Chapter One: Introductionhome.lagrange.edu/educate/Advanced Programs/M.Ed... · Web viewAndrea...

INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS

Except where reference is made to the work of others, the work described in this thesis is my own or was done in collaboration with my Thesis Chair. This thesis does not include

proprietary or classified information.

______________________________________________________________________Andrea Lynne Stipe

Certificate of Approval:

______________________________ ______________________________Donald R. Livingston, Ed.D. Sharon M. Livingston, Ph.D.Thesis Co-Chair Thesis Co-ChairEducation Department Education Department

INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS: A STUDY OF STUDENT ENGAGEMENT AND

ACADEMIC ACHEIVEMENT

A thesis submitted

by

Andrea Stipe

to

LaGrange College

in partial fulfillment of

the requirement for the

degree of

MASTER OF EDUCATION

in

Curriculum and Instruction

LaGrange, Georgia

May 12, 2011

Interactive Whiteboards iii

Abstract

Student interest and motivation are dwindling in the classroom. Students are not

gaining the foundation needed to understand and master the concepts taught through the

strategies and techniques used by classroom teachers. This action research study focuses

on, whether technology in classrooms fosters student engagement and academic

achievement in implemented lessons. Data were derived from the implementation of a

fraction unit in a kindergarten classroom. Qualitative data were collected through an

instructional plan rubric, interview, and reflective journals then analyzed by coding.

Quantitative data were collected through assessments and analyzed statistically.

Quantitative data for the posttest scores revealed no significant difference between the

group taught through an IWB and hands-on materials. Groups had significant differences

between their pre/ posttest scores.

Interactive Whiteboards iv

Table of Contents

Abstract ………………………………………………………………………………….iii

Table of Contents ………………………………………………………………………..iv

List of Tables ……………………………………………………………………………..v

Chapter 1: Introduction …………………………………………………………………...1Statement of the Problem ……………………………………………………........1Significance of the Problem ………………………………………………………1Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks ………………………………………...2Focus Questions ………………………………………………………………......4Overview of Methodology ……………………………………………………......5Human as a Researcher …………………………………………………………...6

Chapter 2: Review of the Literature ………………………………………………………7The use of an Interactive Whiteboard and Hands-On Activities………………….7Formative Assessments ………………………………………………………….10Student Engagement while Teaching with Interactive Whiteboards…………….12Reflective Practice in Action Research …………………………………………14

Chapter 3: Methodology ………………………………………………………………...15Research Design ………………………………………………………………....15Setting …………………………………………………………………………...16Subjects and Participants ………………………………………………..............16Procedures and Data Collections Methods ……………………………………...17Validity, Reliability, Dependability, and Bias …………………………………..20Analysis of Data …………………………………………………………………22Summary ………………………………………………………………………...24

Chapter 4: Results ……………………………………………………………………….25

Chapter 5: Analysis and Discussion of Results …………………………...…………….32Analysis of Results ………………………..…………………………………….32Discussion ……………………………………………………………………….37Implications ……………………………………………………………………...40Impact on Student Learning …………………………………………………......41Recommendations for Future Research …………………………………………42

References ……………………………………………………………………………….43

Interactive Whiteboards v

Appendixes ……………………………………………………………………………...45

Interactive Whiteboards vi

List of TablesTables

Table 3.1 Data Shell ………………………………………………………………18

Table 4.1 T-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances …………………...26

Table 4.2 T-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means for the IWB Group …………....27

Table 4.3 T-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means for the Hands-On Group ……...28

Table 4.4 T-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances …………………...29

Interactive Whiteboards 1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Statement of the Problem

Student interest and motivation are dwindling in the classroom. Teachers use

different methods in hopes of increasing student engagement and interest when

implementing lessons but often fall short of success. As cited in The Wonders of

Interactive Whiteboards, Starkman (2006) states, “His seventh-graders had been

chattering as usual, joking around, not paying much attention to anything except their

own adolescent obsessions and amusements” (¶ 1). Traditional classroom settings are not

meeting the needs of students who are growing up in a technology based world. Teachers

struggle with finding successful strategies for grabbing and holding students’ attention

while implementing curriculum. This study will identify a teaching method through

techniques which will improve student engagement and increase student test scores.

Through action research this study will explore the use of interactive whiteboards (IWB)

in the classroom in regards to student engagement and academic achievement. IWB are

becoming a part of many classrooms.

Significance of the Problem

Students' level of comprehension and knowledge gained from classroom activities

and lessons is affected by student engagement in the learning process. If students are not

interested and motivated in lessons, then there is a low level of learning taking place in

the classroom. Students are not gaining the foundation needed to understand and master

the concepts taught through the strategies and techniques used by classroom teachers.

Teachers are being forced to spend extra time re-teaching content. Students are not

interested in the lesson; therefore, behavior issues arise and cause distractions which


make it difficult for students to learn. Academic achievement is affected negatively

because students are not focusing on the concepts being taught. Teachers' expectations

are not being met due to lack of student engage in the curriculum. Student engagement is

essential to student learning and success.

Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks

On a state level, this thesis relates to Domain Two under the six domains of the

Georgia Framework for Teaching, which states “Teachers support the intellectual, social,

physical, and personal development of all students” (as cited by LaGrange College

Education Department, 2008, p. 11). Teachers must be aware of how aspects of students'

environments outside of the classroom affect students’ learning in the classroom. Our

children are growing up in a technological world. The activities children participate in

today are not anything comparable to activities children of the same age participated in

ten years ago. Electronic games have replaced board games. Technology is changing and

improving every day. Technology has revolutionized learning. IWB were originally

created for office settings. Now they are being used in classrooms. Appropriate teaching

strategies and tools must be used to gain and hold students’ attention while lessons are

being implemented if learning is going to take place. Teaching tools, such as IWB,

should be used to meet the social development and values of students in the classroom. In

order to hold students’ attention, teaching strategies need to shift with the shifting world

of children’s interest.

On a national level, this thesis relates with the Proposition 3 of the Core

Propositions for Experienced Teachers “Teachers are responsible for managing and

monitoring student learning” (LaGrange College Education Department, 2008, p. 12). For


this study, research has been conducted to evaluate the most effective instructional

techniques to increase student attention, engagement, and motivation. IWB were used in

this study as instructional tools to implement curricula. Teachers are responsible for

engaging the students in the learning process. Research by BECTA in 2003 revealed that

an IWB “engages students to a greater extent” and “facilitates student participation” (as

cited by Shenton & Pagett, 2007, ¶ 7).

Tenet Two of LaGrange College Education Department's (2008) Conceptual

Framework states that teachers should “use effective verbal, nonverbal, and media

communication techniques to encourage students’ development of critical thinking,

problem-solving, and performance skills” (p.7). This study relates to Tenet Two in that

teachers should utilize IWBs as a tool to facilitate a media connection in the classroom.

Through the use of an IWB, technology can be integrated into all Georgia Performance

Standards. Shenton and Pagett (2007) suggest that “interactive whiteboards, with their

various typefaces, colors, images, and animations, are part of a technological revolution

in classrooms” (¶ 3).

According to Powell and Kalina (2009), “Piaget’s cognitive constructivism theory

incorporates the importance of understanding what each individual needs to get

knowledge and learn at his or her own pace. Observing students and comprehending their

level of difficulty is paramount to this process” (p. 243). Through the use of an

interactive whiteboard teachers can focus on students’ individual needs and learning

styles. Interactive whiteboards help create a constructivist learning environment by

allowing the students to learn through interactive lessons. Interactive whiteboards make it

possible for teachers to observe student learning and understanding of the curriculum.


Teachers are able to differentiate and re-implement curriculum to meet their students’

needs through interactive whiteboards. Smith et al. (2005) suggest that, “An interactive

whiteboard screen is also reported as a useful technique in supporting a range of needs

within a class flexibility and spontaneously” (p. 92). Students can complete activities

individually, with a partner, or in a small group setting which focuses on specific needs

of each learner. IWBs can be used to challenge students by providing a resource through

which they can complete a more advanced activity.

Vygotsky formed the theory of social constructivism and believed social

interaction must be evident for learning to take place. Social interaction continually takes

place when curriculum is implemented through an IWB. Smith et al. (2005) state, “As

well as promoting the technical interactivity of IWBs, broader pedagogic claims are also

being made that IWBs facilitate more interactive lessons. Some of the reports link this

idea of pedagogic interactivity with pupil participation in whole-class interaction” (p. 95).

Students interact with each other through conversation about how a problem is solved or

what steps are needed to complete the task on an IWB activity. Interaction is also

conveyed between the student and the learning activity which they are engaged in while

on an IWB.

Focus Questions

The purpose of this study was to acquire an answer to the question, does having

technology in classrooms foster student engagement and academic achievement in

implemented lessons. Through the use of hands-on concrete materials and an IWB the

main research question of this study was broken into the three focus questions:


1.) How are curricula implemented through the use of an interactive whiteboard

and hands-on activities?

2.) How do interactive whiteboards compare with hands-on learning approaches

in student learning?

3.) What are the impacts of interactive whiteboards and hands-on activities on

student engagement while teaching the curriculum?

Overview of Methodology

This study was conducted using action research which included recognizing an

issue, then researching the issue and collecting data, and finally analyzing the data

accumulated to strengthen one’s instruction (Gilles, Martille, & Wilson, 2010). After

indentifying and examining the research topic, an instructional plan was developed to

address the implementation of the study. The instructional plan was evaluated by a more

experienced colleague prior to the implementation of the study. Recommendations were

provided preceding the completion of the rubric used to evaluate the instructional plan.

Subjects and participants were required to conduct the action research. A class of

kindergarten students which I taught was used as subjects to conduct this study. The

participant used in this study was a teaching assistant acquired to implement the

curriculum and record reflections due to her position. The study took place at a Title One

school in Georgia. The subjects came from varying economic backgrounds and cultures.

The study took place over two weeks in the middle of the school year. Quantitative and

qualitative methods were used to collect data by analyzing the effectiveness of IWBs on

student engagement and academic achievement. The students were given a pre-test to

determine their knowledge of the content material in mathematics. The students were


divided into two groups for the implementation of the mathematics lessons. Each lesson

was implemented in two different methods. One method for teaching the curriculum was

through the use of an IWB while the other method was through the use of hands-on and

concrete materials. The two groups were taught the curriculum in one of the two different

methods for the mathematics lessons. Observations were made and recorded in reflective

journals to evaluate student engagement. After the students were taught the curriculum

they were given a posttest. A dependent t-test was used to analyze the scores taken from

the pretest and posttest to determine student academic achievement. The scores were also

analyzed using an independent t-tests to identify any differences between the pretest

scores and the posttest scores of the students taught using hands-on materials and an

IWB.

Human as a Researcher

I have taught at a Title One school in Georgia for 3 years. I have taught first grade

for the past three years and am now teaching kindergarten. During the past two years I

was grade level chair for the first grade team. I believe that by using an IWB to

implement curriculum students’ engagement will increase and improve. Implementation

of curriculum through an IWB will increase academic gains and test scores. IWBs

interest students and align with students’ cultural aspects such as technology. Behavior

issues in the classroom will be decreased because students will be captivated and

fascinated with the functions of an IWB. Students will want to participate in activities

implemented through the use of an IWB.


CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The use of an Interactive Whiteboard and Hands-On Activities

The technology revolution in classrooms began in the 1950’s with the inclusion of

radios. Now in the twenty-first century, technology in the classroom includes interactive

whiteboards (IWBs). IWBs were originally designed to be used in the business world,

however, today they provide a new approach for teachers to implement curriculum.

(Shenton & Pagett, 2007)

According to Peter Kent (2006) in Using Interactive Whiteboards to Enhance

Mathematics Teaching, an IWB screen looks like a large flat screen television on a

classroom wall. It displays images generated by a computer projected onto a touch

sensitive screen which can be operated through a pen, a tool included with the IWB. The

touch of the pen is equivalent to a touch of a mouse on a traditional computer.

In his article Kent (2006), explains that since IWBs are becoming more common

in classrooms, resources for teachers are being uploaded to the internet for users across

the world. Teachers create and share flipcharts which are similar to Microsoft Power

Point slides focused on content areas to utilize in classrooms. The flipcharts include

activities with which students and teachers can interact.

IWBs have opened the door for a plethora of opportunities for mathematics

instruction and learning. Kent (2006) continues to explain the opportunities available to

students and teachers such as, access to virtual and interactive games, learning objects,

and mathematics software. Teachers can easily demonstrate and model for the entire class

strategies such as fractions, problem solving, or measurement. The resources that teachers

are able to use through an IWB innovate teaching and enhance lessons. The resources


provide a format for creating shapes to increase accuracy of the sections and decrease

confusion of size in fraction lessons. IWBs allow teachers to lead discussions, ask

questions, provide assistance, and monitor student learning supported by a variety of new

learning resources.

In a study conducted by Lerman and Zevenbergen (2008) to research the

effectiveness of an IWB on student academic achievement, an IWB was used as a method

of teaching a mathematics lesson on fractions. Lerman and Zevenbergen clarify an IWB

existence in a classroom as “largely replacing the standard whiteboard in that whilst it is

also available for pupils to be called to the board to present their ideas, proposals, and

outcome of their problem solving, it can also be used to present content previously

prepared it enables the teacher to choose high quality accurate representations as they are

called for during the progress of the lesson. The IWB enables the same variety of font

formats and other visual effects as word processing packages” (p.121).

In many studies on the use of IWBs in classrooms, teachers conducted lessons in

a whole group setting. Teachers led the lesson while positioned beside the IWB as the

students sat at their desks or on the floor in front of the board. Students were invited by

the teacher to manipulate the objects on the IWB. One student at a time would interact

with the IWB (Lerman &Zevenbergen, 2008).

Lerman and Zevenbergen (2008) inform readers about a fraction lesson

implemented through an IWB, “in one lesson the teacher was using the fraction tool in

which a shape (circle, rectangle, and square), chosen by the teacher, was used to represent

various fractions” (p. 113). The fraction tool could make a variety of shapes such as,

circles, rectangles, squares, or triangles. Grids or pictures could be applied to the shapes


to meet the needs of the learners. Due to the access of the selection of shapes and their

representation a wide spectrum of vocabulary could be used to discuss the fractions,

pictures, and shapes. The delivery, level of difficulty, and speed of the fractions could be

monitored and adjusted to meet the individual needs of the learners. Lerman and

Zevenbergen (2008) recommend using the IWB due to the speed of preparation of

materials, questioning, and transition time was decreased when using the IWB. Through

the use of an IWB the class was presented with a series of fractions (halves, quarters,

thirds, sixths, eights, tenths). Equivalence was discussed during some of the fraction

lessons researched in the study.

In a study conducted by the U.S. Department of Education (2010), students

learned the concept of dividing one object into two and four equal parts through a hands-

on learning approach. Instruction took place in a whole group setting and while using

manipulative objects and shapes. U.S. Department of Education (2010) recommends that

the instructional plan of a hands-on approach to teaching fractions should center on story

problems and real life scenarios such as sharing activities. In the report the U.S.

Department of Education (2010), stated that a fraction lesson should “build on students’

informal understanding of sharing and proportionality to develop initial fractions

concepts” (p.13). In order to get the students thinking about fractions the U.S.

Department of Education suggest teachers should begin by “asking how many things

each person should get to asking students how much of an object each person should get”

(p.13). Students should be encouraged to use counters and create drawings before being

introduced to formal fractional terms. Teachers should use objects as examples that are

interesting and common to students such as cookies. Analogies should be posed for


example, if there are two people how can we share the cookie equally? Students can act

out the story problem as a means of finding a solution. This type of activity should

continue with other geometric shapes to illustrate concepts of halves, thirds, and fourths.

Students will develop a deeper understanding of fractions as the teacher increases the

number of people among whom an object is divided. Students will also develop a deeper

understanding of proportions decreasing when the number of times an object is divided

increases. Instruction should guide students to compare fractional areas of a square,

rectangle, and circle. One method posed by U.S. Department of Education is to guide

students in exploring how to divide a shape into fractional parts by folding and dividing a

shape.

Formative Assessments

Formative assessments can be used during an action research study to analyze

learners’ academic achievement, effectiveness of an instructional plan, and teacher’s

performance. During action research studies formative assessments can be used as a

method of gathering results from the study. Assessments provide evidence of students’

knowledge and the effectiveness of teachers’ instruction. Popham (2008) defines

educational assessment as being “a formal attempt to determine students’ status with

respect to educational variables of interest” (p.7). Students’ attitudes, knowledge, or skills

could be measured variables.

Popham’s perspective of formative assessment aligns with and guides the

instructional strategy used in this study. Popham (2008) states in Assessment What

Teachers Need to Know, that formative assessment occurs when educators or students use

the results from assessments to develop more effective action in learning. The root of the


formative assessment process consists of compiling and analyzing students’ background

knowledge and knowledge base of the content; finally, guiding instruction to align with

the students’ needs. Formative assessment should be used to guide teachers when

developing an instructional plan. Educators should begin with the end in mind to improve

student learning and build an effective instruction plan.

Brandt and Pinchok (2009), state “formative assessment is a process in which

teachers use various tools and strategies to determine what students know, identify gaps

in understanding, and plan future instruction to improve learning” (p. 2). Brandt and

Pinchok (2009) continue by explaining that formative assessment is a process that is

seamlessly integrated into a lesson or activity. It should be considered an ongoing activity

or process that is entrenched within daily activities. Current teaching and learning should

reflect an analysis of formative assessments. A teacher’s decisions on differentiation or

individualized instruction within a classroom should mirror evidence gathered from

formative assessments.

Brandt and Pinchok (2009) researched the effectiveness of using a pretest as a

form of formative assessment to determine students’ knowledge of the content and direct

instruction. Brandt and Pinchok refer to one area of formative assessment as “identifying

the gap”. Brandt and Pinchok state identifying the gap occurs when educators understand

the difference between their students' background knowledge and what the students need

to know in a content area. By identifying the gap educators can then focus instruction

primarily on the unknown content to meet the desired learning goals. When identification

of a student’s knowledge of a content area is made, a teacher can also develop an

appropriate and effective instructional plan to meet the learners’ individual needs. Brandt


and Pinchok (2009) discuss mastery learning, in that it “incorporated feedback processes

after students took brief unit assessments to direct their individual and group learning

needs. After these initial assessments, students received appropriate and differentiated

follow-up instruction or activities, followed again by a more formative assessment, until

the class completed a unit” (p.8).

Popham (2008) believes pretest and posttest assessments provide a means of

gathering qualitative data to measure student academic achievement during a study.

Pretest convey to educators students’ background knowledge of a content area. They

provide a direction and guide for educators when developing an effective instruction plan

to prepare learners to meet desired learning goals. Popham (2008) continues by stating

that after collecting data received from a posttest an educator can analyze student

academic gains and their own performance in preparing and implementing the content.

Teachers can use the data gained from pretest and posttest scores to measure

effectiveness of their instructional plan or if revamping is needed.

Student Engagement while Teaching with Interactive Whiteboards

After analyzing the scores derived from their study taken during the fraction

lesson implemented via an IWB, Lerman and Zevenbergen (2008) found, that when using

an IWB as a form of implementation of mathematics curriculum there is a lower level of

learning. The academic quality and social learning was poor. Lerman and Zevenbergen

concluded by stating that when using an IWB as a form of implementation the quality of

mathematical learning was reduced. Reports showed that there were fewer opportunities

for connections to be used beyond the school and independent learning occasions to take

place for students. Lerman and Zevenbergen continue by reviewing observations from the


study of few student behavior problems and that students were actively engaged during

lessons implemented on IWBs.

IWBs have a unique way of drawing students’ attention into the curriculum when

used as a teaching tool. Students are in awe of the technology and are curious as to what

will appear next on the IWBs when used to implement curriculum. Starkman (2006)

reports from an interview “even the most obstreperous students were politely raising their

hands, waiting patiently to step up to this magical new device and try it out” (¶ 1).

Studies have reported that when lessons are implemented through an IWB student

behavior improved. Students’ desire to be engaged with the IWB overrides their

mischievous behavior tendencies. Teachers have commented that when students are

playing interactive games on IWBs, students’ responses are more accurate in decision-

making and there is less guessing. Teachers are able to monitor students’ understanding

of the content and identify weaknesses and misconceptions earlier in an activity than in

hands-on activities. Teachers often favor lessons implemented through an IWB due to the

efficiency of prepared lessons and their capability of providing easy transitions. (Smith et

al., 2005)

The achievement scores shared by the U.S. Department of Education from the

fraction lesson implemented in a hands-on teaching technique were similar to the results

derived from the lesson implemented through an IWB. The U.S. Department of

Education (2010) found after reviewing their study, there were “positive effects on

fraction knowledge, but they do not provide rigorous evidence on the impact of

instruction based on sharing activities” (p.13). In both studies on fraction lessons the

there was a low level of student learning but the students were actively engaged.


Reflective Practice in Action Research

Educators constantly try to find the best practices and adjust instruction to be the

most beneficial for their students. According to Hendricks (2009) in Improving Schools

Through Action Research, action research is an effective practice for educators to use to

discover new strategies and the best methods. Action research is used to examine issues

in ones’ daily life. Hendricks (2009) states that the action research process includes the

researcher’s “intentions, methods, and desired outcomes as part of the investigation”

(p.3). During the investigation the researcher gathers information from a variety of

sources and their own experiences to direct and guide their own research study.

Hendricks (2009) believes reflective practice is significant when conducting a

research study. Reflection on problems and issues that are persistent in one’s daily life

experiences should be the focus. Reflective practice can give one insight on what has

occurred in past studies and what direction they need to go in their own study.

Data collection is critical when analyzing the outcomes of a research study. One

of the most useful types of data collection to use when conducting an action research

study is a reflective journal. A reflective journal can be a source to record observation

from a lesson, thoughts, and ideas. According to Gil-Garcia and Cintron, (2002) “a

reflective journal is a private artifact that stimulates individual reflection. It facilitates the

process of reflection of teachers” (p.5). Reflective journal notes can include what worked

or did not work during an activity. Reflective journals are used to ensure accuracy of

information regarding student achievement, comments, engagement, involvement,

participation, and understanding of the content during the lessons. Reflections can be

used to adjust and guide remaining instruction during a study.


CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

Research Design

An action research design was selected for my research study. In the article

Sustaining Teachers' Growth and Renewal through Action Research, Induction

Programs, and Collaboration Gilles, Martille, and Wilson (2010), state that action

research promotes educators to systematically identify an issue, then research the issue

and collect data, and finally analyze the data accumulated to enhance one's practice. The

authors continue to summarize action research as noticing and acting to improve

instruction and learning. Hendricks (2009) believes action research is when one addresses

a problem occurring in education and investigates in order to discover solutions for the

obstacle.

Quantitative and qualitative methods were used to analyze the effectiveness of

interactive whiteboards (IWB) on student engagement and academic achievement. The

students were given a pretest and posttest to determine their knowledge of the content

material. The students were divided into two groups for the implementation of the

mathematics unit. Each lesson was implemented in two different methods. One method

for teaching the curriculum was through the use of an IWB while the other method was

through the use of hands-on and concrete materials. The two groups were taught the

curriculum in one of the two different methods for the mathematics lessons.

Observations were made and recorded in a reflective journal to evaluate student

engagement during each form of instruction. According to Gil-Garcia and Cintron

(2002), the purpose of reflective journals is to guarantee accuracy of information

concerning students' academics, attitudes, participation, and comprehension of the


content during activities. Educators' reflections should be used to enhance and guide

further instruction during a study.

After the students were taught the curriculum they were given a posttest. The data

collected were analyzed using a dependant t-test and an independent t-test to determine

any differences between the scores of the students taught using hands-on materials and an

IWB.

Setting

The study took place in the fall of 2010 Coweta County where I was employed

and taught kindergarten. The classroom in which I taught kindergarten was at Elm Street

Elementary School. Elm Street Elementary School was a Title One School located in the

city of Newnan. Fifty-two percent of the population attending Elm Street Elementary

School was economically disadvantaged.

Permission to conduct this study was acquired from Coweta County School

System. The Lead Psychologist/SST Coordinator granted permission by signature after

reviewing the Coweta County Research Application form. The principal at Elm Street

Elementary School granted permission to conduct this study as did the LaGrange College

Institutional Review Board.

Subjects and Participants

The subjects used for this study were students in my kindergarten class. The

subjects were a class of twenty kindergarten students. Children ranged in age from five to

seven years old and had widely ranging abilities and experiences. One student had been

previously retained. Several of the subjects were served through the school’s Early

Intervention Program and one qualified for speech and language services. One of the


subjects was a second language learner whose parents denied the English to Speakers of

Other Languages services. Subjects came from different socioeconomic backgrounds.

Multiple students lived on government assistance and others being raised in middle class

families. Many of the subjects had attended some form of preschool, whether public or

private, but others were experiencing their first taste of formal education at the

kindergarten level. The subjects were chosen to be used in this study due to daily access.

This study required two consecutive weeks of daily instruction, interaction, and

observation. This group of subjects met the requirements.

The participant in this study was a seasoned teaching assistance who recently

obtained a degree in Early Childhood Education. The participant had spent three years as

a paraprofessional in a self-contained special education classroom and five years in the

current kindergarten paraprofessional position. This participant was chosen to serve in

this study due to their position as the classroom paraprofessional.

Procedures and Data Collection Methods

During this study I used three focus questions as a guide to collect and analyze

data in order to determine the most effective form of instruction to increase student

learning and engagement. The focus questions and data sources that directed this research

can be found in Table 3.1 below.


Table 3.1 Data ShellFocus Question Literature

SourcesType: Method, Data, Validity

How are data analyzed?Why do these data answer the question?

Rationale

How are curricula implemented through the use of an interactive whiteboard and hands-on activities?

Shenton, A., & Pagett, L. (2007). Lerman, S., & Zevenbergen, R. (2008).

Type of Method: Instructional plan rubric and interview

Type of Data: Qualitative

Type of Validity: Content

Coded for themes Recurring Dominant Emerging

Looking for categorical and repeating data that form patterns of behaviors

How do interactive whiteboards compare with hands-on learning approaches in student learning?

Brandt, C., & Pinchok, Nick. (2009). Popham, James. (2008). Starkman, N. (2006).

Type of Method:Teacher made pre/post tests and formative assessments

Type of data:Interval

Type of Validity:Content

Dependent T

Independent T

To determine if there are significant differences between means from one group tested twice.

To determine if there are significant differences between means from two independent groups

What are the impacts of interactive whiteboards and hands-on activities on student engagement while teaching the curriculum?

Smith, H., Higgins, S., Wall, K., & Miller, J. (2005). Lerman, S., & Zevenbergen, R. (2008). U.S. Department of Education, IES National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. (2010).

Type of Method: Reflective Journal

Type of Data:Qualitative

Type of Validity:Construct

Coded for themes Recurring Dominant Emerging

Dependent T Independent T

Looking for categorical and repeating data that form patterns of behaviors

To determine if there are significant differences between means from one group tested twice.

To determine if there are significant differences between means from two independent groups

The instructional plan used for implementation of both methods of teaching

fractions was developed and colleague reviewed prior to the research study. My


colleague evaluated the instructional plan and provided insight (see Appendix A) on her

opinion of the strengthens and weaknesses of the instructional plan. Discussions were

held to address recommendations for increasing the effectiveness of the instructional

plan.

The instructional plan contained two unit plans on fractions. One unit plan was

designed to be implemented through the use of an IWB, while the other was created to be

implemented through the use of hands-on materials. The two units were implemented for

a period of two weeks. The instruction of the two week unit of both teaching methods

took place simultaneously in separate classrooms. I taught the unit implemented through

an IWB, while my teaching assistant taught the unit implemented through hands-on

materials. Subjects involved in this study were randomly assigned to kindergarten classes

at the beginning of the school year. Students were divided into two groups depending on

their pretest scores in order to equally balance the groups. Student progress was

monitored through formative assessments which were embedded in the daily activities in

the form of a practice sheet. Two reflective journals were used to record daily

observations of student behavior and learning during both methods of instruction. A

posttest was administered to both groups after a two week period.

During this action research study quantitative data were collected through pretest

and posttest assessments. The qualitative data were used to determine how IWB compare

with hands-on learning approaches in student learning. Students were given a pretest and

posttest to determine the degree of academic achievement gained during the course of a

fraction unit implemented through the use of an IWB or the traditional hands-on learning

approach. The pre/posttest can be found in Appendix B.


During this action research study, reflective journals were used to collect and

record the impacts of IWBs and hands-on learning activities on student engagement while

teaching the curriculum. A reflective journal was used to record student engagement

during the lessons implemented on the IWB and the lessons implemented using hands-on

materials. Entries were made in each journal by the instructor of the daily lesson.

Reflective journal prompts used during this study can be found in Appendixes C and D.

Validity, Reliability, Dependability, and Bias

An instructional plan rubric was completed by a more experienced colleague

when evaluating its effectiveness as a means of collecting data for focus question one:

How is curricula implemented through the use of an interactive whiteboard and hands-on

activities? As recommended by Hendricks (2009), qualitative data were collected through

a written and verbal evaluation of the instructional plan. The instructional plan was

developed using the backward design model. This model begins with the end result and

goal in mind. Therefore, instruction was developed after the assessment was created in

order to guarantee content validity of the instructional plan. The instructional plan used

provides evidence of the content taught during this study. Due to the length of time of the

study and detailed data collection methods the study was dependable. My teaching

assistant and I followed the same sequence of content and used the same formative

assessments throughout the entire study as a means of guaranteeing dependability. The

data collection and treatment were kept consistent throughout the duration of the study. A

more experienced colleague evaluated the instructional plan in order to insure the fairness

of all planned activities.


Pretest and posttest assessments were given to the students, as a means to gather

data to answer focus question two: How do interactive whiteboards compare with hands-

on learning approaches in student learning? Quantitative data were measured using the

interval level of measurement. Popham (2008) describes content validity as relating to the

capability of the content of an assessment displaying the content of the curriculum goal.

Content validity is assured in that the assessments used were created to align and meet

the requirements of the Georgia Performance Standard, as well, through research on

numerous related previous studies. The same pretest and posttest were given to students

in both groups; therefore, the type of reliability was test-retest reliability. A pretest was

used by the students prior to the study and the students were grouped accordingly to

create equality between them, therefore, this study was unbiased. The assessment used

during this study guarantees to be inoffensive in that it is similar to assessments used in

previous fraction instruction studies by providing a number of shapes to determine equal

parts and fractional parts. Pictures of classroom themed bugs are used to label the number

of problems rather than numerals or letters to minimize disparate impact and create

fairness of assessments.

Reflective journaling was used to collect data for focus question three: What are

the impacts of interactive whiteboards and hands-on activities on student engagement

while teaching the curriculum? Hendricks (2009) is a believer in the significance of

reflective practice used while conducting a research study. Qualitative data were

collected during the study through the use of daily reflective journals. As Popham (2008)

explains construct related validity is gained through a number of studies rather than only

one to form a theory. Reflective journal prompt questions were used to increase construct


validity. During the two week period, raw data were maintained and collected on student

engagement through reflective journaling. In order to insure dependability, prior to the

study, I discussed with my teacher assistant the importance of observing all children

equally while implementing the curriculum. My teacher assistant and I documented

student behaviors and attitudes immediately after each lesson in order to record student

engagement. As Hendricks (2009) suggests, my teacher assistant and I recorded how we

felt prior to the implementation of every lesson to make us aware of any bias we may

possess while recording students behaviors and attitudes. Dependability was assured in

this study through a chain of evidence by connecting research to theory to the conclusions

found.

Analysis of Data

Qualitative data were collected through an instructional plan and rubric in order to

answer focus question one: How is curricula implemented through the use of an

interactive whiteboard and hands-on activities? The data were coded for themes in ways

of recurring strategies used in the instructional plan as well as for a dominant trend in

instruction. I analyzed the feedback received from my colleague in the rubric evaluation

of my instructional plan and during an interview, for emerging themes.

Quantitative data were collected through pretest and posttest assessments as a

method of collecting data for focus question two: How do interactive whiteboards

compare with hands-on learning approaches in student learning? The data collected were

analyzed statistically using a dependent t-test and an independent t-test. The dependent t-

test was used to determine if there were significant differences between the means from

one group tested twice. The decision to reject the null hypothesis was set at a probability


less than .05. An independent t-test was conducted to determine if there were significant

differences between the means from two independent groups. The decision to reject the

null hypothesis was set at a probability less than .05. The effect size will be calculated to

measure the magnitude of a treatment effect.

My teaching assistant and I conducted reflective journaling daily in order to

collect data to address focus question three: What are the impacts of interactive

whiteboards and hands-on activities on student engagement while teaching the

curriculum? The qualitative data collected were analyzed rationally by coding for themes.

Through an in-depth investigation of observations recorded in reflective journals I looked

for definite and recurring data that formed patterns of behaviors.

My study proves to be accurate and consistent due to faculty revision and

connecting my results to literature. Eisner (1991) refers to ‘Consensual Validation’ as

concurring with others that the explanation, understanding, assessment, and thematic are

correct. Consistency is displayed through my analysis linking back to my literature

review. By cycling back to my literature review ‘Epistemological Validation’ (Denzin &

Lincoln, 1998) occurred. My literature review proves that others have conducted similar

studies.

By using multiple data collecting sources my study proves to have ‘Structural

Corroboration’ (Eisner, 1991). The data collected during my study aligns itself to form an

undeniable whole. Through researching and presenting opposing views I stood to be fair

in my study. Throughout the process of this study many steps have been taken to ensure

the ‘Rightness of Fit’ (Eisner, 1991) by precision and accuracy to guarantee a firm

argument, logical case, and strong evidence to assert judgments.


My study is useful to others to apply to different curricula. IWBs can be used to

implement and support all content areas. Eisner (1991) refers to this process as

‘referential adequacy’ when insight and comprehension by others will benefit because of

one’s research studies. This study has catalytic validity because a positive change or

transformation for the researcher and others has occurred.

Summary

In conclusion, action research was used to conduct this study. The study took

place at a Title One elementary school in Georgia. One class of kindergarten students was

used as subjects in the study. A teaching assistant served as a participant throughout the

course of the study. Three focus questions served as a guide for collecting and analyzing

data. The implementation of a two week mathematics unit served as a resource for

collecting data on student academic achievement and engagement during instruction

implemented through an IWB or hands-on materials. Numerous actions and steps were

taken to insure that this study stands to be valid and reliable. After the two week unit was

concluded qualitative data were analyzed by coding for themes and quantitative data were

analyzed statistically.


CHAPTER 4: RESULTS

A focus question used in this study was: how is curricula implemented through

the use of an interactive whiteboard (IWB) and hands-on activities? An instructional plan

was developed and evaluated by a more experienced colleague. A rubric for the

instructional plan was created for the colleague to complete. An interview was conducted

with the colleague to discuss the feedback regarding the instructional plan evaluation.

The feedback received was analyzed by coding for themes.

The first recommendation the colleague made was regarding the essential

questions. She suggested that the following essential question be added: how can you

determine if you have shared a set of objects equally? The colleague made a

recommendation about the sequence of the unit plan. She suggested that the order of

lessons begin with students learning about fair shares rather than equal parts.

The colleague proposed several strategies to add to the hands-on learning group’s

lesson plans. The first strategy was to incorporate an illustration of the content on a board

on which the students could refer. The second strategy was to create shapes that could

and could not be divided into two equal parts and have the students sort the shapes into

two groups. The third strategy was to use shapes that had been divided equally and

unequally and have the students sort them into two different categories.

The colleague made a suggestion regarding the vocabulary and terms used to

teach fractions in both groups. She recommended using the terms “a part” and “out of”

instead of a slice or section when making a pretend pizza and pie into equal parts. By

doing this the students would be exposed to another way of stating one half as one out of

two.


The second focus question used was: how do interactive whiteboards compare

with hands-on learning approaches in student learning? As a means for gathering data on

student achievement a pretest and posttest were given to the subjects used in this study.

An independent t-test was used to calculate the difference between the data retrieved

from the pretest scores of students in both groups to confirm the reliability of the groups

initially being divided equally. Table 4.1 shows that the obtained value of .74 is less than

the critical value of 1.75, t (15) = .23, P > .05, therefore accepting the null hypothesis.

There was no significant difference between the groups. The Cohen’s d calculations for

the pretest scores of the IWB and the pretest scores of the hands-on learning groups was

0.35 confirming that there was a medium effect size.

Table 4.1T-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances

Pre-testIWB

Pre-testH-On

Mean 27.7 38.875Variance 943.1222 1032.696Observations 10 8Hypothesized Mean Difference 0df 15t Stat -0.74766P(T<=t) one-tail 0.233112t Critical one-tail 1.75305P(T<=t) two-tail 0.466223t Critical two-tail 2.13145


A dependent t-test was used to calculate the difference between the pretest and

posttest scores received from the group which learned the content through the use of an

IWB. Table 4.2 displays that the obtained value was 6.8 and the critical value was 1.8, t (9)

= 6.8, P < .05, therefore rejecting the null hypothesis that there is significant difference

between the pretest and posttest scores of the students whom were taught the content

through the use of an IWB. The effect size calculation for the IWB group data was 0.85

displaying a large effect size.

Table 4.2T-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means for the IWB Group

Pre-test Post-testMean 27.7 87.9

Variance943.122

292.7666

7Observations 10 10

Pearson Correlation0.43676

2Hypothesized Mean Difference 0df 9t Stat -6.82721P(T<=t) one-tail 3.83E-05

t Critical one-tail1.83311

3P(T<=t) two-tail 7.67E-05

t Critical two-tail2.26215

7


An additional dependent t-test was used to calculate the difference between the

scores obtained from the group which learned the content through the use of hands-on

materials. Table 4.3 illustrates that the obtained value was 5.91 and the critical value was

1.89, t (7) = 5.91, P < .05, therefore rejecting the null hypothesis that there is significant

difference between the pretest and posttest scores of the students whom were taught the

content through the use of hands-on materials. The effect size calculation for the hands-

on learning group data was 0.70 revealing a large effect size.

Table 4.3T-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means for the Hands-On Group

Pre-testPost-test

Mean 38.875 89Variance 1032.696 242Observations 8 8Pearson Correlation 0.70098Hypothesized Mean Difference 0df 7t Stat -5.9184P(T<=t) one-tail 0.000294t Critical one-tail 1.894579P(T<=t) two-tail 0.000588t Critical two-tail 2.364624


Another independent t-test was used to calculate the difference between the

posttest scores retrieved from the group taught through the IWB and the group taught

through hands-on materials. Table 4.4 reveals that the obtained value of .17 is less than

the critical value of 1.79, t (11) = .17, P > .05, therefore accepting the null hypothesis.

There is no significant difference between the group taught through the IWB and the

group taught through hands-on materials. The Cohen’s d calculations for the pretest

scores of the IWB and the pretest scores of the hands-on learning groups was 0.085

revealing that there was a small effect size.

Table 4.4T-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances

Post-testIWB

Post-test H-On

Mean 87.9 89Variance 92.76667 242Observations 10 8Hypothesized Mean Difference 0df 11t Stat -0.17496P(T<=t) one-tail 0.432144t Critical one-tail 1.795885P(T<=t) two-tail 0.864287t Critical two-tail 2.200985


The third focus question used in this study which deals with qualitative data was:

what are the impacts of interactive whiteboards and hands-on activities on student

engagement while teaching the curriculum? Journal entries were kept over the period of

two weeks by educators implementing the instructional plan to the subjects learning

through the use of an IWB and through hands-on materials. The reflective journals were

used in order to research any recurring, dominating, and emerging themes occurring over

the two weeks.

Many themes were evident in the reflective journal used for the implementation of

the content through the use of an IWB. The students were actively involved during each

lesson implemented through the IWB. Students were continuously coming to the board to

circle, divide, move, or label objects or pictures on the screen. The first three days of the

unit the students made comments about the images on the screen such as, “Wow, look at

that!” and giggled or clapped. Multiple days the students asked if there were more

flipchart pages for the lesson. The excitement level the student had about going to the

board and manipulating the objects projected on the screen was very high the first week

of instruction. The students’ enthusiasm to interact with the board slightly decreased the

second week of instruction. Interest levels dropped when plane shapes were used in the

flipcharts instead of pictures.

Student behavior was not a problem at any point during the two week unit

implemented through the use of an IWB. Little redirection was given to the students. The

students often carried on conversations about the symbols or pictures included on the

flipcharts but not in a disruptive manner. Overall, the students showed self control during

the two week unit.


Recurring themes were evident in the reflective journal used for the

implementation of the unit through hands-on materials. Every day, the students were

excited and eager to work with the hands-on manipulative objects. All the students

wanted a chance to work with the objects daily. Students often commented that they

wanted to “fix” the manipulative objects that were not divided equally. They referred to

the objects divided unequally as being “wrong”. The students enjoyed and displayed

much interested in using scissors to cut the shapes and using crackers to create fractional

parts. When working with shapes divided into fourths a student commented that it was

like a puzzle.

During the two week unit taught using hands-on learning materials the students

were actively engaged in the lesson. They were eager to work with the manipulative

objects. Often the students displayed less enthusiasm when working on the formative

assessments completed at the end of each lesson.

Overall throughout the implementation of the unit the students were well behaved.

Every day the students were talkative, however, the topic of the conversations was the

content presented. On the first Friday of the unit, many students had difficulty controlling

themselves and paying attention. For the most part, the students often displayed

exceptional behavior and interest.


CHAPTER 5: ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

Analysis of Results

How are curricula implemented through the use of an interactive whiteboard

(IWB) and hands-on activities? An instructional plan was created and evaluated by a

more experienced colleague. The more experienced colleague used a rubric designed

specifically for the instructional plan to determine the effectiveness of the unit plan. After

the completion of the instructional plan rubric the more experienced colleague was

interviewed as a means of gathering additional information and feedback. The responses

gained from the interview and the rubric were analyzed by coding for themes.

The themes recovered during the interview and the rubric were acted upon. One

theme was on the order of the content introduced. The order of the lessons was changed

to make the unit plan build upon concepts in a more logical sequence. Several strategies

were suggested to support the materials used in lessons implemented through hands-on

learning materials. Often the recommendations were encouraging the use of visual aids

for the hands-on learning lessons. The more experienced colleague also focused on the

vocabulary and terms used to introduce the fractional parts.

The feedback received from the rubric and interview was very beneficial to the

effectiveness of the instructional plan. The recommendations and suggestions were

implemented to strengthen the instructional plan. My research proved previous studies

results in instructional plans of fraction units to be true. As stated in Chapter Two Lerman

and Zevenbergen (2008) suggests using a wide variety of terms and vocabulary when

teaching the concept of fractions. My more experienced colleague recommended several

terms and phrases to use in order to expose the students to a richer vocabulary.


Research found coincides with the suggestion stated regarding the order of

concepts in the instructional plan. The U.S. Department of Education (2010) believes

educators should begin fraction instruction by “asking how many things each person

should get, to asking students how much of an object each person should get” (p.13). My

more experienced colleague recommended the instructional plan begin with fair shares

rather than equal parts.

How do IWBs compare with hands-on learning approaches in student learning? A

pretest and posttest was administered to the subjects as a means of gathering data on

student achievement. The scores were analyzed statically using a dependent and

independent t-test and the effect size calculator.

The pretest scores were analyzed using an independent t-test to guarantee the

equality of the groups prior to instruction. The mean of the pretest scores for the students

learning through the use of an IWB was 27.7. The mean of the pretest scores for the

students learning through the use of hands-on materials was 38.8. The means had a

difference of 11.1. There was no significant difference between the groups.

The pretest and posttest scores received from the group which learned through the

use of an IWB were analyzed using a dependent t-test. The data calculations found that

there was a significant difference between the pretest and posttest scores, therefore

rejecting the null hypothesis. The academic achievement of the students taught through

the use of the IWB did increase. Validity was guaranteed due to the data measuring

student academic achievement. The students in the IWB group did not grasp the concept

of equal parts and symmetry as quickly as the students in the hands-on learning group,

due to not being able to fold the objects on the screen.


The pretest and posttest scores gathered from the group which learned through the

use of hands-on learning materials were analyzed using a dependent t-test. The data

calculations found that there was a significant difference between the pretest and posttest

scores, therefore, rejecting the null hypothesis. The students’ academic achievement did

increase. The data measured the subjects’ academic achievement therefore yielding the

study to have content validity.

The posttest scores of both the groups were analyzed using an independent t-test.

The data calculations found that there was not a significant difference between the

groups, therefore, accepting the null hypothesis. The students in both groups made

academic gains. The study found that both methods are effective for teaching fractions.

Validity is warranted in this study due to data measuring the academic achievement of the

subjects.

A difference was found in my study compared to previous studies regarding the

use of an IWB to implement a fraction unit, in the elementary classroom. Lerman and

Zevenbergen (2008) found that there was a lower level of learning. In my study the

students who learned through the IWB and hands-on materials gained an equal amount of

knowledge. The use of the IWB had the same impacts on student academic achievement

as the use of hands-on materials.

When comparing the results from my study to past studies on using hands-on

materials to teach a fraction unit there was a similarity. The U.S. Department of

Education (2010) found positive effects on student knowledge of fractions after being

taught through the use of hands-on materials. In this area, my study seemed to stand true

with the outcomes found in literature.


What are the impacts of IWBs and hands-on activities on student engagement

while teaching the curriculum? Reflective journals were used as means of collecting data

to research student engagement. Daily entries were recorded preceding the

implementation of the instruction plan to subjects learning through the use of an IWB and

through hands-on materials. The reflective journals were coded for themes regarding any

recurring, dominating, and emerging themes over the course of the two week unit.

Data collected in the IWB reflective journal aligns with Lerman and Zevenbergen

(2008) research which states when using an IWB there were few behavior problems and

students were actively involved in the lesson. When implementing the lesson through the

use of the IWB, I found that behavior problems decreased. The students loved coming to

the board and displayed better self control because of their eagerness to interact with the

board. The students sat patiently, raised their hands more often to answer questions, and

seemed more entertained than usual.

The students in the IWB group often made comments about the technology such

as, “Wow, look at that!”. The students often seemed fascinated by the graphics and

operations of the IWB. The students often asked how many more pages were left because

they did not want the activity to end. Starkman (2006) revealed similar observations in a

study he conducted by stating, students were in awe of the technology and curious as to

what will appear next on the IWB.

The observations recorded in the hands-on learning materials reflective journal

revealed that the students were continuously actively involved in the lessons. The

students were excited about experimenting with the objects. Comments from students


often were about “fixing” the objects or “this one is wrong”. Students behaved very well

during the lessons. They were eager to be picked to divide or sort the shapes.

The students displayed more excitement about learning about fractions when food

was involved in the activity. The students enjoyed cutting the objects into equal parts.

This was very different to them since they did not have a line to follow.

One recurring theme found in the reflective journal kept for the hands-on learning

group was that the students were talkative. The students often talked about the activity

taking place. Student conversations did not affect the learning outcomes during these

lessons.

Formative assessments were completed daily by the subjects used in the study.

The formative assessments were very eye opening regarding effective teaching strategies

for fraction concepts. Popham (2008) suggests that assessments give educators proof of

students’ knowledge and the effectiveness of their instruction.

When teaching equal parts on the IWB, I realized the students were having

difficulty visualizing and understanding that each part was the same shape and size. The

formative assessments completed on equal parts revealed that the students would have

grasped the concept quicker if they had been able to work with a tangible item. I felt

limited when using the IWB to introduce equal parts. A student in the IWB group stated

at the end of the lesson that “it was the same as folding a piece of paper”. The other

students seemed to form a deeper understanding after hearing that statement. The

students in the IWB group did grasp the concept of equal parts however at a slower rate

than the students who were taught through the use of hands-on materials.


The daily formative assessments were very beneficial in revealing the limitations

of using hands-on materials. The students who learned through the use of hands-on

materials often struggled to transfer their experiences during the activities on paper.

Connections were often not made between the handheld manipulative objects and the

objects on the formative assessments.

The IWB allowed for students to be exposed to more images and situations of

using fractions than hands-on materials. The hands-on learners usually overlooked

images on paper and misrepresented them when labeling fractional parts. The IWB

learners performed with a higher rate of accuracy on the formative assessments than the

hands-on learners.

Discussion

The research collected during this study produced similar results for both methods

of teaching fractions. The posttest scores display comparable gains in both groups. I

believe that if this study had been conducted over a longer period of time, involving older

subjects, and a larger number of subjects the results would have been more varied

between the groups.

At the kindergarten level students are eager to learn. Students get excited about

learning when they are being introduced to a new concept. The subjects used in this study

had never had formal classroom exposure to fractions. Naturally the subjects were

excited to be learning about fractions. Therefore, the observations recorded about student

behavior, engagement, and excitement were similar between the two groups.

This research study supports both forms of instruction, IWB and hands-on

learning materials for implementing a fraction unit in a kindergarten classroom. Each


method was effective in educating the kindergarteners about fractional concepts,

however, this unit would have been more effective and taught in a shorter period of time

if the methods were used together to support one another. The IWB was more beneficial

to use than hands-on materials when providing examples and practice for identifying

equal parts in nonconventional shapes. Students who were taught through the use of an

IWB performed better on the pencil and paper formative assessments than the students

taught through the use of hands-on materials. The hands-on materials conveyed the

concept of equal parts at a faster pace and a deeper level of understanding than the IWB. I

believe an instructional unit would be more effective if these two methods were used to

support one another, to the extent of specific skills taught only through one medium.

In my daily practice as an educator I will use both hands-on materials and the

IWB as a means of implementing instructional units. If these methods are intertwined in a

lesson it will result in a higher level of student learning and comprehension. I will not

rely solely on one strategy to implement a lesson. Specific concepts will be taught using

appropriate technology or hands-on materials.

The data collected during this study supports implementing daily lessons through

the use of hands-on materials and an IWB. Education is changing with the new

technology of the twenty first century resulting in a push for using technology to

implement curriculum. This research study proves technology is no more effective than

using hands-on materials when educating students about fractions.

As a whole, this study exhibited credibility by using data from various means.

Research on relevant previous studies was gathered and analyzed. Qualitative data were

collected through an instructional plan rubric and interview. Quantitative data were


gathered by pretest and posttest scores and analyzed statically. Qualitative data were

collected through the use of two reflective journals during the implementation of the

instructional plan. Eisner (1991) calls this process ‘structural corroboration’ where a

confluence of evidence comes together to form a compelling whole.

The quantitative data collected during this study opposes data collected in a prior

study by Lerman and Zevenbergen (2008) that there was a lower level of learning when

using an IWB as a form of implementation of fractions and the quality of mathematical

learning was reduced. The statistical data collected proves that the IWB implements a

fraction unit as effectively as hands-on learning materials to a class of kindergarten

students. However, the formative assessments collected revealed that the students

struggled at first with comprehending equal parts when taught through an IWB. Eisner

(1991) refers to precision as ‘rightness of fit’; to be precise, you must state how you will

present a tight argument, coherent case and have strong evidence to assert judgments.

The purpose of this study was to acquire an answer to the question, does having

technology in classrooms foster student engagement and academic achievement in

implemented lessons. From this study I have found that technology does not foster a

higher level of student engagement and academic achievement in implemented lessons.

The qualitative and quantitative data collected proves technology and hands-on materials

have the same outcomes in student engagement and academic achievement.

When analyzing the daily formative assessments I found that the IWB was more

effective for teaching specific concepts and likewise for the hands-on materials. The

speed and depth at which the students grasped a concept depended upon the method of


implementation. Students in both groups developed an equal understanding of fractional

concepts at different speeds.

Implications

This study was based on twenty kindergarten students. It was a smaller sample as

compared to the studies in the literature review however; it paralleled results of the other

studies. Based on the parallel between the studies, the results of this study can be

generalized to the larger population. The results of this study are transferable to other

studies and would be useful for others to apply to various situations. The qualitative data

revealed student engagement and involvement is similar in lessons implemented through

an IWB and hands-on materials at the kindergarten level. Eisner (1991) called this

process ‘referential adequacy’ where perception and understanding by others will

increase because of the research involved in this study.

A participant in this study realized many things about educating students during

the implementation of the instructional plan. The participant was surprised that

kindergarten students were developmentally ready to learn about fractions. She often

commented that the students performed better on the formative assessments if she

provided numerous examples during instruction. Examples and practice were included in

the instructional unit for the subjects to develop an understanding of fractional parts. The

participant was transformed in realizing students needed to be placed in scenarios to help

them make connections between what they are learning and the real world.

As an educator I have been transformed by this study. The practices used during

this study have transformed me in multiple ways. By recording daily reflections in a

journal, I have realized the importance of reflection. The compiled entries were helpful in


identifying themes and how the students were progressing. Throughout the two week

unit, the formative assessments revealed to me the impact they should have on

instruction. By conducting daily formative assessments, a clear picture of exactly each

students’ level of understanding was revealed. Since the fraction unit was implemented in

two different methods, it became obvious to me that if these two methods were

intertwined the instructional plan would have been stronger. While implementing the

instructional plan I found myself torn, wishing the students could switch groups and work

with other resources, instead of only being exposed to one method of instruction. My

daily instruction has been transformed in that I will include more examples, experiences,

and resources as a means to make learning more meaningful to my students. In

concluding this study I was reminded that research is necessary in order to find the most

sufficient practices for the classroom.

Impact on Student Learning

One goal of this study was to determine if technology would increase student

academic achievement in the classroom. The study compared fraction instruction

implemented through the use of an IWB or hands-on materials. The quantitative data

collected during the study revealed that there was no significant difference between the

scores retrieved from the two groups. However, there were great gains in the scores

received from the pretest and posttest of both groups. The mean of the pretest scores of

the students in the IWB group was 27.7 and the mean of the posttest scores was 87.9,

resulting in a 60 point increase. The mean of the pretest scores of the students in the

hands-on learning group was 38.8 and the mean of the posttest scores was 89, resulting

near a 50 point increase.


Recommendations for Future Research

During this study I often considered if I had done something differently the results

might have been better. One consideration I have was to conduct the study with an older

group of subjects. Kindergarten students are more eager to learn than older students,

therefore, making student engagement difficult to compare. The second consideration I

had was to use a larger group of subjects. I felt a researcher would benefit from having

more than twenty subjects involved in this type of an action research study. The third

recommendation I considered was to conduct the study over a longer period of time. Two

weeks was a sufficient amount of time to teach this fraction unit but additional weeks

would allow for the students to become more familiar with the resources.

As a means of corroborating this research study one might investigate sufficient

methods of instruction for specific mathematical concepts. The study could focus on

technology and discovering which mathematical concepts would be most appropriately

implemented through the use of an IWB.

As an extension of this study one might focus on using multiple resources for

implementing mathematical concepts. The resources could be rated on sufficiently

supporting mathematical instruction and improving student learning.


References

Brandt, C., & Pinchok, N. (2009). Connecting formative assessment research to

practice. Learning Point Associates. Retrieved from ERIC at Ebscohost.

Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (1998). The fifth moment. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.),

The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues (pp. 407-430).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Eisner, E. (1991). The enlightened eye. New York: MacMillan.

Gilles, C., Martille, E., & Wilson, J. (2010). Sustaining teachers' growth and renewal

through action research, induction programs, and collaboration. Teacher

Education Quarterly, 37(1), 91-108. Retrieved from Eric at Ebscohost.

Gil-Garcia, Ana., & Cintron, Zaida. (2002). The reflective journal as a learning and

professional development tool for teachers and administrators. World Association

for Case Method Research and Application. Germany. Retrieved from Eric at

Ebscohost.

Hendricks, C. (2009). Improving schools through action research. New Jersey:

Pearson Education, Inc.

Kalina, Cody., & Powell, Katherine.(2009). Cognitive and Social Constructivism:

Developing Tools for an effective classroom. Education, 130(2), 241-250.

Retrieved from Eric at Ebscohost.

Kent, P. (2006). Using interactive whiteboards to enhance mathematics teaching.

Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 11(2), 23 – 26. Retrieved from Eric

at Ebscohost.


LaGrange College Department of Education. (2008). The conceptual framework.

LaGrange, GA: LaGrange College.

Lerman, S., & Zevenbergen, R. (2008). Learning environments using interactive

whiteboards: new learning spaces or reproduction of old technologies?.

Mathematics Education Research Journal. 20 (1), 108-126. Retrieved from Eric

at Ebscohost.

Popham, J. (2008). What teachers need to know (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson

Education, Inc.

Shenton, A., & Pagett, L. (2007). From 'bored' to screen: The use of the interactive

whiteboard for literacy in six primary classrooms in England. Literacy. 41 (3),

129 - 136. Retrieved from ERIC at Ebscohost.

Smith, H. J. & et al. (2005). Interactive whiteboards: boon or bandwagon?. Journal of

Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 91-101. Retrieved from Eric at Ebscohost.

Starkman, N. (2006). The wonders of interactive whiteboards. T.H.E Journal, 33 (10),

36 - 38. Retrieved from ERIC at Ebscohost.

U.S. Department of Education, IES National Center for Education Evaluation and

Regional Assistance. (2010). Developing effective fractions

instruction for kindergarten through 8th grade (NCEE Publication No. 2010-

4039). Retrieved from Eric at Ebscohost.


Appendix A

UNIT PLAN & RUBRIC/EVALUATION

Kindergarten

FRACTIONS: EQUAL PARTS

SUBJECT TOPIC STANDARDS ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS

Vocabulary

Mathematics Fractions – equal parts

NUMBER AND OPERATIONS Students will correctly represent the number and order of objects using numbers and understand them. MKN1. Students will connect numerals to the quantities they represent.

g. Use informal strategies to share objects equally (divide) between two to three people or sets.

1.) How do you make fair shares?

2.) What are equal parts?

3.) How do you divide an object equally?

4.) What is a fraction?

-Fair shares-Equal parts-Whole-Fractions-Halves-Fourths

Is the topic clearly stated?

-

Do you feel that the standards are appropriate?-

Do the essential questions address all of the standards?

-

Are the terms listed appropriate for the standards?

-


Monday Focus: FAIR SHARES

Introduce the essential question = How do you make fair shares?

Interactive Whiteboard

1. Complete Flipchart Day 1

Hands-on

1. Begin by introducing the EQ.

2. Tell the students the following story problem and let them act it out to solve

Sarah has 1 sandwich. She wants to share it equally with Megan so they both have the same amount. Sarah wants it to be fair. What should Sarah do to share the sandwich equally with Megan?

3. After students have acted the problem out to solve ask a student to show the group how they found the answer.

4. Repeat the story problem at least 4 more times using a cookie, pie, candy bar, etc. increase the number of people to 4.

5. Pass out the worksheet, provide assistance as needed. Record students who did not complete the sheet independently

Does the instructional plan for Monday prepare the students answer the essential question? Do you have any suggestions for the implementation of the content?

Response:


Tuesday Focus: Equal Parts




Hands-on

1. Introduce the EQ

2. Review with the group how to make fair shares by using the following story problem:

Ben has 1 cake. He wants to share it equally with John so they both have the same amount. Ben wants it to be fair. What should Ben do to share the sandwich equally with John?

3. Inform the group that they are going to learn how to divide a group equally between several friends.

4. Ask one student to come to the front of the room, give that child 8 cubes then ask 2 other students to come to the front of the room. Ask the child with the cubes to share the cubes equally between the other 2 students. Ask the child to explain what they are doing as


they are solving the problem. Guide the student and provide assistance as needed. Tell the group that the student will give each friend one until they run out of cubes. Then ask the friends who receive cubes to share with the group how many cubes they have and ask if they have an equal amount.

5. Repeat this activity 3 more times using a different number of students to share among and objects to divide. (cubes, erasers, crayons, etc. can be used)

6. Pass out the sheet, provide assistance as needed.

Does the instructional plan for Tuesday prepare the students answer the essential question? Do you have any suggestions for the implementation of the content?

Response:

Wednesday Focus: Equal Parts

Introduce the essential question = What are equal parts?

Interactive Whiteboard Hands-on

1. Review how to make fair shares


1. Complete Flipchart Day 3 using 1 whole object and cubes. Use the following story problem:

I have 1 candy bar and I want to share it with (child’s name). Raise your hand if you know how to divide this candy bar equally between me and _____. Hand the student that is dividing the candy bar a brown rectangle ask them to fold it and then you cut it into 2 pieces.

2. Hold the 2 pieces up for all the group to see. Ask if the candy bar has been divided equally. Then over lap the 2 pieces to show that they are the same shape and size. Tell the group that they are equal parts because they are the same shape and size. Repeat the story problem and activity emphasizing that you have equal parts if the pieces are the same shape and size.

3. Continue working as a whole group to make equal parts but use cubes to show equal parts. Work on story problems using the students’ names that are in the group and have them share with other students in the group. Remember to emphasize the fact that if you have the same number of objects given to each friend then they all have an equal share.

Does the instructional plan for Wednesday prepare the students answer the essential question? Do you have any suggestions for the implementation of the content?

Response:


Thursday Focus: WHOLE GROUP/OBJECT (same shape & size)

Introduce the essential question = How do you divide an object or group equally?



Hands-on

1. Introduce the EQ.

2. Ask if anyone can demonstrate for the group how to divide an object (hand held) equally in order to share with a friend. (provide assistance and guidance during demonstration)

3. When the object has been divided inform them that the pieces are equal parts because they are the same shape and size.

4. Repeat the story problem activity with different student names, shapes (circle, square, rectangle, triangle) Begin using the phrase “divide the shape to make equal parts”; complete each situation using a hand-held object. Repeat until each child has had a turn.

Does the instructional plan for Thursday prepare the students answer the essential


question? Do you have any suggestions for the implementation of the content?

Response:

Friday Focus: WHOLE GROUP/OBJECT (same shape & size)

Introduce the essential question = How do you divide an object or group equally?



Hands-on



3. When the object has been divided inform them that the pieces are equal parts because they are the same shape and size.

4. Repeat the story problem activity with different student names, shapes (circle, square, rectangle, triangle) Begin using the phrase “divide the shape to make equal parts”; complete each situation using a hand-held object.


Repeat until each child has had a turn.

5. Pass out the worksheet, provide assistance as needed. Record students who did not complete the sheet independently

Does the instructional plan for Friday prepare the students answer the essential question? Do you have any suggestions for the implementation of the content?

Response:

Monday Focus: Review (fair shares, equal parts, & whole group/object




Hands-on

1. 1. Introduce the EQ.


3. When the object has been divided inform them that the pieces are equal parts because they


are the same shape and size.

4. Repeat the story problem activity with different student names, shapes (circle, square, rectangle, triangle) Begin using the phrase “divide the shape to make equal parts”; complete each situation using a hand-held object. Repeat until each child has had a turn.

5. Pass out the worksheet, provide assistance as needed. Record students who did not complete the sheet independently.


Response:

Tuesday Focus: LABELING A FRACTION (1/2)

Introduce the essential question = What is a fraction?



Hands-on


2. Tell the students they are going to learn something new today that


they will use the rest of their lives! Get them excited!

3. Take a plate and tell the students to pretend that it is a pizza. Ask them what size of the pizza are you holding; the whole, a slice? Once they have answered by stating you are holding a whole pizza then tell them that today you’re going to break the pizza into smaller parts. Cut the pizza into 2 pieces. Tell the group that now you have 2 pieces and theses pieces are fractions. Say: when you break 1 object into equal pieces you make a fraction, since you have 2 pieces of the whole we call each piece ½ or half of the pizza.

2. Repeat the entire activity using a square. Take a graham cracker and tell the students that you all are going to make a fraction using the graham cracker. Ask them what size of the graham cracker are you holding; the whole, a section? Once they have answered by stating you are holding a whole graham cracker then tell them that today you’re going to break the graham cracker into smaller parts. Cut the graham cracker into 2 pieces. Tell the group that now you have 2 pieces and theses pieces are fractions. Say: when you break 1 object into equal pieces you make a fraction, since you have 2 pieces of the whole we call each piece ½ or half of the


graham cracker.

3. Pass out paper shapes. Ask the student to fold the shape to make it into fraction pieces to show 2 halves that are equal pieces.

4. If the group has a good grasp on the concept, move on to explain how to write a fraction. Tell the group that in order to write a fraction we write a fraction as 1 number over another number. Then tell them what the numbers stand for = the bottom number is the denominator it stands for all of the parts that we cut the whole into, they are even parts. All parts are the same size. The numerator is the top number and how many of the parts we choose.

5. Pass out the worksheet, provide assistance as needed.

Does the instructional plan for Tuesday prepare the students answer the essential question? Do you have any suggestions for the implementation of the content?

Response:

Wednesday Focus: LABELING A FRACTION ( ½ & ¼ )






1. Introduce the EQ

2. Hold up a triangle and tell the students that you all are going to make a fraction using the triangle. Ask them what size of the triangle are you holding; the whole, a section? Once they have answered by stating you are holding a whole triangle then tell them that today you’re going to break the triangle into smaller parts. Cut the triangle into 2 pieces. Tell the group that now you have 2 pieces and theses pieces are fractions. Say: when you break 1 object into equal pieces you make a fraction, since you have 2 pieces of the whole we call each piece ½ or half of the triangle.

3. Now hold up a plate , ask a student to come up and show the group how to make 2 equal parts out of the plate. Once a student has done this correctly, then ask how to divide 1 half into 2 equal pieces. Do the same with the other ½ of the plate. Then lay the plate out so the whole group can see, ask the group how many equal pieces the plate is divided into = 4! Then explain how to write a fraction = order to write a fraction we write a fraction as 1 number over another number. Then tell them what the


numbers stand for = the bottom number is the denominator it stands for all of the parts that we cut the whole into, they are even parts. All parts are the same size. The numerator is the top number and how many of the parts we choose. – Ask how many pieces do we have = 4 so write 4 on the bottom of one of the pieces, then hold that piece up and ask how many pieces you are holding up = 1 so write 1 on top announce that the fraction you have written is ¼! Label each of the other pieces with ¼!

4. Now hold up a rectangle, ask a student to come up and show the group how to make 2 equal parts out of the rectangle. Once a student has done this correctly, then ask how to divide 1 half into 2 equal pieces. Do the same with the other ½ of the rectangle. Then lay the rectangle out so the whole group can see, ask the group how many equal pieces the rectangle is divided into = 4! Then explain how to write a fraction = order to write a fraction we write a fraction as 1 number over another number. Then tell them what the numbers stand for = the bottom number is the denominator it stands for all of the parts that we cut the whole into, they are even parts. All parts are the same size. The numerator is the top number and how many of the parts we choose. – Ask how many pieces do we have = 4 so


write 4 on the bottom of one of the pieces, then hold that piece up and ask how many pieces you are holding up = 1 so write 1 on top announce that the fraction you have written is ¼! Label each of the other pieces with ¼!

5. Pass out the worksheet, provide assistance as needed

Does the instructional plan for Wednesday prepare the students answer the essential question? Do you have any suggestions for the implementation of the content?

Response:

Thursday Focus: LABELING A FRACTION ( ½ & ¼ )




Hands-on

1. Introduce the EQ

2. Hold up a triangle and tell the students that you all are going to make a fraction using the triangle. Ask them what size of the triangle are you holding; the whole, a section? Once they have answered


by stating you are holding a whole triangle then tell them that today you’re going to break the triangle into smaller parts. Cut the triangle into 2 pieces. Tell the group that now you have 2 pieces and theses pieces are fractions. Say: when you break 1 object into equal pieces you make a fraction, since you have 2 pieces of the whole we call each piece ½ or half of the triangle.

3. Now hold up a plate , ask a student to come up and show the group how to make 2 equal parts out of the plate. Once a student has done this correctly, then ask how to divide 1 half into 2 equal pieces. Do the same with the other ½ of the plate. Then lay the plate out so the whole group can see, ask the group how many equal pieces the plate is divided into = 4! Then explain how to write a fraction = order to write a fraction we write a fraction as 1 number over another number. Then tell them what the numbers stand for = the bottom number is the denominator it stands for all of the parts that we cut the whole into, they are even parts. All parts are the same size. The numerator is the top number and how many of the parts we choose. – Ask how many pieces do we have = 4 so write 4 on the bottom of one of the pieces, then hold that piece up and ask how many pieces you are holding up = 1 so write 1 on top announce that


the fraction you have written is ¼! Label each of the other pieces with ¼!

4. Now hold up a rectangle, ask a student to come up and show the group how to make 2 equal parts out of the rectangle. Once a student has done this correctly, then ask how to divide 1 half into 2 equal pieces. Do the same with the other ½ of the rectangle. Then lay the rectangle out so the whole group can see, ask the group how many equal pieces the rectangle is divided into = 4! Then explain how to write a fraction = order to write a fraction we write a fraction as 1 number over another number. Then tell them what the numbers stand for = the bottom number is the denominator it stands for all of the parts that we cut the whole into, they are even parts. All parts are the same size. The numerator is the top number and how many of the parts we choose. – Ask how many pieces do we have = 4 so write 4 on the bottom of one of the pieces, then hold that piece up and ask how many pieces you are holding up = 1 so write 1 on top announce that the fraction you have written is ¼! Label each of the other pieces with ¼!

5. Pass out the worksheet, provide assistance as needed



Response:

Friday Focus: REVIEW ALL & POSTTEST



1. Administer Posttest

Hands-on

1. Administer Posttest


Response:


Appendix B

Pre/Post-Test AssessmentName _____________________________________

Circle the objects that show the whole object shaded.

Circle the objects that show equal parts

Circle the objects that show ½ of the object shaded


Circle the objects that show ¼ of the object shaded


Appendix C

Reflective Journal Prompts

Hands-on Approach

Implementation through hands-on approach

Date

Strategy

What are three things the instructor learned from this lesson?

What was surprising to the instructor during this lesson?

How did the students respond to the manipulative objects used in this lesson?

Were the students actively involved during the entire lesson?

Did the lesson plan effectively transmit the content to the students?

How did the students behave during the lesson? (disruptive, talkative, etc.)

Did student behavior affect the outcomes of the lesson?

How did the instructor feel while implementing the lesson?

Did students academically progress to a level requiring advanced work in the content area?


Appendix D

Reflective Journal Prompts


Implementation through an IWB

Date

Strategy

What are three things the instructor learned from this lesson?

What was surprising to the instructor during this lesson?

How did the students respond to the flipcharts/interactive activity used in this lesson?

Were the students actively involved during the entire lesson?

Did the lesson plan effectively transmit the content to the students?

How did the students behave during the lesson? (disruptive, talkative, etc.)

Did student behavior affect the outcomes of the lesson?

How did the instructor feel while implementing the lesson?

Did students academically progress to a level requiring advanced work in the content area?

Chapter One: Introductionhome.lagrange.edu/educate/Advanced Programs/M.Ed... · Web viewAndrea...

Documents

Transcript of Chapter One: Introductionhome.lagrange.edu/educate/Advanced Programs/M.Ed... · Web viewAndrea...