Investigating How Implementing

INVESTIGATING HOW IMPLEMENTING INTERACTIVE TECHNOLOGIES IN A
SECONDARY SCHOOL SCIENCE PROGRAM INFLUENCES STUDENT

ATTITUDE AND MOTIVATION TOWARDS SCIENCE LEARNING
GRIFFIN MICHAEL COBB
SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT

OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF MASTER OF EDUCATION
NIPISSING UNIVERSITY
SCHULICH SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
NORTH BAY, ONTARIO
© Griffin Michael Cobb January 2014

Library and Archives Bibliothèque et
Canada Archives Canada
Published Heritage Direction du
Branch Patrimoine de l'édition
395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington

Ottawa ON K1A 0N4 Ottawa ON K1A 0N4
Canada Canada
Your file Votre référence
ISBN: 978-0-499-25001-8
Our file Notre référence

ISBN: 978-0-499-25001-8
NOTICE: AVIS:
The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive
exclusive license allowing Library and permettant à la Bibliothèque et Archives
Archives Canada to reproduce, Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver,
publish, archive, preserve, conserve, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public
communicate to the public by par télécommunication ou par l'Internet, prêter,
telecommunication or on the Internet, distribuer et vendre des thèses partout dans le
loan, distrbute and sell theses monde, à des fins commerciales ou autres, sur
worldwide, for commercial or non- support microforme, papier, électronique et/ou
commercial purposes, in microform, autres formats.
paper, electronic and/or any other
formats.
The author retains copyright L'auteur conserve la propriété du droit d'auteur

ownership and moral rights in this et des droits moraux qui protege cette thèse. Ni
thesis. Neither the thesis nor la thèse ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci
substantial extracts from it may be ne doivent être imprimés ou autrement
printed or otherwise reproduced reproduits sans son autorisation.
without the author's permission.
In compliance with the Canadian Conformément à la loi canadienne sur la

Privacy Act some supporting forms protection de la vie privée, quelques
may have been removed from this formulaires secondaires ont été enlevés de
thesis. cette thèse.
While these forms may be included Bien que ces formulaires aient inclus dans
in the document page count, their la pagination, il n'y aura aucun contenu
removal does not represent any loss manquant.
of content from the thesis.
Abstract
This research study was an action research study comparing student attitudes and
motivation toward science learning before and after the implementation of interactive
technologies into secondary school science classrooms. Quantitative data were
collected through survey questionnaires completed before and after the new
technologies had been introduced. Results were analyzed using analysis of variance
to determine if there were any statistically significant increases in students’
motivation towards science learning. In the analysis of the student questionnaires,
there were no quantitative data found to indicate that the inclusion of interactive
technologies have increased student attitude or motivation towards learning science
in this sample population. While the study did not generate any significant
conclusions, it did provide information and recommendations into how technology
could be better utilized in this secondary setting.
iv
Table of Contents
Abstract ……………………………………………………………………………………iv.
List of Tables ……………………………………………………………………………..vii.
List of Appendices ………………………………………………………………………xiv.
Chapter One: Introduction……………………………..………………………….……...1
Interactive Technology …………………………………………………….…......3
Background of the Problem ……………………………………….………..........4
Statement of the Problem ………………………………………………….….....5
Theoretical Framework …………………………………………………….……..5
Significance of the Study ………………………………………………….………7
Research Question ………………………………………………………………10
Definition of Terms ………………………………………………………….……10
Limitations …………………………………………………………………….…..10
Summary ………………………………………………………………………….12
Chapter Two: Literature Review ……………………………..………………….……...14
Investment in Interactive Whiteboards ………………………………………...14
Effective Instruction and Interactive Technologies …………………….……..16
Differentiation of Instruction ……………………………………………….…….20
Improving Student Achievement ………………………………………….…….22
Improving Student Motivation ……………………………………………….…..24
Summary and Implications for Future Research ……………………….……..25
Chapter Three: Methodology ……………………………………………………….…...31
Type of Research ………………………………………………………………..31
v
Role of the Researcher ………………………………………………………….32
Ethical Considerations …………………………………………………………..33
Population and Sample …………………………………………………………33
Instrumentation …………………………………………………………………..34
Data Collection …………………………………………………………….……..36
Data Analysis ………………………………………………………………….….37
Chapter Four: Results …………………….……………………………………….…….39
Analysis of Complete Data Set …………………………………………………39
Analysis of Data Subset by Gender ……………………………………………40
Analysis of Data Subset by Grade ………………………………………..……40
Analysis of Data Subset by Motivational Factor …………………………..….41
Analysis by Motivational Factor – Self-Efficacy ………………………………41
Analysis by Motivational Factor – Active Learning Strategies ………………43
Analysis by Motivational Factor – Science Learning Value …………………44
Analysis by Motivational Factor – Performance Goal ………………………..46
Analysis by Motivational Factor – Achievement Goal …………………….….48
Analysis by Motivational Factor – Learning Environment Stimulation ….…..50
Chapter Five: Discussion of Results, Conclusions, and Recommendations …..…150
Discussion of Results …………………………………………………...………150
Conclusions ...………………………………………………….….……………..163
Recommendations for Future Research .….………………………………….165
Summary ……….……………….………………………………………………..168
References ……………………………………………………………………………...170
vi
List of Tables
Table 1: Results of All Students: Descriptive Statistics ……………………………….52
Table 2: Results of All Students: Analysis of Variance …………………………..…..53
Table 3: Results of Male Students: Descriptive Statistics……………………………..54
Table 4: Results of Male Students: Analysis of Variance…………………………….55
Table 5: Results of Female Students: Descriptive Statistics………………………….56
Table 6: Results of Female Students: Analysis of Variance………….………….……57
Table 7: Results for Grade 9 Students: Descriptive Statistics……………………..…58
Table 8: Results for Grade 9 Students: Analysis of Variance ….……………….…...59
Table 9: Results for Grade 10 Students: Descriptive Statistics …………………...…60
Table 10: Results for Grade 10 Students: Analysis of Variance …………….…..…..61
Table 11: Results for Grade 11 Students: Descriptive Statistics …………….……...62
Table 12: Results for Grade 11 Students: Analysis of Variance ……………….…....63
Table 13: Results for Grade 12 Students: Descriptive Statistics …………….……...64
Table 14: Results for Grade 12 Students: Analysis of Variance ………….….……...65
Table 15: Results for All Students – Self-Efficacy Motivational Factor (Q. 1-7):
Descriptive Statistics ………………………………………………………………….…..66
Table 16: Results for All Students – Self-Efficacy Motivational Factor (Q. 1-7):
Analysis of Variance .……………………………………………………………………..67
Table 17: Results for Male Students – Self-Efficacy Motivational Factor (Q. 1-7):
Descriptive Statistics ……………………………………………………………………..68
Table 18: Results for Male Students – Self-Efficacy Motivational Factor (Q. 1-7):
Analysis of Variance …….………………………………………………………………..69
Table 19: Results for Female Students – Self-Efficacy Motivational Factor (Q. 1-7):
Descriptive Statistics ……………………………………………………………………..70
vii
Table 20: Results for Female Students – Self-Efficacy Motivational Factor
(Q. 1-7): Analysis of Variance …………………………………………………………..71
Table 21: Results for Grade 9 Students – Self-Efficacy Motivational Factor

(Q. 1-7): Descriptive Statistics …………………………………………………………..72


(Q. 1-7): Descriptive Statistics ………………………………………………………….74





Table 29: Results for All Students – Active Learning Strategies Motivational
Factor (Q. 8-15): Descriptive Statistics ………………………………………………..80
Table 30: Results for All Students – Active Learning Strategies Motivational
Factor (Q. 8-15): Analysis of Variance …………………………………….…………..81
Table 31: Results for Male Students – Active Learning Strategies Motivational
Table 32: Results for Male Students – Active Learning Strategies Motivational
Factor (Q. 8-15): Analysis of Variance ………………………………………………...83
Table 33: Results for Female Students – Active Learning Strategies Motivational
Table 34: Results for Female Students – Active Learning Strategies Motivational
Factor (Q. 8-15): Analysis of Variance ………………………………………………...85
viii
Table 35: Results for Grade 9 Students – Active Learning Strategies Motivational
Factor (Q. 8-15): Descriptive Statistics ………………………………..………………86
Table 36: Results For Grade 9 Students – Active Learning Strategies Motivational
Factor (Q. 8-15): Analysis of Variance …………………………………………………87
Factor (Q. 8-15): Descriptive Statistics………………………………………………….88
Factor (Q. 8-15): Descriptive Statistics …………………………………………………90
Factor (Q. 8-15): Descriptive Statistics …………………………………………………92
Table 43: Results for All Students – Science Learning Value Motivational Factor
(Q. 16-20): Descriptive Statistics ………………………………………………………..94
Table 44: Results for All Students – Science Learning Value Motivational Factor
(Q. 16-20): Analysis of Variance ………………………………………..…..…………..95
Table 45: Results for Male Students – Science Learning Value Motivational Factor
(Q. 16-20): Descriptive Statistics ………………………………………………………..96
Table 46: Results for Male Students – Science Learning Value Motivational Factor
(Q. 16-20): Analysis of Variance ………………………………………………….……..97
Table 47: Results for Female Students – Science Learning Value Motivational
Factor (Q. 16-20): Descriptive Statistics ………………………………………….……98
Table 48: Results for Female Students – Science Learning Value Motivational
Factor (Q. 16-20): Analysis of Variance ………………………………………….…….99
Table 49: Results for Grade 9 Students – Science Learning Value Motivational
Factor (Q. 16-20): Descriptive Statistics …………………………………..….………100
ix
Table 50: Results for Grade 9 Students – Science Learning Value Motivational
Factor (Q. 16-20): Analysis of Variance ………………………………………………101
Table 51: Results for Grade 10 Students – Science Learning Value

Motivational Factor (Q. 16-20): Descriptive Statistics ………………………………102

Motivational Factor (Q. 16-20): Analysis of Variance ………………………….……103


Motivational Factor (Q. 16-20): Analysis of Variance ……………………….………105


Motivational Factor (Q. 16-20): Analysis of Variance …………………….…………107
Table 57: Results for All Students – Performance Goal Motivational Factor
(Q.21-24): Descriptive Statistics ………………………………………..……………..108
Table 58: Results for All Students – Performance Goal Motivational Factor
(Q.21-24): Analysis of Variance ……………………………………………………….109
Table 59: Results for Male Students – Performance Goal Motivational Factor
(Q.21-24): Descriptive Statistics ……………………………………………………….110
Table 60: Results for Male Students – Performance Goal Motivational Factor
(Q.21-24): Analysis of Variance ……………………………………………….……….111
Table 61: Results for Female Students – Performance Goal Motivational Factor
Table 62: Results for Female Students – Performance Goal Motivational Factor
(Q.21-24): Analysis of Variance ………………………………………….…………….113
Table 63: Results for Grade 9 Students – Performance Goal Motivational Factor
Table 64: Results for Grade 9 Students – Performance Goal Motivational Factor
x
Table 65: Results for Grade 10 Students – Performance Goal Motivational
Factor (Q.21-24): Descriptive Statistics ……………………………………………….116

Factor (Q.21-24): Analysis of Variance ……………………………………………….117




Table 71: Results for All Students – Achievement Goal Motivational Factor
Table 72: Results for All Students – Achievement Goal Motivational Factor
Table 73: Results For Male Students – Achievement Goal Motivational Factor
Table 74: Results for Male Students – Achievement Goal Motivational Factor
Table 75: Results for Female Students – Achievement Goal Motivational Factor
Table 76: Results for Female Students – Achievement Goal Motivational Factor
Table 77: Results for Grade 9 Students – Achievement Goal Motivational Factor
xi
(Q.25-29): Analysis of Variance …………………………………………………….….133
(Q.25-29): Analysis of Variance …………………………………………………….….135
Table 85: Results For All Students – Learning Environment Stimulation

Motivational Factor (Q.30-35): Descriptive Statistics ………………………………..136
Table 86: Results for All Students – Learning Environment Stimulation

Motivational Factor (Q.30-35): Analysis of Variance …………………………….…..137
Table 87: Results for Male Students – Learning Environment Stimulation

Motivational Factor (Q.30-35): Descriptive Statistics ……………………………..…138
Table 88: Results for Male Students – Learning Environment Stimulation

Motivational Factor (Q.30-35): Analysis of Variance ……………………………..…139
Table 89: Results for Female Students – Learning Environment Stimulation

Motivational Factor (Q.30-35): Descriptive Statistics ……………….…………….…140
Table 90: Results for Female Students – Learning Environment Stimulation

Motivational Factor (Q.30-35): Analysis of Variance ……………………..……….…141
Table 91: Results for Grade 9 Students – Learning Environment Stimulation

Motivational Factor (Q.30-35): Descriptive Statistics …………………….……….…142

Motivational Factor (Q.30-35): Analysis of Variance ……………………….…….…143

Motivational Factor (Q.30-35): Descriptive Statistics ……………………….….……144

Motivational Factor (Q.30-35): Analysis of Variance ……………………….….……145
xii
Motivational Factor (Q.30-35): Descriptive Statistics ……………………….….……146

Motivational Factor (Q.30-35): Analysis of Variance ………………………….….…147

Motivational Factor (Q.30-35): Descriptive Statistics ………………………………148

Motivational Factor (Q.30-35): Analysis of Variance ………………………………149
xiii
List of Appendices
Appendix A: Student Motivation Towards Science Learning Questionnaire …….174
Appendix B: Research Ethics Board Approval Forms..…………………………….177
xiv
Chapter One: Introduction
There have been numerous recent investments made in an effort to
effectively integrate technology into the secondary school classroom. Technological
innovations are constantly being introduced which claim to transform how students
learn and interact in schools, all claiming to improve student learning, motivation,
and achievement. Schools and school boards spend a great deal of money on these
technologies in the hopes that they will lead to an increase in student engagement,
interest in learning, and improved achievement.
Students today have grown up in a very fast-paced world, part of a
technology-influenced and technology-dependent generation. Today’s youth have
been raised in the digital age with computers, the Internet, video games, audio/video
players, and cellular smart phones, all being common everyday devices. As we
move into the 21st century, we find that tools, communication, information, and work
are all different (Niess, 2005). Students interact with technology constantly in their
daily lives; however, at school their interaction with technology may be very limited.
Today’s students are accustomed to having immediate access to virtually unlimited
information sources on all topics. Students today use the Internet to access
information that affects all aspects of their lives. Whether it is doing research for an
assignment, searching for additional help on a topic, looking up information related
to personal interests, or accessing social media networking sites to stay connected
with their friends, students depend on this access and have grown up with it at their
disposal. We now need our schools to respond to these changes so that they can
better meet the needs of students. Schools do not need to change everything and
1
2
teachers should continue to use strategies and methods that have been proven to
work, but they should be encouraged to try new ways to connect with their students
today. Given this shift, education must shift to incorporate computer-based,
electronic technologies and integrate learning with these technologies (Niess, 2005).
Teachers need to be trained and supported to implement these changes. This is the
only way that technology can be effectively integrated into the classroom. Schools
may not have been keeping up with the fast changing world that our students live in,
but changes are being made and investment in educational technology is increasing.
Keeping up with all the current trends in new technology in our society is difficult.
The educational technology sector is also growing very quickly. There are new
devices and new software applications being developed and released all the time;
there are numerous websites and databases that offer online teaching resources
and ideas for engaging students through the use of technology. Using technology to
assist student learning and improve student engagement and motivation offers many
advantages. Students feel comfortable using and interacting with technology, but
unfortunately, they are rarely given the opportunity to do so at school. When they do,
it is often underutilized or used in a very superficial way. Students need to interact
with the technology and use it often to gain experience and confidence. Teachers
need to do the same. The use of technology needs to be embedded into lesson
delivery and it needs to become part of the daily classroom experience. The
integration of educational technology into the high school curriculum is largely
dependent upon the effectiveness of teachers to organize and present curricula in
ways that promote student learning (Morrell, 2002). Educational technology provides
3
teachers with additional supports, methods, and strategies to be used in lesson
delivery, assessment, and evaluation of student work and communication with
parents and students. Students communicate using technology and utilizing it in the
classroom helps teachers to better communicate with their students. Whatever their
learning styles, strengths, or interests may be, utilizing technology in the classroom
may be one way to better reach all students and meet their needs.
Interactive Technology
Interactive whiteboards (IWB) are learning and instructional tools that can be
utilized in a classroom to provide students with opportunities and applications not
available with traditional chalkboards or whiteboards. Research studies in education
demonstrate that the use of technology can help improve students’ scores on
standardized tests, inventive thinking, self-concept, and motivation (Hew & Brush,
2007). Research has identified key pedagogical features of successful IWB lessons:
awareness of multiple learning styles, clarifying visual representation, planning for
the development of metacognition, actively engaging students, developing
progressive and logical sequenced lessons, allowing feedback, and sustaining
student understanding and achievement (Glover & Miller, 2003).
Technology is believed to significantly enhance science teaching and
learning. Interactive whiteboards offer immediate access for a whole class to a
variety of web-based and other multimedia resources. The use of technology allows
teachers to create a dynamic interactive classroom. Students sharing their ideas and
expertise during technology supported collaborative learning has demonstrable
cognitive benefits (Hennessy, 2006). Students are able to investigate complex

4
models and simulations that provide concrete representations to help explain
abstract theories. Tools and resources that students can use interactively potentially
offer opportunities for expressing, evaluating, and revising their developing ideas as
they visualise the consequences of and contradiction within their own reasoning
(Hennessy, 2006). The use of interactive technologies creates a classroom
environment that provides students with a variety of learning opportunities to suit
their needs. This study is intended to analyze the impact of implementing interactive
technologies in the classroom on student attitude and motivation towards learning
science.
Background of the Problem
This research study was conducted in a small secondary school with a
population of approximately 500 students located in Southern Ontario. The school
services a large rural population and offers course options in all student pathways.
As a full-time science teacher and the department head of science at this school,
one of my goals is to improve student achievement in science by improving the
science program delivered in the school. Student attitude and motivation towards
learning science along with student engagement in science class activities became
an area to focus on. The school involved in this research study was a school that
had very old and outdated classroom laboratory facilities and equipment. The school
was over 40 years old and in 2008 was still using the original science classroom labs
with minimal upgrades and repairs. Most labs did not have functioning water, natural
gas, or proper lab equipment. The condition of the classroom labs considerably
limited the types of activities that could be conducted in them. There was also very
5
limited use of educational technology for student learning activities in these
classrooms. There were some audio/visual equipment and computer labs that could
be used for classes; however, availability was limited. In February, 2009 construction
began to reconstruct the schools’ science classroom labs. Every science room was
upgraded to provide students with a fully functioning classroom lab facility. In
addition to the general renovation, each room was equipped with an interactive
whiteboard, computers with Internet access, laboratory based software, and digital
scientific lab sensors and equipment. The new facilities were opened for student use
in September, 2009.
Statement of the Problem
The upgrade and renovation of the schools’ science classroom labs was a
major investment made in the school. Including current educational technology
equipment such as interactive whiteboards and computers was an additional
expense. This research study aims to investigate how the implementation of
interactive technologies in a secondary school science program influences student
attitude and motivation toward learning science.
Theoretical Framework
Learning should be an interactive, engaging experience for the learner.
Students should be learning science by discovering science through investigation.
The teaching and learning of science naturally lends itself to an inquiry based style
of learning. The Ontario Secondary Science Curriculum expectations require
students to conduct investigations and experiments that help connect classroom
theory with real-world applications and allow the learner to experience a variety of
6
learning activities. It is important that teachers move from textbook science to doing
science so that they and their students can understand more clearly what science is
and what scientists do (Comeaux & Huber, 2001). Teachers should focus on
facilitating science learning instead of imparting science knowledge. These practices
support a student-centered, constructivist learning environment. In contrast to
teacher-centered instruction, constructivist learning places learners at the focus of
the learning environment and knowledge is viewed as something that is constructed
by the learner (Ziegler, 2004). Students need to exercise control over their own
learning and realize the application of abstract theories in a real-world context. They
must actively participate in the learning process where they can interact with other
learners and the curriculum in interesting and innovative ways. Educational
technology is an area that may provide students with the tools to help them become
more independent learners. It may offer them a unique way to explore learning that
they have not been exposed to before. Interactive whiteboard activities allow for
prompt discussions, explaining hypothetical processes, and differentiation of
instruction. Teachers can use them for kinaesthetic learning by increasing active
learning and this engagement increases students’ motivation to learn through a
variety of lessons (Dill, 2008). When students are more motivated to learn, they are
more likely to be engaged in classroom activities and they are more likely to be
successful. Knowledge acquisition is built, not passively acquired, as learners make
sense of the world around them. Knowledge is built by the active process of thinking
or reflecting about interactions with the immediate environment and all the related
parts (Ziegler, 2004). Seeing things happen and discovering connections are
7
experiences that help learners to develop their own understanding of the processes
they are studying. The contemporary view of science education encompasses a
process of knowledge construction in which the learner plays an active role through
interaction with others and with objects. The current model of teaching and learning
with digital technology in school science should follow the practical investigative or
inquiry approach, which builds on constructivist approaches towards learning
(Hennessy, 2006). These types of environments encourage student participation and
allow students to be more independent learners. Technology has become an integral
part of our society, but the educational community has not utilized technology to the
same capacity. Shifting from the industrial teaching age to the information learning
age has had a deep impact on education. Education needs to shift to accommodate
these new changes. Effectively utilizing new educational technology in the
classroom has been found to improve student achievement. The key in using
educational technology is to utilize meaningful activities that may promote students’
thinking in new and different ways, not available before educational technology was
in place (Morrell, 2002).
Significance of the Study
Integrating technology in the curriculum can be used to develop in students a
culture of thinking, lifelong learning, and social responsibility (Hew & Brush, 2007).
Students must learn how to use technology to their advantage. They have access to
very powerful devices and must learn how to use them responsibly. Teachers need
to adapt to these changes as well. Learning has changed and teaching should
change to address it. There are many advantages and opportunities made available
8
through the use of technology in the classroom that could not be utilized previously.
When teachers can successfully implement new technology-enhanced, inquiry-
based instruction in their classrooms, students can gain an enhanced understanding
of science concepts in a meaningful context and engage in inquiry-oriented thinking
(Varma, Husic, & Linn, 2008). Successful uses of technology in schools have
resulted from teachers’ beliefs that technology will improve the learning process.
Also, the goal of improving learning is a motivational factor to introduce new
technologies into the classroom. Technology also provides a variety of instructional
materials and structure that is positively correlated to teacher behaviors found to
improve student achievement (Morrell, 2002). The balancing and integration of use
of technological resources with other complementary teaching and learning activities
is considered to be highly desirable and to support empirical or theoretical
generalisation of new conceptual learning (Hennessy, 2006).
Another positive result is improvement in student behaviour. Thompson and
Flecknoe (2003) comment on the improvement in behaviour and attention that can
be achieved when interactive technology is utilized during class instruction. They
report that behavior is improved when the interactive whiteboard is being used and
that students are more motivated and on task. Their research implies that interactive
whiteboards are an effective tool, which can be used to help improve the standard of
teaching and raise achievement. Gains in behaviour and motivation can also be
attributed to the increased opportunities for students to take individualized paths of
their own interest in project-based learning activities. Office referrals due to extreme
behaviour occurrences can be significantly less frequent in classrooms where

9
technology is purposefully integrated and supported in the learning environment
(Ziegler, 2004).
Students also notice the new opportunities for learning and the improvement
in achievement and engagement that can be realized. Students recognize the
potential of the technology for raising their motivation for sharing knowledge
because they can do it through a medium they find exciting and interesting (Schmid,
2006).
According to Dill (2008), significant student gains can be made while using
interactive whiteboards during math instruction. Improvements in math achievement
scores of both genders and of economically disadvantaged students are achieved
when whiteboards are used and using interactive whiteboards within math
instruction can positively impact math scores on standardized tests. Smith,
Hardman, and Higgins (2006) report that using more interactive forms of whole class
teaching will play a vital role in raising literacy and numeracy standards by promoting
high quality dialogue and discussion and raising inclusion, understanding, and
learning performance. It can also help to promote an interactive class.
The current body of research supports a positive connection between
technology use, students’ attitude toward learning, and an increase in motivation
toward learning activities when technologies are introduced and purposefully utilized
in conjunction with teaching and learning (Ziegler, 2004). This research study aims
to investigate if implementing interactive technologies in the science classroom can
improve students’ attitude and motivation towards learning science in a secondary
school science program.

10
Research Question
The research question being investigated in this research study is: Does the
implementation of interactive technologies in a secondary school science program
lead to improved students’ attitude and motivation toward the learning of science?
Definition of Terms
Interactive Whiteboard (IWB) – A touch sensitive display screen device which
interacts with the information on a computer and is connected to a LCD projector
that is a substitute for a traditional chalkboard. It is an instructional tool in the
classroom that allows students and teachers to manipulate, replicate, and interact
with information.
Limitations
One limitation of this research study is that there is no way to account for
teacher effectiveness in introducing new interactive technology into classroom
lessons and activities. Teachers must become proficient in operating interactive
whiteboards to fully utilize their capabilities and truly promote an interactive learning
environment. Glover, Miller, Averis, and Door (2007) found that unless changes in
teaching and learning do occur, investment will be of limited help in enhancing pupil
understanding and retention, and the application of learning. It is still the quality of
teaching that ensures success and the integration of technology on its own cannot
be expected to result in gains. Teachers also require focused professional
development training to be more able to successfully integrate technology into the
classroom. Teachers are critical agents in integrating technology and software into
the subject aims of the lesson and the appropriate use of the interactive whiteboard
11
to promote quality interactions and interactivity (Armstrong et al, 2005). Adding
technology to the classroom without changing the process and structure of teaching
is no more effective in constructing knowledge than before the technology was
introduced (Morrell, 2002). One problem is that the focus of professional
development appears to be on mastering the technology rather than an approach
that considers the whole context of teaching interactively or a cross-curricular
approach to using the IWB, giving more opportunities for pupil interaction with the
board and each other (Shenton & Pagett, 2007). A lot of teachers believe in the
benefits that introducing technology into their lessons can bring but are hesitant to
experiment with new methods of teaching, especially when they feel they are not
supported with proper training. Lack of proper training will also result in teachers
using technology ineffectively.
Integrating technology into the classroom can also bring with it new
challenges for classroom teachers. Teachers must now be able to deal with new
classroom management issues, resolve technical problems, and still incorporate the
technology innovation with their traditional instruction so that it is meaningful to the
students (Varma et al., 2008).
This study will be completed during the 2009-10 school year, comparing
student motivation toward science learning before and after the implementation of
the new interactive technology. Teachers will still be learning how to effectively
operate the new equipment and the study is relatively short term. A more
longitudinal study would help to account for these limitations. The specific
circumstances surrounding this research study will also limit its generalization to
12
other situations as there are likely to be other factors that influence student
motivation during the course of the study.
Summary
This research study aims to investigate if implementing interactive
technologies in the science classroom can improve students’ attitude and motivation
towards learning science in a secondary school science program. If students are
more motivated to learn science and they are given the opportunity to learn science
in a way that is more meaningful to them personally, it is hoped that an improvement
in achievement will follow. Keeping students engaged and interested in learning can
be a challenge. If there are new and exciting ways to keep students motivated to
learn, they should be explored. Science is best learned through investigation and
discovery and the teaching of science should allow students the opportunity to learn
through activities that support this idea. The Internet, computers, and new
technology allow us to experience scientific discoveries in a whole new way.
Interactive computer simulations can replicate experiments that could never be
carried out in a typical secondary school setting. Virtual labs and animated models
allow students to see things in a whole new way. They are better able to build their
own mental models and assemble the various pieces together in ways that make
sense to them. In the information age, students have access to all the knowledge
and information they need. Today, education should address the need to teach
students how to sort through all this information and become critical, independent
thinkers. Students need to be educated on the responsible use of technology and
learn to take advantage of the benefits it can offer while learning to avoid the
13
dangers and negative results it can lead to. Teachers need to guide students and
facilitate their learning. They need to help them develop an interest in learning.
Teachers need to develop dynamic and interactive classrooms which allow students
to be active learners and explore topics in new and exciting ways. Is using
technology in the classroom a new tool to achieve this? There are many who claim
that it is. The investment made into the science lab renovations and the additional
investment made in classroom technology provided an opportunity to critically look
at the impact that technology can have in the classroom. This research is designed
to study if student attitude and motivation toward learning science is improved after
the implementation of interactive technologies into the science classroom.

Chapter Two: Literature Review
The purpose of this research study is to determine if the use of interactive
whiteboards (IWBs) and their related applications in a secondary school science
program contributes to improved student attitude and motivation towards learning
science. This review will explore some recent research into the implementation of
IWBs in various school settings and the impact that it has had on student learning.
Effective use of interactive technologies in the classroom will be addressed after
which implications for future research will be examined and reviewed to support the
development of this research study.
Investment in Interactive Whiteboards
IWBs are becoming a much more common tool in classrooms today.
Purchasing an IWB for a school or classroom is a major investment. Schools are
facing a lot of pressure to deliver quality education programs while their resources
and funding are often declining. While there are many supporters of the use of
interactive technologies in classrooms, research must still be done to determine its
influence and impact on learning. Schools are investing in this technology in the
hopes that it will lead to better student achievement. How this may happen has not
yet been thoroughly researched. The belief that technology can positively impact
student learning has led many governments to create programs for the integration of
technology in their schools. In the United States, school districts spent $7.87 billion
on technology equipment during 2003-2004 (Hew & Brush, 2007). In the United
Kingdom, there has also been recent and considerable investment in the installation
of interactive whiteboards in schools (Glover, Miller, Averis, & Door, 2005).
14
15
Armstrong et al. (2005) reported that the United Kingdom government allocated £50
million for the purchase of IWBs within the primary and secondary sectors even
though research into these new technologies is very much in its early stages. Similar
investments in technology are made in many other countries, too, and the decision
to invest is made on many different assumptions. This is an area that still requires
review. Slay, Sieborger, and Hodgkinson-Williams (2008) report that there has been
extensive investment by governments and individual schools in interactive
whiteboard technology in developed countries premised on the assumption that their
use in education will impact positively on learners’ achievements. The
implementation of new educational technology is costly. These investments may
carry a high initial cost, but the investment in interactive technologies can be
recovered over time. It has been found that the use of interactive technologies (a)
can actually reduce the cost of instruction, (b) is generally less costly than current
instructional approaches, and (c) has been found to be a cost-effective alternative
for achieving instructional goals (Dodds & Fletcher, 2004). Current research is
needed to provide a foundation for making decisions regarding how to best invest in
technology for the future. The popularity of IWBs is increasing and both students and
teachers are becoming more familiar with their use. They are becoming a common
sight in many schools. According to Loschert (2004), more than 100,000 classrooms
in 65 countries use the technology. IWBs are used at all grade levels and in many
different subjects. In 2005, a national survey in England found that nearly half of
primary teachers (49%) had use of dedicated IWBs; in secondary schools, 77% of
math teachers, 67% of science teachers, and 49% of English teachers said they had
16
dedicated IWBs (Kennewell, Tanner, Jones, & Beauchamp, 2007). The use of
technology in the classroom is increasing and receiving a lot of attention. It is
important for schools to stay technologically up-to-date and they are under pressure
to do so. Schools need to keep pace with the students they service and provide
teachers with the necessary tools to accomplish this. There are many options when
schools have to decide what technologies to invest in, and it is important that the
decisions that are made on investing in technology for the classroom are well-
informed. This research is designed to provide useful data on how interactive
technologies influence student motivation which can be an important factor in
student achievement.
Effective Instruction and Interactive Technologies
Using interactive technologies in the classroom provides more opportunity to
involve students in learning activities and make them more active and engaged
learners. Students are given the opportunity to interact with (a) the material they are
learning, (b) the classroom teacher, and (c) other students. Research conducted by
Dodds and Fletcher (2004) found that technology-based instruction can be more
effective than current classroom instructional approaches in many settings across
many subject matters. Technology-based instruction was also found to decrease the
time needed to reach targeted instructional objectives and can be used either by
individuals or by groups of individuals working in collaboration. Students can also
access materials and resources in many different locations. The physical classroom
becomes only one place where important learning takes place. With access to the
Internet comes access to limitless information. The success of Google and other
17
Web search engines has demonstrated the value and utility of content discovery.
Google may be the most important, effective, and widely used source of Web-based
education (Dodds & Fletcher, 2004). There is great value in using technology to
assist effective instruction. It will take time for teachers to become comfortable using
technology especially if its use does not come naturally for them. At first, using
technology may be difficult for teachers to adjust to. It is a change in the way they do
their business and many teachers may be resistant to making this change. It will
require teachers to rethink the ways in which they present their lessons and recreate
a lot of their lesson materials. Teachers may be hesitant to adapt to these new
methods but the research literature points to effective learning where teachers have
been convinced of the value of the technology and fully understand the nature of
interactivity and its pedagogic implications. Teachers need time to develop their
technological fluency, apply pedagogic principles to the available materials or to the
development of materials, and then to incorporate the IWB seamlessly into their
teaching (Glover et al., 2007). The use of technology in the classroom creates many
new ways of engaging students in their learning and utilizes a form of media that is
familiar to them and one that today’s generation of students is comfortable using.
Hennessey (2006) looked at integrating technology into school science and
reported that technology is believed to significantly enhance science teaching and
learning. The main purposes stated for using technology to support science teaching
and learning are: (a) to capture and analyze data; (b) to support hypothesises,
investigation, and knowledge building; (c) to support communication and research;
and (d) to enhance presentation. Using technology to teach science provides

18
students with opportunities that would otherwise not be available in a typical
classroom. The use of technology extends opportunities for students to work
collaboratively with peers and to consolidate their learning in a variety of contexts.
One example is using multimedia simulations. Multimedia simulation is a powerful
application of technology which enables students to modify rules and variables to
explore the science of a model (Hennessey, 2006). Science is a subject that is best
taught using a variety of approaches. Inquiry and investigation activities can be used
to illustrate many abstract scientific theories and models. Science experiments and
demonstrations provide students a chance to see scientific theories in action and
help to build students’ understanding of science. Simulations and virtual experiments
along with video demonstrations eliminate many of the safety issues and practical
restrictions that limit the types of activities that can be conducted in a secondary
school science classroom lab. Tools and resources that students can use
interactively potentially offer opportunities for expressing, evaluating and revising
their developing ideas.
Hennessey (2006) also states that technology not only needs to keep pace
with trends in science education, such as developing a more holistic picture of
science, leading to less concentration on teaching discrete content and more on
developing the higher order cognitive skills of critical evaluation and interpretation of
evidence, but it potentially has an important part to play in reshaping curriculum and
pedagogy. There is an accumulating body of research which indicates that the
teacher plays a critical role in selecting and evaluating appropriate learning
resources and framing these to exploit technology in pursuing learning goals

19
(Hennessey, 2006). In addition to teaching style, other components of pedagogy
including teacher assumptions about their role in the classroom, and their
expectations and beliefs about students' abilities, effective modes of use, learning
objectives, and optimal ways of reaching them, all blend together to shape
technology use. In many cases where technology is changing learning experiences,
it is being used to complement and enhance current teaching practices rather than
changing content, goals, or teaching pedagogies. Current teaching pedagogies that
are highly successful do not need to be altered; however, pedagogy does remain
underdeveloped and is not keeping pace with the rapid development of technology
applications for school use (Hennessey, 2006).
Interactive technologies in the classroom offer many features that can
influence student learning. Many of these features benefit teachers in their
organization and delivery of content. Class time can be used more effectively as
teachers can save time switching between activities during lesson delivery.
Technology use also allows teachers the ability to run multiple activities with a varied
delivery approach concurrently. Kennewell and Beauchamp (2005) reported that by
preparing and loading the resources required for a lesson in advance, teachers
generated a kind of smoothness in their organizational activity, maintained a
momentum to the flow of the lesson, and felt that they kept learners engaged more
continuously than with traditional resources. They also state that the features of
interactive presentation tools have the potential to support new forms of interactivity
in teaching and to support a more participatory pedagogy, or range of pedagogies.
Encouraging student participation and offering experiences that engage learners is

20
necessary in education and can be challenging in many classrooms. Utilizing more
interactive forms of teaching that keep students interested in course content is one
way to overcome these challenges.
Slay et al. (2008) conducted research that focused on the teachers’ view of
how interactive whiteboards influenced their teaching and classroom practice. They
found that teachers reported on the efficiency, flexibility, and versatility of an IWB
and the opportunity to access multimedia content, as well as the ability to manage
the class more easily while using an IWB. Teachers viewed the efficiency of an IWB
as a major advantage, referring to the ability to seamlessly access one resource
after another from the board and being able to access countless multimedia sources.
This increased efficiency and ability to access so many different resources in a short
time period may be one of the biggest advantages that teachers get out of utilizing
this technology. Teachers are able to access and modify their classroom resources
as needed and can often make minor changes in class when required to better
address their needs for each unique class. Changes and revisions are easily made
as teachers move from one lesson or activity to another. Being able to make these
smooth transitions limits the amount of time that students have to wait between
classroom activities and can help to keep students focused and on task.
Differentiation of Instruction
There is currently a strong push towards using differentiated instruction in the
classroom where lessons and assessments are designed to accommodate each
student’s individual needs, interests, and strengths. School boards and school
administrators are developing and implementing initiatives that utilize differentiated

21
instruction. Tailoring instruction to the needs of individual students has been found to
be an instructional imperative and an economic impossibility. In many situations,
however, technology-based instruction can make this instructional imperative
affordable (Dodds & Fletcher, 2004). Through the use of technology, teachers have
another tool at their disposal to assist them in developing lessons and activities that
are designed to meet the needs of individual students. They can modify delivery of
lessons to address unique student needs as they teach and they can develop new
resources that better reach all students. Dodds and Fletcher found that the capability
of computer technology for real time adjustment of instructional content, sequence,
scope, difficulty, and style to meet the needs of individuals suggests a pervasive and
significant revolution in instruction. This is very important as it makes both the
content and the interactions of high-quality instruction widely and inexpensively
accessible.
Finding a match between teaching styles and learning styles is very
important. Student achievement can improve when students are given choice over
their learning activities and the assessment of their learning. Tailoring instruction to
meet student needs can also improve student motivation towards learning which, in
turn, should help to improve student achievement. Glover et al. (2007) have shown
that IWB use in both primary and secondary schools promotes pupil interest, more
sustained concentration, and more effective learning where teachers are aware of
the ways in which such technology can be used to support a variety of learning
styles. Their work is based on Gardner’s concept of multiple intelligences and they
have indicated that there is a need for immediacy of response and the opportunity to
22
explore ideas in addition to varied and enhanced presentation of material. As
teachers use technology in the classroom and become more comfortable with its
use, their attention then turns to pedagogic issues and the potential of the IWB for
meeting the diversity of teaching approaches identified in the more widespread
understanding of multiple intelligences and diversity of learning styles (Glover et al.,
2005).
Hennessey (2006) looked specifically at integrating technology into the
teaching and learning of science in schools. This research found that teachers
tailored integration of technology by providing different levels of pace, challenge, and
explanation. It was found that teachers using interactive whiteboards had built up
extensive libraries of resources and activities that they could use or adapt as
necessary. Having this collection of resources in an easily editable digital format
allows teachers to share their resources and work collaboratively with other teachers
to develop lessons and activities that are differentiated to better meet student needs.
It was also reported that using this technology allows teachers to instantaneously
revisit prior resources in response to varying learning needs arising during a lesson.
Revisiting prior learning becomes more convenient as previous material is easily
accessible and can be drawn on to support new learning. Recalling previous
information from lessons that students have already completed provides responsive
assistance that students can use to build new knowledge.
Improving Student Achievement
Improving student achievement is one of the most important goals in
education. There are countless strategies and tools that teachers employ to try to
23
improve student achievement. Using technology based instruction is a strategy that
is quickly gaining popularity to help improve achievement. While the initial
investment in new classroom technology can be high, it has been shown that over
time it can reduce the cost of instruction by one third and can either increase
achievement by about one third while holding time constant or reduce time needed
to achieve targeted instructional objectives by about one third (Dodds & Fletcher,
2004). It is reported that using technology in the classroom can reduce costs, save
resources, and improve student achievement all at once. Dodds and Fletcher report
in their research that a review of 233 evaluations of typical technology-based
instruction found an average improvement of 0.39 standard deviations over
classroom instruction, which is roughly equivalent to raising the performance of 50th
percentile students to that of 65th percentile students. Also, a review of 44 similar
evaluations of interactive multimedia instruction found an average improvement of
0.50 standard deviations, roughly raising the performance of 50th percentile students
to the 69th percentile.
Using interactive technologies for whole-class instruction can help to develop
a more interactive and dynamic class. The class becomes more inclusive when
students are encouraged to participate and become active learners. Students are
given opportunities to participate more actively in lessons and increase interactions
with other students and with the classroom teacher. It is suggested that more
interactive forms of whole class teaching will play a vital role in raising literacy and
numeracy standards by promoting high quality dialogue and discussion and raising
inclusion, understanding, and learning performance (Smith et al., 2006). This

24
interactive classroom environment better engages students in their learning and
contributes to improved student achievement.
Improving Student Motivation
Measuring student achievement is easy, but identifying the factors that
contribute to increases in student achievement levels and determining the extent to
which they influence achievement can be more difficult. One factor that can be
strongly linked to student achievement is student motivation. While motivation alone
is not enough to ensure student success, it can significantly influence student
behaviours and lead to better achievement. Motivating students to want to learn and
to become active participants in their learning is the first step towards achieving
student success. The use of interactive technologies and interactive whiteboards
may provide teachers with the tools that they need to assist them in increasing
student motivation.
Glover et al. (2005) report that motivation is seen as a major gain from IWB
use arising from the qualities of presentation and the use of colour, movement, and
hide and reveal as spurs to participation and learning. Interactive technology can
make the presentation of material more exciting and encourage student
participation. Glover et al. (2005) also report on case-study evidence that points to
the specific gains from enhanced presentation and the enhancement of pupil
motivation.
Hennessy (2006) states that one of the potential roles of technology in
supporting science teaching and learning is in improving motivation and engagement
and increasing learners' persistence and participation. Technology use improves

25
presentation and permits active engagement. It also offers opportunities for
enhancing children's attitudes and learning of skills and concepts, through
engagement in planning, execution, interpretation, and discussion of practical
activity.
Other studies that involved surveying teachers’ opinions on the impact of
interactive whiteboards and their influence on learning found that teachers felt the
IWB to be effective in gaining students’ attention, keeping their attention for longer,
stimulating thinking, and maintaining a focus on the subject matter rather than on the
teacher or other students. The large visual display was generally suggested as the
main factor which brought about this difference (Kennewell & Beauchamp, 2005).
Engagement and participation were also found to be improved. It becomes common
for students to be enthusiastic to come to the board. At these times, the pace of
activity can be slowed considerably, but the continued high level of engagement of
students is evident and the reaction of the class indicates that all or most students
were thinking along with the selected student (Kennewell & Beauchamp, 2005).
Smith et al. (2006) report the most widely claimed advantage of the IWB is
that it motivates pupils because of its capacity for quality presentation incorporating
large visual images, which satisfy the expectations of pupils already immersed in a
world of media images. The opportunity for pupils to present and discuss work was
also seen as improving attention and engagement in the learning process.
Summary and Implications for Future Research
While there have been many studies and much research focused on the use
of technology in the classroom, there still remain many unanswered questions. The
26
purpose of this research study is to determine if the use of IWBs and their related
applications in a secondary school science program contributes to improved student
attitude and motivation towards learning science. The following is a summary of
some of the relevant literature that has been used to help in the development of this
research study and a discussion of the implications that can be drawn from them for
future research.
Harwell, Gunter, Montgomery, Shelton, and West (2001) looked at technology
integration and its impact on the classroom learning environment. They compared
student perceptions of the learning environment prior to technology integration and
after technology integration but found no significant changes in student perceptions
of the classroom learning environment over the duration of an academic year. They
note that effective realization of the potential of information technology to influence
educational change might never transpire unless teachers and other school staff are
involved in the use of technology and that if technology is to be integrated
successfully into classroom instruction, teachers must be able to demonstrate
successful mastery of technology use themselves because technology use by
students depends on the ability of teachers. In this research, teachers readily
recognized the potential of technology integration and constructivist pedagogy, but
were unable to change the classroom learning environment as quickly as they first
envisioned.
A study was conducted by Armstrong et al. (2005) focusing on the use and
impact of the IWB in the classroom because they found that there was very little
research on the use of new digital technology from the perspective of teaching and
27
learning. The United Kingdom government had invested heavily in the purchase of
IWBs within the primary and secondary sectors while research on the technology
was very limited. They found that the introduction of IWBs into the classroom
involves much more than the installation of the board and software. Teachers are
critical agents in mediating the software; the integration of the software into the
subject aims of the lesson and the appropriate use of the IWB to promote quality
interactions and interactivity. It was found that teachers need to develop expertise in
operating new technology to be able to effectively utilize it in the classroom. Through
the use of case studies, this research demonstrated the importance of teachers
having sustained engagement with new technologies in order to fully integrate
technology into classroom practice and to use it to support and enhance student
learning. The authors report on case studies examining the use of IWBs in different
educational environments, but do not determine whether the use of the interactive
technology contributes to improved student attitude or motivation towards learning.
Glover et al. (2005) report on extensive literature on the use of techniques in
association with the technology in higher education, especially in medical training,
but there is less school-based literature indicating the need for additional research
around this topic. They add that there has been limited research into the use of
technology and pedagogy to foster the changed learning implied by interactivity and
there are some aspects of IWB technology that are described in the promotional
literature offered by suppliers but that appear still to be awaiting research
investigation. These include (a) the aspects of storage and retrieval of data and
lesson plans, (b) the potential gains from printing materials from the board for group
28
or individual use, and (c) the differing perceptions of the IWB by boys and girls.
While the nature of interactivity is marginally dealt with as researchers report on
changing practice, it appears that there is need for both generic and subject-specific
investigation of the learning gains from IWB use.
Kennewell and Beauchamp (2005) studied the features of interactive
whiteboards and their influence on learning and found that a number of benefits
perceived for teaching are consistently emerging from the results, including
efficiency, versatility, multimodal presentation, and interactivity, but it is less clear
that these are being transformed into benefits for learning.
Smith et al. (2006) conducted a study designed to test the claims that IWBs
can be used as a pedagogic tool to promote interactive forms of learning and
teaching, thereby changing traditional patterns of whole class interaction and
discourse. They observed the differences in classroom interaction when teachers
use an IWB compared to when they do not. The findings of the study suggest that
IWBs are having some impact in the classroom, but with wide ranging results. The
findings support some of the claims being made for IWBs; however, they do not
suggest a fundamental change in teachers’ underlying pedagogy. Suggestions for
further research are made which include research to provide comprehensive
evidence, for both teachers and policy makers, that interactive styles of teaching
encouraging more active pupil involvement can produce significant gains in learning
(Smith et al., 2006).
Hennessy (2006) looked directly at integrating technology into teaching and
learning of school science. It was found that while there is a small body of literature
29
which addresses pedagogical issues concerning technology use in general, the work
remains sparse and there is little applying specifically to science. A new wave of
research is beginning to address how teachers can support students in using
interactive technologies to access the theoretical world of science. While technology
is widely available in schools, inspection and research reports confirm that it remains
infrequently used in typical classrooms. Policy makers are concerned with
measuring the impact of technology use in terms of performance gains and have
shaped research towards this purpose to provide proof which remains elusive. It can
be seen that there is a need to further research the impact of interactive technology
on the teaching and learning of science in schools. Students’ use of an interactive
whiteboard and other technology may provoke more active learning by allowing
students to express and evaluate ideas through direct manipulation. Evidence is
presented in the study that demonstrates the need for further research on the
relationship between technology use, practical work and other media of science
teaching and the implications for instructional design. Few studies have focused
specifically on students’ views on their classroom use of technology in teaching and
learning, and there is a need for further work on technology supported collaborative
learning.
Dill (2008) conducted research based on the belief that using interactive
technology in the classroom can improve student achievement. Students today are
accustomed to interacting with technology every day and to the immediate feedback
it provides. The use of interactive technology can be used by teachers to create
opportunities for differentiation of instruction. Teachers can promote collaborative

30
and active learning through the use of technology. It was found that in order for
student achievement to be positively impacted, successful integration of the
technology must occur within the curriculum and that successful implementation
requires teachers to make a connection between different learning styles and the
differentiated learning opportunities the interactive whiteboard provides. Dill’s
research found that in isolation, an IWB in the classroom cannot be expected to
produce improved scores on standardized math tests, but when an IWB is coupled
with carefully conceived interactive instructional practices, it shows great promise.
He indicates that another component that requires future research is the effect that
the IWBs have on student motivation which is the aim of this proposed research
study.
While technology use in the classroom is a popular and growing trend, it can
be seen that there is still much to learn about its impact on student learning. There
are many claims made about how technology use can improve student achievement,
but many still remain unproven. There is considerable research focused on
evaluating technology use in schools but more is required to determine how it
influences student attitude and motivation towards learning, especially how it applies
to the learning of science in our schools. This research study has been designed to
evaluate if the implementation of interactive technologies in a secondary school
science program leads to improved student attitude and motivation toward the
learning of science.
Chapter Three: Methodology
This research study is designed to measure the impact of implementing
interactive technologies in science instruction on students’ attitude and motivation
towards learning science in a secondary school science program.
This study will be an action research project and will use a quantitative
design. Quantitative data will be collected through student survey questionnaires
completed before and after the new technologies have been implemented. Results
will be analyzed to determine if there is any statistically significant difference in
students’ motivation towards science learning after the implementation of interactive
technologies into the classroom instructional program.
The goal of this research study is to provide sufficient evidence to address the
research question: Does the implementation of interactive technologies in a
secondary school science program lead to improved students’ attitude and
motivation toward the learning of science?
Type of Research
This study is an action research study. Action research is research that
focuses on a specific local situation and that emphasizes the active involvement of
those participating in the study and who is affected by it. Action research is a type of
applied research that is interested in examining the effectiveness of particular
educational practices; in this case, the inclusion of technology into science
classroom instruction. Action research is unique in that generalization to other
settings or situations is of minimal importance and instead of searching for powerful
generalizations, action researchers focus on getting information that will enable them
31
32
to change conditions in a particular situation in which they are personally involved
(Fraenkel & Wallen, 2009). This study will involve survey and quantitative research
to obtain data to determine the specific characteristics of the sample group. This
type of research seeks to establish relationships between variables and to look for
and possibly explain the causes of such relationships. In this study, the independent
variable is the use of interactive technologies in science instruction while the
dependent variable is student attitude and motivation towards learning science. As in
any study, there will also be extraneous variables that may have an effect on the
dependent variable. It is important to be concerned with the influence or effect of all
the other variables that exist and to consider these when analyzing survey results.
The survey results will be analyzed in an attempt to provide as complete an
understanding of the situation as possible as this research will attempt to gain an
understanding of students’ attitudes and motivation towards learning science.
Role of the Researcher
In this study, the researcher is a classroom science teacher and the
department head of science at the secondary school involved. This researcher is
interested in determining and describing the characteristics of the student population
taking science classes and how incorporating technology into science instruction
affects their attitude and motivation. This research is being conducted to obtain
information that can be used to inform teaching practice in the school. While the
results may be limited in generalizability, this action research should generate data
that can be used to develop a plan to better address the issue of student motivation
in the science department at the school.

33
Ethical Considerations
The purpose of this study is to investigate how implementing interactive
technologies in a secondary school science program influences student attitude and
motivation towards science learning. To determine students’ attitude and motivation,
a student survey questionnaire was completed by students in each science class
that included questions about their motivation towards science learning (Appendix
A). Student surveys were all conducted anonymously and voluntarily and throughout
this research project every effort was made to protect all participants. The individual
classroom teachers were responsible for the administration of the survey
questionnaire which took about 20 minutes to complete. Upon completion,
questionnaires were placed in a sealed envelope to safeguard student identities and
minimize social and psychological risks for the students. All information obtained in
connection with this study will remain confidential and participating students were
assured that all information collected will be kept strictly confidential. Students were
not identified in the report. This study has been reviewed and received ethics
clearance through Nipissing University Research Ethics Board (Appendix B).
Population and Sample
The sample population in this study was all students enrolled in at least one
science course in the first semester of the 2009-2010 school year who were present
on the day that the surveys were completed (Npre-test=110, Npost-test=142). This was a
purposive sample chosen specifically to include all students currently taking science
courses in the given semester. This included all male and female students from each
34
grade level in every program pathway (applied, academic, workplace, college, and
university).
Instrumentation
In this study, students were asked to complete the Student Motivation
Towards Science Learning Questionnaire (SMTSL) developed by Tuan, Chin, &
Shieh (2005). The SMTSL questionnaire is scored using a 5-point Likert-type scale
and is designed to measure student motivation toward science learning. Items on
the scales are anchored at 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=no opinion, 4=agree
and 5=strongly agree. According to Tuan et al., research in science teaching and
learning should address not only student cognition, but also the affective component
to cognition. Within the affective components, motivation is important because
students’ motivation plays an important role in their conceptual change processes,
critical thinking, learning strategies, and science learning achievement. Their review
of learning motivation studies revealed the diversity and variety of motivation factors,
such as self-perceptions of ability, effort, intrinsic goal orientation, task value, self-
efficacy, test anxiety, self-regulated learning, task orientation, and learning
strategies. The purpose of their study was to analyze existing research to identify
motivation domains in science learning and to develop a questionnaire that
addresses students’ motivation in science learning.
Six factors of motivation were used to design the scales in the questionnaire:
1. Self-efficacy. Students believe in their own ability to perform well in
science learning tasks.

35
2. Active learning strategies. Students take an active role in using a variety of
strategies to construct new knowledge based on their previous
understanding.
3. Science learning value. The value of science learning is to let students
acquire problem-solving competency, experience the inquiry activity,
stimulate their own thinking, and find the relevance of science with daily
life.
4. Performance goal. The students’ goals in science learning are to compete
with other students and get attention from the teacher.
5. Achievement goal. Students feel satisfaction as they increase their
competence and achievement during science learning.
6. Learning environment stimulation. In the class, learning environment
surrounding students, such as curriculum, teachers’ teaching, and pupil
interaction, influenced students’ motivation in science learning.
It is important that any instrument can be shown to be valid. Validity revolves
around the defensibility of the inferences researchers make from the data collected
through the use of an instrument (Fraenken & Wallen, 2009). There are three types
of validity that need to be addressed in developing a questionnaire: validity,
construct validity, and criterion-related validity. In the study completed by Tuan et.
al., (2005) it was determined that the SMTSL questionnaire has good construct
validity and also criterion-related validity. Construct validity was verified by factor
analysis and a science attitude test and students’ science achievement scores from
the previous semester and the current semester were used to assess the criterion-
36
related validity of the SMTSL questionnaire. The internal consistency of the six
scales of the SMTSL questionnaire was estimated by the Cronbach alpha coefficient
to be generally satisfactory. The Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient for each scale,
using an individual student as the unit of analysis, ranged between 0.87 and 0.70.
The discriminative validity ranged from 0.09 to 0.51, showing the independence of
each scale and also somewhat overlapping with other scales. All scales were found
to have significant correlation with science attitude (p < 0.01) and the questionnaire
had significant correlation with students’ science achievement scores in the previous
and the current semesters (rp = 0.40 and rc = 0.41, p < 0.01). Except for learning
environment stimulation, the other five scales have significant correlation with
students’ science achievement in the previous semester (p < 0.01). All the scales
have significant correlation with students’ science achievement in the current
semester (p < 0.01; Tuan et. al., 2005). The researchers reported that students’
attitude and motivation are two of the most important factors to predict students’
science achievement, while students’ motivation is the most important factor in
predicting students’ science attitude (Tuan et al., 2005).
Data Collection
All participating students completed the SMTSL questionnaire (Tuan et al.,
2005) as part of a pre-test-post-test experimental design. Students completed the
survey at the beginning of the school year to serve as a baseline before any of the
interactive technologies had been utilized in classroom instruction and then again at
the end of the semester to compare the relative change in survey scores observed.
The data collected from the first round of surveys were from students who had
37
previously been taught in the old science labs using more traditional teaching
methods and without interactive technologies or, in the case of grade 9 students,
were from elementary schools that had limited interactive technologies and lab
facilities as well. This data set represents the pre-test. The second round of surveys
is from students who completed their courses in the newly renovated science labs
equipped with interactive whiteboards, computers with Internet access, laboratory
based software, digital scientific lab sensors and equipment, and fully equipped and
functioning laboratory facilities. This data set represents the post-test. All survey
questionnaires were completed anonymously.
Data Analysis
In any pre-test/post-test design, the goal is to determine if there is a
difference among groups with regard to some variable of interest after imposition of
a treatment intervention (Bonate, 2000). Both descriptive and inferential statistical
analysis techniques were used to analyze the results of this research study.
Inferential statistics were used to judge the importance of a difference between the
means of the two groups. Parametric techniques were used to make various kinds of
assumptions about the nature of the population from which the samples involved in
the research study are drawn. Relationships in data can be examined through a
comparison of means. In this research project, student scores will be statistically
analyzed to determine if there is any significant difference between survey mean
scores before and after the new technologies are implemented. Mean scores were
calculated for each survey questionnaire and the pre and post means were
compared. Survey data were also disaggregated and analyzed by gender and
38
grade. Mean scores were also analyzed by question motivational domains to see if
any significant difference exists for any group of questionnaire statements. A
common method to determine if a difference exists is to use analysis of variance
(ANOVA). In this study, ANOVA was used to find out whether there were significant
differences between the means of the two groups. The important statistical question
is whether the difference is real or whether it could be due to chance. When studying
a sample, it is important that the results obtained are not due to chance. Statistical
significance at a particular level means that the probability of rejecting a true null
hypothesis is less than or equal to that level. If you are willing to accept a 5% (0.05)
chance of making an error, a 95% confidence interval can be constructed (Weisberg,
Krosnick, & Bowen, 1996). In this study, statistical significance levels of 5% or 0.05
were used to determine if there was any significant difference between mean scores
before and after the new technologies were implemented. If the 0.05 level of
significance is reached, then it can be concluded that a real difference does exist.
Microsoft Excel 2010 was used for all statistical calculations.

Chapter Four: Results
The results of this study will be presented in this chapter. This research study
was designed to measure the impact of implementing interactive technologies in
science instruction on student attitude and motivation towards learning science in a
secondary school science program. The overall question guiding this research was
whether the impact of implementing interactive technologies in classroom science
instruction resulted in an increase in student attitude and motivation towards learning
science. Quantitative data were collected through student survey questionnaires
completed before and after the new technologies had been implemented in the
science classroom. Students were asked to complete the SMTSL developed by
Tuan et al. (2005). The SMTSL questionnaire is scored using a 5-point Likert-type
scale and is designed to measure student motivation toward science learning.
Survey questionnaire responses were totaled and mean scores were analyzed using
descriptive statistics as well as a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to
determine if there were any significant differences found between the pre-test and
post-test responses, before and after the implementation of interactive classroom
technology. An alpha level of .05 was used for all statistical tests.
Analysis of Complete Data Set
In an analysis of the total data set which includes all students’ average survey
questionnaire results, there was not a statistically significant increase in student
attitude or motivation towards learning science found between the pre-test
(M=122.4, SD=15.82) and post-test (M=121.97, SD=16.76) results. (See Tables 1
and 2)
39
40
Analysis of Data Subset - By Gender
In the analysis of the data subset disaggregated by gender, there was an
increase in student attitude and motivation found among male students between the
pre-test (M=119.98, SD=18.35) and post-test (M=123.15, SD=19.38) results. This
increase was not found to be statistically significant, F (1,110)=0.77, p=0.38.(See
Tables 3 and 4)
Among female students there was a decrease in average student scores
between the pre-test (M=124.24, SD=13.40) and post-test (M=121.00, SD=14.32)
results. This difference was not found to be significant, F(1,138)=1.87, p=0.17. (See
Tables 5 and 6)
Analysis of Data Subset - By Grade
In the analysis of the data subset disaggregated by grade, there was an
increase in student attitude and motivation found among grade 9 students between
the pre-test (M=117.96, SD=19.26) and post-test (M=119.79, SD=15.51) results.
This increase was not found to be statistically significant, F(1,79)=0.20, p=0.65. (See
Tables 7 and 8)
There was also an increase in student attitude and motivation found among
grade 10 students between the pre-test (M=118.18, SD=13.39) and post-test
(M=122.89, SD=21.70) results. This increase was not found to be statistically
significant, F(1,74)=1.30, p=0.26. (See Tables 9 and 10)
Among grade 11 students there was a decrease in student attitude and
motivation found between the pre-test (M=125.25, SD=14.56) and post-test

41
(M=120.30, SD=11.64) results, however this decrease was not found to be
statistically significant, F(1,52)=1.93, p=0.17. (See Tables 11 and 12)
There was no difference in student attitude or motivation found for grade 12
students between the pre-test (M=130.75, SD=13.54) and post-test (M=130.18,
SD=14.24) results. (See Tables 13 and 14)
Analysis of Data subset – By Motivational Factor
The SMTSL can be divided into sections which identify motivation domains in
science learning. Six factors of motivation were used to design the scales in the
questionnaire: self-efficacy, active learning strategies, science learning value,
performance goal, achievement goal, and learning environment stimulation. The
results of this study were also disaggregated and analyzed by each motivational
factor and then further by grade and gender within each motivational factor.
Analysis by Motivational Factor – Self-Efficacy (Q.1-7)
All students. The STMSL defines the motivational factor self-efficacy as:
students believe in their own ability to perform well in science learning tasks (Tuan et
al., 2005).
In an analysis of the responses of all students of questions 1-7 which
comprise the motivational factor – self-efficacy there was no difference found
between the pre-test (M=24.81, SD=4.57) and post-test (M=24.82, SD=5.34) results.
See Tables 15 and 16)
Male students. In the analysis of the responses of male students of
questions 1-7 which comprise the motivational factor – self-efficacy, there was a
slight decrease found between the pre-test (M=26.25, SD=4.65) and post-test
42
(M=25.19, SD=5.88) results. This difference was not found to be statistically
Female students. In the analysis of the responses of female students of
Grade 9 students. In the analysis of the responses of grade 9 students of
slight decrease between the pre-test (M=25.83, SD=4.31) and post-test (M=24.49,
SD=4.79) results. This difference was not found to be statistically significant,
F(1,126)=2.77, p=0.10. (See Tables 21 and 22)
slight decrease between the pre-test (M=26.11, SD=4.71) and post-test (M=24.47,
F(1,81)=1.76, p=0.19. (See Tables 23 and 24)
slight increase between the pre-test (M=24.81, SD=4.61) and post-test (M=24.93,
F(1,64)=, p=0.92. (See Tables 25 and 26)

43
slight increase between the pre-test (M=26.21, SD=4.65) and post-test (M=26.53,
F(1,39)=0.05, p=0.83. (See Tables 27 and 28)
Analysis by Motivational Factor – Active Learning Strategies (Q.8–15)
All students. The STMSL defines the motivational factor active learning
strategies as - students take an active role in using a variety of strategies to
construct new knowledge based on their previous understanding (Tuan et al., 2005).
comprise the motivational factor – active learning strategies, there was no difference
found between the pre-test (M=29.19, SD=4.37) and post-test (M=29.04, SD=4.58)
results. (See Tables 29 and 30)
questions 8-15 which comprise the motivational factor – active learning strategies,
there was a slight decrease found between the pre-test (M=29.63, SD=4.60) and
post-test (M=29.59, SD=5.05) results. This difference was not found to be
there was a decrease found between the pre-test (M=30.15, SD=3.43) and post-test
(M=28.59, SD=4.13) results. This difference was found to be statistically significant,
F(1,173)=7.50, p=0.007. (See Tables 33 and 34)

44
(M=28.75, SD=4.72) results. This difference was found to be marginally statistically
Analysis by Motivational Factor – Science Learning Value (Q.16-20)
All students. The STMSL defines the motivational factor science learning
value as - the value of science learning is to let students acquire problem-solving

45
competency, experience the inquiry activity, stimulate their own thinking, and find the
relevance of science with daily life (Tuan et al., 2005).
comprise the motivational factor – science learning value, there was no difference
results. (See Tables 43 and 44)
questions 16-20 which comprise the motivational factor – science learning value,
post-test (M=17.05, SD=3.09) results. This difference was found to be statistically
F(1,126)=7.76, p=0.006. (See Tables 49 and 50)
46
there was an increase found between the pre-test (M=18.71, SD=3.85) and post-test
Analysis by Motivational Factor – Performance Goal (Q.21-24)
All students. The STMSL defines the motivational factor performance goal
as - the student’s goals in science learning are to compete with other students and
get attention from the teacher (Tuan et al., 2005).
comprise the motivational factor – performance goal, there was no difference found
between the pre-test (M=14.17, SD=3.13) and post-test (M=14.13, SD=2.99) results.
(See Tables 57 and 58)
questions 21-24 which comprise the motivational factor – performance goal, there
47
was a slight increase found between the pre-test (M=13.10, SD=2.86) and post-test
(M=13.89, SD=3.13) results. This difference was found to be marginally statistically
was an increase found between the pre-test (M=13.25, SD=2.88) and post-test
F(1,173)=6.14, p=0.01. (See Tables 61 and 62)
F(1,126)=3.80, p=0.05. (See Tables 63 and 64)
F(1,64)=4.48, p=0.04. (See Tables 67 and 68)

48
was a slight increase found between the pre-test (M=14.08, SD=3.12) and post-test
Analysis by Motivational Factor – Achievement Goal (Q.25-29)
All students. The STMSL defines the motivational factor achievement goal
as - students feel satisfaction as they increase their competence and achievement
during science learning (Tuan et al., 2005).
comprise the motivational factor – achievement goal, there was a slight decrease
results. This difference was not found to be statistically significant, F(1,250)=0.04,
p=0.84. (See Tables 71 and 72)
Male students. In an analysis of the responses of male students of
questions 25-29 which comprise the motivational factor – achievement goal, there
was a decrease found between the pre-test (M=18.01, SD=3.03) and post-test
Female students. In an analysis of the responses of female students of
was a slight decrease found between the pre-test (M=18.82, SD=2.80) and post-test
49
Grade 9 students. In an analysis of the responses of grade 9 students of
was a decrease found between the pre-test (M=18.54, SD=2.81) and post-test
F(1,126)=7.39, p=0.007. (See Tables 77 and 78)

50
Analysis by Motivational Factor – Learning Environment Stimulation (Q.30-35)
All students. The STMSL defines the motivational factor learning
environment stimulation as - learning environment surrounding students, such as
curriculum, teachers’ teaching, and pupil interaction influenced students’ motivation
in science learning (Tuan et al., 2005).
comprise the motivational factor – learning environment stimulation, there was a
Male students. In an analysis of the responses of male students of
questions 30-35 which comprise the motivational factor – learning environment
stimulation, there was a slight decrease found between the pre-test (M=19.59,
SD=3.78) and post-test (M=19.39, SD=4.66) results. This difference was not found
to be statistically significant, F(1,141)=0.18, p=0.67. (See Tables 87 and 88)
Female students. In an analysis of the responses of female students of
stimulation, there was a decrease found between the pre-test (M=19.51, SD=3.13)
and post-test (M=18.06, SD=4.22) results. This difference was found to be
51
and post-test (M=18.65, SD=4.12) results. This difference was not found to be
and post-test (M=18.05, SD=5.71) results. This difference was not found to be

52
Table 1
Results of All students: Descriptive Statistics
Survey Group N M SD
Pre-test 110 122.42 15.82
Post-test 142 121.97 16.76

53
Table 2
Results of All Students: Analysis of Variance
Source of Variation SS df MS F p
Between Groups 12.34 1 12.34 0.05 0.83
Within Groups 66892.65 250 267.57

54
Table 3
Results of Male Students: Descriptive Statistics
Survey Group N M SD
Pre-test 48 119.98 18.35
Post-test 64 123.15 19.38

55
Table 4
Results of Male Students: Analysis of Variance
Between Groups 276.86 1 276.86 0.77 0.38
Within Groups 39503.42 110 359.12

56
Table 5
Results of Female Students: Descriptive statistics
Survey Group N M SD
Pre-test 62 124.24 13.40
Post-test 78 121.00 14.32

57
Table 6
Results of Female Students: Analysis of Variance
Between Groups 363.05 1 363.05 1.87 0.17
Within Groups 26729.37 138 193.69

58
Table 7
Results for Grade 9 Students: Descriptive Statistics
Survey Group N M SD
Pre-test 24 117.96 19.26
Post-test 57 119.79 15.51

59
Table 8
Results for Grade 9 Students: Analysis of Variance
Between Groups 56.63 1 56.63 0.20 0.65
Within Groups 22022.43 79 278.77

60
Table 9
Survey Group N M SD
Pre-test 38 118.18 13.39
Post-test 38 122.89 21.70

61
Table 10
Between Groups 421.59 1 421.59 1.30 0.26
Within Groups 24059.29 74 325.13

62
Table 11
Survey Group N M SD
Pre-test 24 125.25 14.56
Post-test 30 120.30 11.64

63
Table 12
Between Groups 326.70 1 326.70 1.93 0.17
Within Groups 8802.80 52 169.28

64
Table 13
Survey Group N M SD
Pre-test 24 130.75 13.54
Post-test 17 130.18 14.24

65
Table 14
Between Groups 3.27 1 3.27 0.02 0.90
Within Groups 7458.97 39 191.26

66
Table 15
Results for All Students – Self-Efficacy Motivational Factor (Q. 1-7): Descriptive
Statistics
Survey Group N M SD
Pre-test 110 24.81 4.57
Post-test 142 24.82 5.34

67
Table 16
Results for All Students – Self-Efficacy Motivational Factor (Q. 1-7): Analysis of
Variance
Between Groups 0.01 1 0.01 0.0005 0.98
Within Groups 6297.59 250 25.19

68
Table 17
Results for Male Students – Self-Efficacy Motivational Factor (Q. 1-7): Descriptive
Statistics
Survey Group N M SD
Pre-test 79 26.25 4.65
Post-test 64 25.19 5.88

69
Table 18
Results for Male Students – Self-Efficacy Motivational Factor (Q. 1-7): Analysis of
Variance
Between Groups 40.15 1 40.15 1.46 0.23
Within Groups 3866.69 141 27.42

70
Table 19
Results for Female Students – Self-Efficacy Motivational Factor (Q. 1-7): Descriptive
Statistics
Survey Group N M SD
Pre-test 97 25.33 4.37
Post-test 78 24.53 4.87

71
Table 20
Results for Female Students – Self-Efficacy Motivational Factor (Q. 1-7): Analysis of
Variance
Between Groups 27.97 1 27.97 1.32 0.25
Within Groups 3660.89 173 21.16

72
Table 21
Results for Grade 9 Students – Self-Efficacy Motivational Factor (Q. 1-7):
Descriptive Statistics
Survey Group N M SD
Pre-test 71 25.83 4.31
Post-test 57 24.49 4.79

73
Table 22
Results for Grade 9 Students – Self-Efficacy Motivational Factor (Q. 1-7): Analysis of
Variance
Between Groups 56.75 1 56.75 2.77 0.10
Within Groups 2582.22 126 20.49

74
Table 23
Survey Group N M SD
Pre-test 45 26.11 4.71
Post-test 38 24.47 6.50

75
Table 24
Results for Grade 10 Students – Self-Efficacy Motivational Factor (Q. 1-7): Analysis
of Variance
Between Groups 55.24 1 55.24 1.76 0.19
Within Groups 2539.92 81 31.36

76
Table 25
Survey Group N M SD
Pre-test 36 24.81 4.61
Post-test 30 24.93 5.22

77
Table 26
Results for Grade 11 Students – Self-Efficacy Motivational Factor (Q. 1-7): Analysis
of Variance
Between Groups 0.27 1 0.27 0.01 0.92

78
Table 27
Survey Group N M SD
Pre-test 24 26.21 4.65
Post-test 17 26.53 4.49

79
Table 28
Results for Grade 12 Students – Self-Efficacy Motivational Factor (Q. 1-7): Analysis of
Variance
Between Groups 1.03 1 1.03 0.05 0.83

80
Table 29
Results for All Students – Active Learning Strategies Motivational Factor (Q. 8-15):
Survey Group N M SD
Pre-test 110 29.19 4.37
Post-test 142 29.04 4.58

81
Table 30
Results for All Students – Active Learning Strategies Motivational Factor (Q. 8-15):
Analysis of Variance
Between Groups 1.37 1 1.37 0.07 0.79
Within Groups 5042.74 250 20.17

82
Table 31
Results for Male Students – Active Learning Strategies Motivational Factor (Q. 8-
15): Descriptive Statistics
Survey Group N M SD
Pre-test 79 29.63 4.60
Post-test 64 29.59 5.05

83
Table 32
Results for Male Students – Active Learning Strategies Motivational Factor (Q. 8-
15): Analysis of Variance
Between Groups 0.05 1 0.05 0.002 0.96
Within Groups 3261.79 141 23.13

84
Table 33
Results for Female Students – Active Learning Strategies Motivational Factor (Q. 8-
Survey Group N M SD
Pre-test 97 30.15 3.43
Post-test 78 28.59 4.13

85
Table 34
Results for Female Students – Active Learning Strategies Motivational Factor (Q. 8-
Between Groups 105.88 1 105.88 7.50 0.007
Within Groups 2443.55 173 14.12

86
Table 35
Results for Grade 9 Students – Active Learning Strategies Motivational Factor (Q. 8-
Survey Group N M SD
Pre-test 71 30.06 3.50
Post-test 57 28.75 4.72

87
Table 36
Results for Grade 9 Students – Active Learning Strategies Motivational Factor (Q. 8-
Between Groups 53.59 1 53.59 3.20 0.08
Within Groups 2108.34 126 16.73

88
Table 37
Results for Grade 10 Students – Active Learning Strategies Motivational Factor (Q.
8-15): Descriptive Statistics
Survey Group N M SD
Pre-test 45 30.09 4.44
Post-test 38 29.58 5.18

89
Table 38
8-15): Analysis of Variance
Between Groups 5.36 1 5.36 0.23 0.63

90
Table 39
Survey Group N M SD
Pre-test 37 28.84 3.66
Post-test 30 28.47 3.59

91
Table 40
Between Groups 2.28 1 2.28 0.17 0.68

92
Table 41
Survey Group N M SD
Pre-test 23 30.91 4.84
Post-test 17 29.82 4.38

93
Table 42
Between Groups 11.60 1 11.60 0.54 0.47

94
Table 43
Results for All Students – Science Learning Value Motivational Factor (Q. 16-20):
Survey Group N M SD
Pre-test 110 17.44 3.32
Post-test 142 17.41 3.27

95
Table 44
Results for All Students – Science Learning Value Motivational Factor (Q. 16-20):
Between Groups 0.05 1 0.05 0.004 0.95
Within Groups 2709.36 250 10.84

96
Table 45
Results for Male Students – Science Learning Value Motivational Factor (Q. 16-20):
Survey Group N M SD
Pre-test 79 18.39 3.62
Post-test 64 17.84 3.45

97
Table 46
Results for Male Students – Science Learning Value Motivational Factor (Q. 16-20):
Between Groups 10.64 1 10.64 0.85 0.36
Within Groups 1771.27 141 12.56

98
Table 47
Results for Female Students – Science Learning Value Motivational Factor (Q. 16-
Survey Group N M SD
Pre-test 97 17.94 2.69
Post-test 78 17.05 3.09

99
Table 48
Results for Female Students – Science Learning Value Motivational Factor (Q. 16-
Between Groups 34.00 1 34.00 4.11 0.04

100
Table 49
Results for Grade 9 Students – Science Learning Value Motivational Factor (Q. 16-
Survey Group N M SD
Pre-test 71 18.32 3.00
Post-test 57 16.74 3.44

101
Table 50
Between Groups 79.64 1 79.64 7.76 0.006
Within Groups 1292.60 126 10.26

102
Table 51
Survey Group N M SD
Pre-test 45 18.24 3.32
Post-test 38 17.58 3.45

103
Table 52
Between Groups 9.12 1 9.12 0.80 0.37

104
Table 53
Survey Group N M SD
Pre-test 36 17.28 2.57
Post-test 30 17.50 2.80

105
Table 54
Between Groups 0.81 1 0.81 0.11 0.74

106
Table 55
Survey Group N M SD
Pre-test 24 18.71 3.85
Post-test 17 19.12 2.50

107
Table 56
Between Groups 1.67 1 1.67 0.15 0.70

108
Table 57
Results for All Students – Performance Goal Motivational Factor (Q.21-24):
Survey Group N M SD
Pre-test 110 14.17 3.13
Post-test 142 14.13 2.99

109
Table 58
Results for All Students – Performance Goal Motivational Factor (Q.21-24): Analysis
of Variance
Between Groups 0.09 1 0.09 0.01 0.92

110
Table 59
Results for Male Students – Performance Goal Motivational Factor (Q.21-24):
Survey Group N M SD
Pre-test 79 13.10 2.86
Post-test 64 13.89 3.13

111
Table 60
Results for Male Students – Performance Goal Motivational Factor (Q.21-24):
Between Groups 22.03 1 22.03 2.47 0.11

112
Table 61
Results for Female Students – Performance Goal Motivational Factor (Q.21-24):
Survey Group N M SD
Pre-test 97 13.25 2.88
Post-test 78 14.33 2.89

113
Table 62
Results for Female Students – Performance Goal Motivational Factor (Q.21-24):
Between Groups 50.98 1 50.98 6.14 0.01

114
Table 63
Results for Grade 9 Students – Performance Goal Motivational Factor (Q.21-24):
Survey Group N M SD
Pre-test 71 13.00 2.63
Post-test 57 13.96 2.96

115
Table 64
Between Groups 29.44 1 29.44 3.80 0.05

116
Table 65
Survey Group N M SD
Pre-test 45 13.24 3.28
Post-test 38 14.05 3.17

117
Table 66
Between Groups 13.46 1 13.46 1.29 0.26

118
Table 67
Survey Group N M SD
Pre-test 36 12.86 2.55
Post-test 30 14.27 2.84

119
Table 68
Between Groups 32.33 1 32.33 4.48 0.04

120
Table 69
Survey Group N M SD
Pre-test 24 14.08 3.12
Post-test 17 14.65 3.18

121
Table 70
Between Groups 3.16 1 3.16 0.32 0.57

122
Table 71
Results for All Students – Achievement Goal Motivational Factor (Q.25-29):
Survey Group N M SD
Pre-test 110 18.03 3.57
Post-test 142 17.94 3.05

123
Table 72
Results for All Students – Achievement Goal Motivational Factor (Q.25-29): Analysis
of Variance
Between Groups 0.43 1 0.43 0.04 0.84
Within Groups 2694.47 250 10.78

124
Table 73
Results for Male Students – Achievement Goal Motivational Factor (Q.25-29):
Survey Group N M SD
Pre-test 79 18.01 3.03
Post-test 64 17.34 3.11

125
Table 74
Results for Male Students – Achievement Goal Motivational Factor (Q.25-29):
Between Groups 20.29 1 20.29 2.16 0.14

126
Table 75
Results for Female Students – Achievement Goal Motivational Factor (Q.25-29):
Survey Group N M SD
Pre-test 97 18.82 2.80
Post-test 76 18.43 2.93

127
Table 76
Results for Female Students – Achievement Goal Motivational Factor (Q.25-29):
Between Groups 6.50 1 6.50 0.79 0.37

128
Table 77
Results for Grade 9 Students – Achievement Goal Motivational Factor (Q.25-29):
Survey Group N M SD
Pre-test 71 18.54 2.81
Post-test 57 17.19 2.73

129
Table 78
Between Groups 56.96 1 56.96 7.39 0.007

130
Table 79
Survey Group N M SD
Pre-test 45 18.78 2.94
Post-test 38 19.16 3.56

131
Table 80
Between Groups 2.98 1 2.98 0.28 0.60

132
Table 81
Survey Group N M SD
Pre-test 36 17.31 2.19
Post-test 30 17.10 2.44

133
Table 82
Between Groups 0.69 1 0.69 0.13 0.72

134
Table 83
Survey Group N M SD
Pre-test 24 19.67 3.63
Post-test 17 19.23 2.63

135
Table 84
Between Groups 1.85 1 1.85 0.17 0.68

136
Table 85
Results for All Students – Learning Environment Stimulation Motivational Factor
(Q.30-35): Descriptive Statistics
Survey Group N M SD
Pre-test 110 18.78 3.85
Post-test 142 18.62 4.45

137
Table 86
Results for All Students – Learning Environment Stimulation Motivational Factor
(Q.30-35): Analysis of Variance
Between Groups 1.63 1 1.63 0.09 0.76
Within Groups 4408.23 250 17.63

138
Table 87
Results for Male Students – Learning Environment Stimulation Motivational Factor
Survey Group N M SD
Pre-test 79 19.59 3.78
Post-test 64 19.39 4.66

139
Table 88
Results for Male Students – Learning Environment Stimulation Motivational Factor
Between Groups 3.14 1 3.14 0.18 0.67
Within Groups 2482.40 141 17.61

140
Table 89
Results for Female Students – Learning Environment Stimulation Motivational Factor
Survey Group N M SD
Pre-test 97 19.51 3.13
Post-test 78 18.06 4.22

141
Table 90
Results for Female Students – Learning Environment Stimulation Motivational Factor
Between Groups 89.78 1 89.78 6.72 0.01
Within Groups 2310.93 173 13.36

142
Table 91
Results for Grade 9 Students – Learning Environment Stimulation Motivational
Factor (Q.30-35): Descriptive Statistics
Survey Group N M SD
Pre-test 71 19.28 3.28
Post-test 57 18.65 4.12

143
Table 92
Factor (Q.30-35): Analysis of Variance
Between Groups 12.65 1 12.65 0.93 0.34
Within Groups 1705.35 126 13.53

144
Table 93
Survey Group N M SD
Pre-test 45 19.62 3.80
Post-test 38 18.05 5.71

145
Table 94
Between Groups 50.76 1 50.76 2.23 0.14

146
Table 95
Survey Group N M SD
Pre-test 36 18.94 2.56
Post-test 30 18.03 2.95

147
Table 96
Between Groups 13.58 1 13.58 1.80 0.18

148
Table 97
Survey Group N M SD
Pre-test 24 21.08 3.97
Post-test 17 20.82 4.16

149
Table 98
Between Groups 0.67 1 0.67 0.04 0.84

Chapter Five: Discussion of Results, Conclusions, and Recommendations
Discussion of Results
The purposes of this chapter are to discuss the research question, the results
and research limitations of this study, as well as to provide recommendations for
future research. The intention of this study was to investigate how student attitude
and motivation was influenced by implementing interactive technologies in a
secondary school science program and answer the research question: Does the
lead to improved student attitude and motivation toward the learning of science?
Schools and school boards devote many resources to improving student
achievement and student engagement in school. Investment in new technology
comes at a great financial cost and is justified on the basis that it will lead to higher
student achievement. Student achievement is easy to measure but the underlying
factors that affect it are much more difficult to identify and examine. This study was
designed to focus on student attitude and motivation as key factors that affect
engagement and achievement in secondary school science programs. Keeping
students engaged, interested, and motivated to learn can be a difficult challenge and
if there are new ways to accomplish these goals, then they should be explored.
Learning science should be done through investigation and discovery and follow an
inquiry-based teaching model. Implementing interactive whiteboards and additional
interactive technologies in the science classroom can provide us with alternative
ways for students to experience scientific discoveries and engage in authentic
learning activities rather than simply learning facts and theories. Learning in the 21 st
150
151
century is undergoing drastic changes and students now have access to all of the
information they need via the internet. The education system needs to shift in
response to this and find ways to create dynamic and interactive classrooms which
allow students to be active participants in their learning and explore the curricula in
new and exciting ways. This study was completed at a small secondary school in
Southern Ontario, at a time when there were major investments made in renovating
the school’s science laboratory facilities and new interactive technologies such as
interactive whiteboards, classroom computers with Internet access, laboratory based
software, and digital scientific lab sensors and equipment. These investments
provided an opportunity to investigate the impact that the implementation of
interactive technologies can have in the classroom.
In the analysis of the complete data set of student questionnaires, there was
no increase in student attitude or motivation towards learning science after the
implementation of interactive technologies into the science classroom. As a group,
student attitude and motivation remained almost unchanged from the beginning of
the course to the end. When the results were broken down by gender and grade,
there were no statistically significant differences found between the pre and post-test
groups. From these results, there is no quantitative data to indicate that the inclusion
of interactive whiteboards and other interactive lab activities have increased student
attitude or motivation towards learning science in this sample population.
There are a number of factors that may have influenced the results of this
research study. One major limitation that impacted the study was the limited
timeframe. It is possible that teachers were not able to become proficient users of
152
the new technology and to be able to effectively utilize it in their classrooms. Glover
et al. (2007) report that teachers need time to develop their technological fluency,
apply pedagogic principles to the available materials or to the development of
materials, and then to incorporate the IWB into their teaching. While teachers may
be hesitant to adapt to these new methods, the research literature points to effective
learning where teachers have been convinced of the value of the technology and
fully understand the nature of interactivity and its pedagogic implications. This
research study included all science classes within the school’s science department
which included five different teachers instructing a variety of different courses at
different grade levels. Each teacher had their own unique style of teaching,
background, and experience and this influenced the degree to which they integrated
the new technology into their classroom. It is also possible that the inclusion of
interactive technology into the classroom does not actually improve student
motivation towards learning.
Morrell (2002) conducted research that found that the integration of
educational technology into the high school curriculum is largely dependent upon the
effectiveness of teachers to organize and present curricula in ways that promote
student learning. In this particular situation, the new science classroom lab facilities
were new for both students and teachers and the teachers had not had time to
properly learn how to use all of the equipment available to them. Morrell also
mentions that the key to using educational technology is to utilize meaningful
activities that may promote students’ thinking in new and different ways, not
available before educational technology was in place. As teachers were still

153
experimenting with these new tools, they were relying on their past teaching
methods and instructional strategies while attempting to utilize new technology to
support more traditional teaching strategies and lesson design. The five teachers
involved in this study had varying levels of engagement and experience with these
new interactive technologies and the levels of their implementation and use differed
significantly between classes. Teachers’ instructional practices, which were not a
focus of this research, should be explored further.
According to Ziegler (2004), the current body of research supports a positive
connection between technology use, student attitude toward learning, and an
increase in motivation toward learning activities when technologies are introduced
and purposefully utilized in conjunction with teaching and learning. This study did not
find an increase in student attitude or motivation towards learning after the
implementation of interactive technologies in the classroom, but as the teachers
involved were new to the use of the classroom technology, it was possible that it was
not being used to its full capacity or being integrated into classroom teaching
practices in many cases. In some classes, the technology was being used as an
addition to existing activities or as a substitute to older types of technology, such as
overhead projectors, rather than being integrated into new teaching and learning
activities. Therefore, there was no way to account for teacher effectiveness in
introducing new interactive technologies into classroom lessons and activities and
this was likely a major factor in student perception of its use in the classroom during
this research. Teachers require training and time to experiment to become proficient
154
in operating interactive whiteboards to fully utilize their capabilities and truly promote
an interactive learning environment.
Glover et al. (2007) found that unless changes in teaching and learning do
occur, investment will be of limited help in enhancing pupil understanding, retention,
and the application of learning. Over the course of one semester it is difficult for
teachers to significantly alter their teaching practice to be able to effectively
introduce these new tools into their daily classroom instruction and there were often
times in many classes where the new interactive technologies were simply not being
used.
Hennessey (2006) also found that while technology is widely available in
schools, inspection and research reports confirm that it remains infrequently used in
typical classrooms. In this research study, the frequency of use and sustained use of
technology was a factor in its successful implementation into the classroom. This
was most likely related to teachers’ confidence in using the new technology in the
classroom and being able to adapt it to their existing teaching strategies. At the
beginning of the semester, students may have had a high degree of motivation
towards science learning based on expectations that they created from seeing all of
the new equipment in the first few days in their new classroom and then these
expectations may not have been met over the course of the semester as teachers
may not have utilized the new technologies in line with student expectations. These
students may have experienced a semester of science instruction that was very
much like their past experiences but in an environment that contained new
technologies that they did not have much opportunity to personally use. Students
155
need to be given the opportunity to use and interact with the new technology to fully
realize the benefits that it can have on transforming the classroom into a more
inquiry-based and interactive environment that may promote more interest and
improve student motivation.
Teachers also require focused professional development training to be able to
successfully integrate technology into the classroom and to be able to use it to bring
about changes in their classroom practice. One problem identified by Shenton and
Pagett (2007) is that the focus of professional development appears to be on
mastering the technology rather than an approach that considers the whole context
of teaching interactively which provides more opportunities for pupil interaction with
the board and each other. They found that it is the quality of teaching that ensures
success and the integration of technology on its own cannot be expected to result in
gains. This appears to be confirmed through this research study. Teacher
professional development on the use of the new technology during this study was
available but it was focused on operating the technology rather than integrating the
technology into instruction. The training courses offered were also voluntary. This
impacted the degree to which each individual teacher utilized the new technologies
in their classrooms and lesson activities. Teachers who are new to using technology
in their classrooms often do so only in a basic way and do not move past the surface
level of technology implementation and the use is often infrequent. Many times they
maintain using more traditional instructional teaching strategies and pedagogy and
have not yet found a way to alter their method of instruction to implement the new
technology. They may use the technology in their classroom in ways such as
156
projecting notes or presentations through the LCD projector, but they fail to utilize
the interactivity that is provided to engage learners in new and exciting ways.
Although teachers may believe in the benefits that introducing technology into their
lessons can bring, they may be hesitant to experiment with new methods of
teaching, especially when they feel they are not supported with proper training. Lack
of proper training will result in teachers using technology ineffectively.
Armstrong et al. (2005) report that teachers are critical agents in integrating
technology and software into the subject aims of the lesson and the appropriate use
of the interactive whiteboard to promote quality interactions and interactivity. Morrell
(2002) also states that adding technology to the classroom, without changing the
process and structure of teaching, is no more effective in constructing knowledge
than before the technology was introduced. In this research study, it appears that
student attitude and motivation are also not improved by adding technology to the
classroom without a significant change in how classroom operations are conducted.
It may also be possible that students were more discouraged and became less
motivated to learn as they saw the potential of the new interactive technologies go
unused or underused in their classrooms.
Teachers will also need to let go of some of their classroom instructional
control and responsibility and be able to hand it over to the students to allow them to
drive their own learning. At first, using technology may be difficult for teachers to
adjust to because it is a change in the way they do their business. Many teachers
may be resistant to making this change. It will require teachers to rethink the ways in
which they present their lessons and recreate a lot of their lesson materials. While
157
this study investigated student attitude and motivation towards learning science, it
did not address teacher motivation or willingness to change their way of thinking or
attitude towards using technology in the classroom. This is a fundamental shift in
the way that many teachers are used to organizing and operating their classrooms
and one in which many are not comfortable with or willing to try immediately.
Hennessey (2006) reports on an accumulating body of research which indicates that
the teacher plays a critical role in selecting and evaluating appropriate learning
resources and framing these to exploit technology in pursuing learning goals. As
mentioned before, simply using the technologies in a beginning or emerging level of
implementation does not bring about a significant change in the way that students
learn science in the classroom through the possibilities made available through the
use of technology. A study conducted by Armstrong et al. (2005) found that the
introduction of IWBs into the classroom involves much more than the installation of
the board and software. Teachers are critical agents in mediating the software; the
integration of the software into the subject aims of the lesson and the appropriate
use of the IWB to promote quality interactions and interactivity. It was found that
teachers need to develop expertise in operating new technology to be able to
effectively utilize it in the classroom. Their research demonstrated the importance of
teachers having sustained engagement with new technologies in order to fully
integrate technology into classroom practice and to use it to support and enhance
student learning. This sustained engagement was not universally achieved
throughout this research study. The teachers who were assigned science classes
during the semester that this research took place agreed to have their students
158
complete the survey questionnaires but they were not all actively trying to utilize
interactive technologies in their classroom instruction. This supports the idea that
simply installing the new equipment without changing classroom practice will not
significantly impact student learning.
Smith et al. (2006) conducted a study designed to test the claims that IWBs
can be used as a pedagogic tool to promote interactive forms of learning and
teaching, thereby changing traditional patterns of whole class interaction and
discourse. The findings of the study suggest that IWBs are having some impact in
the classroom, but with wide ranging results. The findings support some of the
claims being made for IWBs; however, they do not suggest a fundamental change in
teachers’ underlying pedagogy. A fundamental change in teachers’ pedagogy was
not observed during the course of this research study. If teachers are not ready to
move to a more student-centered instructional approach that allows students to work
collaboratively and interact with both technology and one another, and instead are
continuing to teach using a teacher-centered model with the assistance of
technology, then it cannot be expected that students will change their perceptions of
classroom structure and learning and become more engaged or motivated to take
part in that learning. Dill (2008) conducted research finding that in order for student
achievement to be positively impacted, successful integration of the technology must
occur within the curriculum and that successful implementation requires teachers to
make a connection between different learning styles and the differentiated learning
opportunities the interactive whiteboard provides. Dill found that in isolation, an IWB
in the classroom cannot be expected to produce improved scores. It appears that in

159
this study the use and implementation of interactive technologies in the science
classroom did not reach the level required to drive the change that was necessary to
improve student attitude or motivation towards learning.
This research study also looked deeper within the survey questionnaire to
investigate if there were any significant changes in student attitude or motivation
among specific student groups in particular capacities of motivation. The SMTSL can
be divided into different sections that identify different motivational domains in
science learning. Six motivational factors were identified within the questionnaire:
self-efficacy, active learning strategies, science learning value, performance goal,
achievement goal, and learning environment stimulation. Student survey results
were analyzed by each motivational factor and then were broken down further within
each motivational factor and analyzed by both gender and grade.
The first factor of motivation analyzed was self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is a
measure of students’ belief in their own ability to perform well in science learning
tasks. There was no significant difference in attitude or motivation found among
students between the pre and post-test results in this motivational domain in the
complete data set or in the analysis of the results broken down by gender or grade.
It is believed that the same factors as discussed above influenced the results in this
motivational domain. If students had not been provided the opportunity to learn
science in a new way or in a way that was differentiated to meet their learning styles
of preferences, then they may not have had the experiences necessary to bring
about a change in their beliefs about their own ability to perform well in science
learning tasks. While using interactive technologies in the classroom may provide
160
students the opportunity to improve on their self-efficacy or self-confidence in their
learning ability, this research study did not find data to support this claim.
The second factor of motivation analyzed was active learning strategies.
Active learning strategies occur when students take an active role in using a variety
of strategies to construct new knowledge based on their previous understanding.
When the complete data set was analyzed, there was no significant difference
discovered between the pre and post-test results. There was also no difference
found among male students, but among female students there was a statistically
significant decrease in motivation discovered. This study did not investigate in
enough depth to draw conclusions about the difference between male and female
students, but it is an area that could use further investigation in the future. A
decrease in motivation was also found among grade 9 students after the
implementation of interactive technology use in the classroom. Investigating factors
that influence student attitude and motivation based on grade could be another area
that should be investigated further. It is interesting to note that the grade 9 student
population was new to the school and did not have any previous knowledge of the
older science labs that the students from the other grades had. The difference
between their expectations of what secondary school might be like from their recent
experience in elementary school may be a factor that influenced these findings.
Investigating the differences between elementary and secondary classroom
structure, environment and teaching style are other areas that could be studied
more. These students may have also had other experiences in the transition to
secondary school that influenced their survey responses both in the pre and post-
161
test questionnaires. Students in grades 10 to 12 showed no significant difference in
attitude or motivation after the implementation of interactive technologies into the
classroom. It may be that these older students have already adjusted to a more
teacher-centred learning environment that may be more typical in secondary school
and their anticipation of the classroom learning structure and teaching style were in
line with what they experienced. Studying ways to engage adolescent learners
through the use of technology integrated into instruction is another area that should
be investigated further.
The next factor of motivation that was analyzed was science learning value.
The value of science learning, defined in this survey, is to let students acquire
problem-solving competency, experience the inquiry activity, stimulate their own
thinking, and find the relevance of science with daily life. The analysis of the
complete data set showed no significant difference in attitude or motivation after the
implementation of interactive technology into the classroom but again there was a
decrease found among both female students and grade 9 students. This same
sample population again showed a decrease in attitude and motivation towards
science learning between the pre and post-test surveys which is interesting and
should be investigated further. Male students and students in grades 10 to 12 once
more did not show any significant difference between the pre and post-test
responses.
The fourth factor of motivation that was analyzed was performance goal. In
this motivational factor, the students’ goals in science learning are to compete with
other students and get attention from the teacher. The results of the complete data
162
set of all students did not show any significant difference in performance goal
motivation between the pre and post-test results. Female students and students in
grades 9 and 11 showed a statistically significant increase in attitude and motivation
after the implementation of interactive technologies into the classroom in this
motivational domain. While it was interesting to see an increase in attitude and
motivation in this factor of motivation, this motivational domain seems to be based
on other factors which may not be as influenced by instructional practices and the
utilization of technology in the classroom as some of the previous domains. The
post-test surveys were also completed near the end of the semester as exams were
approaching and students may have been more focused on their performance goal
as the evaluations to determine their final grades were approaching. While in this
case it was an increase that was observed it once again involved female students
and students in grade 9. This emerging trend suggests that, at least in this study, the
students in this demographic were more susceptible to significant changes in their
attitude and motivation towards science learning.
The fifth factor of motivation that was analyzed was achievement goal. In the
achievement goal motivational factor, students feel satisfaction as they increase
their competence and achievement during science learning. There was no significant
difference found in achievement goal motivation between the pre and post-test
results for the complete data set or among male or female students. There was a
decrease discovered in the grade 9 student sample that was statistically significant,
but no significant differences were found among students from grades 10 to 12.
Once more the grade 9 student population sample has shown a statistical difference
163
between the pre and post-test survey results. This continues to be an area that
would benefit from additional research and investigation. Looking at the transition
from elementary to secondary school and the difference in instructional strategies
used in classrooms at each level may provide insight into the results that are
appearing in the grade 9 student sample and their perceptions of classroom
instruction at the secondary level.
The final motivational factor analyzed was learning environment stimulation.
In class, learning environment stimulation includes the learning environment
surrounding students, such as curriculum, teachers’ teaching, and pupil interaction
that can influence students’ motivation in science learning. In the results for all
students and among male students, there was no significant difference in attitude or
motivation found between the pre and post-test results. There was once again a
statistically significant decrease in motivation found for female students after the
inclusion of interactive technology into the classroom. There is not enough evidence
to draw conclusions about the sample of female students in this research study, but
once more they are the population that is showing significant differences between
the pre and post-test results and support the recommendation that more research is
required in this area. When the results were analyzed by grade, there were no
significant differences found between the pre and post-test results for any specific
grade.
Conclusions
The results of this research study do not support the hypothesis that the

164
will lead to improved student attitude and motivation toward the learning of science.
In the analysis of the complete data set, there was no statistically significant
increase in attitude or motivation towards learning science between the pre and
post-test survey questionnaire results before and after the use of interactive
technologies in the science classroom. There was also no statistically significant
increase in the research findings when the survey data was broken down by gender
or by grade. When the research findings were analyzed by motivational factor and
by gender and by grade within each factor, there were again no statistically
significant increases in student attitude or motivation discovered. Decreases in
attitude and motivation were observed among female students in the motivational
domains of active learning strategies, science learning value, and learning
environment stimulation. There were also decreases in attitude and motivation
observed among grade 9 students in the motivational domains of active learning
strategies, science learning value, and achievement goal. The only statistically
significant increases in attitude and motivation were found among female students,
grade 9 students, and grade 11 students in the motivational domain of performance
goal. This domain is defined as the students’ goals in science learning are to
compete with other students and get attention from the teacher and does not seem
to be an area that would necessarily be impacted by the integration of interactive
technology into the classroom. Based on these results, it can be concluded that the
did not lead to an increase in student attitude or motivation towards learning science
in this research study.

165
Recommendations for Future Research
This research study was limited in the time frame over which it was conducted
and in the degree to which the interactive technologies were implemented and
utilized in each science class. Further investigation is needed to determine the
potential that implementing interactive technologies into science education may have
on student attitude and motivation when implemented over a greater time period to
allow teachers to gain more experience and expertise in utilizing the technology
within their classroom and integrating it into student-centred learning activities. In
this research setting, the technology was new for both teachers and students and
the teachers did not have enough time to become proficient users of the technology
to effectively utilize it in their classrooms and to incorporate it into their daily lesson
delivery and classroom activities. A more longitudinal study would allow teachers the
time required to learn how to better integrate the technology into their classroom and
transform their instructional practice. Hew and Brush (2007) note that research
studies in education demonstrate that the use of technology can help improve
students’ inventive thinking, self-concept, and motivation. Dill (2008) also claimed
that interactive technology can increase active learning and this engagement
increases students’ motivation to learn. These claims were not supported in this
study but should be explored further over a longer time period. Harwell et al. (2001)
looked at technology integration and its impact on the classroom learning
environment by comparing student perceptions of the learning environment prior to
technology integration and after technology integration, but found no significant
changes in student perceptions of the classroom learning environment over the

166
duration of an academic year. This also suggests that a more longitudinal study is
necessary to examine the influence that technology may have on student motivation
in the science classroom.
Teacher effectiveness in integrating technology is another area that
significantly influences students’ opinions of their learning environment and impacts
on their attitude and motivation to learn. In this research, all science classes within
the school were included regardless of teacher interest or motivation in integrating
technology into their lessons. Beyond giving teachers time to become familiar with
the new technology and learning to effectively utilize it in their classes, it is important
that teachers believe in the potential that using technology may bring and are
motivated to use it often in their daily classroom activities. The frequency of use and
the ways in which the technology was used in classes can have a large effect on
student attitude and motivation. A research study designed to compare traditional
teaching methods without the use of technology to one that utilizes interactive
technology in a more student-centered and inquiry-based environment may provide
more insight into the impact that interactive technologies may have on student
attitude and motivation. Thompson and Flecknoe (2003) reference the improvement
in behaviour and attention that can be achieved when interactive technology is
utilized during class instruction and report that behavior is improved when the
interactive whiteboard is being used and that students are more motivated and on
task. They state that these gains in behaviour and motivation can be attributed to the
increased opportunities for students to take individualized paths of their own interest
in project-based learning activities. Throughout this research study, there were

167
different levels of technology implementation in each class and not all students were
given the opportunity to interact with the technology or use it to assist them in
addressing their personal learning styles or preferences to achieve curriculum
expectations and learning goals. Adding technology to the classroom without
changing the teaching process does not change the learning environment and
cannot be expected to bring about a fundamental change in students’ attitude or
motivation towards learning. This study did not address teacher motivation or
willingness to use technology in new and exciting ways to change the classroom
experience for students. A study designed to look at these factors would be
worthwhile to gain a better understanding of the influence that technology may have
on student motivation.
Finally, looking more in-depth at sample subgroups may help to identify the
ways in which different groups of students view the use of technology in school and
how it impacts their attitude and motivation towards learning. This research study
identified significant differences in the responses of female students and grade 9
students compared to the rest of the student sample population when specific
motivational factors were analyzed. Looking deeper into some of the differences in
perceptions of male and female students and how their attitude and motivation
towards learning science is influenced by interactive technologies may provide more
understanding into how technology might be used to better address student needs. It
would also be useful to look more in-depth into the differences that are present in
different grade levels and to see how student attitude and motivation changes as
168
students move from grade 9 through to grade 12 and to see how the implementation
of interactive technologies affects students at each level.
Summary
This research study was an action research study designed to measure the
impact of implementing interactive technologies in science instruction on student
attitude and motivation towards learning science in a secondary school science
program. This research was focused on a specific situation and the emphasis was
placed on the active involvement of the teachers and students who participated in
the study. This research study was designed to examine the effectiveness of the
inclusion of technology into science classroom instruction and to analyze the impact
that it had on student attitude and motivation. While the study did not generate any
significant conclusions, it did provide information that could be used to alter the way
that technology is used in this particular school setting and it provided
recommendations and awareness into how technology could be better utilized in this
secondary setting. Action research is not designed to provide broad generalizations
that can be applied to other settings or situations, and instead is designed to provide
information that will enable the individuals involved to change conditions in the
particular situation in which they are personally involved. In this study, the
researcher was a classroom science teacher and the department head of science at
the school involved. The results obtained allowed this researcher to better determine
and describe the characteristics of the student population taking science classes at
the school and how incorporating technology into science instruction affects their
attitude and motivation. The results generated through this research study provided
169
information that will be used to inform teaching practice in the school and lead to a
more informed plan to capitalize on the potential that interactive technologies may
be able to provide. While the results may be limited in generalizability, this action
research generated data that will be used to develop a plan to better address the
issue of student attitude and motivation towards science learning in the science
department at this school.

References
Armstrong, V., Barnes, S., Sutherland, R., Curran, S., Mills, S., & Thompson, I.
(2005). Collaborative research methodology for investigating teaching and
learning: The use of interactive whiteboard technology. Educational Review,
57(4), 457-469.
Bonate, P. (2000). Analysis of pre-test-post-test designs. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman
& Hall.
Comeaux, P., & Huber, R. (2001). Students as scientists: Using interactive
technologies and collaborative inquiry in an environmental science project for
teachers and their students. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 12(4),
235-252.
Dill, J. (2008). A tool to improve student achievement in math: Interactive
whiteboards (Doctoral dissertation). Ashland University, Ashland, OH.
Dodds, P., & Fletcher, J.D. (2004). Opportunities for new “smart” learning
environments enabled by next-generation web capabilities. Journal of
Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(4), 391-404.
Fraenkel, J., & Wallen, N. (2009). How to design and evaluate research in
education. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Glover, D., & Miller, D. (2003). Players in the management of change: Introducing
interactive whiteboards into schools. Management in Education, 17(1), 20-23.
Glover, D., Miller, D., Averis, D., & Door, V. (2005). The interactive whiteboard: A
literature survey. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 14(2), 155-170.
170
171
Glover, D., Miller, D., Averis, D., & Door, V. (2007). The evolution of an effective
pedagogy for teachers using the interactive whiteboard in mathematics and
modern languages: An empirical analysis from the secondary sector.
Learning, Media and Technology, 32(1), 5-20.
Harwell, S., Gunter, S., Montgomery, S., Shelton, C., & West, D. (2001). Technology
integration and the classroom learning environment: Research for action.
Learning Environments Research, 4, 259-286.
Hennessy, S. (2006). Integrating technology into teaching and learning of school
science: A situated perspective on pedagogical issues in research. Studies in
Science Education, 42, 1-48.
Hew, K., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning:
Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research.
Educational Technology Research & Development, 55, 223-252.
Kennewell, S., & Beauchamp, G., (2005). The features of interactive whiteboards
and their influence on learning. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 227-
241.
Kennewell, S., Tanner, H., Jones, S., & Beauchamp, G. (2007). Analysing the use of
interactive technology to implement interactive teaching. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 24, 61-73.
Loschert, K. (2004). Bye bye blackboard. National Education Association Today,
September, 30-31.
172
Morrell, M. (2002). Factors influencing meaningful integration of technology: A case
study of exemplary high school teachers (Doctoral dissertation). Drexel
University. Philadelphia, PA.
Niess, M. L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with
technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 509-523.
Schmid, E. C. (2006). Investigating the use of interactive whiteboard technology in
the English language classroom through the lens of a critical theory of
technology. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19(1), 47-62.
Shenton, A., & Pagett, L. (2007). From ‘bored’ to screen: The use of the interactive
whiteboard for literacy in six primary classrooms in England. Literacy, 41(3),
129-136.
Slay, H., Sieborger, I., & Hodgkinson-Williams, C. (2008). Interactive whiteboards:
Real beauty or just “lipstick”? Computers & Education, 51, 1321-1341.
Smith, F., Hardman, F., & Higgins, S. (2006). The impact of interactive whiteboards
on teacher-pupil interaction in the national literacy and numeracy strategies.
British Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 443-457.
Thompson, J., & Flecknoe, M. (2003). Raising attainment with an interactive
whiteboard in key stage 2. Management in Education, 17(3), 29-33.
Tuan, H., Chin, C., & Shieh, S. (2005). The development of a questionnaire to
measure students’ motivation towards science learning. International Journal
of Science Education, 27(6), 639-654.

173
Varma, K., Husic, F., & Linn, M. (2008). Targeted support for using technology
enhanced science inquiry models. Journal of Science, Education, and
Technology, 17, 341-356.
Weisberg, H., Krosnick, J., & Bowen, B. (1996). An introduction to survey research,
polling, and data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Ziegler, C. (2004). The effect of technology-rich learning environments on
instructional practice, student behaviour and achievement in general
education settings (Doctoral dissertation). University of Kansas, Lawrence,
KS.
174
Appendix A
Student Motivation Towards Science Learning Questionnaire
Directions for students

This questionnaire contains statements about your willingness in participating in this science class. You will be
asked to express your agreement on each statement.
There are no Aright Aor Awrong@ answers. Your opinion is what is wanted. Think about how well each
statement describes your willingness in participating in this class.
Draw a circle around
SD If you strongly disagree with the statement
D If the disagree with the statement
NO If you have no opinion on the statement
A If you agree with the statement
SA If you strongly agree with the statement
Be sure to give an answer for all questions. If you change your mind about an answer, just cross it out and
circle another.
Some statements in this questionnaire are fairly similar to other statements. Don=t worry about this. Simply
give your opinion about all statements.
Grade____________ Male_____ Female_____
Science Class: ________________________
1. Whether the science content is difficult or easy, SD D NO A SA

I am sure that I can understand it.
2. I am not confident about understanding SD D NO A SA

difficult science concepts. ()
3. I am sure that I can do well on science tests. SD D NO A SA
4. No matter how much effort I put in, SD D NO A SA

I cannot learn science. ()
5. When science activities are too difficult, SD D NO A SA

I give up or only do the easy parts. ()
6. During science activities, I prefer to ask other people SD D NO A SA

for the answer rather than think for myself. ()
7. When I find the science content difficult, SD D NO A SA

I do not try to learn it ()
8. When learning new science concepts, SD D NO A SA

I attempt to understand them.
175
9. When learning new science concepts, SD D NO A SA

I connect them to my previous experiences.
10. When I do not understand a science concept, SD D NO A SA

I find relevant resources that will help me.
11. When I do not understand a science concept, I would SD D NO A SA

discuss with the teacher or other students to clarify my understanding.
12. During the learning processes, I attempt to SD D NO A SA

make connections between the concepts that I learn.
13. When I make a mistake, I try to find out why. SD D NO A SA
14. When I meet science concepts that I do not understand, SD D NO A SA

I still try to learn them.
15. When new science concepts that I have learned conflict SD D NO A SA

with my previous understanding, I try to understand why.
16. I think that learning science is important because SD D NO A SA

I can use it in my daily life.
17. I think that learning science is important because SD D NO A SA

it stimulates my thinking.
18. In science, I think that it is important to SD D NO A SA

learn to solve problems.
19. In science, I think it is important to SD D NO A SA

participate in inquiry activities.
20. It is important to have the opportunity to satisfy SD D NO A SA

my own curiosity when learning science.
21. I participate in science courses to get a good grade. () SD D NO A SA
22. I participate in science courses to perform SD D NO A SA

better than other students. ()
23. I participate in science courses so that SD D NO A SA

other students think that I=m smart. ()
24. I participate in science courses so that the SD D NO A SA

teacher pays attention to me. ()
176
25. During a science course, I feel most fulfilled SD D NO A SA

when I attain a good score in a test.
26. I feel most fulfilled when I feel confident about SD D NO A SA

the content in a science course.

when I am able to solve a difficult problem.

when the teacher accepts my ideas.

when other students accept my ideas.
30. I am willing to participate in this science course SD D NO A SA

because the content is exciting and changeable.
31. I am willing to participate in this science course SD D NO A SA

because the teacher uses a variety of teaching methods.
32. I am willing to participate in this science course because SD D NO A SA

the teacher does not put a lot of pressure on me.

the teacher pays attention to me.

it is challenging.

the students are involved in discussions.
Note: () represent reverse items.

Appendix B – Research Ethics Board Approval Forms
177
178
179
180

Investigating How Implementing

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Investigating How Implementing

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

INVESTIGATING HOW IMPLEMENTING INTERACTIVE TECHNOLOGIES IN A

SECONDARY SCHOOL SCIENCE PROGRAM INFLUENCES STUDENT

GRIFFIN MICHAEL COBB

SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT

© Griffin Michael Cobb January 2014

395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington

Our file Notre référence

The author retains copyright L'auteur conserve la propriété du droit d'auteur

In compliance with the Canadian Conformément à la loi canadienne sur la

technologies into secondary school science classrooms. Quantitative data were

to determine if there were any statistically significant increases in students’

motivation towards science learning. In the analysis of the student questionnaires,

technologies have increased student attitude or motivation towards learning science

conclusions, it did provide information and recommendations into how technology

could be better utilized in this secondary setting.

List of Tables ……………………………………………………………………………..vii.

List of Appendices ………………………………………………………………………xiv.

Chapter One: Introduction……………………………..………………………….……...1

Interactive Technology …………………………………………………….…......3

Background of the Problem ……………………………………….………..........4

Statement of the Problem ………………………………………………….….....5

Theoretical Framework …………………………………………………….……..5

Significance of the Study ………………………………………………….………7

Research Question ………………………………………………………………10

Definition of Terms ………………………………………………………….……10

Chapter Two: Literature Review ……………………………..………………….……...14

Investment in Interactive Whiteboards ………………………………………...14

Effective Instruction and Interactive Technologies …………………….……..16

Differentiation of Instruction ……………………………………………….…….20

Improving Student Achievement ………………………………………….…….22

Improving Student Motivation ……………………………………………….…..24

Summary and Implications for Future Research ……………………….……..25

Chapter Three: Methodology ……………………………………………………….…...31

Type of Research ………………………………………………………………..31

Ethical Considerations …………………………………………………………..33

Population and Sample …………………………………………………………33

Data Collection …………………………………………………………….……..36

Data Analysis ………………………………………………………………….….37

Chapter Four: Results …………………….……………………………………….…….39

Analysis of Complete Data Set …………………………………………………39

Analysis of Data Subset by Gender ……………………………………………40

Analysis of Data Subset by Grade ………………………………………..……40

Analysis of Data Subset by Motivational Factor …………………………..….41

Analysis by Motivational Factor – Self-Efficacy ………………………………41

Analysis by Motivational Factor – Active Learning Strategies ………………43

Analysis by Motivational Factor – Science Learning Value …………………44

Analysis by Motivational Factor – Performance Goal ………………………..46

Analysis by Motivational Factor – Achievement Goal …………………….….48

Analysis by Motivational Factor – Learning Environment Stimulation ….…..50

Chapter Five: Discussion of Results, Conclusions, and Recommendations …..…150

Discussion of Results …………………………………………………...………150

Recommendations for Future Research .….………………………………….165

Table 1: Results of All Students: Descriptive Statistics ……………………………….52

Table 2: Results of All Students: Analysis of Variance …………………………..…..53

Table 3: Results of Male Students: Descriptive Statistics……………………………..54

Table 4: Results of Male Students: Analysis of Variance…………………………….55

Table 5: Results of Female Students: Descriptive Statistics………………………….56

Table 6: Results of Female Students: Analysis of Variance………….………….……57

Table 7: Results for Grade 9 Students: Descriptive Statistics……………………..…58

Table 8: Results for Grade 9 Students: Analysis of Variance ….……………….…...59

Table 9: Results for Grade 10 Students: Descriptive Statistics …………………...…60

Table 10: Results for Grade 10 Students: Analysis of Variance …………….…..…..61

Table 11: Results for Grade 11 Students: Descriptive Statistics …………….……...62

Table 12: Results for Grade 11 Students: Analysis of Variance ……………….…....63