1 / 20

The Impact of Implementing Technology in Science Instruction.

The Impact of Implementing Technology in Science Instruction. Rozina Macaj Education 702.22 Fall ‘09. Table of Contents. Abstract Introduction -Statement of the Problem -Review of Related Literature -Statement of the Hypothesis Method -Participants -Instruments

viho
Download Presentation

The Impact of Implementing Technology in Science Instruction.

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. The Impact of Implementing Technology in Science Instruction. Rozina Macaj Education 702.22 Fall ‘09

  2. Table of Contents • Abstract • Introduction -Statement of the Problem -Review of Related Literature -Statement of the Hypothesis • Method -Participants -Instruments -Experimental Design -Procedure

  3. Table of Contents • Results • Discussion • References • Appendices

  4. Introduction Compared to high achieving countries such a Japan and Australia, US students are Performing much lower in Standard tests in science. 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.

  5. 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 workforce. Thus, implementing technology in teaching science will Increase students’ interests and attitudes toward science.

  6. Review of Related Literature • 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.

  7. Review of Related Literature • Theorists -Paul Freire advocates dialog, problem posing, and critical thought as opposed to ‘banking’ concept of education in which students blindly receive and memorize information that is disconnected with the reality.

  8. 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

  9. 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).

  10. 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).

  11. Review of Related Literature • models • tutorials • electronic voting machine facilitate deep conceptual understanding of scientific concepts and phenomena (Dani& Koenig, (2008); Kim et al. 2007; Li, Law, & Lui, 2006; Trindade, Fiolhais, & Almeida, 2002).

  12. Review of Related Literature • whiteboards • 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).

  13. 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).

  14. 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).

  15. Statement of the Hypothesis • 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.

  16. Participants • 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.

  17. Instruments • Students Surveys • Unit test • Teacher’s interview

  18. References 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

  19. 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.

  20. 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.com Lim, 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.com Qian, 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.com Trindade, 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.com Williams, 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 Educational Technology, 17, 42-48. Retrieved October 16, 2009 from http://web.ebscohost.com

More Related