LaGrange College - a four year, private liberal arts ...



AWARENESS OF LEARNING STYLES AND

MATH VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION

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.

Janice Wearden

Certificate of Approval

__________________________ _____________________________

Donald R. Livingston, Ed.D Sharon M. Livingston, Ph.D.

Thesis Chair Thesis Advisor

Education Department Education Department

AWARENESS OF LEARNING STYLES AND MATH VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION

A Thesis

by

Janice Wearden

to

LaGrange College

in partial fulfillment of

the requirement for the degree of

MASTER OF EDUCATION

in

Curriculum and Instruction

LaGrange, Georgia

May 5, 2011

Abstract

This study investigated the role of addressing learning styles when teaching math vocabulary to fifty-three fifth grade students at a small elementary school in West Central Georgia. Research shows vocabulary mastery influences success in math. Various activities addressing different learning styles were implemented with the treated group while the untreated group wrote definitions. Quantitative data analysis revealed there were no significant statistical differences between the post-tests of the treated and untreated groups. The qualitative data showed an improvement in the attitudes of both the students and the teacher. The results of this study serve as a foundation for future research on whether addressing students’ learning styles can improve the mastery of math vocabulary leading to higher test scores.

Table of Contents

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

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

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

Chapter 1: Introduction…………………………………………………………........…...1

Statement of the Problem…………………………………………...........….…........…….1

Significance of the Problem………………………………………...........……........….….2

Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks…………………………..........……........…..…3

Focus Questions…………………………………………………..........….........…...….…6

Overview of Methodology…………………………………………...........…….........…...6

Human as Researcher……………………………………………….……......................…7

Chapter 2: Review of the Literature……………………………..………….........…….....8

The Vocabulary of Mathematics…………………….…………..........…….….........…….8

Learning Styles………………………………………………….........……….........….….9

Opposing Views on Learning Styles……………………………….........….........……....11

Student Learning Outcomes………………………………………….........….........…….12

Attitudes of Students and Teachers……………………………………….…...................15

Summary…………………………………………………………………...................….16

Chapter 3: Methodology………………………………………………………......…….17

Research Design…………………………………………………………..................…...17

Setting……………………………………………………………………..................…..17

Subjects and Participants……………………………………………..............................18

Procedures and Data Collection Methods……………………………….................…... .20

Validity, Reliability and Bias Measures….……….........………….................……..…...23

Analysis of Data………………………………………………………….................…...26

Chapter 4: Results………………………………………………………….....………....29

Chapter 5: Analysis and Discussion of Results…………………………….....……..….40

Analysis…………………………………………………………................……….…....40

Discussion…………………………………………………………….…….....................45

Implications…………….………………………………………...............………..…......47

Recommendations for Future Research……………………………................…….…....48

References………………………………………………………………....……….…..,.50

Appendixes………………………………………………………………….....….….....54

List of Tables

Tables

Table 3.1. Data Shell……………………………………………………….……20

Table 4.1 Pre/Pre Independent t-test...................................................................31

Table 4.2 Treatment Group Pre/Post Dependent t-test………………….…......32

Figure 4.3 Untreated Group Pre/Post Dependent t-test………………………….33

Figure 4.4 Post/Post Independent t-test…………………………………….…...34

Figure 4.5 Untreated Group Chi Square …………………...…..................…….35

Figure 4.6 Treatment Group Chi Square………………….................…….…....36

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Statement of the Problem

According to the recent Georgia state CRCT results, 18% of the fifth grade students did not meet the state standards in mathematics (Georgia Department of Education [GADOE], 2008). This amounts to a significant number of fifth graders, in the state of Georgia, who did not master the necessary math concepts for advancement to middle school. Consequently, educators must continue to seek alternate teaching strategies during math instruction to engage all students. A large part of math is vocabulary. Vocabulary should be the scaffold that lessons are developed around. Greenwood (2006) clearly states that the practice of looking up words in the dictionary and writing sentences with them is “pedagogically useless.” According to Carter and Dean (2006) students must be able to decode and comprehend word problems and textbooks in addition to making sense of specialized mathematical vocabulary in order to communicate and think mathematically. Students with a greater vocabulary can use it to gain new knowledge. Improving the vocabulary of all students, especially children who come from low socio-economic groups or who are learning English, will help them understand the concepts being taught (Spencer & Guillaume, 2006)

This study investigated whether the use of methods addressing different learning styles in the acquisition of math vocabulary would improve understanding of mathematical concepts among students. The Georgia Department of Education states in their Performance Standards Framework that teachers should present vocabulary and concepts to students with models and real life examples thus causing students to be able to recognize and demonstrate these concepts with words, models, pictures, or numbers. Pierce and Fontaine (2009) maintain that the depth and breadth of a child’s mathematical vocabulary will influence a child’s success in math. The comprehension of math specific terms and ambiguous, multiple-meaning words could assist students in understanding problems on the CRCT thus leading to higher scores.

Significance of the Problem

Georgia’s minimum percentage of students passing math to meet Adequate Yearly Progress rose from 67.6% for 2010 to 75.7% for 2011. Students often struggle when test questions contain words that are not specific and have more than one meaning. Technical words have a very specific mathematical meaning. Sub-technical words have a common meaning that students usually already know; however, they also have a less common mathematical meaning with which students may not be familiar. Pierce and Fontaine (2009) assert that teachers are aware of the need to teach the meaning of technical vocabulary words, yet often do not realize that sub-technical vocabulary also needs to be taught as well.

The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) Principles and Standards for School Mathematics, includes “Communication” as a process strand. It states that students should use the language of mathematics to express mathematical ideas precisely. The Georgia Performance Standards (GPS) repeat exactly what the NCTM standard states about expressing ideas with precision. Pierce and Fontaine (2009) state that a child’s knowledge of mathematical vocabulary is an important indicator of how successful a child will perform in math. The purpose of this study was to determine if there will be an increase in math vocabulary test scores and ultimately the Georgia CRCT math test by using methods that address all learning styles when teaching vocabulary.

Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks

This study relates to the social constructivist theory in the fact that it seeks to show how “creating learning environments in which learning is both enjoyable and rigorous” can be effective (LaGrange College Education Department, 2008, p. 3). In the article, The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: The Many Faces of Constructivism, Phillips (1995) examines the views of various constructivist authors. Overall, constructivists do not believe that humans are born with “cognitive data banks” of “empirical knowledge,” but that they construct knowledge through inquiry and experiences (Phillips, 1995, p. 7). Piaget proposes that humans do not immediately understand and use information they are given; instead humans must construct their own knowledge (Powell, & Kalina, 2010, p. 242). Tomilinson suggests that teachers should be learning facilitators rather than dispensers of information and they should create learning environments in which students can be actively involved in the teaching and learning process (LaGrange College Education Department, 2008). Domain Three of the Georgia Framework for Teaching states that teachers should create learning environments that encourage positive social interaction, active engagement in learning, and self motivation. Teaching math concepts and vocabulary should be both enjoyable and rigorous in addition to being learner focused. This thesis relates to both Tenets One and Three of the LaGrange College Education Department’s (2008) Conceptual Framework. Tenet One involves the learner being enthusiastically engaged in learning. Teachers must know their learners, so that they construct knowledge in a context of social relations. No one has the same background experiences. Because approximately 87.5% of the students at the school in this study participate in the free and reduced lunch program, many may lack experiences that would make understanding vocabulary easier. The teacher needs to be aware of this.

This thesis is related to the “Knowledge of Learners” subgroup under Tenet One of the LaGrange College Education Department’s (2008) Conceptual Framework and Domain Two of the Georgia Framework for Teaching. Teachers need to know about their students’ abilities, needs, and interests in order to provide them with curriculum that is meaningful to them (LaGrange College Education Department, 2008). The Georgia Framework for Teaching reports that teachers should understand how learning occurs and adapt their lessons based on “students’ stages of development, multiple intelligences, learning styles, and areas of exceptionality” (LaGrange College Education Department, 2008, p. 2). When teaching students from high-poverty backgrounds, the teacher should take a holistic approach and use a wide variety of strategies. The teacher must understand how students’ lives and learning are influenced not only by what happens at school, but also outside the school setting. The teacher must have high expectations for the students and believe that these students can learn at a high level. (LaGrange College Education Department, 2008)

On the national level, the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) Core Assumptions; “Knowledge of Learners” can be directly linked with Proposition One. This proposition, “Teachers are committed to student learning” states, “They act on the belief that all students can learn. They treat students equitably, recognizing the individual differences that distinguish one student from another and taking account of these differences into their practice” (NBPTS, 2002). This is also included in Domain 2 of the Georgia Framework for Teaching. The teachers of high poverty students must hold these principles in order to accomplish desired outcomes. The LaGrange College Education Department’s (2008) Conceptual Framework , using the work of Delpit and Kincheloe, places importance on teachers linking the content taught in their classrooms to the life histories of their students, so that students can make meaningful personal connections.

Tenet Three of the LaGrange College Education Department’s (2008) Conceptual Framework is also relative to this thesis. This third tenet focuses on the professional dispositions that teachers need to develop and demonstrate in their work with students, families, professional colleagues, and members of the larger community (LaGrange College Education Department, 2008, p. 8). The third cluster suggests that teachers should take action and advocate for changes in curriculum and instructional design. Teachers need to improve the learning environment to support the diverse needs and high expectations for all students. In order for teachers to advocate public changes, Jenlink and Jenlink recommend that “they must first learn to become self-critical practitioners who use research in their teaching” (as cited by LaGrange College Education Department, 2008, p. 8). Paulo Freire states in Pedagogy of the Oppressed, teacher educators are asked to “take actions that will overcome injustice and inequalities that hinder the development of children” (LaGrange College Education Department, 2008, p.8).

Domain Six of The Georgia Framework for Teaching states that teachers should reflect and extend their knowledge of teaching and learning to be able to improve their own teaching practices. Implementing effective strategies and curriculum, in addition to establishing a well rounded learning environment should be the goal of all those in the teaching profession. Proposition Four in the NBPTS (2002) Core Assumptions is that teachers need to think systematically about their practice and learn from their experience. Teachers seek to encourage lifelong learning in their students due to their engagement in lifelong learning themselves. They aim to strengthen their teaching and adapt their teaching to new findings, ideas, and theories (NBPTS, 2002).

Focus Questions

Factors that affect the 5th grade math CRCT scores will be researched in this study. There are many factors that could affect student learning in the area of math. This study focused on three specific areas and the factors within those areas. The following focus questions will be used to guide the research for the study:

1. What is the process of teaching math vocabulary to address different learning styles of individual students?

2. How do test scores compare between traditional methods of teaching vocabulary and vocabulary taught by addressing different learning styles?

3. How do teacher/student attitudes change about vocabulary when different learning styles are addressed?

Overview of Methodology

This action research study was designed to determine if there was a difference in scores when math vocabulary was taught by addressing the different learning styles that students possess as opposed to traditional methods such as copying the definition from the dictionary/glossary. This was a mixed-methods research study that incorporated both quantitative and qualitative data. Assessment data in the form of pre/post tests were collected to evaluate the success of addressing different learning styles of individual students. The pre/post surveys were analyzed quantitatively using a chi square. Qualitative data were collected with a reflective journal that was coded for recurring, dominant, and emerging themes.

The school where this study took place is located in a county in west central Georgia. The subjects were the students in my 5th grade math class.

Human as Researcher

The qualifications of the researcher are important to know for this study. I teach 5th grade in a high-poverty school in Troup County. With 25 years teaching experience, I have taught in both self-contained and departmentalized settings. I have taught math each year whether just to my class or all classes on a particular grade level. I feel that the teacher’s passion or lack of, in teaching math can influence students’ performance. Creating an environment where students feel comfortable and safe is very important when teaching math. Another belief is that teachers should hold every student, no matter his economic status, up to high academic standards. This may also influence math scores.

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Many school improvement plans place an emphasis on increasing student achievement. In order to make gains in these areas, improvement in standards-based instruction, curriculum alignment, teacher quality, and the overall learning environment is often the focus (Beecher & Sweeny, 2008). The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), places the responsibility on states to raise student performance and meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), which is measured for all students by state standardized, high stakes tests (Tajalli & Opheim, 2005). According to Fore, Boon, and Lowrie (2007), the ability to read and vocabulary knowledge in the content areas are essential for school success. For this study, the focus was on the effect of teaching math vocabulary to address different learning styles of individual students.

The Vocabulary of Mathematics

According to Pierce and Fontaine (2009), the depth and breadth of a child’s mathematical vocabulary is more likely than ever to influence a child’s success in math. Research has shown that teaching mathematical vocabulary enhances a student’s performance on math tests. Students with difficulty reading often have limited vocabularies which hinder their ability to relate new terms and concepts to previous knowledge especially in content areas such as mathematics (Fore, et al., 2007). The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics’ (NCTM, 2000) Principles and Standards for School Mathematics now includes Communication as a process strand. Students are expected to be able to explain their problem-solving methods orally and in written form, both in the classroom and on high-stakes tests. Studies have shown that mathematical thinking skills of both general and special education students improved through an effective use of vocabulary instruction (Fore, et al., 2007).

Math contains a lot of specialized vocabulary that is specific to the subject of mathematics. Some words such as divisor, rectangle, and place value are used only in mathematics. Other terms are used in math and in the non-math world with about the same meaning, such as measure, half, and tally. There is another group known as multi-meaning words like prime, odd, and right. These words have a math meaning and other meanings outside the math context (Cunningham, 2009). Pierce and Fontaine (2009) refer to two categories of mathematics vocabulary as technical and sub-technical. Technical words have a precise mathematical denotation that must be specifically taught to students. These are words that are often defined in math textbooks. Sub-technical words have a common meaning that students generally already know; however, they also have a less common mathematical denotation that students may be less familiar with. If you teach the general meaning of these words along with the mathematical meaning, you can use the familiar meaning to connect to the mathematical meaning.

Learning Style

One of the most enduring effects on education has been the search for individual differences that can explain and predict variation in student achievement. This led to the hope that learning opportunities can be designed that will maximize the attainment of these individual differences (Scott, 2010). Though all human beings have common characteristics in the learning process, ways of giving meaning and acquiring information may vary. Learning styles is defined as the different ways used by individuals to process and organize information or to respond to environmental stimuli. It is important to take into account the characteristics, abilities and experiences of learners when planning to teach a lesson. Teachers should select and organize methods and strategies, classroom environment, and teaching materials according to learning styles rather than expecting the student to adapt to the existing organization (Yilmaz-Soylu & Akkoyunlu, 2009). Jensen (1998) refers to it as a sort of way of thinking, comprehending and processing information.

Haas (2003) states that auditory-sequential learners tend to do well in school where the curriculum, materials, and teaching methods are predominantly sequential and presented in an auditory format. Auditory-sequential learners are easily able to remember their math facts, memorize the steps to complete equations, answer homework questions correctly, and earn good grades in math without ever truly understanding the underlying mathematical concepts. Auditory-sequential instruction of math often separates the number from what it represents. Visual-spatial learners would also miss the underlying mathematical concept and they may not be able to remember math facts, nor readily be able to memorize the steps to complete equations. They might not be able to correctly answer homework problems leaving them with a lowered self-esteem and a perceived deficit in mathematical ability. Silverman (2005) suggests that the visual learner needs to see the information rather than hear it in order to make sense of it. They have to change the information to visual images if any true learning is to occur. If a teacher is presenting information in an auditory manner, the visual-spatial learner is listening to the words, and then creating an image in their brain. This takes additional processing time, which leaves the visual-spatial learner behind. According to Rapp (2009) when teaching auditorally, use visualization strategies that allow the learner to create a picture in their head.

Historically, vocabulary instruction has consisted of looking up a word in a dictionary or glossary. This method has been proven to be a useless practice because retention of the knowledge is not achieved (Bromley, 2007). Students blindly copy the definitions and forget about them. Beck, McKeown, and Kucan (2002) assert that becoming interested and aware of words is not a likely outcome from having students look up definitions in a dictionary or glossary. More effective strategies are being developed to enhance vocabulary lessons (Bromley, 2007). For teachers, the idea of being able to use an individual’s learning styles as a diagnostic, predictive, or pedagogical tool for the purposes of improving academic performance at school is an appealing one (Sharp, Bowker, & Byrne, 2008). Cunningham (2009) states that adding strategies to address visual, auditory, and kinesthetic (VAK) styles while teaching math vocabulary maximizes the potential for learning in that subject area.

Opposing Views on Learning Styles

The idea that individual differences in academic abilities can be partly ascribed to individual learning styles has tremendous appeal especially when looking at the number of learning style models or inventories that have been devised – 170 at the last count and rising. The disappointing result of this entire endeavor is that, on the whole, the evidence time and again shows that modifying a teaching strategy to account for differences in learning styles does not result in any improvement in learning outcomes (Geake, 2008). While it is commonly believed that learning styles cannot be overlooked in education, there is still substantial disagreement over the perceived status of learning styles in teaching and learning and how the different styles should be addressed in the classroom. Most educators know that individuals of all ages approach different tasks in diverse areas of their work in different ways, learn at different rates, and apply what they learn with different degrees of confidence and success. They know that learning styles is only one of a great many variables which influence academic performance (Sharp, et al., 2008). Concentrating on one sensory modality contradicts the brain’s natural interconnectivity. The input modalities in the brain are interconnected: visual with auditory; visual with motor; motor with auditory; visual with taste; and so on. To many educators VAK has become mixed-modality pedagogy where material is presented in all three modes. According to Kratzig and Arbuthnott (as cited by Geake, 2008) research has shown that there is no improvement of learning outcomes with VAK above teacher enthusiasm.

Student Learning Outcomes

Engaging students in active hands-on lessons for the purpose of acquiring vocabulary is one method that can be used to achieve vocabulary comprehension. Giving students the opportunity to design a picture definition is an example of a hands-on strategy that can be used to motivate students and keep them involved in the lesson (Greenwood, 2006). These picture definitions produced by the students can be posted in the room or in the hall. Bull and Whittrock (as cited by Sadoski, 2005) found that when students wrote a verbal definition and drew a picture to represent the definition, the students’ retention was significantly better than when they wrote the definition alone, or were provided with the definition and an illustration as in a textbook. Good readers make the non-verbal images automatically as they read. Readers who fall at the lower end of the ability spectrum end up calling words and not seeing the pictures in the text (Hibbing & Rankin-Erickson, 2003).

Using a graphic organizer keeps a strong focus on the relationship among the definition of a concept, one or more illustrative examples of the concept, and characteristics of the concept that the word represents. These three sections correspond to Rector and Henderson’s (1970) three ways of teaching a concept. When a teacher talks about the properties or characteristics of the object named by a term, they employ the connotative use of the term. When teachers give examples, they use the term in a denotative manner and when they define the term, they employ the implicative use of the term (Gay, 2008). Learners need multiple opportunities to interact with words in order to truly know them. Vocabulary cards based on the Frayer model encourage learners to think about new vocabulary through definition, contrasts, and visual representations. Typically they are developed using a five-by-seven-inch index card divided into four quadrants (Frey & Fisher, 2009).

The learning cycle is a teaching method that uses visualization to teach vocabulary. There are four phases of this cycle: engage, explore, develop, and apply (Spencer & Guillaume, 2006). Imagery in the engage phase involves teacher centered introduction of words with pictures. According to Spencer and Guillaume (2006), using pictures increases student interest in the subject. Drawing is a suggested technique for the exploration phase. The students are encouraged to make picture maps in their notes. An added benefit of drawing at this stage is that the teacher can easily spot misconceptions and correct them while looking at a drawing. In the development phase of the learning cycle, students can group pictures of words to illustrate comprehension. In the final stage, application, students can use knowledge gained in the previous three steps in a unique way, enabling multiple exposures to the word. Some examples of application are creating poetry, plays, songs, or multi-media presentations that display the students’ enduring understanding of the word (Spencer & Guillaume, 2006).

Another powerful way to help students build vocabulary is by using word dramatizations. The students in groups use skits or pantomimes to present their words to their classmates. At the end of the skit or pantomime, have the students guess what the word was that was being presented to them. It is important to have the students relate the word acted out to their own experience. This type activity provides students with real experience with many words. They remember these words because of this real experience and because they enjoy acting and watching their friends act (Cunningham, 2009).

According to Gailey (1993), using children’s literature to make connections between mathematics and literature can increase students’ mathematical knowledge and understanding. Mathematics and language skills can develop together as students listen, read, write, and talk about mathematical ideas. Of the thousands of children’s books published every year, a number can be used to introduce, reinforce, or develop mathematical concepts. Matz and Leier (1992), believe a student must be both proficient in reading and skilled at mathematics to solve a word problem. The methodology and activities teachers have developed in other curriculum areas to teach vocabulary can be just as appropriate for the mathematics lesson.

Attitudes of students and Teacher

Research has shown that the results of integrating different methods of teaching vocabulary into math classes has led to a growth in teachers’ confidence, mathematics and literacy knowledge, and enthusiasm to continue discovering and exploring different ways to increase students’ vocabulary knowledge (Phillips, Bardsley, Bach, & Gibb-Brown, 2009). A. Susan Gay (2008) affirms that by raising teachers’ awareness of the critical role of mathematics vocabulary, they begin to realize how important it is for them to use the correct word when describing a mathematical object. Teachers must understand that even though we know what we are talking about, all of the concepts are new to our students and must be explained very clearly and precisely.

Cunningham (2009) asserts that you will be amazed at how students’ vocabularies and enthusiasm for words will grow by allowing them to experience different ways of learning words. Because students are usually enthusiastic about art, music, and physical education, using these experiences increases students’ enthusiasm about learning new vocabulary. Children usually love to act or watch their friends acting; therefore, using pantomime or dramatization causes the interest in learning new vocabulary to grow (Cunningham, 2009). Fore, et al. (2007) concluded from their study of instructional models for teaching vocabulary that students were very satisfied when given different approaches to learning vocabulary. They noted that enthusiasm also increased among students who were taught with methods other than the traditional looking up words in the dictionary or glossary.

Less than interesting instruction is not a problem just because we want students to enjoy classroom activities. It is much better for students to develop an interest and awareness in words beyond school assignments in order to build their own vocabulary inventory. Students become interested and enthusiastic about words when instruction is rich and lively and they are encouraged to notice words in environments beyond the classroom (Beck, et al., 2002).

Summary

The purpose of this review of literature was to provide background information that was essential for understanding what was explored in this action research study. The literature review completed in Chapter 2 influenced the methodology used to carry out this study. The focus questions supplied the organization for the review of literature and also framed the methodology that followed. The research design, setting, subjects, data collection methods, validity and reliability methods, and analysis of data of the action research are described in the next chapter.

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

Research Design

This was an action research study because it focused on a particular problem in pedagogy (Fraenkel & Wallen, 1990). This action research study was conducted in my classroom. My four class periods were grouped to form a Treatment Group and an Untreated Group. First and third periods received the treatment over a three week period. The untreated group, second and fourth periods, received instruction as provided in previous years. Both quantitative and qualitative methods of data collection were used – assessment data, surveys, and a reflective journal. Assessment data in the form of pre/post tests were collected to evaluate the success of addressing different learning styles of individual students. A pre-post survey was administered to students to document student attitude changes about vocabulary. Qualitative methods were also used to evaluate the research. A reflective journal was kept and coded for themes. As Hendricks (2009) suggested, the information from this journal was a valuable tool for assessing the progress of the study, recording new ideas that came about from the study, and aided in finding patterns that developed during the research.

Setting

Green Elementary School, a pseudonym, was located in a small town in a county in West Central Georgia. The population of this town was 2,739. At the time of the study, there were 398 students enrolled at Green Elementary School in grades pre-K through fifth grade. Green Elementary School made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for eight consecutive years and was recognized as a Title I Distinguished school for six consecutive years. The ethnic backgrounds of the students were 61 percent White, 30 percent African-American, 6 percent Inter-Racial and 3 percent Hispanic. 87.5 percent of the students were economically disadvantaged receiving free and reduced lunches. Written permission was obtained from the school system, the principal, and LaGrange College’s Institutional Review Board to conduct this research project at this location. This setting was chosen because it is where I work

Subjects and Participants

Fourth and fifth grade students at Green Elementary were departmentalized. I taught the fifth grade math classes. The study involved four fifth grade classes of approximately 14 students each. All of these classes had similar populations. Class A consists of 9 boys and 5 girls. There were 5 African-American, 6 Caucasian, 1 Hispanic, and 2 Inter-Racial in Class A. Class B consists of 7 boys and 7 girls. There were 5 African-American students and 9 Caucasian students in class B. Class C had 6 boys and 8 girls with 6 who were African-American, 6 Caucasian, and 2 Hispanic. Class D had 9 boys and 5 girls with 6 being African-American and 8 Caucasian. At Green Elementary School, 87.5 % of the students participated in the Free/Reduced Lunch Program. Class A had 89%, Class B had 84 %, Class C was 88% and for Class D, 84% participated in the Free/Reduced Lunch Program. The fifth grade students were not ability-grouped for math, but were heterogeneously grouped. All four groups had students with very similar ability levels. Classes A and C were the Treatment group and Classes B and D were the Untreated Group. I chose these groups because I did not want both treatment groups to be before lunch and the untreated groups to be after lunch. This way I had a morning and afternoon class for both the treatment and untreated groups. These students were chosen because they were my students.

The instructional plan for this research study was evaluated by two peer teachers at Green Elementary School. The first participant, Peer Teacher A, taught fifth grade and had 18 years of teaching experience. She had been at Green Elementary School for 12 years at the time of the study. She had taught music, third grade, first grade, and fifth grade. She was also an Upper Literacy Coach for two years while Green Elementary was participating in the America’s Choice - Georgia’s Choice Program. Peer Teacher A was also chosen as the Teacher of the Year to represent our elementary school. The second participant, Peer Teacher B, was new to Green Elementary School at the time of the study. She currently taught all of the fourth grade math classes, but in previous years she taught seventh grade math at the middle school Green Elementary students attend. She had 13 total years teaching experience. She taught seventh grade math for three years in a neighboring system and then moved to the middle school in our system. She taught seventh grade math in this system for the past 9 years. For the 2010-2011 school year, she requested to be transferred to the elementary school where she taught all the fourth grade math classes. She has been a team leader and was the first teacher at the middle school to have her classroom equipped and labeled as a twenty-first century classroom. She was also chosen as Teacher of the Year twice while teaching at the middle school in our system. Both of these teachers were asked to evaluate my instructional plan because of their knowledge and experience with the subject matter and grade level.

Procedures and Data Collection Methods

This was a mixed-method action research study. One reason for using mixed methods to collect data is that it adds “scope and breadth to the study” (Cresswell, 1994, p. 175). Both quantitative and qualitative methods of data collection (see Table 3.1) were used to determine if the teaching strategies employed were significantly effective for the acquisition of math vocabulary by students. The quantitative data were in the form of pre-test and post-test scores for both the treatment and the untreated group. The pre/post-surveys were used to assess student’s attitudes about math vocabulary. The use of a teacher reflective journal allowed for the recording of student observations as well.

Table 3.1. Data Shell

|Focus Question |Literature Sources |Type: Method, Data, |How are data | Rationale |

| | |Validity |analyzed? | |

|FQ1: |Beck, McKeown, &Kucan,(2002). |Type of Method: |Coded for themes | Looking for |

|What is the process of |Bromley,(2007) |Instructional Plan |recurring |categorical and |

|teaching math vocabulary to |Cunningham ,(2009) |rubric and interview |dominant |repeating data that |

|address different learning |Pierce & Fontaine, (2009) | |emerging |form patterns of |

|styles of individual students?| |Type of Data: | |behaviors |

| | |Qualitative | | |

| | | | | |

| | |Type of Validity: | | |

| | |Content | | |

|FQ2: |Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, |Type of Method: Teacher|Dependent T-test |To determine if there |

|How do test scores compare |(2002). |made- Tests, quizzes |Effect Size |are significant |

|between traditional methods of|Cunningham, (2009) | |Independent T -test|differences |

|teaching vocabulary and |Frey, & Fisher, (2009) |Type of Data: | |Measure the magnitude |

|vocabulary taught by |Greenwood, (2009) |Quantitative Interval | |of a treatment effect |

|addressing different learning |Spencer & Guillaume, (2006) | | | |

|styles? | |Type of Validity: | | |

| | |Content | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

|FQ3: |Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, |Type of Method: |Coded for themes: |Looking for |

|How do teacher/student |L.(2002). |Reflective Journal |recurring |categorical and |

|attitudes change about |Cunningham, (2009) |Surveys |dominant |repeating data that |

|vocabulary when different |Fore, Boon, & Lowrie, (2007) | |emerging |form patterns of |

|learning styles are addressed?|Gay, (2008) |Type of Data: | |behaviors |

| |Phillips, Bardsley, Bach, & |Qualitative | | |

| |Gibb-Brown, (2009) | | |To find what questions|

| | |Ordinal | |are significant |

| | | | | |

| | |Type of Validity: |Chi Square | |

| | |Construct |Cronbach’s Alpha | |

The treatment designed for use in this research study started with an instructional plan being written (see Appendix A) and evaluated by two peer teachers using a rubric (see Appendix B). A separate interview with both teachers was tape recorded to preserve the suggestions each person made for improving the plan.

An attitudinal survey (see Appendix C) was administered to the students in both the control group and the treatment group prior to the unit being taught. The survey measured the attitudes of the students toward math and in particular math vocabulary. The information gathered in the survey provided insight into how students feel about math and math vocabulary. At the end of the instructional unit when different learning styles had been addressed, the students were given the same survey again to see if there were any changes in attitudes towards math and especially math vocabulary. Both the treatment and the untreated group were administered a pre-test (see Appendix D) before anything in the instructional unit was addressed. Different learning style approaches were used to teach the instructional unit to the treatment group and a post-test identical to the pre-test was administered.

To answer the first focus question in the study about the process of teaching math vocabulary to address different learning styles of individual students, the students were introduced to Geometry vocabulary by using, art, music, and drama. They made vocabulary cards which included pictures they drew, as well as, the definition, and examples. By using art, they were able to visualize the meaning of the word, thus addressing the visual learners. They were given the opportunity to create songs or raps with their vocabulary words and perform them for their classmates. Using music allowed the students with strong auditory learning to use their strengths. The students also were given the chance to pantomime or perform a skit using their words. They were put into small groups and each group performed their word for their classmates. This addressed those students who are kinesthetic learners.

To answer the second focus question about how do test scores compare between traditional methods of teaching vocabulary and vocabulary taught by addressing different learning styles? Both groups were given a vocabulary pre-test (see Appendix D). The strategy of incorporating different learning styles into learning math vocabulary was implemented in Classes A and C. The students’ vocabulary cards were put on display in the classroom. Each student had to present two of their cards to the class and explain the visuals and how they used the drawing to define the word. The students also had the opportunity to create songs or raps, and pantomime or create a skit using their words. Classes B and D, the untreated group, only received the traditional method for teaching vocabulary. They were given the list of words and instructed to copy the definitions from their math glossary. After the activity and the unit of study were concluded, the same test that was administered at the start of the unit was given as a post-test.

The second part of this study had the purpose of answering the third focus question: How do teacher/student attitudes change about vocabulary when different learning styles are addressed? At the beginning and end of the research study, the same survey was administered to the untreated group and the treatment group to identify their feelings about math and math vocabulary.

Validity, Reliability and Bias Measures

Validity, reliability/dependability, and lack of bias were ensured in this study through the use of specific methods of research and data collection. As a researcher, there are exclusive proceedings that must take place to increase the dependability and consistency of the data. For focus question one of this study concerned with pedagogy the data collection were qualitative. An instructional plan rubric and interviews were used as the method of data collection. The instructional plan used for this study was focused on Geometry lessons. There is a large quantity of vocabulary that must be mastered in order to grasp the concepts taught in Geometry. This made it ideal for comparing the use of learning styles to more traditional methods of teaching vocabulary. The plan includes lessons on lines, angles, polygons, circles, and solid figures. The instructional plan was evaluated by two peer teachers for content validity. The objectives of the plan were directly related to the fifth grade Georgia Performance Standards that were tested on the Georgia CRCT. Popham (2008) asserts that content validity refers to the adequacy with which the content of a test represents the content of the curricular aim being measured. These interviews were the primary source of qualitative data collection for focus question one. Because the interviews were recorded and detailed notes of interviewees’ responses were taken from the recordings soon after the interviews took place dependability has been assured. Each peer teacher checked the transcribed interviews to ensure accuracy in what was written. Both peer teachers examined the instructional plan looking for any unfair or offensive bias. Popham (2008) states that bias refers to the qualities of an instrument that offend or unfairly penalize a group of students because of students’ gender, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, religion, or other such group-defining characteristics.

The second focus question of this study was: How do test scores compare between traditional methods of teaching vocabulary and vocabulary taught by addressing different learning styles? To maintain reliability, I used quantitative interval data to compare scores obtained from pre-test and post-tests. The pre-test and post-tests were compared by independent t-tests to determine if there were significant differences between means from the untreated group and the treatment group’s pre/post tests. Both tests were also analyzed using dependent t–tests to determine if there were significant differences between means from one group tested twice. The data collected from the interval level of measurement as stated by Salkind (2010), “is where a test or an assessment tool is based on some underlying continuum such that we can talk about how much more a higher performance is than a lesser one” (p. 140). The data collection and treatment will be consistent with a controlled setting. The content validity will assess whether a test reflects items in a certain topic (Salkind, 2010). The test questions in this study demonstrate content validity because they are representative of the curriculum being taught (Popham, 2008). The pre-test and post-test used were both examined by different faculty members to look for any evidence of bias.

The third focus question of this study was concerned with how teacher/student attitudes change about vocabulary when different learning styles are addressed. The data gathering methods used for focus question three was pre and post attitudinal surveys and a teacher reflective journal. The data collected from the surveys will be on the nominal level of measurement. As per Salkind (2010) the nominal level is specified by the aspect of an outcome that adapts to only one class or category. The last method of data collection was a daily reflective journal kept by me. Each entry was guided by a set of reflective journal prompts (see Appendix E) designed to give consistency to the journal. Keeping detailed documentation of behaviors observed, statements made, and attitudes displayed allowed me to plan a program that would incorporate the positive aspects while revising those that were not useful or productive. This valuable information will be utilized to modify future pedagogy.

Evidence was collected from the student surveys to gauge interest and motivation, showing construct validity by using the information shown by the literature review to develop the series of statements students read. I was mindful of a limitation on the student attitudinal survey, that students might circle answers they think will please the teacher. To account for this, I pointed out to the students to answer the survey according to their own attitudes and feelings. The survey was checked for bias to increase awareness of how the results may be affected negatively or positively. The construct validity will be strong and it will correlate the survey with a theorized outcome (Salkind 2010). The type of reliability demonstrated is stability reliability as both the control and treatment groups rated their attitudes about math and math vocabulary using the same survey before and after the instructional plan was taught. Stability reliability, also called test re-test reliability is the agreement of measuring instruments over time. To determine stability, a measure or test is repeated on the same subjects at a future date. The results are compared and correlated with the initial test to give a measure of stability. The data collection was composed and evaluated for internal consistency, scale reliability or average correlation using Cronbach’s Alpha.

The teacher reflective journal I kept while the strategies were being implemented was coded for specific themes, attitudes, and feelings. A set of predetermined journal prompts were used to record how I felt about the lesson, assessments, and to reflect upon the materials that were used. Entries into the reflective journal were recorded daily to review the progress of the study. Using consistent prompts daily creates boundaries and makes it easier to analyze the results.

Analysis of Data

To answer focus question one about what is the process of teaching math vocabulary to address different learning styles of individual learners. I wrote a detailed instructional plan. Two peer teachers were given the plan and a rubric that was developed for evaluation purposes and to provide feedback. The feedback on the instructional plan was analyzed qualitatively. In addition to the rubric, the two peer teachers agreed to participate in a recorded interview in which they provided detailed feedback about the plan. The two interviews were examined to look for recurring, dominant, or emerging themes.

Focus question two about how test scores compare between traditional methods of teaching vocabulary and vocabulary taught by addressing different learning styles. The method used was quantitative because interval data from pre-tests and post-tests was statistically compared for both the control group and the treatment group. A dependent t-test was used to determine if there are significant differences between means from one group tested twice. The null hypothesis is that there is no significant difference between the pre-test and post-test results. The decision to reject the null hypothesis was set at p < .05. An independent t-test was also used to determine if there were significant differences between means from two independent groups, i.e. the untreated and treatment groups. The null statement was stated that student test scores were not influenced by addressing the different learning styles of students. The decision to reject the null hypothesis was set at p < .05. To measure the magnitude of a treatment effect, the Effect size was also calculated. Unlike significance tests, these indices are independent of sample size. Effect size can be measured in two ways: Cohen’s d for independent groups and Effect size r for paired data such as a dependent t-test.

Focus question three was about how teacher/student attitudes change about vocabulary when different learning styles are addressed? A Likert scale survey consisting of seven statements and four questions about students’ feelings and attitudes toward math and math vocabulary was administered to the students before and after the treatment. . The survey’s Likert responses were quantitatively analyzed by performing a Chi Square to find which questions were significant and which were not. Significance was reported at the p < .05, p < .01, and p < .001 levels. The survey was checked for internal consistency reliability by computing Cronbach’s Alpha.

By keeping a reflective journal during this study, I was also able to code it for recurring, dominant, and emerging themes. I could examine not only my feelings, but also keep a record of attitudes and feelings noticed in the students. Because the journal entries were made up using prompted questions by me, the threat of bias was evident. In order to minimize differing, experimental and background bias of the journal entry, the prompts were reviewed by faculty members (Popham, 2008).

The literature review of this thesis is an “epistemological validation” of the research and remains consistent with the type of research that was implemented in the study (Lather as cited by Kinchloe & McLaren, 1998). Denzin and Lincoln (1998) describe the cycling back to the literature review as “epistemological validation,” a place where the researcher convinces the reader that they have remained consistent with the theoretical perspectives they used in the review of the literature. Eisner (1991) recommends “Consensual Validation”, therefore, the research methods will also be reviewed by the LaGrange College faculty to “ensure that the description, interpretation, evaluation, and thematic are right.”

If other teachers understand and perceive that the use learning styles in the instruction of vocabulary is a successful strategy because of this research, the research has referential adequacy because they will use it in their lessons. The findings of this study may be applied to subjects other than math. “Catalytic validity” (Lather as cited by Kincheloe & McLaren, 1998) is the degree to which researchers anticipate their study to shape and transform their participants, subjects, or school. Catalytic validity is an expected outcome of this study.

The next chapter reports the information obtained from the data gathered during duration of this study.

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS

The results displayed in Chapter Four are organized by focus question. Focus question one in this study is about the process of teaching math vocabulary to address different learning styles of individual students. A peer reviewed instructional plan was developed and followed during the course of this study. Two peer teachers evaluated the plan using a rubric. The peer teachers agreed to be interviewed about their thoughts on the plan. This recorded interview was transcribed and checked for accuracy by each interviewee. Peer teacher A responded very positively on the rubric. Upon closer examination of the instructional plan, she did point out that the learners might not be able to determine what they should know and be able to do from the way it was worded in the plan. She suggested clarifying this by having a written synopsis of what the students need to understand as a part of the plan. Each teacher has a grid on their board that contains information about the lessons being taught that day. It has a space for the Georgia Performance Standard, essential question, concept, vocabulary words, and homework. She suggested quickly going over this grid verbally before beginning the lesson for the day. Another suggestion was to have a plan for reviewing information previously taught to check for any weak areas in the content. If there were any, they could be re-taught before the new content was taught for that day. Another teacher should be able to take the instructional plan and teach it to their class; however, it was suggested that more detail be added to the vocabulary card activity on day 2. She stated that, “You know exactly what you mean, and are planning to do because you have a lot of experience with it, but someone else would not necessarily know what to put in each of the four sections of the card.” Peer teacher B also responded very positively to the plan. She had the same suggestion for specific prompts for the days the Writing to Win Journals would be used. The only other negative thing she found in the plan was that day two’s essential question and activity did not match. She thought that the detailed listing of vocabulary for each day was impressive. “Vocabulary is very essential to the understanding of math concepts.” As a math teacher, she asserted that she could take the plan with those revisions and use it with her classes. She declared, “It is well written and very clear. I think it would be easy to pick it up and follow it. It is obviously standards based and covers the objectives for this instructional plan.”

Focus question two of this study was about how test scores compare between traditional methods of teaching vocabulary and vocabulary taught by addressing different learning styles. Classes A and C made up the treatment group. This group was provided with different opportunities to work with vocabulary that focused on meeting different learning styles. The use of art, poetry, and drama was implemented to help them remember the definitions. Classes B and D made up the untreated group. They were taught the vocabulary using traditional methods from previous years. They did activities like looking up the definitions in the glossary of their math text.

Data from both groups’ pre-tests were compared in an independent t-test to determine if addressing different learning styles increased student learning as opposed to writing definitions. The results of the independent t-test (see Table 4.1) show that t (38) = 1.49, p > .05. This means that the obtained value found in this test of 1.49 was less than the critical value of 1.685. Therefore, the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between students learning when different learning styles are addressed in math vocabulary lessons and when students write definitions from the text must be accepted proving there is no significant difference between the two groups (Salkind, 2010). This provided a level playing field for both groups when this study began. A Cohen’s d effect size of 0.21 is considered a medium effect size.

Table 4.1 Pre/Pre Independent t-test

|INDEPENDENT t-test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances |

|  |Pre-Test A |Pre-Test B |

|Mean |16.06896552 |22 |

|Variance |119.137931 |278.7826087 |

|Observations |29 |24 |

|Hypothesized Mean Difference |0 | |

|df |38 | |

|t Stat |-1.495708314 | |

|P(T ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download