Mindtools and Graphing Quadratic Equations: Using PowerPoint Software to Create a Mental Model of the Process of Graphing Quadratic

Equations Christian Yates Penn State University

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Masters of Education Instructional Systems

Summer 2011 Christian Yates

Mindtools and Graphing Quadratic Equations

Abstract:
Currently, students face great difficulty in understanding the process of graphing different types of equations. The purpose of this study was to examine if the creation of a mental model using PowerPoint software as a means of practice would enhance the performance of graphing quadratic equations on a posttest over the use of a traditional worksheet. The use of modeling was predicted to be effective because it provides students with a means of externalizing their internal model of how to graph a quadratic function. In this study, it was determined that modeling did increase both the posttest and gains from pretest to posttest scores. This means that the process of externalization through a model was more effective than simple drill-and-skill practice worksheets that did not lead to deeper understanding.

Mindtools and Graphing Quadratic Equations

ii

Table of Contents
Abstract ................................................................................................................................................................. i Table of Tables ..................................................................................................................................................... iii Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 1 Definition of terms: ........................................................................................................................................... 2 Review of Literature: ............................................................................................................................................. 3 Theoretical Justification:.................................................................................................................................... 3 Empirical Justification: ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Observational Justification: ............................................................................................................................... 5 Methods: .............................................................................................................................................................. 6 Research Design: ............................................................................................................................................... 6 Participants: ...................................................................................................................................................... 6 Materials: .......................................................................................................................................................... 7 Control Group Materials .................................................................................................................................... 7 Mindtool Group Materials ................................................................................................................................. 8 Measurement Instruments: ................................................................................................................................... 8 Pretest: ............................................................................................................................................................. 8 Posttest: ............................................................................................................................................................ 9 Procedure: ........................................................................................................................................................ 9 Data Analysis: .................................................................................................................................................. 11 Analysis and Results: ........................................................................................................................................... 12 Descriptive Statistics:....................................................................................................................................... 12 Statistical Analysis: .......................................................................................................................................... 12 Discussion: .......................................................................................................................................................... 13 Conclusion: ......................................................................................................................................................... 16 References .......................................................................................................................................................... 18 Appendix A: Lecture PowerPoint ........................................................................................................................ 19 Appendix B: Traditional Worksheet .................................................................................................................... 21 Appendix C: Mindtool File Rubric........................................................................................................................ 23 Appendix D: Pretest............................................................................................................................................ 24 Appendix E: Posttest........................................................................................................................................... 27 Appendix F: IRB Consent Form............................................................................................................................ 30

Mindtools and Graphing Quadratic Equations

iii

Appendix G: Student Examples ............................................................................................................................ 33

Table of Tables
Table 1. Procedure for Each Group.......................................................................................... 11 Table 2. Descriptive Statistics................................................................................................... 12 Table 3. Confidence Interval With Pretest as a Covariate ......................................................... 13

Mindtools and Graphing Quadratic Equations

Introduction
In high school mathematics and science, graphing equations is a vital skill for the understanding of function families, affects on manipulation, word problems, and natural phenomenon. Graphing is used in virtually every math class from pre algebra on, as well as several science classes like Physics. Unfortunately, this skill has been very difficult for students to master as shown through a wide variety of studies (Even, 1990; Even, 1998; Knuth, 2000; Leinhardt, Zaslavsky, and Stein, 1990; Mokros and Tinker, 1987). These studies suggest that a new approach to teaching students is necessary for them to become successful in graphing equations. The traditional approach to teaching graphing in any math class is to show how to graph via lecture, provide an immense amount of practice problems, and then test to see if they acquired the skill. This method seems to lack engagement of the students. Alternate approaches include using graphing calculators, which lacks the whys of graphing and increased expense for the school/student and plotting points, which is time consuming and also lacks true understanding of the function. Prior methods all lack the student demonstrating a true understanding of why the function looks the way that it does. Methods of teaching graphing should emphasize essential properties of the function family, obtaining student understanding of why the steps taken are necessary, and justification by the student of each step in the solution. By achieving this higher level of understanding in regards to graphing, the student should be able to apply their knowledge to any function within that family, as well as transfer knowledge of graphing one function family to another. The learning strategies that emphasize essential properties of the function family include memorization of formulas to derive certain attributes of the graph, and formation of connections to previously learned function families. If the students can relate the steps to graphing a new function family to one learned before, they should have a greater understanding of why the steps are taken.

Mindtools and Graphing Quadratic Equations

Unfortunately, the traditional method of practice does not encourage this deep understanding, nor does it necessitate justification of steps. Instead, it merely presents problems and asks for graphical solutions with no demand for deep understanding. The purpose of this research was to examine if the students use of the hypermedia software PowerPoint as a mindtool to model thinking would lead to greater success in graphing quadratic equations than the use of a traditional practice worksheet. Through a review of literature supporting the technology incorporation, the need for understanding whys associated with graphing, and the benefit of externalization, the following research hypothesis was constructed: Students who use PowerPoint as a mindtool to create a mental model of graphing quadratic equations will be able to graph quadratic equations more successfully than those who use a traditional practice worksheet.

Definition of terms:
y Hypermedia Software: A program that allows users to create a presentation that utilizes sound, text, graphics, animations, and other features, that can be navigated both linearly or nonlinearly y y Mindtool: Software that allows students to model their thinking while producing a file. Model Thinking: Creation of an artifact that externalizes the internal process that the student must go through when completing a task. y y y Graph: Plot 5 correct points on a given coordinate plane, including the vertex Quadratic equations: An equation of degree 2. Traditional Practice Worksheet: A worksheet that accompanies the book with a list of functions to be graphed. y Success: Graphing at least 3 of the 5 points correctly on each of the 7 items on the posttest.

Mindtools and Graphing Quadratic Equations

Review of Literature:
Theoretical Justification:
Conceptual Understanding: Conceptual understanding in this context would be a comprehension of the steps needed to graph a quadratic equation, and why these steps are taken. Gagne, Yekovich, and Yekovich point out that conceptual understanding enhances attention, recall, and learning (Gagne, Yekovich, & Yekovich, 1993). A traditional drill-and-skill worksheet does nothing to refine conceptual understanding. The creation of a mental model, however, allows for students to polish their internal models by reviewing their notes and examining the text, which will lead to enhanced conceptual understanding (and ultimately greater attention, recall, and learning). Higher Order Thinking The traditional worksheet used in traditional teaching involves asking the student to merely practice over and over again, falling between the lower understanding and applying levels of Blooms Taxonomy (Nitko & Brookhart, 2007). However, Blooms revised taxonomy states that the deepest level of understanding and thinking comes from creation (Nitko & Brookhart, 2007). Using a mindtool to model the thinking behind graphing quadratic equations forces the student to work their way up the levels to creating because they have to come up with their own example and walk the reader through it. Through engaging in higher order cognitive processes, the student should gain a deeper understanding of the content. Meaningful Engagement Jonassen (2006) points out that modeling with hypermedia software forces the student to be more mentally engaged with the subject. This makes the learning more meaningful. As Gagne points out, meaningfulness is a requirement for connections and learning (Gagne, Yekovich, & Yekovich, 1993). Jonassen also points out the additional benefits of modeling with hypermedia software to include

Mindtools and Graphing Quadratic Equations

production of a concrete representation, higher motivation, student ownership of the product, makes knowledge seems more obtainable, and development of critical theories of knowledge (Jonassen 2006). Found Issues in Current Methodology Leinhardt, Zaslavsky, and Stein (1990) say that the current methodologies in teaching graphing (including traditional worksheets) is leading to an inability to understanding critical attributes in the graph. Even (1998) points out similar issues in a study showing that students view graphing functions as only sets of points and cannot understand the graph over an interval or in its entirety (p. 119). To complete a model of their understanding with the support of a mindtool, the students are forced to not only understand these things, but also explain them.

Empirical Justification:
Mokros and Tinker (1987) used Microbased Computer Labs (MBL), which increased student performance by enhancing the understanding of what the graph meant. The MBLs used in this study involved a computer in a laboratory to gather data in real time with the use of probes and other peripheral devices. The study involved approximately 125 seventh and eighth grade students and also used a pre and post test procedure. The MBL enhanced understanding of graphing problems involving real world situations. In this study, Mokros and Tinker showed that a deeper understanding of graphs led to greater performance on tests. In my study, by having the students use hypermedia software to model their thinking , the students should more closely examine the process of graphing quadratic functions, and ultimately perform better on a posttest. Patterson and Norwood (2004) showed that students benefitted from the use of technology, particularly focusing on computer-based laboratories, microcomputer-based laboratories, calculators, probes, internet, MS Word, and spreadsheets, in the mathematics classroom if the individual classroom teacher demonstrated effective modeling and personal preference of usage. From personal observation in

Mindtools and Graphing Quadratic Equations

4 different schools, I have found that mathematics seemed to be one of the subjects that utilized technology the least. Patterson and Norwood pointed out that when the incorporation of technology was made in the mathematics classroom, the teacher must be knowledgeable and excited about the inclusion. For this study, I was as excited about the inclusion of hypermedia software to create a mental model as possible, so it was expected that this rub-off factor would occur. Knuth (2000) saw that we must give students opportunities to interact with, and build connections between, graphical and algebraic representations (p. 53). Knuths study focused on 284

high school students ranging from first year algebra through advanced calculus. Each student was asked one of ten different questions that required a written response. These questions were created to examine the insight the student had in regards to multiple representations of linear functions. In this study, Knuth found that students were unable to answer questions with graphical support and instead relied heavily on only the algebraic forms of the functions (Knuth, 2000). Worksheets only give students the one way direction of going from algebraic to graphical representations. To complete the mindtool, in this study, the student would have needed to understand both directions if asked to create their own example problems, in their mental model, with justifications of each step.

Observational Justification:
In my experience, I have noticed that worksheets tend to be an ineffective method of practice for the majority of students. While the higher-motivated student will force him/herself to learn how to do every problem on a worksheet, many of the others simply do what they can, which doesnt result in a refinement of the skills needed to complete the problems. If the worksheet is graded, many students will write something down hoping to get some points, but not really engage themselves in understanding what is going on.

Mindtools and Graphing Quadratic Equations

The creation of a mindtool via PowerPoint really doesnt allow for this. It is impossible to create a document correctly and adequately explaining how to do something that you yourself cannot do. As Jonassen says, Modeling by students results in students who own the knowledge. Student ownership is important to meaning making and knowledge construction (Jonassen, 2006). If a student was to try to half-heartedly create a document, with minimal understanding of the content, it would be very obvious to the teacher when reading explanations and justifications. This would be carefully examined when the mindtool models were assessed. The PowerPoint activity should also be more engaging because it differs from the traditional trend that the students have encountered throughout years of traditional math classes. Students often complain about the boringness of the lecture, worksheet, and test cycle of the traditional math class.

Methods:
Research Design: The research was conducted using an action research with a randomized post test only control group design. As Mills states (2007), action research is systematic inquiry done by teachers to gather information about and subsequently improve how their particular school operate, how they teach, and how well their students learn (p.20). As a teacher examining the benefits of a treatment on student learning, the methods selected would fall under this category.

Participants:
Out of 62 possible students, 58 provided consent. These students ranged from 10th to 12th grade, between 14 and 18 years old, with a gender mix of 29 males to 29 females. The groups themselves were not as even. The Control group had 16 males and 9 females, while the treatment group had 13 males to 20 females. Their ability level in mathematics would be inversely related to their age (the 10th graders would be considered the most advanced in the school, while the 12th graders would be considered low

Mindtools and Graphing Quadratic Equations

level). These grade levels were mixed throughout the three classes. These students attended a small rural public school. All of the students at this school had used PowerPoint before in their required computer classes.

Materials:
The materials for this study focused on the 7th lesson in a unit called Quadratic Equations in the high school algebra II curriculum. This lesson focused solely on graphing an algebraic representation of the quadratic equation. The materials included an identical pretest for both groups, PowerPointaccompanied Lecture for both groups (See Appendix A), and note-taker for both groups. The PowerPoint accompanied lecture ran approximately 30 minutes and covered the process of graphing quadratic equations in both vertex and standard form (including examples of each). The examples were done by the teacher, where the students could ask if they were confused at any point. The note-taker was a copy of the PowerPoint with words/formulas omitted to encourage attention.

Control Group Materials

The control group used the worksheet provided by the textbook for that particular section as a means of practice. The worksheet consisted of two sides. The first side was called Skills Practice and had 15 total problems. The first 9 problems asked for features of the graph, but not the graph itself. The next 6 problems asked the student to graph the function (these were the problems that were identical to those on the pretest and posttest. The other side of the worksheet was called Practice. It consisted of 16 total problems. The first 9 asked for features of the function but not the graph. The next 3 asked the student to graph the function. The next 2 items asked the student to write an equation meeting certain criteria. The last two questions were word problems involving understanding properties of the graph. See Appendix B for copy of the worksheet.

Mindtools and Graphing Quadratic Equations

Mindtool Group Materials

The treatment group used computers in a computer lab to construct a mental model via the PowerPoint software. The students in the Mindtool Group worked individually and were given no specific instruction on how to model the thought process. They were simply told to explain to the viewer how to graph each form and provide justification. There was no set number of slides. They were told to use as many slides as necessary. All of the students had used PowerPoint before. These students were assisted with a rubric for construction (See Appendix C). The rubric asked the student to illustrate the entire thought process behind graphing an equation in vertex form, standard form, and provide at least one example of each. The rubric also demanded that the student present the information clearly, use organization, provide explanations, and present the information in a professional manner. A presentation was also used with the digital projector in the front of the room to show how to access the Microsoft equation editor to make the math symbols that they may have not known how to create.

Measurement Instruments:
Pretest:
The 7 question pretest (see Appendix D) was researcher compiled, using the test generator that accompanied the text (the same publisher as the worksheet). Both groups received identical pretests. This test consisted of 7 questions, where the student had to graph the given quadratic function on a given coordinate plane. The first 5 questions were already written in vertex form. The last 2 were written in standard form. The students could achieve up to 5 points on each of the 7 questions. They were to graph the vertex, two points to the right, and two points to the left of the vertex. They received one point for correctly graphing each of these 5 points. This made the entire pretest worth up to 35 points. Partial credit could be given if some of the points were correct but not all (i.e. if the vertex was graphed correctly, but the points to the right and left went in the wrong direction, the student would receive a 1/5

Mindtools and Graphing Quadratic Equations

on that problem). This pretest was graded using an answer key. The test was completely objective, as the points were either in the correct location or not. Since the intention of the lesson was for students to graph quadratic equations, and all questions on the pretest focused on this skill, it is a highly valid assessment tool. This pretest was intended to establish a baseline for the two groups.

Posttest:
The posttest (See Appendix E) was similar to the pretest. The same file was used to create the posttest as the pretest. The only change was a calculation of new values. In other words, the posttest had the same type of questions, in the same order, but different numerical values. The same method of scoring was used on the posttest as the pretest. Since the same number and type of questions were used, following the same method of grading, the total possible points was also 35. Just like the pretest, students could obtain partial credit if they graphed any of the points correctly. This posttest was intended to observe student understanding and growth from the pretest.

Procedure:
As per IRB approval (see Appendix F for the informed consent form), for the study, three intact algebra II classes would be placed into groups. For recruitment, three algebra II classes were read a verbal script, given two copies of a parental consent form (one for records) (see Appendix F), told to return the form within a week, and received a reminder email if the form was not returned in 5 days. To establish as close to equal group sizes, the two smallest classes were put together, while the largest class would be its own group. The two sets of classes (the two smallest and one largest) were randomly assigned, via a random number generator in excel, to either the treatment or control group (the two classes consisting of 33 students were assigned to the treatment and one consisting of 25 students to the control).

Mindtools and Graphing Quadratic Equations

10

All students took a pretest prior to any instruction on graphing quadratic equations. The students were told after the pretest that the posttest would follow the same format, but have different numerical values, so they were well aware of what would be tested. Following the pretest, all classes received an identical lecture accompanied by an identical note-taker. The next day, the control group was given a worksheet with graphing quadratic equation problems on it. They had two days to complete the worksheet individually. They were told to use their note-takers and the book to answer the worksheet questions. No mathematical assistance was provided during the time that was given to work on the worksheets. They were allowed to use their notes and text to help them. After the two given days for working on the worksheet, the worksheets were spot-checked for completeness, as was the norm in the classroom. The answers were given, and any questions that any students had were answered. On the same two days, the treatment group went to the computer lab and used PowerPoint to construct a mental model individually explaining how to graph quadratic equations, including at least two examples. A presentation was given to these students with the digital projector in the front of the room to show how to access the Microsoft equation editor to make the math symbols that they may have not known how to create. Other than the incorporation of the symbols, they also received no mathematical help. Only questions regarding the PowerPoint software were addressed. Like the control group, the Mindtool group was allowed to use their notes and text for guidance. After the two days that were allotted to work on the mental model, the file was taken off the students drive and placed on mine for grading. While I graded these, I filled out the Mindtool Rubric (see Appendix C) for each student. The students received this written rubric with feedback back for comments and their grade. At this time, if they had any questions or comments about their grade, they had time to make them.

Mindtools and Graphing Quadratic Equations

11

The following day, an identical posttest was given to both groups. The only difference between the two groups procedure is the means of practice (worksheet vs. mindtool model). See Table 1.

Table 1. Procedure for Each Group

Activity 7 question Pretest Lecture with Note-taker Traditional Worksheet Creation of a PowerPoint mindtool 7 question posttest

Treatment X X

Control X X X

X X X

Data Analysis:
The data from the pretest and posttest were entered into an excel spreadsheet with a vertical row for each question, and horizontally arranged by student. Each cell contained a 0 to 5, corresponding to how many points the student earned on each question. Their totals were added for each test. The mean, standard deviation and variance were first calculated. The difference from pretest to posttest was then calculated in a row following the two tests. A 2 tailed students t-test (with equal variance not assumed) was calculated for on the pretest, posttest, and the change from pretest to posttest.

Mindtools and Graphing Quadratic Equations

12

Analysis and Results:

Descriptive Statistics:
The following are some of the descriptive statistics from this study. See Table 2. Notice that the scores of the Mindtool (treatment) group were lower on the pretest (indicating less prior knowledge), higher on the posttest, and yielded higher gains. Table 2. Descriptive Statistics Group Pretest Control Mindtool Control Mindtool Control Mindtool N 25 33 25 33 25 33 Mean 8.3600 4.5455 15.4400 22.6364 7.0800 18.0909 Std. Deviation 8.32106 5.29204 14.04481 11.18821 9.38936 10.61062 Std. Error Mean 1.66421 .92123 2.80896 1.94762 1.87787 1.84707

Posttest

Gain

Statistical Analysis:
Before running any t-tests, I first had to determine if there was an equal or unequal variance between the two groups. For this purpose, a Levines test of Equality of Error Variances was run on the pretest, posttest, and gain data. Through testing the hypothesis of equal variance, the pretest (F (56) = 9.264 (p = .004)) and posttest (F(56) = 4.074 (p = .048)) showed significant differences in the variances. The posttest did not (F(56) = 1.167 (p = .285)). Thus it was determined that unequal variances must be assumed in the pretest and posttest. A students t-test analyzing the difference between the pretests revealed that there was an insignificant difference between the means of the pretest (p = .052). This result indicated that the control group had no greater amount of prior knowledge than the Mindtool Group. Because the difference was borderline (p = .052) between the groups, in terms of prior knowledge, gain score was used as the measure of analysis.

Mindtools and Graphing Quadratic Equations

13

To determine if there was a significant difference between the two groups, a students T, with equal variances assumed was run comparing the gain scores. The results indicated a significant effect of the mindtool group treatment (t(56) = -4.109 (p = .000)). This means that the creation of a mental model through a mindtool positively affected the graphing ability over the use of a traditional worksheet. After the t-test for equality of the means was run, a t-test showing a 95% confidence interval on the posttest using the pretest as a covariate produced the data shown below. Clearly the treatment group outperformed the control group, with an interval of more than 10 points higher at the bounds. See Table 3.

Table 3. Confidence Interval With Pretest as a Covariate 95 % Confidence Interval Group Control Mindtool Mean 13.073 24.429 Std. Error 2.082 1.802 Lower Bound 8.901 20.817 Upper Bound 17.245 28.042

Note. Mean scores were computed with pretest = 6.1897 as a covariate.

Discussion:
These results showed that the creation of a mental model using the hypermedia software PowerPoint significantly affected the performance of the Mindtool Group. The averages of the posttest were 23 for the Mindtool group versus 15 for the control. In the control group, 64% of the students received a failing grade on the posttest versus 30% of the Mindtool group. For content this difficult, the treatment group performed very well.

Mindtools and Graphing Quadratic Equations

14

Knuth said and found that students need to be able to make connections between the algebraic and graphical representations of a function to truly gain an understanding of that function. This was confirmed by the students abilities to maneuver between the two representations in the Mindtool activity, whereas they traditional worksheet did not force this upon the students (Knuth, Understanding Connections between Equations and Graphs, 2000) . By showing the mental process of taking the algebraic representation of the equation, finding key components of the equation, and graphing it on a coordinate plane, the students were able to demonstrate an understanding of the algebraic and graphical form of the function. To do this with PowerPoint, most of the students began by explaining how to find the critical attributes of the graph (how to find the axis of symmetry, the vertex, the direction of the opening, etc.). Then the students would create their own example, showing each step of the process of graphing a quadratic equation in vertex form with an explanation. Finally, the student would graph the equation on a coordinate plane (most of the students used Microsoft Paint to create the graph). Then the students would have to show an example that was in standard form similarly. See attached student examples (Appendix G). The students were excited to use the technology in the math classroom because the teacher showed a positive attitude and modeling as Patterson and Norwood suggested. Students said that they enjoyed doing something different and that the creation of the file helped them learn how to graph better than a worksheet. Leinhardt, Zaslavsky, and Steins (1990) assertion that traditional methodologies are ineffective was confirmed through my study when compared with a more modern method of teaching. Harvey, Waits, and Demanas (1995) study showed significant gains in both technology assisted and traditional instruction because of a lack of understanding of the whys behind graphing. While using technology to facilitate learning did increase scores from pretest to posttest, so did traditional

Mindtools and Graphing Quadratic Equations

15

methods, meaning that the technology alone was not the only component necessary to solve the problem of graphing. The creation of a mental model utilized the benefits of technology but forced the student to address these whys as the student walked the viewer through the process of graphing quadratic equations in various forms, with justification on each step. If students did not understand why they were doing what they were doing at each step, the creation of a coherent PowerPoint file would be impossible. Lastly, just as Jonassen would have predicted, the mindtool file using hypermedia software did elicit engagement, excitement, and a higher form of understanding of the content (Jonassen, 2006). The students working on the traditional worksheet used what they could capture from the traditional lecture, with little effort to make any further gains. This was both observed by myself while they worked on the worksheet, as well as communicated to me by the students. They completed the problems the best they could and said that they were done. The students working on the mindtool were forced to re-examine their notes or the text to refine their understanding where it was lacking. If they did not, it would be impossible to make a file that accurately explains how to complete each of the types of graphing problems. The mindtool models were all examined, and every single student created a wellthought out, coherent model with minimum errors. The examples provided show very coherent models (See Appendix G). With higher motivation and ownership produced by the use of the PowerPoint software, students were more engaged, leading to the willingness to look up unknown facts. If they were to attempt an explanation without understanding, the product would be incoherent or lacking. The students did not want this to happen due to the pride they took in their mindtool files. As a trained mathematics teacher, I would have been able to notice this when grading their model. Every single model graded received either an A or a B, scoring between a 50 and a 60 out of 60 (when using the attached rubric). The mistakes found were small. Every student exhibited an understanding of the

Mindtools and Graphing Quadratic Equations

16

graphing process. This engagement and higher understanding, showed itself in the form of higher scores on the posttest.

Conclusion:
As a result of this research, there is strong evidence to recommend that practitioners provide students with the opportunity to model their thinking using some means of externalization such as hypermedia software. The traditional drill and skill worksheet did not require in depth understanding or engagement as evidenced by the scores on the post test.. The externalization of the process in the mindtool activity shows to be more important than simply doing problem after problem in learning how to effectively graph quadratic equations in various forms. This is because while externalizing their internal mental model, the students had to refine their and support their notions. Every step in their created examples had to be justified, so if there was any uncertainty, the student would reexamine their notes or text to gain sureness. This process led to higher understanding. In this study, students who had this opportunity through constructing a mental model using PowerPoint as a mindtool significantly outscored those who only completed a worksheet with no difference in lecture, note-taking strategy, or mathematical assistance. This is because the students who were engaged in the mindtool activity were able to externalize the process of graphing quadratics in various forms, walk a viewer through examples in each form, and support each step with a justification. This lead to greater understanding within the students. As more means of externalizing knowledge are developed with new software and technology advances, future research should continue to examine other ways that students can create mental models of understanding with mindtools, their effect on other content (both in mathematics and other areas), and refine the best practices for having students construct mindtools. This could include examining which

Mindtools and Graphing Quadratic Equations

17

software students feel most comfortable making mindtools, to determine which produce the highest quality of mindtools, and which are most appropriate for specific content/subjects, etc. Mathematics classes in many schools are taught in a very similar manner to the way it was taught years ago. The incorporation of lecture, practice worksheet, test, and repeat is prevalent in many schools. This method can even be seen in the supplementary materials that accompany textbooks. This research, along with others, shows that using worksheets may not be the most effective method. Many math teachers reject new methodologies because of time constraints due to high stakes testing requirements in content coverage. This study used a newer method of teaching that required no more time than the traditional method, yet yielded better results. Math teachers should aim to have students externalize their thoughts through creation of mental models, over regurgitation of numerous (seemingly meaningless) example problems which will enhance both the performance and understanding of mathematical content. To do this, math teachers should examine their current curriculum and preference of teaching looking for areas where they can include student creation. Whether it be a PowerPoint file, a blog, a word document, or even a handwritten explanation of steps, students need a medium to take their internal model and produce some type of model. Only then will student practice achieve greater meaning, leading to enhanced understanding and test scores.

Mindtools and Graphing Quadratic Equations

18

References
Even, Ruhama. "Subject Matter Knowledge For Teaching and The Case of Functions." Educational Studies in Mathematics (1990): 521-544.
Even, R. (1998). Factors Involved in Linking Representations of Functions. Journal of Mathematical Behavior , 105121. Even, R. (1990). Subject Matter Knowledge For Teaching and The Case of Functions. Educational Studies in Mathematics , 521-544. Gagne, E. D., Yekovich, C. W., & Yekovich, F. R. (1993). The Cognitive Psychology of School Learning. New York: Longman. Harvey, J. G., Waits, B. K., & Demana, F. D. (1995). The Influence of Technology on the Teaching and Learning of Algebra. Journal of Mathematical Behavior , 75-109. Jonassen, D. H. (2006). Modeling with Technology. New Jersey: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall. Knuth, E. J. (2000). Understanding Connections between Equations and Graphs. The Mathematics Teacher , 4853. Knuth, E. J., Alibali, M. W., McNeil, N. M., & Weinberg, A. S. (2005). Middle School Students' Understanding of Core Algebraic Concepts: Equivalence & Variable. ZDM , 68-76. Leinhardt, G., Zaslavsky, O., & Stein, M. K. (1990). Functions, Graphs, and Graphing: Tasks, Learning, and Teaching. Review of Educational Research , 1-64. Mills, G. E. (2007). Action Research: A Guide for the Teacher Researcher. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall. Mokros, J. R., & Tinker, R. F. (1987). The Impact of Microcomputer-based Labs on Children's Ability to Interpret Graphs. Journal of Research in the Science of Teaching , 369-383. Nitko, A. J., & Brookhart, S. M. (2007). Educational Assessment of Students. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall. Patterson, N. D., & Norwood, K. S. (2004). A Case Study of Teacher Beliefs on Students' Beliefs About Multiple Representations. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education , 5-23.

Mindtools and Graphing Quadratic Equations

19

Appendix A: Lecture PowerPoint

Mindtools and Graphing Quadratic Equations

20

Mindtools and Graphing Quadratic Equations

21

Appendix B: Traditional Worksheet

Mindtools and Graphing Quadratic Equations

22

Mindtools and Graphing Quadratic Equations

23

Appendix C: Mindtool File Rubric

Mindtool File Rubric

Content: y Is the entire thought process behind graphing an equation in vertex form illustrated? _____ / 15 pts Is the entire thought process behind translating a quadratic equation from standard form to vertex form illustrated? _____ / 15 pts Is AT LEAST one example problem completely worked out, with explanations of each step, correctly? _____ / 10 pts

Organization: y Is the presentation logically constructed so that the flow of delivery is understandable? _____ / 10 pts Is/are the example problem(s) completed after the explanation of steps? _____ / 5 pts

Appearance: y Is the presentation done in a professional manner? _____ / 5pts

Total: ______ / 60 pts

Mindtools and Graphing Quadratic Equations

24

Appendix D: Pretest
Graphing Quadratic Equations Pretest
Short Answer 1. Graph the quadratic function
y 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 x

3. Graph the quadratic function y = 3(x + 6)2 + 1?

y 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 x

2. Graph the quadratic function y = (x 6)2 5.

y 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 x 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 x 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

4. Graph the quadratic function y = 2(x + 6)2 + 2?

y

Mindtools and Graphing Quadratic Equations

25

5. Graph the quadratic function y =

y 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3

(x 8)2 + 2.

9 10 x

6. Graph the quadratic function

y 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 x

Mindtools and Graphing Quadratic Equations

26

7. Graph the quadratic function

y 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9 10 x

Mindtools and Graphing Quadratic Equations

27

Appendix E: Posttest
Graphing Quadratic Equations Posttest
Short Answer 1. Graph the quadratic function
y 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 x

3. Graph the quadratic function

y 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

2. Graph the quadratic function y = (x 3)2 + 5.

y 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 x

4. Graph the quadratic function y = 3(x + 2)2 + 7?

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 x y

Mindtools and Graphing Quadratic Equations

28

5. Graph the quadratic function y =

y 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3

(x 3)2 + 4.

9 10 x

6. Graph the quadratic function

y 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 x

Mindtools and Graphing Quadratic Equations

29

7. Graph the quadratic function

y 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9 10 x

Mindtools and Graphing Quadratic Equations

30

Appendix F: IRB Consent Form

INFORMED CONSENT FORM FOR SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH Page 1 of 3

The Pennsylvania State University

Title of Project: Mindtools and Graphing Quadratic Equations: Using PowerPoint software to create a

mental model of the process of graphing quadratic equations

Principal Investigator: Christian Yates Email Address: christian.yates@ctasd.org Telephone Number: (814)479-4014 Mailing Address: 300 W Campus Ave, Davidsville, PA 15928

Advisor:

1.

Dr. Barbara Grabowski Email Address: bgrabowski@psu.edu Telephone Number: (814) 863-2593 Mailing Address: 315 Keller Building, University Park, PA 16802 Purpose of the Study: The purpose of this study is to see if the creation of a PowerPoint file demonstrating the thinking process behind graphing quadratic equations will enhance understanding (as shown through test scores) more than traditional worksheets.

2.

Procedures to be followed: Practice is an essential part to learning any part of mathematics. Many math teachers will give a lecture and than rely on the book-accompanied worksheets for the students to have the opportunity to practice the skill that was taught. This study hopes to see if, instead of using the traditional worksheets, the incorporation of a PowerPoint file that models the thinking behind the skill will enhance understanding. To test this theory, the students in Conemaugh Township s algebra II classes will be placed into two groups (regardless of if they consent to be part of the study). Since there are three algebra II classes, two classes will be in one group, and one will be in the other. Both groups will take a pretest to establish a baseline of understanding. Then both groups will receive an identical lecture. After that, one group will have two days to practice the skill on a worksheet. The second group will go to the computer lab, where they will create a PowerPoint file modeling the thinking behind graphing quadratic equations. The first day will be devoted to the creation of the file, the second will be associated with the revision of the file. Both groups will have a few homework problems in the evening between the two days. Lastly, both groups will take an identical post tests. Consenting to be part of the study allows the principal investigator to use your child s test scores in the research. A lack of consent will still result in the student participating with all other students. All personal information (including names) of students will be kept completely confidential. All files and data associated with this study will be kept in a password-protected file that can only be accessed by the principal investigator and the faculty advisor from Penn State University. It is important to note that there is absolutely no penalty for refusal nor a reward for acceptance into the study. Also, any student may withdrawal from the study at any time.

Mindtools and Graphing Quadratic Equations

INFORMED CONSENT FORM FOR SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH Page 2 of 3

31

The Pennsylvania State University

3. Benefits: Both groups will receive an identical lecture. One group will receive instruction as it has been given in years past at Conemaugh Township. The other group will be receiving instruction that is theoretically sound and hypothesized to enhance instruction. Statement of Confidentiality: Your child s participation in this research is confidential. Every student will receive a randomly generated ID number (generated by the random number feature of Microsoft Excel). There will only be one document linking the student to the random number, which will be password protected. After the tests have been scored and the data has been analyzed, this document will be destroyed. The only two people who will have access to any of these files will be the principal investigator and the faculty advisor. In the event of a publication or presentation resulting from the research, no personally identifiable information will be shared.

4.

5.

Right to Ask Questions: Please feel free to ask any question you might have. Contact Christian Yates at (814)479-4014with questions. You can also contact Dr. Barbara Grabowski at Penn State University at (814)

863-2593.
6. Voluntary Participation: The decision to allow the data generated by your son/daughter to be incorporated into this study is completely up to you. Please note that there is no penalty for refusal, nor reward for acceptance. Any student may withdraw at any time, and any parent/guardian may withdraw their consent as well. Whether or not a student participates in this study will have absolutely no impact on the student s grade. You and your child s decision to be in this research is voluntary.

Please use the following page to indicate your permission to include your son/daughter s data in this research study. Please sign and date the form, and ask your child to return the signed page by _______(date). There is a second copy to keep for your own personal records. Thank you very much for your consideration in this study.

Mindtools and Graphing Quadratic Equations

INFORMED CONSENT FORM FOR SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH The Pennsylvania State University Title of Project: Semantic Networks and Grammar Instruction: Using Mindtools and Graphing Quadratic Equations: Using PowerPoint software to create a mental model of the process of graphing quadratic equations Principal Investigator: Christian Yates Email Address: christian.yates@ctasd.org Telephone Number: (814)479-4014 Mailing Address: 300 W Campus Ave., Davidsville, PA 165928 Dr. Barbara Grabowski Email Address: bgrabowski@psu.edu Telephone Number: (814) 863-2593 Mailing Address: 315 Keller Building, University Park, PA 16802 Page 3 of 3

32

Advisor:

TO GRANT PERMISSION, PLEASE CHECK THE BOX INDICATING THAT YOU AGREE TO ALLOW THE INFORMATION DESCRIBED. THEN PARENT/GUARDIAN AND STUDENT SHOULD SIGN WHERE INDICATED. DO NOT RETURN THIS FORM IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO GIVE PERMISSION. F I agree to allow scores from the graphing quadratic equations pre and posttest to be released to the principal investigator and the research team of this study for the purpose of determining if one type of concept map improves student learning. F I do not agree to allow scores from the graphing quadratic equations pre and posttest to be released to the principal investigator and the research team of this study for the purpose of determining if one type of concept map improves student learning.

I grant permission for my child s data to be used in the research study described above. (Please print parent/guardian s name): ____________________________________ _____________________________________________ Parent/Guardian Signature I grant permission for my data to be used in the research study described above. (Please print student s name), ____________________________________ _____________________________________________ Student Signature _____________________________________________ Person Obtaining Consent _________________ Date _________________ Date _________________ Date

Please keep one copy of this signed form for your records, and return the second to Mr. Yates.

Mindtools and Graphing Quadratic Equations

33

Appendix G: Student Examples

Mindtools and Graphing Quadratic Equations

34

Mindtools and Graphing Quadratic Equations

35

Mindtools and Graphing Quadratic Equations

36

Mindtools and Graphing Quadratic Equations

37

Mindtools and Graphing Quadratic Equations

38

Mindtools and Graphing Quadratic Equations

39