Scott's+Research

Student Need: Canyon Springs 7th graders performed adequately in many areas of the math AIMS test in sixth grade, but, as a group, under-performed on the geometry portion. Overall AIMS scores could be dramatically improved by improving geometry scores.

Research Question: Will the use of a variety of geometry manipulatives to reinforce knowledge improve geometry test scores for students? Will use of manipulatives positively affect students' feelings and/or anxiety about the word "geometry?"

Literature Review: (What literature/articles/books have you looked at to support your question and to help guide you in your intervention?)

Intervention Plan: I will use polydrons and geoboards as my chosen geometry manipulatives to reinforce our work with nets and triangles, including area and perimeter.

Evaluation Measurements: I will use formative assessments before and after instruction and an attitudinal survey of one class period, also before and after the unit.

Results: On 3/11/09, I administered a 37 question AIMS-type test focused on geometry to all students in my classes. The mean score was 23 or 62%. Prior to the test, I asked my 4th period class to rate their feelings on a scale of 1-5 about the word "geometry" as well as their feeling of preparation (anxiety) for the test. They rated the word geometry at just above a 2 and preparation was just below 3. As part of our review for AIMS during the week of 3/25/09, we used polydrons and geoboards during our two geometry days. I was mindful to call both days "geometry" as I knew it would be a fun activity on a subject matter that provokes anxiety for most of them. Anecdotally, students responded positively to the activity.

On 4/9/09, I administered the same test to all students. The mean score was nearly 27 or 73%. This score represents an increase of 11% over the pre-test. Prior to the administration of the test in 4th period, I asked students to re-rate their feelings about the word "geometry" and received a mean rating of 2.5 on the same 5 point scale--representing a small movement upward. Their rating for preparation increased markedly from just under 3 to just under 4. I can conclude that use of geometry manipluatives can increase test scores and feelings of preparation for students as well as quell some anxiety when approaching a geometry unit.


 * Year Two: 2009-2010**


 * Student Need:**


 * Research Question:**

 //“How does the use of geometry manipulatives impact low test scores and attitudes towards learning geometry for seventh grade students at Canyon Springs School?”// __**Literature Review**__: (What literature/articles/books have you looked at to support your question and to help guide you in your intervention?)

What Works Clearinghouse (ED). (2007). //Middle school math. what works clearinghouse topic report// What Works Clearinghouse. 2277 Research Boulevard, MS 5M, Rockville, MD 20850. Tel: 866-992-9799; Fax: 301-519-6760; e-mail: info@whatworks.ed.gov; Web site: @http://www.whatworks.ed.gov/. Retrieved from www.csa.com ** Key Words: geometry, manipulatives, middle school, interventions ** The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) reviewed interventions to promote middle school students' math knowledge and skills. Because there is some variation in how school districts organize middle school, the study considered curricula aimed at students in grades 6 through 9, covering one or more of the following content areas: numbers and operations, algebra, geometry, measurement, and data analysis and probability. Only core, comprehensive math curricula were eligible for inclusion in this review. These curricula extend over the course of one semester or more, are central to students' regular school instruction, and are based on any combination of text materials, manipulatives, computer software, videotapes, and other materials. The WWC looked at 361 studies. Of these, 203 appeared to be studies of practices or other interventions that did not qualify for our review. Of the 158 remaining studies, 21 studies of 7 curricula met our evidence standards, 4 without reservations and 17 with reservations. Altogether, the WWC looked at 34 interventions: 7 had studies that met WWC standards with or without reservations and 27 had studies that did not meet WWC evidence screens. No eligible studies were identified for an additional 16 programs at the time of this review. (The identification of eligible programs ended in September 2005, and that of eligible studies in July 2006.) The WWC rated the effectiveness of middle school math curricula based on the available research evidence. In looking at math achievement for the 7 curricula: "I Can Learn[R] Pre-Algebra and Algebra" had positive effects; "Saxon Middle School Math" had positive effects; "Cognitive Tutor" had potentially positive effects; "The Expert Mathematician" had potentially positive effects; and "UCSMP Algebra" had potentially positive effects. Two other curricula had mixed effects on math achievement. (Contains 2 tables and 1 figure.) [The following studies met WWC standards and are reviewed in this intervention report: (1) Morgan, P., and Ritter, S. (2002). An experimental study of the effects of Cognitive Tutor Algebra I on student knowledge and attitude. Retrieved November 22, 2006, from @http://www.carnegielearning.com/research/research_reports/morgan_ritter_2002.pdf; (2) Kirby, P. C. (2006, October). I CAN Learn[R] in Orleans Parish Public Schools: Effects on LEAP 8th grade math achievement, 2003-2004. (Available from the ed-cet, Inc., 2301 Killdeer Street, New Orleans, LA 70122); (3) Baker, J. J. (1997). Effects of a generative instructional design strategy on learning mathematics and on attitudes towards achievement. "Dissertation Abstracts International," 58 (7), 2573A. (UMI No. 9800955); (4) Williams, D. D. (1986). The incremental method of teaching algebra I. Kansas City: University of Missouri; and (5) Baker, J. J. (1997). Effects of a generative instructional design strategy on learning mathematics and on attitudes towards achievement. "Dissertation Abstracts International," 58 (7), 2573A. (UMI No. 9800955).] These studies are especially relevant to my topic since there is an excellent measurement of one kind of program against another. Olkun, S., & Toluk, Z. (2004). Teacher questioning with an appropriate manipulative may make a big difference. //Issues in the Undergraduate Mathematics Preparation of School Teachers, 2// Retrieved from www.csa.com ** Key Words: geometry, manipulatives, questioning, elementary ** The purpose of the present study was to present examples of the utilization of social processes such as teacher questioning and collective argumentation coupled with an appropriate use of a manipulative material to stimulate students' thinking in teaching geometry. We first present theoretical issues concerning the use of manipulatives, teacher questioning and collective argumentation. This article is the best I’ve found that discusses the actual use of manipulatives to change student attitudes towards geometry. Garrity, C. (1998). Does the use of hands-on learning, with manipulatives, improve the test scores of secondary education geometry students? St. Xavier University and IRI/Skylight)., Report: ED422179. 64p. (Level 1 - Available online, if indexed January 1993 onward) Retrieved from www.csa.com  ** Key Words: geometry, manipulatives, visual focusing, hands-on ** This report describes a program for increasing adolescent visualization and understanding of geometry problems. The targeted population consisted of high school students in two geometry classes in a growing middle-class community. The inability of students to adequately visualize and understand geometry problems was documented through teacher-made tests and quizzes, student journals, and teacher journals. Analysis of probable cause data revealed poor performance on middle school geometry problems, lack of motivation to do the work, teacher observation of student inability to visualize the spatial situation, and parent comments substantiating the student stress level of not seeing the problem. After a review of the current geometry curriculum, it was discovered that an over-emphasis was placed on memorization and information giving, and there was a lack of hands-on instruction with the use of manipulatives to develop the visual skills. A review of solution strategies suggested by experts in the field of mathematics combined with an analysis of the problem setting resulted in these interventions. Materials that support visual focusing were created for hands-on use by students. An increase in student involvement and cooperative learning were used to foster understanding and thinking skills. Project results found that based on the presentation and analysis of the data on hands-on cooperative learning, students showed a more positive attitude towards math and a desire to work with partners or in cooperative groups. Students also indicated a preference for using hands-on learning and the use of manipulatives rather than using traditional learning methods. Test scores showed improved grades when students worked with a partner or in a group; however there was no marked difference in scores when students worked alone. Contains 19 references. (Author/NB) The visual component and use of manipulatives is explored in this article in the context of improving test scores. The importance of quantitative elements of my research and subsequent applied project cannot be denied. Ernest, P. S. (1994). //Evaluation of the effectiveness and implementation of a math manipulatives project// Retrieved from www.csa.com ** Key Words ** : **manipulatives, high school, geometry, algebra** This paper reports on a project to enrich high school algebra and geometry programs through the use of manipulatives. The evaluation design utilized qualitative and quantitative methodology to determine the effectiveness and impact of training with manipulatives on 40 high school teachers. The final evaluation was based on: (1) review of the program proposal; (2) participation in the planning process for the workshops with the project staff; (3) observation of the methodology of the trainers and provisions for participant involvement in each of the workshop sessions; (4) group discussion of classroom implementation strategies; (5) observation of the use of manipulatives in the participants' classrooms; and (6) review of participants' self-reports of student utilization and response to the manipulatives. The project was successful in addressing the stated objectives of the proposal through the techniques of well organized workshop training sessions, follow-up reporting and evaluation, and extended local training. The manipulatives are being used extensively, and student attitudes, participation, and performance have been enhanced. (MKR) This is a well-put together, thorough study which includes observations by researchers of the actual use of manipulatives bt classroom teachers. DeBower, C. E., & DeBower, K. L. (1990). //A decalogue for teaching mathematics. fastback series 309//Phi Delta Kappa, P.O. Box 789, Bloomington, IN 47402-0789 ($0.90 nonmembers, $0.75 members, contact for quantity discounts). Retrieved from www.csa.com ** Key Words: performance, manipulatives, cooperative learning, geometry ** Reasons for poor performance in mathematics by students in the United States are discussed. According to the authors, too many students never experience arithmetic at a physical, concrete level. Students are drilled in arithmetic facts without any meaningful context and are given few opportunities to use numerical concepts in real-life applications. Described in this fastback in the form of a Decalogue, or ten commandments, are methods that can be used to teach mathematics successfully. These commandments hold for every grade level including postsecondary mathematics. Topics include: (1) the use of manipulatives and visuals; (2) cooperative learning models; (3) diagnosis of student development; (4) unit plan development; (5) problem solving; (6) algebra and geometry; (7) the use of computers and calculators; (8) mental computation, estimation, and measurement; (9) probability and statistics; (10) integration of skills and techniques from different branches of mathematics. (KR) Only parts of this study were relevant, but they may be useful within the total picture.
 * __Intervention Plan__**:

My plan for these four students and the rest of my third period is to administer a pre-test using AIMS-type questions about geometry and use the same test at the conclusion of the unit. I will also use an attitudinal survey making use of a Likert Scale to find out just how my students feel about geometry before we begin and again when we conclude. It’s my hypothesis that the AIMS-type test scores will improve significantly and we will see a more favorable view of geometry by my students when all is said and done. I believe the use of manipulatives to supplement geometry teaching has the potential to dramatically increase my school’s scores on seventh grade AIMS math.
 * __Evaluation Measurements__**:

71 14 56 15   90 14 73 14  See above
 * Students traditionally feel geometry is difficult and do not report that they enjoy studying it.
 * Artificially low class size of 21 students were given faux standardized geometry pre-test.
 * Same students given Likert Scale survey to determine attitude toward math generally and geometry specifically
 * Pre-Test results: Pre-test High Low Mean Standard Deviation
 * Over course of three weeks, most lesson plans in geometry unit included geoboards or polydrons.
 * Four students were interviewed and coded before the unit with most common results falling into self-efficacy and attitude categories.
 * Students were administered post-test and post-Likert Scale
 * Post-test results: High Low Mean Standard Deviation
 * Forty possible “positive” points were possible and in the pre-survey, the mean score was 25.4 with a standard deviation of 5.5. In the post-test, the survey’s mean was 25.9 with a standard deviation of 4.5. The survey’s first statement “Geometry is hard” changed from an average score of 2.6 on the scale to a 3.2 meaning a statistically significant group (23%) responded more favorably.
 * Conclusions: Manipulatives played a role in increasing the test performance of CS 7th graders though it is difficult to parse out how great the role was. The use of manipulatives has appeared to have increased the self-efficacy of this group and changed their attitude toward the difficulty of geometry.
 * __Results__**:
 * Year Three: 2010-2011**

Overall, Canyon Springs 7th grade students appear to have underperformed on the AIMS math test as sixth graders--nearly uniformly across the strands. They were collectively below the district and state averages. My early and anecdotal evidence seems to indicate that the students seem to have poorly developed senses of "math selves" and the 6th grade diagnostic test I gave every student produced results similar to the AIMS test. There apears to be a disconnect between what they can achieve and what they do achieve.
 * Student Need:**
 * Research Question:**

__**Literature Review**__: (What literature/articles/books have you looked at to support your question and to help guide you in your intervention?)

I plan to write a prescription for success with each student in my fourth period class. The prescription will discuss their achievement in Number Sense on AIMS as well as the 6th grade diagnostic we took at the beginning of the year and include a plan for success. The ulitimate goal will be to achieve standardized test improvement through improved self-efficacy.
 * __Intervention Plan__**:
 * __Evaluation Measurements__**:Pre-test, post-test, efficacy Likert scale, individual interviews.


 * __Results__**: