The Effectiveness of Direct Instruction vs.

Constructivism in Mathematics Instruction

Research Report 2012 Science Fair
Sarah Pham
American Preparatory Academy (APA) 3636 West 3100 South West Valley City, Utah 84119 Tel. (385)-351-3090

Anny Pham
Academy for Math, Engineering & Science (AMES) 5715 South 1300 East Salt Lake City, UT 84121-1099 Tel. (801) 278-9460

Contents

Contents Abstract

Page # 1

Introduction

2-3

Question & Hypothesis

Methods & Materials

4-5

Results

6-7

Interpretation

8-10

Conclusion

10

Acknowledgements

11

References

12-13

Appendix

14-21

Abstract
In this study, the effectiveness of two different teaching methods, direct instruction and constructivist instruction, was compared in Algebra 2 classes. Constructivism is teacher-guided, discovery-based learning, while in direct instruction the teacher models all that is needed to be taught to their students with step-by-step instruction. Two teachers and their classes participated in this study. One teacher trained in direct instruction taught two classes of Algebra 2 students and another teacher trained in constructivist instruction taught two classes of Algebra 2 students as well. Students took a pre-test about the mathematical concept of completing the square, received instruction on the topic, took a post-instruction test and a satisfaction survey following instruction, and then a retention test a month after instruction. All tests contained the same questions, but the order of the questions was rearranged. Scores were collected from the tests and compared between the two groups. Results revealed that direct instruction students performed significantly better on post-instruction and retention tests than constructivist instruction students. There was no significant difference in satisfaction ratings between both groups.

Introduction
In 1989, the publication of the Principles and Standards for School Mathematics by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) triggered math wars, the ongoing debate on how to teach math to American students effectively (Math wars, n.d.). The two sides of this war are the constructivists and those who favor direct instruction. Constructivists are those who promote the idea that learning is an active process of constructing, rather than acquiring, knowledge and that the goal of instruction is to support that construction rather than trying to transmit knowledge (Colaric, n.d.). More traditional learning styles incorporate direct instruction, which is teacher centered and focused on helping students learn basic skills and information ("Direct or explicit," 2004). In constructivism, the teacher is a guide to the side, and the students must discover for themselves the concept being taught. There are five different main events that occur during constructivist instruction: investigation, invention, implementation, evaluation, and celebration (Huitt, 2009). During investigation, the teacher briefly explains what the class is supposed to do and then the students work in small groups to determine what they already know and how they can apply that knowledge to the task at hand. During invention, the students begin to create plans within their groups to tackle the problem. During implementation and evaluation, the students test the first draft of their project, modifying the project as needed. The very last event, celebration, gives the students the opportunity to present their findings to the rest of the class as they all analyze the data that their classmates are presenting (Huitt, 2009). Constructivists state that students learn more, and enjoy learning more when they are actively involved, rather than passive listeners and that education works best when it concentrates on thinking and understanding rather than on rote memorization (What are the, 2004). Constructivists also argue that the skills they learn during constructivist teaching, such as problem solving and working together in a group, will help students when they are exposed to the real world (What are the, 2004). Crouch and Mazur (2001) reported data on ten years of teaching physics using Peer Instruction (PI), which emphasizes on cooperative learning, and found that it increased student mastery of both conceptual reasoning and quantitative problem solving.Gillies(2002) showed that fifth graders who had been trained 2 years previously to work in groups were more cooperative and helpful than their untrained peers. In direct instruction, the teacher acts as a sage on stage, modeling all that is needed to be taught to their students. Swanson (2001) concludes it to emphasize fast-paced, well sequenced, and highly focused lessons which are usually taught in small groups of students who are given several opportunities to respond and receive feedback about accuracy and responses. Direct instruction is commonly used in most traditionally taught math classes. The teacher introduces the concept that is going to be taught, shows step-by-step instructions, does a few practice problems with the class while pointing out each individual step, and lets the student do a bit on their own. Then the teacher corrects those individual practice problems and shows students mistakes they may have made. Once the teacher sees that the students have mastered that concept, they move on to the next one or go back to ones that they may not have grasped a full understanding of (Direct or explicit, 2004).

There are dozens of small studies that support the idea of constructivism. Prakash (2010) tested fifty-four university students that were randomized into two groups, one receiving constructivist lectures and the other receiving typical lectures. The student pretest scores in the two groups before instruction were comparable. The results concluded that the group that received constructivist lectures did much better in the posttest conducted immediately after the lectures (Prakash, 2010). Yoder and Hochevar(2005) researched three classes of students enrolled in psychology of women courses. The study focused on whether the students would perform better on tests when the subject was presented with active learning versus lecture, autonomous readings, and video presentations alone. The results of the study determined that both between and within classes, students' performances were better on items testing materials covered with active learning techniques compared to other formats (Yoder &Hochevar, 2005). Schmidt, Cohen-Schotanus and Arends (2009) studied the effects of active-learning curricula on graduation rates of students and on the length of time needed to graduate. Graduation rates for ten generations of students enrolling in eight Dutch medical schools along with the time needed to graduate was recorded. Three of the eight schools used active learning while the other five had conventional teaching methods. The results of the study showed that, overall, the students who took the active learning curricula graduated on average 8% more students per year, and these students graduated on average 5 months earlier than their colleagues from conventional curricula (Schmidt, et al, 2009). There is one study that stands out as evidence for direct instruction being the most successful method of teaching. It is the largest educational experiment ever undertaken (Coombs, 1998). In 1967, Project Follow Through was initiated, spending an estimated $1 billion through the Office (now Department) of Education, the Office of Economic Opportunity and dozens of private sponsors to test and evaluate an array of educational methods over the course of almost three decades (Coombs, 1998). Seven hundred thousand students in 170 socioeconomically disadvantaged communities across the nation participated in the study. Nine educational models were used, and parents were asked to decide which would be adopted for their school. Out of those nine models, three each fell into either basic skills (direct instruction), cognitive (constructivism), and affective (an approach that student self-esteem on the theory that a higher sense of self-worth promotes achievement (Coombs, 1998). The data for the study was derived from a series of five tests taken by more than 9,000 Follow Through students followed from either kindergarten through third grade or from first through third grade. These students were matched with a control group of 6,500 students from non-Follow Through schools. Percentile scores were taken for the subjects of reading, math, spelling, and language for all 9 of the educational models. Achievement outcomes were taken for basic skills, cognitive, and affective across all 9 of the educational models as well. Direct instruction proved to be the superior teaching method, showing the greatest positive impact on all three types of development (Coombs, 1998), while constructivism and the models that boosted self-esteem turned out to show either negative average effects or no average effect (Coombs, 1998). The focus of this study is to determine which method, constructivism or the more traditional method of direct instruction, proves to be more effective in the teaching of Algebra 2.

Questions and Hypotheses

Q1: Is direct instruction or constructivist instruction more effective on students taking Algebra 2? H1: Students will retain more information from direct instruction than from constructivist instruction. Q2: Are students more satisfied with their learning when they are taught with direct instruction or constructivist instruction? H2: Students will be more satisfied with their learning when taught with direct instruction than constructivist instruction.

Materials
Four classes of students taking Algebra 2, with 15-20 students per class Two math teachers A predetermined Algebra 2 topic (completing the square) that all the classes have not been formally taught yet A pretest, post-instruction test, and retention test on the predetermined Algebra 2 topic (appendix A, C, and D) A survey to provide feedback on instruction (appendix B) Consent forms Parental consent letters

Methods
One teacher trained in direct instruction taught two classes of Algebra 2 students (21 direct instruction students), and another teacher trained in constructivist instruction taught two classes of Algebra 2 students as well (30 constructivist instruction students). Both teachers were asked to participate in the study, for a total of fifty-one male and female students who were recruited for this study. All subjects identifiable information remained anonymous, as each subject has been identified through a series of letters and numbers that are representative of what class they were in and their subject number that they were each given. The teachers responsible for the classes were the only ones who had access to which identification code corresponds to which student. Teachers received information prior to the start of the study regarding the purpose of the study and what they are asked to do. They were given parental consent letters along with consent forms that were passed out to students participating in the study to fully explain the purpose of the study, what is involved in testing, safety, and the educational value of the study. Parental consent was required for participation in the study. All participation, whether from the

teachers or from the students, was voluntary and they had the right to withdraw from the study at any time. All classes involved in the study first tookpre-tests (see appendix A) derived from a predetermined Algebra 2 topic (completing the square) that the students had not been formally taught yet in the period prior to instruction. It was intended that all students were allowed 20 minutes to complete the test, but due to the direct instruction teachers schedule conflicts the direct instruction students were allowed only10-15 minutes while the constructivist instruction students were allowed the full intended 20 minutes.Instruction for the topic from the test was then given, with each teacher teaching their classes with their respective teaching method. During the direct instruction students were given notes to fill in as they followed the teacher, who was explicitly showing each step to the students and providing examples. During the constructivist instruction students worked within their pre-assigned groups and used algebra blocks to model the process of completing the square. Immediately after instruction students were asked to answer a satisfaction survey (see appendix B) to provide feedback on how satisfied they were with the instruction. Free response comments after the initial survey questions were welcome. Post-instruction tests (see appendix C) were taken by the students after the survey was completed. The students were only allowed 20 minutes, the same amount of time they had during the pre-test, to take the post-instruction test. Approximately one month after instruction on the topic, all students participating in the study were given a retention test (see appendix D) to assess if they were able to retain the information from instruction over an extended period of time. Time allowed to complete the retention tests remained the same as the time allowed for the pre-tests and the post-tests, 10-15 minutes for the direct instruction students and 20 minutes for the constructivist instruction students. There were ten questions used for each test. All tests that were taken by the students contain the same questions and were formatted identically, but the order the questions appeared were rearranged for the pre-test, post-test, and retention test.This precaution was taken in case students may recall the order the answers they chose on previous tests. On the front of the test paper were the questions and four choices for the student to pick their answer, labeled from a through d. On the back of the test paper students were asked to show their work in numbered boxed sections that were provided for them, then write their answer in the numbered and sectioned left column. At the bottom of the back page there was a section where the student was to rate the how much they like the teacher on a scale of 1 to 5. Each question was scored out of two points. One point was for what the student wrote as their multiple choice answer and the other was for showing their work correctly. This made the overall score for each test out of twenty points. The survey asked students, on a scale of 1-5, how satisfied they were with different aspects of the instruction.

Results
a. Data: Tables and Figures

Average Pre-, Post-, and Retention Test Scores

14 12 10 Score 8 6 4 2 0 pre-test post-test Instruction Style retention test
Pre-test: p= SD for Direct Instruction=1.48 SD for Constructivist Instruction=1.77 Post-test: p= SD for Direct Instruction=4.45 SD for Constructivist Instruction=2.69 Retention test: p= SD for Direct Instruction=5.74 SD for Constructivist Instruction=2.18

Direct Instruction Constructivist Instruction

Figure 1: This graph compares the average pre-, post-, and retention test scores for both the direct instruction and constructivist instruction students. The direct instruction students performed significantly better on the post-test and retention test than the constructivist instruction students, as well as improving their score from post-test to retention test. Also, it is important to note that the direct instruction students did significantly better on the pre-test than the constructivist instruction students.

Teacher rating vs. Instruction Style

5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 pre rating post rating Instruction Style retention rating
Pre rating: p= SD for Direct Instruction=0.74 SD for Constructivist Instruction=1.40 Post rating: p= SD for Direct Instruction=0.65 SD for Constructivist Instruction=0.92 Retention rating: p= SD for Direct Instruction=1.27 SD for Constructivist Instruction=2.91

Rating out of 5

Direct Instruction Constructivist Instruction

Figure 2: This graph compares the average teacher ratings during the pre-, post-, and retention tests for both the direct instruction and constructivist instruction students. The direct instruction students had significantly higher ratings than the constructivist instruction students. The direct instruction students rated their teacher about the same during all three tests, while the constructivist instruction students average ratings varied between tests.
6

Average Satisfaction Survey Ratings

6 5 Rating out of 5 4 3 2 1 0 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Instruction Style Q5 Q6
Q1: p=0.839 SD for Direct Instruction=0.91 SD for Constructivist Instruction=1.04 Q2: p=0.801 SD for Direct Instruction=0.73 SD for Constructivist Instruction=0.97 Q3: p=0.219 SD for Direct Instruction=0.75 SD for Constructivist Instruction=0.88 Q4: p=0.821 SD for Direct Instruction=1.65 SD for Constructivist Instruction=1.44 Q5: p=0.0466 SD for Direct Instruction=1.02 SD for Constructivist Instruction=1.10 Q6: p=0.951 SD for Direct Instruction=0.81 SD for Constructivist Instruction=1.01

Direct Instruction Constructivist Instruction

Figure 3: This graph compares the average satisfaction ratings between the direct instruction students and constructivist students. There is no significant difference between both groups average ratings, as all differences between each groups ratings for each question is below 1.

b. Interpretation
The purpose of this study was to determine from which of two teaching methods, direct instruction or constructivist instruction, would students retain more information. The direct instruction students performed significantly better on post-test exams than the constructivist instruction students (see Figure 1). Direct instruction students did 181.60% better than the constructivist students, almost triple the constructivist students average scores. Direct instruction students were able to score 142.68% better on their post-test when compared to their pre-test scores, while constructivist instruction students scored 73.77% better. Also, direct instruction students were able to keep and even improve on their post-test scores when taking the retention test (see Figure 1). Direct instruction students improved by 7.54%, but constructivist instruction students did 32.08% worse on their retention test when compared to their post-test scores. This data supports the hypothesis that direct instruction helps students retain more information than constructivist instruction. It is important to note that though direct instruction students performed significantly better than constructivist instruction students, their scores were more spread out than those of the constructivist instruction students, whose scores were more consistent (SD for direct instruction pre-test = 1.48, SD for constructivist pre-test = 1.77; SD for direct instruction post-test = 4.45, SD for constructivist instruction post-test = 2.69; SD for direct instruction retention test = 5.74, SD for constructivist retention test = 2.18). This implies that direct instruction students had some students scoring highly on the tests, but some did poorly as well, though as a whole direct instruction students still scored better than the constructivist students (M for direct instruction pre-test = 4, M for constructivist instruction pre-test = 2; M for direct instruction post-test = 10, M for constructivist instruction post-test = 3, M for direct instruction retention test = 10, M for constructivist instruction retention test = 2). The secondary goal of this study was to determine which of the two groups of students, the direct instruction students or the constructivist students, would be more satisfied with the type of instruction they were given. The satisfaction survey data indicates that there was no significant difference between both groups satisfaction; all differences between average ratings on the surveys were below 1 (see Figure 3). In order to obtain more conclusive data, it would be necessary to have a greater sample size to observe more obvious distinctions between the two groups ratings. As with most educational research and human studies, there were variables that were difficult to control. One of these variables was how much the students liked their teacher, for that could have an impact on how well each student was able to learn how to complete the square. If a student did not like their teacher, then they may slack off during class and not learn as well as a student who enjoyed their teacher and the class. There is also the possibility that students may not be doing well in their class and not like their teacher because of that. In order to account for that, a survey question was given with each test that asked the students to rate how much they liked their teacher at the present time on a scale of 1 to 5. Figure 2 shows that the direct instruction students liked their teacher more than the constructivist instruction students like their teacher. Looking at Figure 2 again, there was virtually no variance between the average rating of the direct instruction teacher between the pre- and post-tests. On the other hand, the constructivist instruction teacher was liked less during the pre-test than the post-test, which
8

implies that students consistently liked the direct instruction teacher, while with the constructivist instruction it varied day by day or that the lesson taught that day was particularly enjoyable, therefore the constructivist students would rate the teacher higher. This may be partly why the students in the constructivist instruction group had worse scores than those in the direct instruction group. There was also the concern of one group of students having more knowledge of completing the square prior to the study. This was accounted for by having the students take a pre-test to determine how much they had already known before formal instruction for the topic was given. In Figure 1, both groups of students had little knowledge of the topic before instruction was given, though the direct instruction students had a significantly higher average pretest scores than the constructivist instruction group (p-value= ). This implies that if teaching methods had no impact on the students scores, then the direct instruction group would still do better than the constructivist instruction group. That is indeed the case, but the direct instruction group did significantly better than the constructivist instruction group. The direct instruction students average scores rose by about 5.85 points, while the constructivist instruction students only rose about 1.5 points. The largest flaw in this studys experimental design was that there was only one teacher per teaching method. One teacher may have had exceptional teaching skills while the other could have been horrible at teaching. The teachers teaching skills were another variable that was not controlled; therefore it could have affected the students test scores regardless of the teaching method that was used for their instruction. Also, the two different groups of students came from different schools with different curriculums. Therefore, students in each group would have different sets of knowledge prior to the study depending on which school they came from. This variable was particularly difficult to control and may have explained why the direct instruction students had higher pre-test scores than the constructivist instruction students. Furthermore, there were several difficulties throughout the course of the study. One of the most prominent difficultieswas the sample sizes that were acquired. Students often forgot to answer the teacher rating survey question during the tests, therefore the sample sizes for the teacher ratings was smaller than the sample size from which the test scores were derived. Also, the sample size varied from test to test, depending on whether more students remembered to answer the question or not. Additionally, there were difficulties with the tests themselves. The test format was adopted from the format to which that the direct instruction students were accustomed. Along with that, the instructions that were included with the test may have been unclear and not specific enough. The constructivist instruction students were never explicitly taught to solve for x when completing the square, only to convert from the standard form of a quadratic equation ( ) that could not be factored to the vertex form of a quadratic equation ( ). The instructions did not explicitly say to solve for x. Instead, they only stated that the students should show all of [their] work using the method completing the square on the numbered box page provided. This is a potential reason as to why the constructivist students scored poorly on the tests.
9

Moreover, the questions that were included in the tests had difficulties as well. The questions were more calibrated towards the goals of direct instruction rather than the goals of constructivist instruction. The test questions were chosen based on similarities with the current style of test questions that are issued by the state of Utah in end-of-the-year exams. These questions ask students to find the answer to the question. The goal for constructivist instruction, though, is to not find just the answer, but to discover the reasoning behind the methods that are used to find the answer. This could be another reason why constructivist instruction students performed poorly on the tests. Besides the variables that were difficult to control and the difficulties throughout this study, the data collected may change based on the subject of the course. Math is a very sequential subject, with only certain methods and procedures leading to the correct answer. Direct instruction may be more effective with a subject such as this because teachers show stepby-step what to do to reach a desired answer. Alternatively, constructivist instruction may be more effective with subjects that use more abstract concepts, such as English. Students could benefit from talking in groups about motifs in a book rather than trying to develop ideas on their own. Because math was the subject used in this study this may have caused the direct instructions students to perform better than the constructivist instruction students and must be taken into account when considering both groups test scores. Ideally, to improve this study, there would be more students to test from each teaching method along with more teachers so as there would be less doubt cast on whether the results were from the teachers skill in instruction the students or the teaching methods themselves. Also, equal amounts of time to take the tests would be given to students from both teaching methods. More aggressive reminders to answer the teacher rating on the back of the test papers would be given to the students in order to ensure a larger sample size for teacher ratings, along with reminders that students must use the method indicated in their work rather than other methods.

Conclusion
The data in this study supports the hypothesis that students retain more information with direct instruction rather than with constructivist teaching methods. Students test scores improved significantly when taught with direct instruction. The data for students overall satisfaction with their teaching method, though, showed no significant difference between the two groups. Although, due complications and many other variables that were difficult tocontrol, the results were inconclusive and further studies are necessary to obtain conclusive data on which teaching method helps students retain more information. Before continuing this study, though, there are several improvements that would need to be made in order to receive better results. These improvements include having larger sample sizes for each group along with more teachers involved in the study, equal amounts of time to take the tests for every student, and more aggressive reminders for students to answer the teacher rating on the back of the test as well as to complete the test using the indicated method.

10

Acknowledgements
Wed first like to thank our mentor, Ashley Budd, and Lisa Jasumback for helping us and providing advice throughout our whole project. Wed also like to thank Mrs. Jenkins and Joel Miller for letting us use their classes for our project and putting off time during class to do our tests and survey. Lastly, wed like to thank the students who took our tests and survey. Without all of these people our project would not have been possible.

11

References
Colaric, S. (n.d.). Constructivism. Retrieved from http://iteach.saintleo.edu/InstructionalDesign/Constructivism.html Coombs, M. K. (1998, March 24). Honest follow-through needed on this project. The Washington Times. Retrieved from http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com/honestft.htm Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: ten years of experience and results[Abstract]. American Journal of Physics, 69(9), 970-977. DOI: 10.1119/1.1374249. Retrieved from http://web.mit.edu/jbelcher/www/TEALref/Crouch_Mazur.pdf Direct or explicit instruction and mathematics. (2004, September 26). Retrieved from http://www.k8accesscenter.org/training_resources/DirectExplicitInstruction_Mathematics .asp Gillies, R. M. (2002). The residual effects of cooperative-learning experiences: a two-year follow-up[Abstract]. The Journal of Educational Research, 96(1), 15-20. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=2931ebe3-53ab-4d65-99a7dd4d3c71b9b9%40sessionmgr14&vid=5&hid=18 Huitt, W. (2009).Constructivism.Educational Psychology Interactive.Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. Retrieved fromhttp://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cognition/construct.html Math wars.(n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.k12academics.com/education-reform/math-wars Prakash, E. S. (2010). Explicit constructivism: a missing link in ineffective lectures?.Advances in Physiology Education, 34(2), 93-96. DOI: 10.1152/advan.00025.2010. Retrieved from http://advan.physiology.org/content/34/2/93.full?%3f Schmidt, H. G., Cohen-Schotanus, J., &Arends, L. R. (2009). Impact of problem-based, active learning on graduation rates for 10 generations of dutch medical students [Abstract]. Medical Education, 43(3), 211-8. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19250347 Swanson, H. (2001). Searching for the Best Model for Instructing Students With Learning Disabilities. Focus On Exceptional Children, 34(2), 1. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=347cc74c-fcde-4819-86ff8b5d1e3b194b%40sessionmgr12&vid=5&hid=126 What are the benefits of constructivism?. (2004). Retrieved from http://www.thirteen.org/edonline/concept2class/constructivism/index_sub6.html

12

Yoder, J. D., &Hochevar, C. M. (2005). Encouraging active learning can improve students' performance on examinations [Abstract]. Teaching of Psychology, 32(2), 91-95.Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=7dd95711-b6f1-41bbb8ae-859584821347%40sessionmgr12&vid=2&hid=11

13

Appendix A

Completing the Square Pre-Test

Show all of your work using the method completing the square on the numbered box page provided.

1.) 6.) a.) x = b.) x = c.) x =d.) x = 2 2.) a.) x = b.) x = c.) x = d.) x = 8, x = 6 8.) 3.) a.) x = -20, x= 6 b.) x = c.) x = -1, x = 25 d.) x = 4.) a.) b.) c.) d.) 5.) x = -1, x = 25 x = -12, x = 2 x=10+ ,x x=, x -10 9.) a.) m = 3 2 11, m b.) c.) m = -0.9 d.) m = -1 + 10.) a.) b.) c.) d.) x = -1 + , x -1 x = 3+ 2 , x 2 x = 3 + 2 11 , x = 3 x=32 ,m , m -1 a.) b.) c.) d.) u = -20, u= 6 u=6 3 , u u = 3 2 11, u u = -1 + ,u 6+3 -1 7.) a.) b.) c.) d.) x = 1 + , x 1 x = 6, x = 2 x =-10+ , -10 x = 5, x = 6 a.) b.) c.) d.) x = -2, x = -7 x = -2, x = 6 x = -7, x = 2 x = -3, x = 5

a.) x = -2,x = 6 b.) x = -4, x = 4 c.) x= -6 d.) x = -6, x = 2

14

Write answer here

1. 1.

Show work here

2.

2.

3.

3.

4.

4.

5.

5.

6.

6.

7.

7.

8.

8.

9.

9.

10.

10

How much do you like your teacher as of the present time? (circle) 1-lowest 5- highest 1 2 3 4 5

15

Appendix B

Satisfaction Survey Please answer the following questions according to your own personal experience with the instruction. Rate your answers on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 is the lowest and 5 is the highest. Then, on the back of this sheet, write any comments you may have about the instruction. Questions Ratings 1
(Lowest)

5
(Highest)

How much were you involved in the instruction? How much did the instruction facilitate understanding of the topic? How logical was the instruction? Did you find the need to take extra effort to memorize the content provided in the instruction? How much would you recommend this discovery-based, teacher-guided instruction? What was overall satisfaction with the instruction?

16

Satisfaction Survey APA Please answer the following questions according to your own personal experience with the instruction. Rate your answers on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 is the lowest and 5 is the highest. Then, on the back of this sheet, write any comments you may have about the instruction. Questions Ratings 1
(Lowest)

5
(Highest)

How much were you involved in the instruction? How much did the instruction facilitate understanding of the topic? How logical was the instruction? Did you find the need to take extra effort to memorize the content provided in the instruction? How much would you recommend this way of direct, student-to-teacher instruction? What was overall satisfaction with the instruction?

17

Completing the Square Post-Test

Show all of your work using the method completing the square on the numbered box page provided.

Appendix C

1.) a.) b.) c.) d.) x = 1 + , x 1 x = 6, x = 2 x =-10+ , -10 x = 5, x = 6

6.) a.) b.) c.) d.) 7.) x = -2, x = 6 x = -4, x = 4 x = -6 x = -6, x = 2

2.) a.) m = 3 211, m = 3 + 211 a.) x = b.) x = c.) x = d.) x = 8, x = 6 3.) x a.) b.) c.) d.) 4.) a.) b.) c.) d.) 5.) a.) b.) c.) d.) u = -20, u= 6 u = 6 37, u = 6 + 37 u = 3 211, u = 3 + 211 u = -1 + 10, u = -1 10 x = -1 + 10, x= -1 10 x = 3+ 26, x = 3 2 6 x = 3 + 211 , x = 3 211 x = 3 211 x x = -1, x = 25 x = -12, x = 2 x = 10+215, x=10215 x = -10+215, x=-10215 9.) a.) x = b.) x = c.) x = d.) x = 2 10.) a.) b.) c.) d.) x = -2, x = -7 x = -2, x = 6 x = -7, x = 2 x = -3, x = 5
18

b.) c.) m = -0.9 2.31, m= -0.9 + 2.31 d.) m = -1 + 10, m = -1 10 8.) a.) x = -20, x= 6 b.) x = c.) x = -1, x = 25 d.) x =

Write answer here

1. 1.

Show work here

2.

2.

3.

3.

4.

4.

5.

5.

6.

6.

7.

7.

8.

8.

9.

9.

10.

10.

How much do you like your teacher as of the present time? (circle) 1-lowest 5- highest 1 2 3 4 5

19

Appendix D

Completing the Square Retention-Test

Show all of your work using the method completing the square on the numbered box page provided. 1.) a.) b.) c.) d.) x = -1 + , x -1 x = 3+ 2 , x 2 x = 3 + 2 11 , x = 3 x=32 7.) a.) m = 3 2 11, m b.) c.) m = -0.9 d.) m = -1 + 3.) a.) b.) c.) d.) 4.) a.) b.) c.) d.) 5.) a.) b.) c.) d.) x = -2, x = -7 x = -2, x = 6 x = -7, x = 2 x = -3, x = 5 x = 1 + , x 1 x = 6, x = 2 x =-10+ , -10 x = 5, x = 6 u = -20, u= 6 u=6 3 , u u = 3 2 11, u u = -1 + ,u ,m , m -1 e.) a.) b.) c.) 8.) a.) x = -20, x= 6 b.) x = 6+3 -1 9.) a.) x = b.) x = c.) x = d.) x = 8, x = 6 10.) a.) x = b.) x = c.) x =d.) x = 2
20

6.)

a.) x = -2,x = 6 b.) x = -4, x = 4 c.) x= -6 d.) x = -6, x = 2

2.)

x = -1, x = 25 x = -12, x = 2 x=10+ ,x x=, x -10

c.) x = -1, x = 25 d.) x =

Write answer here

1. 1.

Show work here

2.

2.

3.

3.

4.

4.

5.

5.

6.

6.

7.

7.

8.

8.

9.

9.

10.

10

How much do you like your teacher as of the present time? (circle) 1-dislike 5- Like 1 2 3 4 5

21