Thesis Presentation

1,637 views
1,591 views

Published on

Science Education

Published in: Education, Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,637
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
20
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Thesis Presentation

  1. 1. Effects of Classroom Performance Systems (CPS- Clickers) on Student Achievement on the Mitosis and Meiosis unit in two 9th grade Honors Biology Classes Carol-Ann Pryor Queens College Spring 2009 http://www.slideshare.net/capryor25/cps-thesis-presentation-1393483
  2. 2. Science for All Reform <ul><li>The “science for all” reform has changed the purpose of biology education. Today the purpose is to make all students, not just a select few, biologically literate (Meyer, 1995 p. 14). </li></ul>
  3. 3. Challenge of Science for All <ul><li>In order to get all students to actively construct their own knowledge of the Biology content teachers need to develop new ways to encourage all students to participate in class. </li></ul><ul><li>Standard Class Participation: students raising their hand to a practice or discussion question. </li></ul><ul><li>This study was performed in order to see if CPS devices improve class participation for all students, and improve their test score performance. </li></ul>
  4. 4. The goal of the study was to address four main questions: <ul><li>Do CPS devices provide for a significant difference in test score performance when comparing classes taught with and without the devices? </li></ul><ul><li>Do CPS devices encourage all students to participate during lecture? </li></ul><ul><li>Does the instant feedback application, provided by the CPS software, allow for clarification of misconceptions? </li></ul><ul><li>Does the instant feedback application, provided by the CPS software, allow for appropriate pacing of the lesson? </li></ul>
  5. 5. Questions were established based on two previous studies. Study Second Semester Chemistry Course Eight out of the 46 sections of the course were taught using CPS devices. Treatment = CPS devices Non CPS classes started with cadets’ questions about the day’s assignments. The instructor then guided a Socratic Method discussion to draw the answers out of the class itself. CPS classes were presented with five or six quiz questions that were used to measure cadet preparation. Discussion occurred based on the CPS feedback. Grades at the end of the semester were collected Grades were compared Study Freshmen level Communication and English classes in a Library Instruction class. Classes were selected at random and placed into CPS and non-CPS groups. Treatment = CPS devices Pre-test was administered consisting of five multiple choice question. (CPS and paper) Class discussion continued based on the quiz Post-test was administered Test scores were compared. Use of CPS at The United States Military Academy in Chemistry (Blackman, 2002) Use of CPS at Georgia State University in Library Instruction (Petersohn, 2008)
  6. 6. Results <ul><li>No Significant improvement in Test Results </li></ul><ul><li>Instructors felt as if the instant feedback provided by the CPS software allowed them to appropriately pace the lesson, and allowed for valuable class discussion. </li></ul>
  7. 8. CPS Devices <ul><li>“ Classroom performance systems (CPS), also called personal response systems, audience response systems, or clickers, are presentation tools that immediately record and graph audience responses to a question that are transmitted with a hand-held keypad to a PC with a receiver. CPS aggregate and present this collected feedback and, through presentation software, project it on screen” (Petersohn, 2008 p. 313). </li></ul>
  8. 9. Quasi-Experimental Design Notation for Mitosis and Meiosis Lessons <ul><li>In this limited study classes were already established. Participants were not selected at random. </li></ul><ul><li>Mitosis Lesson </li></ul><ul><li>Second Period (n=20): Pretest  Experimental Treatment  Post Test </li></ul><ul><li>Fourth Period (n=19): Pretest  (no treatment)  Post Test </li></ul><ul><li>Second Period O X1 O </li></ul><ul><li>Fourth Period O X2 O </li></ul><ul><li>Meiosis Lesson (Reversal) </li></ul><ul><li>Second Period (n=20)  Pretest  (no treatment)  Post Test </li></ul><ul><li>Fourth Period (n=19)  Pretest  Experimental Treatment  Post Test </li></ul><ul><li>Second Period O X2 O </li></ul><ul><li> Fourth Period O X1 O (Cambell, 1966) </li></ul>
  9. 10. Data Collection <ul><li>Pre-Test and Post-Test Results for the Mitosis and Meiosis Units were collected. </li></ul><ul><li>Likert scale surveys with short answers were given to students. </li></ul><ul><li>Teacher Reflection Worksheets were completed after each lesson. </li></ul>
  10. 11. Question 1: Do CPS devices provide for a significant difference in test score performance when comparing classes taught with and without the devices?
  11. 12. Question 1: Do CPS devices provide for a significant difference in test score performance when comparing classes taught with and without the devices? Not Significant
  12. 13. Question 2: Do CPS devices encourage all students to participate during lecture? Question 3: Does the instant feedback application, provided by the CPS software, allow for clarification of misconceptions? <ul><li>Likert Scale Surveys </li></ul><ul><li>Three statements were analyzed: </li></ul><ul><li>Using CPS units improved your performance on the Unit Test. </li></ul><ul><li>Instant Feedback provided by the CPS system clarified your understanding of the practice questions. </li></ul><ul><li>Using CPS units in the classroom distracted you. </li></ul>
  13. 14. Question 2: Do CPS devices encourage all students to participate during lecture? Question 3: Does the instant feedback application, provided by the CPS software, allow for clarification of misconceptions? Significant
  14. 15. Question 2: Do CPS devices encourage all students to participate during lecture? Question 3: Does the instant feedback application, provided by the CPS software, allow for clarification of misconceptions? <ul><li>“ The first day using the CPS units allowed for a very interesting discussion. I provided the students with a question that asked them to identify different structures of a chromosome (Chromatids, Centromere). ~60% of the students said that chromatids are identical copies. ~40% of the students said that the chromatids are the copy from mom and the copy from dad (this is a common misconception made by students in the Mitosis unit). When the feedback showed the results a student provided a real world application which seemed to clear up the confusion. He compared chromatids to socks. Both feet need &quot;identical copies&quot;. He made a connection that I would have never thought of. If the feedback did not present the division in understanding I don't know if I would have addressed it and I don't know if the student would have been encouraged to voice his analogy.” - Teacher </li></ul>
  15. 16. Question 4: Does the instant feedback application, provided by the CPS software, allow for appropriate pacing of the lesson? <ul><li>“ I was able to monitor all students’ level of understanding of the material. Due to the instant feedback provided by the system. I was able to gauge the understanding of all students and appropriately pace the lesson. The feedback allowed me to instantly address misconceptions, prompt further questioning, and elaborate in order to make sure the majority of the class gained a level of understanding. The discussions that followed allowed for a higher level of confidence when moving on to new material.” – Teacher </li></ul>
  16. 17. Question 4: Does the instant feedback application, provided by the CPS software, allow for appropriate pacing of the lesson? <ul><li>“The CPS units did present some down time in the classroom. Sometimes the receiver did not register with computer creating distractions and side conversations. Students were more focused on being the first to respond. Instead of actually thinking about the questions, they would press any button just to be the &quot;first to answer&quot;.” –Teacher </li></ul>
  17. 18. Results <ul><li>No Significant improvement in Test Results </li></ul><ul><li>Students felt that the devices increased participation of all students and preferred using the devices over standard class participation. </li></ul><ul><li>The teacher felt as if the instant feedback provided by the CPS software allowed for the appropriate pacing the lesson, and valuable class discussion. </li></ul>
  18. 19. Limitations ( Campbell, 1963) <ul><li>Selection: Classes were already established. They were not selected at random. Sample sizes were small. </li></ul><ul><li>History: Mitosis and Meiosis is a topic taught in Middle School. Students attended two different Middle Schools with five different life science teachers. Prior knowledge may have varied. </li></ul><ul><li>Testing: the Post-test was the same as the Pre-test. Responding to the Pre-test may have impacted the scores of the Post-test. </li></ul><ul><li>Absences </li></ul><ul><li>Multiple Treatment Interference: Starboards, PowerPoint, Brain Pop , and group work were also used to deliver the content. Although the same lesson plans were implemented discussions that followed and questions that were asked were not consistent between groups. </li></ul><ul><li>Biases: The teacher was also the experimenter. Unintentional biased delivery may have occurred in treatment groups. </li></ul>
  19. 20. Further Studies <ul><li>Implement the CPS devices in all Living Environment classes. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Honors, Regents, Inclusion </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Implement the CPS devices as a daily practice and see if it significantly impacts Regents test scores. </li></ul><ul><li>Compare the use of the CPS devices to the Eduware wands . </li></ul>
  20. 21. Works Cited <ul><li>Blackman, Merrill S. “It Worked a Different Way.” College Teaching 50.1 27-28, 2002 </li></ul><ul><li>Meyer, R. G. (1995, July). Teaching Secondary School Biology for Social Relevance. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED390641) </li></ul><ul><li>Petersohn, B. “ Classroom Performance Systems, Library Instruction, and Instructional Design: A Pilot Study ” Libraries and the Academy , 8.3 313-324, 2008 </li></ul><ul><li>Campbell, D. T. et al. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research . Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1966. </li></ul><ul><li>Campbell, D. 1963, From Description to Experimentation: Interpreting Trends as Quasi-Experiments, In C.W. Harris, Problems in Measuring Change, Univerisity of Winsconsing Press </li></ul>

×