This study investigated the effects of technology integration on student performance and attitudes in a 7th grade science classroom. An experimental group received weekly science lessons that incorporated various technology tools, while a control group received traditional paper-based lessons. Both groups were given pre- and post-tests to measure changes in science attitudes and achievement. The results showed minor differences between the groups in improved test scores and attitudes, suggesting that technology integration may help enhance student learning and engagement in science.

1. The Effect of Using Technology
Integration and the Attitude Towards
learning in Science.
Matthew D. Tyrie
Korea International School, Seoul: South Korea
!

2. Abstract
This research investigates how the
application of tech integration in student
learning affects student performance. It
raises the question we often wonder as
educators: How does technology help
students become better learners and are
the experimental group and control group
in respect to science attitudes and
achievements. A positive correlation of
performance and attitude in pretest and
post test scores was found from the
students in the control group and also the
experimental group.
they better learners as a result of using it
in science?
At an International School in
South Korea, Middle School science
students were selected to be part of a
study that focused on two areas: 1. The
variable that a sample group would be
treated to applying their learning over a 7
week period in a range of enriching tech
integration assignments. 2. Both a
control group and experimental group
would be measured in their attitude
change towards learning science before
and after the 7 week study. The sample
method was a convenience cluster of two
classes in similar sizes, taught by the
same teacher. The research design was a
two group pre-test and post test model.
A minor difference was found between
!
!

3. Introduction
According to Oblinger
(2003),“educating the Net
Generation is a privilege and a
challenge. They expect a great deal
have learned, they reach a basis
understanding of concepts.
I’ve learned, however when I use
technology integration to have students
of us, just as we do of them. To find
process concepts to create a product, it
the right balance point, we need to
allows them to synthesize information at a
understand each other well”( p.1.5)
As a science teacher, I observe
many children moving into middle school
lacking a strong base of scientific
deeper level and present it a more
authentic and engaging way.
Prensky(2005) says,
“Digital technology is becoming an
important part of students education,
language. Over my years in education, I
but how to use it is not completely
have recognized there is a need to help
clear.. what teachers do need to
the performance of students in their
learning. Differentiated instruction and
know is just how technology can and
should be used by students to
enhance their own learning” ( p 4).
tasks, supporting learning styles, various
reflection strategies, modeled practice,
My aim is to understand how
criteria based rubrics which provide
significantly technology affects student
explicit feedback and opportunities for
learning in a grade 7 science classroom.
student and teacher feedback have all
been employed in my teaching approach.
The reality is, science is a
vocabulary heavy subject and some
students find this threatening. When the
students are required to explain what they
!
!

4. Review of Literature
Focusing on the use of technology
teachers to reflect on and improve their
practice. My study has followed an action
and how it supports learning is not new.
research model in the aim that it provides
Santos (2009) investigated in a
critical insights into how effective tech
collaborative action research project aimed
integration is improving student learning in
to support a science teacher integrating
a grade 7 science sample group and how
blogs in a K-12 physics class to promote
it influences their attitude towards learning
scientific explantations. The actual study
in science.
focused on planning and designing
The tech integration change process
activities in the blog and reflections based
is interesting in enhancing student
on the data collected from both teachers
learning, as found in a case study, by Hsu
and students after the activities from the
and Sharma(2008). Over a 6 year period
blog were implemented.
in North Illinois University, 180 pre-service
This study was important as it
teaching students were a sample group
highlights how powerful the model of
involved in the analyses of enabling
action research can be, as according to
factors in the technology integration
Santos(2009)
change process, in an elementary science
“as a result of taking part in the
course.
action research, this study also expects to
provide insights on how collaborative
action research can be used as a means
to engage teachers in a reflective and
meaningful professional
development.” (p 845)
Action research is viewed as an
integral part of teachers’ professional
development as it provides a means for
!
“ Science education has embarked
on a major reform recognizing that
technology integration in education could
enhance science teaching and
learning”(National Research council, 2001,
p.3)
It consisted of three phases:
instruction in ed tech tools; instruction
taught to elementary students using tech
!

5. tools; and elementary school students
was focused on paper or non tech
being invited to North Illinois university
integration application tasks by design.
campus for master classes. Collecting a
Maximizing the use of technology
range of data from portfolio reflections( the
enhanced teaching and learning of science
sample group), a review of documents
in a community is a challenge, but it is
and interviews, it resulted in some relevant
extremely valuable. As found in a study by
findings. As,
Luck and Fong Peng(2010) , two results
“ the purpose of this study was
to analyze enabling factors that
from strongly relate to my own study as
evidenced by the following,
might have helped to facilitate and
sustain the tech integration change
process in a science elementary
course”( p213)
“there is a positive relationship
in the management of tech
integration for maximizing usage of
technology enhanced teaching and
learning.. where students are able to
After analysis, 3 key enabling factors
were identified as able to cause the most
improvement in the student learning of
science. Shared leadership, learning
community and educational systems were
classified as the pillars for success.
A learning community is a vehicle for
change and was the focus of my control
and experimental groups by design in my
own study. My experimental sample group
1 was focused on using tech integration in
application tasks and my control group
learn better when teachers teach by
using the enhanced technology in
their curriculum” ( p 94)
However the any tech integration
affects students’ attitudes towards learning
in science is also relevant. An enhanced
teaching assessment study on students
success and attitudes towards science
was conducted by Kikkaya and Vurkaya
(2011). The study focused on elementary
science students utilizing alternative
assessments such as: diagnostic trees,
concept maps structured grids and activity
!
!

6. sheets in the unit ’electricity in our lives’.
achievement pre test and post test
This directly relates to my question as it
scores of the experimental and
was the same design model and tech
control groups?
integration is, by nature, an alternative
approach to learning.
“Therefore it could be argued
that the alternative assessment
3. Can the use of tech integration
make significant differences in
improving student learning in a
middle school science classroom.
activities carried out on experimental
group students took effect and
elicited a positive change in their
attitudes towards science” (p999).
In this study, the aim was to
understand how significantly technology
integration affects student learning in a
grade 7 science classroom and their
attitude towards learning in science.
Answers were sought for the following
questions:
1. Is there any significant difference
between the experimental groups
and control groups in terms of the
scores in students in science
attitude and performance post
tests?
Method and Contexts
To answer my research question I
used an action research intervention
study with a two group pre/post design
as it presented the least threat to validity
and removed the threat of maturation.
There were two groups in the study in
which the impact of tech integration on
student attitudes and performance were
explored. An experimental group of 7th
grade science students and a control
group of 7th grade science students
were chosen. Each group was pre
tested and post tested using the Tyrie
Learning Attitude Assessment before and
after the 7 week intervention to measure
2. Is there any significant difference
change in attitude and a concepts based
between the science attitude and
!
!

7. pre test and post to measure change in
volume sizes of left and right hands
performance.
in their class. After experiencing a
Intervention
mini lab on water displacement
A unit of work was taught to Group
method, the application task after
1 and Group 2 over a 7 week period on
building a common data set on the
‘States of matter and its properties’ Each
class whiteboard was to process it
had the same content concepts taught.
in Numbers and upload it to a class
For group 1, each week a new tech
website. As seen below as Table 1.
integration task was designed that
Group 2, experienced the same
expected them to present content in a
mini lab with explicit teacher
different way. Explicit skills in how to
instruction in the same method and
use the tech integration task were taught,
a common data set from their class
supported and monitored with
hand volumes whilst being required
appropriate feedback given regarding
to present it as a graph on paper.
content. The control group was given
Table 1: Numbers Tech task
the expectation of producing a similar
weekly assigned task on paper and also
were given feedback regarding accuracy
of content.
Group 1’s Tech integration tasks included
the following:
• Create a graph using an Apple
computer program called’
Numbers’. The students were to
graph a data set of average hand
!
• Using Pages, Group 1 were to
word process a class experiment
called ‘White before my eye’ s
which used three different white
powders testing students to identify
physical change or chemical
!

8. changes in matter, as exemplified
process of learning. They were
by table 2 below.
required to complete several
Table 2: White before my eyes Tech task.
stages. Group 2 submitted the
graphic organizer of physical
characteristics of different
substances, vocabulary activity
sheet and calculations in paper
form. Group 1 annotated a PDF
version throughout and uploaded it
to a class website. An example of
the PBL tech task is shown below
• The third tech integration task was
as table 3.
the delivery and application of a
mini problem-based-learning
Table 3: Density PBL Tech task
assignment I designed, called the
Density Web-quest. Both groups
were given 10 unknown cubes of
different substances, they were
required to research and collect
data, measure mass and volume of
their cube and calculate the density.
They then matched their
calculations to their research to
identify the unknown substances.
• The fourth task was an in class
Over a series of lessons, both
group presentation of physical
groups has access to a class
characteristics using Keynote or
website where the web-quest was
Google Presentation. Where as
located and supported them in the
!
Group 2 was expected to give a
!

9. physical oral supported only by a
to a solid. Whilst this happened I
poster they could make made
used collected data using a
manually.
computer program called Logger Lite.
• The website https://bubbl.us/ was
The application task was for them to
used as an application for Group 1
then create a heat curve using
students to create a concept map of
Numbers to map the boiling point and
their ‘States of matter’ concepts
melting point. Group 2 did this on
taught and submit it by email. Table 4
paper.
shows below an example of the task.
Table 5: Heat Curve Tech task
Group 2 were required to make a
concept map on a one given sheet of
A4 paper and hand the same sheet
in.
Table 4: Concept Map Tech task
Throughout this process, I
designed and used technology in all
applications of learning for Group 1. Each
•The final task was a demonstration
lab of a compound called Lauric
using core concepts and present it in a fun
Acid. The Group one students
and engaging way. I felt during this
observed a data probe to monitor the
process Group 1 were genuinely engaged
change in state from a solid to a
and enjoying their learning as I genuinely
liquid and being reversed from liquid
!
task required them to create a product
was interested in seeing how the tech
!

10. integration would affect their attitude
towards learning in science.
!
Items
Race
-Korean/
American.
-Saudi
Sample
Freq.
13
1
Per. %
92%
8%
The sample groups in the study are
two grade 7 science classes that I teach
directly. They are a convenience cluster
Instrumentation and Data
Collection
At the outset of the study, each
sample at the same international school
group was pre tested using the Tyrie-
in Seoul, South Korea and will have
Learning attitude (TLA) assessment. This
access to the same course content,
was a Likert survey designed to measure
teacher, tech facilities and a Mac Book
computer each. Each class was chosen
as they were of similar size, age and
ethnicity as shown below in table 6. The
experimental group 1 and control group 2
Table 6 Summary of sample demographics
Group 1
Gender
-Male
-Female
Age
12 years
13 years
Race
-Korean/
American.
-Saudi
Arabia
Freq.
8
9
Gender
-Male
-Female
Age
12 years
13 years
!
encompassed 10 stem survey questions
each. There were 10 stem questions
Per. %
47%
52%
primarily directed at gaining an
understanding of a student’s attitude in
science and stems 6-10 are directed at
understanding the student’s attitude
12
5
70%
30%
15
2
88%
12%
towards the subject science. These stem
responses were calculated using a 1-5
numerical scale from strongly agree,
agree, unsure, disagree and strongly
Items
Group 2
Control
and after the study. The TLA
within the TLA scale. Stems 1-5 are
are defined as follows:
Items
change in attitude towards science before
Freq.
Per. %
7
7
50%
50%
9
5
disagree. A detailed copy of the TLA is
64%
36%
enclosed as Appendix 1.
!

11. Table 7. Tyrie-Learning Attit. Assess.
content was taught to both Group 1 and
2. There was no risk of maturity as the
study was short or repeated testing
threats as each group was given only 4
small assessments in 7 weeks and they
were common. Whilst there was no
The concepts based performance
mortality threat as each student continued
test was designed to test concepts learnt
to be enrolled in the grade 7 science
in the current chemistry unit of work,
classes for the duration of the study.
‘States and properties of matter’. This
test totaled 20 questions, that were a
range of 12 multiple choice based
questions and 8 matching descriptions to
key terms. This same test was given to
each group before the study began and
after it was finished. A copy can be found
as appendix item 2.
Threats to Validity
The threats to validity of subject
characteristics were removed by using
the same group scores for analysis. At no
Results
The effect of tech integration on the
performance and attitude of Grade 7
students in science.
I used the t test analysis to assess
significant differences between the two
groups with respect to performance and
attitude.
Performance
An unpaired t- test was used
between the mean change score for Group
time was there any historical event which
1( experimental) and the mean change
disrupted the continuation of the study
score for Group 2( Control group). An
and the threat of regression to the mean
unpaired t- was used as the number of
was reduced by using the same
students in each sample group differed
performance test and only 1 unit of
from 17 to 14 respectively.
!
!

12. Table 8: Performance Mean Gains and Standard deviation
gain of 4.2 whilst, Group 2 had a mean
Performance Group 1 Group 2
gain of 4.5 as shown in table 8 and 9.
Mean
4.24
4.57
SD
2.36
4.33
Performance Mean Gains
17.00
The two tailed P value equals
12.75
0.7852 and by conventional criteria, the
8.50
difference is considered to not be
statistically significant. The t - test also
produced a t value of 0.2751 and df
4.25
0
score of 28. Although the mean of each
Group 1
group is almost the same, though the
Post Test Mean
Group 2
Attitude Score
means are different.
To understand whether the
Table 9:Mean for performance by Group
Group Name
Pre test Mean
treatment affected students’ attitude
Pre
test
Mean
Post
Test
Mean
Gain
Group 1
12.1
16.1
+ 4.2
the gain scores between the pre test and
Group 2
10.42
14.28
+ 4.5
post test of the TLA. We used an unpaired
towards learning in science we analyzed
After calculating the pre and
post score for each Group, the post was
subtracted from the pre test score to find a
gain score. The mean change or gain
score was then found for each group. This
T- test as the groups were 17 and 14 in
size respectively.
Table 10:Means/ Standard deviations of TLA Gains
Attitude Group 1
Group 2
-0.647
0.357
4.946
3.754
gain score is interesting as both groups
Mean
SD
experienced positive improvement in
The two tailed P value equaled 0.4368 and
performance as Group 1 had a mean
by conventional criteria this difference is
considered to be not statistically
!
!

13. significant. There was also a t value of
integration was an effective approach to
0.6251 and a df of 29.
teaching as the Group 1 improvement in
performance supports this. As an
Table 11:Attitude in pre test and post test
scores.
alternative approach to instruction this
Group Name
Pre
Test
Mean
Post
Test
Mean
Group 1
20.23
19.41
-0.82
Group 2
21
21.5
.0.5
!
Gain
study proves that tech integration is
valuable as my research review
Attitude Mean Gains
22.00
supported also.
However, equally valuable was the
traditional instructional approach that was
delivered to Group 2. This comparison
21.25
shows that good teaching and good tech
20.50
integration are both valuable
19.75
approaches to learning in a MS Science
19.00
Pre test means
Post test means
classroom.
The attitude gains, show a different
Group 1
!
!
Group 2
Discussion
After carrying out the study,
scenario. As Group 1 pretested at a
mean of 20.23 and post tested at a
mean of 19.41, they experienced a
collecting data and analyzing results, the
change score of - 0.82. Whereas Group 2
burning question is what does it all mean.
pretested at 21 and posted tested at
In performance there was a positive gain
21.5, resulting in a change score of 0.5.
from both Group 1 at 4.2 and Group 2 at
The negative change for group 1 is a
4.5 respectively. These scores show that
surprise as during the study I felt that all
both groups are performing at the same
the students were enjoying the process of
level. It also means that technology
using tech integrated tasks in their
!
!

14. learning. If we look at the standard
to maintain a positive attitude towards
deviation of Group 1 it is rather high at
learning in science. As evidenced by the
4.946. Clearly many students did enjoy
Group 1 TLA slightly negative change,
their learning and improvement in
students enjoy using tech but it may
performance was made for all, but the
bring some sense of anxiety towards
large attitude SD indicates that Tech was
learning as well. Furthermore, future
not the preferred approach to learning for
developments in education would be to
some.
study more in-depth which types of tech
The next step would be to
integrated tasks can most improve
reanalyze some of the TLA stem
performance and achieve high quality
questions for Group 1 and identify which
learning, whilst we search for an answer
students affected the large standard
to the new question, how can we maintain
deviation and counsel with them as these
balance in tech integration so that our
students may need some personal
students are happy whilst learning.
attention.
In conclusion, these results do
have an impact in my thinking and
classroom practice in the following ways:
Technology integration has proven
statistically that it is an equal strategy and
approach to learning in improving student
learning in Science; Good instructional
teaching is an equal strategy and
approach to student learning in MS
science; and that a balance of teaching
approaches need to be employed in order
!
!

15. References
Chun, E. (2013, September 15). bubbl.us |
brainstorm and mind map online.
Retrieved September 15, 2013, from
http://www.bubbl.us
National research council (2001).
Educating teachers of science,
mathematics and technology: New
practices for the new millennium
Hsu, P., & Sharma, P. (2008). A case study
of enabling factors in the technology
integration change process. Educational
Technology and society, 11(4), 213-228.
Oblinger, D., & Oblinger, J. L. (2005).
Introduction. In Educating the net
generation (pp. 1- 1.5). Boulder, CO:
EDUCAUSE.
Kang, M., Heo, H., & Kim, M. (2011). The
impact of ICT use on new millennium
learners' educational performance.
Interactive Technology and Smart
Education. doi:
10.1108/17415651111125487
Prensky, M. (2010). Introduction: Our
changing world. In Teaching digital natives:
Partnering for real learning (p. 1- 12).
Thousand Oaks, Calif: Corwin
Santos, I. (2011, June 11). Ed/ITLib Digital
Library → Technology integration through
collaborative action research.
Retrieved August 12, 2013, from http://
editlib.org/p/37967/
Kirikkaya, E., & Virkaya, G. (2011). The
effect of using alternative assessment
activities on students' success and
attitudes in science and technology
course. Educational services theory and
practise, 11(2), 997-1003.
Luck, L., & Fong Peng, C. (2010).
Maximizing the usage of technology
enhanced teaching and learning of science
and mathematics in English program in the
Malaysian secondary schools system. USChina Education Review, 7(10), 87-97.
!
Tyrie, M. D. (2013, August 9). Exploring
Density Webquest Project | 6/7 Middle
School Science. Retrieved October 3,
2013, from http://matttyrie.wordpress.com/
exploring-density-webquest-project/
!

16. !
!

17. Appendix A
!
!
!
!
!
Properties of Matter Pre test and Post Test
Grade 7 Science
Teacher: M Tyrie
Multiple Choice
Write the letter of the correct answer in the space provided.
______ 1. Which property of matter is a measure of the gravitational force?
a. density
b. mass
c. volume
d. weight
______ 2. In a graduated cylinder containing several liquid layers, the least dense liquid is found
a. floating at the top.
c. in the lightest colored layer.
b. in the middle layer.
d. settled on the bottom.
______ 3. How does a physical change differ from a chemical change?
a. New volumes are created in a physical change.
b. New materials are produced in a physical change.
c. The composition is unchanged in a physical change.
d. The change is reversible in a physical change.
______ 4. Melting crayons is an example of a 2
a. physical property.
b. physical change.
c. chemical property.
d. chemical change.
______ 5. Which of the following units would be best for describing the volume of mercury
(liquid) used in an experiment?
a. grams or kilograms
c. liters or milliliters
b. meters or centimeters
d. newtons
______ 6. Which of the following events is NOT a common sign that a chemical change has taken
place?
a. change in color or odor
b. change in state
c. foaming or bubbling
d. production of heat or light
______ 7. What chemical property is responsible for iron rusting?
a. flammability
b. conductivity
c. nonflammability
d. reactivity with oxygen
______ 8. The motion of a 150 g ball is more difficult to change than the motion of a 50 g ball
because the 150 g ball has
a. less weight than the 50 g ball has. b. greater density than the 50 g ball has.
!
18

18. c. more mass than the 50 g ball has.
d. larger volume than the 50 g ball has.
______ 9. What unit of density would be appropriate to describe a solid bar of silver?
a. g/mL
b. g/cm3
c. oz/ft3
d. kg/L
______10. Which physical property of matter describes the relationship between mass and volume?
a. density
b. ductility
c. reactivity
d. weight
______ 11. Souring milk is an example of a
a. physical property.
b. physical change.
c. chemical property.
d. chemical change.
______12. Malleability is an example of a
a. physical property.
b. physical change.
c. chemical property.
d. chemical change.
Matching
Match the correct description with the term. Write the letter in
the space provided.
______13. The saltiness of seawater is the result of this property.
______14. Objects float or sink as a result of this property.
______15. This is the physical form in which a substance exists.
______16. This type of matter makes up an object and the way it is
arranged.
______17. The breakdown of water to form two gases is the result of this
process.
______18. This is the ability of a substance to resist burning.
______19. This is the tendency of a substance to resist changes in its
motion.
______20. This is the rate at which a substance conducts heat
a. thermal
conductivity
b. composition
c. non - flammability
d. inertia
e. state of matter
f. solubility
g. reactivity
h. electrolysis
i. ductility
j. density
!
19

19. !
!
!
!
!
Name:____________!
Class:____________!
!
!
!
2013
Appendix B
Tyrie Learning Attitude Assessment
Question
1
It’s good to be consistently
attentive, on task and
contribute to the shared
learning environment.
6
I enjoy coming to science and
learning about the world in
science lessons.
7
I think that science is a
subject that I will use a lot.
8
When I arrive at my science
classroom I feel welcome and
am at ease.
9
Strongly
disagree
I think, I should seek
additional assistance from my
teacher when needed and
consistently follow feedback
from the teacher also.
5
Disagree
In science, it’s good to catch
up on any missed work when
I’m in class.
4
Unsure
When a new unit of work is
introduced, I feel like I want to
join in the learning
opportunities.
3
Agree
I feel quite at ease when I am
learning in science.
2
Strongly
Agree
Science is interesting
because in class as you
learn you can have fun
10 I think that it’s important to be
prepared for science lessons
by doing homework and
assignments on time.
!
20