Research+Plan+(Updated)

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. This success should extend far beyond the classroom. A teacher’s purpose is to help students develop abilities and proficiencies that they will draw from in the near and distant future. 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. 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 (Pine & Aschbacher 2006). 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. However, teachers often lack the knowledge and skills to create this sort of learning environment (Conderman & Woods 2008). The purpose of this research is to evaluate technology integration in the elementary science classroom and learn what impact it may have on student achievement and engagement. **Literature Review** Science education in elementary school is a widely debated topic. 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 (Saracho & Spodek 2008). 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 (Saracho & Spodek 2008). 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” (p. 76). 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 (Conderman & Woods 2008). The importance of elementary science education cannot be overlooked. Pine and Aschbacher (2006) 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” (p. 308). 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 (Conderman & Woods 2008). 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 (2008) found that “while engaging the students in inquiry based science lessons, the children themselves would bring all the other subjects into the lessons” (p. 60). 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, Barlex, Welch, McDuff, & Craig 2009). As discovered by Joseph and Brooks (2008), “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” (p. 60). 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 (Wood 2008). 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, p. 63). 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” (p. 63). 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 (Sharkawy et al 2009). Successfully using technology in the classroom requires knowledge and preparation from the teacher. As stated by Joseph and Brooks (2008), “teachers need web-based teaching tools, not teaching replacements” (p. 63). 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, p. 77). 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 (2008) 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 (p. 78). 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, p. 60), 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 identifies some methods of effectively integrating technology in the elementary classroom to make science instruction more meaningful, inquiry based, and efficient. It also evaluates the impact that these technologies can have on student achievement. This research will answer the following questions: · Does the integration of technology in the elementary science classroom positively impact student engagement? · Are instructional methods that are technology-based more beneficial for student learning than more traditional techniques? **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. 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. ** Timeline ** Preparation for this study will begin two weeks before it is implemented. Students from the control and experimental groups will be given the pretests. Treatment using the methods of teaching science described above will be used during two different science units, each lasting for a period of approximately two weeks and separated by a period of approximately two weeks. During this time, teachers will complete the behavior checklists to gather student engagement data. A pretest and posttest will be given at the beginning and end of each unit to both the control and experimental groups. 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 12 weeks. ** Concluding Summary ** Since the purpose of this study is to evaluate the integration of technology in the elementary science classroom, I have written my proposal in a way that it can be applied to any science unit. At this point, my next step will be to obtain parent permission for my students to participate in the study. I will also need to determine which science units will be taught during the implementation of this study. This will be done by examining the science instructional calendar at my school and scheduling a specific date to begin the study. I will not need to write a pretest or posttest because they already exist for the science units that will be taught this year and I will simply use the ones that are already in existence. The process of writing a research proposal was somewhat familiar to me since I completed a study as part of my Masters degree. However, I feel that I have gained a much better grasp of the process through this experience. APA formatting has been my biggest challenge. I think that I am finally beginning to understand how to use citations appropriately. Compiling the articles to use as references was challenging and time consuming, but I have learned a lot more about the process of integrating technology in science and reasons for doing so. When faced with issues pertaining to science instruction and technology in the future, I will be much better equipped to present an argument that is sound and research-based.
 *  Time Required ||  Process  ||
 * Two weeks || Preparation for the study. Parent consent will be obtained. Students will be given pretest for initial science unit. ||
 * Two weeks || First science unit will be taught using methods described above for experimental and control groups. Teachers will complete behavior checklists for control and experimental groups. A posttest will be given to evaluate student learning. ||
 * Two weeks || Social studies will be taught rather than science, as is required by the elementary school in which this study will be conducted. ||
 * Two weeks || The second science unit will be taught using the methods described above for the experimental and control groups after the pretest has been administered. Teachers will complete behavior checklists for comparing student engagement. A posttest will be given to evaluate student learning. ||
 * Four weeks || Data analysis will be conducted. ||

** References ** 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. Johnson, B. & Christensen, L. (2008). Educational research: quantiative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications. 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.

**Student Engagement Behavior Checklist** **Date_**

__ **Number of students who exhibit Positive Body Language** __**_** __ //Students exhibit postures that indicate that they are paying attention. Students are alert, looking in the appropriate direction, and sitting in a manner that indicates attentiveness.// __

__ **Number of students who exhibit Focus** __**_** __ //Students maintain focus on the learning activity without becoming distracted. Students are actively listening and on task.// __

__ **Number of students who exhibit Participation** __**_** __ //Students express ideas, answers, and questions that are thoughtful, relevant, and appropriate to learning.// __

__ **Number of students who exhibit Enthusiasm** __**___** //Students exhibit interest and a desire to learn. Students exhibit excitement (positive comments, smiles, etc.)//