Interviews

The participant voice is typically captured in an interview. I plan to use two different types of interviews where the students will be selected based on a given criteria. This type of selection is a form of purposeful sampling.

The first interview will be a task think-aloud. Students will be selected if they fall into the low, middle or high academic group based on performance in the Logo unit. These three students will be representative of  other students in these three groups. Think of this as finding the typical case. There might not be three distinct groups, so this part of my plan can be modified. The selection components are:

• Students will be given a set of three tasks to complete - the first one is a warm up and not the one I am collecting data from.
• Students will be asked to talk about their steps as they work.

These interviews can be recorded if I have permission. As I examine the artifacts produced by these three students, the think-aloud data will be used to support (or refute) what I am finding.

The second type of interview will focus on students that show a marked change (good or bad) in the attitude surveys (one on geometry and one on technology). The goal of this interview is to examine what types of activities or factors prompted the change. The selection criteria has three components.

• The student's survey responses show a pattern of change over the time of the study
• The student represents others in the same "group" 
• The student will talk when asked questions

 Note that all of these interviews will take place following the study, so I need to plan time to meet with six different students (unless I want to use a case study methodology within the AR study where I really zero in on three or four students).

To summarize, the data sources for this study are balanced between the categories of artifact, observation and interview.
Student work:  Pre-test, selected quiz problems, and capstone project
Teacher/Researcher Observations:  Field Journal and Checklists
Student Interviews (student voice):  Task think-aloud and attitude change

As you can see, this study has seven different data sources (not counting the lesson plans). This is the absolute maximum I would recommend for a teacher/researcher. Because my students are pre-service teachers (adults) and are fluent in social media, I created a private Ning Community where they can reply to my prompts or post their own.  I am not sure if I will use this data source, but it seems like it would be nice to have for post-hoc analysis.

Project and Rubric

If you have been wondering what Logo is, you can check out the graphic below.  Basically, the turtle (shape of the icon) can move forward or backward and turn right or left.  Various programming commands are used (with mathematics at every turn - get it) to draw and color the graphics. I plan on having my students use a 16 point rubric to score the house graphic and the companion Logo code.



At least three colors not counting the background color +4/4


At least four different different polygons and a circle (or part of a circle) +2/4


One main calling procedure and at least three sub-procedures +4/4


Sub-procedures are efficiently coded and the main procedure "runs" three times in a row +4/4


Total Score = 14/16

A few Logo city projects are posted on my Logo-Math Wiki.

Action Research - Artifacts

Qualitative research is all about appropriate artifacts. The RWJF website lists common types of artifacts used in social science research with a specific example from nursing. In the classroom, artifacts might include lesson plans, handouts, assessments, the gradebook and student work. An artifact is any kind of physical documentation that sheds additional light on the research question.

In the LGL study, I could collect everything that is produced from all 22 students. If the study covers 12 lessons, three quizzes and capstone projects, I am going to be up all night and cry a lot.  So I can sleep at night, I am going to select a few choice items to measure academic progress. The first idea that comes to mind is to use a checklist.

To the left, you see an attempted Logo triangle. It is imperative that I have a rubric that is easy to use on my checklist. For this task, three levels is enough: plus (segments meet when I hide the turtle), minus (segments do not meet) and zero (not done).

A quiz problem would also provide some helpful information. One item I plan to use asks for the Logo commands that will draw a given shape.

For example, a regular pentagon with side length 50 pixels would be repeat 5[fd 50 rt 72].  Recall the pretest - one of the items asks for the measure of the exterior angle of a pentagon.

As I think about the capstone project, I am reminded that students should be able to use the rubric. Read more about this in the next post.

Action Research - Field Journal

I am anticipating that the Logo Geometry Lessons study will take approximately three weeks (12 lessons total). It will be important for me to report and reflect on what happens in the classroom and any side conversations that take place with my students. This brings me to a third data collection tool - a field journal.  I am going to try to focus on the following four prompts.

1. Describe successes with student understanding / technology / attitude.
2. Describe difficulties with student understanding / technology / attitude.
3. Discuss anything that surprised/frustrated me as the instructor.
4. Discuss any modifications or adjustments that might be made for the next class session.

The most difficult aspect of journaling is to actually do it.  I am going to have to force myself to use my time between morning classes. To keep things organized, I will record the date and time.

As I look at this list, I note that more data is necessary to answer the main research question. Stay tuned ...

LGL Research Questions and Data Sources

Here is the main research question for my study:  How will the Learning Geometry with Logo Lessons impact my students' geometry knowledge? 

To help answer this question, I created a ten question pre-test.  I will administer it next Tuesday [Sorry, I can not share the pre-test at this time].  I need to think about a few more data sources, because  assessment of content knowledge needs to extend beyond a single exam.

I also want to see if there are any changes in my students' attitudes about using Logo and/or their attitudes about geometry as a result of completing the Learning Geometry with Logo units.  These are minor research questions that can be added to the study with minimal effort.

To gather data on the students' attitudes, I created two short surveys in Google Docs.  You can pilot test them if you like (I will use a copy for my actual study).

Geometry Survey
Logo Experience Survey

I am confident that a review of the literature will show that a teacher's attitude towards mathematics will impact how she/he teaches mathematics. This is especially true for many elementary school teachers.  I am going to read a literature review written on this topic (by a graduate student in my department) and see if he wants to help with the LGL study.  Stay tuned for more developments.