Transcript Action Research Project

Superintendent’s Urban Principal Initiative
Charles R. Drew Middle School
Raising 8th Grade Science Scores through Hands On
Exploration and Integrated Technology
Dr. Gwen S. Coverson, Principal
Dr. Andy Granados, Assistant Principal
Ms. Darlene Mooney, Professional Partner
June 9, 2008
Abstract of the Study
• A comparison analysis was done on student
performance before and after the integration
of technology and hands on activities in
eighth grade science classes.
• As a result, student achievement in science
increased after the infusion of technology and
hands on activities.
Introduction/Background
• During the 2006-2007 school year, the FCAT
scores at Charles R. Drew Middle School fell one
letter grade, from a “C” to a “D.” This decline was
primarily due in part to the inclusion of eighth
grade science performance into the grade level
equation.
• Progress was made throughout the year, but the
school failed to meet standards as it pertained to
new established learning gains and AYP criteria.
Introduction/Background (continued)
• Charles R. Drew Middle School serves a multicultural student, multi-ethnic student body
and community. The current student body is
comprised of approximately 635 students
with an ethnic/racial make-up as listed below:
▫ 95 percent Black (non-Hispanic)
▫ 4 percent Hispanic
▫ 1 percent White (non-Hispanic)
Research Question
• How will the introduction of hands on
activities and the use of integrated
technology affect overall motivation and
performance in the eighth (8th) grade science
classes?
Literature Review
• Technology improves performance when the
application provides opportunities for student
collaboration. (Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C.
(1996). Computer support for knowledge-building
communities.
In T. Kotchmann (Ed.), CSCI:
Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Association.)
• According to Scardamalia &
Bereiter, 1996,
technology
applications
that
enable
student
collaboration tend to result in improved achievement.
Literature Review
(continued)
• Students introduced to technology applications
performed better on standardized tests and on
measures of depth of understanding, multiple
perspectives and independent thought than students
who were not introduced to the applications.
(Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (1996). Computer
support for knowledge-building communities. In T.
Kotchmann (Ed.), CSCI: Theory and practice of an
emerging paradigm. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Association.)
Literature Review
(continued)
• A study performed in 2003 by James A. Kulik indicated that:
• Computer programs have positive effects on students’ writing,
mathematics, and performance in the natural and social sciences. In
fact, “simply giving students greater access to computers and Internet
resources often results in learning gains.
• The effectiveness of simulation programs for helping students to
acquire higher order thinking skills can be increased with additional
hands-on activities, and when the simulations are used as preparation
for further instruction.
• The effects of using Integrated Learning Programs can be increased by providing
more time for students to spend on the ILS instruction and by enabling students
to work collaboratively on the ILS instruction, rather than individually.
(*Kulik, J. (2003). Effects of using instructional technology in elementary and secondary schools: What controlled evaluation studies
say. Arlington, Virginia: SRI International Retrieved October 3, 2003 from http://www.sri.com/policy/csted/reports/sandt/it/Kulik_ITinK12_Main_Report.pdf
Methodology/Intervention
• Initial surveys were administered to teachers and
students to assess attitudes pertaining to teaching and
learning styles in eighth grade science classes.
• Initial instruction consisted of hands on instruction
(labs and demonstrations) and collaborative learning.
• Once initial interim assessments and mini exams were
administered, hands on activities and the use of
computer application (Gizmo) were introduced.
In
addition, students also worked in groups weekly on
virtual labs.
Methodology/Intervention
(continued)
• Through classroom observation and administration of
interim assessments, instructional quality along with
student performance was evaluated at various intervals.
• The goal was to determine whether student performance
increased with the administration of hand on activities
and technology application. If so, the increase may be
attributed to the incorporation of hand activities and
technology application.
• The two eighth grade science teachers were provided
with professional development on the GIZMO
technology and on hands-on science strategies.
Data Collection
• Teacher technology survey (Pre and Post)
• Student technology survey (Pre and Post)
• Interim test results/District Assessments
• Student Lab reports
Data
DATA SOURCE
PURPOSE
DATE USED
Instructional Focus
Calendar Based on
Science Benchmarks
Provide information
regarding administration
of all assessments.
August 2007
April 2008
Comparison of pre-test
and 1st Bi-weekly
assessment
Provide quantitative
data about performance
of target group.
September 2007
October 2007
Provide quantitative
data about performance
of target group after
introduction of hands on
Data Chat with Teachers activities and GIZMO
application
November 2007
Comparison of interim
assessments and mock
FCAT test
DATA ANALYSIS
Student Survey
The Student survey administered after the intervention
identified the following information.
 63% of eighth grade students enjoy science.
 100% of targeted students like science less when the teacher
lectured only.
 89% of students feel they work better in groups.
 91% of students feel the use of computers and group activities
help motivate them to learn better.
 5% thought the material in science was too difficult.
DATA ANALYSIS
Teacher Survey
The Teacher survey identified the following information.
 100% of Teachers surveyed reported that the availability of hands
on activities and technology in their classrooms increased students’
motivation and interest in their lessons.
 100% of teachers surveyed reported that students are more
engaged in lessons involving labs and technology as opposed to
lessons composed of lecturing and workbook activities
 100% feel that using technology in the classroom enhance their
ability to more effectively deliver instruction.
Data Analysis
Percent Mastery
Charles R. Drew Middle School FCAT Data
Grading System 2008 Projections Science
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
50%
48%
36%
35%
21%
5%
8%
20%
1%
Assessments
Findings/Results
• Results of this study suggest that there is evidence that
teachers and students are aware of the positive impact of
the use of technology and hands on activities on academic
achievement.
• Performance on interim assessments after the infusion of
hands on activities and technology reflected an average
increase of 16 percent while performance before the
infusion showed only a three percent increase.
• The study supports the literature that technology
applications that enable student collaboration tend to result
in improved achievement and technology improves
performance when the application provides opportunities for
student collaboration (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1996).
Recommendations
• Because of the increase of student performance on the
assessments, training will be implemented on technology
applications (Gizmo)
and extended to all science
teachers.
• Hands on activities will be infused throughout the
science curriculum in all grade levels.
• Based on literature, student collaboration tends to result
in improved achievement. Therefore, teachers will be
offered professional development on incorporating
cooperative learning activities into the science
curriculum.
References
• Kulik, J. (2003). Effects of using instructional technology in elementary and
secondary schools: What controlled evaluation studies say. Arlington,
Virginia: SRI International. Retrieved October 3, 2003 from
http://www.sri.com/policy/csted/reports/sandt/it/Kulik_ITinK12_Main_Report.pdf .
• Kulik, J. (2003). Effects of using instructional technology in elementary and
secondary schools: What controlled evaluation studies say. Arlington,
Virginia: SRI International. Retrieved October 3, 2003 from
http://www.sri.com/policy/csted/reports/sandt/it/Kulik_ITinK12_Main_Report.pdf .
• Means, B., & Olson, K. (1997). Technology and education reform. Office of
Educational Research and Improvement, Contract No. RP91-172010.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved February 3, 2003,
from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/SER/Technology/title.html.