Main Assignments:
1. Title Page
2. Introduction
4. Reflections
6. Sommary
7.
References
Technology in Instruction
In the teaching of science, I believe we have a responsibility to future
generations to teach science in a way that creates an understanding of
and connection with science and technology. If we want a society prepares
future citizens to work more competently in science and math, then we
should prepare students and teachers to create connections to science
through technology that will create greater understanding to our world.
Studies have shown that computer instruction in reading has not had overwhelming
reports. Socioeconomic factors, parent education levels, race and gender
all play a much more significant role in kids learning to read. (Johnson,
2000) How will the studies fare for instruction and assessment in science?
We will examine various studies and see how computer instruction can play
a vital role in bringing our students into science competency.
Are computers effective in teaching science? With science, children learn
by doing, and a computer can play a vital role in making it dynamic and
engaging for students. Software designed for elementary grades can, in
theory, help students make connections, analyze ideas, solve problems
and share their findings with others. (Lehman, 1994) Since computers are
a tool to reach these goals, it is important to differentiate between
the types of computer use, since not all applications serve the same outcome.
Computer Tutorials
Teachers have been using computer tutorials in science courses to focus
on specific topics. (Kulik 2003) The programs present instructional material
to a learner, require the learner to respond, evaluate the learner's response,
and then on the basis of the evaluation determine what to present next.
Tutoring programs are so named because they are meant to do the same things
that individual tutors do.
James A. Kulik (2003) reviewed six reports published since 1990 on controlled
evaluations of computer tutorials in science. In all but one of the six
cases, the effect of computer tutoring was large enough to be considered
both statistically significant and educationally meaningful.
Chu-Yen Chang (2002) made several studies since 1999 that compared the
use of student-centered tutorial and teacher-led lectures. He also compared
self paced tutorials with teacher led tutorials. In all the studies, he
found that students did best with technology when a teacher was present
providing them with directions and answering questions.
Overall, evaluations of computer tutorials in science have produced very
favorable results. Effects on test scores in most studies were large enough
to be considered educationally meaningful, and tutoring effects on student
attitudes were even more notable.
Computer Simulations
Computer simulations provide science students with theoretical or simplified
models of real-word phenomena and invite students to change features of
the models so that they can observe the results. Science teachers use
simulations in a variety of ways. They can use them to prepare students
for future learning, or they can use them to supplement or replace other
expositions on a topic. For example, a teacher might use a simulated frog
dissection as a preparation for an actual dissection or as a substitute
for the dissection. Science teachers can also use simulations to help
students integrate facts, concepts, and principles that they learned separately.
Many science educators consider simulation programs to be a real advance
over tutorial programs because simulation programs seem to focus on higher-level
instructional objectives. James A. Kulik (2003) also reviewed reports
on use of computer simulations in science teaching. In most of the studies,
he found positive effects on student learning from the use of the simulations.
In studies by Huppert and Lazarowitz, (2002), we see student achievement
scores with computer simulations consistently beating out students without
simulations. This is a great argument for technology, but in the background,
the teacher still sits helping direct and explain concepts to the students.
These three studies by Huppert and Lazarovitz (1993, 1998, 2002) show
how a computer program can be used as a tool to help raise student achievement.
All 3 studies were set up identical and all three had the same results.
This brings us to a conclusion that computer-assisted instruction does
increase student achievement.
Partnership with Business
With the NCLB Report to the Nation (2001), President Bush suggests that
schools partner with business in an effort to increase effectiveness of
computer instruction in science. Many companies have stepped up to the
plate, including Apple Computers, Inc., which has been working with education
since the onset of the computer age.
In 1997, Apple Computer has suggested many different possibilities of
marrying approaches to teaching science using technology. Some of the
opportunities are networking, portable technology, visual almanac, and
science learning networks.
Advances in networking are becoming more applicable in education. A multi-media
bulletin board allows experts and learners to collaborate over the internet.
Students can ask questions and share observations directly to experts
via streaming digital video.
Computer equipment is becoming more portable these days. It allows students
to take equipment out into the field to record data, go back to analyse
and evaluate the data and then synthesize it into a presentation and develop
their own ideas. Students can evolve their own theory based on their own
data collection.
Multimedia Immersion
In more recent studies, (Dimitrov 2002, & Trindade, 2002) students
did well when immersed in a multimedia rich environment where technology
plays a large role. In these studies, teachers still worked and helped
their students’ progress. This quote typifies the articles:
“…schools should move beyond questions of whether technology is effective. Instead, they should be investigating how to use technology effectively in the classroom...” (Dimitrov 2002)
The hypotheses of the two groups were similar in focusing on achievement
using a type of technology. The study by Dimitrov (2002) focused on achievement
using advanced or less advanced technology. The study by Trindade (2002)
debated over the best use between two different types of technology to
help students visualize abstract concepts. The focus of these studies
was not just whether or not to use the technology, but how to use it effectively
to increase student achievement in science assessments.
The methodology ranged in these groups, but shared some characteristics.
All had a pre-test and a post-test that they designed themselves. The
groups also shared experimental design in their studies. They manipulated
the variables with their subjects to measure the outcome through a series
of tests.
The results of the studies were a mixed bag. The study by Dimitrov (2002)
found students scored higher on assessments in a cooperative group setting
using advanced technology. The study by Trindade, (2002) he found that
more advanced technology did not have as much effect as they thought.
In the study by Dimitrov (2002), groups that were in a traditional setting
did well in the final assessment, signaling value in a certified, experienced
instructor leading students in using technology.
In conclusion, these studies are a valuable asset to the use of technology
in the classroom. With the wide range of technology available at this
time, there are endless possibilities to explore. More studies need to
be done on the efficient use of technology for instructional purposes,
and we are heading in that direction.