{"id":898,"date":"2009-06-01T01:11:00","date_gmt":"2009-06-01T01:11:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost:8888\/cite\/2016\/02\/09\/meeting-the-needs-of-middle-grade-science-learners-through-pedagogical-and-technological-intervention\/"},"modified":"2016-06-04T01:50:48","modified_gmt":"2016-06-04T01:50:48","slug":"meeting-the-needs-of-middle-grade-science-learners-through-pedagogical-and-technological-intervention","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/volume-9\/issue-3-09\/science\/meeting-the-needs-of-middle-grade-science-learners-through-pedagogical-and-technological-intervention","title":{"rendered":"Meeting the Needs of Middle Grade Science Learners Through Pedagogical and Technological Intervention"},"content":{"rendered":"
National Science Achievement and the Need for Improved Science Teaching<\/strong><\/p>\n Recent National Assessment of Educational Progress (Campbell, Hombo, & Mazzeo, 2000) scores revealed that reading scores of US 17-year-olds were not significantly different from 1971 to 1999.\u00a0 Although mathematics scores for 17-year-olds showed a significant, though slight (1.3%), increase from 1973 to 1999, science performances painted a less encouraging picture.\u00a0 The overall scores of 17-year-olds declined from 1969 to 1982, increased modestly from 1982 to 1992, and have since leveled off.\u00a0 The 1999 end-of-the-study levels of science for 17-year-olds were significantly below (3.4%) the 1969 beginning-of-the-study levels (Campbell et al., 2000).\u00a0 An analysis of student reading skills revealed that average US 15-year-olds read as well as their peers in 27 other countries that make up the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, but perform nowhere near the top.<\/p>\n In mathematics, students attending high school physics since the beginning of the 21st century slightly exceeded the average international samples. Fewer than 25%, however, were proficient in math skills appropriate for their grade level.\u00a0 Although international comparisons in science show US students yielding better-than-average results, overall findings are disappointing. Science performance has not improved in the past decade, and fewer than a third exhibit science concepts and skills appropriate for their grade level. Clearly, across each of these academic areas, schools are not supporting the learning needs of all science students (National Center for Education Statistics, 2002).<\/p>\n The Third International Mathematics and Science Study (1999) studied global trends in math and science education achievement and curriculum with a focus on fourth- and eighth-grade science and mathematics.\u00a0 In the 1999 report on science, eighth-grade US students ranked significantly below 14 countries, were statistically even with five, and were significantly higher than 18 countries.\u00a0 This middle of the pack placement was not a flattering portrayal of the U.S. education system and prompted many reports, including one entitled Before It\u2019s Too Late<\/em> (Glenn, 2000).<\/p>\n Calls for Science Education Reform<\/strong><\/p>\n One response to the emergence of such startling numbers was the No Child Left Behind Act, which aimed to improve the performance of US primary and secondary schools through more rigorous standards of accountability. It has shaped the ways curriculum is delivered, how students view learning, and how teachers interpret their success in teaching.<\/p>\n Often called \u201cstandards-based\u201d educational reform, its goal was to establish high standards for all children through accountability for teachers\u2019 professional preparation and measurement of student learning through increased standardized testing.\u00a0 The underlying principle was that setting lofty goals would improve the performance of all students.\u00a0 One key component to this legislation was improving teacher quality by insisting that teachers were highly qualified.\u00a0 The measure for highly qualified focused on minimally achieving a bachelor\u2019s degree, teaching only in areas of their major or minor, or passing rigorous academic state tests.<\/p>\n Though no one disagrees with the focus on achievement as a goal for science education, few agree on a definition.\u00a0 Typically, reformers mean a continual focus on curriculum standards, funding, policies, and billions of dollars of reform, with standard assessments as a main indicator of value and thrust for future directions.\u00a0 All of these drive teacher instruction in one way or another.\u00a0 Another interpretation, however, may be drawn from the perspective of teacher educators and university science education professors vested in producing future science teachers.\u00a0 For teacher educators this gap presents an opportunity to study how best to engage children in science with creative pedagogy and tools more responsive to children\u2019s attributes and needs.<\/p>\n Part of the discussion among science teacher educators has focused upon technological implementation to improve instruction. In fact, technology has been promoted as an appropriate tool for teaching current K-12 students for a variety of reasons, including its ability to provide familiarity with tools students use outside of school (Achievement for All Children: An Apple Perspective<\/em>, 2003; Lenhart et al., 2003; Lemke & Martin, 2004), to provide better training opportunities for future jobs (Tapscott, 1999; Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2005), and to provide venues for better inquiry teaching (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1990, 1993; National Resource Council [NRC], 1996).<\/p>\n Some authors have argued that US teens in today\u2019s schools need new tools for learning because there are fundamental differences in current American culture and the way students learn best (Friedman, 2005; Pink, 2005). For example, according to the Pew Internet & American Life Project (2005), 87% of children ages 12 to 17 use the Internet regularly. This number has increased more than one fourth since the year 2000. Seventy-five percent of today\u2019s teens use at least two digital devices daily and spend an average of nearly 6.5 hours a day with media. Such observed changes in student behavior may suggest a false hope and a quick fix for educators eagerly looking to incorporate technology familiar to students as a way to stay consistent with Dewey\u2019s (1956) challenge that we use the same psychology in schools that we apply to learning outside of schools.<\/p>\n Though the arguments are compelling, educators must consider carefully what current research says and what has not yet been answered. Such arguments ignore the fact that other nations to which the US is being compared are investing less resources in technology than is the US.\u00a0 Oppenheimer (2003) and Cuban (1986, 2001) have clearly offered important challenges to the notion that technology is an automatic improvement in classrooms. They said that many of the claims that technology should be integrated into school learning environments are not based upon empirical evidence about students or learning environments.<\/p>\n Yet the growth and investment in technology by the US is increasing. According to Abd-El-Khalick and Waight (2007) the rapid integration is not always based upon established research, and often the research available to make important technological implementation decisions does not take a critical eye when viewing the use of technology or the specific focus for specific interventions in using technology to promote inquiry.\u00a0 Though compelling, science educators must consider carefully which tools assist in promoting science inquiry and how these can be thoughtfully incorporated into instruction in ways that add value to science teaching.<\/p>\n Considerations for Technology Implementation in Science Instruction<\/strong><\/p>\n Some researchers have argued that meeting National Science Education Standards<\/em> without technology would be difficult (Metcalf & Tinker, 2004; Lento, 2005), but which tools should be considered? Researchers argue that data guiding decisions of implementation ought to be critical in perspective and related specifically to the context in which they are applied and not based upon dissimilar educational contexts (Abd-El-Khalick & Waight, 2007; Ballone & Czerniak, 2001; Czerniak, Lumpe, Haney, & Beck, 2001).\u00a0 One important research finding that confounds the notion that inserting technology will raise science student test scores is the research on teachers\u2019 poor implementation of technology.\u00a0 Oppenheimer (2003) described at length his observations of teachers allowing the technology to be the focus of instruction instead of the content it is meant to teach.\u00a0 The focus on adding sound effects, transitions, and meaningless pictures to presentations is but one of many examples of how inappropriate teaching strategies can wrongly emphasize the tool over the learning.<\/p>\n As Mehan (1989) and more recently Cuban (2001) have described, classrooms reflect the social values of the teachers and students who inhabit them, and the artifacts (computers) simply take on the roles that fit those learning environments.\u00a0\u00a0 If a science teacher\u2019s epistemological orientation toward science is a collection of facts, then the computer is likely going to become a tool that collects, organizes, and repeats facts more efficiently.\u00a0 Obviously, this approach is not an improvement toward national reforms challenging teachers to a more inquiry-based approach to science instruction.<\/p>\n Teachers\u2019 orientation toward science learning is one of the primary factors that must be attended to in any technological implementation. \u00a0It has been well documented by several researchers that making changes toward a constructivist orientation in teaching is more difficult than simply learning new technologies (Becker & Riel, 2000; Rakes, Flowers, Casey, & Santana, 1999).\u00a0 For example, in a recent survey of 655 teachers (grade 4 to 12), Becker and Riel (2000) found that less than 4% of the teachers surveyed used computers during instruction to assist students in constructing their own understanding of content knowledge in accordance with constructivist learning frameworks.<\/p>\n In addition Rakes et al. (1999) found that in a survey of 435 teachers who use technology in K-12 contexts, less than half of the teachers who professed to be constructivist acknowledged implementing 6 out of 14 commonly identified constructivist strategies. Furthermore, only 40% of the participating teachers used even three of these strategies, and less than 20% of those who claimed to use constructivist strategies in their classrooms implemented them \u201cfairly often\u201d (monthly).\u00a0 Clearly, providing technology in science classrooms is insufficient for making needed change. In addition, providing technical and professional development support will not likely effect longlasting change even for self-reported constructivist teachers (Becker & Riel, 2000; Cuban, 1986; Rakes et al., 1999).<\/p>\n Few empirical studies focus on the process of using technologies in elementary and middle school science classrooms and how these technologies function within the expectations, norms, and practices in current classrooms. Considerations for integrating computers in science classrooms include (a) students\u2019 skills, attributes, and needs, (b) teacher professional development opportunities, and (c) desired learning outcomes.<\/p>\n Student Skills, Attributes, and Needs<\/strong><\/p>\n Different science students bring their own repertoire of skills, knowledge, experiences, attitudes, and assumptions to the classroom, and no single teaching strategy best suits all students (Coffield, Moseley, Hall, & Eccelstone, 2004; Duff, 2002; Dunn & Griggs, 2000; Felder & Silverman, 1988; Kolb & Kolb, 2005).\u00a0 Learning style theory has been applied to a variety of learning environments and can be defined as the manner in which students of all ages are affected by sociological needs, immediate environment, physical characteristics, and emotional and psychological inclinations.\u00a0 Having teachers learn about different learning styles of students and how they relate to technology implementation can help science\u00a0 teachers make better decisions about teaching strategies and which tools best can engage which students.<\/p>\n Differences exist among and between student groups, and not all curricula or technological innovations developed by teachers or science experts should be expected to achieve similar ends for all students.\u00a0 A teacher\u2019s individual learning style or favored teaching style may also be different from many of the students\u2019 learning styles. When the teacher is not aware of students\u2019 learning styles, the cognitive and psychological impact can be negative toward learning (Keefe, 1982).\u00a0 Dunn and Dunn (1992) suggested that research on learning styles provides insight for teachers to address the needs of individuals through matching styles or capitalizing on students\u2019 personal strengths.<\/p>\n Technological implementations for students should consider ways that tools can expand opportunities to all students by offering different kinds of access to knowledge. Incorporating into science lessons opportunities for students to demonstrate science competency through musical, dramatic, artistic, or other representations is one way to honor students\u2019 diverse skill sets. Orchestrating collaboration of diverse student knowledge and skill sets around a central problem or concept can also offer greater opportunity for success in classrooms.<\/p>\n Becoming familiar with differences in learners\u2019 specific styles of preferred knowledge acquisition allows in-depth understanding and interaction with the interests and needs of a greater diversity of students. Research studies confirm the need for identifying each student\u2019s preferred learning style and for teaching in ways that complement that style (Duff, 2004; Dunn & Dunn, 1992; Dunn &\u00a0 Griggs, 2000; Felder & Silverman, 1988; Kolb & Kolb, 2005).<\/p>\n Academic achievement is elevated when teachers use instructional strategies consistent with students\u2019 preferred learning styles (Ballone & Czerniak, 2001). In the converse, students tend to achieve lower when their learning style and environment are mismatched (MacMurren, 1985; Pizzo, 1981). In fact, some have even argued for a direct correlation between the match of learning styles and environment and student grade point average (Cafferty, 1981).<\/p>\n To achieve the goal of having all students succeed in science requires teachers\u2019 practices and curriculum content to meet students\u2019 various interests, abilities, experiences, understandings, and knowledge. Accepting diversity in learning styles means also accepting that all students can learn, and effective teachers consider both the content to be learned and the learning context, including the background of the students. Instructional materials must be designed to be not only flexible, but also supportive of diversity and capable of accommodating a wide range of learning styles (McLoughlin, 1999). Technology integration has been said to initiate the desired curricular and pedagogical change given the opportunity, equipment, and support (Wetzel, 2001).<\/p>\n Teacher Professional Development<\/strong><\/p>\n Technology insertion into classrooms, in and of itself, will not likely result in any positive change toward inquiry. Teachers need support, incentive, and practice in applying new pedagogical and technological innovations. Science teachers generally agree that technology should be incorporated into science instruction, but most are passive about seeking professional development in technology or finding time to learn new strategies and tools (Odom,\u00a0 Settlage,\u00a0 & Pedersen, 2002; Pedersen & Yerrick, 2000). In fact a major gap exists between science teachers\u2019 desired versus actual use of technology in most science classrooms.\u00a0 Researchers argue that the vast majority of teachers have had little or no formal training on how to apply computers specifically to their science content teaching (Berger, Lu, Belzer, & Voss, 1994).<\/p>\n Such findings support prior research indicating that a significant amount of practice and training are needed before teachers become comfortable with the use of technological tools to facilitate student learning (Gado, Ferguson, & van ‘t Hooft, 2006). Although resistance to change in science teaching practices remains high, research supports teaching practices that consider students\u2019 learning styles through the use of technology to improve the quality of both teaching and learning (Ballone & Czerniak, 2001; Grasha & Yangarber-Hicks, 2000).<\/p>\n Constructivist teaching methods can be as influential in improving student learning as any technology intervention and can enhance student engagement in classrooms.\u00a0 Study after study has demonstrated that it is not the technology tool that makes the difference, but the willingness of teachers to change their classroom practices that causes the greatest impact on learning (Cuban, 1986; Quinn & Valentine, 2001; Wenglinsky, 1998; Yerrick & Hoving, 1999). Despite the reports that teachers are open and willing to try technological innovations in their science teaching (Czerniak et al., 2001; Pedersen & Yerrick, 2000), studies show relatively low rates of classroom transformation (Becker & Riel, 2000; Cuban, 1986; Rakes et al., 1999).<\/p>\n Younger generations are presumed to have a greater affinity for and ability to use technology, but researchers found that novice teachers were generally cautious about implementing technology into teaching (Gado et al., 2006).\u00a0 Teachers instead felt it important to present both traditional and technology enhanced experimentation, demonstrating how new technologies foster critical thinking and simplify experimentation and improve reliability of data. Paradoxically, these same novice teachers felt that proper training for both teachers and students on the use of new technological tools was essential to their successful integration and would not feel comfortable teaching without it.<\/p>\n Student access and devoted on-task time with the tool also are necessary considerations for teachers and students. In data from student pre- and posttests, Metcalf and Tinker (2004) found significant increases in scores associated with the use of probeware in science. Maximum gains were observed when extended time was provided for use of the tools, and minimum gains were found when use was rushed. Teachers reported that students learned more with the use of technological tools and found that the direct experience of doing the activity was particularly beneficial. Students were able to confront their misconceptions and improve graph-reading skills while learning science content. These findings were also confirmed through classroom observations. Students stated in interviews that they learned science better using technology than they had with activities in other science courses. These gains were limited by a lack of availability of equipment and time due to sharing of tools and resources.<\/p>\n Research Questions\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n The goal of our study was to examine the effects of inserting laptops and science technology tools into middle school environments while providing responsive professional development in the classrooms of motivated middle school science teachers. For the 2007-2008 academic year, one middle school offered the opportunity for teachers to learn the tools, associated pedagogical strategies, and curriculum throughout the year, as student engagement, achievement, and perceptions were studied in collaboration with the local university.<\/p>\n Beginning in the summer and throughout the year a small group of middle school science teachers explored exemplary tools and strategies to engage children more and help them learn science in ways consistent with science education and technology education reform visions.\u00a0 Working together with a local New York university (LNYU), science teaching faculty member wrote and aligned curricula, checked out LNYU equipment, explored science education literature, tested lessons with summer school students, and prepared evaluation measures for their 2007-2008 implementation of laptops, probeware, and a host of other scientific hardware and software. As we had the opportunity to study different teachers in the same middle school environment covering the same curriculum but using different tools and teaching strategies, we considered the following research questions:<\/p>\n Methodology\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n This study was conducted at a suburban middle school, located in the state of New York. This school was selected for this study because of its involvement with an ongoing teacher education program and the strength and experience of its science teachers. Teachers within the middle school had relatively little access to classroom technology, so we could invite teachers into the study and monitor precisely how laptops were used in science instruction.\u00a0 There was one personal computer (PC) on every teacher’s desk and an outdated PC laboratory with fewer than two dozen machines for over 500 students. \u00a0Figure 1 displays the the student to computer ratio for students during the year of the study and prior years.<\/p>\n Figure 1.\u00a0 <\/strong>Computer-to-student ratio for middle school 2 years prior, the year of the intervention, and the projected year following the project.<\/p>\n The entire science department of the participating middle school was invited to participate in training and the equipment loan program at the target middle school. Of those teachers, only two of the ten science teachers chose to fully participate in the training, planning, and implementation of the technology tools and new teaching strategies. Fifteen MacBook computers were provided to the school, increasing their computer to student ratio (see Figure 1). The two participating teachers (one earth science and one physical science) were also provided a laptop from the district with a complete station of probeware and software for participating teachers.<\/p>\n Throughout the 2007\u20132008 school year, researchers received full access to classrooms, achievement scores, and artifacts, as well as to the students for interviews. Because all 10 science teachers at the school were aiming for the same goal\u2014 New York Regents Examination competency\u2014the 8 teachers who self-selected out of the study provided a quasicontrol group of students who did not have access to technology. This context also provided an excellent opportunity to gather data regarding the technology implementation from the students\u2019 perspective, contrasting with their past experiences learning science without technology in the classroom.<\/p>\n In this study, a case is presented in which science teachers attempted to address the needs of their students through participation in a new technology integration and inquiry pedagogy project. The teachers accompanied the technology implementation with inquiry-based teaching strategies in their earth science and physical science classes. \u00a0During this yearlong implementation of instructional technologies, including PASCO probeware, the ProscopeHR, iPhoto, Macbooks, Datastudio software, Garageband, and other tools, the teachers and university faculty members involved measured in a variety of ways how successful they had been in addressing the various needs of their students.<\/p>\n The two main purposes were emphasized for the implementation of technology in the science classroom: (a) the insertion of actual data to complement instruction and laboratory investigations and (b) the use of media creation tools to give the students opportunities to co-construct knowledge of abstract concepts. To match the science learning environment with that of students\u2019 daily lives, teachers began borrowing weekly digital tools from LNYU and employing new teaching to give students access to the kinds of tools they know, understand, Pedagogical and Technological Intervention<\/strong><\/p>\n There are a variety of instructional goals teachers may hold for their students in science classrooms, ranging from acquiring concepts to learning to devise science experiments. The National Science Education Standards<\/em> called for students to be able to \u201cdevelop abilities necessary to do scientific inquiry\u2026[and] use technology and mathematics to improve investigations and communications\u201d (NRC, 1996, pp. 175). Technology may assist traditional teachers in drill and practice, and most technological implementation has been reported to have served very traditional purposes in classrooms (Berger et al., 1994; Cuban, 2001; Oppenheimer, 2003).<\/p>\n Training time has not been the only concern, but also the time that the tool is available to the student. In data from student pre- and posttests, Metcalf and Tinker (2004) found significant increases in scores associated with the use of probeware in science. Maximum gains were observed when extended time was provided for use of the tools, and minimum gains were found when use was rushed. Teachers reported that students learned more with the use of technological tools and found that the direct experience of doing the activity was particularly beneficial. Students were able to confront their misconceptions and improve graph-reading skills while learning science content.<\/p>\n These findings were also confirmed through classroom observations. Students stated in interviews that they learned science better using technology than they had with activities in other science courses. These gains can be limited by a lack of availability of equipment or a lack of time due to shared tools. A curriculum that specifically supports the use of handheld computers or probeware would help in acquiring these types of tools. Schools will be less resistant to purchasing equipment if the equipment is part of the written curriculum (Gado et al., 2006).<\/p>\n Purposeful Implementation of Tools\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n There are a variety of purposes and goals teachers may hold when implementing technology. Teachers in this project sought ways to improve upon areas of their teaching where achievement scores had consistently lagged over 5 years. They sought to make more personal applications of content, incorporate tools that were familiar to students, provide tools to help students in the process of coconstructing meaning in science, and insert problem-solving strategies using data whenever possible to give students an important context to discuss covered science concepts. Three specific areas were targeted for the use of technology in their teaching:<\/p>\n Use of Technology for Problem Solving<\/em>. Middle school science teachers devoted weeks of their 2007 summer break to explore inquiry methods for teaching that incorporated technological tools for scientific data collection and analysis. Using their past New York Regents scores to direct their efforts, teachers developed lessons, labs, and projects that would promote problem solving and critical thinking about real world data. Lessons included the use of global databases maintained by the U.S. Geological Survey, force and motion detectors, temperature probes, weather sensors, and scientific models and simulations of concepts students learned in physical and earth science. Teachers also developed assessments and rubrics to assess students\u2019 knowledge for each of their planned innovations.<\/p>\n Use of Technology for Media Literacy.<\/em> Educational research has demonstrated that students are busy continuously coconstructing knowledge in classrooms. Students were given several opportunities to express their unique knowledge through multiple venues. Students created podcasts, iPhoto books, slideshow presentations and other artifacts displaying their knowledge using the MacBooks and the built-in iLife suite.<\/p>\n Use of Technology for Critical Thinking<\/em>. In a typical week when science projects were assigned, computer logged records and field notes confirmed that every one of the university’s loaned computers were signed out and used every hour of every day, including lunch and before school. Science teachers employed problem-based learning strategies requiring students to collaborate, gather data, and propose solutions using scientific and communication tools. Solving a murder mystery by analyzing sand samples from around the world using the digital microscope, predicting weather patterns using their own probe and weather blog, and creating their own Jeopardy game using digital images and mineral tests were but a few innovations teachers used to promote inquiry in their classroom.<\/p>\n Use of Technology Tools Promoting Inquiry.<\/em>\u00a0 Throughout the year laptops, probeware, software, and digital microscopes and cameras were inserted into classroom lessons through a variety of instructional strategies. One particular example that students mentioned often in the debriefing focus groups was the use of the digital microscope, Keynote, Google images, and Garageband. The teachers organized ways to have students create mineral reports and present their findings in a jigsaw strategy. Time during class was spent in reporting research students had gleaned from their book, their library, and the Internet and found images or created representations that best expressed their learning. Following the completion of their podcasts (e.g., see Video 1), students used one full class period to share and discuss their projects.<\/p>\n Although lectures and labs supplemented these student projects, students most noted their ability to present information in ways that made the most sense to them. As an assessment strategy devised by one of the teachers, students then used the digital microscope to gather images of the rocks and minerals in a variety of magnifications to display such concepts as grain size and composition. These images were then used to create a Jeopardy-style game show, where students competed against one another in class to prepare for the exam. This kind of strategic use of the tools to demonstrate content, promote exploration, and encourage students to restate content in ways that best suited their learning styles were typical of the year’s activities.<\/p>\n Teachers continued to learn new ways to engage children in science through exemplary strategies and tools, and probeware was also a central tool to the science classroom. Concepts like phase change in states of matter, heat of fusion, heat of vaporization, and the conservation of energy are all challenging and abstract concepts. Labs associated with phase changes and heat transfer often gave wide ranges of error each year and led to many misconceptions among students. Probeware allowed students to gather live data quickly with minimal time for lab setup and to analyze findings in the same class period. Using the stainless steel temperature probes allowed students to heat ice in a beaker with consistent temperature readings without stirring vigorously\u2014a task impossible with standard glass alcohol thermometers. They used these probes in other labs as well to monitor live data, scale their graphs, and share their work electronically.<\/p>\n Data Analysis\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n All of the students enrolling in science were invited to participate in a survey regarding their use of technology at home and at school.\u00a0 More than 500 students from all the science teachers\u2019 classrooms responded to this survey, as well as a self-assessment of their learning style and for the observed teaching styles of their science teachers. Test scores and surveys of learning styles and attitudes were administered anonymously for all of these students, so as not to taint the selection of students sampled or influence their reports of teachers\u2019 pedagogical practices.\u00a0 The project teachers\u2019 students were disaggregated from the other 8 teachers\u2019 students to compare their learning styles, observed teachers\u2019 strategies, use of technology, and achievement data.\u00a0 The survey instruments used were the Learning Environment Inventory (LEI) and My Class Inventory (MCI) published by Fraser (1982; see example items in Appendix A<\/a>). Students were prepared for self-assessments of learning styles through a Web instrument published by the Birmingham Grid for Learning\u00a0 (2002).<\/p>\n To explore more specifically how technology was employed in the project teachers\u2019 classrooms, interviews and focus groups were conducted and comprised of questions regarding students\u2019 use of technology, questions regarding the classroom context, and probes to elaborate on the students\u2019 responses to the surveys. Project teachers\u2019 students were also asked to respond regarding the value of specific tools for learning specific concepts. These questions were not asked of students outside the project, as their teachers chose not employ the loan equipment. To better understand the implementation of technology during instruction, we also gathered field notes, conducted debriefing interviews with project teachers, and interviewed their students in individual settings from 45 minutes to an hour regarding specific observed lessons and general perceptions. Focus groups were also conducted to filter out the individual versus collective consciousness of the classroom interpretation. Over 30 hours of interviews were transcribed, and themes were initially identified prior to specific applied coding. Project teachers were consulted in interviews regarding these potential themes, and follow-up interviews were conducted when discrepancies occurred.<\/p>\n Taking into consideration the age of the students being interviewed, one possible threat to credibility and verifiability would be student hesitation to say negative things about a teacher to a perceived authority figure. A conversational tone was maintained throughout the interview, establishing rapport but trying not to cross over into the \u201cwe\u201d mentality described by Seidman (1991). Furthermore, the protocol included built-in redundancy and repetition in the questioning, giving students chances to support or refute their previous statements.<\/p>\n Interviews were recorded digitally, and after review selected sections were transcribed for analysis. (See Appendix B<\/a> for the interview protocol.) Transcriptions were analyzed for recurring themes, using the NVivo program, with regard to the research questions. Themes were identified and specific quotes were drawn from the transcripts. These themes led to the creation of assertions.<\/p>\n Data from pre- and posttests and from the student survey were imported into SPSS for statistical computations.\u00a0 Pre- and posttest significance were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA.\u00a0 Statistical significance of mean differences between project classrooms and nonproject classrooms on student survey responses were analyzed using t<\/em> tests.\u00a0 For all statistical analyses, an initial a of 0.05 was used with the appropriate Bonferroni adjustment.\u00a0 Surveys were analyzed by comparative t<\/em>-test scores.Validity and reliability results are reported for each finding where statistical significance was found.\u00a0 Other quantitative data were compiled with qualitative results in a mixed methods approach to refute or confirm conjectures put forth by researchers.<\/p>\n Findings<\/strong><\/p>\n Findings are presented according to grouped themes: (a) student attributes, (b) teacher use, (c) student achievement, and (d) student responses to technology implementation. Student achievement data, student interviews, student surveys, and supplemental teacher interviews tell a more cogent story when told together.<\/p>\n Student Attributes<\/strong><\/p>\n There are many descriptions and generalizations found in the literature about today\u2019s science students.\u00a0 They have been called Digital Natives, Hyper-communicators, Multi-taskers, and many other attributes which define them technologically.\u00a0 Current technology education literature tends to overemphasize student characteristics as defined by tools rather than by emotional, academic, or sociocultural characteristics students place upon themselves.<\/p>\n For example, as reported in the 2005 Pew Internet & American Life Project, 75% of today\u2019s teens use at least two digital devices daily and spend an average of nearly 6.5 hours a day with media. Yet, the middle school in this study had postponed plans for technology purchases in the new building pending budget approval, leaving fewer than 4% of the students access to computers at any one time.\u00a0We questioned what sense the students made of this situation rather than immediately faulting the school for their limited provision of computer access.\u00a0 It turned out that students reported missing access to computers in their classrooms. These kinds of reservations to judgment were important in telling a more authentic story of students\u2019 perceptions.<\/p>\n As researchers interested in both providing students with exemplary technology and studying the impact, we tried to match the science learning environment with that of students\u2019 daily lives, so teachers began learning to use borrowed equipment like MacBooks and digital science learning tools from the LNYU to employ new teaching pedagogies and give kids access to the kinds of tools they knew, understood, and used daily.\u00a0 We sought to characterize students in the ways they saw themselves<\/em>.\u00a0 We questioned whether or not the students in our study actually owned or used technology and whether or not they saw teachers using technology in their classrooms in appropriate ways.\u00a0 Students were asked to report on the amount of technology they used at home, in science class, and in other science classes they attended.<\/p>\n Consistent with previous reports, students surveyed at the conclusion of the implementation used a variety of technology for a wide range of purposes, from doing homework to downloading music to conducting research for reports and making slideshow presentations. Students reported their use of cell phones and gaming devices as well as their typical technology use in a day. Though it was speculated from observations of students\u2019 behavior (e.g., texting and instant messaging) that students used technology more often than their teachers did outside of school, we did not collect data until the end of the first year.<\/p>\n At the end of the first year\u2019s implementation, there was a notable difference between the teachers\u2019 home use of technology and that of students home use. However, there was a statistically significant difference found between the project and nonproject classes in the reported amount of time a computer was used in class (t<\/em>719 = 5.056, p<\/em> < 0.005, d<\/em> = 5.04), with students in classes taught by project teachers reporting more frequent use. Though both project and nonproject teachers demonstrated different uses of technology in and out of school, the contrast between similar technologies used in and out of school for the nonproject teachers was far more dramatic.<\/p>\n It has been argued that students have the skills to access, download, and manipulate learning resources, so lack of technology knowledge is not an impediment to using these resources in the classroom.\u00a0 It has also been reported that science students have a plethora of digital media devices at their disposal and are often more expert than adults in the same home who may even have purchased those devices (Achievement for All Children: An Apple Perspective<\/em>, 2003). Students in the study reported using their cell phones, computer to complete homework, email to communicate with friends, and presentation and Internet research tools to complete class assignments. They watched television multiple hours per day, but their use of other tools was more limited.\u00a0 For example, students self-reported less iPod use than use of their computer, television, or cell phone.\u00a0 Students also reported less MySpace and Facebook use than texting, instant messaging, email, and personal gaming.<\/p>\n The technology utilized during instruction was very different and far less frequent than students\u2019 home use.\u00a0 Project teachers (as reported by their students) used the Internet for online homework and presented items found on the Web and presented static slideshow presentations and videos shown via the television.\u00a0 The simple appearance of the diagrams (see figures 2 and 3) shows a dramatically different technological culture two which students must acclimate in and out of the science classroom.<\/p>\n Figure 2.<\/strong> Students’ technology use outside of school.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Figure 3.<\/strong> Students’ technology use during school.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The way students learn from technology is as different and varied as their typical use. For over a decade educational researchers have heralded learning styles as descriptors for student variance and recommendations for effective teaching strategies.\u00a0 Their ability to describe differences accurately among students and provide formative feedback for teachers aiming to increase their impact with diverse students has provided a foundation for all children to succeed through the recognition that not all students learn in the same way.<\/p>\n We sought ways that students could define their own learning strengths in ways that have been discussed by educational theorists and asked students to assess their own learning styles using an online evaluation prior to collecting formal survey data. \u00a0<\/strong>\u00a0We assisted teachers in their thinking about diversity by sharing this data with them and discussing a variety of teaching strategies rather than operating on the assumptions about learners populating their classrooms.<\/p>\n Project teachers began to use formative assessments of their students to gauge how their methods were reaching children.\u00a0Of the more than 508 science students surveyed, less than 15% identified themselves as logical-mathematical or verbal-linguistic kinds of learners.\u00a0 These results are shown below in Figure 4 and show all the sampled learning styles and relative percentages.<\/p>\n Figure 4.<\/strong>\u00a0 Students\u2019 self-reported learning styles for all science students attending the target middle school.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Few students rated themselves as strong in areas that traditional science instruction emphasize through the use of lectures, notes, and textbooks.\u00a0 By these findings, teachers using these strategies exclusively would meet the learning needs of only a small percentage of students surveyed.\u00a0More than 40% of students identified themselves as either visual or kinesthetic learners, and they would be left out with a monolithic teaching approach.<\/p>\n The most prominent learning styles widely shared by students was the hands-on, kinesthetic kind of learning experience and the visual learning experience.The \u201ctraditional\u201d conception of teaching science (e.g., memorization and repetition of scientific facts) addresses neither of these styles.\u00a0 The teaching strategies most closely associated with kinesthetic learning style include hands-on labs, manipulations, interactive simulations, and demonstrations.<\/p>\n The second most widely shared learning style identified was the visual learning experience.\u00a0 Some teaching strategies most closely associated with this learning style that we shared with teachers were the use of pictures, active simulations demonstrating changes over time, and graphical\/visual representations of trends.\u00a0 Student shared how these tools and strategies helped them.\u00a0 Janet, for example, described how the teacher\u2019s use of the tool helped her in her visual, hands-on preference for learning:<\/p>\n Originally, we would have drawn the graphs yourself [sic], and that helps too, but seeing it appear on the laptop screen is really cool for me, because I never used this type of technology before, and also the [probes] and the screens on the machines for the [probes], I like looking at those and it helps me\u00a0\u00a0 remember it better when I can see it.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The student mentioned how both the novelty and the inherent properties of the tool (being able to see the graphs as they are created) helped her to learn.\u00a0 Again, the activation of the visual learning style was interpreted by Janet as a superior way of learning to hearing the information only.\u00a0 Through this activation, Janet actively constructed her own knowledge that helped her remember it for her test.\u00a0 She was able to connect what she learned in the lecture to a real-world situation in ways that she knew she would not by memorizing facts and theories.<\/p>\n Students of the project teachers were more than twice as likely as students of the nonproject teachers to say that their teachers\u2019 strategies helped them in their particular learning style.\u00a0 Further, students were also more than twice as likely to say that their teachers were preparing them for the future. \u00a0This is an important but underreported finding in technology studies, particularly in science.<\/p>\n With the technology it was easier to see the different phases of the stream table.\u00a0 If you were thinking about that specific lab, then it would be looking at it from interval to interval.\u00a0 You could compare it without having to remember what each looked like.\u00a0 So it really helped. (Jennifer)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The technology made it easier to both gather and understand the information, because it was presented in a way the students preferred.\u00a0 Students felt that technology helped facilitate their learning in ways that they had not experienced in previous years.<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\nand use daily.<\/p>\n