1 / 22

The Connected Algebra Classroom: A Randomized Control Trial

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

rhonda-holden
Download Presentation

The Connected Algebra Classroom: A Randomized Control Trial

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

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 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.

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. Teacher Demographic InformationOriginal Randomized Sample ICME-11 TSG 22

  11. Teacher Demographic InformationHLM Sample ICME-11 TSG 22

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. Student Views about Mathematics ICME-11 TSG 22

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. 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

  20. 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

  21. 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

  22. You may download papers and PowerPoint from the project website athttp://ccms.osu.edu/

More Related