Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 591–603 | Cite as

Laptop Use, Interactive Science Software, and Science Learning Among At-Risk Students

  • Binbin Zheng
  • Mark Warschauer
  • Jin Kyoung Hwang
  • Penelope Collins
Article

Abstract

This year-long, quasi-experimental study investigated the impact of the use of netbook computers and interactive science software on fifth-grade students’ science learning processes, academic achievement, and interest in further science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) study within a linguistically diverse school district in California. Analysis of students’ state standardized science test scores indicated that the program helped close gaps in scientific achievement between at-risk learners (i.e., English learners, Hispanics, and free/reduced-lunch recipients) and their counterparts. Teacher and student interviews and classroom observations suggested that computer-supported visual representations and interactions supported diverse learners’ scientific understanding and inquiry and enabled more individualized and differentiated instruction. Finally, interviews revealed that the program had a positive impact on students’ motivation in science and on their interest in pursuing science-related careers. This study suggests that technology-facilitated science instruction is beneficial for improving at-risk students’ science achievement, scaffolding students’ scientific understanding, and strengthening students’ motivation to pursue STEM-related careers.

Keywords

One-to-one laptop Interactive science software Science achievement Scientific inquiry At-risk learners 

References

  1. Ardac D, Akaygun S (2005) Using static and dynamic visuals to represent chemical change at molecular level. Int J Sci Educ 27(11):1269–1298. doi:10.1080/09500690500102284 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. August D, Branum-Martin L, Cardenas-Hagan E, Francis DJ (2009) The impact of an instructional intervention on the science and language learning of middle grade English language learners. J Res Educ Eff 2(4):345–376Google Scholar
  3. Bailey AL, Huang Y, Escobar M (2011) I can explain: academic language for science among young English language learners. In: Noyce P, Hickey D (eds) New frontiers in formative assessment. Harvard Education Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  4. Baldi S, Jin Y, Skemer M, Green PJ, Herget D (2007) Highlights from psa 2006: performance of U.S. 15-year-old students in science and mathematics literacy in an international context (NCES 2008-016). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  5. Barak M, Dori YJ (2005) Enhancing undergraduate students’ chemistry understanding through project-based learning in an it environment. Sci Educ 89(1):117–139. doi:10.1002/sce.20027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bebell D, Kay RE (2010) One to one computing: an summary of the quantitative results from the berkshire wireless learning initiative. J Technol Learn Assess 9(2) Google Scholar
  7. Bebell D, O’Dwyer LM (2010) Educational outcomes and research from 1:1 computing settings. J Technol Learn Assess 9(1)Google Scholar
  8. Bell RL, Trundle KC (2008) The use of a computer simulation to promote scientific conceptions of moon phases. J Res Sci Teach 45(3):346–372. doi:10.1002/tea.20227 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Billings E, Mathison C (2012) I get to use an ipod in school? Using technology-based advance organizers to support the academic success of English learners. J Sci Educ Technol 21(4):494–503. doi:10.1007/s10956-011-9341-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cañas AJ, Ford KM, Novak JD, Hayes P, Reichherzer T, Suri N (2001) Online concept maps: enhancing collaborative learning by using technology with concept maps. Sci Teach 68(4):49–51Google Scholar
  11. Discovery Education (2014) About discovery education. http://www.discoveryeducation.com/aboutus/
  12. Dunleavy M, Heinecke WF (2008) The impact of 1:1 laptop use on middle school math and science standardized test scores. Comput Sch 24(3–4):7–22Google Scholar
  13. Dunleavy M, Dexter S, Heinecke WF (2007) What added value does a 1:1 student to laptop ratio bring to technology-supported teaching and learning? J Comput Assist Learn 23(5):440–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ebenezer J, Puvirajah A (2005) WebCT dialogues on particle theory of matter: presumptive reasoning schemes. Educ Res Eval 11(6):561–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ebenezer J, Kaya ON, Ebenezer DL (2011) Engaging students in environmental research projects: perceptions of fluency with innovative technologies and levels of scientific inquiry abilities. J Res Sci Teach 48(1):94–116. doi:10.1002/tea.20387 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frailich M, Kesner M, Hofstein A (2009) Enhancing students’ understanding of the concept of chemical bonding by using activities provided on an interactive website. J Res Sci Teach 46(3):289–310. doi:10.1002/tea.20278 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Franceschini L, Allen LE, Lowther DL, Strahl JD (2008) Freedom to learn program: Michigan 2007–2008 evaluation report. Center for Research in Educational Policy, Memphis, TennesseeGoogle Scholar
  18. Goldenberg C, Reese L, Rezaei A (2011) Contexts for language and literacy development among dual-language learners. In: Yl Durgunoglu A, Goldenberg C (eds) Language and literacy development in bilingual settings. Guilford Press, New York, pp 3–25Google Scholar
  19. Gonzales P, Williams T, Jocelyn L, Roey S, Kastberg D, Brenwald S (2008) Highlights from TIMSS 2007: mathematics and science achievement of U.S. fourth- and eighth-grade students in an international context (NCES 2009-001 revised). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  20. Hoadley CM, Linn MC (2000) Teaching science through online, peer discussions: speakeasy in the knowledge integration environment. Int J Sci Educ 22(8):839–857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Inan FA, Lowther DL (2010) Laptops in the k-12 classrooms: exploring factors impacting instructional use. Comput Educ 55(3):937–944. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.04.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Korwin AR, Jones RE (1990) Do hands-on, technology-based activities enhance learning by reinforcing cognitive knowledge and retention? J Technol Educ 1(2):39–50Google Scholar
  23. Lara-Alecio R, Tong F, Irby BJ, Guerrero C, Huerta M, Fan Y (2012) The effect of an instructional intervention on middle school English learners’ science and English reading achievement. J Res Sci Teach 49(8):987–1011. doi:10.1002/tea.21031 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lee O (2005) Science education with English language learners: synthesis and research agenda. Rev Educ Res 75(4):491–530. doi:10.2307/3516105 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lee O, Deaktor RA, Hart JE, Cuevas P, Enders C (2005) An instructional intervention’s impact on the science and literacy achievement of culturally and linguistically diverse elementary students. J Res Sci Teach 42(8):857–887. doi:10.1002/tea.20071 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lee O, Maerten-Rivera J, Penfield RD, LeRoy K, Secada WG (2008) Science achievement of English language learners in urban elementary schools: results of a first-year professional development intervention. J Res Sci Teach 45(1):31–52. doi:10.1002/tea.20209 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lee H-S, Linn MC, Varma K, Liu OL (2010) How do technology-enhanced inquiry science units impact classroom learning? J Res Sci Teach 47(1):71–90. doi:10.1002/tea.20304 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lei J, Zhao Y (2008) One-to-one computing: what does it bring to schools? J Educ Comput Res 39(2):97–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Marbach-Ad G, Rotbain Y, Stavy R (2008) Using computer animation and illustration activities to improve high school students’ achievement in molecular genetics. J Res Sci Teach 45(3):273–292. doi:10.1002/tea.20222 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mbamalu G (2001) Teaching science to academically underprepared students. J Sci Educ Technol 10(3):267–272. doi:10.1023/a:1016642717633 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Miles MB, Huberman AM (1994) Qualitative data analysis. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  32. Minner DD, Levy AJ, Century J (2010) Inquiry-based science instruction—what is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. J Res Sci Teach 47(4):474–496. doi:10.1002/tea.20347 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Moje EB, Collazo T, Carrillo R, Marx RW (2001) “Maestro, what is ‘quality’?”: Language, literacy, and discourse in project-based science. J Res Sci Teach 38(4):469–498. doi:10.1002/tea.1014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mouza C (2008) Learning with laptops: implementation and outcomes in an urban, under-privileged school. J Res Technol Educ 40(4):447–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Murphy DM, King FB, Brown SW (2007) Laptop initiative impact: assessed using student, parent, and teacher data. Comput Sch 24(1–2):57–73Google Scholar
  36. National Center for Education Statistics (2006) Bachelor’s degrees conferred by degree-granting institutions, by discipline divisions: Selected years, 1970–71 through 2004–05. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d06/tables/dt06_254.asp
  37. National Center for Education Statistics (2010) The condition of education 2010 (NCES 2010-028). U.S. Department of Education, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  38. National Center for Education Statistics (2012) The nation’s report card: Science 2011 (NCES 2012-465). U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  39. National Research Council (1996) National science education standards. National Academy Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  40. Oliver KM, Corn JO (2008) Student-reported differences in technology use and skills after the implementation of one-to-one computing. Educ Media Int 45(3):215–229. doi:10.1080/09523980802284333 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Penuel WR, Means B (2004) Implementation variation and fidelity in an inquiry science program: analysis of globe data reporting patterns. J Res Sci Teach 41(3):294–315. doi:10.1002/tea.20002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Plass JL, Milne C, Homer BD, Schwartz RN, Hayward EO, Jordan T, Barrientos J (2012) Investigating the effectiveness of computer simulations for chemistry learning. J Res Sci Teach 49(3):394–419. doi:10.1002/tea.21008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Reid-Griffin A, Carter G (2008) Uncovering the potential: the role of technologies on science learning of middle school students. Int J Sci Math Educ 6(2):329–350. doi:10.1007/s10763-007-9105-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sandoval WA, Reiser BJ (2004) Explanation-driven inquiry: integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Sci Edu 88(3):345–372. doi:10.1002/sce.10130 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Scalise K, Timms M, Moorjani A, Clark L, Holtermann K, Irvin PS (2011) Student learning in science simulations: design features that promote learning gains. J Res Sci Teach 48(9):1050–1078. doi:10.1002/tea.20437 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schleppegrell Mary J (2004) The language of schooling: a functional linguistics perspective. Erlbaum, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  47. Schwartz W (1988) Teaching science and mathematics to at-risk students. Equity Choice 4(2):39–45Google Scholar
  48. Shapley K, Sheehan D, Maloney C, Caranikas-Walker F (2008) Evaluation of the texas technology immersion pilot: outcomes for the third year (2006–07). Texas Center for Educational ResearchGoogle Scholar
  49. Shapley K, Sheehan D, Maloney C, Caranikas-Walker F (2010) Effects of technology immersion on teachers’ growth in technology competency, ideology, and practices. J Educ Comput Res 42(1):1–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Slovacek S, Whittinghill J, Flenoury L, Wiseman D (2012) Promoting minority success in the sciences: the minority opportunities in research programs at csula. J Res Sci Teach 49(2):199–217. doi:10.1002/tea.20451 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Swan K, Hooft Mvt, Kratcoski A, Schenker J (2007) Ubiquitous computing and changing pedagogical possibilities: representations, conceptualizations, and uses of knowledge. J Educ Comput Res 36(4):481–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. US Census (2010) The Hispanic population. Retrieved on 18 May 2013 from http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-04.pdf
  53. Warschauer M (2006) Laptops and literacy: Learning in the wireless classroom. Teachers College Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  54. Warschauer M, Matuchniak T (2010) New technology and digital worlds: analyzing evidence of equity in access, use, and outcomes. Rev Res Educ 34(1):179–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zucker A (2004) Developing a research agenda for ubiquitous computing. J Educ Comput Res 30(4):371–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zucker A, Hug S (2008) Teaching and learning physics in a 1:1 laptop school. J Sci Educ Technol 17(6):586–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Binbin Zheng
    • 1
  • Mark Warschauer
    • 2
  • Jin Kyoung Hwang
    • 2
  • Penelope Collins
    • 2
  1. 1.Michigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  2. 2.University of California, IrvineIrvineUSA

Personalised recommendations