The effects of an online collaborative elementary math program using team-based games to improve student math achievement, attitude and motivation.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31686/ijier.vol4.iss7.568Keywords:
online collaborative games, elementary math, team based games, elementary student math achievement, attitude, motivation, assessmentAbstract
The U.S. mathematics education system is failing to produce enough technically skilled workers for it to stay globally competitive. One of the key problems is that U.S. students are not learning the foundational math skills they need during the elementary school years. This research study evaluated the effects of an online collaborative elementary math program using team-based games (Sokikom) to improve student math achievement, attitude and motivation. The research questions focus was on achievement, attitude and motivation. Sokikom, (pronounced so-kee-kom) is an online collaborative math program developed through grants from the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), where elementary students help each other learn through a team-based game as well as adaptive, independent learning games. Though a quasi-experimental design, the researchers studied the effects of using Sokikom for 1 year in 2 elementary schools in Oxnard, CA. Specifically, effects on students' mathematics achievement as measured through the end-of-year CA state test. The results showed that there was a significant and positive association between the number of new lessons mastered and mathachievement as measured by the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP) scores (p<.0001), which use the Smarter Balanced Assessment. For each additional new lesson mastered a student's CAASPP math score increased 0.58 points. Notably the change in mean on the CAASPP score and the students' intrinsic motivation to learn math. End of study data showed students that used Sokikom reliably, had significantly higher CAASPP math scores (18% higher) than other students, independent of teacher or school. In addition, students that used Sokikom reliably had more than twice the amount of students that significantly improved motivation and attitude toward learning mathematics compared to other students independent of teacher or school. The research study also examined the effect reliable-use of Sokikom had on positively changing student math motivation and attitudes for students who find math difficult and boring and students who are curious and excited about math. The latent transition analysis(LTA) findings showed a higher probability of transitioning from the subgroup that found math difficult and boring to the subgroup that were curious and excited about math was for students who used Sokikom reliably, suggesting that Sokikom may have had a positive impact on students’ math motivation. For the treated group, the probability of transitioning from the subgroup that found math difficult and boring to the subgroup of students who were curious and excited about math was 0.29, from Time 1 to Time 2. By contrast for the intent to treat group, the probability of transition from the subgroup that found math difficult and boring to the subgroup of students who were curious and excited was 0.14, from Time 1 to Time 2. In general, this research study found that regular use of an online collaborative elementary math game program (Sokikom) by elementary students has the potential to improve math achievement and provide positive motivation in the learning of mathematics.
Downloads
References
Ball, D. L. (2001). Teaching, with respect to mathematics and students. In T. Wood, B. S. Nelson, & J. E. Warfield (Eds.), Beyond classical pedagogy: Teaching elementary school mathematics (pp. 11–22). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content Knowledge for Teaching What Makes It Special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108324554
Baldi, S., et al. (2007) Highlights from PISA 2006: Performance of U.S. 15-Year-Old Students in Science and Mathematics Literacy in an International Context. ERIC #: ED499184
Beckmann, S. (2011). From the Common Core to a Community of All Mathematics Teachers. The Mathematics Educator, 20(2), 3–9.Bitter, G. G., & Legacy, J. M. (2008). Using technology in the classroom. Boston: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.
Bitter, G. G., Meylani, R., & Castaneda, R. (2011). Effects of adaptive curriculum on student achievement in middle school mathematics.
Black, P. J., & William, D. (1998) Inside the black box: raising standards through classroom assessment. London: King’s College London School of Education student achievement in middle school mathematics.
Blankson, A. N., & Blair, C. (2016). Cognition and classroom quality as predictors of math achievement in the kindergarten year. Learning and Instruction, 41, 32-40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.09.004
Borman, G.D., Dowling, N. M. (2006). Longitudinal Achievement Effects of Multiyear Summer School: Evidence From the Teach Baltimore Randomized Field Trial. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 28(1). 25-48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737028001025
Brown, A., Westenskow, A., & Moyer-Packenham, P. (2012). Teaching anxieties revealed: pre-service elementary teachers’ reflections on their mathematics teaching experiences. Teaching Education, 23(4), 365–385. doi:10.1080/10476210.2012.727794 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2012.727794
Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review 31 (1): 21–32
Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Franke, M. L., Levi, L., & Empson, S. B. (1999). Children’s Mathematics: Cognitively Guided Instruction. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Clements, D.H. (2004). Geometric and spatial thinking in early childhood education. In D. H. Clements, J. Serama, & A-M. DiBiase (eds), Engaging Young Children in Mathematics: Standards for Early Childhood Mathematics Education (pp. 267–297). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Clements, D.H., & Battista, M.T. (2000). Designing effective software. In K. R. A. Lesh & A. E. Lesh (eds), Handbook of Research Design in Mathematics and Science Education (pp. 761–776). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences. (2012). The Mathematical Education of Teachers II (No. 17). Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society. Retrieved from http://cbmsweb.org/MET2/met2.pdf DOI: https://doi.org/10.1090/cbmath/017
Cordova, D. I., & Lepper, M. R. (1996). Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning: Beneficial effects of contextualization, personalization, and choice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(4), 715. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.88.4.715
Drake, C. (2006). Turning points: Using teachers’ mathematics life stories to understand the implementation of mathematics education reform. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 9, 579–608. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-006-9021-9
Eck, V. R. (April 2006). Digital Game-Based Learning: It's Not Just the Digital Natives Who Are Restless, EduCause Review, vol. 41, no. 2 (March/April): 16–30
Empson, S. B., & Levi, L. (2011). Extending children’s mathematics: Fractions and decimals: Innovations in Cognitively Guided Instruction. Heinemann.
Fleischman, H. L., Hopstock, P. J., Pelczar, M. P., & Shelley, B. E. (2010). Highlights from PISA 2009: Performance of US 15-Year-Old Students in Reading, Mathematics, and Science Literacy in anInternational Context. NCES 2011-004. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED513640.pdf
Ginsburg, H.P., Labrecque, R., Carpenter, K, and Pagar, D. (2014). New Possibilities for Early Mathematics Education: Cognitive Guidelines for Designing High-quality Software to Promote Young Children’s Meaningful Mathematics Learning. In Kadosh, R.C. & Dowker, A. (Eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Numerical Cognition. DOI:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199642342.013.029 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199642342.013.029
Gonzales, P., et al. (2004). Highlights From the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study: TIMSS 2003. ERIC #:ED483080 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/e672832007-002
Gottfried, A. E. (1990). Academic intrinsic motivation in young elementary school children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 525. Numerical Cognition (Forthcoming). DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199642342.013.029
Gottfried, A. E. (1985). Academic intrinsic motivation in elementary and junior high school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 631-635. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.77.6.631
Gottfried, A. E. (1990). Academic intrinsic motivation in young elementary school children. Journal of Educational Psychology. 25 Vol 82(3), Sep 1990, 525-538. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.3.525
Gottfried, A. E., Fleming, J. S. & Gottfried, A. W. (1994). Role of parental motivational practices in children's academic intrinsic motivation and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 104-113. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.86.1.104
Gottfried, A. E., Marcoulides, G. A., Gottfried, A. W., Oliver, P., & Guerin, D. (2007). Multivariate latent change modeling of developmental decline in academic intrinsic math motivation and achievement: Childhood through adolescence. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31, 317- 327. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025407077752
Hoyles, C., & Noss, R. (2009). The technological mediation of mathematics and its learning. Human Development, 52, 129–147.Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching, 8(3), 381–391. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000202730
Hatfield, M. M., Edwards, N. T., Bitter, G. G., & Morrow, J. (2008). Mathematics Methods for Elementary and Middle School (6th ed.). Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
Hess, F. M. (2011). Quality Control in K-12 Digital Learning: Three (Imperfect) Approaches. Creating Healthy Policy for Digital Learning. A Working Paper Series from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED527019.pdf
Hill, H. C., Blunk, M. L., Charalambous, C. Y., Lewis, J. M., Phelps, G. C., Sleep, L., & Ball, D. L. (2008). Mathematical knowledge for teaching and the mathematical quality of instruction: An exploratory study. Cognition and Instruction, 26(4), 430–511. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000802177235
Hill, H. C., Kapitula, L., & Umland, K. (2011). A validity argument approach to evaluating teacher value-added scores. American Educational Research Journal, 48(3), 794–831. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831210387916
Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of Teachers’ Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching on Student Achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 371–406. doi:10.3102/00028312042002371 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312042002371
Hill, H. C., Sleep, L., Lewis, J. M., & Ball, D. L. (2007). Assessing teachers’ mathematical knowledge: What knowledge matters and what evidence counts? In F. K. Lester Jr. (Ed.), SecondHandbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Husen, T. (1967). International Study of Achievement in Mathematics: a Comparison of Twelve Countries, Volumes I and II. London: John Wiley.
Isaacs, A., et al. (2001). A Research-Based Curriculum: The Research Basis of the UCSMP Everyday Mathematics Curriculum. Crosswhite, F. J., et al. (1985) Second International Mathematics Study Summary Report. Champaign, IL: Stipes
Jerald, C. D., Haycock, K., & Wilkins, A. (2009). Fighting for Quality and Equality, Too: How State Policymakers Can Ensure the Drive to Improve Teacher Quality Doesn’t Just Trickle down to Poor and Minority Children. K-12 Policy. Education Trust. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED507874.pdf
Lanza, S., & Collins, L. M. (2008). A new SAS procedure for latent transition analysis: Transition in dating and sexual risk behavior. Developmental Psychology, 44(2), 446-456. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.44.2.446. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.44.2.446
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815355
Loveless, T. (2003). Trends in math achievement: The importance of basic skills. In U.S. Secretary of Education’s Summit on Mathematics. Washington, DC. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/20081132
Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and Teaching Elementary Mathematics: Teachers’ Understanding of Fundamental Mathematics in China and the United States. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410602589
Mayer, R. (2004). Should there be a three-strike rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist 59 (1): 14–19 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.14
Meylani, R., Bitter, G. G. & Castaneda, R. (2014). Predicting Student Performance in Statewide High-Stakes Tests for Middle School Mathematics Using the Results from Third Party Testing Instruments. Journal of Education and Learning; Vol. 3, No. 3. ISSN 1927-5250 E-ISSN 1927-5269 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v3n3p135
Merrill, D. (1991). Constructivism and instructional design. Journal of Educational Technology, 31, 45–53.
McCaffrey, D. F., Lockwood, J. R., Koretz, D. M., & Hamilton, L. S. (2003). Evaluating Value-Added Models for Teacher Accountability. Monograph. ERIC. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED529961 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/e658712010-001
Mishra, K., & Vasanta, D. (2016). Impact of Mathematical Games Upon the Academic Achievement of Low Achievers in Mathematics at Primary Level. Indian Journal of Applied Research, 6(1).
Mohsenpour, M., Gooya, Z., Shokuhiyekta, M., Kiamanesh, A., & Bazargan, A. (2015). Designing and Developing a Test for Cognitive Competencies of the Iranian Students’ Mathematics Literacy based on PISA Studies.
Murphy, P. J., & Regenstein, E. (2012). Putting a Price Tag on the Common Core: How Much Will Smart Implementation Cost? Washington, D.C.: Thomas A. Fordham Institute. Retrieved from http://www.edexcellence.net/publications/putting-a-price-tag-on-the-common-core.htmlNational Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards. Washington, D.C.: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/
National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/mathpanel/index.html
National Mathematics Advisory Panel [NMAP] (2008) The Final Report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel.
National Science Board. (2008). Science and engineering indicators 2008. Two volumes. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation (Vol. 1, NSB 08-01; Vol. 2, NSB 08-01A).
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas. New York: Basic Books.
Park, D., Gunderson, E. A., Tsukayama, E., Levine, S. C., & Beilock, S. L. (2016). Young children’s motivational frameworks and math achievement: Relation to teacher-reported instructional practices, but not teacher theory of intelligence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(3), 300. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000064
Peak, L., et al. (1996) Pursuing Excellence: A Study of U.S. Eighth-Grade Mathematics and Science Teaching, Learning, Curriculum, and Achievement in International Context. Initial Findings from the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). ERIC #:ED400209
Piaget, J. (1967). Logique et Connaissance scientifique, Encyclopédie de la Pléiade
Philipp, R. A. (2007). Mathematics teachers’ beliefs and affect. In F. K. Lester Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 257–315). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Porter, Eduardo. "Stubborn Skills Gap in America’s Work Force." New York Times. N.p., 8 Oct. 2013. Web. 13 May 2015.
Provasnik, S., Kastberg, D., Ferraro, D., Lemanski, N., Roey, S., & Jenkins, F. (2012). Highlights from TIMSS 2011: Mathematics and Science Achievement of US Fourth-and Eighth-Grade Students in an International Context. NCES 2013-009. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED537756.pdf
Randel, M. J., et al. (1992). The Effectiveness of Games for Educational Purposes. Simulation and Gaming, vol. 23 no. 3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878192233001
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game based learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Reys, B., & Thomas, A. (2012). Digital Textbooks for Mathematics: Promise and Reality. Presented at the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL: NCTM. Retrieved from https://nctm.confex.com/nctm/2012AM/webprogram/Handout/Session7991/5_ThomasReys_DigitalTextbooks.pdf
Richards, J., & Struminger, R. (2013). 2013 U.S. Education Technology Industry Market: PreK-12. Washington, D.C.: Software & Information Industry Association. Retrieved from http://www.siia.net/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=4801&Itemid=318Richardson, V., & Placier, P. (2001). Chapter 41: Teacher change. Handbook of Research on Teaching.
Ries, E. (2011). The Lean Startup. New York: Crown Business.
Rio School District (2013). Rio School: District Local Education Plan 2012-2015. Retrieved from http://rioschools.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/RSD-2013-LEA-PLAN-Final-3-15-13-1.pdf
Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. (2002). Learning and teaching with computers in early childhood education. In O. N. Saracho & B. Spodek (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives in early childhood education (pp. 171–219). Greenwich, CT.: Information Age Publishing.
Schiefele, U., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1995). Motivation and ability as factors in mathematics experience and achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 163–181. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.26.2.0163
Shaffer, W. D., et al. (2005). Videogames and the future of learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 87 Vol. no2 pages: 105-111. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170508700205
Schacht, W. H. (2007). Industrial competitiveness and technological advancement: Debate over government policy. (Order Code RL33528). CRS Issue Brief for Congress. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service
Sherin, B., & Star, J. R. (2011). Reflections on the study of teacher noticing. Mathematics Teacher Noticing: Seeing through Teachers’ Eyes, 66–78. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203832714
Shute, V. (2011). Stealth Assessment In Computer-based Games to Support Learning Computer Games and Instruction. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Singer, J. D. (1998). Using SAS PROC MIXED to fit multilevel models, hierarchical models, and individual growth models. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 23(4), 325-355. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986023004323
Steffe, L. P., & Olive, J. (2010). Children’s fractional knowledge. Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0591-8
Stacey, K. (2015). The international assessment of mathematical literacy: PISA 2012 framework and items. In Selected Regular Lectures from the 12th International Congress on Mathematical Education (pp. 771-790). Springer International Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17187-6_43
The White House, Office of the Press Secretary. (2010). President Obama Expands “Educate to Innovate” Campaign for Excellence in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education [Press release]. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/president-obama-expands-educate-innovate-campaign-excellence-science-technology-eng
Thompson, A. G. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and conceptions: A synthesis of mathematics teaching to instructional practice. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 124–146). New York: Macmillan.
United States Department of Education. (n.d.). Science, Technology, Engineering and Math: Education for Global Leadership. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/stem.
Van de Walle, J. A., Karp, K., & Bay-Williams, J. M. (2010). Elementary and Middle School Mathematics: Teaching Developmentally (Vol. Seventh). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Viljaranta, J., Lerkkanen, M.-K., Poikkeus, A.-M., Aunola, K., & Nurmi, J.-E. (2009). Cross-lagged relations between task motivation and performance in arithmetic and literacy in kindergarten. Learning and Instruction, 19(4), 335–344. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.06.011
Weisberg, D., Sexton, S., Mulhern, J., & Keeling, D. (2009). The widget effect: Our national failure to acknowledge and act on differences in teacher effectiveness (2nd ed.). Brooklyn, NY: The New Teacher Project.
Wu, H.-H. (2011). The mis-education of mathematics teachers. Notices of the AMS, 58(3), 372–384.
Wu, H.-H. (2011, August 5). Teaching fractions according to the Common Core Standards. Retrieved from http://math.berkeley.edu/~wu/CCSS-Fractions_1.pdf
Copyright Disclaimer
Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2016 Gary Glen Bitter, John Puglisi, Annie Gorges, Harpreet Kaur Uppal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Copyrights for articles published in IJIER journals are retained by the authors, with first publication rights granted to the journal. The journal/publisher is not responsible for subsequent uses of the work. It is the author's responsibility to bring an infringement action if so desired by the author for more visit Copyright & License.
How to Cite
