Action Research Brief

Impact of Immediate Feedback Using Technology Tools

Phuong Nguyen

June 16th, 2021

Sacramento State University, in fulfillment of the Master of Arts in Curriculum and

Instruction
Introduction

Research Focus: Our high school established a 1:1 home to school connection initiative during

the 2019- 2020 school year. The school provided every student with a Chromebook to access

digital resources at home and at school. Despite this, less than fifty percent of my students have

used technology tools such as Pear Deck, Google Slide, and Quizizz. The Self- Regulated

Learning theory (SRL) states that when students receive feedback, they will develop self-

efficacy and motivate themselves to achieve their goals. Feedback allows students to participate

in these meta- cognitive strategies that enable them to educate themselves. Technology tools

provide quicker and more frequent feedback. This allows students to undergo the three phases of

SRL more often: planning phase, performance phase, and evaluation phases. This study

examined technology tools to provide immediate feedback and its impact on students’ learning. 

Research Question: What happens to students' learning in mathematics when I incorporate

technology tools to provide students immediate feedback to help them articulate their

understanding and use teacher guidance to meet their needs? How does feedback influence their

motivation to revise their work?”

Context/ Setting: I am a high school math teacher at a large, comprehensive high school with

students spanning multiple grade levels but learning the same content. The research was

conducted in Integrated Math 2 (IM2) classes with 108 students from January 4th to June 10th of

2021. The student population reflects the ethical, cultural, and economic diversity of our

community (32.9% Hispanic, 29.8% Asian, 19.1% White, 14.2% Black, 2.2% two or more races,

1.4% Pacific Islander, 0.4% American Indian). This diversity enriches the teaching and learning

experience for both teachers and students.

Research Design

Round 1

Innovations/ Interventions: In Round 1, students investigated patterns within the two types of

special right triangles: 30o-60o-90o triangles and 45o-45o-90o triangles. The technology tool Pear

Deck was used to present the lesson and provide instant feedback. Throughout the lesson, Pear

Deck’s ‘teacher dashboard’ was used to monitor students’ progress. The ‘teacher dashboard’

displayed all answers as soon as students typed them out. As a result, I was quickly able to

identify common mistakes made within the lesson. Students were provided two types of

feedback: individual feedback and whole class feedback. I used Pear Deck feedback feature to

leave individual comments on students work. For the whole class feedback, I used Pear Deck to

select samples of student work and conduct a whole class discussion. During discussion, I

utilized the strategy of ‘My Favorite No,’ to have students identify mistakes in the samples and

correct them. bell hooks (2017) stated, “… no matter how irrelevant to classroom subject matter

and receive attention-or that something meaningful takes place if everyone has equal time to

voice an opinion” (p. 185). By displaying students’ answer anonymously and discuss it with the

whole class, I provided an opportunity for students to voice their thoughts, which helped break

the class barrier in the classroom.

Data: Qualitative data included student survey responses to open ended questions. Quantitative

data include test results from before and after feedback. Tallies were marked to identify the

number of students who successfully incorporated feedback.

Data Analysis Methods: For qualitative data analysis, students were given open ended survey

questions through Google Form and responses. Specific phrases students used to respond to

survey questions were coded and counted. The codes were then grouped into themes and given a
score of 1. Percentages were calculated to determine the occurrence of each theme. For

quantitative data analysis, student’s individual scores, before feedback, were averaged and

compared to scores on the exit ticket. Comparing the two demonstrated whether feedback

allowed students to reach proficiency of 76% or above. Similarly, scores before and after

feedback were tallied. Comparing before and after provided insight to which students utilized

feedback.

Round 1 Findings

The qualitative data showed that the majority of students (51.5%) showed positive feeling when

receiving feedback through Pear Deck. Instant feedback not only motivated students to complete

their work but also helped them be self-reflective. Distance learning made building connections

with students difficult but my feedback helped the class stay more connected. The survey

showed that feedback gave students positive feelings, motivation, and promoted self- reflection.

However, a few students felt negatively towards receiving feedback. Those with negative

feelings found feedback distracting when trying to complete the work. Other students felt

negatively because they believed that feedback was reinforcing their incorrect answers. The data

also showed that most students (88.42%) were reflective and had positive attitudes toward whole
class discussions on most missed question. However, several high performing students felt

neutral or negatively toward going over the most missed question. High performing students

found review not necessary because they had already learned the concept.

Throughout the lesson, scores were tallied before and after feedback. The percentage after

feedback (AF) was higher than the percentage before feedback (BF). The data showed that

students utilized my feedback to revise their work. To assess student's understanding, students

were given an exit ticket. Exit ticket results showed that providing feedback has improved

students’ performance.

Connections: The results from Round 1 data showed that feedback gave students positive

feelings, motivations and allowed them to be reflective on their work. However, some students

felt negatively toward receiving feedback. Those who felt negatively found feedback distracting

when trying to complete the work. Other students felt negatively because they believed feedback

reinforced their incorrect answers. In Round 2, I needed to find effective strategies for providing

feedback that students accept and allow for conversation.

Round 2

Intervention/ Innovation: In Round 2, students were being placed in breakout rooms and

worked with team members to complete a task. The mathematical concepts covered in this round

were determining the sum of a polygon’s interior angles, exterior angles, calculating

circumference, and area of a circle. The technology tool used to present the group activity was

Google Slides. Task and group number were included on each slide. Students reviewed breakout

norms before being placed in breakout rooms. The feedback provided to students fell into one of

the two categories, group feedback and whole class feedback. Google Slides displayed each
groups’ answers at the same time students were completing the assignment. Thus, I was able to

quickly identify common mistakes made within the activity. I used the Google Slides “text box”

features to leave written feedback or joined breakout rooms to provide feedback verbally. Sidney

and Alibali (2014) explained the difficulty of explorative activities was that “Novices may make

any number of unhelpful links, which may impede their ability to focus on the most important

connections across problems” (p. 177). To prevent students from making improper connections,

they were encouraged to refer to prior knowledge and connect to current learning goals. Videos

and diagrams were utilized to promote conceptual understanding and avoid misconceptions. For

whole class feedback, I used results received on Google Slides to select samples of student work

and conduct a whole class discussion. During discussions, I utilized the strategy of ‘My Favorite

No,’ where students identified mistakes in the samples and corrected them. When providing

either group or whole class feedback, observations were made, and tallies were used to collect

data. Throughout the learning segment, I marked the number of groups who discovered the

correct answer, groups that did not, and groups who revised answers using feedback. To ensure

students have understood the concept, I gave students similar questions on the exit ticket. Then I

compared the BF results and exit tickets to track students’ growth. 

Data: Qualitative data included student survey responses to open ended questions. Quantitative

data include test results from before and after feedback. Tallies were marked to identify the

number of students who successfully incorporated feedback.

Data Analysis Methods: For qualitative data analysis, students answered open ended surveys

through Google Form and responses were sorted into an Excel sheet. Specific phrases students

used to respond to survey questions were coded and counted. The codes would then group into

themes and given a score of 1. Percentages were calculated to determine the occurrence of each
theme. For quantitative data analysis, student’s individual scores, BF, were calculated and

compared to scores on the exit ticket. Comparing the two determined whether feedback allowed

students to reach proficiency. Throughout the lesson, I tallied the score BF and AF of each group

of students. Comparing before and after provided insight to which students utilized feedback.

Round 2 Findings

The qualitative data revealed that the majority of students (52.38%) showed positive feelings

toward receiving feedback through Google Slides. Instant feedback not only motivated students

to complete the work, but also helped students be self- reflective. Interacting with feedback

helped build connections between teachers and classmates. The results showed that students felt

positive, were motivated and self- reflective when feedback was given. However, there were

students who felt negatively towards receiving feedback (2.38%). Those with negative feelings

stated they felt nervous when receiving feedback. Others said that they did not know what

needed to be fixed. The data also showed that most students (86.75%) were reflective and had a

positive attitude toward whole class discussion on most missed questions. However, several high

performing students felt neutral or negative toward going over the most missed question as they

already master the concept.

Throughout the group activity, scores were tallied BF and AF. Based on the data collected, the

average scores of AF was higher compared to the scores BF. This indicated that students

implemented my feedback to revise their work. To access student’s understanding, students were

given an exit ticket. The exit ticket results revealed that students benefited from receiving

feedback. I also compared high performing students’ average BF (73.65%) versus their average

on the exit ticket (92.71%). The results showed that feedback also benefited high performing

students who have mastered the concept.

Connections: The result showed that feedback gave students positive feelings, motivation and

allowed them to be reflective on their work. However, some students felt negatively toward

receiving feedback. In Round 3, effective feedback strategies are necessary to reduces the

number of students who feel negatively towards feedback. High- performing students expressed

neutral or negative feelings toward going over the most missed question as their average on the

exit ticket has met proficiency. In Round 3, different instructional strategies need to be

implemented to engage high performing students in the task. One possibility could be providing

high performing students with an optional challenge problem to solve and extend their

understanding.

Round 3

Intervention/ Innovation: In Round 3, students learned how to connect transformations of

parabolas with their equations in graphing form. Quizizz was the technology tool used to monitor

students’ progress and provide instant feedback. Fifteen minutes before the end of each lesson,

students took an assessment through Quizizz. Quizizz is a student- paced assessment that

presents questions in the form of a game. This platform requires solutions to be pre- determined.
As a result, students had access to the instant status on the progress of their learning. Students

had the opportunity to retake the assessment if they were not satisfied with the results on the first

attempt. The teacher dashboard was used to monitor students’ progress, mark tallies, and collect

result from both attempts. After completion, students’ results were shared on the teacher

dashboard and commonly missed question were reviewed as a class. “Empirical evidence

regarding mathematics teaching and learning indicates that implementing differentiated

instruction is beneficial not only for mathematics teacher’s professional development, but also

for increasing the students’ learning outcomes, interest, and confidence” (Lai, Zang & Chang,

2020). To accommodate the needs of high-performance students, I differentiated my instruction

by assigning an optional challenge problem to solve while the rest of class reviewed the most

missed question. The next day, an exit ticket was given with similar questions to the Quizizz to

ensure students understood the concept. Then I compared the BF (the first Quizizz attempt)

scores and exit tickets to track students’ growth. At the end of this round, students were given a

survey on how providing immediate feedback using Quizizz has helped them articulate their

understanding and if the feedback was used to meet their needs. Students were also asked how

the feedback has influenced their motivation to revise or complete their work.

Data: Qualitative data included student survey responses to open ended questions. Quantitative

data include test results from before and after feedback. Tallies were marked to identify the

number of students who successfully incorporated feedback.

Data Analysis Methods: For the qualitative data analysis, students were giving an open- ended

surveys through Google Form and responses were sorted into an Excel sheet. Specific phrases

students used to respond to survey questions were coded and counted. The codes would then

group into themes and given a score of 1. Percentages were calculated to determine the
occurrence of each theme. For the quantitative data analysis, student’s individual scores were

calculated and compared to their averages on the exit ticket. Comparing both assessments

determined whether feedback resulted in students reaching proficiency. Throughout the lesson, I

tallied the score BF and AF for each individual student. Comparing before and after provided

insight to which students utilized feedback.

Round 3 Findings

The qualitative data revealed that the majority of students (57.65%) showed positive feelings

toward receiving feedback through Quizizz. Instant feedback not only motivated students to do

better, but also helped them be self- reflective. However, there were students who felt neutral

toward receiving feedback (12.94%). Those with neutral feelings expressed that they felt good or

bad depended on the results. If they got a high score, they felt good. If they got a low score, they

felt mad or disappointed about themselves. Several of the students who felt neutral towards

receiving feedback also expressed that they felt less anxious when receiving feedback from

Quizizz compared to Pear Deck and Google Slide because it was automatic. Students who felt

negatively towards receiving feedback indicated that the automatic feedback did not help them
understand how to arrive at the right answer. For automatic feedback, students had to find the

explanation on their own, why their answer was marked incorrect. The percentage of students

who felt negative toward going over the most missed question in this round was 0% and lowered

than Round 2 (6.024%). It appeared that assigning an optional challenge question has helped

some of the high- performing students stay engaged while the rest of the class went over the

most missed question.

Toward the end of the learning segment, students had two attempts for taking the post-

assessment. The average percentage for the first attempt (BF) and second attempt (AF) did not

differ as much. Some students stated that the automatic feedback did not provide reasoning for

their incorrect answers. Despite the small difference between before and after feedback scores,

the data showed that some students benefited from Quizizz’ automatic feedback. To ensure

students have understood the concept, they were given an exit ticket with similar questions. The

result on the exit ticket shows that providing feedback on the most missed question improved

students’ performance.

Synthesis of Result/ Overall Project Findings

Data from the three rounds of research revealed that the majority of students (54.22%) showed

positive feelings toward receiving feedback through the technology tools. Instant feedback

motivated students to do better, be self-reflective, and helped them articulate their understanding.

Data showed that implementing different strategies on giving effective feedback has reduced the

number of students with negative perceptions of feedback. The data also showed that most

students had a positive attitude toward the whole class discussion reviewing the most missed

questions. The percentage of students who felt negative toward going over the most missed

question has decreased throughout the rounds, from 5.26% (Round 1) to 0% (Round 3).

Throughout each round, scores were tallied before- and after- feedback. Based on the data

collected, the average scores AF was higher compared to the scores BF was given. This indicated

that students implemented my feedback to reflect on their work and revise their work to help

them articulate their understanding. To assess student’s understanding, students were given an

exit ticket. The result from each round revealed that students benefited from receiving feedback.

Discussion and Conclusions

 The goal of this research was to investigate how immediate feedback from different technology

tools impacted students’ learning in math. At first, I did not use the correct instructional strategy

when providing feedback, which prevented students from becoming active participants. As a

result, the percentage of students who felt negatively toward receiving feedback in round one

was the highest. In Round 2, instructional strategies such as, avoiding the perils of praise and

using Ask- Tell- Ask method (Jug, Jiang, & Bean, 2018) were implemented to engage students in

a bidirectional conversation. Students became active participants and their learning improved.

The SRL theory states that when students receive feedback, they will develop self- efficacy and

motivate themselves to achieve their goals (Clark, 2012). Throughout each round, the data has
shown that feedback has helped students be more reflective about their work and motivated them

to complete the task. As a result, the average on the exit ticket was higher than the result BF was

given.

Based on the data collected from all three rounds, lower performing students benefited most

from in- person feedback given through using Pear Deck and Google Slides. However, low

performing students expressed that they did not learn much from Quizizz as it did not provide an

explanation on how to arrive at the right answer. Conversely, the higher performing students

expressed that they enjoyed Quizizz more than Pear Deck and Google Slides because feedback

provided was quicker than the other platforms. To meet the needs of all students, I will find

online tools that can provide instant feedback and explanation if students did not get the right

answer. Further research is required into other feedback platforms such as Khan Academy and

Delta Math. These platforms provide instant feedback and suggestion to help students understand

the problem.
 References

bell hooks. (2017). Confronting Class in the Classroom. In A. Darder, R. D. Torres, & M. P.
Baltodano (Eds.), The critical pedagogy reader (3rd ed.) (pp. 181-187.). New York, NY:
Routledge.

Clark, I. (2012, June). Formative Assessment: Assessment Is for Self-regulated Learning

[Review of Educational Psychology Review]. 205-249. Retrieved November 1, 2020, from
https://www.jstor.org/stable/43546787

Jug, R., MB, BCh, BAO, Jiang, X. S., MD, & Bean, S. M., MD. (March 14, 2018). Giving and
Receiving Effective Feedback. A Review Article and How- To Guide, 143, 224-250.
doi:10.5858/arpa.2018-0058-RA

Lai, C., Zhang, W., & Chang, Y. (2020). Differentiated instruction enhances sixth-grade
STUDENTS' mathematics SELF-EFFICACY, learning motives, and problem-solving
skills. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 48(6), 1-13.
doi:10.2224/sbp.9094

Sidney, P. G., & Alibali, M. W. (2014). Making connections in math: Activating a prior
knowledge analogue matters for learning. Journal of Cognition and Development, 16(1),
160-185. doi:10.1080/15248372.2013.792091