1

““ALGEBRA ALGEBRA ALERT”ALERT”

Dr. Rosann P. Sidener, PrincipalDr. Rosann P. Sidener, Principal

Ms. Richelle Thomas, Vice-Ms. Richelle Thomas, Vice-PrincipalPrincipal

Ms. Rennina Turner, Teacher Ms. Rennina Turner, Teacher LeaderLeader

Booker T. Washington Senior Booker T. Washington Senior High SchoolHigh School

Superintendent’s Urban Principal Superintendent’s Urban Principal Initiative (SUPI)Initiative (SUPI)

2005-20062005-2006

2

Abstract of the StudyAbstract of the Study

As a result of the high failure rate of As a result of the high failure rate of students in Algebra I, it was students in Algebra I, it was determined that a new instructional determined that a new instructional approach was needed. Carnegie approach was needed. Carnegie Learning’s Cognitive Tutor (CT), Learning’s Cognitive Tutor (CT), which included a weekly computer which included a weekly computer component along with the Cognitive component along with the Cognitive Tutor text was utilized by all Algebra Tutor text was utilized by all Algebra I teachers.I teachers.

3

Introduction/BackgroundIntroduction/Background

Booker T. Washington Sr. High serves Booker T. Washington Sr. High serves approximately 1450 students of which 78.2% approximately 1450 students of which 78.2% are economically disadvantaged; 10.1% are are economically disadvantaged; 10.1% are Limited English Proficient (LEP) students; and Limited English Proficient (LEP) students; and 18.2% makes up our Exceptional Students 18.2% makes up our Exceptional Students Education program. We were concerned about Education program. We were concerned about the high failure rate in Algebra I where over the high failure rate in Algebra I where over 60% of ninth grade students repeat Algebra I 60% of ninth grade students repeat Algebra I as well as student apathy teachers report in as well as student apathy teachers report in the classroom. We set out to change the the classroom. We set out to change the approach to instruction. For the last nine approach to instruction. For the last nine weeks of school our Algebra I teachers used weeks of school our Algebra I teachers used Carnegie Learning’s Algebra I Cognitive Tutor. Carnegie Learning’s Algebra I Cognitive Tutor. Algebra I classes used Cognitive Tutor Algebra I classes used Cognitive Tutor textbooks and were scheduled into a computer textbooks and were scheduled into a computer lab once a week to work on the Cognitive lab once a week to work on the Cognitive Tutor’s Algebra I software.Tutor’s Algebra I software.

4

Research QuestionResearch Question

Will the use of Cognitive Tutor decrease Will the use of Cognitive Tutor decrease the the

failure rate of high school students failure rate of high school students enrolled in enrolled in

Algebra I? Algebra I?

What will positively impact students’ What will positively impact students’ attitudesattitudes

related to Algebra I?related to Algebra I?

5

Literature ReviewLiterature ReviewCarnegie Learning's Cognitive Tutors were Carnegie Learning's Cognitive Tutors were developed at Carnegie Mellon University as part of developed at Carnegie Mellon University as part of a research project by world-renowned cognitive a research project by world-renowned cognitive scientists who were testing a theory of how people scientists who were testing a theory of how people learn. Research has shown that students using the learn. Research has shown that students using the Cognitive Tutor Algebra I program: Cognitive Tutor Algebra I program:

– Demonstrate an 85%Demonstrate an 85% better performancebetter performance on on assessments of complex mathematical problem assessments of complex mathematical problem solving and thinkingsolving and thinking

– Have a 70% greater likelihood of completing Have a 70% greater likelihood of completing subsequent Geometry and Algebra II coursessubsequent Geometry and Algebra II courses

– Achieve 15-25% better scores on the SAT Achieve 15-25% better scores on the SAT – Experience equivalent results for both minority and Experience equivalent results for both minority and

non-minority students non-minority students

6

Literature Review Cont.Literature Review Cont.During the 2002-03 school year, the Miami-Dade During the 2002-03 school year, the Miami-Dade County Public Schools district commissioned an County Public Schools district commissioned an independent research study by the Reliability Group to independent research study by the Reliability Group to examine the effectiveness of Cognitive Tutor versus examine the effectiveness of Cognitive Tutor versus conventional curricula. The study compared FCAT conventional curricula. The study compared FCAT performance for 6,395 students in 10 high schools, performance for 6,395 students in 10 high schools, including 770 Exceptional Student Education (ESE) including 770 Exceptional Student Education (ESE) students and 976 limited English proficiency (LEP) students and 976 limited English proficiency (LEP) students. According to the study, the students involved students. According to the study, the students involved with Cognitive Tutor scored significantly better than the with Cognitive Tutor scored significantly better than the conventional curriculum students on the FCAT. The conventional curriculum students on the FCAT. The difference was particularly pronounced for ESE difference was particularly pronounced for ESE students, including those with learning and behavioral students, including those with learning and behavioral difficulties, and for LEP students. Based on these difficulties, and for LEP students. Based on these results, The Reliability Group recommended that the results, The Reliability Group recommended that the Cognitive Tutor Algebra I curriculum be made available Cognitive Tutor Algebra I curriculum be made available to students at all Miami-Dade high schools. to students at all Miami-Dade high schools.

7

Methodology/Methodology/InterventionIntervention

• We targeted our current Algebra I We targeted our current Algebra I students which involved four teachers students which involved four teachers and 220 students. and 220 students.

• Algebra I classes were scheduled into Algebra I classes were scheduled into the computer labs once a week for the computer labs once a week for approximately 50 minutes. approximately 50 minutes.

• The current textbook used in the four The current textbook used in the four classes was replaced with Carnegie classes was replaced with Carnegie Learning’s Algebra I textbook.Learning’s Algebra I textbook.

8

Data CollectionData Collection

• We used a variety of tools to collect and We used a variety of tools to collect and assess dataassess data

EdusoftEdusoft Cognitive Tutor Student Placement ReportsCognitive Tutor Student Placement Reports Excelsior GradebookExcelsior Gradebook Attitude Surveys (Pre/Post)Attitude Surveys (Pre/Post) 33rdrd Nine Weeks Grades and 4 Nine Weeks Grades and 4thth Nine Weeks Grades Nine Weeks Grades Homework/Classwork Completion RateHomework/Classwork Completion Rate AttendanceAttendance Quizzes/Test Quizzes/Test (Failure Rate)(Failure Rate)

9

Data AnalysisData Analysis

(See charts/graphs in Excel)(See charts/graphs in Excel)

33rdrd nine weeks grade analysis sorted by teacher nine weeks grade analysis sorted by teacher 33rdrd nine weeks absences sorted by teacher nine weeks absences sorted by teacher 33rdrd nine weeks completion rate for nine weeks completion rate for

classwork/homework by teacher and 3classwork/homework by teacher and 3rdrd nine nine weeks passing rate weeks passing rate

Edusoft quiz Chapter 9Edusoft quiz Chapter 9 Student population – male vs femaleStudent population – male vs female

student profilestudent profile Math Attitudinal SurveyMath Attitudinal Survey

10

Findings/ResultsFindings/Results

Pre/Post Attitudinal Surveys:Pre/Post Attitudinal Surveys:• Most students who answered the Attitudinal Survey want to take more Most students who answered the Attitudinal Survey want to take more

math after Algebra II (71%)and feel doing well in math class is very math after Algebra II (71%)and feel doing well in math class is very important; however, 41% of them feel their math ability is just average.important; however, 41% of them feel their math ability is just average.

• 59% of the students find math enjoyably challenging; they know it is not 59% of the students find math enjoyably challenging; they know it is not simply memorizing formula. After the intervention period however, this simply memorizing formula. After the intervention period however, this percent increased.percent increased.

• 64% are willing to acquire further knowledge in math. After the Cognitive 64% are willing to acquire further knowledge in math. After the Cognitive Tutor intervention this number jumps to 74%.Tutor intervention this number jumps to 74%.

• 61% feel talking with other students help. They have a better attitude 61% feel talking with other students help. They have a better attitude towards math and they tend to agree it is not a solitary activity.towards math and they tend to agree it is not a solitary activity.

• 40% of students feel math makes them confused and uneasy , 47% did not 40% of students feel math makes them confused and uneasy , 47% did not think this way. think this way.

• Only 45% of students feel they learned well from lecturers.Only 45% of students feel they learned well from lecturers.• 40% of students feel the computer is a good way to learn math. In fact, 40% of students feel the computer is a good way to learn math. In fact,

some of the words that were used to describe the lab experience were some of the words that were used to describe the lab experience were “challenging”, “fun”, “exciting”, “comfortable”, “relaxing”, “it’s like “challenging”, “fun”, “exciting”, “comfortable”, “relaxing”, “it’s like having your own teacher”. (See comment sheet)having your own teacher”. (See comment sheet)

11

Findings/Results Cont.Findings/Results Cont.Gradebook Analysis Gradebook Analysis

(Pre Intervention/Post Intervention Period)(Pre Intervention/Post Intervention Period)• During the 3During the 3rdrd nine weeks 37% of students earned an “F”. If nine weeks 37% of students earned an “F”. If

the D’s and F’s were included, 59% of the students would be in the D’s and F’s were included, 59% of the students would be in this categorythis category

• The average completion rate for hw/cw during the 3The average completion rate for hw/cw during the 3rdrd nine nine weeks was only 48%. During the 4weeks was only 48%. During the 4thth nine weeks this rate goes nine weeks this rate goes up to 78%.up to 78%.

• The average passing rate for quizzes/tests was 45%. After the The average passing rate for quizzes/tests was 45%. After the intervention, the passing rate for the quizzes stayed the same; intervention, the passing rate for the quizzes stayed the same; however, note the cw/hw effort did go up and the average however, note the cw/hw effort did go up and the average grade received for quizzes was a “D” which indicated some grade received for quizzes was a “D” which indicated some effort on the part of the student.effort on the part of the student.

• 88.7% of the students enjoyed going to the computer lab and 88.7% of the students enjoyed going to the computer lab and 77.3% liked the Cognitive Tutor software.77.3% liked the Cognitive Tutor software.

• Teachers found that work was completed more readily with the Teachers found that work was completed more readily with the worksheets other than the textbooks. (Teacher oral interview)worksheets other than the textbooks. (Teacher oral interview)

• Worksheets were found to work better for homework not Worksheets were found to work better for homework not necessarily for classwork. (Teacher oral interview)necessarily for classwork. (Teacher oral interview)

• The Edusoft report for the quiz based on Cognitive Tutor The Edusoft report for the quiz based on Cognitive Tutor worksheets showed an average score of 71%. In fact, students worksheets showed an average score of 71%. In fact, students earned a better grade point average when working on the earned a better grade point average when working on the computer than when working in any other category. Could it be computer than when working in any other category. Could it be the practical application that the software contains? the practical application that the software contains?

12

ConclusionsConclusions• Some students did respond positively. By way of teacher interview, students Some students did respond positively. By way of teacher interview, students

who did not perform at all during the entire year suddenly took a liking to the who did not perform at all during the entire year suddenly took a liking to the computer software; they said, “it was different.” “It was easier.” “It was not computer software; they said, “it was different.” “It was easier.” “It was not paper and pencil.” Students do not realize that they are analyzing and going paper and pencil.” Students do not realize that they are analyzing and going through a thinking process to reach an answer while they are sitting in front of through a thinking process to reach an answer while they are sitting in front of the computer.the computer.

• If possible we will attempt to schedule Algebra I classes into the computer lab If possible we will attempt to schedule Algebra I classes into the computer lab at least once a week and use Cognitive Tutor textbook units when it coincides at least once a week and use Cognitive Tutor textbook units when it coincides with the current textbook.with the current textbook.

As one can observe from the pre/post attitudinal surveys, the intervention thatAs one can observe from the pre/post attitudinal surveys, the intervention thattook place made some impact by changing students’ attitudes. (Seetook place made some impact by changing students’ attitudes. (Seepre/post attitudinal survey graphs). Additionally, teacher attitudes changedpre/post attitudinal survey graphs). Additionally, teacher attitudes changedbecause they saw students who had never seemed interested and/or motivated because they saw students who had never seemed interested and/or motivated in class are staying on task during the lab time. Teachers found that the in class are staying on task during the lab time. Teachers found that the

Cognitive Tutor Cognitive Tutor captured students’ attention and students were less distracted during lab time.captured students’ attention and students were less distracted during lab time.Although the passing rate on quizzes/tests stayed the same, we found students Although the passing rate on quizzes/tests stayed the same, we found students

increased increased their effort in class, perhaps the material captured the student’s attention their effort in class, perhaps the material captured the student’s attention or or

theytheyunderstood.understood.

13

GPA on Categories after the Intervention

1.03

1.49

2.28

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Quizzes/Tests Cw/HW Computer Lab

Categories

GP

A

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent Completed

Completion Rate for CW/HW

Pre Intervention 60 48 61 24

Post Intervention 87 70 74 25

Teacher 1 Teacher 2 Teacher 3 Teacher 4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Percent of Students

Algebra I Grade Analysis 2005 - 2006

Pre Intervention 2 11 28 22

Post Intervention 4 10 25 20

A B C D0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Percent Completed

Passing Rate on Quizzes/Tests

Pre Intervention 61 35 57 26

Post Intervention 37 58 58 25

Teacher 1 Teacher 2 Teacher 3 Teacher 4

Results / FindingsResults / Findings

14

Findings/ResultsFindings/Results

Pre/Post Attitudinal Surveys:Pre/Post Attitudinal Surveys:• Most students who answered the Attitudinal Survey want to take more Most students who answered the Attitudinal Survey want to take more

math after Algebra II (71%)and feel doing well in math class is very math after Algebra II (71%)and feel doing well in math class is very important; however, 41% of them feel their math ability is just average.important; however, 41% of them feel their math ability is just average.

• 59% of the students find math enjoyably challenging; they know it is not 59% of the students find math enjoyably challenging; they know it is not simply memorizing formula. After the intervention period however, this simply memorizing formula. After the intervention period however, this percent increased.percent increased.

• 64% are willing to acquire further knowledge in math. After the Cognitive 64% are willing to acquire further knowledge in math. After the Cognitive Tutor intervention this number jumps to 74%.Tutor intervention this number jumps to 74%.

• 61% feel talking with other students help. They have a better attitude 61% feel talking with other students help. They have a better attitude towards math and they tend to agree it is not a solitary activity.towards math and they tend to agree it is not a solitary activity.

• 40% of students feel math makes them confused and uneasy , 47% did not 40% of students feel math makes them confused and uneasy , 47% did not think this way. think this way.

• Only 45% of students feel they learned well from lecturers.Only 45% of students feel they learned well from lecturers.• 40% of students feel the computer is a good way to learn math. In fact, 40% of students feel the computer is a good way to learn math. In fact,

some of the words that were used to describe the lab experience were some of the words that were used to describe the lab experience were “challenging”, “fun”, “exciting”, “comfortable”, “relaxing”, “it’s like “challenging”, “fun”, “exciting”, “comfortable”, “relaxing”, “it’s like having your own teacher”. (See comment sheet)having your own teacher”. (See comment sheet)

15

Findings/Results Cont.Findings/Results Cont.Gradebook Analysis Gradebook Analysis

(Pre Intervention/Post Intervention Period)(Pre Intervention/Post Intervention Period)• During the 3During the 3rdrd nine weeks 37% of students earned an “F”. If nine weeks 37% of students earned an “F”. If

the D’s and F’s were included, 59% of the students would be in the D’s and F’s were included, 59% of the students would be in this categorythis category

• The average completion rate for hw/cw during the 3The average completion rate for hw/cw during the 3rdrd nine nine weeks was only 48%. During the 4weeks was only 48%. During the 4thth nine weeks this rate goes nine weeks this rate goes up to 78%.up to 78%.

• The average passing rate for quizzes/tests was 45%. After the The average passing rate for quizzes/tests was 45%. After the intervention, the passing rate for the quizzes stayed the same; intervention, the passing rate for the quizzes stayed the same; however, note the cw/hw effort did go up and the average however, note the cw/hw effort did go up and the average grade received for quizzes was a “D” which indicated some grade received for quizzes was a “D” which indicated some effort on the part of the student.effort on the part of the student.

• 88.7% of the students enjoyed going to the computer lab and 88.7% of the students enjoyed going to the computer lab and 77.3% liked the Cognitive Tutor software.77.3% liked the Cognitive Tutor software.

• Teachers found that work was completed more readily with the Teachers found that work was completed more readily with the worksheets other than the textbooks. (Teacher oral interview)worksheets other than the textbooks. (Teacher oral interview)

• Worksheets were found to work better for homework not Worksheets were found to work better for homework not necessarily for classwork. (Teacher oral interview)necessarily for classwork. (Teacher oral interview)

• The Edusoft report for the quiz based on Cognitive Tutor The Edusoft report for the quiz based on Cognitive Tutor worksheets showed an average score of 71%. In fact, students worksheets showed an average score of 71%. In fact, students earned a better grade point average when working on the earned a better grade point average when working on the computer than when working in any other category. Could it be computer than when working in any other category. Could it be the practical application that the software contains? the practical application that the software contains?