A Dissertation Defense by Mary McWithey

1
A Dissertation DefensebyMary McWithey

• The Impact of a Specialized Math Innovation on
  Student Success

2
Proposal Format

• I. Purpose of Study
• II. Review of Literature
• III. Significance of the study
• IV. Research Questions/Findings
• V. Recommendations
• VI. Recommendations for Further Study

3
I. Purpose of the Study

• If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to
  impose on America the mediocre educational
  performance that exists today, we might have
  viewed it as an act of war (National Commission
  for Excellence in Education, 1983, p.5).

4
I. Purpose of the Study

• The purpose of the study was to examine whether
  or not a specialized math program (Agile Mind)
  was effective in increasing math scores in nine
  local school districts.

5
Agile Mind

• Mathematical innovation intended for algebra and
  geometry students.
• Developed by the Dana Center at UT Austin.
• AIMS grant is implementing and training nine
  school districts.
• A combo of technology, math and new teaching
  methods.

6
II. Review of Literature

• South Texas Facts
• 40 did not graduate from HS
• 38 of children live in poverty
• 5 have an AA or higher
• 57 speak Spanish in the home
• Birth rate is highest in the nation.

7
Review of Literature

• South Texas Facts
• 34-65 pass rate EOC algebra tests (TAKS
  indicators)
• 60 entering higher institutions are not ready
  for college level math (TASP)
• Hispanic population in Texas would be the 12th
  largest state.
• By 2040 Texas will be 50 Hispanic

8
Review of Literature

• Alliance for the Improvement of Math Skills
  PreK-16
• Nine districts Aqua Dulce, Calallen, Flour
  Bluff, Gregory Portland, Kingsville, Robstown,
  Sinton, Taft, Tuloso-Midway
• Higher education TAMUK and Del Mar
• 5 year grant focused on closing the gaps
• Vertical alignment, prof. development,
  challenging curriculum, use of technology,
  research based techniques
• Research is based on the work done by TEA and the
  Dana Center

9
Review of Literature

• Agile Mind
• 2001
• Collaboration with the Dana Center
• Developed through research of high performing,
  high poverty schools
• On line program
• Follows the TEKS for Algebra and Geometry

10
Review of Literature

• Summary of who is involved
• AIMS Grant
• Dana Center
• Agile Mind
• TAMUK
• Del Mar
• Nine South Texas School Districts

11
III. Significance of the Study

• Results target many audiences
• School personnel who help to close the gap
• University faculty who train the teachers
• Families of students
• Knowledge gained from this study help guide the
  improvement of mathematics instruction in the
  South Texas region

12
Significance of Study

• Findings impact the national needs of
  underrepresented groups
• Determining whether or not to continue the
  innovation in the current method is possible from
  gathered data

13
Research Design

• The methods of research were quantitative only
• The design was causal comparative.
• Ex post facto
• The independent variable has already occurred
• The researcher did not give the treatment
• Only describe observations

14
Population

• Target Population
• South Texas Schools
• Sample Population
• All students in 9 South Texas school districts
  enrolled in Geometry or Algebra
• 61 minority
• 50 economically disadvantaged
• 350-5000 enrollment

15
IV. Descriptive Statistics

• Table 4.4
• Descriptive Statistics for 9th Grade TAKS Results
  for Campuses Involved in the Innovation, N 9
• Variable M SD
• 9th Grade 2003 40.44 14.17
• 9th Grade 2004 46.22 13.02
• 9th Grade 2005 53.22 17.06

16
IV. Descriptive Statistics

• Table 4.5
• Descriptive Statistics for 10th Grade TAKS
  Results for Campuses Involved in the Innovation,
  N 9
• Variable M SD
• 10th Grade 2003 43.33 18.62
• 10th Grade 2004 48.78 17.86
• 10th Grade 2005 61.78 10.49

17
IV. Descriptive Statistics

• Table 4.6
• Descriptive Statistics for 11th Grade TAKS
  Results for Campuses Involved in the Innovation,
  N 9
• Variable M SD
• 11th Grade 2003 39.33 5.48
• 11th Grade 2004 61.78 5.56
• 11th Grade 2005 72.33 4.26

18
IV. Descriptive Statistics

• Table 4.7
• Descriptive Statistics for 9th Grade TAKS Results
  for Campuses Not Involved in the Innovation, N
  7
• Variable M SD
• 9th Grade 2003 38.71 13.71
• 9th Grade 2004 44.71 10.13
• 9th Grade 2005 49.86 7.43

19
IV. Descriptive Statistics

• Table 4.8
• Descriptive Statistics for 10th Grade TAKS
  Results for Campuses Not Involved in the
  Innovation, N 7
• Variable M SD
• 10th Grade 2003 37.86 10.82
• 10th Grade 2004 46.00 10.38
• 10th Grade 2005 56.43 9.33

20
IV. Descriptive Statistics

• Table 4.9
• Descriptive Statistics for 11th Grade TAKS
  Results for Campuses Not Involved in the
  Innovation, N 7
• Variable M SD
• 11th Grade 2003 31.14 5.70
• 11th Grade 2004 50.86 5.34
• 11th Grade 2005 70.86 2.82

21
IV. Descriptive Statistics

• Table 4.10
• Change in TAKS Scores from 2003 to 2005 for all
  Grade Levels in Both Non-Participating and
  Participating Districts, N 48
• Variable Participating Non-Participating
• 9th Grade 12.78 11.15
• 10th Grade 18.45 18.57
• 11th Grade 33.00 39.72

22
IV. Descriptive Statistics

• District Level of Usage
• Calallen Low
• Flour Bluff Low
• Kingsville Low
• Robstown Low
• Gregory-Portland Medium
• Taft Medium
• Tuloso-Midway Medium
• Agua Dulce High
• Sinton High

23
Research Question 1

• Is there a significant difference in math
  achievement scores on the TAKS between 2003,
  2004, and 2005 for campuses involved in the
  innovation?

24
Is there a significant difference in math
achievement scores on the TAKS between 2003,
2004, and 2005 for campuses involved in the
innovation?

• Repeated Measures ANOVA
• IV year of test administration
• DV TAKS
• Wilkss ? .346, F(2, 25) 23.61, p lt .01,
  multivariate ?2 .65.
• There is a significant difference in math
  achievement scores on the TAKS between 2003,
  2004, and 2005 for campuses involved in the
  innovation.
• It should be noted that the increase in mean
  between the first two years and the last two
  years was nearly equal, 11.22 and 9.18
  respectively. These results suggest that the
  mathematical performance grew at an equal rate
  each year.

25
Research Question 2

• Is there a significant difference in math
  achievement scores on the TAKS between campuses
  involved in the innovation and similar schools
  that are not involved in the innovation?

26
Is there a significant difference in math
achievement scores on the TAKS between campuses
involved in the innovation and similar schools
that are not involved in the innovation?

• One Way ANOVA
• IV participation (involved, not involved)
• DV Average TAKS scores (2003, 2004, 2005)
• The ANOVA failed to be significant, F(1, 46)
  1.76, p .19.
• The strength of relationship between the
  participation level and the average TAKS score,
  as assessed by ?2, was small (.037), with the
  participation factor accounting for 4 percent of
  the variance of the dependent variable.
• Therefore, the findings failed to reject the
  second null hypothesis.

27
Research Question 3

• Is there a significant difference in math
  achievement scores on the TAKS between campuses
  spending varying amounts of time on the
  intervention?

28
Is there a significant difference in math
achievement scores on the TAKS between campuses
spending varying amounts of time on the
intervention?

• One Way ANOVA
• IV time spent (low, medium, high)
• DV Average TAKS scores (2003, 2004, 2005)
• The ANOVA was not significant, F(2, 24) .33, p
  .72.
• The strength of relationship between the time
  spent on the innovation and the average TAKS
  score, as assessed by ?2, was small (.027), with
  the participation factor accounting for 3 percent
  of the variance of the dependent variable.
• Therefore, the third null hypothesis failed to be
  rejected.

29
Research Question 4

• Is there a significant difference in the effect
  of the innovation across all grade levels?

30
Is there a significant difference in the effect
of the innovation across all grade levels?

• One Way ANOVA
• IV grade level (9th, 10th, 11th )
• DV Average TAKS scores (2003, 2004, 2005)
• The ANOVA was not significant, F(2, 24) 1.50, p
  .24.
• The strength of relationship between the grade
  level and the average TAKS score, as assessed by
  ?2, was moderate (.111), with the participation
  factor accounting for 11 percent of the variance
  of the dependent variable.
• Therefore, the study failed to reject the null
  hypothesis there is no significant difference
  between grade level and average TAKS score.

31
Conclusions

• The mathematic mean TAKS scores for students in
  all districts increased from 2003 to 2004 to
  2005. The mean scores for the non-participating
  districts were enhanced at a greater rate for
  both tenth and eleventh grades
• For participating districts, the TAKS scores rose
  significantly from 2003 to 2004 to 2005. The
  students demonstrated academic success and are
  not falling behind their peers in
  non-participating districts

32
Conclusions

• The time participating districts spent using the
  innovation, Agile Mind, made no significant
  difference in TAKS scores. This implies that
  either the program is ineffective or not being
  utilized to the extent necessary to make a
  difference.

33
Conclusions

• TAKS scores grew for all districts involved in
  the study. There was no way to correlate this
  growth with the use of Agile Mind. However, this
  increase did not appear to be related to Agile
  Mind usage. The study did not reveal to what the
  rise in scores could be attributed.

34
Conclusions

• Grade level did not affect the amount of growth
  in test scores. The difference in growth between
  grade levels was non-significant.

35
Recommendations

• Develop a plan to promote the research based
  attributes and effects of Agile Mind to those
  with current access to the program.
• Ensure educators are aware of the tangible
  benefits that can come from utilizing Agile Mind
  on a more frequent basis.
• Stress to all involved that at the current level
  of performance Texas is in dire straights.

36
Recommendations

• Monitor usage of the Agile Mind program in grant
  participating schools. Encourage teachers to
  become more adept at regular usage.
• Discuss, with all involved, the short comings of
  the training and support given to Agile Mind
  users.
• Get regular feedback from participating teachers
  on their successes and failures with the Agile
  Mind program.
• Provide more guided assistance to classrooms to
  ensure comfort and ease of use.

37
Recommendations for Further Study

• What is causing TAKS scores to increase in
  individual districts?
• Are there any curriculum differences in low
  performing and high performing districts?
• What are the effects of other grant innovations
  being used in the schools?
• How can the large rise in eleventh grade scores
  be explained relative to lower grade levels?
• Does Agile Mind usage in individual grade levels
  make a significant difference in test scores?

38
Recommendations for Further Study

• What are schools not involved in the AIMS grant
  doing to increase their TAKS scores?
• There was a narrowing of standard deviations from
  year to year in TAKS scores. Is the TAKS making
  student achievement more homogenous?
• Is greater growth taking place on the TAKS in
  disciplines other than math?
• How do teachers and students feel about the value
  gained from using the Agile Mind program?

39
A Dissertation DefensebyMary McWithey

• The Impact of a Specialized Math Innovation on
  Student Success