Chapter One: Introduction



INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDSExcept where reference is made to the work of others, the work described in this thesis is my own or was done in collaboration with my Thesis Chair. This thesis does not include proprietary or classified information. ______________________________________________________________________Andrea Lynne StipeCertificate of Approval:______________________________ ______________________________Donald R. Livingston, Ed.D. Sharon M. Livingston, Ph.D.Thesis Co-Chair Thesis Co-ChairEducation Department Education DepartmentINTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS: A STUDY OF STUDENT ENGAGEMENT AND ACADEMIC ACHEIVEMENTA thesis submittedbyAndrea StipetoLaGrange Collegein partial fulfillment ofthe requirement for thedegree ofMASTER OF EDUCATIONinCurriculum and InstructionLaGrange, GeorgiaMay 12, 2011AbstractStudent interest and motivation are dwindling in the classroom. Students are not gaining the foundation needed to understand and master the concepts taught through the strategies and techniques used by classroom teachers. This action research study focuses on, whether technology in classrooms fosters student engagement and academic achievement in implemented lessons. Data were derived from the implementation of a fraction unit in a kindergarten classroom. Qualitative data were collected through an instructional plan rubric, interview, and reflective journals then analyzed by coding. Quantitative data were collected through assessments and analyzed statistically. Quantitative data for the posttest scores revealed no significant difference between the group taught through an IWB and hands-on materials. Groups had significant differences between their pre/ posttest scores. Table of ContentsAbstract ………………………………………………………………………………….iiiTable of Contents ………………………………………………………………………..ivList of Tables ……………………………………………………………………………..v Chapter 1: Introduction …………………………………………………………………...1Statement of the Problem ……………………………………………………........1Significance of the Problem ………………………………………………………1Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks ………………………………………...2Focus Questions ………………………………………………………………......4Overview of Methodology ……………………………………………………......5Human as a Researcher …………………………………………………………...6Chapter 2: Review of the Literature ………………………………………………………7The use of an Interactive Whiteboard and Hands-On Activities………………….7Formative Assessments ………………………………………………………….10Student Engagement while Teaching with Interactive Whiteboards…………….12Reflective Practice in Action Research …………………………………………14Chapter 3: Methodology ………………………………………………………………...15Research Design ………………………………………………………………....15Setting …………………………………………………………………………...16Subjects and Participants ………………………………………………..............16Procedures and Data Collections Methods ……………………………………...17Validity, Reliability, Dependability, and Bias …………………………………..20Analysis of Data …………………………………………………………………22Summary ………………………………………………………………………...24Chapter 4: Results ……………………………………………………………………….25Chapter 5: Analysis and Discussion of Results …………………………...…………….32Analysis of Results ………………………..…………………………………….32Discussion ……………………………………………………………………….37Implications ……………………………………………………………………...40Impact on Student Learning …………………………………………………......41Recommendations for Future Research …………………………………………42References ……………………………………………………………………………….43Appendixes ……………………………………………………………………………...45List of TablesTablesTable 3.1Data Shell ………………………………………………………………18Table 4.1 T-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances …………………...26Table 4.2T-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means for the IWB Group …………....27Table 4.3T-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means for the Hands-On Group ……...28Table 4.4T-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances …………………...29Chapter 1: IntroductionStatement of the Problem Student interest and motivation are dwindling in the classroom. Teachers use different methods in hopes of increasing student engagement and interest when implementing lessons but often fall short of success. As cited in The Wonders of Interactive Whiteboards, Starkman (2006) states, “His seventh-graders had been chattering as usual, joking around, not paying much attention to anything except their own adolescent obsessions and amusements” (? 1). Traditional classroom settings are not meeting the needs of students who are growing up in a technology based world. Teachers struggle with finding successful strategies for grabbing and holding students’ attention while implementing curriculum. This study will identify a teaching method through techniques which will improve student engagement and increase student test scores. Through action research this study will explore the use of interactive whiteboards (IWB) in the classroom in regards to student engagement and academic achievement. IWB are becoming a part of many classrooms.Significance of the ProblemStudents' level of comprehension and knowledge gained from classroom activities and lessons is affected by student engagement in the learning process. If students are not interested and motivated in lessons, then there is a low level of learning taking place in the classroom. Students are not gaining the foundation needed to understand and master the concepts taught through the strategies and techniques used by classroom teachers. Teachers are being forced to spend extra time re-teaching content. Students are not interested in the lesson; therefore, behavior issues arise and cause distractions which make it difficult for students to learn. Academic achievement is affected negatively because students are not focusing on the concepts being taught. Teachers' expectations are not being met due to lack of student engage in the curriculum. Student engagement is essential to student learning and success. Theoretical and Conceptual FrameworksOn a state level, this thesis relates to Domain Two under the six domains of the Georgia Framework for Teaching, which states “Teachers support the intellectual, social, physical, and personal development of all students” (as cited by LaGrange College Education Department, 2008, p. 11). Teachers must be aware of how aspects of students' environments outside of the classroom affect students’ learning in the classroom. Our children are growing up in a technological world. The activities children participate in today are not anything comparable to activities children of the same age participated in ten years ago. Electronic games have replaced board games. Technology is changing and improving every day. Technology has revolutionized learning. IWB were originally created for office settings. Now they are being used in classrooms. Appropriate teaching strategies and tools must be used to gain and hold students’ attention while lessons are being implemented if learning is going to take place. Teaching tools, such as IWB, should be used to meet the social development and values of students in the classroom. In order to hold students’ attention, teaching strategies need to shift with the shifting world of children’s interest. On a national level, this thesis relates with the Proposition 3 of the Core Propositions for Experienced Teachers “Teachers are responsible for managing and monitoring student learning” (LaGrange College Education Department, 2008, p. 12). For this study, research has been conducted to evaluate the most effective instructional techniques to increase student attention, engagement, and motivation. IWB were used in this study as instructional tools to implement curricula. Teachers are responsible for engaging the students in the learning process. Research by BECTA in 2003 revealed that an IWB “engages students to a greater extent” and “facilitates student participation” (as cited by Shenton & Pagett, 2007, ? 7). Tenet Two of LaGrange College Education Department's (2008) Conceptual Framework states that teachers should “use effective verbal, nonverbal, and media communication techniques to encourage students’ development of critical thinking, problem-solving, and performance skills” (p.7). This study relates to Tenet Two in that teachers should utilize IWBs as a tool to facilitate a media connection in the classroom. Through the use of an IWB, technology can be integrated into all Georgia Performance Standards. Shenton and Pagett (2007) suggest that “interactive whiteboards, with their various typefaces, colors, images, and animations, are part of a technological revolution in classrooms” (? 3). According to Powell and Kalina (2009), “Piaget’s cognitive constructivism theory incorporates the importance of understanding what each individual needs to get knowledge and learn at his or her own pace. Observing students and comprehending their level of difficulty is paramount to this process” (p. 243). Through the use of an interactive whiteboard teachers can focus on students’ individual needs and learning styles. Interactive whiteboards help create a constructivist learning environment by allowing the students to learn through interactive lessons. Interactive whiteboards make it possible for teachers to observe student learning and understanding of the curriculum. Teachers are able to differentiate and re-implement curriculum to meet their students’ needs through interactive whiteboards. Smith et al. (2005) suggest that, “An interactive whiteboard screen is also reported as a useful technique in supporting a range of needs within a class flexibility and spontaneously” (p. 92). Students can complete activities individually, with a partner, or in a small group setting which focuses on specific needs of each learner. IWBs can be used to challenge students by providing a resource through which they can complete a more advanced activity. Vygotsky formed the theory of social constructivism and believed social interaction must be evident for learning to take place. Social interaction continually takes place when curriculum is implemented through an IWB. Smith et al. (2005) state, “As well as promoting the technical interactivity of IWBs, broader pedagogic claims are also being made that IWBs facilitate more interactive lessons. Some of the reports link this idea of pedagogic interactivity with pupil participation in whole-class interaction” (p. 95). Students interact with each other through conversation about how a problem is solved or what steps are needed to complete the task on an IWB activity. Interaction is also conveyed between the student and the learning activity which they are engaged in while on an IWB. Focus QuestionsThe purpose of this study was to acquire an answer to the question, does having technology in classrooms foster student engagement and academic achievement in implemented lessons. Through the use of hands-on concrete materials and an IWB the main research question of this study was broken into the three focus questions: 1.) How are curricula implemented through the use of an interactive whiteboard and hands-on activities? 2.) How do interactive whiteboards compare with hands-on learning approaches in student learning?3.) What are the impacts of interactive whiteboards and hands-on activities on student engagement while teaching the curriculum? Overview of MethodologyThis study was conducted using action research which included recognizing an issue, then researching the issue and collecting data, and finally analyzing the data accumulated to strengthen one’s instruction (Gilles, Martille, & Wilson, 2010). After indentifying and examining the research topic, an instructional plan was developed to address the implementation of the study. The instructional plan was evaluated by a more experienced colleague prior to the implementation of the study. Recommendations were provided preceding the completion of the rubric used to evaluate the instructional plan. Subjects and participants were required to conduct the action research. A class of kindergarten students which I taught was used as subjects to conduct this study. The participant used in this study was a teaching assistant acquired to implement the curriculum and record reflections due to her position. The study took place at a Title One school in Georgia. The subjects came from varying economic backgrounds and cultures. The study took place over two weeks in the middle of the school year. Quantitative and qualitative methods were used to collect data by analyzing the effectiveness of IWBs on student engagement and academic achievement. The students were given a pre-test to determine their knowledge of the content material in mathematics. The students were divided into two groups for the implementation of the mathematics lessons. Each lesson was implemented in two different methods. One method for teaching the curriculum was through the use of an IWB while the other method was through the use of hands-on and concrete materials. The two groups were taught the curriculum in one of the two different methods for the mathematics lessons. Observations were made and recorded in reflective journals to evaluate student engagement. After the students were taught the curriculum they were given a posttest. A dependent t-test was used to analyze the scores taken from the pretest and posttest to determine student academic achievement. The scores were also analyzed using an independent t-tests to identify any differences between the pretest scores and the posttest scores of the students taught using hands-on materials and an IWB. Human as a ResearcherI have taught at a Title One school in Georgia for 3 years. I have taught first grade for the past three years and am now teaching kindergarten. During the past two years I was grade level chair for the first grade team. I believe that by using an IWB to implement curriculum students’ engagement will increase and improve. Implementation of curriculum through an IWB will increase academic gains and test scores. IWBs interest students and align with students’ cultural aspects such as technology. Behavior issues in the classroom will be decreased because students will be captivated and fascinated with the functions of an IWB. Students will want to participate in activities implemented through the use of an IWB. Chapter 2: Review of LiteratureThe use of an Interactive Whiteboard and Hands-On ActivitiesThe technology revolution in classrooms began in the 1950’s with the inclusion of radios. Now in the twenty-first century, technology in the classroom includes interactive whiteboards (IWBs). IWBs were originally designed to be used in the business world, however, today they provide a new approach for teachers to implement curriculum. (Shenton & Pagett, 2007)According to Peter Kent (2006) in Using Interactive Whiteboards to Enhance Mathematics Teaching, an IWB screen looks like a large flat screen television on a classroom wall. It displays images generated by a computer projected onto a touch sensitive screen which can be operated through a pen, a tool included with the IWB. The touch of the pen is equivalent to a touch of a mouse on a traditional computer. In his article Kent (2006), explains that since IWBs are becoming more common in classrooms, resources for teachers are being uploaded to the internet for users across the world. Teachers create and share flipcharts which are similar to Microsoft Power Point slides focused on content areas to utilize in classrooms. The flipcharts include activities with which students and teachers can interact. IWBs have opened the door for a plethora of opportunities for mathematics instruction and learning. Kent (2006) continues to explain the opportunities available to students and teachers such as, access to virtual and interactive games, learning objects, and mathematics software. Teachers can easily demonstrate and model for the entire class strategies such as fractions, problem solving, or measurement. The resources that teachers are able to use through an IWB innovate teaching and enhance lessons. The resources provide a format for creating shapes to increase accuracy of the sections and decrease confusion of size in fraction lessons. IWBs allow teachers to lead discussions, ask questions, provide assistance, and monitor student learning supported by a variety of new learning resources. In a study conducted by Lerman and Zevenbergen (2008) to research the effectiveness of an IWB on student academic achievement, an IWB was used as a method of teaching a mathematics lesson on fractions. Lerman and Zevenbergen clarify an IWB existence in a classroom as “largely replacing the standard whiteboard in that whilst it is also available for pupils to be called to the board to present their ideas, proposals, and outcome of their problem solving, it can also be used to present content previously prepared it enables the teacher to choose high quality accurate representations as they are called for during the progress of the lesson. The IWB enables the same variety of font formats and other visual effects as word processing packages” (p.121). In many studies on the use of IWBs in classrooms, teachers conducted lessons in a whole group setting. Teachers led the lesson while positioned beside the IWB as the students sat at their desks or on the floor in front of the board. Students were invited by the teacher to manipulate the objects on the IWB. One student at a time would interact with the IWB (Lerman &Zevenbergen, 2008).Lerman and Zevenbergen (2008) inform readers about a fraction lesson implemented through an IWB, “in one lesson the teacher was using the fraction tool in which a shape (circle, rectangle, and square), chosen by the teacher, was used to represent various fractions” (p. 113). The fraction tool could make a variety of shapes such as, circles, rectangles, squares, or triangles. Grids or pictures could be applied to the shapes to meet the needs of the learners. Due to the access of the selection of shapes and their representation a wide spectrum of vocabulary could be used to discuss the fractions, pictures, and shapes. The delivery, level of difficulty, and speed of the fractions could be monitored and adjusted to meet the individual needs of the learners. Lerman and Zevenbergen (2008) recommend using the IWB due to the speed of preparation of materials, questioning, and transition time was decreased when using the IWB. Through the use of an IWB the class was presented with a series of fractions (halves, quarters, thirds, sixths, eights, tenths). Equivalence was discussed during some of the fraction lessons researched in the study. In a study conducted by the U.S. Department of Education (2010), students learned the concept of dividing one object into two and four equal parts through a hands-on learning approach. Instruction took place in a whole group setting and while using manipulative objects and shapes. U.S. Department of Education (2010) recommends that the instructional plan of a hands-on approach to teaching fractions should center on story problems and real life scenarios such as sharing activities. In the report the U.S. Department of Education (2010), stated that a fraction lesson should “build on students’ informal understanding of sharing and proportionality to develop initial fractions concepts” (p.13). In order to get the students thinking about fractions the U.S. Department of Education suggest teachers should begin by “asking how many things each person should get to asking students how much of an object each person should get” (p.13). Students should be encouraged to use counters and create drawings before being introduced to formal fractional terms. Teachers should use objects as examples that are interesting and common to students such as cookies. Analogies should be posed for example, if there are two people how can we share the cookie equally? Students can act out the story problem as a means of finding a solution. This type of activity should continue with other geometric shapes to illustrate concepts of halves, thirds, and fourths. Students will develop a deeper understanding of fractions as the teacher increases the number of people among whom an object is divided. Students will also develop a deeper understanding of proportions decreasing when the number of times an object is divided increases. Instruction should guide students to compare fractional areas of a square, rectangle, and circle. One method posed by U.S. Department of Education is to guide students in exploring how to divide a shape into fractional parts by folding and dividing a shape. Formative AssessmentsFormative assessments can be used during an action research study to analyze learners’ academic achievement, effectiveness of an instructional plan, and teacher’s performance. During action research studies formative assessments can be used as a method of gathering results from the study. Assessments provide evidence of students’ knowledge and the effectiveness of teachers’ instruction. Popham (2008) defines educational assessment as being “a formal attempt to determine students’ status with respect to educational variables of interest” (p.7). Students’ attitudes, knowledge, or skills could be measured variables. Popham’s perspective of formative assessment aligns with and guides the instructional strategy used in this study. Popham (2008) states in Assessment What Teachers Need to Know, that formative assessment occurs when educators or students use the results from assessments to develop more effective action in learning. The root of the formative assessment process consists of compiling and analyzing students’ background knowledge and knowledge base of the content; finally, guiding instruction to align with the students’ needs. Formative assessment should be used to guide teachers when developing an instructional plan. Educators should begin with the end in mind to improve student learning and build an effective instruction plan. Brandt and Pinchok (2009), state “formative assessment is a process in which teachers use various tools and strategies to determine what students know, identify gaps in understanding, and plan future instruction to improve learning” (p. 2). Brandt and Pinchok (2009) continue by explaining that formative assessment is a process that is seamlessly integrated into a lesson or activity. It should be considered an ongoing activity or process that is entrenched within daily activities. Current teaching and learning should reflect an analysis of formative assessments. A teacher’s decisions on differentiation or individualized instruction within a classroom should mirror evidence gathered from formative assessments. Brandt and Pinchok (2009) researched the effectiveness of using a pretest as a form of formative assessment to determine students’ knowledge of the content and direct instruction. Brandt and Pinchok refer to one area of formative assessment as “identifying the gap”. Brandt and Pinchok state identifying the gap occurs when educators understand the difference between their students' background knowledge and what the students need to know in a content area. By identifying the gap educators can then focus instruction primarily on the unknown content to meet the desired learning goals. When identification of a student’s knowledge of a content area is made, a teacher can also develop an appropriate and effective instructional plan to meet the learners’ individual needs. Brandt and Pinchok (2009) discuss mastery learning, in that it “incorporated feedback processes after students took brief unit assessments to direct their individual and group learning needs. After these initial assessments, students received appropriate and differentiated follow-up instruction or activities, followed again by a more formative assessment, until the class completed a unit” (p.8). Popham (2008) believes pretest and posttest assessments provide a means of gathering qualitative data to measure student academic achievement during a study. Pretest convey to educators students’ background knowledge of a content area. They provide a direction and guide for educators when developing an effective instruction plan to prepare learners to meet desired learning goals. Popham (2008) continues by stating that after collecting data received from a posttest an educator can analyze student academic gains and their own performance in preparing and implementing the content. Teachers can use the data gained from pretest and posttest scores to measure effectiveness of their instructional plan or if revamping is needed. Student Engagement while Teaching with Interactive WhiteboardsAfter analyzing the scores derived from their study taken during the fraction lesson implemented via an IWB, Lerman and Zevenbergen (2008) found, that when using an IWB as a form of implementation of mathematics curriculum there is a lower level of learning. The academic quality and social learning was poor. Lerman and Zevenbergen concluded by stating that when using an IWB as a form of implementation the quality of mathematical learning was reduced. Reports showed that there were fewer opportunities for connections to be used beyond the school and independent learning occasions to take place for students. Lerman and Zevenbergen continue by reviewing observations from the study of few student behavior problems and that students were actively engaged during lessons implemented on IWBs. IWBs have a unique way of drawing students’ attention into the curriculum when used as a teaching tool. Students are in awe of the technology and are curious as to what will appear next on the IWBs when used to implement curriculum. Starkman (2006) reports from an interview “even the most obstreperous students were politely raising their hands, waiting patiently to step up to this magical new device and try it out” (? 1). Studies have reported that when lessons are implemented through an IWB student behavior improved. Students’ desire to be engaged with the IWB overrides their mischievous behavior tendencies. Teachers have commented that when students are playing interactive games on IWBs, students’ responses are more accurate in decision-making and there is less guessing. Teachers are able to monitor students’ understanding of the content and identify weaknesses and misconceptions earlier in an activity than in hands-on activities. Teachers often favor lessons implemented through an IWB due to the efficiency of prepared lessons and their capability of providing easy transitions. (Smith et al., 2005) The achievement scores shared by the U.S. Department of Education from the fraction lesson implemented in a hands-on teaching technique were similar to the results derived from the lesson implemented through an IWB. The U.S. Department of Education (2010) found after reviewing their study, there were “positive effects on fraction knowledge, but they do not provide rigorous evidence on the impact of instruction based on sharing activities” (p.13). In both studies on fraction lessons the there was a low level of student learning but the students were actively engaged. Reflective Practice in Action ResearchEducators constantly try to find the best practices and adjust instruction to be the most beneficial for their students. According to Hendricks (2009) in Improving Schools Through Action Research, action research is an effective practice for educators to use to discover new strategies and the best methods. Action research is used to examine issues in ones’ daily life. Hendricks (2009) states that the action research process includes the researcher’s “intentions, methods, and desired outcomes as part of the investigation” (p.3). During the investigation the researcher gathers information from a variety of sources and their own experiences to direct and guide their own research study. Hendricks (2009) believes reflective practice is significant when conducting a research study. Reflection on problems and issues that are persistent in one’s daily life experiences should be the focus. Reflective practice can give one insight on what has occurred in past studies and what direction they need to go in their own study. Data collection is critical when analyzing the outcomes of a research study. One of the most useful types of data collection to use when conducting an action research study is a reflective journal. A reflective journal can be a source to record observation from a lesson, thoughts, and ideas. According to Gil-Garcia and Cintron, (2002) “a reflective journal is a private artifact that stimulates individual reflection. It facilitates the process of reflection of teachers” (p.5). Reflective journal notes can include what worked or did not work during an activity. Reflective journals are used to ensure accuracy of information regarding student achievement, comments, engagement, involvement, participation, and understanding of the content during the lessons. Reflections can be used to adjust and guide remaining instruction during a study.Chapter 3: MethodologyResearch DesignAn action research design was selected for my research study. In the article Sustaining Teachers' Growth and Renewal through Action Research, Induction Programs, and Collaboration Gilles, Martille, and Wilson (2010), state that action research promotes educators to systematically identify an issue, then research the issue and collect data, and finally analyze the data accumulated to enhance one's practice. The authors continue to summarize action research as noticing and acting to improve instruction and learning. Hendricks (2009) believes action research is when one addresses a problem occurring in education and investigates in order to discover solutions for the obstacle. Quantitative and qualitative methods were used to analyze the effectiveness of interactive whiteboards (IWB) on student engagement and academic achievement. The students were given a pretest and posttest to determine their knowledge of the content material. The students were divided into two groups for the implementation of the mathematics unit. Each lesson was implemented in two different methods. One method for teaching the curriculum was through the use of an IWB while the other method was through the use of hands-on and concrete materials. The two groups were taught the curriculum in one of the two different methods for the mathematics lessons. Observations were made and recorded in a reflective journal to evaluate student engagement during each form of instruction. According to Gil-Garcia and Cintron (2002), the purpose of reflective journals is to guarantee accuracy of information concerning students' academics, attitudes, participation, and comprehension of the content during activities. Educators' reflections should be used to enhance and guide further instruction during a study. After the students were taught the curriculum they were given a posttest. The data collected were analyzed using a dependant t-test and an independent t-test to determine any differences between the scores of the students taught using hands-on materials and an IWB.SettingThe study took place in the fall of 2010 Coweta County where I was employed and taught kindergarten. The classroom in which I taught kindergarten was at Elm Street Elementary School. Elm Street Elementary School was a Title One School located in the city of Newnan. Fifty-two percent of the population attending Elm Street Elementary School was economically disadvantaged. Permission to conduct this study was acquired from Coweta County School System. The Lead Psychologist/SST Coordinator granted permission by signature after reviewing the Coweta County Research Application form. The principal at Elm Street Elementary School granted permission to conduct this study as did the LaGrange College Institutional Review Board. Subjects and ParticipantsThe subjects used for this study were students in my kindergarten class. The subjects were a class of twenty kindergarten students. Children ranged in age from five to seven years old and had widely ranging abilities and experiences. One student had been previously retained. Several of the subjects were served through the school’s Early Intervention Program and one qualified for speech and language services. One of the subjects was a second language learner whose parents denied the English to Speakers of Other Languages services. Subjects came from different socioeconomic backgrounds. Multiple students lived on government assistance and others being raised in middle class families. Many of the subjects had attended some form of preschool, whether public or private, but others were experiencing their first taste of formal education at the kindergarten level. The subjects were chosen to be used in this study due to daily access. This study required two consecutive weeks of daily instruction, interaction, and observation. This group of subjects met the requirements. The participant in this study was a seasoned teaching assistance who recently obtained a degree in Early Childhood Education. The participant had spent three years as a paraprofessional in a self-contained special education classroom and five years in the current kindergarten paraprofessional position. This participant was chosen to serve in this study due to their position as the classroom paraprofessional. Procedures and Data Collection MethodsDuring this study I used three focus questions as a guide to collect and analyze data in order to determine the most effective form of instruction to increase student learning and engagement. The focus questions and data sources that directed this research can be found in Table 3.1 below. Table 3.1 Data ShellFocus QuestionLiterature SourcesType: Method, Data, Validity How are data analyzed?Why do these data answer the question?RationaleHow are curricula implemented through the use of an interactive whiteboard and hands-on activities? Shenton, A., & Pagett, L. (2007). Lerman, S., & Zevenbergen, R. (2008). Type of Method: Instructional plan rubric and interviewType of Data: Qualitative Type of Validity: ContentCoded for themes Recurring Dominant EmergingLooking for categorical and repeating data that form patterns of behaviorsHow do interactive whiteboards compare with hands-on learning approaches in student learning?Brandt, C., & Pinchok, Nick. (2009). Popham, James. (2008). Starkman, N. (2006). Type of Method:Teacher made pre/post tests and formative assessmentsType of data:IntervalType of Validity:ContentDependent TIndependent TTo determine if there are significant differences between means from one group tested twice. To determine if there are significant differences between means from two independent groups What are the impacts of interactive whiteboards and hands-on activities on student engagement while teaching the curriculum?Smith, H., Higgins, S., Wall, K., & Miller, J. (2005). Lerman, S., & Zevenbergen, R. (2008). U.S. Department of Education, IES National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. (2010).Type of Method: Reflective Journal Type of Data:QualitativeType of Validity:ConstructCoded for themes Recurring Dominant Emerging Dependent T Independent TLooking for categorical and repeating data that form patterns of behaviorsTo determine if there are significant differences between means from one group tested twice. To determine if there are significant differences between means from two independent groups The instructional plan used for implementation of both methods of teaching fractions was developed and colleague reviewed prior to the research study. My colleague evaluated the instructional plan and provided insight (see Appendix A) on her opinion of the strengthens and weaknesses of the instructional plan. Discussions were held to address recommendations for increasing the effectiveness of the instructional plan. The instructional plan contained two unit plans on fractions. One unit plan was designed to be implemented through the use of an IWB, while the other was created to be implemented through the use of hands-on materials. The two units were implemented for a period of two weeks. The instruction of the two week unit of both teaching methods took place simultaneously in separate classrooms. I taught the unit implemented through an IWB, while my teaching assistant taught the unit implemented through hands-on materials. Subjects involved in this study were randomly assigned to kindergarten classes at the beginning of the school year. Students were divided into two groups depending on their pretest scores in order to equally balance the groups. Student progress was monitored through formative assessments which were embedded in the daily activities in the form of a practice sheet. Two reflective journals were used to record daily observations of student behavior and learning during both methods of instruction. A posttest was administered to both groups after a two week period. During this action research study quantitative data were collected through pretest and posttest assessments. The qualitative data were used to determine how IWB compare with hands-on learning approaches in student learning. Students were given a pretest and posttest to determine the degree of academic achievement gained during the course of a fraction unit implemented through the use of an IWB or the traditional hands-on learning approach. The pre/posttest can be found in Appendix B.During this action research study, reflective journals were used to collect and record the impacts of IWBs and hands-on learning activities on student engagement while teaching the curriculum. A reflective journal was used to record student engagement during the lessons implemented on the IWB and the lessons implemented using hands-on materials. Entries were made in each journal by the instructor of the daily lesson. Reflective journal prompts used during this study can be found in Appendixes C and D. Validity, Reliability, Dependability, and BiasAn instructional plan rubric was completed by a more experienced colleague when evaluating its effectiveness as a means of collecting data for focus question one: How is curricula implemented through the use of an interactive whiteboard and hands-on activities? As recommended by Hendricks (2009), qualitative data were collected through a written and verbal evaluation of the instructional plan. The instructional plan was developed using the backward design model. This model begins with the end result and goal in mind. Therefore, instruction was developed after the assessment was created in order to guarantee content validity of the instructional plan. The instructional plan used provides evidence of the content taught during this study. Due to the length of time of the study and detailed data collection methods the study was dependable. My teaching assistant and I followed the same sequence of content and used the same formative assessments throughout the entire study as a means of guaranteeing dependability. The data collection and treatment were kept consistent throughout the duration of the study. A more experienced colleague evaluated the instructional plan in order to insure the fairness of all planned activities. Pretest and posttest assessments were given to the students, as a means to gather data to answer focus question two: How do interactive whiteboards compare with hands-on learning approaches in student learning? Quantitative data were measured using the interval level of measurement. Popham (2008) describes content validity as relating to the capability of the content of an assessment displaying the content of the curriculum goal. Content validity is assured in that the assessments used were created to align and meet the requirements of the Georgia Performance Standard, as well, through research on numerous related previous studies. The same pretest and posttest were given to students in both groups; therefore, the type of reliability was test-retest reliability. A pretest was used by the students prior to the study and the students were grouped accordingly to create equality between them, therefore, this study was unbiased. The assessment used during this study guarantees to be inoffensive in that it is similar to assessments used in previous fraction instruction studies by providing a number of shapes to determine equal parts and fractional parts. Pictures of classroom themed bugs are used to label the number of problems rather than numerals or letters to minimize disparate impact and create fairness of assessments.Reflective journaling was used to collect data for focus question three: What are the impacts of interactive whiteboards and hands-on activities on student engagement while teaching the curriculum? Hendricks (2009) is a believer in the significance of reflective practice used while conducting a research study. Qualitative data were collected during the study through the use of daily reflective journals. As Popham (2008) explains construct related validity is gained through a number of studies rather than only one to form a theory. Reflective journal prompt questions were used to increase construct validity. During the two week period, raw data were maintained and collected on student engagement through reflective journaling. In order to insure dependability, prior to the study, I discussed with my teacher assistant the importance of observing all children equally while implementing the curriculum. My teacher assistant and I documented student behaviors and attitudes immediately after each lesson in order to record student engagement. As Hendricks (2009) suggests, my teacher assistant and I recorded how we felt prior to the implementation of every lesson to make us aware of any bias we may possess while recording students behaviors and attitudes. Dependability was assured in this study through a chain of evidence by connecting research to theory to the conclusions found.Analysis of Data Qualitative data were collected through an instructional plan and rubric in order to answer focus question one: How is curricula implemented through the use of an interactive whiteboard and hands-on activities? The data were coded for themes in ways of recurring strategies used in the instructional plan as well as for a dominant trend in instruction. I analyzed the feedback received from my colleague in the rubric evaluation of my instructional plan and during an interview, for emerging themes. Quantitative data were collected through pretest and posttest assessments as a method of collecting data for focus question two: How do interactive whiteboards compare with hands-on learning approaches in student learning? The data collected were analyzed statistically using a dependent t-test and an independent t-test. The dependent t-test was used to determine if there were significant differences between the means from one group tested twice. The decision to reject the null hypothesis was set at a probability less than .05. An independent t-test was conducted to determine if there were significant differences between the means from two independent groups. The decision to reject the null hypothesis was set at a probability less than .05. The effect size will be calculated to measure the magnitude of a treatment effect. My teaching assistant and I conducted reflective journaling daily in order to collect data to address focus question three: What are the impacts of interactive whiteboards and hands-on activities on student engagement while teaching the curriculum? The qualitative data collected were analyzed rationally by coding for themes. Through an in-depth investigation of observations recorded in reflective journals I looked for definite and recurring data that formed patterns of behaviors.My study proves to be accurate and consistent due to faculty revision and connecting my results to literature. Eisner (1991) refers to ‘Consensual Validation’ as concurring with others that the explanation, understanding, assessment, and thematic are correct. Consistency is displayed through my analysis linking back to my literature review. By cycling back to my literature review ‘Epistemological Validation’ (Denzin & Lincoln, 1998) occurred. My literature review proves that others have conducted similar studies. By using multiple data collecting sources my study proves to have ‘Structural Corroboration’ (Eisner, 1991). The data collected during my study aligns itself to form an undeniable whole. Through researching and presenting opposing views I stood to be fair in my study. Throughout the process of this study many steps have been taken to ensure the ‘Rightness of Fit’ (Eisner, 1991) by precision and accuracy to guarantee a firm argument, logical case, and strong evidence to assert judgments. My study is useful to others to apply to different curricula. IWBs can be used to implement and support all content areas. Eisner (1991) refers to this process as ‘referential adequacy’ when insight and comprehension by others will benefit because of one’s research studies. This study has catalytic validity because a positive change or transformation for the researcher and others has occurred. Summary In conclusion, action research was used to conduct this study. The study took place at a Title One elementary school in Georgia. One class of kindergarten students was used as subjects in the study. A teaching assistant served as a participant throughout the course of the study. Three focus questions served as a guide for collecting and analyzing data. The implementation of a two week mathematics unit served as a resource for collecting data on student academic achievement and engagement during instruction implemented through an IWB or hands-on materials. Numerous actions and steps were taken to insure that this study stands to be valid and reliable. After the two week unit was concluded qualitative data were analyzed by coding for themes and quantitative data were analyzed statistically. CHAPTER 4: RESULTSA focus question used in this study was: how is curricula implemented through the use of an interactive whiteboard (IWB) and hands-on activities? An instructional plan was developed and evaluated by a more experienced colleague. A rubric for the instructional plan was created for the colleague to complete. An interview was conducted with the colleague to discuss the feedback regarding the instructional plan evaluation. The feedback received was analyzed by coding for themes. The first recommendation the colleague made was regarding the essential questions. She suggested that the following essential question be added: how can you determine if you have shared a set of objects equally? The colleague made a recommendation about the sequence of the unit plan. She suggested that the order of lessons begin with students learning about fair shares rather than equal parts. The colleague proposed several strategies to add to the hands-on learning group’s lesson plans. The first strategy was to incorporate an illustration of the content on a board on which the students could refer. The second strategy was to create shapes that could and could not be divided into two equal parts and have the students sort the shapes into two groups. The third strategy was to use shapes that had been divided equally and unequally and have the students sort them into two different categories. The colleague made a suggestion regarding the vocabulary and terms used to teach fractions in both groups. She recommended using the terms “a part” and “out of” instead of a slice or section when making a pretend pizza and pie into equal parts. By doing this the students would be exposed to another way of stating one half as one out of two. The second focus question used was: how do interactive whiteboards compare with hands-on learning approaches in student learning? As a means for gathering data on student achievement a pretest and posttest were given to the subjects used in this study. An independent t-test was used to calculate the difference between the data retrieved from the pretest scores of students in both groups to confirm the reliability of the groups initially being divided equally. Table 4.1 shows that the obtained value of .74 is less than the critical value of 1.75, t (15) = .23, P > .05, therefore accepting the null hypothesis. There was no significant difference between the groups. The Cohen’s d calculations for the pretest scores of the IWB and the pretest scores of the hands-on learning groups was 0.35 confirming that there was a medium effect size. Table 4.1T-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances?Pre-testIWBPre-testH-OnMean27.738.875Variance943.12221032.696Observations108Hypothesized Mean Difference0df15t Stat-0.74766P(T<=t) one-tail0.233112t Critical one-tail1.75305P(T<=t) two-tail0.466223t Critical two-tail2.13145?A dependent t-test was used to calculate the difference between the pretest and posttest scores received from the group which learned the content through the use of an IWB. Table 4.2 displays that the obtained value was 6.8 and the critical value was 1.8, t (9) = 6.8, P < .05, therefore rejecting the null hypothesis that there is significant difference between the pretest and posttest scores of the students whom were taught the content through the use of an IWB. The effect size calculation for the IWB group data was 0.85 displaying a large effect size. Table 4.2T-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means for the IWB Group?Pre-testPost-testMean27.787.9Variance943.122292.76667Observations1010Pearson Correlation0.436762Hypothesized Mean Difference0df9t Stat-6.82721P(T<=t) one-tail3.83E-05t Critical one-tail1.833113P(T<=t) two-tail7.67E-05t Critical two-tail2.262157?An additional dependent t-test was used to calculate the difference between the scores obtained from the group which learned the content through the use of hands-on materials. Table 4.3 illustrates that the obtained value was 5.91 and the critical value was 1.89, t (7) = 5.91, P < .05, therefore rejecting the null hypothesis that there is significant difference between the pretest and posttest scores of the students whom were taught the content through the use of hands-on materials. The effect size calculation for the hands-on learning group data was 0.70 revealing a large effect size.Table 4.3T-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means for the Hands-On Group?Pre-testPost-testMean38.87589Variance1032.696242Observations88Pearson Correlation0.70098Hypothesized Mean Difference0df7t Stat-5.9184P(T<=t) one-tail0.000294t Critical one-tail1.894579P(T<=t) two-tail0.000588t Critical two-tail2.364624?Another independent t-test was used to calculate the difference between the posttest scores retrieved from the group taught through the IWB and the group taught through hands-on materials. Table 4.4 reveals that the obtained value of .17 is less than the critical value of 1.79, t (11) = .17, P > .05, therefore accepting the null hypothesis. There is no significant difference between the group taught through the IWB and the group taught through hands-on materials. The Cohen’s d calculations for the pretest scores of the IWB and the pretest scores of the hands-on learning groups was 0.085 revealing that there was a small effect size. Table 4.4T-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances?Post-testIWB Post-test H-OnMean87.989Variance92.76667242Observations108Hypothesized Mean Difference0df11t Stat-0.17496P(T<=t) one-tail0.432144t Critical one-tail1.795885P(T<=t) two-tail0.864287t Critical two-tail2.200985?The third focus question used in this study which deals with qualitative data was: what are the impacts of interactive whiteboards and hands-on activities on student engagement while teaching the curriculum? Journal entries were kept over the period of two weeks by educators implementing the instructional plan to the subjects learning through the use of an IWB and through hands-on materials. The reflective journals were used in order to research any recurring, dominating, and emerging themes occurring over the two weeks. Many themes were evident in the reflective journal used for the implementation of the content through the use of an IWB. The students were actively involved during each lesson implemented through the IWB. Students were continuously coming to the board to circle, divide, move, or label objects or pictures on the screen. The first three days of the unit the students made comments about the images on the screen such as, “Wow, look at that!” and giggled or clapped. Multiple days the students asked if there were more flipchart pages for the lesson. The excitement level the student had about going to the board and manipulating the objects projected on the screen was very high the first week of instruction. The students’ enthusiasm to interact with the board slightly decreased the second week of instruction. Interest levels dropped when plane shapes were used in the flipcharts instead of pictures. Student behavior was not a problem at any point during the two week unit implemented through the use of an IWB. Little redirection was given to the students. The students often carried on conversations about the symbols or pictures included on the flipcharts but not in a disruptive manner. Overall, the students showed self control during the two week unit. Recurring themes were evident in the reflective journal used for the implementation of the unit through hands-on materials. Every day, the students were excited and eager to work with the hands-on manipulative objects. All the students wanted a chance to work with the objects daily. Students often commented that they wanted to “fix” the manipulative objects that were not divided equally. They referred to the objects divided unequally as being “wrong”. The students enjoyed and displayed much interested in using scissors to cut the shapes and using crackers to create fractional parts. When working with shapes divided into fourths a student commented that it was like a puzzle. During the two week unit taught using hands-on learning materials the students were actively engaged in the lesson. They were eager to work with the manipulative objects. Often the students displayed less enthusiasm when working on the formative assessments completed at the end of each lesson. Overall throughout the implementation of the unit the students were well behaved. Every day the students were talkative, however, the topic of the conversations was the content presented. On the first Friday of the unit, many students had difficulty controlling themselves and paying attention. For the most part, the students often displayed exceptional behavior and interest. CHAPTER 5: Analysis and Discussion of ResultsAnalysis of ResultsHow are curricula implemented through the use of an interactive whiteboard (IWB) and hands-on activities? An instructional plan was created and evaluated by a more experienced colleague. The more experienced colleague used a rubric designed specifically for the instructional plan to determine the effectiveness of the unit plan. After the completion of the instructional plan rubric the more experienced colleague was interviewed as a means of gathering additional information and feedback. The responses gained from the interview and the rubric were analyzed by coding for themes. The themes recovered during the interview and the rubric were acted upon. One theme was on the order of the content introduced. The order of the lessons was changed to make the unit plan build upon concepts in a more logical sequence. Several strategies were suggested to support the materials used in lessons implemented through hands-on learning materials. Often the recommendations were encouraging the use of visual aids for the hands-on learning lessons. The more experienced colleague also focused on the vocabulary and terms used to introduce the fractional parts. The feedback received from the rubric and interview was very beneficial to the effectiveness of the instructional plan. The recommendations and suggestions were implemented to strengthen the instructional plan. My research proved previous studies results in instructional plans of fraction units to be true. As stated in Chapter Two Lerman and Zevenbergen (2008) suggests using a wide variety of terms and vocabulary when teaching the concept of fractions. My more experienced colleague recommended several terms and phrases to use in order to expose the students to a richer vocabulary. Research found coincides with the suggestion stated regarding the order of concepts in the instructional plan. The U.S. Department of Education (2010) believes educators should begin fraction instruction by “asking how many things each person should get, to asking students how much of an object each person should get” (p.13). My more experienced colleague recommended the instructional plan begin with fair shares rather than equal parts. How do IWBs compare with hands-on learning approaches in student learning? A pretest and posttest was administered to the subjects as a means of gathering data on student achievement. The scores were analyzed statically using a dependent and independent t-test and the effect size calculator. The pretest scores were analyzed using an independent t-test to guarantee the equality of the groups prior to instruction. The mean of the pretest scores for the students learning through the use of an IWB was 27.7. The mean of the pretest scores for the students learning through the use of hands-on materials was 38.8. The means had a difference of 11.1. There was no significant difference between the groups. The pretest and posttest scores received from the group which learned through the use of an IWB were analyzed using a dependent t-test. The data calculations found that there was a significant difference between the pretest and posttest scores, therefore rejecting the null hypothesis. The academic achievement of the students taught through the use of the IWB did increase. Validity was guaranteed due to the data measuring student academic achievement. The students in the IWB group did not grasp the concept of equal parts and symmetry as quickly as the students in the hands-on learning group, due to not being able to fold the objects on the screen. The pretest and posttest scores gathered from the group which learned through the use of hands-on learning materials were analyzed using a dependent t-test. The data calculations found that there was a significant difference between the pretest and posttest scores, therefore, rejecting the null hypothesis. The students’ academic achievement did increase. The data measured the subjects’ academic achievement therefore yielding the study to have content validity. The posttest scores of both the groups were analyzed using an independent t-test. The data calculations found that there was not a significant difference between the groups, therefore, accepting the null hypothesis. The students in both groups made academic gains. The study found that both methods are effective for teaching fractions. Validity is warranted in this study due to data measuring the academic achievement of the subjects. A difference was found in my study compared to previous studies regarding the use of an IWB to implement a fraction unit, in the elementary classroom. Lerman and Zevenbergen (2008) found that there was a lower level of learning. In my study the students who learned through the IWB and hands-on materials gained an equal amount of knowledge. The use of the IWB had the same impacts on student academic achievement as the use of hands-on materials. When comparing the results from my study to past studies on using hands-on materials to teach a fraction unit there was a similarity. The U.S. Department of Education (2010) found positive effects on student knowledge of fractions after being taught through the use of hands-on materials. In this area, my study seemed to stand true with the outcomes found in literature. What are the impacts of IWBs and hands-on activities on student engagement while teaching the curriculum? Reflective journals were used as means of collecting data to research student engagement. Daily entries were recorded preceding the implementation of the instruction plan to subjects learning through the use of an IWB and through hands-on materials. The reflective journals were coded for themes regarding any recurring, dominating, and emerging themes over the course of the two week unit. Data collected in the IWB reflective journal aligns with Lerman and Zevenbergen (2008) research which states when using an IWB there were few behavior problems and students were actively involved in the lesson. When implementing the lesson through the use of the IWB, I found that behavior problems decreased. The students loved coming to the board and displayed better self control because of their eagerness to interact with the board. The students sat patiently, raised their hands more often to answer questions, and seemed more entertained than usual. The students in the IWB group often made comments about the technology such as, “Wow, look at that!”. The students often seemed fascinated by the graphics and operations of the IWB. The students often asked how many more pages were left because they did not want the activity to end. Starkman (2006) revealed similar observations in a study he conducted by stating, students were in awe of the technology and curious as to what will appear next on the IWB. The observations recorded in the hands-on learning materials reflective journal revealed that the students were continuously actively involved in the lessons. The students were excited about experimenting with the objects. Comments from students often were about “fixing” the objects or “this one is wrong”. Students behaved very well during the lessons. They were eager to be picked to divide or sort the shapes.The students displayed more excitement about learning about fractions when food was involved in the activity. The students enjoyed cutting the objects into equal parts. This was very different to them since they did not have a line to follow. One recurring theme found in the reflective journal kept for the hands-on learning group was that the students were talkative. The students often talked about the activity taking place. Student conversations did not affect the learning outcomes during these lessons. Formative assessments were completed daily by the subjects used in the study. The formative assessments were very eye opening regarding effective teaching strategies for fraction concepts. Popham (2008) suggests that assessments give educators proof of students’ knowledge and the effectiveness of their instruction. When teaching equal parts on the IWB, I realized the students were having difficulty visualizing and understanding that each part was the same shape and size. The formative assessments completed on equal parts revealed that the students would have grasped the concept quicker if they had been able to work with a tangible item. I felt limited when using the IWB to introduce equal parts. A student in the IWB group stated at the end of the lesson that “it was the same as folding a piece of paper”. The other students seemed to form a deeper understanding after hearing that statement. The students in the IWB group did grasp the concept of equal parts however at a slower rate than the students who were taught through the use of hands-on materials. The daily formative assessments were very beneficial in revealing the limitations of using hands-on materials. The students who learned through the use of hands-on materials often struggled to transfer their experiences during the activities on paper. Connections were often not made between the handheld manipulative objects and the objects on the formative assessments. The IWB allowed for students to be exposed to more images and situations of using fractions than hands-on materials. The hands-on learners usually overlooked images on paper and misrepresented them when labeling fractional parts. The IWB learners performed with a higher rate of accuracy on the formative assessments than the hands-on learners. DiscussionThe research collected during this study produced similar results for both methods of teaching fractions. The posttest scores display comparable gains in both groups. I believe that if this study had been conducted over a longer period of time, involving older subjects, and a larger number of subjects the results would have been more varied between the groups. At the kindergarten level students are eager to learn. Students get excited about learning when they are being introduced to a new concept. The subjects used in this study had never had formal classroom exposure to fractions. Naturally the subjects were excited to be learning about fractions. Therefore, the observations recorded about student behavior, engagement, and excitement were similar between the two groups. This research study supports both forms of instruction, IWB and hands-on learning materials for implementing a fraction unit in a kindergarten classroom. Each method was effective in educating the kindergarteners about fractional concepts, however, this unit would have been more effective and taught in a shorter period of time if the methods were used together to support one another. The IWB was more beneficial to use than hands-on materials when providing examples and practice for identifying equal parts in nonconventional shapes. Students who were taught through the use of an IWB performed better on the pencil and paper formative assessments than the students taught through the use of hands-on materials. The hands-on materials conveyed the concept of equal parts at a faster pace and a deeper level of understanding than the IWB. I believe an instructional unit would be more effective if these two methods were used to support one another, to the extent of specific skills taught only through one medium. In my daily practice as an educator I will use both hands-on materials and the IWB as a means of implementing instructional units. If these methods are intertwined in a lesson it will result in a higher level of student learning and comprehension. I will not rely solely on one strategy to implement a lesson. Specific concepts will be taught using appropriate technology or hands-on materials. The data collected during this study supports implementing daily lessons through the use of hands-on materials and an IWB. Education is changing with the new technology of the twenty first century resulting in a push for using technology to implement curriculum. This research study proves technology is no more effective than using hands-on materials when educating students about fractions. As a whole, this study exhibited credibility by using data from various means. Research on relevant previous studies was gathered and analyzed. Qualitative data were collected through an instructional plan rubric and interview. Quantitative data were gathered by pretest and posttest scores and analyzed statically. Qualitative data were collected through the use of two reflective journals during the implementation of the instructional plan. Eisner (1991) calls this process ‘structural corroboration’ where a confluence of evidence comes together to form a compelling whole. The quantitative data collected during this study opposes data collected in a prior study by Lerman and Zevenbergen (2008) that there was a lower level of learning when using an IWB as a form of implementation of fractions and the quality of mathematical learning was reduced. The statistical data collected proves that the IWB implements a fraction unit as effectively as hands-on learning materials to a class of kindergarten students. However, the formative assessments collected revealed that the students struggled at first with comprehending equal parts when taught through an IWB. Eisner (1991) refers to precision as ‘rightness of fit’; to be precise, you must state how you will present a tight argument, coherent case and have strong evidence to assert judgments. The purpose of this study was to acquire an answer to the question, does having technology in classrooms foster student engagement and academic achievement in implemented lessons. From this study I have found that technology does not foster a higher level of student engagement and academic achievement in implemented lessons. The qualitative and quantitative data collected proves technology and hands-on materials have the same outcomes in student engagement and academic achievement. When analyzing the daily formative assessments I found that the IWB was more effective for teaching specific concepts and likewise for the hands-on materials. The speed and depth at which the students grasped a concept depended upon the method of implementation. Students in both groups developed an equal understanding of fractional concepts at different speeds. ImplicationsThis study was based on twenty kindergarten students. It was a smaller sample as compared to the studies in the literature review however; it paralleled results of the other studies. Based on the parallel between the studies, the results of this study can be generalized to the larger population. The results of this study are transferable to other studies and would be useful for others to apply to various situations. The qualitative data revealed student engagement and involvement is similar in lessons implemented through an IWB and hands-on materials at the kindergarten level. Eisner (1991) called this process ‘referential adequacy’ where perception and understanding by others will increase because of the research involved in this study. A participant in this study realized many things about educating students during the implementation of the instructional plan. The participant was surprised that kindergarten students were developmentally ready to learn about fractions. She often commented that the students performed better on the formative assessments if she provided numerous examples during instruction. Examples and practice were included in the instructional unit for the subjects to develop an understanding of fractional parts. The participant was transformed in realizing students needed to be placed in scenarios to help them make connections between what they are learning and the real world. As an educator I have been transformed by this study. The practices used during this study have transformed me in multiple ways. By recording daily reflections in a journal, I have realized the importance of reflection. The compiled entries were helpful in identifying themes and how the students were progressing. Throughout the two week unit, the formative assessments revealed to me the impact they should have on instruction. By conducting daily formative assessments, a clear picture of exactly each students’ level of understanding was revealed. Since the fraction unit was implemented in two different methods, it became obvious to me that if these two methods were intertwined the instructional plan would have been stronger. While implementing the instructional plan I found myself torn, wishing the students could switch groups and work with other resources, instead of only being exposed to one method of instruction. My daily instruction has been transformed in that I will include more examples, experiences, and resources as a means to make learning more meaningful to my students. In concluding this study I was reminded that research is necessary in order to find the most sufficient practices for the classroom. Impact on Student LearningOne goal of this study was to determine if technology would increase student academic achievement in the classroom. The study compared fraction instruction implemented through the use of an IWB or hands-on materials. The quantitative data collected during the study revealed that there was no significant difference between the scores retrieved from the two groups. However, there were great gains in the scores received from the pretest and posttest of both groups. The mean of the pretest scores of the students in the IWB group was 27.7 and the mean of the posttest scores was 87.9, resulting in a 60 point increase. The mean of the pretest scores of the students in the hands-on learning group was 38.8 and the mean of the posttest scores was 89, resulting near a 50 point increase. Recommendations for Future Research During this study I often considered if I had done something differently the results might have been better. One consideration I have was to conduct the study with an older group of subjects. Kindergarten students are more eager to learn than older students, therefore, making student engagement difficult to compare. The second consideration I had was to use a larger group of subjects. I felt a researcher would benefit from having more than twenty subjects involved in this type of an action research study. The third recommendation I considered was to conduct the study over a longer period of time. Two weeks was a sufficient amount of time to teach this fraction unit but additional weeks would allow for the students to become more familiar with the resources. As a means of corroborating this research study one might investigate sufficient methods of instruction for specific mathematical concepts. The study could focus on technology and discovering which mathematical concepts would be most appropriately implemented through the use of an IWB. As an extension of this study one might focus on using multiple resources for implementing mathematical concepts. The resources could be rated on sufficiently supporting mathematical instruction and improving student learning. ReferencesBrandt, C., & Pinchok, N. (2009). Connecting formative assessment research to practice. Learning Point Associates. Retrieved from ERIC at Ebscohost.Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (1998). The fifth moment. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.),The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues (pp. 407-430). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Eisner, E. (1991). The enlightened eye. New York: MacMillan.Gilles, C., Martille, E., & Wilson, J. (2010). Sustaining teachers' growth and renewalthrough action research, induction programs, and collaboration. TeacherEducation Quarterly, 37(1), 91-108. Retrieved from Eric at Ebscohost.Gil-Garcia, Ana., & Cintron, Zaida. (2002). The reflective journal as a learning andprofessional development tool for teachers and administrators. World Association for Case Method Research and Application. Germany. Retrieved from Eric at Ebscohost.Hendricks, C. (2009). Improving schools through action research. New Jersey:Pearson Education, Inc. Kalina, Cody., & Powell, Katherine.(2009). Cognitive and Social Constructivism:Developing Tools for an effective classroom. Education, 130(2), 241-250.Retrieved from Eric at Ebscohost.Kent, P. (2006). Using interactive whiteboards to enhance mathematics teaching. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 11(2), 23 – 26. Retrieved from Eric at Ebscohost.LaGrange College Department of Education. (2008). The conceptual framework. LaGrange, GA: LaGrange College. Lerman, S., & Zevenbergen, R. (2008). Learning environments using interactivewhiteboards: new learning spaces or reproduction of old technologies?. Mathematics Education Research Journal. 20 (1), 108-126. Retrieved from Eric at Ebscohost. Popham, J. (2008). What teachers need to know (6th ed.). Boston: PearsonEducation, Inc. Shenton, A., & Pagett, L. (2007). From 'bored' to screen: The use of the interactive whiteboard for literacy in six primary classrooms in England. Literacy. 41 (3), 129 - 136. Retrieved from ERIC at Ebscohost. Smith, H. J. & et al. (2005). Interactive whiteboards: boon or bandwagon?. Journal ofComputer Assisted Learning, 21, 91-101. Retrieved from Eric at Ebscohost.Starkman, N. (2006). The wonders of interactive whiteboards. T.H.E Journal, 33 (10), 36 - 38. Retrieved from ERIC at Ebscohost. U.S. Department of Education, IES National Center for Education Evaluation andRegional Assistance. (2010). Developing effective fractionsinstruction for kindergarten through 8th grade (NCEE Publication No. 2010-4039). Retrieved from Eric at Ebscohost. Appendix AUNIT PLAN & RUBRIC/EVALUATIONKindergartenFRACTIONS: EQUAL PARTSSUBJECTTOPICSTANDARDSESSENTIAL QUESTIONSVocabularyMathematicsFractions – equal partsNUMBER AND OPERATIONS Students will correctly represent the number and order of objects using numbers and understand them. MKN1. Students will connect numerals to the quantities they represent. g. Use informal strategies to share objects equally (divide) between two to three people or sets. 1.) How do you make fair shares?2.) What are equal parts?3.) How do you divide an object equally?4.) What is a fraction? -Fair shares-Equal parts-Whole-Fractions-Halves-FourthsIs the topic clearly stated?-Do you feel that the standards are appropriate?-Do the essential questions address all of the standards?-Are the terms listed appropriate for the standards?-MondayFocus: FAIR SHARESIntroduce the essential question = How do you make fair shares?Interactive Whiteboard1. Complete Flipchart Day 1Hands-on1. Begin by introducing the EQ. 2. Tell the students the following story problem and let them act it out to solve Sarah has 1 sandwich. She wants to share it equally with Megan so they both have the same amount. Sarah wants it to be fair. What should Sarah do to share the sandwich equally with Megan? 3. After students have acted the problem out to solve ask a student to show the group how they found the answer. 4. Repeat the story problem at least 4 more times using a cookie, pie, candy bar, etc. increase the number of people to 4. 5. Pass out the worksheet, provide assistance as needed. Record students who did not complete the sheet independentlyDoes the instructional plan for Monday prepare the students answer the essential question? Do you have any suggestions for the implementation of the content? Response:TuesdayFocus: Equal PartsIntroduce the essential question = How do you make fair shares?Interactive Whiteboard1. Complete Flipchart Day 2Hands-on1. Introduce the EQ2. Review with the group how to make fair shares by using the following story problem: Ben has 1 cake. He wants to share it equally with John so they both have the same amount. Ben wants it to be fair. What should Ben do to share the sandwich equally with John?3. Inform the group that they are going to learn how to divide a group equally between several friends. 4. Ask one student to come to the front of the room, give that child 8 cubes then ask 2 other students to come to the front of the room. Ask the child with the cubes to share the cubes equally between the other 2 students. Ask the child to explain what they are doing as they are solving the problem. Guide the student and provide assistance as needed. Tell the group that the student will give each friend one until they run out of cubes. Then ask the friends who receive cubes to share with the group how many cubes they have and ask if they have an equal amount. 5. Repeat this activity 3 more times using a different number of students to share among and objects to divide. (cubes, erasers, crayons, etc. can be used)6. Pass out the sheet, provide assistance as needed. Does the instructional plan for Tuesday prepare the students answer the essential question? Do you have any suggestions for the implementation of the content? Response:WednesdayFocus: Equal PartsIntroduce the essential question = What are equal parts?Interactive Whiteboard1. Complete Flipchart Day 3Hands-on1. Review how to make fair shares using 1 whole object and cubes. Use the following story problem:I have 1 candy bar and I want to share it with (child’s name). Raise your hand if you know how to divide this candy bar equally between me and _____. Hand the student that is dividing the candy bar a brown rectangle ask them to fold it and then you cut it into 2 pieces. 2. Hold the 2 pieces up for all the group to see. Ask if the candy bar has been divided equally. Then over lap the 2 pieces to show that they are the same shape and size. Tell the group that they are equal parts because they are the same shape and size. Repeat the story problem and activity emphasizing that you have equal parts if the pieces are the same shape and size. 3. Continue working as a whole group to make equal parts but use cubes to show equal parts. Work on story problems using the students’ names that are in the group and have them share with other students in the group. Remember to emphasize the fact that if you have the same number of objects given to each friend then they all have an equal share.Does the instructional plan for Wednesday prepare the students answer the essential question? Do you have any suggestions for the implementation of the content? Response:ThursdayFocus: WHOLE GROUP/OBJECT (same shape & size)Introduce the essential question = How do you divide an object or group equally? Interactive Whiteboard1. Complete Flipchart Day 4Hands-on1. Introduce the EQ.2. Ask if anyone can demonstrate for the group how to divide an object (hand held) equally in order to share with a friend. (provide assistance and guidance during demonstration)3. When the object has been divided inform them that the pieces are equal parts because they are the same shape and size. 4. Repeat the story problem activity with different student names, shapes (circle, square, rectangle, triangle) Begin using the phrase “divide the shape to make equal parts”; complete each situation using a hand-held object. Repeat until each child has had a turn.Does the instructional plan for Thursday prepare the students answer the essential question? Do you have any suggestions for the implementation of the content? Response:FridayFocus: WHOLE GROUP/OBJECT (same shape & size)Introduce the essential question = How do you divide an object or group equally?Interactive Whiteboard1. Complete Flipchart Day 5Hands-on1. Introduce the EQ.2. Ask if anyone can demonstrate for the group how to divide an object (hand held) equally in order to share with a friend. (provide assistance and guidance during demonstration)3. When the object has been divided inform them that the pieces are equal parts because they are the same shape and size. 4. Repeat the story problem activity with different student names, shapes (circle, square, rectangle, triangle) Begin using the phrase “divide the shape to make equal parts”; complete each situation using a hand-held object. Repeat until each child has had a turn.5. Pass out the worksheet, provide assistance as needed. Record students who did not complete the sheet independentlyDoes the instructional plan for Friday prepare the students answer the essential question? Do you have any suggestions for the implementation of the content? Response:MondayFocus: Review (fair shares, equal parts, & whole group/objectIntroduce the essential question = How do you make fair shares?Interactive Whiteboard1. Complete Flipchart Day 6Hands-on1. 1. Introduce the EQ.2. Ask if anyone can demonstrate for the group how to divide an object (hand held) equally in order to share with a friend. (provide assistance and guidance during demonstration)3. When the object has been divided inform them that the pieces are equal parts because they are the same shape and size. 4. Repeat the story problem activity with different student names, shapes (circle, square, rectangle, triangle) Begin using the phrase “divide the shape to make equal parts”; complete each situation using a hand-held object. Repeat until each child has had a turn.5. Pass out the worksheet, provide assistance as needed. Record students who did not complete the sheet independently.Does the instructional plan for Monday prepare the students answer the essential question? Do you have any suggestions for the implementation of the content? Response:TuesdayFocus: LABELING A FRACTION (1/2)Introduce the essential question = What is a fraction? Interactive Whiteboard1. Complete Flipchart Day 7Hands-on1. Introduce the EQ. 2. Tell the students they are going to learn something new today that they will use the rest of their lives! Get them excited! 3. Take a plate and tell the students to pretend that it is a pizza. Ask them what size of the pizza are you holding; the whole, a slice? Once they have answered by stating you are holding a whole pizza then tell them that today you’re going to break the pizza into smaller parts. Cut the pizza into 2 pieces. Tell the group that now you have 2 pieces and theses pieces are fractions. Say: when you break 1 object into equal pieces you make a fraction, since you have 2 pieces of the whole we call each piece ? or half of the pizza. 2. Repeat the entire activity using a square. Take a graham cracker and tell the students that you all are going to make a fraction using the graham cracker. Ask them what size of the graham cracker are you holding; the whole, a section? Once they have answered by stating you are holding a whole graham cracker then tell them that today you’re going to break the graham cracker into smaller parts. Cut the graham cracker into 2 pieces. Tell the group that now you have 2 pieces and theses pieces are fractions. Say: when you break 1 object into equal pieces you make a fraction, since you have 2 pieces of the whole we call each piece ? or half of the graham cracker. 3. Pass out paper shapes. Ask the student to fold the shape to make it into fraction pieces to show 2 halves that are equal pieces. 4. If the group has a good grasp on the concept, move on to explain how to write a fraction. Tell the group that in order to write a fraction we write a fraction as 1 number over another number. Then tell them what the numbers stand for = the bottom number is the denominator it stands for all of the parts that we cut the whole into, they are even parts. All parts are the same size. The numerator is the top number and how many of the parts we choose. 5. Pass out the worksheet, provide assistance as needed.Does the instructional plan for Tuesday prepare the students answer the essential question? Do you have any suggestions for the implementation of the content? Response:WednesdayFocus: LABELING A FRACTION ( ? & ? )Introduce the essential question = What is a fraction?Interactive Whiteboard1. Complete Flipchart Day 8Interactive Whiteboard1. Introduce the EQ2. Hold up a triangle and tell the students that you all are going to make a fraction using the triangle. Ask them what size of the triangle are you holding; the whole, a section? Once they have answered by stating you are holding a whole triangle then tell them that today you’re going to break the triangle into smaller parts. Cut the triangle into 2 pieces. Tell the group that now you have 2 pieces and theses pieces are fractions. Say: when you break 1 object into equal pieces you make a fraction, since you have 2 pieces of the whole we call each piece ? or half of the triangle. 3. Now hold up a plate , ask a student to come up and show the group how to make 2 equal parts out of the plate. Once a student has done this correctly, then ask how to divide 1 half into 2 equal pieces. Do the same with the other ? of the plate. Then lay the plate out so the whole group can see, ask the group how many equal pieces the plate is divided into = 4! Then explain how to write a fraction = order to write a fraction we write a fraction as 1 number over another number. Then tell them what the numbers stand for = the bottom number is the denominator it stands for all of the parts that we cut the whole into, they are even parts. All parts are the same size. The numerator is the top number and how many of the parts we choose. – Ask how many pieces do we have = 4 so write 4 on the bottom of one of the pieces, then hold that piece up and ask how many pieces you are holding up = 1 so write 1 on top announce that the fraction you have written is ?! Label each of the other pieces with ?! 4. Now hold up a rectangle, ask a student to come up and show the group how to make 2 equal parts out of the rectangle. Once a student has done this correctly, then ask how to divide 1 half into 2 equal pieces. Do the same with the other ? of the rectangle. Then lay the rectangle out so the whole group can see, ask the group how many equal pieces the rectangle is divided into = 4! Then explain how to write a fraction = order to write a fraction we write a fraction as 1 number over another number. Then tell them what the numbers stand for = the bottom number is the denominator it stands for all of the parts that we cut the whole into, they are even parts. All parts are the same size. The numerator is the top number and how many of the parts we choose. – Ask how many pieces do we have = 4 so write 4 on the bottom of one of the pieces, then hold that piece up and ask how many pieces you are holding up = 1 so write 1 on top announce that the fraction you have written is ?! Label each of the other pieces with ?!5. Pass out the worksheet, provide assistance as neededDoes the instructional plan for Wednesday prepare the students answer the essential question? Do you have any suggestions for the implementation of the content? Response:ThursdayFocus: LABELING A FRACTION ( ? & ? )Introduce the essential question = What is a fraction?Interactive Whiteboard1. Complete Flipchart Day 9Hands-on1. Introduce the EQ2. Hold up a triangle and tell the students that you all are going to make a fraction using the triangle. Ask them what size of the triangle are you holding; the whole, a section? Once they have answered by stating you are holding a whole triangle then tell them that today you’re going to break the triangle into smaller parts. Cut the triangle into 2 pieces. Tell the group that now you have 2 pieces and theses pieces are fractions. Say: when you break 1 object into equal pieces you make a fraction, since you have 2 pieces of the whole we call each piece ? or half of the triangle. 3. Now hold up a plate , ask a student to come up and show the group how to make 2 equal parts out of the plate. Once a student has done this correctly, then ask how to divide 1 half into 2 equal pieces. Do the same with the other ? of the plate. Then lay the plate out so the whole group can see, ask the group how many equal pieces the plate is divided into = 4! Then explain how to write a fraction = order to write a fraction we write a fraction as 1 number over another number. Then tell them what the numbers stand for = the bottom number is the denominator it stands for all of the parts that we cut the whole into, they are even parts. All parts are the same size. The numerator is the top number and how many of the parts we choose. – Ask how many pieces do we have = 4 so write 4 on the bottom of one of the pieces, then hold that piece up and ask how many pieces you are holding up = 1 so write 1 on top announce that the fraction you have written is ?! Label each of the other pieces with ?! 4. Now hold up a rectangle, ask a student to come up and show the group how to make 2 equal parts out of the rectangle. Once a student has done this correctly, then ask how to divide 1 half into 2 equal pieces. Do the same with the other ? of the rectangle. Then lay the rectangle out so the whole group can see, ask the group how many equal pieces the rectangle is divided into = 4! Then explain how to write a fraction = order to write a fraction we write a fraction as 1 number over another number. Then tell them what the numbers stand for = the bottom number is the denominator it stands for all of the parts that we cut the whole into, they are even parts. All parts are the same size. The numerator is the top number and how many of the parts we choose. – Ask how many pieces do we have = 4 so write 4 on the bottom of one of the pieces, then hold that piece up and ask how many pieces you are holding up = 1 so write 1 on top announce that the fraction you have written is ?! Label each of the other pieces with ?!5. Pass out the worksheet, provide assistance as neededDoes the instructional plan for Monday prepare the students answer the essential question? Do you have any suggestions for the implementation of the content? Response:FridayFocus: REVIEW ALL & POSTTESTIntroduce the essential question = How do you make fair shares?Interactive Whiteboard1. Administer PosttestHands-on1. Administer Posttest Does the instructional plan for Monday prepare the students answer the essential question? Do you have any suggestions for the implementation of the content? Response:Appendix BPre/Post-Test AssessmentName _____________________________________ Circle the objects that show the whole object shaded.57150-3175 Circle the objects that show equal parts19050-3838 Circle the objects that show ? of the object shaded 4142105-3492519050102235 Circle the objects that show ? of the object shadedAppendix CReflective Journal PromptsHands-on ApproachImplementation through hands-on approachDateStrategyWhat are three things the instructor learned from this lesson?What was surprising to the instructor during this lesson?How did the students respond to the manipulative objects used in this lesson? Were the students actively involved during the entire lesson?Did the lesson plan effectively transmit the content to the students? How did the students behave during the lesson? (disruptive, talkative, etc.)Did student behavior affect the outcomes of the lesson?How did the instructor feel while implementing the lesson?Did students academically progress to a level requiring advanced work in the content area? Appendix DReflective Journal PromptsInteractive WhiteboardImplementation through an IWBDateStrategyWhat are three things the instructor learned from this lesson?What was surprising to the instructor during this lesson?How did the students respond to the flipcharts/interactive activity used in this lesson? Were the students actively involved during the entire lesson?Did the lesson plan effectively transmit the content to the students? How did the students behave during the lesson? (disruptive, talkative, etc.)Did student behavior affect the outcomes of the lesson?How did the instructor feel while implementing the lesson?Did students academically progress to a level requiring advanced work in the content area? ................
................

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

Google Online Preview   Download