EDUCATIONAL SOFTWARE 1

Educational Software: Relieving the Workload of the Teacher

Nichole Williams

University of West Georgia

EDUCATIONAL SOFTWARE 2

Introduction

It’s another Monday morning and Ms. Jones displays her usual sweet smile as her group

of 24 third graders pile into the classroom. As she prepares for her day she looks out over the

sea of learners and makes mental notes as she scrolls through their unique learning needs. John

is a strong mathematical learner, however, his deficiencies in ELA skills are causing him to score

low on word problems and constructed responses. Stacy, Pat, and Carry have an Early

Intervention Program (EIP) for Math and Reading but due to high enrollment, are not pulled out

for any services. Dominick and the students that sit at his group have all qualified for the gifted

program for various reasons. Some are creative, constantly thinking outside of the box but

struggling with focusing and staying on task. Others are quick learners and often finish before

other students have begun. The descriptions go on and on. This has become the typical

classroom in America. Every child comes with their own unique educational needs. As a

teacher, the task is becoming insurmountable, no matter how small one slices the pie, it’s still not

small enough. Is there an immediate and feasible solution? Is it possible for a software program

to teach skills with a success rate that is equivalent to or greater than that of a teacher?

Objectives and Purpose

In 2010, the state of Georgia adopted the Common Core Georgia Performance Standards.

With the ever increasing workload and a curriculum often described as a mile wide and an inch

deep, joining the nation’s Race to the Top (RTTT) initiative seemed promising in reducing the

demands of the classroom curriculum. Many schools “sold” that idea to their teachers in order to

get full teacher buy-in and a staff that was willing to assist in the unpacking of standards.

Unfortunately, those promises were not a reality for teachers, who often found themselves

spending a lot hours and money looking for the “magic strategy wand” that would work for all of
EDUCATIONAL SOFTWARE 3

their students. According to a survey reported by The Washington Post, teachers work an

average of 53 hours per week, and the National Education Association (NEA) goes on to explain

that approximately one-fifth of that time is spent on out-of-the-classroom duties (e.g. grading

papers, club advising, developing strategies and lessons, etc). Teachers are wading through the

mounds of latest research studies, strategies, and technology applications trying to find a way to

meet the needs of all of their learners.

Fortunately, software companies are taking notice. The education sector is a multi-

million dollar industry and companies are scrambling to provide that “magic wand” that will

reach all learners and possibly disrupt our educational institution. We are beginning to see more

and more educational software developers make dramatic claims about the success of their

program in the classroom. One such developer is Learn Without Limits, LLC, the makers of the

MobyMax program. Their company promises to “find and fix learning gaps.” They claim that

“Students increase one full grade level with just 20 hours of work,” opening the possibility to

meaningful learning through the use of software that has the capabilities to adapt instruction to

the individual learner. While this is a vast claim in a relatively new arena and would require an

extensive amount of research to prove, there are significant implications for education if one

considered even a small segment of the MobyMax claim.

Is it possible for a software program to deliver meaningful individualized instruction?

Educational technology is a broad concept and is still being defined and altered. Therefore, the

researcher narrowed the topic down to focus on one specific skill taught using the program

MobyMax. As a result, this quantitative casual-comparative study set out to answer the question:

Can MobyMax be used parallel to the teacher, teaching the same skill, in the same amount of

time, and with the same degree of success as a classroom teacher? The researcher set out to
EDUCATIONAL SOFTWARE 4

prove that the answer is both yes and no. For the brightest students, the fast learners, and those

familiar with (but have not mastered) the particular skill, the answer is yes. They will learn,

understand, and progress through the skills at a rate that is similar and rigorous to that of

individualized teacher led instruction. These students will be able to follow a simulation of

fraction tiles as they float across the screen to create multiple equivalents. However, for slower

learners, those with learning gaps, or that have deficiencies in multiple subjects, the answer is no.

In their cases, MobyMax will not be able to compete with individualized teacher led instruction.

One wrong answer to a question can be the result of any number of possible misunderstandings.

MobyMax cannot offer the efficiency that one-on-one teacher interaction can, quickly isolating

the misconceptions and re-teaching or demonstrating those specific skills only.

This study used casual-comparative research to examine two groups of third grade

students learning how to compare fractions. Casual-comparative research was the most

appropriate choice for this study because it compared the effects of different education

instruction on two groups of students. The students were given a fraction pretest and divided

into two similar groups based on their test results. Each comparison group contained a total of

18 heterogeneous students between the ages of 8 and 9. Both groups had 14 students with

minimal prior knowledge on fractions, they were only able to identify if a number written as a/b

was a fraction. Both groups had 4 students that were able to correctly match the fraction ½ with

its corresponding picture. There were 9 students that did not fit into either of the two categories

due to random correct answers so they were not included in the study. Group A, the

experimental group, received online individualized instruction using MobyMax while group B,

the control group, received small group instruction with the teacher (two groups of four students

and two groups of five students). The independent variable for group A was the MobyMax
EDUCATIONAL SOFTWARE 5

instruction. The independent variable for group B was the teacher led instruction. While group

B met with the teacher in a small group style, the teacher did provide one-on-one instruction to

individual students when needed. The students were grouped in this traditional format because

instructing every child one-on-one by the teacher is not feasible and contradicts the purpose of

this research, making it a moot study. The dependent variable was the academic performance in

groups A and B. The quantitative data collected from both groups included a MobyMax post

assessment over the skill and a teacher generated post assessment over the skill. Quantitative

data was best for this study because it provided a more accurate numerical result of how the

students did.

Literature Reviews

In the industrial age, students came to class with similar background knowledge and

expectations. As the world transitioned to a new technology era, so did the make-up of the

students. The reliance on technology has led to a growing consensus that it should play a more

integral role in students’ education (Fouts, 2000). CNN reporter, Jacqueline Howard, reported

that kids under the age of nine spend more than two hours a day at a computer screen and nearly

half of them own a tablet (2017). Armed with strong interests and information at their fingertips

that arrives at the speed of light, students are popping into the classrooms with a backpack full of

varying knowledge and capabilities. This presents a tough challenge for teachers, how do you

reach each individual at their level and progress them at their personal pace? According to

Christensen, it’s by “disrupting education” (Christensen, Johnson, & Horn, 2017). Providing

affordable software that will leverage their love for technology to sustain their interest and create

learning.
EDUCATIONAL SOFTWARE 6

Research shows that technology “appears most effective when it is used to access

information and that information is used to communicate findings using graphs, illustrations, and

animations” (Valdez, 2004). Due to its highly engaging interactive program and rave reviews,

MobyMax program was chosen as the instruction tool for this study. If MobyMax is capable of

increasing skills one full grade level then, it is reasonable to expect the program to teach just a

single skill with the same degree of success. If this assertion proves true, it would have

significant benefits to the teacher and students.

Methods

The type of research conducted will be quantitative. Test scores after the experiment will

be compared to determine the success of both instruction methods. The type of study to be

conducted is casual-comparative. The participants will be selected from a pool of students based

on pre-test scores in order to create groups that are similar in their knowledge of the new skill.

Sample

Although this is a proposal, I was able to complete many of the steps in order to gain

experience with implementing a research project. A purposive sampling was used to select

participants for this study. I administered a pretest to 45 students currently in third grade in the

state of Georgia. Based on the answers to the pretest I was able to create a group of 18

heterogeneous students between the ages of 8 and 9. Both groups had 14 students with minimal

prior knowledge on fractions, they were only able to identify if a number written as a/b was a

fraction. Both groups had 4 students that were able to correctly match the fraction ½ with its

corresponding picture. There were 9 students that did not fit into either of the two categories due

to random correct answers so they were not included in the study.

Instrumentation
EDUCATIONAL SOFTWARE 7

Students were divided into groups A and B. Both groups will learning how to compare

proper fractions. Group A will receive instruction from MobyMax program. Group B will

receive instruction from the teacher within a small group of 6 students at a time. Group B will

also receive individual instruction during the small group if needed. After one week of

instruction both groups will take a posttest on MobyMax as well as a teacher generated posttest.

Data Analysis

Quantitative study. In this proposed study, the form of instruction is the independent

variable. For group A, instruction will be occur via MobyMax. For group B, instruction will

occur via direct teacher instruction. The learning that occurs, represented by the posttest scores,

is the dependent variable. Although the research has not been carried out I believe it will

conclude that a null hypothesis should be accepted. While the use of MobyMax does result in

learning, it cannot produce the same degree of success in the same amount of time as a classroom

teacher

Descriptive analysis. In order to provide a description of the sample from which the data

will be collected, descriptive information on age and ability levels were described.

Scholarly Significance and Limitations

Balancing instructional and planning time in order to provide individualized instruction is

a problem that plagues all educators of 21st century learners. It is my hope that this study will

assist teachers in making the decision on whether or not to utilize computerized instruction to

supplement their teaching. In 1995, Murray Goldberg, the original developer of WebCT,

researched the effects of web-based education. His research showed that academic performance

and student engagement could be improved through the use of web-based course tools. Since

then, we have yet to harness the potential of technology to guide and create student learning.
EDUCATIONAL SOFTWARE 8

While this study could change the structure of many classrooms, there are some

limitations. This study assumes that the students receiving computerized instruction are able to

perform basic computer operations (e.g. click and drag, highlight, use of keyboard, etc.). In

addition, unlike direct teacher instruction, it is possible for students to assess computerized

learning from home. This could affect the student data as well.

Overall, the possible benefits of using the self-paced individualized instruction via

MobyMax cannot be ignored. In the least, it provides additional support to supplement the

teacher’s instruction. At best, it can provide true instruction that results in meaningful learning

for all students. As we increase distance learning and push for differentiation, an educational

program that can keep up this movement is a viable possibility.

EDUCATIONAL SOFTWARE 9

References

Christensen, C. M., Johnson, C., & Horn, M. (2016). Disrupting class, expanded edition: How

disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Valdez, G. (2004). Technology leadership: Enhancing positive educational change. North

Central Regional Educational Laboratory Critical Issue. Retrieved from

http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/educatrs/leadrshp/le700.htm

Howard, J. (2017, October 19). CNN. Retrieved from

https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/19/health/children-smartphone-tablet-use-eport/index.html

Sugden, N. A. (2010). Teacher workload: a formula for maximizing teacher performance and

well-being. Retrieved from

https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=15

62&context=dissertations

Fouts, J.T. (2000). Research on computers and education: Past, present, and future. Retrieved

from http://www.portical.org/fouts.pdf
 EDUCATIONAL SOFTWARE 10

Section Not Evident Emerging Proficient Exemplary

I. Objectives and Purposes (2 pages)
This section should include: 0 1 2 3
 Background Information Information is Information is Information is
not provided. provided but relevant and relevant,
is unclear, adequate for sufficient, and
insufficient, the proposed clearly
or irrelevant. study. supports the
proposed
study.
 Statement of the research 0 1 2 3
problem and rationale for Information The research The research The research
the study not provided. problem is problem is problem is
stated, but is clearly stated clearly stated,
unclear, too and is relevant, and
broad/narrow researchable. researchable.
or irrelevant. Strong Rationale is
The rationale rationale extremely
for the study provided. The clear,
is unclear or rationale compelling,
weak. statement and clearly
generally supports the
justifies the research
research questions.
questions. There is a
clear link
between the
rationale and
the research
questions.
 Purpose 0 1 2 3-4
The goals are Purpose is not Purpose is Exceptionally
not stated. clearly clearly clear in
described. described. purpose.
Goals are Goals are Goals are
stated but are realistic, realistic,
unclear, adequately clearly stated,
irrelevant, or stated and and clearly
too generally aligned with
broad/narrow. aligned with the research
the research problem.
problem.
 Research Questions and 0 1 2-3 4-5
Hypotheses/ Propositions Information Questions/ Generally, Research
not provided or hypotheses/ questions questions are
propositions have proper clear, concise,
 EDUCATIONAL SOFTWARE 11

no basis for are missing, scope, are feasible, of

judgment. weak, or realistic, proper scope,
unclear. feasible, and and answer
Questions not adequately the purpose.
of sufficient phrased.
scope or are Each research
not feasible. question is
correctly
phrased, and
addresses
only one
aspect of the
research
problem.

 Definitions of key Definitions Definitions All key

concepts used in the Key for key for key concepts/term
research questions concepts/terms concepts/term concepts/term s are clearly
are not s are provided s are provided defined/
defined. but are and generally explained.
inaccurate or adequate.
unclear.

 Statement and The type of The type of The type of

justification of the type of The type of study is study is study is
study to be conducted study is not specified but specified, but specified and
specified. cannot be it may not be is the optimal
used to the most choice for the
investigate the adequate or specified
stated feasible way research
research to investigate questions.
questions. the proposed The
research justification
questions. The for this type
justification of study is
for this type compelling.
of study is
provided, but
may include
some
inaccuracies.
II. Literature Review (2 pages)

Criteria: 0 1 2 3
 Critical review of literature
 EDUCATIONAL SOFTWARE 12

 Relevance Information is Findings from Some Evidence of

 Conceptual/Theoretical not provided, leading evidence of sound
framework irrelevant, researchers satisfactory knowledge
 Alignment incomplete, are included knowledge and critical
and or with minimal with limited review of the
inaccurate. critical critical review literature
commentary. of the relevant relevant to the
literature, but study.
Cited with gaps and
literature may or omissions. Developed a
not be clear,
relevant to the Conceptual/ appropriate,
study. theoretical and justified
framework is conceptual/
included; theoretical
however it is framework for
not fully the research.
developed or
justified.

Study may be
feasible.
Presentation and Writing

Criteria: 0 1 2
 Clarity Generally poor Reasonably Clear and correct use of
 Writing mechanics use of English clear and English characterized by a
 APA characterized correct use of clear style of expression, with
by numerous English few imprecise and/or incorrect
errors, unclear, characterized statements.
incorrect by generally
and/or illogical clear
statements. expression,
with relatively
few imprecise
and/or
incorrect
statements.
Total: