the division skills of 3rd grade students · “the diverse nature of mathematical knowledge...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Running Header: THE IMPACT OF A TARGETED TECHNOLOGY INTERVENTION ON
THE DIVISION SKILLS OF 3RD GRADE STUDENTS
The Impact of a Targeted Technology Intervention on the Division Skills of 3rd Grade Students
Amanda Burk
California State University, San Bernardino
2
THE IMPACT OF A TARGETED TECHNOLOGY INTERVENTION ON THE DIVISION
SKILLS OF 3RD GRADE STUDENTS
Abstract
Keywords:
3
THE IMPACT OF A TARGETED TECHNOLOGY INTERVENTION ON THE DIVISION
SKILLS OF 3RD GRADE STUDENTS
The Impact of a Targeted Technology Intervention on the
Division Skills of 3rd Grade Students
Math plays an important role in a student’s life, as well as their lives when they have left
school. As students’ progress through their school lives the mathematical concepts become more
and more difficult. This difficulty can be compounded if students are missing key skills from
their early elementary days. “Students who have not mastered basic computational fluency by
the end of elementary school are at risk for future difficulties with mathematics and problems
solving” (Kanive, Nelson, Burns, & Ysseldyke, 2014, p. 84). Bryant, Hartman, and Kim (2003)
state that “skill deficits can impede student’s ability to comprehend and master a variety of
mathematical concepts” (p. 162). In fact, as students struggle with math concepts, their attitude
towards math becomes more negative as they climb grade levels (Swetman, 1995).
Mathematics instruction traditionally was a teacher at the chalkboard, and students at
their desk copying down fact tables and solving problems. Today, it can look very different.
Explicit, systematic, and direct instruction using visual representations appears to be the best
method for math instruction today (Baker, Gersten, & Lee, 2002; Ketterlin-Geller, Chard, &
Fine, 2008). “Mathematical proficiency is directly linked to the quality of instruction students
receive during elementary grades” (Burns, Kanive, & DeGrande, 2010, p. 184). Quality
mathematics instruction needs to be a mix of understanding the concepts provided, being fluent
in the ability to perform the operations, and problem solving (Grams, 2018). “The diverse nature
of mathematical knowledge demands different strategies from the teachers in the classroom”
(Afzal, Gondal, & Fatima, 2014, p. 48). However, this can be difficult in a classroom with many
different ability levels and challenges. Afzal et al (2014) also state that a “mathematics learner
4
THE IMPACT OF A TARGETED TECHNOLOGY INTERVENTION ON THE DIVISION
SKILLS OF 3RD GRADE STUDENTS
should be allowed to construct knowledge in their own cultural and social context” (p. 48). The
problem with this knowledge construction is that math is traditionally taught in the same basic
pattern, one skill building on the next. “Teachers do not have sufficient time to provide students
with the instructional scaffolding they need to master mathematical concepts or develop fluency”
(Ketterlin-Geller et al, 2008, p. 36). This lack of time, and need for additional interactions with
mathematics is where the intervention, and specifically the technology intervention comes in.
There is a need for early intervention that help develop skills that deal with numbers and
computations (Fuchs et al, 2006; Cheung & Slavin, 2013). For math interventions to be effective
for students, they must be correctly targeted to specific skills (Burns et al, 2011). This study
focused on using a technology intervention that targeted division fact fluency for 3rd grade
students.
Literature Review
Interventions
Interventions are an important part of education that can help bridge the gap between the
teacher’s instruction and the student being able to use that information on their own.
“Interventions that focused on mathematical fact fluency improved recall of mathematics facts,
computational fluency, and performance on different types of mathematic problems” (Kanive et
al, 2014, p. 84). Many studies have found a link between mathematical fact fluency and the
further application of other math concepts (Burns et al, 2010; Fuchs et al, 2006). The more
practice in repetition, especially in fact fluency, the better the recall and usability of the skill
(Burns et al, 2010). “Fluent computation is an important math goal, and frequent difficulty for
students who struggle in math” (Burns et al, 2010, p. 188). Ketterlin-Geller et al (2008) state
5
THE IMPACT OF A TARGETED TECHNOLOGY INTERVENTION ON THE DIVISION
SKILLS OF 3RD GRADE STUDENTS
that “Mathematics interventions designed to reteach fundamental mathematical concepts and
procedures and provide extended time… may improve students achievement” (p. 42).
Technology
The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2011) state that “technology is
essential in teaching and learning math; it influences the math taught and enhances student
learning.” Technology today is an ever-expanding landscape, and it is important to use
technology in the mathematics classroom. “Instructional technology often improves teaching
programs in mathematics” (Kulik, 2003, p.X). Previous uses of technology might have used skill
and drill games, tutorials, or even simulations (Kulik, 2003). Today’s technology use is much
different. “Technology based instruction and interventions provide students with individualized
practice that can be implemented with a larger group of students. Computer-based practice
intervention was more effective for increasing fact fluency among struggling learners than
classroom instruction alone” (Kanive et al, 2014, p.87). By using the technology that is
available, it allows one teacher to enhance students’ learning even when there are many students
with different needs (Afzal et all, 2014).
Prodigy
Prodigy is a game-based mathematics intervention. It has a Role-Playing Game (RPG)
format where students move around a world and interact with other characters. Students create
an avatar of a wizard, that then travels through the land and battles monsters and other characters
with their pets. In order to be successful in these battles, students must answer math questions
(www.prodigygame.com). Why Prodigy? “Using technology for basic skills and factual
learning has been beneficial and using a proprietary software as an intervention has proven
6
THE IMPACT OF A TARGETED TECHNOLOGY INTERVENTION ON THE DIVISION
SKILLS OF 3RD GRADE STUDENTS
successful” (Grams, 2018, p. 42). Prodigy also has a variety of reports that teachers can access
that helps keep them informed of students progress and growth in skills
(www.prodigygame.com). By providing both teachers and students with this specific
information, it helps to enhance math achievement (Baker et al, 2002). Teachers can access the
student data and assign specific skills to be worked on that they may need more help with or all
grade level appropriate skills. “Students demonstrate higher academic achievement when
instruction and independent practice are provided at each student’s appropriate level” (Kanive et
al, 2014, p. 87). It is up to the teacher how they want to use this intervention.
Research Questions
RQ₁: What will the effect be on division skills for 3rd grade students who receive both instruction
for their classroom teacher and the targeted technology intervention?
RQ₂: Do student’s attitudes about division and math in general change over the course of the
study? How?
Ho1: There is no significant difference between the post-test mean scores of students who
received the targeted intervention and those who did not receive it.
Research Methodology
The research design is a Mixed Methods Convergent Design, primarily quantitative to
answer the research questions (McMillian, 2016).
Participants
Participants were 3rd graders, 7-9 years old both male and female, from a Title 1 school
located in Northern Arizona. The composition of the school is 100% Native American. The
7
THE IMPACT OF A TARGETED TECHNOLOGY INTERVENTION ON THE DIVISION
SKILLS OF 3RD GRADE STUDENTS
students are a convenience sample chosen from one teacher’s classroom. Students were then
randomly selected for one of the two groups.
Research Design
The research study had two co-currently happening pieces. The first piece was a quasi-
experimental design that studied the impact of the technology intervention. There were two
groups participating. Group A consisted of 8 students (5 boys and 3 girls) who received both
explicit, direct instruction in Division from the classroom teacher, and the Prodigy intervention.
Group A’s intervention however dealt with all the 3rd grade mathematic standards. Group B
consisted of 9 students (8 girls and 1 boy) who received both explicit, direct instruction in
Division from the classroom teacher and the Prodigy intervention. Group B’s intervention was
for specific division fact fluency skills. Both groups took pre-tests, mid-tests, and post-tests to
determine their growth in their division fact fluency (Appendix A). These tests had 15 questions
on division facts from 1-9, and students had 20 minutes to complete the test. The second piece
was a survey that took place with each student after each of the tests. (Appendix B) Due to the
age of the students, the survey was completed in one on one interviews of about 5 minutes each.
The survey was developed for this study using a Likert-type scale with a 5-point response scale
for students to answer 5 questions. There were also two open ended questions. These answers
were categorized and recorded.
Validity and Reliability
The tests were created by the classroom teacher and I using question types that were
consistent with the AzMERITS tests that students take towards the end of the year. These
quizzes were then reviewed by the other 3rd grade teacher and the principal at the school site.
8
THE IMPACT OF A TARGETED TECHNOLOGY INTERVENTION ON THE DIVISION
SKILLS OF 3RD GRADE STUDENTS
Survey questions were also created by the classroom teacher and I and again reviewed by the
other 3rd grade teacher and the principal at the school site.
Students had their math instruction at the same time every day, after lunch. The quizzes
were given to students at the beginning of the math period on the Monday of 3 out of 4 weeks.
Any make up tests were given later in the afternoon on Tuesday. Math intervention time took
place the last 40 minutes of the instructional day. Student fatigue was not really an issue during
this study. Due to the fact they were coming in from recess, it was more necessary to calm
students down a bit before the tests could be taken. There were no instances of a student
refusing to take the test. All students looked forward to Prodigy during the intervention time, so
there was no extra encouragement needed. Student surveys took place during the morning group
time on Tuesdays after the quizzes had been taken.
Data Analysis
Results from the tests were compiled on a spreadsheet and analyzed using the qualitative
techniques of the measures of central tendency (mean, median, mode) and standard deviation. A
t-test was also performed on the data to compare the mean test results. Results from the Likert-
type survey questions were compiled using a spreadsheet and then counted and tallied. The
open-ended questions were categorized according to themes and then tallied on a spreadsheet.
Results
RQ₁: The effect for students who had both classroom instruction and targeted
intervention skills?
9
THE IMPACT OF A TARGETED TECHNOLOGY INTERVENTION ON THE DIVISION
SKILLS OF 3RD GRADE STUDENTS
Group B, the targeted division skills group’s scores (M=8.67, SD=5.52) were slightly higher on
the post test than Group A’s scores (M=6.5, SD=5.01, p=0.20). The null hypothesis was
confirmed because there was not a statistically significant difference (p >0.05) between the post
tests of Group A and B.
RQ₂ Student Attitudes
0 0
4.5
8.5
6.5
8.67
0
2
4
6
8
10
Group A Mean Group B Mean
Quiz Means
Pre-Quiz Mid Quiz Post- Quiz
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
1 2 3
Question 4: I ________ Math
Group A Scores Group B Scores
10
THE IMPACT OF A TARGETED TECHNOLOGY INTERVENTION ON THE DIVISION
SKILLS OF 3RD GRADE STUDENTS
Student Attitudes changed slightly over the course of the unit on Division. Overall, for the
students’ feelings about Math, Group A stayed the same at 87.5% across the three surveys.
Group B changed from 75% at the first survey to 88.9% at the third.
Discussion
The results of this study suggest that using targeted skills for student’s intervention may
help with their retention and ability to use these targeted skills. Current studies suggest that
students show higher academic achievement when their instruction and intervention are tailored
to their specific levels (Kanive et al, 2014). Students’ attitudes about math changed slightly
during the study, predominately in Group B. It was not determined whether this was due to their
increased confidence in their math skills because of the targeted intervention, or if it was just
from time passing. However, due to the small sample size (17 students) and the short time frame
(4 weeks) further study is needed to determine if the results continue in the same vein.
Conclusion
“Division is a complex skill to teach because it requires prerequisite knowledge related to
other mathematical skills” (Bryant et al, 2003, p. 154). Previous studies have shown that
explicit, systematic, and direct instruction using visual representations is the best method for
math instruction today (Baker, Gersten, & Lee, 2002; Ketterlin-Geller, Chard, & Fine, 2008). It
has also shown that “Interventions that focused on mathematical fact fluency improved recall of
mathematics facts, computational fluency, and performance on different types of mathematic
problems. Student’s demonstrate higher academic achievement when instruction and
independent practice are provided at each student’s appropriate level” (Kanive et al, 2014, p. 84).
11
THE IMPACT OF A TARGETED TECHNOLOGY INTERVENTION ON THE DIVISION
SKILLS OF 3RD GRADE STUDENTS
For students to be successful they need a combination of both explicit instruction and targeted
intervention skills.
12
THE IMPACT OF A TARGETED TECHNOLOGY INTERVENTION ON THE DIVISION
SKILLS OF 3RD GRADE STUDENTS
References
Afzal, M.T., Gondal, B. & Fatima, N. (2014). The effect of computer based instructional
technique for the learning of elementary level mathematics among high, average, and low
achievers. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and
Communication Technology (IJEDICT), 10(4), 47-59 Retrieved from
http://libproxy.lib.csusb.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=tru
e&db=eric&AN=EJ1059055&site=ehost-live
Baker, S., Gersten, R., & Lee, D.S. (2002). A synthesis of empirical research on teaching
mathematics to low-achieving students. Elementary School Journal, 103(1), 51-73.
Retrieved from
http://libproxy.lib.csusb.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=tru
e&db=eric&AN=EJ658011&site=ehost-live
Bryant, D.P., Hartman, P., & Kim, S.A. (2003). Using explicit and strategic instruction to teach
division skills to students with learning disabilities. Exceptionality, 11(3), 151-164.
Retrieved from
http://libproxy.lib.csusb.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=tru
e&db=eric&AN=EJ676227&site=ehost-live
Burns, M.K, Kanive, R., & DeGrande, M. (2010). Effect of a computer-delivered math fact
intervention as a supplemental intervention for math in third and fourth grades. Remedial
and Special Education, 33(3), 184-191. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932510381652
Cheung, A.C.K., & Slavin, R.E. (2013). The effectiveness of educational technology applications
for enhancing mathematics achievement in K-12 classrooms: A meta-analysis.
13
THE IMPACT OF A TARGETED TECHNOLOGY INTERVENTION ON THE DIVISION
SKILLS OF 3RD GRADE STUDENTS
Educational Research Review, 9, 88-113.
http://dx.doi.org.libproxy.lib.csusb.edu/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.01.001
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Compton, D.L, Powell, S.R., Seethaler, P.M., Capizzi, A.M.,
Schatschneider, C., & Fletcher, J.M. (2006). The cognitive correlates of third-grade skill
in arithmetic, algorithmic computation, and arithmetic word problems. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 89(1), 29-43. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.lib.csusb.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=tru
e&db=eric&AN=EJ734336&site=ehost-live
Grams, D. (2018). A quantitative study of the use of DreamBox Learning and its effectiveness in
improving math achievement of elementary students with math difficulties (Doctoral
Dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest. (10744570)
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2011, April 23). Executive summary: Principles
and standards for mathematics education. Reston, VA: NCTM
Kanive, R., Nelson, P.M., Burns, M.K., & Ysseldyke, J. (2014). Comparison of the effects of
computer-based practice and conceptual understanding interventions on mathematics fact
retention and generalization. Journal of Educational Research, 107(2), 83-89.
http://dx.doi.org.libproxy.lib.csusb.edu/10.1080/00220671.2012.759405
Ketterlin-Geller, L.R., Chard, D.J., & Fine, H. (2008). Making connections in mathematics:
Conceptual mathematics intervention for low-performing students. Remedial and Special
Education, 29(1), 33-45.
http://dx.doi.org.libproxy.lib.csusb.edu/10.1177/0741932507309711
McMillan, J.H. (2016) Fundamentals of Educational Research. Boston, MA. Pearson
14
THE IMPACT OF A TARGETED TECHNOLOGY INTERVENTION ON THE DIVISION
SKILLS OF 3RD GRADE STUDENTS
SRI International. (2003). Effects of using instructional technology in elementary and secondary
schools: What controlled evaluation studies say. Arlington, VA: James Kulik
Swetman, D.L. (1995). Rural elementary students’ attitudes toward mathematics. Rural
Educator,16, 20-22. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.lib.csusb.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=tru
e&db=eric&AN=EJ502069&site=ehost-live
15
THE IMPACT OF A TARGETED TECHNOLOGY INTERVENTION ON THE DIVISION
SKILLS OF 3RD GRADE STUDENTS
Appendix A
16
THE IMPACT OF A TARGETED TECHNOLOGY INTERVENTION ON THE DIVISION
SKILLS OF 3RD GRADE STUDENTS
Appendix B
Student Interview Document: (this will be conducted one on one with students)
I know this very well------------------------I think I know it-------------------------I don’t know it yet
5-----------------------4------------------------------3------------------------2---------------------------1
1: I feel ________________about my multiplication facts.
2.I feel ________________ about my ability to do division.
3.I feel ________________ about my math ability.
Love It -------------------------Like it------------------------It’s Ok--------------------------Don’t Like It
5-----------------------4------------------------------3------------------------2---------------------------1
4. I __________________ Math.
5. I __________________ Prodigy.
6. My favorite thing about Math is: ________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
7. My favorite thing about Prodigy is: ______________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
17
THE IMPACT OF A TARGETED TECHNOLOGY INTERVENTION ON THE DIVISION
SKILLS OF 3RD GRADE STUDENTS
Appendix C
Pre-Quiz Time Left Mid Quiz TimeLeft Growth Post- Quiz Time Left Growth
Group A
1 0 12:10 0 5:47 0 0 0:00 0
2 0 0:24 4 6:04 4 3 0:00 -1
3 13 0:03 8 7:48 -5 14 10:43 6
4 0 16:36 11 11:56 11 13 10:25 2
5 0 16:34 5 0:00 5 6 0:00 1
6 0 11:04 0 2:19 0 8 0:00 8
7 0 9:40 0 0:00 0 2 0:00 2
8 0 14:20 9 0 9 6 0:00 -3
Group A Mean 0 4.5 4.5 6.5 1.875
Group A Median 0 4.5 6
Group A Mode 0 0 6
Group A S.D. 4.596194 4.405759 5.0142654
Group B
9 0 9:55 4 6:54 4 6 0:00 2
10 13 0:00 13 10:05 0 15 14:20 2
11 0 13:37 11 3:25 11 7 8:50 -4
12 0 0:00 7 0:00 7 6 0:00 -1
13 0 9:23 0 12:51 0 3 0:00 3
14 0 17:58 14 2:32 14 14 1:20 0
17 0 8:24 8 0:00 8 12 0:00 4
16 DNT DNT 0 0:00 0 0 0:00 0
15 0 6:16 13 0:00 13 15 0:00 2
Group B Mean 0 8.5 8.5 8.6666667 0.888889
Group B Median 0 8 7
Group B Mode 0 13 6
Group B S.D. 4.333333 5.164247 5.2068331
Division Quiz Scores
18
THE IMPACT OF A TARGETED TECHNOLOGY INTERVENTION ON THE DIVISION
SKILLS OF 3RD GRADE STUDENTS
Appendix D
Pre-Quiz Mid Quiz Post- Quiz
Group A
1 0 0 0
2 0 4 3
3 13 8 14
4 0 11 13
5 0 5 6
6 0 0 8
7 0 0 2
8 0 9 6
Group A Mean 0 4.5 6.5
Group A Median 0 4.5 6
Group A Mode 0 0 6
Group A S.D. 4.596194 4.405759 5.0142654
Group B
9 0 4 6
10 13 13 15
11 0 11 7
12 0 7 6
13 0 0 3
14 0 14 14
17 0 8 12
16 DNT 0 0
15 0 13 15
Group B Mean 0 8.5 8.67
Group B Median 0 8 7
Group B Mode 0 13 6
Group B S.D. 4.333333 5.164247 5.2068331
Division Quiz Scores
0 0
4.5
8.5
6.5
8.67
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Group A Mean Group B Mean
Quiz Means
Pre-Quiz Mid Quiz Post- Quiz
19
THE IMPACT OF A TARGETED TECHNOLOGY INTERVENTION ON THE DIVISION
SKILLS OF 3RD GRADE STUDENTS
Appendix E
ID
Pretest
Group A
Pretest
Group B
Post Test
Group A
Post Test
Group B
1 0 0
2 0 3
3 13 14
4 0 13
5 0 6
6 0 8
7 0 2
8 0 6
9 0 6
10 13 15
11 0 7
12 0 6
13 0 3
14 0 14
15 0 15
16 0 0
17 0 12
Mean 1.625 1.444444 6.5 8.666667Standard
Deviation 4.596194 4.333333 5.014265 5.522681
Independent t-Test
Null Hypothesis:
There is no significant difference
between the post test mean scores
of students who received the
targetted intervention and those
who did not
t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances
Post Test Group A Post Test Group B
Mean 6.5 8.666666667
Variance 25.14285714 30.5
Observations 8 9
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 15
t Stat -0.847768854
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.204945407
t Critical one-tail 1.753050356
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.409890815
t Critical two-tail 2.131449546
20
THE IMPACT OF A TARGETED TECHNOLOGY INTERVENTION ON THE DIVISION
SKILLS OF 3RD GRADE STUDENTS
Appendix F
Participant 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5
1 3 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
2 3 4 5 5 3 5 4 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 5
3 4 3 5 5 5 4 2 3 4 5 5 4 4 4 5
4 5 4 5 5 3 5 4 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 4
5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 4 5 5
6 3 3 5 5 5 3 3 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5
7 4 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
8 4 4 4 5 5 4 3 4 5 5 5 4 5 5 5
9 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
10 5 3 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
11 5 3 5 4 5 5 3 5 4 5 5 4 5 4 5
12 4 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 5 5 4 4 5 5 5
13 5 1 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5
14 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
15 5 2 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
16 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
17 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
n= 16 16 16 16 16 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17
blank= 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
total= 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17
5 9 6 13 13 14 13 8 11 15 15 16 11 15 15 16
4 4 4 2 2 0 3 3 3 2 1 1 6 2 2 1
3 3 4 1 1 2 1 5 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total: 16 16 16 16 16 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17
Valid Percent
5 56.3% 37.5% 81.3% 81.3% 87.5% 76.5% 47.1% 64.7% 88.2% 88.2% 94.1% 64.7% 88.2% 88.2% 94.1%
4 25.0% 25.0% 12.5% 12.5% 0.0% 17.6% 17.6% 17.6% 11.8% 5.9% 5.9% 35.3% 11.8% 11.8% 5.9%
3 18.8% 25.0% 6.3% 6.3% 12.5% 5.9% 29.4% 17.6% 0.0% 5.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 6.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
1 0.0% 6.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Group A Scores
n= 8
5 2 2 6 7 5 3 3 4 7 6 8 5 6 7 7
4 3 4 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 0 3 2 1 1
3 3 2 0 0 1 2 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total: 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
Valid Percent A
5 25.0% 25.0% 75.0% 87.5% 62.5% 37.5% 37.5% 50.0% 87.5% 75.0% 100.0% 62.5% 75.0% 87.5% 87.5%
4 37.5% 50.0% 25.0% 12.5% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 12.5% 12.5% 0.0% 37.5% 25.0% 12.5% 12.5%
3 37.5% 25.0% 0.0% 0.0% 12.5% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 0.0% 12.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 12.5% 12.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Group B Scores
n= 9
5 7 4 7 6 8 8 5 7 8 9 8 6 9 8 9
4 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 3 0 1 0
3 0 2 1 1 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total: 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Valid Percent B
5 87.5% 50.0% 87.5% 75.0% 100.0% 88.9% 55.6% 77.8% 88.9% 100.0% 88.9% 66.7% 100.0% 88.9% 100.0%
4 12.5% 0.0% 0.0% 12.5% 0.0% 11.1% 11.1% 11.1% 11.1% 0.0% 11.1% 33.3% 0.0% 11.1% 0.0%
3 0.0% 25.0% 12.5% 12.5% 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 11.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 0.0% 12.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
1 0.0% 12.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
21
THE IMPACT OF A TARGETED TECHNOLOGY INTERVENTION ON THE DIVISION
SKILLS OF 3RD GRADE STUDENTS
Appendix G
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
1 2 3
Question 1: I feel _____ about my multiplication facts
Group A Scores Group B Scores
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
1 2 3
Question 2: I feel _____ about my ability to do division
Group A Scores Group B Scores
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
1 2 3
Question 3: I feel ______ about my math ability
Group A Scores Group B Scores
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
1 2 3
Question 4: I ________ Math
Group A Scores Group B Scores
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
1 2 3
Question 5: I _________ Prodigy
Group A Scores Group B Scores
22
THE IMPACT OF A TARGETED TECHNOLOGY INTERVENTION ON THE DIVISION
SKILLS OF 3RD GRADE STUDENTS
Appendix H
Question 5:
Division 5 21%
Multiplication 4 17%
Manipulatives 3 13%
Numbers 4 17%
Addition 2 8%
Learning 4 17%
Prodigy 2 8%
24 100%
Question 6:
Math 7 29%
Pets 6 25%
Battle 5 21%
Buy Stuff 1 4%
Play 1 4%
Create own Person 1 4%
See Friends 2 8%
Fun 1 4%
24 100%
Student Survey Results - Categories
Division21%
Multiplication17%
Manipulatives12%
Numbers17%
Addition8%
Learning17%
Prodigy8%
STUDENT ANSWERS TO QUESTION 5: FEELINGS
ABOUT MATH
Math29%
Pets25%
Battle21%
Buy Stuff4%
Play4%
Create own Person
4%
See Friends9%
Fun4%
STUDENT ANSWERS TO QUESTION 6: FEELINGS ABOUT PRODIGY