St.

Catherine University
SOPHIA

Masters of Arts in Education Action Research Education

Papers

1-2016

Using Technology to Aid in the Differentiation of Mathematics in a

Sixth Grade Classroom
Abigail Morales
St. Catherine University, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://sophia.stkate.edu/maed

Part of the Education Commons

Recommended Citation
Morales, Abigail. (2016). Using Technology to Aid in the Differentiation of Mathematics in a Sixth Grade
Classroom. Retrieved from Sophia, the St. Catherine University repository website:
https://sophia.stkate.edu/maed/147

This Action Research Project is brought to you for free and open access by the Education at SOPHIA. It has been
accepted for inclusion in Masters of Arts in Education Action Research Papers by an authorized administrator of
SOPHIA. For more information, please contact [email protected].
Using Technology to Aid in the Differentiation
of Mathematics in a Sixth Grade Classroom

An Action Research Report

By Abigail A. Morales
Running head: TECHNOLOGY TO DIFFERENTIATE MATHEMATICS 1

Using Technology to Aid in the Differentiation of

Mathematics in a Sixth Grade Classroom

Submitted on January 31, 2016

in fulfillment of final requirements for the MAED degree

Abigail A. Morales

Saint Catherine University

St. Paul, Minnesota

Advisor ____ _______________ Date ___01.29.2016_______

TECHNOLOGY TO DIFFERENTIATE MATHEMATICS 2

Abstract

This Action Research examines the effects of using an interactive, adaptive software

program, Front Row, in helping a sixth grade teacher to differentiate mathematics. Ten

students who go to a parochial school in a rural, midwestern community were included in

the study. The data collection tools included a pre-research reflection, a journal of

teacher observations, a daily student questionnaire, computer generated reports, a mid-

research reflection, and a post-research reflection. Overall, this research showed an

average growth of 1.74 years, or 44.9 percent with regard to grade level equivalency.

This growth indicates the students’ ability to perform mathematics skills independently.

Due to the integration of Front Row, the students were more engaged in activities and

showed growth on their achievement. This helped narrow existing gaps on the Common

Core State Standards foundational domains. However, future research would consider

other adaptive, technology integration tools to aid in mathematics differentiation.

Keywords: adaptive software, Front Row, mathematics, differentiation

TECHNOLOGY TO DIFFERENTIATE MATHEMATICS 3

Technology is taking differentiated instruction in education to a new level in

terms of being responsive to student needs. Technology is making it easier than ever for

teachers to have real-time data to support instructional decision-making. The data-driven

decisions bring more objective clarity to the way in which to best meet the needs of

students. The ability of technology to aid teachers in differentiating teaching and

learning for today’s students is critical to the success of the 21st Century classroom

(Kleber, 2015). Adaptive software programs can assist teachers in the decision-making

process (Foughty & Keller, 2011). This is done by collecting data, which provides

teachers with essential information to make informed decisions about student groupings

(Anderson, 2007; Kara-Soteriou, 2009).

Interactive, adaptive software programs use student data from their online

practice, allowing teachers to group students in a variety of ways. Some suggestions of

different types of groupings include same level or mixed level groupings, which leads to

a more personalized educational experience (Davis, 2011). Pierce and Adams (2004)

stated flexible groupings are an important component to successful differentiation. This

action research study aims to identify how one such adaptive program, Front Row, can

help a sixth-grade teacher to differentiate mathematics.

The setting of this research takes place in a small, rural, midwestern town. The

school serves less than 100 students and the sixth-grade class has 10 students with an

equal male to female ratio. It is a parochial school. This is the school’s first year with a

Chromebook cart. There are some iPads available, although not enough for a whole class

unless borrowed from other teachers. No students in the class are on IEP’s, but one

student takes medication for behavioral concerns and anxiety. This student will use an
TECHNOLOGY TO DIFFERENTIATE MATHEMATICS 4

iPad as opposed to a chromebook. Another student has a speech impairment and receives

services, often during mathematics instruction because mathematics is his strongest

academic area. No special accommodations will be used for this reason. This is a very

homogeneous group, as all identify themselves as Caucasian and English speaking. All

students indicate that they have internet access and a device to use at home if needed for

educational purposes.

Through my observations during my teaching career, I have noticed an increasing

dependence on finger counting, multiplication charts, and calculators to do basic

computing. This slows the students down significantly when problem-solving. When

learning more complicated concepts such as operations with fractions or solving

algebraic equations, some students are inhibited, not because they can’t do the higher

complexity work, but because their understanding of foundational concepts and number

sense is limited. Upon analyzing the data provided by the state standardized test, there is

quite a large gap between the levels of achievement and readiness in my classroom.

When using the National Grade Equivalency (NGE) scores, six students were performing

above grade level, one at grade level, and three below grade level. I quickly determined

that it would not be appropriate or effective for me to teach the grade level material when

I would only be reaching one of my ten students. Meanwhile, three of my students would

not be ready for it, and the other six would not be appropriately challenged. I need to

increase the number of students performing at grade level and increase the learning and

abilities of those students who are entering my class at above grade level already.

Since students come to a class with varying degrees of background knowledge,

skills, misunderstandings, and misconceptions, differentiation is essential to meet

TECHNOLOGY TO DIFFERENTIATE MATHEMATICS 5

individual student needs. Differentiated Instruction assesses where students currently are

in their learning. It then encourages the adjustment of instructional delivery and content,

the practicing of essential skills, and/or assessment to help students meet district, state,

and national standards and benchmarks (Bender, 2013; Smith & Throne, 2007). The

overarching goal of differentiation in the classroom is to meet diverse learner needs and

support high levels of student achievement (Smith & Throne, 2007). This requires a lot

of extra, but very important, work on the teacher’s part. Ultimately, there should be

something in place to prepare the teacher to target those specific needs.

Research indicates that technology impacts learning and can help improve student

outcomes in six ways (Smith & Throne, 2007). These include when the application

supports curriculum objectives, when there are opportunities for student collaboration,

when the application adjusts for student ability and provides feedback to all parties about

performance and progress, when integrated into the typical day, technology offers

opportunities for projects that extend the curriculum, and when all parties support its use

(Smith & Throne, 2007). The parties involved could include parents, teachers,

administrators, and students, as appropriate.

Technology can aid both teachers and students in making sure they are meeting

state standards as well. Research conducted using intelligent tutoring software has

produced significantly improved student outcomes in mathematics (Bender, 2013;

Dempsey & Kuhn, 2011). Front Row could be considered one type of intelligent tutoring

software, because it adapts mathematics practice based on student responses, while

providing videos to aid students in solving similar problems. Such software is not meant

to replace the teacher. On the contrary, interactive software put the training and
TECHNOLOGY TO DIFFERENTIATE MATHEMATICS 6

experience of teachers to their maximum use. According to Broyles (2012), when

teachers formatively use data to inform their instruction, student achievement improves.

The data the teacher receives can guide student groupings and inform the teacher as to

specific areas of need or concern (Foughty & Keller, 2011). It can also allow teachers to

vary content based on student readiness while still approaching and meeting standards

(Anderson, 2007). Front Row is an online, adaptive software program. It generates data

for the teacher to use in order to differentiate instruction and practice for students.

Anonymized results from Front Row found that 75 percent of teachers who used the

program for at least three months reported better student mathematics growth than the

district average (Front Row, 2015). In a case study of “districts where average growth is

already high, Front Row classrooms still showed significant improvement over the

district average” (Front Row, 2015, p. 4).

Upon reflection and consideration of the context I work in and the resources that I

have to work with, I chose to study what effects differentiation, facilitated by the

adaptive, interactive software, Front Row, will have on mathematics achievement and

engagement of students in a sixth grade classroom.

Review of Literature

This section discusses the literature on how technology can be used to

differentiate mathematics to best meet the needs of all students. Technology is used for a

multitude of purposes. For example, it can be used to inform instructional practices by

providing teachers with suggestions to guide student groupings and highlight specific

areas of concern, which need to be addressed with students (Anderson, 2007; Kara-

Soteriou, 2009). When a teacher plans to incorporate mini-lessons into his or her
TECHNOLOGY TO DIFFERENTIATE MATHEMATICS 7

instructional practices, their purpose is to work with a small group of students, while

addressing targeted learning needs (Foughty & Keller, 2011).

Technology can also be used to increase student engagement, thereby impacting

conceptual understanding and overall academic achievement (Dempsey & Kuhn, 2011).

And, finally, technology can be used to increase teacher understanding of student

learning outcomes, so the teacher can better differentiate his or her instruction to meet

unique individual learning needs (Smith & Throne, 2007). The next section examines the

approach to and importance of differentiated instruction in the classroom.

Differentiated Instruction

Differentiated Instruction is an approach to teaching and learning that meets an

ever-widening array of academic diversity (Smith & Throne, 2007). Differentiation is the

changing of content, process, or product based on student readiness, interest, and learning

profile (Anderson, 2007; Pierce & Adams, 2004). When used in the classroom, the

aspect of student choice in differentiation empowers teachers to be responsive and

students to be aware of their areas of needed improvement (Anderson, 2007; Kleber,

2015). One important component and benefit of differentiated instruction is that students

are more responsible for their learning and achievement (Smith & Throne, 2007).

There are many ways that a teacher can choose to group students when

differentiating. When implementing differentiated instruction, students are generally

separated into mathematics groups according to readiness, interest, or learner profile

depending on whether content, process, or product will be differentiated (Anderson,

2007; Pierce & Adams, 2004; Preston & Hunt, 2014). The term “readiness” often

coincides with the term “ability” to help educators qualify their student groupings (Pierce
TECHNOLOGY TO DIFFERENTIATE MATHEMATICS 8

& Adams, 2004). Bender (2013) reiterated that there are many different, yet appropriate,

options for educators with regard to student groupings. Although differentiated

instruction was initially based on the theory of multiple intelligences by Gardner in 1983,

the act of considering learning styles, preferences, and learning profiles is becoming more

prevalent (Bender, 2013). Pierce and Adams (2004) stated that flexible groupings are an

important component to successful differentiation. Flexible grouping is a method of

grouping students by which students move between groups as their understanding of the

skills and concepts grow. Therefore data, with consideration of context and knowledge

of students, will determine the most appropriate method for placing students in groups for

the purposes of differentiation.

One way of differentiating instruction, which has proven worthwhile in various

settings, is through tiered lessons or assignments. When tiering, it is important that the

teacher tier either content, process or product, and then within that, decide if they are

going to tier based on readiness, interest or learning profile (Pierce & Adams, 2004).

Before tiering based on student needs, student groupings should be established. The

notion of tiering revolves around meeting the needs of the individuals in each leveled

group. It is important to note that whether the teacher is using a tiered approach or some

other means to address learner needs, flexible, rather than static groups should be

encouraged (Pierce & Adams, 2004).

The overarching goal of differentiation in the classroom is to meet diverse learner

needs and support high levels of student achievement (Smith & Throne, 2007). For

decades, educators have tried to personalize education, but have been limited in what

they have been able to do because of the long hours required to prepare differentiated
TECHNOLOGY TO DIFFERENTIATE MATHEMATICS 9

lessons and the varied needs of the students (Davis, 2011). Technology is making it

easier for teachers to respond to student needs.

As is evident, technology can be an exceptional tool to aid in differentiation when

used appropriately. The use of technology can help teachers spend more time on data

analysis to guide individualized instruction rather than on grading papers (Foughty &

Keller, 2011).

The Hybrid Approach

A critical component of knowing when, where, and how to differentiate is having

evidence to support each student’s current level of understanding before trying to move

them forward (Broyles, 2012). One way to do that is through a hybrid approach, which

combines face-to-face and online components. Through the use of technology,

diagnostic assessments can be given and efficiently compiled to provide teachers with the

data and information necessary for decision-making. Many interactive software

programs are also available, such as ALEKS, Front Row, TenMarks, and DreamBox

Learning, which give educators data to guide their professional practices and improve

student outcomes (Bender, 2013). According to Broyles (2012), much of the increased

student achievement is attributed to teachers using the data that they receive to inform

their instructional practices. From there, teachers can implement more targeted

instructional strategies and close any gaps or misconceptions in understanding (Dempsey

& Kuhn, 2011). Once teachers have identified, targeted, addressed, and clarified

misconceptions, students’ overall achievement will increase (Dempsey & Kuhn, 2011).

Moreover, students who are already proficient or advanced for their grade-level

can continuously be challenged. A significant benefit of interactive software is that,

TECHNOLOGY TO DIFFERENTIATE MATHEMATICS 10

contrary to a traditional approach of accelerating students to a different class or grade

level, which may unintentionally create gaps in understanding, students are able to stay in

the same class and advance their knowledge through individually tailored learning paths

(Foughty & Keller, 2011). Digital curriculum allows students to move forward at an

appropriate pace (Foughty & Keller, 2011).

Not only can technology be used to provide teachers with data to inform

instruction and interventions, but it can also be used to increase student engagement.

Higher levels of student engagement yield greater academic achievement (Banitt, Theis,

& Van Leeuwe, 2013; Lambert, 2014). For example, Siegle (2014) referenced research

by the Flipped Learning Network in 2012, on flipping the classroom, in which 80% of the

students had improved attitudes towards school. Sometimes thought of as a mindset

more than a method, Spencer (n.d.) stated that flipping the classroom is one way of

shifting the “attention away from the teacher and onto the student” (as cited in Siegle,

2014, p. 51). It is truly a shift in how educators view their role, the relationships they

establish with their students, how they use their time, and the way in which they structure

learning activities in today's 21st century classrooms (Kleber, 2015).

Siegle (2014) noted that the strongest effect on student achievement comes from

the individual feedback that students receive. According to Siegle (2014), “In traditional

classrooms, students only receive a few seconds of specific, individual feedback each

day” (p. 52). To address this student need, technology can be used to provide students

with direct feedback on their progress and areas for improvement (Dempsey & Kuhn,

2011).
TECHNOLOGY TO DIFFERENTIATE MATHEMATICS 11

All potential barriers aside, a hybrid approach to learning or the flipped classroom

approach can have significant benefits for improving student outcomes. This effect is

due to the nature of combining technology and differentiation so that each student

receives a more personalized education (Foughty & Keller, 2011; Kleber, 2015; Siegle,

2014). Interactive software and online games attract today’s students who are digital

natives (Dempsey & Kuhn, 2011). Pring (2012) stated that when integrating technology

into the classroom, students “move from passive listeners to active learners” (as cited in

Siegle, 2014, p. 52). Through adaptive technology, students are empowered to take

ownership over their work and take control of their learning (Kleber, 2015).

Conclusion

According to the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000), “the tenets

of differentiated instruction support both the Equity Principle and the Teaching Principle

of the Principles and Standards for School Mathematics” (as cited in Pierce & Adams,

2004, p. 60). As described, the hybrid approach to learning and the flipped classroom

models can support the implementation of differentiation to meet district, state, and

national standards for increased student engagement and achievement. The use of digital

tools is a very effective way that helps teachers better meet student needs, which

improves student outcomes.

Methodology

For the purpose of assessing the effects of technology integration on the

differentiation of mathematics in a sixth-grade classroom, I devised several methods of

data collection to triangulate my results. My data collection sources included: (1) Pre-

Research student reflections (2) Journal of teacher observations, (3) Computer generated
TECHNOLOGY TO DIFFERENTIATE MATHEMATICS 12

reports, (4) Mid-Research student reflections, (5) Daily student questionnaires, and (6)

Post-Research student reflections.

The timeline of this Action Research was set for 15, 45-minute sessions over five

weeks. I began this research by administering a pre-research reflection (Appendix A)

This reflection used an online Google Form which consisted of 12 questions used to

gather information such as student online access and device availability from home,

student comfort level with technology, student preference regarding how they practice or

assess their understanding of mathematics, and their current level of engagement in

mathematics class in comparison with other content areas. Four of the questions were

open ended, while eight questions were multiple choice or checklist format.

After receiving the data from the pre-research reflection, the students began

working on Front Row. Front Row is aligned with the Common Core State Standards

(CCSS), which is evident by the reports that are able to generate data based on the CCSS

within the program. According to Academic Benchmarks (2015), the CCSS have been

adopted by 46 states in the United States of America. Within Front Row, the standards

have been divided into two categories for mathematics; Foundational and Advanced. The

foundational domains include standards that are primarily addressed during grades K-5,

while the advanced domains include material from grades 6-8. Before being able to do

adaptive practice on Front Row, each student was required to take a diagnostic

assessment within the program for each Common Core domain. Each domain consists of

a number of different standards that fall under the category of the overarching domain.

The process of taking the diagnostic assessment for each domain was important, yet time

consuming. While one student would only receive a few questions related to
TECHNOLOGY TO DIFFERENTIATE MATHEMATICS 13

mathematics concepts, others would receive many before the diagnostic assessment

would be considered complete by the program. They started with the Foundational

Domains, such as Counting and Operations, Base 10, and Fractions and then moved on to

complete the Diagnostic Assessments for the Advanced Domains. Some examples of the

advanced domains include Ratios and Proportions, Statistics and Probability, and

Functions. Although time consuming, Front Row wouldn’t let the student move on to

practicing concepts, without being able to place them at the appropriate, adapted level.

This difference in the number of questions was because the students were at different

ability levels and the program kept asking questions until it felt it had a good assessment

of the students’ current level of understanding on each topic. It was a mandatory

component to the program being able to adjust to each student’s level, which laid the

foundation for adaptive practice. I also kept a daily journal for personal reflection

(Appendix B).

This is our school’s first year with a chromebook cart. It was completely new to

our students, who are primarily Apple users. There was a little bit of a learning curve in

using these devices, which prolonged my research process by about a week. Time

constraints and schedule changes made it challenging to do a full 45 minutes of Front

Row three times per week, as originally intended. The reality was closer to 30 minutes,

three times per week, which three days depended on the school’s schedule. This also

seemed to be the students’ stamina of time on task for this program in one setting.

After each session working on Front Row, the students completed a daily student

questionnaire (Appendix C), which focused on their engagement and the relevance of the

content they practiced that day. The questionnaire consisted of two, 5-point likert scale
TECHNOLOGY TO DIFFERENTIATE MATHEMATICS 14

questions followed by space to explain why they rated themselves they way that they did.

It also included one open-ended response with regard to what they felt the most important

concept was that they practiced that day. Their responses provided me with information

to consider when moving forward. The information that I received was in reference to

on-task behavior, how well the students felt they practiced the designated skills, and an

insight into what the students felt was the most important concept they practiced that day.

I was able to compare my assessment of class or student behavior to their own

perceptions of their behavior. It also encouraged the students to be intentional about their

work, knowing they would be held accountable for doing their best and making sense of

what they were learning and practicing.

Every Sunday, I received a report from Front Row in my email (Appendix D).

This report provided a summary of the progress made on the various domains that week,

which guided me in planning for the coming week based on student performance during

the previous week. This report took into account the work that the students did at home

over the weekend. It also provided students’ current grade level equivalency in regards

to their mathematics achievement on Front Row. The email indicated students who

improved the most and least, as well as those who did not improve. I used that

information, along with the suggested small group information, to determine which

students to work with for targeted instruction during mini lessons.

Since the sixth grade math book at our school is not aligned with the Common

Core, it does not follow the same standards and progression as Front Row. Therefore, it

was necessary to shorten my large group instruction from the textbook, to mini lessons.

These mini lessons consisted of 15 minutes spent on large group instruction with fewer
TECHNOLOGY TO DIFFERENTIATE MATHEMATICS 15

whole group examples, followed by more adaptive practice on Front Row. I used the

time with Front Row to focus on filling current gaps in conceptual understanding or skill

acquisition and working with students more frequently within small groups or

individually.

Twice per week, on the days opposite those using the Front Row program during

school, the students had adapted-level homework printed from Front Row. Sometimes,

the adapted level homework on Front Row was unavailable because the pdf generator

was not working. Therefore, I still used Front Row’s suggested groupings to determine

what level of practice the students should receive. Then, I took the leveled worksheets

from my textbook to give them assigned practice for that night which addressed the same

standards.

After the first two weeks, the students became more comfortable using Front

Row. Therefore, I began requiring an additional 15 minutes spent on Front Row from

home so that I would have a better gauge of where the students were in relationship to

one another. The more time spent on the program, the more data I was able to use to

guide my instruction. This information was used to guide interventions and small group

lessons according to the standard and level of readiness of the students.

At the midpoint of the research, I had the students complete a mid-research

reflection using Google Forms (Appendix E). This information provided me with

information such as what they did and didn’t like about using Front Row. It also had six

questions that were the same as the pre-research reflection so that I was able to make a

comparison over time. I adjusted as necessary to best meet the needs of the individual

students who were struggling or who didn’t seem to be able to show what they knew on
TECHNOLOGY TO DIFFERENTIATE MATHEMATICS 16

the computer program. One example of an adaptation was that a student seemed to be

more successful using an iPad instead of a Chromebook because it was easier to

manipulate. Finally, the students took a post-research reflection using Google Forms

(Appendix F), which helped me more accurately compare changes over time, as six

questions were the same or similar throughout the pre-, mid-, and post-research

reflections.

Analysis of Data

In order to answer my research question “What effects does the integration of

Front Row, an adaptive software program, have on a teacher’s ability to differentiate

mathematics in a sixth grade classroom?” I collected data from several sources. The first

data source was a pre-research reflection, which gave me initial information about the

students’ learning preferences as well as device and internet access from home. I kept a

research journal where I recorded my daily observations and reflected on the

instructional changes that I would make the following session. Each day, after using

Front Row, the students completed a daily student questionnaire, with the intent of

encouraging the students to reflect on their level of engagement and content practiced.

Front Row reports were generated weekly showing student progress. A mid-research

reflection asked some of the same questions as the pre-research reflection, while asking

questions more specific questions about Front Row. Finally, the students completed a

post-research reflection, which mirrored the pre- and mid- research reflections in order

to gauge change over time.

There were three main themes that developed from this research. First, students

were more engaged and motivated than ever before. Secondly, the students had increased
TECHNOLOGY TO DIFFERENTIATE MATHEMATICS 17

achievement, especially in the area of filling previously existing gaps. The final theme

that emerged was a growing frustration with the free, online, interactive, adaptive

software program, Front Row.

In order to appropriately differentiate for the varying needs of my students, it was

important for me to understand the students’ preferences in regards to how they learned

and practiced mathematics content. At the beginning, middle, and end of my research the

students were asked how they preferred to learn a new idea or concept in mathematics.

The students were encouraged to select all that applied to them. Over the course of the

research, there was no change in the number of students who preferred whole class or

small group instruction when compared with other methods of instruction. Although,

new methods were introduced such as one-on-one instruction from the teacher, online

videos to watch, and other methods increased in relationship to student preference

(Figure 1). For the “other” methods section, students mentioned the use of online games,

watching videos as a whole class, and teacher instruction with slideshow presentations as

additional methods that they liked to use to learn a new idea or concept in mathematics

(Figure 1). From this, I concluded that the students became more versatile in the ways

that they learned content because they feel more successful with a variety of approaches.
TECHNOLOGY TO DIFFERENTIATE MATHEMATICS 18

Figure 1. Students’ preferences for learning a new idea or concept in mathematics. This

figure demonstrates student responses in regards to the question posed during the pre-,

mid-, and post- research reflections.

This data indicates that whole group instruction was consistently preferred by half

of my students. The same five students found this method to be helpful throughout the

research as indicated by their response on the pre-, mid-, and post-research reflections. It

also tells me that 40% of my students found small group instruction helpful, although the

students who preferred this method shifted slightly over the course of the research.

Therefore, the total number of students did not change, but the individual students who

preferred this method changed slightly. There was a limited amount of one-on-one

interaction with the teacher or use of online videos prior to my research, hence the lower

number of students who found it beneficial during the pre-research reflection. Upon

using the adaptive program, Front Row and interacting with students on a more consistent

individual basis, the number of students preferring one-on-one teacher interaction

increased 200% from the pre-research reflection to the mid-research reflection and
TECHNOLOGY TO DIFFERENTIATE MATHEMATICS 19

stayed that high through the post-research reflection. I believe that is because the

students felt more comfortable asking questions one-on-one. During one of the daily

questionnaires, Student 4 stated “I didn’t get something so I asked a lot of questions.”

Meanwhile, Student 2 said, “When I asked for help I actually got what it meant.” The use

of online videos as a preferred method of learning increased 400% from the pre-research

to the mid-research reflection. At first, the students thought it was neat to refer to a video

before asking the teacher. From the mid-research to the post-research reflection the use

of online videos as a preferred learning method showed a slight decrease. I believe the

drop in students preferring the online videos on the post-research reflection might have

been because as the student became more familiar with the program, he or she found the

videos less helpful. The videos did not always closely relate to the type of problem that

the students were working through. For example, if the student was working on a

problem about subtracting fractions, the program suggested a video about adding

fractions; the video was still about fractions, but with a different operation than the

problem itself was focused on.

During the pre-, mid-, and post-research reflections, I asked students to note

whether they paid less, more, or the same amount of attention in mathematics as in other

subject areas (Figure 2). When considering the difference between the pre-research and

mid-research reflections, there was a decrease in the number of students who said they

paid less attention in mathematics than in other subject areas. On the pre-research

reflection, 20% of my students said they paid less attention in mathematics than other

subject areas. Figure 2 displays how in the mid- and post-research reflections, no

students said they paid less attention in mathematics than in other subject areas
TECHNOLOGY TO DIFFERENTIATE MATHEMATICS 20

Figure 2 . Number of students and the degree of attention each stated they paid in

mathematics as opposed to other subject areas. Student response with regard to whether

he/she pays less, more, or the same amount of attention in mathematics class when

compared with other subjects.

The biggest change occurred between the pre- and mid- research reflections,

during which students became more noticeably engaged. Student 6 is an excellent

example of this change. On the pre-research reflection, the student stated that he paid

less attention in mathematics than in other subjects because “I don’t like math.” In the

mid-research reflection, he stated that he pays more attention in mathematics than in

other subjects because “math is my favorite subject.” Student 3 echoed this mentality

because in the pre-research reflection she stated that she paid less attention in

mathematics when compared to other subjects “because I don’t really like math cause I’m

bad at that subject.” During the mid-research reflection, Student 3 stated that she pays

more attention during mathematics “because I’m getting into Front Row and I’m starting

to really like it.” The conclusion that I drew from this information was that the use of
TECHNOLOGY TO DIFFERENTIATE MATHEMATICS 21

Front Row created the biggest change in a positive attitude towards mathematics for

some of the lowest students. Their participation and interaction with the adaptive

program increased the students’ self-efficacy. On the other hand, for many of the middle

and higher-level students, there wasn’t as drastic of a change in attitude or engagement as

opposed to other classes as there was with the lower-achieving students.

Therefore, I consider this a positive connection to heightened engagement. When

students assessed themselves about their level of on-task behavior on a Likert Scale each

day after using Front Row, they consistently scored themselves at a level four or five,

with five being the highest possible level of on-task behavior. This is consistent with my

own observations during the research process. I believe this might be because the

program was more interesting than a whole group lesson from the textbook. On one of

the daily self-evaluations regarding engagement, Student 3 stated, “I stayed on task and

kept gaining points.” Student 9 stated that he was on-task because, “I wanted to learn a

lot of things.” Student 8 said, “I got a lot of coins, which means I worked hard.” While

using Front Row, coins were earned within the program as students answered questions

correctly. These were recurring comments from a majority of the students at least once

over the course of the research.

In addition to a sense of increased engagement was an increase in student

motivation. The responses showed that the students were externally motivated to

continue working through mathematics on Front Row because they were able to earn

coins for correct answers. This program gave each student a pig that they could dress by

purchasing items with the coins that they earned while practicing mathematics through

the program. The students were also able to see the top five coin earners and would go
TECHNOLOGY TO DIFFERENTIATE MATHEMATICS 22

home challenging their peers to get more coins than them. From my daily journal, it was

noted on numerous occasions that students were leaving school challenging their friends

to get more coins than them on Front Row and arrived to school in the morning talking

about who earned the most coins from the night before. They were only asked to do

Front Row at home for 15 minutes, and many of them were on for an hour or more.

Student 8 even stated, “I worked hard and have over 1500 coins!” On another day, he

stated, “I got more coins and almost got my piggy a new t-shirt!” These statements are

evidence that students were empowered by the number of coins they were able to earn by

correctly answering mathematics problems on Front Row.

In the daily reflections on the use of Front Row, the students were asked what

they felt the most important concept was that they practiced that day. Student 2 stated,

“the exponents and parentheses because I thought that it was pretty hard but when I

learned about it, it was really easy.” When I initially analyzed the existing data to

determine that there was a need for differentiation and intervention, I noticed some gaps

existed between the levels of mathematics achievement between the students in my class

(Figure 3).
TECHNOLOGY TO DIFFERENTIATE MATHEMATICS 23

Figure 3. Baseline data from Fall 2014, compiled from the state standardized test. This

figure illustrates the discrepancy of mathematics compentency for the sixth grade class.

One of the original goals of this study was to narrow the gap between students’

mathematical achievement that were evident at the beginning of the Action Research.

The line graph displayed as Figure 4 shows the grade level equivalency for the Common

Core foundational domains. It shows the gaps in each area starting to close over the six-

week course of my research. It is important to note that the Common Core foundational

domains only go through fifth grade standards.

Figure 4. Foundational Domains-Class Data. This figure shows the class data indicating

the level of growth within Common Core foundational domains. This graph shows how

the gaps in foundational understanding narrowed over the course of the research.

I feel that the reason the students grew within the Numbers and Operations in

Base Ten domain was due to the fact that on the days opposite using Front Row, there

were related standards being addressed during a whole group instruction setting. The

targeted instruction on a specific domain made the content fresh in the students’ minds,
TECHNOLOGY TO DIFFERENTIATE MATHEMATICS 24

which gave them enough confidence with the skills to be successful on Front Row. The

Numbers and Operations – Fractions domain stayed fairly consistent. This slight growth

might be due to the fact that nothing new was taught about fractions during this time.

Rather, students were practicing and becoming stronger on fraction concepts they had

already learned, without explicit instruction from the teacher. This is one more indicator

as to how technology cannot replace the teacher, but enhance what the student is able to

learn through a combination of online and face-to-face components. The reason that the

Measurement and Data and Geometry showed such growth might be because it is

covered in previous grades. Although taught to a degree in previous grades, the students

have limited time with the content because it is usually towards the end of the textbook.

Therefore, with additional, adapted exposure to practicing the respective standards, the

students showed much more growth when compared to other domains. The domain that

grew most consistently was Counting and Cardinality, Operations and Algebraic

Thinking, which is likely due to the extra fast fact practice the students completed.

Another possible explanation is that through the adaptive practice and interaction with the

teacher, the students’ understanding of number sense greatly improved.

The next theme that developed regarded an increased sense of personal

achievement. As indicated in my journal, the students mentioned that they felt

themselves getting smarter; they could feel themselves learning. These comments are

supported by Table 1, in which the individual student growth is displayed.

TECHNOLOGY TO DIFFERENTIATE MATHEMATICS 25

Table 1
Average Percent and Grade Level Equivalency Growth
Grade Level
Student # Percent Growth Equivalency
Growth
Student 1 35.4% 1.7
Student 2 32.4% 1.1
Student 3 63.3% 1.9
Student 4 61.7% 2.9
Student 5 39.1% 1.8
Student 6 18.8% 0.6
Student 7 51.1% 2.3
Student 8 32.4% 1.2
Student 9 57.9% 2.2
Student 10 56.7% 1.7
Average 44.9% 1.74
Note. The average percent and grade level growth for each student as well as the class

average.

As illustrated by Table 1, the students averaged approximately one and three-

fourths of a year’s growth. At first I felt there was a slight learning curve for using Front

Row. This might have been because the chromebooks were new to our building, which

took some time to learn how to use. Another reason for the initial learning curve was that

the students were not used to online mathematics practice. When comparing my

observations with the data, I would agree that the students made over a year’s growth in

what they were able to do independently.

When asked to reflect on whether or not they appropriately practiced the skills

they were supposed to be working on each day, Student 4 mentioned, “yes because I did

the problems the right way and asked questions when necessary.” Student 1 stated, “yes,

because the teacher assigns ones that fit the chapter we have in math.” Student 7 echoed

this statement by saying, “expressions and equations, it is what we are doing in math.”

When asked on a different day what the most important concept that he worked on that
TECHNOLOGY TO DIFFERENTIATE MATHEMATICS 26

day was, Student 8 responded “order of operations because they were tough and they

challenged me greatly.” Prior to Front Row and the daily reflection questions, I received

very little feedback from students about how meaningful they felt the mathematics

practice was each day. Some days the students felt they were less on task, as Student 3

mentioned, “Today I was getting distracted cause a lot of people were talking to me and

showing their piggies to me.” On a different day, Student 3 also stated, “I didn’t know

how to do half of the problems cause they were really hard.” I appreciated this honest

feedback, both positive and negative, because it helped guide my instruction for the next

day. For example, I then looked more deeply at the data from Student 3 to determine the

areas she was having difficulty and was then able to work with her on filling some gaps

in mathematical understanding. Based upon comments such as these, I reason that the

students were excited and motivated to use the program for practice, but it cannot replace

the teacher working with individuals or groups of students to clarify misconceptions or

misunderstandings about the mathematical skills and concepts being studied.

The next line graph shows five of the six Common Core advanced domains

(Figure 5). The Common Core advanced domains are designed for grades six through

eight. Figure 5 illustrates the students were not focused on the advanced domains during

the beginning part of the research and then midway through, started working on more

complex skills after the gaps in foundational skills began to close. Only Student 4 and

Student 7 worked on the sixth advanced domain, which focused on functions. They

began working at an 8.1 grade level equivalency and increased to an 8.2 grade level

equivalency. That data is not shown on the graph since it only involved two students.

The largest growth can be seen in the Number System domain, which can be attributed to
TECHNOLOGY TO DIFFERENTIATE MATHEMATICS 27

the fact that the textbook chapter we were addressing at the time also focused on

standards from the same domain. When interpreting the graph below, it is important to

note that not every student practiced each domain every day due to time constraints and

instructional needs as determined by the teacher.

Figure 5. Advanced Domains-Class data. This figure shows class data of growth within

the advanced domains according to Front Row. The sixth advanced domain was used by

only two students, so has therefore been omitted from the graph.

The final theme that developed related to mounting frustrations with the online,

adaptive program, Front Row. According to student responses on the daily student

questionnaire as well as my journal, there was a growing frustration with the program.

The students were frustrated that the program sometimes took away coins when they

answered the problem correctly. Particularly towards the end of the research period, the

program started to run slower than normal. I believe this was attributed to the fact that

Front Row was implementing a lot of updates. Student 1 stated, “well, some of the

answers are counted wrong when they are really right.” I can attest to the truth of this

statement, as the students often called me over because they had checked their work and

checked with friends before submitting their answer, and it was still marking it as wrong.
TECHNOLOGY TO DIFFERENTIATE MATHEMATICS 28

Therefore, they would call me over and I would confirm that they were correct with their

chosen answers, and sometimes it would “take” their answer as correct and other times it

would still say they were wrong. On another day, Student 4 identified that when she got

a problem right it gave her 5 coins then when she got another one right it would take

away 5 coins. She stated that after she answered a question it was very slow changing to

the next question. Student 7 echoed this response and my daily journal confirms that

other students mentioned experiencing the same problem. The students enjoyed using

Front Row, but the frustrations that were caused due to the limitations of the program

made it a somewhat unreliable choice for an adaptive program.

The culture of learning in my classroom greatly improved and I attribute much of

that to this program and the integration of technology into the classroom. The majority of

the students seem much more actively engaged in their learning. They made comments

indicating how their attitudes have shifted from technology being used for gaming and

social media, to technology as a learning tool, while still having fun. They truly enjoy

competing against one another to earn more coins and they look forward to their “brain

break” at the piggy store of the program where they can dress up their character using the

coins they earned for correct answers. They are engaged and having fun, while not fully

realizing how much they are learning and practicing their mathematical skills. As with

the integration of any new strategy, there were aspects of the research that went well and

others that could have been improved. The next section outlines the implications of this

Action Research study while providing recommendations for future Action Research.
TECHNOLOGY TO DIFFERENTIATE MATHEMATICS 29

Action Plan

There were three main conclusions that I drew from the data of this Action

Research. The first is that the students became more engaged and motivated than ever

before because they wanted to compete against their peers. They also liked to see their

grade level equivalency growth each week. Second, their achievement increased and

students themselves noted and recognized that they were feeling themselves getting

smarter and learning. Third, the excitement and achievement was coupled with a sense of

frustration with the program as well.

The data of my action research study indicated that the students were motivated to

do the Front Row program because they enjoyed earning coins, which allowed them to

dress their "pig" within the program. Although at times, students distracted one another

by wanting to share the character that they dressed within the program. This Action

Research indicated an increased level of engagement and motivation over time based on

student comments from my journal as well as the research reflections over time. Not all

of the students reached grade level equivalency by the end of the five-week research.

However, the reason they showed growth in the level of mathematics that they were able

to do independently might be due to the adaptive nature of the program. It started them at

a level where they could be successful and slowly increased the complexity through

additional practice. The students in this study grew an average of 44.9%. Prior to the

start of the action research study, only two students preferred one-on-one interaction with

the teacher, where at the midpoint and end of the research, six students found one-on-one

interaction with the teacher to be helpful when learning a new idea or concept in

mathematics.
TECHNOLOGY TO DIFFERENTIATE MATHEMATICS 30

These results imply that students felt more comfortable working one-on-one with

the teacher, thereby received more individualized assistance, which might have resulted

in an overall higher level of independent achievement. The culture in my classroom is so

much more interactive and personalized than it was before the study. It became more

interactive because the way the study was designed built stronger relationships between

the teacher and the students. Overall, students feel more comfortable approaching me

and I have also noticed that they are more likely, than before my research, to try things

and aren’t as worried about taking risks or being wrong. Front Row provided an

opportunity for my higher-level math students to progress forward as well. This was one

of the biggest benefits of integrating the technology into the math classroom. I also don’t

fear cheating as much because I am constantly informed by the data and can quickly

notice changes in scores to look into further. Students don’t seem to feel the need to

cheat either, because they are able to be successful in working towards the standards

since it is adapted to their level. On the other hand, if this study were to be replicated, I

would suggest finding a way to provide better security of student accounts because when

this study was conducted, students could potentially log in with someone else’s name

followed by the same class code as their peers.

This research will impact my teaching in a variety of ways. I would like to try

using another interactive, adaptive software program called ALEKS, which is a paid

program. I feel as though I will prefer using ALEKS over Front Row for several reasons

because it (1) is research-based (2) is Common Core aligned, (3) tracks the students’

history and growth, and (4) tracks student mastery of the standards (ALEKS, 2016). I am

not sure if I will be able to do it with all of my students since there is a cost associated
TECHNOLOGY TO DIFFERENTIATE MATHEMATICS 31

with it, therefore I will have to inquire further as to whether or not this is a possibility. It

will help me differentiate and track student learning within the respective Common Core

standards that we are working on in our textbook. Using the ALEKS program, pending

funding, will hopefully allow for increased depths of knowledge and understanding

within the same standard at an appropriately adapted level for all students. Second, I will

be more conscious of using data to inform my instruction and intervene where needed.

An added benefit would be that I could maximize the rest of my time filling gaps in the

understanding of content or skills with other students. This year I will continue to use

Front Row with my students one to two times per week so that I can continue to use the

data to inform my instruction. I will merge this with face-to-face whole group and small

group instruction in order to reach the varied learning preferences that I discovered

during this study. Students will have access to interactive, adaptive practice from both

home and school where they can see examples being explained to them through videos.

They can then make changes to their answers based on trial and error and receive

immediate feedback from the program. They will be able to ask questions during small

group and large group instruction as well. When working with smaller groups of

students, I can also gear my responses to them in a more personalized manner by relating

the discussion to their own lives. This is why I am going to balance the methods of face-

to-face whole group, small group, and online components of teaching and learning in an

effort to close existing gaps in understanding. This combination would also allow me to

help my students grow in their knowledge and skills of mathematics with the ultimate

goal of preparing them for future success. I will also use triangulated data to guide my

instructional decisions.
TECHNOLOGY TO DIFFERENTIATE MATHEMATICS 32

Further research should be done to validate these findings on a larger scale. For

example, it should be done with more students in bigger school districts. Researchers

should consider whether or not the students are familiar with the type of device that the

students will use during the course of the research. Additional research should build

upon using interactive, adaptive software programs other than Front Row because there

were some limitations with it, as a free program. Some examples of these limitations or

issues included the program counting some questions wrong that were actually correct,

thereby perhaps altering the results, although not substantially. Another issue that I

experienced was that the videos offered, as assistance when a student didn't know how to

do a problem, were not as closely aligned with the type of question that they were

practicing, as desired. If doing further studies with the integration of Front Row,

researchers might consider whether or not the paid version would eliminate some of the

limitations that I experienced. Future researchers might also consider other interactive,

adaptive software programs with which to replicate the study in order to compare the

effects on student achievement. They should consider whether or not the program(s) are

research-based and aligned with the Common Core State Standards before fully

designing their study. Future research should focus on using technology as a tool, which

provides teachers the data they need in order to maximize differentiated instruction in the

classroom.

Extended time should also be considered. With only doing the research for five

weeks, the online program was still somewhat of a novelty to the students. Therefore,

extended time with using the program would show whether or not the positive benefits

would be sustained. Extended time would also allow the teacher to consistently do the
TECHNOLOGY TO DIFFERENTIATE MATHEMATICS 33

program three times per week, allowing designated time to analyze the data and make

adjustments to instruction and meet with students for leveled, targeted instruction

between online sessions. This would be for a situation such as mine, in which the

adaptive program is being used to supplement textbook instruction and differentiated

practice. If a future researcher would want to measure learning preferences, I would

suggest having them rank their learning preferences as opposed to simply indicating all

that apply.

Further research could evaluate whether this approach to teaching and learning

should be implemented system-wide at grade levels K-8, or if there would be a point at

which the benefits would start to diminish. Additionally, research could look to

determine if there is a particular developmental age at which this style of differentiation

would be most appropriate.

Extended research could also examine the effects of using a flipped classroom

approach in which the students could do the adaptive program at home to practice while

exploring more real-world applications and hands-on concepts during the school day.

The students would still have to exhibit proficiency during classroom time, but would get

the systematic practice at home and deeper problem solving and depths of knowledge of

the same content during the classroom time.

The main contribution of this study shows an increase in student engagement as a

result of technology integration. It demonstrates the importance of data-driven decision-

making while better equipping the teacher to appropriately respond to student academic

needs. This study contributes to the notion that varied instructional strategies and
TECHNOLOGY TO DIFFERENTIATE MATHEMATICS 34

opportunities for adaptive practice can close gaps in students’ conceptual understanding

and skillset in mathematics.

TECHNOLOGY TO DIFFERENTIATE MATHEMATICS 35

References

Academic Benchmarks. (2015). [Interactive map displaying states that have adopted

the Common Core State Standards]. Common Core State Standards Adoption

Map. Retrieved from http://academicbenchmarks.com/common-core-state-

adoption-map/

ALEKS Corporation. (2016). McGraw-Hill Global Education Holdings, LLC.

Retrieved from https://www.aleks.com/

Anderson, K. M. (2007). Differentiating instruction to include all students. Preventing

School Failure, 51(3), 49-54. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/228568951?accountid=26879

Banitt, J., Theis, S., & Van Leeuwe, L. (2013). The effects of technology integration on

student engagement. Masters of Arts in Education Action Research Papers. Paper

7. Retrieved from http://sophia.stkate.edu/maed/7

Bender, W. N. (2013). Differentiating math instruction, K-8: Common core mathematics

in the 21st century classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Broyles, S. R. (2012). A grounded theory approach to understanding educator

perspectives on using data to inform instruction(Order No. 3537905). Available

from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1328137659). Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/1328137659?accountid=26879

Davis, M. R. (2011). Moving beyond one-size-fits-all. Education Week, 30(25), 10,

11. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/858787515?accountid=26879
TECHNOLOGY TO DIFFERENTIATE MATHEMATICS 36

Dempsey, K., & Kuhn, M. (2011). End the math wars: Increase your math

students' procedural fluency and build greater conceptual understanding in virtual

environments. Learning & Leading with Technology, 39(3). Retrieved from

http://go.galegroup.com.pearl.stkate.edu/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA273195089&v=

2.1&u=clic_stkate&it=r&p=ITOF&sw=w&asid=2625195498a02c520e2e4e1da78

84f6d

Foughty, Z., & Keller, J. (2011). Implementing digital math curricula. Principal

Leadership, 11(5), 64-66. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/821699418?accountid=26879

Front Row Education. (2015). Outcome report [Data file]. Retrieved from

https://d116d2b4cs97oy.cloudfront.net/marketing-assets/OutcomesReport.pdf

Gardner, H. (2011). Frames of Mind : The Theory of Multiple Intelligences (3rd Edition).

New York, NY, USA: Basic Books. Retrieved from http://www.ebrary.com

Kara-Soteriou, J. (2009). Using technology to differentiate instruction across grade

levels. New England Reading Association Journal, 44(2), 86-90. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/206028586?accountid=26879

Kleber, J. (2015). Differentiation through blended learning. Leadership, 44(3),

20-24. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/1645566280?accountid=26879

Lambert, E. E. W. (2014). Effect of a laptop initiative on middle school mathematics

achievement (Order No. 3621892). Available from ProQuest Dissertations &

Theses Global. (1548328670). Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/1548328670?accountid=26879
TECHNOLOGY TO DIFFERENTIATE MATHEMATICS 37

Pierce, R. L., & Adams, C. M. (2004). Tiered lessons: One way to differentiate

mathematics instruction. Gifted Child Today, 27(2), 58-66. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/203257737?accountid=26879

Preston, K., & Hunt, C. (2014). The effects of heterogeneous and homogeneous

grouping on student achievement in mathematics (Order No. 3666938). Available

from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1641122085). Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/1641122085?accountid=26879

Siegle, D. (2014). Technology. Gifted Child Today, 37(1), 51-55.

doi:10.1177/1076217513497579

Smith, G. E., Throne, S., & International Society for Technology in Education. (2007).

Differentiating instruction with technology in K-5 classrooms. Eugene, OR:

International Society for Technology in Education.

TECHNOLOGY TO DIFFERENTIATE MATHEMATICS 38

Appendix A
Student Pre-Research Reflection
Participation in this survey is voluntary, but highly encouraged. By completing this
survey, you are giving your consent to participate in this study. Completing this survey is
completely voluntary and you may quit at anytime. This survey will help me determine
how comfortable you are using technology and digital tools. It will also help me better
understand your feelings towards mathematics and technology. Please be honest. Your
responses will not affect your grade. :)

What is your first name?

What is your last name?

If you had access to online mathematics games, would you be able to play them at
home?
Yes
No

Which of the following technology would you be able to use at home to play
mathematics games?
Check all that apply
Computer
iPad
Kindle
Chrome book
iPod
I don't have any technology at home available to play math games
Other:

If you have technology at home and had mathematics games/homework to do,

how often do you need to use the technology at the same time as others?

On a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the best, how comfortable are you with using
technology?
1 2 3 4 5

Not very comfortable Very comfortable

In mathematics, if you could choose paper/pencil or on the computer/device,

which would you prefer to do your homework on?
Note: This question is just asking about homework
Paper/Pencil
TECHNOLOGY TO DIFFERENTIATE MATHEMATICS 39

Computer/Device

In mathematics, if you could choose paper/pencil or on the computer/device,

which would you prefer to do your tests on?
Note: This question is just asking about testing
Paper/Pencil
Computer/Device

When learning a new idea/concept in math, how would you prefer to learn it?
Check all that apply
Teacher explains it to the whole class
Teacher explains it to you in a small group
Teacher explains it to you individually
You watch a video online
Other:

Do you tend to pay more or less attention during math than in other subject
areas?
More
Less
I pay the same amount of attention in math as I do any other subject.

If you pay more or less attention in math than other subject areas, please explain
why.
This will help me understand my research better. Please be honest.

What should Mrs. Morales know about your attitudes towards Math?
Is it too hard, too easy? Do you find a calculator helpful? Is it helpful to work in
partners/groups?, etc.

What should Mrs. Morales know about your situation with Technology?
If you have one, do your parents/guardians let you use the computer or device for
schoolwork? Do you have trouble remembering your passwords?, etc.

In general, how much time do you spend per night on mathematics homework?
less than 30 minutes
between 30 minutes and 1 hour
more than 1 hour
TECHNOLOGY TO DIFFERENTIATE MATHEMATICS 40

Appendix B
Action Research Journal of Mrs. Morales
Date:

What went well?

What didn’t go well/could’ve gone better?

On a scale of 1-10, student engagement for students on devices today was a:

Notes about small group mini-lessons/interventions

What changes will I make based on today’s results?

What did I learn from the reports I printed this week from Front Row?
TECHNOLOGY TO DIFFERENTIATE MATHEMATICS 41

Appendix C
Daily Student Questionnaire
Your responses will not affect your grade. They will just help me understand my
research better.

1a. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the best, how would you rate yourself as being on-
task?
1 2 3 4 5

1b. Why did you rate yourself that way? Please explain.

2a. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the best, do you feel that you appropriately
practiced the skills you were supposed to be working on?

1 2 3 4 5

2b. Why did you rate yourself that way?

3. What was the most important concept you worked on today and why do you think that
it is an important concept?
TECHNOLOGY TO DIFFERENTIATE MATHEMATICS 42

Appendix D
Report from Front Row
(Student identities have been protected)
TECHNOLOGY TO DIFFERENTIATE MATHEMATICS 43

Appendix E
Student Mid-Research Reflection
This survey will help me determine how comfortable you are using technology and
digital tools. It will also help me better understand your feelings towards mathematics
and technology. Please be honest. Your responses will not affect your grade. :)
What is your first name?

What is your last name?

Are you able to access Front Row at home?

Yes
No

On a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the best, how comfortable are you with using
technology?
1 2 3 4 5

Not very comfortable Very comfortable

Do you feel that you get meaningful practice out of using Front Row?
Please explain

What do you like about Front Row?

Please explain

What are some things about Front Row that you don't like?
Please explain

When learning a new idea/concept in mathematics, how would you prefer to learn
it?
Check all that apply
Mrs. Morales explains it to the whole class
Mrs. Morales explains it to you in a small group
Mrs. Morales explains it to you individually
You watch a video online
Other:

As of today, do you tend to pay more or less attention during mathematics than in
other subject areas?
More
Less
I pay the same amount of attention in math as I do any other subject.
TECHNOLOGY TO DIFFERENTIATE MATHEMATICS 44

If you pay more or less attention in mathematics than other subject areas, please
explain why.
This will help me understand my research better. Please be honest.

What should Mrs. Morales know about your attitudes towards mathematics?
Is it getting easier or harder? Do you find a calculator helpful? Is it helpful to
work in partners or groups?, etc.

On average, how much time do you spend per night on mathematics homework?
less than 30 minutes
between 30 minutes and 1 hour
more than 1 hour
TECHNOLOGY TO DIFFERENTIATE MATHEMATICS 45

Appendix F
Student Post-Research Reflection
This survey will help me determine how comfortable you are using technology and
digital tools. It will also help me better understand your feelings towards mathematics
and technology. Please be honest. Your responses will not affect your grade. :)
What is your first name?

What is your last name?

Were you able to play online mathematics games at home?

Yes
No

On a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the best, how comfortable are you with using
technology?
1 2 3 4 5

Not very comfortable Very comfortable

In mathematics, if you could choose paper/pencil or on the computer/device,

which would you prefer to do your homework on?
Note: This question is just asking about homework
Paper/Pencil
Computer/Device

In mathematics, if you could choose paper/pencil or on the computer/device,

which would you prefer to do your tests on?
Note: This question is just asking about tests
Paper/Pencil
Computer/Device

When learning a new idea/concept in mathematics, how would you prefer to learn
it?
Check all that apply
Mrs. Morales explains it to the whole class
Mrs. Morales explains it to you in a small group
Mrs. Morales explains it to you individually
You watch a video online
Other:

Do you tend to pay more or less attention during mathematics than in other
subject areas?
TECHNOLOGY TO DIFFERENTIATE MATHEMATICS 46

More
Less
I pay the same amount of attention in math as I do any other subject.

If you pay more or less attention in mathematics than other subject areas, please
explain why.
This will help me understand my research better. Please be honest.

How have your attitudes about mathematics changed since using Front Row?
Is math easier, harder, etc. ?

What were your favorite things about Front Row?

What didn't you like about Front Row?

On average, how much time do you spend per night on mathematics homework?
less than 30 minutes
between 30 minutes and 1 hour
more than 1 hour