic behavior?
    • Student views of mathematics?

ICME-11 TSG 22

research design
Research Design
  • Year 1 (2005-2006) – Algebra I
  • Randomized assignment to treatment and control/delayed treatment groups
  • Cross-over design – control group provided treatment in second year of participation
  • Mixed methodology

ICME-11 TSG 22

participants
Participants
  • Initial data – 127 Algebra I teachers and 1,761 students from 28 states
  • 81 (64%) teachers had complete data at the end of year 1 (Rx = 39; C = 42)
  • 1,128 students from 68 classrooms (84% of 81) with adequate data (n>9; Rx=617; 50.2% female; C=511; 56.8% female)
  • Initial and final samples were not different on teacher demographic characteristics
  • Final sample treatment and control differ: % free/reduced lunch and school location

ICME-11 TSG 22

teacher data collection
Teacher Data Collection
  • Demographic Information Form
  • Technology Use and Professional Development Survey
  • Teacher Instructional Practices and Beliefs Survey (TIPBS)
  • Implementation—Teacher Interviews (inter-rater reliability ranged from .80 to 1.00)
  • Level of content implementation

ICME-11 TSG 22

student measures
Student Measures
  • Algebra I pretest
  • Algebra I posttest
    • Total score
    • Visual, Mechanical, and Pure Symbolic subtests
  • Student Beliefs about Mathematics
  • Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1991)

ICME-11 TSG 22

measures algebra i
Measures – Algebra I
  • Algebra pretest – 30 item; 23 multiple choice, 3 short-answer, and 4 extended response
  • Algebra post-test – 30 items; 24 multiple choice, 1 short-answer, and 5 extended response
  • 11 items overlap between the pre- and post-tests

ICME-11 TSG 22

motivated strategies for learning questionnaire
Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire
  • 6 Motivation subconstructs
    • Intrinsic/Extrinsic Goal Orientation; Task Value; Control of Learning Beliefs; Self-Efficacy; Test Anxiety
      • Alpha range = 0.67 to 0.92
  • 5 Learning Strategies subconstructs
    • Rehearsal; Elaboration; Organization; Critical Thinking; Metacognitive Self-Regulation
      • Alpha range = 0.73 to 0.80
  • 4 Resource Management Strategies Subconstructs
    • Time and Study Environment; Effort Regulation; Peer Learning; Help Seeking
      • Alpha range = 0.50 to 0.65

ICME-11 TSG 22

data analyses
Data Analyses
  • Cronbach’s alpha reliability estimates
  • IRT analysis conducted to ensure technical quality of Algebra pre- & post-test
  • Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) to examine effect of treatment
    • Accounting for nested data
    • Pretest data included as covariate
    • Two-level models consisting of within-class (level 1) and between-class (level 2)

ICME-11 TSG 22

results
Results
  • Significant treatment effect (ES=0.30) after controlling for student pretest scores, teacher’s years of experience, teacher’s gender, and percent of free/reduced lunch
    • Students taught by treatment group teachers performed about 2 out of 37 points higher than control students
  • Level of teacher knowledge about students as a result of TI-Navigator use was positively related to with student performance (ES=0.36)
  • Frequency and level of technology implementation as well as level of instructionalchange with technology were not associated with the outcome

ICME-11 TSG 22

results1
Results
  • Teaching experience was positively associated with achievement
  • Percentage free/reduce lunch not associated with outcome
  • Students of female teachers performed higher than male teachers (ES = .41)
  • Level of content coverage (implementation) was not associated with student performance
  • None of the other teacher survey constructs were associated with student outcome

ICME-11 TSG 22

results2
Results
  • On visual dimension, after controlling for percentage of free/reduced lunch, positive association between outcome and …
    • Treatment status (ES = 0.34)
    • Frequency of technology use (ES = 0.32)
    • Level of teacher knowledge about students as a result of TI-Navigator use (ES = 0.40)
    • level of instructional change with technology(ES = 0.48)
  • For mechanical and pure symbolic questions, none of the variableswere positively associated with the outcome

ICME-11 TSG 22

results con t
Results (con’t)
  • Treatment positively affected student Self-efficacy/math performance expectations with (ES=0.16)
  • No differences for beliefs about mathematics, confidence, anxiety, or usefulness related to treatment
  • No differences for motivation, learning strategies, or resource management strategies related to treatment

ICME-11 TSG 22

ad