home.lagrange.eduhome.lagrange.edu/educate/advanced programs/m.ed. defense... · web viewsadoski,...

AWARENESS OF LEARNING STYLES AND

MATH VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION

Except where reference is made to the work of others, the work described in this thesis is my own or was done in collaboration with my Thesis Chair. This thesis does not include

proprietary or classified information.

Janice Wearden

Certificate of Approval__________________________ _____________________________Donald R. Livingston, Ed.D Sharon M. Livingston, Ph.D.Thesis Chair Thesis Advisor Education Department Education Department

AWARENESS OF LEARNING STYLES AND MATH VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION

A Thesis

by

Janice Wearden

to

LaGrange College

in partial fulfillment of

the requirement for the degree of

MASTER OF EDUCATION

in

Curriculum and Instruction

LaGrange, Georgia

May 5, 2011

Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary iii

Abstract

This study investigated the role of addressing learning styles when teaching math

vocabulary to fifty-three fifth grade students at a small elementary school in West Central

Georgia. Research shows vocabulary mastery influences success in math. Various

activities addressing different learning styles were implemented with the treated group

while the untreated group wrote definitions. Quantitative data analysis revealed there

were no significant statistical differences between the post-tests of the treated and

untreated groups. The qualitative data showed an improvement in the attitudes of both

the students and the teacher. The results of this study serve as a foundation for future

research on whether addressing students’ learning styles can improve the mastery of math

vocabulary leading to higher test scores.

Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary iv

Table of Contents

Abstract…………………………………………………………………………........…..iii

Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………........…iv

List of Tables ………………………………………………...................……….......……v

Chapter 1: Introduction…………………………………………………………........…...1

Statement of the Problem…………………………………………...........….…........…….1Significance of the Problem………………………………………...........……........….….2Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks…………………………..........……........…..…3Focus Questions…………………………………………………..........….........…...….…6Overview of Methodology…………………………………………...........…….........…...6Human as Researcher……………………………………………….……......................…7

Chapter 2: Review of the Literature……………………………..………….........…….....8The Vocabulary of Mathematics…………………….…………..........…….….........…….8Learning Styles………………………………………………….........……….........….….9Opposing Views on Learning Styles……………………………….........….........……....11Student Learning Outcomes………………………………………….........….........…….12Attitudes of Students and Teachers……………………………………….…...................15Summary…………………………………………………………………...................….16

Chapter 3: Methodology………………………………………………………......…….17Research Design…………………………………………………………..................…...17Setting……………………………………………………………………..................…..17 Subjects and Participants……………………………………………..............................18Procedures and Data Collection Methods……………………………….................…... .20Validity, Reliability and Bias Measures….……….........………….................……..…...23Analysis of Data………………………………………………………….................…...26

Chapter 4: Results………………………………………………………….....………....29

Chapter 5: Analysis and Discussion of Results…………………………….....……..….40Analysis…………………………………………………………................……….…....40Discussion…………………………………………………………….…….....................45Implications…………….………………………………………...............………..…......47Recommendations for Future Research……………………………................…….…....48

References………………………………………………………………....……….…..,.50

Appendixes………………………………………………………………….....….….....54

Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary v

List of Tables

Tables

Table 3.1. Data Shell……………………………………………………….……20

Table 4.1 Pre/Pre Independent t-test...................................................................31

Table 4.2 Treatment Group Pre/Post Dependent t-test………………….…......32

Figure 4.3 Untreated Group Pre/Post Dependent t-test………………………….33

Figure 4.4 Post/Post Independent t-test…………………………………….…...34

Figure 4.5 Untreated Group Chi Square …………………...…..................…….35

Figure 4.6 Treatment Group Chi Square………………….................…….…....36

Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary 1

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Statement of the Problem

According to the recent Georgia state CRCT results, 18% of the fifth grade

students did not meet the state standards in mathematics (Georgia Department of

Education [GADOE], 2008). This amounts to a significant number of fifth graders, in the

state of Georgia, who did not master the necessary math concepts for advancement to

middle school. Consequently, educators must continue to seek alternate teaching

strategies during math instruction to engage all students. A large part of math is

vocabulary. Vocabulary should be the scaffold that lessons are developed around.

Greenwood (2006) clearly states that the practice of looking up words in the dictionary

and writing sentences with them is “pedagogically useless.” According to Carter and

Dean (2006) students must be able to decode and comprehend word problems and

textbooks in addition to making sense of specialized mathematical vocabulary in order to

communicate and think mathematically. Students with a greater vocabulary can use it to

gain new knowledge. Improving the vocabulary of all students, especially children who

come from low socio-economic groups or who are learning English, will help them

understand the concepts being taught (Spencer & Guillaume, 2006)

This study investigated whether the use of methods addressing different learning

styles in the acquisition of math vocabulary would improve understanding of

mathematical concepts among students. The Georgia Department of Education states in

their Performance Standards Framework that teachers should present vocabulary and

concepts to students with models and real life examples thus causing students to be able

to recognize and demonstrate these concepts with words, models, pictures, or numbers.


Pierce and Fontaine (2009) maintain that the depth and breadth of a child’s mathematical

vocabulary will influence a child’s success in math. The comprehension of math specific

terms and ambiguous, multiple-meaning words could assist students in understanding

problems on the CRCT thus leading to higher scores.

Significance of the Problem

Georgia’s minimum percentage of students passing math to meet Adequate

Yearly Progress rose from 67.6% for 2010 to 75.7% for 2011. Students often struggle

when test questions contain words that are not specific and have more than one meaning.

Technical words have a very specific mathematical meaning. Sub-technical words have a

common meaning that students usually already know; however, they also have a less

common mathematical meaning with which students may not be familiar. Pierce and

Fontaine (2009) assert that teachers are aware of the need to teach the meaning of

technical vocabulary words, yet often do not realize that sub-technical vocabulary also

needs to be taught as well.

The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) Principles and

Standards for School Mathematics, includes “Communication” as a process strand. It

states that students should use the language of mathematics to express mathematical ideas

precisely. The Georgia Performance Standards (GPS) repeat exactly what the NCTM

standard states about expressing ideas with precision. Pierce and Fontaine (2009) state

that a child’s knowledge of mathematical vocabulary is an important indicator of how

successful a child will perform in math. The purpose of this study was to determine if

there will be an increase in math vocabulary test scores and ultimately the Georgia CRCT

math test by using methods that address all learning styles when teaching vocabulary.


Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks

This study relates to the social constructivist theory in the fact that it seeks to

show how “creating learning environments in which learning is both enjoyable and

rigorous” can be effective (LaGrange College Education Department, 2008, p. 3). In the

article, The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: The Many Faces of Constructivism, Phillips

(1995) examines the views of various constructivist authors. Overall, constructivists do

not believe that humans are born with “cognitive data banks” of “empirical knowledge,”

but that they construct knowledge through inquiry and experiences (Phillips, 1995, p. 7).

Piaget proposes that humans do not immediately understand and use information they are

given; instead humans must construct their own knowledge (Powell, & Kalina, 2010, p.

242). Tomilinson suggests that teachers should be learning facilitators rather than

dispensers of information and they should create learning environments in which students

can be actively involved in the teaching and learning process (LaGrange College

Education Department, 2008). Domain Three of the Georgia Framework for Teaching

states that teachers should create learning environments that encourage positive social

interaction, active engagement in learning, and self motivation. Teaching math concepts

and vocabulary should be both enjoyable and rigorous in addition to being learner

focused. This thesis relates to both Tenets One and Three of the LaGrange College

Education Department’s (2008) Conceptual Framework. Tenet One involves the learner

being enthusiastically engaged in learning. Teachers must know their learners, so that

they construct knowledge in a context of social relations. No one has the same

background experiences. Because approximately 87.5% of the students at the school in


this study participate in the free and reduced lunch program, many may lack experiences

that would make understanding vocabulary easier. The teacher needs to be aware of this.

This thesis is related to the “Knowledge of Learners” subgroup under Tenet One

of the LaGrange College Education Department’s (2008) Conceptual Framework and

Domain Two of the Georgia Framework for Teaching. Teachers need to know about

their students’ abilities, needs, and interests in order to provide them with curriculum that

is meaningful to them (LaGrange College Education Department, 2008). The Georgia

Framework for Teaching reports that teachers should understand how learning occurs and

adapt their lessons based on “students’ stages of development, multiple intelligences,

learning styles, and areas of exceptionality” (LaGrange College Education Department,

2008, p. 2). When teaching students from high-poverty backgrounds, the teacher should

take a holistic approach and use a wide variety of strategies. The teacher must

understand how students’ lives and learning are influenced not only by what happens at

school, but also outside the school setting. The teacher must have high expectations for

the students and believe that these students can learn at a high level. (LaGrange College

Education Department, 2008)

On the national level, the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards

(NBPTS) Core Assumptions; “Knowledge of Learners” can be directly linked with

Proposition One. This proposition, “Teachers are committed to student learning” states,

“They act on the belief that all students can learn. They treat students equitably,

recognizing the individual differences that distinguish one student from another and

taking account of these differences into their practice” (NBPTS, 2002). This is also

included in Domain 2 of the Georgia Framework for Teaching. The teachers of high


poverty students must hold these principles in order to accomplish desired outcomes.

The LaGrange College Education Department’s (2008) Conceptual Framework , using

the work of Delpit and Kincheloe, places importance on teachers linking the content

taught in their classrooms to the life histories of their students, so that students can make

meaningful personal connections.

Tenet Three of the LaGrange College Education Department’s (2008) Conceptual

Framework is also relative to this thesis. This third tenet focuses on the professional

dispositions that teachers need to develop and demonstrate in their work with students,

families, professional colleagues, and members of the larger community (LaGrange

College Education Department, 2008, p. 8). The third cluster suggests that teachers

should take action and advocate for changes in curriculum and instructional design.

Teachers need to improve the learning environment to support the diverse needs and high

expectations for all students. In order for teachers to advocate public changes, Jenlink

and Jenlink recommend that “they must first learn to become self-critical practitioners

who use research in their teaching” (as cited by LaGrange College Education

Department, 2008, p. 8). Paulo Freire states in Pedagogy of the Oppressed, teacher

educators are asked to “take actions that will overcome injustice and inequalities that

hinder the development of children” (LaGrange College Education Department, 2008,

p.8).

Domain Six of The Georgia Framework for Teaching states that teachers should

reflect and extend their knowledge of teaching and learning to be able to improve their

own teaching practices. Implementing effective strategies and curriculum, in addition to

establishing a well rounded learning environment should be the goal of all those in the


teaching profession. Proposition Four in the NBPTS (2002) Core Assumptions is that

teachers need to think systematically about their practice and learn from their experience.

Teachers seek to encourage lifelong learning in their students due to their engagement in

lifelong learning themselves. They aim to strengthen their teaching and adapt their

teaching to new findings, ideas, and theories (NBPTS, 2002).

Focus Questions

Factors that affect the 5th grade math CRCT scores will be researched in this

study. There are many factors that could affect student learning in the area of math. This

study focused on three specific areas and the factors within those areas. The following

focus questions will be used to guide the research for the study:

1. What is the process of teaching math vocabulary to address different learning

styles of individual students?

2. How do test scores compare between traditional methods of teaching

vocabulary and vocabulary taught by addressing different learning styles?

3. How do teacher/student attitudes change about vocabulary when different

learning styles are addressed?

Overview of Methodology

This action research study was designed to determine if there was a difference in

scores when math vocabulary was taught by addressing the different learning styles that

students possess as opposed to traditional methods such as copying the definition from

the dictionary/glossary. This was a mixed-methods research study that incorporated both

quantitative and qualitative data. Assessment data in the form of pre/post tests were

collected to evaluate the success of addressing different learning styles of individual


students. The pre/post surveys were analyzed quantitatively using a chi square.

Qualitative data were collected with a reflective journal that was coded for recurring,

dominant, and emerging themes.

The school where this study took place is located in a county in west central

Georgia. The subjects were the students in my 5th grade math class.

Human as Researcher

The qualifications of the researcher are important to know for this study. I teach

5th grade in a high-poverty school in Troup County. With 25 years teaching experience, I

have taught in both self-contained and departmentalized settings. I have taught math

each year whether just to my class or all classes on a particular grade level. I feel that the

teacher’s passion or lack of, in teaching math can influence students’ performance.

Creating an environment where students feel comfortable and safe is very important

when teaching math. Another belief is that teachers should hold every student, no matter

his economic status, up to high academic standards. This may also influence math

scores.


CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Many school improvement plans place an emphasis on increasing student

achievement. In order to make gains in these areas, improvement in standards-based

instruction, curriculum alignment, teacher quality, and the overall learning environment

is often the focus (Beecher & Sweeny, 2008). The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB),

places the responsibility on states to raise student performance and meet Adequate Yearly

Progress (AYP), which is measured for all students by state standardized, high stakes

tests (Tajalli & Opheim, 2005). According to Fore, Boon, and Lowrie (2007), the ability

to read and vocabulary knowledge in the content areas are essential for school success.

For this study, the focus was on the effect of teaching math vocabulary to address

different learning styles of individual students.

The Vocabulary of Mathematics

According to Pierce and Fontaine (2009), the depth and breadth of a child’s

mathematical vocabulary is more likely than ever to influence a child’s success in math.

Research has shown that teaching mathematical vocabulary enhances a student’s

performance on math tests. Students with difficulty reading often have limited

vocabularies which hinder their ability to relate new terms and concepts to previous

knowledge especially in content areas such as mathematics (Fore, et al., 2007). The

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics’ (NCTM, 2000) Principles and Standards

for School Mathematics now includes Communication as a process strand. Students are

expected to be able to explain their problem-solving methods orally and in written form,

both in the classroom and on high-stakes tests. Studies have shown that mathematical


thinking skills of both general and special education students improved through an

effective use of vocabulary instruction (Fore, et al., 2007).

Math contains a lot of specialized vocabulary that is specific to the subject of

mathematics. Some words such as divisor, rectangle, and place value are used only in

mathematics. Other terms are used in math and in the non-math world with about the

same meaning, such as measure, half, and tally. There is another group known as multi-

meaning words like prime, odd, and right. These words have a math meaning and other

meanings outside the math context (Cunningham, 2009). Pierce and Fontaine (2009)

refer to two categories of mathematics vocabulary as technical and sub-technical.

Technical words have a precise mathematical denotation that must be specifically taught

to students. These are words that are often defined in math textbooks. Sub-technical

words have a common meaning that students generally already know; however, they also

have a less common mathematical denotation that students may be less familiar with. If

you teach the general meaning of these words along with the mathematical meaning, you

can use the familiar meaning to connect to the mathematical meaning.

Learning Style

One of the most enduring effects on education has been the search for individual

differences that can explain and predict variation in student achievement. This led to the

hope that learning opportunities can be designed that will maximize the attainment of

these individual differences (Scott, 2010). Though all human beings have common

characteristics in the learning process, ways of giving meaning and acquiring information

may vary. Learning styles is defined as the different ways used by individuals to process

and organize information or to respond to environmental stimuli. It is important to take


into account the characteristics, abilities and experiences of learners when planning to

teach a lesson. Teachers should select and organize methods and strategies, classroom

environment, and teaching materials according to learning styles rather than expecting the

student to adapt to the existing organization (Yilmaz-Soylu & Akkoyunlu, 2009). Jensen

(1998) refers to it as a sort of way of thinking, comprehending and processing

information.

Haas (2003) states that auditory-sequential learners tend to do well in school

where the curriculum, materials, and teaching methods are predominantly sequential and

presented in an auditory format. Auditory-sequential learners are easily able to

remember their math facts, memorize the steps to complete equations, answer homework

questions correctly, and earn good grades in math without ever truly understanding the

underlying mathematical concepts. Auditory-sequential instruction of math often

separates the number from what it represents. Visual-spatial learners would also miss the

underlying mathematical concept and they may not be able to remember math facts, nor

readily be able to memorize the steps to complete equations. They might not be able to

correctly answer homework problems leaving them with a lowered self-esteem and a

perceived deficit in mathematical ability. Silverman (2005) suggests that the visual

learner needs to see the information rather than hear it in order to make sense of it. They

have to change the information to visual images if any true learning is to occur. If a

teacher is presenting information in an auditory manner, the visual-spatial learner is

listening to the words, and then creating an image in their brain. This takes additional

processing time, which leaves the visual-spatial learner behind. According to Rapp


(2009) when teaching auditorally, use visualization strategies that allow the learner to

create a picture in their head.

Historically, vocabulary instruction has consisted of looking up a word in a

dictionary or glossary. This method has been proven to be a useless practice because

retention of the knowledge is not achieved (Bromley, 2007). Students blindly copy the

definitions and forget about them. Beck, McKeown, and Kucan (2002) assert that

becoming interested and aware of words is not a likely outcome from having students

look up definitions in a dictionary or glossary. More effective strategies are being

developed to enhance vocabulary lessons (Bromley, 2007). For teachers, the idea of

being able to use an individual’s learning styles as a diagnostic, predictive, or

pedagogical tool for the purposes of improving academic performance at school is an

appealing one (Sharp, Bowker, & Byrne, 2008). Cunningham (2009) states that adding

strategies to address visual, auditory, and kinesthetic (VAK) styles while teaching math

vocabulary maximizes the potential for learning in that subject area.

Opposing Views on Learning Styles

The idea that individual differences in academic abilities can be partly ascribed to

individual learning styles has tremendous appeal especially when looking at the number

of learning style models or inventories that have been devised – 170 at the last count and

rising. The disappointing result of this entire endeavor is that, on the whole, the evidence

time and again shows that modifying a teaching strategy to account for differences in

learning styles does not result in any improvement in learning outcomes (Geake, 2008).

While it is commonly believed that learning styles cannot be overlooked in education,

there is still substantial disagreement over the perceived status of learning styles in


teaching and learning and how the different styles should be addressed in the classroom.

Most educators know that individuals of all ages approach different tasks in diverse areas

of their work in different ways, learn at different rates, and apply what they learn with

different degrees of confidence and success. They know that learning styles is only one

of a great many variables which influence academic performance (Sharp, et al., 2008).

Concentrating on one sensory modality contradicts the brain’s natural interconnectivity.

The input modalities in the brain are interconnected: visual with auditory; visual with

motor; motor with auditory; visual with taste; and so on. To many educators VAK has

become mixed-modality pedagogy where material is presented in all three modes.

According to Kratzig and Arbuthnott (as cited by Geake, 2008) research has shown that

there is no improvement of learning outcomes with VAK above teacher enthusiasm.

Student Learning Outcomes

Engaging students in active hands-on lessons for the purpose of acquiring

vocabulary is one method that can be used to achieve vocabulary comprehension. Giving

students the opportunity to design a picture definition is an example of a hands-on

strategy that can be used to motivate students and keep them involved in the lesson

(Greenwood, 2006). These picture definitions produced by the students can be posted in

the room or in the hall. Bull and Whittrock (as cited by Sadoski, 2005) found that when

students wrote a verbal definition and drew a picture to represent the definition, the

students’ retention was significantly better than when they wrote the definition alone, or

were provided with the definition and an illustration as in a textbook. Good readers make

the non-verbal images automatically as they read. Readers who fall at the lower end of


the ability spectrum end up calling words and not seeing the pictures in the text (Hibbing

& Rankin-Erickson, 2003).

Using a graphic organizer keeps a strong focus on the relationship among the

definition of a concept, one or more illustrative examples of the concept, and

characteristics of the concept that the word represents. These three sections correspond

to Rector and Henderson’s (1970) three ways of teaching a concept. When a teacher

talks about the properties or characteristics of the object named by a term, they employ

the connotative use of the term. When teachers give examples, they use the term in a

denotative manner and when they define the term, they employ the implicative use of the

term (Gay, 2008). Learners need multiple opportunities to interact with words in order to

truly know them. Vocabulary cards based on the Frayer model encourage learners to

think about new vocabulary through definition, contrasts, and visual representations.

Typically they are developed using a five-by-seven-inch index card divided into four

quadrants (Frey & Fisher, 2009).

The learning cycle is a teaching method that uses visualization to teach

vocabulary. There are four phases of this cycle: engage, explore, develop, and apply

(Spencer & Guillaume, 2006). Imagery in the engage phase involves teacher centered

introduction of words with pictures. According to Spencer and Guillaume (2006), using

pictures increases student interest in the subject. Drawing is a suggested technique for

the exploration phase. The students are encouraged to make picture maps in their notes.

An added benefit of drawing at this stage is that the teacher can easily spot

misconceptions and correct them while looking at a drawing. In the development phase

of the learning cycle, students can group pictures of words to illustrate comprehension.


In the final stage, application, students can use knowledge gained in the previous three

steps in a unique way, enabling multiple exposures to the word. Some examples of

application are creating poetry, plays, songs, or multi-media presentations that display the

students’ enduring understanding of the word (Spencer & Guillaume, 2006).

Another powerful way to help students build vocabulary is by using word

dramatizations. The students in groups use skits or pantomimes to present their words to

their classmates. At the end of the skit or pantomime, have the students guess what the

word was that was being presented to them. It is important to have the students relate the

word acted out to their own experience. This type activity provides students with real

experience with many words. They remember these words because of this real

experience and because they enjoy acting and watching their friends act (Cunningham,

2009).

According to Gailey (1993), using children’s literature to make connections

between mathematics and literature can increase students’ mathematical knowledge and

understanding. Mathematics and language skills can develop together as students listen,

read, write, and talk about mathematical ideas. Of the thousands of children’s books

published every year, a number can be used to introduce, reinforce, or develop

mathematical concepts. Matz and Leier (1992), believe a student must be both proficient

in reading and skilled at mathematics to solve a word problem. The methodology and

activities teachers have developed in other curriculum areas to teach vocabulary can be

just as appropriate for the mathematics lesson.


Attitudes of students and Teacher

Research has shown that the results of integrating different methods of teaching

vocabulary into math classes has led to a growth in teachers’ confidence, mathematics

and literacy knowledge, and enthusiasm to continue discovering and exploring different

ways to increase students’ vocabulary knowledge (Phillips, Bardsley, Bach, & Gibb-

Brown, 2009). A. Susan Gay (2008) affirms that by raising teachers’ awareness of the

critical role of mathematics vocabulary, they begin to realize how important it is for them

to use the correct word when describing a mathematical object. Teachers must

understand that even though we know what we are talking about, all of the concepts are

new to our students and must be explained very clearly and precisely.

Cunningham (2009) asserts that you will be amazed at how students’ vocabularies

and enthusiasm for words will grow by allowing them to experience different ways of

learning words. Because students are usually enthusiastic about art, music, and physical

education, using these experiences increases students’ enthusiasm about learning new

vocabulary. Children usually love to act or watch their friends acting; therefore, using

pantomime or dramatization causes the interest in learning new vocabulary to grow

(Cunningham, 2009). Fore, et al. (2007) concluded from their study of instructional

models for teaching vocabulary that students were very satisfied when given different

approaches to learning vocabulary. They noted that enthusiasm also increased among

students who were taught with methods other than the traditional looking up words in the

dictionary or glossary.

Less than interesting instruction is not a problem just because we want students to

enjoy classroom activities. It is much better for students to develop an interest and


awareness in words beyond school assignments in order to build their own vocabulary

inventory. Students become interested and enthusiastic about words when instruction is

rich and lively and they are encouraged to notice words in environments beyond the

classroom (Beck, et al., 2002).

Summary

The purpose of this review of literature was to provide background information

that was essential for understanding what was explored in this action research study. The

literature review completed in Chapter 2 influenced the methodology used to carry out

this study. The focus questions supplied the organization for the review of literature and

also framed the methodology that followed. The research design, setting, subjects, data

collection methods, validity and reliability methods, and analysis of data of the action

research are described in the next chapter.


CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

Research Design

This was an action research study because it focused on a particular problem in

pedagogy (Fraenkel & Wallen, 1990). This action research study was conducted in my

classroom. My four class periods were grouped to form a Treatment Group and an

Untreated Group. First and third periods received the treatment over a three week period.

The untreated group, second and fourth periods, received instruction as provided in

previous years. Both quantitative and qualitative methods of data collection were used –

assessment data, surveys, and a reflective journal. Assessment data in the form of

pre/post tests were collected to evaluate the success of addressing different learning styles

of individual students. A pre-post survey was administered to students to document

student attitude changes about vocabulary. Qualitative methods were also used to

evaluate the research. A reflective journal was kept and coded for themes. As Hendricks

(2009) suggested, the information from this journal was a valuable tool for assessing the

progress of the study, recording new ideas that came about from the study, and aided in

finding patterns that developed during the research.

Setting

Green Elementary School, a pseudonym, was located in a small town in a county

in West Central Georgia. The population of this town was 2,739. At the time of the

study, there were 398 students enrolled at Green Elementary School in grades pre-K

through fifth grade. Green Elementary School made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)

for eight consecutive years and was recognized as a Title I Distinguished school for six


consecutive years. The ethnic backgrounds of the students were 61 percent White, 30

percent African-American, 6 percent Inter-Racial and 3 percent Hispanic. 87.5 percent of

the students were economically disadvantaged receiving free and reduced lunches.

Written permission was obtained from the school system, the principal, and LaGrange

College’s Institutional Review Board to conduct this research project at this location.

This setting was chosen because it is where I work

Subjects and Participants

Fourth and fifth grade students at Green Elementary were departmentalized. I

taught the fifth grade math classes. The study involved four fifth grade classes of

approximately 14 students each. All of these classes had similar populations. Class A

consists of 9 boys and 5 girls. There were 5 African-American, 6 Caucasian, 1 Hispanic,

and 2 Inter-Racial in Class A. Class B consists of 7 boys and 7 girls. There were 5

African-American students and 9 Caucasian students in class B. Class C had 6 boys and

8 girls with 6 who were African-American, 6 Caucasian, and 2 Hispanic. Class D had 9

boys and 5 girls with 6 being African-American and 8 Caucasian. At Green Elementary

School, 87.5 % of the students participated in the Free/Reduced Lunch Program. Class A

had 89%, Class B had 84 %, Class C was 88% and for Class D, 84% participated in the

Free/Reduced Lunch Program. The fifth grade students were not ability-grouped for

math, but were heterogeneously grouped. All four groups had students with very similar

ability levels. Classes A and C were the Treatment group and Classes B and D were the

Untreated Group. I chose these groups because I did not want both treatment groups to

be before lunch and the untreated groups to be after lunch. This way I had a morning and


afternoon class for both the treatment and untreated groups. These students were chosen

because they were my students.

The instructional plan for this research study was evaluated by two peer teachers

at Green Elementary School. The first participant, Peer Teacher A, taught fifth grade and

had 18 years of teaching experience. She had been at Green Elementary School for 12

years at the time of the study. She had taught music, third grade, first grade, and fifth

grade. She was also an Upper Literacy Coach for two years while Green Elementary was

participating in the America’s Choice - Georgia’s Choice Program. Peer Teacher A was

also chosen as the Teacher of the Year to represent our elementary school. The second

participant, Peer Teacher B, was new to Green Elementary School at the time of the

study. She currently taught all of the fourth grade math classes, but in previous years she

taught seventh grade math at the middle school Green Elementary students attend. She

had 13 total years teaching experience. She taught seventh grade math for three years in

a neighboring system and then moved to the middle school in our system. She taught

seventh grade math in this system for the past 9 years. For the 2010-2011 school year,

she requested to be transferred to the elementary school where she taught all the fourth

grade math classes. She has been a team leader and was the first teacher at the middle

school to have her classroom equipped and labeled as a twenty-first century classroom.

She was also chosen as Teacher of the Year twice while teaching at the middle school in

our system. Both of these teachers were asked to evaluate my instructional plan because

of their knowledge and experience with the subject matter and grade level.


Procedures and Data Collection Methods

This was a mixed-method action research study. One reason for using mixed

methods to collect data is that it adds “scope and breadth to the study” (Cresswell, 1994,

p. 175). Both quantitative and qualitative methods of data collection (see Table 3.1) were

used to determine if the teaching strategies employed were significantly effective for the

acquisition of math vocabulary by students. The quantitative data were in the form of

pre-test and post-test scores for both the treatment and the untreated group. The pre/post-

surveys were used to assess student’s attitudes about math vocabulary. The use of a

teacher reflective journal allowed for the recording of student observations as well.

Table 3.1. Data ShellFocus Question Literature Sources Type: Method,

Data, ValidityHow are data analyzed?

Rationale

FQ1: What is the process of teaching math vocabulary to address different learning styles of individual students?

Beck, McKeown, &Kucan,(2002).Bromley,(2007)Cunningham ,(2009)Pierce & Fontaine, (2009)

Type of Method: Instructional Plan rubric and interview

Type of Data: Qualitative

Type of Validity:Content

Coded for themes recurring dominant emerging

Looking for categorical and repeating data that form patterns of behaviors

FQ2: How do test scores compare between traditional methods of teaching vocabulary and vocabulary taught by addressing different learning styles?

Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, (2002).Cunningham, (2009)Frey, & Fisher, (2009)Greenwood, (2009)Spencer & Guillaume, (2006)

Type of Method: Teacher made- Tests, quizzes

Type of Data: Quantitative Interval

Type of Validity:Content

Dependent T-testEffect SizeIndependent T -test

To determine if there are significant differences Measure the magnitude of a treatment effect


FQ3: How do teacher/student attitudes change about vocabulary when different learning styles are addressed?

Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, L.(2002).Cunningham, (2009)Fore, Boon, & Lowrie, (2007)Gay, (2008)Phillips, Bardsley, Bach, & Gibb-Brown, (2009)

Type of Method:Reflective JournalSurveys

Type of Data: Qualitative

Ordinal

Type of Validity: Construct

Coded for themes: recurring dominant emerging

Chi SquareCronbach’s Alpha

Looking for categorical and repeating data that form patterns of behaviors

To find what questions are significant

The treatment designed for use in this research study started with an instructional

plan being written (see Appendix A) and evaluated by two peer teachers using a rubric

(see Appendix B). A separate interview with both teachers was tape recorded to

preserve the suggestions each person made for improving the plan.

An attitudinal survey (see Appendix C) was administered to the students in both

the control group and the treatment group prior to the unit being taught. The survey

measured the attitudes of the students toward math and in particular math vocabulary.

The information gathered in the survey provided insight into how students feel about

math and math vocabulary. At the end of the instructional unit when different learning

styles had been addressed, the students were given the same survey again to see if there

were any changes in attitudes towards math and especially math vocabulary. Both the

treatment and the untreated group were administered a pre-test (see Appendix D) before

anything in the instructional unit was addressed. Different learning style approaches

were used to teach the instructional unit to the treatment group and a post-test identical to

the pre-test was administered.

To answer the first focus question in the study about the process of teaching math

vocabulary to address different learning styles of individual students, the students were


introduced to Geometry vocabulary by using, art, music, and drama. They made

vocabulary cards which included pictures they drew, as well as, the definition, and

examples. By using art, they were able to visualize the meaning of the word, thus

addressing the visual learners. They were given the opportunity to create songs or raps

with their vocabulary words and perform them for their classmates. Using music allowed

the students with strong auditory learning to use their strengths. The students also were

given the chance to pantomime or perform a skit using their words. They were put into

small groups and each group performed their word for their classmates. This addressed

those students who are kinesthetic learners.

To answer the second focus question about how do test scores compare between

traditional methods of teaching vocabulary and vocabulary taught by addressing different

learning styles? Both groups were given a vocabulary pre-test (see Appendix D). The

strategy of incorporating different learning styles into learning math vocabulary was

implemented in Classes A and C. The students’ vocabulary cards were put on display in

the classroom. Each student had to present two of their cards to the class and explain the

visuals and how they used the drawing to define the word. The students also had the

opportunity to create songs or raps, and pantomime or create a skit using their words.

Classes B and D, the untreated group, only received the traditional method for teaching

vocabulary. They were given the list of words and instructed to copy the definitions from

their math glossary. After the activity and the unit of study were concluded, the same test

that was administered at the start of the unit was given as a post-test.

The second part of this study had the purpose of answering the third focus

question: How do teacher/student attitudes change about vocabulary when different


learning styles are addressed? At the beginning and end of the research study, the same

survey was administered to the untreated group and the treatment group to identify their

feelings about math and math vocabulary.

Validity, Reliability and Bias Measures

Validity, reliability/dependability, and lack of bias were ensured in this study

through the use of specific methods of research and data collection. As a researcher,

there are exclusive proceedings that must take place to increase the dependability and

consistency of the data. For focus question one of this study concerned with pedagogy

the data collection were qualitative. An instructional plan rubric and interviews were

used as the method of data collection. The instructional plan used for this study was

focused on Geometry lessons. There is a large quantity of vocabulary that must be

mastered in order to grasp the concepts taught in Geometry. This made it ideal for

comparing the use of learning styles to more traditional methods of teaching vocabulary.

The plan includes lessons on lines, angles, polygons, circles, and solid figures. The

instructional plan was evaluated by two peer teachers for content validity. The objectives

of the plan were directly related to the fifth grade Georgia Performance Standards that

were tested on the Georgia CRCT. Popham (2008) asserts that content validity refers to

the adequacy with which the content of a test represents the content of the curricular aim

being measured. These interviews were the primary source of qualitative data collection

for focus question one. Because the interviews were recorded and detailed notes of

interviewees’ responses were taken from the recordings soon after the interviews took

place dependability has been assured. Each peer teacher checked the transcribed

interviews to ensure accuracy in what was written. Both peer teachers examined the


instructional plan looking for any unfair or offensive bias. Popham (2008) states that bias

refers to the qualities of an instrument that offend or unfairly penalize a group of students

because of students’ gender, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, religion, or other such

group-defining characteristics.

The second focus question of this study was: How do test scores compare

between traditional methods of teaching vocabulary and vocabulary taught by addressing

different learning styles? To maintain reliability, I used quantitative interval data to

compare scores obtained from pre-test and post-tests. The pre-test and post-tests were

compared by independent t-tests to determine if there were significant differences

between means from the untreated group and the treatment group’s pre/post tests. Both

tests were also analyzed using dependent t–tests to determine if there were significant

differences between means from one group tested twice. The data collected from the

interval level of measurement as stated by Salkind (2010), “is where a test or an

assessment tool is based on some underlying continuum such that we can talk about how

much more a higher performance is than a lesser one” (p. 140). The data collection and

treatment will be consistent with a controlled setting. The content validity will assess

whether a test reflects items in a certain topic (Salkind, 2010). The test questions in this

study demonstrate content validity because they are representative of the curriculum

being taught (Popham, 2008). The pre-test and post-test used were both examined by

different faculty members to look for any evidence of bias.

The third focus question of this study was concerned with how teacher/student

attitudes change about vocabulary when different learning styles are addressed. The data

gathering methods used for focus question three was pre and post attitudinal surveys and


a teacher reflective journal. The data collected from the surveys will be on the nominal

level of measurement. As per Salkind (2010) the nominal level is specified by the aspect

of an outcome that adapts to only one class or category. The last method of data

collection was a daily reflective journal kept by me. Each entry was guided by a set of

reflective journal prompts (see Appendix E) designed to give consistency to the journal.

Keeping detailed documentation of behaviors observed, statements made, and attitudes

displayed allowed me to plan a program that would incorporate the positive aspects while

revising those that were not useful or productive. This valuable information will be

utilized to modify future pedagogy.

Evidence was collected from the student surveys to gauge interest and

motivation, showing construct validity by using the information shown by the literature

review to develop the series of statements students read. I was mindful of a limitation on

the student attitudinal survey, that students might circle answers they think will please the

teacher. To account for this, I pointed out to the students to answer the survey according

to their own attitudes and feelings. The survey was checked for bias to increase

awareness of how the results may be affected negatively or positively. The construct

validity will be strong and it will correlate the survey with a theorized outcome (Salkind

2010). The type of reliability demonstrated is stability reliability as both the control and

treatment groups rated their attitudes about math and math vocabulary using the same

survey before and after the instructional plan was taught. Stability reliability, also called

test re-test reliability is the agreement of measuring instruments over time. To determine

stability, a measure or test is repeated on the same subjects at a future date. The results

are compared and correlated with the initial test to give a measure of stability. The data


collection was composed and evaluated for internal consistency, scale reliability or

average correlation using Cronbach’s Alpha.

The teacher reflective journal I kept while the strategies were being implemented

was coded for specific themes, attitudes, and feelings. A set of predetermined journal

prompts were used to record how I felt about the lesson, assessments, and to reflect upon

the materials that were used. Entries into the reflective journal were recorded daily to

review the progress of the study. Using consistent prompts daily creates boundaries and

makes it easier to analyze the results.

Analysis of Data

To answer focus question one about what is the process of teaching math

vocabulary to address different learning styles of individual learners. I wrote a detailed

instructional plan. Two peer teachers were given the plan and a rubric that was

developed for evaluation purposes and to provide feedback. The feedback on the

instructional plan was analyzed qualitatively. In addition to the rubric, the two peer

teachers agreed to participate in a recorded interview in which they provided detailed

feedback about the plan. The two interviews were examined to look for recurring,

dominant, or emerging themes.

Focus question two about how test scores compare between traditional methods of

teaching vocabulary and vocabulary taught by addressing different learning styles. The

method used was quantitative because interval data from pre-tests and post-tests was

statistically compared for both the control group and the treatment group. A dependent t-

test was used to determine if there are significant differences between means from one

group tested twice. The null hypothesis is that there is no significant difference between


the pre-test and post-test results. The decision to reject the null hypothesis was set at p

< .05. An independent t-test was also used to determine if there were significant

differences between means from two independent groups, i.e. the untreated and treatment

groups. The null statement was stated that student test scores were not influenced by

addressing the different learning styles of students. The decision to reject the null

hypothesis was set at p < .05. To measure the magnitude of a treatment effect, the Effect

size was also calculated. Unlike significance tests, these indices are independent of

sample size. Effect size can be measured in two ways: Cohen’s d for independent

groups and Effect size r for paired data such as a dependent t-test.

Focus question three was about how teacher/student attitudes change about

vocabulary when different learning styles are addressed? A Likert scale survey

consisting of seven statements and four questions about students’ feelings and attitudes

toward math and math vocabulary was administered to the students before and after the

treatment. . The survey’s Likert responses were quantitatively analyzed by performing a

Chi Square to find which questions were significant and which were not. Significance

was reported at the p < .05, p < .01, and p < .001 levels. The survey was checked for

internal consistency reliability by computing Cronbach’s Alpha.

By keeping a reflective journal during this study, I was also able to code it for

recurring, dominant, and emerging themes. I could examine not only my feelings, but

also keep a record of attitudes and feelings noticed in the students. Because the journal

entries were made up using prompted questions by me, the threat of bias was evident. In

order to minimize differing, experimental and background bias of the journal entry, the

prompts were reviewed by faculty members (Popham, 2008).


The literature review of this thesis is an “epistemological validation” of the

research and remains consistent with the type of research that was implemented in the

study (Lather as cited by Kinchloe & McLaren, 1998). Denzin and Lincoln (1998)

describe the cycling back to the literature review as “epistemological validation,” a place

where the researcher convinces the reader that they have remained consistent with the

theoretical perspectives they used in the review of the literature. Eisner (1991)

recommends “Consensual Validation”, therefore, the research methods will also be

reviewed by the LaGrange College faculty to “ensure that the description, interpretation,

evaluation, and thematic are right.”

If other teachers understand and perceive that the use learning styles in the

instruction of vocabulary is a successful strategy because of this research, the research

has referential adequacy because they will use it in their lessons. The findings of this

study may be applied to subjects other than math. “Catalytic validity” (Lather as cited by

Kincheloe & McLaren, 1998) is the degree to which researchers anticipate their study to

shape and transform their participants, subjects, or school. Catalytic validity is an

expected outcome of this study.

The next chapter reports the information obtained from the data gathered during

duration of this study.


CHAPTER 4: RESULTS

The results displayed in Chapter Four are organized by focus question. Focus

question one in this study is about the process of teaching math vocabulary to address

different learning styles of individual students. A peer reviewed instructional plan was

developed and followed during the course of this study. Two peer teachers evaluated the

plan using a rubric. The peer teachers agreed to be interviewed about their thoughts on

the plan. This recorded interview was transcribed and checked for accuracy by each

interviewee. Peer teacher A responded very positively on the rubric. Upon closer

examination of the instructional plan, she did point out that the learners might not be able

to determine what they should know and be able to do from the way it was worded in the

plan. She suggested clarifying this by having a written synopsis of what the students

need to understand as a part of the plan. Each teacher has a grid on their board that

contains information about the lessons being taught that day. It has a space for the

Georgia Performance Standard, essential question, concept, vocabulary words, and

homework. She suggested quickly going over this grid verbally before beginning the

lesson for the day. Another suggestion was to have a plan for reviewing information

previously taught to check for any weak areas in the content. If there were any, they

could be re-taught before the new content was taught for that day. Another teacher

should be able to take the instructional plan and teach it to their class; however, it was

suggested that more detail be added to the vocabulary card activity on day 2. She stated

that, “You know exactly what you mean, and are planning to do because you have a lot of

experience with it, but someone else would not necessarily know what to put in each of

the four sections of the card.” Peer teacher B also responded very positively to the plan.

She had the same suggestion for specific prompts for the days the Writing to Win


Journals would be used. The only other negative thing she found in the plan was that day

two’s essential question and activity did not match. She thought that the detailed listing

of vocabulary for each day was impressive. “Vocabulary is very essential to the

understanding of math concepts.” As a math teacher, she asserted that she could take the

plan with those revisions and use it with her classes. She declared, “It is well written and

very clear. I think it would be easy to pick it up and follow it. It is obviously standards

based and covers the objectives for this instructional plan.”

Focus question two of this study was about how test scores compare between

traditional methods of teaching vocabulary and vocabulary taught by addressing different

learning styles. Classes A and C made up the treatment group. This group was provided

with different opportunities to work with vocabulary that focused on meeting different

learning styles. The use of art, poetry, and drama was implemented to help them

remember the definitions. Classes B and D made up the untreated group. They were

taught the vocabulary using traditional methods from previous years. They did activities

like looking up the definitions in the glossary of their math text.

Data from both groups’ pre-tests were compared in an independent t-test to

determine if addressing different learning styles increased student learning as opposed to

writing definitions. The results of the independent t-test (see Table 4.1) show that t (38) =

1.49, p > .05. This means that the obtained value found in this test of 1.49 was less than

the critical value of 1.685. Therefore, the null hypothesis that there is no significant

difference between students learning when different learning styles are addressed in math

vocabulary lessons and when students write definitions from the text must be accepted

proving there is no significant difference between the two groups (Salkind, 2010). This


provided a level playing field for both groups when this study began. A Cohen’s d effect

size of 0.21 is considered a medium effect size.

Table 4.1 Pre/Pre Independent t-test

INDEPENDENT t-test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances Pre-Test A Pre-Test B

Mean 16.06896552 22

Variance 119.137931 278.7826087

Observations 29 24

Hypothesized Mean Difference 0

df 38

t Stat -1.495708314

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.071494646

t Critical one-tail 1.685954461

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.142989293t Critical two-tail 2.024394147

t(38) = 1.49, p > .05

Data from the pre-test and post-test when the students were given opportunities to

participate in activities that address different learning styles were analyzed with a

dependent t-test to determine if significant learning occurred. The null hypothesis in this

case that there is no significant increase in student learning when students participate in

activities that address different learning styles was rejected. The results of the dependent

t-test (see Table 4.2) show that t (28) = 14.83, p < .05. This means that the obtained value

found in the test, 14.83 was greater than the critical value of 1.70 rejecting the null

hypothesis demonstrating that there is significant learning when different learning styles

are addressed when acquiring new vocabulary. Effect size is a name given to a family of


indices that measure the magnitude of a treatment effect. The treatment group’s pre/post

test comparison resulted in a large effect size r = 0.84.

Table 4:2: Treatment Group Dependent t-test

DEPENDENT t-test: Paired Two Sample for Means Pre Test Post Test Mean 16.0689 77.8965Variance 119.137931 621.8103448Observations 29 29Pearson Correlation 0.435403015Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 df 28t Stat -14.83182787P(T<=t) one-tail 4.32463E-15 t Critical one-tail 1.701130908P(T<=t) two-tail 8.64925E-15 t Critical two-tail 2.048407115

t(28) = 14.83, p < .05

Data from the pre-test and post-test when the students only wrote the definitions

were also analyzed in a dependent t-test to determine if significant learning occurred.

The null hypothesis in this case that there is no significant increase in student learning

when students copy definitions from the text was rejected. The results of the dependent t-

test (see Table 4.3) show that t (23) = 11.51, p < .05. This means that the obtained value

found in the test, 11.51 was greater than the critical value of 1.71 rejecting the null

hypothesis. In both cases significant learning occurred. The untreated group’s pre/post

test comparison resulted in a large effect size r = 0.73.

Table 4.3 Untreated Group Dependent t-test


DEPENDENT t-test: Paired Two Sample for Means Pre Test Post Test Mean 22 69.83333333Variance 278.7826087 701.7101449Observations 24 24Pearson Correlation 0.639550005

Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 df 23t Stat -11.50644519P(T<=t) one-tail 2.54318E-11t Critical one-tail 1.713871517P(T<=t) two-tail 5.08635E-11t Critical two-tail 2.068657599 t (23) = 11.51, p < .05

Data from both post-tests were compared in an independent t-test to determine if

addressing different learning styles increased student learning as opposed to writing

definitions. The results of the independent t-test (see Table 4.4) show that t (48) = 1.13, p

> .05. This means that the obtained value found in this test of 1.13 was less than the

critical value of 1.677. Therefore, the null hypothesis that there is no significant

difference between student learning when different learning styles are addressed in math

vocabulary lessons and when students write definitions from the text must be accepted

and the test results cannot be considered significant (Salkind, 2010). A Cohen’s d effect

size of 0.31 is considered a medium effect size.

Table 4.4 Post/Post Independent t-test


INDEPENDENT t-test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances Post Test A Post Test B

Mean 77.89655172 69.83333333

Variance 621.8103448 701.7101449

Observations 29 24

Hypothesized Mean Difference 0

df 48

t Stat 1.132639183

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.131496016

t Critical one-tail 1.677224197

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.262992031

t Critical two-tail 2.010634722 t(48) = 1.13, p > .05

Focus question three from this study about whether teacher and student attitudes

change about vocabulary when different learning styles are addressed was analyzed

through the use of student pre/post surveys and a reflective journal I kept during the

study. The chi-square test statistic was calculated to compare what was observed on the

pre/post surveys to what would happen by chance (Salkind, 2010). Tables 4.5 and 4.6

below show the results of the chi-square tests for the student pre/post surveys.

Table 4.5 Untreated Group Survey


Survey Items n = 11

c2 Pre-Survey c2 Post-Survey

I am good at math 13.18** 15.4**I like to answer questions asked by the teacher in math class. 13.71** 10.6*I am comfortable asking questions in math if I don’t understand something. 13.8** 13.27**I am comfortable sharing my math ideas with the class. 9.8* 10.6*I understand the vocabulary we use in math. 11.93** 10.6* I think I learn better when I understand the vocabulary in math. 15.13** 14.16**It is easy for me to use the vocabulary in math. 11.22* 11.67**Which of these best describes you as a math student? 6.96 13.8**Which of these best describes how a friend would describe you as a math student? 9.6* 12.73**How often are you asked to explain your answer using math vocabulary? 15.27** 19.84***How easy is it for you to use math vocabulary to explain your answer? 11.93** 10.96**p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001

The results of the chi-square statistic for the untreated group pre-surveys

highlighted several significant questions. Survey items 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, and 11 were all

found to be significant when p < .01, meaning that there was a high percentage of

students that answered a certain way on these questions. However, item 10 was not

significant at all, which means there was no significant difference on this question

between what was observed in the answer and what would have been expected to happen

by chance.

Table 4.6 Treatment Group Survey

Survey Items n = 11

c2 Pre-Survey c2 Post-Survey


1. I am good at math 18.33** 13**2. I like to answer questions asked by the teacher in math class. 15.67** 20.47***3. I am comfortable asking questions in math if I don’t understand something. 10.87* 13**4. I am comfortable sharing my math ideas with the class. 17.98*** 12.64**5. I understand the vocabulary we use in math. 19*** 15.13**6. I think I learn better when I understand the vocabulary in math. 22.6*** 18.33***7. It is easy for me to use the vocabulary in math. 13** 10.16*8. Which of these best describes you as a math student? 10.69* 10.87*9. Which of these best describes how a friend would describe you as a math student? 14.07** 12.64**10. How often are you asked to explain your answer using math vocabulary? 16.2** 26.64***11. How easy is it for you to use math vocabulary to explain your answer? 14.42** 15.13** *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001

The results of the chi-square statistic for the treatment group pre-survey shows

that questions 4, 5, and 6 were all found to be greatly significant at the p < .001 level,

meaning that there were a high percentage of students who answered a certain way on

these questions. The results of the chi-square statistic for the treatment group post-survey

shows that questions 2, 6, and 10 were all found to be greatly significant at the p < .001

level, meaning that there were a high percentage of students who answered a certain way

on these questions. Question 2, about answering questions in math class, had 15 students

to agree and 5 who strongly agreed. Question 6, about learning with better understanding

of vocabulary, had 16 students to strongly agree and 11 who agreed. Question 10, about


how often you use vocabulary to answer questions, had 10 who said more than half the

time and 14 who said less than ½ the time.

To determine the internal consistency reliability of the items on the surveys given

to the students, the Cronbach’s Alpha test was conducted using the survey responses for

each group’s pre/post surveys. The purpose of this test was to compare the score for each

item with the total score for each student in order to make sure the items measured only

what they were intended to measure (Salkind, 2010). For the untreated group pre-

surveys, the Cronbach’s Alpha was α = 0.82. For the treatment group pre-surveys, the

Cronbach’s Alpha was α = 0.86. The untreated group post-surveys had a Cronbach’s

Alpha that was α = 0.83 and the treatment group was α = 0.86. Therefore, both of these

surveys showed a high level of reliability using the results of the Cronbach’s alpha test as

well.

To determine whether my attitudes as the teacher and those of the students

changed during the study, a reflective journal was kept by me during the action research

of this study. I wrote in the journal daily to record my attitudes as well as those of the

students. The journal was coded for recurring, dominant, and emerging themes. A

recurring theme throughout the study was the positive response of the treatment group to

the different activities they participated in. Student 1 stated, “I didn’t know learning

vocabulary could be such fun!” Student 2 added that, “Drawing a picture on the cards

really makes it easier for me to remember what the word means.” Student 3 said, “I

won’t ever forget how that group acted out their word!” The Untreated Group had an

opposite response. When told to write the words and copy the definitions from the

glossary, there was much grumbling and complaining. Many of the students in the


untreated group were apathetic towards the assignments they were given. The

enthusiasm and excitement of the treatment group was not evident at all. I observed that

the lower achieving students in the treatment group were much more involved and

interested in the activities. Using these different strategies really helped “level the

playing field” for these students to be successful and the resulting work was of a much

higher quality than previously displayed. The students in the treatment group were much

more willing to take risks when trying to solve problems and more willing to share with

the class what they were thinking as they worked through the process. The untreated

group really didn’t score much differently on this unit of study than any other previously

taught this year. The grades on the tests and quizzes were pretty typical of what they had

accomplished all year. I did notice the lower achieving students in the treatment group

were very proud of their successes. One parent commented on how her son got in the car

at car riders so excited to show her the 100 he had made on a math quiz. She said he told

her, “This is the first time I’ve ever made a grade this good.”

I found myself feeling much more enthusiasm when working with the treatment

group. They were excited and it made me feel that way too. I wrote in my journal the

day they “acted out” the words, “It was very noisy, but I observed a lot of enthusiasm and

a lot of learning taking place.” It took a couple of days before I really felt comfortable

with the noise they were making as they learned new concepts and vocabulary. I felt bad

that the treatment group had so much fun, while the untreated group’s activities were

pretty boring. Examining the results of the survey questions was very eye opening for

me. I never realized so many were uncomfortable asking questions or sharing in class. I


found myself wondering if the ones who were uncomfortable were the same ones who

struggle in math class.

As you read Chapter Four, you have probably noticed certain discrepancies

between the qualitative and quantitative data that were produced as a result of the action

research study. While the qualitative data, which was gathered through student surveys

and my reflective journal, show positive and significant effects from using motivational

teaching strategies that reach the different learning styles of individual students, the

quantitative data, or pre/post tests, did not produce significant results to reflect these

observations. The data in this chapter will be further analyzed and reflected upon in

Chapter Five in order to determine the possible causes for the observed inconsistencies,

as well as provide recommendations for future research.


CHAPTER FIVE: ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

Analysis

The first focus question of this thesis was about the process of teaching math

vocabulary to address the different learning styles of individual students. The data

collection for focus question one, concerned with pedagogy, was qualitative. A peer

reviewed instructional plan was developed and followed during the course of this study.

The large quantity of vocabulary that must be mastered in order to grasp the concepts

taught in the Geometry Unit made it ideal for comparing the use of learning styles to the

more traditional methods of teaching vocabulary. Two peer teachers evaluated the plan

using a rubric to assure content validity. The interviews with the peer teachers were

recorded and detailed notes of interviewee’s responses were taken. Each peer teacher

checked the transcribed interviews to ensure accuracy in what was written. These

interviews were the primary source of qualitative data collection for focus question one.

I took their recommendations and adjusted the plan accordingly. Both of the peer

teachers had positive things to say about the plan. They only made a couple of

suggestions to make it better, mainly adding a little more detail to a vocabulary card

activity so someone else could easily use my plan. The suggestion was made to do a

quick review/assessment at the beginning of each lesson to assure that the content

previously covered was mastered. Both teachers agreed that the plan was directly related

to the fifth grade Georgia Performance Standards that would be tested on the Georgia

CRCT. They also said there were activities included in the unit of study that addressed

several different types of learning styles.


During this unit of study, the students in the treated group were introduced to the

Geometry vocabulary by using art, music, and drama. They made vocabulary cards that

included pictures and diagrams that they drew, as well as, the definition, and examples.

By using art, they were able to visualize the meaning of the words, thus addressing the

visual learners. Students also had the opportunity to create songs or raps with the

different vocabulary words. By using music, the students with strong auditory learning

styles were able to use their strengths. To address the kinesthetic learner’s styles, the

students were allowed to pantomime or perform a skit using their words. They

performed these for their fellow classmates.

Yilmaz-Soylu & Akkoyunlu (2009) state that it is important to take into accounts

the characteristics, abilities, and experiences of learners when planning to teach a lesson.

Teachers should organize lessons according to the learning styles of the students rather

than expecting the student to adapt to the existing organization. Rapp (2009) suggests

when teaching auditorally, use visualization strategies that allow the learner to create a

picture in their head.

The second focus question of this thesis about how do test scores compare

between traditional methods of teaching vocabulary and vocabulary taught by addressing

different learning styles was addressed with dependent t-tests and an independent t-test.

All students were given a pre-test on Geometry vocabulary. The pre-tests from both the

treatment group and the untreated group were analyzed using an independent t-test. The

obtained value found in this test of 1.49 was less than the critical value of 1.685.

Therefore, the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between students

learning when different learning styles are addressed in math vocabulary lessons and


when students write definitions from the text must be accepted proving there is no

significant difference between the two groups (Salkind, 2010). This provided a level

playing field for both groups when this study began. The treatment group received

instruction that addressed different learning styles, but the untreated group received only

traditional activities from previous years. The pre/post tests from both groups were

compared using a dependent t-test. The obtained value for the treatment group was 14.83

with a P < .05, a great amount of significance is evident. The obtained value for the

untreated group was 11.05 with a P < .05, a great amount of significance is also evident

for this group. The post-tests from both the treatment and untreated groups were

analyzed with an independent t-test. The obtained value was 1.13 with a P < .05, which

was less than the critical value l.68 showing that the null hypothesis that there is no

significant difference between student learning when different learning styles are

addressed in math vocabulary lessons and when students write definitions from the text

must be accepted and the test results cannot be considered significant. The post-test mean

score of the treatment group was 77.89 and the mean score of the untreated group was

69.83. Content validity was maintained because the pre-test and post-test were identical.

Research in this area supports the findings of this study. Pierce and Fontaine

(2009) found that a child’s success in math is influenced by the depth and breadth of their

mathematical vocabulary. According to Fore, et al. (2007), students who struggle with

reading often have limited vocabularies which hinder their ability to relate new terms and

concepts to previous knowledge especially in mathematics. The Learning Cycle is a

method that teaches vocabulary using visualization. The cycle has four phases including

engagement, exploration, development, and application (Spencer & Gilliam, 2006). In


the first phase, engagement, pictures were used to introduce the words and the students

were hooked. The exploration stage involved drawing. In the development stage the

students group pictures of words that are related, the last stage application, requires the

students to use all the previous phases in a unique way, such as a poem, song, or play

ensuring enduring understanding of the words. One group of students from the treatment

class made up a song about the different kinds of lines. This is a good example of

application in the treatment group. Cunningham (2009) states that adding strategies to

address visual, auditory, and kinesthetic (VAK) styles while teaching math vocabulary

maximizes the potential for learning in that subject area. The students in the treatment

group showed a significant growth in vocabulary knowledge according to the dependent

t-test that compared the means of the pre-test and post-test scores affirming the literature.

Significant learning also occurred in the untreated group based on the dependent t-test

that compared the means of the pre/post test scores. The treatment group had 7 students

that scored below 70 on the post-test and the untreated group had 9.

When the post-test scores were compared using an independent t-test between the

treatment group and the untreated group there was no significant difference between the

two. The obtained value of 1.13 was less than the critical value of 1.68 and the Cohen’s

d statistic, 0.3136 is a medium effect size. This does not align with most of the literature;

however, it was supported by those opposed to using learning styles. Geake (2008) posits

that, on the whole, the evidence time and again shows that modifying a teaching strategy

to account for the differences in learning styles does not result in any improvement in

learning outcomes. Most educators know that learning styles is only one of a great many

variables which influence academic performance (Sharp et al., 2008). Geake (2008) cites


the research of Kratzig and Arbuthnott showing that there is no improvement of learning

outcomes with VAK above teacher enthusiasm. This finding does not modify or disprove

the literature because only one test was used for comparison.

Focus question three was about whether the attitudes of the teacher and students

change when different learning styles are addressed. I observed my fifth grade students

in the treatment and untreated group as the Geometry unit was implemented. I coded a

journal for two themes, positive comments and reactions to the lesson, and negative

comments and reactions to the lesson. I was looking for categorical and repeating data

that formed patterns of behaviors. I found that out of twenty-nine interactions during the

lessons when vocabulary cards were produced including pictures, twenty-six were

positive and three were negative. Ninety percent of the reactions to the lesson were

positive. When we did the dramatic presentations of the words, I found that twenty-seven

out of the twenty nine students had very positive comments. Ninety-three percent of the

reactions to this activity were positive. I noted that the students were very engaged in

sharing their words with each other and most of the conversations between students were

about their vocabulary words. Every student completed the assignment; even though two

students were reluctant to participate at first, they were convinced by their peers that they

could do it.

Greenwood (2002) indicated that engaging students in active hands-on lessons to

learn vocabulary is a way to improve vocabulary comprehension, and that creating

picture definitions can motivate students and keep them involved in the lesson.

According to Paivio’s Dual Coding Theory (As stated by Hibbing and Rankin-Erickson,

2003), memory is accomplished by fluctuation between mental imagery and language


processing. Use of mental imagery improves reading comprehension (Hibbing &

Rankin-Erickson, 2003). Sadoski (2005) explains the keyword theory which demands

that the student relate new vocabulary to previously learned words that are key parts of

the new word. To do this the student creates an image that relates to something they

already know. One student created a picture for the word irregular polygon, which is any

polygon that does not have congruent sides and angles. Her picture showed a regular

square, triangle, and hexagon with a circle surrounding each with the slash mark

diagonally across meaning prohibited or negative. She knew what a regular polygon was

and used it to show she understood irregular polygon. This student demonstrated the use

of the keyword method without being told.

Discussion

In reflection, the findings of this action research study produced both predictable

and unpredictable results. Visuals are a major part of our society. It is important that we

teach students to interpret visuals because of the internet, television, and new teaching

methods, such as power points and movie maker. Everyone is required to have a word

wall in their classroom. Using visuals along with the word wall make it a valuable

teaching tool. This activity is easy to implement giving the study referential adequacy.

Other teachers in the school are already implementing the strategy giving the study a high

degree of catalytic validity.

One interesting result that occurred due to this research involved the pictures that

the students were asked to draw for each of the vocabulary words. When presented with

a list of the vocabulary words and pictures without written definitions, the students in the

treatment group were very successful at matching the word to the picture. Twenty-eight


of the twenty-nine students in the treatment group successfully matched the pictures to

the vocabulary word with a minimum accuracy rate of eighty percent while the twenty-

four students in the untreated group only had fifteen students with an eighty percent or

higher accuracy rate. This supports the evidence from much of the literature which states

that learning occurs when students create visuals.

The qualitative part of this study demonstrates structural corroboration because

triangulation of the journal observations and student observations was an accurate

measure of the student engagement during the lessons. Both positive and negative

responses were recorded to ensure the fairness of the study. The student behavior during

the lessons supports the rightness of fit of the research. The evidence of active

engagement was overwhelming for the treatment group in the journal themes and

observations.

The quantitative studies of this action research study did not produce significant

results supporting the use of addressing learning styles when teaching math vocabulary.

This research is credible because the assessments used to pre-test and post-test the

students were the same test. Doing this helps to ensure that there are no other variables to

cloud the research. Even though the comparison of the data showed that the students did

not score significantly higher on the post-test in which learning styles were addressed to

teach math vocabulary than they did on the post-test in which the instruction followed

traditional methods used in previous years, that was only one test involving a sample size

of only fifty-three students. This was a small sample, which decreased the chances that

the outcome of the study would be significant. On the test in which traditional methods

from previous years were used, the mean of the pre-test scores was 22, and the mean of


the post-test scores was 70. When those scores were compared to the pre-test mean (16)

and the post-test mean (78) of the test when different learning styles were addressed

when teaching math vocabulary, it can be seen that there was more improvement with the

treatment group. Further evidence can be found in the literature that learning occurs

when different learning styles of students are addressed. Comparing the test results of the

treatment and untreated groups proved that both groups made significant gains from the

pre-test to the post test. There is evidence in the literature to support that written

definitions are not the best teaching tool. Bromley (2007) states the practice of writing

definitions has proven to be useless. Students blindly copy the definition and forget it.

Beck, McKeown, and Kucan (2002) assert that becoming interested and aware of words

is not a likely outcome from having students look up definitions in a dictionary or

glossary. Bromley (2007) insists more effective strategies are being developed to

enhance vocabulary lessons.

Implications

Because the sample size was small used in this study, the results of this research

cannot be generalized to the larger population. The students in the treatment group were

highly engaged in the lessons while there was large amount of disengagement among

those in the untreated group. A lesson that promotes active engagement of elementary

school students that is easily implemented is already being used by other teachers in the

school. Incorporation of the methods used in this research into the lesson plans of my

peers gives the research referential adequacy and catalytic validity.

The most interesting thing that happened as a result of this research affirms the

catalytic validity of this study. One of my students created vocabulary cards for a science


vocabulary test using pictures to help remember the word. This proved that he had

applied the concept of creating picture definitions to another subject. When several of

the other students saw his vocabulary pictures, they too drew pictures to help them in the

same way. I will definitely address different learning styles when teaching math

vocabulary in the future because of this study and I will share these activities with other

teachers in my school. According to Fore et al. (2007), the ability to read and vocabulary

knowledge in the content areas are essential for school success. As the bar continues to

be raised for schools to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), which is measured by

state standardized tests, vocabulary knowledge in all content areas is critical. Addressing

student’s learning styles keeps them actively engaged in the lessons; therefore, leading to

an increase in knowledge. I believe that students who have a firm understanding of the

vocabulary of math have a better chance of performing higher on not only classroom

assessments but also on the state CRCT.

Recommendations for Future Research

If I could change anything about this study, I would conduct more tests with the

different methods for teaching vocabulary, so that I could have a more reliable

benchmark with which to compare them. If the sample size was larger I think the results

would be different. I would like to see if there would be significant gains when

comparing the post-tests when addressing different learning styles to more traditional

methods previously used. If the students consistently used pictures, music, poetry, and

drama to learn new vocabulary, would they score higher on the state mandated CRCT. It

would also be interesting if these same students could be assessed at the beginning of the

next school year to see how much of this Geometry vocabulary they retained. I would


also like to see if the math scores would be impacted by not only learning content math

vocabulary but also the testing language used on the state tests.


References

Beck, I.L., McKeown, & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction. New York: The Guilford Press.

Beecher, M., & Sweeny, S. (2008). Closing the achievement gap with curriculum enrichment and differentiation: One school’s story. Journal of Advanced Academics, 19(3), 502-530. Retrieved October 3, 2010, from ERIC database.

Bromley, K. (2007). Nine things every teacher should know about words and vocabulary instruction. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 50(7), 528-537. Retrieved September 25, 2010, from ERIC database.

Carter, Tamara and Dean, Emily. (2006). Mathematics intervention for Grades 5-11: Teaching mathematics, reading, or both? Reading Psychology, 27(2&3), 127-146. Retrieved September 25, 2010, from ERIC database.

Cresswell, John W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Cunningham, P. (2009). What really matters in vocabulary: Research-based practices across the curriculum. Boston: Pearson.

Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (1998). The fifth moment. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues (pp.407-430). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Eisner, E. (1991). The enlightened eye. New York: MacMillan.

Flanigan, K. & Greenwood, S. (2007). Effective content vocabulary instruction in the middle: Matching students, purposes, words, and strategies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 51(3), 226-238. doi:10.1598/JAAL51.3.3

Fore, C., Boon, R., & Lowrie, K. (2007). Vocabulary instruction for middle school students with learning disabilities: A comparison of two instructional models, Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 5(2), 49-73. Retrieved July 23, 2010, from ERIC database.

Fraenkel, J., & Wallen, N. (1990). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

Frey, N., & Fisher, D. (2009). Learning words inside and out: Vocabulary instruction that boosts achievement in all subject areas. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Gailey, S. K. (1993). The mathematics/children’s literature connection. Arithmetic Teacher, 40(5), 258-261. Retrieved August 12, 2010, from ERIC database.


Gay, A. S. (2008). Helping teachers connect vocabulary and conceptual understanding, Mathematics Teacher, 102(3), 218-223.

Geake, J. (2008). Neuromythologies in education, Educational Research, 50(2), 123-133. Retrieved November 11, 2010, from ERIC database.

Georgia Department of Education (2008).Mathematics Georgia performance standards (GPS), 1-16. Atlanta, GA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.georgiastandards.org on June 23, 2010.

Greenwood, S. (2006). Making words matter: Vocabulary study in the content areas. The Clearing House, 75(5), 258-63. Retrieved July 28, 2010, from ERIC database.

Haas, S.C. (2003). Algebra for gifted visual-spatial learners. Gifted Education Communicator, 34(1), 30-43. Retrieved October 15, 2010, from ERIC database.

Hendricks, C. (2009). Improving schools through action research: A comprehensive guide for educators. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson.

Hibbing, A., & Rankin-Erickson, J. (2003). A picture is worth a thousand words: Using visual images to improve comprehension for middle school struggling readers. The Reading Teacher, 58(8), 758-770. Retrieved October 15, 2010, from ERIC database.

Jensen, E. (1998). How Julie’s brain learns. Educational Leadership, 56(3) 41-45.

Kinchloe, J., & McLaren, P. (1998). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. In N.Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues (pp. 260-299). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Kratzig, G.P., & Arbuthnott, K.D. (2006). Perceptual learning style and learning proficiency: A test of the hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 238-246. Retrieved November 2, 2010, from ERIC database.

LaGrange College Education Department. (2008). Conceptual framework. LaGrange, GA: LaGrange College Matz, K.A. & Leier, C. (1992). Word problems and the language connection. Arithmetic Teacher, 39(8), 14-17.

National Board of Professional Teaching Standards [NBPTS]. (2002, August). The five core principles. Retrieved June 23, 2010 from the NBPTS Web Site http://www.nbpts.org

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM]. (2000). Principles and standards for School Mathematics. Retrieved July 2, 2010, from http://www.nctm.org/standards/content

http://www.nctm.org/standards/content

http://www.nbpts.org/

http://www.georgiastandards.org/


Phillips, D. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism. Educational Researcher, 24(7), 5-12.

Pierce, M., & Fontaine, L. (2009). Designing vocabulary instruction inmathematics. The Reading Teacher, 63(3) 239-243. doi:10.1598/RT.63.3.7

Phillips, D.C., Bardsley, M.E., Bach, T., & Gibb-Brown, K. (2009). “But I teach math!” the journey of middle school mathematics teachers and literacy coaches learning to integrate literacy strategies into the math instruction. Education, 129(3), 467-472. Retrieved July 3, 2010, from ERIC database.

Popham, W. (2008). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson, Allyn, & Bacon.

Powell, K & Kalina, C. (2010). Cognitive and social constructivism: Developing tools for an effective classroom. Education, 130(2), 241-250. Retrieved August 12, 2010, from ERIC database.

Rapp, W. (2009). Avoiding math taboos: Effective math strategies for visual-spatial learners. Teaching Exceptional Children Plus, 6(2), 2-12. Retrieved September 10,2010, from ERIC database.

Rector, Robert E. and Henderson, Kenneth B. (1970). The relative effectiveness of four strategies for teaching mathematical concepts. Journal for research in mathematics education, 1(2), 69-75. Retrieved September 29, 2010, from ERIC database.

Sadoski, M. (2005). A dual coding view of vocabulary learning. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 21, 221-238. Retrieved October 14, 2010, from ERIC database.

Salkind, N. J. (2010). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics (Excel 2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Scott, C. (2010). The enduring appeal of ‘learning styles’. Australian Journal of Education, 54(1), 5-17. Retrieved November 2, 2010, from ERIC database.

Sharp, J.G., Bowker, R., Byrne, J. (2008). VAK or VAK-ous? Towards the trivialization of learning and the death of scholarship. Research Papers in Education, 23(3), 293-314. Retrieved November 2, 2010, from ERIC database.

Silverman, L. K. (2005). Teaching mathematics to non-sequential learners. www.gifteddevelopment.com

Spencer, B., & Guillaume, A. (2006). Integrating curriculum throughout the learning cycle: Content based reading and vocabulary instruction. The Reading Teacher, 60(3), 206-219. Retrieved August 15, 2010, from ERIC database.

http://www.gifteddevelopment.com/


Tajalli, H., & Opheim, C. (2005). Strategies for closing the gap: Predicting student performance in economically disadvantaged schools. Educational Research Quarterly, 28(4), 44-54. (ERIC) Document Reproduction Service No. EJ718119) Retrieved August 14, 2010 from ERIC database.

Yilmaz-Soylu, M., Akkoyunlu,B. (2009). The effect of learning styles on achievement in different learning environments. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – TOJET, 8(4), 43-50. Retrieved November 2, 2010, from ERIC database.


Appendix A Geometric Figures Instructional Plan

Day Standards Essential Question

Resources/Materials Activities Vocabulary Assessment Homework

Day 1 Concepts and Skills to Maintain: Characteristics of 2D and 3D shapes.

How can I identify different types of line relationships and angles?

Text: Harcourt MathRulersWrite to Win JournalsHarcourt Mega Math Ice Station Exploration Polar Planes (computer lab throughout unit)

Preview Voc. – Discuss wds. and look for examples in classroom. Find examples in figures.Write to Win Journal entry: Today in Math I learned…

Point, line, ray, line segment, plane, angle, parallel lines, perpendicular lines, intersecting lines, acute, obtuse, right, straight, angles, protractor

Pre-test Voc. Pre-test

Write to Win Journal

Practice Workbook lesson 19.11-12


How can I use a protractor to measure angles?

Text: Harcourt MathRulers5X7 Index CardsCrayons, Markers, Colored Pencils

Make Voc. Cards

Word, definition, picture, non-exampleUse protractors to measure angles


Vocabulary Cards


Why does the protractor have 2 different scales?

Text: Harcourt MathProtractorsTR 26 (Sheet with angles) Write to Win Journals

Review types of angles & how to categorize them.Discuss and examine Protractor and how to use it to measure angles


Teacher Observation:Actually using a protractor to measure angles

Practice Workbook Lesson 19.2


How can I use angles to classify and measure polygons?

Text: Harcourt Math5X7 Index CardsIsometric dot paperPolygon FiguresList of polygon names based on sides up to 100 sides

Review anglesMake Voc. cards for new Voc.Use text to identify regular and irregular polygons

Polygon, regular polygon, irregular polygon, congruent, triangle, quadrilateral, pentagon, hexagon, octagon, decagon

Vocabulary Cards


Standards Essential Question

Resources/Materials Activities Vocabulary Assessment Homework


How can I give the missing angle measure for a triangle and quadrilateral?

Text: Harcourt MathWrite to Win Journals

Review polygons (voc) regular and irregular. Use text to find the missing angle measure of triangles and quadrilaterals.Write to Win: I am a triangle what is my area?

Polygon, regular polygon, irregular polygon, congruent, triangle, quadrilateral, pentagon, hexagon, octagon, decagon


Practice workbook: 19.3

Day 6 M5G2 Students will understand the relationship of the circumference of a circle, its diameter, and pi (

= 3.14)

How can I identify and measure parts of a circle?

Text: Harcourt MathRulers5X7 Index CardsCrayons, Markers, Colored PencilsProtractor

Review parts of a circle (radius, diameter, chord, circumference, central angle) Make voc. cards

Circle, diameter, radius, chord, pi, circumference, central angle

Vocabulary Cards

Practice workbook 19.4


= 3.14)

What is the relationship between the circumference of a circle and the radius?

RulersPoster boardVarious size cansChart papercalculator

Groups will use different size cans to measure radius and circumference, Make a chart, graph, and discuss results


Chart & Graphs


= 3.14)

How can I use angles to classify and measure polygons?

Text: Harcourt Math5X7 Index CardsIsometric dot paperPolygon FiguresList of polygon names based on sides up to 100 sides

Write to Win: discuss relationship between circum., diameter, radiusUnknown angle measure in a circle





Day Standard Essential Question

Resources & Materials

Activities Vocabulary Assessment Homework


How Can I classify triangles?

Chapter 19 PosttestIsometric dot paperText: Harcourt MathProtractors5x7 index cards

Chap. 19 PosttestDiscuss/review trianglesMake voc. cards

Isosceles triangleScalene triangeEquilateral triangleAcute triangleObtuse triangleEquilateral triangle

Geometry Posttest Part 1(Ch 19

Voc. Cards

Day 10

Concepts and Skills to Maintain: Characteristics of 2D and 3D shapes.

How Can I classify triangles?

Text: Harcourt Math5x7 index cardsProtractorsWrite to Win Journal

Chapter 20 PretestDiscuss triangle classificationsPractice with text pgs. 385-387Write to Win Journal: What I thought you taught about triangles.

Isosceles triangleScalene triangeEquilateral triangleAcute triangleObtuse triangleEquilateral triangle

Write to Win Journals


Day 11


How can I classify quadrilaterals?

Text: Harcourt Math5x7 index cardsPolygon figures

Make Voc. cardsDiscuss classifications of quadrilateralsUse text 389-393

Square, rectangle, trapezoid, parallelogram, rhombus, congruent, parallel

Voc. CardsTeacher Observation


Day 12

M5G1: Students will understand congruence of geometric figures and the correspondence of their vertices, sides, & angles

How can I identify similar and congruent figures?

Text: Harcourt Math5x7 index cards1cm. grid paper

Make Voc. cards

Draw figures that are similar and congruent

Similar, congruence, corresponding vertices,Corresponding angles,Corresponding sides

Voc. CardsTeacher Observation






Day 13

M5G1: Students will understand congruence of geometric figures and the correspondence of their vertices, sides, & angles

How can I identify corresponding vertices, angles, and sides?

Text: Harcourt Math0.5 cm Grid PaperWrite to Win Journal

Draw figures and locate corresponding sides, vertices, and anglesWrite to Win Journal: Acrostic Voc: CONGRUENCE

Similar, congruence, corresponding vertices,Corresponding angles,Corresponding sides


Figures drawn on grid paper

Day 14


How can I identify solid figures?

SolidsText: Harcourt Math5x7 index cards

Examine & discuss solid figures – Why 3D?Make voc. cards

PolyhedronPrism, base, faces,Cube, cylinder, cone, sphere

Vocabulary Cards

Teacher Observation


Day 15



Text: Harcourt MathSolid figure patterns


Make Solid figures from patterns.Text 394-397Table for prisms(sides, vertices, faces, edges)



Prism Table

Solid figures that were constructed

Review voc. cards for games tomorrow

Day 16



Vocabulary Cards from chapter 19-20

Vocabulary Bingo (ch. 19-20 terms)

Jeopardy game for review


Bingo GameJeopardy Game

Study for chapter 20 posttest and Voc. posttest





Day 17

Chapter 20 Posttest2Vocabulary Posttest

Posttests

Writing to Win: Free Write- My favorite part of this Geometry unit is …

Geometry Posttest Part 2

Vocabulary Posttest


Appendix B

Rubric for Evaluating Instructional Plan

Beginning

1

Developing

2

Accomplished

3

Exemplary

4

Score

Instruction Goals and Objectives

Instructional goals and objectives are not stated. Learners can not tell what is expected of them. Learners can not determine what they should know and be able to do as a result of learning and instruction.

Instructional goals and objectives are stated but are not easy to understand. Learners are given some information regarding what is expected of them. Learners are not given enough information to determine what they should know and be able to do as a result of learning and instruction.

Instructional goals and objectives are stated. Learners have an understanding of what is expected of them. Learners can determine what they should know and be able to do as a result of learning and instruction.

Instructional goals and objectives clearly stated. Learners have a clear understanding of what is expected of them. Learners can determine what they should know and be able to do as a result of learning and instruction.

Instructional Strategies

Instructional strategies are missing or strategies used are inappropriate.

Some instructional strategies are appropriate for learning outcome(s). Some strategies are based on a combination of practical experience,theory, research and documented best practice.

Most instructional strategies are appropriate for learning outcome(s). Most strategies are based on a combination of practical experience,theory, research and documented best practice.

Instructional strategies appropriate for learning outcome(s). Strategy based on a combination of practical experience,theory, research and documented best practice.

Method for Method for Method for Method for


Assessment

assessing student learning and evaluating instruction is missing.

assessing student learning and evaluating instruction is vaguely stated. Assessment is teacher dependent.

assessing student learning and evaluating instruction is present. Can be readily used for expert, peer, and/or self-evaluation.

assessing student learning and evaluating instruction is clearly delineated and authentic. Can be readily used for expert, peer, and/or self-evaluation.

Technology Used

Selection and application of technologies is inappropriate (or nonexistant) for learning environment and outcomes.

Selection and application of technologies is beginning to be appropriate for learning environment and outcomes. Technologies applied do not affect learning.

Selection and application of technologies is basically appropriate for learning environment and outcomes. Some technologies applied enhance learning.

Selection and application of technologies is appropriate for learning environment and outcomes. Technologies applied to enhance learning.

Materials Needed

Material list is missing.

Some materials necessary for student and teacher to complete lesson are listed, but list is incomplete.

Most materials necessary for student and teacher to complete lesson are listed.

All materials necessary for student and teacher to complete lesson clearly listed.

Organization and

Presentation

Lesson plan is unorganized and not presented in a neat manner.

Lesson plan is organized, but not professionally presented.

Lesson plan is organized and neatly presented.

Complete package presented in well organized and professional fashion.

Total Points

Appendix C


Pre/Post Student Survey

Strongly Agree

Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

I am good at math.

I like to answer questions asked by the teacher in math class.

I am comfortable asking questions in math if I don’t understand something.

I am comfortable sharing my math ideas with the class.

I understand the vocabulary we use in math.

I think I learn better when I understand the vocabulary in math.It is easy for me to use the vocabulary in math class.

Circle your answer.

1. Which of these best describes yourself as a math student? Struggling Ok Good Very Good

2. Which of these best describes how a friend would describe you as a math student? Struggling Ok Good Very Good

3. How often are you asked to explain your answer using math vocabulary?Never Less than ½ the time More than ½ the time Always

4. How easy is it for you to use math vocabulary to explain your answer?Very Hard Hard Ok Easy

Appendix D


Geometry Vocabulary Pre/Post-test

Name ________________________

__________________________ is an exact location in space, usually represented by a dot.

__________________________ is a flat surface that extends without end in all directions.

__________________________ is a straight path of points in a plane, extending in both directions with no endpoints.

__________________________ is a part of a line; it begins at one endpoint and extends forever in one direction.

_________________________ are lines in a plane that do not intersect.

_________________________ are lines that cross each other at exactly one point.

_________________________ is part of a line between two endpoints.

_________________________ is a figure formed by two rays that meet at a common endpoint.

_________________________ are two lines that intersect to form right angles.

________________________ is an angle whose measure is greater than 90° and less than 180°.

_______________________ is an angle that has a measure less than a right angle.

________________________ is an angle that measures 180°.


_______________________ is a special angle formed by perpendicular lines and equal to 90°.

_______________________ is a unit for measuring angles.

________________________is having the same size and shape.

________________________is a tool used for measuring or drawing angles.

______________________________is a closed figure with all points on the figure the same distance from the center point.

__________________________ ____is a closed plane figure formed by three or more line segments.

__________________________ ___is a line segment that passes through the center of a circle and has its endpoints on the circle.

_____________________________ is a line segment with one endpoint at the center of a circle and the other endpoint on the circle.

_____________________________is a line segment with endpoints on a circle.

_____________________________is the angle formed by two radii of a circle that meet at its center.

_____________________________is the distance around a circle.

____________________________is the relationship of the circumference to the diameter of a circle; an approximate decimal value is 3.14.

____________________________is a polygon in which the sides are not congruent and the angles are not congruent.

____________________________is a polygon in which all sides are congruent and all angles are congruent.


WORD BANK

acute angle diameter planeangle intersecting lines pointcentral angle irregular polygons polygonchord line protractor circle line segment radiuscircumference obtuse angle raycongruent parallel lines regular polygondegree perpendicular lines right angle pi straight angle

Appendix E


Reflective Journal Prompts

1. What were three main things I learned from this session?

2. What did we not cover that I expected we should?

3. What was new or surprising to me?

4. What have I changed my mind about, as a result of this session?

5. One thing I learned in this session that I may be able to use in the future is…

6. I am still unsure about…

7. Ideas for action, based on this session…

8. What I most liked about this session was…

9. What I most disliked about this session was…

10. Miscellaneous interesting facts I learned in this session…

home.lagrange.eduhome.lagrange.edu/educate/advanced programs/m.ed. defense... · web viewsadoski,...

Documents