ST (Spatial Temporal) Math®: Impact on student progress

ST MATH – IMPACT ON STUDENT PROGRESS

Spatial Temporal Math® and its Impact on Student Progress

at the Middle School Level

Marianne McFadden

ST MATH – IMPACT ON STUDENT PROGRESS 2

Abstract

This paper studies the impact that the implementation of ST (spatial-temporal) Math®, a visual

support software intervention, has on progress for under-performing middle school students of

two suburban districts in central Pennsylvania. Both schools serve a culturally diverse student

body, but the smaller school has a larger percentage of economically disadvantaged families.

Seventh and eighth graders currently or formerly using the program are being studied along

with their teachers who implement the program as they see suitable for their particular classes.

Two differing surveys focusing on program effectiveness have been administered to these

students and their teachers. Additionally, state test scores for 2013 and 2014 are compared to

determine whether use of ST Math® software impacts learning Math. The study, beginning

with the teacher and Math coordinator surveys in June 2014, continued into the fall with the

student survey and data analysis of updated standardized test scores and demographics.

During the study, my role is substitute teacher/observer – I implement the program according

to the classroom teacher’s plans and help students with lessons while observing student

progress. The study’s findings indicate that the ST Math® program is effective in helping

students to understand difficult, abstract Math concepts, but has not had an effect that is at all

similar to the impressive results that were published with studies done by the program’s

creators. Also, although surveyed students respond favorably to the program, many have cited

other programs as more helpful than ST Math®. Lastly, it was found that surveyed teachers did

not utilize the teacher mode, a feature designed to introduce effective strategies.

key terms: spatial-temporal, blended learning model , self-efficacy, scaffolding approach, teacher-

efficacy, working memory, executive function


Introduction

While studying effective methods of teaching and learning Mathematics, it is customary to

find skilled teachers actively searching for ways to help students better understand difficult

concepts in order to improve progress and success. Likewise, students who are willing to put

time and effort into their studies often look for short cuts and/or multiple ways to learn

concepts that pose a challenge. Teachers who actively utilize a variety of classroom aides

usually feel fairly confident that these tools enable students to better understand material that

can frustrate even the most talented students.

Manipulatives or tangibles can help to ‘unpack’ tough concepts by making the abstract more

comprehensible, and many students become more successful in processes by using such

tangibles. These manipulatives give concrete meaning to abstract processes, thus allowing the

student to tackle problems with greater ease. In a similar way, games and puzzles that

encourage critical thinking help to sharpen analytical skills that are required in higher level

Math courses. Lastly, tools such as the graphing calculator allow for quick, slight graphical

alterations and in doing so, enable teachers and students to quickly explore what effects

multiple variations have on overall results.

Although classroom tangibles, puzzles, games, tools, and software certainly have helped in

the teaching of Math at all levels, from pre-kindergarten through college level Math, very few

tools or programs have actually trained students to understand how abstract concepts actually

make sense. This paper examines one such program that presents the abstract visually and in a

creative, game-like way. The program, known as ST Math® (meaning spatial-temporal), was


developed by MIND Research, an institute that conducts neuroscience research in an effort to

improve educational methods. In conjunction with researchers at the University of

California at Irvine (UCI), the institute claims that developing and training of the brain’s innate

“spatial-temporal” (ST) reasoning ability lies at the basis of creative thinking and intricate

problem-solving. Additionally, since adept ST ability allows the brain to hold visual, mental

representations in short-term memory and manipulate them in space and time, thinking

multiple steps in advance becomes possible and effortless (mindresearch.net). Many of the

skills, processes, and strategies in higher mathematics require well-developed ST skills for

achievement.

The ST Math® software learning tool presents concepts visually so that students see how

correct answers actually work. The rationale is that if concepts make sense through visual

representation, then foundational Math skills are developed so success in working with them is

inevitable – deeper understanding accomplishes this. Since its inception, the ST Math®

program has gained in popularity and studies on student progress have revealed impressive

results, especially through the studies conducted by UCI in the Los Angeles area.

Two local districts in South Central PA are participants in the study detailed in this paper:

Spartan School District and Midstate Township School District (both pseudonyms). This paper

studies how the implementing of ST Math®, a visual learning support program, impacts

progress for under-performing students within the middle school classroom in the participating

districts. My research focuses on the styles of the ST approach. By examining published studies

on student progress while using the ST Math® program, conclusions are drawn about the

effectiveness of the program. Additionally, further conjectures are made with respect to the


program’s ability to enhance student success with higher level courses in Math as well – a topic

of interest to me, an experienced Math teacher at the secondary level, and to all teachers who

strive to help students realize their academic potential through effort and perseverance.

The program has gained popularity and the media has conveyed its purpose and

effectiveness through many videos, some of which are listed below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7odhYT8yzUM

(Teaching Math Without Words – CEO of MIND Research, Matthew Peterson on TED Talks)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7g8pmwLuZxM (mindresearch.net: Welcome to ST Math®)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjOcf8bblLA (MIND Research: Transforming Math Learning)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QJ1KeLHAiE (Linear Equations – Animated Tour)

Literature Review

Matthew Peterson, the co-founder of MIND Institute Research, believes that the way Math is

being taught needs to be revised in order to meet the needs of the diverse students that are

attending schools today. He believes that the skills taught in Math class should apply across

subject areas in solving non-routine problems. While most Math software interventions and/or

remedial programs normally offer the student the correct answer after a few failed attempts,

they do little, if anything, to build mathematical depth of knowledge, problem-solving skills, or

perseverance in seeing difficult problems to completion (Peterson, 2011).

Michael Martinez, a professor of education at UCI, discusses the critical need for the U.S. to

raise achievement levels in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) in order to

increase the amount of young people entering those fields and to increase international

competitiveness (Martinez, n.d.).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7odhYT8yzUM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7g8pmwLuZxM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjOcf8bblLA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QJ1KeLHAiE


Martinez agrees with Peterson in stating that since traditional math education is heavily

reliant on terminology, memorization, and long procedures, many students find higher-level

Math courses a particular challenge. Therefore, a new approach, the spatial-temporal

approach, may more closely suit today’s learner’s needs, especially those who become

frustrated with traditional teaching styles, and particularly those who have learning disabilities

and/or are English language learners (Martinez, n.d.).

Spatial-temporal (ST) reasoning, Martinez explains, is a highly intuitive way of learning basic

concepts (Martinez, n.d.). When applied as a focus skill in teaching and learning, the learners

are required to exercise their reasoning ability as they are presented with concepts as patterns

that are represented by images or transformations of images. Additionally, since pattern-

finding through mental imagery is a natural ability of the human mind, ST Math® methodology

may help students gain much greater levels of proficiency in Math (Martinez, n.d.).

MIND Research Institute developed the ST Math® program software to include interactive

exercises that consistently inform the user how and why the math embedded in them works.

The student user moves through the exercises and is required to test hypotheses, learn from

errors, and view pictorial explanations of both correct and incorrect responses. The program

presents challenge as fun in an effort to encourage students to become life-long learners

(Peterson, 2011).

An independent education consultant from Florida noted in her review that the program

offers self-paced, language-independent, mastery-based games designed to teach math

concepts. Some features include: a) internet accessibility, including iPad and Android access,

b) the generating of reports of class and individual performance and progress through the


program, c) lessons aligned to grade level curriculum standards (including common core) that

gradually increase in difficulty with immediate feedback to every question’s response, d) pre-

and post assessments embedded within each module, and e) programs available at every level,

including a K – 5 program as well as a secondary level intervention for below level performers

(Finley, 2013). Other reviews have noted that a specific version, ST Math® + Music,

incorporates lessons that teach music theory mathematically, where lessons are based on

symmetry in order to enhance student thinking and reasoning by encouraging students to think

visually and several steps ahead (Fratt, 2007). Likewise, another review of ST Math® + Music

asserted that including music in the program strengthens the part of the brain that is utilized in

solving problems in math (Royal, 2007).

In discussing implementation methods, Nisbet

and Luther, both of the MIND Research Institute,

describe how well the program fits the blended

classroom set-up since it promotes individualized,

customized learning and can be utilized within the

online instruction rotation – see figure 1 (Nisbet &

Luther, 2012, p. 5). The blended learning model is discussed within the action research and is

utilized in the two middle schools studied in this paper. In emphasizing the importance of

utilizing the teacher mode feature in incorporating

whole class instruction, Nisbet and Luther note that

class discussions on strategies help teachers to lead

students in making ties between the program


content and procedures learned in traditional lessons. Furthermore, they assert that although

students apply skills as much in traditional classes as they do in ST Math® lessons, the

experience and connections have far greater emphasis in ST Math®, and those features

probably make up for the fewer practice sessions (as compared to traditional) that ST Math®

presents – see figure 2 above (Nisbet & Luther, 2012, p. 15). Finally, the ST Math® Training

Manual itself reiterates what Nisbet & Luther note about

the teacher mode feature – utilizing the feature is crucial

in getting students to articulate strategies when posing

such questions (discussion starters) as: What is

happening in the puzzle? (Explain it!), and: How will this

work on the next problem we display? The schematic (figure 3, left) is offered in the training

manual as a visual for posting in the room for frequent reference, in guiding students to make

careful choices that are derived from analytical thinking (ST Math® Training Manual, 2012, p.

36). More discussion on the teacher mode feature surfaces within the action research itself.

Several reviews and reports of progress are available for the ST Math® program. Some,

summarized below in table 1 reflect successes in many districts in various parts of the country.

TTAABBLLEE 11 –– DDIISSTTRRIICCTT SSUUCCCCEESSSSEESS WWIITTHH SSTT MMAATTHH®® TTHHRROOUUGGHHOOUUTT TTHHEE UUSS

LLOOCCAATTIIOONN//GGRRAADDEE LLEEVVEELL AACCHHIIEEVVEEMMEENNTT SSOOUURRCCEE

Phoenix, AZ - intermediate school

state test (ST Math® users) in 2012 increased by 3 percentiles; whole district scores in 2012 fell by 1 percentile

(District Administration Custom Publishing Group, 2013)

Elgin, IL - 3

rd through 5

th grade

ISAT - state test - rose from 51% (proficient & advanced) in 2005 to 84% in 2007

(Royal, 2007)

Los Alamitos,CA - elementary school

CST (state test) scores rose from 78% percentile (proficient) to the 99

th percentile – over 6 yrs

(Fratt, 2007)

Chicago,IL - elementary school

ISAT rose 13% (ST Math® users) from 2010 to 2011; ISAT rose 6.7% (non-ST Math® users) from ’10 to ‘11

(mindresearch.net, 2011)

Los Angeles, CA - elementary school (LAUSD)

CST (state test) scores rose 11.7 % over 2 yrs for ST Math® users; scores rose 6.4% for non-users

(mindresearch.net, 2011)


In the research that considers the effects of implementing

ST Math® as a curricular intervention program, Schenke,

Rutherford, and Farkas (2014) respond to the dismal findings of a 2007 study on the

effectiveness of educational technology that indicated that there was no difference between

the treatment and control groups (Dynarski, Agodini, Heaviside, Novak, et al, 2007). The

Schenke research team, supported by grants from the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) and

by graduate research grants from the National Science Foundation (NSF), conducted a two-year

randomized control trial of ST Math®, for grades 3, 4, and 5, within fifty-two Southern California

public schools. These schools were eligible to participate since they fell in the bottom one-third

of the achievement distribution, as measured by the state standardized test, or the CST.

Demographics describing these schools include: student enrollment of more than 85%

FFIIGGUURREE 66 –– GGRROOWWTTHH IINN PPEERRCCEENNTTAAGGEE OOFF LLAAUUSSDD SSTTUUDDEENNTTSS ((CCAA))

GGRRAAPPHHIICCAALL RREEPPRREESSEENNTTAATTIIOONNSS OOFF GGRROOWWTTHH OONN SSTTAATTEE SSTTAANNDDAARRDDIIZZEEDD

TTEESSTTSS IINN CCAALLIIFFOORRNNIIAA OOVVEERR TTWWOO YYEEAARRSS,, CCOOMMPPAARRIINNGG PPEERRFFOORRMMAANNCCEE OOFF

SSTT MMAATTHH SSTTUUDDEENNTTSS TTOO NNOONN--SSTT MMAATTHH SSTTUUDDEENNTTSS.. ((mmiinnddrreesseeaarrcchh..nneett))

FFIIGGUURREE 44 AANNDD FFIIGGUURREE 55 –– CCHHIICCAAGGOO RREESSUULLTTSS

Comparisons given by

mindresearch.net for Chicago’s Public

Schools (CPS) after two years of use

in various schools. Figure 4 indicates

that ST Math schools met standards

at a rate that was twice as much as

those who were not ST Math users,

and figure 5 indicates a four times as

much growth for user schools as

compared to non-user schools.

.


minorities with 91% of the students receiving free or reduced lunch. The Schenke team used

these schools in their study with ST Math® as the intervention program being examined for

effects on student achievement.

Schenke’s team described ST Math® as a software program developed by the MIND

Research Institute “to teach mathematical concepts through spatial representations,” where

learning is approached through “a series of game-like activities that are directly tied to relevant

state standards for Mathematics” (Schenke, Rutherford, & Farkas, 2014, p. 217). The focus of

their study on this intervention was to understand how alignment of standards to content

within the ST program affects student achievement. The team noted some of their beliefs

about the Dynarski study and analyzed specific aspects of the study. Among some of their

theories, and in response to the Dynarski study, Schenke’s team offered reasons why the 2007

study produced dismal conclusions:

a) mixed findings may have been related to the curriculum design of a particular intervention; thus the team’s recommending short, targeted interventions aligned to state/district curriculum to yield the greatest effect, and b) the failure of classroom teachers to scaffold the use of technology and/or integrate the scaffolding technique into daily lessons and assignments; thus their recommending adopting scaffolding as a best practice for consistent success (Schenke, Rutherford, & Farkas, 2014). Additionally, the Schenke team cited the 1995 TIMMS claim that average U.S.

Mathematics lessons offer insufficient challenge and often over-emphasize procedural

methods. In response to these claims, the researchers supported standards-based instruction.

This curriculum design allows for discovery learning with the use of relevant activities that lead

to understanding and achievement without rigorous procedures and memorization. The team

stated that the content of the ST Math® program is aligned to state standards, and their studies


showed that the program allows students to work at their own pace. Furthermore, the

researchers analyzed the games in the program and found that almost 60% of the games were

aligned to the strand labeled as Number Sense – or the ability to understand the magnitude of

numbers and to approximate and manipulate numerical quantities (Schenke, Rutherford, &

Farkas, 2014). In asserting that early number sense is critical for later success in higher

Mathematics, the ST Math® program development and emphasis on advanced

conceptualizations of number support the students’ later ability to handle more difficult

concepts, including place-value and part-whole relationships (dealing with fractions). Lastly,

the researchers asserted that the pictorial and symbolic representations of numbers found in

the program further improve number sense ability of the students. The Schenke team

considered the program to be a game-like number sense intervention, with its goals clearly set

on improving number relationship skills. Furthermore, the team emphasized throughout their

paper that an assessment that is most closely aligned to the content of any intervention would

produce the most reliable results; therefore the team strongly suggested that the standardized

(state) test would be the least likely measure to be used as a success indicator. Instead, the

team favored the teacher-made or company-made test (company creating the intervention) as

the appropriate tool for evaluating student growth and progress.

In reviewing some of the points and observations made by the Schenke team, it is

unclear whether the team accessed any progress indicator, other than the CST (which they

clearly stated would be the least likely reliable indicator). Since they favored teacher-made

tests, it would have made sense to have had made comparisons between the ST Math® group

and non-ST group with respect to regular in-class tests (compare average time to take the test


and actual results, too). Also, it is unclear whether these results are generalizable, since only a

specific type of under-performing school district was eligible for the study. Average and above

average students were not considered to be fairly represented in the study.

Another research team, Rutherford, Hinga, Chang, Conley, and Martinez, did a similar

randomized field trial within fifty-two Orange County, California schools in 2011. This team,

(which also included Rutherford from the Schenke group) was funded by the IES and supported

by the NSF as well. Based on the belief that students of the 21st century need to develop

methods to solve complex problems, and in stating that U.S. students are falling behind other

top industrialized nations, the team emphasized “the need for novel and highly effective

approaches to increasing math achievement” (Rutherford, Hinga, Chang, Conley, & Martinez,

2011, p. 2). Additionally, the researchers claimed that by raising motivation, academic

achievement was sure to increase as a result, and the student’s expectancy (or self-efficacy)

would increase as well. The Rutherford team asserted that self-efficacy influenced effort,

perseverance, resilience, and the choosing of tasks (Rutherford, Hinga, Chang, Conley, &

Martinez, 2011). Therefore, those students who have developed high self-efficacy for problem-

solving in math would persist longer in problem-solving situations and this persistence would

lead to greater math learning. Although the team pointed to several factors that lead to

increasing self-efficacy, the one sure factor that both ST Math® program does well and teachers

should practice regularly is provide students with process goals and feedback. The team

assured the reader that the program’s strength lies in the fact that each student response is

followed by feedback (a visual representation showing the student’s correct response

matching a picture of identical length) and each incorrect response is followed by an animation


illustrating a method to correctly find the answer (Rutherford, Hinga, Chang, Conley, &

Martinez, 2011). Lastly, these researchers also pointed to the scaffolding approach, as the

Schenke team did, in allowing students to experience success on lower levels, then providing

support to push through failures when attempting harder-leveled problems (so that setbacks

do not become overwhelming).

In reviewing some of the points of the Rutherford study, it is unclear whether these

results are generalizable since again the focus groups were in California. Furthermore, neither

study indicated any idea as to whether these students would be “followed” in order to

determine long-term effects due to exposure to the program, a feature that I would consider

most important in assisting students to be successful in higher levels of Math. Again the CST

took center-stage and was made to be a major factor in determining immediate – not long-term

– success. I would feel much more confident if either or both teams considered continuing with

studying the same students for a few consecutive years. If I were given the opportunity to

participate in a similar study, I would most definitely follow a group of ST Math® students well

into their high school years, and examine both the level of difficulty of their Math courses as

well as their achievements in their math classes.

In a third related study headed by Natalie Tran of the California State University at Fullerton

and her team of thirteen researchers (three of which were from the MIND Research Institute),

elementary teachers of grades 3, 4, and 5 in western U.S. were randomly assigned to a control

or treatment group to study the effects of ST Math® usage on (student) self-efficacy, teacher-

efficacy, outcome expectancy, and instructional practices, where hierarchical linear modeling


was used to analyze data collected (Tran, Schneider, Duran, Conley, Richland, Burchinal,

Rutherford, et al., 2012). The Tran team reiterated previous definitions of efficacy as the:

“beliefs individuals hold about their own abilities to perform a particular kind of task… affect the level of effort that individuals exert, their persistence in working through challenges, their resiliency when experiencing failures, and their means of coping with change.” (Tran, et al., p. 340).

These researchers also continued with a detailed explanation of teacher-efficacy, as they

defined it to be the teacher’s view of his or her own capabilities as a teacher. This self-

judgment can be influenced by many factors, including: the teacher’s preparation for the

profession, the level of student success, the amount of effective teacher-student interaction

occurring, the teacher’s confidence in implementing a new program or strategy, and strength of

content knowledge (Tran, et al.). Since many of these factors can change depending on specific

circumstances, so could teacher-efficacy as well, in response to the situation. While self-

efficacy is self-judgment on one’s own capacity to perform a task, the Tran team defined

outcome expectancy as “a judgment of the likely consequence such a behavior will produce”

(Tran, et al., p. 341), so self-efficacy logically precedes outcome expectancy. The importance in

studying these concepts lies in the belief that high teacher-efficacy should lead to high outcome

expectancy and positively influence student performance, which would produce high student-

efficacy (Tran, et al.).

The researchers continued with a short defense supporting computer-based instruction (CBI)

as an enhancement to learning that, when combined with video-based instruction (rather than

text), is positively associated with student achievement . The Tran group briefly described a

quasi-experimental study that showed (through performance on the state standardized test)

that individually personalized CBI improved students’ attitudes towards Math and enhanced


the performance of lower-level skills in Math. Additionally, the audio-based CBI programs that

incorporated spatial contiguity were found to have favorable effects as compared to non-

contiguous models of CBI (Tran, et al.).

The Tran team then related the CBI findings with ST Math®, a spatial contiguous program

with an audio component as well. In describing a randomized experimental design, the team

reported that students in grades two through five were randomly assigned to either a

treatment or control group, where the treatment group received at least two 45-minute

sessions of ST Math® each week during regular Math instruction while the control group just

had regular Math instruction. While the primary study revealed that ST Math® had a positive

impact on student achievement on the state test, the CST, a secondary study made by the team

examined if the program had a “similar impact on teacher beliefs about their efficacy and

classroom practices” (Tran, et al., 2012, p. 342). The team applied multi-level statistical

modeling to the study to estimate the effect of ST Math® on teachers’ self-efficacy, outcome

expectancy, and instructional practice. The sample consisted of the 339 elementary school

teachers in diverse classrooms in which the student body was 83% Latino, 61% English language

learners, and 83% on the free/reduced lunch program. Student data in 2008-09 indicated that

students in this county performed higher than other students in the state in science, math, and

language arts.

The teachers’ data set consisted of a 40-question questionnaire for both the treatment and

control group, with an additional 28 questions added to the ST Math® teacher users – questions

focusing on implementation of the program, impact on improved instruction, and support

received in using the program (stmath2010teachersurvey.questionpro.com, 2010). A


hierarchical linear model was used to estimate the relationship between teachers’ participation

in ST Math® and self-efficacy, outcome expectancy, and the use of scientific reasoning in their

teaching. Factors having no significant effects on teacher efficacy and outcome expectancy

included: years of teaching experience, student enrollment in free/reduced lunch and

percentage of students identified as ELL. Results indicating positive correlations between

factors are listed as the following (Tran, et al., 2012, p. 346):

a) strong positive correlation between ST Math® participation and the integration of ST Math elements into the formal curriculum, b) time spent on ST Math® was positively correlated to the integration of ST Math® elements into the formal curriculum, c) significant positive correlation between teachers’ usage of scientific reasoning and (Math) outcome expectancy, and d) significant positive correlation between outcome expectancy and teacher efficacy.

In summarizing the results, Tran’s team offered the diagram to the left, figure 7, as a cyclic

representation that shows the relationship

among the factors discussed thus far, in

relation to the ST Math® program (Tran, et al.,

p. 348). The diagram clearly indicates that

allocating time spent on the program together

with integrating it into daily lessons

encourages student achievement, thus positively impacting instructional practices (including

increased scientific reasoning), teacher efficacy, and student motivation and attitudes. The

team devoted a whole section in the study to explaining how the teacher’s role in ST Math®

implementation (and CBI in general) differs from the traditional teacher’s role – with CBI the

classroom evolves from the traditional teacher-centered setting to a student-centered class,

where students working at their own pace engage teachers one-on-one as teachers offer


tailored assistance to those students who request it. The team recognized the importance of

further study on the implications that CBI has had on the effective teaching and learning of

Math.

The team closed the discussion with a few points they saw as limitations to the study,

including: a) the lack of other valuable data sources such as teacher interviews and classroom

observations during regular ST Math® sessions – sources that could shed light upon how

teachers’ beliefs and instructional practices may change as a result of ST Math®

implementation, b) effects of CBI instruction that are limited in this study to the use of ST

Math® only, therefore limiting generalizing conclusions about CBI, c) the small sample size,

which limits generalizing conclusions to the general population, and d) the issue that teacher

efficacy and instructional practices take time to develop and change over time; longitudinal

data is required in a multi-year intervention in order to document changes over time. Tran’s

group concluded the study and discussion with emphasis on the importance of preparing

today’s and future teachers for more student-centered instructional practices, including CBI, as

a result of technological advancements that influence the delivery of instruction.

In reviewing the major points in this study, it was reassuring to read the limitations that the

group made on their own about their own study. I need to add only a few points. First, some

team members were from the MIND Institute, and while they could have been a help in

explaining any problems encountered with the program that they developed, they may have

been responsible for any bias that may have existed during the study and/or in formulating

conclusions and recommendations. Additionally, once again the schools in the study were

located in California, so all three studies offer no variation as far as location (and culture) is


concerned. Similar schools most likely do things in similar ways. Also, I was glad to read that

teacher interviews and classroom observations were considered important to the team, even

though they did not use the tools as part of their evaluation method.

The next study is one that was conducted by Jennifer Long and Elizabeth van Es, both from

UCI. Their research focused on how professional development (PD) that is designed to support

teachers’ implementation of the ST Math® program impacts the success of the program. Two

aspects were studied: a) what effects the PD had on teachers’ self-efficacy, and b) the effects

the PD had on students’ ease of access and subsequent success with the program (measured by

how much of the program each student completed and what level of proficiency was indicated

on their standardized test scores).

The study included 406 teachers of a single grade, grades two through five, from 50 schools

and began in the spring of 2013. It was not stated what part of the country the schools were

located. Based on the assumption that PD can influence teachers’ strategies and confidence in

a new intervention or practice, Long and van Es studied whether PD could influence teacher

change – change in approach and intensity in implementing the ST Math® intervention. The

goal, then, was to understand if participation in ST Math® PD could influence teacher self-

efficacy, and in return influence their students’ success with the program (Long & van Es, 2014).

The team took into consideration that inexperienced and first-year teachers could lack a

depth of knowledge for teaching Math and this could reflect in a low self-efficacy. If the

teacher portrays a lack of confidence, then it might have negative effects on student success.

Additionally, many teachers, including the experienced, find it difficult to work with abstract

math concepts. Since ST Math® embraces instruction through visualizations, most teachers


would need PD that: a) addresses how to effectively implement the program by building a set

of strategies that correspond to the visual demands of the problems the students are asked to

solve, and b) provides teachers with technical implementation skills (Long & van Es, 2014).

The 406 teachers in the study completed a survey with questions pertaining to three

categories: amount of ST Math® PD they participated in and their rating of the PD’s usefulness,

a rating of their own self-efficacy on implementing the program, and the percentage of their

students who advanced through the software to completion of the program. Results of the

study (models to analyze the results were not discussed in this abstract) revealed that positive

correlations existed between the following factors: the amount of PD received and teachers’

confidence in implementing the program, and the percentage of students completing the

program and teachers’ self-efficacy (for every one-point increase in self-efficacy there was a

6.4% increase in the percentage of students who finished their program). The full paper, which

is not available yet (as of December, 2014), should reveal the 2014 CST results of these

teachers’ students and discuss relationships the CST results have with respect to professional

development, teacher background, self-efficacy factors, and student completion of the program

(Long & van Es, 2014).

This study, although not available in full form yet, offered the most realistic investigation

since it put some responsibility on the teachers’ attentiveness and fidelity in implementing the

program as it was designed. The only limitation again is that there was no mention of long-

term study on teachers or students – it would have been nice to read that maybe the teachers

would be studied for a few years in order to reveal their progress in implementation. The

researchers were clear on the teacher’s role and the importance of whole-class presentations in


getting students to clearly convey their thought processes as they progress through the

program.

In the last study by David Lee, also of UCI, cognitive abilities were the focus as 918 second,

third, and fifth graders from eighteen schools participated (divided between treatment and

control groups) in order to determine whether ST Math® impacted the improvement of specific

skills. (It was not stated what part of the country the schools were located, but again the CST

was a progress determining tool). These three skills were chosen since they are strongly

associated with math achievement and the instructional approach of the ST Math® program:

working memory, executive function, and spatial ability. In defining working memory (WM),

Lee described WM as a “skill that permits manipulation of information as students process

complex multiple steps in math problem-solving” (Lee, 2014, abstract). Lee described spatial

skills as the ability to visualize and mentally rotate objects, two tasks often associated with

mathematical performance. Lastly, executive functions (EF) were defined as “a set of skills

involved in focusing and directing attention” (Lee, 2014, abstract). Lee related the relevance of

these skills to the theoretical approach of the intervention in the following ways: a) Since

students encounter this multi-step problem-solving through ST Math® ’s game-like nature, WM

may be strengthened by successful progression through the program at a challenging level that

coincides with the developmental level of each student, b) Spatial skills are practiced

throughout the scope and sequence of the ST Math® program’s exercises, and c) Students

moving through the program’s exercises are required to perform task-switching (EF) as they

adjust to new and more complicated games (Lee, 2014, abstract).


In this study, since tasks within the program are presented as nonverbal, visual concepts, it

was hypothesized that consistent progress through the intervention may improve students’

visual-spatial skills. Likewise, since the program has a game-like nature, it was also

hypothesized that consistent progress may improve attention control and memory. If these

hypotheses could not be proven true, it was then hypothesized that these skills served as

mediators and moderators of the program on achievement in Math – that is, those students

who already exhibited ability in spatial skills may benefit more from the program’s emphasis on

spatial representations (Lee, 2014, abstract). Cognitive data was collected in the spring, 2011

as follows. WM was assessed with backwards digit span, EF with a measure of inhibitory

control and task-switching (known as Hearts and Flowers), and spatial ability was assessed

through simple rotation tasks. Finally, Math performance was assessed through the CST.

Regression analyses indicated that all three cognitive skills predicted math performance when

controlling for gender, ethnicity, ELL status, and free/reduced lunch status. Results of the

regression analysis of post-test differences in these skills indicated that the program did not

have an effect on the improvement of these skills, where effect sizes were small and

statistically non-significant. The hypothesis that progress through the program would improve

math performance by strengthening these three cognitive skills was not supported by the

results of the study. Lastly, evidence was not found supporting the hypothesis that the effect of

ST Math® varied across levels in cognitive skill; its effect appeared to be consistent across levels

of cognitive function within the sample tested (Lee, 2014, abstract).

Although Lee sort of stands alone with his non-supporting evidence of the effectiveness of

the program, I chose this study since it offered a little variety in what was actually evaluated;


that is, the actual underlying skills that lead to better achievement in Math, from the very basic

to the very challenging of courses. Unfortunately, Lee did not discuss whether there was any

consideration in conducting his study with older students, and then continuing with them for a

few years as well (maybe 7th graders, then continue for three years or more). Lee seemed

unclear as to whether any classes were evaluated on their performance on their regular

coursework (comparing results from ST users to non-users), so there may have been positive

results that were not identified. Lee’s full paper (not available as of November, 2014) should

reveal more information that cannot be revealed from the abstract alone, even though the

abstract was quite descriptive. Table 2 below is offered as a summary of the above five studies:

TTAABBLLEE 22 –– SSUUMMMMAARRYY OOFF MMIINNDD RREESSEEAARRCCHH AANNDD UUCCII SSTTUUDDIIEESS OONN SSTT MMAATTHH®® EEFFFFEECCTTIIVVEENNEESSSS

RREESSEEAARRCCHHEERRSS//AAFFFFIILLIIAATTIIOONN((SS)) SSTTUUDDEENNTTSS AANNDD//OORR TTEEAACCHHEERRSS FFOOCCUUSS//TTHHEEMMEESS OOFF SSTTUUDDYY

Schenke, Rutherford, Farkas; University of California at Irvine (UCI)

third, fourth, and fifth graders Southern California

2 yr randomized control

85% minorities; 91% free/reduced (F/R) lunch

alignment of standards to ST Math®content importance of teachers’ scaffolding when

using CBI de-emphasis of standardized test as

indicator of progress; favor teacher-made or company made assessments

Rutherford, Hinga, Chang, Conley, Martinez; UCI

52 Orange County schools Southern California

importance of feedback in raising self-efficacy

importance of support given when facing failure in order to deal with setbacks and overcome them

Tran, Schneider, Duran, Conley, Richland, Burchinal, Rutherford, Kibrick, Osborne, Coulson, Antenore, Daniels, Martinez;

UCI, MIND Research Institute, Orange County DOE, California State University

339 elementary teachers and second through fifth graders

83% Latino; 61% ELL; 83% F/R lunch

teacher-efficacy as changing in response to adapting to new program and influenced by student success

integration of ST Math® into daily lessons need for 1 on 1 assistance in CBI in order to

transition to student-centered class

Long, van Es; UCI

50 schools; 406 teachers of grades 2, 3, 4, and 5

teachers surveyed

completion of ST prescribed lessons regarded as relevant measure in the study

professional development as influencing teacher confidence in implementing new programs

fidelity of implementation, especially for programs that offer innovative approaches

Lee; UCI

918 teachers of grades 2, 3, and 5

progress measured through CST and three tests of cognitive skills

effect progress through ST Math® has on improvement of working memory, executive functions, and spatial ability (cognitive skills)


In comparing study designs, all research teams considered the California State Test (CST)

results to measure the success of the ST Math® program, with Rutherford’s team reporting that

on the average the treatment students scored 16 points higher than the control group

(Rutherford, Hinga, Chang, Conley, & Martinez, 2011). Also, in assessing motivation, the

Rutherford team used a 7-point Likert-type scale, and results indicated that the effects of ST

Math® were “partially mediated by increased expectancy for math success among treatment

students” (Rutherford, Hinga, Chang, Conley, & Martinez, 2011, p. 10). Similarly, surveys were

utilized in the Long study to determine how teachers reacted and implemented what they

learned in their professional development.

Since ALL the researchers had connections to UCI either as professors, graduate researchers,

or collaborators from MIND, I am most confident that they had many similarities in their

professional discussions about the implementing and evaluating of the ST Math® program.

Their studies were extremely similar to each other, so much so that I had a difficult time in

determining whether they were indeed the same exact study. In noting this, I can conclude

that they would all agree that since CST scores improved (no matter what other evaluative tools

were used), then the program should be deemed as successful. Since Lee’s results were not as

impressive as the others, he may be the researcher who would return with another research

topic and again investigate, but with a differing focus (other than cognitive skills). His was the

only study that evaluated something very specific, not just the overall increase in state test

scores. All the other teams seemed to focus on some aspect of implementation methods, and

not just specific student skills as Lee did. That doesn’t make his findings less important, but I


think it’s a concern, and if I were he, I’d return with a different approach and possibly different

schools and age level.

The studies presented above offer me differing approaches to evaluating achievement.

Schenke’s team modeled measuring success through raised standardized scores while

emphasizing alignment of intervention content to standard-based curriculum. Rutherford’s

team called for measurements that also considered the student’s increased motivation, which

leads to improved self-efficacy, increased perseverance, and likelihood for success in

increasingly challenging math concepts. Additionally, Tran’s team and Long’s team offered me

a better understanding of fidelity of implementation (through effective, valuable PD), so in the

final months of my research (2014 – 15 school year) I have become more closely in tune with

how the teachers I work with use the program. Preliminary experiences with them over the

past few years have shown me the variety that exists in their implementation beliefs (both

schools use the blended classroom with the rotational model, discussed previously in this

paper). Lastly, because of Lee’s study, I believe that if I had my own students, I would make

sure to keep up with the regular classroom assessments (evaluate regular test scores and

compare ST users to non-ST users). My study addresses many aspects in evaluating student

improvement that is attributed to ST Math® intervention in conducting research in answering:

How does the implementation of ST Math® (spatial-temporal), a visual learning support program, impact progress for under-performing students within a middle school classroom?

Methods: Action Research, Data Collection, Data Analysis

Methods of Action Research

A mixed methods approach is used in this action research since the data collection

instruments are both qualitative and quantitative in nature. In order to evaluate the impact


that the ST Math® program has on progress for under-performing middle school students,

qualitative data was collected from teacher and student surveys. Additionally, quantitative

data was collected in the form of Math PSSA and Keystone Algebra I scores in conjunction with

other relevant comparative statistics regarding changes occurring from 2012 to 2014 in school

performance rating, academic growth, and demographic changes with respect to ethnicity, the

economically disadvantaged , English language learners, and learning support and gifted

students. Both the qualitative and quantitative data are considered in evaluating the results.

Methods of Data Collection

TTAABBLLEE 33 –– MMEETTHHOODDSS OOFF DDAATTAA CCOOLLLLEECCTTIIOONN IINN AACCTTIIOONN RREESSEEAARRCCHH ,, TTEESSTTIINNGG SSCCOORREESS,, AANNDD DDEEMMOOGGRRAAPPHHIICCSS IINNSSTTRRUUMMEENNTT((SS)) GGIIVVEENN//RREESSUULLTTSS OOBBTTAAIINNEEDD TTAARRGGEETT SSOOUURRCCEE

AACC

TT II OO

NN RR

EE SS EE

AARR

CCHH

ST Math® Teacher Survey ((AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX DD))

June, 2014

Math Teachers at Spartan MS and

Midstate MS

creation: questionpro.com survey: http://questionpro.com/t/AK5PUZRHnG results: http://questionpro.com/s/1-2479121-3887048

ST Math® Coordinator Survey ((AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX FF))

Math Coordinators at Spartan SD and

Midstate SD

creation: questionpro.com survey: http://questionpro.com/t/AK5PUZRH3O results: NO responses from coordinators

ST Math® Student Survey ((AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX GG))

November, 2014

7th and 8th grade students at

Spartan MS and Midstate MS

creation: questionpro.com survey: http://questionpro.com/t/AK5PUZRuNW results: http://questionpro.com/s/1-2479121-4026937

TTEE S

S TTII NN

GG &&

DDEE M

MOO

GGRR

AAPP

HHII CC

SS

Math PSSA and Keystone Algebra I Exam

taken: Spring, 2013 and Spring, 2014 results: May 2014 and November 2014 7th and 8th

grade students at

Spartan MS and

Midstate MS

www.paschoolperformance.org and www.schooldigger.com

Comparison of Spartan & Midstate: (’12-’13 and ’13-’14) school performance

rating

PVAAS/AAGE

extra credit rating

special populations

statistics obtained: May 2014 and November 2014

www.paschoolperformance.org

District Demographics, (’12-’13 and ’13-’14)

available October 2012, then October 2013

Spartan SD and Midstate SD

www.spartan.org, www.midstatesd.net, and www.factfinder2.census.gov

http://questionpro.com/t/AK5PUZRuNW

http://questionpro.com/s/1-2479121-4026937


In researching the question, “How does the implementation of ST Math® (spatial-temporal),

a visual learning support program, impact progress for under-performing students within a

middle school classroom?” the matrix above summarizes the methods of data collection utilized

in this study. As shown, qualitative instruments designed specifically for this study are

considered with both demographic and quantitative, standardized (state) test results in

evaluating the effectiveness of the ST Math® software intervention. Reoccurring themes

revealed in the data are discussed as part of the analysis of the data.

Beginning with the qualitative instruments, I created both teacher and curriculum

coordinator surveys online, through the questionpro.com free survey website. The survey links

were emailed to all fifteen Math teachers and both district Math coordinators at Spartan

Middle School (pseudonym) and Midstate Township Middle School (pseudonym) on June 8,

2014. Both surveys are presented in their entirety in Appendix D (teacher) and in Appendix F

(coordinator), and results for the eight teacher responses received are presented in Appendix E.

Neither coordinator responded to the survey (as of December, 2014). Both surveys include

questions (mostly Likert-type) on frequency of student use, achievement level of student users,

extent of teacher training, method of implementation (whole class vs. individualized),

observable student overall gains in Math progress, and participant’s input regarding limitations

and critiques of the program. Questions for both surveys were developed by using the 2010 ST

Math® survey as a guide (retrieved from questionpro.com, at

www.stmath2010teachersurvey.questionpro.com). A student survey was developed over the

summer, 2014 with questions – mostly Likert-type – of the student’s own self-assessment of his

or her progress and gains in Math due to consistent use of the ST Math® program and/or other

http://www.stmath2010teachersurvey.questionpro.com/


Math software that the student believes to be instrumental in his or her progress in Math

overall. Additionally, students are also asked to rate the different parts of their hybrid model

(direct instruction, collaborative group, and independent work) in deciding which is most

influential in assessing his or her own growth in Math. Students in both seventh and eighth

grades were surveyed in November, 2014; some were second-year users of the ST Math®

program. The survey is presented in its entirety in Appendix G (student), and results for the

ninety-five student responses received (respondents were from Spartan MS only; Midstate did

not respond) are summarized in Appendix H.

While Appendix A (Spartan) and Appendix B (Midstate) describe general district

demographics, the quantitative instruments are the 2013 and 2014 Math PSSA and Keystone

Algebra I scores. Both sets of scores have been retrieved and are presented in Appendix C as a

comparative matrix of the two schools’ proficient and advanced percentage rates for PSSAs and

Keystones. The scores for the tracking tools from both school years (2013 – ‘14 and the first

semester of 2014 – ‘15) were not requested (but was planned) since neither coordinator

responded to initial attempts and neither principal followed up with my request to invite

coordinators to complete the survey at the beginning of the 2014-‘15 school year.

As far as setting is concerned, both schools are located in South Central PA, approximately

twelve miles apart; a descriptive comparison of the two districts is offered as Appendix C.

Although both districts have a diverse student body and are fairly similar in percentages of

students receiving free/reduced lunch, Midstate Twp MS has a much larger enrollment than

Spartan MS and Midstate’s boundaries hinge upon a large city while Spartan is set in a much

more rural environment. While Spartan is considered as under-resourced, Midstate is


considered as well-resourced. The individual demographics information in Appendices A and B

indicate that the area Midstate serves has a much higher economic status than the area served

by Spartan (see housing prices, educational level, percentage of college graduates, for

example). Additionally, while the percentage of students who scored at the proficient or

advanced levels are fairly similar between the districts (see Appendix C, 2012-13 school year),

when noting the extra credit received by each district for advanced (only) scores, Midstate

ranks much higher than Spartan, thus giving Midstate a performance score almost ten points

higher than Spartan’s (rating 92.1 vs. 82.6). However, in comparison, when noting the same

rating type for the 2013-14 school year, results and ratings change greatly, especially for

Midstate. Comments on these differing results will be considered in the findings and discussion

section. Lastly, the percentage of gifted students at each school differ by several percentage

points (Spartan at 2.84% and Midstate at 10.97% for the 2012-13 school year), but their

percentages reflecting the economically disadvantaged do not differ much. The state ranking of

the schools in relation to all other middle schools (numbering 745, total) in the state differ

greatly: for 2012-13, Spartan ranks 291st and Midstate ranks 132nd. The state wide rankings for

the 2013-‘14 school year were not available yet (with schooldigger.com, as of December, 2014).

I have taught Math as a full-time secondary teacher for over twenty-five years, and the

courses I have taught range from Pre-Algebra to Pre-Calculus; I taught middle school students,

grade 7, full-time for one year. Additionally, I have served as a remediation coordinator for

seven years and have used many types of remedial/tutorial software interventions in

remediating struggling high school Math students. For this reason, I felt comfortable in

choosing this program for evaluation. I currently serve as a daily substitute in both schools in


the study, and since both use the ST Math® program and I am familiar with their unique school

atmospheres and procedures, I have chosen these schools for my study.

I have had friendly, professional contact with both principals and assistant principals when

completing earlier projects within my graduate program, and this project was received similarly

– it has been welcomed as valuable in studying students’ progress, especially within the Spartan

Middle School community.

Data collection instruments were easily administered to Spartan students. I emailed their

principal to ask permission to administer the survey and he posted the survey link on the daily

announcements website. Students easily completed the survey, using their own personal

district-supplied computer. Since Midstate changed their daily schedule to include common

study hall time only occasionally and not daily, the principal could not honor my request in

having the students complete the survey. New teachers to the schools and/or program were

not surveyed, although their initial impressions on the program’s strengths and weaknesses

have been informally discussed during some of my substituting days. Data collected from

teachers who currently use the program is discussed in the data analysis – findings and

discussion section. Informal observations that I have been able to complete (in order to see

how the teachers implement the program – whole class instruction vs. individualized access)

will be evaluated in the findings and discussion section.

Data Collection Tasks - Timeline

An outline of my schedule for implementation of my action research plan:

SSpprriinngg,, 22001144 (May, June)

develop teacher survey and curriculum coordinator survey through questionpro.com

administer and collect initial data (online) from teacher survey


administer and collect initial data (online) from curriculum coordinator survey

(survey was administered on June 8th, but no responses collected – see revisions below)

collect 2013 Math PSSA & Keystone Algebra I results for Spartan MS and Midstate Twp MS

(through district websites, paschoolperformance.org, schooldigger.com)

collaborate with peers in class for ideas on revising coordinator survey (goal: shorten, then

restructure open-ended questions to speed up completion time and encourage responses)

begin to follow MIND Research Institute through LinkedIn; investigate other companies to

follow that are associated with ST Math® and available through LinkedIn

register to receive Education Week’s electronic copies of ST Math® press releases

connect with professionals on LinkedIn who are utilizing ST Math® in their classes

prepare and submit action research proposal

SSuummmmeerr,, 22001144 (June – August)

develop student survey to be administered to 8th grade students at Spartan MS and Midstate Twp MS in mid-September, 2014 acknowledge and thank responders (8 responses of 15 invited) for time given to survey revise curriculum coordinator survey on questionpro.com to similar length of teacher survey

(NOT completed – principals did NOT offer encouragement in presenting coordinators with survry

obtain full manuscripts of the Lee study and Long study (UCI researchers) – not available view ST Math® Fractions demo, available through mindresearch.net investigate gaining access to ST Math® program (an app) – no independent usage

⇛ ONGOING; CONTINUE INTO FALL: read/study ST Training Manual in order to more effectively aid ST Math® students in new school year and to make more informed observations of the program’s implementation investigate/attend training webinars offered for ST Math® (may not be offered in summer) –

none available after school hours keep up-to-date with Ed Week’s press releases and LinkedIn’s connections to ST Math®;

read/print relevant information for action research investigate the ST Manual’s information regarding symposiums and workshops, possibly for the fall (partner with teachers from schools in the action research – a possibility) read evaluation of LAUSD’s implementation of ST Math® by WestEd (independent education research company) and research whether they evaluated other districts as well view youtube submissions on ST Math®, as well as blog entries (some available in

mindresearch.net), reviews, critiques

EEaarrllyy ffaallll,, 22001144 (September, into October)

CONTINUE last six on-going tasks listed for the summer: ST Training Manual webinars – none available Ed Week; LinkedIn symposiums, workshops, professional development, IU13? – none avaialble


WestEd’s evaluations of ST Math® blogs, reviews, critiques

re-attempt surveying coordinators; maybe set up brief intro interview to discuss goals of action research

administer and collect data online (through questionpro) from curriculum coordinator

survey; thank coordinators for time given to research project – principals did not offer help

administer and collect data online (through questionpro) from student survey – 8th graders, second year using ST Math® collect 2014 Math PSSA & Keystone Algebra I results for Spartan MS and Midstate Twp MS

(through district websites, paschoolperformance.org, schooldigger.com)

collect data from any/all progress tracking tools (STAR test at Spartan MS, for example) –

none available

assist ST Math® students in classes where it is being used use planning/prep time to observe other teachers’ implementation styles of ST Math®

LLaattee ffaallll,, 22001144 (October – December) continue to assist ST Math® students and actively discuss program with teachers organize data in preparation for triangulation (teacher, coordinator, and student surveys, standardized test scores, benchmarking/progress tracking results) triangulate results in accordance with methods of analysis learned in EDG 596; prepare discussions and conclusions review results and write final portions of action research project, including answer to research question prepare and submit action research report

Methods of Data Analysis

Data from both qualitative and quantitative instruments were collected from June, 2014

through December, 2014. Triangulations of data sources were used to analyze the results in

order to draw conclusions, cite implications, make recommendations, and formulate an

informed answer to the research question. In the process, thematic results surfaced in three

categories: methods in the program’s implementation, specific preferences of teachers and

students, and comparative standardized test scores in relation to routine usage of the program.

These themes and supporting evidence are considered in the next section.


Data Analysis – Findings and Discussions

Data collected through action research instruments and testing results/demographics

sources were considered together as triangulation revealed distinct themes.

The first theme that surfaced involves how the schools implement the program and

corresponding concerns that teachers have voiced with implementing the program. While both

schools routinely require their low-achieving students to work on the ST Math® program, most

of my observing during substituting over the past two years has revealed that the work in the

ST Math® lessons is remedial in nature – the lessons attempted do not support current

classroom material being covered. Both schools follow the hybrid (rotational) model for Math

instruction, where the class period is split into three segments of roughly 28 to 30 minutes

each. Rotations are direct instruction, collaborative group, and independent work. ST Math® is

completed during the independent rotation. Only Spartan MS adds a whole-group instruction

portion of about 12 minutes to the beginning of the class, when students learn in a traditional

style during this warm-up time. Spartan uses the hybrid model for all its Math classes, both

high and low abilities. Midstate uses the model only for low-achievers, and their class period

length is similar to Spartan’s 90-minute period, but their average and accelerated classes are

traditional-style (45minutes), not hybrid. Teachers surveyed voiced concerns (see Teacher

Survey results in Appendix E, Table E2) in using the program, shown below as:

Do you believe the program has any LIMITATIONS? If so, briefly describe.

TABLE E2: CONCERNS VOICED: need for weekly time reports total minutes, not total puzzles are reported to the teacher not clear on how to work some of the puzzles; connections

between puzzles and Math not clear students not paying attention to Math in midst of puzzles cannot connect puzzles with content taught in class


It is evident, through the concerns voiced in Table E2, that some teachers have a difficult time

connecting the purpose of some puzzles to the content taught in class, so they feel the program

is limited in its use and effectiveness. Additionally, another concern teachers voiced was that

students are not paying attention to the Math embedded in the puzzles. However, in my

observations, I have witnessed just the opposite – I often see students very focused as they

carefully choose pieces to complete a correct response in ‘making a puzzle work’, and if they

have problems, they do ask for my assistance. Some students touch the screen in visualizing

measuring pieces so that the parts fit to make the puzzle whole. I rarely find such focus in

other programs and in some of the other programs students ask fewer questions and make

more guesses. What frustrates me is the fact that students could very well obtain a correct

response in the other programs if they work out the problem presented on paper, but very few

students will do that. Since ST Math® is a visual program, most of the time paper really is not

necessary; visualizations suffice in getting through each puzzle successfully, but since each

response is proven or disproven, immediate feedback increases the chances of the student’s

next response as being correct. Seemingly, this method builds perseverance and concentration

while improving cognitive thinking skills and the understanding of complex concepts.

When asked to comment on use only with low-achieving students, Lucy Bonwaller

(pseudonym), an 8th grade teacher at Spartan Middle School responded, “Since I teach

Keystone Alg (Algebra) this year, my students think STmath is too childish and simple. They

don't like the ‘games’ and it doesn't address the concepts for Keystone Alg” (Lucy Bonwaller,

email, December 5, 2014). Lucy’s comments suggest that the program was designed solely for


remediation of under-achieving students, thus reflecting the responses of her colleagues

(indicating that 80% of the students using the program are either on level or remedial):

What is the class ability level (or achievement level) of your students - those who are assigned to use the ST Math® program? (CChhoooossee AALLLL tthhaatt aappppllyy) TTAABBLLEE EE11-- CCLLAASSSS AABBIILLIITTYY LLEEVVEELL 15 total responses:

☑ honors or advanced 13.33% 20%

☑ accelerated (above average) 6.67%

☑ on grade level 33.33% 80%

☑ remedial (below grade level) 46.67%

Table E1, shown above, is part of the Teacher Survey results, presented in Appendix E.

In contrast to Lucy’s comments, the UCI and MIND Research studies described in the literature

review support a stronger implementation where alignment of standards to ST Math® content

(the Schenke team’s study), the use of scaffolding (Schenke) and the need for one-to-one

assistance in computer-based instruction in order to transform into a student-centered class

(the Tran team’s study) promote an effective program in which progress is observed.

Furthermore, the program description (in mindresearch.net) includes the claim that the content

in ST Math® software is fully aligned to the standards, including Common Core. I would imagine

that more detailed materials are supplied with a subscription to the program.

The second theme revealed through data analysis centers on preferences expressed by

teachers and students involved with ST Math® and other Math software. When surveying the

teachers, ALL eight respondents answered “no” to the question asking whether they made use

of the teacher mode option available with the ST Math® program. This option, available with

any puzzle within the program, is designed to allow teachers to preview ST puzzles with

students. With this feature, pausing the animation so students can analyze visual feedback

(then explain in their own words what is happening in the puzzle) is an essential strategy for

teachers to explore routinely with students. As the teacher’s manual states, “This can be a


great instructional tool to illustrate important mathematical concepts as ST Math® games are

integrated into classroom lessons.” (ST Math® Training Manual, 2012, p. 18). As mentioned in

the first theme, integration is ‘key’ to success with the program in evaluating it as effective in

enhancing student progress. The Training Manual devotes a whole section to the importance

of teacher mode and emphasizes that its use is imperative in creating a sound, support program

for students to progress.

In examining the “preference” data in the student survey, some surprising results were

revealed as far as which software program is preferred (as most helpful in raising their efforts

and/or achievements in Math) by students and what part of the hybrid model is the most

beneficial to them in contributing to increasing their success in Math. Results are shown as

(Appendix H, student survey results, Tables H2 and H4):

Please check the program that you think helps or helped you the most in Math. TTAABBLLEE HH22 –– MMOOSSTT EEFFFFEECCTTIIVVEE PPRROOGGRRAAMM

ALEKS 0% This student response clearly indicates that students prefer the IXL program over the ST Math® program when evaluating its effect on their own progress in Math class.

Compass Learning 6.32% IXL 64.21% ST Math® 17.89% Study Island 5.26% Other 6.32% Khan Academy (2 responses)

Please give your HONEST rating for the following statements:

TTAABBLLEE HH44 –– RROOTTAATTIIOONN PPRREEFFEERREENNCCEESS Strongly

Agree Agree

Neither Agree Nor

Disagree

Disagree Strongly Disagree

Cannot Make A

Judgment

I learn more about Math working on my own on the ST Math® program than I do when I’m working in my collaborative group or when I’m getting direct instruction.

20% 30.53% 24.21% 24.21% 1.05%

I prefer working alone rather than in a group when doing Math. 30.53% 21.05% 20% 26.32% 2.11%

The way ST Math® shows why my answer is right or wrong definitely makes Math easier to understand and is better than having a teacher or aide explain the Math to me.

15.79% 23.16% 34.74% 25.76% 1.05%

I get more out of working in a collaborative group than working alone on the ST Math® personalized program.

46.32% 27.37% 11.58% 11.58% 3.16%


I learn more in direct instruction in Math than I do when I’m working on my individual program in ST Math®.

62.1% 18.95% 9.47% 6.32% 3.16%

As indicated in Table H2, the IXL Math program is preferred the most, over and above any of

the other programs – NO other program is even close to the 64% approval rating of IXL Math.

Additionally, table H4 shows that 62% of the students prefer direct instruction over ST Math®

and 46.3% prefer collaborative groups over ST Math®. Therefore, independent CBI is not a

preferred method of learning among those surveyed; instead many students are most

comfortable with traditional-style learning, referred to as direct instruction in the hybrid model.

This preference surprises me since students seemingly respond favorably (in both schools) to

the opportunity to use a computer as part of their daily routine in the classroom. Few students

abuse this privilege and most remain focused during this segment – at least this is what I’ve

consistently observed. Also, the opportunity to work at their own pace helps to remove the

anxiety that is associated with keeping up with the more advanced learners in the room.

The third theme that surfaced while analyzing data focuses on comparative standardized test

scores for the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 school years in relation to the ongoing use of the

program.

In supporting these results, I had the opportunity, very recently, to informally discuss these

findings (and meanings) with Spartan’s principal, one of Spartan’s Math teachers, and a parent

of a Spartan MS student. The conversations occurred on December 18, 2014, when I was

assigned to Spartan MS as a substitute. I first met Jeremy Solaro (pseudonym, Spartan MS’s

principal) who commented on student preferences when I mentioned the students’ rating IXL

well over and above ST Math® as being the most beneficial as contributing to their progress in


Math. Mr. Solaro believes that IXL’s ‘worksheet look-alike’ appearance affected the students’

choosing it as most beneficial. He pointed out that it is the most straightforward so the

students immediately see the relevance. Also, he commented that the left-brain thinking may

go into overload when attempting puzzle after puzzle, so students naturally lose the connection

between puzzle solving and content being addressed in classroom lessons (Jeremy Solaro,

personal communication, December 18, 2014). Connie Jacobs (pseudonym), an office assistant

at Spartan MS, commented on ST Math® experiences she has had with her son, Peter

(pseudonym), a 7th grader and ST Math® user at Spartan. She is one of those parents who helps

a Spartan student and finds the experience grueling and time-consuming. Connie noted that

her son frustrates over the fact that hours can be spent on the program before a single

percentage point is awarded – the percentages refer to how much of the program is completed

(in relation to the prescribed curriculum). Students are to complete 25% of their program (or

more) each quarter in order to receive full credit grade-wise for their ST Math® grade. They

also receive an IXL grade, but time spent and credit received in return is easier to handle.

Therefore, some students need to spend many hours at home on ST Math® in order to keep up

with each quarter’s expectations, as Connie explained (Connie Jacobs, personal communication,

December 18, 2014). Lastly, I was fortunate enough to find a 7th grade Math teacher, Katherine

D’Alfonso (pseudonym), after school and willing to offer remarks about the program. Katherine

confirmed that the students frustrate over the time required to advance in completing the

program’s curriculum, and noted that the IXL program offers students the chance to improve

their scores (measuring correctness, not completion rate) by re-doing the quizzes. Since

students like the option to improve and the IXL program is more straightforward, she wasn’t


surprised that it is preferred over ST Math®. However, Katherine does see the value in the ST

Math®’s approach in training the mind to more deeply understand difficult, abstract concepts

(Katherine D’Alfonso, personal communication, December 18, 2014).

The Long study would be of value here in further emphasizing the importance of effective

professional development in increasing teacher confidence in implementing the program.

Additionally, Long’s team focused on how closely teachers followed the prescribed

implementation plan, including use of the teacher mode in improving student strategies, thus

cutting overall time spent on gaining percentage points towards the program’s completion. The

Long team would recommend that the teacher use the program frequently in whole-group

presentation so students could get an edge on more effective use of their time spent on the

program. Frustration seems to stem from students not being oriented as to what to do when

new challenges are presented. Likewise, the Tran team would recommend a follow-up on

Long’s whole-group instruction with some one-on-one assistance until the student has enough

confidence to sail through some lessons with more ease.

The last theme that emerged from the data analysis centers on the standardized test scores

for the two years that the program has been implemented so far (2012-2013 and 2013-2014).

While Appendix C offers a full comparison of both years and both schools, portions of the

matrix in the appendix are featured below as figure 8 through figure 14, along with comments

pertaining to changes and trends in PSSA and Keystone scores, and percentages as related to

ethnicity for various races, the economically disadvantaged, ELL’s, special ed students, and

gifted students. The figures and their corresponding remarks are offered below:


59.67

91.33

86.2

82.3

81.33

77.33

92.1

82.6

0 20 40 60 80 100

MIDSTATE MS: INDICATOR OF ACADEMIC

GROWTH IN MATH/ALGEBRA I (POINTS)

SPARTAN MS: INDICATOR OF ACADEMIC

GROWTH IN MATH/ALGEBRA I (POINTS)

MIDSTATE MS: PA SCHOOL PERFORMANCE

RATING (POINTS)

SPARTAN MS: PA SCHOOL PERFORMANCE

RATING (POINTS)

SCHOOL PERFORMANCE & ACADEMIC GROWTH

2012 - 2013 2013 - 2014

EETTHHNNIICCIITTYY OOFF SSTTUUDDEENNTT BBOODDYY –– SSEEEE FFIIGGUURREE 99 BBEELLOOWW

White/Caucasian (comparison of ’12-’13 to

’13-’14 school years)

Spartan MS iinnccrreeaassee of 11..33 percentage points

Midstate MS ddeeccrreeaassee of ..11 percentage points

Minorities (comparison of ’12-’13 to


Spartan MS Hispanic: iinnccrreeaassee of ..0011 percentage points Black: ddeeccrreeaassee of ..5566 percentage points; Asian: slight decrease

Midstate MS Hispanic: iinnccrreeaassee of 11..3366 percentage points Black: ddeeccrreeaassee of ..5522 percentage points; Asian: slight decrease

SSCCHHOOOOLL PPEERRFFOORRMMAANNCCEE AANNDD AACCAADDEEMMIICC GGRROOWWTTHH ((AAAAGGEE)) RRAATTIINNGGSS ((PPOOIINNTT VVAALLUUEESS))

SScchhooooll PPeerrffoorrmmaannccee (comparison of ’12-’13 to


Spartan MS rating ddeeccrreeaasseedd by ..44%%

Midstate MS rating ddeeccrreeaasseedd by 66..4411%%

AAccaaddeemmiicc GGrroowwtthh ((AAAAGGEE)) (comparison of ’12-’13 to


Spartan MS rating iinnccrreeaasseedd by 1188..11%%

Midstate MS rating ddeeccrreeaasseedd by 2266..6633%%

FFIIGGUURREE 88


FFIIGGUURREE 99

0

20

40

60

80

100

SPARTAN: MATH

PSSA/KEYSTONE

(% PROF OR ADV)

MIDSTATE: MATH

PSSA/KEYSTONE

(% PROF OR ADV)

SPARTAN: EXTRA

CREDIT FOR

MATH

PSSA/KEYSTONE

(% ADV)

MIDSTATE: EXTRA CREDIT

FOR MATH

PSSA/KEYSTONE

(% ADV)

81.6588.05

52.62

67.28

81.1285.71

59.84 63.12

PE

RC

EN

T

MATH PSSA/KEYSTONE

% PROFICIENT AND/OR ADVANCED

2012 - 2013 2013 - 2014

MMAATTHH PPSSSSAA//KKEEYYSSTTOONNEE –– %% PPRROOFFIICCIIEENNTT AANNDD//OORR

AADDVVAANNCCEEDD

%% PPRROO OORR AADDVV (comparison

of ’12-’13 to ’13-’14 school

years)

Spartan ddeeccrreeaassee of ..5533 percentage points

Midstate ddeeccrreeaassee of 22..3344 percentage points

%% AADDVV

EEXXTTRRAA CCRREEDDIITT (comparison of ’12-’13 to


Spartan iinnccrreeaassee of 77..2222 percentage points

Midstate ddeeccrreeaassee of 44..1166 percentage points

FFIIGGUURREE 1100


EECCOONNOOMMIICCAALLLLYY DDIISSAADDVVAANNTTAAGGEEDD

Comparison of ’12-’13 to

’13-’14 school years


Midstate iinnccrreeaassee of 11..3388 percentage points

EENNGGLLIISSHH LLAANNGGUUAAGGEE LLEEAARRNNEERRSS



Spartan nnoo cchhaannggee

Midstate ddeeccrreeaassee of ..1155 percentage points

FFIIGGUURREE 1111

FFIIGGUURREE 1122


These particular groups with their corresponding comparative statistics were chosen

purposefully since variations in their scores and/or concentrations normally have an effect on

overall performance of the student body. Noting that Spartan’s school performance rating

decreased only slightly in comparison to Midstate (a .3 point decrease versus a 5.9 point

SSPPEECCIIAALL EEDD SSTTUUDDEENNTTSS




Midstate ddeeccrreeaassee of ..3388 percentage points

GGIIFFTTEEDD SSTTUUDDEENNTTSS




Midstate iinnccrreeaassee of ..9911 percentage points

FFIIGGUURREE 1133

FFIIGGUURREE 1144


decrease), the graphical representations should give some insight as to why Midstate’s scores

dropped dramatically in comparison to Spartan’s. Standard Aligned Systems (SAS) defines the

Annual Academic Growth Expectation (AAGE) indicator as:

… performance measure represents the academic growth of students taking the Mathematics PSSA or Algebra I Keystone Exam relative to changes in their achievement level/entering achievement during the reported year. The Mathematics PSSA applies to students in grades 3 through 8. Academic growth reported for Keystones ONLY includes the scores of students enrolled in a Keystone course at the time they took the respective Keystone exam for students in the class of 2016 or earlier. For students in the class of 2017 and thereafter, academic growth reported for Keystones includes the scores of all students taking a Keystone exam. The Pennsylvania Added Assessment System (PVAAS) Growth Index is the basis for the Annual Academic Growth calculation. The PVAAS Growth Index is the growth measure (change of the achievement level for a group of students across grades) divided by the standard error (level of evidence one has around a particular measure in relationship to the amount of growth made with a group of students). …Growth Index is converted to a scale ranging from 50 to 100. If the Growth Index is a zero, then the school score is 75. If the Growth Index is 3 or higher, the school performance measure score is 100. If the Growth Index is -3 or lower, the school score is 50. (A score can be no lower than 50.) Performance measure scores are scaled proportionally within the range of -3 to +3: -3 to -2 (50.0 to 60.0), -2 to -1 (60.0 to 70.0), -1 to +1 (70.0 to 80.0), +1 to +2 (80.0 to 90.0), +2 to +3 (90.0 to 100.0). (pvaas.sas.com, 2014)

Midstate’s dramatic AAGE drop compared to Spartan’s increase gives rise to some concerns –

Midstate traditionally outperforms (by far) many schools throughout the county, but after

glancing at a listing of all the middle schools in the county (while substituting at Spartan MS), it

was discovered that for the 2014 rankings Midstate ranks fifth out of 23 middle schools while

Spartan ranks seventh.

The ethnicity statistics offer little since the white/Caucasian percentages varied very slightly

for both schools in comparison to the previous year. Likewise, the minority percentages varied

slightly as well, even though Midstate’s Hispanic population increased 1.36 percentage points.

As far as passing scores (proficient and advanced) are concerned, Midstate surprisingly

decreased over two percentage points while Spartan’s were almost the same as the previous

year’s. As for the advanced scores only, Spartan’s increased over seven percentage points

while Midstate decreased over four percentage points – very unusual for a district that


normally boasts of increases in achievements, even for the advanced.

As for the economically disadvantaged, once again Spartan’s large increase of over four

percentage points compared to Midstate’s increase of just over one percentage point doesn’t

make sense in relation to the dramatic lack of progress reported for the district. Even the

percentages pertaining to the ELL’s show very little change from the first to the second year in

the study.

When reviewing statistics on special education students, we find, once again, that Spartan’s

increased slightly while Midstate’s decreased slightly – another statistic that doesn’t make

sense when trying to figure what caused Midstate’s scores to suffer as they did.

Lastly, both schools reported a slight increase in the gifted student population, and once

again this should have factored into an increase in the proficient and advanced scores, but

didn’t.

Keeping in mind that many of the studies reported in this paper were completed recently in

California’s Los Angeles area, it is important to clarify that the area’s vastly changing

demographics has had almost an inverse effect on the progress of their students in Math. The

Pew Research Center issued some statistical facts in early 2014, summarized as follows:

YYEEAARR HHIISSPPAANNIICC PPOOPPUULLAATTIIOONN OOFF CCAALLIIFFOORRNNIIAA 1990 25.4% 2000 32.3% 2014 39%

www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank

It is interesting yet alarming to note that while the Hispanic population in California has been

exploding over the past twenty-five years, the state test scores, as indicated in Table 1 and

Figure 6 have been rising dramatically over two years. Seemingly, California’s districts have

found ways to meet the needs of its rapidly changing population; other district could only learn


from their continued successes.

I believe that the five research teams discussed in the literature review could shed some light

upon the situation, especially Midstate’s. Long’s team would most likely call for more in-depth

and rigorous professional development pertaining to the ST Math® program, and in doing so,

would have members of the MIND Research team assist in implementing the program within

actual classrooms. Schenke’s team could be called upon to emphasize the importance of

aligning the standards to the program and could also demonstrate with specific classes how

scaffolding is effective in computer-based instruction. Lastly, Tran’s team could assist in

transforming the classroom into a student-centered class and even help in making the one-on-

one contact with the students as effective and productive as possible. With a more intense and

focused goal, the expert researchers could possibly help both teachers and students use their

resources much more wisely and effectively in raising the achievements of students.

Limitations of the Research

The biggest limitation throughout this study is the fact that I don’t have my own classes since

I am a day-to-day substitute. Because of this I had to continually rely on the generosity of other

teachers and administrators and witness the program’s impact sporadically instead of daily and

consistently. Because of this it has been impossible to observe and comment on qualities such

as growth in perseverance, creativity, effort, motivation, stamina, better questioning and

answering methods, and overall attitude towards challenging concepts. Only teachers, staff,

and parents can make determinations on these qualities since they meet and work with the

students daily. Other limitations to the study include:

lack of consistent access to the program (only sold to districts, not individuals) lack of ability to adjust students’ program to fit individual needs


lack of access to benchmarking lack of consistent collaboration to investigate strategies in using the program lack of any professional development available to ‘observers’ (as I am considered) lack of longevity – study on the middle schoolers was completed in only two years;

MIND/UCI studies lasted longer and tracked specific classes lack of ability to “educate” parents on the benefits of the program – may have had more

favorable response from parents if they had some orientation to the program lack of access to individual PSSA/Keystone scores and corresponding PVAAS scores for the

students over the two years of the study (to determine individual growth)

hybrid model and introduction of ST Math® were concurrent – cannot determine effectiveness of either if both are new together; both may have effects on each other

discrepancy between current study and those outlined in the literature review – studies cited were conducted with elementary (not middle school) students

If any or all of these limitations could have been resolved, then my findings may have had

different interpretations. Therefore, validity may be in question since there are quite a few

limitations cited. Additionally, since the study was conducted on only two years of data and on

students in a very specific demographic area, results cannot be considered generalizable.

Implications and Applications to the Classroom

One of the most important points that materialized through this study is the fact that each

teacher and/or administrator has to determine what best suits the classes they are educating.

Along with that, program decisions should be with a clear purpose in mind. In my work with

remediation programs so far, I have reviewed several types. In determining what a particular

class may need in order to succeed, the teacher should determine what purpose the

intervention (or supplemental program) should serve. Some purposes include: remediation,

extra practice (for state testing or for curriculum support), acceleration/preview, and cognitive

skills development. While the ST Math® program can meet any of the purposes listed, its

strongest purpose lies in aiding in cognitive skill development. The program definitely helps

build perseverance and skills in multi-step problems, thus making the student more able to


attempt challenging problems. Since this is the program’s main aim, perhaps (as some of the

researchers expressed) in measuring growth, tests such as the TerraNova or the test of

cognitive skills (TCS/2 through McGraw-Hill) may seem more appropriate and a truer indicator

of readiness for more advanced Math classes (as compared to considering a PSSA score to

determine readiness).

If we are to serve our students fairly and meet their individual needs as best we can (thus

demonstrating social justice in education), then we need to assess what their individual needs

actually are and take them from where they are presently academically to as far as we can take

them, without overwhelming them to the point of frustration. Personalized computer-based

instruction with one-on-one supports fits nicely into the differentiated environment, where

each student grows at his/her own pace and makes advancements that are specific, not general

for the class as a whole. More and more I am witnessing personalized learning, mostly in the

schools where computers play an essential, daily role in class instruction, and especially in the

hybrid model. This classroom approach seems effective since students know that their goals

are realistic and personalized; therefore they respond more favorably and make consistent

progress towards their specific goals.

Steps in Future Research

If I had the opportunity to continue with this research and take it in any direction (with

unlimited funding), I would first attend professional development sessions on the use of the

teacher mode, then visit classes that use it routinely. This would give me a clear insight into the

benefits of this feature and help me to implement it properly in order to maximize the


program’s effectiveness. I believe the teacher mode unifies the program in the classroom and

helps the student to work the puzzles more quickly and independently.

Next, I would expand usage of the program to ALL ability levels, and begin its use in the

primary grades. Advanced/talented students can be challenged with higher levels in the

program and become even more advanced. This would support their advancement through

very difficult (bonus or brainbuster) problems in class.

Next, I would “follow” students for several years in order to track progress, and compare

their results with those students who had no exposure to the program for the same amount of

years. Studies over several years with the same students yield more valid, generalizable results.

Next, I would design a classroom model that best suits the pace and maturity of the

students. More mature students could probably benefit from the hybrid model daily, while

slower students would benefit from the hybrid only two to three times each week. Frequency

of the hybrid would depend on the complexity of the material being covered.

As far as testing for progress is concerned, I think yearly tests of cognitive skills (like the

TCS/2 by McGraw-Hill) would accurately track progress and help make recommendations based

on ability. Along with these results, I’d consider expanding my research to include investigating

the relationship between cognitive skills development and growth in mathematical ability. This

is a personal curiosity, and I would welcome an opportunity to explore it and then follow the

students to witness their successes in higher Math.

It would be very rewarding to design a program for a class that includes use of the hybrid

model fairly consistently together with software supports such as ST Math®. If given the

opportunity to serve as an instructional coach, I would, after the experience I had with this


research, make sure that the intervention chosen most closely matches the needs of the

students and the purpose of the support, in accordance with the goals of the class.

Conclusion

In addressing the question, ““How does the implementation of ST Math® (spatial-temporal),

a visual learning support program, impact progress for under-performing students within a

middle school classroom?”, the research I conducted on two local middle schools that currently

use the ST Math® program regularly revealed three themes focusing on methods of

implementation, preferences of teachers and students, and results as reflected in standardized

test scores over two years. While most classes that integrate the program use it daily for

remedial purposes, it was discovered that the program’s biggest asset is in its ability to help

students to develop stronger cognitive skills. Additionally, while most teachers surveyed

responded favorably to the program’s use, student surveys indicated that they preferred other

programs, ones that required less time to make advancements and included opportunities to

better their scores in individual assessments. Lastly, the standardized test scores over two

years for these students in the study revealed very little growth in comparison to the studies

conducted over several years by teams hired by the program’s creators, thus raising concerns

about implementation procedures.

In conclusion then, it seems reasonable to state that the program has value when

implemented according to its original purpose – to provide incremental support to the

development of cognitive skills in elementary students over several years of use. Through this

developmental process, students become more equipped to enjoy greater success in Math in

attempting challenging problems that require multi-step procedures.


References

Chicago Public Schools: District Profile of Achievement. (2012). Retrieved from

http://www.mindresearch.net/pdf/Chicago_Public_Schools.pdf.

District Administration Custom Publishing Group. (April, 2013). ST Math® raises both scores

and confidence at Arizona middle school. District Administration, 49(4), 27.

District Report Card (2013). Retrieved from http://www.paschoolperformance.org.

Dynarski, M., Agodini, R., Heaviside, S., Novak,T., Carey, N., Capuzano, I., et al. (2007).

Effectiveness of reading and mathematics software products: Findings from the first student

cohort. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Education.

Finley, S. (2013). ST Math®. Internet@Schools, 20(4), 29-30.

Fratt, L. (2007). Music + math = unprecedented proficiency. District Administration, 43(1), 23.

Kibrick, M., Rutherford, T., Burchinal, M. R., Richland, L. E., Conley, A., Long, J. J., ... & Martinez,

M. (2010). The effects of ST Math® on standardized test scores: A randomized field study.

In The Fifth Annual Institute of Education Sciences Research Conference, Washington, DC.

Lee, D. S. (April, 2014). Impact of ST Math® on cognitive abilities. Abstract retrieved from

http://education.uci.edu/news/2014/AERA/impact_STmath.php.

Long, J. J. & van Es, B. (April, 2014). Understanding the relationship between ST Math® teacher

professional development and its impact on students. Abstract retrieved from

http://education.uci.edu/news/2014/AERA/understanding_STmath_pd.php.

Lopez, M. H. (2014). In 2014 Latinos will surpass whites as largest racial/ethnic group in

California. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank.

Martinez, M.E. (n. d.). World-class STEM education: Projects that advance teacher proficiency

http://education.uci.edu/news/2014/AERA/understanding_STmath_pd.php


and student learning in science and mathematics [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from

http://gse.uci.edu/foundation_111609/uci_Found_Martinez.ppt.

Mathematics/Algebra I - Meeting Annual Academic Growth Expectations (2014). Standard

Aligned Systems, Inc. Retrieved from http://pvaas.sas.com.

Midstate School District (2014). District Demographics. Retrieved from

http://www.midstatesd.net.

Nisbet, N. & Luther, D. (2014). Better blends with visual game-based math. Retrieved from

http://mindresearch.net.

Peterson, M. (March, 2011). What’s wrong with math? District Administration, 47(3), 48.

Royal, K. (2007). Mind, music and math. District Administration, 43(12), 18.

Rutherford, T., Hinga, B., Chang, A., Conley, A. M., & Martinez, M. E. (August, 2011). The effect

of ST Math® software on standardized test scores via improvement in mathematics

expectancy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological

Association, Washington, D.C.

Rutherford, T., Kibrick, M., Burchinal, M., Richland, L., Conley, A., Osborne, K., ... & Martinez, M.

E. (May, 2010). Spatial temporal mathematics at scale: an innovative and fully developed

paradigm to boost Math achievement among all learners. Paper presented at the annual

convention of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO.

Schenke, K., Rutherford, T., & Farkas, G. (2014). Alignment of game design features and state

mathematics standards: Do results reflect intentions? Computers & Education, 76, 215-224.

School Digger (2013). Pennsylvania school district rankings [Data file]. Retrieved from

http://www.schooldigger.com.


Spartan School District (2014). General district facts. Retrieved from http://www.spartan.org.

ST Math® 2010 Teacher Survey (2010). Retrieved from

http://www.stmath2010teachersurvey.questionpro.com.

ST Math®: K – 5 and secondary intervention training manual (2012). Santa Ana, CA: MIND

Research Institute.

Tran, N. A., Schneider, S., Duran, L., Conley, A., Richland, L., Burchinal, M.,... & Martinez, M. E.

(2012). The effects of mathematics instruction using spatial temporal cognition on teacher

efficacy and instructional practices. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 340-349.

United States Census Bureau (2010). District borough demographics [Data file]. Retrieved from

http://www.factfinder2.census.gov.


APPENDIX A. General District Facts - from district website (Spartan.org/district.cfm)

2013-14 - DISTRICT FACT SHEET

Total Student Population – 3246; enrollments: Elementary School 1: 632 Elementary School 2: 483 Elementary School 3: 555 Spartan Middle School: 526 Spartan High School: 1050 Spartan Virtual Academy: 45

Aid Ratio: .2882 Per Student Expenditures: $14,360.25 Tuition rate:

Elementary $9,051.58 Secondary $9,515.25

Class of 2013 stats: 262 students, Senior Survey Summary:

College: 43% (4 years); 12% (2 years) Trade/Technical School: 7% Deferred Post-Secondary: 10% Military: 3% Permanent Employment: 25%

Miscellaneous: Total school buildings in the district: 5 Free/reduced lunch: 29.3% (2012, middle school) Average number of lunches served per day: 2300 Number of students transported for non-public schools: 444 Total teachers with advanced degrees (Master’s and above): 151

Number of Employees:

Professional: 256 Administration: 15 Support Staff: 83

Community Population: 30,059 sq mi: 95

Financial Information: Mileage: 13.841 Total Assessed Property Value: $2,058,269,700 Total Budget 2012-13: $44,265,811 Total Salaries for bargaining unit: $13,688,030.14 Average teacher salary: $59,851.46 Starting teacher salary: $43,548


Additional Demographics from United States Census Bureau, 2010 (factfinder2.census.gov)

TABLE A1: DEMOGRAPHICS – FACTS AND FIGURES (SPARTAN SCHOOL DISTRICT)

Fact Figures Fact Figures

2010 census population 13,811 residents number of housing units 5,302

population increase (from 2010 to 2012)

.6% increase median value of

housing unit $171,600

population - under 5 yrs old 6.6% homeownership rate 58.4%

population - 65 yrs old and older

17.7% (PA = 15.4%)

single-parent (female) household (2000 to 2010)

increased by 24.65%

population - median age 41.0 yrs old median income $53,695/yr

female population 51.7%

below poverty level approx 11.6% (PA = 12.6%)

number of veterans 864 foreign born (borough) approx 11.3%

high school grad or higher (age 25 or older)

85.6% bachelor’s degree or

higher (age 25 or older) 18.9%

ETHNIC MAKEUP AND LANGUAGE

white (only) 84.2% black (only) 3.1%

Hispanic/Latino (only) 8.2% two or more races 2.4%

Asian (only) 3.1% language at home

other than English 18.5%

MATH PSSA SCORES – SPARTAN MIDDLE SCHOOL (schooldigger.com)

TABLE A2 – SPARTAN GRADE 7 MATH TABLE A3 – SPARTAN GRADE 8 MATH


APPENDIX B. District Demographics - from district website (Midstatesd.net/district.cfm)

2013-14 - DISTRICT FACT SHEET

Total Student Population – 5805; enrollments: Elementary School 1: 281 Elementary School 4: 475 Elementary School 2: 306 Elementary School 5: 418 Elementary School 3: 349 Elementary School 6: 292 Midstate Intermediate School: 918 Midstate Middle School: 944 Midstate High School: 1822 Midstate Virtual Academy: info not available

Aid Ratio: info not available Per Student Expenditures: $13,787

Tuition rate: Elementary: info not available Secondary: info not available

Class of 2013 stats: 429 students, Senior Survey Summary:

College: 63% (4 years); 20% (2 years) Trade/Technical School: 8% Deferred Post-Secondary: 3% Military: 2% Permanent Employment: 4%

Miscellaneous: Total school buildings in the district: 9 Free/reduced lunch: 26.0% (2012, middle school) Average number of lunches served per day: info not available Number of students transported for non-public schools: 781 Total teachers with advanced degrees (Master’s and above): 263

Number of Employees: 672 Professional: 390 Administration: 27 Support Staff: 258

Community Population: 38,133 sq mi: 23

Financial Information: Mileage: 18.2575 Total Assessed Property Value: info not available Total Budget 2012-13: $80,034,212 Total Salaries for bargaining unit: $42,686,608 Average teacher salary: $61,175 Starting teacher salary: $45,300


Additional Demographics from United States Census Bureau, 2010 (factfinder2.census.gov)

TABLE B1: DEMOGRAPHICS – FACTS AND FIGURES (MIDSTATE SCHOOL DISTRICT)

Fact Figures Fact Figures

2010 census population 38,133 residents number of housing units 15,827

population increase (from 2000 to 2010)

13.1% increase median value of

housing unit $227,300

population - under 5 yrs old 5.6% homeownership rate 71.7%

population - 65 yrs old and older

23.7% (PA = 15.4%)

single-parent (female) 7.9%

population - median age 44.0 yrs old median income $67,294/yr

female population 52.9%

below poverty level approx 5.4% (PA = 12.6%)

number of veterans 3,112 foreign born (borough) approx 7.9%

high school grad or higher (age 25 or older)

91.3% bachelor’s degree or

higher (age 25 or older) 41.7%

ETHNIC MAKEUP AND LANGUAGE

white (only) 84.1% black (only) 3.0%

Hispanic/Latino (only) 7.4% two or more races 1.2%

Asian (only) 4.1% other race(s) .2%

language at home

other than English 1.1%

MATH PSSA SCORES – MIDSTATE MIDDLE SCHOOL (schooldigger.com) TABLE B2 - MIDSTATE GRADE 7 MATH TABLE B3 - MIDSTATE GRADE 8 MATH


APPENDIX C. CCOOMMPPAARRIISSOONN OOFF SSCCHHOOOOLLSS IINN TTHHEE SSTTUUDDYY - from PA School Performance Profile

(paschoolperformance.org)



AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX DD.. TEACHER SURVEY - ST MATH® PROGRAM http://questionpro.com/t/AK5PUZRHnG HHeelllloo SSTT MMaatthh®® pprrooggrraamm uusseerrss::

YYoouu aarree iinnvviitteedd ttoo ppaarrttiicciippaattee iinn tthhee SSTT MMaatthh®® TTeeaacchheerr SSuurrvveeyy.. IInn tthhiiss ssuurrvveeyy,, tteeaacchheerrss wwiillll bbee aasskkeedd ttoo rreessppoonndd ttoo

qquueessttiioonnss aabboouutt tthheeiirr iimmpplleemmeennttiinngg tthhee SSTT MMaatthh®® pprrooggrraamm wwiitthh tthheeiirr ccllaasssseess.. IItt wwiillll ttaakkee jjuusstt aa ffeeww mmiinnuutteess ttoo

ccoommpplleettee.. YYoouurr ppaarrttiicciippaattiioonn iinn tthhiiss ssttuuddyy iiss ccoommpplleetteellyy vvoolluunnttaarryy.. TThheerree aarree nnoo ffoorreesseeeeaabbllee rriisskkss aassssoocciiaatteedd wwiitthh

tthhiiss pprroojjeecctt.. HHoowweevveerr,, iiff yyoouu ffeeeell uunnccoommffoorrttaabbllee aannsswweerriinngg aannyy qquueessttiioonnss,, yyoouu ccaann wwiitthhddrraaww aatt aannyy ppooiinntt.. IItt iiss vveerryy

iimmppoorrttaanntt ffoorr mmee ttoo lleeaarrnn yyoouurr ooppiinniioonnss ssoo tthhaatt II ccaann ccoommpplleettee mmyy aaccttiioonn rreesseeaarrcchh ppaappeerr wwiitthh aaccccuurraaccyy aanndd

ccoonnffiiddeennccee iinn mmyy ffiinnddiinnggss.. YYoouurr rreessppoonnsseess wwiillll bbee ssttrriiccttllyy ccoonnffiiddeennttiiaall aanndd ddaattaa ffrroomm tthhiiss rreesseeaarrcchh wwiillll bbee rreeppoorrtteedd

oonnllyy iinn tthhee aaggggrreeggaattee.. YYoouurr iinnffoorrmmaattiioonn wwiillll bbee ccooddeedd aanndd wwiillll rreemmaaiinn ccoonnffiiddeennttiiaall.. IIff yyoouu hhaavvee qquueessttiioonnss aatt aannyy

ttiimmee aabboouutt tthhee ssuurrvveeyy oorr tthhee pprroocceedduurreess,, yyoouu mmaayy ccoonnttaacctt tthhee ssuurrvveeyy ccrreeaattoorr bbyy eemmaaiill aatt tthhee eemmaaiill aaddddrreessss

ssppeecciiffiieedd bbeellooww.. TThhaannkk yyoouu vveerryy mmuucchh ffoorr yyoouurr ttiimmee aanndd ssuuppppoorrtt.. PPlleeaassee ssttaarrtt wwiitthh tthhee ssuurrvveeyy nnooww bbyy cclliicckkiinngg oonn

tthhee CCOONNTTIINNUUEE bbuuttttoonn bbeellooww..

Name (or just your initials)

School’s location (city, state): First implemented ST Math®program in (what year?):

Grade(s) taught in which ST Math® is used:

How often do your students work on ST Math® (times per week) and how long (in minutes) is each average ST Math® session for your students?

Do your students work on ST Math® outside of class time, and if so, where? (like at home, at the library, public wifi location)

What is the class ability level (or achievement level) of your students - those who are assigned to use the ST Math® program? (CChhoooossee AALLLL tthhaatt aappppllyy)

❏ honors or advanced

❏ accelerated (above average)

❏ on grade level

❏ remedial (below grade level)

Were you trained in the ST Math® program features and/or scope and sequence? If so, who trained you? (staff development session, company training, informal colleague training, etc.)

Do you make use of the Teacher Mode feature - the feature that allows you to present ST Math® as a lesson for whole group instruction? If so, has this feature encouraged your students to articulate their strategies in analyzing models to solve puzzles in the program?


Please comment.


Have you read of or discussed any CRITIQUES of the program? If so, briefly describe

Please rate the following in answering:

AS A RESULT OF USING THIS PROGRAM, MY STUDENTS...:

SSTTRROONNGGLLYY

AAGGRREEEE AAGGRREEEE

NNEEIITTHHEERR

AAGGRREEEE NNOORR

DDIISSAAGGRREEEE DDIISSAAGGRREEEE

SSTTRROONNGGLLYY

DDIISSAAGGRREEEE

CCAANNNNOOTT

MMAAKKEE AA

JJUUDDGGMMEENNTT … have made gains, as in improved classwork and/or homework habits. ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ... have developed better perseverance in solving Math problems. ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ... have improved their Math grades. ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ... are showing more confidence in attempting difficult Math problems and procedures. ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ... can explain their work more clearly, logically, and fully. ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ... have become more motivated to achieve in Math. ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏

Please rate the following last few questions:

SSTTRROONNGGLLYY


NNEEIITTHHEERR

AAGGRREEEE NNOORR


SSTTRROONNGGLLYY

DDIISSAAGGRREEEE

CCAANNNNOOTT

MMAAKKEE AA

JJUUDDGGMMEENNTT I like using ST Math® regularly with my students. ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ I believe that ST Math® is a valued program in influencing student progress, even more so than other diagnostic and/or practice Math programs used by our students.

❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏

My students enjoy the program and remain on task and focused while using the program. ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ Parents have offered positive comments on this program. ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏

Please feel free to add any other comments on your and your students experiences with the ST Math® program:


AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX EE.. SUMMARY: Teacher Survey Data - ST Math® Program

Access survey at: http://questionpro.com/t/AK5PUZRHnG Access full analysis report at: http://questionpro.com/s/1-2479121-3887048

School’s initials and location (city, state): Spartan: 5 respondents; Midstate: 3 respondents

First implemented ST Math® program in (what year?):

2013: seven respondents; 2012: one respondent

Grade(s) taught in which ST Math® is used: 7th

and 8th

How often do your students work on ST Math® (times per week) and how long (in minutes) is each average ST Math® session for your students?

averaging 60 – 90 minutes per week

Do your students work on ST Math® outside of class time, and if so, where? (like at home, at the library, public wifi location)

NO – program is not required outside the classroom

What is the class ability level (or achievement level) of your students - those who are assigned to use the ST Math® program? (CChhoooossee AALLLL tthhaatt aappppllyy) TTAABBLLEE EE11-- CCLLAASSSS AABBIILLIITTYY LLEEVVEELL 15 total responses:

☑ honors or advanced 13.33% 20%

☑ accelerated (above average) 6.67%

☑ on grade level 33.33% 80%

☑ remedial (below grade level) 46.67%

Were you trained in the ST Math® program features and/or scope and sequence? If so, who trained you? (staff development session, company training, informal colleague training, etc.)

company training: 5 respondents colleague training: 3 respondents

Do you make use of the Teacher Mode feature - the feature that

allows you to present ST Math® as a lesson for whole group instruction? If so, has this feature encouraged your students to articulate their strategies in analyzing models to solve puzzles in the program? Please comment.

NO: 8 respondents


TABLE E2: CONCERNS VOICED: need for weekly time reports total minutes, not total puzzles are reported to the teacher not clear on how to work some of the puzzles; connections

between puzzles and Math not clear students not paying attention to Math in midst of puzzles cannot connect puzzles with content taught in class

Have you read of or discussed any CRITIQUES of the program? If so, briefly describe

NO: 8 respondents

http://questionpro.com/t/AK5PUZRHnG



Rate the following in answering: AS A RESULT OF USING THIS PROGRAM, MY STUDENTS...:

TTAABBLLEE EE33 –– SSTT MMAATTHH®®EEFFFFEECCTTSS SSTTRROONNGGLLYY


NNEEIITTHHEERR

AAGGRREEEE NNOORR


SSTTRROONNGGLLYY

DDIISSAAGGRREEEE

CCAANNNNOOTT

MMAAKKEE AA

JJUUDDGGMMEENNTT … have made gains, as in improved classwork and/or homework habits.

62.5% 37.5% 0% 0% 0%

... have developed better perseverance in solving Math problems.

62.5% 25% 12.5% 0% 0%

... have improved their Math grades. 62.5% 37.5% 0% 0% 0%

... are showing more confidence in attempting difficult Math problems and procedures.

62.5% 25% 0% 0% 12.5%

... can explain their work more clearly, logically, and fully. 0% 75% 25% 0% 0%

... have become more motivated to achieve in Math. 25% 75% 0% 0% 0%

Please rate the following last few questions:

TTAABBLLEE EE44 –– SSTT MMAATTHH®® PPRROOGGRRAAMM AAPPPPRROOVVAALL SSTTRROONNGGLLYY


NNEEIITTHHEERR

AAGGRREEEE NNOORR


SSTTRROONNGGLLYY

DDIISSAAGGRREEEE

CCAANNNNOOTT

MMAAKKEE AA

JJUUDDGGMMEENNTT

I like using ST Math® regularly with my students. 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% I believe that ST Math® is a valued program in influencing student progress, even more so than other diagnostic and/or practice Math programs used by our students.

87.5% 0% 12.5% 0% 0%

My students enjoy the program and remain on task and focused while using the program.

62.5% 25% 12.5% 0% 0%

Parents have offered positive comments on this program. 12.5% 12.5% 12.5% 0% 62.5%

Please feel free to add any other comments on your and your students experiences with the ST Math® program:

NO additional comments offered by any of the respondents.


APPENDIX F. ST MATH® PROGRAM - CURRICULUM COORDINATOR/SUPERVISOR SURVEY http://questionpro.com/t/AK5PUZRH3O Hello Curriculum Coordinators and Supervisors: You are invited to participate in my ST Math® Curriculum Coordinator/Supervisor Survey. In this survey, you will be asked to complete questions about your experiences and your district teachers’ experiences with using the ST Math® program. It will take a few minutes to complete. Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. There are no foreseeable risks associated with this project. However, if you feel uncomfortable answering any questions, you can withdraw from the survey at any point. It is very important for me to learn your opinions so that I may complete my action research project with confidence in the accuracy of the responses of the participants. Your survey responses will be strictly confidential and data from this research will be reported only in the aggregate. Your information will be coded and will remain confidential. If you have questions at any time about the survey or the procedures, you may contact me by email. Thank you very much for your time and support. Please start with the survey now by clicking on the CONTINUE button below.

Your Name (optional); (your district’s city & state)

Your title (position):

Years serving in this position:

AS A RESULT OF YOUR DISTRICT’S IMPLEMENTING THE ST MATH® PROGRAM, PLEASE RATE THESE STATEMENTS REGARDING

THE FOLLOWING:

THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT...

SSTTRROONNGGLLYY


NNEEIITTHHEERR

AAGGRREEEE NNOORR


SSTTRROONNGGLLYY

DDIISSAAGGRREEEE

CCAANNNNOOTT

MMAAKKEE AA

JJUUDDGGMMEENNTT ... our teachers use ST Math® concepts and experiences to teach Math. ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ... our teachers make it a practice to refer to the ST Math® Scope and Sequence in their planning of Math lessons (daily/weekly).

❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ... our teachers integrate ST Math® into regular math instruction. ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ... ST Math® supports students in learning mathematical concepts. ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ... our teachers cover key math concepts using ST Math®software (in teacher mode). ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ... our students have improved their scores on routine quizzes and tests, as a result of success with the ST Math® program.

❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ... our students have improved their scores on unit/benchmark tests, as a result of success with the ST Math® program.

❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ... our students have improved their scores on standardized state tests, as a result of success with the ST Math® program.

❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ... our students have increased interest and/or enthusiasm for math, as a result of success with the ST Math® program.

❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏


AS A RESULT OF YOUR DISTRICT’S IMPLEMENTING THE ST MATH® PROGRAM, PLEASE RATE THESE STATEMENTS REGARDING: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY : I BELIEVE THAT...

SSTTRROONNGGLLYY


NNEEIITTHHEERR

AAGGRREEEE NNOORR


SSTTRROONNGGLLYY

DDIISSAAGGRREEEE

CCAANNNNOOTT

MMAAKKEE AA

JJUUDDGGMMEENNTT ... our teachers value the professional development training for ST Math® and actively use what they’ve learned in their classrooms.

❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏

... our teachers are confident in their ability to use the technology associated with ST Math® and receive adequate technical support for ST Math®.

❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏

... I am sufficiently knowledgeable about ST Math® and am comfortable and successful in obtaining assistance, when needed, from the program’s (company) support specialists.

❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏

... I am helpful in assisting my teachers in integrating the ST Math® program into their lesson planning and classroom activities.

❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ AS A RESULT OF OUR DISTRICT’S USE OF THE ST MATH® ® PROGRAM, OUR STUDENTS HAVE SHOWN IMPROVEMENT WITH...

SSTTRROONNGGLLYY


NNEEIITTHHEERR

AAGGRREEEE NNOORR


SSTTRROONNGGLLYY

DDIISSAAGGRREEEE

CCAANNNNOOTT

MMAAKKEE AA

JJUUDDGGMMEENNTT ... making predictions while solving math problems. ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ... analyzing (organizing/processing/ manipulating/re-evaluating) data. ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ... supporting their conclusions with evidence. ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ... explaining their reasoning. ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ... considering alternate explanations or arguments. ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ... processing their learning and experiences. ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ... considering relationships between classroom lessons and real-world happenings and/or current events.

❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏

... using spatial-temporal reasoning. ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏


FOR THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS, PLEASE CHOOSE TWO RESPONSES -- THOSE THAT REFLECT THE GREATEST INFLUENCE IN

CONSIDERING STUDENT PROGRESS. CHOOSE FROM:

AA.. tteeaacchheerrss’’ nneeww aanndd//oorr vvaarriieedd tteeaacchhiinngg mmeetthhooddss BB.. tteeaacchheerrss’’ ccoonnffiiddeennccee iinn kknnoowwlleeddggee ooff mmaatteerriiaall pprreesseenntteedd CC.. iinnddiivviidduuaalliizzeedd ((ddiiffffeerreennttiiaatteedd)) iinnssttrruuccttiioonn tthhrroouugghh ssooffttwwaarree iinntteerrvveennttiioonnss,, ssuucchh aass SSTT MMaatthh®®,, ffoorr eexxaammppllee DD.. eexxttrraa ssuuppppoorrtt tteeaacchheerrss hheellppiinngg ddaaiillyy ((oorr ccoo--tteeaacchhiinngg iinn eeffffeecctt))

EE.. eexxttrraa hheellpp ssoouugghhtt ((lliikkee aafftteerr--sscchhooooll pprrooggrraamm aanndd//oorr oonnee--

oonn--oonnee ttuuttoorriinngg))

FF.. ssttuuddeennttss ggrroowwtthh iinn mmaattuurriittyy aanndd ttaakkiinngg rreessppoonnssiibbiilliittyy ffoorr

hhiiss//hheerr aacchhiieevveemmeenntt

GG.. ssttrroonngg//iinnccrreeaasseedd ssuuppppoorrtt ffrroomm ppaarreenntt oorr gguuaarrddiiaann

AA BB CC DD EE FF GG Math grades in a single class improve as a whole, overall, due to... ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ Students who have inadequate mathematical background begin to improve, due to...

❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ Low-achieving Math students begin to show remarkable progress, due to... ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ Students show progress in constructing and posing good questions in class, due to...

❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ Parents comment that their son/daughter is showing more interest in Math, due to...

❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING REGARDING USAGE OF THE ST MATH® PROGRAM:

YYEESS NNOO Do your teachers count ST Math® computer session minutes as regular Math minutes (Math instructional time)? ❏ ❏ Is your district planning on continuing using the program next school year? ❏ ❏

PPLLEEAASSEE CCOOMMMMEENNTT::

WWHHAATT HHAAVVEE YYOOUU OOBBSSEERRVVEEDD,, AASS FFAARR AASS CCHHAANNGGEESS

IINN CCLLAASSSSRROOOOMM PPRRAACCTTIICCEESS AARREE CCOONNCCEERRNNEEDD,, AASS AA

RREESSUULLTT OOFF TTHHEE SSTT MMAATTHH®® PPRROOGGRRAAMM??


WWHHAATT KKIINNDDSS OOFF BBAARRRRIIEERRSS DDIIDD YYOOUU AANNDD//OORR

YYOOUURR DDIISSTTRRIICCTT TTEEAACCHHEERRSS EENNCCOOUUNNTTEERR IINN

IIMMPPLLEEMMEENNTTIINNGG TTHHEE PPRROOGGRRAAMM AANNDD HHOOWW WWEERREE

TTHHEESSEE BBAARRRRIIEERRSS OOVVEERRCCOOMMEE??


IINN WWHHAATT WWAAYYSS DDIIDD TTHHEE SSTT MMAATTHH®® ®® PPRROOGGRRAAMM,, IINN AALLLL IITTSS AASSPPEECCTTSS,, FFAACCIILLIITTAATTEE YYOOUURR AANNDD YYOOUURR

TTEEAACCHHEERRSS’’ PPRROOFFEESSSSIIOONNAALL GGRROOWWTTHH??


BBRRIIEEFFLLYY DDEESSCCRRIIBBEE TTHHEE SSTTRREENNGGTTHHSS YYOOUU SSEEEE IINN

TTHHEE PPRROOGGRRAAMM..



BBRRIIEEFFLLYY DDEESSCCRRIIBBEE AANNYY SSUUGGGGEESSTTIIOONNSS YYOOUU MMAAYY

HHAAVVEE TTOO IIMMPPRROOVVEE TTHHEE PPRROOGGRRAAMM..

PPLLEEAASSEE OOFFFFEERR AANNYY OOTTHHEERR CCOOMMMMEENNTTSS HHEERREE::


APPENDIX G. ST MATH® PROGRAM - STUDENT SURVEY http://questionpro.com/t/AK5PUZRuNW Hello Middle School Student! Congratulations on finishing up the first quarter for the 2014-2015 school year! I hope you did well in all your classes, especially Math... You are invited to participate in my survey on your thoughts about how the ST Math® program has influenced your work, effort, and success in Math class. In this survey, many 7th and 8th grade students will be asked to complete questions that will take just a few minutes. This survey is completely voluntary. If you feel uncomfortable answering any questions, you can stop the survey at any point. It is very important for me to learn your opinions. Your survey answers will not be shared with anyone and information from it will not be reported to anyone else but me. Your information will remain confidential. Thank you very much and please TAKE YOUR TIME in answering the questions! Please start with the survey now by clicking on the Continue button below Your initials (do NOT type full first or last name): Your school’s initials (like GS or MT): Your grade (like 7th or 8th): Please check ALL the programs that you have worked on in elementary school and in middle school in Math:

ALEKS ST Math® Compass Learning Study Island IXL Other ___________

Please check the program that you think helps or helped you the most in Math. This should be the one you had most success with when working on it, or the one that helped you better understand what you were doing in Math class. Check ONLY ONE. (If the program isn’t listed, then fill in the name of the program in the other box.)

ALEKS ST Math® Compass Learning Study Island IXL Other ___________

How many times each week do you work on ST Math® in class? Do you work on ST Math® outside of Math class (like at home, in the library, or during study hall)? Answer yes or no. Does a teacher or classroom aide help you with ST Math® when your get stuck or have a question? Answer yes or no.


Have your parents or guardians watched you or helped you when you are on ST Math®? (Answer yes or no). If YES, do they like the program? Please select ONE choice that best describes YOU in answering:

BBEECCAAUUSSEE OOFF SSTT MMAATTHH®®,, II BBEELLIIEEVVEE TTHHAATT II......

SSTTRROONNGGLLYY


NNEEIITTHHEERR

AAGGRREEEE OORR


SSTTRROONNGGLLYY

DDIISSAAGGRREEEE

CCAANNNNOOTT

MMAAKKEE AA

JJUUDDGGMMEENNTT

... have been able to improve my classwork and/or homework in Math. ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏

... am able to work on Math problems longer (can hang in there) and come up with more answers.

❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏

... have improved my grades in Math. ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏

... am able to try harder Math problems with more confidence. ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏

... can better explain my Math work to my teacher and/or other students in my class. ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏

... have a better attitude in Math and am more eager to do well in Math. ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏

... can remain on task and stay focused in Math class longer. ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏


Strongly Agree

Agree

Neither Agree Nor

Disagree


Cannot Make A

Judgment


❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏

I prefer working alone rather than in a group when doing Math. ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏


❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏


❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏


❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏ ❏


AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX HH.. SUMMARY: Student Survey Data - ST Math® Program

Access survey at: http://questionpro.com/t/AK5PUZRuNW Access full analysis report at: http://questionpro.com/s/1-2479121-4026937 Your school’s initials Your grade Please check ALL the programs that you have worked on in elementary school and in middle school in Math: TTAABBLLEE HH11 –– MMAATTHH SSOOFFTTWWAARREE UUSSEE ((EELLEEMMEENNTTAARRYY TTHHRROOUUGGHH MMIIDDDDLLEE SSCCHHOOOOLL))

ALEKS 1.45% Compass Learning 10.14% IXL 31.52% ST Math® 28.62% Study Island 22.1% Other 6.16% Success Maker (7 responses), Khan Academy (2 responses)

Please check the program that you think helps or helped you the most in Math. This should be the one you had most success with when working on it, or the one that helped you better understand what you were doing in Math class. Check ONLY ONE. (If the program isn’t listed, then fill in the name of the program in the other box.) TTAABBLLEE HH22 –– MMOOSSTT EEFFFFEECCTTIIVVEE PPRROOGGRRAAMM

ALEKS 0% Compass Learning 6.32% IXL 64.21% ST Math® 17.89% Study Island 5.26% Other 6.32% Khan Academy (2 responses)

How many times each week do you work on ST Math® in class? Do you work on ST Math® outside of Math class (like at home, in the library, or during study hall)? Answer yes or no.

yes: 57.9% Does a teacher or classroom aide help you with ST Math® when your get stuck or have a question? Answer yes or no. Have your parents or guardians watched you or helped you when you are on ST Math®? (Answer yes or no). If YES, do they like the program?

20% responded that parents help but they do NOT like ST Math® 10.5% responded that parents help and they LIKE ST Math®

Spartan: 95 respondents

7th

and 8th

grades

average: 3 to 5 times per week, 20 minute sessions

yes: 74.7%

http://questionpro.com/t/AK5PUZRuNW



Please select ONE choice that best describes YOU in answering:

BBEECCAAUUSSEE OOFF SSTT MMAATTHH®®,, II BBEELLIIEEVVEE TTHHAATT II......

TTAABBLLEE HH33 –– SSTT MMAATTHH®® PPRROOGGRRAAMM EEFFFFEECCTTSS SSTTRROONNGGLLYY


NNEEIITTHHEERR

AAGGRREEEE OORR


SSTTRROONNGGLLYY

DDIISSAAGGRREEEE

CCAANNNNOOTT

MMAAKKEE AA

JJUUDDGGMMEENNTT

... have been able to improve my classwork and/or homework in Math. 35.79% 28.42% 11.58% 21.05% 3.16%

... am able to work on Math problems longer (can hang in there) and come up with more answers.

40.0% 24.21% 21.05% 13.68% 1.05%

... have improved my grades in Math. 28.42% 28.42% 17.89% 24.21% 1.05%

... am able to try harder Math problems with more confidence. 30.53% 24.21% 24.21% 18.95% 2.11%

... can better explain my Math work to my teacher and/or other students in my class. 25.26% 30.53% 18.95% 5.26% 2.11%

... have a better attitude in Math and am more eager to do well in Math. 30.53% 27.37% 18.95% 22.11% 1.05%

... can remain on task and stay focused in Math class longer.

35.79% 22.11% 20.0% 22.11% 0%


TTAABBLLEE HH44 –– RROOTTAATTIIOONN PPRREEFFEERREENNCCEESS Strongly

Agree Agree

Neither Agree Nor

Disagree


Cannot Make A

Judgment


20% 30.53% 24.21% 24.21% 1.05%

I prefer working alone rather than in a group when doing Math.

30.53% 21.05% 20% 26.32% 2.11%


15.79% 23.16% 34.74% 25.76% 1.05%


46.32% 27.37% 11.58% 11.58% 3.16%


62.1% 18.95% 9.47% 6.32% 3.16%


APPENDIX I. SSCCRREEEENN SSHHOOTTSS OOFF PPOORRTTIIOONNSS OOFF TTHHEE SSTT MMAATTHH®® PPRROOGGRRAAMM (mindresearch.net)

JJiiJJii –– tthhee ppeenngguuiinn ffeeaattuurreedd iinn SSTT MMaatthh

wwhhoo lleeaaddss tthhee uusseerr tthhrroouugghh eeaacchh lleessssoonn..

JJiiJJii’’ss oobbjjeecctt iiss ttoo ccrroossss eeaacchh bbrriiddggee ttoo

ssaaffeellyy aarrrriivvee aatt tthhee nneexxtt cchhaalllleennggee..

⇚⇚ SSccrreeeenn sshhoott ooff SSTT MMaatthh JJiijjii tthhee

ppeenngguuiinn nneeeeddss ttoo ccrroossss tthhee ggaapp

aanndd wwaallkk ttoowwaarrdd tthhee rriigghhtt ppaarrtt ooff

tthhee ssccrreeeenn.. SSttuuddeennttss mmuusstt cchhoooossee

tthhee ccoorrrreecctt nnuummbbeerr ooff bbaarrss tthhaatt

ccaann ppeerrffeeccttllyy ffiillll tthhee ggaapp aanndd aallllooww

JJiijjii ttoo ccrroossss.. TThhiiss iiss aann eexxaammppllee ooff aa

ggaammee tthhaatt ccoonnttaaiinnss nnuummbbeerrss

rreepprreesseenntteedd aass oobbjjeeccttss..

SSccrreeeenn sshhoott ooff tthhee NNuummbbeerr FFuunnnneellss ggaammee wwiitthhiinn SSTT MMaatthh..

PPllaayyeerrss nneeeedd ttoo iinnddiiccaattee wwhheerree oonn tthhee nnuummbbeerr

7777 sshhoouulldd bbee ppllaacceedd iiff rroouunnddeedd.. TThhiiss iiss aann eexxaammppllee

ooff aa ggaammee ccoonnttaaiinniinngg aa nnuummbbeerr lliinnee..

GGaammee tteeaacchhiinngg aaddddiittiioonn,, ssuubbttrraaccttiioonn,,

tthhee ccoonncceepptt ooff nnuummbbeerr,, aanndd eeqquuaall aammoouunnttss ..⇩⇩

GGaammee ddeemmoonnssttrraattiinngg tthhee oovveerrllaayy ooff nnuummbbeerrss

aanndd ssyymmbboollss oonnttoo tthhee mmaatthh ((fflluueennccyy))..⇩⇩


EExxaammpplleess ooff aa ppuuzzzzllee aanndd

aaccccoommppaannyyiinngg ttuuttoorriiaall ffoorr

aa lleessssoonn iinn aaddddiittiioonn aanndd

ssuubbttrraaccttiioonn..

⇚⇚ EExxaammppllee ooff aa vviissuuaall

mmooddeell iinnccoorrppoorraattiinngg

ssyymmbboollss iinn SSTT MMaatthh..

⇑⇑ BByy uussiinngg tthhee ssccaallee iinn tthhiiss mmeeaassuurreemmeenntt ggaammee

ssttuuddeennttss iinntteerraacctt wwiitthh aa rreeaall--wwoorrlldd ttooooll iinn

oorrddeerr ttoo ffoorrmm aa ssttrraatteeggyy ffoorr pprroobblleemm--ssoollvviinngg..

SSttuuddeennttss ccaann ccoommppaarree tthhee wweeiigghhttss uussiinngg

tthhee bbaallaannccee ssccaallee ttoo ddeetteerrmmiinnee hhooww ttoo ppllaaccee

tthhee wweeiigghhttss iinn oorrddeerr ooff iinnccrreeaassiinngg mmaaggnniittuuddee..