aherndonksumed.weebly.com · web viewtechnology implementation in the classroom is being pushed by...

Running Head: Technology Assisted Instruction 1

The Impact of Technology Assisted Instruction on Multiplication Fact Fluency

Amanda P. Herndon

Kennesaw State University

Technology Assisted Instruction 2

Table of Content

Abstract………………………………………………………………………………………….. 3

Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………… 4

Review of Literature……………………………………………………………...……………… 6

Improving Student Motivation and Engagement using the IWB………………………………… 8

Teacher’s Perception of the Interactive Whiteboard…………………………………………….. 9

The Influence of the Interactive Whiteboard on Students Academic Performance……...………11

Methodology……………………………………………………………………………………..13

Purpose…………………………………………………………………………………………...13

Setting……………………………………………………………………………………………13

Participants……………………………………………………………………………………….15

Procedures………………………………………………………………………………………..15

Data Analysis…………………………………………………………………………………….17

Results……………………………………………………………………………………………18

Limitations…………………………………………………………………………………….…19

Implications…………………………………………………………………………………....... 21

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………… 21

References………………………………………………………………………………………. 22

Appendix A………………………………………………………………………………………25

Appendix B…………………………………………………………………………………........26

Figure 1…………………………………………………………………………………………..29

Figure 2…………………………………………………………………………………………..30

Figure 3…………………………………………………………………………………………..31

Figure 4………………………………………………………………………………………….32


The Impact of Technology Assisted Instruction on Multiplication Fact Fluency

Abstract

Technology implementation in the classroom is being pushed by professional educators

as research has shown the positive impacts of student motivation, student engagement, and

academic achievement. Mathematics instruction varies vastly throughout classrooms due to

different teaching strategies and pedagogies from educators across the globe. A controversial

debate of how to properly teach mathematics to elementary age students; some educators and

researches have pushed the idea of having children explore math problems on their own without

the aid of a teacher showing them the proper way to find solutions beforehand. Students at the

elementary level are required to learn their multiplication facts in a manner that they can

automatically know the solutions. Educators are constantly exploring new ways to teach

multiplication so that it is fun, engaging, and methods that students respond to positively while

retaining all the information taught and learned. Traditional methods of teaching multiplication

include many paper and pencil and memorization methods, which are being paired with

technology based instruction in hopes to improve mathematics performance from students in

classrooms. With the push to implement technology in the classroom across all subject areas, the

internet offers several resources that aid students learning and practice of multiplication fact

fluency. Math has the lowest achievement scores on benchmarks and standardized tests in many

school districts today and new solutions are being explored to raise test scores. An effort to

increase achievement on multiplication fact tests through the implementation of technology

during multiplication fact practice is the subject of this study.


Introduction

Research has shown how the use of the Interactive Whiteboard has improved

mathematics scores and also has lead to more student engagement and motivation during

instruction of academics (McQuillan, Northcote, M., & Beamish, P. 2012). The pairing of

traditional teaching resources such as books and technology is increasing in classrooms.

Technology assisted aids and resources such as promethean boards, iPods, iPads, Kindles,

interactive websites, and eBooks, along with many others are becoming more popular and

prevalent tools of teaching. Teaching mathematics across all areas can be seen as a struggle for

many educators and students due to the fact that teaching repetition and memorization methods

of learning basic math facts can seem dull and boring (McQuillan, Northcote, M., & Beamish, P.

2012). The need for more interactive learning styles in mathematics and alternative teaching

methods has become a hot topic in education today. Educators at all levels are being encouraged

to try new teaching strategies in math in order to increase student motivation, student

engagement, and student performance in mathematics. Curriculum is being designed with more

technology integration and resources in many states; math publishing companies are providing

educators with interactive websites that correlate with the math curriculum. Overall technology

is becoming more common in classrooms today ranging from videos, games, flipcharts used on

the interactive white boards, student responders, etc.

Math is the lowest achieving subject area on both standardized test scores and benchmark

test scores in the school and district in which I teach. Since our school has opened in 2006, math

has been an area for needed improvement at the end of each academic year based on

standardized test scores and school accreditation (AYP) statistics. More technological resources

such as iPads, internet based programs and games, and computers are being used to enhance


math instruction to help improve this area of weakness across all grade levels. Many studies have

shown that the diversity within a school student population such as race, ethnicity, socio

economics status, and language along with the curriculum and technological resources available

for teaching, directly influence math achievement scores in schools. Teaching 5th grade students

has allowed me to see the how much students struggle to master the appropriate grade level

Common Core Georgia Performance Standards due to their lack of basic math multiplication fact

fluency skills. Completing multi step word problems and real world math problems is expected

of 5th grade students, however their inability to quickly recall multiplication facts hinders them

from being able to complete expected tasks. Basic multiplication facts such as 6 x 7=42 should

be a math fact that is an automatic and fluent response of a typical 5th grade student performing

on grade level. However, many students are drawing pictures and arrays for simple

multiplication facts, which allow teachers such as me to see how students need more intervention

with multiplication fact fluency. Using technological resources and non-traditional teaching

methods that are becoming more common in education today are great teaching methods to try

out in order to see if they can improve math achievement. Throughout my research project, I am

interested to see if I can help improve multiplication fact fluency achievement using alternate

forms of instruction aside from traditional methods. The incorporation of interactive web

multiplication games on the promethean board will be used with a group of students to see its

effects on multiplication fact fluency achievement. Basic flash cards practice and memorization

instruction will be compared to the promethean board group of students. Overall, multiplication

fact automaticity and achievement will be measured using two very different forms of

instruction.


Review of Literature

Integrating technology in schools today means more than teaching basic computer skills,

rather the use of technology needs to deepen the learning process and support all curricular goals.

“Increased availability of computers and students’ increased interest in using computers for

communication and socialization has led educators to explore ways to use computers as tools to

enhance student learning” (Spradlin & Ackerman, 2010). I would have to agree with this

research statement, as I have personally seen interest in using technology and computers in all of

my students. As modern times are more technology driven in general and especially in the

workforce, students need the opportunity to learn curriculum while being challenged to

incorporate technology tools in their learning processes and projects. Various types of

technology from interactive white boards, iPads, eBooks, kindles, mobile devices, etc. are being

used in classrooms today to teach along with the traditional teaching styles of paper and pencil.

Student motivation, engagement, performance on assessments, and learning experiences are

being impacted with the integration of technology in the classrooms today (Geer, R., & Sweeney,

T.A. (2012). Technology is providing various methods of teaching that are convenient and easily

accessed in the classrooms today, also including virtual learning and online classes. With

students being so familiar with the web and most having their own mobile devices, fewer

challenges arise in the classroom where concerning students’ familiarity with the use of

technology. Jackson suggested in his research that children who were not being allowed to bring

technology to class were frustrated since many children are allowed to bring technology to

school (Jackson, 2012). The use of textbooks, that are often outdated, is being replaced with up

to date information found from various internet sources. Global topics and ideas can be easily

accessed with just the click of a button, whereas long drawn out discussions used to take place in


order to try to explain something foreign to students, for instance learning about a different

country or trending news worldwide. Research has also shown that students are absorbing ten

times more than they used too by having the immediate and convenience of web based

instructional resources (Amolo and Dees, 2007). Amolo and Dees (2007) also suggest that

integrating technology in the classroom has said to enhance relationships between students and

teachers as well. Students are said to play active roles in their learning process rather than a

passive role, when all lessons were teacher directed at students sitting in desks (Ayesha &

Timothy). This literature review will provide previous research studies on teachers and students

perceptions of the interactive whiteboard, the impact of technology in student motivation and

performance in math more specifically.

Mathematics is a struggle for a many students, and this stems from not being able to see

the “how” and “why” in mathematical thinking and solutions. Being proficient in mathematics

has been defined by a specific researcher as a collection of skills including “mathematical

knowledge, skills, developed abilities, habits of mind and attitudes that are essential ingredients

for life in the 21st century” (Devlin, 2013). This definition gives a clear idea of how challenging

math can be to both learn and teach as math inhibits several skills and concepts tightly

intertwine. After reading this definition of math, it stands out to me even more the importance of

embracing technology methods of teaching and learning math, as it can provide alternate routes

of teaching and learning math. Pre designed lesson and games are readily available to use on the

interactive white board that provides a variety of learning styles for teaching students. Interactive

whiteboards are among many other popular technological tools being used in the classroom

today. An interactive whiteboard is a large interactive display that connects to a computer. A

projector projects the computer's desktop onto the board's surface where users control the


computer using a pen, finger, stylus, or other device. It is very easy to design and create lessons

using the (IWB) Interactive Whiteboard that will meet the different needs of your students.

Movies, articles, pictures, and interactive websites can be easily accessed from the IWB without

using the computer directly, which makes accessing instructional materials more convenient and

prompt in lessons.

Improving Student Motivation and Engagement using the IWB

In today’s society children are constantly exposed to various forms of media, where they

are interacting with people and using information almost mainly through social media. Because

media is such a natural part of many children’s everyday lives, they are entering classrooms

today with these preconceived ideas that technology should be a tool for learning (Geer, R., &

Sweeney, T.A. (2012). “Research has revealed that the use of digital devices in the classroom

setting was capable of facilitating faculty-student interactions and in-class participation, which in

turn enhanced engagement and active learning” (Fitch, 2004; Partee, 1996; Stephens, 2005). As

educators, we all want our students to be actively engaged during lessons, as we know this

usually means the students are gaining more knowledge from the content being taught. A recent

study researched what students and teachers found important when using the IWB (Gorder,

2008). Teachers and students in many places are highly encouraged to use technology in their

classroom this day in time. Motivation in mathematics is often time an area of concern, as math

in the past has been taught using paper and pencil, with little or no modeling or interaction

available. In a recent study in 2012, Greer and Sweeney found information about students’

opinions about using technology in the classroom and asked students about their preference of

being taught using the IWB or without the IWB. Many students felt they learned more using the

IWB and student participation was more frequent when the teacher used the IWB (McQuillan,


Northcote, & Beamish, 2012). It is important however that the teacher properly use the IWB

correctly, being sure not to overuse the IWB. Teacher-centered instruction has been known to be

the means on instruction using the IWB, and while this is true, teachers need to be sure to keep

lesson student-centered. Student journals were used in one study to see their views of using the

IWB. One student recorded in his journal, “With an interactive whiteboard you get to do more”

(Amolo & Dees, 2007). He was comparing using the IWB and the traditional sitting in a desk

and raising your hand to answer questions learning environment. Students also referred to liking

being able to touch, drag, sort, and click images and words on the board. Even students who had

never been exposed to the IWB, after being taught, they had positive experiences and 99 % said

they learned better using it (Amolo & Dees, 2007). Students recognizing the differences in their

own learning success and experience while interacting with an IWB over a traditional chalkboard

or whiteboard style learning, support the idea that they enjoy using the IWB. There are students

that do not enjoy certain math concepts due to a high frustration and/or struggle level, but one

study found that students attitudes towards learning about fractions was way more positive and

students were more engaged when learning fractions on the IWB (Preisig, J. K.).

Being able to switch from various media sources allows for less down time during

lessons. The convenience of being able to navigate on the web and back and forth from various

games and activities on the IWB keeps students focused and engaged. Students love playing

games, even if its educational games, and research shows that students engagement is higher

when they are actively involved using the IWB.

Teacher’s Perception of the Interactive Whiteboard

Many educators feel overwhelmed when learning new teaching techniques, especially

when it involves technology. In order for teachers to use technology efficiently and effectively it


is important that they have proper training. Having confidence while using the IWB in important

for both teachers and students. Teachers have said they enjoy using the IWB as it has access to a

wide variety of internet resources (McQuillan, Northcote, & Beamish, 2012). It was also found

that when the students are able to “touch” the IWB to do various tasks, they feel special. This is a

positive for both teachers and students. Teaching using the IWB with more student engagement

would also correlate with less classroom management issues. Teaching using the IWB also

allows teachers to be more flexible with their lessons. Many teachers have also reported that the

IWB helps manage instructional time (Türel & Johnson, 2012). Teachers also have reported that

using the IWB allows them to make their lessons more visual. This can be a challenge in many

ways. Many times instructional materials are not available to make lessons more visual or the

costs of supplies is too expensive to buy personally. Most teachers believe using the IWB makes

teaching more enjoyable and they are very interested in learning more about the IWB. Using the

IWB has shown to enhance instructional components of lessons, motivational effects, and

usability.

Teachers have also claimed that they feel rushed for time while teaching, and trying to

integrate technology puts more stress of their time frames (Gorder, 2008). It can be very

frustrating being crunched for time as well all know, and teachers who are less confident in using

technology may become more frustrated navigating their way through technological resources.

Proper training is important in order for teachers to use technology in an effective way, without

causing loss time due to technical difficulties or insufficiencies. Often time’s teachers have felt

as if they were learning along with students when using technology. This can be true, especially

for teachers who have years and years of experience, who began teaching when technology in the

classroom wasn’t much thought of, besides maybe an overhead projector. Using technology in


the classroom should be used by teachers to facilitate collaboration and cooperation in the

classroom among students.

The Influence of the Interactive Whiteboard on Student Academic Performance

It seems as though students have never been thrilled with the idea of learning math, and I

think this is true because math is often an area of struggle for many students. In the past there has

been little variation in teaching styles for math. “Combining technology and non-technology

activities” has been found to create positive math learning experiences according to (Anderson,

Edwards, & Maloy, 2010). Many students often ask “why” in math and the response they get is

“just do it.” This makes understanding math difficult and discouraging at times. In today’s era,

there are many manipulatives and resources available that allow students to see the “how” and

“why” factors in math through modeling and various interactive activities. The IWB allows

students to actively participate in drawing, calculating, sorting, and demonstrating math

problems. A recent study by Preisig, focused on students’ performance in math specifically

dealing with fractions using the IWB to improve their performance. Results did show that

students using the IWB for fraction instruction did improve more from the pre-test to the post-

test, compared to the control group who did not use the IWB. Students also seemed to think the

fraction problems were easier on the IWB (Preisig, J. K). The ability to physically touch the

board to model mathematical problems seems to make solving math problems easier for students,

as well as increasing their performance on assessments. Another study conducted found that

children who were hard of hearing and struggling with math achievement, benefited from using

an interactive singing math vocabulary computer assisted program (Vesel, 2013). This study

shows that students with various learning abilities and disabilities are benefiting from the

integration of technology in the classroom. (Cviko, McKenney, &Voot, 2012) conducted a study


where they used PictoPal as a curriculum for literacy. PictoPal is a technology rich curriculum

that focuses on literacy, much like other online eBooks, accelerated reader, Scholastic Wiggle

Works, etc. This study showed that children using the technology curriculum where they could

actively participate in language, reading, and writing activities either orally or audibly through

the computer did better on assessments. However, another study compared students reading and

taking assessments by electronic reader (iPad) and then traditionally printed text, and did not find

any significant gain in correct responses by using the electronic reader (Cviko, McKenney, &

Voot, 2012). It was observed that students more often used reference sources such as dictionaries

when using the iPad more than the students reading the printed text. It was also observed that

children took longer reading on the iPad. This particular study did not find any increase in

reading comprehension by using electronic readers over printed text (Wright, S., Fugett, A., &

Caputa, F. (2013). Some students may prefer reading using electronic texts over traditionally

printed books, but this doesn’t necessarily mean they will perform better on comprehension

assessments.

With the growing number of students in the United States with English as a second

language, technology has played a huge role in helping English language learners become

successful. There are many resources available such as English language learning web sites,

computer assisted language learning programs, presentation software, electronic dictionaries,

chatting and email messaging programs, listening CD-players, and learning video-clips (Omar

S., L). In the past there have been limited resources for helping ELL (English Language

Learners) students not only learn the rules of the English language, but also build enough

confidence within them to be successful. Therefore these students need more resources available

to them for language support. They need to practice in hearing language, reading language,


speaking language, and writing language in order to develop their experience and skills (Ybarra

& Green, 2003). This is made possible with all of the technological resources available in

today’s 21st century classrooms. About 98 % of students believe using computers and technology

would improve their language skills. There are limitations however, one being that some students

have access to computers in the school environment only, creating a gap between language

developments at school versus home (Warschauer et al., 2004).

Methodology

Purpose

The purpose of this research study is to see if the use of interactive web instructional

activities and games conducted using a promethean board (interactive white board) will increase

math multiplication fact fluency scores and growth. Being in a school with a very diverse

student population makes for a large amount of students who struggle in the area of math. Using

instructional activities and games via the promethean board is hopefully going to increase

student achievement in mathematic multiplication fact fluency. Student engagement and

motivation will hopefully also increase during instruction, although this is not what is directly

being studied.

Setting

This research study began in January 2014 and ended in February 2014. The school in

which I teach is a Title 1 school having 870 students. The total population of School A broken

down by male and female is 440 students being males and 430 females. There are approximately

103 Hispanic students which equal 11.83% of the total school population. The African American

student population is 284 students, being 32.64%. There is a white student population makes up


48.04% of the student population which equals out to be 418 students. There are 24 students with

an Asian ethnicity. Asian ethnicity is a small percentage of the student population which is 2.7%.

The free and reduced lunch percentage is 51.75%.

White 418/870 48.04%

African American 284/870 32.64%

Hispanic 103/870 11.83%

Asian 24/870 2.7%

Male 440/870 50.57%

Female 430/870 49.42%

Free and Reduced Lunch 51%

The gifted student population is around 4.6% of the total student population. School A

has a 4.4% ESOL students. The special education student population is around 9.5% along with a

16.7% of students receiving EIP services.

The research was conducted in a classroom of 22 students, all being 5th grade students.

There are 12 males and 10 females, 4 students receiving IEP services, with 4 students receiving

EIP services, which is 36% combined of my class. 3 gifted students are a part of the class which

makes up 14%. There is 0% ESOL student population. Currently 8 out of the 22 students in the

class receive free or reduced lunch, making up 36% of my classroom.

Male 12/22, 60%

Female 10/22, 45%

IEP Services 4/22, 18%


EIP Services 4/22, 18%

Gifted 3/22, 14%

ESOL 0/22, 0%

Free and Reduced Lunch 8/22, 36%

Participants

Two diverse groups of students ranging from ages 8-10 years old are the participants in

this research study of multiplication fact fluency achievement. Students vary in age, race,

ethnicity, religion, socio economic background, achievement level, etc. None of the participants

have been retained during their elementary school career. All of the students are in a regular

education 5th grade classroom with a regular education teacher for the most part of the school

day. A special education teacher does collaborate into the classroom for 1 hour of the school day

to assist math instruction. The need for a special education teacher personnel in the classroom

was determined based on the student population’s previous CRCT tests scores from the year

before. Many of the students barely met or did not meet standards on the math portion of the

CRCT the prior year. All students will remain anonymous and given names such as Student A,

B, C, etc. throughout the research and data analysis process.

Procedures

Before beginning research, all students and parents were given a consent form that

informed them of the research being conducted (Appendix B). Signed consent forms were

received from all 22 students prior to beginning research in January. All 22 fifth grade students

were given the same pre assessment test beginning with the “two” multiplication fact tests. A

record sheet for each student was used and kept for determination of student groups for this study


(Appendix A). Student pre assessment were then scored and two groups of struggling students

were compiled based on pre assessment scores. I chose the participants carefully by pre-

assessment scores of multiplication fact timed tests given prior to the interventions being

conducted and studied for best academic achievement and growth. In order to get baseline of

where the students were performing at the beginning of the study in multiplication fact fluency, I

gave students a one minute timed multiplication test starting with the “two” multiplication fact

family was given. The timed test consisted of 60 multiplication problems all related to a specific

number fact family such as “7x1, 7x2, 7x3, 7x4, etc.” The multiplication tests were arranged so

that they are multiplication facts repeated, and the facts are arranged out of order so that no

pattern exists. Students are expected to get a 90% or higher scores on the timed test for each fact.

From prior data collected through benchmark tests and math tests, it was predicted that a

majority of 5th graders struggle with their 7’, 8’s, and/or 12 multiplication facts. According to pre

assessment scores, I wasn’t able to compile groups of struggling students until the “6”

multiplication fact test was administered. I then concluded that enough students scored below a

90 % expected score in order to make student groups. Once groups were determined, I then

divided the groups randomly with no specific criteria besides the pre assessment score data. I

chose the lowest five scores each time to create my groups of students. After the groups were

decided, I then explained to each group what would be expected of them during the week and

when they would be taking another timed multiplication test on the fact family they practiced all

week.

Once student groups were determined, each group of participants practiced the specific

multiplication facts in which they struggle in achievement and automaticity. The first group of

students, Group A, used a more traditional learning style for practicing multiplication facts. This


group practiced their multiplication facts with a partner using flash cards. Students worked

together to make their own set of flashcards and then facts were then checked by me, the teacher.

These students practiced five days a week for 15 minutes each day, using flash cards to quiz and

study with their partners. The second group of students participating in this research study

practiced the same multiplication facts as the first group, only they used a different learning

method. This group, Group B, practiced their multiplication facts five days a week for 15

minutes daily, using an interactive website “Sumdog” and “Multiplication Fruit Shoot.” Both of

these websites are interactive websites that provide various games and activities for practicing

multiplication facts. These students used the promethean board (interactive white board) as a

group to practice their multiplication facts. Students took turns using the pen that accompanies

the promethean board to select answers to multiplication fact problems posed. The game chosen

by the students for practice presented random multiplication problems while flashing various

solutions to the problem that were floating across the screen for the students to select the correct

answer. Students were helping other students during these games by calling out answers, while

some students seemed to think of these games as a race to shout out the correct solution. These

students were actively engaged for the most part, as they used the interactive pen and board to

practice multiplication problems. After one week of practice, each group then took the same

timed one minute multiplication fact test as they previously took for the pre assessment.

Data Analysis

The quantitative data collected from the pre and post assessment scores were compiled

into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet to determine growth for each student group. An overall group

average on post assessment scores was calculated as well, to determine the achievement of each

group of students in comparison to a 90% expected post assessment score, which shows mastery


of the multiplication fact family fluency. Each group of data was analyzed to determine how the

use of interactive web activities impacted student multiplication achievement in comparison to

the non-web interactive, flash card learning method group, if at all. This research was conducted

with the intent that the use of interactive web activities will show a greater increase in student

growth and achievement scores for multiplication fluency.

Results

At the conclusion of this study, data showed that there was not a significant increase in

student post test scores for one student group significantly more than the other student group

from pretest scores to post test scores for multiplication fact fluency. Student pre and post test

scores for all groups studied did not show any consistent increase or decrease in post test scores

for the students using technology or flash cards to practice multiplication facts as predicted. The

first group of students studied had the same exact mean for their post test scores for both the

flashcard (FC) group and the promethean board (PB) group, however their pretest scores varied

slightly, having only an average of a 3 point variation (Figure 1). T-test scores comparing the

post test scores of the flashcard group to the promethean board group showed a score of 1. The

second week the flash card group of students showed an increase of 14 points according to the

mean scores from the pretest to the post test, whereas the promethean board group showed an

increase of 8 points on average according to mean scores from the pretest to the post test (Figure

2). The T-test for the post test scores comparing the flashcard group of students to the

promethean board group of students showed a score of 0.56. This data shows no significant

difference between the groups of students studied and does not prove the group using technology

to have performed any better than the group not using technology. The third week data results

showed similarities with the first two weeks of data as the mean averages for both groups of


students for the pretest and posttest scores did not vary much amongst both groups of students

(Figure 3). The fourth group of students and the data analyzed for their pretest and posttest

showed the most growth for both groups of students. The flashcard group showed an average

increase of 33 points from pre to post test. The group using the promethean board showed an

average increase of 23 points from pre to post test (Figure 4).

Through informal observations of the students during practice time, it was found that the

students using the promethean board as a group had a hard time letting the student at the board

find solution to the math problems on their own. Students were sometimes found off task and

looking around the room if they were not the one standing at the board playing the game. The

flash card group of students were on task the majority of the time, with very little off task

behaviors as found in the technology group. The wide range of test scores found during this

study shows that the technology method of practice for multiplication did not increase post test

scores more than the flash card group of students.

Limitations

Limitations were present during this research study. The student groups changed each

week dependent upon new pre test scores which means that the same students were not used

consistently. Each group of students could have been kept consistent and only given one option

for practicing their facts, rather than each student floating from the flash card group one week, to

the technology group the next week. Student interests and learning styles were not surveyed and

taken into consideration which could have impacted the engagement and knowledge during

practice. Students who are not visual learners may have not shown an increase on posttests

scores, as they had difficulty solving math facts verbally. The different learning styles of students

could have impacted how the students responded to the group they were assigned during practice


time. Students with difficulty focusing and paying attention in a group setting may have had a

setback for learning when involved in this style environment. Consideration of each students

learning needs was not considered when compiling groups, as pre test scores were the only

criteria.

A break due to inclement weather was also a limitation during this study. Students who

had begun practice had a break in consistency of practicing multiplication facts when school was

closed for inclement weather. The 3 day break may have caused students to not retain

information as they would have without a break in practice. Students continued practicing the

same facts they were working when school was cancelled when they returned to school. Some

students did show difficult remembering what facts they were practicing when they returned to

school.

This study also began in the spring of 2014 which allowed students to already have more

knowledge than they would have had the study began in the fall. Starting a study such as this at

the beginning of the school year may have given more of an increase in post test scores due to

the lack of knowledge for the pre test scores. Students’ exposure to multiplication fact practice

for the first semester of the school year could have been the reason the data collected during this

study didn’t not show any significant increase for either group.

Another limitation present during this study was how the technology group was designed.

The students worked together in a group using one promethean board and one interactive pen,

instead of individually. This posed a problem for students staying engaged, as well as students

calling out answers before giving the student using the pen a chance to solve the problem.

Lastly, this study was only conducted for 4 weeks. Considering each multiplication fact

was only practiced for 5 days, 1 week, each may have impacted student post test scores. If


students were given more than one week to practice facts they struggled with, they may have

shown greater growth. Therefore, a longer research period may have shown greater growth

amongst groups of students.

Implications

There are several ways to improve this study if conducted in the future. Student groups

should be determined and kept consistent throughout the entire research to establish more

accurate results. The various students placed in groups that changed weekly allowed for many

variables that impacted these results.

The input of student surveys prior to beginning this study to determine student learning

interests and styles could help determine which of the two practice group students should be

placed in during practice. The input of this qualitative data such as surveys, could provide a

clearer picture as to why specific students should or should not be in a particular group

dependent upon needs and interests. Consideration of specific students who should not work

together for various reasons during practice could have also helped with student engagement

during practice.

Conclusion

This research showed a null hypothesis and the use of technology cannot be said to show

a greater growth in test scores for multiplication fact fluency. Further research needs to be

conducted in order to prove the positive impact of technology on mathematics academic

achievement at the elementary level. Consideration of the limitations present during this study

would help design a more reliable and valid research study and data findings.

References

Amolo, S. D., & Dees, E. (2007). The influence of interactive whiteboards on fifth-grade student


Anderson, G., Edwards, S. A., & Maloy, R. W. (2010). Teaching Math Problems Solving Using

a Web-based Tutoring System, Learning Games, and Students' Writing. Journal of STEM

Education, 11(12), 82-89.

Ayesha, S., Timothy J., N., & Peggy A., E. (n.d). Exploring pre-service teachers' beliefs about

using Web 2.0 technologies in K-12 classroom. Computers & Education, 59937-945.

doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.001

Couse, L. J Ciampa, K. (2012). Reading in the Digital Age: Using Electronic Books as a

TeachinTool for Beginning Readers. Canadian Journal Of Learning And

Technology, 38(2).

Cviko, A., McKenney, S., &Voot, J. (2012). Teachers enacting a technology-rich curriculum for

emergent literacy. Education Tech Research Dev, 31-54. Doi. 10. 1007/s11423-011-

9208-3

Devlin, K. (2013). The music of math games.(MACROSCOPE). American Scientist, (2), 87.

Gorder, Lynette . (Spring 2008) A Study of Teacher Perceptions of Instructional Technology

Integration in the Classroom. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal 50.2. 63-76.

Geer, R., & Sweeney, T.A. (2012) Students' Voices about Learning with Technology.

Journal of Social Sciences,8(2), 294-303.

Jackson, L. D. (2012). Is Mobile Technology in the Classroom a Helpful Tool or a Distraction?:

A Report of University Students' Attitudes, Usage Practices, and Suggestions for

Policies. International Journal Of Technology, Knowledge & Society, 8(5), 129-140.

Lam, P., & Tong, A. (2012). Digital Devices in Classroom--Hesitations of Teachers-to-Be.

Electronic Journal Of E-Learning, 10(4), 387-395.

Long, J. (2013). math: core connections tackling math with technology. Children's Technology


& Engineering, 17(3), 14-17.

Mark, W., David, G., Gabriel Del, R., & Michele, R. (n.d). Promoting academic literacy with

technology: successful laptop programs in K-12 schools. System, 32(Incorporating

Multimedia Capability in the Reporting of Applied Linguistics Research), 525-537.

doi:10.1016/j.system.2004.09.010

McQuillan, K., Northcote, M., & Beamish, P. (2012). What matters most when students and

teachers use interactive whiteboards in mathematics classrooms?. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 17(4), 3-7.

Omar S., L. (n.d). The Digital Learning Classroom: Improving English Language Learners’

academic success in mathematics and reading using interactive whiteboard technology.

Computers & Education, 54901-915. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.019

Preisig, J. K. Improving Student Motivation and Performance in Math.

Spradlin, K., & Ackerman, B. (2010). The Effectiveness of Computer-Assisted Instruction in

Developmental Mathematics. Journal Of Developmental Education, 34(2), 12-14,.

Torres, P., & Marriott, R. (2009). Handbook of Research on E-learning Methodologies for

Language Acquisition. Hershey: Information Science Reference

Türel, Y., & Johnson, T. E. (2012). Teachers' Belief and Use of Interactive Whiteboards for

Teaching and Learning. Journal Of Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 381-

394.Vesel, J. (2013). Teaching Mathematics Vocabulary with an Interactive Signing Math

Dictionary. Journal Of Research On Technology In Education, 45(4), 361-389.

Wright, S., Fugett, A., & Caputa, F. (2013). Using E-readers and Internet Resources to Support

Comprehension. Journal Of Educational Technology & Society, 16(1), 367-379.


doi:10.1598/JAAL.55.1.1. perceptions and learning experiences (Doctoral dissertation,

Valdosta State University).


Appendix A

Multiplication Fact Pre/Post Test Data

Student Name ________________________________

Test Date

2’s 3’s 4’s 5’s 6’s 7’s 8’s 9’s 10’s 11’s 12’s

_/_/_ __/60 __/60 __/60 __/60 __/60 __/60 __/60 __/60 __/60 __/60 __/60

_/_/_ __/60 __/60 __/60 __/60 __/60 __/60 __/60 __/60 __/60 __/60 __/60

_/_/_ __/60 __/60 __/60 __/60 __/60 __/60 __/60 __/60 __/60 __/60 __/60

_/_/_ __/60 __/60 __/60 __/60 __/60 __/60 __/60 __/60 __/60 __/60 __/60


Appendix B

PARENTAL CONSENT FORM WITH CHILD ASSENT STATEMENT

Title of Research Study: Researching math performance of multiplication fact fluency using standard methods of multiplication review such as flash cards versus technology assisted multiplication fact review

Researcher's Contact Information: Amanda Herndon, [email protected], 770-254-2597

Your child is being invited to take part in a research study conducted by Amanda Herndon of Kennesaw State University. Before you decide to allow your child to participate in this study, you should read this form and ask questions if you do not understand.

Description of Project

The purpose of the study is to research the impact of technology assisted programs on math multiplication fact fluency in 5th grade versus traditional flash card multiplication facts review.

Explanation of ProceduresMath multiplication fluency pre and post assessments will be taken from students being studied in this research. Students using flash cards and technology assisted programs for multiplication facts will be assessed using a times 2 minute multiplication test both before and after their math practices. Both the pre and post assessment scores will be compared for any correlation between using technology assistance for multiplication fluency versus traditional pencil/paper study methods such as flash cards.

Time RequiredThis research study should last between 4-8 weeks beginning in January 2014 and ending around February or March of 2014.

Risks or DiscomfortsThere are no risks or discomforts involved in this study.

BenefitsParticipants will increase their multiplication fluency through the methods conducted throughout the research study. Participants will also learn to work collaboratively in groups with peers on the same level of frustration and fluency of multiplication facts.

mailto:[email protected]


Confidentiality

The results of this participation will be anonymous. Data will collected using pre and post assessment multiplication fact fluency scores and stored in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. All students will be given an anonymous name and all data will be destroyed once the action research paper is complete in the spring of 2014.

Inclusion Criteria for Participation

All participants who are under the age of 18 will need a signed consent form from a parent or guardian in order to participate in this research study.

Parental Consent to Participate

I give my consent for my child, __________________________________________________________, to participate in the research project described above. I understand that this participation is voluntary and that I may withdraw my consent at any time without penalty. I also understand that my child may withdraw his/her assent at any time without penalty.

__________________________________________________Signature of Parent or Authorized Representative, Date

__________________________________________________Signature of Investigator, Date

_____________________________________________________________________________________

PLEASE SIGN BOTH COPIES OF THIS FORM, KEEP ONE AND RETURN THE OTHER TO THE INVESTIGATOR

Research at Kennesaw State University that involves human participants is carried out under the oversight of an Institutional Review Board. Address questions or problems regarding these activities to the Institutional Review Board, Kennesaw State University, 1000 Chastain Road, #0112, Kennesaw, GA 30144-5591, (678) 797-2268._____________________________________________________________________________________

Child Assent to Participate


My name is Amanda Herndon. I am inviting you to be in a research study about how we learn our multiplication facts the best. Your parent has given permission for you to be in this study, but you get to make the final choice. It is up to you whether you participate.

If you decide to be in the study, I will ask you to practice your multiplication facts either with a partner using flash cards or on the promethean board using games from Sumdog and Multiplication Fruit Shoot. You will then take a timed 2 minute multiplication test after you have practiced your facts.

You do not have to answer any question you do not want to answer or do anything that you do not want to do. Everything you say and do will be private, and your parents will not be told what you say or do while you are taking part in the study. When I tell other people what I learned in the study, I will not tell them your name or the name of anyone else who took part in the research study.

If anything in the study worries you or makes you uncomfortable, let me know and you can stop. No one will be upset with you if you change your mind and decide not to participate. You are free to ask questions at any time and you can talk to your parent any time you want. If you want to be in the study, sign or print your name on the line below:

_____________________________________________Child’s Name and Signature, Date

Check which of the following applies

Child is capable of reading and understanding the assent form and has signed above as documentation of assent to take part in this study.

Child is not capable of reading the assent form, but the information was verbally explained to him/her. The child signed above as documentation of assent to take part in this study.

_____________________________________________

Signature of Person Obtaining Assent, Date


Figure 1

FC SG 1 PRE

FC SG 1 POST

PB SG 1 PRE

PB SG 1 POST

70 65 55 6565 70 55 7055 60 60 6540 55 70 6060 90 65 80

N= 5 5 5 5Mean 58 68 61 68Median 60 65 60 65

Mode N/

A N/

A 55 65Max 70 90 70 80Minimum 40 55 55 60Range 30 35 15 20

Standard Deviation 11.51086 13.50926 6.5192 7.5829T-test FC SG 1 POST vs. PB SG 1 POST 1

FC SG 1 PRE FC SG 1 POST PB SG 1 PRE PB SG 1 POST52

54

56

58

60

62

64

66

68

70

Mean Scores


Figure 2


10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Mean Scores

FC SG 2 PRE

FC SG 2 POST

PB SG 2 PRE

PB SG 2 POST

25 50 30 5040 50 50 8065 100 75 7070 85 80 6580 85 60 70

N= 5 5 5 5Mean 58 74 59 67Median 65 85 60 70

Mode N/

A 50 N/A 70Max 80 100 80 80

Minimum 25 50 30 50Range 55 50 50 30

Standard Deviation 22.74863 22.74863 20.125 10.954T-test FC SG 2 POST vs. PB SG 2 POST 0.559010123


Figure 3


10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Mean Scores

FC SG 3 PREFC SG 3 POST

PB SG 3 PRE

PB SG 3 POST

40 70 55 7560 90 50 6060 70 50 10055 60 60 8070 80 40 65

N= 5 5 5 5Mean 57 74 51 76Median 60 70 50 75Mode 60 70 50 N/AMax 70 90 60 100Minimum 40 60 40 60Range 30 30 20 40Standard Deviation 10.95445 11.40175 7.4162 15.572T-test FC SG 3 POST vs. PB SG 3 POST 0.823095716


Figure 4


10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Mean Scores

FC SG 4 PREFC SG 4 POST

PB SG 4 PRE

PB SG 4 POST

50 80 40 6040 85 40 8535 60 65 7560 100 70 8075 100 55 85

N= 5 5 5 5Mean 52 85 54 77Median 50 85 55 80Mode N/A 100 40 85Max 75 100 70 85Minimum 35 60 40 60Range 40 40 30 25Standard Deviation 16.04681 16.58312 13.874 10.368T-test FC SG 4 POST vs. PB SG 4 POST 0.392040432

aherndonksumed.weebly.com · web viewtechnology implementation in the classroom is being pushed by...

Documents