The Impact of Collaborative Learning through Survivor Algebra in the
Mathematics Classroom
A Capstone Project
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
of Master of Arts in Teaching: Mathematics
Peter Wang
Department of Mathematics and Computer Science
College of Arts and Sciences
Graduate School
Minot State University
Minot, North Dakota
Summer 2011
ii
This capstone project was submitted by
Peter Wang
Graduate Committee:
Dr. Laurie Geller, Chairperson
Mr. Timothy Morris
Dr. Gary Rabe
Dean of Graduate School
Dr. Linda Cresap
Date of defense: July 7. 2011
iii
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to use a collaborative learning approach through an
adaptation of Karen Lyn Davis’ Survivor Algebra program to enhance student
motivation and achievement in my classroom. Students from my Algebra 2 class
were divided into two tribes or groups of similar abilities. For nine weeks students
worked collaboratively in these groups. My expectations were for my students to
become more actively involved and to achieve a higher rate of success in
mathematics. Several methods of collecting and analyzing data were used to
determine if expectations were met. With the aid of t-tests, grade comparisons
were made between my current Algebra 2 class utilizing Survivor Algebra and my
Algebra 2 class from 2009-2010. The Survivor Algebra group showed a
significantly greater growth than the non-Survivor Algebra group. Pre- and postsurveys were given to gauge student feelings toward collaborative learning. After
analyzing the results, I found that the overall feelings of students toward
collaborative learning after using Survivor Algebra had grown more positive.
Open-ended questions given at the end of each survey showed that students, for
the most part, reacted positively to the use of Survivor Algebra. In my
observations during the project, I found students truly enjoyed themselves.
Overall, my adaptation of Survivor Algebra was not perfect, but it was definitely
something I will be utilizing in the future after making a few adjustments.
iv
Acknowledgements
I would like to initially thank Mr. Timothy Morris and Dr. Laurie Geller.
As my advisor, Mr. Morris has been incredibly helpful with editing and revising
my paper. He has kept me on schedule and has been willing to answer any
questions regarding my paper. Along with helping in the writing of my paper, Dr.
Geller has been there to encourage and has spent copious amounts of time helping
me calculate and analyze the data I collected. Thank you both!
Thank you to the members of my graduate committee. I appreciate your
knowledgeable assistance in writing my paper.
Thank you to my Master of Arts in Teaching: Mathematics classmates.
Your support and help with editing have helped me make it through the process. I
have learned a great deal from each of you.
Finally, thank you to my friends and family for your support and
encouragement.
v
Table of Contents
Page
Abstract .................................................................................................................. iii
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................ iv
List of Tables ........................................................................................................ vii
List of Figures ...................................................................................................... viii
Chapter One: Introduction .......................................................................................1
Motivation for the Project ............................................................................1
Background on the Problem.........................................................................2
Statement of the Problem .............................................................................2
Statement of Purpose ...................................................................................3
Research Questions/Hypotheses ..................................................................4
Summary ......................................................................................................4
Chapter Two: Review of Literature .........................................................................5
Collaborative Learning ................................................................................7
Keys to Success............................................................................................9
Role of Teacher ..........................................................................................10
Role of Students .........................................................................................12
Summary ....................................................................................................14
Chapter Three: Research Design and Method .......................................................16
Setting ........................................................................................................16
vi
Intervention/Innovation..............................................................................17
Design ........................................................................................................19
Description of Methods..............................................................................19
Expected Results ........................................................................................21
Summary ....................................................................................................22
Chapter Four: Data Analysis and Interpretation of Results ...................................23
Data Analysis .............................................................................................23
Interpretation of Results .............................................................................33
Summary ....................................................................................................37
Chapter Five: Conclusions, Action Plan, Reflections, and Recommendations .....39
Conclusions ................................................................................................39
Action Plan.................................................................................................40
Reflections and Recommendations for Teachers .......................................41
Summary ....................................................................................................42
References ..............................................................................................................44
Appendices .............................................................................................................46
Appendix A: Parental/Guardian Consent...................................................47
Appendix B: Student Assent ......................................................................50
Appendix C: Principal Consent .................................................................53
Appendix D: Survey and Open-Ended Questions .....................................55
Appendix E: Survey Results ......................................................................59
vii
List of Tables
Table
Page
1.
Descriptive Statistics for Q2 (Final) and Q2 (Test) ...................................24
2.
Mean Test Score Differences and T-Test Analysis for Q2
(Survivor – Non-Survivor).........................................................................22
3.
Descriptive Statistics for Diff Final = Q3 – Q2 and
Diff Test = Q3 – Q2 ...................................................................................25
4.
Two-Sample T-Tests to Compare Growth from Q2 to Q3
(Survivor – Non-Survivor).........................................................................25
5.
Descriptive Statistics for Q3 (Final) and Q3 (Test) ...................................26
6.
Two-Sample T-Tests for Q3 (Final) and Q3 (Test)
(Survivor – Non-Survivor).........................................................................26
7.
Pre-Survey and Post-Survey Results (Percentages) ...................................27
8.
Means on Pre-Survey and Post-Survey by Question .................................28
9.
Means on Pre-Survey and Post-Survey by Student ...................................29
viii
List of Figures
Figure
Page
1.
Bar chart of quarter two final and test score mean comparisons ...............34
2.
Bar chart of differences in final and test score means
from quarter two to quarter three comparisons ..........................................35
3.
Bar chart of quarter three final and test score mean comparisons .............36
Chapter One
Introduction
The Internet can be a powerful tool for educators. I am constantly
searching for new and exciting material to use in my classroom. It is difficult to
think of teaching without the Internet as a resource. As the sole mathematics
teacher in a small school located in a rural Midwest town, I am especially
appreciative of the Internet. It replaces the math colleague I do not have
immediately available to me. I am able to use it to extract countless excellent
ideas from math teachers and other educators across the web. During one of my
searches, I came across a program created by Karen Lyn Davis called Survivor
Algebra. I found it to be a new and interesting way to incorporate collaborative
learning into my classroom.
Motivation for the Project
I am currently in my sixth year as a math teacher. If there is anything I
have learned throughout the years, it is that I can always improve my teaching
methods. Group work has been an area I have wanted to make more of a regular
practice in my classroom. I usually put students into groups for projects or
activities, but this is far from a daily or even weekly occurrence. I want
collaboration among my students to be more consistent and structured.
2
Background on the Problem
There are days when I reflect on how the school day went, and I notice
several aspects that I would like to improve. Many times I see students bored,
making no attempt to get involved. This lack of interest carries over to them being
unable to grasp the material and performing poorly on tests. Then there are other
days when I think my lessons went well, and I noticed a common thread between
these lessons which seemed to be student participation. These moments of success
almost always included some group work activities. Students appeared more
comfortable participating in smaller groups than in class discussion. Many times I
assign each student a specific job in the group, forcing each one to get involved.
These jobs range from note-taking to speaking. These observations further show
me how important it is to get my students to actively participate in the classroom
through group work.
Statement of the Problem
As an educator, I have learned how challenging it can be to increase
student achievement and to keep students motivated to learn mathematics. Let me
go back to my years as a student in high school and college. When I look back at
the classes in which I learned the most and the ones I truly enjoyed, these classes
had regular group work and student involvement. I rarely look back with fond
memories of my classes where the instructor stood up in front of the room and
lectured the entire time. I want to become the teacher that my students look back
3
upon with positive feelings. I want them to see I made an effort to get them
motivated to learn. This reason is why I wanted to focus on using a collaborative
learning approach to improve the effectiveness of my teaching.
Statement of Purpose
I planned to use ideas from the Survivor Algebra program to positively
impact student motivation and achievement in my classroom. The goals I set for
my students came directly from the Survivor Algebra User’s Manual and included
the following:

To build critical thinking skills

To get involved in their own learning

To reduce the anxiety of being in a math class and ease nerves during
exams

To strengthen their ability to learn math (and other things) on their own

It will build the student’s confidence with math and other seemingly
difficult subjects

To increase exam performance and retention of material learned

To provide students with a deeper understanding of the material

To help students get to know their fellow students and teacher better
(Davis, 2007, p. 2).
4
Research Questions/Hypotheses
The main question for my research project was: Will my students’ test
scores and daily work improve, and do they think using my version of Survivor
Algebra was a success? I wrote a journal that detailed my daily observations of
student behaviors and attitudes as well as my thoughts about implementation of
Survivor Algebra and its successes and challenges. Pre- and post- surveys were
given to students to acquire their opinions regarding collaborative learning and
Survivor Algebra. I also compared my 2010-2011 Algebra 2 students’ grades to
those from my 2009-2010 Algebra 2 class.
Summary
Through the use of Survivor Algebra and collaborative learning, I wanted
my students to become motivated to do well, to fully understand the material I am
teaching, to get involved, to improve their test performance, and to have fun in the
process. This would make the overall project a success. In the following chapter, I
discussed the literature I found regarding Survivor Algebra and collaborative
learning.
Chapter Two
Review of Literature
Part of reaching success in life is dependent on learning how to function in
groups. Foster and Theesfeld (1993) highlighted the importance of learning how
to collaborate with others:
The success and progress of our society is dependent on cooperation
among humans. Cooperation is very important in the daily operation of
business and business organizations. Our government must cooperate with
other nations. Members of sports teams must cooperate in order to be
successful. Families must function in a cooperative manner in their
relationships to each other. (p. 1)
They also explained that individuals need to learn certain skills to be successful in
collaboration, and that these abilities could be developed in the classroom. The
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM, 2000) Process Standards
supported this research. The Communication Standard expressed that
instructional programs enable all students to:

Organize and consolidate their mathematical thinking through
communication

Communicate their mathematical thinking coherently and clearly to peers,
teachers, and others

Analyze and evaluate the mathematical thinking and strategies of others;
6

Use the language of mathematics to express mathematical ideas precisely.
(NCTM, Communication section)
Survivor Algebra was used to teach my students these life skills along with
achieving the goals listed in Chapter One. Davis (2008) cited several problems
that led her to create this program. She stated that students were bored. They
hated math, lacked motivation, and were not learning the material. She alluded to
what happened when she switched to using Survivor Algebra as a form of
collaborative learning:
I really view myself more as a motivational speaker now, than as a math
teacher. I used to have a very typical success rate for a community college
math teacher – a very sad 40%. Yes, that’s typical…and it’s also
completely unacceptable! Since I made these changes, I’ve enjoyed a very
steady 75-80% success rate…for years! My students have worked very
hard to earn that success…I’ve just encouraged them to do so. (p. 16)
Davis outlined her typical first day school before making the change to Survivor
Algebra.
I’d always go through my class syllabus (which is just a bunch of rules
about homework and absences) – blah blah blah…And, then, I’d give a 30
minute dissertation on the perils of cheating. In short, I was starting the
semester by talking about a bunch of negative things. Start out
negative…and stay negative. (p. 16)
7
She realized a change was in order. She replaced her typical first day of school
with a positive approach that involved giving a speech on success. In the
following sections, I discussed the definition and goals of collaborative learning
and the role of the teacher and students.
Collaborative Learning
Collaborative and cooperative learning are the primary foci of the
following studies. According to Ares (2008), collaboration is group work in
which individuals work as a whole to complete a task, and cooperation is a
specific type of collaboration in which the task of the group is divided up into
subtasks for group members to complete. With collaborative learning, group
success is determined by accomplishments as a unit. A group’s success in
cooperative learning is “dependent on, and being a direct effect of, the individual
work of each member of the team” (Foster & Theesfeld, 1993, p. 3). Esmonde
(2009) categorized practices in her study as collaborative “when group members
put their ideas together, worked together, and seemed to act as ‘critical friends’
when considering one another’s ideas” (p. 256). One specific method of using
collaboration in the classroom is through collaborative test taking. Bloom (2009)
studied the effectiveness of allowing students a second opportunity to take a test
using collaborative group work. She found that “the second attempt not only
reinforced learning through repeated exposure to course content, but it served as a
review session” (p. 219). Bloom noted that test scores were much higher, and
8
students became energized during group work. Another way to look at
collaboration or collaborative learning is as a form of active learning. Ueckert and
Gess-Newsome (2008) described active learning as the need for students to
engage with one another and the content they are studying. They also added that
increasing active learning “allows students, rather than teachers, to take
responsibility for the work” (p. 52).
Survivor Algebra was developed as a collaborative learning program.
Davis (2007) described Survivor Algebra as a program designed to get students
working in groups and to develop self-learning skills. Studies support the
effectiveness of using some form of collaborative learning. A study examining
two high schools, one traditional and one non-traditional, showed strong evidence
that the non-traditional school was “better able to serve the motivational needs of
adolescent students” (Johnson, 2008, p. 69). The non-traditional school
“employed group decision making, credit rather than grades, non-compulsory
attendance and greater proportions of collaborative work” (Johnson, p. 69). The
results showed that “schools should consider providing a variety of instructional
methods with particular attention to higher proportions of collaborative learning
experiences for adolescent students” (Johnson, p. 83). Another study done with
college students showed that, when proper team-building was used, “students
overwhelmingly reported a positive perception of their team performance and a
9
positive attitude toward academic teamwork in general” (Kapp, 2009, p. 142).
The results revealed that 93% of the students shared these positive feelings.
Keys to Success
There are important keys to consider in making collaborative learning a
success. A recurring theme from literature is that students form a sense of
community with one another. In their study, Jones and Jones (2008) discussed the
use of icebreakers to help students learn to “work together as a learning
community” (p. 2). Ares (2008) also mentioned community along with the
importance of students maintaining “responsibility, interdependence and
expectations of participation” (p. 105). Hmelo-Silver and Barrows (2008) also
discussed the idea of collaborative learning groups as communities and explained
that “all participants must contribute” (p. 49). In a short example, Esmonde
(2009) showed the significance of group practices being evenly distributed
amongst students:
Tony, Sarah, Mustafa, and Kendra are working together on a mathematics
problem. From the teacher’s vantage point at the front of the room, they
look extraordinarily productive; their heads are bent together, they are
engaged in animated discussion, and Sarah’s hands gesture toward her
own paper as well as Kendra’s. As the teacher circulates around the room,
she pauses to observe and listen closely to the talk. Tony and Mustafa are
both writing, heads down, in their notebooks. The teacher hears Sarah
10
explain her strategy for solving the problem as she gestures toward her
notebook and the diagrams she has written there. She hears Kendra tell
Sarah, “Oh…I get it. But I did it a different way. What do you think? I
chose—” and then notices Sarah’s gaze drift back to her own paper as she
begins working on the next question. (p. 250)
The students were placed in a group without being given specific tasks. They
were unable to benefit from the collaborative approach due to this lack of
direction. Ms. Belle, a sixth-grade teacher, understood this. She subscribed to a
system where she would assign students as “leaders, assistants, recorders and
sergeants-at-arms for group assignments” (Ares, 2008, p. 106). Foster and
Theesfeld (1993) supported the ideas that decisions on size of groups, seating
arrangements, team assignments, student collaboration, lesson plans, and daily
task management are crucial components in successful group work. Ciani,
Summers, Easter, and Sheldon (2008) argued that when students are allowed to
choose their collaborative groups they are more motivated than if the groups were
chosen by the teacher.
Role of Teacher
“It is likely that the goal of all professors using collaborative learning as
an instructional tool is to promote adaptive peer relations among students” (Ciani
et al., 2008, p. 634). To attain this goal, educators must know their roles and
follow several guidelines. Gaining the trust of students is vital for teachers to be
11
able to educate through collaborative learning. Davis (2007) suggested how this
can be accomplished and commented that “the quickest and easiest way to build
trust is to show the kids that you genuinely care about them” (p. 27). Furthermore,
Davis stated the importance of getting to know the names of students to earn trust.
According to Foster and Theesfeld (1993), the following teacher
responsibilities are important when using collaborative learning:
1. Carefully explain the task so that each team knows its responsibilities.
It may clarify the task for students if you write the instructions on the
chalkboard or the overhead projector.
2. Monitor student work and behavior.
3. Answer questions only when they are team questions, and provide
assistance when necessary.
4. Interrupt the group process to reinforce cooperative group skills or to
provide direct instruction for all students.
5. Provide closure for the lesson.
6. Evaluate the group process by discussing the actions of team members
at least twice each week. This is called processing.
7. Help students to learn to be individually accountable for learning. This
should be reinforced regularly.
8. Monitor team progress and give praise when appropriate. (p. 3)
12
Brown and Renshaw (2006) found that “the conventional classroom locates
teachers in privileged spaces where they can see, be seen, and influence all
aspects of classroom activities” (p. 248). With this in mind, the role of the
educator is changing. Teachers now assign responsibility to the students asking
“what does the student need to do to learn this material” (Salter, Pang, & Sharma,
2009, p. 28). Staples (2007) summarized the teacher’s role in student
collaboration with the following: “Supporting students in making contributions;
establishing and monitoring a common ground; and guiding the mathematics” (p.
172).
Role of Students
Along with responsibilities for the teacher, Foster and Theesfeld (1993)
listed the roles and responsibilities for students in collaborative learning. They
stated the following:
1. Students understanding that they are part of a team and are all working
toward a common goal.
2. Team members understanding that the successes or failures of the team
will be shared by all members. Therefore, each member must learn to
contribute as much as possible to the group goal.
3. All students learning to discuss problems with each other in order to
accomplish the group goal. Contributions from each member of the
team may be significant in the solution of a problem.
13
4. Team success being dependent on, and being a direct effect of, the
individual work of each member of the team.
5. Learning that capitalizes on the presence of student peers, encourages
interaction among students, and establishes positive relationships
among team members.
6. Learning that requires the guidance of a teacher who can help students
develop the cooperative learning skills they need, understand group
work dynamics, and learn mathematics by working in groups.
7. Teams asking for help only after each team member has considered the
question.
8. Helping students to be individually accountable for their own learning.
(p. 3)
According to Jones and Jones (2008), Dr. Paul Vermette concluded that a strategy
to help positive relationships to occur between his students during collaborative
learning “was facilitating the understanding that mutual respect and cooperation
was a requirement among group members, not an option” (p. 4). Dr. Vermette
created expectations for his students, and through this process “he allowed
students to take ownership for their own learning experiences” (Jones & Jones, p.
8). A study by Brown and Renshaw (2006) concluded that when student
participation through collaboration is used in the classroom, students “were
14
beginning to act as authors of ideas” (p. 257). Ultimately, the students were
becoming active rather than passive learners.
Summary
Since Survivor Algebra has a collaborative learning approach, it was
important to discuss what exactly is meant by collaboration. Collaboration
involves working as a unit to complete the task at hand. Having a sense of
community is important in successful collaborative learning. This builds trust and
comfort amongst group members. The expectations and roles of the teacher and
the students must also be discussed to understand if the use of Survivor Algebra
can be effective in the classroom. To be effective, students must be actively
involved, and the teacher must be a facilitator of events while allowing the
students to be self-learners. These are the building blocks for a positive and
advantageous experience for all in collaborative learning, and in this specific case,
Survivor Algebra. Davis (2008) made the following conclusion about her role as a
math teacher:
The truth is that they will never need or use the Algebra that I am teaching
and I am quite honest with them about this fact. So, why do we make all
the Art and English majors take math? Because math trains them to
THINK. I don’t teach “Algebra” classes, I teach classes in “Success
Training.” Algebra is simply the tool I use to train my students to think
15
and to learn. Survivor Algebra builds their confidence in their ability to
learn. My students won’t just fly, they’ll SOAR! (p. 31)
In the following chapter, I discussed the research methods that were used to
implement collaborative learning through my Survivor Algebra project.
Chapter Three
Research Design and Method
My study involved using portions of the Survivor Algebra program to
create a collaborative learning environment in my Algebra 2 classroom. I planned
for this to positively impact student motivation and achievement. In this chapter, I
discussed my plans for applying my adaptation of Survivor Algebra to my
Algebra 2 classroom. I also described the methods used for analyzing my results.
Setting
My entire six-year full-time mathematics teaching career has been at my
current location. There are approximately 60 students in grades 7-12. Teaching at
a small school has been an excellent experience which has allowed me to become
very close with my students. I view my school as an extended family, and I feel
lucky to be here. Since I grew up in a small Midwest town, I believe I have an
accurate perspective on what life is like for my students. I felt very comfortable
using my Algebra 2 students for this study. It was a class of nine students with
eight juniors and one senior. I have taught most of them since they were in the
seventh grade. During this time, the students and I were able to build strong
relationships with each other.
In using Survivor Algebra, I split my Algebra 2 class into two groups or
tribes of balanced abilities. Adjustments would have been made if I lost or gained
any students, but this was not an issue. Also, I wanted this collaborative learning
17
experience to feel like something new to my students. I was hoping that even
though the students knew each other well, and they were used to working together
in groups, this experience could still be accomplished. I knew this could also be
beneficial, since I had not planned to spend much time teaching them how to
work collaboratively.
Intervention/Innovation
I implemented a version of Survivor Algebra in my Algebra 2 class for
nine weeks. The rules I used for the project were adapted from Davis’ (2007)
Survivor Algebra User’s Guide. They were as follows:
1. Students will be ranked according to their first semester grades. This
ranking will be used to place the students into two tribes or groups of
balanced abilities. Students will remain in the same tribe for all nine
weeks.
2. Individuals may be removed from a tribe if they are disruptive. These
individuals will still work in the same tribe, but they will lose all
privileges that come with being in a tribe.
3. The tribes will compete in challenges (Algebra 2 tests) during the nine
weeks. To win a challenge, a tribe must have the highest average
challenge score. In the case of a tie, each tribe will receive the prize.
18
4. The prize for winning a challenge is one bonus point for each tribe
member. The point will go toward their test grade. A winning tribe
member will be excluded from the prize if his/her score is below 80%.
5. Tribes will compete collaboratively in a variety of pre-challenges (test
reviews). Each member of the winning tribe will receive two bonus
points that will go toward their daily grade.
6. The tribe with the most challenge and pre-challenge wins at the end of
the nine weeks will receive a pizza party.
7. Individuals will remain in their tribe for any group work done
throughout the nine weeks.
8. Tribal members are encouraged to interact and help each other with
daily work. Successful daily work will breed success for the tribe
during challenges.
9. A final challenge will be given at the end of the nine weeks. This
challenge will cover material from the entire nine weeks. Any tribe
member with an overall grade of 90% or above will be in the running
to become the Survivor Algebra winner. The tribe member that fits this
criterion, and receives the highest final challenge score, will be
crowned the winner. The winner will receive two bonus points, a
million dollars (ten 100 Grand bars) and a movie gift card. In the event
of a tie on the final challenge, the tribe member with the highest
19
overall grade for the nine weeks will be given the win. Second and
third place will be given a five dollar coupon for healthy snacks. ()
Design
My approach for this study was mixed-methods. When I compared the
grades of my current Algebra 2 class with my 2009-2010 Algebra 2 class, the
study leaned toward quantitative. Students were given a survey before and after
the study concerning their opinions on collaborative learning. T-tests were then
used to analyze the surveys. I also kept a journal throughout the study and used
my own observations for analysis. The results from my observations were
dissected using a broad or qualitative path.
Description of Methods
The study began the first day of the second semester. It took place during
the entire nine weeks of the third quarter, from January 3, 2011 to March 11,
2011. My students were informed of the purpose of the study, the duration of the
study, and the methods used to collect and analyze data. The Minot State
University Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved letters in Appendices A, B
and C that were used to acquire informed consent from the students, parents, and
administration. Participating students and the school maintained total
confidentiality. During the course of the study, I collected three main sources of
data—individual grades, survey responses, and observations.
20
At the outset of the nine weeks, the students were given a survey on
collaborative learning. The survey utilized a 4-point Likert scale, which had
students rate each question from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The
questions were meant to gauge opinion on collaboration through group work. The
survey also measured how individuals dealt with working in groups. Along with
the questions that used a Likert scale, there were two open-ended questions that
asked students to list their likes and dislikes about group work. Students used their
prior experiences to answer the questions.
I kept a journal throughout the nine weeks. I monitored student reactions
and feelings during the implementation of Survivor Algebra. A close eye was kept
on the level of student involvement, their confidence levels, and their overall
performance in class. I was looking to determine if Survivor Algebra had a
positive influence in my classroom. I used my opinions gained through
observation to determine how well I believed any given situation was going. I also
used the journal to document my thoughts and observations on the
implementation process, including successes and challenges, changes for the
future, and practices to continue.
At the end of the nine weeks, students once again took the survey. This
post-survey was used to determine if there was change in students’ attitudes
toward collaborative learning after using Survivor Algebra. The same questions
asked previously about group work were asked specifically about Survivor
21
Algebra. Students were also asked what they would change about Survivor
Algebra. I did a quantitative analysis of these new results. The survey and both
sets of questions are included in Appendix D. My process of data collection and
analysis greatly depend on these results. The results from the Likert scale portions
of the pre- and post-surveys can be found in Appendix E.
The Algebra 2 grades from 2009-2010 were compared with the grades
acquired during the nine week period of Survivor Algebra. I compared the growth
from quarter two to quarter three in 2009-2010 to the growth over the same period
during the current year. The collection of these data was no different than before
my implementation of this project.
Expected Results
I wanted my students to come away from the study with positive attitudes
toward Survivor Algebra. My hope was that no matter what their feelings were
before the study, they truly learned to enjoy and appreciate collaborative learning.
I believed that I would see my students become motivated to learn mathematics. I
expected them to become successful group members, and I planned to see an
overall increase in achievement.
There were some potential obstacles that could have caused me some
difficulty in completing a successful study. Students might not have taken the
surveys seriously, so I could have been collecting false data. The change in
student grades may have been insignificant. The tribes I formed could have made
22
for a bad mix of personalities, making for a long nine weeks. With the Algebra 2
material becoming more advanced over the course of the year, student struggles
may have been incorrectly linked to Survivor Algebra. I felt I could overcome
these obstacles with my understanding of mathematics and my students.
Summary
A modification of Survivor Algebra was used with my Algebra 2 class.
The students were put into tribes, and over the course of nine weeks they worked
collaboratively. The students worked together on assignments and activities, and
they competed for the top group score on tests. I analyzed the use of Survivor
Algebra mainly using surveys and observations. I also compared grades of last
year’s non-Survivor Algebra students to this year’s Survivor Algebra students. I
expected my students to become more involved in class and achieve higher
success. The next chapter includes the results of the study.
Chapter Four
Data Analysis and Interpretation of Results
For nine weeks, I incorporated a modification of the Survivor Algebra
program into my Algebra 2 classroom. The purpose was to get my students
motivated and to achieve a higher rate of success in mathematics. In this chapter, I
will be discussing and analyzing the results I found through grade comparisons
with a previous Algebra 2 class, surveys, open-ended questions, and observations.
Data Analysis
Survivor Algebra was used solely during the third quarter of 2010-2011.
To determine if test scores and overall scores improved in my current Algebra 2
class, a comparison was made between the growth that occurred from quarter two
to quarter three in 2010-2011 (Survivor group) and my Algebra 2 class from
2009-2010 (non-Survivor group). Two independent t-tests found there were no
significant differences in the average end-of-quarter-two final (t = -0.90, p =
0.387) and test scores (t = -1.06, p = 0.309) of the students in the non-Survivor
group and the Survivor group. Table 1 includes means, standard deviations, and
sample sizes of the two groups, and Table 2 includes the t-test results. These tests
indicated the groups were not significantly different based on their end-of-quartertwo final scores and test scores. This showed that there was no significant
difference in the achievement levels of the two groups.
24
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics for Q2 (Final) and Q2 (Test)
Q2 (Final)
Group
N
M
SD
Non-Survivor
10
92.4
8.4
Survivor
8
88.4
10.3
Q2 (Test)
M
SD
86.56
9.97
80.8
12.5
Table 2
Mean Test Score Differences for Q2 (Survivor – Non-Survivor)
Test
M Diff
t
Q2 Final
-4.0
-0.9
Q2 Test
-5.76
-1.06
Note. T-tests were calculated at the 0.05 significance level.
p
0.387
0.309
Since there was no significant difference in achievement levels of the nonSurvivor group of 2009-2010 and Survivor group of 2010-2011, the grades of the
two groups were compared using t-tests to determine if the Survivor Algebra
group from 2010-2011 learned significantly more than the non-Survivor Algebra
group from 2009-2010. To do this, the following differences were calculated for
both groups of students:
Difference Final = Q3 Final – Q2 Final
Difference Test = Q3 Test – Q2 Test
The t-tests found that students in the Survivor Algebra group had significantly
greater growth on their final (t = 2.04, p = 0.04) and test scores (t = 2.31, p =
0.025) from quarter two to quarter three than students in the non-Survivor
25
Algebra group. Table 3 includes means, standard deviations, and sample sizes of
the two groups, and Table 4 includes the t-test results.
Table 3
Descriptive Statistics for Diff Final = Q3 – Q2 and Diff Test = Q3 – Q2
Diff Final
Diff Test
Group
N
M
SD
M
SD
Non-Survivor
10
0.3
1.25
2.28
3.32
Survivor
8
4.75
6.07
9.39
8.17
Table 4
Two-Sample T-Tests to Compare Growth from Q2 to Q3 (Survivor – NonSurvivor)
Test
M Diff
t
p
Diff Final
4.45
2.04
0.04*
Diff Test
7.11
2.31
0.025*
Note. T-tests were calculated at the 0.05 significance level.
As previously stated, the tests at the beginning of the study indicated the
groups were not significantly different based on their end-of-quarter-two final
scores and test scores. However, in each case, the Survivor Algebra group had
lower scores than the non-Survivor Algebra group (about four points lower on the
final quarter two scores and about six points lower on the quarter two test scores).
These averages were not significantly different, but the 2010-2011 Survivor
Algebra group had more room to grow than the 2009-2010 non-Survivor Algebra
group. In fact, they showed significantly more growth at the end of quarter three
than the non-Survivor Algebra group. Table 5 includes means, standard
deviations, and sample sizes of the two groups, and Table 6 includes the t-test
26
results. The t-tests indicate no significant differences in the average end-ofquarter-three final (t = -0.13, p = 0.9) and test (t = -0.32, p = 0.753) scores.
However, the Survivor Algebra group caught and passed the average quarter three
final and test scores of the non-Survivor Algebra group. The Survivor Algebra
group had significantly greater growth than the non-Survivor Algebra group (see
Table 4).
Table 5
Descriptive Statistics for Q3 (Final) and Q3 (Test)
Q3 (Final)
Group
N
M
SD
Non-Survivor
10
92.7
8.17
Survivor
8
93.13
5.96
Q3 (Test)
M
88.84
90.19
SD
8.94
8.77
Table 6
Two-Sample T-Tests for Q3 (Final) and Q3 (Test) (Survivor – Non-Survivor)
Test
M Diff
t
p
Diff Final
0.43
0.13
0.90
Diff Test
1.35
0.32
0.753
Note. * Indicates significance at the α = 0.05 level
Before the incorporation of Survivor Algebra, eight students were given a
survey that asked them to rate their overall feelings toward collaborative learning
using SA = Strongly Agree, A = Agree, D = Disagree, and SD = Strongly
Disagree. After the nine weeks of Survivor Algebra, the eight students were given
the survey once again. Table 7 compares the results of the pre- and post-survey
(see Appendix D).
27
Table 7
Pre-Survey and Post-Survey Results (Percentages)
Pre-Survey (%)
Question
SA
A
D
SD
SA
1
25
25
12.5
37.5
0
2
50
25
25
0
50
3
0
25
50
25
0
4
25
37.5
25
12.5
12.5
5
75
25
0
0
37.5
6
12.5
37.5
37.5
12.5
12.5
7
0
75
25
0
25
8
50
25
25
0
50
9
37.5
37.5
25
0
37.5
10
0
0
75
25
0
11
0
25
37.5
37.5
12.5
12
0
25
50
25
0
13
25
37.5
37.5
0
37.5
14
37.5
50
12.5
0
37.5
15
12.5
50
12.5
25
37.5
16
75
25
0
0
50
Post-Survey (%)
A
D
25
25
25
25
25
25
62.5
12.5
62.5
0
25
50
37.5
37.5
37.5
12.5
62.5
0
0
62.5
12.5
25
12.5
50
37.5
25
50
12.5
12.5
50
50
0
SD
50
0
50
12.5
0
12.5
0
0
0
37.5
50
37.5
0
0
0
0
From Table 7, only the percentages in Questions 4, 5, 7, and 15 show a
slight drop in positive feelings toward collaborative learning. Student responses to
the survey were coded based on whether each question was positive or negative
toward collaborative learning. Questions 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, and 16 were
positive. Questions 1, 3, 6, 10, 11, and 12 were negative. The questions were
scored as follows:
Positive: SA = 4, A = 3, D = 2, SD = 1
Negative: SA = 1, A = 2, D = 3, SD = 4
28
The mean and standard deviation were calculated for each question on both
surveys. The differences in the means from pre-survey to post-survey were also
found. These results can be found in Table 8.
Table 8
Means on Pre-Survey to Post-Survey by Questions
Question
M Pre-Survey
M Post-Survey
1
2.625
3.25
2
3.25
3.25
3
3
3.25
4
2.75
2.75
5
3.75
3.375
6
2.5
2.625
7
2.75
2.875
8
3.25
3.375
9
3.125
3.375
10
3.25
3.375
11
3.125
3.125
12
3
3.25
13
2.875
3.125
14
3.25
3.25
15
2.5
2.875
16
3.75
3.5
Overall
3.047
3.164
M Difference
0.625
0
0.25
0
-0.375
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.25
0.125
0
0.25
0.25
0
0.375
-0.25
0.117
The results of the post-survey showed a positive change in how students
rated 10 of the 16 survey questions. Four of the questions showed no change, and
only two showed a negative change. These two questions involved getting along
with other group members and motivation from rewards and extra credit. The
positive ratings of 3.75 for both of these questions were high to begin with, so the
29
drop off is minimal. Question 1 rated student dislike for math, and showed the
largest improvement by 0.625 on the 1-4 rating. The overall means of the ratings
from the pre-survey and post-survey were 3.047 and 3.164 respectively. This
shows an increase of 0.117.
Means were also calculated for the pre-survey and post-survey for each
individual student. As shown in Table 9, seven of the eight students that were
surveyed showed improvement in their feelings toward collaborative learning.
Only student D showed a decline.
Table 9
Means on Pre-Survey and Post-Survey by Student
Student
M Pre-Survey
M Post-Survey
A
3.375
3.875
B
3.375
3.6875
C
2.5625
2.6875
D
3.3125
2.9375
E
3.0625
3.125
F
3.3125
3.5
G
3.125
3.1875
H
2.25
2.375
M Difference
0.5
0.3125
0.125
-0.375
0.0625
0.1875
0.0625
0.125
Following the pre-survey, students answered two open-ended questions on
their feelings toward collaborative learning. After the post-survey, students
answered two similar questions that were specifically about Survivor Algebra. A
third question after the post-survey asked students to give more feedback
30
regarding Survivor Algebra. Below is a summary of student responses before and
after the study.
Pre-survey open-ended question one: Explain what you like about group
work. Most students mentioned they like working with others to figure out a
problem. They found it useful when able to ask peers for help and get different
ideas and explanations on how to solve a problem. One student called group work
fun, and another liked when he/she was able to help others that might be
struggling. A couple students stated they enjoyed when group work turned
competitive.
Pre-survey open-ended question two: Explain what you dislike about
group work. Students wrote they did not like when certain group members were
“lazy” or “dead weight.” A few students noted their distaste for group members
that were negative and difficult to get along with. Students also answered that
they disliked group work due to fear of failing the group and getting singled out
as the weak group member. A couple students said they did not like when the
group rushed through an assignment and they were unable to learn anything from
it.
Post-survey open-ended question one: Explain what you like about
Survivor Algebra. Most felt the competitive aspect (challenges, rewards, etc.) of
Survivor Algebra led to motivation and improved grades. They also thought it
was a fun experience. Two students pointed out that they thought the groups were
31
chosen fairly and this contributed to the success of the project. One student wrote
how he/she liked the ability to ask questions in a group setting.
Post-survey open-ended question two: Explain what you dislike about
Survivor Algebra. Most students mentioned the reviews or pre-challenges. They
feel the pre-challenges did not provide an adequate review of the material.
Although most students enjoyed the pre-challenges, they felt too much time was
spent playing the game and not enough examples were covered. One student did
not like the pressure that came with the pre-challenges. A couple students wrote
they feel some group members did not participate and were not motivated. One
student had no dislikes.
Post-survey open-ended question three: What would you recommend to
improve Survivor Algebra? Student responses included the following:

Go over more examples during pre-challenges.

Add more variety to pre-challenges.

Add more group activities.

Reward extra credit points for highest test score.

Hold Survivor Algebra competition over longer period of time.
Throughout the study, I kept a journal and documented whatever I thought
was relevant. As I outlined the rules of Survivor Algebra for my students, I could
tell they were immediately intrigued. The idea of a competition and the
opportunity to earn extra credit and prizes captured student interest. Students were
32
receptive to the idea of me choosing the tribes or groups, and reacted well when I
announced them.
During the pre-challenges, students were enthusiastic and competitive. In
the very first pre-challenge, energy was built up to the point where the winning
tribe let out a loud cheer at the point of victory. The first challenge produced the
highest average the class had scored on a test all year. Students were encouraging
each other during most pre-challenges, and they were not putting unfair pressure
on one another to do better on the challenges. There was a high level of effort put
into the pre-challenges and challenges, and most students seemed to enjoy
themselves in the process. They asked me if we could continue Survivor Algebra
through the fourth quarter. They also made comments that their grades might
decline without the added motivation.
There were moments during Survivor Algebra where students became too
competitive. There was one particular moment during the second pre-challenge
when there was a misunderstanding with directions. One student grew
argumentative and felt he had been misled. I was able to explain how this was not
true, but it was too late. The energy in the room was growing negative and tension
was building. This one moment soured the whole pre-challenge.
Challenge or test results were held up until all students had completed the
challenge. Since the win for the tribe was dependent on their overall average, I
felt it was only fair to hold test scores so there was no undue pressure put on
33
individual students. There were a few challenges where students were absent for
multiple days and the rest of the class was left waiting for one student to complete
the challenge. The ability for one student to hold up the results was definitely a
flaw. This waiting period killed the momentum, and there were a couple of times
that we had moved on to new material before students saw their results.
Interpretation of Results
I sought to answer the question: Will my students’ test scores and daily
work improve? I found the t-tests comparing the 2010-2011 Survivor Algebra
group and the 2009-2010 non-Survivor Algebra group showed the Survivor
Algebra group had significantly greater growth in final and test scores from
quarter two to quarter three than students in the non-Survivor Algebra group.
Although the non-Survivor Algebra group improved from quarter two to quarter
three, the fact that the Survivor Algebra group improved significantly greater
showed me that using Survivor Algebra did improve test and daily scores. Figures
1, 2, and 3 below show where each group started, the average growth of each
group, and where each group ended up. The charts visually represent how the
Survivor Algebra group started lower than the non-Survivor Algebra group, but
eventually caught and passed them.
34
Chart of Mean (Q2 (FINAL), Q2(TEST)) vs Year
92.40
90
88.38
86.56
80.80
80
70
Data
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Year
2009-2010 2010-2011
Q2 (FINAL)
2009-2010 2010-2011
Q2(TEST)
Figure 1. Bar chart of quarter two final and test score mean comparisons.
35
Chart of Mean (Diff Final = Q3 - Q2, Diff Test = Q3 - Q2) vs Year
9.39
9
8
7
Data
6
4.75
5
4
3
2.28
2
1
0
Year
0.3
2009-2010 2010-2011
Diff Final = Q3 - Q2
2009-2010 2010-2011
Diff Test = Q3 - Q2
Figure 2. Bar chart of difference in final and test score means from quarter two to
quarter three comparisons.
36
Chart of Mean (Q3 (FINAL), Q3 (TEST)) vs Year
92.70
93.13
88.84
90
90.19
80
70
Data
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Year
2009-2010 2010-2011
Q3 (FINAL)
2009-2010 2010-2011
Q3 (TEST)
Figure 3. Bar chart of quarter three final and test score mean comparisons.
The second question I sought to answer was the following: Do students
believe using my version of Survivor Algebra was a success? The results of the
pre- and post-surveys showed an overall increase of 0.117 in the mean scores.
This represents that students’ overall feelings toward collaborative learning after
using Survivor Algebra grew more positive. Also, seven of the eight students
surveyed improved in their overall mean scores from pre-survey to post-survey.
Thus, almost all of the students felt more positively toward collaborative learning
after the project. I believe students had a good understanding of the questions on
the surveys they were given. The increase of the total of the mean scores seems
minimal, but the increase was consistent throughout.
37
In the questions following the survey, students noted that they enjoyed
Survivor Algebra. They wrote that it motivated them and helped improve their
test scores. Most of the negative thoughts the students had involved tweaks that
could be easily made to Survivor Algebra. Overall, students reacted positively to
the project.
The observations I made of students during Survivor Algebra suggest that
students enjoyed themselves and learned in the process. Students rarely
complained and frequently made comments about how they enjoyed using the
program. At times the competitive nature of the students felt like it could get out
of hand, but it was usually in good fun. At the start of the fourth quarter, students
asked me if we could continue using Survivor Algebra. I told them that I had
already decided to stop it at the end of third quarter, but I would consider doing it
over the course of the entire next year.
Summary
After studying the use of Survivor Algebra, I compared the grades of my
2010-2011 Survivor Algebra class to my 2009-2010 non-Survivor Algebra class.
A comparison was made between the growth in each class from quarter two to
quarter three. A t-test showed the Survivor Algebra group had significantly
greater growth in final and test scores from quarter two to quarter three than
students in the non-Survivor Algebra group. Also, the Survivor Algebra group
caught and passed the mean scores of the non-Survivor Algebra group. A pre-
38
survey and a post-survey regarding collaborative leaning were given to the
Survivor Algebra group before and after the study. Results from the survey
showed an increase in the students’ positive feelings toward collaborative
learning. Open-ended questions were given along with the surveys. Students gave
mostly positive feedback about collaborative learning and Survivor Algebra. A
few changes were suggested, but not many complaints were given. From my own
observations, I saw students genuinely enjoying the utilization of Survivor
Algebra. Competition was strong, and motivation was high. Once the competition
was over, students requested to keep using Survivor Algebra. The next chapter
provides conclusions, a plan of action, and reflections.
Chapter Five
Conclusions, Action Plan, Reflections, and Recommendations
The purpose of the study was to determine if incorporating Survivor
Algebra into my mathematics classroom improved student motivation and
learning. The results found from grade comparisons, surveys, open-ended
questions, and observations showed these improvements occurred. In the
following, I will discuss these findings along with my plan of action and my
recommendations for other teachers considering Survivor Algebra.
Conclusions
The t-tests used to compare the 2010-2011 Survivor Algebra group and
the 2009-2010 non-Survivor Algebra group indicated the Survivor Algebra group
had a significantly larger increase in test and daily grades from quarter two to
quarter three. In fact, the Survivor Algebra group started with lower average final
and test scores in quarter two than the non-Survivor Algebra group, but by the end
of quarter three they had surpassed the scores of the non-Survivor Algebra group
in both categories. Since Survivor Algebra was only used in quarter three, these
results reinforce the success of incorporating the program.
According to the surveys, positive student sentiment toward collaborative
learning improved after using Survivor Algebra. Also, the open-ended questions
regarding collaborative learning and Survivor Algebra indicated that, as a whole,
students enjoyed using Survivor Algebra and viewed it as a worthwhile
40
experience. It was rewarding during Survivor Algebra to observe students become
more actively involved and show a greater concern for their grades than I had
seen all year.
Action Plan
I feel there was enough success with Survivor Algebra that I will use it
again. My plan is to incorporate Survivor Algebra into my Algebra 2 class next
year and beyond. Since I am the only math teacher at my high school, I teach the
same students year after year as they work their way from seventh grade to
graduation. I believe that if I was to use Survivor Algebra in all of my classes it
could possibly grow stale, and lose some of its effectiveness. I am choosing to use
Survivor Algebra in Algebra 2 for two reasons. First, I want to use it to help with
one of the more challenging courses I teach. The second reason is that most
students take Algebra 2, whereas most students do not take Advanced Math. I
think it is important to get as many students involved as possible.
I will make a few modifications before I use Survivor Algebra next year. I
really trust the feedback I received from my students that used Survivor Algebra,
and they made some quality suggestions on what I could change to improve the
program. Along with making the obvious change of using Survivor Algebra over
the course of an entire year, I have come up with the following list of
modifications for next year:
41

Create a wider variety of pre-challenges or reviews. Concentrate on how
effective they will be regarding student enjoyment and learning.

Assign more collaborative group activities to build stronger unity within
the tribes.

Hold students accountable for their participation during group work. Next
year, I plan to assign specific tasks to students during group work and prechallenges. Giving students these specified duties will heighten their
responsibility within their tribes and force them to be more responsible.
Reflections and Recommendations for Teachers
I am pleased with the success of my Algebra 2 students after using
Survivor Algebra. However, my incorporation of the program was not without
imperfections. I feel that I should have used more collaborative activities along
with the pre-challenges. I do not think students really felt like they were part of a
tribe outside of the pre-challenges and challenges. Giving them more group
activities would have helped. Also, students really enjoyed the pre-challenges, but
I do not think the reviews were as effective as they could have been. If I could go
back, I would have given the reviews more substance and less show. The last
point I would like to make regarding what I would do differently pertains to
student attitude. Students can become so competitive during competition that it
may lead to negative attitudes. Next year, I am going to talk to my students
beforehand about attitude and participation, and possibly give them a grade based
42
on how they behave during challenges and collaborative activities. I did not have
many problems with this, but any time there was negativity it took the air out of
the room.
It was during the very first pre-challenge that I knew using Survivor
Algebra had potential. Students acted differently during this test review than any
other one all year. Having something else on the line really motivated them. I was
even more encouraged seeing the results of the first test or challenge. From that
point on Survivor Algebra seemed to work. I considered my 2009-2010 Algebra 2
class to be very strong, and to see the class this year come from behind and
overtake them in overall grade and test scores was special to me.
I recommend for any teacher thinking about incorporating Survivor
Algebra to read Karen Lyn Davis’ Survivor Algebra User’s Manual. My version
of Survivor Algebra is my own interpretation of her program. She shares many
other thoughts and ideas, and it is all about what will work best for you as the
teacher. Davis uses Survivor Algebra as a tool for training students to teach
themselves. She has many interesting concepts, and it would be beneficial for
teachers to see the entire scope of her program.
Summary
After analyzing the grade comparisons, surveys, open-ended questions,
and my observations, I can say confidently that the incorporation of Survivor
Algebra in my Algebra 2 class was a success. I plan to use the program with my
43
Algebra 2 class next year. This will include some changes like fine tuning prechallenges or reviews, assigning more collaborative activities, and making
students more responsible. I am open to making further adaptations if I feel
necessary, and am looking forward to the challenge. Once again, if you are
interested in trying out Survivor Algebra, take a look at the Survivor Algebra
User’s Manual and see if you feel the program is for you.
44
References
Ares, N. (2008). Appropriating roles and relations of power in collaborative
learning. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education (QSE),
21(2), 99-121. doi: 10.1080/09518390701256472
Bloom, D. (2009). Collaborative test taking: Benefits for learning and retention.
College Teaching, 57(4), 216-220. doi:10.3200/CTCH.57.4.216-220
Brown, R., & Renshaw, P. (2006). Positioning students as actors and authors: A
chronotopic analysis of collaborative learning activities. Mind, Culture,
and Activity, 13(3), 247-259. doi:10.1207/s15327884mca1303_6
Ciani, K., Summers, J., Easter, M., & Sheldon, K. (2008). Collaborative learning
and positive experiences: Does letting students choose their own groups
matter? Educational Psychology, 28(6), 627-641. doi: 10.1080/01443410
802084792
Davis, K. (2007). Survivor algebra user’s manual. Costa Mesa, CA:
Coolmath.com.
Esmonde, I. (2009). Mathematics learning in groups: Analyzing equity in two
cooperative activity structures. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(2),
247-284. doi: 10.1080/10508400902797958
Foster, A., & Theesfeld, C. (1993). Cooperative learning in the mathematics
classroom. New York: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill.
45
Hmelo-Silver, C., & Barrows, H. (2008). Facilitating collaborative knowledge
building. Cognition and Instruction, 26(1), 48-94. doi: 10.1080/07370000
701798495
Johnson, L. (2008). Relationship of instructional methods to student engagement
in two public high schools. American Secondary Education, 36(2), 69-87.
Jones, K., & Jones, J. (2008). A descriptive account of cooperative-learning based
practice in teacher education. College Quarterly, 11(1), 1-13.
Kapp, E. (2009). Improving student teamwork in a collaborative project-based
course. College Teaching, 57(3), 139-143. doi: 10.3200/CTCH.57.3.139143.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards
for school mathematics: Process standards. Retrieved June 5, 2011, from
http://www.nctm.org/standards/content.aspx?id=322
Salter, D., Pang, M., & Sharma, P. (2009). Active tasks to change the use of class
time within an outcomes based approach to curriculum design. Journal of
University Teaching and Learning Practice, 6(1), 27-38.
Staples, M. (2007). Supporting whole-class collaborative inquiry in a secondary
mathematics classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 25(2-3), 161-217. doi:
10.1080/07370000701301125
Ueckert, C., & Gess-Newsome, J. (2008). Active learning strategies. Science
Teacher, 75(9), 47-52. doi: 10.2505/3/tst08_075_09
Appendices
47
Appendix A
Parental/Guardian Consent
The Impact of Collaborative Learning through Survivor Algebra in the
Mathematics Classroom
Invitation to participate: Your child is invited to participate in a study of the use
of a structured collaborative learning approach. The study will examine how the
implementation of the Survivor Algebra program impacts student motivation and
achievement. It will also compare student opinions toward collaborative learning
before and after using Survivor Algebra. This study is being conducted by Peter
Wang, mathematics instructor at Fairmount Public School, and a graduate student
at Minot State University.
Basis for Subject Selection: Your child has been selected because he/she is in
Mr. Wang’s Algebra 2 class. Your child’s class was chosen because the class size
and age level are appropriate for the study. If everyone agrees to participate there
will be nine students who meet the criteria for the study.
Overall Purpose of Study: The purpose of this paper is to help me improve my
teaching methods by using a structured collaborative learning approach. The main
goal of utilizing Survivor Algebra is to determine if it will have a positive effect
on my students and their learning and enjoyment of math.
Explanation of Procedures: If you decide to allow your child to participate,
he/she will be asked to do the following:
a. Work in the same group during classroom activities and test reviews for
nine weeks.
b. Take tests that could have a positive impact on the entire group. The tests
are scored individually, but the individuals in the group with the highest
average test score will receive a bonus point. This is considered winning a
challenge.
c. Take two surveys and answer four open-ended questions about his/her
opinions on collaborative learning and Survivor Algebra.
48
The identity of all participants will remain confidential. All research will be done
in the classroom. The implementations will occur during the nine weeks of the
third quarter.
Potential Benefits: Each participant will learn collaborative strategies that will
hopefully carry over to real world situations. My goal is for students to become
motivated to do well, to better understand the material I am teaching, to get
involved, to improve their test performance, and to have fun in the process.
Alternatives to Participation: If you decide to not allow your child to
participate, he/she will still take the same tests during class, but will not be
required to take the two surveys and answer the four questions. Their test scores
will not be factored in for the group average, and I will not collect data from my
observations of their group work.
Compensation for Participation: Bonus points will be awarded to individuals if
their group wins a challenge. Bonus points will also be given when a group wins a
test review, which is called a pre-challenge. At the end of the nine weeks, a final
challenge will be given. Students receiving the top three scores on the final
challenge will all earn prizes.
Assurance of Confidentiality: The identity of all participants and their data will
remain confidential and stored in a locked file cabinet or on a password-protected
computer. Any data collected will not be linked to the participants or the school
district in any way. Following the study and completion of my master’s degree,
all data will be destroyed.
Withdrawal from the Study: Your child’s participation is voluntary. Your
decision whether or not to allow your child to participate will not affect his/her
grade. If you decide to allow your child’s participation in the study, you are free
to withdraw your consent and discontinue participation at any time.
You should feel free to ask questions now or at any time during the study. If you
have questions or wish to withdraw your child from the study, you can contact
Peter Wang at 701-474-5469 or peter.a.wang@sendit.nodak.edu. If you have
questions about the rights of research subjects, contact the Chairperson of the
MSU Institutional Review Board (IRB), Brent Askvig at 701-858-3052 or
Brent.Askvig@minotstateu.edu.
49
Consent Statement:
You are voluntarily making a decision whether or not to allow your child or
legal ward to participate. You signature indicates that, having read and
understood the information provided above, you have decided to permit your
child or legal ward to participate. You will be given a copy of this consent
from to keep.
____________________
Participant (please print student name)
____________________
___________
_________
Signature of Parent or Guardian
Relationship to subject
Date
____________________
_________
Researcher’s Signature
Date
50
Appendix B
Student Assent
The Impact of Collaborative Learning through Survivor Algebra in the
Mathematics Classroom
Invitation to participate: You are invited to participate in a study of the use of a
structured group learning approach. The study will examine how the
implementation of the Survivor Algebra program impacts student motivation and
achievement. It will also compare student opinions toward group learning before
and after using Survivor Algebra. This study is being conducted by Mr. Wang,
mathematic instructor at Fairmount Public School, and a graduate student at
Minot State University.
Basis for Subject Selection: You have been selected because you are in Mr.
Wang’s Algebra 2 class. Your class was chosen because the class size and age
level are appropriate for the study.
Overall Purpose of Study: The purpose of this paper is to help me improve my
teaching methods by using a group learning approach. The main goal of using
Survivor Algebra is to determine if it will have a positive effect on you and your
learning and enjoyment of math..
Explanation of Procedures: If you decide to participate, you will be asked to do
the following:
a. Work in the same group during classroom activities and test reviews for
nine weeks.
b. Take tests that could have a positive impact on the entire group. The tests
are scored individually, but the individuals in the group with the highest
average test score will receive a bonus point. This is considered winning a
challenge.
c. Take two surveys and answer four open-ended questions about your
opinions on collaborative learning and Survivor Algebra.
The identity of all participants will remain confidential. All research will be done
in the classroom. The implementations will occur during the nine weeks of the
third quarter.
51
Potential Benefits: Each participant will learn collaborative strategies that will
hopefully carry over to real world situations. My goal is for students to become
motivated to do well, to better understand the material I am teaching, to get
involved, to improve their test performance, and to have fun in the process.
Alternatives to Participation: If you decide not to participate, you will still take
the same tests during class, but will not be required to take the two surveys and
answer the four questions. Your test scores will not be factored in for the group
average, and I will not collect data from my observations of your group work.
Compensation for Participation: Bonus points will be awarded to individuals if
their group wins a challenge. Bonus points will also be given when a group wins a
test review, which is called a pre-challenge. At the end of the nine weeks, a final
challenge will be given. Students receiving the top three scores on the final
challenge will all earn prizes.
Assurance of Confidentiality: The identity of all participants and their data will
remain confidential and stored in a locked file cabinet or on a password-protected
computer. Any data collected will not be linked to the participants or the school
district in any way. Following the study and completion of my master’s degree,
all data will be destroyed.
Withdrawal from the Study: Your participation is voluntary. Your decision
whether or not to participate will not affect your grade. If you decide to
participate in the study, you are free to discontinue participation at any time.
You should feel free to ask questions now or at any time during the study. If you
have questions or wish to discontinue participation in the study, you can contact
Peter Wang at 701-474-5469 or peter.a.wang@sendit.nodak.edu. If you have
questions about the rights of research subjects, contact the Chairperson of the
MSU Institutional Review Board (IRB), Brent Askvig at 701-858-3052 or
Brent.Askvig@minotstateu.edu.
52
Student Assent:
You are voluntarily making a decision whether or not to participate. Your
signature indicates that, having read and understood the information
provided above, you have decided to participate. You will be given a copy of
this assent form to keep.
____________________
Participant (please print student name)
______________________
_________
Signature of Participant
Date
_______________________
_________
Researcher’s Signature
Date
53
Appendix C
Principal Consent
Fairmount Public School
PO Box 228
Fairmount, ND 58030
Dear Mr. Townsend:
I am completing work toward the Master of Arts in Teaching: Mathematics
degree through Minot State University. As a degree requirement, I need to
conduct a research project in my classroom during the third quarter of this year. I
will examine how the implementation of the Survivor Algebra program impacts
student motivation and achievement. I will also compare student opinions toward
collaborative learning before and after using Survivor Algebra. To accomplish
this I would like to use my adaptation of the Survivor Algebra program with my
Algebra 2 class.
Each student would be asked to complete a survey and answer open-ended
questions regarding their attitudes toward collaborative learning and Survivor
Algebra before and after the nine-week implementation. I will also be taking
notes on my own observations.
Survey responses, observations and test scores will be analyzed and the results
will be included in my paper; however, no individual participants will be
identified by name. Standard classroom confidentiality will be observed regarding
all data collected. I will ask each participant to include their name on all surveys
for the purpose of comparing the results, but be assured that a student’s responses
will in no way impact his or her grade in my class.
I have prepared letters requesting parental consent and student assent for
participation in my study. Copies of these letters are attached for your inspection.
I am requesting that you permit me to carry out this research in my classroom.
Please contact me at peter.a.wang@sendit.nodak.edu or 701-474-5469 if you have
any questions. Thank you for your consideration.
54
Sincerely,
Peter Wang
______Permission for Peter Wang to conduct research in his classroom is granted.
______Permission to conduct this study is denied.
Signature____________________________________________ Date__________
Mr. Jay Townsend
Fairmount Public School Principal
55
Appendix D
Survey and Open-Ended Questions
Collaborative Learning Pre-Survey:
SA = Strongly Agree, A = Agree, D = Disagree, SD = Strongly Disagree
Question
1. I dislike math.
2. I enjoy working collaboratively in groups with other
students.
3. Working collaboratively in groups has not helped me
better learn the material.
4. I prefer classes that regularly use collaborative group
work.
5. I generally get along with other group members.
6. I do better when I work alone.
7. My critical thinking skills have improved from group
work.
8. I am motivated by competing with other students.
9. I prefer when groups are chosen at random.
10. Overall, my collaborative group learning experiences
have been negative.
11. I have difficulty communicating my thoughts when
working in groups.
12. I rarely take a leadership role when working in groups.
13. I prefer to get help with homework from peers rather
than a teacher.
14. I feel group work helps me build stronger relationships
with my classmates.
15. I get more involved during group work than regular
classroom discussion.
16. I am motivated by opportunities for rewards and extra
credit.
SA
A
D
SD
56
Open-Ended Questions (Pre-Survey):
1. Explain what you like about group work.
2. Explain what you dislike about group work.
57
Collaborative Learning Post-Survey:
SA = Strongly Agree, A = Agree, D = Disagree, SD = Strongly Disagree
Question
1. I dislike math.
2. I enjoy working collaboratively in groups with other
students.
3. Working collaboratively in groups has not helped me
better learn the material.
4. I prefer classes that regularly use collaborative group
work.
5. I generally get along with other group members.
6. I do better when I work alone.
7. My critical thinking skills have improved from group
work.
8. I am motivated by competing with other students.
9. I prefer when groups are chosen at random.
10. Overall, my collaborative group learning experiences
have been negative.
11. I have difficulty communicating my thoughts when
working in groups.
12. I rarely take a leadership role when working in groups.
13. I prefer to get help with homework from peers rather
than a teacher.
14. I feel group work helps me build stronger relationships
with my classmates.
15. I get more involved during group work than regular
classroom discussion.
16. I am motivated by opportunities for rewards and extra
credit.
SA
A
D
SD
58
Open-Ended Questions (Post-Survey):
1. Explain what you like about Survivor Algebra.
2. Explain what you dislike about Survivor Algebra.
3. What would you recommend to improve Survivor Algebra?
59
Appendix E
Survey Results
Pre-Survey Results:
SA = Strongly Agree, A = Agree, D = Disagree, SD = Strongly Disagree
Question
SA A
2
2
D
1
SD
3
2. I enjoy working collaboratively in groups with other
students.
3. Working collaboratively in groups has not helped me
better learn the material.
4. I prefer classes that regularly use collaborative group
work.
5. I generally get along with other group members.
4
2
2
0
0
2
4
2
2
3
2
1
6
2
0
0
6. I do better when I work alone.
1
3
3
1
7. My critical thinking skills have improved from group
work.
8. I am motivated by competing with other students.
0
6
2
0
4
2
2
0
9. I prefer when groups are chosen at random.
3
3
2
0
10. Overall, my collaborative group learning experiences
have been negative.
11. I have difficulty communicating my thoughts when
working in groups.
12. I rarely take a leadership role when working in groups.
0
0
6
2
0
2
3
3
0
2
4
2
13. I prefer to get help with homework from peers rather
than a teacher.
14. I feel group work helps me build stronger relationships
with my classmates.
15. I get more involved during group work than regular
classroom discussion.
16. I am motivated by opportunities for rewards and extra
credit.
2
3
3
0
3
4
1
0
1
4
1
2
6
2
0
0
1. I dislike math.
60
Post-Survey Results:
SA = Strongly Agree, A = Agree, D = Disagree, SD = Strongly Disagree
Question
SA A
0
2
D
2
SD
4
2. I enjoy working collaboratively in groups with other
students.
3. Working collaboratively in groups has not helped me
better learn the material.
4. I prefer classes that regularly use collaborative group
work.
5. I generally get along with other group members.
4
2
2
0
0
2
2
4
1
5
1
1
3
5
0
0
6. I do better when I work alone.
1
2
4
1
7. My critical thinking skills have improved from group
work.
8. I am motivated by competing with other students.
2
3
3
0
4
3
1
0
9. I prefer when groups are chosen at random.
3
5
0
0
10. Overall, my collaborative group learning experiences
have been negative.
11. I have difficulty communicating my thoughts when
working in groups.
12. I rarely take a leadership role when working in groups.
0
0
5
3
1
1
2
4
0
1
4
3
13. I prefer to get help with homework from peers rather
than a teacher.
14. I feel group work helps me build stronger relationships
with my classmates.
15. I get more involved during group work than regular
classroom discussion.
16. I am motivated by opportunities for rewards and extra
credit.
3
3
2
0
3
4
1
0
3
1
4
0
4
4
0
0
1. I dislike math.