Crider ED607 Artifact Cover 4 MSED with EMIL Program (WOU)

EducatorName/Title: Tim Crider

EvaluatorName/Title: Dr. Rachel Harrington

School(s): North Bend School District

Artifact Title/Name: ED633 Annotated Bibliography

Source: ED633

Artifact Evidence Aligned

What MSED Proficiency does this artifact illustrate? Proficiency
This artifact from ED633 demonstrates the ability to become conversant in literature and research about mathematics. 4. Research
In this case, the research was done to address a question that has come up about regarding the use of a traditional and Theory
lecture based approach to math instruction versus using a Problem Based Learning approach. I was able to review Proficiency
and evaluate the research of others to fit this situation and be know the theoretical foundations that support the use of MSEd
Problem Based Learning. The research gathered here shows how important it is to use such an approach and will graduates will
help me apply this to my coaching practice and give evidence supporting Problem Based Learning.
be conversant
in the
literature and
research of
their
discipline.

MSED Proficiencies
1. Leadership/ 2. Writing Proficiency 3. Reflective Practitioner 4. Research and Theory 5. Diversity Proficiency
Professionalism Proficiency Proficiency
Proficiencies
MS Ed graduates will MSEd graduates will be MSEd graduates will be MSEd graduates will be MSEd graduates will
be professionals and able to express reflective practitioners conversant in the know how to connect
leaders in their field. themselves competently literature and research with all of their students,
in writing of their discipline whether they are children
or adults.
6. Technology 7. Synthesis of Knowledge Proficiency
Proficiency
MSEd graduates will MSEd graduates will be able to synthesize the new
be familiar with knowledge they have gained from all the classes we offer
technology in our programs, and will know how to apply that
knowledge in meaningful ways to improve their practice,
improve student learning, and advance the field of
education.
 Annotated Bibliography

By: Tim Crider

ED633- Research and Writing

Boaler, J. (2002). Learning from teaching: Exploring the relationship between reform curriculum and equity.
Journal for research in mathematics education, 239-258.

When looking at curriculum and different types of teaching methods, some have argued that new methods of
teaching may not enhance the achievement of all students, thus it is not promoting equity. Many studies,
however, point to evidence that shows reform curriculum improve student achievement and increase equity
for all. Reform movements in math involve teaching math using open-ended problems, and problems that can
be solved in multiple ways. This study compares data from two studies on using reform oriented instruction
and how those efforts affect all students. Issues to consider involve norms of a mathematics classroom, which
involve social and those that are social-mathematical. Results were analyzed from two different studies that
looked closely at how newer reform teaching methods affect student achievement vs. traditional methods.
Evidence was gathered both quantitatively through student achievement results and qualitatively through
observations and surveys. Students who received instruction using reform efforts showed progress in
achievement over those that did not. There was a complex relationship between the teachers commitment
to creating equity in the classroom and ensuring that students, regardless of gender, race, religion, or prior
knowledge, succeeded in the classroom. Both studies show that. The article only looks at two studies done,
however the studies took place over extended time periods.

This article looks in depth at one of the initial studies mentioned in the next article by Boaler. This is helpful to
read to know the extent of the study done. Important to note is that the positive effects of the study showed
equal growth for students in many subgroups, thus showing how it instills equity in a teaching program.

When looking to answer the question, which form of teaching math is better, a traditional lecture based
method or a more student-centered problem-based approach, this article has direct evidence gathered from
both types of classrooms. Information can easily be incorporated into a paper on such a topic.

Boaler, J., & Selling, S. K. (2017). Psychological Imprisonment or Intellectual Freedom? A Longitudinal study
of Contrasting School Mathematics Approaches and Their Impact on Adults' Lives. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 48(1), 78-105.

In a previous study done in two schools in England who taught math differently, it was discovered that a PBL
method was better than a traditional lecture based method in terms of student achievement. This paper
addresses the learning outcomes of students eight years later, investigating how the adults of the two
different teaching methods developed mathematically later in life. The method used to gather data for the
follow up study described was done by sending a survey to all students originally studied, and interviews were
conducted with a smaller group. The adults that received the PBL approach to teaching and learning, versus
those that received lecture based approaches, moved into significantly more professional jobs despite them
having come from one of the poorest areas of the country. They also developed active relationships with
mathematics. The PBL method created situations in classrooms that actively engages students in learning,
which translated to adults with both mathematical competence and adaptive expertise, which is needed for
21st century employment. The other form of lecture based teaching, which resulted in students being ability
grouped for re-teaching, resulted in a form of psychological imprisonment keeping students from creating
active mathematical identities, which carried on later in life. Of the students in the traditional teaching school,
51% reported working in jobs with a lower classification than their parents, and 26% were in jobs at the same
classification. The students in the PBL school reported 65% had moved upwards in their social class
categorization employment. Students at the traditional school didnt have a positive outlook or remembrance
of math instruction, whereas the students at the PBL school did, and continued to like math as adults. The
information revealed showed a strong indication that PBL instruction was not only effective while students
were in school, but also when they were adults, having a positive life-long influence on them. One possible
weakness of the study would be that it would be impossible to know the effects of how the students entire
schooling experience, in all grades and all subjects, might have influenced their life-long outcomes. The
interview portion of the student also only represented a small sample, so it would be nice to increase the size
of the interviews so we could see if these statistics held true across the entire group.

The article clearly explains an initial study which took place in England, and spanned a three year period. Two
schools were studied with similar makeups of students, with one using traditional lecture based methods of
teaching, and the other using PBL. It was not necessary to read any other papers to get caught-up on the
initial study since a complete explanation and analysis of original data was included.

Finding evidence of how one teaching method versus another translates to the adult lives of students will be
very supportive of the research question intended to be answered. I will be able to support one theory over
another by providing longitudinal evidence of the effects of the two teaching methods.

Cashin, W. E., & McKnight, P. C. (1986). Improving Discussions. Idea Paper No. 15.

The essay looks at the importance of increasing student discussions in the classroom, versus a traditional
teacher centered approach to instruction. Student discussions centered instruction involved more discussion
among students. This essay focused on a review of research supporting the outcomes of a student discussion
centered approach to teaching and learning. Outcomes revealed that this method was well suited to a
number of student cognitive objectives including application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. It also
helped improve attitudes about learning and helped increase student engagement, causing them to become
active participants in their learning. Some difficulty noted is that it is hard for all students to engage due social
anxiety, a perceived threat of speaking out, or peer pressure not to excel. Some teachers also felt they had
less control.

This article talks about the fact that having a more student driven format of instruction with student
discussions leads to better development of application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. These are high on
Blooms Taxonomy and are necessary to build 21st century learners.

While the article supports the idea of having more student-centered discussions in class, and is not directly
showing a comparison between two types of teaching, it does establish the importance of having time for
student driven discussions and interaction. This is an essential component of PBL instruction.

Din, F. S., & Whitley, F. W. (2007). A literature review of the student-centered teaching approach: National
implications. In National forum of teacher education journal (Vol. 17,
No. 3, pp. 1-17).

Literature review asking two questions: How the student-centered teacher approach was defined by
researchers and what the main findings are of those studies. This was a literature review. The authors looked
at 16 qualitative studies and 12 quantitative studies. The student-centered teacher approach was defined in
a variety of ways; with some researchers defining it all on their own accord. The findings also reviewed wide
differences in results. While there were many differences in the definitions of student-centered teacher,
there was also an underlying similarity in that students basically handled their own learning activities and took
responsibility for themselves, through teacher support. The majority of studies shows that students in such
environments shows positive results in behavior, attitudes, interest, self-confidence, and in learning
outcomes. However, most of the studies where focused on psychological or social aspects of student
learning. The study shows that highly student centered learning results in improvement in mostly non-
academic areas. The limit to the study is it is a literature review, and is not all-encompassing of the issue at
hand. Further study is needed in terms of academic focus.

This connects to the other articles in that it lends to the arguments found elsewhere in that a student-
centered approach to teaching involving student led discussions and learning activities results in better
student outcomes. It is also important to note that it increases improvement in non-academic areas.

A well written literature review will be helpful when writing a paper on this topic. Since it includes both
quantitative and qualitative studies, it lends itself nicely to supporting the importance of one type of teaching
over another. I will be able to fit many parts of this into my research paper.

Ferguson, Kyle L. M.Ed., Education Department, Cedarville University, 2010. Inquiry Based Versus
Traditional Mathematics Instruction: The Effect on Student Understanding and Comprehension in an Eighth
Grade Pre-Algebra Classroom.

This study looked at the use of inquiry-based math instruction verses traditional mathematics instruction of
middle school pre-algebra students. Traditional teaching of math was defined as being used most often in
history as an approach to instruction in which lessons are delivered to students and is more procedural based,
but there is not much questioning, investigating, or individual development of understanding. Inquiry
methods involve learning that is driven by questioning, thoughtful investigating, and developing new
understanding that can be applied to new situations. A quantitative study looking at data collected before and
after each of two units of study based on each teaching method. It was conducted with rural, public junior
high students with an enrollment of 611 students. The students involved were under the direct instruction of
the researcher/author, but most had had different instructors in the previous grade. Results showed that
both groups of students made growth from their pre- to post-test for both units, however the students
receiving inquiry-based instruction shows significantly more improvement on the second unit. Results reflect
the need for more use of inquiry-based instruction. Threats to internal validity include the fact that inquiry
based instruction was new to most students, so one group might have taken to it faster than another group,
thus resulting in the better scores in the second unit. Also, the researcher might have had some subconscious
desire to make the inquiry based method have better results. A threat to external validity is that a random
selection did not occur as they were selected based on who was enrolled in the class. A future study should
expand to a greater number of schools.

This is a very long essay, but contains a lot of information. It also provided evidence of those citing the fact
that traditional based teaching methods are best. It was difficult to read in that it contained so much
information, but describes every aspect of the study well.

I will be able to use the information in this article to identify and explain the differences between the two
types of teaching methods I plan to address in the research paper. It also lends strong support of one type of
teaching over another, which I can use in my research paper.

Ravitz, J., Hixson, N., English, M., & Mergendoller, J. (2012, April). Using project based learning to teach 21st
century skills: Findings from a statewide initiative. In American Educational Research Association
Conference, Vancouver, Canada (Vol. 16).
Focused on the impact of PD on PBL lessons and student development of 21st century skills. Do teachers who
use PBL have better outcomes? Do teachers who have PD in PBL and use it have better outcomes? 21st
century skills measured included critical thinking, collaboration, communication, creativity, self-direction,
global skills, and technology. Quasi-experimental design with systematic selection and verification of PBL users
with extended professional development and a comparison group. Survey methods included one sent,
followed up with personal emails and faxes to schools. There was also a small monetary incentive for
completing it awarded randomly to one out of three respondents.

Data came from teachers that used PBL and had successfully published projects in a peer-reviewed project
library. Teachers who used PBL and received PD reported more teaching and assessment of 21st century skills
with substantial and statistically significance effect size differences between groups. These effects were seen
in all core academic subjects, with statistically significant differences in math. Similar positive effects were
also seen by students at varying levels of academic performance, showing that PBL helps all students learn.
The study indicates that PBL is a successful way to improve academic performance of students and to increase
21st century skills. One potential problem with the study was that it only focused on teachers that already
had high professional engagement using PBL. Future studies could involve probability sampling to avoid this,
which could provide even more proof of the effectiveness of PBL.

This essay is concise and to the point. Data is presented well but reader needs to have an understanding of
effect sizes as they are not explained in the article. This article helps to address a particular point that will
need to be addressed when answering my research question. Not only do we want to know which teaching
style is best, but here we see support for students at varying levels. Had this not been asked it would have
been easy to say the students level of development might be affecting outcomes. Data in this article shows us
that one method of teaching is better for all students, with varying academic levels.

Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014).
Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410-8415.

The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that lecturing maximizes learning and course
performance. To conduct this study, researchers meta-analyzed 225 studies that reported data on
examination scores of failure rates in courses using traditional lecture methods versus active learning
methods. These studies were done in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) courses in
undergraduate programs. Literature and studies came primarily from unpublished dissertations, conference
proceedings, and peer-reviewed sources. The data analyzed came from two types of studies. The first was
randomized trials, with students randomly placed in treatment. The second was quasi-random designs where
students were self-sorted into classes, blind to the treatment at the time they registered. A random effects
model was used to compare effect sizes. Effect sizes were computed using a comprehensive meta-analysis
software system. Based on the study, student performance an examinations increased by 0.47 standard
deviation (SD) when using active learning. Additionally, the odds ratio for failing was 1.95 under traditional
lecturing. The results indicated that average examination scores improved by about 6% in active learning
classes and held across all STEM disciplines. Lecturing methods increased failure rates by 55%.

This is was the largest and most comprehensive meta-analysis of undergraduate STEM courses looking at
traditional versus active learning methods of course delivery as of 2006. The article uses a lot of statistical
jargon and is very technical. It also does not explain the difference between the two approaches to
instruction, so it is necessary for the reader to understand both teaching methods. Since the study is focused
on undergraduate STEM programs, it is hard to say based on this information if the active teaching approach
would be more effective in K-12 instruction. It is a good indicator that it might be, but the students in college
STEM classes pay to attend school.

This is another good article to support the use of PBL during college years. The article was a bit difficult to
read for a someone without a statistics background. It provided strong support for PBL over traditional
instruction.

Mergendoller, J. R., Maxwell, N. L., & Bellisimo, Y. (2006). The effectiveness of problem-based Instruction: A
comparative study of instructional methods and student characteristics. Interdisciplinary Journal of
Problem-based Learning, 1(2), 5.

The authors attempt to answer the questions of whether Problem-based instruction increases student
achievement over a traditional lecture-based method of instruction. Previous research on the topic has come
to differing conclusions. Many state that Problem-based Learning (PBL) is a much more powerful method for
students and leads to better understanding and transferred learning. The research method used in this study
was a mixed method style, most closely associated with concurrent triangulation. A research problem became
a study to test hypotheses based on previous research. The researchers were gathering quantitative data and
triangulating it with qualitative data collected in the initial student surveys based on their aptitudes. The
method used involved five veteran teachers at four high schools, with a total of 346 twelfth-grades in 11
classes. Students completed pre- and post-tests demonstrating growth in achievement. Teachers received a
week long training in PBL methods, and were asked to teach half of their classes using PBL methods and half
using traditional lecture based methods. Students aptitudes were also measured. Verbal ability was scored
using a Quick Word Test: Level 1. Student interest in learning about the topic, preference for group work, and
problem-solving efficacy were measured using student surveys. The pre- to posttest change indicated that
there was a +1.48 change in students receiving PBL instruction, and a +0.82 change in students receiving
traditional lecture based instruction, which was of statistical significance. This proved the first hypotheses
wrong, as there was a difference in test scores between students receiving PBL versus traditional lecture
based instruction. Next, a correlation was made between pre- and posttest results to the aptitudes discussed.
These results indicated that the they could accept the second hypothesis, and to reject the third hypothesis.
In terms of the second hypothesis, it was important to note that overall scores were no different, however,
when looking primarily at students with low level verbal skills, there was a significant difference in
achievement showing in favor of PBL. The authors believe this study provides the first empirical evidence that
PBL instruction best supports students with limited verbal skills.

Final discussion regarding the results indicate a correlation between research previously presented and final
outcomes. The discussion provided some limitations of the study and potential future research. Future
research needs to be conducted over a longer term period, not just a single two-week unit. We should also
look at what was actually happening in the PBL classroom through some sort of observational studies. Threats
to internal validity might include the pre-test. There is no way to tell without seeing the pre- and posttest if it
is possible whether the scores were affected by the pre-test. Threats to external validity might include what
might make it hard to generalize the results across individuals, settings, and times since it was only done in
one two week unit.

The data was analyzed overall by comparing PBL to traditional instruction. Second, it was analyzed by looking
at specific attributes identified and correlated to PBL or traditional instruction, attempting to find positive or
negative correlations to each type of instruction, and then compared to each other. It was probably not that
easy for someone to understand had they not been familiar with statistics, other than you can see a positive
or negative growth.
Stepien, W. J., Gallagher, S. A., & Workman, D. (1993). Problem-based learning for traditional and
interdisciplinary classrooms. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16(4), 338-357.

This research intends to evaluate the success of PBL as an instructional technique. The research looked at
three things: 1) changes in problem solving skills, 2) effectiveness in teaching content knowledge, and 3)
students perception of their learning in the courses. Research was done to compare the results of a few
preliminary projects. There was also data gathered based on pre-post test results in courses using PBL over
other methods of instruction. Data was gathered by obtaining qualitative by asking participants questions.
Student responses indicated a greater appreciation for real world problem solving. Students overwhelming
felt they understood the problem solving process, and also enjoyed the classes they took that used that
method over other classes. Quantitative data gathered compared pre- and post-test scores and showed that
students who had PBL courses outperformed those that did not.

This article provides a nice definition of what problem based learning is. It has several components to it. PBL
presents problems that require skills that will be used in real-life problem solving situations, dependent on
defining and detailing issues, creating hypotheses, refining your hypotheses throughout the process,
developing solutions, and being able to justify those solutions. This is done through real collaboration with
classmates, and as students work to develop solutions they build their ability to self-directed problem solving
in the future.
No real potential problems with the study was presented. One thing I notice is that three questions were
asked, but basically only two were answered. Improvement in content knowledge was proven through
quantitative data, and changes in students perception of their learning were proven through qualitative data.
No mention was made to the connection between these and students problem solving skills.

Strobel, J., & Van Barneveld, A. (2009). When is PBL more effective? A meta-synthesis of meta-analyses
comparing PBL to conventional classrooms. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 3(1), 4.

The purpose of the study was to synthesize the different meta-analysis, compare and contract different
conceptualizations of learning and how they are measured, and identify common generalizable findings about
the effectiveness of PBL. This study used a qualitative meta-synthesis approach to compare and contrast the
findings of mata-analytical research on the effectiveness of PBL classrooms to conventional classrooms. Meta-
synthesis is a qualitative methodology that uses both qualitative and quantitative students as data for analysis.

Results indicate that PBL was a much better method of instruction when it comes to long-term retention and
skill development. The results did show that traditional approaches to instruction were more effective for
short-term retention as measured by standardized board exams. A detailed correlation matrix to four
categories is provided based on the research studied, showing positive or negative correlations. Knowledge
assessment focused on long-term knowledge retention. Performance assessment was based on formative
assessments. Mixed knowledge and skill looked at knowledge and skill performance together. Non-
performance looked at student and faculty satisfaction measures.

This article builds a nice connection between studies done and how they effectively promote student learning,
especially long-term retention. It is the first article that shows a positive about traditional lecture based
teaching in that it was more effective in short term retention of knowledge. Results studied show that a vast
amount of research in this field has focused on training professionals in the area of medicine. Much more
research is needed in the area of K-12 education to more clearly define the effectiveness of PBL.
Zakaria, E. (2009). Promoting cooperative learning in science and mathematics education: A Malaysian
perspective. Coleccion Digital Eudoxus, (22).

This article looks at cooperative learning as an option to traditional methods of instruction where the teacher
takes center stage. It seeks to address the effectiveness of using cooperative learning and hopes to show that
it will enhance achievement, problem solving skills, and student attitudes. An experimental method was used
by looking at two groups of students. One was a control group receiving instruction as it had been regularly
done in a school, using a traditional approach. The other group was the experimental group receiving
cooperative group instruction.

Results indicated that the cooperative group method showed significantly better results in mathematics
achievement and problem solving skills. The effect size was very meaningful. The students also had a
favorable response to group work. The weakness to the study is it was only done with a small group, and
would need to be more wide-spread to really be able to rely on it.

In this article, cooperative learning is described as taking place in small groups where students share ideas and
work collaboratively to complete a given task, which makes this study relative to the idea of PBL learning
versus traditional teaching. It also describes traditional teaching as a lecture based approach where the
teacher takes center stage. In was encouraging to see that this study was done in another country and had
similar effects as those done in the US.