the connected algebra classroom: a randomized control trial
DESCRIPTION
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 - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
The Connected Algebra The Connected Algebra Classroom: Classroom: A Randomized Control TrialA Randomized Control TrialDouglas T. OwensDouglas T. Owens11, Stephen J. Pape, Stephen J. Pape22, ,
Karen E. IrvingKaren E. Irving11, Vehbi , Vehbi A.SanalanA.Sanalan33,,Christy Kim BoscrdinChristy Kim Boscrdin44, Louis , Louis AbrahamsonAbrahamson55
1 The Ohio State University1 The Ohio State University2 University of Florida 2 University of Florida 3 Erzincan University, Turkey3 Erzincan University, Turkey4 CRESST/UCLA4 CRESST/UCLA5 Better Education Foundation5 Better Education Foundation
The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant 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 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.the U.S. Department of Education.
ICME-11 TSG 22ICME-11 TSG 22 22
Additional Research TeamAdditional Research Team
Frank Demana,Frank Demana, Co-PI,Co-PI, The Ohio State UniversityThe Ohio State University
Joan Herman, Joan Herman, Hye Sook ShinHye Sook Shin,, David David Silver,Silver, UCLA, CRESSTUCLA, CRESST; ;
Clare Bell, & Melissa Shirley,Clare Bell, & Melissa Shirley, OSUOSU
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
12 July 200812 July 2008
ICME-11 TSG 22ICME-11 TSG 22 33
CCMSCCMS Project Overview Project Overview
Professional development and Professional development and research project research project
Algebra I and Physical ScienceAlgebra I and Physical Science
Classroom connectivity technologyClassroom connectivity technology
Summer Institute – trainingSummer Institute – training
TT33 conference follow-up, annually conference follow-up, annually
12 July 200812 July 2008
ICME-11 TSG 22ICME-11 TSG 22 44
ICME-11, TSG 22 12 July 2008
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
12 July 200812 July 2008
ICME-11 TSG 22ICME-11 TSG 22 55
Theoretical FrameworkTheoretical Framework Social-constructivist models of teaching Social-constructivist models of teaching
and learningand learning
Technology-assisted formative Technology-assisted formative assessmentassessment
Classroom environments that foster self-Classroom environments that foster self-regulated learning and mastery regulated learning and mastery orientation orientation
Classroom discourse processesClassroom discourse processes
Classroom environment centeredness Classroom environment centeredness constructs constructs
12 July 200812 July 2008
ICME-11 TSG 22ICME-11 TSG 22 66
Prior Research Prior Research (Roschelle, Penuel, & Abrahamson, 2004)(Roschelle, Penuel, & Abrahamson, 2004)
Students: Students: Increased student engagement, Increased student engagement,
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
12 July 200812 July 2008
ICME-11 TSG 22ICME-11 TSG 22 77
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?
2.2. Self-regulated learning strategic Self-regulated learning strategic behavior?behavior?
3.3. Student views of mathematics?Student views of mathematics?
12 July 200812 July 2008
ICME-11 TSG 22ICME-11 TSG 22 88
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
12 July 200812 July 2008
ICME-11 TSG 22ICME-11 TSG 22 99
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
12 July 200812 July 2008
ICME-11 TSG 22ICME-11 TSG 22 1010
Teacher Demographic InformationTeacher Demographic InformationOriginal Randomized SampleOriginal Randomized Sample
TreatmentTreatment ControlControl
No. of teachersNo. of teachers 6161 6666
% Female% Female 70.570.5 77.377.3
% White% White 91.891.8 83.383.3
% Math majors% Math majors 65.065.0 83.683.6
XX SDSD XX SDSD
Yrs Tchg ExperYrs Tchg Exper 12.312.3 9.39.3 14.014.0 9.99.9
Yrs Alg TchgYrs Alg Tchg 6.66.6 7.27.2 9.39.3 8.08.0
% Free Lunch % Free Lunch (at (at school level)school level)
25.125.1 26.226.2 24.224.2 20.220.2
% Minority % Minority (at school (at school level)level)
23.023.0 29.529.5 23.723.7 26.826.8
12 July 200812 July 2008
ICME-11 TSG 22ICME-11 TSG 22 1111
Teacher Demographic InformationTeacher Demographic InformationHLM SampleHLM Sample
TreatmentTreatment ControlControl
No. of teachersNo. of teachers 3434 3434
% Female% Female 70.670.6 70.670.6
% White% White 97.197.1 88.288.2
% Math majors% Math majors 73.573.5 82.482.4
XX SDSD XX SDSD
Yrs Tchg ExperYrs Tchg Exper 13.213.2 7.27.2 15.615.6 10.610.6
Yrs Alg TchgYrs Alg Tchg 7.47.4 5.65.6 10.010.0 8.88.8
% Free Lunch % Free Lunch (at (at school level)school level)
16.416.4 15.715.7 24.624.6 18.118.1
% Minority % Minority (at school (at school level)level)
14.714.7 21.021.0 18.818.8 22.322.312 July 200812 July 2008
ICME-11 TSG 22ICME-11 TSG 22 1212
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 implementation12 July 200812 July 2008
ICME-11 TSG 22ICME-11 TSG 22 1313
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
Questionnaire Questionnaire (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1991)McKeachie, 1991)
12 July 200812 July 2008
ICME-11 TSG 22ICME-11 TSG 22 1414
Measures – Algebra IMeasures – Algebra I Algebra pretest – 30 item; 23 multiple choice, 3 Algebra pretest – 30 item; 23 multiple choice, 3
short-answer, and 4 extended response short-answer, and 4 extended response Algebra post-test – 30 items; 24 multiple choice, 1 Algebra post-test – 30 items; 24 multiple choice, 1
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
12 July 200812 July 2008
ICME-11 TSG 22ICME-11 TSG 22 1515
Student Views about MathematicsStudent Views about MathematicsTreatment Treatment
(n = 442)(n = 442)Control Control (N = 515)(N = 515)
(Scale = 1 to 6 for all (Scale = 1 to 6 for all subscales)subscales) XXpostpost SDSD XXpostpost SDSD
Beliefs about MathBeliefs about Math(14 items)(14 items)
4.254.25 .57.57 4.184.18 .60.60 .82.82
ConfidenceConfidence(5 items)(5 items)
3.923.92 .92.92 3.883.88 .96.96 .69.69
Math AnxietyMath Anxiety(5 items)(5 items)
3.673.67 .78.78 3.713.71 .75.75 .79.79
UsefulnessUsefulness(6 items)(6 items)
4.484.48 .94.94 4.474.47 1.041.04 .82.82
Self-EfficacySelf-Efficacy(4 items)(4 items)
4.554.55 1.071.07 4.354.35 1.131.13 .88.88
12 July 200812 July 2008
ICME-11 TSG 22ICME-11 TSG 22 1616
Motivated Strategies for Motivated Strategies for Learning QuestionnaireLearning Questionnaire
6 Motivation subconstructs6 Motivation subconstructs Intrinsic/Extrinsic Goal Orientation; Task Value; Intrinsic/Extrinsic Goal Orientation; Task Value;
Control of Learning Beliefs; Self-Efficacy; Control of Learning Beliefs; Self-Efficacy; Test Test AnxietyAnxiety
Alpha range = 0.67 to 0.92Alpha range = 0.67 to 0.92 5 Learning Strategies subconstructs5 Learning Strategies subconstructs
Rehearsal; Elaboration; Organization; Critical Rehearsal; Elaboration; Organization; Critical Thinking; Thinking; Metacognitive Self-RegulationMetacognitive Self-Regulation
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
12 July 200812 July 2008
ICME-11 TSG 22ICME-11 TSG 22 1717
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)
12 July 200812 July 2008
ICME-11 TSG 22ICME-11 TSG 22 1818
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
12 July 200812 July 2008
ICME-11 TSG 22ICME-11 TSG 22 1919
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
12 July 200812 July 2008
ICME-11 TSG 22ICME-11 TSG 22 2020
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
12 July 200812 July 2008
ICME-11 TSG 22ICME-11 TSG 22 2121
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
12 July 200812 July 2008
You may download You may download papers and PowerPoint papers and PowerPoint from the project website from the project website
atat
http://ccms.osu.edu/http://ccms.osu.edu/