The Impact of Implementing Technology

in Science Instruction.Rozina Macaj

Education 702.22Fall ‘09

Abstract Introduction -Statement of the Problem -Review of Related Literature -Statement of the HypothesisMethod -Participants -Instruments -Experimental Design -Procedure

Table of Contents

Results Discussion References Appendices

Table of Contents

Compared to high achieving countries such a

Japan and Australia, US students arePerforming much lower in Standard tests inscience. Many professional scientificorganizations have initiated reforming ofscience education. A large body of research indicates thattechnology provide tools that will promoteinquiry in science classrooms.

Introduction

In response to students’ poor performance in sciencetests and a general lack of interest in science, in recentyears, the US has called for reform on science educationthat consists on the integration of digital technologiesinto science teaching.Traditional teaching and learning methods do not seem tobe able to prepare students for 21st workforce.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 different types of intelligences exist: Linguistic, Musical, Logical-Mathematical, Spatial, Bodily-Kinesthetic, Intrapersonal, Interpersonal.

Gardner’s theory relates with the trend toward using technology to support group work. Students’ roles in groups can be assigned based on their type of intelligence.

Review of Related Literature

Theorists

-Paul Freire advocates dialog, problemposing, and critical thought as opposed to‘banking’ concept of education in whichstudents blindly receive andmemorize information that is disconnectedwith the reality.

Review of Related Literature

Pros:Enormous studies have proved that

integrating technology in science instruction enhances students’ learning by -supporting observation and inquiry -facilitating deep understanding of scientific concepts and phenomena-fostering learners’ participation and

engagement

Review of Related Literature

Pros:-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-River City-Quest Atlantis promote authentic inquiry experiences (Dani & Koenig, 2008; Hennessy, Wishart, Whitelock, et al. 2007;

Kim, 2006; Kim et al, 2007).

Review of Related Literature

modelstutorialselectronic voting machinefacilitate deep conceptual understanding of scientific concepts and phenomena (Dani &

Koenig, (2008); Kim et al. 2007; Li, Law, & Lui, 2006; Trindade,

Fiolhais, & Almeida, 2002).

Review of Related Literature

whiteboardsCD ROMselectronic networkstools for calculating, imaging, writing

facilitate the introduction and presentation of complex science topics and concepts (Gillen et al. (2007; Woolsey & Bellamy,1997).

Review of Related Literature

Cons: Lack of organizational recourses including

-equipment-time-technical Support-training-funding (Hennessy, Deaney, Ruthven et al. 2007; Hennessy, Wishart,

Whitelock et al. 2007; Kim et al. 2007; Williams, 2008).

Review of Related Literature

Cons: Lack of using pedagogical strategies to explore technology benefits in science learning

Lack of students’ computer 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 three times a week over a two week period will positively increase 26 six grade students’

attitudes toward science in PS X.

Statement of the Hypothesis

Two six grade science classes in PS X. -control group -experimental group

The same science topic will be taught in both classrooms. The topic will be taught and learned with technology integration in the experimental group, and without technology integration in the control group.

Participants

Students Surveys Unit test Teacher’s interview

Instruments

ChanLin, L. (2008). Technology integration applied to project-based learning in science.

Innovations in Education and Teaching International. 45(1), 55-65. Retrieved October 6, 2009

from http://vnweb.nwwilsonweb.com

Dalacosta, K., Kamariotaki-Paparrigopoulou,M., Palyvos, J.A., & Spyrellis, N. (2008). Multimedia

application with animated cartoons for teaching science in elementary education. Computers &

Educatin , 52(4), 741-748. Retrieved October 25, 2009 from http://www.sciencedirect.com/

Dani, D., & Koenig, K. (2008). Technology and reform-based science education. Theory into

Practice. 47, 2004-211. Retrieved October 6, 2009 from http://www.jastor.org

Daniel House, J. (2009) The effects of instructional and computer activities on interest in science learning for students in the United States and Korea. Results from the TIMSS 2003 assessment. Int. J Instructional Media, 36(1), 119-131. Retrieved November 15, 2009 from http://bst.pubsage.com

Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed. In F. Schultz (Ed.), Notable Selection in Education(pp. 87-94). Connecticut: MacGraw-Hill/Dushkin.

Gardner, H. (2000). Can technology exploit our many ways of knowing? Retrived October 14, 2009 from

http://www.howardgardner.com/docs/

Gardner, H., & Walter, J. (1993). A rounded version. In F. Schultz (Ed.), Notable Selections in

Education (pp. 308-318). Connecticut: McGraw-Hill/Dushkin.

Gillen, J., Littleton, K., Twiner, A., Staarman, J. K., & Mercer, N. (2007). Using the interactive

whiteboard to resource continuity and support multimodal teaching in a primary science

classroom. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, 348-358. Retrieved October 17, 2009 from http://web.ebscohost.com

Hennessy, S., Deaney, R., Ruthven, K., & Winterbottom, M. (2007). Pedagogical strategies for using for using the

interactive whiteboard to foster learner participation in school science. Learning, Media and Technology,

32(3), 283-301. Retrieved October 28, 2009 from http://web.ebscohost.com

References

Hennessy, S., Wishart, J., Whitelock, Deaney, R., Brown, R., la Velle,L., Mac Farlane, A., Ruthven, K., &

Winterbottom, M. (2007). Pedagogy approaches for technology-integrated science teaching. Computers

and Education, 48(1), 137-152. Retrieved October 19, 2009 from http://web.ebscohost.com

Hubbell, E. R., & Kuhn, M. (2007). Using technology to promote inquiry. Principal November/December

2007. Retrieved October 29, 2009 from Education Research Complete.

Hsu, P.-S., & Sharma, P. (2006). A systematic plan for technology integration. Educational Technology &

Science,9(4), 173-184. Retrieved November 22, 2009 from Education Full Text.

Hug, B., Krajcik, J.S., & Marx, R. W. (2005). Using innovative learning technologies to promote learning and

engagement in an urban science classroom. Urban Education, 40(4), 446-472. Retrieved October 16, 2009 from http://uex.sagapub.com

Kara, I. (2007). The effect of retention of computer instruction in science education. Journal of

Instructional Psychology, 35(4), 358-364. Retrieved November 17, 2009 from http://pubsage.com

Kafai, Y. B., & Ching, C. C. (2001). Affordances of collaborative software design planning for elementary

students’ science talk. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(3), 323-363. Retrieved Novembe 27,2009 from http://www.jastor.com

Kim, P. (2006). Effects of 3D virtual reality of plate tectonics on fifth grade students’ achievement and

attitude toward science. Interactive Learning Environments, 14(1), 25-34. Retrieved October 14, 2009 from http://web.webscohost.com

Kim, P., Hannafin, M. J., & Bryan, L. A. (2007). Technology-enhanced inquiry tools in science education: An

emerging pedagogical framework for classroom practice. Science Education, 91, 1010-1030. Retrieved November 15, 2009 from Education Research Complete.

References

Kim, P., & Olaciregui, C. (2007). The effects of a concept map-based information display in an electronic portfolio system on information processing and retention in a fifth –grade science class covering the Earth’s atmosphere. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(4), 700-714. Retrieved November 15, 2009 from Education Research Complete.Li S. C., Law, N., & Lui, F.A. (2006). Cognitive perturbation through dynamic modeling: A pedagogical approach to conceptual change in science. Jour nal of Computer of Assisted Learning, 22, 405-422. Retrieved November

16,2009 from http:// web.webscohost.comLim, Ch.P., Nonis, D., & Hedberg, J. (2006). Gaming in a 3D multiuser environment: engaging students in science lessons. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(2), 211-231. Retrieved November 16, 2009 from http://web.webscohost.comQian, Y. (2009). 3D multi-user virtual environments: promising directions for science education. Science Educator, 18(2), 25-29. Retrieved November 16, 2009 from http://http://bst.sagepub.comTrindade, J., Fiolhais, C. & Almeida, L. (2002). Science learning in virtual environments : A descriptive study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(4), 471-488. Retrieved from http://bst.sagepub.comWilliams, M. (2008). Moving technology to the center of instruction: How one experienced teacher incorporates a web-

based environment over time. Journal in Science Education and Technology, 17, 316-333. Retrieved November 2, 2009 from Education Research Complete,

Woolsey, K., Bellamy, R. (1997). Science Education and technology: Opportunities to enhance student learning. The Elementary School Journal. 97(4), 386-399. Retrieved October 8, 2009 from Education Full Text.

Zucker, A. A., Tinker, R., Staudt, C., Mansfield, A., & Metcalf, SH. (2007). Learning science in grades 3-8 using probaware and computers: Findings from the TEMSS II project. Journal in Science Educ ational Technology, 17, 42-48. Retrieved October 16, 2009 from http://web.ebscohost.com

References