The Impact of Implementing Technology in Science

InstructionRozina Macaj

Education 703.22Spring ‘10

Introduction -Statement of the Problem -Review of Related Literature -Statement of the Hypothesis Methods -Participants -Instruments -Experimental Design -Procedure Results Discussions Implications

Table of Content

Compare to high achieving countries such as Japan and Australia, US students are performing much lower in Standard tests in science (Qian, 2009).

Many professional scientific organizations have initiated reforming of science education.

A large body of research indicates that technology provide tools that will promote inquiry in science classrooms.

Introduction

In response to students’ poor performance in science

tests and a general lack of interest in science, in recent years, the US has called for reform on science education that consists on the integration of digital technologies into science teaching.

Traditional teaching and learning methods do not seem to be able to prepare students for 21st century workforce(Dani & Koenig, 2008).

Thus, implementing technology in teaching science will increase students’ interests and attitudes toward science.

Statement of the Problem

Theorists -Howard Gardner: Multiple

Intelligence Theory. Gardner’s theory is that seven types of intelligences exist:

Linguistic,Musical, Logical-Mathematical,

Spatial,Bodily-Kinesthetic, Intrapersonal,Interpersonal. His theory relates withthe trend toward using technology tosupport group work. Students’ roles

ingroups can be assigned based on

their type of intelligence.-

-Paul Fraire advocates dialog, problem

posing, and critical thought ass opposed to

‘banking’ concept of education in which

students blindly receive and memorize

information that is disconnected with the

reality

Review of Related Literature

Pros:Enormous studies have proved that integrating technology inscience instruction enhances students’ learning by-supporting observation and inquiry-facilitating deep understanding of scientific concepts and phenomena-fostering learners’ participation and engagement-creating continuity in students’ learning experiences-increasing students’ interests and attitudes toward science( Dani & Koenig, 2008;Gillen, Littleton, Twiner, Staarman, & Mercer, 2007; Hennessy, Deaney, Ruthven &Winterbottom , 2007; Hennessy et al., 2007; House, 2009; Hsu & Sharma, 2006; Hug,Krajcik, & Marx, 2005; Izet, 2007; Kim, 2006; Kim, Hannafin, & Brian, 2007; Lazaros &Spots, 2009; Li, Law, & Lui, 2006; Lim, Nonis, & Marx, 2005; Qian, 2009; Varma,

Husis ,& Lin, 2008; Woosley & Bellamy, 1997).

Review of Related Literature

It is documented that technology tools such as

Data collection Simulations 3D multi-user virtual environments-Atlantic City-Quest Atlantispromote authentic inquiry experiences (Dani

& koenig, 2008; hennessy, Wishart, Whitelock, et al. 2007; Kim, 2006; Kim et al., 2007)

Review of Related Literature

Models Tutorials Electronic Voting Machinesfacilitate deep conceptual understanding of scientific concepts anphenomena (Dani & Koenig, 2008; Kim et al. 2007; Li, Law, & Lui, 2006;Trindade, Fiolhais, & Almeida, 2002). Smart boards CD ROMS Electronic networks Tools for calculating, imaging, writingfacilitate the introduction and presentation of complex science

topics andConcepts(Gillen et al. 2007; Woolsey & Bellamy, 1997).

Review of Related Literature

Cons: Lack of organizational resources including-equipment-time-technical support-training-funding (Hennessy, Deaney, Ruthven et al. 2007; Kafai & Ching, 2001; Lim, Nonis, & Hedberg,2006). -Lack of using pedagogical strategies to explore technologybenefits in science learning Lack of students’ competency Skepticism toward effective use of some of technology tools

(Hennessy, Deaney. Ruthven et al. 2007, Kafai & Ching, 2001; Lim, Nonis, & Hedberg, 2006).

Review of Related Literature

HR1 :Implementing technology into science instruction two times a week over a two week period will positively increase 20 fifth grade students' attitude and interest toward science in PS X in New York City.

Statement of the Hypothesis

Participants Instruments

-Twenty fifth grade students Consent forms: Principal, and their science teacher. Teacher,

Parent/Guardian.Students’ ethnicity: Demographic Survey85 % Chinese Technology Survey 5 % Spanish Teacher’ Pre/Post

Survey 5 % Arabic Students’ Pre/Post

Survey 5 % Polish

Method

Pre-Experimental Design: One-Group Pre survey-Post survey Design

-Single group is pre surveyed (O), exposed to a treatment (X) and post surveyed (O).

Symbolic Design: OXO

Experimental Design

Threats to Internal Validity History Testing/Pre-testing Sensitization Instrumentation Selection-Maturation Interaction Threats to External Validity Ecological Validity Pre-test treatment Selection Treatment Interaction Experimenter Effects Reactive Arrangement /Participant Effects -Placibo Effect -Novelty Effect

Possible Internal and External Threats

April 19, 2010- Permission given to conduct the study in PS X. Consent forms administered.

04/22/’10- Demographic and technology surveys completed.

04/23/’10- Students and teacher’s pre survey completed

05/15/’10- Students and teacher’s post survey completed

Procedure

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 210

5

10

15

20

25

Series1Series2

Students

Scor

es (A

vera

ges)

Pre Survey vs. Post Survey

Results

Pre survey Post survey GapMean 2.7 3.5 0.8Maximum 3.6 4 0.4Minimum 1.8 1.8 0Range 1.8 2.2 0.4

Descriptive Statistics

  

Results

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111213141516171819200

0.51

1.52

2.53

3.54

4.5

Students

Scor

es o

ut o

f 4

Claim 1: Pre Survey vs. Post Survey

Number of students

Average Standard Deviation

Strongly Agree

Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%)The more I use computer programs like Harcourt, the more I enjoy science

20 3.6 00.64 14 (70%) 4 (20%) 1 (5%) 1 (5%)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 210

5

10

15

20

25

Series1Series2

Students

Scor

es o

ut o

f 4

Claim 3: Presurvey vs. Post Survey

ResultsNumber of students

Average Standard Deviation

Strongly Agree

Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%)

I am very interested in learning about ecosystems

20 3 1.25 11 (55%) 2 (10%) 3 (15%) 4 20%)

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.50

0.51

1.52

2.53

3.54

4.5

StronglyDisagree

DisagreeAgree StronglyAgree

Stud

ents

' atti

tude

/Per

cent

age

rxy=087

Results

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.50

0.51

1.52

2.53

3.54

4.5

Strongly Agreee

Stud

ents

' atti

tude

/per

cent

ages

Agree Disagree StronglyDisagree

Correlation between students' average and claim 3/post survey

rxy=063

Correlation between students‘ average and claim 1/post survey

rxy=0.87Strong positive correlation

Rxy=0.63Slight positive correlation

The results of the study do support the original hypothesis that implementing technology in science instruction positively increase students’ attitude toward science.

The features of Smart board and Harcourt gave the teacher the opportunity to

- use the graphics and videos that helped students meet their visual and auditory needs, thus promoting a better attitude toward science. This finding relies on Gardner’s theory of Multiple Intelligences which explains how human think, learn, and create in different ways (Gardner & Walter, 1983).

Discussion

-introduce the lessons with the help of visualinstruction(Dalacosta et. al., 2008; Lazaros & Spots, 2009;

Kara, 2007).-use the Harcourt effectively to recall priorknowledge and simultaneously, promote theprocess of conceptual development that helpsstudents percieve science not as a difficultsubject. (DanielHouse, 2009; Kim,2006; Lim, Nonis,

&Headberg, 2006;Qian, 2009).

Discussion

Several directions for further study:-A further longitudinal study is needed to

assess the effect of instructional activities on other measures of students’ motivation such as enrollment in advanced science programs, etc.

-Additional research is also needed to determine if similar findings would be observed from students from different background.

Implication