The Impact of Implementing Technology in Science Instruction

1. The Impact of Implementing Technology in Science Instruction RozinaMacaj Education 703.22 Spring ‘10

2. Table of Content • Introduction -Statement of the Problem -Review of Related Literature -Statement of the Hypothesis • Methods -Participants -Instruments -Experimental Design -Procedure • Results • Discussions • Implications

3. Introduction • 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.

4. Statement of the Problem 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.

5. Review of Related Literature • 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 with the trend toward using technology to support group work. Students’ roles in groups can be assigned based on their type of intelligence.- -Paul Fraireadvocates 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

6. 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 -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).

7. Review of Related Literature It is documented that technology tools such as • Data collection • Simulations • 3D multi-user virtual environments -Atlantic City -Quest Atlantis promote authentic inquiry experiences (Dani & koenig, 2008; hennessy, Wishart, Whitelock, et al. 2007; Kim, 2006; Kim et al., 2007)

8. Review of Related Literature • Models • Tutorials • Electronic Voting Machines facilitate deep conceptual understanding of scientific concepts an phenomena (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, writing facilitate the introduction and presentation of complex science topics and Concepts(Gillen et al. 2007; Woolsey & Bellamy, 1997).

9. 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 technology benefits 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).

10. Statement of the Hypothesis • 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.

11. Method Participants Instruments -Twenty fifth grade students Consent forms: Principal, and their science teacher. Teacher, Parent/Guardian. Students’ ethnicity: Demographic Survey 85 % Chinese Technology Survey 5 % Spanish Teacher’ Pre/Post Survey 5 % Arabic Students’ Pre/Post Survey 5 % Polish

12. Experimental Design 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

13. Possible Internal and External Threats • 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

14. Procedure • 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

15. Results Descriptive Statistics

16. Results

17. Results

18. Results Rxy=0.63 Slight positive correlation rxy=0.87 Strong positive correlation Correlation between students‘ average and claim 1/post survey

19. Discussion • 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).

20. Discussion -introduce the lessons with the help of visual instruction(Dalacosta et. al., 2008; Lazaros & Spots, 2009; Kara, 2007). -use the Harcourt effectively to recall prior knowledge and simultaneously, promote the process of conceptual development that helps students percieve science not as a difficult subject. (DanielHouse, 2009; Kim,2006; Lim, Nonis, &Headberg, 2006; Qian, 2009).

21. Implication • 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.