the impact of collaborative learning through survivor...

The Impact of Collaborative Learning through Survivor Algebra in the

Mathematics Classroom

A Capstone Project

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

of Master of Arts in Teaching: Mathematics

Peter Wang

Department of Mathematics and Computer Science

College of Arts and Sciences

Graduate School

Minot State University

Minot, North Dakota

Summer 2011

ii

This capstone project was submitted by

Peter Wang

Graduate Committee:

Dr. Laurie Geller, Chairperson

Mr. Timothy Morris

Dr. Gary Rabe

Dean of Graduate School

Dr. Linda Cresap

Date of defense: July 7. 2011

iii

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to use a collaborative learning approach through an

adaptation of Karen Lyn Davis‘ Survivor Algebra program to enhance student

motivation and achievement in my classroom. Students from my Algebra 2 class

were divided into two tribes or groups of similar abilities. For nine weeks students

worked collaboratively in these groups. My expectations were for my students to

become more actively involved and to achieve a higher rate of success in

mathematics. Several methods of collecting and analyzing data were used to

determine if expectations were met. With the aid of t-tests, grade comparisons

were made between my current Algebra 2 class utilizing Survivor Algebra and my

Algebra 2 class from 2009-2010. The Survivor Algebra group showed a

significantly greater growth than the non-Survivor Algebra group. Pre- and post-

surveys were given to gauge student feelings toward collaborative learning. After

analyzing the results, I found that the overall feelings of students toward

collaborative learning after using Survivor Algebra had grown more positive.

Open-ended questions given at the end of each survey showed that students, for

the most part, reacted positively to the use of Survivor Algebra. In my

observations during the project, I found students truly enjoyed themselves.

Overall, my adaptation of Survivor Algebra was not perfect, but it was definitely

something I will be utilizing in the future after making a few adjustments.

iv

Acknowledgements

I would like to initially thank Mr. Timothy Morris and Dr. Laurie Geller.

As my advisor, Mr. Morris has been incredibly helpful with editing and revising

my paper. He has kept me on schedule and has been willing to answer any

questions regarding my paper. Along with helping in the writing of my paper, Dr.

Geller has been there to encourage and has spent copious amounts of time helping

me calculate and analyze the data I collected. Thank you both!

Thank you to the members of my graduate committee. I appreciate your

knowledgeable assistance in writing my paper.

Thank you to my Master of Arts in Teaching: Mathematics classmates.

Your support and help with editing have helped me make it through the process. I

have learned a great deal from each of you.

Finally, thank you to my friends and family for your support and

encouragement.

v

Table of Contents

Page

Abstract .................................................................................................................. iii

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................ iv

List of Tables ........................................................................................................ vii

List of Figures ...................................................................................................... viii

Chapter One: Introduction .......................................................................................1

Motivation for the Project ............................................................................1

Background on the Problem.........................................................................2

Statement of the Problem .............................................................................2

Statement of Purpose ...................................................................................3

Research Questions/Hypotheses ..................................................................4

Summary ......................................................................................................4

Chapter Two: Review of Literature .........................................................................5

Collaborative Learning ................................................................................7

Keys to Success............................................................................................9

Role of Teacher ..........................................................................................10

Role of Students .........................................................................................12

Summary ....................................................................................................14

Chapter Three: Research Design and Method .......................................................16

Setting ........................................................................................................16

vi

Intervention/Innovation..............................................................................17

Design ........................................................................................................19

Description of Methods..............................................................................19

Expected Results ........................................................................................21

Summary ....................................................................................................22

Chapter Four: Data Analysis and Interpretation of Results ...................................23

Data Analysis .............................................................................................23

Interpretation of Results .............................................................................33

Summary ....................................................................................................37

Chapter Five: Conclusions, Action Plan, Reflections, and Recommendations .....39

Conclusions ................................................................................................39

Action Plan.................................................................................................40

Reflections and Recommendations for Teachers .......................................41

Summary ....................................................................................................42

References ..............................................................................................................44

Appendices .............................................................................................................46

Appendix A: Parental/Guardian Consent...................................................47

Appendix B: Student Assent ......................................................................50

Appendix C: Principal Consent .................................................................53

Appendix D: Survey and Open-Ended Questions .....................................55

Appendix E: Survey Results ......................................................................59

vii

List of Tables

Table Page

1. Descriptive Statistics for Q2 (Final) and Q2 (Test) ...................................24

2. Mean Test Score Differences and T-Test Analysis for Q2

(Survivor – Non-Survivor) .........................................................................22

3. Descriptive Statistics for Diff Final = Q3 – Q2 and

Diff Test = Q3 – Q2 ...................................................................................25

4. Two-Sample T-Tests to Compare Growth from Q2 to Q3


5. Descriptive Statistics for Q3 (Final) and Q3 (Test) ...................................26

6. Two-Sample T-Tests for Q3 (Final) and Q3 (Test)


7. Pre-Survey and Post-Survey Results (Percentages) ...................................27

8. Means on Pre-Survey and Post-Survey by Question .................................28

9. Means on Pre-Survey and Post-Survey by Student ...................................29

viii

List of Figures

Figure Page

1. Bar chart of quarter two final and test score mean comparisons ...............34

2. Bar chart of differences in final and test score means

from quarter two to quarter three comparisons ..........................................35

3. Bar chart of quarter three final and test score mean comparisons .............36

Chapter One

Introduction

The Internet can be a powerful tool for educators. I am constantly

searching for new and exciting material to use in my classroom. It is difficult to

think of teaching without the Internet as a resource. As the sole mathematics

teacher in a small school located in a rural Midwest town, I am especially

appreciative of the Internet. It replaces the math colleague I do not have

immediately available to me. I am able to use it to extract countless excellent

ideas from math teachers and other educators across the web. During one of my

searches, I came across a program created by Karen Lyn Davis called Survivor

Algebra. I found it to be a new and interesting way to incorporate collaborative

learning into my classroom.

Motivation for the Project

I am currently in my sixth year as a math teacher. If there is anything I

have learned throughout the years, it is that I can always improve my teaching

methods. Group work has been an area I have wanted to make more of a regular

practice in my classroom. I usually put students into groups for projects or

activities, but this is far from a daily or even weekly occurrence. I want

collaboration among my students to be more consistent and structured.

2

Background on the Problem

There are days when I reflect on how the school day went, and I notice

several aspects that I would like to improve. Many times I see students bored,

making no attempt to get involved. This lack of interest carries over to them being

unable to grasp the material and performing poorly on tests. Then there are other

days when I think my lessons went well, and I noticed a common thread between

these lessons which seemed to be student participation. These moments of success

almost always included some group work activities. Students appeared more

comfortable participating in smaller groups than in class discussion. Many times I

assign each student a specific job in the group, forcing each one to get involved.

These jobs range from note-taking to speaking. These observations further show

me how important it is to get my students to actively participate in the classroom

through group work.

Statement of the Problem

As an educator, I have learned how challenging it can be to increase

student achievement and to keep students motivated to learn mathematics. Let me

go back to my years as a student in high school and college. When I look back at

the classes in which I learned the most and the ones I truly enjoyed, these classes

had regular group work and student involvement. I rarely look back with fond

memories of my classes where the instructor stood up in front of the room and

lectured the entire time. I want to become the teacher that my students look back

3

upon with positive feelings. I want them to see I made an effort to get them

motivated to learn. This reason is why I wanted to focus on using a collaborative

learning approach to improve the effectiveness of my teaching.

Statement of Purpose

I planned to use ideas from the Survivor Algebra program to positively

impact student motivation and achievement in my classroom. The goals I set for

my students came directly from the Survivor Algebra User’s Manual and included

the following:

To build critical thinking skills

To get involved in their own learning

To reduce the anxiety of being in a math class and ease nerves during

exams

To strengthen their ability to learn math (and other things) on their own

It will build the student‘s confidence with math and other seemingly

difficult subjects

To increase exam performance and retention of material learned

To provide students with a deeper understanding of the material

To help students get to know their fellow students and teacher better

(Davis, 2007, p. 2).

4

Research Questions/Hypotheses

The main question for my research project was: Will my students‘ test

scores and daily work improve, and do they think using my version of Survivor

Algebra was a success? I wrote a journal that detailed my daily observations of

student behaviors and attitudes as well as my thoughts about implementation of

Survivor Algebra and its successes and challenges. Pre- and post- surveys were

given to students to acquire their opinions regarding collaborative learning and

Survivor Algebra. I also compared my 2010-2011 Algebra 2 students‘ grades to

those from my 2009-2010 Algebra 2 class.

Summary

Through the use of Survivor Algebra and collaborative learning, I wanted

my students to become motivated to do well, to fully understand the material I am

teaching, to get involved, to improve their test performance, and to have fun in the

process. This would make the overall project a success. In the following chapter, I

discussed the literature I found regarding Survivor Algebra and collaborative

learning.

Chapter Two

Review of Literature

Part of reaching success in life is dependent on learning how to function in

groups. Foster and Theesfeld (1993) highlighted the importance of learning how

to collaborate with others:

The success and progress of our society is dependent on cooperation

among humans. Cooperation is very important in the daily operation of

business and business organizations. Our government must cooperate with

other nations. Members of sports teams must cooperate in order to be

successful. Families must function in a cooperative manner in their

relationships to each other. (p. 1)

They also explained that individuals need to learn certain skills to be successful in

collaboration, and that these abilities could be developed in the classroom. The

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM, 2000) Process Standards

supported this research. The Communication Standard expressed that

instructional programs enable all students to:

Organize and consolidate their mathematical thinking through

communication

Communicate their mathematical thinking coherently and clearly to peers,

teachers, and others

Analyze and evaluate the mathematical thinking and strategies of others;

6

Use the language of mathematics to express mathematical ideas precisely.

(NCTM, Communication section)

Survivor Algebra was used to teach my students these life skills along with

achieving the goals listed in Chapter One. Davis (2008) cited several problems

that led her to create this program. She stated that students were bored. They

hated math, lacked motivation, and were not learning the material. She alluded to

what happened when she switched to using Survivor Algebra as a form of

collaborative learning:

I really view myself more as a motivational speaker now, than as a math

teacher. I used to have a very typical success rate for a community college

math teacher – a very sad 40%. Yes, that‘s typical…and it‘s also

completely unacceptable! Since I made these changes, I‘ve enjoyed a very

steady 75-80% success rate…for years! My students have worked very

hard to earn that success…I‘ve just encouraged them to do so. (p. 16)

Davis outlined her typical first day school before making the change to Survivor

Algebra.

I‘d always go through my class syllabus (which is just a bunch of rules

about homework and absences) – blah blah blah…And, then, I‘d give a 30

minute dissertation on the perils of cheating. In short, I was starting the

semester by talking about a bunch of negative things. Start out

negative…and stay negative. (p. 16)

7

She realized a change was in order. She replaced her typical first day of school

with a positive approach that involved giving a speech on success. In the

following sections, I discussed the definition and goals of collaborative learning

and the role of the teacher and students.

Collaborative Learning

Collaborative and cooperative learning are the primary foci of the

following studies. According to Ares (2008), collaboration is group work in

which individuals work as a whole to complete a task, and cooperation is a

specific type of collaboration in which the task of the group is divided up into

subtasks for group members to complete. With collaborative learning, group

success is determined by accomplishments as a unit. A group‘s success in

cooperative learning is ―dependent on, and being a direct effect of, the individual

work of each member of the team‖ (Foster & Theesfeld, 1993, p. 3). Esmonde

(2009) categorized practices in her study as collaborative ―when group members

put their ideas together, worked together, and seemed to act as ‗critical friends‘

when considering one another‘s ideas‖ (p. 256). One specific method of using

collaboration in the classroom is through collaborative test taking. Bloom (2009)

studied the effectiveness of allowing students a second opportunity to take a test

using collaborative group work. She found that ―the second attempt not only

reinforced learning through repeated exposure to course content, but it served as a

review session‖ (p. 219). Bloom noted that test scores were much higher, and

8

students became energized during group work. Another way to look at

collaboration or collaborative learning is as a form of active learning. Ueckert and

Gess-Newsome (2008) described active learning as the need for students to

engage with one another and the content they are studying. They also added that

increasing active learning ―allows students, rather than teachers, to take

responsibility for the work‖ (p. 52).

Survivor Algebra was developed as a collaborative learning program.

Davis (2007) described Survivor Algebra as a program designed to get students

working in groups and to develop self-learning skills. Studies support the

effectiveness of using some form of collaborative learning. A study examining

two high schools, one traditional and one non-traditional, showed strong evidence

that the non-traditional school was ―better able to serve the motivational needs of

adolescent students‖ (Johnson, 2008, p. 69). The non-traditional school

―employed group decision making, credit rather than grades, non-compulsory

attendance and greater proportions of collaborative work‖ (Johnson, p. 69). The

results showed that ―schools should consider providing a variety of instructional

methods with particular attention to higher proportions of collaborative learning

experiences for adolescent students‖ (Johnson, p. 83). Another study done with

college students showed that, when proper team-building was used, ―students

overwhelmingly reported a positive perception of their team performance and a

9

positive attitude toward academic teamwork in general‖ (Kapp, 2009, p. 142).

The results revealed that 93% of the students shared these positive feelings.

Keys to Success

There are important keys to consider in making collaborative learning a

success. A recurring theme from literature is that students form a sense of

community with one another. In their study, Jones and Jones (2008) discussed the

use of icebreakers to help students learn to ―work together as a learning

community‖ (p. 2). Ares (2008) also mentioned community along with the

importance of students maintaining ―responsibility, interdependence and

expectations of participation‖ (p. 105). Hmelo-Silver and Barrows (2008) also

discussed the idea of collaborative learning groups as communities and explained

that ―all participants must contribute‖ (p. 49). In a short example, Esmonde

(2009) showed the significance of group practices being evenly distributed

amongst students:

Tony, Sarah, Mustafa, and Kendra are working together on a mathematics

problem. From the teacher‘s vantage point at the front of the room, they

look extraordinarily productive; their heads are bent together, they are

engaged in animated discussion, and Sarah‘s hands gesture toward her

own paper as well as Kendra‘s. As the teacher circulates around the room,

she pauses to observe and listen closely to the talk. Tony and Mustafa are

both writing, heads down, in their notebooks. The teacher hears Sarah

10

explain her strategy for solving the problem as she gestures toward her

notebook and the diagrams she has written there. She hears Kendra tell

Sarah, ―Oh…I get it. But I did it a different way. What do you think? I

chose—‖ and then notices Sarah‘s gaze drift back to her own paper as she

begins working on the next question. (p. 250)

The students were placed in a group without being given specific tasks. They

were unable to benefit from the collaborative approach due to this lack of

direction. Ms. Belle, a sixth-grade teacher, understood this. She subscribed to a

system where she would assign students as ―leaders, assistants, recorders and

sergeants-at-arms for group assignments‖ (Ares, 2008, p. 106). Foster and

Theesfeld (1993) supported the ideas that decisions on size of groups, seating

arrangements, team assignments, student collaboration, lesson plans, and daily

task management are crucial components in successful group work. Ciani,

Summers, Easter, and Sheldon (2008) argued that when students are allowed to

choose their collaborative groups they are more motivated than if the groups were

chosen by the teacher.

Role of Teacher

―It is likely that the goal of all professors using collaborative learning as

an instructional tool is to promote adaptive peer relations among students‖ (Ciani

et al., 2008, p. 634). To attain this goal, educators must know their roles and

follow several guidelines. Gaining the trust of students is vital for teachers to be

11

able to educate through collaborative learning. Davis (2007) suggested how this

can be accomplished and commented that ―the quickest and easiest way to build

trust is to show the kids that you genuinely care about them‖ (p. 27). Furthermore,

Davis stated the importance of getting to know the names of students to earn trust.

According to Foster and Theesfeld (1993), the following teacher

responsibilities are important when using collaborative learning:

1. Carefully explain the task so that each team knows its responsibilities.

It may clarify the task for students if you write the instructions on the

chalkboard or the overhead projector.

2. Monitor student work and behavior.

3. Answer questions only when they are team questions, and provide

assistance when necessary.

4. Interrupt the group process to reinforce cooperative group skills or to

provide direct instruction for all students.

5. Provide closure for the lesson.

6. Evaluate the group process by discussing the actions of team members

at least twice each week. This is called processing.

7. Help students to learn to be individually accountable for learning. This

should be reinforced regularly.

8. Monitor team progress and give praise when appropriate. (p. 3)

12

Brown and Renshaw (2006) found that ―the conventional classroom locates

teachers in privileged spaces where they can see, be seen, and influence all

aspects of classroom activities‖ (p. 248). With this in mind, the role of the

educator is changing. Teachers now assign responsibility to the students asking

―what does the student need to do to learn this material‖ (Salter, Pang, & Sharma,

2009, p. 28). Staples (2007) summarized the teacher‘s role in student

collaboration with the following: ―Supporting students in making contributions;

establishing and monitoring a common ground; and guiding the mathematics‖ (p.

172).

Role of Students

Along with responsibilities for the teacher, Foster and Theesfeld (1993)

listed the roles and responsibilities for students in collaborative learning. They

stated the following:

1. Students understanding that they are part of a team and are all working

toward a common goal.

2. Team members understanding that the successes or failures of the team

will be shared by all members. Therefore, each member must learn to

contribute as much as possible to the group goal.

3. All students learning to discuss problems with each other in order to

accomplish the group goal. Contributions from each member of the

team may be significant in the solution of a problem.

13

4. Team success being dependent on, and being a direct effect of, the

individual work of each member of the team.

5. Learning that capitalizes on the presence of student peers, encourages

interaction among students, and establishes positive relationships

among team members.

6. Learning that requires the guidance of a teacher who can help students

develop the cooperative learning skills they need, understand group

work dynamics, and learn mathematics by working in groups.

7. Teams asking for help only after each team member has considered the

question.

8. Helping students to be individually accountable for their own learning.

(p. 3)

According to Jones and Jones (2008), Dr. Paul Vermette concluded that a strategy

to help positive relationships to occur between his students during collaborative

learning ―was facilitating the understanding that mutual respect and cooperation

was a requirement among group members, not an option‖ (p. 4). Dr. Vermette

created expectations for his students, and through this process ―he allowed

students to take ownership for their own learning experiences‖ (Jones & Jones, p.

8). A study by Brown and Renshaw (2006) concluded that when student

participation through collaboration is used in the classroom, students ―were

14

beginning to act as authors of ideas‖ (p. 257). Ultimately, the students were

becoming active rather than passive learners.

Summary

Since Survivor Algebra has a collaborative learning approach, it was

important to discuss what exactly is meant by collaboration. Collaboration

involves working as a unit to complete the task at hand. Having a sense of

community is important in successful collaborative learning. This builds trust and

comfort amongst group members. The expectations and roles of the teacher and

the students must also be discussed to understand if the use of Survivor Algebra

can be effective in the classroom. To be effective, students must be actively

involved, and the teacher must be a facilitator of events while allowing the

students to be self-learners. These are the building blocks for a positive and

advantageous experience for all in collaborative learning, and in this specific case,

Survivor Algebra. Davis (2008) made the following conclusion about her role as a

math teacher:

The truth is that they will never need or use the Algebra that I am teaching

and I am quite honest with them about this fact. So, why do we make all

the Art and English majors take math? Because math trains them to

THINK. I don‘t teach ―Algebra‖ classes, I teach classes in ―Success

Training.‖ Algebra is simply the tool I use to train my students to think

15

and to learn. Survivor Algebra builds their confidence in their ability to

learn. My students won‘t just fly, they‘ll SOAR! (p. 31)

In the following chapter, I discussed the research methods that were used to

implement collaborative learning through my Survivor Algebra project.

Chapter Three

Research Design and Method

My study involved using portions of the Survivor Algebra program to

create a collaborative learning environment in my Algebra 2 classroom. I planned

for this to positively impact student motivation and achievement. In this chapter, I

discussed my plans for applying my adaptation of Survivor Algebra to my

Algebra 2 classroom. I also described the methods used for analyzing my results.

Setting

My entire six-year full-time mathematics teaching career has been at my

current location. There are approximately 60 students in grades 7-12. Teaching at

a small school has been an excellent experience which has allowed me to become

very close with my students. I view my school as an extended family, and I feel

lucky to be here. Since I grew up in a small Midwest town, I believe I have an

accurate perspective on what life is like for my students. I felt very comfortable

using my Algebra 2 students for this study. It was a class of nine students with

eight juniors and one senior. I have taught most of them since they were in the

seventh grade. During this time, the students and I were able to build strong

relationships with each other.

In using Survivor Algebra, I split my Algebra 2 class into two groups or

tribes of balanced abilities. Adjustments would have been made if I lost or gained

any students, but this was not an issue. Also, I wanted this collaborative learning

17

experience to feel like something new to my students. I was hoping that even

though the students knew each other well, and they were used to working together

in groups, this experience could still be accomplished. I knew this could also be

beneficial, since I had not planned to spend much time teaching them how to

work collaboratively.

Intervention/Innovation

I implemented a version of Survivor Algebra in my Algebra 2 class for

nine weeks. The rules I used for the project were adapted from Davis‘ (2007)

Survivor Algebra User’s Guide. They were as follows:

1. Students will be ranked according to their first semester grades. This

ranking will be used to place the students into two tribes or groups of

balanced abilities. Students will remain in the same tribe for all nine

weeks.

2. Individuals may be removed from a tribe if they are disruptive. These

individuals will still work in the same tribe, but they will lose all

privileges that come with being in a tribe.

3. The tribes will compete in challenges (Algebra 2 tests) during the nine

weeks. To win a challenge, a tribe must have the highest average

challenge score. In the case of a tie, each tribe will receive the prize.

18

4. The prize for winning a challenge is one bonus point for each tribe

member. The point will go toward their test grade. A winning tribe

member will be excluded from the prize if his/her score is below 80%.

5. Tribes will compete collaboratively in a variety of pre-challenges (test

reviews). Each member of the winning tribe will receive two bonus

points that will go toward their daily grade.

6. The tribe with the most challenge and pre-challenge wins at the end of

the nine weeks will receive a pizza party.

7. Individuals will remain in their tribe for any group work done

throughout the nine weeks.

8. Tribal members are encouraged to interact and help each other with

daily work. Successful daily work will breed success for the tribe

during challenges.

9. A final challenge will be given at the end of the nine weeks. This

challenge will cover material from the entire nine weeks. Any tribe

member with an overall grade of 90% or above will be in the running

to become the Survivor Algebra winner. The tribe member that fits this

criterion, and receives the highest final challenge score, will be

crowned the winner. The winner will receive two bonus points, a

million dollars (ten 100 Grand bars) and a movie gift card. In the event

of a tie on the final challenge, the tribe member with the highest

19

overall grade for the nine weeks will be given the win. Second and

third place will be given a five dollar coupon for healthy snacks. ()

Design

My approach for this study was mixed-methods. When I compared the

grades of my current Algebra 2 class with my 2009-2010 Algebra 2 class, the

study leaned toward quantitative. Students were given a survey before and after

the study concerning their opinions on collaborative learning. T-tests were then

used to analyze the surveys. I also kept a journal throughout the study and used

my own observations for analysis. The results from my observations were

dissected using a broad or qualitative path.

Description of Methods

The study began the first day of the second semester. It took place during

the entire nine weeks of the third quarter, from January 3, 2011 to March 11,

2011. My students were informed of the purpose of the study, the duration of the

study, and the methods used to collect and analyze data. The Minot State

University Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved letters in Appendices A, B

and C that were used to acquire informed consent from the students, parents, and

administration. Participating students and the school maintained total

confidentiality. During the course of the study, I collected three main sources of

data—individual grades, survey responses, and observations.

20

At the outset of the nine weeks, the students were given a survey on

collaborative learning. The survey utilized a 4-point Likert scale, which had

students rate each question from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The

questions were meant to gauge opinion on collaboration through group work. The

survey also measured how individuals dealt with working in groups. Along with

the questions that used a Likert scale, there were two open-ended questions that

asked students to list their likes and dislikes about group work. Students used their

prior experiences to answer the questions.

I kept a journal throughout the nine weeks. I monitored student reactions

and feelings during the implementation of Survivor Algebra. A close eye was kept

on the level of student involvement, their confidence levels, and their overall

performance in class. I was looking to determine if Survivor Algebra had a

positive influence in my classroom. I used my opinions gained through

observation to determine how well I believed any given situation was going. I also

used the journal to document my thoughts and observations on the

implementation process, including successes and challenges, changes for the

future, and practices to continue.

At the end of the nine weeks, students once again took the survey. This

post-survey was used to determine if there was change in students‘ attitudes

toward collaborative learning after using Survivor Algebra. The same questions

asked previously about group work were asked specifically about Survivor

21

Algebra. Students were also asked what they would change about Survivor

Algebra. I did a quantitative analysis of these new results. The survey and both

sets of questions are included in Appendix D. My process of data collection and

analysis greatly depend on these results. The results from the Likert scale portions

of the pre- and post-surveys can be found in Appendix E.

The Algebra 2 grades from 2009-2010 were compared with the grades

acquired during the nine week period of Survivor Algebra. I compared the growth

from quarter two to quarter three in 2009-2010 to the growth over the same period

during the current year. The collection of these data was no different than before

my implementation of this project.

Expected Results

I wanted my students to come away from the study with positive attitudes

toward Survivor Algebra. My hope was that no matter what their feelings were

before the study, they truly learned to enjoy and appreciate collaborative learning.

I believed that I would see my students become motivated to learn mathematics. I

expected them to become successful group members, and I planned to see an

overall increase in achievement.

There were some potential obstacles that could have caused me some

difficulty in completing a successful study. Students might not have taken the

surveys seriously, so I could have been collecting false data. The change in

student grades may have been insignificant. The tribes I formed could have made

22

for a bad mix of personalities, making for a long nine weeks. With the Algebra 2

material becoming more advanced over the course of the year, student struggles

may have been incorrectly linked to Survivor Algebra. I felt I could overcome

these obstacles with my understanding of mathematics and my students.

Summary

A modification of Survivor Algebra was used with my Algebra 2 class.

The students were put into tribes, and over the course of nine weeks they worked

collaboratively. The students worked together on assignments and activities, and

they competed for the top group score on tests. I analyzed the use of Survivor

Algebra mainly using surveys and observations. I also compared grades of last

year‘s non-Survivor Algebra students to this year‘s Survivor Algebra students. I

expected my students to become more involved in class and achieve higher

success. The next chapter includes the results of the study.

Chapter Four

Data Analysis and Interpretation of Results

For nine weeks, I incorporated a modification of the Survivor Algebra

program into my Algebra 2 classroom. The purpose was to get my students

motivated and to achieve a higher rate of success in mathematics. In this chapter, I

will be discussing and analyzing the results I found through grade comparisons

with a previous Algebra 2 class, surveys, open-ended questions, and observations.

Data Analysis

Survivor Algebra was used solely during the third quarter of 2010-2011.

To determine if test scores and overall scores improved in my current Algebra 2

class, a comparison was made between the growth that occurred from quarter two

to quarter three in 2010-2011 (Survivor group) and my Algebra 2 class from

2009-2010 (non-Survivor group). Two independent t-tests found there were no

significant differences in the average end-of-quarter-two final (t = -0.90, p =

0.387) and test scores (t = -1.06, p = 0.309) of the students in the non-Survivor

group and the Survivor group. Table 1 includes means, standard deviations, and

sample sizes of the two groups, and Table 2 includes the t-test results. These tests

indicated the groups were not significantly different based on their end-of-quarter-

two final scores and test scores. This showed that there was no significant

difference in the achievement levels of the two groups.

24

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics for Q2 (Final) and Q2 (Test)

Q2 (Final) Q2 (Test)

Group N M SD M SD

Non-Survivor 10 92.4 8.4 86.56 9.97

Survivor 8 88.4 10.3 80.8 12.5

Table 2

Mean Test Score Differences for Q2 (Survivor – Non-Survivor)

Test M Diff t p

Q2 Final -4.0 -0.9 0.387

Q2 Test -5.76 -1.06 0.309

Note. T-tests were calculated at the 0.05 significance level.

Since there was no significant difference in achievement levels of the non-

Survivor group of 2009-2010 and Survivor group of 2010-2011, the grades of the

two groups were compared using t-tests to determine if the Survivor Algebra

group from 2010-2011 learned significantly more than the non-Survivor Algebra

group from 2009-2010. To do this, the following differences were calculated for

both groups of students:

Difference Final = Q3 Final – Q2 Final

Difference Test = Q3 Test – Q2 Test

The t-tests found that students in the Survivor Algebra group had significantly

greater growth on their final (t = 2.04, p = 0.04) and test scores (t = 2.31, p =

0.025) from quarter two to quarter three than students in the non-Survivor

25

Algebra group. Table 3 includes means, standard deviations, and sample sizes of

the two groups, and Table 4 includes the t-test results.

Table 3

Descriptive Statistics for Diff Final = Q3 – Q2 and Diff Test = Q3 – Q2

Diff Final Diff Test

Group N M SD M SD

Non-Survivor 10 0.3 1.25 2.28 3.32

Survivor 8 4.75 6.07 9.39 8.17

Table 4

Two-Sample T-Tests to Compare Growth from Q2 to Q3 (Survivor – Non-

Survivor)

Test M Diff t p

Diff Final 4.45 2.04 0.04*

Diff Test 7.11 2.31 0.025*

Note. T-tests were calculated at the 0.05 significance level.

As previously stated, the tests at the beginning of the study indicated the

groups were not significantly different based on their end-of-quarter-two final

scores and test scores. However, in each case, the Survivor Algebra group had

lower scores than the non-Survivor Algebra group (about four points lower on the

final quarter two scores and about six points lower on the quarter two test scores).

These averages were not significantly different, but the 2010-2011 Survivor

Algebra group had more room to grow than the 2009-2010 non-Survivor Algebra

group. In fact, they showed significantly more growth at the end of quarter three

than the non-Survivor Algebra group. Table 5 includes means, standard

deviations, and sample sizes of the two groups, and Table 6 includes the t-test

26

results. The t-tests indicate no significant differences in the average end-of-

quarter-three final (t = -0.13, p = 0.9) and test (t = -0.32, p = 0.753) scores.

However, the Survivor Algebra group caught and passed the average quarter three

final and test scores of the non-Survivor Algebra group. The Survivor Algebra

group had significantly greater growth than the non-Survivor Algebra group (see

Table 4).

Table 5

Descriptive Statistics for Q3 (Final) and Q3 (Test)

Q3 (Final) Q3 (Test)

Group N M SD M SD

Non-Survivor 10 92.7 8.17 88.84 8.94

Survivor 8 93.13 5.96 90.19 8.77

Table 6

Two-Sample T-Tests for Q3 (Final) and Q3 (Test) (Survivor – Non-Survivor)

Test M Diff t p

Diff Final 0.43 0.13 0.90

Diff Test 1.35 0.32 0.753

Note. * Indicates significance at the α = 0.05 level

Before the incorporation of Survivor Algebra, eight students were given a

survey that asked them to rate their overall feelings toward collaborative learning

using SA = Strongly Agree, A = Agree, D = Disagree, and SD = Strongly

Disagree. After the nine weeks of Survivor Algebra, the eight students were given

the survey once again. Table 7 compares the results of the pre- and post-survey

(see Appendix D).

27

Table 7

Pre-Survey and Post-Survey Results (Percentages)

Pre-Survey (%) Post-Survey (%)

Question SA A D SD SA A D SD

1 25 25 12.5 37.5 0 25 25 50

2 50 25 25 0 50 25 25 0

3 0 25 50 25 0 25 25 50

4 25 37.5 25 12.5 12.5 62.5 12.5 12.5

5 75 25 0 0 37.5 62.5 0 0

6 12.5 37.5 37.5 12.5 12.5 25 50 12.5

7 0 75 25 0 25 37.5 37.5 0

8 50 25 25 0 50 37.5 12.5 0

9 37.5 37.5 25 0 37.5 62.5 0 0

10 0 0 75 25 0 0 62.5 37.5

11 0 25 37.5 37.5 12.5 12.5 25 50

12 0 25 50 25 0 12.5 50 37.5

13 25 37.5 37.5 0 37.5 37.5 25 0

14 37.5 50 12.5 0 37.5 50 12.5 0

15 12.5 50 12.5 25 37.5 12.5 50 0

16 75 25 0 0 50 50 0 0

From Table 7, only the percentages in Questions 4, 5, 7, and 15 show a

slight drop in positive feelings toward collaborative learning. Student responses to

the survey were coded based on whether each question was positive or negative

toward collaborative learning. Questions 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, and 16 were

positive. Questions 1, 3, 6, 10, 11, and 12 were negative. The questions were

scored as follows:

Positive: SA = 4, A = 3, D = 2, SD = 1

Negative: SA = 1, A = 2, D = 3, SD = 4

28

The mean and standard deviation were calculated for each question on both

surveys. The differences in the means from pre-survey to post-survey were also

found. These results can be found in Table 8.

Table 8

Means on Pre-Survey to Post-Survey by Questions

Question M Pre-Survey M Post-Survey M Difference

1 2.625 3.25 0.625

2 3.25 3.25 0

3 3 3.25 0.25

4 2.75 2.75 0

5 3.75 3.375 -0.375

6 2.5 2.625 0.125

7 2.75 2.875 0.125

8 3.25 3.375 0.125

9 3.125 3.375 0.25

10 3.25 3.375 0.125

11 3.125 3.125 0

12 3 3.25 0.25

13 2.875 3.125 0.25

14 3.25 3.25 0

15 2.5 2.875 0.375

16 3.75 3.5 -0.25

Overall 3.047 3.164 0.117

The results of the post-survey showed a positive change in how students

rated 10 of the 16 survey questions. Four of the questions showed no change, and

only two showed a negative change. These two questions involved getting along

with other group members and motivation from rewards and extra credit. The

positive ratings of 3.75 for both of these questions were high to begin with, so the

29

drop off is minimal. Question 1 rated student dislike for math, and showed the

largest improvement by 0.625 on the 1-4 rating. The overall means of the ratings

from the pre-survey and post-survey were 3.047 and 3.164 respectively. This

shows an increase of 0.117.

Means were also calculated for the pre-survey and post-survey for each

individual student. As shown in Table 9, seven of the eight students that were

surveyed showed improvement in their feelings toward collaborative learning.

Only student D showed a decline.

Table 9

Means on Pre-Survey and Post-Survey by Student

Student M Pre-Survey M Post-Survey M Difference

A 3.375 3.875 0.5

B 3.375 3.6875 0.3125

C 2.5625 2.6875 0.125

D 3.3125 2.9375 -0.375

E 3.0625 3.125 0.0625

F 3.3125 3.5 0.1875

G 3.125 3.1875 0.0625

H 2.25 2.375 0.125

Following the pre-survey, students answered two open-ended questions on

their feelings toward collaborative learning. After the post-survey, students

answered two similar questions that were specifically about Survivor Algebra. A

third question after the post-survey asked students to give more feedback

30

regarding Survivor Algebra. Below is a summary of student responses before and

after the study.

Pre-survey open-ended question one: Explain what you like about group

work. Most students mentioned they like working with others to figure out a

problem. They found it useful when able to ask peers for help and get different

ideas and explanations on how to solve a problem. One student called group work

fun, and another liked when he/she was able to help others that might be

struggling. A couple students stated they enjoyed when group work turned

competitive.

Pre-survey open-ended question two: Explain what you dislike about

group work. Students wrote they did not like when certain group members were

―lazy‖ or ―dead weight.‖ A few students noted their distaste for group members

that were negative and difficult to get along with. Students also answered that

they disliked group work due to fear of failing the group and getting singled out

as the weak group member. A couple students said they did not like when the

group rushed through an assignment and they were unable to learn anything from

it.

Post-survey open-ended question one: Explain what you like about

Survivor Algebra. Most felt the competitive aspect (challenges, rewards, etc.) of

Survivor Algebra led to motivation and improved grades. They also thought it

was a fun experience. Two students pointed out that they thought the groups were

31

chosen fairly and this contributed to the success of the project. One student wrote

how he/she liked the ability to ask questions in a group setting.

Post-survey open-ended question two: Explain what you dislike about

Survivor Algebra. Most students mentioned the reviews or pre-challenges. They

feel the pre-challenges did not provide an adequate review of the material.

Although most students enjoyed the pre-challenges, they felt too much time was

spent playing the game and not enough examples were covered. One student did

not like the pressure that came with the pre-challenges. A couple students wrote

they feel some group members did not participate and were not motivated. One

student had no dislikes.

Post-survey open-ended question three: What would you recommend to

improve Survivor Algebra? Student responses included the following:

Go over more examples during pre-challenges.

Add more variety to pre-challenges.

Add more group activities.

Reward extra credit points for highest test score.

Hold Survivor Algebra competition over longer period of time.

Throughout the study, I kept a journal and documented whatever I thought

was relevant. As I outlined the rules of Survivor Algebra for my students, I could

tell they were immediately intrigued. The idea of a competition and the

opportunity to earn extra credit and prizes captured student interest. Students were

32

receptive to the idea of me choosing the tribes or groups, and reacted well when I

announced them.

During the pre-challenges, students were enthusiastic and competitive. In

the very first pre-challenge, energy was built up to the point where the winning

tribe let out a loud cheer at the point of victory. The first challenge produced the

highest average the class had scored on a test all year. Students were encouraging

each other during most pre-challenges, and they were not putting unfair pressure

on one another to do better on the challenges. There was a high level of effort put

into the pre-challenges and challenges, and most students seemed to enjoy

themselves in the process. They asked me if we could continue Survivor Algebra

through the fourth quarter. They also made comments that their grades might

decline without the added motivation.

There were moments during Survivor Algebra where students became too

competitive. There was one particular moment during the second pre-challenge

when there was a misunderstanding with directions. One student grew

argumentative and felt he had been misled. I was able to explain how this was not

true, but it was too late. The energy in the room was growing negative and tension

was building. This one moment soured the whole pre-challenge.

Challenge or test results were held up until all students had completed the

challenge. Since the win for the tribe was dependent on their overall average, I

felt it was only fair to hold test scores so there was no undue pressure put on

33

individual students. There were a few challenges where students were absent for

multiple days and the rest of the class was left waiting for one student to complete

the challenge. The ability for one student to hold up the results was definitely a

flaw. This waiting period killed the momentum, and there were a couple of times

that we had moved on to new material before students saw their results.

Interpretation of Results

I sought to answer the question: Will my students‘ test scores and daily

work improve? I found the t-tests comparing the 2010-2011 Survivor Algebra

group and the 2009-2010 non-Survivor Algebra group showed the Survivor

Algebra group had significantly greater growth in final and test scores from

quarter two to quarter three than students in the non-Survivor Algebra group.

Although the non-Survivor Algebra group improved from quarter two to quarter

three, the fact that the Survivor Algebra group improved significantly greater

showed me that using Survivor Algebra did improve test and daily scores. Figures

1, 2, and 3 below show where each group started, the average growth of each

group, and where each group ended up. The charts visually represent how the

Survivor Algebra group started lower than the non-Survivor Algebra group, but

eventually caught and passed them.

34

Da

ta

Year

Q2(TEST)Q2 (FINAL)

2010-20112009-20102010-20112009-2010

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

88.3892.40

80.80

86.56

Chart of Mean (Q2 (FINAL), Q2(TEST)) vs Year

Figure 1. Bar chart of quarter two final and test score mean comparisons.

35

Da

ta

Year

Diff Test = Q3 - Q2Diff Final = Q3 - Q2

2010-20112009-20102010-20112009-2010

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

4.75

0.3

9.39

2.28

Chart of Mean (Diff Final = Q3 - Q2, Diff Test = Q3 - Q2) vs Year

Figure 2. Bar chart of difference in final and test score means from quarter two to

quarter three comparisons.

36

Da

ta

Year

Q3 (TEST)Q3 (FINAL)

2010-20112009-20102010-20112009-2010

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

93.1392.7090.1988.84

Chart of Mean (Q3 (FINAL), Q3 (TEST)) vs Year

Figure 3. Bar chart of quarter three final and test score mean comparisons.

The second question I sought to answer was the following: Do students

believe using my version of Survivor Algebra was a success? The results of the

pre- and post-surveys showed an overall increase of 0.117 in the mean scores.

This represents that students‘ overall feelings toward collaborative learning after

using Survivor Algebra grew more positive. Also, seven of the eight students

surveyed improved in their overall mean scores from pre-survey to post-survey.

Thus, almost all of the students felt more positively toward collaborative learning

after the project. I believe students had a good understanding of the questions on

the surveys they were given. The increase of the total of the mean scores seems

minimal, but the increase was consistent throughout.

37

In the questions following the survey, students noted that they enjoyed

Survivor Algebra. They wrote that it motivated them and helped improve their

test scores. Most of the negative thoughts the students had involved tweaks that

could be easily made to Survivor Algebra. Overall, students reacted positively to

the project.

The observations I made of students during Survivor Algebra suggest that

students enjoyed themselves and learned in the process. Students rarely

complained and frequently made comments about how they enjoyed using the

program. At times the competitive nature of the students felt like it could get out

of hand, but it was usually in good fun. At the start of the fourth quarter, students

asked me if we could continue using Survivor Algebra. I told them that I had

already decided to stop it at the end of third quarter, but I would consider doing it

over the course of the entire next year.

Summary

After studying the use of Survivor Algebra, I compared the grades of my

2010-2011 Survivor Algebra class to my 2009-2010 non-Survivor Algebra class.

A comparison was made between the growth in each class from quarter two to

quarter three. A t-test showed the Survivor Algebra group had significantly

greater growth in final and test scores from quarter two to quarter three than

students in the non-Survivor Algebra group. Also, the Survivor Algebra group

caught and passed the mean scores of the non-Survivor Algebra group. A pre-

38

survey and a post-survey regarding collaborative leaning were given to the

Survivor Algebra group before and after the study. Results from the survey

showed an increase in the students‘ positive feelings toward collaborative

learning. Open-ended questions were given along with the surveys. Students gave

mostly positive feedback about collaborative learning and Survivor Algebra. A

few changes were suggested, but not many complaints were given. From my own

observations, I saw students genuinely enjoying the utilization of Survivor

Algebra. Competition was strong, and motivation was high. Once the competition

was over, students requested to keep using Survivor Algebra. The next chapter

provides conclusions, a plan of action, and reflections.

Chapter Five

Conclusions, Action Plan, Reflections, and Recommendations

The purpose of the study was to determine if incorporating Survivor

Algebra into my mathematics classroom improved student motivation and

learning. The results found from grade comparisons, surveys, open-ended

questions, and observations showed these improvements occurred. In the

following, I will discuss these findings along with my plan of action and my

recommendations for other teachers considering Survivor Algebra.

Conclusions

The t-tests used to compare the 2010-2011 Survivor Algebra group and

the 2009-2010 non-Survivor Algebra group indicated the Survivor Algebra group

had a significantly larger increase in test and daily grades from quarter two to

quarter three. In fact, the Survivor Algebra group started with lower average final

and test scores in quarter two than the non-Survivor Algebra group, but by the end

of quarter three they had surpassed the scores of the non-Survivor Algebra group

in both categories. Since Survivor Algebra was only used in quarter three, these

results reinforce the success of incorporating the program.

According to the surveys, positive student sentiment toward collaborative

learning improved after using Survivor Algebra. Also, the open-ended questions

regarding collaborative learning and Survivor Algebra indicated that, as a whole,

students enjoyed using Survivor Algebra and viewed it as a worthwhile

40

experience. It was rewarding during Survivor Algebra to observe students become

more actively involved and show a greater concern for their grades than I had

seen all year.

Action Plan

I feel there was enough success with Survivor Algebra that I will use it

again. My plan is to incorporate Survivor Algebra into my Algebra 2 class next

year and beyond. Since I am the only math teacher at my high school, I teach the

same students year after year as they work their way from seventh grade to

graduation. I believe that if I was to use Survivor Algebra in all of my classes it

could possibly grow stale, and lose some of its effectiveness. I am choosing to use

Survivor Algebra in Algebra 2 for two reasons. First, I want to use it to help with

one of the more challenging courses I teach. The second reason is that most

students take Algebra 2, whereas most students do not take Advanced Math. I

think it is important to get as many students involved as possible.

I will make a few modifications before I use Survivor Algebra next year. I

really trust the feedback I received from my students that used Survivor Algebra,

and they made some quality suggestions on what I could change to improve the

program. Along with making the obvious change of using Survivor Algebra over

the course of an entire year, I have come up with the following list of

modifications for next year:

41

Create a wider variety of pre-challenges or reviews. Concentrate on how

effective they will be regarding student enjoyment and learning.

Assign more collaborative group activities to build stronger unity within

the tribes.

Hold students accountable for their participation during group work. Next

year, I plan to assign specific tasks to students during group work and pre-

challenges. Giving students these specified duties will heighten their

responsibility within their tribes and force them to be more responsible.

Reflections and Recommendations for Teachers

I am pleased with the success of my Algebra 2 students after using

Survivor Algebra. However, my incorporation of the program was not without

imperfections. I feel that I should have used more collaborative activities along

with the pre-challenges. I do not think students really felt like they were part of a

tribe outside of the pre-challenges and challenges. Giving them more group

activities would have helped. Also, students really enjoyed the pre-challenges, but

I do not think the reviews were as effective as they could have been. If I could go

back, I would have given the reviews more substance and less show. The last

point I would like to make regarding what I would do differently pertains to

student attitude. Students can become so competitive during competition that it

may lead to negative attitudes. Next year, I am going to talk to my students

beforehand about attitude and participation, and possibly give them a grade based

42

on how they behave during challenges and collaborative activities. I did not have

many problems with this, but any time there was negativity it took the air out of

the room.

It was during the very first pre-challenge that I knew using Survivor

Algebra had potential. Students acted differently during this test review than any

other one all year. Having something else on the line really motivated them. I was

even more encouraged seeing the results of the first test or challenge. From that

point on Survivor Algebra seemed to work. I considered my 2009-2010 Algebra 2

class to be very strong, and to see the class this year come from behind and

overtake them in overall grade and test scores was special to me.

I recommend for any teacher thinking about incorporating Survivor

Algebra to read Karen Lyn Davis‘ Survivor Algebra User’s Manual. My version

of Survivor Algebra is my own interpretation of her program. She shares many

other thoughts and ideas, and it is all about what will work best for you as the

teacher. Davis uses Survivor Algebra as a tool for training students to teach

themselves. She has many interesting concepts, and it would be beneficial for

teachers to see the entire scope of her program.

Summary

After analyzing the grade comparisons, surveys, open-ended questions,

and my observations, I can say confidently that the incorporation of Survivor

Algebra in my Algebra 2 class was a success. I plan to use the program with my

43

Algebra 2 class next year. This will include some changes like fine tuning pre-

challenges or reviews, assigning more collaborative activities, and making

students more responsible. I am open to making further adaptations if I feel

necessary, and am looking forward to the challenge. Once again, if you are

interested in trying out Survivor Algebra, take a look at the Survivor Algebra

User’s Manual and see if you feel the program is for you.

44

References

Ares, N. (2008). Appropriating roles and relations of power in collaborative

learning. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education (QSE),

21(2), 99-121. doi: 10.1080/09518390701256472

Bloom, D. (2009). Collaborative test taking: Benefits for learning and retention.

College Teaching, 57(4), 216-220. doi:10.3200/CTCH.57.4.216-220

Brown, R., & Renshaw, P. (2006). Positioning students as actors and authors: A

chronotopic analysis of collaborative learning activities. Mind, Culture,

and Activity, 13(3), 247-259. doi:10.1207/s15327884mca1303_6

Ciani, K., Summers, J., Easter, M., & Sheldon, K. (2008). Collaborative learning

and positive experiences: Does letting students choose their own groups

matter? Educational Psychology, 28(6), 627-641. doi: 10.1080/01443410

802084792

Davis, K. (2007). Survivor algebra user’s manual. Costa Mesa, CA:

Coolmath.com.

Esmonde, I. (2009). Mathematics learning in groups: Analyzing equity in two

cooperative activity structures. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(2),

247-284. doi: 10.1080/10508400902797958

Foster, A., & Theesfeld, C. (1993). Cooperative learning in the mathematics

classroom. New York: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill.

45

Hmelo-Silver, C., & Barrows, H. (2008). Facilitating collaborative knowledge

building. Cognition and Instruction, 26(1), 48-94. doi: 10.1080/07370000

701798495

Johnson, L. (2008). Relationship of instructional methods to student engagement

in two public high schools. American Secondary Education, 36(2), 69-87.

Jones, K., & Jones, J. (2008). A descriptive account of cooperative-learning based

practice in teacher education. College Quarterly, 11(1), 1-13.

Kapp, E. (2009). Improving student teamwork in a collaborative project-based

course. College Teaching, 57(3), 139-143. doi: 10.3200/CTCH.57.3.139-

143.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards

for school mathematics: Process standards. Retrieved June 5, 2011, from

http://www.nctm.org/standards/content.aspx?id=322

Salter, D., Pang, M., & Sharma, P. (2009). Active tasks to change the use of class

time within an outcomes based approach to curriculum design. Journal of

University Teaching and Learning Practice, 6(1), 27-38.

Staples, M. (2007). Supporting whole-class collaborative inquiry in a secondary

mathematics classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 25(2-3), 161-217. doi:

10.1080/07370000701301125

Ueckert, C., & Gess-Newsome, J. (2008). Active learning strategies. Science

Teacher, 75(9), 47-52. doi: 10.2505/3/tst08_075_09

Appendices

47

Appendix A

Parental/Guardian Consent



Invitation to participate: Your child is invited to participate in a study of the use

of a structured collaborative learning approach. The study will examine how the

implementation of the Survivor Algebra program impacts student motivation and

achievement. It will also compare student opinions toward collaborative learning

before and after using Survivor Algebra. This study is being conducted by Peter

Wang, mathematics instructor at Fairmount Public School, and a graduate student

at Minot State University.

Basis for Subject Selection: Your child has been selected because he/she is in

Mr. Wang‘s Algebra 2 class. Your child‘s class was chosen because the class size

and age level are appropriate for the study. If everyone agrees to participate there

will be nine students who meet the criteria for the study.

Overall Purpose of Study: The purpose of this paper is to help me improve my

teaching methods by using a structured collaborative learning approach. The main

goal of utilizing Survivor Algebra is to determine if it will have a positive effect

on my students and their learning and enjoyment of math.

Explanation of Procedures: If you decide to allow your child to participate,

he/she will be asked to do the following:

a. Work in the same group during classroom activities and test reviews for

nine weeks.

b. Take tests that could have a positive impact on the entire group. The tests

are scored individually, but the individuals in the group with the highest

average test score will receive a bonus point. This is considered winning a

challenge.

c. Take two surveys and answer four open-ended questions about his/her

opinions on collaborative learning and Survivor Algebra.

48

The identity of all participants will remain confidential. All research will be done

in the classroom. The implementations will occur during the nine weeks of the

third quarter.

Potential Benefits: Each participant will learn collaborative strategies that will

hopefully carry over to real world situations. My goal is for students to become

motivated to do well, to better understand the material I am teaching, to get

involved, to improve their test performance, and to have fun in the process.

Alternatives to Participation: If you decide to not allow your child to

participate, he/she will still take the same tests during class, but will not be

required to take the two surveys and answer the four questions. Their test scores

will not be factored in for the group average, and I will not collect data from my

observations of their group work.

Compensation for Participation: Bonus points will be awarded to individuals if

their group wins a challenge. Bonus points will also be given when a group wins a

test review, which is called a pre-challenge. At the end of the nine weeks, a final

challenge will be given. Students receiving the top three scores on the final

challenge will all earn prizes.

Assurance of Confidentiality: The identity of all participants and their data will

remain confidential and stored in a locked file cabinet or on a password-protected

computer. Any data collected will not be linked to the participants or the school

district in any way. Following the study and completion of my master‘s degree,

all data will be destroyed.

Withdrawal from the Study: Your child‘s participation is voluntary. Your

decision whether or not to allow your child to participate will not affect his/her

grade. If you decide to allow your child‘s participation in the study, you are free

to withdraw your consent and discontinue participation at any time.

You should feel free to ask questions now or at any time during the study. If you

have questions or wish to withdraw your child from the study, you can contact

Peter Wang at 701-474-5469 or [email protected]. If you have

questions about the rights of research subjects, contact the Chairperson of the

MSU Institutional Review Board (IRB), Brent Askvig at 701-858-3052 or

[email protected].

49

Consent Statement:

You are voluntarily making a decision whether or not to allow your child or

legal ward to participate. You signature indicates that, having read and

understood the information provided above, you have decided to permit your

child or legal ward to participate. You will be given a copy of this consent

from to keep.

____________________ Participant (please print student name)

____________________ ___________ _________ Signature of Parent or Guardian Relationship to subject Date

____________________ _________ Researcher‘s Signature Date

50

Appendix B

Student Assent



Invitation to participate: You are invited to participate in a study of the use of a

structured group learning approach. The study will examine how the

implementation of the Survivor Algebra program impacts student motivation and

achievement. It will also compare student opinions toward group learning before

and after using Survivor Algebra. This study is being conducted by Mr. Wang,

mathematic instructor at Fairmount Public School, and a graduate student at

Minot State University.

Basis for Subject Selection: You have been selected because you are in Mr.

Wang‘s Algebra 2 class. Your class was chosen because the class size and age

level are appropriate for the study.

Overall Purpose of Study: The purpose of this paper is to help me improve my

teaching methods by using a group learning approach. The main goal of using

Survivor Algebra is to determine if it will have a positive effect on you and your

learning and enjoyment of math..

Explanation of Procedures: If you decide to participate, you will be asked to do

the following:

a. Work in the same group during classroom activities and test reviews for

nine weeks.

b. Take tests that could have a positive impact on the entire group. The tests

are scored individually, but the individuals in the group with the highest

average test score will receive a bonus point. This is considered winning a

challenge.

c. Take two surveys and answer four open-ended questions about your

opinions on collaborative learning and Survivor Algebra.

The identity of all participants will remain confidential. All research will be done

in the classroom. The implementations will occur during the nine weeks of the

third quarter.

51

Potential Benefits: Each participant will learn collaborative strategies that will

hopefully carry over to real world situations. My goal is for students to become

motivated to do well, to better understand the material I am teaching, to get

involved, to improve their test performance, and to have fun in the process.

Alternatives to Participation: If you decide not to participate, you will still take

the same tests during class, but will not be required to take the two surveys and

answer the four questions. Your test scores will not be factored in for the group

average, and I will not collect data from my observations of your group work.

Compensation for Participation: Bonus points will be awarded to individuals if

their group wins a challenge. Bonus points will also be given when a group wins a

test review, which is called a pre-challenge. At the end of the nine weeks, a final

challenge will be given. Students receiving the top three scores on the final

challenge will all earn prizes.

Assurance of Confidentiality: The identity of all participants and their data will

remain confidential and stored in a locked file cabinet or on a password-protected

computer. Any data collected will not be linked to the participants or the school

district in any way. Following the study and completion of my master‘s degree,

all data will be destroyed.

Withdrawal from the Study: Your participation is voluntary. Your decision

whether or not to participate will not affect your grade. If you decide to

participate in the study, you are free to discontinue participation at any time.

You should feel free to ask questions now or at any time during the study. If you

have questions or wish to discontinue participation in the study, you can contact

Peter Wang at 701-474-5469 or [email protected]. If you have

questions about the rights of research subjects, contact the Chairperson of the

MSU Institutional Review Board (IRB), Brent Askvig at 701-858-3052 or

[email protected].

52

Student Assent:

You are voluntarily making a decision whether or not to participate. Your

signature indicates that, having read and understood the information

provided above, you have decided to participate. You will be given a copy of

this assent form to keep.

____________________ Participant (please print student name)

______________________ _________ Signature of Participant Date

_______________________ _________ Researcher‘s Signature Date

53

Appendix C

Principal Consent

Fairmount Public School

PO Box 228

Fairmount, ND 58030

Dear Mr. Townsend:

I am completing work toward the Master of Arts in Teaching: Mathematics

degree through Minot State University. As a degree requirement, I need to

conduct a research project in my classroom during the third quarter of this year. I

will examine how the implementation of the Survivor Algebra program impacts

student motivation and achievement. I will also compare student opinions toward

collaborative learning before and after using Survivor Algebra. To accomplish

this I would like to use my adaptation of the Survivor Algebra program with my

Algebra 2 class.

Each student would be asked to complete a survey and answer open-ended

questions regarding their attitudes toward collaborative learning and Survivor

Algebra before and after the nine-week implementation. I will also be taking

notes on my own observations.

Survey responses, observations and test scores will be analyzed and the results

will be included in my paper; however, no individual participants will be

identified by name. Standard classroom confidentiality will be observed regarding

all data collected. I will ask each participant to include their name on all surveys

for the purpose of comparing the results, but be assured that a student‘s responses

will in no way impact his or her grade in my class.

I have prepared letters requesting parental consent and student assent for

participation in my study. Copies of these letters are attached for your inspection.

I am requesting that you permit me to carry out this research in my classroom.

Please contact me at [email protected] or 701-474-5469 if you have

any questions. Thank you for your consideration.

54

Sincerely,

Peter Wang

______Permission for Peter Wang to conduct research in his classroom is granted.

______Permission to conduct this study is denied.

Signature____________________________________________ Date__________

Mr. Jay Townsend

Fairmount Public School Principal

55

Appendix D

Survey and Open-Ended Questions

Collaborative Learning Pre-Survey:

SA = Strongly Agree, A = Agree, D = Disagree, SD = Strongly Disagree

Question SA A D SD

1. I dislike math.

2. I enjoy working collaboratively in groups with other

students.

3. Working collaboratively in groups has not helped me

better learn the material.

4. I prefer classes that regularly use collaborative group

work.

5. I generally get along with other group members.

6. I do better when I work alone.

7. My critical thinking skills have improved from group

work.

8. I am motivated by competing with other students.

9. I prefer when groups are chosen at random.

10. Overall, my collaborative group learning experiences

have been negative.

11. I have difficulty communicating my thoughts when

working in groups.

12. I rarely take a leadership role when working in groups.

13. I prefer to get help with homework from peers rather

than a teacher.

14. I feel group work helps me build stronger relationships

with my classmates.

15. I get more involved during group work than regular

classroom discussion.

16. I am motivated by opportunities for rewards and extra

credit.

56

Open-Ended Questions (Pre-Survey):

1. Explain what you like about group work.

2. Explain what you dislike about group work.

57

Collaborative Learning Post-Survey:


Question SA A D SD

1. I dislike math.


students.




work.




work.




have been negative.


working in groups.



than a teacher.


with my classmates.




credit.

58

Open-Ended Questions (Post-Survey):

1. Explain what you like about Survivor Algebra.

2. Explain what you dislike about Survivor Algebra.

3. What would you recommend to improve Survivor Algebra?

59

Appendix E

Survey Results

Pre-Survey Results:


Question SA A D SD

1. I dislike math.

2 2 1 3


students.

4 2 2 0



0 2 4 2


work.

2 3 2 1


6 2 0 0


1 3 3 1


work.

0 6 2 0


4 2 2 0


3 3 2 0


have been negative.

0 0 6 2


working in groups.

0 2 3 3


0 2 4 2


than a teacher.

2 3 3 0


with my classmates.

3 4 1 0



1 4 1 2


credit.

6 2 0 0

60

Post-Survey Results:


Question SA A D SD

1. I dislike math.

0 2 2 4


students.

4 2 2 0



0 2 2 4


work.

1 5 1 1


3 5 0 0


1 2 4 1


work.

2 3 3 0


4 3 1 0


3 5 0 0


have been negative.

0 0 5 3


working in groups.

1 1 2 4


0 1 4 3


than a teacher.

3 3 2 0


with my classmates.

3 4 1 0



3 1 4 0


credit.

4 4 0 0

the impact of collaborative learning through survivor...

Documents