Research+Plan+(Draft)

Joy Renfro MEDT 8484 Research Proposal



**Overview/Introduction** Often, the presence and basic usage of technology in a classroom is thought to be sufficient. In my experience, technology in the elementary science classroom is often limited to having students watch videos that are streamed from the Internet, and Interactive White Boards are often used primarily as expensive dry-erase boards. Through these practices, technology is not truly integrated and is not enhancing student learning. Today, as in the past, the role of a teacher is to provide students with the skills needed for success. In a world that is becoming increasingly dependent on technology and science, the skills that students need are evolving. Teaching the “three Rs” is no longer sufficient. (Citation?) Technology must be integrated into learning from the very beginning, providing students with the opportunity to interact with and develop technology skills as they acquire content knowledge. Elementary science should be taught with these things in mind. Students need to experience science and develop knowledge through inquiry-based learning that is enhanced by technology. (Citation?) However, teachers often lack the knowledge and skills to create this sort of learning environment. The purpose of this research is to find effective methods for integrating technology into the elementary science classroom and to evaluate their impact on student learning. **Literature Review** Science education in elementary school is a widely debated topic. (Citation?) While some educators argue that mathematics and literacy instruction must take precedence in the early grades, others insist that helping students establish a connection between science, technology, and society must begin as early as possible. Due to increased emphasis on mathematics and literacy in light of standardized testing and requirements for schools to meet certain criteria, the time devoted to science education in elementary schools is dwindling (Conderman & Woods 2008). No one can tell what the effects of this curriculum shift may be. In addition to this debate, educators must also consider many different methods of teaching science. Should it be primarily content based so that students learn what scientists before them have discovered? Perhaps the most effective means of teaching science involves a traditional method, complete with lecture and note taking. Or , maybe techniques that incorporate hands-on activities, scientific inquiry, discovery, and modern technology are more beneficial. Educators must constantly seek the most sound and research driven methods.

At the mention of “science,” visions of lab coated technicians, beakers, and bubbling chemicals spring to mind. To many, these things seem out of place in elementary schools and misconceptions of science abound, even among educators. Science is often viewed as being messy, expensive, time consuming, and sometimes dangerous. (Citation?) For these reasons and more, science is too frequently taught from a textbook with the occasional video to supplement understanding. The result is that students are expected to memorize facts and accept scientific knowledge at face value. According to Conderman and Woods (2008?), however, “science is a process-oriented, discovery- or inquiry-based approach to answering questions or solving problems” (page #). It can take place anywhere and can involve anyone. True science requires active learner participation, not the mindless memorization of information. Science is a process of finding answers, and students must be encouraged to ask questions and seek solutions. (Citation?)

The importance of elementary science education cannot be overlooked. Pine and Aschbacher (APA format?) stress that “good elementary science education can do much to provide a sound foundation for later learning, as well as helping students become comfortable with using science and scientific thinking skills in their daily lives” (APA format?). This foundation can be valuable to students both in and outside of the classroom. Primary emphasis on preparing students to pass the next high-stakes standardized test is shortsighted and puts students at a future disadvantage. (Citation?) To address this issue, teachers should examine their science instruction and question the value that is placed upon it, monitor where and when science is taught, evaluate their approach to teaching science, and consciously plan to increase attention given to science instruction (Conderman & Woods, 2008).

Subject integration is one method that can be used to ensure that adequate attention is paid to all subject areas, while simultaneously preparing students for real-world situations. Joseph and Brooks (APA format?) found that “while engaging the students in inquiry based science lessons, the children themselves would bring all the other subjects into the lessons” (APA format?). This type of authentic learning helps students build problem solving skills while making connections between subject areas. The rationale for finding ways to integrate science, mathematics, and technology in elementary school relies heavily on common procedures and concepts within the subjects as well as the way they interact in the world outside school (Sharkawy et al, 2009). As discovered by Joseph and Brooks (APA format?), “the children’s own thinking and interaction brought them to use and develop their expressive language, mathematical reasoning, and technological skills into the problem-solving task in which they were engaged” (APA format?). Evidence such as this validates the practice of integrating multiple subjects through the usage of technology.

As technology becomes an increasingly integral part of modern society, it is also manifesting itself in the classroom. Educational technology is widely researched and highly sought after by educators and parents. (Citation?) Although its value is difficult to substantiate through formal testing and assessment, it “is widely considered important because it makes learning more lively and more participatory” (Wood, 2008). Wood further states that “if a learner becomes engaged in the tasks, it is assumed that there is a higher likelihood that the experience will be productive” (APA format). It is only logical that when students are engaged in what they are doing, they will internalize the experience and learning will be enhanced. Technology provides teachers with multiple tools that, when implemented correctly, can greatly impact student learning. (Citation?)

Successfully using technology in the classroom requires knowledge and preparation from the teacher. As stated by Joseph and Brooks (APA format?), “teachers need web-based teaching tools, not teaching replacements” ( APA format? ). Stand-alone websites should not be used to take the place of quality instruction, nor should videos streamed from the Internet be considered as integrated technology. Rather, educational technology should “require involvement and interactions [such as] observing, collecting, displaying, and interpreting data; making decisions that have learning consequences; and using instruments normally beyond typical educational experiences” (Wood, 2008, page # ). Carefully integrated educational technology is not “on display” for being technology itself, but provides students with valuable learning experiences that they might not otherwise have access to. Web 2.0 tools such as blogs and wikis enable students to discuss learning and ideas with students within their own classroom or in another country. Wood advices educators that “using real scientific instruments to collect real data transforms learning into an activity with a purpose” and continues to describe a variety of these tools ( page # ). Macintosh laptops, for example, can be transformed into portable seismometers with free downloadable software, and numerous websites provide access to satellite images that can be used for a variety of purposes including tracking weather, detecting ocean temperatures and currents, and monitoring changes on the Earth’s surface (Wood, 2008). In //The Better Boat Challenge// (Schomburg 2008) and //Breezy Power: from Wind to Energy// (Claymier 2009), the development of problem solving skills and scientific inquiry were the dominant focus. Technology was simply used as a means to help students maximize their learning and relate that learning to real-world situations.

With the right resources and thoughtful planning, teachers can use educational technology to revolutionize learning. “With the big picture in mind, teaching and learning [are], by default, integrated and multi-disciplinary” (Joseph & Brooks, 2008, page # ), making subject integration a natural process. Teaching methods must be evaluated and adjusted to meet the needs of a technology-driven generation. Careful attention must be paid to creating learning experiences that are authentic, interactive, and allow students to question their thinking and discover new knowledge. Student engagement will certainly follow, making it logical to grant students with opportunities to build knowledge from the real-world experiences that technology provides. **Problem Statement** Elementary students should be provided with opportunities to develop science content knowledge through scientific inquiry and technology. Many teachers, however, are unsure how to accomplish this. This research evaluates ( what do you mean -- aren't just identifying?  ) methods of effectively integrating technology in the elementary classroom to make science instruction more meaningful, inquiry based, and efficient. This research will answer the following questions: **Research 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. (such as ?) 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 and Woods, 2008). While I certainly agree that reading and math are imperative for elementary students, science instruction cannot continue to be neglected. (Why?) Science must be process-oriented with a heavy emphasis on scientific inquiry. Textbooks and worksheets alone cannot provide this, but it can be enhanced through the usage of technology. ( Citation? ) echnology can provide valuable tools and resources for making science instruction more authentic. (Citation?) 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.
 * What are some methods for integrating technology in the elementary science classroom? ( How will you do this?)
 * Are these methods more beneficial for student learning than more traditional techniques? (How will you do this?)
 * How can a teacher begin to use technology more effectively in the elementary science classroom? ( How will you do this?)

In my experience, it is extremely difficult to measure a student’s true knowledge and capabilities through traditional testing. (Why?) 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. I have found many suggestions for integrating technology and science through my reading, and my research will qualitatively 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.

A control group and experimental group of students will be used. (?) What is your basis for this decision?) E ach 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 for 9 weeks, after which student learning will be evaluated. (What literature supports this approach?)

**Types of Data**

Students in both the control and experimental group will be given a pre and post survey to gather data about student attitudes. In addition to the student surveys, I will include a checklist of behaviors that I will complete on randomly selected students throughout the study. This survey will provide data concerning student engagement as they participate in science activities. Questionnaires will be sent to parents that include questions about students' use of computers and technology at home. Teachers will also complete surveys about their own usage of technology to support science instruction and their evaluation of student engagement. A multiple choice pre and post test will be administered to all students in order to evaluate student learning. Therefore, both qualitative and quantitative data will be gathered through this study, making it a mixed-measure design. (How will this data answer your research question? You stated that you will identify methods, compare them for value to supporting student learning against traditional methods, and then propose how teacher begin using them)

**Data Collection/Instrument** Data will be collected from the pre and post student surveys, as well as from the behavior checklists completed by the teacher. Qualitative data gleaned from the teacher and parent surveys will be also be collected and organized. Student performance on the pre and post tests will help evaluate student learning. (Did you attach your survey instruments?)

**Data Analysis** Evaluating student motivation and engagement can easily become very subjective. I feel that the best source of data to turn to is the students themselves. As my study will be qualitative in nature, I plan to use surveys and questionnaires. (What happened to experimental and control group?) My questions will be carefully constructed so that the data reflects student opinions and attitudes rather than my interpretation of them. (If you specified your value then the interpretation comes for the data analysis) The surveys and questionnaires will include rating scales, multiple choice questions, and open-ended questions. The results of the pre and post surveys as well as the pre and post tests given to the experimental and control groups will be analyzed for significance using a T-test. (Think of your questions, what data will answer them, and how will you do the data analysis?) ** Timeline ** Preparation for this study will begin four weeks before it is implemented. Students from the control and experimental groups will be given the pre surveys and pretests. Treatment using the methods of teaching science described above will continue for a period of nine weeks. During this time, surveys will be sent to teachers and parents. Following the nine week period, students will be given post surveys and post tests. A period of four weeks will be necessary for data analysis. The total amount of time necessary for the completion of this study will be approximately 17 weeks. (Please attach for more clarity on your timeline?)

** References ** Volume numbers should be italicized.

Bautista, N., & Peters, K. (2010). First-grade engineers. //Science and Children//, 47(7), 38-42.

Capobianco, B.. (2007). A self-study of the role of technology in promoting reflection and inquiry-based science teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18 (2), 271-295.

Claymier, B. (2009). Breezy power: from wind to energy. //Science and Children//, 46(9), 36-40.

Conderman, G., & Woods, C. (2008). Science instruction: an endangered species. //Kappa Delta Pi Record//, 44(2), 76-80.

Fancovicova, J., Prokop, P., & Usak, M. (2010). Website as an educational tool in biology education: a case of nutrition issue. // Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 10 // (2), 907-921.

Joseph, R. & Brooks, J. G. (2008). Simple problems and integrated technology: making connections beyond the curriculum, //TechTrends//, 52 (3), 60-63.

Lazaros, E., & Spotts, T. (2009). Using computer graphic representations to promote learning in elementary science courses. //Science Activities//, 46(2), 11-14.

Pine, J. & Aschbacher, P. (2006). Students' learning of inquiry in 'inquiry' curricula. //Phi Delta Kappan//, 88(4), 308-313.

Saracho, O. N. & Spodek, B. (Eds.). (2008). // Contemporary perspectives on science and technology in early childhood education //. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.

Schomburg, A. (2008). The better boat challenge. //Science and Children//, 46(2), 36-39.

Shane, P.M. & Wojnowski, B. S. (2005). Technology integration enhancing science: things take time. //Science Educator//, 14(1), 49-55.

Sharkawy, A., Barlex, D., Welch, M., McDuff, J., & Craig, N. (2009). Adapting a curriculum unit to facilitate interaction between technology, mathematics, and science in the elementary classroom: identifying relevant criteria. //Design and Technology Education//, 14(1), 7-20.

Valkanova, Y. & Watts, B. (2007). Digital story telling in a science classroom: reflective self-learning (RSL) in action, //Early Child Development and Care//, 177 (6/7), 793- 807.

Wood, C. (2008). Science for everyone: visions for near-future educational technology. //International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education//, 4(4), 62-71.

Yager, R.E., Choi, A., Yager, S.O., & Akcay, H. (2009). Comparing science learning among 4th, 5th, and 6th grade students: STS verses textbook based instruction. //Journal of Elementary Science Education//, 21 (2), 15-24.