Title Bloomin’ SMARTs Effect on Student Performance
Is there improved academic performance of the students whose teachers participated in the Bloomin' SMART professional development program and implement the lessons from the professional development in their classes?
Needs Assessment
Our junior high school has an academically unacceptable rating. During an external audit of this school, it was found that the students need to be more engaged with technology to increase student achievement.
The Texas Education Agency Academic Excellence Indicator System 2010-2011 Campus Performance report for Connally Junior High expresses performance on the TAKS in all tested subjects by all students and subgroups in each grade level.
In the 7th grade, there were 12 subgroups that had academically unacceptable scores. The report indicates that the African American (46%), Hispanic (52%), Special Education (47%), Economically Disadvantaged (54%) and LEP (60%) subgroups as well as the “all student” (57%) group had academically unacceptable scores in mathematics. Although the Hispanic subgroup was only 1 percentage point from being academically acceptable in reading, the Hispanic (69%), Special Education (47%) and LEP (60%) subgroups were academically unacceptable in reading. However, all subgroups were academically acceptable in writing, except for Special Education (59%) and LEP (40%) (Texas Education Agency [TEA], 2011).
In the 7th grade, there were 10 subgroups that had academically acceptable scores. The results indicate that White (71%) was the only academically acceptable subgroup in math and exceeded the 65% academically acceptable passing standard. “All students” (77%), Hispanic (76%), White (83%) and Economically Disadvantaged (75%) all had academically acceptable scores of at least 70% in reading. While “all students” (88%), African American (85%), Hispanic (87%), White (90%) and Economically Disadvantaged (89%) had academically acceptable performance of at least 70% in writing.
The two-year comparison for 7th grade shows a decrease in the performance on all tests for all subgroups from 2010 to 2011, except for the increase in writing for Hispanics (1%), Whites (1%) and Economically Disadvantaged (2%) (TEA, 2011).
In the 8th grade, the report indicates that only African American (58%) and LEP (50%) subgroups had academically unacceptable scores in mathematics. The only subgroup academically unacceptable in reading was LEP (29%). Also, the only subgroups that were academically acceptable in science were African American (55%) and LEP (29%) (TEA, 2011).
In the 8th grade, there were 23 subgroups that had academically acceptable scores. In reading, “all students” (82%), African American (84%), Hispanic (76%), White (86%), Special Education (89%) and Economically Disadvantaged (76%) all had academically acceptable scores of at least 70%. In math, “all students” (72%), Hispanic (82%), White (75%), Special Education (68%) and Economically Disadvantaged (66%) all had academically acceptable scores of at least 65%. In Science “all students” (75%), Hispanic (76%), White (89%), Special Education (84%) and Economically Disadvantaged (69%) all had academically acceptable scores of at least (60%). For social studies, all students and subgroups had an academically acceptable score of at least 70% in their performance with “all students” (93%), African American (89%), Hispanic (93%), White (95%), Special Education (83%) and Economically Disadvantaged (90%) (TEA, 2011).
The two-year comparison for 8th grade shows a decrease in the performance on all tests for all subgroups from 2010 to 2011, except for an increase in reading for Special Education (1%) and an increase in mathematics for Hispanic (9%) and an increase in science for Hispanic (11%), White (2%) and Special Education (9%) (TEA, 2011).
Although the campus average scores were in the academically acceptable range for all students in all subjects tested for both 7th and 8th grade, the campus received an unacceptable rating since there were subgroups in 7th grade reading and math and 8th grade reading, math and science with academically unacceptable performance standards (TEA, 2011).
Objectives and Vision of the Action Research Project
Vision:
To provide quality instruction that enhances student academic performance. In doing so, increase the use of technology in the classroom to engage students and improve academic performance.
Objective:
In an effort to understand the effects of increasing student engagement through technology, the following wondering was born. Will there be improved academic performance of the students whose teachers participated in the Bloomin' SMART professional development program and implement the lessons from the professional development in their classes? Bloomin’ SMART is a professional development incentive that will be provided to assist the teachers with technology integration to engage the students. This professional development is voluntary and will be designed to train teachers to use interactive whiteboard software to create lessons that are aligned to district and state standards and provide differentiated learning. The course will be both online and face-to-face. It will begin March 20, 2012 and continue through July 9, 2012. The teachers participating will implement the lessons from the professional development with their students this year and next school year, with the goal that 65% of all 6th, 7th and 8th grade students will meet or exceed the state standard on the state assessment in all tested subjects by the end of the school year (2012-2013).
Review of the Literature and Action Research Strategy
External audits revealed that the teachers need to incorporate technology into the classrooms to engage the students. Although we are not a 1:1 or Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) district, we are a fairly technology rich school district with SMARTboard or SMART slates in all science and math classrooms and document cameras and LCD projects in almost all of the classrooms. However, our STaR Chart data indicates that we need to improve in the areas of teacher preparation and development in technology. It was determined by the campus and district administrative team that professional development was needed to assist teachers with the integration of engaging technology in the classroom. It was also determined that this technology need to be differentiated for diverse learners.
I want to find out if when teachers are offered voluntary, extended professional development that is both face-to-face and online through a district developed Project Share course with the focus on using SMART Notebook to create lessons that are differentiated based on Bloom’s Taxonomy, will those teachers be able to implement those lessons in the classroom and improve student engagement and academic achievement?.
To learn more about the benefits of Bloomin' SMART, I have conducted the following literature review about lesson differentiation and the use of interactive whiteboards (IWBs) and the effects that these strategies have on student achievement.
The Edcompass blog (2011), reports that, “In February, T.H.E. Journal conducted a SMART-sponsored survey of its readers that focused on digital classroom technology. Over 80 percent of respondents said that their schools have at least one interactive whiteboard (IWB) and that their implementation of IWBs are having a positive effect on student learning outcomes.”
SMART Technologies Inc. (2006) conducted research that states that, “The interactive whiteboard has been incorporated into learning environments for over a decade, and an increasing flow of research into its impact is emerging from the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia. From the available body of research, several themes and patterns have emerged, including the positive effect interactive whiteboards have on student engagement, motivation, the ability to accommodate a variety of learning styles (including special needs students) and the capacity to enhance student understanding and review processes.”
Additionally, SMART Technologies Inc. (2006) stated that, “U.S.-based research further elucidates these points, and researchers and educators are in agreement that interactive whiteboards improve a student’s ability to retain and recall information presented in interactive-whiteboard lesson activity.”
Beeland (2002) conducted a study of ten middle school teachers and 197 students to determine if the use of interactive whiteboards had a positive effect on student engagement in the classroom. Beeland (2002) stated that “The results of the surveys and questionnaires indicated a strong preference for the use of interactive whiteboards in the classroom” (p. 1).
SMART Technologies Inc. (2009) states that, “ They (interactive white board lessons) can save time by giving teachers access to lesson activities, multimedia files and other resources to aid students’ self-directed learning and to differentiate instruction for their diverse learners.
I believe that incorporating Bloom’s Taxonomy into the lessons is vital and according to Heacox (2002), “The most effective way to help students meet standards is by differentiating your instruction” (p. 53).
According to Halocha (2007) “Almost all uses of ICT (Information and Communication Technology) can place children in positions where they can, at a level appropriate to age and ability, begin to critically analyze what is being provided through their use of ICT and how it is affecting their learning (metacognition)” (p. 127).
Articulate the Vision
This was a voluntary professional development opportunity. For teachers interested in participating, an orientation session for the course was held from 4:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. in the Connally Multipurpose Facility on March 20, 2012 and March 21, 2012. To participate in the program, the teacher participants must have attended one of the orientation sessions. During this session, the vision, purpose and requirements of the course were explained.
Manage the organization
The course was divided into 10 submitting periods. Participants could submit a maximum total of 10 lessons during the entire course. Only one lesson could be submitted per submitting period, during the first 5 submitting periods of the course. However, two lessons could be submitted per submitting period, during the last 5 submitting periods beginning with the May 25, 2012, submitting period. Participants were not required to submit a lesson for every submission period to stay in the course. The course ended July 9, 2012, with the submission of the final SMART notebook lesson(s).
Each participant received $100 per lesson that met the Target Tech qualifications listed in the Bloomin' SMART rubric. Therefore, if a participant submitted the maximum number of lessons, the participant could receive $1,000.
During the 2012-2013 school year, the participant teachers will present their Bloomin’ SMART lessons in their classes. I plan to analyze quantitative student achievement data by comparing 2011-2012 benchmark tests, and standardized test scores to those in 2012-2013 and compare the results of all of the participant teachers’ with non-participant teachers’ student scores. 2012 data will be used as a comparison before the lessons from the training was implemented in 2013.
In addition, I will engage in additional data analysis completed from a combination of qualitative data collection strategies after the teachers implement their Bloomin’ SMART lessons in the classroom during the 2012-2013 school year. This data will include field notes, several teacher and student interviews, a collection of student work through examples, several digital photos and video of students completing Bloomin’ SMART lessons in order to fully demonstrate and capture the effects of Bloomin’ SMART on the teachers and students involved.
Manage Operations
In the course the participant teachers had the opportunity to create and submit up to 10 SMART notebook lessons that were student-centered and differentiated for multiple learning styles by using Bloom's Taxonomy verbs and activities to actively engage their students. The professional development was from March 20, 2012 through July 9, 2012. It was offered in a blended style of face-to-face and online learning. Communication was provided by face-to-face conversations, email, phone calls and the online course discussion board. When several of the teachers express a concern that they were experiencing a busy spring semester due to testing, sports, end of school activities, etc., and were having difficulties submitting a lesson during each submitting period, I listened to their concerns and revised the course so that two lessons, instead of one, could be submitted during the last five submitting periods of the course. Therefore, this would allow the participant teachers the opportunity to submit all 10 of their Bloomin’ SMART lessons for the project during the summer if they were experiencing a busy spring semester.
Respond to Community Interest and Needs
The Bloomin’ SMART action research project is based upon lessons that are differentiated for the diverse needs of all students in the classroom. Each lesson is differentiated based on Bloom’s Taxonomy. Also, the Bloomin’ SMART lessons incorporate technology through the use of SMARTboards and SMARTslates, which through a literature review has shown to increase student engagement.
References
Beeland Jr., W.D. (2002). Student engagement, visual learning and technology: Can
interactive whiteboards help? Retrieved on August 3, 2012 from http://chiron.valdosta.edu/are/Artmanscrpt/vol1no1/beeland_am.pdf.
EdCompass Blog. (2011) T.H.E. Journal Whitepaper Examines Role of Interactive Whiteboards in
Student Learning. Retrieved on August 3, 2012 from http://edcompassblog.smarttech.com
/archives/3575
Halocha, J. (2007). Using ICT in Teaching. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
Heacox, D. (2002). Differentiating Instruction in the Regular Classroom: How to Reach and
Teach All Learners, Grades 3-12. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit Publishing.
SMART Technologies Inc. (2006). Interactive whiteboards and learning: Improving
student learning outcomes and streamlining lesson planning. Retrieved on August 3, 2012 from http://downloads01.smarttech.com/media/research/whitepapers/
SMART Technologies Inc. (2009. One, some, all: Creating technology enabled learning
environments to support flexible grouping. Retrieved on August 4, 2012 from
Texas Education Agency. (2011). Academic Excellence Indicator System 2010-2011: Campus
Performance for Connally Junior High [Data file]. Retrieved on August 3, 2012 from http://ritter.tea.state.txus/prefreport/aeis/2011/index.html
