USING CLASSROOM TECHNOLOGY:



USING CLASSROOM TECHNOLOGY:

TO IMPROVE MATHEMATIC TEACHING IN KINDERGARTEN

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

Cristine Nicole Lanier

Certificate of Approval:

__________________________ __________________________

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

Thesis Co-Chair and Associate Professor Thesis Co-Chair and Assistant Professor

Education Department Education Department

USING CLASSROOM TECHNOLOGY:

TO IMPROVE MATHEMATIC TEACHING IN KINDERGARTEN

A thesis submitted

by

Cristine Nicole Lanier

to

LaGrange College

in partial fulfillment of

the requirement for the

degree of

MASTER OF EDUCATION

in

Curriculum and Instruction

LaGrange, GA

April 1, 2011

ABSTRACT

It has been debated that new technologies in our society today are robbing our young children of developmentally appropriate learning skills. The purpose of this study was to investigate how technology can be used effectively during mathematics in a kindergarten classroom. An action research design approach was used during this study, which included a parent survey, observational journal and pre/post test. The results of this study show that there is significance in academic achievement when kindergarten students use technology in the classroom during math activities.

Table of Contents

Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………….………i

Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………………….ii

List of Table(s)……………………………………………………………………………...……...iii

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

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

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

Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks…………………………………………………2

Focus Questions…………………………………………………………………………...4

Overview of Methodology………………………………………………………………...5

Human as Researcher……………………………………………………………………..5

Chapter 2: Review of the Literature………………………………………………………………………………………......7

Chapter 3: Methodology…………………………………………………………………………15

Research Design………………………………………………………………………….15

Setting……………………………………………………………………………………15

Sample / Subjects /and Participants…………………………………………..…………………….16

Procedures and Data Collection Methods………………………………………………..16

Validity and Reliability Measures……………………………………………………….19

Analysis of Data………………………………………………………………………….21

Chapter 4: Results………………………………………………………………………………..23

Chapter 5: Analysis and Discussion of Results………………………………………………….34

Analysis…………………………………………………………………………………34

Discussion……………………………………………………………………………….35

Implications………………………………………………………………………………36

Impact on Student Learning…………………………………………………………...…37

Recommendations for Future Research………………………………………………….38

References……………………………………………………………………………………….39

Appendixes………………………………………………………………………………………42

List of Tables

Table 3.1 Data Shell.......................................................................................................................17

Table 4.12 Parent Survey Results…………………………………………………………………23

Table 4.23 Survey Question One Results…………………………………………………………24

Table 4.34 Survey Question Two Results…………………………………………………………24

Table 4.45 Survey Question Three Results………………………………………………………..25

Table 4.56 Survey Question Four Results……………………………………………………...…25

Table 4.67 Survey Question Five Results…………………………………………………………26

Table 4.78 Survey Question Six Results…………………………………………………………..26

Table 4.89 Survey Question Seven Results……………………………………………………….27

Table 4.910 Survey Question Eight Results………………………………………………………..27

Table 4.101 Survey Question Nine Results……………………………………………………....28

Table 4.112 Survey Question Ten Results………………………………………………………...28

Table 4.121 Dependent t-test Results……………………………………………………………..29

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Statement of the Problem

This study will explored the effect technology has on a child’s academic achievement during their early school years. Duhaney & and Duhaney (2008) states that because the use of technologies has become indelibly locked into the consciousness of some children, many families and others have questioned whether they have lost the heart and soul of their children to these “finger pushing” gadgets. In today’s technological advanced society, teachers are challenged to use computers and other sources of media in a productive way to teach young learners. Haugland (1999) states that some educators have feared that computers will push children or rob them of their childhood. Educators and parents are concerned that computers can impair a child’s development when introduced at a young age. During the course of this study, data will be collected from parents regarding how much their children use technology at home vs. how much time they spend engaging in developmentally appropriate activities. Duhaney & and Duhaney (2008) states that it is believed that the social skills that children need to adapt to society can be best taught face to face. The messages relayed through computer-mediated communication have been labeled by some as characteristically impersonal, cold, and unsociable relative to face-to-face communication. (Duhaney, 2008) Technology has changed our society but not the modern classroom remains the same. As teachers we need to adapt to the new learning styles of today’s students. How does technology affect the mathematical achievement of students in kindergarten?

Significance of the Problem

Research has shown that using technology efficiently in the kindergarten classroom, along with developmental activities, has improved the learning environment and achievement of students (Haugland, 1999). Many educators and parents have been the victim of false information on the benefits of technology in the classroom. Some believe that technology is replacing many developmental skills that students learn at home and at school. Studies have shown that technology is an important aspect of our society and learning improves when it is incorporated into our schools’ curriculum on a daily basis. Using an interactive source of technology, such as a Promethean Board, gives students who are inclined to learn using multiple traditional methods the opportunity to learn more and develop skills for the future. The main argument given for early stage learning is that technology should not be used with children at such a young age because they are not developmentally able to grasp the concept of abstract computer programs (Haugland, 1999). Many children are being left behind because their school systems are not contributing to their access of technology in their education. We are teaching a new generation of children who are growing up in a technologically advanced world and we as educators must keep up with the times in our own practices.

Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks

The purpose of this study is was to explore the ways that technology can be used in a developmental appropriate way in a kindergarten classroom. Lincoln and Strommen (1992) state that children are use to an environment where they control information flow and access, whether through a video game controller, remote control, mouse, or touchtone phone. The ideals of a new classroom where technology plays a key role in allowing children to access their own knowledge with the social constructivist theory because children are able to use their prior experiences with technology to explore and understand new concepts. In an environment where the students are guiding the way to their own understandings, technology engages them and gives them the immediacy they are use to in their everyday lives (Lincoln, 1992).

This study on technology in the kindergarten classroom correlates to the LaGrange College Education Department’s first tenet of the Cconceptual fFrameworks, enthusiastic engagement in learning. Within this tenet, competency cluster 1.3: Knowledge of Learners, states that the educator must understand how students learn and develop. Educators must also understand how to provide diverse learning opportunities that support students’ intellectual, social, and personal development based on students’ stages of development, multiple intelligences, learning styles, and areas of exceptionality. Educators demonstrate the belief that students can learn at high levels, and hold high expectations for all students. Educators also need to understand how factors inside and outside of schools can influence the students’ lives and learning experience (LaGrange College Education Department 2009). When using technology in the kindergarten classroom, you must be able to adapt the activities to accommodate multiple levels of learning. Children enter kindergarten on many different developmental levels and it is important to understand what is needed to ensure the success of all students. This research will help identify the effectiveness of using technology during mathematical activities in a kindergarten classroom that reaches all levels of learning.

The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards’ pProposition 1: teachers are committed to students and their learning correlations with this study. The standard states that educators are dedicated to making knowledge accessible to all students. They believe all students can learn and treat them equitably. Teachers recognize the individual differences that distinguish their students from one another and they take account for these differences in their practice. They understand how students develop and learn. They respect cultural and family different students bring to their classroom. Educators are concerned with their students’ self-concept, their motivation and the effects of learning on peer relationships. They are also concerned with the development of character and civic responsibility. By knowing the curriculum and how students learn, teachers will be able to better understand what is needed to update our classrooms and use technology effectively. Knowledge of multiple intelligences is a key factor in this study along with an understanding of the different learning domains.

Focus Questions

Three questions will be were asked during this research to better understand the effects of technology on kindergarten students.

• Is there a significant difference between the achievement of kindergarteners who have had access to technology at home compared to students who have not?

• Is there a significant difference in development when using an Interactive technology in the kindergarten classroom?

• Is there significance in student engagement when teachers effectively use technology in the classroom?

Overview of Methodology

This research took place at an elementary school in a Wwestern Georgia county with a class of kindergarten students ranging in ages from 5 to 6 over the course of one school year. An action research design will be (was) used during for this study. A parent survey, (appendix A) was tested for significance and Chi Square was calculated on each question to determine any significance. A reflective journal (appendix B) was also used as qualitative data during this study to find significance in students’ achievement and their use of the interactive board. The quantitative approach being used will be a and pre and post tests were the methods used to answer the above stated focus questions. Qualitative data were analyzed by looking for trends and patterns in observations. The quantitative date were analyzed using Chi Squared formula and a dependent t-test.

that will numerically measure cognitive achievement in math. The pre test in mathematics was given to each student to determine their math level and a post test will be given two weeks later to determine the amount of growth.

Human as Researcher

As an educator for eight years, I have taught at schools where technology was not a priority and was not a classroom element that was important to parents. I have also been at schools where technology was at the top of the list when it came to classroom instruction. During my years as a teacher, I have seen the positive effects that technology has had on kindergarten students’ achievement levels. Computers, Promethean Boards, and other sources of media have created new learning tools that are helping to prepare our students at an early age for the technologically advanced society we now live in. I have seen first hand in my classroom that when technology is balanced with traditional classroom activities, students achieve more.

I am biased against the opinion that technology is a classroom tool that is robbing our students of developmental activities. As teachers, we have a job to educate and apply real world situations in our classrooms. Since technology, is part of our everyday lives it should also be part of our daily teaching strategies. For the past two years, I have been given the opportunity at my current school to include much more advanced technology into my daily routine. I understand the benefits of technology in the classroom and long to find new ways to use it. In today’s society, educators and parents must make changes in their everyday lives to prepare students for the world of technology they will be apart of today and in the future.

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

Somekh, Mavers & and Lewin (2002) states that, computers have had impacts on ways of working and thinking that have brought about significant changes in people’s professional and personal lives. Over the past decade, technology has increased and changed in our society but not much has changed in educational practices. Teachers, parents, and others in our communities need to be mindful of the importance of technology in our schools. The articles found in the literature support and challenge the focus questions stated above. They range from informing parents and teachers how to link school and home technology experiences to how technology has changed today’s classroom.

The Impact of Home Computer Use

The increasing amounts of time children are spending on computers at home and school has raised questions about how the use of computer technology may make a difference in their lives—from helping with homework to causing depression to encouraging violent behavior (Subrahmanyam, Kraut, Greenfield, & Gross 2000). Many questions have been asked by parents and educators alike about how technology affects our children today. Their concerns are justifiable because technology is constantly changing and there is not a lot of research to back up either the positive or negative affects. Subrahmanyam, Kraut, Greenfield, & and Gross (2000) states, when children use home computers instead of watching television, it is generally viewed as positive; but when children use computers instead of participating in sports and social activities, it raises concerns about the possible effects on their physical and psychological well-being.

Due to the lack of knowledge, many parents are exposing their young children to computers before they are developmental ready. According to Susan Haugland (2000), computers simply do not match their learning style. Children younger than three learn through their bodies: their eyes, ears, mouths, hands, and legs. Young children are explores and need the tools and time to access their own knowledge. As Haugland states technology is a great tool for children to use to gain knowledge.

Research has show that 3- and 4-year-old children who use computers with supporting activities that reinforce the major objectives of the program have significantly greater developmental gains when compared to children without computer experiences in similar classrooms-gains in intelligence, nonverbal skills, structural knowledge, long-term memory, manual dexterity, verbal skills, problem solving, abstraction, and conceptual skills (Haugland, 2000, p. ).

Linking Home and School

The Vermont Institute for Science, Math and Technology (VISMT) conducted a study on the impact of technology in Vermont schools and states that students learn more when parents and other community members support children’s education and are involved in their local school (Hyjek, Gilbert, Graham, et al., 1998). Technology has been present in our homes and classrooms for decades but it has only been in the past few years that it has replaced many traditional ways of completing day to day activities. Hyjek,, Gilbert, Graham, Marsters, Reposa, Romond, Soule, & Tuscanyet al. (1998) statess that some people are put off by technology while others are excited by it. They also say that some feel it has little place in a classroom while others cannot image a classroom without it. Technology plays a key role in equalizing the resources that students across the country are able to access. The Department for Education and Skills (DfES) in England, UK conducted an exploratory study on linking home and school using technology in 2001. In their findings, they came to the conclusion that the most obvious barrier to linking home and school through technology is clearly the absence of computers and internet links in students’ homes (Somekh, Mavers & Lewin, 2002). The DfES distributed questionnaires and surveys throughout their study to schools and households across the UK and they found that many participants were involved in special initiatives to develop links between home and school with technology (Somekh, et al., Mavers, & Lewin 2002).

Such initiatives included laptop loan schemes, virtual classrooms, homework guidance on the web, emailing parents, emailing homework to teachers, parent clubs, home access to school servers, online tutoring, parental access to school attendance registers via the Internet and online conferencing for parents and school governors. (p.1)

Effectively Integrating Technology

The principles of education have remained primarily the same for many decades but once technology was introduced as an educational tool, educators have been asking the question of how to effectively incorporate it into their daily activities. The shift from teacher-centered to learner-centered education does not suggest that the teacher is suddenly playing a less important role. A teacher is equally crucial and valuable in the learner-centered context, for he or she creates and structures what happens in the classroom (Tapscott, 1999). Many educators have concerns that students will miss out on developmentally appropriate activities but the solution is not to exclude our practices but to integrate technology into what we are already doing in our classrooms. Murphy, DePasquale, and McNamara (2003) state that visions of programmed instruction and electronic worksheets have caused teachers to fear that children will miss out on key experiences that support their development if computer technology infiltrates teaching. The key to effectively including technology into the curriculum is to choose developmentally appropriate software to use in your classroom. Cooper (2005) states,

If a child is working in a digital environment, there may be links throughout which he must move, and he must understand the process and progression of moving through these links to the next appropriate screen for information. Developmentally appropriate digital environments for young children support the accomplishment of these steps. Programs that read aloud in a clear, well-paced voice help young readers attach sounds to letters, syllables, and words. (p.292)

Technology and Curriculum

Today’s child is brought up in the omnipresence of technology. A child may be exposed to digital technology even before he or she is exposed to books. Whereas the child of the recent past may have needed an introduction to computers and digital information upon beginning formal schooling, these things have very likely been a part of life for today’s child from the beginning (Cooper, 2005). As educators, we must find ways to include the fast pace of technology into our everyday curriculums to make sure that all students reach their full potential in our technically advanced society. The question that has been frequently asked is how do we teach developmentally appropriate material in our classrooms and incorporate technology. Effectively integrating technology into the curriculum demands effort, time, commitment and sometimes, even a change in one’s beliefs (Clements, 2000). Technology has always been around in the classroom from the pencil sharpener to the overhead projector and over the years educators have adapted to these subtle changes. Computers and the interactive board technology is also another tool for teachers to use to create differentiated instruction into their own classrooms. Technology applications should be among the many tools at teachers’ disposal to offer children meaningful learning opportunities. At the same time, children need to learn to use technology in the same way they learn everything else, in their own time and at their own pace (Murphy et al., 2003).

Teacher Knowledge

The current generation of students has been referred to as the “Net Generation” due the fact that they have grown up around digital media. With new technologies, educators will have to shift their traditional teaching practices to incorporate technology. The shift from teacher-centered to learner-centered education does not suggest that the teacher is suddenly playing a less important role. A teacher is equally crucial and valuable in the learner-centered context, for he or she creates and structures what happens in the classroom (Tapscott, 1999). The Centre for Science and Technology Education Research at the University of Waikato completed a study titled “Enhancing Practicing Primary School Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Technology”. The focus was centered on New Zealand schools in 1999 where technology was mandated as one of the seven essential learning areas. In the research project we strongly emphasized the need for teachers to build a knowledge base for teaching technology (Jones and Moreland, 2004). In order for educators to use technology effectively in their classrooms, they must understand exactly what they are teaching and what key ideas translate best using technology such as the computer or interactive board. Therefore to be effective in technology, teachers will need to develop three dimensions of knowledge. These are knowledge about technology, knowledge in technology and general technological pedagogical knowledge (Jones and Moreland, 2000).

Interactive White Board Use in Mathematics

A research team at Keele University in the United Kingdom focused on the effectiveness of using an Interactive White Board (IWB) in both primary and secondary schools in mathematics. The research team analyzed video-recorded lessons where the IWB was in use and also interviews 36 teachers to gain their opinion on using the IWB in their own classrooms. After analyzing their data, it was evident that there were three approaches to using the IWB that teachers could be categorized in: supported didactic approach, interactive approach and the enhanced interactivity approach. The supported didactic approach is teacher-centered where the IWB is only used as a visual support to the lesson. In these situations the teacher was the focus following traditional approaches with minimal pupil activity except in response to teacher questioning or when completing written tasks (Glover, Miller, Averis and Door, 2007).

The interactive approach marks the progression from the supported didactic stage because the IWB is used to challenge pupils using an assortment of different stimuli to reach multiple learning styles in the classroom. Teachers become conversant with the technology and its uses, marked by a tendency to further explore the potential of, for example, PowerPoint and Excel, and to look for ways of using the IWB tools. The IWB becomes the focal point of pupil attention whilst it is in use, using to illustrate, develop and test discrete concepts (Glover, Miller, Averis & Door, 2007). Enhanced interactivity focuses on using technology as an integral part of most lessons, and integrating concept and cognitive development in a way that exploits the interactive capacity of the technology. Teachers who were using this approach were found to be very fluent in technology and the capabilities to use it effectively in their lessons. Teachers who reach this level of competence show considerably enhanced understanding of the learning process, talk about the ways that technology can support learning, and show ingenuity in developing materials to meet specific learning needs (Glover, Miller, Averis & Door, 2007). The IWB gives teachers the ability to fully engage students in mathematics when the approaches listed above are put into practice.

Cognitive Development and Technology

Teachers who take the time to understand the mathematical develop of a child before he or she enters kindergarten can better prepare to be more effective in the classroom. According to the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), educators’ goals should be to “create a coherent vision of what it means to be mathematically literate both in a world that relies on calculators and computers to carry out mathematical procedures and in a world where mathematics is rapidly growing and is extensively being applied in diverse fields (Varol & Farron, 2006). In the early elementary years, studies have shown that students age five to seven need concrete experiences to help them understand mathematical concepts. Scholars agreed that effective mathematics instruction in the elementary grades incorporates use of concrete materials. Concrete materials make learning an engaging and fun activity (Varol & Farron, 2006).

In today’s classroom, teachers have more tools to help students understand mathematically concepts and a balance of traditional and modern methods of teaching can help students of all abilities. Varol and Farron (2006) state that teachers who use materials to enhance their classrooms such as computers, calculators and other technology along with concrete materials can connect material with effective and developmentally appropriate tasks in which students can engage. Creating a meaningful experience in mathematics can increase the students’ motivation and enable them to think about other mathematical ideas and their application to the real-world (Varol & Farron, 2006).

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

Research Design

The action research approach was used during this study. Lin Norton (2009) states that the principle of pedagogical action research is very clear; it is to improve some aspect of the student learning experience. Put more formally, the fundamental purpose of pedagogical action research is to systematically investigate one’s own teaching/learning facilitation practice with the dual aim of modifying practice and contributing to theoretical knowledge (Norton, 2009, p. xv). During this study, my goal was to investigate my own teaching practices by using a reflective journal, parent survey, state standardized test results and a pre / post test to discover the effectiveness of using an interactive board in my kindergarten math class.

Setting

Newnan Crossing Elementary is one of 19 elementary schools in the Coweta County School System. Newnan Crossing is a Title 1 school and is districted for many of Newnan’s high income communities as well as low income apartments. At the time of this study, mMy school currently serveds 950 students from preschool to-5th grade. In the 2009-2010 school year, Newnan Crossing served 905 students: 49% White, 31% Black, 8% Hispanic, 5% Multi-racial, 6% Asian and 1% Other. Of these students, 42% percent were approved for free or reduced lunch. In the spring of 2008, Newnan Crossing Elementary was award the Platinum Award from the state for the greatest gain in percentage of students meeting and exceeding standards. Our school has met AYP consistently for 7 years and is considered a “Distinguished School.”

Subjects and Participants

My kindergarten class consists of 20 students: 9 boys and 11 girls from ages 5 to 6. Of these 20 students, 5 did not attend pre-school last year. The racial makeup of my class is 9 Black, 5 White, 4 Hispanic, and 2 Multi-racial students. Within my class, I have 1one student who can fluently speak Spanish. I have 3three students who are pulled out for EIP each day.

The developmental skills in my classroom range from learning letters to reading independently. The Georgia Kindergarten Inventory of Developing Skills (GKIDS) is given to kindergarteners throughout the year to provide ongoing diagnostic information on each student. This assessment is performed individually with each child and helps me to organize my flexible groups. My class this year contains many average students who are excited about learning and strive for excellence in their class work. By having high expectations and hard working students, I am able to teach our standards and develop their knowledge of topics more extensively.

Procedures and Data Collection Methods

A data shell (see Table 3.1) was used to organize this study by aligning the focus questions with the literature, data collection methods, the type of validity, and how the data were analyzed. By answering each focus question, the overarching research question was .was.

TABLE 3.1 Data Shell

|Focus Question |Literature Sources |Data Sources |Why do these data answer |How are data analyzed? |

| | | |the question? (validity) | |

|Is there a significant |Haugland, S. (2000) |Method: Parent Survey |Construct |Chi Square |

|difference between the | | | | |

|achievement of |Hyjek, P. |Data Type: Ordinal | | |

|kindergarteners who have |Gilbert, A. | | | |

|had access to technology |Graham, C. | | | |

|at home compared to |Marsters, D. | | | |

|students who have not? |Reposa, J. | | | |

| |Romond, B. | | | |

| |Soule, C. | | | |

| |Tuscany, B. (1998) | | | |

| | | | | |

| |Somekh, B. | | | |

| |Mavers, D. | | | |

| |Lewin, C. (2002) | | | |

| | | | | |

| |Subrahmanyam, K. | | | |

| |Kraut, R. E. | | | |

| |Greenfield, P.M. | | | |

| |Gross, E.F. (2000) | | | |

|Is there a significant |Glover, D. |Method: Pre/Post Test |content |dependent t-test |

|difference in evelopment |Miller, D. | | | |

|when using an Interactive |Averis, D. |Data Type: Interval | | |

|technology in the |Door, V. (2007) | | | |

|kindergarten classroom? | | | | |

| |Varol, F. | | | |

| |Farran, D. (2006) | | | |

|Is there significance in |Clements, D. (2000) |Method: Reflective Journal|construct |Coding to look for |

|student engagement when | |and | |patterns or trends |

|teachers effectively use |Cooper, L.Z. (2005) |Observations | | |

|technology in the | | | | |

|classroom? |Jones, A. |Data Type: Qualitative | | |

| |Moreland, J. (2004) | | | |

| | | | | |

| |Murphy, L.K. | | | |

| |DePasquate, R. | | | |

| |McNamara, E. (2003) | | | |

| | | | | |

| |Tapscott, D. (1999) | | | |

During the course of this study, 20 kindergarteners were tested and observed for academic achievement and engagement after using an Interactive Board during math. At the beginning of week one, a pretest was administered as a baseline. A parent survey was also sent home during this time to help build background knowledge of parents’ opinion and students’ access to technology prior to entering kindergarten. Over the course of two weeks, student activities were designed to incorporate both traditional teaching methods and technology into the math unit. During this time, a reflective journal was kept on student’s engagement in the lessons and how they felt using technology. At the end of the two week time, a posttest was administered and analyzed using a dependent t-Test for academic growth.

To determine if there is a significant difference between the achievement of kindergartners who have had access to technology at home compared to students who have not, a parent survey (see Appendix A), which consisted of ten questions directed at the parents’ own knowledge of technology, was distributed.

To answer focus question 2two, is there a significant difference in development when using Interactive technology in the kindergarten classroom; a pre and post test was given measure cognitive achievement in math. I used the chapter assessment from our Harcourt Math series adopted by the county. Each student was given a five-question test from the Harcourt Math series at the beginning of the Chapter. They then participated in a two-week math unit focusing on numbers using both traditional teaching methods and an Interactive Board. At the end of the unit, the same test was administered to measure student achievement when using an Interactive board during our math chapter.

For focus question three3, is there significance in student engagement when teachers effectively use technology in the classroom, a reflective journal (see Appendix B) was kept by me. By using prompt questions for my journal, I was able to observe the increase in mathematical achievement in students when technology is applied. The reflective journal was completed within the two-week math unit. Four reflective journal entries were made during the two-week math until to ensure that each child was observed. I focused on journal entries for five students during each entry. The themes for the journal included success of the student, their attitude, and ability to use technology to complete the math task. Each activity noted in the journal entries were teacher created Interactive Board flipcharts made to fit the kindergarten curriculum. Once the two-week unit was completed, the entries were examined for trends and patterns to determine whether students’ engagement with technology affected their achievement. I also made reflections on how the activity should be modified based on the findings during each activity.

When deciding to use the assessment from our Harcourt Math series it was very important that the test was user friendly for me as well as my students. In kindergarten, we are more likely to give an individual or small group assessment so this test fit that criteria based on its length and simple directions. The illustrations used were objects that the teacher could easily identify to the children. For example, question five uses butterflies as an illustration so the teacher may say, “please put your finger on the butterflies and listen for the next question.” The students are familiar with butterflies so this task was easy for them.

Validity and Reliability Measures

For focus question one, the parent survey collected nominal data. Construct validity was demonstrated through the use of this survey and evidence of validity is also known as a related-measures study. In a related-measures study, we hypothesize that a given kind of relationship will be present between the assessment and the parent survey (Popham, 2008). The polytomous items in the survey display internal consistency reliability through the use of Cronbach’s Alpha.

For focus question two, the research method used was a pre/post assessment. The test was premade by Harcourt Math series, which was adopted by Coweta County, and is aligned with the state kindergarten standards. The pre/post assessment gave interval data from a dependent t-test. Salkind (2007) states that a t-test for dependent means indicates that a single group of the same subjects is being studied, before and after the experiment. Content validity is evident through the use of a published assessment that is Georgia Performance Standards based. It refers to the adequacy with which the content of a test represents the content of the curricular aim about which inferences are to be made (Popham, 2008). The quantitative data gathered has stability reliability because the pre/post assessments were the same.

For focus question three, qualitative data were gathered from a reflective journal. Content validity was evident in my reflective journal data. Popham (2008) states that the content of curricular aims in which the teachers are interested can embrace knowledge, skills, or attitudes. The qualitative data gathered is dependable and free of bias because data collection and treatment were consistent. I also had control of the data collection setting and the length of time for journal entries being persistent and using for consistency. To ensure there was no bias, I monitored my entries for offensiveness, fairness, and disparate impact. The assessment procedure used in this study contained no elements that would insult any group of test takers on the basis of their personal characteristics, such as religion or race (Popham, 2008).

Analysis of Data

For the parent survey, the nominal data was entered into an EXCEL spreadsheet where a Chi Square formula was used to determine if any of the questions were significant. Descriptive statistics were also used to report the results. These descriptive statistics will be analyzed to determine if any questions were significant to the research.

For the Harcourt Math pre/ post assessment used to answer focus questions two, a dependent t-test was used to analyze the results from the pretest and posttest. The decision to reject the null hypothesis has been set at p < .05.

Significance was determined at the P ................
................

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

Google Online Preview   Download