|
MooreheadHookName Inspiration Home Resources Standards Inspiration About the Author |
Design Process for iPad Research
|
|
Design:
My research was designed to investigate the effectiveness of iPad apps as compared with the more traditional teaching strategy of using hands-on activities or math manipulatives. Kindergarten students in a classroom of ten students were divided into two groups of five and were introduced to new math concepts, or games, with either the use of traditional hands-on methods or use of an iPad math app.
Each lesson was part of an Everyday Math Program that was adopted at our school and appropriate to the kindergarten level. (Everyday Math, 2014) Each lesson was an introductory lesson of a concept that had not previously been taught. Pre-tests were given to check for prior knowledge of the concept, vocabulary or subject. Students were divided into two groups of five students each. Both groups were given direct instruction in a math concept and followed the model of “I do, We do, You do,” whether working with apps or with a hands-on activity. Student archival documents such as student drawings, pre-tests and post-tests were collected along the way.
A “mixed methods approach, combining aspects of both qualitative and quantitative research” was used, as described in Action Research: Teachers as Researchers in the Classroom, Craig Mertler. (Mertler, 2009,p.11). The qualitative observations of students during pre-tests, post-tests, and seatwork were captured on film when possible, and annotated by the researcher in a video voice over to serve as field notes. The quantitative method was used in analyzing the pre-, mid- and post-test and generating a graph of results.
The kindergarten classroom sampled was in a rural community in a small school with just over one hundred students in kindergarten through eighth grade. There was only one teacher at each grade level and most classes were combination classes. The kindergarten class sampled had only ten students. A typical kindergarten classroom would have twenty students. (United States, National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Services, 1993)
As the sample size of students was not representative of the typical kindergarten classroom size, the original research design was to get as many data points as possible in a very limited amount of time. Originally, the plan was to teach all ten students one distinct math concept using iPads and the next distinct math concept using hands-on strategies, but the design plan was changed upon reflection. It was thought that there would be no way to compare efficacy using this method, as one concept might be harder than the other. For example, symmetry might be inherently more complex than learning how to play Mancala, or vice versa.
Another part of the original research design that proved to be extremely problematic was the implementation of “post-tests” after merely one exposure to a new concept. Giving pre-tests to check for prior knowledge was easy and familiar, but giving “post-tests” so early, after just one lesson, felt very uncomfortable. The time constraints were a factor in testing students in a way that would not normally be done. In “real life”, students would never be given just one lesson and then tested for proficiency! In a small classroom of ten students who all “see each other’s work” and have access to the iPads, this seemed to be the only way to design the research so that the two methods could be isolated as effective or not. There was also a concern about the students accessing the iPad apps both in the after school program and at home, which was out of the researcher’s control, so the design was to complete each lesson in one day to ensure that the results would be considered reliable.
The review of the relevant literature continued even as the implementation of the action plan began. A study on the efficacy of using an iPad math app at the elementary level was found that looked at just one math app called Motion Math which dealt with fractions. (Riconsente, 2013). The design method this project followed was called “the repeated measures crossover design method.” This method compared two groups of students over a longer period of time before post-testing. This research design method had the added benefit of including a control group but also switching control groups and re-testing the entire class.
A decision was made to re-design the parameters of the research to hopefully improve the process. Research was limited to just one math concept, learning the game of Mancala over a week’s time. The help of an aide was enlisted to enable the separation of the two groups of five children as direct instruction was given followed by seatwork time with either the app or the real board game. Mertler tells us that the action research process is a spiraling process. (Mertler, 2009, p.13) The decision was made to continue on with the time left with just one more math concept studied over several days.
(Click on button below for link to references sited.)
My research was designed to investigate the effectiveness of iPad apps as compared with the more traditional teaching strategy of using hands-on activities or math manipulatives. Kindergarten students in a classroom of ten students were divided into two groups of five and were introduced to new math concepts, or games, with either the use of traditional hands-on methods or use of an iPad math app.
Each lesson was part of an Everyday Math Program that was adopted at our school and appropriate to the kindergarten level. (Everyday Math, 2014) Each lesson was an introductory lesson of a concept that had not previously been taught. Pre-tests were given to check for prior knowledge of the concept, vocabulary or subject. Students were divided into two groups of five students each. Both groups were given direct instruction in a math concept and followed the model of “I do, We do, You do,” whether working with apps or with a hands-on activity. Student archival documents such as student drawings, pre-tests and post-tests were collected along the way.
A “mixed methods approach, combining aspects of both qualitative and quantitative research” was used, as described in Action Research: Teachers as Researchers in the Classroom, Craig Mertler. (Mertler, 2009,p.11). The qualitative observations of students during pre-tests, post-tests, and seatwork were captured on film when possible, and annotated by the researcher in a video voice over to serve as field notes. The quantitative method was used in analyzing the pre-, mid- and post-test and generating a graph of results.
The kindergarten classroom sampled was in a rural community in a small school with just over one hundred students in kindergarten through eighth grade. There was only one teacher at each grade level and most classes were combination classes. The kindergarten class sampled had only ten students. A typical kindergarten classroom would have twenty students. (United States, National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Services, 1993)
As the sample size of students was not representative of the typical kindergarten classroom size, the original research design was to get as many data points as possible in a very limited amount of time. Originally, the plan was to teach all ten students one distinct math concept using iPads and the next distinct math concept using hands-on strategies, but the design plan was changed upon reflection. It was thought that there would be no way to compare efficacy using this method, as one concept might be harder than the other. For example, symmetry might be inherently more complex than learning how to play Mancala, or vice versa.
Another part of the original research design that proved to be extremely problematic was the implementation of “post-tests” after merely one exposure to a new concept. Giving pre-tests to check for prior knowledge was easy and familiar, but giving “post-tests” so early, after just one lesson, felt very uncomfortable. The time constraints were a factor in testing students in a way that would not normally be done. In “real life”, students would never be given just one lesson and then tested for proficiency! In a small classroom of ten students who all “see each other’s work” and have access to the iPads, this seemed to be the only way to design the research so that the two methods could be isolated as effective or not. There was also a concern about the students accessing the iPad apps both in the after school program and at home, which was out of the researcher’s control, so the design was to complete each lesson in one day to ensure that the results would be considered reliable.
The review of the relevant literature continued even as the implementation of the action plan began. A study on the efficacy of using an iPad math app at the elementary level was found that looked at just one math app called Motion Math which dealt with fractions. (Riconsente, 2013). The design method this project followed was called “the repeated measures crossover design method.” This method compared two groups of students over a longer period of time before post-testing. This research design method had the added benefit of including a control group but also switching control groups and re-testing the entire class.
A decision was made to re-design the parameters of the research to hopefully improve the process. Research was limited to just one math concept, learning the game of Mancala over a week’s time. The help of an aide was enlisted to enable the separation of the two groups of five children as direct instruction was given followed by seatwork time with either the app or the real board game. Mertler tells us that the action research process is a spiraling process. (Mertler, 2009, p.13) The decision was made to continue on with the time left with just one more math concept studied over several days.
(Click on button below for link to references sited.)
