KSU Portfolio



The Effects of Vocabulary Notecards on

Student Achievement in Economics

Heather Creamer

Kennesaw State University

EDRS 8900 – Applied Field Research

Dr. Joanna Gilmore

October 15, 2015

Abstract

This research looks at whether vocabulary study guides such as can increase student vocabulary knowledge. Also, if an increase in student learning was found, how do the Quizlet vocabulary study guides influence student learning? This research draws upon classroom data from two twelfth grade Economics classrooms at Baldwin High School in Milledgeville, Georgia. Unit assessment data and student surveys were used to examine whether the vocabulary study tool and/or using hand-written notecards improve vocabulary knowledge measured by student achievement on unit assessments. The results showed higher achievement rates with each assessment, unit assessment averages, and a total assessment average for students who completed a study set or hand-written vocabulary notecards.

The Effects of Vocabulary Notecards on

Student Achievement in Economics

Introduction

Social Studies is a vocabulary intensive content area and working with at-risk students increases the need for vocabulary (due to corresponding low literacy rates) and word study to increase comprehension. Research in the last few decades has steered educators from the importance of learning foundational knowledge or skills such as vocabulary or mathematic facts (addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division). Many educational researchers are pushing research that states “that education should be all about understanding and using knowledge to solve problems. We need to teach students how to think. This colleague is like so many teachers these days who emphasize insight, creativity, inquiry learning, communication skills, and the like. In science education, inquiry learning is all the rage. In the process of educational reform, the reformers discount the importance of memory.” (Klemm, 2007, 62) The focus on using knowledge to solve problems has taken the focus away from ensuring students have foundational knowledge. The result was a decline in literacy, language development, math skills, and the ability for students to successfully complete higher order thinking tasks and assessments. “The ultimate goal should be to teach people how to think, solve problems — and to create. Central to these capabilities, however, is the ability to remember things. The more one knows (remembers), the more intellectual competencies one has to draw upon for thinking, problem solving, and even creativity. Society does not need a workforce of trained seals, but it does need people with knowledge and skills. Knowledge and skills are acquired through memory. Even our ability to think depends on memory.” (Klemm, 2007) Students need to remember vocabulary terms in most content areas to be successful, and economics was no exception. This study will show that students who learn rote memory to memorize economics vocabulary terms achieve at higher levels than students who forgo learning content-based vocabulary.

Literature Review

In a high school economics course, students must be able to both identify components of scenarios, graphs, and word problems and use their skills to identify concepts to analyze information to arrive at the correct answer. Retention of content vocabulary aids in their ability to think critically and perform higher on content assessments. The issue with vocabulary retention in Baldwin High School and so many schools throughout the nation was the lack of literacy skills. Students lack fundamental vocabulary, language development, and literacy skills needed to be successful at the secondary level.

“The ELC serves a population of children that statistics show are at high risk for not being successful in school. The primary disadvantage for this student population is the socio-economic level. Over 90% of our students live below the poverty level. The added dilemma of excessively high unemployment rates in Baldwin County complicates the efforts of families to improve their income levels. Parents are so consumed with providing the basic living needs for their children that discussions of literacy and school readiness often seem unimportant relative to their living situations. It is estimated that close to 30 percent of ELC children are in homes where the highest educational attainment by a parent/guardian is LESS than a high school diploma. Approximately another 55 percent are in households where a high school diploma or its equivalent is the highest level of education attained. Roughly, one out of every 5 children at the ELC is served with either progress-monitoring, an RTI Plan, an SST Plan, or an IEP for speech/language delays or deficiencies. Approximately 21% of the currently enrolled students failed the initial developmental Brigance screener. This reflects achievement gaps present before formalized schooling ever begins.” (Striving Reader Grant)

“A related study conducted by the National Endowment for the Arts presents ‘a detailed but bleak assessment of the decline of reading’s role in the nation’s culture.’ Entitled Reading at Risk, the report of this survey of national trends among American adults reveals that "literary reading in America is not only declining rapidly among all groups, but the rate of decline has accelerated, especially among the young.” (Galloway, 2007). According to the American College Testing Program (ACT), “Only half of the 1.2 million high school seniors who took its test in 2005 are prepared for the reading requirements of a first-year college course.” (Galloway, 2007) The same applies to the low math rates across the country. Students lack fundamental math skills such as multiplication, division, addition, and subtraction facts. The working memory of the mathematic facts aid in a student’s ability to think in more complex mathematic terms such as multi-step equations. In a 2003 study, U.S. students were already performing lower than their peers on a global level. “U.S. students consistently performed below average, ranking 8th or 9th out of twelve at all three grade levels.” (AIR, 2005)

Teaching and learning are constantly evolving but data consistently prove achievement gaps are not evolving, but remaining constant. As research repeatedly shows the U.S. declining in testing, literacy, and math, the achievement gap remains wide open. Teaching and learning should focus on ensuring students have the foundational skills needed to be successful with higher order thinking tasks.

“How much understanding is needed depends on the subject of writing or talking. Learning differential equations requires more understanding than gross anatomy. But memory is even important in abstract subjects that seem to require more understanding. I remember as a college freshmen taking engineering math and going into the final exam with an F average because I was trying, and failing, to understand everything. I decided to study for the final exam by memorizing all the formulas and all the situations to which they applied. I made a 100 on the final and passed the course. Along these same lines, a middle-school math teacher once told me that her Special Education students could do the same level of math problems as regular students if only they could remember the steps.” (Klemm, 2007)

Methods

Participants

The study consisted of two twelfth grade classes of Economics at Baldwin High School in Milledgeville, Georgia. Each member of two classes, first and second block, were included in the study and selected based on their enrollment in the course. Both sections of Economics include 12th grade students and were taught by the same teacher.

A total of 54 students participated in the study. Each student’s assessment data was recorded from two separate assessments in three separate units. The first assessment was a vocabulary unit assessment which required students to exhibit the ability to recall unit vocabulary in both multiple-choice and matching questions. The second assessment was a unit assessment with Depth of Knowledge questions that range from levels 2 to 4. The unit assessment was a common assessment used in the Baldwin High School social studies department. Data was also collected regarding whether each student completed their vocabulary notecard assignment. Each student had the ability to create an electronic notecard set at or create handmade notecards.

The students who participated in both the survey and the assessment data ranged from 17 years of age to 19 years of age. As Figure 1 shows, the majority, or 57% of students, were 17 years of age. The second highest subgroup were students 18 years of age, comprising 35% of the sample. A small percentage of 19-year-olds comprised the population at 8%.

Figure 1. Participant Age.

Female and male students participated in the research. Female students made up 52% of the population, while male students made up 48% of the class populations.

Figure 2. Participant Gender.

From the 54 students who participated, 74% of students were African American, 22% were White, 2% were Hispanic, and 2% were of more than one race.

Figure 3. Participant Race.

Students with disabilities comprised 15% of the population, students with 504 plans made up 5% of the population, and the majority of the population, 80%, were identified general education students.

Figure 4. Participant’s with Disabilities or 504 plans.

The majority of the students were eligible for free and reduced lunch, 94%, indicating the majority of the sample lives below what the Federal and State Government has set as the poverty line.

Figure 5. Participant Free & Reduced Lunch.

Procedure

Participants were given access to the Google Form that contained the survey questions for the research. Students used two classroom computers to complete the survey and then peers who had yet to take the survey rotated with those that had already completed the form.

Participants were each assessed on a unit vocabulary assessment and a unit multiple-choice assessment consisting of DOK 1, 2, and 3 level questions. Students were asked to complete their assigned vocabulary notecards during assigned times of the classroom period. The assessment data of the students who completed the vocabulary cards was compared to students who did not complete the notecards to assess whether there was a positive correlation between students who completed vocabulary notecards and assessment scores.

Materials

A survey was constructed and used for research purposes. The survey was developed and designed by the researcher from scratch. The survey contained four simple constructed response questions dealing with student usage of vocabulary, usage of resources, student opinion on how vocabulary cards impact learning, student opinion of effectiveness of vocabulary note cards in an economics course, and the difference between learning with and without vocabulary note cards.

Results

The Comparison Group A were students who completed the vocabulary notecard assignment and Comparison Group B consisted of students who did not complete the vocabulary notecard assignment. Data from three units was assessed for this study. Each student was required to complete a list of vocabulary words on notecards for each unit, and subsequently completed an assessment on the unit vocabulary and the unit test which consisted of fifty multiple choice questions. To ensure the data was reader-friendly, I’ve compiled averages of each assessment or assignment.

Table 1

Pre-test and Post-test data from vocabulary and unit summative assessments

|Group |Pre-test |Pre-test Unit |Post-test |Post-Test Unit |Gain from Pre- to |Gain from Pre- to |

| |Vocabulary |Summative |Vocabulary |Summative |Post-Test Vocabulary |Post-Test Unit |

| | | | | | |Summative |

|Unit 1 |

|Group A/Completed |42% |56% |91.7% |83.8% |49.7% |27.8% |

|Notecards | | | | | | |

|Group B/ Did not |42% |56% |75.2% |77.9% |14% |21.9% |

|Complete Notecards | | | | | | |

|Unit 2 |

|Group A/Completed |37% |29% |91.6% |82.3% |54.6% |53.3% |

|Notecards | | | | | | |

|Group B/ Did not |37% |29% |73.2% |77.8% |36.2% |48.8% |

|Complete Notecards | | | | | | |

|Unit 3 |

|Group A/Completed |39% |17% |78.4% |82.6% |39.4% |65.6% |

|Notecards | | | | | | |

|Group B/ Did not |39% |17% |68.7% |74.3% |29.7% |57.3% |

|Complete Notecards | | | | | | |

Discussion

For each unit an independent sample t-test was conducted and then compared to the scale scores of classroom assessments among students that completed the unit vocabulary study assignment (Group A) and students who did not complete the assignment (Group B). For unit one, the mean or average for assessment data was 87.75% for the Group A. The mean or average for assessment data for Group B was 76.55%. Group A scored an average of 11.2 points higher on their assessments than students who failed to complete the assignment. On the unit one vocabulary assessment, Group A scored on average of 91.7% on the assessment, while Group B scored an average of 75.2% on the assessment, showing a 16.5 percentage point gap. Group A scored an average of 83.8% on the assessment which was 5.9 points higher than Group B which averaged 77.9% on the assessment. The gains from the pre-test to the post-test unit one vocabulary assessment for Group A was 49.7%, and the gain on unit one summative assessment was 27.8% for the group. Group B gained 14% on the vocabulary assessment for unit one and 21.9% on the unit one summative assessment. The difference between the gains on the vocabulary assessment were a significant 35.7% higher for Group A than Group B, and the gains on unit one summative assessment were only 5.9% higher.

For unit two, an independent sample t-test was conducted and then compared to the scale scores of classroom assessments. The scores between Group A and Group B showed that there was a slight difference between the two groups (t=0.346, df=52, p=.173). For unit two, the mean or average for assessment data was 86.95% for Group A. The mean or average for assessment data for Group B was 75.5%. Group A average scored 11.45 points higher on their assessments than Group B. On the unit two vocabulary assessment, Group A scored an average of 91.6% correct on the assessment, while Group B scored an average of 73.25% on the assessment showing an 18.35 percentage point gap. Group A scored an average of 82.3% on the unit assessment which was 4.5 percentage points higher than Group B which averaged 77.8% correct on the assessment. The gains from the pre-test to the post-test unit two vocabulary assessment for Group A was 54.6% and the gain on unit two summative assessment was 53.3% for the group. Group B gained 36.2% on the vocabulary assessment for unit two and 48.8% on the unit two summative assessment. The difference between the gains on the vocabulary assessment were 18.4% higher for Group A than Group B, and the gains on unit two summative assessment were only 4.5% higher.

For unit three, an independent sample t-test was conducted and then compared to the scale scores of classroom assessments. The scores between students that completed the unit vocabulary study assignment (Group A) and students who did not complete the assignment (Group B) showed that there was a significant difference between the two groups (t=0.049, df=52, p= 0.024). For unit three, the mean or average for assessment data was 80.5% for Group A. The mean or average for assessment data for Group B was 71.5%. Group A scored an average of 9 points higher on their assessments than Group B. On the unit three vocabulary assessment, Group A scored on average of 78.4% on the assessment, while Group B scored on average of 68.7% on the assessment showing a 9.7 gap. Group A scored an average of 82.6% on the unit assessment which was 8.3 points higher than Group B which averaged 74.3% on the assessment. The gains from the pre-test to the post-test unit three vocabulary assessment for Group A was 39.4% and the gain on the unit three summative assessment was 65.6% for the group. Group B gained 29.7% on the vocabulary assessment for unit three and 57.3% on the unit three summative assessment. The difference between the gains on the vocabulary assessment were 9.7% higher for Group A than Group B, and the gains on unit three summative assessment were 8.3% higher.

An independent sample t-test was conducted and then compared to the scale scores of all the classroom assessments among Group A and Group B showed that there was a slight difference between the two groups (t=0.2453, df=52, p= 0.122). When comparing the data as a whole the mean or average of assessment data for Group A was 85.05%, which was 10.6% higher than the 74.45% mean for Group B. The mean of total assessment data for the unit vocabulary tests for Group A was 87.2%, which was 14.9% higher than Group B. Group B had a mean score of 72.3%. Group A had a mean score of 82.9% on their unit assessment. The mean was 6.3% higher than the assessment mean, 76.6%, for Group B.

Student Survey Data

Students were asked to voluntarily complete four questions regarding learning vocabulary. Thirty-seven students completed the survey which represents 69% of the students who were invited. The survey questions can be found in Appendix A.

The first question on the survey was selected response and asked students, “How do you normally learn vocabulary for your classes?” The possible responses were “, notecards, foldables, and I do not study vocabulary”. As figure 1 shows, the majority of students, 64%, cited using notecards/flashcards to study vocabulary words.

Figure 6. Participant reported methods for learning new vocabulary.

The second question was selected response and asked students, “How do you use Quizlet resources?” The possible responses were “flashcards, tests, games, all of the above, and doesn’t use”. The majority of students cited using the all the resources has to offer such as the flashcards, test, games, and completion.

Figure 7. Participant reported methods for using Quizlet resources.

The third question was selected response and asked students, “How do you think using Quizlet or vocabulary cards impacts your learning when you compare it to how you previously learned vocabulary?” The possible responses were “increases achievement, decreases achievement, the result was the same as other methods, and I do not use notecards to study vocabulary. A 73% majority of students believed Quizlet and/or notecards increased their academic achievement.

Figure 8. Participant reported vocabulary notecards impact on learning.

The fourth question was selected response and asked students, “Has using vocabulary cards specifically helped increase your achievement in Economics?” The possible responses were “yes”, “no” and “I do not complete the assignments”. A majority, or 72% of students, believed that Quizlet and/or notecards has helped improve achievement in their economics class specifically.

Figure 9. Participant reported how vocabulary cards increase achievement in Economics.

Limitations of Study

Comparison Group A were students who completed the vocabulary notecard assignment and Comparison Group B consisted of students who did not complete the vocabulary notecard assignment. The study was limited by not observing a group who simply did not complete the vocabulary assignment for all three units since some students were included in each comparison group dependent on the unit. The students who did not complete the assignment did so willingly even though they were given class time, study hall time, and more than enough time and reminders to complete the vocabulary cards. Perhaps a better comparison group would be a class who has not received an assignment to complete vocabulary cards.

Conclusions and Future Study

Social Studies content areas are vocabulary intensive, and vocabulary knowledge is the basis for content areas such as economics. The research and corresponding data shows an increase in achievement for both vocabulary and unit assessments. Students who completed a set of vocabulary cards, whether electronically on or by hand, consistently achieved higher results on both the vocabulary and unit assessment than their counterparts. There were also consistent gains for Group A and Group B, however, Group A scored higher on all assessments.

The student survey data captures student views on the use of vocabulary cards in a twelfth grade Economics classroom. The majority of students believed vocabulary cards, whether electronic or hand-written, improved achievement in all subjects, but specifically Economics. The student survey’s showed vocabulary cards as a study tool used normally by this group of students, which should lead to future study and research on the correlation between using rote memory with fundamental skills and foundational learning to gauge the achievement on higher order thinking assessments and performance tasks.

To gain a complete understanding of vocabulary study tools and their effects on student achievement, it is necessary to conduct a study that includes all content areas and secondary grade levels. It is also important to conduct a study that includes the usage of only web 2.0 tools such as and hand-written notecards to gauge if there is a difference in achievement rates among students. Further study could also concentrate on subgroups such as African Americans, genders, and students with disabilities to determine if data can help close the achievement gaps in each subgroup.

References

Dana Gioia, "Preface," Reading at Risk (Washington, DC: National Endowment for the Arts, June 2004), p. vii.

Galloway, D. (2007). Declining Literacy: Do the Textbooks Contribute to the Problem? Teacher to Teacher: Balanced Perspectives in Education, 11(2), 1-8. Retrieved from

Kaur, N. (2015). Making Meaning of Vocabulary Learning: Seizing Opportunities at Opportune Moments. GEMA Online Journal Of Language Studies, 15(2), 1-16.

Klemm, W. (2007). What Good Is Learning If You Don’t Remember It? The Journal of Effective Teaching an Online Journal Devoted to Teaching Excellence, 7(1), 61-73. Retrieved from

McMurrer, J., Kober, N., & Center on Education, P. (2011). State Test Score Trends through 2008-09, Part 5: Progress Lags in High School, Especially for Advanced Achievers. Center On Education Policy,

New study finds U.S. math students consistently behind their peers around the world. (2005). The American Institutes for Research (AIR). Retrieved from

Striving Readers Grant, Baldwin County Schools. (2014, December 2). Retrieved from

Vigdor, J. (n. d.). Main content area Solving America's Math Problem. Education Next, 13(1). Retrieved from . login.aspx? direct=true&db=edsggo&AN=edsgcl.313012647&site=eds-live&scope=site

Appendix A: Student Survey Questions

1. How do you normally learn vocabulary for your classes?

1. How do you use Quizlet resources?

2. How do you think using Quizlet or vocabulary cards impacts your learning when you compare it to how you previously learned vocabulary?

3. Has using vocabulary cards specifically helped increase your achievement in Economics?

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

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

Google Online Preview   Download