Exploring the perceptions of 16 Science and technology teachers in Pennsylvania about computer based instruction affecting academic achievement

and problem solving behaviors of students

Perceptions of Computer Based Instruction

4/19/2014 Kimberly Hanslovan

Abstract: The aim of this study is to assess practicing teachers attitudes toward computer integration and the effects it has on student achievement and their problem solving skills. This study will involve 16 teachers assessing the effects of computer-based instruction on students academic achievement and problem solving skills. Teachers involved will be full time science teachers at a conveniently sampled school district in Western Pennsylvania. This study will be based on the results of a Likert survey used to evaluate teachers perceptions of computer integration. The analysis will include mean scores, ranges, frequencies, and standard deviations. This research will be limited to a very small sample and may not translate to a larger population. I would recommend further research based on a larger, more diverse sample that includes elementary teachers as well as other subjects.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Abstract... 2 List of Figures .... 5

Chapters I. INTRODUCTION Review of Literature6 Need for Study.............6-7 Research Foundation....6-7 Description of Terms.......8 Purpose ....8 Theoretical Support......9 Research Question and Hypothesis.............9 II. METHODS Subjects...........................9-10 Materials...............10-11 Instrumentation/ Measurement......................11 Procedures..........12 Validity.....................12-13 III. RESULTS Data Reduction and Tabulation.....................14 Tables and Figures................14-15 Descriptive Statistics......................14 Formal Analysis ................................................................................................................15 Research Question ........................13 IV. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION General Comments...............15-16 Limitations of Study..................16 Conclusion.........................................................................................................................16 Theoretical Support..................16-17 Implications of Study.....................17
3

V. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH.............................................. 17 VI. REFERENCES........................ VI. Appendix......................................................................................................................

LIST OF FIGURES Figures 1. Box Plot: Positive Responses, Negative Responses Tables 1. Table 1 : Descriptive Statistics 2. Table 2 : Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test: Negative Responses

I.

Introduction:

The United States Department of Education is advocating the use of technology in all subject areas. However, literature indicates that science teachers are not using technology for learning and teaching science. The results of recent surveys (The Teaching, Learning and Computing Survey (1998), the 1999 National Survey of Teachers Use of Digital Content, and the 2000 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education) suggest that science teachers are not using technology as recommended by state and national standards. During the last two decades, there has been a strong push in the US for educational reform of Science, Technology, Education and Mathematics (STEM). However, these reforms have not found exclusively positive responses among teachers. (Witz & Lee, 2009) The following statement by Tobin, Tippins and Gallard (1994) (as cited in Lumpe, Haney, & Czerniak, 2000) provide evidence that teacher perceptions are vital to classroom behavior. Future research should seek to enhance our understanding of the relationships between teacher beliefs and science education reform. Many of the reform attempts of the past have ignored the role of teacher beliefs in sustaining the status quo. The studies reviewed in this section suggest that teacher beliefs are a critical ingredient in the factors that determine what happens in classrooms. (p. 64) As defined in Oguz Serins 2011-research study, the use of computers in the teaching and learning activities is defined as Computer-Based Instruction (CBI). CBI enables the students to learn by self-evaluating and reflecting on their learning process. CBI motivates children to learn better by providing them with the immediate feedback and reinforcement and by creating an exciting and interesting game-like atmosphere. In this same study, a statistically significant increase was found in the achievements and problem solving skills of the students that received computer-based science and technology instruction. Durham Public Schools define academic achievement as The level of actual accomplishment or proficiency one has achieved in an academic area, as opposed to one's potential Reed (2000) defines problem-solving as a mental process that involves discovering, analyzing and solving problems. The ultimate goal of problem solving is to overcome obstacles and find a solution that best resolves the issue.

According to Lunts (2002) Each year, a substantial portion of educational institutions budgets are allocated to supporting the integration of computers into instruction under the assumption that computers benefit teaching and learning and can improve student academic performances. However, it cannot be assumed that once technology tools are available, faculty will necessarily embrace and integrate them into their classroom instruction. There is a call for evidence regarding the validation of the massive investments into technology resources (Oppenheimer, 2003). Studies have found that, computer related technologies are having a profound influence on the way teachers instruct and students learn in the classroom. (Tanveer, Azeem, Maqbool, & Tahirkheli, 2011). To counteract, Thomas (2001) argues that still little is known about the computer use in science classrooms and its effects on students learning.

The study, The effects of the computer-based instruction on the achievement and problem solving skills of the science and technology students (Serin, 2011) set out to test the effects of the use of CBI technology and its results served to complete the other studies done on CBI. It was revealed that the findings obtained from the results of the pre and post tests administered at the end of the computer-based science and technology instruction program revealed that there was a significant difference between the achievements and problem solving post test scores corrected according to the pretest scores of the experimental and control groups. (Serin, 2011) Multiple studies (Bayraktar, 2001; Brophy, 1999; Cepni, Tas, & Kose, 2006; T) have been conducted that found the similar results stating CBI has a positive effect on student achievement and problem solving skills. However, there are limited studies about teachers perceptions of CBI. Taking the lead from these articles, the purpose of this study is to evaluate teachers perceptions of using computer-based instruction. The two main questions this research aims to answered are, Do science teachers believe utilizing CBI will enhance students academic achievement? Do science teachers believe utilizing CBI will improve students problem solving skills?

The focus of this research is being placed on science education because science has many theoretical and abstract concepts, which are difficult to understand by students. Even though there are many studies on the effect of Computer based instruction on students academic achievement, there are few in science education. (Tekbiyik, A. and Akdeniz, A. R., 2010) It has
7

been found out that CBI serves to develop meta-cognitive skills in students and helps them to learn in a meaningful way instead of rote-memory learning as well as it enables them to increase their achievements (Renshaw & Taylor, 2000). Perhaps more than any other field, science teaching has benefited from the developments of computer technology (Ogunkola, 2008).

The use of technology in education provides the students with a more suitable environment to learn, serves to create interest and a learning centered-atmosphere, and helps increase the students motivation. Because of the rapid development of the information and communication technology, the use of computers in education has become inevitable. (Serin, 2011) Yet, the role of the teacher and the teachers beliefs about teaching must not be ignored if these recommendations will result in long-lasting changes in the classroom. (Lumpe, et al., 2000).

Description of Terms Computer-based Instruction The use of computers in the teaching and learning activities of students Academic Achievement The level of actual accomplishment or proficiency one has achieved in an academic area, as opposed to ones potential Problem Solving Behaviors A mental process that involves discovering, analyzing, and solving problems

Purpose The primary contribution of this study is to determine science teachers specific attitude toward CBI and the affects teachers believe it has on achievement scores and problem solving skills of students. This study allows a comparison of the relative influence teachers perceptions have on the actual use of computer-based technology. This study will help school administrators justify the expense of technology in the classroom and identify possible inhibitions to a teachers use of computer-based instruction.

Theoretical Support The theoretical basis of the study derives from Fishbein and Ajzens (1985) Theory of Reasoned Action as described by Shiue (2007). This theory suggests that a persons specific attitude toward a behavior can be expected to predict that behavior. The aim of this study is to determine science teachers specific attitude toward CBI and the affects it has on achievement scores and problem solving skills of students. This determination may lead to further studies that research the predictive nature of these attitudes on classroom implementation. According to this theory, if teachers attitudes are found to be positive, they will embrace the usage of computers in their instruction.

Question and Hypothesis Question: Will there be more positive than negative Likert survey responses from a conveniently sampled group of 16 conveniently sampled science and technology teachers in one conveniently sampled school district in Pennsylvania about the effects science and technology computer-based instruction has on students academic achievement and problem solving behaviors? Hypothesis: There will be more positive than negative Likert survey responses from a conveniently sampled group of 16 conveniently sampled science and technology teachers in one conveniently sampled school district in Pennsylvania about the effects science and technology computer-based instruction has on students academic achievement and problem solving behaviors.

II. Method An online anonymous survey was used to explore practicing science and technology teachers perceptions of the influence computer-based instruction has on their students achievement score and problem solving skills. Participants were emailed an invitation to participate in the study providing a link to an online survey. Subjects- The subjects chosen for this study were done so by convenient sampling at a local public school district. The participants were limited to science educators who are currently full

time employees at either the middle or high schools of a conveniently sampled school district. This school district was chosen due its close proximity to the researcher. All science and technology teachers at this school district were asked to participate in the survey. In order to avoid the effects of the gender variable, the researcher was unaware of the gender of the teachers asked to participate. There were 27 participants asked to complete to the survey during the 2013-2014 school year. Sixteen responses were received. This study focused on the inclusion of technology in science education in the middle and high school levels. The results of the surveys did not include names. The criterion that was asked was subject area, year experience, gender, and frequency of computer use. All other information was protected. The non-random sampling of the school district may have some effect on the external validity of this study. However, the subjects were selected randomly after the factor of certification area was taken into consideration. In the instruction portion of the survey, it was asked that each teacher fill in their survey with their own responses however, the interactivity of the subjects was not limited in any way. All threats to internal validity were controlled; the survey was given over the medium of a computer and the teachers were asked to complete the survey within two weeks. After this period, the survey was redistributed to the same teachers in an effort to solicit more responses.

MaterialsThe materials for this study were in the form of a Likert scale survey. A Google Form was used to construct and distribute the survey. A cover letter was created, reviewed and edited before distribution via email that had the link to the online survey. This survey asked questions pertaining to four general objectives and consisted of approximately eight specific objectives per category. The general objectives are as follows1. What are the teachers of Dubois school districts perceptions of using technology in the classroom? (Helpful or Harmful) 2. What ways do they use technology in the classroom (Instruction, animation, presentation, or review)

10

3. Do you see improvement in achievement scores that correlates to computer based instruction 4. Do you see improvement in problem solving skills that correlates to computer based instruction The questionnaire and cover letter were attractive, brief, and easy to respond. These items were pretested in a pilot study consisting of three teaching professionals who have had prior experience teaching at the middle and high school levels. The opinions of these professionals were encouraged. In order to administer the survey, a list of current science teachers in Dubois School district and their e-mail address was obtained. Permission was granted by the super intendant, director of human resources and the head principles of both schools to administer the survey.

Instrumentation/Measurement The 38 item Likert Survey was tested for its appropriateness to the study during a pilot test. The main concepts that were tested during the pilot study were face validity, content validity and inter-rater reliability. Revisions were made based on the opinions of the experts that were involved in the pilot study. Six of the questions were demographic questions. 32 of the question asked individuals to respond to a series of statements by indicating whether he or she strongly agrees (5), agrees (4), in undecided (3), disagrees (2) or strongly disagrees (1). The researcher constructed the survey so that it was calibrated for the population sampled. The instructions were located at the top of the survey to ensure each subject received the same instructions. The survey was presented over email and the testing environment was not controlled beyond the scope of a computer and the survey form. The participants had the ability to complete the survey anywhere there was an internet connection. Once the survey was completed, the Cronbachs Coefficient Alpha = 0.7790 confirmed internal consistency. In an effort to control experimenter bias, a computer was used to give the survey and collect the survey data. There was no researcherthe survey strictly adhered to participant interaction and procedure protocol.

Procedures
11

The use of a Likert Survey for this study was appropriate because such surveys are most commonly used to provide degrees in attitudes and behaviors. The researcher assessed teachers attitudes toward computer-based instruction. Step-by- step process 1. Permission to contact schoolteachers was obtained from the director of human resources via a descriptive email and a follow up phone conversation. The director of human resources contacted the superintendent and school principles on my behalf. 2. Creation of Likert Survey (using Google Forms) and cover letter was completed based on exploration of similar surveys and cover letters 3. Likert Survey and cover letter were pretested by teaching professionals via face to face interactions 4. Survey and letter were edited according to the professionals suggestions 5. Survey and cover letter were distributed to the lead science teachers (advised by the director human resources) of at both schools who then distributed the survey and cover letter on my behalf to all other science and technology teachers 6. Due to limited responses 12 out of 27, the researcher asked the lead teachers to readminister the survey to the same teachers. In the end 16 teachers responded for a 59% response rate. The final sample included teachers who ranged in years of teaching experience from 3 to 15+ years. 7. An appropriate amount of data was received and organized via Google Forms and counting of positive vs. negative responses. 8. Data manipulations included, transferring survey answers into spreadsheet for analysis, counting positive vs. negative responses, creating tables and graphs for visual representation and using measures of central tendency to make inferences and conclusions about data. This procedure reduced the threats to internal validity as follows

Threats to internal validity: A. history There was a two-week period between the time the survey was administered and the survey deadline. This generally short time frame limits the threat of history.
12

B. maturation - The participants chosen for this study were all adults who presumably have undergone biological changes. The short timeframe of this research will also reduce this threat. C. pretesting - There was no threat of pre-testing causing improved performance in this study. D. mortality The threat of mortality was very real to this study. The researcher limited this effect by allowing additional surveys to be administered due to low participation. These additional surveys did not affect results of the study. E. Hawthorne effect - The explicit explanation that these results were anonymous, remained completely confidential and in no way affected the teachers, reduced the threat of the Hawthorne effect. It was also explained that the selection of participants was completely random and it in no way was a reflection of teaching style. F. Interaction of any of the above The threat to internal validity that was not mentioned but was being strongly controlled was teachers who were randomly selected and do not participate in e-mail use will be mailed a paper survey with a pre-paid stamp so their survey can be included.

13

III. Results: Data Reduction and Tabulation Tables and Figures

Figure 1. Shows the difference between number of positive and negative responses.
Boxplot of Postive Responses, Negative Responses
25

20

15

Data

10

0 Postive Responses Negative Responses

Descriptive Statistics: Table 1: Descriptive Statistics: Positive Responses, Negative Responses Variable N N* Mean SE Mean StDev Minimum Q1 1 0 13.27 5.27 1.71 1.54 6.63 5.97 5.00 0.00 Median Q3 20.00 8.00

Positive Responses 15 Negative Responses 15

6.00 12.00 2.00 2.00

Variable Positive Responses

Maximum 23.00

14

Formal Analysis: The following is a formal analysis for the significance of the difference in medians between the number of positive responses and the number of negative responses. Table 2: Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test: Negative Responses Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test: Negative Responses Test of median = 12.00 versus median not = 12.00 N for N Negative Responses 15 Test 15 Wilcoxon Statistic 7.0 P 0.003 Estimated Median 3.000

Research Question and Hypothesis Will there be more positive than negative Likert survey responses from a conveniently sampled group of 16 conveniently sampled science and technology teachers in one conveniently sampled school district in Pennsylvania about the effects science and technology computer-based instruction has on students academic achievement and problem solving behaviors? Hypothesis: There will be more positive than negative Likert survey responses from a conveniently sampled group of 16 conveniently sampled science and technology teachers in one conveniently sampled school district in Pennsylvania about the effects science and technology computer-based instruction has on students academic achievement and problem solving behaviors.

IV. Discussion and Conclusions:

General Comments: The topic of this study is an area of concern for school districts when justifying the expense of technology in the classroom. The object was to assess practicing teachers attitudes toward computer integration and the effects it has on student achievement and problem solving
15

behaviors. The major finding of this study was that more teachers responded positively about how computer-based instruction is helping students with their achievement scores and their problem solving skills. The hypothesis was that there would be more positive than negative Likert Survey responses about the effects science and technology computer-based instruction has on students academic achievement and problem solving behaviors. This hypothesis was supported.

Limitations of Study: The major limitation of this study was the population sample size. One rural school district was used in the study, restricted further by including only science and technology teacher grades 612. The researcher could have evaluated any number of school districts seeing that the survey was delivered over the internet with no other narrowing factor. Because the sample size was small, the standard error of mean was increased. Another limitation of the study was the Likert Scale used. Many teachers responses were neither negative nor positive as they chose option 3 or undecided. These responses were insignificant to this study and were thrown out. In addition, as research suggests, more often than not, people do not strongly agree or disagree with a question, limiting the responses to the survey. If a simple agree or disagree survey was administered the results would be more significant.

Conclusion: As evident in the Figure 1, there appears to be a significant difference between positive and negative responses. There are two outliers evident in this box plot suggesting two of the practicing teachers look at computer based instruction negatively. Table 2 describes the formal analysis for the significant of the difference in medians between the number of positive responses and the number of negative responses. As evident in this table, there were significantly more positive than negative responses.

Theoretical Support: As we continue in the 21st century, technology use is becoming more prevalent in all aspects of daily life. Schools are investing in those technologies in an attempt to make student
16

knowledgeable of their vast capabilities. In order to justify the expense of technology, it is important that we look at how those technologies are being used in schools. This studys aim was to gather information about the way teachers perceive technology and how technology affects students achievement and problem solving skills. Use of technology in the classroom by trained faculty leads to increased student achievement, closes achievement gaps, and decreases dropout rates (ISTE, 2008). Using computer-based instruction makes it easier to differentiate instruction and enables students to monitor their own progress. Other studies (Baylor &Ritchie, 2002; Reynolds & Morgan, 2001) have looked into the effects of teacher perception of technology on student achievement however; they did not focus solely on science and technology classrooms.

Implications of Study: The results were there were significantly more positive surveys than negative surveys; therefore, the hypothesis is supported. The study actually showed us that teachers agree that computer based instruction helps students with their problem solving skills and achievement scores. This means that schools investments in computer-based technologies have not been met with opposition by the science and technology teachers surveyed. As stated above, teacher beliefs are a critical ingredient in the factors that determine what happens in the classroom.

V. Recommendations for Future Research: It is recommended that a broader population be sampled in future research. The results from this study cannot be perceived true in other school districts or other grade levels or subjects. Science and technology were chosen because they have many theoretical and abstract concepts, however subjects such as history and math would be worthy of evaluation in terms of problem solving skills and achievement scores. It is also recommended that the survey used be altered to included only responses of agree or disagree. This would diminish insignificant responses and give a more accurate result. A final recommendation would be to implement a computer-based instruction lesson and compare students achievement scores with their classmates who did not participate in a computer-based lesson. This study would provide concrete evidence for implementing computer-based technology.

17

V. References Abbreviations and Glossary Durham Public Schools. (n.d.). Front Page Durham Public Schools. Retrieved May 5, 2013, from http://www.dpsnc.net/about-dps/abbreviationsand-glossary Baylor A. L., Ritchie D. (2002). What factors facilitate teacher skill, teacher morale, and perceived student learning in technology-using classrooms? Computers & Education, 39, 395. Available from EBSCOhost. Bayraktar, . (2001). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of computer assisted instruction in science education. The Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34 (2), 173-188

Becker, H.J. & Anderson, R.E. (1998) Teaching, learning and computing: 1998, A national survey of school and teachers describing their best practices, teaching philosophies, and uses of technology.

Brophy, A. K. (1999). Is computer-assisted instruction effective in the science classroom? Unpublished Masters Thesis California State University, Dominguez Hills epni, S., TAS, E. & Kse, S. (2006). The effects of computer assisted materials on students cognitive levels, misconceptions and attitude toward science. Computers and Education, 46, 192-205. Hakverdi-Can, M. & Dana, T.M. (2012). Exemplary science teachers' use of technology. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology. 11, 94-112 International Society for Technology in Education. (2008). ISTE policy briefTechnology and student achievementThe indelible link. Retrieved fromhttp://www.iste.org/content/navigationmenu/advocacy/policy/policy.htm Lumpe, A. T., Haney, J. J., & Czerniak, C. M. (2000). Assessing Teachers' Beliefs About Their Science Teaching Context. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(3), 275-292.
18

Lunts, E. (2002) What does the literature say about the effectiveness of learner control in computer-assisted instruction? Electronic Journal for the Integration of technology in Education, 1, 59-75. Muslu Kaygisiz, G., Baglibel, M., & Sanabcuiglu, M. (2011). Computer use of science teachers and their attitudes toward computer supported teaching: A sample from turkey. Journal of Turkish Science Education. 8, 78-90. Ogunkola, B. J. (2008). Computer attitude ownership and use as predictors of computer literacy of science teachers in Nigeria. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 3 (2), 53-57. Oppenheimer, T. (1997). The computer delusion. The Atlantic Monthly, 280, 45-62. zmen, H. (2008). The influence of computer-assisted instruction on students conceptual understanding of chemical bonding and attitude toward chemistry: A case for Turkey. Computers & Education, 51 (1), 423-438. Reed, S. K. (2000). Problem solving. In A. E. Kazdin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology 8, 71 75. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association and Oxford University Press.

Renshaw, C. E., & Taylor, H. A. (2000). The educational effectiveness of computer-based instruction. Computers and Geosciences, 26, 677-682. Reynolds C., Morgan B. A. (2001). Teachers perceptions of technology in-service: A case study. Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education, 2001, 982-986. Roblyer, M.D. & Edwards, J. (2000) Integrating educational technology into teaching. Upper Saddle River, NJ., Merriell Prentice Hall.

19

Serin, O. (2011). The effects of the computer-based instruction on the achievements and problem solving skills of the science and technology students. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology. 10, 183-201. Shiue, Y. (2007). Investigating The Sources Of Teachers' Instructional Technology Use Through The Decomposed Theory Of Planned Behavior. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36(4), 425-453. Tanveer, A.M., Muhammad, A., Iqbal, A., Azeem, M., Maqbool, S., & Tahirkheli, S.A. (2011). Attitude of mathematics teachers related to the use of computer technology in the classroom. The International Journal of Learning. 18, 278-290. Tekbiyik, A., Akdeniz, A.R. (2010). A meta-analytical investigation of the influence of computer assisted instruction on achievement in science.. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning & Teaching. 11 (2), 1-22. Thomas, G.P. (2001). Toward effective computer use in high school science education: Where to from here? Education and Information Technologies, 6(1), 29-41. Tobin, K., Tippins, D.J., Gallard, A.J. (1994) Research on instructional strategies for teaching science. In D.L. Gebel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (4593.) New York: Macmillian. Witz, K., & Lee, H. (2009). Science As An Ideal: Teachers' Orientations To Science And Science Education Reform. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 41(3), 409-431.

20

VI. Appendix A Survey

Teachers and Technology

Technology is a term used for computer based instruction (laptop, desktop, tablet, smartphone) * Required I am Male Female Prefer not to answer Teaching experience > 2 years 3-7 years 8-15 years 15+ years Prefer not to answer I teach * Choose one Biology Chemistry Physics Computer Science Physical Science I would describe my skill using technology as Non-technology user Beginner Confident Able to teach others My students use computer based technology 3-4 times a year Once a month Once a week

21

Once a day When students use technology in my classroom they usually work Individually In pairs In small groups Students do not use technology

Teacher's Perceptions of Technology

Answer honestly on a scale of 1 - 5 Strongly disagree, disagree, undecided, agree, strongly agree I value computer based instruction as an important part of the curriculum

1 Strongly Disagree

5 Strongly Agree

I believe technology has improved my teaching ability

1 Strongly Disagree

5 Strongly Agree

Computer based instruction is a threat to my role as an educator.

1 Strongly Disagree

5 Strongly Agree

When students use computer based technology, plagiarism is a bigger problem

1 Strongly Disagree

5 Strongly Agree

Computer based technology makes it easier to teach a range of learners

1 Strongly Disagree

5 Strongly Agree

Students are less distracted when using computer based technology

1 Strongly Disagree

5 Strongly Agree

22

When using technology, students are more motivated to learn

1 Strongly Disagree

5 Strongly Agree

Computer based technology helps personalize instruction

1 Strongly Disagree

5 Strongly Agree

When using computer based instruction, students waste more time

1 Strongly Disagree

5 Strongly Agree

Utilizing Technology in the Classroom

I prefer to work with traditional teaching methods (books, worksheets, videos)

1 Strongly Disagree

5 Strongly Agree

I use technology as a way to reinforce what I already taught

1 Strongly Disagree

5 Strongly Agree

Students lack of computer skills keeps me from using more technology

1 Strongly Disagree

5 Strongly Agree

Computer based technology is best used as a reward for good behavior

1 Strongly Disagree

5 Strongly Agree

If I had more training in computer based instruction I would use it more often

23

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

When using computer based instruction, there are more discipline problems in the classroom

1 Strongly Disagree

5 Strongly Agree

Students opinions of technology affect my decision to use it

1 Strongly Disagree

5 Strongly Agree

I would like to use more technology but it is inaccessible

1 Strongly Disagree

5 Strongly Agree

Technology and Achievement Scores

Computer based technology helps assess students knowledge

1 Strongly Disagree

5 Strongly Agree

When using computer based technology, students show a higher level of learning

1 Strongly Disagree

5 Strongly Agree

The more students use computer based technology, the higher their grades will be

1 Strongly Disagree

5 Strongly Agree

Computer based instruction has deepened my students understanding of course material

1 Strongly Disagree

5 Strongly Agree

Students ask more questions when using technology

24

1 Strongly Disagree

5 Strongly Agree

The more time students spend using computer based technology, the better they understand the material

1 Strongly Disagree

5 Strongly Agree

Computer based instruction has improved my students test scores.

1 Strongly Disagree

5 Strongly Agree

I am skeptical about the ability of computer based instruction to improve student learning

1 Strongly Disagree

5 Strongly Agree

Technology and Problem Solving Skills

Technology has made students more creative thinkers

1 Strongly Disagree

5 Strongly Agree

Computer based instruction has improved students strategizing skills

1 Strongly Disagree

5 Strongly Agree

Computer based technology helps students sustain focus on specific tasks

1 Strongly Disagree

5 Strongly Agree

Computer based technology has improved students problem solving skills

1 Strongly Disagree

5 Strongly Agree

Computer based instruction has improved students organization

25

1 Strongly Disagree

5 Strongly Agree

Computer based instruction has improved students resourcefulness

1 Strongly Disagree

5 Strongly Agree

Computer based instruction has improved my students ability to monitor their own progress

1 Strongly Disagree

5 Strongly Agree

26

VI. Appendix B Cover Letter

February 26, 2014 Dear Science and Technology Teachers: My name is Kimberly Hanslovan and I am a graduate student at Clarion University. For my graduate research project, I am examining teachers perceptions of computer-based instruction and its effects on technology use in the classroom. Because you are a science or technology teacher at DuBois Area School District, I am inviting you to participate in this research study by completing the attached survey. The following questionnaire will require approximately ten minutes to complete. There is no compensation for responding nor is there any known risk. In order to ensure that all information will remain confidential, please do not include your name. Copies of the project will be provided to my Clarion University instructor and may be viewed by you after completion. If you choose to participate in this project, please answer all questions as honestly as possible and complete the survey via the link to Google forms. Participation is strictly voluntary and you may refuse to participate at any time. You will find the survey by following this link https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1luDIC1HBTtFcg6W6CHteich88V5cC6AH1iDOfu 0cPz0/viewform

Thank you for taking the time to assist me in my educational endeavors. The data collected will provide useful information regarding technology usage in the science classroom. If you would like a summary copy of this study, please complete the Request for Information Form and return it to me via email. Completion and return of the questionnaire will indicate your willingness to participate in this study. If you require additional information or have questions, please contact me at the number or email listed below.

27

If you are not satisfied with the manner in which this study is being conducted, you may report (anonymously if you so choose) any complaints to the graduate program coordinator, Dr. Bruce Smith. 814-393- 2646 or at bsmith@clarion.edu Sincerely, Kimberly Hanslovan Masters in Education- ITS Candidate k.s.hanslovan@eagle.clarion.edu 814-541-1839

Instructor: Dr. Jonathan Brown jbrown@clarion.edu

****************************************************************************** *************** Request for Information Please send a copy of the study results to the address listed below. Name: Address: Please do not return this form with your survey. Return to: Kimberly Hanslovan k.s.hanslovan@eagle.clarion.edu

28

VI. Appendix C School Approval

29

Comments:

30