stu.westga.edustu.westga.edu/...litreviewresearchproject_kak.docx · web viewthe purpose of this...

Running head: TEACHING AND LEARNING IN A TECHNOLOGY RICH CLASS 1

Teaching and Learning in a Technology Rich Classroom

Kathryn A. Kilkenny

University of West Georgia

TEACHING AND LEARNING IN A TECHNOLOGY RICH CLASS 2

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to review current literature regarding teaching and learning with

technology. The following research questions guided this study:

1. What tools are available for effective teaching with technology?

2. How are these tools implemented?

3. What are the barriers to implementing technology? Through the review of current

literature regarding types of technology and their influence on student achievement, conclusions

are made regarding best practices for the successful use of technology in the classroom. The

future research section discusses two areas in need of further study. These areas include the

relationship between active-engagement and the use of technology, and the relationship between

teacher technical knowledge and student success.


Teaching and Learning in a Technology Rich Classroom

The purpose of this paper is to review current literature regarding teaching and learning

in a technology rich environment. The following research questions guided this study:

1. What tools are available for effective teaching with technology?

2. How are these tools implemented?

3. What are the barriers to implementing technology?

There has been an increase in demand for the use of technology within the classroom, and

finding ways to use technology in a productive and suitable way is a struggle for many educators

(Tolentino et al., 2009). As shared by Murphey, Miller, and Roberts (2009) using technology is

not new, but the amount of new technologies available to educators has changed dramatically in

recent years. These technologies have become more flexible, more adaptable, and more portable

than ever before (Murphey et al., 2009). Many research studies have shown the effectiveness of a

technology integrated classroom over a traditional classroom in the presentation and retention of

instructional material (Akcay & Yager & Akcay, 2008, 2010; Doppelt, Mehalik, Schunn, Silk, &

Krysinski, 2008; Li, 2010; Marino, 2009; Rosen, 2009). To this end, it is important educators

stay abreast of current technologies, their implementation, and their effectiveness within their

own classroom environments. This paper begins with the discussion of current technologies and

their successes or failures. The future research section discusses two areas for further research

regarding the effectiveness of technology implementation.

Research Methodology

Research for this paper was conducted through searches of ERIC, EBSCO Host,

Academic Search Premier, Google, and Google Scholar. The main search descriptors included

technology, science, middle school, qualitative research, and quantitative research. These

descriptors were used in association with relevant terms such as websites, internet, pod-casting,


social media, student centered instruction, direct instruction, iPod, and design-based learning.

These search methods turned up hundreds of possible articles for review, and abstracts were

thoroughly investigated for relevant material. From the original sample, 25 articles were read in

their entirety, and 15 of the most relevant papers were chosen for this review.

Results

The findings regarding technology tools used in this literature review are arranged in

three categories. Basic technology tools commonly used by the general public make up the first

category. The second category includes intermediate tools easily obtained and used by teachers

or public persons with average technical abilities. The final category, advanced tools, is

comprised of complicated and/or highly expensive tools not readily available to educators or the

general public. It should be noted that these categories were determined by the author of this

paper who is highly aware and well versed in technologies available to schools. Therefore,

category definitions should be seen merely as an organizational tool and not as a definitive

grouping.

Basic Technology Tools

Fancovicova, Prokop, and Usak (2010) investigated the use of website information versus

traditional text information. Using a website containing biology information coinciding with the

current text information, the authors discussed the advantages and disadvantages to using the

World Wide Web as a tool in the classroom (Fancovicova et al., 2010). Using websites for

biology instruction had several advantages such as avoiding the ethical questions of animal

dissection and increasing positive attitudes towards biology (Fancovicova et al., 2010). However,

the website used as a strictly informational reading tool was found to have no advantages in

knowledge gained when compared to the traditional textbook (Fancovicova et al., 2010).


Marcia Mardis (2005) explored the relationship between audio visual tools available in

the middle school library to the advancement of science literacy. Using a teacher survey, it was

found that audio/visual technologies had a significant influence on student achievement and

literacy (Mardis, 2005). The main findings indicate topic-specific videos which integrate well

with the science curriculum helped increase student interest in science and provided teachers

with a rich source of information (Mardis, 2005).

Intermediate Technology Tools

Murphey et al. (2009) described iPods and their podcasts as an advantageous tool for

disseminating audio content in a portable and flexible manner. These handy tools can be used to

cut through the large body of text available on the Internet and in textbooks (Murphey et al.,

2009). Podcasts can be especially useful in distance education as they add a personal touch to

the information and many students expressed a higher feeling of connection to the distance

learning community (Murphey et al., 2009). The increasing availability and use among students

of mobile media devices, especially the iPod, showed promising possibilities for use in education

(Murphey et al., 2009).

Rosen (2009) found that the use of BrainPOP, an animation based software, showed

promise especially in helping younger students to perform “near” transfer of knowledge in the

learning environment. BrainPOP was also seen as a highly motivational tool for younger students

(Rosen, 2009). This technology is an internet based application purchased by individual teachers

or a school system. It includes short informational animations with two consistent characters,

short assessments based on the video, supplemental informational texts, and topics for further

study (Rosen, 2009).


Smith, Draper, and Sabey (2005) investigated the use of WebQuests as an instructional

tool to support student learning in a problem-based learning environment. WebQuests have been

seen as important educational tools, because they require collaborative groups to solve problems

using real-world issues (Smith et al., 2005). WebQuests are generally created in a Microsoft

Word or HTML format and include several sections (introduction, task, list of information

sources, process description, guided questions, evaluation method, and conclusion). Smith et al.

(2005) discovered students enjoyed this problem solving approach to science learning, and gains

were seen in the ability of students to discuss science issues in a productive, educated manner.

Although seen as a highly structured approach to problem solving, students were able to apply

the skills learned to less structured, more independent work (Smith et al., 2005).

Advanced Technology Tools

SMALLab is a mixed-reality software that integrates physical manipulation, 3D physical

gestures, and a digitally expressed interface (Tolentino et al., 2009). Tolentino et al. (2009)

describe the highly interactive and collaborative nature of this software as some of the most

positive features for the classroom. This technology was seen as exceedingly helpful in

knowledge acquisition especially in the physics classroom, because students are able to see, hear,

and feel during complex simulations (Tolentino et al., 2009). Physically, the SMALLab includes

many complex features such as floor sensing mats, video projectors, surround sound audio

speakers, and several tracked physical objects (Tolentino et al., 2009).

Interactive whiteboards (IWBs) are computer linked systems which include the use of a

projector and a large touch-sensitive electronic board (Kershner, Mercer, Warwick, & Staarman,

2010). Kershner et al. (2010) investigated the relationship between the use of IWBs by students

in a semi-autonomous manner and their classroom talk and learning. It was found that the


novelty of working with the IWB was highly motivational to students and increased their level of

talk (Kershner et al., 2010). High levels of sharing were also observed, because the board only

allowed one movement at a time (Kershner et al., 2010). However, one drawback of this tool was

the complexity which tended to frustrate some students (Kershner et al., 2010).

Game building offers new opportunities for students to engage in learning through the

creation of active learning roles (Li, 2010). Students involved in game building not only learned

simple programming, but were provided a vehicle for creative expression (Li, 2010). Li (2010)

explains that due to the advancement of Web 2.0 technologies students as young as 7 can be

involved in the digital game building process without any need for advanced programming

language. Although the body of research is small, game building shows promise as a medium to

emotionally engage students in an exciting learning environment (Li, 2010).

Conclusion

Several available technologies range in complexity and price, but one overarching theme

is the high level of interest shown among students when using new technologies (Akcay et al.,

2010; Fancovicova et al., 2010; Kershner et al., 2010; Li, 2010; Marino, 2009; Murphrey et al.,

2009; Rosen, 2009; Tolentino et al., 2009; Yager & Akcay, 2008, 2008). In our quickly changing

society, technology has become a central theme in many peoples’ lives, and the need to reflect

this in our educational community is in great demand (Mesut et al., 2009; Bedgood, Murhrey, &

Dooley, 2008). More and more students come into the educational world already well versed in

many applications of technology. Educators must take time to implement these new and

advantageous tools to inform their students’ learning.

Technology offers a multitude of ways to execute well-studied educational strategies

such as design-based learning, student-centered approaches, and real-world applications. In these


approaches, students are required to apply knowledge to solve relevant problems found in their

community or possibly the world at large (Doppelt et al., 2008). The World Wide Web provides

many vehicles for researching problems, discussing problems with other group members, and

disseminating information in ways that are relevant to the modern student. The recent

advancement of Web 2.0 has opened new ways to use technology in the classroom (Ackay et al.,

2010).

One obstacle to the integration of technology involves the lack of teacher preparation and

experience. Murphrey et al. (2009) found that teachers often teach the way they were taught. The

implication of this assertion is that many experienced teachers may have no working knowledge

of technology. Therefore, they are less likely to use it in their classroom. Also, if they do not use

advanced technologies in their daily lives, they are less likely to implement them in their own

classrooms (Murphrey et al., 2009). On the other hand, new teachers are often taught technology

in an isolated course. Duran, Brunvand, and Fossum (2002) found teachers had trouble

translating these course materials into their subject area. With the many time demands placed on

new teachers, finding time to implement technology may be difficult. One way to ensure new

teachers have the proper tools is to provide them with many examples in various learning

environments (Duran et al., 2002). More importantly, these examples and tools should be

presented in a subject specific manner.

One disagreement found in this research was whether or not technology-based

applications help improve basic knowledge acquisition over basic textbook learning. Yager &

Akcay (2008) noted no substantial gains in student achievement between a technology-centered

approach and a direct-instruction approach. However, students in the technology approach

showed significantly higher abilities in applying science concepts (Yager & Akcay, 2008).


Akcay & Yager (2010) came to the same conclusion in later research with a larger sample.

Fancovicova et al. (2010) also found little noteworthy difference between web-based activities

and traditional textbook learning. On the other hand, Li (2010) found significant gains in

knowledge acquisition with groups involved in digital game building. Likewise, Rosen (2009)

found knowledge gains in students who participated in classes with BrainPOP animations.

Technology is an agent for change in education. It presents many new avenues for

implementing proven instructional strategies. However, technology does not eliminate poor

teaching methods. This research shows an inherent need for students to play an active role in

their knowledge acquisition. Students who read from a monitor instead of a textbook are not

likely to show a difference in knowledge gain, because they are essentially completing the same

tasks. However, when students are actively solving problems and creating their own knowledge,

they will show gains whether a computer is available or not. Technology does not replace good

teaching strategies; it simply provides an explosive new world of opportunities to implement

good teaching strategies.

Teacher knowledge, perception, and experience with different types of technologies also

influences the role technology plays within their classroom. Properly preparing new teachers and

properly engaging veteran teachers is an essential step in infusing more technology into the

classroom. Student engagement and interest in this medium is very apparent. Educators need to

put in the time and effort to provide these opportunities. With that said, it is also important that

stake holders and administrators recognize the time and effort needed to implement a new

technology. Through experience, educators will find the engagement level is well worth the

effort.


Future Research

Two questions for future research became apparent during this review. Further research

might include the following:

1. What is the relationship between the amount of time spent actively learning through

technology and student achievement on a knowledge acquisition test?

2. What is the relationship between an educator’s technology experience and student

success with technology-based learning?

The first question would use a quantitative research method, and the second question would

include a mixed-methods approach.

Due to the importance of state-based knowledge exams and their influence on teacher

evaluation, describing the relationship between technology and student acquisition of basic

knowledge would be an important study. For the first study, a good hypothesis might be written

as follows: Learners receiving more time actively engaged in technology-based learning will

show greater gains in academic achievement than learners who spend time actively engaged in

non-technology-based learning. This type of study would show the need for more monetary and

time investment in advanced technology. It would also show the need for technology-based

activities to be included in an active instead of passive learning environment.

The first research question could be addressed through pre- and post-tests in a unit of

study. For example, in a unit on cell parts, two different groups of students could be presented

with two different ways to acquire knowledge. After completing the pre-test, the study group

would research and create a game using technology to complete the project. The control group

would complete the same research through a textbook investigation and a craft-style game

creation. Both groups would present and play the games created by other students within their


class. In this study, both groups would be actively participating with the only variable being the

use of technology. Knowledge acquisition could then be assessed for both groups through a post-

test. Participants for this research study would include three to four middle school educators and

their classroom students. All teachers in the study would need to split their classes between the

control group and the study group. For example, one teacher would teach two classes through a

technology-based approach and two classes through a textbook, paper and pencil approach. This

may help cut down on differences in teaching styles and classroom management practices which

would impact test results. The testing instrument would need to be a basic knowledge test of cell

parts and their functions. A simple matching or multiple choice test would suffice. In this way,

the study would test basic knowledge gained. This study would have implications for how both

groups would perform on state-based tests, because these often test basic, subject knowledge.

The second research question would need to be investigated through a mixed-methods

approach combining both qualitative and quantitative data. First, to find participants, a survey

determining technology knowledge would need to be disseminated to a large group of teachers.

This survey could be graded on a five-point Likert scale with a rating of one used to indicate

little technology knowledge and a rating of five indicating a large body of technology

knowledge. The survey may also include questions that rate the amount of time spent with

technology in and out of the classroom; the average number of times a teacher utilizes computer-

lab situations; and the teacher’s comfort level with different types of technology. The researcher

would need to use non-biased questions that do not make the interviewee feel reluctant to be

honest about lack of technology knowledge or use. This would be the most difficult aspect of this

study, because many educators feel pressure to use technology.


Teachers should be randomly chosen for this study, and later comparisons could be made

between their level of technology experience and student feelings of success. Respondents need

to be willing to engage in a technology-based project and to report their findings by completing

post-surveys. Students would also be surveyed using a Likert scale concerning their own level of

technology knowledge and level of success or accomplishment they experience during the

project. Although it seems obvious students would encounter more success with an experienced

teacher, it may also be surprising how the students’ own knowledge of technology would subvert

some of the teacher’s inexperience.

As with most research, both of these studies would be more reliable with the largest

sample size possible including a diverse population of socio-economic status, age, and sex.

Extreme caution would need to be taken to preserve the anonymity of all participants. It would

also be important not to over generalize the study results in both instances. What may be found

for the group studied may not apply to all groups. For example, in the second study an area of

higher income families may find many successful students, because they have experience with

computers at home. However, students from lower income families may have minimal

experience with computers. Therefore, they may become overly frustrated by a teacher who also

lacks experience.

The need for further study into types of technology and the implementation of those

technologies is apparent. Studies will need to evolve and change as technology advances.

Unfortunately, technology seems to be moving much faster than researchers or educators can

study or implement new advances. Improvements in technology are a necessary and constant part

of society, and it is important that educators continue to adapt. As with the evolution of any

species, when things change, the species must adapt or become extinct.


References

Akcay, H., & Yager, R. E. (2010). The impact of a science/technology/society teaching approach

on student learning in five domains. Journal of Science Education and Technology,

19(6), 602-611. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Bedgood, L., Murphrey, T., & Dooley, K. E. (2008). A qualitative study of technology-based

training in organizations that hire agriculture and life sciences students. Journal of

Agricultural Education, 49(1), 39-50. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Doppelt, Y., Mehalik, M. M., Schunn, C. D., Silk, E., & Krysinski, D. (2008). Engagement and

achievements: a case study of design-based learning in a science context. Journal of

Technology Education, 19(2), 22-39. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Duran, M., Runvand, S., & Fossum, P. R. (2009). Preparing science teachers to teach with

technology: exploring a K-16 networked learning community approach. Turkish Online

Journal of Educational Technology - TOJET, 8(4), 21-42. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Fancovicova, J., Prokop, P., & Usak, M. (2010). Web-Site as an educational tool in biology

education: a case of nutrition issue. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 10(2),

907-921. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Kershner, R., Mercer, N., Warwick, P., & Kleine Staarman, J. (2010). Can the interactive

whiteboard support young children's collaborative communication and thinking in

classroom science activities?. International Journal of Computer-Supported

Collaborative Learning, 5(4), 359-383. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Li, Q. (2010). Digital game building: learning in a participatory culture. Educational Research,

52(4), 427-443. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Mardis, M. (2007). School libraries and science achievement: a view from michigan's middle

schools. School Library Media Research, 10Retrieved from EBSCOhost.


Marino, M. T. (2009). Understanding how adolescents with reading difficulties utilize

technology-based tools. Exceptionality, 17(2), 88-102. doi:10.1080/09362830902805848

Murphrey, T., Miller, K. A., & Roberts, T. (2009). Examining iPod use by texas agricultural

science and technology teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 50(4), 98-109.

Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Rosen, Y. (2009). The effects of an animation-based on-line learning environment on transfer of

knowledge and on motivation for science and technology learning. Journal of

Educational Computing Research, 40(4), 451-467. doi:10.2190/EC.40.4.d

Smith, L. K., Draper, R., & Sabey, B. L. (2005). The promise of technology to confront

dilemmas in teacher education: the use of webQuests in problem-based methods courses.

Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 21(4), 99-108. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Tolentino, L., Birchfield, D., Megowan-Romanowicz, C., Johnson-Glenberg, M. C., Kelliher, A.,

& Martinez, C. (2009). Teaching and learning in the mixed-reality science classroom.

Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(6), 501-517. Retrieved from

EBSCOhost.

Wright, V. H., Burnham, J. J., Inman, C. T., & Ogorchock, H. N. (2009). Cyberbullying: using

virtual scenarios to educate and raise awareness. Journal of Computing in Teacher

Education, 26(1), 35-42. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Yager, R. E., & Akcay, H. (2008). Comparison of student learning outcomes in middle school

science classes with an STS approach and a typical textbook dominated approach. RMLE

Online: Research in Middle Level Education, 31(7), 1-16. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

stu.westga.edustu.westga.edu/...litreviewresearchproject_kak.docx · web viewthe purpose of this...

Documents