The Effect of Using Technology

Integration and the Attitude Towards

learning in Science. Matthew D. Tyrie

Korea International School, Seoul: South Korea

!

Abstract

This research investigates how the

application of tech integration in student

learning affects student performance. It

raises the question we often wonder as

educators: How does technology help

students become better learners and are

they better learners as a result of using it

in science? At an International School in

South Korea, Middle School science

students were selected to be part of a

study that focused on two areas: 1. The

variable that a sample group would be

treated to applying their learning over a 7

week period in a range of enriching tech

integration assignments. 2. Both a

control group and experimental group

would be measured in their attitude

change towards learning science before

and after the 7 week study. The sample

method was a convenience cluster of two

classes in similar sizes, taught by the

same teacher. The research design was a

two group pre-test and post test model.

A minor difference was found between

the experimental group and control group

in respect to science attitudes and

achievements. A positive correlation of

performance and attitude in pretest and

post test scores was found from the

students in the control group and also the

experimental group.

! !

Introduction

According to Oblinger

(2003),“educating the Net

Generation is a privilege and a

challenge. They expect a great deal

of us, just as we do of them. To find

the right balance point, we need to

understand each other well”( p.1.5)

As a science teacher, I observe

many children moving into middle school

lacking a strong base of scientific

language. Over my years in education, I

have recognized there is a need to help

the performance of students in their

learning. Differentiated instruction and

tasks, supporting learning styles, various

reflection strategies, modeled practice,

criteria based rubrics which provide

explicit feedback and opportunities for

student and teacher feedback have all

been employed in my teaching approach.

The reality is, science is a

vocabulary heavy subject and some

students find this threatening. When the

students are required to explain what they

have learned, they reach a basis

understanding of concepts.

I’ve learned, however when I use

technology integration to have students

process concepts to create a product, it

allows them to synthesize information at a

deeper level and present it a more

authentic and engaging way.

Prensky(2005) says,

“Digital technology is becoming an

important part of students education,

but how to use it is not completely

clear.. what teachers do need to

know is just how technology can and

should be used by students to

enhance their own learning” ( p 4).

My aim is to understand how

significantly technology affects student

learning in a grade 7 science classroom.

! !

Review of Literature

Focusing on the use of technology

and how it supports learning is not new.

Santos (2009) investigated in a

collaborative action research project aimed

to support a science teacher integrating

blogs in a K-12 physics class to promote

scientific explantations. The actual study

focused on planning and designing

activities in the blog and reflections based

on the data collected from both teachers

and students after the activities from the

blog were implemented.

This study was important as it

highlights how powerful the model of

action research can be, as according to

Santos(2009)

“as a result of taking part in the

action research, this study also expects to

provide insights on how collaborative

action research can be used as a means

to engage teachers in a reflective and

meaningful professional

development.” (p 845)

Action research is viewed as an

integral part of teachers’ professional

development as it provides a means for

teachers to reflect on and improve their

practice. My study has followed an action

research model in the aim that it provides

critical insights into how effective tech

integration is improving student learning in

a grade 7 science sample group and how

it influences their attitude towards learning

in science.

The tech integration change process

is interesting in enhancing student

learning, as found in a case study, by Hsu

and Sharma(2008). Over a 6 year period

in North Illinois University, 180 pre-service

teaching students were a sample group

involved in the analyses of enabling

factors in the technology integration

change process, in an elementary science

course.

“ Science education has embarked

on a major reform recognizing that

technology integration in education could

enhance science teaching and

learning”(National Research council, 2001,

p.3)

It consisted of three phases:

instruction in ed tech tools; instruction

taught to elementary students using tech

! !

tools; and elementary school students

being invited to North Illinois university

campus for master classes. Collecting a

range of data from portfolio reflections( the

sample group), a review of documents

and interviews, it resulted in some relevant

findings. As,

“ the purpose of this study was

to analyze enabling factors that

might have helped to facilitate and

sustain the tech integration change

process in a science elementary

course”( p213)

After analysis, 3 key enabling factors

were identified as able to cause the most

improvement in the student learning of

science. Shared leadership, learning

community and educational systems were

classified as the pillars for success.

A learning community is a vehicle for

change and was the focus of my control

and experimental groups by design in my

own study. My experimental sample group

1 was focused on using tech integration in

application tasks and my control group

was focused on paper or non tech

integration application tasks by design.

Maximizing the use of technology

enhanced teaching and learning of science

in a community is a challenge, but it is

extremely valuable. As found in a study by

Luck and Fong Peng(2010) , two results

from strongly relate to my own study as

evidenced by the following,

“there is a positive relationship

in the management of tech

integration for maximizing usage of

technology enhanced teaching and

learning.. where students are able to

learn better when teachers teach by

using the enhanced technology in

their curriculum” ( p 94)

However the any tech integration

affects students’ attitudes towards learning

in science is also relevant. An enhanced

teaching assessment study on students

success and attitudes towards science

was conducted by Kikkaya and Vurkaya

(2011). The study focused on elementary

science students utilizing alternative

assessments such as: diagnostic trees,

concept maps structured grids and activity

! !

sheets in the unit ’electricity in our lives’.

This directly relates to my question as it

was the same design model and tech

integration is, by nature, an alternative

approach to learning.

“Therefore it could be argued

that the alternative assessment

activities carried out on experimental

group students took effect and

elicited a positive change in their

attitudes towards science” (p999).

In this study, the aim was to

understand how significantly technology

integration affects student learning in a

grade 7 science classroom and their

attitude towards learning in science.

Answers were sought for the following

questions:

1. Is there any significant difference

between the experimental groups

and control groups in terms of the

scores in students in science

attitude and performance post

tests?

2. Is there any significant difference

between the science attitude and

achievement pre test and post test

scores of the experimental and

control groups?

3. Can the use of tech integration

make significant differences in

improving student learning in a

middle school science classroom.

Method and Contexts

To answer my research question I

used an action research intervention

study with a two group pre/post design

as it presented the least threat to validity

and removed the threat of maturation.

There were two groups in the study in

which the impact of tech integration on

student attitudes and performance were

explored. An experimental group of 7th

grade science students and a control

group of 7th grade science students

were chosen. Each group was pre

tested and post tested using the Tyrie

Learning Attitude Assessment before and

after the 7 week intervention to measure

change in attitude and a concepts based

! !

pre test and post to measure change in

performance.

Intervention

A unit of work was taught to Group

1 and Group 2 over a 7 week period on

‘States of matter and its properties’ Each

had the same content concepts taught.

For group 1, each week a new tech

integration task was designed that

expected them to present content in a

different way. Explicit skills in how to

use the tech integration task were taught,

supported and monitored with

appropriate feedback given regarding

content. The control group was given

the expectation of producing a similar

weekly assigned task on paper and also

were given feedback regarding accuracy

of content.

Group 1’s Tech integration tasks included

the following:

• Create a graph using an Apple

computer program called’

Numbers’. The students were to

graph a data set of average hand

volume sizes of left and right hands

in their class. After experiencing a

mini lab on water displacement

method, the application task after

building a common data set on the

class whiteboard was to process it

in Numbers and upload it to a class

website. As seen below as Table 1.

Group 2, experienced the same

mini lab with explicit teacher

instruction in the same method and

a common data set from their class

hand volumes whilst being required

to present it as a graph on paper.

Table 1: Numbers Tech task

• Using Pages, Group 1 were to

word process a class experiment

called ‘White before my eye’ s

which used three different white

powders testing students to identify

physical change or chemical

! !

changes in matter, as exemplified

by table 2 below.

Table 2: White before my eyes Tech task.

• The third tech integration task was

the delivery and application of a

mini problem-based-learning

assignment I designed, called the

Density Web-quest. Both groups

were given 10 unknown cubes of

different substances, they were

required to research and collect

data, measure mass and volume of

their cube and calculate the density.

They then matched their

calculations to their research to

identify the unknown substances.

Over a series of lessons, both

groups has access to a class

website where the web-quest was

located and supported them in the

process of learning. They were

required to complete several

stages. Group 2 submitted the

graphic organizer of physical

characteristics of different

substances, vocabulary activity

sheet and calculations in paper

form. Group 1 annotated a PDF

version throughout and uploaded it

to a class website. An example of

the PBL tech task is shown below

as table 3.

Table 3: Density PBL Tech task

• The fourth task was an in class

group presentation of physical

characteristics using Keynote or

Google Presentation. Where as

Group 2 was expected to give a

! !

physical oral supported only by a

poster they could make made

manually.

• The website https://bubbl.us/ was

used as an application for Group 1

students to create a concept map of

their ‘States of matter’ concepts

taught and submit it by email. Table 4

shows below an example of the task.

Group 2 were required to make a

concept map on a one given sheet of

A4 paper and hand the same sheet

in.

Table 4: Concept Map Tech task

•The final task was a demonstration

lab of a compound called Lauric

Acid. The Group one students

observed a data probe to monitor the

change in state from a solid to a

liquid and being reversed from liquid

to a solid. Whilst this happened I

used collected data using a

computer program called Logger Lite.

The application task was for them to

then create a heat curve using

Numbers to map the boiling point and

melting point. Group 2 did this on

paper.

Table 5: Heat Curve Tech task

Throughout this process, I

designed and used technology in all

applications of learning for Group 1. Each

task required them to create a product

using core concepts and present it in a fun

and engaging way. I felt during this

process Group 1 were genuinely engaged

and enjoying their learning as I genuinely

was interested in seeing how the tech

! !

integration would affect their attitude

towards learning in science.

! Sample

The sample groups in the study are

two grade 7 science classes that I teach

directly. They are a convenience cluster

sample at the same international school

in Seoul, South Korea and will have

access to the same course content,

teacher, tech facilities and a Mac Book

computer each. Each class was chosen

as they were of similar size, age and

ethnicity as shown below in table 6. The

experimental group 1 and control group 2

are defined as follows:

Table 6 Summary of sample demographics

Items Freq. Per. %

Group 1 Gender-Male-Female

89

47%52%

Group 1

Age 12 years13 years

125

70%30%

Group 1

Race-Korean/American.-Saudi Arabia

152

88%12%

Items Freq. Per. %

Group 2Control

Gender-Male-Female

77

50%50%

Group 2Control

Age 12 years13 years

95

64%36%

Items Freq. Per. %

Race-Korean/American.-Saudi

131

92%8%

Instrumentation and Data Collection

At the outset of the study, each

group was pre tested using the Tyrie-

Learning attitude (TLA) assessment. This

was a Likert survey designed to measure

change in attitude towards science before

and after the study. The TLA

encompassed 10 stem survey questions

each. There were 10 stem questions

within the TLA scale. Stems 1-5 are

primarily directed at gaining an

understanding of a student’s attitude in

science and stems 6-10 are directed at

understanding the student’s attitude

towards the subject science. These stem

responses were calculated using a 1-5

numerical scale from strongly agree,

agree, unsure, disagree and strongly

disagree. A detailed copy of the TLA is

enclosed as Appendix 1.

! !

Table 7. Tyrie-Learning Attit. Assess.

The concepts based performance

test was designed to test concepts learnt

in the current chemistry unit of work,

‘States and properties of matter’. This

test totaled 20 questions, that were a

range of 12 multiple choice based

questions and 8 matching descriptions to

key terms. This same test was given to

each group before the study began and

after it was finished. A copy can be found

as appendix item 2.

Threats to Validity

The threats to validity of subject

characteristics were removed by using

the same group scores for analysis. At no

time was there any historical event which

disrupted the continuation of the study

and the threat of regression to the mean

was reduced by using the same

performance test and only 1 unit of

content was taught to both Group 1 and

2. There was no risk of maturity as the

study was short or repeated testing

threats as each group was given only 4

small assessments in 7 weeks and they

were common. Whilst there was no

mortality threat as each student continued

to be enrolled in the grade 7 science

classes for the duration of the study.

Results

The effect of tech integration on the

performance and attitude of Grade 7

students in science.

I used the t test analysis to assess

significant differences between the two

groups with respect to performance and

attitude.

PerformanceAn unpaired t- test was used

between the mean change score for Group

1( experimental) and the mean change

score for Group 2( Control group). An

unpaired t- was used as the number of

students in each sample group differed

from 17 to 14 respectively.

! !

Table 8: Performance -Mean Gains and Standard deviation Performance Group 1 Group 2

Mean 4.24 4.57SD 2.36 4.33

The two tailed P value equals

0.7852 and by conventional criteria, the

difference is considered to not be

statistically significant. The t - test also

produced a t value of 0.2751 and df

score of 28. Although the mean of each

group is almost the same, though the

means are different.

Table 9:Mean for performance by Group

Group Name Pre test

Mean

Post Test

Mean

Gain

Group 1 12.1 16.1 + 4.2

Group 2 10.42 14.28 + 4.5

After calculating the pre and

post score for each Group, the post was

subtracted from the pre test score to find a

gain score. The mean change or gain

score was then found for each group. This

gain score is interesting as both groups

experienced positive improvement in

performance as Group 1 had a mean

gain of 4.2 whilst, Group 2 had a mean

gain of 4.5 as shown in table 8 and 9.

Attitude Score

To understand whether the

treatment affected students’ attitude

towards learning in science we analyzed

the gain scores between the pre test and

post test of the TLA. We used an unpaired

T- test as the groups were 17 and 14 in

size respectively.

Table 10:Means/ Standard deviations of TLA Gains

Attitude Group 1

Group 2

Mean -0.647 0.357SD 4.946 3.754

The two tailed P value equaled 0.4368 and

by conventional criteria this difference is

considered to be not statistically

0

4.25

8.50

12.75

17.00

Pre test Mean Post Test Mean

Performance Mean Gains

Group 1 Group 2

! !

significant. There was also a t value of

0.6251 and a df of 29.

Table 11:Attitude in pre test and post test scores.

Group Name Pre Test

Mean

Post Test

Mean

Gain

Group 1 20.23 19.41 -0.82

Group 2 21 21.5 .0.5! Attitude Mean Gains

! ! Discussion

After carrying out the study,

collecting data and analyzing results, the

burning question is what does it all mean.

In performance there was a positive gain

from both Group 1 at 4.2 and Group 2 at

4.5 respectively. These scores show that

both groups are performing at the same

level. It also means that technology

19.00

19.75

20.50

21.25

22.00

Pre test means Post test means

Group 1 Group 2

integration was an effective approach to

teaching as the Group 1 improvement in

performance supports this. As an

alternative approach to instruction this

study proves that tech integration is

valuable as my research review

supported also.

However, equally valuable was the

traditional instructional approach that was

delivered to Group 2. This comparison

shows that good teaching and good tech

integration are both valuable

approaches to learning in a MS Science

classroom.

The attitude gains, show a different

scenario. As Group 1 pretested at a

mean of 20.23 and post tested at a

mean of 19.41, they experienced a

change score of - 0.82. Whereas Group 2

pretested at 21 and posted tested at

21.5, resulting in a change score of 0.5.

The negative change for group 1 is a

surprise as during the study I felt that all

the students were enjoying the process of

using tech integrated tasks in their

! !

learning. If we look at the standard

deviation of Group 1 it is rather high at

4.946. Clearly many students did enjoy

their learning and improvement in

performance was made for all, but the

large attitude SD indicates that Tech was

not the preferred approach to learning for

some.

The next step would be to

reanalyze some of the TLA stem

questions for Group 1 and identify which

students affected the large standard

deviation and counsel with them as these

students may need some personal

attention.

In conclusion, these results do

have an impact in my thinking and

classroom practice in the following ways:

Technology integration has proven

statistically that it is an equal strategy and

approach to learning in improving student

learning in Science; Good instructional

teaching is an equal strategy and

approach to student learning in MS

science; and that a balance of teaching

approaches need to be employed in order

to maintain a positive attitude towards

learning in science. As evidenced by the

Group 1 TLA slightly negative change,

students enjoy using tech but it may

bring some sense of anxiety towards

learning as well. Furthermore, future

developments in education would be to

study more in-depth which types of tech

integrated tasks can most improve

performance and achieve high quality

learning, whilst we search for an answer

to the new question, how can we maintain

balance in tech integration so that our

students are happy whilst learning.

! !

References

Chun, E. (2013, September 15). bubbl.us | brainstorm and mind map online. Retrieved September 15, 2013, from http://www.bubbl.us

Hsu, P., & Sharma, P. (2008). A case study of enabling factors in the technology integration change process. Educational Technology and society, 11(4), 213-228.

Kang, M., Heo, H., & Kim, M. (2011). The impact of ICT use on new millennium learners' educational performance. Interactive Technology and Smart Education. doi:10.1108/17415651111125487

Kirikkaya, E., & Virkaya, G. (2011). The effect of using alternative assessment activities on students' success and attitudes in science and technology course. Educational services theory and practise, 11(2), 997-1003.

Luck, L., & Fong Peng, C. (2010). Maximizing the usage of technology enhanced teaching and learning of science and mathematics in English program in the Malaysian secondary schools system. US-China Education Review, 7(10), 87-97.

National research council (2001). Educating teachers of science, mathematics and technology: New practices for the new millennium

Oblinger, D., & Oblinger, J. L. (2005). Introduction. In Educating the net generation (pp. 1- 1.5). Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE.

Prensky, M. (2010). Introduction: Our changing world. In Teaching digital natives: Partnering for real learning (p. 1- 12). Thousand Oaks, Calif: CorwinSantos, I. (2011, June 11). Ed/ITLib Digital Library → Technology integration through collaborative action research. Retrieved August 12, 2013, from http://editlib.org/p/37967/

Tyrie, M. D. (2013, August 9). Exploring Density Webquest Project | 6/7 Middle School Science. Retrieved October 3, 2013, from http://matttyrie.wordpress.com/exploring-density-webquest-project/

! !

! !

Appendix A

! ! ! ! ! Properties of Matter Pre test and Post Test

Grade 7 ScienceTeacher: M Tyrie

Multiple ChoiceWrite the letter of the correct answer in the space provided.

______ 1. Which property of matter is a measure of the gravitational force? a. density b. mass c. volume d. weight

______ 2. In a graduated cylinder containing several liquid layers, the least dense liquid is found a. floating at the top. c. in the lightest colored layer. b. in the middle layer. d. settled on the bottom.

______ 3. How does a physical change differ from a chemical change? a. New volumes are created in a physical change. b. New materials are produced in a physical change. c. The composition is unchanged in a physical change. d. The change is reversible in a physical change.

______ 4. Melting crayons is an example of a 2 a. physical property. b. physical change. c. chemical property. d. chemical change.

______ 5. Which of the following units would be best for describing the volume of mercury (liquid) used in an experiment? a. grams or kilograms c. liters or milliliters b. meters or centimeters d. newtons

______ 6. Which of the following events is NOT a common sign that a chemical change has taken place? a. change in color or odor b. change in state c. foaming or bubbling d. production of heat or light

______ 7. What chemical property is responsible for iron rusting? a. flammability b. conductivity c. nonflammability d. reactivity with oxygen

______ 8. The motion of a 150 g ball is more difficult to change than the motion of a 50 g ball because the 150 g ball has a. less weight than the 50 g ball has. b. greater density than the 50 g ball has.

! 18

c. more mass than the 50 g ball has. d. larger volume than the 50 g ball has.

______ 9. What unit of density would be appropriate to describe a solid bar of silver? a. g/mL b. g/cm3

c. oz/ft3 d. kg/L

______ 10. Which physical property of matter describes the relationship between mass and volume? a. density b. ductility c. reactivity d. weight

______ 11. Souring milk is an example of a a. physical property. b. physical change. c. chemical property. d. chemical change.

______ 12. Malleability is an example of a a. physical property. b. physical change. c. chemical property. d. chemical change.Matching

Match the correct description with the term. Write the letter in the space provided. ______13. The saltiness of seawater is the result of this property.______ 14. Objects float or sink as a result of this property.______ 15. This is the physical form in which a substance exists.______ 16. This type of matter makes up an object and the way it is

arranged.______ 17. The breakdown of water to form two gases is the result of this

process.______ 18. This is the ability of a substance to resist burning.______ 19. This is the tendency of a substance to resist changes in its

motion.______20. This is the rate at which a substance conducts heat

a. thermal

conductivity

b. composition

c. non - flammability

d. inertia

e. state of matter

f. solubility

g. reactivity

h. electrolysis

i. ductility

j. density

! 19

! ! ! ! ! ! Appendix B

Name:____________! ! ! Tyrie Learning Attitude AssessmentClass:____________! 2013

Question Strongly Agree

Agree Unsure Disagree Strongly disagree

1 I feel quite at ease when I am learning in science.

2 When a new unit of work is introduced, I feel like I want to join in the learning opportunities.

3 In science, it’s good to catch up on any missed work when I’m in class.

4 I think, I should seek additional assistance from my teacher when needed and consistently follow feedback from the teacher also.

5 It’s good to be consistently attentive, on task and contribute to the shared learning environment.

6 I enjoy coming to science and learning about the world in science lessons.

7 I think that science is a subject that I will use a lot.

8 When I arrive at my science classroom I feel welcome and am at ease.

9 Science is interesting because in class as you learn you can have fun

10 I think that it’s important to be prepared for science lessons by doing homework and assignments on time.

! 20