AFFECTS OF GIZMO TECHNOLOGY ON STUDENTS RISK OF FAILURE 1

An Action Research study of Gizmo technology on the learning of at Risk Students

Evelyn Welsh

Univerisity of British Columbia

ETEC 500
AFFECTS OF GIZMO TECHNOLOGY ON STUDENTS AT RISK OF FAILURE 2

Introduction:
An action research approach will provide me with a practical way of improving and
reflecting in my own instructional practice. I am passionate about teaching students at risk of
failure and would like to see how changes in my own practice can help improve the learning of
students in our school who are also a part of a restorative action program. Specifically, I am
curious to see if there is a link to engagement in these core subject areas when a student-centered
learning technology is added to the mix. By supporting the work already done in our restorative
program I hope to bridge the disconnect between what is actually happening during my own
classroom instruction and what the current research deems as best practices for students at risk
of failure (Kajander, Zuke, & Walton, 2008). These best practices are founded in student
centered learning environments and constructivist methodologies and I am interested in actively
documenting how they are perceived and affected by students at risk of failure. My strengths as
an educator are building strong rapport and safe environments for my students and this would
lend itself well the close in depth observations needed in a qualitative approach. I propose that
with more emphasis on student centered learning opportunities, like Gizmo technology, the net
can be cast much wider for students at risk of failure.

Research Questions
How will incorporating gizmo technology into Math and Science 8 classes affect the learning of
students considered at risk of failure?

Sub Questions

1.What changes need to occur in my current teaching practice to incorporate this student-
centered learning technology?
2.Will the use of Gizmo technology improve student-teacher relationships during the course of
the study?
3.Will Gizmo technology increase student engagement for students at risk of failure?

4.Will the use of Gizmo technology improve students perception of their own ability in Math

and Science 8?
AFFECTS OF GIZMO TECHNOLOGY ON STUDENTS AT RISK OF FAILURE 3

Review of Literature

Defining At Risk

Students who are considered at risk share four general characteristics 1) low academic

performance 2) unstable home environment 3) low socio-economic status 4) conflict oriented

behaviors in classroom/school settings (Hamre & Pianta, 2005). Though Hamre and Pianta

further divided these two categories into developmental and functional level of risk, I will be

using both their definition of risk and also what our school specifically deems as an at risk

characteristic (2005). Within our school at risk is also divided by four main characteristics 1)

attendance issues 2) unstable home life 3) past/current conflict behaviors and 4) low academic

achievement. Similarly, the importance of teacher-student relationships and teacher perception

of those we consider at risk or low achievers can sometimes be misinterpreted as found in

(Janzen, 1992; Kajander, Zuke, & Walton, 2008). Although, students who are perceived to

portray common characteristics associated with being at risk, are really in need of a teacher

who provides a student-centered learning environment. When determining the participants of my

study, I will have to take into account that this could be a potential limitation to the study, as I

will be in the role of teacher/researcher, and will have to decide who is considered at risk.

Student Perspectives of Best Practices

Becoming more self aware of instructional practice will help meet the needs of these students.

The eighth grade is an important step for my students, as the bridge from middle school to high

school draws closer. Being able to learn from the students perspective will give a deeper insight

into what the students actually deem as best practices as emphasized in the (Kriewaldt, 2009)

case study. In this multiple case study approach Kriewaldt uses recorded observations, interviews

of classroom instruction from a sample of thirty-four students varying from grade 7 to grade 8
AFFECTS OF GIZMO TECHNOLOGY ON STUDENTS AT RISK OF FAILURE 4

over multiple schools to converge into several key categories that summarize what good teaching

practice is to these students. This is important for two reasons, first, the use of multiple data

sources which include digital recordings makes it more valuable in terms of its qualitative rigor

or what (Krefting 1991) refers to as triangulation of the data methods helping add credibility to

the study. Secondly, it shows key characteristics perceived by students of what is deemed to be

quality teaching practice, as the sample size can be associated on a larger scale. The key

categories of these best practices as summarized as an increase in classroom discussions,

secondly, use of prior learning or anecdotal storytelling (from teacher), thirdly, time for

collaboration and lastly, more hands-on activities or self-directed activities for students

(Kriewaldt, 2009). The last category applies directly to my main research goal, to evolve my

classroom into a student-centered learning environment where the students feel like they are

being included in the learning.

Positive Relationships with Teachers Improve Learning

At the heart of great teaching practice is a genuine willingness to reflect and remain flexible to

meet the needs of these students. In a recent mixed-method study published this year, (Capern &

Lorraine, 2014) use both quantitative and qualitative approaches to show perceived best practice

behaviors of teachers among students considered gifted and ones with behavioral needs. Surveys

were used to establish quantitative data and data tables were summarized to display qualitative

information. Again this study suggests that classroom environments where students feel safe and

enjoy being around the teacher generally produce better learning exchanges between both

parties. In both the survey and focus group categories, general themes of approachability,

concern for academic well being and friendly disposition were evident in both gifted and

behavior students. In a methodological sense the mixture of both quantitative and qualitative data
AFFECTS OF GIZMO TECHNOLOGY ON STUDENTS AT RISK OF FAILURE 5

will produce results which will add validity to the qualitative nature of these research questions.

For instance, using a Student Evaluation of Learning and Teaching Questionnaire or SELTQ

which was implemented and developed in the (Zerihum, Beishuizen, & Van Os, 2012) study to

improve teacher evaluation questionnaires, as opposed to the traditional LIKERT scale used to

measure attitude (Gay, Mills, & Airasian, 2012). This is an important study because it is able to

measure an intangible quality of perceived attitudes towards a particular teaching style while still

maintaining the integrity of the qualitative nature of assessing perception or attitude towards a

topic.

Research Method

Action research is the chosen design for this study as its deeply connected to the practical nature

and design of a practicing teacher. Action research enables the teacher-researcher to gather

information on a daily-basis, while emphasizing reflective practice to improve student learning

and quality of their instructional design. The school I am currently posted to is considered

inner-city with a high ratio of students considered at risk of failure, and many with a behavior

designation or BD label. Our school supports teachers who implement restorative practices, and

continuously find ways to adapt, engage and impact the lives of at-risk students in a positive

way. Our aim is to make our classrooms a safe place for these students to belong. Reflective

classroom practice will be the starting point for this journey. My school also has a specialized

classroom designated for students at risk of failure that can receive additional support which

includes one fulltime behavior teacher and two fulltime youth workers who are always seeking

ways for students to improve academically, and emotionally.

AFFECTS OF GIZMO TECHNOLOGY ON STUDENTS AT RISK OF FAILURE 6

Participants

Participants will be selected from a grade 8 Science and Math class and will be chosen on

the basis of what constitutes a student at risk of failure. At risk characteristics have been defined

in our school as students with 1) poor attendance 2) lack of academic success 3) toxic home

environment 4) exhibits conflict type behaviors in regular classroom settings. I am interested in

the connection between student-centered learning environments and how they directly influence

or impact the learning of students who are considered at risk of failure. Developing best practices

that foster self confidence and self efficacy in these students is the basis for the selection of at

risk students specifically in this study.

Ethical Implications

Whenever research enters the world of a student environment ethics will come into play, and

even more so with qualitative approaches that rely heavily on in depth observation and analysis

of the participant. Consent and permission from multiple parties will be required before entering

into this study; this will require the permission of the principal, district, student, parent and or

guardian for any observations that are digitally recorded.

Instruments and Analysis

Data will be collected through the use of a teacher journal, interviews, questionnaires and

recorded classroom observations. A SELQT questionnaire will be used before and after the

implementation of the Gizmo technology to establish student perceptions of their own learning

process in Math and Science and one after Gizmos are implemented (Zerihum et al., 2012).

Later on the Gizmo technology will also be able to measure the frequency of use both in and out
AFFECTS OF GIZMO TECHNOLOGY ON STUDENTS AT RISK OF FAILURE 7

of school, as well as immediate online assessments after each use, as it keeps a digital log for the

teacher. All of these sources will be triangulated to analyze the influence of Gizmo technology

and their affect on the learning of students at risk of failure.

Table 1. Triangulation of Qualitative Data Sources

Goal of Journal (Teacher) Questionnaire Interviews Classroom

Study (Student) (Student) Observation

Increase Lesson planning Use of pre and post Recorded Recorded

Student- questionnaire data

centered

learning

Self- Lesson planning Use of pre and post Themes from Themes emerging

Efficacy questionnaire data interviews from class

Strategies observations

Increase Lesson planning Use of pre and post Themes from Themes emerging

Student questionnaire data interviews from class

Engagement observations

Table 2 Example of SELTQ taken from (Zerihum et al., 2012)

Summary of factor pattern loading (n=204)

Factor coefficients
Item
1 2 3 4
Assessment criteria communicated .736 .234
Immediate feedback given .655 .204 .214 .187
Assessment coherent with objectives .623 .408 .110
Discussions held following feedback .618 .141 .302 .148
Assessment evaluated understanding .614 .271 .297
Assessment was part of learning .608 .224 .221 .199
AFFECTS OF GIZMO TECHNOLOGY ON STUDENTS AT RISK OF FAILURE 8

Factor coefficients
Item
1 2 3 4
Revised assignments before exam .606 .423 .273
Feedback on group assignments given .555 .278 .300 .279
Comment given to draft works .516 .410 .339 .148
Examples of good work provided .498 .298 .368 .191
Contributions encouraged and valued .228 .806 .273 .115
Contents have tasks and objectives .220 .737 .252 .127
Appropriate teaching methods used .278 .704 .269 .205
Objectives and expectations explained .286 .509 .178
Opportunities given for dialogue .417 .432 .267 .250
Learned better due to my involvement .274 .719
Asked instructor for support .357 .143 .681 .165
Required performance informed .449 .188 .659 .203
Implemented instructors comments .298 .216 .591 .285
Asked to provide justifications .316 .693
Assessed own progress .103 .364 .671
Provided alternative explanations .141 .408 .661
Involved in peer evaluation .367 .232 .544
Involved in group projects .249 .103 .396
Percentage of variance explained 19.84 14.41 12.25 10.17
Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability The Author(s) 2012

10.1007/s11092-011-9140-4

This example SELTQ shows the in depth measurement of 24 key characteristics from a student

learning perspective that establish key components to student-centered learning and the teachers

who exhibit these in their teaching practice. Where a LIKERT scale leaves more of a grey area

because its based on strongly agrees (SA) to strongly disagrees (SD), theres more room for

interpretation.

Procedure
AFFECTS OF GIZMO TECHNOLOGY ON STUDENTS AT RISK OF FAILURE 9

The setting will take place in an inner city, middle school grade 8 Math and Science classroom.

The classroom has wireless internet and access to computers on wheels which will be utilized for

Gizmo technology. The computers on wheels will be shared among 370 other students in the

school (not including my class) so scheduling out their use will be a must for this study. When

these COWS are not available, the school computer lab can be booked in the library which is

located next door to my classroom. I will be the teacher researcher and the grade 8 Math and

Science students who are considered most at risk will be chosen as participants in the study. Use

of a pre-questionnaire, observation and interview among participants will be used prior to the

implementation of Gizmos into the classroom to gage student perception and engagement of the

subject matter.

Research Design and Analysis

Action Research was chosen for this study as it allows for me to improve upon my own

professional development and it allows room for the data to lead to interpretations rather than

manipulating data to suit outcomes that I want to see. I chose to focus on four sub questions

around the implementation of Gizmo technology and students at risk of failure. My first question

is about reflecting on my current teaching practice in order to see where I can implement more

student-centered learning opportunities like Gizmo technology. Triangulating data from teacher

journals, student questionnaires, observations (recorded upon consent), and student interviews

should give me a deeper understanding of the students perception of Gizmo Technology and its

use as a student-centered tool in the classroom.

Schedule

Late April 2014 our school will gain a full license to Gizmo Technology
June-July 2014 permission of the school Principal will need to be attained for this study
AFFECTS OF GIZMO TECHNOLOGY ON STUDENTS AT RISK OF FAILURE 10

Sep-Oct consent and permission forms needed by Parents/Guardians of participants

chosen (as well as Principal if still needed)
Mid Oct-June triangulation of qualitative sources through journals, observations,
interviews and questionnaires

Discussion:

Findings that relate to improved classroom environments for students at risk would be helpful to

include connections between students at risk of failure, and their own perceptions of their

improvement. Originally I had decided on a case study approach, but because of the practical and

fluid nature of the action research process I chose the latter. However, it would be interesting to

continue with my generalized question of What do student centered learning environments look

like in the 21st Century? As our own schools restorative action classroom is going to be

replicated in two more schools within our district based on its current ability to promote student

efficacy and improved academic performance. An explanation of obstacles and limitations to the

study which may include budget limitations and access to shared technology within the school

should also be considered as they directly alter the classroom environments.

AFFECTS OF GIZMO TECHNOLOGY ON STUDENTS AT RISK OF FAILURE 11

References

Capern, T., & Lorraine, H. (2014). Establishing Positive Relationships with Secondary Gifted

Students and Students with Emotional/Behavioral Disorders: Giving These Diverse

Learners What They Need [Abstract]. Australian Teacher Education Association, 39(4),

46-67.

Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. (2012). Introduction to Educational Research. In

Educational Research Competencies for Analysis and Research (10 ed.pp. 3-367).

Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. P. (2005). Can Instructional and Emotional Support in the First-

Grade Classroom Make a Difference for Children at Risk of School Failure? [Abstract].

Child Development, 76(5), 949-967.

Janzen, M. (1992). The Way Back. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A. Humanities

and Social Sciences, ., Retrieved April 5, 2014, from

http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/s4/f2/dsk3/ftp04/MQ61569.pdf

Kajander, A., Zuke, C., & Walton, W. (2008). Teaching Unheard Voices: Students At-Risk in

Mathematics. Canadian Journal of Education, 31(4), 1039-1064.

Krefting, L. (1991). Rigour in qualitative research: the assessment of trustworthiness [Abstract].

The american journal of occupational therapists, 45(3), 214-222.

Kriewaldt, K. J. (2009). 'He talks to you, not at you': Attending to learners' perspectives to

enhance understanding of accomplished teaching. Australian Teacher Education

Association, , . Retrieved April 1, 2014, from

http://atea.edu.au/ConfPapers/2009/Refereed/Kriewaldt.pdf
AFFECTS OF GIZMO TECHNOLOGY ON STUDENTS AT RISK OF FAILURE 12

Zerihum, Z., Beishuizen, J., & Van Os, W. (2012). Student learning experience as indicator of

teaching quality [Abstract]. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability,

24(2), 99-111.
AFFECTS OF GIZMO TECHNOLOGY ON STUDENTS AT RISK OF FAILURE 13