Research+and+Methodology

Joy Renfro MEDT 8484 Research Proposal

**Research and Methodology **  ** Research Design **  Through current research and articles that are related to integrating technology and science in the elementary classroom, I have found some common themes. The challenges related to science instruction that teachers often face include limited availability of technology and the funding to purchase it, lack of professional development and personal experience with using technology to enhance science instruction, and the time constraints in science that are inevitable due to heightened emphasis on reading and math instruction due to standardized testing and NCLB (Conderman & Woods 2008). While I certainly agree that reading and math are imperative for elementary students, science instruction cannot continue to be neglected. As described by Conderman and Woods (2008), “America is beginning to lose ground with other nations regarding science research funding, educational opportunities, and product development.” The first step in correcting this deficit is making science a priority in elementary schools. Science must be process-oriented with a heavy emphasis on scientific inquiry. Textbooks and worksheets alone cannot provide students with opportunities to experience scientific inquiry. However, technology can provide valuable tools and resources for making science instruction more authentic and inquiry-based (Pine & Aschbacher 2006). Tools such as webquests, virtual fieldtrips, and interactive websites can make science more exciting and meaningful. Multiple software programs and Web 2.0 tools are available to help students conduct investigations, gather and analyze their results, and draw conclusions. In my experience, it is extremely difficult to measure a student’s true knowledge and capabilities through traditional testing. Any number of factors can affect a student’s ability to answer questions on a test, including attention level and distractibility, reading comprehension, and language barriers. Traditional tests only evaluate a student’s ability to answer very specific questions at a particular time on a given day. A child’s reading level and ability to articulate knowledge through writing can also affect his or her test-taking abilities. In addition, students possess a variety of learning styles and differences, making it illogical to use the same evaluation technique with every student. I believe that students learn best when they are engaged and motivated, and the truest methods of assessment do not involve numbers or test scores at all. Rather, the best form of assessment matches a child’s learning style and takes his or her individual differences into consideration. Technology makes it possible to tailor a child’s learning experience to suit his or her needs. I have found many suggestions for integrating technology and science through my reading, and my research will qualitatively and quantitatively evaluate these methods. These methods may include all or some of the following: webquests, virtual fieldtrips, blogs, interactive games, and other interactive websites. I will integrate technology and science on a regular basis in my classroom, evaluating its effects on student motivation and engagement.  So that the effectiveness of this treatment may be evaluated, a control group and experimental group of students will be used. Each group will consist of 18 students, nine of which will be identified as EIP students. The experimental group will receive technology-based instruction that includes webquests, virtual fieldtrips, blogs, and interactive games and websites. The control group will receive more traditional instruction in the form of textbooks, worksheets, and teacher-led discussions about appropriate scientific concepts. The treatment will be administered during two separate science units, each lasting two weeks and separated by a period of two weeks. Pretests and posttests will be administered to both the control and experimental groups at the beginning and conclusion of each unit. This design is supported by Johnson and Christensen (2008), as they state that a design supported by pretests, posttests, and a control group is reliable research method. ** Types of Data **  Quantitative data will be gathered during this study in the form of pre and post tests that will evaluate students’ content knowledge of the curriculum that will be covered in each unit. Students in both the control and experimental group will complete the same pre and post tests. In addition to the pre and post tests, a behavior checklist will be completed by the researcher on a daily basis as she observes student behaviors and engagement during the study. This checklist will identify students who are engaged in the activities and those who are not. Therefore, both qualitative and quantitative data will be gathered through this study, making it a mixed-measure design. ** Data Collection/Instrument **  Data will be collected from the behavior checklists completed by the teacher and a chart will be created to organize it. Data from both the experimental and control groups will be evaluated and compared. Data on student performance from the pre and post tests will also be organized for comparison. Again, data from the control group will be compared to the experimental group. ** Data Analysis **  Evaluating student motivation and engagement can easily become very subjective. While completing the behavior checklists, it is important that teachers remain as objective as possible. Data from both the experimental and control groups will be compared and analyzed using a T test. Student scores on the pre and post tests will also be carefully organized and compared. A T test will be used to evaluate any significant differences in performance in the control and experimental groups.