1 / 14

Research Proposal

Research Proposal. Alex Reynolds, Catherine Hill & Laura Guilfoyle. What are the effects of traditional versus tactual-kinaesthetic instruction on short term knowledge acquisition and attitude in middle years students?. Sub-question.

daquan-west
Download Presentation

Research Proposal

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Research Proposal Alex Reynolds, Catherine Hill & Laura Guilfoyle

  2. What are the effects of traditional versus tactual-kinaesthetic instruction on short term knowledge acquisition and attitude in middle years students?

  3. Sub-question • Do students of all learning styles respond positively to tactual-kinaesthetic instruction?

  4. Key Terms • Traditional Instruction – techniques such as ‘chalk and talk’, lectures, assigned readings and teacher-directed. • Tactual-kinaesthetic instruction – teaching methods requiring students to physically move, handle manipulatives, and participate in concrete, real-life experiences.

  5. Why this question? • Disengagement in the middle years • A lot of instruction in the middle years is verbal and visual • Enable teachers to reach students through more varied learning styles • Current focus on using kinaesthetic teaching for students with ADHD

  6. Why action research? • This research project can be implemented within our own classrooms • The results of this will be used to inform our own teaching

  7. What does the literature say? • Farkas (2003). Research with year 7 students taught using a multisensory approach showed an increase in performance and attitude. • Rule, Dockstader & Stewart (2006). US study of 34 students. Implemented tactile and kinaesthetic activities and found they increased target skills. • Peacock (2001). Hong Kong study. Found many students felt a mismatch between teaching and learning styles seriously affected their learning.

  8. Literature continued • Honigsfeld& Dunn (2009). “The best strategies for engaging tactual and kinaesthetic learners’ minds are to engage their hands and bodies with manipulative instructional resources or to allow them to learn on their feet” (p.221). • Stanford (2003). “New assessments should not focus on whether or not students can acquire knowledge but on whether or not they can acquire the disposition to use skills and strategies appropriately” (p.84).

  9. Research approach • Action research • Tactile-kinaesthetic activities will be implemented in the classroom in around half of all lessons, both to teach new content and reinforce prior knowledge and understanding • How?

  10. Data Collection/Instruments • Previous reports/marks/results • Time-on-task (every 15 minutes) • Teacher log/journal • Student work samples • Face scales or likert-type scale to assess attitudes towards subject as a whole and individual lessons • Learning styles assessment • Summative assessment of learning such as oral or dramatic presentation, posters, etc.

  11. Data analysis • Previous marks vs. Current • Likert scale/face scale • Time-on-task data • Descriptive statistics • Student work samples • Teacher notes/log/journal • Learning style inventory • Inferential statistics Quantitative Qualitative

  12. Potential use of the findings • Determine whether we will use tactile-kinaesthetic teaching techniques for all students • Determine frequency of use of tactile-kinaesthetic methods in our teaching

  13. References • Anderson. A, Rumsey. R (2002) Channeling energy using bodily-kinesthetic intelligence: helping children with ADHD. Physical & Health Education Journal. Gloucester. 68(3) • Bruer, J. T (1991) The Brain and Child Development: Time For Some Critical Thinking. Public Health Reports, 113 (5), 98-387 • Farkas. R. D (2003) The Effects of Traditional versus Learning-Styles Instructional Methods in Middle Years. The Journal of Educational Research. 97(1) 42-54. • Honigsfeld, A. & Dunn, R. (2009). Learning-style responsive approaches for teaching typically performing and at-risk adolescents. Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 82(5) 220-224. • Lengel, T and Kuczala, M, (2010). The Kinesthetic Classroom: Teaching and Learning Through Movement. RTC & Corwin. USA. • Peacock, M. (2006). Match or mismatch? Learning styles and teaching styles in EFL. International journal of applied linguistics, 11(1) 1-20. • Piries. B (Dec. 1995) Meaning through Motion: Kinesthetic English. The English Journal, Vol. 84, No. 8, pp. 46-51 • Rule, A., Dockstader, C. J. & Stewart, R.A. (2006). Hands-on and kinaesthetic activities for teaching phonological awareness. Early Childhood Education Journal, 34(3) 195-201. • Stanford, S. (2003). Multiple Intelligence for every classroom. Intervention in school and clinic, 39(2) 80-85. • Touval. A, Westreich. G. (April 2003) Teaching sums of angle measures: A kinesthetic approach. The Mathematics Teacher. 96(4) pg. 230

  14. Thank you • For further references and information please see related word document

More Related