Running head: Preschool Student Choice with Free Play Centers



Running head: Preschool Student Choice with Free Play Centers

Preschool Student Choice with Free Play Centers

Elizabeth L. Pourciau

Southeastern Louisiana University

Summer 2003

Abstract

This is a descriptive action research case study of two preschool classrooms over a three-week instruction period. This action research project was designed to describe the choices that preschool students take when given options during “free play”. The focus of this action research was to determine in a center- based curriculum, preschool students choice of centers. An attempt was made to determine whether or not students had a preference regarding technology centers or non-technology centers. In this Head Start Program, the students were allowed “free play” in the center time activities. Data is collected by an observer who has no direct contact with any of the students or the teachers at the facility. Additionally, the most popular center was also determined from the available data. A comparison of students’ usage of technology centers to the proficiency scores on the developmental checklist will determine the overall success of the students in the center-based curriculum.

This action research project was designed to describe the choices that preschool students take when given options during “free play”. More specifically, the focus was how student choice of technology oriented centers compared to other centers during a specific time period.

Review of Literature

In 1964 a panel of experts in early childhood development developed a program for the Federal Government. The panel submitted their findings which became the starting point for the program we know as Project Head Start. The project was originally to be an eight week summertime program geared toward the disadvantaged youth in the communities in the nation. This program was to be the necessary elements to break the cycle of poverty in the United States. Project Head Start was to provide low-income families with emotional, social, health, nutritional and psychological needs of the children ages three to school entry age. Today this program has blossomed into a program administered locally by nonprofit organizations to provide these services to the low-income families in the communities across the nation (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2002). The backbone of the program is based on the parent and community involvement for the success of the children.

Every child enrolled in the program receives a variety of learning experiences that fosters growth. This includes the importance of early identification of health problems. The Head Start Program also involves the parents in parent education, as well as having a voice in the decisions of the program. Included in the Head Start Program, specific social services are geared toward the family after a needs assessment has been completed. Many of the social services for the family are funded by non-profit agencies or by grant monies. Twenty percent of the total cost of a Head Start must be funded by the community in which it serves (, 2003). Head Start programs can be found in all 50 states, as well as all of the outlying U.S territories.

The developmental learning process of young children takes time and will go through stages in order for understanding to occur. At the ages of 3 and 4 the children are only learning by trial and error. This stage of the learning process is really on sided. The children at this age find it hard to focus on more than their own perception (Miller, January/February 2003). The same age children also use words to help them or make sense of the world around them (Miller, April 2003). Research shows that make-believe play develops symbolic thinking, self-regulation and creativity (Leong & Bodrova, April 2003). This is the necessary catalyst that helps the children develop and practice their social skills (Leong & Bodrova, March 2003). The children at this age are also developing new large-motor skills (Miller, April 2003). At age 3 the children still confuse fantasy and reality (Miller, April/ May 2003). It is a good idea for teachers to provide real-world activities for them to experience. Some of the three year old, may not want to actively participate, rather they may seem shy about the strange newness of an object or strange noises. Instead, they just may want to participate passively, still curious enough to take a look (Miller, March 2003). Healy interjects and tells us that children under the age of five have the tendencies to confuse the appearance with reality (Healy, 1998). The four year olds on the other hand will almost always jump right in and try new things (Miller, April 2003). This is the best time for a teacher to use the children’s multiple intelligence to stimulate the learning process (Miller, January/February 2003).

Centers are the stepping stones to learning for the early educational classroom. The centers approach to learning is a well established strategy that provides opportunities for the learners to engage in hands on learning for children. Using this idea, the teacher can create literate environments through these centers to create meaningful real-world experiences for students to engage the learning process. With the center activities the students are allowed to engage successfully in the activity at their skill level (Stone, 1996).

Pretend play is another vehicle that stimulates the foundational skills (Leong &Bodrova, April/May 2003). It is only through the careful planning of the teacher to provide meaningful learning experience that the students will further their academic learning (Leong & Bodrova, March 2003). A child’s appetite for learning emerges only when teachers understand the engagement process in thinking and problem solving based on issues that matter to them (Scott, 2003).

Technology has explored the diversity with children in many new and exciting ways. Using the digital camera or tape recorder has allowed students to listen or have others in the class to identify the sound (Buckleitner, 2002). In order to successfully use a computer in the classroom a teacher must first decide which way is developmentally appropriate for the children, and then must review the curriculum goals and standards to see if the software can be successfully used in the class (Kneas, 1999). According to Healy, the computer should be used if it accomplishes the task better than other materials or experiences. She also believes that at age six or seven that a child should be combining computer and manipulative activities to better the learning activities (Healy, 1998).

Adding a computer in the early childhood educational classroom has been a difficult part of adjusting the curriculum to meet the needs of the learners. In this sense the children are being exposed to materials and activities that are developmentally appropriate. Children react to the computer in the classroom “matter of factly”. It is the child’s experiences that help the adults make the necessary changes to promote computer literacy in the classrooms. By blending the computer technology into the curricular, it has been able to provide a balance the availability of resources in the classroom. This effective strategy is becoming the vehicle to encourage family participation and equalize play in the Head Start Classroom (Hutinger, Robinson and Johanson, 1990). Healy claimed that “computers are not necessary or even desirable in the lives of most children under the age of seven”. Healy also reminded us that profound developmental tasks that have to be mastered and they may be distorted with too much electronic stimulation (Healy, 1998).

As part of the standards for early educational classrooms developmentally appropriate practices have been established. By using this method of appropriate practices provided the key elements of connecting children with the various academic foundations. Computers also could be considered a tool to help Children Bridge the gap in education, but should not replace manipulative in the classroom. The young child must have many multi-sensory as well as three-dimensional learning experiences throughout the developmental stages (Scholastic Early Childhood Today, 2002).

The purpose of standards is two fold: (1) standards express shared expectations and provide a common language for assessing the progress toward the goal and (2) early schooling can have a significant impact on learning later in the academic career. Standards in early childhood education need not be watered down versions of the K-12 standards but should accommodate a wider variety of performances (Kendall, 2003).

The accountability demands on the educational fields have finally dwindled down to the preschool sector. More and more early-childhood educational programs are demanding for assessment practices. In 1998, Congress redirected the Head Start to establish eight broad categories for child development and readiness to focus on a new direction. It is now a requirement for Head Start Programs to measure performance of students and the program itself. The new reauthorization mandates that the Head Start programs gather and analyze data on 13 specific outcomes that include related language, literacy and numeric skills. All of the assessments will be regulated by the federal Administration for Children and Families beginning with the school year of 2001-02 (Meyer, 2002). By the summer of 2003, all states must have early-childhood guidelines in place (Jacobson, 2003). Jacobson also states that these guidelines must also be aligned with the already existent K-12 standards. She also states that the director of public policy over early childhood education hopes that the government would take the next step assisting states in building a better organized system in the early childhood education (Jacobson, 2003).

Since the federal government has stepped in with accountability, the new assessment measures have crated concerns about the testing of 4 year olds. Current policies only require a random sample of testing (Davis, 2003). President Bush outlined the next step in education reform, in his 2002 State of the Union address, as the need to prepare children to read by improved Head Start and early childhood development education (January 2002). This plan outlines the policy to strengthen the early learning program as well as the importance of early childhood cognitive development. Under the scrutiny of the passage of the policy there are still the few that argue that preschool assessments are often unreliable (Jacobson, 2003).

Test that have been established by the No Child Left Behind Act for the 4 year olds will not only find out if the students know how to hold a book right but to decided whether a Head Start center should continue to be funded. The new focus has now been place on the transition from preschool to kindergarten, but the fear remains will they only look at academic skills. The answers to the many of the questions about early childhood education may not be found in the test results we receive (Lewis, 2003).

Existing research shows that the formation of centers to attain exciting learning experiences is the foundations that the K-12 standards are looking for. This study attempts to demonstrate that students prefer learning at different times and with different experiences.

Hypothesis

It is hypothesized that preschool students will have definite preferences regarding technology use in play centers.

It is hypothesized that there will be a statistically significant relationship between global score and the TECH factor among preschool students in a Head Start Program.

Methodology

This action research project was designed to describe the choices that preschool students take when given options during “free play”. More specifically, the focus of this action research was how student choice of technology oriented centers compared to other centers during a specific time period.

Subjects

Pre-school students in two separate classrooms

• Classroom 1- 3 year old classroom- Children in this classroom are those students whose birth dates range from 1998-1999. There are 8 male students and 9 female students for a total number of 18 students enrolled in the class.

• Classroom 2- 4 year old classroom- Children in this classroom are those students whose birth dates range from 1997-1999. There are 10 male students and 9 female students for a total number of 19 students enrolled in the class.

Setting

The school was the Regina Coeli Child Development Center in Robert, Louisiana. This school is a private, non-profit organization that operate at least fifteen Head Start and Early Learning Centers in the southern part of Louisiana. The Center is the setting where over 400 employees are able to service approximately 1,700 children in a five-parish area. The Regina Coeli Center was founded in 1969 and is recognized as one of the best Head Start programs in the country. A federal grant has provided about 80% of the funding and the other part must be generated locally.

Research Design

This is a descriptive action research case study of two preschool classrooms over a three-week instruction period.

Procedure

1) Each student was assigned a number by the teacher of the classroom. The number was placed on their students back so that it could be seen by the observer.

2) The observer used the daily observation sheet to count the number of students that were “playing” in each of the centers in 5 minute increments throughout the observation time.

3) For the computer center, the observer wrote the number of the student that was working on the computer and the name of the software that was being used.

4) The observer had no direct contact the students or the faculty in the classroom during the observation times.

Survey Instruments

▪ 3 year old data form –

This form was created in Microsoft Excel. At the very top of the form a place for the name of the school was placed, a place for the teacher to sign as well as places for the times observed and the observer’s signature. Other data included for informational purposes was the actual date and the instruction day was circled. It included all of the centers offered to the students during the center time. For each of the centers there is a column to include the time and the number of students. For the Computers the student number column and the program are included. (Appendix A)

▪ 4 year old data form-

This form was created in Microsoft Excel. At the very top of the form a place for the name of the school was placed, a place for the teacher to sign as well as places for the times observed and the observer’s signature. Other data included for informational purposes was the actual date and the instruction day was circled. It included all of the centers offered to the students during the center time. For each of the centers there is a column to include the time and the number of students. For the Computers the student number column and the program are included. (Appendix A)

▪ Work Sampling for Head Start Three Year old Developmental Checklist

The checklist is intended to aid teachers in monitoring what children know or be able to do, as well as assist in the planning of lessons for the students. The behaviors and skills described in the form are those considered to be developmentally appropriate for most children at this age. The checklist is designed to be completed by the teacher without actually testing each child, although some items may require setting up specific opportunities to the child to demonstrate the skill. The checklist is completed three times throughout the instructional year. For each of the specific skills, behaviors, or accomplishments, a rating of NOT YET, IN PROCESS, or PROFICIENT will be assigned to the student as to the performance of the student in each of the categories. (Appendix B)

▪ Work Sampling for Head Start Three Year old Developmental Checklist

The checklist is intended to aid teachers in monitoring what children know or be able to do, as well as assist in the planning of lessons for the students. The behaviors and skills described in the form are those considered to be developmentally appropriate for most children at this age. The checklist is designed to be completed by the teacher without actually testing each child, although some items may require setting up specific opportunities to the child to demonstrate the skill. The checklist is completed three times throughout the instructional year. For each of the specific skills, behaviors, or accomplishments, a rating of NOT YET, IN PROCESS, or PROFICIENT will be assigned to the student as to the performance of the student in each of the categories (Appendix B)

Forms of Inquiry

The forms used in the research project will be used to assist further planning of lessons for student involvement in the subject areas.

Form 1: A list of all of the students in the 3 year old classroom. The only information needed is the student’s birth date and the gender. Names are omitted for confidentiality reasons. (Appendix C)

Form 2: A list of all of the students in the 4 year old classroom. The only information needed is the student’s birth date and the gender. Names are omitted for confidentiality reasons. (Appendix C)

Form 3: Completed Work Sampling Developmental Checklist for each of the 4 year old students which provided a set of criteria for performance based on national and state standards and child development research. The Checklist also provides teachers with a set of shared expectations for children's learning. The Work Sampling System is a curriculum-embedded assessment. This means that observation for Checklist ratings takes place in the context of regular classroom activities. Children should not be asked to perform tasks simply for the purpose of evaluation. They are written in professional language for teachers. The fourth edition of Work Sampling has been revised to conform to a wide range of local, state, and national standards, as well as to the standards and expectations of a variety of national curriculum groups and organizations. This form is provided by the Pearson Education company. (Appendix D)

Form 4: Completed Work Sampling Developmental Checklist for each of the 4 year old students which provided a set of criteria for performance based on national and state standards and child development research. The Checklist also provides teachers with a set of shared expectations for children's learning. The Work Sampling System is a curriculum-embedded assessment. This means that observation for Checklist ratings takes place in the context of regular classroom activities. Children should not be asked to perform tasks simply for the purpose of evaluation. They are written in professional language for teachers. The fourth edition of Work Sampling has been revised to conform to a wide range of local, state, and national standards, as well as to the standards and expectations of a variety of national curriculum groups and organizations. This form is provided by the Pearson Education company. (Appendix D)

Form 5: Completed center time observation tally sheet for the 3 year old classroom. This form was created in Microsoft Excel to aid the observer to accurately tally the number of students at each center, and note each of the observation times. (Appendix E)

Form 6: Completed center time observation tally sheet for the 4 year old classroom. This form was created in Microsoft Excel to aid the observer to accurately tally the number of students at each center, and note each of the observation times. (Appendix E)

Collaboration

In order to effectively carry out this research project, the coordinator was very beneficial in helping orchestrate the observation times. In addition the secretary had to be notified that the observer was going to be going to the classrooms on a daily basis for ten days. The teachers were most willing to have the project in their classrooms. The classroom aids were also informed of the project and they too were eager to help with the plan.

Sense of Community

This research project was brought about in a manner that was out of the ordinary. The federal government has required that the Head Start program start assessing the 4 year olds in the program. This caused a problem for the Regina Coeli Developmental Center and Head Start Program. They needed some way to display the information provided in the Developmental Checklist. They had asked me to create a form to show the results from the Checklist. After playing with several versions I came up with something that can be used.

Resources

Centers— All centers had hands-on based activities.

➢ Science – This center had science based activities for students to experience all types of life sciences as well as physical science projects.

➢ Art—From easels to colors this center had all the necessary tools for any student to use their artistic abilities.

➢ Writing—This center focus was to promote writing of name and the beginnings of story writing, letter writing and all types of beginning handwriting activities.

➢ Blocks- This center’s focus was to promote 3-dimensional thinking by manipulation of all type of blocks. The blocks were of different sizes and shapes.

➢ Music—The basic premise of the center was to promote music appreciation as well as sing along songs for students to enjoy.

➢ Pretend & Learn -- This center provided students with the props to “pretend play” to be what they want to be for fun.

➢ Wood working—This center enabled students to manipulate wood in a manner that they enjoy.

➢ Library—The place students discovered books. They listened to a read aloud book or ask for someone to read to them.

➢ Math manipulative- This center involved students in the discovery of math concepts.

➢ Sand & water—This center allowed students to experiment with sand and water.

➢ Computer—This center had two computers with learning games for students to learn using fun activities.

Measurement of Incremental Progress

The observer used one of the center time tally sheets for each day for ten days in each of the classrooms. On this form the observer wrote down the time in incriminates of 5 minutes for the time observed in each of the classrooms for the ten days of observation. The observer also tallied the number of students at each of the centers at the appropriate time indicated. In addition the observer also noted the specific computer program that was available to students in the computer center.

Proposed Assessment Activities

There were ten observation days over a 3 week time period. After all information has been gathered, the researcher will be able to conduct the following evaluations.

Assessment activity 1:

Determine the most popular center for the 3 year old class.

❖ The researcher did this by creating an excel document using the days and the centers as the criteria for the rows and columns. Next, the researcher counted all of the students at each of the centers over the entire observation period. After all data was entered, the researcher created a graphic/chart to express the information formulated by the data.

Assessment activity 2:

Determine the most popular center for the 4 year old class.

❖ The researcher did this by creating an excel document using the days and the centers as the criteria for the rows and columns. Next, the researcher counted all of the students at each of the centers over the entire observation period. After all data was entered, the researcher created a graphic/chart to express the information formulated by the data.

Assessment Activity 3:

Determine the TECH Factor for each of the student in the 3 year old class.

❖ This was done by creating an excel document. This time the researcher used the days and the students to determine the computer usage throughout the time observed. After all of the data is input, the tech factor column will be determined by dividing the total amount of time by the total time available for each of the students

Assessment Activity 4:

Determine the TECH Factor for each of the students in the 4 year old class.

❖ This was done by creating an excel document. This time the researcher used the days and the students to determine the computer usage throughout the time observed. After all of the data is input, the tech factor column will be determined by dividing the total amount of time by the total time available for each of the students.

Assessment Activity 5:

Create a global score for each of the students in the 3 year old class.

❖ Find a global score for each of the 8 area in the developmental checklist for the y year old class by assigning numbers 1, 2, 3, to the rating scale of developmental checklist NY, IP, P respectively.

Assessment Activity 6:

Create a global score for each of the students in the 4 year old class.

❖ Find a global score for each of the 8 area in the developmental checklist for the 4 year old class by assigning numbers 1, 2, 3, to the rating scale of developmental checklist NY, IP, P respectively.

Assessment Activity 7:

Determine the correlation between the tech factor and the global scores for the 3 year old class.

❖ This assessment was to find the correlation between the tech factor and the global scores using the Pearson's Product Moment Correlation Coefficient which is the linear relationship between the two variables.

Assessment Activity 8:

Determine the correlation between the tech factor and the global scores for the 4 year old class.

❖ This assessment was to find the correlation between the tech factor and the global scores using the Pearson's Product Moment Correlation Coefficient which is the linear relationship between the two variables.

Plan of Action

|Steps |Who Responsible |Timetable |Timetable |Timetable |

| | |Total |3 year old classroom |4 year old classroom |

|Day 1 -- 4/7/03 |Observer |9:00- 10:30 |9:00- 9:45 |9:50-10:30 |

|Day 2 -- 4/8/03 |Observer |9:00 – 10:30 |9:00- 10:00 |9:45-10:30 |

|Day 3 -- 4/9/03 |Observer |9:00 – 10:30 |9:00- 9:55 |9:35 – 10:30 |

|Day 4 -- 4/10/03 |Observer |9:00 – 10:30 |9:20- 9:55 |9:35-10:30 |

|Day 5 -- 4/28/03 |Observer |9:00 – 10:40 |9:00-9:50 |9:45-10:40 |

|Day 6 -- 4/29/03 |Observer |9:00 – 10:35 |9:15- 9:55 |9:55-10:35 |

|Day 7 -- 4/30/03 |Observer |9:00 – 10:30 |9:15- 9:50 |9:55-10:30 |

|Day 8 -- 5/1/03 |Observer |9:00 – 10:50 |9:20-9:55 |9:50-10:50 |

|Day 9 -- 5/2/03 |Observer |9:00 – 10:30 |9:20-9:55 |9:45-10:30 |

|Day 10 -- 5/3/03 |Observer |9:00 – 10:20 |9:20-9:55 |9:45-10:20 |

Observer observed center time activity in the 3 and 4 year old classrooms. In each classroom, the observer tallies how many students are attending each center every 5 minutes throughout the ten days. It is noted that the observer will overlap times; this is plausible because the observer will be able to view each center time with ease because the classrooms connect through the closet.

Instrumentation

1. Developmental Checklist for 3 year olds

The Work Sampling Developmental Checklist for 3 year olds which provided a set of criteria for performance based on national and state standards and child development research. The Checklist also provides teachers with a set of shared expectations for children's learning. The Work Sampling System is a curriculum-embedded assessment. This means that observation for Checklist ratings takes place in the context of regular classroom activities. Children should not be asked to perform tasks simply for the purpose of evaluation. They are written in professional language for teachers. The fourth edition of Work Sampling has been revised to conform to a wide range of local, state, and national standards, as well as to the standards and expectations of a variety of national curriculum groups and organizations. This form is provided by the Pearson Education company.

2. Developmental checklist for 4 year olds

The Work Sampling Developmental Checklist for4 year olds which provided a set of criteria for performance based on national and state standards and child development research. The Checklist also provides teachers with a set of shared expectations for children's learning. The Work Sampling System is a curriculum-embedded assessment. This means that observation for Checklist ratings takes place in the context of regular classroom activities. Children should not be asked to perform tasks simply for the purpose of evaluation. They are written in professional language for teachers. The fourth edition of Work Sampling has been revised to conform to a wide range of local, state, and national standards, as well as to the standards and expectations of a variety of national curriculum groups and organizations. This form is provided by the Pearson Education company.

3. 3 year old data tally sheet

This form was created in Microsoft Excel. At the very top of the form a place for the name of the school was placed, a place for the teacher to sign as well as places for the times observed and the observer’s signature. Other data included for informational purposes was the actual date and the instruction day was circled. It included all of the centers offered to the students during the center time. For each of the centers there is a column to include the time and the number of students. For the Computers the student number column and the program are included.

4. 4 year old data tally sheet

This form was created in Microsoft Excel. At the very top of the form a place for the name of the school was placed, a place for the teacher to sign as well as places for the times observed and the observer’s signature. Other data included for informational purposes was the actual date and the instruction day was circled. It included all of the centers offered to the students during the center time. For each of the centers there is a column to include the time and the number of students. For the Computers the student number column and the program are included.

5. Excel program to count the number of NY, IP, and P’s for each of the students to create the global scores.

Results

Assessment 1 results

The assessment was to determine the most popular center for the 3 year old class.

The researcher created a table in Excel spreadsheet in which the days observed and the center names were used as criteria. All of the information was placed in the table 1 and the following results occurred.

Table 1

| |DAY 1 |

|Student 1 |3.0 |

|Student 3 |3.0 |

|Student 8 |3.0 |

|Student 6 |3.0 |

|Student 12 |3.0 |

|Student 15 |2.9 |

|Student 2 |2.9 |

|Student 14 |2.9 |

|Student 18 |2.8 |

|Student 13 |2.8 |

|Student 11 |2.6 |

|Student 5 |2.4 |

|Student 9 |2.4 |

|Student 16 |2.4 |

|Student 17 |2.1 |

|Student 10 |2.1 |

|Student 4 |1.9 |

After all of the data was placed in the table the researcher sorted the information in descending order. The 3 year old class had a global score range of 3.0 to 1.9 on the tech factor scale. The overall global score for the 3 year old class was 2.48.

Assessment 6 Results

Assessment 6 was to create a global score for each of the students in the 4 year old class.

The developmental checklist was used to create the global score for each of the students by converting the NY, IP, and P to numbers and average all of the scores. Table 6 shows the students with the global score.

Table 6

|Student |global score |

|Student 1 |3.00 |

|Student 2 |2.67 |

|Student 8 |2.67 |

|Student 17 |2.63 |

|Student 19 |2.63 |

|Student 3 |2.62 |

|Student 14 |2.62 |

|Student 6 |2.59 |

|Student 16 |2.57 |

|Student 7 |2.52 |

|Student 15 |2.52 |

|Student 20 |2.51 |

|Student 9 |2.49 |

|Student 10 |2.37 |

|Student 12 |2.29 |

|Student 11 |2.19 |

|Student 18 |2.19 |

|Student 4 |2.13 |

|Student 5 |1.97 |

|  |  |

After all of the data was placed in the table the researcher sorted the information in descending order. The 4 year old class had a global score range of 3.0 to 1.97 on the tech factor scale. The overall global score for the 4 year old class was 2.65.

Assessment 7 results

Determine the correlation between the tech factor and the global scores for the 3 year old class.

Assessment was to find the correlation between the tech factor and the global scores using the Pearson's Product Moment Correlation Coefficient which is the linear relationship between the two variables. The Pearson correlation ranges from +1 to -1. A correlation of the variables +1 means that there is a perfect positive linear relationship between the variables. A correlation of the variables -1 means that there is a perfect negative linear relationship between variables. A correlation of 0 means there is no linear relationship between the two variables. See table 7.

Table 7

|  |global score |tech factor |

|Student 1 |3 |0.04 |

|Student 2 |2.9 |0.04 |

|Student 3 |3 |0.04 |

|Student 4 |1.9 |0.00 |

|Student 5 |2.4 |0.00 |

|Student 6 |3 |0.00 |

|Student 8 |0 |0.04 |

|Student 9 |2.4 |0.01 |

|Student 10 |2.1 |0.01 |

|Student 11 |2.6 |0.07 |

|Student 12 |3 |0.06 |

|Student 13 |2.8 |0.02 |

|Student 14 |2.9 |0.03 |

|Student 15 |2.9 |0.14 |

|Student 16 |2.4 |0.08 |

|Student 17 |2.1 |0.03 |

|Student 18 |2.8 |0.11 |

|  |  |  |

|Pearson |  |  |

|0.18923681 |  |  |

Assessment 8 results

Determine the correlation between the tech factor and the global scores for the 4 year old class.

Assessment was to find the correlation between the tech factor and the global scores using the Pearson's Product Moment Correlation Coefficient which is the linear relationship between the two variables. The Pearson correlation ranges from +1 to -1. A correlation of the variables +1 means that there is a perfect positive linear relationship between the variables. A correlation of the variables -1 means that there is a perfect negative linear relationship between variables. A correlation of 0 means there is no linear relationship between the two variables. See table 8.

Table 8

|  |glob score |tech factor |

|Student 1 |3 |0.01 |

|Student 2 |2.67 |0.01 |

|Student 3 |2.62 |0.03 |

|Student 4 |2.13 |0.07 |

|Student 5 |1.97 |0.04 |

|Student 6 |2.59 |0.03 |

|Student 7 |2.52 |0.02 |

|Student 8 |2.67 |0.03 |

|Student 9 |2.49 |0.01 |

|Student 10 |2.37 |0.04 |

|Student 11 |2.19 |0.20 |

|Student 12 |2.29 |0.05 |

|Student 14 |2.62 |0.02 |

|Student 15 |2.52 |0.00 |

|Student 16 |2.57 |0.03 |

|Student 17 |2.63 |0.02 |

|Student 18 |2.19 |0.11 |

|Student 19 |2.63 |0.01 |

|Student 20 |2.51 |0.02 |

|Pearson |  |  |

|-0.59170153 |  |  |

Chapter 5

Conclusion

The research showed that the 3 year old students had a preference as to the learning styles that they chose. In this center-based instruction learning environment the students chose to participate more in the Pretend/Learn center. Overall 28% of the students preferred to have free choice in this center. This was followed by the Art Center in which 18% of the students choose to work in this center. The Library Center and the Music Center were the least used by the students. Only 1% of the students chose these centers during the observation time. It is the opinion of the researcher that students do need to have free choice for many of learning experiences; but it is also necessary for the students to have been exposed to all aspects of learning styles in order to broaden they skills overall. The researcher suggests that the students need to experience all of the centers in an equal amount of time for some of the center time activities. It would benefit all students to have them rotate throughout all of the centers to provide more opportunities to discovery learning.

The 4 year old students also had their preferences as to the most popular center to visit. It was again the Pretend/Learn center with 24% of the students choosing this center. The Art Center again was the second most popular choice in this class with 19%. The Music Center was the least used center. The researcher feels strongly that the students definitely need to use all of the centers to provide a wide variety of learning experiences.

The TECH factor used in this action research was designed to show the effect the computers have on the students according to the Developmental Checklist. In both classes the total population only used the Computer Center 11% of the time. It is the researcher’s firm belief that a student at this age doesn’t need that much time on the computers. The computers in the class can be a great learning tool, but must be monitored carefully to contribute to the learning.

For each of the students in both classes the regular teacher must assess the students according to the Developmental Checklist for that age. This year the 4 year olds results must be reported to the Federal Government. The Regina Coeli Developmental Center and Head Start needed a way to express these results. The researcher developed the spreadsheet document that provided this information. This checklist was used by the researcher to determine a global score for the students. This global score and the TECH factor were used to produce a correlation between the two variables.

In the 3 year old class the Pearson’s Product Moment Correlation Coefficient was completed to determine the relationship of technology usage and the proficiency rating on the Developmental Checklist. In the class there was a total of 17 students; therefore the degrees of freedom would be 15. Using the critical values table find the intersection of alpha .05 and 15 degrees of freedom. The value found at the intersection (.482) is the minimum correlation coefficient. The Pearson correlation coefficient was 0.19 which indicates that there is a statistically significant positive relationship between the Tech Factor and the global score. As the tech factor increases so does the Tech Factor.

For the 4 year old class the Pearson’s Product Moment Correlation Coefficient was completed to determine the relationship of technology usage and the proficiency rating on the Developmental Checklist. In the class there was a total of 19 students; therefore the degrees of freedom would be 17. Using the critical values table find the intersection of alpha .05 and 17 degrees of freedom. The value found at the intersection (.456) is the minimum correlation coefficient. The Pearson correlation coefficient was -0.59 which indicates that there is a statistically significant negative relationship between the Tech Factor and the global score. As the tech factor decreases the global factor increases. This can be considered and inverse relationship.

However, the researcher feels that a combination of center-based learning instruction is the basis for total student learning. Not only must the students be engaged in the discovery of learning, but the teacher must take the lead in providing a wide variety of learning experiences for the students to experience.

Commentary

The main reason I decided to continue my education and pursue my masters in Educational Technology is my thirst for knowledge. Even though I kept on teaching in the classroom, I was able to complete all of the class requirements as well as teaching duties. I also had somewhat of a family life too. This master’s program had definitely provided me with the insight that teaching can be creative and meaningful.

I have a greater respect for education research. I was unaware of hard work that is associated with the process. I would hope that many more of my colleagues would use the educational research approach to their teaching strategies.

The classes 660/680 has made me focus on sound teaching strategies that promote student learning. This action research proposal has opened my eyes to the importance of testing and the role that it will play in the near future. I have always based my philosophy of teaching on the premise that all students are capable of learning; it is just a matter of finding the right techniques to open the door. Technology usage may be one of the many different aspects of learning that can be adapted to help the instruction. It will be the abuse that will undermine the overall effect technology can bring to education. Computers can be an effective tool if used correctly in classroom practices. Effective teaching will only continue to improve if and only if teachers in the classroom will plan effectively for their students

Resources

Busch Administration. (2002, January). Good start, grow smart. State of the Union Address. [On-line]. Available:

Buckleitner, W. (2002, November/December). Teaching with technology; Tech that explores diversity. Scholastic Early Childhood Today, 17, 3.

Davis, M. R. (2003, January 22). Administration addresses concerns about head start testing plan. Education Week, 22, 20.

Educating for the future: Connecting early childhood in the year 2002 to the workforce 2020. (2002, April). Scholastic Early Childhood Today, 16, 15-16.

Healy, J. M. (1998). Failure to connect: How computers affect out children’s minds and what we can do about it. New York, NY: Touchstone.

. (2003). Head start. [On-line]. Available:

Hunting, P., Johanson, J., & Robinson, L. (1990, May). Adapting a computer curriculum to head start. Children Today, 19, 31-33.

Jacobson, L. (2003, January 22). Early childhood educator “academies” spark discussion. Education Week, 22, 20.

Jacobson, L. (2003, January 15). White house plan for head start test draws critics. Education Week, 22, 20-22.

Kendall, J. S. (2003, April). Setting standards in early childhood education. Education Leadership,60, 64-68.

Kneas, K. M. (1999, March). Finding a place for computers. Scholastic Early Childhood Today,13, 39-40.

Leong, D. J. (2003, April/May). Learning from pretend play. Scholastic Parent & Child, 10, 15.

Leong, D. J., & Bodrova, E. (2003, March). An hour of play—what for?. Scholastic Early Childhood Today, 17, 5.

Lewis, A.C. (2003, March). Hi ho, hi ho, it’s off to test we go. Phi Delta Kappan, 84, 483-484.Miller, S. A. (2003, January/February).

Meyer, L. (2002, January 10). Head start programs must gauge children’s progress. Education Week, 21, 50.

Miller, S. A. (2003, March). Development ages & stages: 3 to 4-- That sounds silly. Scholastic Early Childhood Today, 17, 26-27.

Miller, S. A. (2003, April). Development ages & stages: 3 to 4—It moves if I poke it. Scholastic Early Childhood Today, 17, 28-30.

Miller, Susan A. (2003, April/May). 3-4 years: Growing strong. Scholastic Parent & Child, 10, 67.

Miller, Susan A. (2003, April). Development ages & stages: 3 to 4-- It makes sense to me. Scholastic Early Childhood Today, 17, 32-33.

Scott, F. (2003, April). Knowledge is not enough. Scholastic Early Childhood Today, 17, 4.

Stone, S.`` J. (1996, Summer). Promoting literacy though centers. Childhood Education, 72, 240-241.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2002). Head start history. [On-line]. Available:

................
................

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

Google Online Preview   Download