Cindy Reeves Electronic Portfolio



Does STEM Integration Through Project Based Learning Improve Student Achievement?Research PaperCindy ReevesKennesaw State UniversityDr. McGinnisApplied Field Research, Section W03April 30, 2015IntroductionOrientation to TopicDuring the 1990’s, the National Science Foundation, following years of research, came to the conclusion that science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) do not exist in isolation in the workforce, creating the necessity for integration in the classroom (Woodruff, 2013). Project-Based Learning strategies that involve real world tasks, collaboration, and self-management provide effective preparation for the workplace (Zafirov, 2013). The National Research Council (2012) and Next Generation Science Standards Lead States (2013) developed an instructional framework where scientific inquiry, engineering design, and technological development are interdependent as they are in the workforce where scientists and engineers often work as teams. Engineers improve technology, creating new ways for scientists to make discoveries. In turn, the scientists develop new capabilities, materials, or processes that are used by the engineers to improve technology. Mathematics is interwoven into each of the three disciplines. With the STEM education incentives offered by the Obama administration since 2009, school reform continues with the goal of preparing our students to be innovators in the 21st Century workplace. Purpose StatementThe purpose of this study was to determine if student-centered Project Based Learning and the integration of STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) affect student achievement in science. Research QuestionsThe following research questions were addressed in this study:Is there a difference in the science achievement of students instructed using Project Based Learning and students using traditional teacher focused instruction?Is there a difference in student perceptions of science and interest in STEM of students instructed using Project Based Learning and students using traditional teacher focused instruction?Importance of the StudyAs 21st Century school reform integrates technology and engineering into science content standards, it is important to conduct and publish research to assist teachers in identifying and implementing the best practices that will improve student achievement. Kelly (2010) reported the need for substantial research documenting how technology education improves learning. If the evidence supports project based learning and student centered use of technology, more resources will need to be devoted to teacher training and the creation and implementation of STEM projects into the curriculum (DeJarnette, 2012; Nadelson et al., 2013; Robinson, Dailey, Hugh, & Cotabish, 2014). In this study, the researcher will attempt to provide evidence that PBL, when aligned with the content and technology standards, can provide the scaffolding and appropriate rigor necessary to meet the needs of all students. Definition of Terms Performance Based Assessment – Assessment based on the ability of a student to demonstrate, apply and reflect on what they have learned (Boss, 2012).Project Based Learning (PBL) – For the purpose of this study, the terms project based learning and problem based learning will be used interchangeably. PBL represents a student centered instructional model that promotes active engagement through inquiry into authentic, real world problems (Tambouris et al., 2012; Verma, Dickerson, & McKinney, 2011). STEM – Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (Robinson et al., 2014)Web 2.0 tools – A range of information and communications technologies that include blogs, podcasts, and wikis (Tambouris et al., 2012).Literature ReviewIs there justification for integrating technology and engineering into the elementary math and science curriculum?The United States and the rest of the world are in need of talented scientists and engineers. DeJarnette, (2012) and Parker and Lazaros (2014), proponents of the positive impacts of early exposure to STEM initiatives, support problem based learning and collaboration as a captivating teaching style that relates the content to real life and the future workplace. Contrarily, low levels of student engagement in a teacher-centered learning environment were found to be responsible for an increased risk of classroom behaviors that are counterproductive to learning according to a 2013 study conducted by Godzicki, Godzicki, Krofel, and Michaels. In a study of student motivation, Ali, Akhter, Shahzad, Sultana, & Razman (2011) revealed that problem-based learning leads to a greater level of overall development. Moye, Dugger, & Stark-Weather (2014) also stated the need for technology and engineering to be used in solving science and math problems as outlined by the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS, 2013) and the Standards for Technological Literacy (International Technology Education Association, 2000). Historically technology and engineering instruction have been taught by specialists other than the math and science teachers in the middle and high school setting with little integration in the elementary setting (Brown, 2012). Jones (2014) supports collaboration among elementary school teachers to use technology in developing lessons that focus on the social aspects of learning while integrating multiple disciplines. While a research base supporting STEM education exists, Brown (2012) indicated the need for further research on the effectiveness of STEM initiatives on student performance and engagement in grades K – 12. Jones (2014) supports collaboration among elementary school teachers to use technology in developing lessons that focus on the social aspects of learning while integrating multiple disciplines. While a research base supporting STEM education exists, Brown (2012) indicated the need for further research on the effectiveness of STEM initiatives on student performance and engagement in grades K – 12.Is there evidence that Project-Based Learning is an effective delivery model for an integrated STEM curriculum?According to Verma et al. (2011), problem based learning already has a proven record based on the constructivist learning theory and serves to bridge the gap between schools and the workplace. In related studies, Project-Based Learning was discussed as a means to move high school students beyond the basic comprehension level into greater critical thinking and deeper understanding (Boss, 2012; Mehta & Fine, 2012). In addition to increased academic achievement, Mehta and Fine (2012) noted evidence of students learning persistence, flexible thinking, time management and the social maturity of dealing with disappointment as well as successes as result of open-ended, complex, and self-directed projects. With the adoption of the Common Core Standards and the emphasis on increasing critical thinking skills, performance-based assessment through the PBL approach is better suited to the evaluation of a student’s ability to demonstrate what they are learning through application, analysis and reflection (Boss, 2012).What factors impede the implementation of STEM initiatives and Project-Based Learning in the elementary school setting?One of the greatest impediments to STEM initiatives in the elementary school setting is the lack of preservice teacher preparation and pedagogical expertise in technology education and scientific inquiry which may result in negative attitudes and fear in relation to high stakes testing (DeJarnette, 2012; Nadelson et al., 2013). Because math and science are two distinct and separate subjects, Kelley (2012) warns that, based on historical evidence, the initiative for STEM integration will fail. Kelley states that a thorough investigation of the “complexities of teacher practices” is needed to insure that students will be able to apply what they learn in novel situations. Additionally, when the use of technology is measured on the national scorecard with the numbers of computers available for student use (Kelley, 2010), the focus is on the equipment not how the equipment is being used to enhance learning. Developing an understanding of how the integration of technology and engineering relates to the curriculum needs should coincide with the decisions for technology acquisition (Staples, Pugach, & Himes, 2005). In the High Tech High School study conducted by Mehta and Fine (2012) the presence of technology was not a factor in the increased academic performance of the students, but the way the technology was used played a vital role. Available technology does not equate to student engagement. Godzicki et al. (2013) noted that mere access to technology revealed little change in learning and teaching practices in many classrooms.How can research based best practices align instructional needs to a technologically enhanced STEM pedagogy?Emerging technologies are rapidly replacing the technologies of the past creating a different classroom climate that provides students with the capability of accessing information and creating innovative solutions that often define the STEM movement. Parker and Lazaros (2014) recognize that students must first be taught the 21st Century skills such as using the internet as a research tool. Kuo and Hwang (2014) developed a learning cycle approach to teach students how to conduct web-based, problem-solving activities, create on line portfolios and use key words to search for information. Tambouris et al. (2012) is proposing PBL 2.0, a new Project Based Learning framework that is enhanced with Web 2.0 tools. Discussed by Holland and Holland (2014), another research-based best practice that has emerged with the new technologies is the “flipped classroom” where students view an online video or screencast at home to introduce a topic. Then, the teacher is able to facilitate practice and student-to-student collaboration at school. Bethke Wendall and Rogers (2013) found that integrating engineering into the science curriculum with LEGO design challenges improved science performance, but reported no change in the students’ attitudes toward the subject matter. Recently, Robinson et al. (2014) reported statistically significant gains in science process skills, concepts, and content knowledge over a three-year period with gifted students using inquiry or problem based curriculum.While the preponderance of the literature supports STEM integration and problem based learning as a theoretical approach to education in the 21st Century, there is little evidence of the widespread implementation in the elementary classroom. The adoption of the Next Generation Science Standards will begin the shift to a more integrated approach, but DeJarnette (2012) also recommends preservice teacher education, staff development by university teacher educators and the development of specific programs for elementary students for STEM initiatives to be successful. Further research will be needed to build a strong research base of evidence demonstrating the effects of student-centered, Project Based Learning and the integration of science, technology, engineering, and math on student achievement in science.MethodologyOverview of Research DesignThe effect of student-centered, Project Based Learning, and the integration of science, technology, engineering, and math on achievement in science was examined in a quantitative study. The 5th grade classes were already formed, eliminating the possibility of random assignment, therefore the researcher used a quasi-experimental design for analysis with ANCOVA. The independent variable in the analysis was the method of instruction: student-centered Project Based Learning or traditional teacher-focused instruction. The dependent variable was the growth in conceptual understanding of the state science standards as measured by the pretest and posttest. The pretest and a learning style inventory were considered covariates in the study. Additionally students completed a survey identifying student perception of science, interest in STEM, and the frequency of PBL strategies used in the classroom. The responses of the survey were coded and subjected to ANOVA analysis. ParticipantsThe sample of participants in this study was chosen from diverse racial, ethnic, and socio-economic backgrounds. Each of the students participating in the study was in the 5th grade of a Title I elementary school from a large suburban district located in the southeastern region of the United States. The three science teachers each have more than 10 years of teaching experience, at least one advanced degree, and a gifted endorsement issued by the Georgia Professional Standards Commission. The student population from which the sample was taken reflects the following demographics: 24% are African-American, 6% are Asian-American, 46% are Caucasian, 24% are Hispanic or Latino, 18% are identified as gifted, 11% are working with an IEP, 4% are being served in the ESOL program, and 44% are receiving free or reduced lunch. A sample of 30 students from each of the three instructional settings was chosen to conduct the study. Each sample included five gifted students, four with IEPs or ESOL support, and 20 from the remainder of the population. The random selection from the subgroups will be cross-referenced with the other demographics to ensure that the sample reflects diversity. Data Sources and CollectionThe unit of study was conducted over a four to six-week period in February and March of 2015 based on the 5th grade Earth Science standards. A pretest was administered to each group prior to engaging in the learning process. The comparison group participated in a traditional teacher directed instructional delivery model using technology as a tool for PowerPoint presentations and related videos. Two treatment groups participated in a student-centered project based learning delivery model where the teacher’s role was that of facilitator. Students were given authentic roles for research, collaboration, and presentation of content through a WebQuest format. Based on their own research, students used the engineering design process to identify a real world problem, develop, and design an innovative solution for the problem, and presented their solution. A posttest was administered to all students at the end of the unit that included a survey that probed the students’ perceptions of STEM integration and experience with Project Based Learning. Additionally an online Learning Styles Inventory developed by Piedmont Education Services was administered as a possible covariate. The pretest and posttest consisted of Level 2 questions from the Georgia Online Assessment System, designed to go beyond recall of information to test the students’ conceptual understanding. In addition to providing demographic information the survey employed a Likert scale to identify the students’ perception of science and interest in STEM. The final section of the survey identified the frequency of PBL strategies in the students’ experience. The PBL Index was originally designed by Buck Institute of Education as a teacher survey that identified 14 items related to project-based or inquiry-based learning (Ravitz, 2008). Mosier, Bradley-Levine, & Perkins (2013) modified BIE’s PBL Index to develop a survey for high school students that measured student experience with PBL and their own learning. The researcher further modified the survey for upper elementary age students. Reliability/Validity The Georgia Online Assessment test bank was developed by the state of Georgia using Level 2 questions correlated to the Georgia Performance Science Standards. Because items in the test bank were gleaned from multiple sources, the Georgia Department of Education was not able to provide item statistics for reliability (J. Reyes, personal communication, February 9, 2015). In an effort to increase the validity, a period of six weeks occurred between the administrations of the pretest and posttest. Standardized testing protocol was adhered to during administration as well. From Table 1, each scale in the survey was found to be reliable. Table 1Reliability Statistics for Survey ScalesCronbach’s AlphaCronbach’s Alpha Based on Standardized ItemsN of ItemsScience and STEM Perception Scale.741.76316PBL Index Scale.856.85723 Data AnalysisUpon completion of the collection of data, the researcher coded and entered the data for each group in the study into an Excel spreadsheet which calculated descriptive statistics. Further analysis required the use of SPSS which enabled the researcher to remove the influence of the pretest and learning styles inventories from the results by conducting an ANCOVA analysis. The survey data was analyzed separately with ANOVA. ResultsQ1 - Is there a difference in the science achievement of students instructed using Problem Based Learning and students using traditional teacher focused instruction?H?: There is no statistically significant difference in the science achievement of students instructed using Problem Based Learning and students using traditional teacher focused instruction.H?: There is a statistically significant difference in the science achievement of students instructed using Problem Based Learning and students using traditional teacher focused instruction.In an analysis of the pretest and posttest data, separate paired sample t-tests were completed for each of the three groups. The t-tests indicated a statistically significant difference in the pretest and posttest scores in group A [t(29) = -9.269, p<0.01] as indicated in Table 2, in group B [t(29) = -8.764, p<0.01] as shown in Table 3, and for Group C [t(29) = -6.858, p<0.01] as displayed in Table 4. Summary statistics of the posttest scores of three groups suggest little difference in the results. The mean posttest score for Treatment Group A (M= 77.83, SD=12.225) was significantly greater than the pretest scores (M=60.67, SD=18.925), for Treatment Group B with posttest (M=79.5, SD=9.68023) and pretest (M=56.17, SD=17.716) and posttest scores for Comparison Group C (M=74, SD=16.316) and pretest scores (M=54, SD=20.165).Table 2t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means of TreatmentGroup A (N = 30)?PretestPosttestMean60.6666666777.83333333Variance358.1609195149.454023Std. Deviation18.92512.225Observations3030Pearson Correlation0.874629001Hypothesized Mean Difference0Df29t Stat-9.269025206P(T<=t) one-tail1.79401E-10t Critical one-tail1.699127027P(T<=t) two-tail3.58802E-10t Critical two-tail2.045229642?Table 3t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means of TreatmentGroup B (N = 30)?PretestPosttestMean56.1666666779.5Variance263.247126493.70689655Std. Deviation17.7169.68023Observations3030Pearson Correlation0.459409394Hypothesized Mean Difference0df29t Stat-8.764177703P(T<=t) one-tail6.01811E-10t Critical one-tail1.699127027P(T<=t) two-tail1.20362E-09t Critical two-tail2.045229642?Table 4t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means of ComparisonGroup C (N = 30)?PretestPosttestMean5474Variance354.137931266.2068966Std. Deviation20.16516.316Observations3030Pearson Correlation0.594664609Hypothesized Mean Difference0df29t Stat-6.857625466P(T<=t) one-tail7.81163E-08t Critical one-tail1.699127027P(T<=t) two-tail1.56233E-07t Critical two-tail2.045229642?A one-way ANCOVA was conducted to evaluate the null hypothesis. The groups were the independent variable and the posttest scores was the dependent variable. Preliminary analysis showed that there was no significant correlation between covariates (N = 90) pretest scores (M = 56.94, SD = 18.05) and Learning Styles (M = 2.49, SD 1.34), r (90) = 0.137, p > 0.05. The results of a test for the homogeneity of regression in Table 5 indicate that the interactions between the group, the pretest, and the learning style are not statistically significant [F(3,78) = 0.186, p = 0.830]. From Table 6, the assumption of homogeneity of variance for the one–way ANCOVA has not been met [F (2, 87) = 6.252, p = 0.003].Table 5Tests for Interaction between Covariates and the IVGroup * Pretest, Group * Learning Style, Group * Pretest * Learning StyleSourceType III Sum of SquaresdfMeanSquareFSig.Corrected Model7244.309?11658.5746.417.000Intercept2303.03912302.02922.442.000Group59.610229.805.290.749Pretest647.1621647.1626.306.014Learning Style12.605112.605.123.727Group * Pretest53.509226.755.261.771Group * Learning Style27.53039.177.089.966Group * Pretest * Learning Style38.216219.108.186.830Error8004.58078102.623Total550400.00090Corrected Total15248.88989a. R Squared = .475 (Adjusted R Squared = .401) Table 6Levene’s Test of Homogeneity of Variance for theDependent Variable – Posttest ScoresFdf1df2Sig.6.252287.003Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the dependent variable is equal across groups.Design: Intercept + Group + Pretest + Learning Style + Group * Pretest + Group + Learning Style + Group * Pretest * Learning StyleAs noted in Table 7, the Posttest Scores from treatment group A (Mean = 77.83, SD = 12.23) and treatment group B (Mean = 79.50, SD = 9.68) were greater than posttest scores from the comparison group C (Mean = 74.00, SD = 16.320). The researcher accepted the null hypothesis because the relationship between the Method of Instruction and the Posttest Scores was not found to be statistically significant [F (2, 78) = 0.290, p = 0.749] from Table 8. Additionally, there is a significant effect of the covariate Pretest Scores [F (1, 78) = 6.306, p = 0.014]. From the effect size value, the covariate Pretest Scores accounts for 7.5% (partial ?? = 0.075 effect) of the variance in the Posttest Scores controlling for method of instruction.Table 7Descriptive Statistics for Dependent Variable Posttest Scores by GroupsGroupMeanStd. DeviationNTreatment Group A77.833312.2251430Treatment Group B79.50009.6802330Comparison Group C74.000016.3158530Total77.111113.0895390Table 8Tests of Between-Subjects Effects for the Dependent Variable PosttestsSourceType III Sum of SquaresdfMeanSquareFSig.Partial Eta SquaredNoncent. ParameterObserved Power?Corrected Model7244.309?11658.5746.417.000.47570.5921.000Intercept2303.03912302.02922.442.000.22322.442.997Group59.610229.805.290.749.007.581.095Pretest647.1621647.1626.306.014.0756.306.699Learning Style12.605112.605.123.727.002.123.064Group * Pretest53.509226.755.261.771.007.521.090Group * Learning Style27.53039.177.089.966.005.372.078Group * Pretest * Learning Style38.216219.108.186.830.003.268.065Error8004.58078102.623Total550400.00090Corrected Total15248.88989a. R Squared = .475 (Adjusted R Squared = .401) b. Computed using alpha = .05Q2 - Is there a difference in student perceptions of science and interest in STEM with students instructed using Problem Based Learning and students using traditional teacher focused instruction?H?: There is no statistically significant difference in student perceptions of science and interest in STEM of students instructed using Problem Based Learning and students using traditional teacher focused instruction.H?: There is a statistically significant difference in student perceptions of science and interest in STEM of students instructed using Problem Based Learning and students using traditional teacher focused instruction.The descriptive statistics in Table 9 for the student perceptions of science and interest in STEM revealed a difference in the perception for students in each of the three groups. Group A and B were the treatment groups and Group C was the comparison group. Overall the students in the two treatment groups rated their perceptions of science and interest in STEM higher than the comparison group. Further analysis was required to determine if the differences were statistically significant.Table 9Descriptive Statistics of the Perception and Interest in STEM IndexGroup A (N=30)Group B (N=30)Group C (N=30)MeanSDMeanSDMeanSDLearning science is interesting.4.031.004.300.73.731.23Learning science is challenging.3.601.043.371.383.131.28I rarely get in trouble in science class.3.971.164.341.083.731.23I work hard in science.4.400.814.530.574.230.94I get good grades in science.4.570.634.370.674.20.81My science teacher has high expectations.4.630.564.700.474.520.83I work on group projects in science.4.400.624.470.684.100.71I work on individual projects in science.3.401.164.070.873.771.01My teacher is supportive of my science work.4.230.574.600.624.371.03I use technology in science.4.430.734.070.833.831.05I use the engineering design process in science.4.270.644.630.564.230.90I use math in science.3.701.123.771.013.171.29I share what I learn in science with my friends and family.3.571.173.831.123.551.02I apply what I learn in science to everyday life.3.631.104.130.863.601.04I plan to have a career in a STEM related field.3.201.033.271.393.201.58I participate in STEM related extra-curricular activities.2.231.552.101.582.101.69During a preliminary analysis, three of the fifteen survey questions were eliminated after the assumption of homogeneity was tested. Twelve questions were found tenable using Levene’s Test displayed in Table 10.Table 10Test of Homogeneity of VariancesLevene Statisticdf1df2Sig.Learning science is interesting.1.941287.150I rarely get in trouble in science class. .569286.568I work hard in science class.2.674287.075I get good grades in science class.1.566287.215I work on group projects in science class..277287.759I work on individual projects in science class.1.285287.282I use technology in science class..620287.540I use the engineering design process in science class.1.418287.248I use math in science class..770287.466I share what I learn in science class with my friends and family..031287.970I apply what I learn in science to everyday life..826287.441I participate in STEM related extra-curricular activities. .196287.822A one-way ANOVA was conducted to examine whether there were statistically significant differences in student perceptions of science and interest in STEM with students instructed using Problem Based Learning and students using traditional teacher focused instruction. The results revealed statistically significant differences in the perception of the frequency of individual projects, F (2, 87) = 3.217, p = .045 and the use of technology in science, F (2, 87) = 3.543, p = .033. In Table 12, post-hoc Tukey tests revealed a statistically significant difference between Treatment Group A (M = 3.40, SD = 1.16) and Treatment Group B (M = 4.07, SD = .87) in the frequency of individual projects and between Treatment Group A (M = 4.43, SD = .72793) and Comparison Group C (M = 3.83, SD = 1.05) in the reported use of technology in science class. Table 11Summary of ANOVASum of SquaresdfMean SquareFI work on individual projects in science.Between Groups6.68923.3143.217Within Groups90.433871.039Total97.12289I use technology in science. Between Groups5.48922.7443.543Within Groups67.40087.755Total72.88989** p < 0.05Table 12Tukey HSD Comparison for Method of Instruction95% Confidence IntervalGroupGroupMean Diff Std. ErrorLower BoundUpper BoundI work on individual projects in science.AB-.66667*.26324-1.2944-.0390C-.36667.26324-.9944.2610BA .66667*.26324.03901.2944C.30000.26324-.3277.9277CA.36667.26324-.2610.9944B-.30000.26324-.9277.3277I use technology in science.AB.36667.22726-.1752.9086C.60000*.22726.05811.1419BA-.36667.22726-.9086.1752C.23333.22726-.3086.7752CA-.60000*.22726-1.1419-.0581B-.23333.22726.7752.3086* p < 0.05The remainder of the survey questions asked students to rate the frequency that PBL strategies were used in science class resulting in the PBL Index. The descriptive statistics for the PBL Index provide the means and standard deviations for each of the three groups from Table 13. Students in the treatment groups reported identifying real world problems and imagining the solutions most often (Group A mean = 3.97 and Group B mean = 4.00) while the comparison group reported multiple choice or short answer tests (mean 3.87) most frequently.Table 13Descriptive Statistics for PBL IndexGroup A (N=30)Group B (N=30)Group C (N=30)MeanSDMeanSDMeanSDHow often do you use the following to show the teacher what you have learned in science?Multiple choice or short answer tests2.931.113.570.863.870.86Group projects3.801.103.701.063.370.96Individual projects3.371.133.721.133.531.33Hands-on activities 3.501.113.831.093.070.91Homework assignments2.901.654.470.684.031.07How often have you participated in the following activities?Collected, organized, & analyzed information (data)3.131.173.531.013.201.16Presented what you have learned to the class2.801.403.531.012.000.98Presented what you have learned to parents or others outside of the class2.601.073.201.303.501.22Researched topics in detail to help you clearly explain them to others3.871.043.601.192.801.10Participated in projects with people in the community or outside the classroom2.301.242.601.332.571.33Identified real world problems and imagined a solution3.971.134.000.933.131.46Designed and created a solution for a problem3.771.073.931.012.731.05Have you ever participated in any of the following learning activities?Interview family or members of the community1.700.951.901.121.901.12Create and run a business or service project1.801.031.901.062.401.35Research opposing views and hold a debate2.101.212.071.201.831.02Create a museum-type display or exhibit1.871.332.231.332.170.99Research a real world problem then imagine and create a possible solution3.471.223.371.352.471.01Write letters to politicians, newspapers, soldiers or other community members2.231.282.210.901.930.83Create a piece of music, art, drama or video2.170.912.901.373.301.21Construct a physical model2.201.12.551.022.271.14Construct a computer model2.231.332.311.002.601.25Share information with students in other schools. (Global classroom, Skype, blog, etc.)2.371.302.661.232.411.02Create a computer based product or program. (web page, blog, game2.901.243.171.392.201.27Role play to solve problems based on real world problems2.371.332.521.302.201.32During a preliminary analysis, two of the twenty-four responses were eliminated after the assumption of homogeneity was tested. Twenty-two responses were found tenable using Levene’s Test displayed in Table 14. Table 14Test of Homogeneity of VariancesLevene Statisticdf1df2Sig.Multiple choice or short answer tests1.374287.258Group projects.482287.619Individual projects1.026286.363Hands-on activities 1.180287.312Collected, organized, & analyzed information (data)1.275287.284Presented what you have learned to the class1.285287.282Presented what you have learned to parents or others outside of the class1.564287.215Researched topics in detail to help you clearly explain them to others.845287.433Participated in projects with people in the community or outside the classroom.205287.815Identified real world problems and imagined a solution2.565287.083Designed and created a solution for a problem.501287.608Interview family or members of the community.400287.672Create and run a business or service project1.832287.166Research opposing views and hold a debate1.383287.256Create a museum-type display or exhibit2.565287.083Research a real world problem then imagine and create a possible solution.1.614287.205Write letters to politicians, newspapers, soldiers or other community members2.451286.092Create a piece of music, art, drama or video2.394286.097Construct a physical model.035286.965Construct a computer model1.003286.371Share information with students in other schools. (Global classroom, Skype, blog, etc.)1.354286.264Create a computer based product or program. (web page, blog, game, etc.).567286.570Role play to solve problems based on real world problems.352286.705A one-way ANOVA was conducted to examine whether there were statistically significant differences in the PBL Index with students instructed using Problem Based Learning and students using traditional teacher focused instruction. The results revealed statistically significant differences in nine of the twenty-four responses to the PBL Index noted in Table 15. In Table 16, the post-hoc Tukey tests revealed that the statistically significant differences in each of the nine responses were between one or both of the treatment groups and the comparison group. Minimal evidence indicates a statistically significant difference in student perceptions of science and interest in STEM of students instructed using Problem Based Learning and students using traditional teacher focused instruction, therefore the researcher accepts the null hypothesis. Table 15Summary of ANOVASum of SquaresdfMean SquareFMultiple choice or short answer testsBetween Groups13.62226.8117.529Within Groups78.70087.905Total92.32289Hands-on activitiesBetween Groups8.86724.4224.124Within Groups93.533871.075Total102.40089Presented what you have learned to Between Groups12.60026.3004.367parents or others outside of the classWithin Groups125.500871.443Total138.10089Researched topics in detail to help you Between Groups18.48929.2447.484clearly explain them to othersWithin Groups107.467871.235Total125.95689Identified real world problems and Between Groups12.42226.2113.919imagined a solutionWithin Groups137.900871.585Total150.32289Designed and created a solution for a Between Groups25.356212.67811.598ProblemWithin Groups95.100871.093Total120.45689Research a real world problem then Between Groups18.20029.1006.288imagine and create a possible solutionWithin Groups125.900871.447Total144.10089Create a piece of music, art, dramaBetween Groups19.78729.8947.141or videoWithin Groups119.156871.386Total138.94489Create a computer based product or Between Groups14.92427.4624.406program. (web page, blog, game, etc.)Within Groups145.638871.693Total160.56289** p < 0.05Table 16Tukey HSD Comparison for PBL Index95% Confidence IntervalGroupGroupMean Diff Std. ErrorLower BoundUpper BoundMultiple choice or short AB-.63333*.24557-1.2189-.0478answer testsC-.93333*.24557-1.5189.3478BA .63333*.24557.04781.2189C -.30000.24557-.8856.2856CA .93333*.24557.34781.5189B .30000.24557-.2856.8856Hands-on activitiesAB-.33333.26772-.9717.3050C .43333.26772-.20501.0717BA .33333.26772-.3050.9717C.76667*.26772.12831.4050CA -.43333.26772-1.0717.2050B -.76667*.26772-1.4050-.1283Presented what you have AB -.60000.31011-1.3395.1395learned to parents or others C -.90000*.31011-1.6395-.1605outside of the classBA .60000.31011-.13951.3395C -.30000.31011-1.0395.4395CA.90000*.31011.16051.6395B .30000.31011-.43951.0395Researched topics in detail to AB .26667.28697-.4176.9509help you clearly explain them C1.06667*.28697.38241.7509to othersBA -.26667.28697-.9509.4176C.80000*.28697.11571.4843CA-1.06667*.28697-1.7509-.3824B-.80000*.28697-1.4843-.1157Identified real world problems AB .10000.32507-.6751.8751and imagined a solutionC.83333*.32507.05821.6085BA -.10000.32507-.8751.6751C .73333.32507-.04181.5085CA-.83333*.32507-1.6085-.0582B -.73333.32507-1.5085.0418Designed and created a AB-.16667.26995-.8104.4770solution for a problemC1.03333.26995.38961.6770BA-.16667.26995-.4770.8104C1.03333*.26995.55631.8437CA -16667.26995-1.6770-.3896B1.20000*.26995-1.8437-.5563Research a real world problem AB .10000.31060-.6406.8406then imagine and create aC1.000000*.31060.25941.7406possible solutionBA -.10000.31060-.8406.6406C .90000*.31060.15941.6406CA-1.00000*.31060-1.7406-.2594B-.90000.31060-1.6406-.1594Create a piece of music, art, AB -.72989.30653-1.4610.0012drama or videoC-1.13333*.30392-1.8582-.4085BA .72989.30653-.00121.4610C -.40345.30653-1.1345.3276CA1.13333*.30392.40851.8582B .40345.30653-.32761.1345Create a computer based AB -.27241.33889-1.0806.5358product or program. (webC .70000.33600-.10141.5014page, blog, game, etc.)BA .27241.33889-.53581.0806C .97241*.33889-.16421.7806CA-.70000.33600-1.5014.1014B -.97241*.33889-1.7806-.1642* p < 0.05Conclusion While the posttest scores and the student perceptions of science were generally higher in the classrooms that participated in the PBL unit over the students in the traditional teacher focused classroom, the results were not statistically significant in this study. The study was completed under limited time constraints that may have been a factor in the results. Another limitation may have been the instrument used for the pretest and posttest because it was not designed to measure depth of understanding beyond the limited science standards in the unit. Further research that includes qualitative data would be beneficial to the field of PBL research.ReferencesAli, R., Akhter, A., Shahzad, S., Sultana, N., & Ramzan, M. (2011). The impact of motivation on students' academic achievement in mathematics in problem based learning environment. International Journal of Academic Research,?3(1), 306-309.Bethke Wendell, K., & Rogers, C. (2013). Engineering design-based science, science content performance, and science attitudes in elementary school.?Journal of Engineering Education, 102(4), 513-540.Boss, S. (2012). The Challenge of Assessing Project-Based Learning.?District Administration,?48(9), 46-50.Brown, J. (2012). The current status of STEM education research.?Journal of STEM Education: Innovations & Research,?13(5), 7-11.DeJarnette, N. K. (2012). America's children: Providing early exposure to stem (science, technology, engineering and math) initiatives.?Education,?133(1), 77-84.Georgia Department of Education (2014). Online assessment system. Retrieved November 15, 2014, from Department of Education (2014). Testing/assessment. Retrieved November 15, 2014, from Georgia Department of Education (2014). Transitioning the Georgia Student Growth Model to the Georgia Milestones Assessment System. Retrieved December 1, 2014, from GM FAQ.pdf Godzicki, L., Godzicki, N., Krofel, M., & Michaels, R. (2013). Increasing motivation and engagement in elementary and middle school students through technology-supported learning environments (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED541343)Holland, J., & Holland, J. (2014). Implications of shifting technology in education.?TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning,?58(3), 16-25.International Technology Education Association. (2000). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Retrieved from , V. R. (2014). Teaching STEM integrative curriculum.?Children's Technology & Engineering,?18(3), 37-39.Kelley, T. (2010). Staking the claim for the "T" in STEM.?Journal of Technology Studies,?36(1), 2-11.Kelley, T. R. (2012). Voices from the past: Messages for a STEM future.?Journal of Technology Studies,?38(1), 34-42.Kuo, F., & Hwang, G. (2014). A five-phase learning cycle approach to improving the web-based problem-solving performance of students.?Educational Technology & Society,?(1), 169.Mehta, J., & Fine, S. (2012). Teaching differently ... Learning deeply.?The Phi Delta Kappan, (2). 31 – 35.Mosier, G., Bradley-Levine, J., & Perkins, T. (2013). The impact of project-based learning on STEM education in high-need schools. University of Indianapolis. Moye, J. J., Dugger Jr, W., E., & Stark-Weather, K. (2014). "Learning by doing" research Introduction.?Technology & Engineering Teacher,?74(1), 24-27.Nadelson, L. S., Callahan, J., Pyke, P., Hay, A., Dance, M., & Pfiester, J. (2013). Teacher STEM perception and preparation: Inquiry-based STEM professional development for elementary teachers.?Journal of Educational Research,?106(2), 157-168.NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. Retrieved September 13, 2014 from National Research Council. (2012). A Framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, D. C.: The National Academies Press. Retrieved September 13, 2014 from nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13165Parker, J., & Lazaros, E. J. (2014). Curriculum integration of resources addressing STEM concepts for the students' future.?Children's Technology & Engineering,?18(3), 14-17.Parker, J., & Lazaros, E. J. (2014). Teaching 21st century skills and STEM concepts in the elementary classroom.?Children's Technology & Engineering,?18(4), 24-27.Piedmont Education Services (2014). What is my learning style? [Web based assessment]. Pfafftown, NC. Retrieved November 1, 2014 from Project 2061, American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for Science Literacy. New York: Oxford University Press. Ravitz, J. (2008), Project based learning as a catalyst in reforming high schools. Buck Institute for Education: New York.Reeves, C. (2014). Constructive and destructive forces of the earth WebQuest. Retrieved from , A., Dailey, D., Hughes, G., & Cotabish, A. (2014). The effects of a science-focused STEM intervention on gifted elementary students’ science knowledge and skills.?Journal of Advanced Academics,?25(3), 189-213. doi:10.1177/1932202X14533799Staples, A., Pugach, M. C., & Himes, D. (2005). Rethinking the technology integration challenge: Cases from three urban elementary schools. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(3), 285-311.Tambouris, E., Panopoulou, E., Tarabanis, K., Ryberg, T., Buus, L., Peristeras, V., et al. (2012). Enabling problem based learning through Web 2.0 technologies: PBL 2.0.?Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(4), 238-251.Verma, A. K., Dickerson, D., & McKinney, S. (2011). Engaging students in STEM careers with project-based learning -- marine tech project.?Technology & Engineering Teacher,?71(1), 25-31.Woodruff, K. (2013, March 12). A history of STEM – Reigniting the challenge with NGSS and CCSS. [Web log post] Retrieved September 13, 2014 from STEMblog/?p=31Zafirov, C. (2013). New challenges for the project based learning in the digital age.?Trakia Journal of Sciences,?11(3), 298-302.Appendix APretest/PosttestName:_____________________________________________ Date:________________________1. Which human activity does NOT help control water runoff?A. contour plowingB. planting cropsC. building flood control damsD. paving with asphalt2. What is a common cause of mudflows?A. strong windsB. extreme coldC. extreme heatD. heavy rains3. In which of the following areas would soil erosion MOST LIKELY occur if they received the same amount of rainfall?A. a forestB. flat agricultural landsC. agricultural lands on steep slopesD. restored prairies4. Which is washed away MOST EASILY by erosion?A. topsoilB. subsoilC. bedrockD. magma5. Where does most eroded soil end up?A. in new agricultural landsB. in the desertC. in the sediment of riversD. in rockslides6. Which conditions are necessary for dust storms to occur?A. wet, humid conditionsB. cold, cloudy conditionsC. dry, windy conditionsD. hot, moist conditions7. Do earthquakes occur underwater?A. No, earthquakes have to occur on land.B. Yes, and they can cause tsunamis to occur.C. No, only volcanoes occur underwater.D. Yes, but they have no effect on the ocean waters.8. How were the Hawaiian Islands formed?A. by an earthquakeB. by volcanoesC. by tidal wavesD. by wind erosion9. The natural process of rocks gradually breaking up and being worn away over time is known asA. weathering.B. cementing.C. sedimentation.D. melting.10. A moving portion of Earth's crust and upper mantle is called aA. fault.B. fold.C. plate.D. ridge.11. What causes earthquakes?A. energy being released when crustal plates moveB. energy from a hurricane or tornadoC. energy that builds up inside a volcanic mountainD. energy being released when erosion occurs12. Which does NOT cause erosion?A. waterB. sunlightC. windD. ice13. An extinct volcano is one thatA. erupts only once.B. erupts once every 100 years.C. is expected to erupt soon.D. has not erupted in many years.14. Your teacher tells you to bring an item to class that shows evidence of erosion. Which of the following would be the BEST to bring?A. a piece of lava from a volcanic areaB. a crystal from the inside of a geodeC. a piece of slate from a slate quarryD. a round rock from a streambed15. Water inside a rock crevice can split it apart when the temperature drops becauseA. cold water dissolves rock.B. water expands when it freezes.C. water causes the growth of plant roots.D. the cold makes the rock very brittle.16. A volcanic eruption eventually produces the mountain called a volcano becauseA. the crust expands due to the heat.B. the magma pressure lifts up the crust.C. the lava and ash collect.D. the plate motion folds the crust.17. When an area of Earth's surface suddenly moves, a seismograph draws wavy lines. Which of the following MOSTLIKELY happened?A. a volcanic eruptionB. a thunderstormC. a nuclear explosionD. an earthquake18. Why are the rocks and pebbles found in riverbeds usually smooth?A. The rocks are very old.B. Animals in the river keep rubbing against the rocks.C. Rivers only flow where rocks are smooth.D. The rocks are worn smooth by rubbing against other rocks.19. Muddy areas are usually found at the mouths of large rivers. These areas are caused byA. decayed vegetable matter.B. underwater volcanoes.C. soil erosion upstream.D. mountain building.20. In which state would an earthquake MOST LIKELY occur?A. KentuckyB. GeorgiaC. CaliforniaD. OklahomaAppendix B Data Collection InstrumentStudent SurveyThe questions in this survey are about your experiences with Project Based Learning in the classroom. It will take about 15 minutes to answer the questions. Your answers will be anonymous. If you do not want to participate in this survey, you may click on “exit the survey” at any time. There will be no record of your visiting the site and your responses will not be recorded. For your answers to be included in the data, you must select the “done” button at the end of the survey. Completing this survey indicates your willingness to participate in the study. Thank you for your time!Student ProfilePlease select the options that best describe you.Are you female or male?Female (girl)Male (boy)How old are you?Nine (9)Ten (10)Eleven (11)Twelve (12)What grade are you in?Fourth (4th)Fifth (5th)Learning ActivitiesPlease choose the option that describes your experience with each of the following. 1 2 3 4 5Strongly Disagree Disagree No Opinion Agree Strongly AgreeLearning science is interesting. Learning science is challenging. I rarely get in trouble in science class.I work hard in science class.I get good grades in science.My science teacher has high expectations.I work on group projects in science.I work on individual projects in science.My teacher is supportive of my work in science.Please choose the option that describes your experience with each of the following. 1 2 3 4 5Strongly Disagree Disagree No Opinion Agree Strongly AgreeI use technology in science.I use the engineering design process in science.I use math in science.I share what I learn in science with my friends and/or family.I apply what I learn in science to everyday life.I plan to have a career in a STEM-related field.I participate in the following STEM-related activities? Check all that apply.RoboticsScience OlympiadSprouting STEMSTechiesChess ClubOther STEM related extra – curricular activitiesHow often do you use the following to show the teacher what you have learned in science? Please choose the option that best describes your experience. 1 2 3 4 5Never A few times Once or twice a month Once or twice a week Almost every dayMultiple choice or short answer testsGroup projectsIndividual projectsHands-on activities Homework assignmentsHow often have you participated in the following activities? Please choose the option that best describes your experience. 1 2 3 4 5Never A few times Once or twice a month Once or twice a week Almost every dayCollected, organized, & analyzed information (data)Presented what you have learned to the classPresented what you have learned to parents or others outside of the classResearched topics in detail to help you clearly explain them to othersParticipated in projects with people in the community or outside the classroomIdentified real world problems and imagined a solutionDesigned and created a solution for a problemHave you ever participated in any of the following learning activities?Interview family or members of the communityCreate and run a business or service projectResearch opposing views and hold a debateCreate a museum-type display or exhibitResearch a real world problem then imagine and create a possible solutionWrite letters to politicians, newspapers, soldiers or other community membersCreate a piece of music, art, drama or videoConstruct a physical modelConstruct a computer modelShare information with students in other schools. (global classroom, Skype, blog, etc.)Create a computer based product or program. (web page, blog, game, etc.)Role play to solve problems based on real world problemsAppendix CWeblink to “What is My Learning Style?” to the Spanish Version of “What is My Learning Style?” DWeblink to the PBL WebQuest ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download