1. The Connected Algebra Classroom: A Randomized Control Trial Douglas T. Owens 1, Stephen J. Pape 2, Karen E. Irving 1, Vehbi A.Sanalan 3,Christy Kim Boscrdin 4, Louis Abrahamson 5 1 The Ohio State University 2 University of Florida 3 Erzincan University, Turkey 4 CRESST/UCLA 5 Better Education Foundation The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant R305K050045 to The Ohio State University. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the U.S. Department of Education.

2. ICME-11 TSG 22 2 Additional Research Team Frank Demana, Co-PI, The Ohio State University Joan Herman, Hye Sook Shin, David Silver, UCLA, CRESST ; Clare Bell, & Melissa Shirley, OSU Mike Kositzke, Project Program Coordinator, OSU Ugur Baslanti, University of Florida Sukru Kaya, The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey TI Navigator slides adapted from a presentation by Eileen Shihadeh, Texas Instruments 12 July 2008

3. ICME-11 TSG 22 3 CCMS Project Overview  Professional development and research project  Algebra I and Physical Science  Classroom connectivity technology  Summer Institute – training  T 3 conference follow-up, annually 12 July 2008

4. ICME-11 TSG 22 4 ICME-11, TSG 22 12 July 2008 The TI-Navigator ™ Connected Classroom The TI-Navigator System allows the teacher to:  Create a collaborative learning environment  Engage in formative assessment by way of immediate feedback  Enhance classroom management of TI graphing technology 12 July 2008

5. ICME-11 TSG 22 5 Theoretical Framework  Social-constructivist models of teaching and learning  Technology-assisted formative assessment  Classroom environments that foster self- regulated learning and mastery orientation  Classroom discourse processes  Classroom environment centeredness constructs 12 July 2008

6. ICME-11 TSG 22 6 Prior Research (Roschelle, Penuel, & Abrahamson, 2004)  Students:  Increased student engagement, understanding, and interactivity  Improved classroom discourse  Knowledge of classmates’ learning  Teachers:  Improved pre- and post- assessment of student learning  Increased awareness of student difficulties  Improved questioning 12 July 2008

7. ICME-11 TSG 22 7 Research Questions  How does teachers’ use of connected classroom technology affect: 1. Student achievement in algebra 1? 2. Self-regulated learning strategic behavior? 3. Student views of mathematics? 12 July 2008

8. ICME-11 TSG 22 8 Research Design  Year 1 (2005-2006) – Algebra I  Randomized assignment to treatment and control/delayed treatment groups  Cross-over design – control group provided treatment in second year of participation  Mixed methodology 12 July 2008

9. ICME-11 TSG 22 9 Participants  Initial data – 127 Algebra I teachers and 1,761 students from 28 states  81 (64%) teachers had complete data at the end of year 1 (Rx = 39; C = 42)  1,128 students from 68 classrooms (84% of 81) with adequate data (n>9; Rx=617; 50.2% female; C=511; 56.8% female)  Initial and final samples were not different on teacher demographic characteristics  Final sample treatment and control differ: % free/reduced lunch and school location 12 July 2008

10. ICME-11 TSG 22 10 Teacher Demographic Information Original Randomized Sample TreatmentControl No. of teachers 6166 % Female 70.577.3 % White 91.883.3 % Math majors 65.083.6 XSDXSD Yrs Tchg Exper 12.39.314.09.9 Yrs Alg Tchg 6.67.29.38.0 % Free Lunch (at school level) 25.126.224.220.2 % Minority (at school level) 23.029.523.726.8 12 July 2008

11. ICME-11 TSG 22 11 Teacher Demographic Information HLM Sample TreatmentControl No. of teachers 3434 % Female 70.670.6 % White 97.188.2 % Math majors 73.582.4 XSDXSD Yrs Tchg Exper 13.27.215.610.6 Yrs Alg Tchg 7.45.610.08.8 % Free Lunch (at school level) 16.415.724.618.1 % Minority (at school level) 14.721.018.822.3 12 July 2008

12. ICME-11 TSG 22 12 Teacher Data Collection  Demographic Information Form  Technology Use and Professional Development Survey  Teacher Instructional Practices and Beliefs Survey (TIPBS)  Implementation—Teacher Interviews (inter-rater reliability ranged from.80 to 1.00)  Level of content implementation 12 July 2008

13. ICME-11 TSG 22 13 Student Measures  Algebra I pretest  Algebra I posttest  Total score  Visual, Mechanical, and Pure Symbolic subtests  Student Beliefs about Mathematics  Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1991) 12 July 2008

14. ICME-11 TSG 22 14 Measures – Algebra I  Algebra pretest – 30 item; 23 multiple choice, 3 short-answer, and 4 extended response  Algebra post-test – 30 items; 24 multiple choice, 1 short-answer, and 5 extended response  11 items overlap between the pre- and post- tests TreatmentControl  XSDSSD Algebra Pre (36 maximum) 18.805.0018.305.80.81 Algebra Post (37 maximum) 21.407.2018.907.20.85 12 July 2008

15. ICME-11 TSG 22 15 Student Views about Mathematics Treatment (n = 442) Control (N = 515)  (Scale = 1 to 6 for all subscales) X post SD SD Beliefs about Math (14 items) 4.25.574.18.60.82 Confidence (5 items) 3.92.923.88.96.69 Math Anxiety (5 items) 3.67.783.71.75.79 Usefulness (6 items) 4.48.944.471.04.82 Self-Efficacy (4 items) 4.551.074.351.13.88 12 July 2008

16. ICME-11 TSG 22 16 Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire  6 Motivation subconstructs  Intrinsic/Extrinsic Goal Orientation; Task Value; Control of Learning Beliefs; Self-Efficacy; Test Anxiety  Alpha range = 0.67 to 0.92  5 Learning Strategies subconstructs  Rehearsal; Elaboration; Organization; Critical Thinking; Metacognitive Self-Regulation  Alpha range = 0.73 to 0.80  4 Resource Management Strategies Subconstructs  Time and Study Environment; Effort Regulation; Peer Learning; Help Seeking  Alpha range = 0.50 to 0.65 12 July 2008

17. ICME-11 TSG 22 17 Data Analyses  Cronbach’s alpha reliability estimates  IRT analysis conducted to ensure technical quality of Algebra pre- & post- test  Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) to examine effect of treatment  Accounting for nested data  Pretest data included as covariate  Two-level models consisting of within-class (level 1) and between-class (level 2) 12 July 2008

18. ICME-11 TSG 22 18 Results  Significant treatment effect (ES=0.30) after controlling for student pretest scores, teacher’s years of experience, teacher’s gender, and percent of free/reduced lunch  Students taught by treatment group teachers performed about 2 out of 37 points higher than control students  Level of teacher knowledge about students as a result of TI-Navigator use was positively related to with student performance (ES=0.36)  Frequency and level of technology implementation as well as level of instructional change with technology were not associated with the outcome 12 July 2008

19. ICME-11 TSG 22 19 Results  Teaching experience was positively associated with achievement  Percentage free/reduce lunch not associated with outcome  Students of female teachers performed higher than male teachers (ES =.41)  Level of content coverage (implementation) was not associated with student performance  None of the other teacher survey constructs were associated with student outcome 12 July 2008

20. ICME-11 TSG 22 20 Results  On visual dimension, after controlling for percentage of free/reduced lunch, positive association between outcome and …  Treatment status (ES = 0.34)  Frequency of technology use (ES = 0.32)  Level of teacher knowledge about students as a result of TI-Navigator use (ES = 0.40)  level of instructional change with technology (ES = 0.48)  For mechanical and pure symbolic questions, none of the variables were positively associated with the outcome 12 July 2008

21. ICME-11 TSG 22 21 Results (con’t)  Treatment positively affected student Self-efficacy/math performance expectations with (ES=0.16)  No differences for beliefs about mathematics, confidence, anxiety, or usefulness related to treatment  No differences for motivation, learning strategies, or resource management strategies related to treatment 12 July 2008

22. You may download papers and PowerPoint from the project website at http://ccms.osu.edu/