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 58
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.
Table of Contents
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………........…..iii
Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………........…iv
List of Tables ………………………………………………...................……….......……v
Chapter 1: Introduction…………………………………………………………........…...1
Statement of the Problem…………………………………………...........….…........…….1
Significance of the Problem………………………………………...........……........….….2
Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks…………………………..........……........…..…3
Focus Questions…………………………………………………..........….........…...….…6
Overview of Methodology…………………………………………...........…….........…...6
Human as Researcher……………………………………………….……......................…7
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature……………………………..………….........…….....8
The Vocabulary of Mathematics…………………….…………..........…….….........…….8
Learning Styles………………………………………………….........……….........….….9
Opposing Views on Learning Styles……………………………….........….........……....11
Student Learning Outcomes………………………………………….........….........…….12
Attitudes of Students and Teachers……………………………………….…...................15
Summary…………………………………………………………………...................….16
Chapter 3: Methodology………………………………………………………......…….17
Research Design…………………………………………………………..................…...17
Setting……………………………………………………………………..................…..17
Subjects and Participants……………………………………………..............................18
Procedures and Data Collection Methods……………………………….................…... .20
Validity, Reliability and Bias Measures….……….........………….................……..…...23
Analysis of Data………………………………………………………….................…...26
Chapter 4: Results………………………………………………………….....………....29
Chapter 5: Analysis and Discussion of Results…………………………….....……..….40
Analysis…………………………………………………………................……….…....40
Discussion…………………………………………………………….…….....................45
Implications…………….………………………………………...............………..…......47
Recommendations for Future Research……………………………................…….…....48
References………………………………………………………………....……….…..,.50
Appendixes………………………………………………………………….....….….....54
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 58
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).