AWARENESS OF LEARNING STYLES AND
MATH VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION
Except where reference is made to the work of others, the work described in this thesis is
my own or was done in collaboration with my Thesis Chair. This thesis does not include
proprietary or classified information.
Janice Wearden
Certificate of Approval
__________________________
Donald R. Livingston, Ed.D
Thesis Chair
Education Department
_____________________________
Sharon M. Livingston, Ph.D.
Thesis Advisor
Education Department
AWARENESS OF LEARNING STYLES AND MATH VOCABULARY
INSTRUCTION
A Thesis
by
Janice Wearden
to
LaGrange College
in partial fulfillment of
the requirement for the degree of
MASTER OF EDUCATION
in
Curriculum and Instruction
LaGrange, Georgia
May 5, 2011
Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary iii
Abstract
This study investigated the role of addressing learning styles when teaching math
vocabulary to fifty-three fifth grade students at a small elementary school in West Central
Georgia. Research shows vocabulary mastery influences success in math. Various
activities addressing different learning styles were implemented with the treated group
while the untreated group wrote definitions. Quantitative data analysis revealed there
were no significant statistical differences between the post-tests of the treated and
untreated groups. The qualitative data showed an improvement in the attitudes of both
the students and the teacher. The results of this study serve as a foundation for future
research on whether addressing students’ learning styles can improve the mastery of math
vocabulary leading to higher test scores.
Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary iv
Table of Contents
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………........…..iii
Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………........…iv
List of Tables ………………………………………………...................……….......……v
Chapter 1: Introduction…………………………………………………………........…...1
Statement of the Problem…………………………………………...........….…........…….1
Significance of the Problem………………………………………...........……........….….2
Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks…………………………..........……........…..…3
Focus Questions…………………………………………………..........….........…...….…6
Overview of Methodology…………………………………………...........…….........…...6
Human as Researcher……………………………………………….……......................…7
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature……………………………..………….........…….....8
The Vocabulary of Mathematics…………………….…………..........…….….........…….8
Learning Styles………………………………………………….........……….........….….9
Opposing Views on Learning Styles……………………………….........….........……....11
Student Learning Outcomes………………………………………….........….........…….12
Attitudes of Students and Teachers……………………………………….…...................15
Summary…………………………………………………………………...................….16
Chapter 3: Methodology………………………………………………………......…….17
Research Design…………………………………………………………..................…...17
Setting……………………………………………………………………..................…..17
Subjects and Participants……………………………………………..............................18
Procedures and Data Collection Methods……………………………….................…... .20
Validity, Reliability and Bias Measures….……….........………….................……..…...23
Analysis of Data………………………………………………………….................…...26
Chapter 4: Results………………………………………………………….....………....29
Chapter 5: Analysis and Discussion of Results…………………………….....……..….40
Analysis…………………………………………………………................……….…....40
Discussion…………………………………………………………….…….....................45
Implications…………….………………………………………...............………..…......47
Recommendations for Future Research……………………………................…….…....48
References………………………………………………………………....……….…..,.50
Appendixes………………………………………………………………….....….….....54
Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary v
List of Tables
Tables
Table 3.1.
Data Shell……………………………………………………….……20
Table 4.1
Pre/Pre Independent t-test...................................................................31
Table 4.2
Treatment Group Pre/Post Dependent t-test………………….…......32
Figure 4.3
Untreated Group Pre/Post Dependent t-test………………………….33
Figure 4.4
Post/Post Independent t-test…………………………………….…...34
Figure 4.5
Untreated Group Chi Square …………………...…..................…….35
Figure 4.6
Treatment Group Chi Square………………….................…….…....36
Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary 1
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Statement of the Problem
According to the recent Georgia state CRCT results, 18% of the fifth grade
students did not meet the state standards in mathematics (Georgia Department of
Education [GADOE], 2008). This amounts to a significant number of fifth graders, in the
state of Georgia, who did not master the necessary math concepts for advancement to
middle school. Consequently, educators must continue to seek alternate teaching
strategies during math instruction to engage all students. A large part of math is
vocabulary. Vocabulary should be the scaffold that lessons are developed around.
Greenwood (2006) clearly states that the practice of looking up words in the dictionary
and writing sentences with them is “pedagogically useless.” According to Carter and
Dean (2006) students must be able to decode and comprehend word problems and
textbooks in addition to making sense of specialized mathematical vocabulary in order to
communicate and think mathematically. Students with a greater vocabulary can use it to
gain new knowledge. Improving the vocabulary of all students, especially children who
come from low socio-economic groups or who are learning English, will help them
understand the concepts being taught (Spencer & Guillaume, 2006)
This study investigated whether the use of methods addressing different learning
styles in the acquisition of math vocabulary would improve understanding of
mathematical concepts among students. The Georgia Department of Education states in
their Performance Standards Framework that teachers should present vocabulary and
concepts to students with models and real life examples thus causing students to be able
to recognize and demonstrate these concepts with words, models, pictures, or numbers.
Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary 2
Pierce and Fontaine (2009) maintain that the depth and breadth of a child’s mathematical
vocabulary will influence a child’s success in math. The comprehension of math specific
terms and ambiguous, multiple-meaning words could assist students in understanding
problems on the CRCT thus leading to higher scores.
Significance of the Problem
Georgia’s minimum percentage of students passing math to meet Adequate
Yearly Progress rose from 67.6% for 2010 to 75.7% for 2011. Students often struggle
when test questions contain words that are not specific and have more than one meaning.
Technical words have a very specific mathematical meaning. Sub-technical words have a
common meaning that students usually already know; however, they also have a less
common mathematical meaning with which students may not be familiar. Pierce and
Fontaine (2009) assert that teachers are aware of the need to teach the meaning of
technical vocabulary words, yet often do not realize that sub-technical vocabulary also
needs to be taught as well.
The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) Principles and
Standards for School Mathematics, includes “Communication” as a process strand. It
states that students should use the language of mathematics to express mathematical ideas
precisely. The Georgia Performance Standards (GPS) repeat exactly what the NCTM
standard states about expressing ideas with precision. Pierce and Fontaine (2009) state
that a child’s knowledge of mathematical vocabulary is an important indicator of how
successful a child will perform in math. The purpose of this study was to determine if
there will be an increase in math vocabulary test scores and ultimately the Georgia CRCT
math test by using methods that address all learning styles when teaching vocabulary.
Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary 3
Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks
This study relates to the social constructivist theory in the fact that it seeks to
show how “creating learning environments in which learning is both enjoyable and
rigorous” can be effective (LaGrange College Education Department, 2008, p. 3). In the
article, The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: The Many Faces of Constructivism, Phillips
(1995) examines the views of various constructivist authors. Overall, constructivists do
not believe that humans are born with “cognitive data banks” of “empirical knowledge,”
but that they construct knowledge through inquiry and experiences (Phillips, 1995, p. 7).
Piaget proposes that humans do not immediately understand and use information they are
given; instead humans must construct their own knowledge (Powell, & Kalina, 2010, p.
242). Tomilinson suggests that teachers should be learning facilitators rather than
dispensers of information and they should create learning environments in which students
can be actively involved in the teaching and learning process (LaGrange College
Education Department, 2008). Domain Three of the Georgia Framework for Teaching
states that teachers should create learning environments that encourage positive social
interaction, active engagement in learning, and self motivation. Teaching math concepts
and vocabulary should be both enjoyable and rigorous in addition to being learner
focused. This thesis relates to both Tenets One and Three of the LaGrange College
Education Department’s (2008) Conceptual Framework. Tenet One involves the learner
being enthusiastically engaged in learning. Teachers must know their learners, so that
they construct knowledge in a context of social relations. No one has the same
background experiences. Because approximately 87.5% of the students at the school in
Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary 4
this study participate in the free and reduced lunch program, many may lack experiences
that would make understanding vocabulary easier. The teacher needs to be aware of this.
This thesis is related to the “Knowledge of Learners” subgroup under Tenet One
of the LaGrange College Education Department’s (2008) Conceptual Framework and
Domain Two of the Georgia Framework for Teaching. Teachers need to know about
their students’ abilities, needs, and interests in order to provide them with curriculum that
is meaningful to them (LaGrange College Education Department, 2008). The Georgia
Framework for Teaching reports that teachers should understand how learning occurs and
adapt their lessons based on “students’ stages of development, multiple intelligences,
learning styles, and areas of exceptionality” (LaGrange College Education Department,
2008, p. 2). When teaching students from high-poverty backgrounds, the teacher should
take a holistic approach and use a wide variety of strategies. The teacher must
understand how students’ lives and learning are influenced not only by what happens at
school, but also outside the school setting. The teacher must have high expectations for
the students and believe that these students can learn at a high level. (LaGrange College
Education Department, 2008)
On the national level, the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards
(NBPTS) Core Assumptions; “Knowledge of Learners” can be directly linked with
Proposition One. This proposition, “Teachers are committed to student learning” states,
“They act on the belief that all students can learn. They treat students equitably,
recognizing the individual differences that distinguish one student from another and
taking account of these differences into their practice” (NBPTS, 2002). This is also
included in Domain 2 of the Georgia Framework for Teaching. The teachers of high
Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary 5
poverty students must hold these principles in order to accomplish desired outcomes.
The LaGrange College Education Department’s (2008) Conceptual Framework , using
the work of Delpit and Kincheloe, places importance on teachers linking the content
taught in their classrooms to the life histories of their students, so that students can make
meaningful personal connections.
Tenet Three of the LaGrange College Education Department’s (2008) Conceptual
Framework is also relative to this thesis. This third tenet focuses on the professional
dispositions that teachers need to develop and demonstrate in their work with students,
families, professional colleagues, and members of the larger community (LaGrange
College Education Department, 2008, p. 8). The third cluster suggests that teachers
should take action and advocate for changes in curriculum and instructional design.
Teachers need to improve the learning environment to support the diverse needs and high
expectations for all students. In order for teachers to advocate public changes, Jenlink
and Jenlink recommend that “they must first learn to become self-critical practitioners
who use research in their teaching” (as cited by LaGrange College Education
Department, 2008, p. 8). Paulo Freire states in Pedagogy of the Oppressed, teacher
educators are asked to “take actions that will overcome injustice and inequalities that
hinder the development of children” (LaGrange College Education Department, 2008,
p.8).
Domain Six of The Georgia Framework for Teaching states that teachers should
reflect and extend their knowledge of teaching and learning to be able to improve their
own teaching practices. Implementing effective strategies and curriculum, in addition to
establishing a well rounded learning environment should be the goal of all those in the
Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary 6
teaching profession. Proposition Four in the NBPTS (2002) Core Assumptions is that
teachers need to think systematically about their practice and learn from their experience.
Teachers seek to encourage lifelong learning in their students due to their engagement in
lifelong learning themselves. They aim to strengthen their teaching and adapt their
teaching to new findings, ideas, and theories (NBPTS, 2002).
Focus Questions
Factors that affect the 5th grade math CRCT scores will be researched in this
study. There are many factors that could affect student learning in the area of math. This
study focused on three specific areas and the factors within those areas. The following
focus questions will be used to guide the research for the study:
1.
What is the process of teaching math vocabulary to address different learning
styles of individual students?
2.
How do test scores compare between traditional methods of teaching
vocabulary and vocabulary taught by addressing different learning styles?
3.
How do teacher/student attitudes change about vocabulary when different
learning styles are addressed?
Overview of Methodology
This action research study was designed to determine if there was a difference in
scores when math vocabulary was taught by addressing the different learning styles that
students possess as opposed to traditional methods such as copying the definition from
the dictionary/glossary. This was a mixed-methods research study that incorporated both
quantitative and qualitative data. Assessment data in the form of pre/post tests were
collected to evaluate the success of addressing different learning styles of individual
Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary 7
students. The pre/post surveys were analyzed quantitatively using a chi square.
Qualitative data were collected with a reflective journal that was coded for recurring,
dominant, and emerging themes.
The school where this study took place is located in a county in west central
Georgia. The subjects were the students in my 5th grade math class.
Human as Researcher
The qualifications of the researcher are important to know for this study. I teach
5th grade in a high-poverty school in Troup County. With 25 years teaching experience,
I have taught in both self-contained and departmentalized settings. I have taught math
each year whether just to my class or all classes on a particular grade level. I feel that the
teacher’s passion or lack of, in teaching math can influence students’ performance.
Creating an environment where students feel comfortable and safe is very important
when teaching math. Another belief is that teachers should hold every student, no matter
his economic status, up to high academic standards. This may also influence math
scores.
Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary 8
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Many school improvement plans place an emphasis on increasing student
achievement. In order to make gains in these areas, improvement in standards-based
instruction, curriculum alignment, teacher quality, and the overall learning environment
is often the focus (Beecher & Sweeny, 2008). The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB),
places the responsibility on states to raise student performance and meet Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP), which is measured for all students by state standardized, high stakes
tests (Tajalli & Opheim, 2005). According to Fore, Boon, and Lowrie (2007), the ability
to read and vocabulary knowledge in the content areas are essential for school success.
For this study, the focus was on the effect of teaching math vocabulary to address
different learning styles of individual students.
The Vocabulary of Mathematics
According to Pierce and Fontaine (2009), the depth and breadth of a child’s
mathematical vocabulary is more likely than ever to influence a child’s success in math.
Research has shown that teaching mathematical vocabulary enhances a student’s
performance on math tests. Students with difficulty reading often have limited
vocabularies which hinder their ability to relate new terms and concepts to previous
knowledge especially in content areas such as mathematics (Fore, et al., 2007). The
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics’ (NCTM, 2000) Principles and Standards
for School Mathematics now includes Communication as a process strand. Students are
expected to be able to explain their problem-solving methods orally and in written form,
both in the classroom and on high-stakes tests. Studies have shown that mathematical
Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary 9
thinking skills of both general and special education students improved through an
effective use of vocabulary instruction (Fore, et al., 2007).
Math contains a lot of specialized vocabulary that is specific to the subject of
mathematics. Some words such as divisor, rectangle, and place value are used only in
mathematics. Other terms are used in math and in the non-math world with about the
same meaning, such as measure, half, and tally. There is another group known as multimeaning words like prime, odd, and right. These words have a math meaning and other
meanings outside the math context (Cunningham, 2009). Pierce and Fontaine (2009)
refer to two categories of mathematics vocabulary as technical and sub-technical.
Technical words have a precise mathematical denotation that must be specifically taught
to students. These are words that are often defined in math textbooks. Sub-technical
words have a common meaning that students generally already know; however, they also
have a less common mathematical denotation that students may be less familiar with. If
you teach the general meaning of these words along with the mathematical meaning, you
can use the familiar meaning to connect to the mathematical meaning.
Learning Style
One of the most enduring effects on education has been the search for individual
differences that can explain and predict variation in student achievement. This led to the
hope that learning opportunities can be designed that will maximize the attainment of
these individual differences (Scott, 2010). Though all human beings have common
characteristics in the learning process, ways of giving meaning and acquiring information
may vary. Learning styles is defined as the different ways used by individuals to process
and organize information or to respond to environmental stimuli. It is important to take
Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary 10
into account the characteristics, abilities and experiences of learners when planning to
teach a lesson. Teachers should select and organize methods and strategies, classroom
environment, and teaching materials according to learning styles rather than expecting the
student to adapt to the existing organization (Yilmaz-Soylu & Akkoyunlu, 2009). Jensen
(1998) refers to it as a sort of way of thinking, comprehending and processing
information.
Haas (2003) states that auditory-sequential learners tend to do well in school
where the curriculum, materials, and teaching methods are predominantly sequential and
presented in an auditory format. Auditory-sequential learners are easily able to
remember their math facts, memorize the steps to complete equations, answer homework
questions correctly, and earn good grades in math without ever truly understanding the
underlying mathematical concepts.
Auditory-sequential instruction of math often
separates the number from what it represents. Visual-spatial learners would also miss the
underlying mathematical concept and they may not be able to remember math facts, nor
readily be able to memorize the steps to complete equations. They might not be able to
correctly answer homework problems leaving them with a lowered self-esteem and a
perceived deficit in mathematical ability. Silverman (2005) suggests that the visual
learner needs to see the information rather than hear it in order to make sense of it. They
have to change the information to visual images if any true learning is to occur. If a
teacher is presenting information in an auditory manner, the visual-spatial learner is
listening to the words, and then creating an image in their brain. This takes additional
processing time, which leaves the visual-spatial learner behind. According to Rapp
Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary 11
(2009) when teaching auditorally, use visualization strategies that allow the learner to
create a picture in their head.
Historically, vocabulary instruction has consisted of looking up a word in a
dictionary or glossary. This method has been proven to be a useless practice because
retention of the knowledge is not achieved (Bromley, 2007). Students blindly copy the
definitions and forget about them. Beck, McKeown, and Kucan (2002) assert that
becoming interested and aware of words is not a likely outcome from having students
look up definitions in a dictionary or glossary. More effective strategies are being
developed to enhance vocabulary lessons (Bromley, 2007). For teachers, the idea of
being able to use an individual’s learning styles as a diagnostic, predictive, or
pedagogical tool for the purposes of improving academic performance at school is an
appealing one (Sharp, Bowker, & Byrne, 2008). Cunningham (2009) states that adding
strategies to address visual, auditory, and kinesthetic (VAK) styles while teaching math
vocabulary maximizes the potential for learning in that subject area.
Opposing Views on Learning Styles
The idea that individual differences in academic abilities can be partly ascribed to
individual learning styles has tremendous appeal especially when looking at the number
of learning style models or inventories that have been devised – 170 at the last count and
rising. The disappointing result of this entire endeavor is that, on the whole, the evidence
time and again shows that modifying a teaching strategy to account for differences in
learning styles does not result in any improvement in learning outcomes (Geake, 2008).
While it is commonly believed that learning styles cannot be overlooked in education,
there is still substantial disagreement over the perceived status of learning styles in
Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary 12
teaching and learning and how the different styles should be addressed in the classroom.
Most educators know that individuals of all ages approach different tasks in diverse areas
of their work in different ways, learn at different rates, and apply what they learn with
different degrees of confidence and success. They know that learning styles is only one
of a great many variables which influence academic performance (Sharp, et al., 2008).
Concentrating on one sensory modality contradicts the brain’s natural interconnectivity.
The input modalities in the brain are interconnected: visual with auditory; visual with
motor; motor with auditory; visual with taste; and so on. To many educators VAK has
become mixed-modality pedagogy where material is presented in all three modes.
According to Kratzig and Arbuthnott (as cited by Geake, 2008) research has shown that
there is no improvement of learning outcomes with VAK above teacher enthusiasm.
Student Learning Outcomes
Engaging students in active hands-on lessons for the purpose of acquiring
vocabulary is one method that can be used to achieve vocabulary comprehension. Giving
students the opportunity to design a picture definition is an example of a hands-on
strategy that can be used to motivate students and keep them involved in the lesson
(Greenwood, 2006). These picture definitions produced by the students can be posted in
the room or in the hall. Bull and Whittrock (as cited by Sadoski, 2005) found that when
students wrote a verbal definition and drew a picture to represent the definition, the
students’ retention was significantly better than when they wrote the definition alone, or
were provided with the definition and an illustration as in a textbook. Good readers make
the non-verbal images automatically as they read. Readers who fall at the lower end of
Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary 13
the ability spectrum end up calling words and not seeing the pictures in the text (Hibbing
& Rankin-Erickson, 2003).
Using a graphic organizer keeps a strong focus on the relationship among the
definition of a concept, one or more illustrative examples of the concept, and
characteristics of the concept that the word represents. These three sections correspond
to Rector and Henderson’s (1970) three ways of teaching a concept. When a teacher
talks about the properties or characteristics of the object named by a term, they employ
the connotative use of the term. When teachers give examples, they use the term in a
denotative manner and when they define the term, they employ the implicative use of the
term (Gay, 2008). Learners need multiple opportunities to interact with words in order to
truly know them. Vocabulary cards based on the Frayer model encourage learners to
think about new vocabulary through definition, contrasts, and visual representations.
Typically they are developed using a five-by-seven-inch index card divided into four
quadrants (Frey & Fisher, 2009).
The learning cycle is a teaching method that uses visualization to teach
vocabulary. There are four phases of this cycle: engage, explore, develop, and apply
(Spencer & Guillaume, 2006). Imagery in the engage phase involves teacher centered
introduction of words with pictures. According to Spencer and Guillaume (2006), using
pictures increases student interest in the subject. Drawing is a suggested technique for
the exploration phase. The students are encouraged to make picture maps in their notes.
An added benefit of drawing at this stage is that the teacher can easily spot
misconceptions and correct them while looking at a drawing. In the development phase
of the learning cycle, students can group pictures of words to illustrate comprehension.
Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary 14
In the final stage, application, students can use knowledge gained in the previous three
steps in a unique way, enabling multiple exposures to the word. Some examples of
application are creating poetry, plays, songs, or multi-media presentations that display the
students’ enduring understanding of the word (Spencer & Guillaume, 2006).
Another powerful way to help students build vocabulary is by using word
dramatizations. The students in groups use skits or pantomimes to present their words to
their classmates. At the end of the skit or pantomime, have the students guess what the
word was that was being presented to them. It is important to have the students relate the
word acted out to their own experience. This type activity provides students with real
experience with many words. They remember these words because of this real
experience and because they enjoy acting and watching their friends act (Cunningham,
2009).
According to Gailey (1993), using children’s literature to make connections
between mathematics and literature can increase students’ mathematical knowledge and
understanding. Mathematics and language skills can develop together as students listen,
read, write, and talk about mathematical ideas. Of the thousands of children’s books
published every year, a number can be used to introduce, reinforce, or develop
mathematical concepts. Matz and Leier (1992), believe a student must be both proficient
in reading and skilled at mathematics to solve a word problem. The methodology and
activities teachers have developed in other curriculum areas to teach vocabulary can be
just as appropriate for the mathematics lesson.
Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary 15
Attitudes of students and Teacher
Research has shown that the results of integrating different methods of teaching
vocabulary into math classes has led to a growth in teachers’ confidence, mathematics
and literacy knowledge, and enthusiasm to continue discovering and exploring different
ways to increase students’ vocabulary knowledge (Phillips, Bardsley, Bach, & GibbBrown, 2009). A. Susan Gay (2008) affirms that by raising teachers’ awareness of the
critical role of mathematics vocabulary, they begin to realize how important it is for them
to use the correct word when describing a mathematical object. Teachers must
understand that even though we know what we are talking about, all of the concepts are
new to our students and must be explained very clearly and precisely.
Cunningham (2009) asserts that you will be amazed at how students’ vocabularies
and enthusiasm for words will grow by allowing them to experience different ways of
learning words. Because students are usually enthusiastic about art, music, and physical
education, using these experiences increases students’ enthusiasm about learning new
vocabulary. Children usually love to act or watch their friends acting; therefore, using
pantomime or dramatization causes the interest in learning new vocabulary to grow
(Cunningham, 2009). Fore, et al. (2007) concluded from their study of instructional
models for teaching vocabulary that students were very satisfied when given different
approaches to learning vocabulary. They noted that enthusiasm also increased among
students who were taught with methods other than the traditional looking up words in the
dictionary or glossary.
Less than interesting instruction is not a problem just because we want students to
enjoy classroom activities. It is much better for students to develop an interest and
Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary 16
awareness in words beyond school assignments in order to build their own vocabulary
inventory. Students become interested and enthusiastic about words when instruction is
rich and lively and they are encouraged to notice words in environments beyond the
classroom (Beck, et al., 2002).
Summary
The purpose of this review of literature was to provide background information
that was essential for understanding what was explored in this action research study. The
literature review completed in Chapter 2 influenced the methodology used to carry out
this study. The focus questions supplied the organization for the review of literature and
also framed the methodology that followed. The research design, setting, subjects, data
collection methods, validity and reliability methods, and analysis of data of the action
research are described in the next chapter.
Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary 17
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Research Design
This was an action research study because it focused on a particular problem in
pedagogy (Fraenkel & Wallen, 1990). This action research study was conducted in my
classroom. My four class periods were grouped to form a Treatment Group and an
Untreated Group. First and third periods received the treatment over a three week period.
The untreated group, second and fourth periods, received instruction as provided in
previous years. Both quantitative and qualitative methods of data collection were used –
assessment data, surveys, and a reflective journal. Assessment data in the form of
pre/post tests were collected to evaluate the success of addressing different learning styles
of individual students. A pre-post survey was administered to students to document
student attitude changes about vocabulary. Qualitative methods were also used to
evaluate the research. A reflective journal was kept and coded for themes. As Hendricks
(2009) suggested, the information from this journal was a valuable tool for assessing the
progress of the study, recording new ideas that came about from the study, and aided in
finding patterns that developed during the research.
Setting
Green Elementary School, a pseudonym, was located in a small town in a county
in West Central Georgia. The population of this town was 2,739. At the time of the
study, there were 398 students enrolled at Green Elementary School in grades pre-K
through fifth grade. Green Elementary School made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
for eight consecutive years and was recognized as a Title I Distinguished school for six
Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary 18
consecutive years. The ethnic backgrounds of the students were 61 percent White, 30
percent African-American, 6 percent Inter-Racial and 3 percent Hispanic. 87.5 percent of
the students were economically disadvantaged receiving free and reduced lunches.
Written permission was obtained from the school system, the principal, and LaGrange
College’s Institutional Review Board to conduct this research project at this location.
This setting was chosen because it is where I work
Subjects and Participants
Fourth and fifth grade students at Green Elementary were departmentalized. I
taught the fifth grade math classes. The study involved four fifth grade classes of
approximately 14 students each. All of these classes had similar populations. Class A
consists of 9 boys and 5 girls. There were 5 African-American, 6 Caucasian, 1 Hispanic,
and 2 Inter-Racial in Class A. Class B consists of 7 boys and 7 girls. There were 5
African-American students and 9 Caucasian students in class B. Class C had 6 boys and
8 girls with 6 who were African-American, 6 Caucasian, and 2 Hispanic. Class D had 9
boys and 5 girls with 6 being African-American and 8 Caucasian. At Green Elementary
School, 87.5 % of the students participated in the Free/Reduced Lunch Program. Class A
had 89%, Class B had 84 %, Class C was 88% and for Class D, 84% participated in the
Free/Reduced Lunch Program. The fifth grade students were not ability-grouped for
math, but were heterogeneously grouped. All four groups had students with very similar
ability levels. Classes A and C were the Treatment group and Classes B and D were the
Untreated Group. I chose these groups because I did not want both treatment groups to
be before lunch and the untreated groups to be after lunch. This way I had a morning and
Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary 19
afternoon class for both the treatment and untreated groups. These students were chosen
because they were my students.
The instructional plan for this research study was evaluated by two peer teachers
at Green Elementary School. The first participant, Peer Teacher A, taught fifth grade and
had 18 years of teaching experience. She had been at Green Elementary School for 12
years at the time of the study. She had taught music, third grade, first grade, and fifth
grade. She was also an Upper Literacy Coach for two years while Green Elementary was
participating in the America’s Choice - Georgia’s Choice Program. Peer Teacher A was
also chosen as the Teacher of the Year to represent our elementary school. The second
participant, Peer Teacher B, was new to Green Elementary School at the time of the
study. She currently taught all of the fourth grade math classes, but in previous years she
taught seventh grade math at the middle school Green Elementary students attend. She
had 13 total years teaching experience.
She taught seventh grade math for three years in
a neighboring system and then moved to the middle school in our system. She taught
seventh grade math in this system for the past 9 years. For the 2010-2011 school year,
she requested to be transferred to the elementary school where she taught all the fourth
grade math classes. She has been a team leader and was the first teacher at the middle
school to have her classroom equipped and labeled as a twenty-first century classroom.
She was also chosen as Teacher of the Year twice while teaching at the middle school in
our system. Both of these teachers were asked to evaluate my instructional plan because
of their knowledge and experience with the subject matter and grade level.
Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary 20
Procedures and Data Collection Methods
This was a mixed-method action research study. One reason for using mixed
methods to collect data is that it adds “scope and breadth to the study” (Cresswell, 1994,
p. 175). Both quantitative and qualitative methods of data collection (see Table 3.1) were
used to determine if the teaching strategies employed were significantly effective for the
acquisition of math vocabulary by students. The quantitative data were in the form of
pre-test and post-test scores for both the treatment and the untreated group. The pre/postsurveys were used to assess student’s attitudes about math vocabulary. The use of a
teacher reflective journal allowed for the recording of student observations as well.
Table 3.1. Data Shell
Focus Question
Literature Sources
Type: Method,
Data, Validity
How are data
analyzed?
FQ1:
What is the
process of teaching
math vocabulary to
address different
learning styles of
individual
students?
Beck, McKeown,
&Kucan,(2002).
Bromley,(2007)
Cunningham
,(2009)
Pierce & Fontaine,
(2009)
Type of Method:
Instructional Plan
rubric and
interview
Coded for
themes
recurring
dominant
emerging
Looking for
categorical and
repeating data
that form
patterns of
behaviors
FQ2:
Beck, McKeown,
& Kucan, (2002).
Cunningham,
(2009)
Frey, & Fisher,
(2009)
Greenwood,
(2009)
Spencer &
Guillaume, (2006)
Type of Method:
Teacher madeTests, quizzes
Dependent Ttest
Effect Size
Independent
T -test
To determine if
there are
significant
differences
Measure the
magnitude of a
treatment effect
How do test scores
compare between
traditional
methods of
teaching
vocabulary and
vocabulary taught
by addressing
different learning
styles?
Type of Data:
Qualitative
Rationale
Type of
Validity:
Content
Type of Data:
Quantitative
Interval
Type of Validity:
Content
Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary 21
FQ3:
How do
teacher/student
attitudes change about
vocabulary when
different learning
styles are addressed?
Beck, McKeown,
& Kucan,
L.(2002).
Cunningham,
(2009)
Fore, Boon, &
Lowrie, (2007)
Gay, (2008)
Phillips, Bardsley,
Bach, & GibbBrown, (2009)
Type of Method:
Reflective Journal
Surveys
Type of Data:
Qualitative
Coded for
themes:
recurring
dominant
emerging
Ordinal
Type of Validity:
Construct
Looking for
categorical and
repeating data
that form
patterns of
behaviors
To find what
questions are
significant
Chi Square
Cronbach’s
Alpha
The treatment designed for use in this research study started with an instructional
plan being written (see Appendix A) and evaluated by two peer teachers using a rubric
(see Appendix B). A separate interview with both teachers was tape recorded to
preserve the suggestions each person made for improving the plan.
An attitudinal survey (see Appendix C) was administered to the students in both
the control group and the treatment group prior to the unit being taught. The survey
measured the attitudes of the students toward math and in particular math vocabulary.
The information gathered in the survey provided insight into how students feel about
math and math vocabulary. At the end of the instructional unit when different learning
styles had been addressed, the students were given the same survey again to see if there
were any changes in attitudes towards math and especially math vocabulary. Both the
treatment and the untreated group were administered a pre-test (see Appendix D) before
anything in the instructional unit was addressed. Different learning style approaches
were used to teach the instructional unit to the treatment group and a post-test identical to
the pre-test was administered.
To answer the first focus question in the study about the process of teaching math
vocabulary to address different learning styles of individual students, the students were
Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary 22
introduced to Geometry vocabulary by using, art, music, and drama. They made
vocabulary cards which included pictures they drew, as well as, the definition, and
examples. By using art, they were able to visualize the meaning of the word, thus
addressing the visual learners. They were given the opportunity to create songs or raps
with their vocabulary words and perform them for their classmates. Using music allowed
the students with strong auditory learning to use their strengths. The students also were
given the chance to pantomime or perform a skit using their words. They were put into
small groups and each group performed their word for their classmates. This addressed
those students who are kinesthetic learners.
To answer the second focus question about how do test scores compare between
traditional methods of teaching vocabulary and vocabulary taught by addressing different
learning styles? Both groups were given a vocabulary pre-test (see Appendix D). The
strategy of incorporating different learning styles into learning math vocabulary was
implemented in Classes A and C. The students’ vocabulary cards were put on display in
the classroom. Each student had to present two of their cards to the class and explain the
visuals and how they used the drawing to define the word. The students also had the
opportunity to create songs or raps, and pantomime or create a skit using their words.
Classes B and D, the untreated group, only received the traditional method for teaching
vocabulary. They were given the list of words and instructed to copy the definitions from
their math glossary. After the activity and the unit of study were concluded, the same test
that was administered at the start of the unit was given as a post-test.
The second part of this study had the purpose of answering the third focus
question: How do teacher/student attitudes change about vocabulary when different
Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary 23
learning styles are addressed? At the beginning and end of the research study, the same
survey was administered to the untreated group and the treatment group to identify their
feelings about math and math vocabulary.
Validity, Reliability and Bias Measures
Validity, reliability/dependability, and lack of bias were ensured in this study
through the use of specific methods of research and data collection. As a researcher,
there are exclusive proceedings that must take place to increase the dependability and
consistency of the data. For focus question one of this study concerned with pedagogy
the data collection were qualitative. An instructional plan rubric and interviews were
used as the method of data collection. The instructional plan used for this study was
focused on Geometry lessons. There is a large quantity of vocabulary that must be
mastered in order to grasp the concepts taught in Geometry. This made it ideal for
comparing the use of learning styles to more traditional methods of teaching vocabulary.
The plan includes lessons on lines, angles, polygons, circles, and solid figures. The
instructional plan was evaluated by two peer teachers for content validity. The objectives
of the plan were directly related to the fifth grade Georgia Performance Standards that
were tested on the Georgia CRCT. Popham (2008) asserts that content validity refers to
the adequacy with which the content of a test represents the content of the curricular aim
being measured. These interviews were the primary source of qualitative data collection
for focus question one. Because the interviews were recorded and detailed notes of
interviewees’ responses were taken from the recordings soon after the interviews took
place dependability has been assured. Each peer teacher checked the transcribed
interviews to ensure accuracy in what was written. Both peer teachers examined the
Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary 24
instructional plan looking for any unfair or offensive bias. Popham (2008) states that bias
refers to the qualities of an instrument that offend or unfairly penalize a group of students
because of students’ gender, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, religion, or other such
group-defining characteristics.
The second focus question of this study was: How do test scores compare
between traditional methods of teaching vocabulary and vocabulary taught by addressing
different learning styles? To maintain reliability, I used quantitative interval data to
compare scores obtained from pre-test and post-tests. The pre-test and post-tests were
compared by independent t-tests to determine if there were significant differences
between means from the untreated group and the treatment group’s pre/post tests. Both
tests were also analyzed using dependent t–tests to determine if there were significant
differences between means from one group tested twice. The data collected from the
interval level of measurement as stated by Salkind (2010), “is where a test or an
assessment tool is based on some underlying continuum such that we can talk about how
much more a higher performance is than a lesser one” (p. 140). The data collection and
treatment will be consistent with a controlled setting. The content validity will assess
whether a test reflects items in a certain topic (Salkind, 2010). The test questions in this
study demonstrate content validity because they are representative of the curriculum
being taught (Popham, 2008). The pre-test and post-test used were both examined by
different faculty members to look for any evidence of bias.
The third focus question of this study was concerned with how teacher/student
attitudes change about vocabulary when different learning styles are addressed. The data
gathering methods used for focus question three was pre and post attitudinal surveys and
Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary 25
a teacher reflective journal. The data collected from the surveys will be on the nominal
level of measurement. As per Salkind (2010) the nominal level is specified by the aspect
of an outcome that adapts to only one class or category. The last method of data
collection was a daily reflective journal kept by me. Each entry was guided by a set of
reflective journal prompts (see Appendix E) designed to give consistency to the journal.
Keeping detailed documentation of behaviors observed, statements made, and attitudes
displayed allowed me to plan a program that would incorporate the positive aspects while
revising those that were not useful or productive. This valuable information will be
utilized to modify future pedagogy.
Evidence was collected from the student surveys to gauge interest and
motivation, showing construct validity by using the information shown by the literature
review to develop the series of statements students read. I was mindful of a limitation on
the student attitudinal survey, that students might circle answers they think will please the
teacher. To account for this, I pointed out to the students to answer the survey according
to their own attitudes and feelings. The survey was checked for bias to increase
awareness of how the results may be affected negatively or positively. The construct
validity will be strong and it will correlate the survey with a theorized outcome (Salkind
2010). The type of reliability demonstrated is stability reliability as both the control and
treatment groups rated their attitudes about math and math vocabulary using the same
survey before and after the instructional plan was taught. Stability reliability, also called
test re-test reliability is the agreement of measuring instruments over time. To determine
stability, a measure or test is repeated on the same subjects at a future date. The results
are compared and correlated with the initial test to give a measure of stability. The data
Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary 26
collection was composed and evaluated for internal consistency, scale reliability or
average correlation using Cronbach’s Alpha.
The teacher reflective journal I kept while the strategies were being implemented
was coded for specific themes, attitudes, and feelings. A set of predetermined journal
prompts were used to record how I felt about the lesson, assessments, and to reflect upon
the materials that were used. Entries into the reflective journal were recorded daily to
review the progress of the study. Using consistent prompts daily creates boundaries and
makes it easier to analyze the results.
Analysis of Data
To answer focus question one about what is the process of teaching math
vocabulary to address different learning styles of individual learners. I wrote a detailed
instructional plan. Two peer teachers were given the plan and a rubric that was
developed for evaluation purposes and to provide feedback. The feedback on the
instructional plan was analyzed qualitatively. In addition to the rubric, the two peer
teachers agreed to participate in a recorded interview in which they provided detailed
feedback about the plan. The two interviews were examined to look for recurring,
dominant, or emerging themes.
Focus question two about how test scores compare between traditional methods of
teaching vocabulary and vocabulary taught by addressing different learning styles. The
method used was quantitative because interval data from pre-tests and post-tests was
statistically compared for both the control group and the treatment group. A dependent ttest was used to determine if there are significant differences between means from one
group tested twice. The null hypothesis is that there is no significant difference between
Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary 27
the pre-test and post-test results. The decision to reject the null hypothesis was set at p <
.05. An independent t-test was also used to determine if there were significant
differences between means from two independent groups, i.e. the untreated and treatment
groups. The null statement was stated that student test scores were not influenced by
addressing the different learning styles of students. The decision to reject the null
hypothesis was set at p < .05. To measure the magnitude of a treatment effect, the Effect
size was also calculated. Unlike significance tests, these indices are independent of
sample size. Effect size can be measured in two ways: Cohen’s d for independent
groups and Effect size r for paired data such as a dependent t-test.
Focus question three was about how teacher/student attitudes change about
vocabulary when different learning styles are addressed? A Likert scale survey
consisting of seven statements and four questions about students’ feelings and attitudes
toward math and math vocabulary was administered to the students before and after the
treatment. . The survey’s Likert responses were quantitatively analyzed by performing a
Chi Square to find which questions were significant and which were not. Significance
was reported at the p < .05, p < .01, and p < .001 levels. The survey was checked for
internal consistency reliability by computing Cronbach’s Alpha.
By keeping a reflective journal during this study, I was also able to code it for
recurring, dominant, and emerging themes. I could examine not only my feelings, but
also keep a record of attitudes and feelings noticed in the students. Because the journal
entries were made up using prompted questions by me, the threat of bias was evident. In
order to minimize differing, experimental and background bias of the journal entry, the
prompts were reviewed by faculty members (Popham, 2008).
Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary 28
The literature review of this thesis is an “epistemological validation” of the
research and remains consistent with the type of research that was implemented in the
study (Lather as cited by Kinchloe & McLaren, 1998). Denzin and Lincoln (1998)
describe the cycling back to the literature review as “epistemological validation,” a place
where the researcher convinces the reader that they have remained consistent with the
theoretical perspectives they used in the review of the literature. Eisner (1991)
recommends “Consensual Validation”, therefore, the research methods will also be
reviewed by the LaGrange College faculty to “ensure that the description, interpretation,
evaluation, and thematic are right.”
If other teachers understand and perceive that the use learning styles in the
instruction of vocabulary is a successful strategy because of this research, the research
has referential adequacy because they will use it in their lessons. The findings of this
study may be applied to subjects other than math. “Catalytic validity” (Lather as cited by
Kincheloe & McLaren, 1998) is the degree to which researchers anticipate their study to
shape and transform their participants, subjects, or school. Catalytic validity is an
expected outcome of this study.
The next chapter reports the information obtained from the data gathered during
duration of this study.
Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary 29
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS
The results displayed in Chapter Four are organized by focus question. Focus
question one in this study is about the process of teaching math vocabulary to address
different learning styles of individual students. A peer reviewed instructional plan was
developed and followed during the course of this study. Two peer teachers evaluated the
plan using a rubric. The peer teachers agreed to be interviewed about their thoughts on
the plan. This recorded interview was transcribed and checked for accuracy by each
interviewee. Peer teacher A responded very positively on the rubric. Upon closer
examination of the instructional plan, she did point out that the learners might not be able
to determine what they should know and be able to do from the way it was worded in the
plan. She suggested clarifying this by having a written synopsis of what the students
need to understand as a part of the plan. Each teacher has a grid on their board that
contains information about the lessons being taught that day. It has a space for the
Georgia Performance Standard, essential question, concept, vocabulary words, and
homework. She suggested quickly going over this grid verbally before beginning the
lesson for the day. Another suggestion was to have a plan for reviewing information
previously taught to check for any weak areas in the content. If there were any, they
could be re-taught before the new content was taught for that day. Another teacher
should be able to take the instructional plan and teach it to their class; however, it was
suggested that more detail be added to the vocabulary card activity on day 2. She stated
that, “You know exactly what you mean, and are planning to do because you have a lot of
experience with it, but someone else would not necessarily know what to put in each of
the four sections of the card.” Peer teacher B also responded very positively to the plan.
She had the same suggestion for specific prompts for the days the Writing to Win
Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary 30
Journals would be used. The only other negative thing she found in the plan was that day
two’s essential question and activity did not match. She thought that the detailed listing
of vocabulary for each day was impressive. “Vocabulary is very essential to the
understanding of math concepts.” As a math teacher, she asserted that she could take the
plan with those revisions and use it with her classes. She declared, “It is well written and
very clear. I think it would be easy to pick it up and follow it. It is obviously standards
based and covers the objectives for this instructional plan.”
Focus question two of this study was about how test scores compare between
traditional methods of teaching vocabulary and vocabulary taught by addressing different
learning styles. Classes A and C made up the treatment group. This group was provided
with different opportunities to work with vocabulary that focused on meeting different
learning styles. The use of art, poetry, and drama was implemented to help them
remember the definitions. Classes B and D made up the untreated group. They were
taught the vocabulary using traditional methods from previous years. They did activities
like looking up the definitions in the glossary of their math text.
Data from both groups’ pre-tests were compared in an independent t-test to
determine if addressing different learning styles increased student learning as opposed to
writing definitions. The results of the independent t-test (see Table 4.1) show that t (38) =
1.49, p > .05. This means that the obtained value found in this test of 1.49 was less than
the critical value of 1.685. Therefore, the null hypothesis that there is no significant
difference between students learning when different learning styles are addressed in math
vocabulary lessons and when students write definitions from the text must be accepted
proving there is no significant difference between the two groups (Salkind, 2010). This
Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary 31
provided a level playing field for both groups when this study began. A Cohen’s d effect
size of 0.21 is considered a medium effect size.
Table 4.1 Pre/Pre Independent t-test
INDEPENDENT t-test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances
Pre-Test A
Pre-Test B
Mean
16.06896552
22
Variance
119.137931
278.7826087
Observations
29
24
Hypothesized Mean Difference
0
df
38
t Stat
-1.495708314
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.071494646
t Critical one-tail
1.685954461
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
0.142989293
2.024394147
t(38) = 1.49, p > .05
Data from the pre-test and post-test when the students were given opportunities to
participate in activities that address different learning styles were analyzed with a
dependent t-test to determine if significant learning occurred. The null hypothesis in this
case that there is no significant increase in student learning when students participate in
activities that address different learning styles was rejected. The results of the dependent
t-test (see Table 4.2) show that t (28) = 14.83, p < .05. This means that the obtained value
found in the test, 14.83 was greater than the critical value of 1.70 rejecting the null
hypothesis demonstrating that there is significant learning when different learning styles
are addressed when acquiring new vocabulary. Effect size is a name given to a family of
Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary 32
indices that measure the magnitude of a treatment effect. The treatment group’s pre/post
test comparison resulted in a large effect size r = 0.84.
Table 4:2: Treatment Group Dependent t-test
DEPENDENT t-test: Paired Two Sample for Means
Pre Test
Post Test
Mean
16.0689
77.8965
Variance
119.137931
621.8103448
Observations
29
29
Pearson Correlation
0.435403015
Hypothesized Mean Difference
0
df
28
t Stat
-14.83182787
P(T<=t) one-tail
4.32463E-15
t Critical one-tail
1.701130908
P(T<=t) two-tail
8.64925E-15
t Critical two-tail
t(28) = 14.83, p < .05
2.048407115
Data from the pre-test and post-test when the students only wrote the definitions
were also analyzed in a dependent t-test to determine if significant learning occurred.
The null hypothesis in this case that there is no significant increase in student learning
when students copy definitions from the text was rejected. The results of the dependent ttest (see Table 4.3) show that t (23) = 11.51, p < .05. This means that the obtained value
found in the test, 11.51 was greater than the critical value of 1.71 rejecting the null
hypothesis. In both cases significant learning occurred. The untreated group’s pre/post
test comparison resulted in a large effect size r = 0.73.
Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary 33
Table 4.3 Untreated Group Dependent t-test
DEPENDENT t-test: Paired Two Sample for Means
Pre Test
Post Test
Mean
22
69.83333333
Variance
278.7826087
701.7101449
Observations
24
24
Pearson Correlation
0.639550005
Hypothesized Mean Difference
0
df
23
t Stat
-11.50644519
P(T<=t) one-tail
2.54318E-11
t Critical one-tail
1.713871517
P(T<=t) two-tail
5.08635E-11
t Critical two-tail
t (23) = 11.51, p < .05
2.068657599
Data from both post-tests were compared in an independent t-test to determine if
addressing different learning styles increased student learning as opposed to writing
definitions. The results of the independent t-test (see Table 4.4) show that t (48) = 1.13, p >
.05. This means that the obtained value found in this test of 1.13 was less than the critical
value of 1.677. Therefore, the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference
between student learning when different learning styles are addressed in math vocabulary
lessons and when students write definitions from the text must be accepted and the test
results cannot be considered significant (Salkind, 2010).
is considered a medium effect size.
A Cohen’s d effect size of 0.31
Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary 34
Table 4.4 Post/Post Independent t-test
INDEPENDENT t-test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances
Post Test A
Post Test B
Mean
77.89655172
69.83333333
Variance
621.8103448
701.7101449
Observations
29
24
Hypothesized Mean Difference
0
df
48
t Stat
1.132639183
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.131496016
t Critical one-tail
1.677224197
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.262992031
t Critical two-tail
t(48) = 1.13, p > .05
2.010634722
Focus question three from this study about whether teacher and student attitudes
change about vocabulary when different learning styles are addressed was analyzed
through the use of student pre/post surveys and a reflective journal I kept during the
study. The chi-square test statistic was calculated to compare what was observed on the
pre/post surveys to what would happen by chance (Salkind, 2010). Tables 4.5 and 4.6
below show the results of the chi-square tests for the student pre/post surveys.
Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary 35
Table 4.5 Untreated Group Survey
Survey Items
n = 11
2 Pre-Survey
2 Post-Survey
I am good at math
I like to answer questions asked by
the teacher in math class.
I am comfortable asking questions in
math if I don’t understand something.
I am comfortable sharing my math
ideas with the class.
I understand the vocabulary we use
in math.
I think I learn better when I
understand the vocabulary in math.
It is easy for me to use the
vocabulary in math.
Which of these best describes you as
a math student?
Which of these best describes how a
friend would describe you as a math
student?
How often are you asked to explain
your answer using math vocabulary?
How easy is it for you to use math
vocabulary to explain your answer?
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
13.18**
15.4**
13.71**
10.6*
13.8**
13.27**
9.8*
10.6*
11.93**
10.6*
15.13**
14.16**
11.22*
11.67**
6.96
13.8**
9.6*
12.73**
15.27**
19.84***
11.93**
10.96*
The results of the chi-square statistic for the untreated group pre-surveys
highlighted several significant questions. Survey items 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, and 11 were all
found to be significant when p < .01, meaning that there was a high percentage of
students that answered a certain way on these questions. However, item 10 was not
significant at all, which means there was no significant difference on this question
Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary 36
between what was observed in the answer and what would have been expected to happen
by chance.
Table 4.6 Treatment Group Survey
Survey Items
n = 11
2 Pre-Survey
2 Post-Survey
1. I am good at math
2. I like to answer questions asked
by the teacher in math class.
3. I am comfortable asking questions
in math if I don’t understand
something.
4. I am comfortable sharing my math
ideas with the class.
5. I understand the vocabulary we use
in math.
6. I think I learn better when I
understand the vocabulary in math.
7. It is easy for me to use the
vocabulary in math.
8. Which of these best describes you
as a math student?
9. Which of these best describes how
a friend would describe you as a
math student?
10. How often are you asked to
explain your answer using math
vocabulary?
11. How easy is it for you to use
math vocabulary to explain your
answer?
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
18.33**
13**
15.67**
20.47***
10.87*
13**
17.98***
12.64**
19***
15.13**
22.6***
18.33***
13**
10.16*
10.69*
10.87*
14.07**
12.64**
16.2**
26.64***
14.42**
15.13**
The results of the chi-square statistic for the treatment group pre-survey shows
that questions 4, 5, and 6 were all found to be greatly significant at the p < .001 level,
meaning that there were a high percentage of students who answered a certain way on
these questions. The results of the chi-square statistic for the treatment group post-survey
shows that questions 2, 6, and 10 were all found to be greatly significant at the p < .001
Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary 37
level, meaning that there were a high percentage of students who answered a certain way
on these questions. Question 2, about answering questions in math class, had 15 students
to agree and 5 who strongly agreed. Question 6, about learning with better understanding
of vocabulary, had 16 students to strongly agree and 11 who agreed. Question 10, about
how often you use vocabulary to answer questions, had 10 who said more than half the
time and 14 who said less than ½ the time.
To determine the internal consistency reliability of the items on the surveys given
to the students, the Cronbach’s Alpha test was conducted using the survey responses for
each group’s pre/post surveys. The purpose of this test was to compare the score for each
item with the total score for each student in order to make sure the items measured only
what they were intended to measure (Salkind, 2010). For the untreated group presurveys, the Cronbach’s Alpha was α = 0.82. For the treatment group pre-surveys, the
Cronbach’s Alpha was α = 0.86. The untreated group post-surveys had a Cronbach’s
Alpha that was α = 0.83 and the treatment group was α = 0.86. Therefore, both of these
surveys showed a high level of reliability using the results of the Cronbach’s alpha test as
well.
To determine whether my attitudes as the teacher and those of the students
changed during the study, a reflective journal was kept by me during the action research
of this study. I wrote in the journal daily to record my attitudes as well as those of the
students. The journal was coded for recurring, dominant, and emerging themes. A
recurring theme throughout the study was the positive response of the treatment group to
the different activities they participated in. Student 1 stated, “I didn’t know learning
vocabulary could be such fun!” Student 2 added that, “Drawing a picture on the cards
Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary 38
really makes it easier for me to remember what the word means.” Student 3 said, “I
won’t ever forget how that group acted out their word!” The Untreated Group had an
opposite response. When told to write the words and copy the definitions from the
glossary, there was much grumbling and complaining. Many of the students in the
untreated group were apathetic towards the assignments they were given. The
enthusiasm and excitement of the treatment group was not evident at all. I observed that
the lower achieving students in the treatment group were much more involved and
interested in the activities. Using these different strategies really helped “level the
playing field” for these students to be successful and the resulting work was of a much
higher quality than previously displayed. The students in the treatment group were much
more willing to take risks when trying to solve problems and more willing to share with
the class what they were thinking as they worked through the process. The untreated
group really didn’t score much differently on this unit of study than any other previously
taught this year. The grades on the tests and quizzes were pretty typical of what they had
accomplished all year. I did notice the lower achieving students in the treatment group
were very proud of their successes. One parent commented on how her son got in the car
at car riders so excited to show her the 100 he had made on a math quiz. She said he told
her, “This is the first time I’ve ever made a grade this good.”
I found myself feeling much more enthusiasm when working with the treatment
group. They were excited and it made me feel that way too. I wrote in my journal the
day they “acted out” the words, “It was very noisy, but I observed a lot of enthusiasm and
a lot of learning taking place.” It took a couple of days before I really felt comfortable
with the noise they were making as they learned new concepts and vocabulary. I felt bad
Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary 39
that the treatment group had so much fun, while the untreated group’s activities were
pretty boring. Examining the results of the survey questions was very eye opening for
me. I never realized so many were uncomfortable asking questions or sharing in class. I
found myself wondering if the ones who were uncomfortable were the same ones who
struggle in math class.
As you read Chapter Four, you have probably noticed certain discrepancies
between the qualitative and quantitative data that were produced as a result of the action
research study. While the qualitative data, which was gathered through student surveys
and my reflective journal, show positive and significant effects from using motivational
teaching strategies that reach the different learning styles of individual students, the
quantitative data, or pre/post tests, did not produce significant results to reflect these
observations. The data in this chapter will be further analyzed and reflected upon in
Chapter Five in order to determine the possible causes for the observed inconsistencies,
as well as provide recommendations for future research.
Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary 40
CHAPTER FIVE: ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Analysis
The first focus question of this thesis was about the process of teaching math
vocabulary to address the different learning styles of individual students. The data
collection for focus question one, concerned with pedagogy, was qualitative. A peer
reviewed instructional plan was developed and followed during the course of this study.
The large quantity of vocabulary that must be mastered in order to grasp the concepts
taught in the Geometry Unit made it ideal for comparing the use of learning styles to the
more traditional methods of teaching vocabulary. Two peer teachers evaluated the plan
using a rubric to assure content validity. The interviews with the peer teachers were
recorded and detailed notes of interviewee’s responses were taken. Each peer teacher
checked the transcribed interviews to ensure accuracy in what was written. These
interviews were the primary source of qualitative data collection for focus question one.
I took their recommendations and adjusted the plan accordingly. Both of the peer
teachers had positive things to say about the plan. They only made a couple of
suggestions to make it better, mainly adding a little more detail to a vocabulary card
activity so someone else could easily use my plan. The suggestion was made to do a
quick review/assessment at the beginning of each lesson to assure that the content
previously covered was mastered. Both teachers agreed that the plan was directly related
to the fifth grade Georgia Performance Standards that would be tested on the Georgia
CRCT. They also said there were activities included in the unit of study that addressed
several different types of learning styles.
Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary 41
During this unit of study, the students in the treated group were introduced to the
Geometry vocabulary by using art, music, and drama. They made vocabulary cards that
included pictures and diagrams that they drew, as well as, the definition, and examples.
By using art, they were able to visualize the meaning of the words, thus addressing the
visual learners. Students also had the opportunity to create songs or raps with the
different vocabulary words. By using music, the students with strong auditory learning
styles were able to use their strengths. To address the kinesthetic learner’s styles, the
students were allowed to pantomime or perform a skit using their words. They
performed these for their fellow classmates.
Yilmaz-Soylu & Akkoyunlu (2009) state that it is important to take into accounts
the characteristics, abilities, and experiences of learners when planning to teach a lesson.
Teachers should organize lessons according to the learning styles of the students rather
than expecting the student to adapt to the existing organization. Rapp (2009) suggests
when teaching auditorally, use visualization strategies that allow the learner to create a
picture in their head.
The second focus question of this thesis about how do test scores compare
between traditional methods of teaching vocabulary and vocabulary taught by addressing
different learning styles was addressed with dependent t-tests and an independent t-test.
All students were given a pre-test on Geometry vocabulary. The pre-tests from both the
treatment group and the untreated group were analyzed using an independent t-test. The
obtained value found in this test of 1.49 was less than the critical value of 1.685.
Therefore, the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between students
learning when different learning styles are addressed in math vocabulary lessons and
Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary 42
when students write definitions from the text must be accepted proving there is no
significant difference between the two groups (Salkind, 2010). This provided a level
playing field for both groups when this study began. The treatment group received
instruction that addressed different learning styles, but the untreated group received only
traditional activities from previous years. The pre/post tests from both groups were
compared using a dependent t-test. The obtained value for the treatment group was 14.83
with a P < .05, a great amount of significance is evident. The obtained value for the
untreated group was 11.05 with a P < .05, a great amount of significance is also evident
for this group. The post-tests from both the treatment and untreated groups were
analyzed with an independent t-test. The obtained value was 1.13 with a P < .05, which
was less than the critical value l.68 showing that the null hypothesis that there is no
significant difference between student learning when different learning styles are
addressed in math vocabulary lessons and when students write definitions from the text
must be accepted and the test results cannot be considered significant. The post-test mean
score of the treatment group was 77.89 and the mean score of the untreated group was
69.83. Content validity was maintained because the pre-test and post-test were identical.
Research in this area supports the findings of this study. Pierce and Fontaine
(2009) found that a child’s success in math is influenced by the depth and breadth of their
mathematical vocabulary. According to Fore, et al. (2007), students who struggle with
reading often have limited vocabularies which hinder their ability to relate new terms and
concepts to previous knowledge especially in mathematics. The Learning Cycle is a
method that teaches vocabulary using visualization. The cycle has four phases including
engagement, exploration, development, and application (Spencer & Gilliam, 2006). In
Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary 43
the first phase, engagement, pictures were used to introduce the words and the students
were hooked. The exploration stage involved drawing. In the development stage the
students group pictures of words that are related, the last stage application, requires the
students to use all the previous phases in a unique way, such as a poem, song, or play
ensuring enduring understanding of the words. One group of students from the treatment
class made up a song about the different kinds of lines. This is a good example of
application in the treatment group. Cunningham (2009) states that adding strategies to
address visual, auditory, and kinesthetic (VAK) styles while teaching math vocabulary
maximizes the potential for learning in that subject area. The students in the treatment
group showed a significant growth in vocabulary knowledge according to the dependent
t-test that compared the means of the pre-test and post-test scores affirming the literature.
Significant learning also occurred in the untreated group based on the dependent t-test
that compared the means of the pre/post test scores. The treatment group had 7 students
that scored below 70 on the post-test and the untreated group had 9.
When the post-test scores were compared using an independent t-test between the
treatment group and the untreated group there was no significant difference between the
two. The obtained value of 1.13 was less than the critical value of 1.68 and the Cohen’s
d statistic, 0.3136 is a medium effect size. This does not align with most of the literature;
however, it was supported by those opposed to using learning styles. Geake (2008) posits
that, on the whole, the evidence time and again shows that modifying a teaching strategy
to account for the differences in learning styles does not result in any improvement in
learning outcomes. Most educators know that learning styles is only one of a great many
variables which influence academic performance (Sharp et al., 2008). Geake (2008) cites
Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary 44
the research of Kratzig and Arbuthnott showing that there is no improvement of learning
outcomes with VAK above teacher enthusiasm. This finding does not modify or disprove
the literature because only one test was used for comparison.
Focus question three was about whether the attitudes of the teacher and students
change when different learning styles are addressed. I observed my fifth grade students
in the treatment and untreated group as the Geometry unit was implemented. I coded a
journal for two themes, positive comments and reactions to the lesson, and negative
comments and reactions to the lesson. I was looking for categorical and repeating data
that formed patterns of behaviors. I found that out of twenty-nine interactions during the
lessons when vocabulary cards were produced including pictures, twenty-six were
positive and three were negative. Ninety percent of the reactions to the lesson were
positive. When we did the dramatic presentations of the words, I found that twenty-seven
out of the twenty nine students had very positive comments. Ninety-three percent of the
reactions to this activity were positive. I noted that the students were very engaged in
sharing their words with each other and most of the conversations between students were
about their vocabulary words. Every student completed the assignment; even though two
students were reluctant to participate at first, they were convinced by their peers that they
could do it.
Greenwood (2002) indicated that engaging students in active hands-on lessons to
learn vocabulary is a way to improve vocabulary comprehension, and that creating
picture definitions can motivate students and keep them involved in the lesson.
According to Paivio’s Dual Coding Theory (As stated by Hibbing and Rankin-Erickson,
2003), memory is accomplished by fluctuation between mental imagery and language
Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary 45
processing. Use of mental imagery improves reading comprehension (Hibbing &
Rankin-Erickson, 2003). Sadoski (2005) explains the keyword theory which demands
that the student relate new vocabulary to previously learned words that are key parts of
the new word. To do this the student creates an image that relates to something they
already know. One student created a picture for the word irregular polygon, which is any
polygon that does not have congruent sides and angles. Her picture showed a regular
square, triangle, and hexagon with a circle surrounding each with the slash mark
diagonally across meaning prohibited or negative. She knew what a regular polygon was
and used it to show she understood irregular polygon. This student demonstrated the use
of the keyword method without being told.
Discussion
In reflection, the findings of this action research study produced both predictable
and unpredictable results. Visuals are a major part of our society. It is important that we
teach students to interpret visuals because of the internet, television, and new teaching
methods, such as power points and movie maker. Everyone is required to have a word
wall in their classroom. Using visuals along with the word wall make it a valuable
teaching tool. This activity is easy to implement giving the study referential adequacy.
Other teachers in the school are already implementing the strategy giving the study a high
degree of catalytic validity.
One interesting result that occurred due to this research involved the pictures that
the students were asked to draw for each of the vocabulary words. When presented with
a list of the vocabulary words and pictures without written definitions, the students in the
treatment group were very successful at matching the word to the picture. Twenty-eight
Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary 46
of the twenty-nine students in the treatment group successfully matched the pictures to
the vocabulary word with a minimum accuracy rate of eighty percent while the twentyfour students in the untreated group only had fifteen students with an eighty percent or
higher accuracy rate. This supports the evidence from much of the literature which states
that learning occurs when students create visuals.
The qualitative part of this study demonstrates structural corroboration because
triangulation of the journal observations and student observations was an accurate
measure of the student engagement during the lessons. Both positive and negative
responses were recorded to ensure the fairness of the study. The student behavior during
the lessons supports the rightness of fit of the research. The evidence of active
engagement was overwhelming for the treatment group in the journal themes and
observations.
The quantitative studies of this action research study did not produce significant
results supporting the use of addressing learning styles when teaching math vocabulary.
This research is credible because the assessments used to pre-test and post-test the
students were the same test. Doing this helps to ensure that there are no other variables to
cloud the research. Even though the comparison of the data showed that the students did
not score significantly higher on the post-test in which learning styles were addressed to
teach math vocabulary than they did on the post-test in which the instruction followed
traditional methods used in previous years, that was only one test involving a sample size
of only fifty-three students. This was a small sample, which decreased the chances that
the outcome of the study would be significant. On the test in which traditional methods
from previous years were used, the mean of the pre-test scores was 22, and the mean of
Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary 47
the post-test scores was 70. When those scores were compared to the pre-test mean (16)
and the post-test mean (78) of the test when different learning styles were addressed
when teaching math vocabulary, it can be seen that there was more improvement with the
treatment group. Further evidence can be found in the literature that learning occurs
when different learning styles of students are addressed. Comparing the test results of the
treatment and untreated groups proved that both groups made significant gains from the
pre-test to the post test. There is evidence in the literature to support that written
definitions are not the best teaching tool. Bromley (2007) states the practice of writing
definitions has proven to be useless. Students blindly copy the definition and forget it.
Beck, McKeown, and Kucan (2002) assert that becoming interested and aware of words
is not a likely outcome from having students look up definitions in a dictionary or
glossary. Bromley (2007) insists more effective strategies are being developed to
enhance vocabulary lessons.
Implications
Because the sample size was small used in this study, the results of this research
cannot be generalized to the larger population. The students in the treatment group were
highly engaged in the lessons while there was large amount of disengagement among
those in the untreated group. A lesson that promotes active engagement of elementary
school students that is easily implemented is already being used by other teachers in the
school. Incorporation of the methods used in this research into the lesson plans of my
peers gives the research referential adequacy and catalytic validity.
The most interesting thing that happened as a result of this research affirms the
catalytic validity of this study. One of my students created vocabulary cards for a science
Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary 48
vocabulary test using pictures to help remember the word. This proved that he had
applied the concept of creating picture definitions to another subject. When several of
the other students saw his vocabulary pictures, they too drew pictures to help them in the
same way. I will definitely address different learning styles when teaching math
vocabulary in the future because of this study and I will share these activities with other
teachers in my school. According to Fore et al. (2007), the ability to read and vocabulary
knowledge in the content areas are essential for school success. As the bar continues to
be raised for schools to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), which is measured by
state standardized tests, vocabulary knowledge in all content areas is critical. Addressing
student’s learning styles keeps them actively engaged in the lessons; therefore, leading to
an increase in knowledge. I believe that students who have a firm understanding of the
vocabulary of math have a better chance of performing higher on not only classroom
assessments but also on the state CRCT.
Recommendations for Future Research
If I could change anything about this study, I would conduct more tests with the
different methods for teaching vocabulary, so that I could have a more reliable
benchmark with which to compare them. If the sample size was larger I think the results
would be different. I would like to see if there would be significant gains when
comparing the post-tests when addressing different learning styles to more traditional
methods previously used. If the students consistently used pictures, music, poetry, and
drama to learn new vocabulary, would they score higher on the state mandated CRCT. It
would also be interesting if these same students could be assessed at the beginning of the
next school year to see how much of this Geometry vocabulary they retained. I would
Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary 49
also like to see if the math scores would be impacted by not only learning content math
vocabulary but also the testing language used on the state tests.
Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary 50
References
Beck, I.L., McKeown, & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary
instruction. New York: The Guilford Press.
Beecher, M., & Sweeny, S. (2008). Closing the achievement gap with curriculum
enrichment and differentiation: One school’s story. Journal of Advanced Academics,
19(3), 502-530. Retrieved October 3, 2010, from ERIC database.
Bromley, K. (2007). Nine things every teacher should know about words and vocabulary
instruction. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 50(7), 528-537. Retrieved
September 25, 2010, from ERIC database.
Carter, Tamara and Dean, Emily. (2006). Mathematics intervention for Grades 5-11:
Teaching mathematics, reading, or both? Reading Psychology, 27(2&3), 127-146.
Retrieved September 25, 2010, from ERIC database.
Cresswell, John W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Cunningham, P. (2009). What really matters in vocabulary: Research-based practices
across the curriculum. Boston: Pearson.
Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (1998). The fifth moment. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.),
The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues (pp.407-430). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Eisner, E. (1991). The enlightened eye. New York: MacMillan.
Flanigan, K. & Greenwood, S. (2007). Effective content vocabulary instruction in the
middle: Matching students, purposes, words, and strategies. Journal of Adolescent &
Adult Literacy, 51(3), 226-238. doi:10.1598/JAAL51.3.3
Fore, C., Boon, R., & Lowrie, K. (2007). Vocabulary instruction for middle school
students with learning disabilities: A comparison of two instructional models, Learning
Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 5(2), 49-73. Retrieved July 23, 2010, from ERIC
database.
Fraenkel, J., & Wallen, N. (1990). How to design and evaluate research in education.
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Frey, N., & Fisher, D. (2009). Learning words inside and out: Vocabulary instruction
that boosts achievement in all subject areas. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Gailey, S. K. (1993). The mathematics/children’s literature connection. Arithmetic
Teacher, 40(5), 258-261. Retrieved August 12, 2010, from ERIC database.
Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary 51
Gay, A. S. (2008). Helping teachers connect vocabulary and conceptual understanding,
Mathematics Teacher, 102(3), 218-223.
Geake, J. (2008). Neuromythologies in education, Educational Research, 50(2), 123133. Retrieved November 11, 2010, from ERIC database.
Georgia Department of Education (2008).Mathematics Georgia performance standards
(GPS), 1-16. Atlanta, GA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.georgiastandards.org on
June 23, 2010.
Greenwood, S. (2006). Making words matter: Vocabulary study in the content areas.
The Clearing House, 75(5), 258-63. Retrieved July 28, 2010, from ERIC database.
Haas, S.C. (2003). Algebra for gifted visual-spatial learners. Gifted Education
Communicator, 34(1), 30-43. Retrieved October 15, 2010, from ERIC database.
Hendricks, C. (2009). Improving schools through action research: A comprehensive
guide for educators. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson.
Hibbing, A., & Rankin-Erickson, J. (2003). A picture is worth a thousand words: Using
visual images to improve comprehension for middle school struggling readers. The
Reading Teacher, 58(8), 758-770. Retrieved October 15, 2010, from ERIC database.
Jensen, E. (1998). How Julie’s brain learns. Educational Leadership, 56(3) 41-45.
Kinchloe, J., & McLaren, P. (1998). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research.
In N.Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and
issues (pp. 260-299). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Kratzig, G.P., & Arbuthnott, K.D. (2006). Perceptual learning style and learning
proficiency: A test of the hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 238246. Retrieved November 2, 2010, from ERIC database.
LaGrange College Education Department. (2008). Conceptual framework. LaGrange,
GA: LaGrange College
Matz, K.A. & Leier, C. (1992). Word problems and the language connection. Arithmetic
Teacher, 39(8), 14-17.
National Board of Professional Teaching Standards [NBPTS]. (2002, August). The five
core principles. Retrieved June 23, 2010 from the NBPTS Web Site
http://www.nbpts.org
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM]. (2000). Principles and standards
for School Mathematics. Retrieved July 2, 2010, from
http://www.nctm.org/standards/content
Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary 52
Phillips, D. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism.
Educational Researcher, 24(7), 5-12.
Pierce, M., & Fontaine, L. (2009). Designing vocabulary instruction in
mathematics. The Reading Teacher, 63(3) 239-243. doi:10.1598/RT.63.3.7
Phillips, D.C., Bardsley, M.E., Bach, T., & Gibb-Brown, K. (2009). “But I teach math!”
the journey of middle school mathematics teachers and literacy coaches learning to
integrate literacy strategies into the math instruction. Education, 129(3), 467-472.
Retrieved July 3, 2010, from ERIC database.
Popham, W. (2008). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know (5th ed.).
Boston: Pearson, Allyn, & Bacon.
Powell, K & Kalina, C. (2010). Cognitive and social constructivism: Developing tools
for an effective classroom. Education, 130(2), 241-250. Retrieved August 12, 2010,
from ERIC database.
Rapp, W. (2009). Avoiding math taboos: Effective math strategies for visual-spatial
learners. Teaching Exceptional Children Plus, 6(2), 2-12. Retrieved September 10,
2010, from ERIC database.
Rector, Robert E. and Henderson, Kenneth B. (1970). The relative effectiveness of four
strategies for teaching mathematical concepts. Journal for research in mathematics
education, 1(2), 69-75. Retrieved September 29, 2010, from ERIC database.
Sadoski, M. (2005). A dual coding view of vocabulary learning. Reading and Writing
Quarterly, 21, 221-238. Retrieved October 14, 2010, from ERIC database.
Salkind, N. J. (2010). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics (Excel 2nd Ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Scott, C. (2010). The enduring appeal of ‘learning styles’. Australian Journal of
Education, 54(1), 5-17. Retrieved November 2, 2010, from ERIC database.
Sharp, J.G., Bowker, R., Byrne, J. (2008). VAK or VAK-ous? Towards the
trivialization of learning and the death of scholarship. Research Papers in Education,
23(3), 293-314. Retrieved November 2, 2010, from ERIC database.
Silverman, L. K. (2005). Teaching mathematics to non-sequential learners.
www.gifteddevelopment.com
Spencer, B., & Guillaume, A. (2006). Integrating curriculum throughout the learning
cycle: Content based reading and vocabulary instruction. The Reading Teacher, 60(3),
206-219. Retrieved August 15, 2010, from ERIC database.
Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary 53
Tajalli, H., & Opheim, C. (2005). Strategies for closing the gap: Predicting student
performance in economically disadvantaged schools. Educational Research Quarterly,
28(4), 44-54. (ERIC) Document Reproduction Service No. EJ718119) Retrieved August
14, 2010 from ERIC database.
Yilmaz-Soylu, M., Akkoyunlu,B. (2009). The effect of learning styles on achievement in
different learning environments. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology –
TOJET, 8(4), 43-50. Retrieved November 2, 2010, from ERIC database.
Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary 54
Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary 55
Appendix A
Geometric Figures Instructional Plan
Day
Standards
Essential
Question
Resources/Materials
Activities
Vocabulary
Assessment
Day 1
Concepts and
Skills to Maintain:
Characteristics of
2D and 3D shapes.
How can I
identify
different types
of line
relationships
and angles?
Text: Harcourt Math
Rulers
Write to Win Journals
Harcourt Mega Math
Ice Station
Exploration Polar
Planes (computer lab
throughout unit)
Preview Voc. –
Discuss wds. and look
for examples in
classroom. Find
examples in figures.
Write to Win Journal
entry: Today in Math I
learned…
Point, line, ray, line
segment, plane, angle,
parallel lines,
perpendicular lines,
intersecting lines,
acute, obtuse, right,
straight, angles,
protractor
Pre-test
Voc. Pre-test
Concepts and
Skills to Maintain:
Characteristics of
2D and 3D shapes.
How can I use a
protractor to
measure angles?
Text: Harcourt Math
Rulers
5X7 Index Cards
Crayons, Markers,
Colored Pencils
Make Voc. Cards
Point, line, ray, line
segment, plane, angle,
parallel lines,
perpendicular lines,
intersecting lines,
acute, obtuse, right,
straight, angles,
protractor
Vocabulary
Cards
Day 2
Word, definition,
picture, non-example
Use protractors to
measure angles
Write to Win
Journal
Day 3
Concepts and
Skills to Maintain:
Characteristics of
2D and 3D shapes.
Why does the
protractor have
2 different
scales?
Text: Harcourt Math
Protractors
TR 26 (Sheet with
angles)
Write to Win Journals
Review types of angles
& how to categorize
them.
Discuss and examine
Protractor and how to
use it to measure angles
Point, line, ray, line
segment, plane, angle,
parallel lines,
perpendicular lines,
intersecting lines,
acute, obtuse, right,
straight, angles,
protractor
Teacher
Observation:
Actually
using a
protractor to
measure
angles
Day 4
Concepts and
Skills to Maintain:
Characteristics of
2D and 3D shapes.
How can I use
angles to
classify and
measure
polygons?
Text: Harcourt Math
5X7 Index Cards
Isometric dot paper
Polygon Figures
List of polygon names
based on sides up to
100 sides
Review angles
Make Voc. cards for
new Voc.
Use text to identify
regular and irregular
polygons
Polygon, regular
polygon, irregular
polygon, congruent,
triangle, quadrilateral,
pentagon, hexagon,
octagon, decagon
Vocabulary
Cards
Homework
Practice
Workbook
lesson 19.1
1-12
Practice
Workbook
Lesson 19.2
Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary 56
Standards
Essential
Question
How can I give
the missing
angle measure
for a triangle
and
quadrilateral?
Resources/Materials
Activities
Vocabulary
Assessment
Homework
Text: Harcourt
Math
Write to Win
Journals
Review polygons
(voc) regular and
irregular. Use text
to find the missing
angle measure of
triangles and
quadrilaterals.
Write to Win: I am
a triangle what is
my area?
Polygon, regular
polygon, irregular
polygon, congruent,
triangle,
quadrilateral,
pentagon, hexagon,
octagon, decagon
Write to
Win
Journal
Practice
workbook:
19.3
Practice
workbook
19.4
Day 5
Concepts and
Skills to
Maintain:
Characteristics
of 2D and 3D
shapes.
Day 6
M5G2 Students
will understand
the relationship of
the circumference
of a circle, its
diameter, and pi
( = 3.14)
How can I
identify and
measure parts
of a circle?
Text: Harcourt
Math
Rulers
5X7 Index Cards
Crayons, Markers,
Colored Pencils
Protractor
Review parts of a
circle (radius,
diameter, chord,
circumference,
central angle)
Make voc. cards
Circle, diameter,
radius, chord, pi,
circumference,
central angle
Vocabulary
Cards
Day 7
M5G2 Students
will understand
the relationship of
the circumference
of a circle, its
diameter, and pi
( = 3.14)
What is the
relationship
between the
circumference
of a circle and
the radius?
Rulers
Poster board
Various size cans
Chart paper
calculator
Groups will use
different size cans
to measure radius
and circumference,
Make a chart,
graph, and discuss
results
Circle, diameter,
radius, chord, pi,
circumference,
central angle
Chart &
Graphs
Day 8
M5G2 Students
will understand
the relationship of
the circumference
of a circle, its
diameter, and pi
( = 3.14)
How can I use
angles to
classify and
measure
polygons?
Text: Harcourt Math
5X7 Index Cards
Isometric dot paper
Polygon Figures
List of polygon
names based on sides
up to 100 sides
Write to Win:
discuss relationship
between circum.,
diameter, radius
Unknown angle
measure in a circle
Circle, diameter,
radius, chord, pi,
circumference,
central angle
Write to
Win
Journal
Practice
Workbook
Lesson 19.5
Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary 57
Day
Standard
Day 9
Concepts and
Skills to Maintain:
Characteristics of
2D and 3D shapes.
Essential
Question
How Can I
classify
triangles?
Resources &
Materials
Chapter 19 Posttest
Isometric dot paper
Text: Harcourt Math
Protractors
5x7 index cards
Activities
Vocabulary
Assessment
Chap. 19 Posttest
Discuss/review
triangles
Make voc. cards
Isosceles triangle
Scalene triange
Equilateral triangle
Acute triangle
Obtuse triangle
Equilateral triangle
Geometry
Posttest Part
1(Ch 19
Homework
Voc. Cards
Day
10
Concepts and
Skills to Maintain:
Characteristics of
2D and 3D shapes.
How Can I
classify
triangles?
Text: Harcourt Math
5x7 index cards
Protractors
Write to Win Journal
Chapter 20 Pretest
Discuss triangle
classifications
Practice with text
pgs. 385-387
Write to Win
Journal: What I
thought you taught
about triangles.
Isosceles triangle
Scalene triange
Equilateral triangle
Acute triangle
Obtuse triangle
Equilateral triangle
Write to Win
Journals
Practice
Workbook
Lesson 20.1
Day
11
Concepts and
Skills to Maintain:
Characteristics of
2D and 3D shapes.
How can I
classify
quadrilaterals?
Text: Harcourt Math
5x7 index cards
Polygon figures
Make Voc. cards
Discuss
classifications of
quadrilaterals
Use text 389-393
Square, rectangle,
trapezoid,
parallelogram,
rhombus, congruent,
parallel
Voc. Cards
Teacher
Observation
Practice
Workbook
Lesson 20.2
Day
12
M5G1: Students
will understand
congruence of
geometric figures
and the
correspondence of
their vertices,
sides, & angles
How can I
identify similar
and congruent
figures?
Text: Harcourt Math
5x7 index cards
1cm. grid paper
Make Voc. cards
Similar, congruence,
corresponding
vertices,
Corresponding angles,
Corresponding sides
Voc. Cards
Teacher
Observation
Practice
Workbook
Lesson 20.3
Draw figures that
are similar and
congruent
Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary 58
Day
Standard
Day
13
M5G1: Students
will understand
congruence of
geometric figures
and the
correspondence of
their vertices,
sides, & angles
Day
14
Day
15
Day
16
Essential
Question
How can I
identify
corresponding
vertices, angles,
and sides?
Resources &
Materials
Text: Harcourt Math
0.5 cm Grid Paper
Write to Win Journal
Concepts and
Skills to Maintain:
Characteristics of
2D and 3D shapes.
How can I
identify solid
figures?
Solids
Text: Harcourt Math
5x7 index cards
Concepts and
Skills to Maintain:
Characteristics of
2D and 3D shapes.
How can I
identify solid
figures?
Concepts and
Skills to Maintain:
Characteristics of
2D and 3D shapes.
Text: Harcourt Math
Solid figure patterns
Write to Win Journal
How can I
identify solid
figures?
Vocabulary Cards
from chapter 19-20
Activities
Vocabulary
Assessment
Draw figures and
locate
corresponding
sides, vertices, and
angles
Write to Win
Journal: Acrostic
Voc:
CONGRUENCE
Similar, congruence,
corresponding
vertices,
Corresponding
angles,
Corresponding sides
Write to Win
Journal
Examine & discuss
solid figures – Why
3D?
Make voc. cards
Polyhedron
Prism, base, faces,
Cube, cylinder, cone,
sphere
Vocabulary
Cards
Make Solid figures
from patterns.
Text 394-397
Table for prisms
(sides, vertices,
faces, edges)
Polyhedron
Prism, base, faces,
Cube, cylinder, cone,
sphere
Write to Win
Journal
Vocabulary Bingo
(ch. 19-20 terms)
Polyhedron
Prism, base, faces,
Cube, cylinder, cone,
sphere
Jeopardy game for
review
Homework
Figures drawn
on grid paper
Practice
Workbook
Lesson 20.4
Teacher
Observation
Prism Table
Solid figures
that were
constructed
Bingo Game
Jeopardy
Game
Review voc.
cards for
games
tomorrow
Study for
chapter 20
posttest and
Voc. posttest
Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary 59
Day
Day
17
Standard
Essential
Question
Resources &
Materials
Chapter 20 Posttest
2
Vocabulary
Posttest
Activities
Posttests
Writing to Win:
Free Write- My
favorite part of
this Geometry
unit is …
Vocabulary
Assessment
Geometry
Posttest Part
2
Vocabulary
Posttest
Homework
Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary 60
Appendix B
Rubric for Evaluating Instructional Plan
Beginning
Developing
Accomplished
Exemplary
1
2
3
4
Instructional
goals and
Instruction objectives are
Goals and not stated.
Objectives Learners can
not tell what
is expected of
them.
Learners can
not determine
what they
should know
and be able to
do as a result
of learning
and
instruction.
Instructional
goals and
objectives are
stated but are not
easy to
understand.
Learners are
given some
information
regarding what is
expected of them.
Learners are not
given enough
information to
determine what
they should know
and be able to do
as a result of
learning and
instruction.
Instructional
goals and
objectives are
stated. Learners
have an
understanding of
what is expected
of them. Learners
can determine
what they should
know and be able
to do as a result of
learning and
instruction.
Instructional
goals and
objectives clearly
stated. Learners
have a clear
understanding of
what is expected
of them. Learners
can determine
what they should
know and be able
to do as a result of
learning and
instruction.
Instructional
strategies are
Instructional missing or
Strategies strategies
used are
inappropriate.
Some
instructional
strategies are
appropriate for
learning
outcome(s). Some
strategies are
based on a
combination of
practical
experience,theory,
research and
documented best
practice.
Most instructional
strategies are
appropriate for
learning
outcome(s). Most
strategies are
based on a
combination of
practical
experience,theory,
research and
documented best
practice.
Instructional
strategies
appropriate for
learning
outcome(s).
Strategy based on
a combination of
practical
experience,theory,
research and
documented best
practice.
Score
Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary 61
Method for
assessing
Assessment student
learning and
evaluating
instruction is
missing.
Method for
assessing student
learning and
evaluating
instruction is
vaguely stated.
Assessment is
teacher
dependent.
Method for
assessing student
learning and
evaluating
instruction is
present. Can be
readily used for
expert, peer,
and/or selfevaluation.
Method for
assessing student
learning and
evaluating
instruction is
clearly delineated
and authentic.
Can be readily
used for expert,
peer, and/or selfevaluation.
Selection and
application of
Technology technologies
Used
is
inappropriate
(or
nonexistant)
for learning
environment
and
outcomes.
Selection and
application of
technologies is
beginning to be
appropriate for
learning
environment and
outcomes.
Technologies
applied do not
affect learning.
Selection and
application of
technologies is
basically
appropriate for
learning
environment and
outcomes. Some
technologies
applied enhance
learning.
Selection and
application of
technologies is
appropriate for
learning
environment and
outcomes.
Technologies
applied to
enhance learning.
Some materials
necessary for
student and
teacher to
complete lesson
are listed, but list
is incomplete.
Most materials
necessary for
student and
teacher to
complete lesson
are listed.
All materials
necessary for
student and
teacher to
complete lesson
clearly listed.
Material list
is missing.
Materials
Needed
Lesson plan
is
Organization
unorganized
and
and not
Presentation
presented in a
neat manner.
Lesson plan is
Lesson plan is
organized, but not organized and
professionally
neatly presented.
presented.
Complete
package presented
in well organized
and professional
fashion.
Total Points
Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary 62
Appendix C
Pre/Post Student Survey
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
I am good at math.
I like to answer questions asked
by the teacher in math class.
I am comfortable asking
questions in math if I don’t
understand something.
I am comfortable sharing my
math ideas with the class.
I understand the vocabulary we
use in math.
I think I learn better when I
understand the vocabulary in
math.
It is easy for me to use the
vocabulary in math class.
Circle your answer.
1.
Which of these best describes yourself as a math student?
Struggling
Ok
Good
Very Good
2.
Which of these best describes how a friend would describe you as a math
student?
Struggling
Ok
Good
Very Good
3. How often are you asked to explain your answer using math vocabulary?
Never
Less than ½ the time
More than ½ the time
Always
4. How easy is it for you to use math vocabulary to explain your answer?
Very Hard
Hard
Ok
Easy
Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary 63
Appendix D
Geometry Vocabulary
Pre/Post-test
Name ________________________
__________________________ is an exact location in space, usually represented by a
dot.
__________________________ is a flat surface that extends without end in all
directions.
__________________________ is a straight path of points in a plane, extending in both
directions with no endpoints.
__________________________ is a part of a line; it begins at one endpoint and extends
forever in one direction.
_________________________ are lines in a plane that do not intersect.
_________________________ are lines that cross each other at exactly one point.
_________________________ is part of a line between two endpoints.
_________________________ is a figure formed by two rays that meet at a common
endpoint.
_________________________ are two lines that intersect to form right angles.
________________________ is an angle whose measure is greater than 90° and less
than 180°.
_______________________ is an angle that has a measure less than a right angle.
________________________ is an angle that measures 180°.
Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary 64
_______________________ is a special angle formed by perpendicular lines and equal
to 90°.
_______________________ is a unit for measuring angles.
________________________is having the same size and shape.
________________________is a tool used for measuring or drawing angles.
______________________________is a closed figure with all points on the figure the
same distance from the center point.
__________________________ ____is a closed plane figure formed by three or more
line segments.
__________________________ ___is a line segment that passes through the center of a
circle and has its endpoints on the circle.
_____________________________ is a line segment with one endpoint at the center of a
circle and the other endpoint on the circle.
_____________________________is a line segment with endpoints on a circle.
_____________________________is the angle formed by two radii of a circle that meet
at its center.
_____________________________is the distance around a circle.
____________________________is the relationship of the circumference to the diameter
of a circle; an approximate decimal value is 3.14.
____________________________is a polygon in which the sides are not congruent and
the angles are not congruent.
Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary 65
____________________________is a polygon in which all sides are congruent and all
angles are congruent.
WORD BANK
acute angle
angle
central angle
chord
circle
circumference
congruent
degree
diameter
intersecting lines
irregular polygons
line
line segment
obtuse angle
parallel lines
perpendicular lines
pi
plane
point
polygon
protractor
radius
ray
regular polygon
right angle
straight angle
Learning Styles and Math Vocabulary 66
Appendix E
Reflective Journal Prompts
1.
What were three main things I learned from this session?
2.
What did we not cover that I expected we should?
3. What was new or surprising to me?
4. What have I changed my mind about, as a result of this session?
5. One thing I learned in this session that I may be able to use in the future is…
6. I am still unsure about…
7. Ideas for action, based on this session…
8. What I most liked about this session was…
9. What I most disliked about this session was…
10. Miscellaneous interesting facts I learned in this session…