The Impact of SMART Suite in Mathematics

Introduction:

As an elementary school educator, teaching in the midst of COVID-19, there have been

many tools that have been introduced to benefit the learning of traditional students as well as

blended students. One of the many challenges that comes with teaching this school year is

meeting the needs of all students, especially those who are learning virtually. When I was

introduced to a learning tool called SMART Suite, I was interested in how it was different from

other dynamic learning tools and was eager to explore what it offered. As a dynamic learning

tool, students are participating in a live lesson in which the teacher controls the progression of

the lesson. I had previously created and used Google Slides to teach math and found it difficult to

monitor my students’ progress during lessons. This led me to the research question: Will the

implementation of uploading math Google Slides into SMART Suite improve student

performance on math formative/summative assessments? While teaching various

components of Math, it is imperative that students show and present their work to the teacher.

This will help in understanding student mastery in order to reach the specific needs for students.

The reasoning behind this research question is to determine whether SMART Suite is a more

successful learning tool compared to Google Slides? The experiment was conducted amongst my

fourth grade class during my math block.

Review of Literature:

Before conducting any experiment, it is important to research other scholarly articles that

have similar research questions. Although I did not find any articles that were specific to my

research question in regards to SMART Suite, I found numerous articles that referenced the use

of other dynamic learning tools that are similar to SMART Suite.

 The article titled Dynamic Versus Static Presentation Formats, Do They Impact

Performance Differently? focused on exploring the effects of static versus dynamic

presentations to teach mathematical knowledge in an undergraduate Calculus I course. In Spring

of 2017, this study compared the weekly outcomes of students who received a dynamic

instruction, accessing interactive video modules compared to students who received the same

content, but in a static instructional environment. The two sections of students alternated each

week or what instruction they received (static or dynamic). The students were assessed based

upon problem-solving/conceptual questions at the beginning of each week. Results showed that

there were no significant differences in student performance based upon the presentation format.

The students participated in a survey after the study to determine which presentation helped

students master the topic the most. The results indicated that students answered that they were

both equally useful to prepare them in solving problems. In conclusion, McAlpin , Kalaycioglu,

and Shilane’s research quantitatively suggests that students showed no significance of

improvement in student performance based upon the presentation format (2019).

Another article I found useful was entitled Mathematical Instructional: A Conceptual of

Redesign of Active Learning with Metacognitive Regulation Strategy. This article did a study

on the active learning strategy within mathematical lessons and it promotes student engagement

and enhances understanding of concepts. Although this article does not focus on presentation

styles/platforms, it refers to engaging students through active learning, similar to what SMART

Suite offers. “Through active learning strategies, students will be able to develop the real

potential such as self-regulation, self-belief and motivation in every mathematical learning to

become meaningful” (Bakar, 2020). Thus, engaging students through active learning in

mathematics, promotes student confidence and motivation. Bakar also refers that active learning
involves collaboration among students, where students are able to actively communicate and

interact with peers to gain understanding and mastery of mathematical concepts. Collaborative

learning is a key component of SMART Suite, allowing students to interact and learn from each

other.

The article titled From the Static to the Dynamic: Teachers Varying Use of Digital

Technology to Support Conceptual Learning in a Curricular Activity System. This article

interestingly focuses on teachers from twenty-four middle school classrooms and their

willingness to explore new pedagogical shifts and their confidence in exploring Dynamic

Representation Technologies (DRT’s). Vahey, Kim, and Jackiw state in this article, “The

dynamic multiple representations carry meaning beyond what has been traditionally required in

mathematics classrooms in the United States, and these must be learned and embraced by

teachers as means to deepen students’ conceptual understanding” (2020). In order to ensure

success in students, teachers must be willing to explore different methods of teaching. Many

teachers, including myself, can be hesitant to alter their teaching techniques, but it is critical to

meet the needs of the learners and provide them with meaningful instruction. This article does

not show the result of students benefiting from a dynamic or interactive learning platform, but

rather focuses on the teacher’s role in providing quality instruction using a dynamic teaching tool

such as one similar to SMART Suite. When teachers are more willing to explore new methods

and technologies that will benefit their students' learning, they will notice an increase in student

achievement.

The next article that I researched was titled Application of Interactive Multimedia Tools

in Teaching Mathematics--Examples of Lessons from Geometry. This article demonstrates the

benefits of interactive multimedia mathematical lessons compared to traditional lectures. A study

was conducted on two groups of students who were tested on Geometry concepts. One group

was given traditional instruction, while the other group was given an interactive multimedia

lesson. The results indicated that students who received the interactive instruction showed better

theoretical, visual and practical knowledge of Geometry. Not only were they more successful

academically, but a survey was given at the end of study asking which method students

preferred, and the interactive multimedia presentation was the preference of learning

(Milovanovic et al., 2013). I found this article to correlate similarly with the results of my study.

Although I was unable to test two groups, I used historical data from previously taught lessons

that used a more traditional method and compared the data of an interactive multimedia method

such as SMART Suite, showing student success using the interactive method.

The final article that I used for my research was titled The Role of an Interactive Visual

Learning Tool and Its Personalizability in Online Learning: Flow Experience. This study

examined the effects of interactive online learning tools on college students focusing on flow.

Two studies were conducted, one focusing on interactivity of the use of the online tool and the

second study focused on the personalizable of the learning experience. The results demonstrated

that both interactive online learning tools and personalized learning experiences not only aided in

students’ academic performance, but also significantly increased student enjoyment in the

learning experience (Ha & Im, 2020). Furthermore indicating that student engagement and

interest is important when achieving academic success for students.

After researching scholarly articles who have similar research questions, I had a better

idea of how I would execute my study on my students. The research also helped me have a better

understanding of results of similar studies and what would be the best hypothesis for my case

study. Based upon my research, I hypothesized that using a dynamic learning tool such as
SMART Suite, will increase student engagement and academic performance on

summative/formative assignments.

Methodology:

After researching several scholarly articles, my next step would be to execute a plan to

incorporate SMART Suite into math lessons. As a fourth grade teacher, my school requires

classroom teachers to be self-contained, teaching all subjects, therefore my sample would be

based upon my homeroom class. My homeroom class consists of 25 students and due to COVID-

19, four of these students learn online (via Zoom). When preparing for lessons/lesson planning,

my team and I meet once a week to collaborate on methods and strategies for instruction. While

collaborating, we prepare weekly instructional content using Google Slides. Prior to this case

study, I would prepare my Google slides and push out the assignments into Google Classroom

for students to access. When using SMART Suite, I took the Google slides that my team and I

collaborated on and uploaded them to SMART Suite online. I would then edit the slides in

SMART Suite to and make them interactive when needed. When it would be time to conduct a

math lesson, I would instruct my students to log into SMART Suite Online using their Google

information and they would participate in a “live” lesson. Another requirement at my school is

that within every math unit, teachers must provide one formative assessment and a summative

assessment, thus teaching using SMART Suite and assessing the same using the same assessment

platform called Mastery Connect.

To gather my quantitative data, I took formative and summative assessment data from a

previous math unit (Fractions) in which my instructional style was using Google slides. I would

then compare the data from a unit (Geometry) in which SMART Suite was applied and evaluate

the results. I am unable to teach the two different styles (Google versus SMART Suite)
simultaneously, this was my best approach to receive the most accurate data. When assessing our

school district uses the application called Mastery Connect. This application is an assessment

curriculum platform that organizes data in an intuitive, visual way that allows teachers to have a

better understanding of student performance and areas of improvement.

To gather my qualitative data, I used several methods. One way I would monitor student

engagement using SMART Suite, I was able to determine who was actively engaged throughout

the lesson. From my research, I learned “Interactive online learning tools can facilitate a student's

active learning process by increasing attention, curiosity, and interest about the online activity,

and by reducing awareness of physical surroundings” (Ha & Im, 2020). I began to notice an

increase of student engagement and participation when teaching through SMART Suite. Another

qualitative method I used was conducting a survey using Google Forms after giving the

summative assessment that used the SMART Suite learning approach. That survey link is posted

here: https://forms.gle/3QmbHGbUEoqapDAm9. This survey would include questions such as

their preferred learning style, how helpful SMART Suite was to their learning, and their general

opinion of using SMART Suite. The final qualitative observation I would take was student

interest when collaborating with peers using SMART Suite. When students would break into

groups, to complete their work I would monitor student conversation and engagement. From my

observation, I found that students were staying on task and learning from working with others. I

also noted that students were more willing to share their work and comment on others' work.

Analysis:

After implementing SMART Suite into my math instruction, I began to analyze

assessment data to track student performance. I would compare this new data to those of a prior

unit in which SMART Suite was not implemented. I retrieved this data from the assessment
platform, Mastery Connect, which also creates visuals that clearly determine student mastery of a

set of standards. The two units that I am using to compare are Fractions (implemented using

Google Slides) and Geometry (implemented using SMART Suite).

Fractions Formative
(Google Slides Implementation)

Standard: Mastery Near Remediation No Score

(%) Mastery (%) (%) (%)

4.NSF.1 24 28 40 8

4.NSF.2 16 28 48 8

Fractions Summative
(Google Slides Implementation)

Standard: Mastery Near Remediation

(%) Mastery(%) (%)

4.NSF.1 64 12 24

4.NSF.2 48 28 24

4.NSF.3 24 24 52

4.NSF.4 40 44 16
 Geometry Formative
(SMART Suite Implementation)

Standard: Mastery Near Remediation

(%) Mastery (%) (%)

4.G.1 28 48 24

4.MDA.6 56 12 32

4.MDA.7 56 32 12
 Geometry Summative
(SMART Suite Implementation)

Standard: Mastery Near Remediation

(%) Mastery(%) (%)

4.G.1 48 32 20

4.G.2 52 28 20

4.G.3 92 8 0

4.G.4 76 24 0

4.MDA.6 92 8 0

4.MDA.7 36 16 48

Then following screenshots are submissions from a post assessment survey. This survey focused

on the qualitative data of student engagement and preference in Math while using SMART Suite.
I found the most interesting portion of the survey the multiple choice question of “How do you

prefer math lessons?” Results indicated that most students actually prefer the paper packet

method that we used before using Google Slides. I was shocked with this outcome because I

assumed that students would prefer using technology tools to help them learn. Results indicate

otherwise! As I predicted, students do prefer the SMART Suite method over using Google

Slides.

Findings:

After analyzing the quantitative and qualitative data, I was pleased to see that my

hypothesis was mostly accurate. With the implementation of SMART Suite in math, students

demonstrated a higher mastery percentage on formative and summative assessments. There was

also significant percentage decrease in student’s scores that fell in the Remediation category.
Based upon the quantitative data provided, it was clear that there was a higher percentage of

students who demonstrated mastery in the math unit that used SMART Suite as the delivery

method.

The most surprising data collection was the qualitative data on student preference of

math lesson delivery. This survey suggests that the majority of students prefer neither Google

Slides nor SMART Suite, but rather a paper packet instead. I found this shocking as I assumed

that students would prefer to use technology tools during math lessons, but the results showed

otherwise.

While making qualitative observations during the study, I noticed that there was a

significant increase in student engagement. Students were interacting and participating more in

lessons than what I have noticed before. In the article The Role of an Interactive Visual Learning

Tool and Its Personalizability in Online Learning: Flow Experience, the authors state,

“Interactive online activity significantly increased students’ perceived hedonic value (i.e.,

enjoyment) of and the level of satisfaction with the activity” (Ha & Im, 2020).When SMART

Suite was introduced into my math lessons, I immediately was able to notice a change in student

engagement. Students were more willing to participate and collaborate during the lesson. They

were obtaining new material and having fun while doing it!

After conducting this experiment, there are several improvements that I would like to

have been able to incorporate into my study. One improvement I would like to have made is to

base this study on the same unit and having two groups of students being tested simultaneously

rather than just one group at a time, allowing for more accurate data collection. After receiving

my qualitative data another improvement I would like to make is to maybe compare the

implementation of SMART Suite with the use of a paper packet instead of Google Slides, since it
was the preferred method. Furthermore, this action research allowed me to gain a better

understanding of what method of teaching works best for students. I was also able to collect and

receive data that demonstrated that students were more successful when an interactive lesson

using SMART Suite was given. Based upon the outcome of this experiment, I will continue to

use SMART Suite within my math lessons as it demonstrates student academic success.

References

Bakar M.A., (2020). Mathematical Instructional: A Conceptual of Redesign of Active Learning

with Metacognitive Regulation Strategy, 13(3), 633-648.

Ha, Y., & Im, H. (2020). The Role of an Interactive Visual Learning Tool and Its

Personalizability in Online Learning: Flow Experience. Online Learning, 24(1), 205–226.

McAlpin, E., Kalaycioglu, S. & Shilane, D. (2019). Dynamic Versus Static Presentation

Formats, Do They Impact Performance Differently?. Journal of Computers in

Mathematics and Science Teaching, 38(1), 49-76. Waynesville, NC USA: Association for

the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

Milovanovic, M., Obradovic, J., & Milajic, A. (2013). Application of Interactive Multimedia

Tools in Teaching Mathematics-Examples of Lessons from Geometry. Turkish Online

Journal of Educational Technology - TOJET, 12

Vahey, P., Kim, HJ., Jackiw, N. et al. From the static to the dynamic: teachers’ varying use of

digital technology to support conceptual learning in a curricular activity system. ZDM

Mathematics Education 52, 1275–1290 (2020).