1. Action Research Proposal EDU 671 KATHLEEN WALTERS 1

2. Focus:  To establish effective procedures while using technology in the classroom.  Define the optimal amount of time students should utilize educational software.  Identify how technology should be used, independently or with a partner. 2

3. Problem:  Research sparked by current classroom situation.  New technology has been given to each classroom for student use.  Students are currently sharing laptops during math workshop time.  Current amount of time spent on math program is 30 minutes.  Students alternate between working independently and with a partner.  “many research findings indicate that cooperative learning is an effective tool for improving academic achievement.”(Johnson, D. & Johnson, R. 1987” 3

4. Variables to be Introduced:  Time: Introduction of 50 minutes usage of math program instead of 30.  Students alternating between working in partners and independently while working on math program. 4

5. Research Questions:  Question #1: What is the most effective range of time for students to learn math concepts using technology?  Question #2: Do students learn math concepts more effectively working independently or with a partner? 5

6. Locus of Control:  Active research participants are my current 3 rd grade students.  I have access to all data and present for daily observation. 6

7. Intervention #1:  Intervention for research question #1:  Students will be divided into two groups.  Group A will utilize the math program for the increased time of 50 minutes.  Group B will continue to use the math program for the usual 30 minutes.  Groups will be alternated the following day.  According to Kenney, L. “technologies help to actively engage students, drive participation, and a vital part of both teaching and learning in the classroom.” (2011) 7

8. Intervention #2:  Intervention for active research question #2:  Students will be divided into two groups.  Students who are in group A will work with a partner while using the math program.  Students who are in group B will work independently while using the same math program. 8

9. Membership:  20 third grade students, ages 8 to 9 years old  9 boys and 11 girls  Class is from a Title One School, (low income neighborhood)  Only a few of these students have technology at home. 9

10. No Negotiations Needed: Normal Math Workshop  1 ½ Hours in length  15 minutes on mini – lesson.  30 minutes skill practice.  30 minutes spent on online math program. Active Research Math Workshop  1 ½ hours in length  15 minutes on mini – lesson.  50 minutes skill practice on online math program. (intervention #1)  30 minutes on online math program with a partner. (intervention #2) 10

11. Ethics: “ Computers offer a unique environment that might encourage children who typically do not interact with others to do so. (Bullard, 2014) Benefits my students as they learn 21 st century skills. No change in curriculum, environment, or teacher. Students names and information will not be connected to their results. 11

12. Timeline: Intervention #1 Monday: Group A will utilize time variable. Tuesday: Group B will utilize time variable. Intervention #2 Wednesday: Group A will work on the math program with a partner. Thursday: Group B will work on the math program with a partner. Student Survey Students will take preference survey. 12

13. Statement of Resources: Laptops 10 Laptops Math Program Front Row online math program Students 20 third grade students 13

14. Data Collection: Observation I will be observing student engagement during each intervention. Math program data The online program Front Row, collects participant progress and degree of content understanding. Student Survey Students will be asked about their learning preferences through a student survey. 14

15. References:  Bullard, J. (2014) How the Use of Technology Enhances Children’s Development; Pearson Allyn Bacon Prentice – Hall.  Johnson, D. & Johnson, R. (1987). Learning together and alone: Cooperation, competition, and individualization (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.  Mills, G. E. (2014). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc. 15