Influential Factors in Modelling SPARK Science Learning System

Authors

  • Marie Paz E. Morales

Keywords:

Environmental Science; Technology Integration, Pedagogy

Abstract

The study is focused on the exploration of influential factors in
modelling PASCO-designed technology in science classes. Mixed
method was employed to critically explore how the SPARK Science
Learning System is meaningfully integrated into the teaching of selected
topics in Earth and Environmental Science. The SPARK Science learning
system is an all-in-one mobile device that integrates the power of probe
ware with inquiry-based content and assessment. It is a device that
includes a large, full-color display, finger-touch navigation and data
collection and analysis capabilities designed to become a discovery-based                                                                                                                          science learning environment. It provides both the teacher and the
students the embedded support for exploring science concepts. Results
show that there is a significant gain in student achievement with the
integration of SPARK Science learning system. Significant positive
correlation is observed between post-test and intrinsic motivation.
Correlation between post-test and evaluation and correlation between
intrinsic motivation and evaluation, however, posit non-statistically
significant correlation. Mapped advantages and disadvantages of using
the technology resulted to recurring themes for framework design of
using the SPARK Science Learning System to further institute its effect
in the curriculum as a precursor towards envisioning the 21st century
learning.

References

Brookhart, S.M., Walsh, J.M., & Zientarski, W.A. (2006). The Dynamics of Motivation and Efforts

for Classroom Assessments in Middle School Science and Social Studies. Applied Measurement in Education, 19(2), 151-184.

Clark, J. (2010). Best Practices Research Summary. Sun Associates 2010. Retrieved November 1,

from www.sun-associates.com

Floyd, K. et.al. (2008). Assistive Technology and Emergent Literacy for Preschoolers: A

Literature Review. Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits, 5(1), 92-102.

Gottfried, A. E. (1985). Academic Intrinsic Motivation in Elementary and Junior High School

Students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 631-635.

International Technology Education Association. (© 2003). Advancing Excellence in Technology

Literacy: Student Assessment, Professional Development, and Program Standards. Retrieved October 15, 2011from www.iteawww.org

Kellner, D. (2002). New Media and New Literacies: Restructuring Education for the New

Millennium. Retrieved March 4, 2012 from http://pages.gseis-ucla.edu/faculty/kellner.

Martin, A. J. (2006). The Relation between Teachers’ Perceptions of Student Motivation and

Engagement and Teachers’ Enjoyment of and Confidence in Teaching. Asia-Pacific Journal

of Teacher Education, 34, 73-93.

Mazer, J., Murphy, R., & Simonds, C. (2009). The Effects of Teacher Self-disclosure via Facebook

on Teacher Credibility. Learning, Media and Technology, 34(2), 175-183.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A new

framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record. 108(6), 1017-1054.

Palmer, D. (2005). A Motivational View of Constructivist-Informed Teaching. International

Journal of Science Education, 27(1), 1853-1881.

Richey, R. C., Silber, K. H., & Ely, D. P. (2008). Reflections on the 2008 AECT definitions of the

field. TechTrends, 52(1), 24-25.

Saettler, P. (2004). The Evolution of American Educational Technology. Greenwich, CT:

Information Age Publishing.

Slavin, R. (2003). Educational Psychology, Theory and Practice (7thed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and

Bacon.

st Century Schools – Renewal Education. (© 2010).21st Century Schools. Retrieved October

, 2010 from http://www.21stcenturyschools.com/index.html

Downloads

Published

2014-04-30

Issue

Section

Articles