<%BANNER%>

Integrating Hypermedia into Elementary Teachers' Science Professional Development Opportunities: The Effects on Content ...


PAGE 1

INTEGRATING HYPERMEDIA INTO EL EMENTARY TEACHERS’ SCIENCE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OPPO RTUNITIES: THE EFFECTS ON CONTENT KNOWLEDGE AND A TTITUDES TOWARD SCIENCE By CHARLES RICHARD HARTSHORNE A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2004

PAGE 2

Copyright 2004 by Charles Richard Hartshorne

PAGE 3

iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my sincerest thanks to all w ho have helped me throughout the dissertation process and the re st of my graduate experience: First, I would like to express the most si ncere thanks to my committee chairperson, Dr. Colleen Swain, whose mentorship, patience, understanding, and assistance throughout all phases of my graduate educati on are appreciated more than she will ever know. Not only were the long hours spent guidi ng me through this process far above and beyond the call of duty, but her contributions to my growth as a rese archer and a scholar have been invaluable. I would also like to thank my committee cochairpers on, Dr. Richard Ferdig, who provided a source of inspiration, ideas, and words of encouragement throughout all aspects of my doctoral experience. I would also like to expre ss thanks to Dr. Eugene Dunnam, who always provided a fresh perspective, positive outlook, and e ndless support and guidance. I thoroughly enjoyed every aspect of our collaborations. Next, I would like to thank my committee members, Dr. Anne Seraphine and Dr. Rose Pringle for their insight, support, and assistance throug hout the dissertation experience. I would like to extend gratitude to all of the individuals in the Science Department of the Duval County School Board that provid ed assistance in va rious aspects of my research. Specifically I would like to thank th e following: Dr. Ruth Senftleber, for aid in

PAGE 4

iv gaining access to the schools and teachers of Duval County; Andrea Valdevinos, for providing various support throughout the data collection process and acting as a liaison between myself and the Duval County schools; and Ted West, for his assistance in developing the workshops used in my resear ch and providing many ideas and much of the necessary equipment utilized in the prof essional development sessions. All of your help was greatly appreciated. I would like to thank my wife, Leigh Ann Hartshorne. Without her I would not be in the position I am today. Her love, co mpanionship, and support were extremely important and valued throughout this l ong and arduous time in both of our lives. Finally, I would also like to thank the many friends and colleagues I have met while at the University of Florida. I appr eciate their friendship, knowledge, support, and help during my entire graduate experience.

PAGE 5

v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iii LIST OF TABLES...........................................................................................................viii ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ..x CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 Statement of the Problem..............................................................................................3 Purpose of the Study.....................................................................................................5 Significance of the Study..............................................................................................6 Theoretical Framework for the Study...........................................................................8 Research Questions.....................................................................................................11 Variables.....................................................................................................................1 2 Independent Variables.........................................................................................12 Dependent Variables...........................................................................................12 Limitations and Delimitations of the Study................................................................12 Limitations...........................................................................................................12 Delimitations.......................................................................................................13 Definition of Terms....................................................................................................14 Summary.....................................................................................................................15 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE............................................................................18 Introduction.................................................................................................................18 Calls for Science in the Elementary Curriculum........................................................18 Barriers to Effective Science Teaching in the Elementary Classrooms.....................20 Elementary Teachers Lack of Science Content Knowledge..............................20 Elementary Teachers Attitudes Toward Science...............................................21 Elementary Teachers Lack of Preparedness to Teach Science..........................22 Elementary Teachers Lack of Confidence Teaching Science............................23 Lack of Educational Resources for Elementary Teachers...................................24 Science Instruction and Student Achievement...........................................................25 Inservice Elementary Scien ce Professional Development.........................................26 Professional Development and Teacher Attitudes..............................................27 Hypermedia.................................................................................................................28

PAGE 6

vi Benefits of Hypermedia.......................................................................................29 Constraints of Hypermedia..................................................................................31 Databases as Intermediaries................................................................................32 Theoretical Framework...............................................................................................34 Constructivism.....................................................................................................34 Cognitive Constructivism....................................................................................36 Cognitive Flexibility Theory...............................................................................37 Summary.....................................................................................................................38 3 METHODOLOGY.....................................................................................................41 Introduction.................................................................................................................41 Study Procedures........................................................................................................41 Research Population............................................................................................42 Treatments...........................................................................................................49 Instrumentation....................................................................................................54 The Hypermedia Environment............................................................................56 Data Collection....................................................................................................58 Data Analysis.......................................................................................................58 Hypotheses..........................................................................................................59 Internal Validity Concerns..........................................................................................60 History and Maturation........................................................................................61 Instrumentation and Testing................................................................................61 Selection..............................................................................................................61 Mortality..............................................................................................................62 Selection-maturation Interaction.........................................................................62 Regression...........................................................................................................62 Summary of Internal Validity Concerns..............................................................63 External Validity Concerns.........................................................................................63 Testing-interaction Effects..................................................................................63 Maturation...........................................................................................................63 Treatment-interaction Effects..............................................................................64 Other Interactions with the Treatment.................................................................64 Summary of External Validity Concerns............................................................65 4 RESULTS...................................................................................................................66 Introduction.................................................................................................................66 General Study Details.................................................................................................67 Study Sample..............................................................................................................68 Assignment to Groups................................................................................................69 Statistical Analyses.....................................................................................................69 Statistical Tests....................................................................................................69 Descriptive and Inferential Statistics...................................................................70 Science Content Knowledge................................................................................71 Attitudes Toward Science....................................................................................75 Research Hypotheses..................................................................................................78

PAGE 7

vii Research Hypothesis #1......................................................................................78 Research Hypothesis #2......................................................................................78 Research Hypothesis #3......................................................................................78 Research Hypothesis #4......................................................................................79 Research Hypothesis #5......................................................................................79 Research Hypothesis #6......................................................................................79 Summary.....................................................................................................................80 5 DISCUSSION.............................................................................................................82 Introduction.................................................................................................................82 Review of the Study....................................................................................................83 Purpose................................................................................................................83 Design of the Study.............................................................................................83 Additional Data Collection..................................................................................84 Participants..........................................................................................................84 Research Questions.....................................................................................................84 Research Question #1..........................................................................................86 Research Question #2..........................................................................................92 Contributions to the Body of Knowledge...................................................................96 Inservice Science Prof essional Development......................................................96 Hypermedia.........................................................................................................98 Implications for Inservice Science Professional Development..................................98 Recommendations for Future Research....................................................................101 Summary...................................................................................................................102 APPENDIX A SCIENCE ATTITUDE SCALE FOR INSERVICE ELEMENTARY TEACHER II............................................................................................................104 B PROGRAM TO IMPROVE ELEMENTARY SCIENCE (PIES) SCIENCE KNOWLEDGE TEST..............................................................................................106 C EVALUATION OF INSERVICE ACTIVITY........................................................111 D SCHEDULE/OUTLINE OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOPS..........................................................................................................113 E PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOP ACTIVITIES........................123 F WORKSHOP DETAILS..........................................................................................132 LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................................135 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...........................................................................................149

PAGE 8

viii LIST OF TABLES Table page 1 Quasi-experimental Design......................................................................................42 2 Gender of Participants..............................................................................................43 3 Ethnicity of Participants...........................................................................................43 4 Highest Degree Obtained by Participants................................................................44 5 Grade Level Taught..................................................................................................44 6 Years Teaching.........................................................................................................44 7 Amount of Time Since Last Partic ipation in Scien ce Professional Development Activity..............................................................................................45 8 Comfort Level and Expe rience with Computers......................................................45 9 Comfort Level and Experience with Hypermedia....................................................46 10 How Many Hours per Week Do You Us e the Computer for Instructional Purposes?..................................................................................................................46 11 How Many Hours per Week Do You Us e the Computer for Productivity Purposes?..................................................................................................................47 12 Do You Feel Comfortable Teaching Science?.........................................................47 13 Do You Feel You Have Enough Science Content Knowledge?..............................47 14 Do You Like Science?..............................................................................................47 15 District and State Averag es on 2003 FCAT Science Exam.....................................48 16 School Demographic Information............................................................................50 17 Item-Total Correlations for the Science Attitude Scale for Inservice Teachers II................................................................................................................56 18 Schedule of Data Collection and Workshops...........................................................58

PAGE 9

ix 19 Means and Standard Deviations of Science Content Knowledge Scores................70 20 Means and Standard Deviations on Science Attitude Scale.....................................70 21 Adjusted Means and Standard Error of Science Content Knowledge Scores (Dependent Variable: PI ES Posttest Score).............................................................72 22 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects fo r Group Means (Dependent Variable: PIES Posttest Score).................................................................................................72 23 Adjusted Means and Standard Error of Attitudes Toward Science Scores (Dependent Variable: Science Attitude Scale Posttest Score).................................76 24 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects for Attitudes Toward Science (Dependent Variable: Science Attitude Scale Posttest Score).....................................................76 25 Tests of Significant Differences Be tween Control Group’s and Hypermedia Group’s Attitudes Toward Science (Dep endent Variable: Science Attitude Scale Posttest Score)................................................................................................77 26 Tests of Significant Differences Betw een Control Group’s and Traditional Group’s Attitudes Toward Science (Dep endent Variable: Science Attitude Scale Posttest Score)................................................................................................77 27 Tests of Significant Differences Betw een Traditional Group’s and Hypermedia Group’s Attitudes Toward Science (Dep endent Variable: Science Attitude Scale Posttest Score)................................................................................................77

PAGE 10

x Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy INTEGRATING HYPERMEDIA INTO EL EMENTARY TEACHERS’ SCIENCE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OPPO RTUNITIES: THE EFFECTS ON CONTENT KNOWLEDGE AND A TTITUDES TOWARD SCIENCE By Charles Richard Hartshorne August, 2004 Chair: Colleen R. Swain Cochair: Richard E. Ferdig Major Department: Teaching and Learning Recent calls for improvements in the t eaching of science gave rise to the implementation of numerous reform strategies in the elementary classroom. Reviews of the different reform strategies showed vary ing levels of effectiveness in the overall quality of teaching and student learning. On e method shown to be effective in producing changes in teachers, the teaching process, and ultimately student learning is the professional development workshop. Due to the success of professional development workshops in other subject areas, researchers have suggested this could be an effective strategy in addressing major concerns related to the teaching of science in elementary classrooms. However, past elementary science professional development workshops have not met with the same levels of success as other content areas. The integration of hypermedia into prof essional development settings is one method of improving the effectiv eness of elementary scienc e professional development

PAGE 11

xi workshops. Integrating hypermedia into struct ured professional development settings can be helpful in addressing two major concer ns with the teaching of science in the elementary classroom: lack of teacher c ontent knowledge and poor teacher attitudes toward science. In this study, the extent to which the in tegration of hypermedia into professional development workshops influenced elementa ry teachers’ science content knowledge and attitudes toward science was examined. Resu lts indicated that while the integration of hypermedia into the professional developmen t environment could have contributed to elementary teachers’ science content know ledge, the increases in content knowledge were not dependent on the presence of hype rmedia in the professional development setting. Study findings did indicated the in tegration of hypermedia into professional development workshops had a positive influen ce on elementary teache rs’ attitudes toward science and was an integral component to th e increase in elementary teachers’ attitudes toward science. The results of this study provide a foundation for future research related to integrating hypermedia into professional development settings.

PAGE 12

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Science is the tool of the Western mind and with it more doors can be opened than with bare hands. It is part and parcel of our knowledge and obscures our insight only when it holds that the understanding given by it is the only kind there is. -C. G. Jung, 1978 Within the past decade, numerous calls for reforming the teaching of elementary science in American public schools have b een made (Bybee, 1993; Loucks-Horsley, 1996; National Research Council, 1996; Raizen, 1998; Yager, 1993). Two major premises form part of the foundation for th ese calls. First, res earch has shown that exposure to science processes at young ages en hances future science performance and the skills associated with ‘doing’ science (Keeves, 1995; Rowe, 1992). This is due, in part, to the idea that the study of science pr omotes the development of evaluative and analytical skills, as well as a logical appr oach to problem-solving, skills which promote scientific literacy (Ameri can Association for the Adva ncement of Science, 1989, 1993; Plourde, 2002; Tilgner, 1990). The second pr emise for the call for elementary science reform originates from research indicating a lack of student enrollm ent in more advanced science courses (Fraser & Walberg, 1995). Consequently, when compared to other technological nations, American students perform poorly on international science assessments (International Association for the Evaluation of Achievement, 1988; Knuth, Jones, & Baxendale, 1991; Plourde, 2002). Thes e two premises, along with other factors, have influenced the introduction of science topics and skills on st atewide standardized examinations and the formation of nationa l science mandates and standards focusing on

PAGE 13

2 the inclusion of the developmen t of science skills in the el ementary classroom (American Association for the Advancem ent of Science, 1989, 1993; National Academy on Science, 1995). Energies must be expended to improve the teaching of science in elementary classrooms. In an effort to improve the teach ing of science at the elementary level, and ultimately student learning, different instruct ional strategies have been utilized and studied. These teaching methods include group learning, management by objectives, and smaller class sizes (Linn & Hsi, 2000). Wh ile the levels for success of these methods have differed, findings indicate that merely focusing on the in structional stra tegies used in the classroom are not enough. Elementary te achers of science are a critical component of students’ academic achievement in science; he nce, elementary teachers must be part of the solutions to improve science learning in elementary classroo ms (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Sanders & Rivers, 1996). Tilgner (1990) suggested that one method of improving science teaching in elementary classroo ms would be professional development workshops. This notion of focusing on professional development workshops is also supported by Smith, Banilower, McMa hon, and Weiss (2002) who found that participation in professional development re sulted in increased teacher preparedness. Other positive results of professional devel opment have been reported. These benefits include increased student achievement (Anderson & Smith, 1986; Monk, 1994), improved content knowledge (Kahle, 2000), increa sed attitudes toward specific content areas (Henson, 1987; Tilgner, 1990), and incr eased confidence in teaching (Shrigley, 1977). However, the results of professional development efforts in elementary science have not reported the levels of succes s in other subject areas (Hilliard, 1997; Loucks-

PAGE 14

3 Horsley et al., 1990; Newman & King, 2000; Til gner, 1990). Therefore, the effectiveness of different strategies used in elementary science professional development needs to be examined. One method of improving the effectiv eness of professional development opportunities for elementary teachers is with the integration of hypermedia into the professional development environment. Hyperm edia has a number of characteristics that can make it an effective tool for improving in service opportunities fo r elementary science teachers. It allows for the contextualizat ion and interaction with topics (Kumar & Sherwood, 1997), and potentially reduces the amount of time required to access materials on complex issues in various contexts (Co llier, 1987; Halasz, 1988). Hypermedia also provides for more efficient searches of material (Ayersman & Reed, 1998; Burton, Moore, & Holmes, 1995), and allows for th e exploration of topics from multiple perspectives (Astleitner & Leutner, 1995; Ayersman & Reed, 1995; Park, 1991). Many of the characteristics inherent in hype rmedia offer benefits that address the issues in inservice profe ssional development opportunities for elementary teachers. Professional development workshops offer struct ured environments for the integration of hypermedia into the professional development of elementary teachers and address some of the current problems of elementary scienc e professional development. This study will examine the influences of professional deve lopment opportunities th at utilize hypermedia on inservice elementary teachers’ conten t knowledge and attitude s toward science. Statement of the Problem Currently, the manner in which science is taught in many elementary classrooms does not afford students sufficient opportunitie s to understand science concepts and does not develop the skills commonly associat ed with science (Ginns & Watters, 1998;

PAGE 15

4 Plourde, 2002; Tilgner, 1990). One reason for th is is that elementary teachers often lack confidence in teaching science (Weiss, 1997). Th is lack of confidence can originate from a number of sources but is most commonly r ooted in feelings of being unqualified to teach science (Abell & Roth, 1991; Czerni ak & Schriver, 1994; Plourde, 2002). A second, yet related, barrier is elementary te achers’ lack of science content knowledge (Abell & Roth, 1992; Jesky-Smith, 2002; Pl ourde, 2002), resulting from inservice teachers’ inadequate backgrounds in sc ience (Jesky-Smith, 2002; Tilgner, 1990). Because of limited science backgrounds, el ementary teachers often have inadequate knowledge of stand-alone science topics and the interconnecte dness between related topics. This leads to difficulties in the c onceptualization of scie nce topics (Jesky-Smith, 2002; Plourde, 2002). Third, lack of support for teachers inhibits quality science teaching (Mitchner & Anderson, 1989). Effective scienc e teaching requires not only a variety of instructional strategies but also varied instructional settings and equipment. With elementary schools’ current emphasis on the development of math and language arts skills, science has somewhat been ignored. Thus, teachers are frequently not provided with appropriate facilities and equipment necessary for effective science instruction (Helgeson, Blosser, & Howe, 1977; Plourde, 2002; Tilgner, 1990; Tosun, 2000). Fourth, teachers lack time to prepare science lessons and materials, which adversely influences science instruction (Tilgner, 1990; Wei ss, Banilower, McMahon, & Smith, 2001). Science lessons frequently require more prep aration time than lessons in other content areas; hence, teachers are often reluctant to in tegrate science into their classroom (Wolff, Tobin, & Ritchie, 2001). A final obstacle, which is closely related to many of the previous barriers, is that teachers have negative attitudes toward science in the

PAGE 16

5 elementary classroom (Koballa & Crawley, 1985; Mulholland & Wallace, 1996; Stepans & McCormack, 1986; Tilgner, 1990; Tosun, 2000; Westerback, 1982). These negative attitudes can have two major impacts on elementary science teaching (Bogut & McFarland, 1975; Cohen, 1964; Stollberg, 1969). First, these negative attitudes can result in teachers spending less time teaching science curriculum (Kennedy, 1973; Plourde, 2002), leading to decr eased student achievement in science (Fraser & Walberg, 1995). Second, teachers can pass negative attitu des toward science to their students, which also decreases student achievement (Plourde, 2002; Shrigley & Johnson, 1974; Stollberg, 1969). The combination of these ba rriers to effective sc ience teaching and the documented poor achievement of elementary science students indicate methods of professional development need to be develope d to address these deficiencies. One such method involves the integration of hyperm edia into profe ssional development opportunities. This study investigated the influences of integrating hypermedia into professional development opportunities on two of the major barriers to effective science instruction in elementary classrooms: teacher s’ content knowledge and attitudes toward science. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to examine the change in content knowledge and attitudes in elementary teach ers of science when hypermedia is integrated into professional development opportunities. Mo re specifically, this study examined the extent to which the use of a hypermedia e nvironment during an inservice professional development setting positively influenced el ementary teachers’ content knowledge of scientific topics and processes and attitudes toward science.

PAGE 17

6 Significance of the Study A number of the issues with the teaching of science in elementary classrooms begin with the lack of preparation of current teachers to teach science (Abell & Roth, 1992; Helgeson et al., 1977; Plourde, 2002; Tilgner, 1990; Tosun, 2000; Weiss, 1997). Many of the problems with elementary science teaching originate with inadequate science backgrounds (Jesky-Smith, 2001; Tilgner, 1990); lack of confidence in the ability to teach science effectively (Abell & Roth, 1991; Czerniak & Schriver, 1994; Weiss, 1997); lack of science content knowledge (Abell & Roth, 1992; Jesky-Smith, 2002; Plourde, 2002); lack of equipment and resources (Hel geson et al., 1977; Tilgner, 1990; Tosun, 2000); and lack of time (Hone, 1970; Weiss et al ., 2001; Wolff, Tobin, & Ritchie, 2001). In order to deal with these issues, it is important to focu s on methods that afford inservice teachers opportunities to become better prepar ed to teach science. Using hypermedia during inservice teachers’ professional deve lopment workshops addresses several of the barriers hindering effective elem entary science instruction. Due to the complexities associated with the creation and implementation of effective elementary science learning environm ents, it is important to look at teaching as an ill-structured domain (Shulman, 1992; Spiro, Feltovich, Jacobson, & Coulson, 1991). In order to understand complex, ill-structured domains, multiple representations are necessary (Spiro, Coulson, Feltovich, & A nderson, 1988). Kumar and Sherwood (1997) purport that using multiple knowledge representa tions are necessary to maximize transfer of learned information. Studies indicate effective science instructors possess multiple knowledge representations of a number of different types of scientific knowledge (Knuth, Jones, & Baxendale, 1991; Loucks-Horsley et al., 1990; National Research Council, 1996; Raizen, 1998). Among these different ty pes of scientific knowledge are science

PAGE 18

7 content knowledge, science pedagogical knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge (Shulman, 1986). Hypermedia environments can be used to address issues related to these various types of scientific knowledge and allow teachers to explore them in depth (Jonassen, 1988; Marchioni ni, 1988; Park, 1991). Hypermedia environments can also be effective for use with internalizing information, interacting with tools for organi zation, and creating mean ingful contexts in teaching and learning (Jacobson & Spiro, 1995; Marchionini, 1988). The attributes of hypermedia provide a number of benef its. First, hypermedia prevents the overgeneralization of topics and the teaching a nd learning of topics in isolation (Landow, 1992). This is effective in improving scienc e content knowledge and providing teachers with a more structured science ba ckground (Kumar & Sherwood, 1997). Second, hypermedia environments can promote the abil ity to apply knowledge to new situations with different characteristics other than those of the initial setting, lead ing to the ability to transfer knowledge to new contexts (Astle itner & Leutner, 1995; Jacobson & Spiro, 1995; Jacobson, Maouri, Mishra, & Kolar, 1996; Jonassen, 1996; Marchionini, 1988; Tao, 1998). Third, as an organizational tool (Bush, 1945) hypermedia can reduce the amount of time necessary to access, organize, and address co mplex issues involving a large number of cases (Collier, 1987; Halasz, 1988; Landow, 1992). Finally, ma terial can be presented from multiple perspectives within hypermedia environments, allowing users to form multiple representations about the topic (Ast leitner & Leutner, 1995; Ayersman & Reed, 1998; Burton et al., 1995; Park, 1991). Th e attributes of hypermedia allow for the construction of more comprehensive knowledge structures by inservice elementary teachers.

PAGE 19

8 Theoretical Framework for the Study The theoretical foundation of th is study is rooted in the pr inciples of constructivist learning theory, emphasizing lear ner-centered aspects of constr uctivism. Constructivists believe knowledge is not transmitted from one learner to another but instead is constructed by the learner (B runer, 1961; von Glaserfeld, 1989). In constructivist learning environments, the role of the instru ctor is to encourage learners to discover principles on their own and to provide appropr iate formats for learners to interact with various learning materials. According to ma ny constructivist theori sts, experience is another factor that plays a major role in the learning process (Bandura, 1976; Brown Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Dewey, 1938; von Glas erfeld, 1987). For example, Bruner (1961) states learning is an active process in which the learner constructs his own knowledge based on prior experiences. Bruner and many other constructivists also think that social interaction plays a major role in the formation of knowledge structures. These theorists state learners shoul d not be isolated in the le arning environment but actively engaged in dialogue and experience contextual real-world learning situations (Jonassen, 1996; Piaget, 1970; Vygotsky, 1978). Both expe riential and social processes have a major effect on learning and have been in tegrated into a number of professional development models, which are also anchored in other basic tene ts of constructivist theory. Yager (1996) states that recent attempts to improve science education are rooted in constructivist learning theory. Both the social and psycholog ical contexts for professional development have been addr essed within constructivist learning environments (Tobin, Kahle, & Fraser, 1990) From a psychological perspective, constructivism holds the belie f that knowledge is constr ucted by the learner. In

PAGE 20

9 constructivist-based professiona l development environments, knowledge is constructed as participants examine inquiry and activity-based pedagogy (Hassard, 1992). From a social perspective, constructivists hold the belief that knowledge is construc ted both within the mind as well as within social communiti es (Richardson, 1999). In professional development environments that address th e social perspective of constructivism, participants are provided with opportunities to interact a nd discuss various situations with others in the professional development setting. More specifically, the branch of constructivism that pr ovides the basis for this study is cognitive constructivism. Within cognitiv e constructivist theory, there is a focus on the importance of the inter actions with social or physic al environments during the knowledge construction process. One example of this is the role of cognitive dissonance in the learning process. It is through social interaction that cognitive dissonance typically occurs (Festinger, 1957; Lyddon, 1995). Discus sing ideas and information with others allows learners to develop an understanding of concepts that are inc onsistent w ith current beliefs. Resolving these inconsistencies re sults in the construction of new knowledge structures (Bruner, 1986). This ongoing pr ocess of assimilating past experiences and knowledge with new experiences and knowledge c ontributes to an enhanced view of the external world (Piaget & Inhelder, 1973). Based on the assumption that learning occurs as a result of resolving inconsistencies encounter ed by learners, it is critical that inservice teachers experience opportunities to encounter, di scuss, and resolve these inconsistencies. This is also important because profes sional development opportunities provide for experiences that act as catalysts for cha nge in teachers’ conceptions (Radford, 1998; Tobin, 1993).

PAGE 21

10 As with the professional development envi ronments implemented in this study, the theoretical foundation for the design of most hypermedia e nvironments is based on the constructivist paradigm. Among the many features of hypermedia that make it compatible to constructivist learning envir onments are learner cont rol, non-lin earity and non-sequential presentation of informati on, hyperlink functiona lity, open access to information, and associative pr operties of information (Aye rsman, 1995; Vrasidas, 2002). These functions promote the individual de velopment of complex and unique knowledge representations (McGuire, 1996). Cognitive constructivism is also closely related to the construction of many hypermedia environments (Burton et al., 1995; Duffy & Jonassen, 1991). According to cognitive constructivist theor y, teachers act as guides in the learning process (Piaget, 1970; Vygotsky, 1978). Consistent with this idea, the computer can act as a partner and help facilitate the learning process. As a branch of constructivism, cognitive constructivists also ho ld many of the same views as othe r constructivists (Phillips, 1995, 1997). These include the importance of an activ e learner role in the learning process, learner involvement with authentic tasks, and the social nature of learning (Jonassen, 1999). Another theoretical viewpoint addressed with the design and implementation of hypermedia environments is cognitive flexibility theory. Cognitive flexibility theory is a branch of constructivism focusing on the idea that knowledge of a concept will be more thorough if information is revisited from multip le perspectives at various times and in different contexts. The goal of addressi ng concepts in this manner is advanced knowledge acquisition suitable for understa nding and transfer (Collins, Brown, &

PAGE 22

11 Newman, 1989; Spiro et al., 1991). According to Jacobs on, Maouri, Mishra, and Kolar (1996), hypermedia proposes complex knowledge may be better l earned for flexible applications in new contexts by employing case-based learning envi ronments that include features such as: (a) use of multiple knowledge representations, (b) link abstract concepts in cases to depict knowledge in-use, (c) demonstrate the conceptual interconnectedness or web-like nature of complex knowledge, (d) emphasize knowledge assembly rather than re productive memory, (e) introduce both conceptual complexity and domain complex ity early, and (f) promote active student learning. (p. 241) As with other constructivist theories, soci al interaction plays an important role in cognitive flexibility theory (Jonassen, 1999; Spir o et al., 1991). As a result of integrating social interaction into the learning environm ent, learners can discuss ambiguities and inconsistencies present in various situati ons creating improved knowledge structures. Hypermedia environments are extremely well su ited to address social interaction issues. Hypermedia also addresses other tenets of c ognitive flexibility theory in that it allows multiple alternative representations of the same concepts. Learners, through interconnected hyperlinks, can explore thes e representations and develop their own knowledge structures (Jonassen & Wang, 1993). These multiple representations promote the re-assembling of structures in new domains resulting in improved knowledge structures. This intertwining of constructiv ism, cognitive constructivism, and cognitive flexibility theory with pr ofessional development models and hypermedia provide the theoretical underpinni ngs for this study. Research Questions The following two research questions will be addressed in this study:

PAGE 23

12 1. To what extent does the use of hype rmedia during inservice professional development increase elementary teachers’ understanding of elementary science concepts? 2. To what extent does the use of hype rmedia during inservice professional development influence elementary te achers’ attitudes toward science? Variables Independent Variables In this study, there was a single independent variable with two factors. The independent variable was the professiona l development workshops for elementary science teachers. The first factor was th e absence of hypermedia in the professional development workshops, and the second factor was the integration of hypermedia into the professional development workshops. Dependent Variables In this study, there were tw o dependent variables. The first dependent variable was teacher science content knowledge, as measur ed by the Project to Improve Elementary Science (PIES) Science Knowledge Test (Zielinski & Smith, 1990). The second dependent variable was teacher attitudes to ward science, as measured by the Science Attitude Scale (Shrigley & Johnson, 1974). Limitations and Delimitations of the Study Limitations 1. This study does not address technological i ssues. Some of these issues may include the participants’ comfort level with comput ers (computer anxiety) or the amount of computer usage in the classroom. The ga ins in content knowledge and attitudes

PAGE 24

13 toward science for participants with hi gher levels of comput er anxiety may be smaller than those participants who feel more comfortable with computers. Also, the gains in science content knowledge and attitudes toward science for participants who already use computers in the class mo re frequently may be greater than for participants who rarely use computers in the classroom. 2. The sample size for the study is small. Due to the availability of participants, lab space, and equipment, the size of each experimental group was limited. As a result, the statistical power for the study was di minished. Increasing the sample size would result in a more statistically powerful study. 3. It is not clear whether or not the research generalizes to other levels of science education. This is becaus e the problems in secondary and postsecondary science education differ significantly from those of elementary science. For example, secondary and postsecondary science educat ors are typically mu ch more confident with the content, have more content know ledge, and have more positive attitudes toward science. Therefore, hypermedia ma y not be an appropriate tool to address many of the problems associated with scie nce education at other levels. Further research would be necessary to determ ine the effectiveness of hypermedia in addressing problems associated with science education at other levels. Delimitations 1. There are no examinations of the effects of the treatments over time. While pretest and posttest measures are investigated, no fu ture measures to examine the sustained

PAGE 25

14 effectiveness of the treatments will be taken. Further research is necessary to examine the sustained effects of the treatments. 2. There are no measures of the effects of the professional development on student achievement. While a link between teacher attitudes toward science and science content knowledge is referenced in the revi ew of literature, no direct measures of the degree to which the professional deve lopment workshops influenced student achievement were collected during the study. It is expected that there will be a positive effect on student achievement, but further research would be necessary to determine the effects of hypermedia on student achievement. 3. The length of the professional developmen t workshops was short. Participants experienced three two-hour elementa ry science professional development workshops totaling six hours. This was due to participant availa bility, time of the school year, district funding, a nd lab space availability. Further research would be necessary to examine the e ffectiveness of hypermedia at improving science content knowledge and attitudes toward science in a longer series of professional development workshops. Definition of Terms In research regarding topics related to the teaching of science in the elementary classrooms and the integration of technology into profession al development activities, many of the terms used in this study have a wide array of definitions. This is due to the fact that frequently researchers come from di fferent fields and attempt to fuse information from their fields into this area. For th is study, the following terms and definitions are provided to clarify meaning and promote a clearer understanding.

PAGE 26

15 Attitudes Attitudes are learned predispositions that result in consistent responses, either favorable or unfavorable, towa rd a specific entity (McGuire, 1969). Constructivism Constructivism refers to a lear ning theory based on the principle that learners construct thei r own knowledge structures based on prior knowledge and experience (Bruner, 1966). Hypermedia. Hypermedia are a nonlinear and nonsequential method for displaying and organizing multiple forms of media, such as sound, graphics, videos, or text (Jonassen, 1989, 2000). Hypermedia environment. A hypermedia environment refers to the inclusion of hypermedia into the professional development workshops. Professional development Professional development encompasses a variety of opportunities afforded to educators with the purpose of developing teaching approaches, dispositions, and knowledge skills in an effort to improve the effectiveness of classroom teaching (Loucks-Horsley, 1996). Workshops. Workshops refer to a series of three two-hour on-site teacher preparation sessions in which the research er guided the participants through basic processes related to a va riety of scientific concepts and processes. Summary Recent calls for science edu cation reform have arisen from American students poor performance on internationa l science assessments (Intern ational Association for the Evaluation of Achievement, 1988; Knuth, Jones, & Baxendale, 1991; Plourde, 2002), research that supports the development of scie nce skills at the elementary level (Keeves, 1995; Rowe, 1992), and a lack of student enrollm ent in advanced science courses (Fraser & Walberg, 1995). As a result of these calls, a number of methods of science education

PAGE 27

16 reform have been implemented with varyi ng levels of success (Linn & Hsi, 2002). Due to successes in other subject areas and parall els with the issues related to elementary science instruction, researchers (Tilgner, 1990; Smith et al., 2002) suggested that professional development workshops could be a successful method to address problems in the teaching of science in el ementary classrooms. In other content areas, professional development workshops have reported si gnificant positive results, such as improved positive attitudes toward subject areas (Hen son, 1987; Tilgner, 1990), increased student achievement (Anderson & Smith, 1986; Monk, 1984), and increased confidence in teaching (Shrigley, 1977). While these results positively correlate with the problems in professional development opportunities for inse rvice elementary teachers (Abell & Roth, 1991; Czerniak & Schriver, 1994; Helgeson et al., 1977; Jesky-Smith, 2002; Koballa & Crawley, 1985; Mulholland & Wallace, 1996; Plourde, 2002; Stepans & McCormack, 1986; Tilgner, 1990; Tosun, 2000; Weiss, 1997; Weiss et al., 2001; Westerback, 1982), professional development environments ha ve been significantly less effective in addressing the barriers to effectiv e elementary science instruction. One method of improving inservice elemen tary science professional development is with the integration of hypermedia into the professional development environment. A number of traits inherent in hypermedia make it effective in addressing many of the barriers to effective science instruction in elementary classrooms. Professional development workshops also provide a structur ed environment to address these barriers. In this study, changes in elementary teach ers’ science content knowledge and attitudes toward science, which resulted from the inte gration of a hypermedia environment into a series of professional development workshops were examined. More specifically, this

PAGE 28

17 study examined the extent to which the inte gration of hypermedia into a series of professional development workshops positivel y influenced teachers’ content knowledge and attitudes toward elementary science.

PAGE 29

18 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction In many elementary classrooms, science is currently being taught in a manner that does not provide students with adequate opportunities to compre hend various science concepts or construct the skills associated with “doing” science (G inns & Watters, 1998; Plourde, 2002; Tilgner, 1990). While nume rous efforts have been implemented to improve the state of science instruction in the elementary classroom, many efforts have been largely unsuccessful. This review of literature will be divided into three sections. The first section is an examination of how science fits into the elementary curriculum, the barriers associated with eff ective science teaching in th e elementary classroom, and methods for addressing these barriers. The s econd section will discuss hypermedia and database-driven hypermedia environments. Various benefits and constraints of hypermedia and database-driven hypermedia environments will be explored. The third section will examine the theories that provide the underpinnings for this study. Specifically, constructivism, cognitive constructivism, and cognitive flexibility theory will be discussed. Calls for Science in th e Elementary Curriculum The importance of science in education can be seen in the multitude of documents that specifically address science (Internat ional Assessment of E ducational Progress, 1992; International Association for the Ev aluation of Achievement, 1988; National Academy on Science, 1995; National A ssessment of Educational Progress, 1983;

PAGE 30

19 National Commission on Excellence in Edu cation, 1983; National Education Goals Panel, 1991; National Science Foundation, 1996). Goal Four of the National Education Goals stated, “By the year 2000, U.S. students will be first in the world in mathematics and science achievement” (National Educati on Goals Panel, 1991, p. 16). Initiatives, such as Project 2061, various state systemic initiatives, the National Science Education Standards, and state science standards have begun focusing on the integration of science into elementary education and the improvement of science instruction at the elementary level (Knuth, Jones, & Baxendale, 1991). A nu mber of reasons exist for the integration of science into these initiatives and standards. First, research has indicated the inclusion of science at the elementary level results in enhanced scientific performance at higher levels, such as secondary and postseconda ry levels (Keeves, 1995; Rowe, 1992). Second, American students lag behind students from most other industrialized nations in both science and mathematics achievement (Interna tional Assessment of E ducational Progress, 1992). This can be illustrated by Americ an students’ poor performance on various international science assessments, such as the Third International Mathematics and Science Study and the Second International Science Study (Internati onal Association for the Evaluation of Achievement, 1988; Knut h, Jones, & Baxendale, 1991; Plourde, 2002). This poor performance, coupled with other issu es in science education, has resulted in the introduction of science topics on standardiz ed examinations (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1989, 1993; Natio nal Academy on Science, 1995). Third, a recent trend in science shows a decline in student enrollment in both upper level and advanced science courses (F raser & Walberg, 1995). One reason for this lack of enrollment is students are not provided with adequate oppor tunities to address science

PAGE 31

20 concepts and skills effectively (Plourde 2002; Tilgner, 1990; Tosun, 2000). Also, negative attitudes toward scienc e are often fostered by elemen tary teachers of science and can negatively influence student achieveme nt and attitudes toward science (Ashton, 1984; Bogut & McFarland, 1975; Ginns & Watte rs, 1998; Plourde, 2002; Tilgner, 1990). Barriers to Effective Science Teachi ng in the Elementary Classrooms As with all academic areas, barriers specifically associ ated with effective teaching of science must be addressed. These obstacl es include: lack of content knowledge (Harlen & Holroyd, 1997; Stevens & Wenner, 1996; Weiss, 1994); negative teacher attitudes toward science (Koballa & Crawley, 1985; Mech ling, Stedman, and Donnellson, 1982); lack of teacher preparedness (Tilgner, 1990; Weiss, 1987); lack of confidence (Hurd, 1982; Mechling, Stedman, & Donnellson, 1982; Weiss et al., 2001); and lack of educational resources for teachers (Anders on, 1984; Helgeson et al., 1977). One problem resulting from these barriers is the fact that elementary science doe s not receive the same amount of instructional time as other acad emic areas, such as language arts and mathematics. Tressel (1988) stated, “For al l practical purposes, we do not teach science in elementary schools. One hour a week of so-called science does not count” (p. 2). Another related problem with elementary science educati on is the method in which most elementary science is taught. Muttlefe hldt (1985) found that many instructional strategies being implemented in elementary science classrooms are not effective at promoting cognitive or affective learning. In order to address these problems, it is important to first examine the barriers that led to these problems. Elementary Teachers’ Lack of Science Content Knowledge Lack of science content knowledge is a se rious issue for elementary teachers. Interactions with other barri ers compound the problems of effective science teaching in

PAGE 32

21 elementary classrooms (Abell & Roth, 1992; Franz & Enochs, 1982; Hurd, 1982; JeskySmith, 2002; Plourde, 2002; Tilgner, 1990; Weiss, 1997). Vaidya (1993) stated, “teachers’ science content knowledge, as we ll as their pedagogical content knowledge, are both issues of concerns” (p. 63). Studies such as those conducted by Harlen and Holroyd (1997) and Stevens and Wenner ( 1996) focused on the lack of inservice elementary teachers’ science content knowledge Theses studies documented their lack of sufficient scientif ic content knowledge to address ma ny of the topics in elementary science effectively and appropria tely. A lack of content kno wledge has a major influence on classroom practice and st udent achievement. Weiss (1994) found that most elementary teachers self-report inadequate understanding of science content knowledge and, as a result, lack confidence in teaching el ementary science concepts. This lack of science content knowledge can imp act other issues related to the effective instruction of science, such as attitudes toward science, feelings of preparedness to teach science, and teacher confidence. Elementary Teachers’ Attitudes Toward Science Another problem in the teaching of scien ce in the elementary classroom is that negative attitudes toward science are partic ularly prevalent among teachers. Mechling, Stedman, and Donnellson (1982) found that more than half of the elementary teachers they surveyed rank science fourth among the fi ve major subject areas. Attitudes toward science are significant to examine because of their importance in every aspect of the learning environment and their role as f oundations of behavior (Ashton, 1984; Cohen, 1964). Ramsey-Gassert, Shroyer, and Staver (1996) found that attitudes played a significant role in the development of a teacher ’s belief in his or ability to teach science effectively. Beliefs and attitudes toward sc ience also play a major role in shaping

PAGE 33

22 teachers’ instructional beliefs (Thompson, 1992; Tobin, Tippins, & Gallard, 1994). For example, consequences of having negative at titudes toward science may include either reluctance in teaching or complete avoidan ce of teaching scientific content (Kennedy, 1973). Conversely, more positive attitudes re sult in an increase in the teaching of science, positively influe ncing student achievement (Ashton, 1984; Plourde, 2002). Another important aspect of attitudes is that teacher attitudes are often transferred to students and influence the learning process. Negative teacher attitudes can be passed to students and, as a result, negatively influe nce the learning process (Bogut & McFarland, 1975). Elementary Teachers’ Lack of Preparedness to Teach Science Numerous studies have focused on the l ack of inservice elementary teachers’ experience and enrollment in postsecondary scie nce courses. Tilgner (1990) stated, “Not only do many elementary teachers not like science; many feel totally unprepared to do an adequate job teaching science” (p. 423). This la ck of teacher preparedness is often rooted in a poor scientific backgr ound. Manning, Elser, and Baird (1982) surveyed inservice elementary teachers and found that 12 percen t had never participat ed in a postsecondary science content or methods course and 65 per cent had never participated in any inservice science programs. Weiss (1987) found simila r results when he surveyed kindergarten through third grade teachers and noted only 31 percent had participated in a postsecondary science course. Th is percentage was slightly higher, at 42 percent, for fourth through sixth grade teachers (Weiss, 1987). Loucks-Horsley et al. (1990) noted there is a lack of science prep aration for elementary teachers One reason for this is the increased emphasis on the development of teach ing skills related to language arts and mathematics. They also documented a l ack of elementary science professional

PAGE 34

23 development opportunities. Once preservice teachers enter the classroom, science professional development opportunities are of tentimes not provided. The lack of preparation of elementary science is very important in that it contributes to other obstacles that hinder effective elementary science instruction, such as elementary teachers’ confidence in teaching science. Elementary Teachers’ Lack of Confidence Teaching Science One prevalent theme in research relate d to science teaching in elementary classrooms is inservice elementary teachers’ lack of confidence in teaching science (DeTure, Gregory, & Ramsey, 1990; Manning, Elser, & Baird 1982; Mechling, Stedman, & Donnellson, 1982; Weiss et al., 2001). Jesky-Smith (2002) found that although teachers view science as an important topic at the elementary level, many of them did not feel confident in their ability to teach science in their clas sroom. Lack of confidence seems to be prevalent in teaching all areas of science. Weiss (1987) found that slightly more than a quarter of inse rvice elementary teachers felt competent to teach content related to the life scie nces. This overall lack of conf idence in teaching science was not only evident with the life scienc es but also with the physical sciences (Harlen & Holroyd, 1997). Weiss (1987) also found that only 15 percent of elementary teachers felt confident in teaching the physical or earth/sp ace sciences. A decade later, Weiss (1997) confirmed his previous findings when he su rveyed elementary teachers and noted that less than a third of the teachers were confid ent in their abilities to teach elementary science content, indicating an ongoing trend in elementary science. In addition, Abell and Roth (1991) found that elementary teache rs not only lack confidence in teaching science, but also do not feel as comfortable teaching science as they do in teaching other content areas. Ginns and Watters’ (1998) findings supported the premise that beginning

PAGE 35

24 elementary teachers often lack confidence in teaching science. This lack of confidence has serious implications for students. Asht on (1984) found that lack of confidence in teaching a subject area has major negative im pacts on student achievement, as well as other negative implications for the teacher, such as the lack of participation in ongoing science professional development, avoidance of science instruction, and the development of negative attitude s toward science. Lack of Educational Resources for Elementary Teachers Another factor inhibiting the effective instruction of science at the elementary level is the lack of educational resources availa ble to elementary teachers (Helgeson et al., 1977; Loucks-Horsley, 1990; Tilgner, 1990; Weiss, 1978). Educational resources are materials that either help students prepare to learn or facilitate th e process of teaching (Danielson, 1996). Examples of educational resources include teacher lesson plans and student activities, lesson ma terials and equipment, videos or laserdiscs, and communication tools, such as online bulletin boards and e-ma il. The lack of readily available educational resources inhibits teach ers from creating certain science lessons, as well as discourages the implementation of hands-on lessons in elementary science (Helgeson et al., 1977). Anderson (1984) purporte d that resources play a major role in increasing student achievement. He reinfor ced this idea by stating the improvement of student achievement is not a bout the development of standa rds, but it is about making resources available to children and their teacher s so effective instruction can occur. This can be problematic because in elementary sc ience a shortage of ad equate resources and support materials for primary teachers exists (Loucks-Horsley et al., 1990). Addressing the lack of teacher resources necessary for effective elementary science instruction can

PAGE 36

25 promote the integration of hands-on lessons into the science classroom and have a positive impact on student achievement and teacher effectiveness. Science Instruction and Student Achievement One major implication of effective science inst ruction at the elementary level is that student achievement at earlier levels of education influences achievement at higher levels of education. Rowe (1992) stated, “Increas ing early exposure to the kinds of science experiences and discursions that develop analytic and proportional reasoning could reasonably be expected to enhance scien ce performance of all students” (p. 1174). Research also indicates a positive correl ation between the amount of time spent on science instruction and science understandi ng (Schwerian, 1969). Keeves (1992) found the amount of time spent addressing a subject area plays a major role in influencing student achievement in the particular subj ect area. This is also supported by recent research on learning and unders tanding (Bransford, 2002). Rowe (1992) reported that providing students with appropria te experiences with science in the elementary grades increases the amount of quality time spent interacting with science content. This can have a positive impact on science achievement in secondary and postsecondary science grades. A number of additional fact ors influence student achieve ment in science at the elementary level. These include teacher at titudes, beliefs, and confidence with science content. Plourde (2002) documented that more positive attitudes toward science result in more teaching of science, which, in turn, result s in greater levels of student achievement. Other research has demonstrated that belie fs about science play a major role in developing instructional stra tegies with science (Thomp son, 1992; Tobin, Tippins, & Gallard, 1994). The development and use of a ppropriate instructional strategies at the

PAGE 37

26 elementary level has major implications on student achievement. Finally, Ashton (1984) found that confidence in the ability to teach a subject area has major implications on student achievement. Teachers with greater confidence and more positive beliefs about their ability to influence student achievement see higher levels of student achievement than teachers with less c onfidence and less positive be liefs (Ashton, 1984; Berman, McLaughlin, Bass, Pauly, & Zellman, 1977). A ddressing these issues by providing early exposure to science, improving teacher attitudes, beliefs, a nd confidence toward science, and increasing the amount of time of science instruction can have major positive implications for science in the elementary classroom. Inservice Elementary Science Professional Development Smith et al. (2002) demonstrated the prep aration of teachers is a major issue in science education. Areas of pa rticular concern include inserv ice teachers’ lack of content knowledge and lack of the ab ility to choose and implement appropriate and effective instructional strategies to a ddress science standards. Yet Smith et al. (2002) found that when inservice professional development opportunities addressed science education standards, teachers’ content knowledge increas ed. Their ability to choose and implement appropriate instructional strate gies for teaching science in th e elementary classroom also improve (Smith et al., 2002). Shrigley (1977) reinforced these ideas in her findings that an improved self-concept and an increase in confidence resulted when teachers were provided with opportunities to improve their science teaching skill s and science content knowledge. Kahle (2000) provided a str ong argument for the professional development of teachers by stating the development of teach er content knowledge and improved teaching practices are two results of good inservice professional development. Increased content

PAGE 38

27 knowledge influences classroom practice in a nu mber of ways. First, class discussions are encouraged because discussion provides opportunities for students to become engaged with the material. Second, more tim e is spent focusing on the concepts being discussed, providing students with opportunitie s to examine the content in more depth and spend less time on extraneous events in the classroom. Finally, Kahle (2000) noted professional development that results in increased attitudes a nd content knowledge toward a particular subject ar ea, also leads to increased student achievement. These ideas are supported by other studies that indicate a pos itive relationship between improved student achievement and a ppropriate inservice teache r professional development (Anderson, 1984; Klein, Hamilton, McCa ffrey, Stecher, Robyn, & Burroughs, 1999; Monk, 1994). Professional Development and Teacher Attitudes Research suggests the teacher should be an important and critical factor in all reform. Bybee (1993) stated, “T he decisive component in re forming science education is the classroom teacher” (p. 144). Recent rese arch suggests that teacher quality has a major influence on student achievement (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Darling-Hammond & Ball, 1998; Monk, 1994; National Center for Education Statistics, 2000; Olson, 1997; Wayne & Youngs, 2003). Hanushek (1992) found that differences of more than one grade-level of achievement ar e evident in students who have a good teacher versus a bad teacher. An issue related to the improvement of science instruction at the elementary level is the development of positive teacher at titudes toward science. Because negative teacher attitudes toward science are commonplace among elementary teachers, the improvement of teacher attitudes toward scienc e has been the subject of numerous studies (Bogut & McFarland, 1975; Kennedy, 1973; Sto llberg, 1969;). Tilgner (1990) suggested

PAGE 39

28 one effective method of changing teachers’ at titudes would be professional development workshops. One reason for this is that pr ofessional development workshops provide teachers with opportunities to gain additiona l content knowledge and teaching skills, thus improving confidence in their ability to eff ectively teach science (Shrigley, 1977). While many studies have touted the effectiveness of professional development workshops in subject areas such as math and language arts (Anderson, 1984; Kahle, 2000; Monk, 1994), science professional development workshops have not been as successful. Other studies, however, have suggested that the integration of hypermedia into learning environments can result in more positive learning outcomes (Baker, Niemi, & Herl, 1994; Jacobson & Spiro, 1995; Jonassen & Wang, 1993). Hypermedia This second section of the review of literature will begin by defining hypermedia and discussing various characteristics of hype rmedia environments. This section will continue with a discussion of the benefits and constraints of hypermedia and conclude with a presentation of research related to the integration of hypermedia into the learning environment. Hypermedia are defined as a non-linear and non-sequential method for displaying and organizing multiple forms of media, su ch as sound, graphics, videos, or text (Jonassen, 1989, 2000). Hypermedia are typica lly seen as possessing the three primary applications of information representati on, information presentation, and information construction (Ayersman & Reed, 1995; Nels on, 1994). Hypermedia provide a way to organize, manage, and represent information in a variety of methods utilizing different media (Kumar & Sherwood, 1997). As a result of its many strengths, there has recently been an increase in the integration of hype rmedia applications into the teaching and

PAGE 40

29 learning environment (Grabowski & Small, 1997) In professional development settings, hypermedia has a number of benefits, such as allowing teachers to examine classroom settings, viewing various mode ls of instruction, searching for teacher resources, and communicating with other teachers and e xperts (Koehler, 2002; Kumar & Sherwood, 1997). As a result of increases in the in corporation of hypermedia into the learning environment, it is essential to address bot h the beneficial and constraining factors associated with this relatively new ed ucational tool (Grabowski & Small, 1997). Benefits of Hypermedia Numerous studies have found positive in fluences on learning outcomes with the integration of hypermedia into the learning environment (Baker, Niemi, & Herl, 1994; Beeman, Anderson, Bader, Larkin, McClar d, McQuillan, & Shields, 1988; Jacobson & Spiro, 1995; Jonassen & Wang, 1993; Lehrer, 19 93). First, research has provided evidence that the structure and navigati onal freedom associated with hypertext environments possess various benefits to th e learning process (Ayersman, 1996; Dillon & Gabbard, 1998; Hede, 2002; Jonassen, 1996; Lan dow, 1992). Hypermedia environments provide non-linear access to information, allo wing users more freedom in the learning process (Nielsen, 1995; Reed & Oughton, 1997). Barab, Bowdish, and Lawless (1997) stated: Hypermedia allows for learners with unique intentions and purposes to determine which, and in what order, information will be displayed; potentially configuring what, when, and how learning will transpire. As a result, learners can tailor the educational experience to m eet their own unique needs, interests, and goals, many of which emerge while interacting with the hypermedia. (p. 37) Hypermedia environments allow students to access information in depth (Collier, 1987), affording complex representations of fundamental concepts and comprehensive illustrations of more abstract concepts. This deeper examination of material results in

PAGE 41

30 increases in students’ concep tual connections between rela ted topics (Landow, 1992). By participating in multi-case analyses, students create more personal interpretations of the content (Landow, 1992; Marchionini & Crane, 1994). A second benefit of hypermedia applications is they address many of the at tributes that foster meaningful learning (Jonassen, 2000). Hypermedia applications prov ide environments for interacting with and developing meaningful contexts for teach ing and learning (Kumar & Sherwood, 1997). They are engaging to the learner (Jonassen, 1989), allow for active learner participation (Landow, 1992; Shyu & Brown, 1995) involve complex, contextu al situations (Jonassen, 1989), and promote reflection (Hede, 2002). In addition, hypermedia applications offer a number of other benefits directly related to the critical issues of teaching science in the elementary classroom. As mentioned previously, teacher attitudes toward science are a major barrier to effective science instruction in the elementary clas sroom. Janda (1992) found the integration of hypermedia into learning environments resu lted in more positiv e attitudes toward hypermedia applications. Ayersman (1996) stat ed, “Generally speaking, positive attitudes are reported following hypermedia based learning situations. Perceptions and attitudes toward hypermedia are fundamentally important because they often accompany effective learning” (p. 505). Results from studies of hypermedia and attitudinal changes have indicated that individuals with more hyperm edia experience tend to have more positive attitudes toward hypermedia (Ayersman, 1996). Another issue in sc ience education, and a catalyst for science education reform, is poor student performance in science. Abrams and Streit (1986) found that the integration of hypermedia app lications into the learning environment resulted in an increase in student achievement. The am ount of instructional

PAGE 42

31 time allocated for science is also a critical issue in the teaching of science at the elementary level. Teachers tend to spend le ss time teaching science in the elementary classroom. Higgins and Boone (1990) reported that the integration of hypermedia into the teaching and learning environment resulte d in a decreased demand on teaching time. Hence, the use of hypermedia in the teaching of elementary science could prove to be beneficial. Smith (1987) concluded in a revi ew of literature that hypermedia is both an effective and efficient medium for instruction. Constraints of Hypermedia Although hypermedia has many benefits, it ma y not be beneficial for all learning scenarios. Certain issues related to learner type, ability level, and the type of learner activity in the hypermedia environment can have major influences on the effectiveness of the hypermedia application. Conklin (1987) reported that lear ner control of the hypermedia environment is the most preval ent concern and advant age of hypermedia applications. Dillon and Gabbard (1998) stated that while hypermedia “can offer techniques that can help th e less able student perform be tter” (p. 345), lower ability learners typically have more difficulty effectively utilizing hypermedia. Jonassen and Wang (1993) found that field i ndependent learners “are bett er hypermedia processors, especially as the form of the hypermedia becomes more in ferential and less overtly structured” (p. 7). Lee and Lehman (1993) suggested the level of activity the learner engages in affects the learne r’s achievement in the hypermedia environment. Reed and Oughton (1997) found that more experienced hypermedia users take more non-linear steps through the hypermedia environment, thus increasing the effectiveness of the hypermedia application as a learning tool. Th ey also noted that th e structure and freedom

PAGE 43

32 associated with hypermedia environments, while providing some benefits, can also act as constraining factors (Reed & Oughton, 1997). Other limitations involve navigational a nd experiential issu es (Gardarin & Yoon, 1995). Users who are unfamiliar with the content and hypermedia environment face various problems including: 1) goal attainment, in which inexperienced users can often overlook important information; 2) spatia l disorientation, in which users can be overwhelmed and have a sense of being lost in the information; and 3) knowledge acquisition, in which students feel cognitiv ely overloaded due to having to perform multiple tasks of information storage, restru cturing, transfer, and ev aluation (Astleitner & Leutner, 1995). Finally, if the environment or content is too new, hypermedia structures can initially be too advanced for many inexperi enced learners. Hence, it is critical that hypermedia environments be explored before being implemented in teaching and learning environments. Databases as Intermediaries While hypermedia can be an extremely power ful tool for learning, it is essential to be cautious with the manner in which it is impl emented. In order to ensure growth in the ability to teach or learn when integrati ng hypermedia into the learning scenario, the constraints associated with hypermedia must be addressed. One solution that addresses the constraints of hypermedia is the use of hypermedia-integrated databases (Beaufils, 2000; Bhaumik, Dixit, Glanares, Krishna, Tzagar akis, Vaitis, et al., 2001). In general, hypermedia-integrated databases address many of the constraints of hypermedia. For example, databases can be used to addre ss complexity issues related to navigation, flexibility, and organization of informati on, by reducing the user s’ sense of being overwhelmed (Reed & Oughton, 1997). Database structures can also help low ability

PAGE 44

33 learners and those not experi enced with hypermedia applicat ions or the specific content area in manipulating the learning environmen t (Jonassen, 2000). There are three main ways this may occur. First, database a pplications allow the developers to sort information to control for cognitive overload i ssues. As a result, th e user has less control over the environment and experiences less c ognitive overload. More experienced and proficient users can be provided with more control of the environment to enhance the learning experience. One method of doing this is by providing advanced search procedures. Second, databases are effectiv e as pre-structuring tools (Beaufils, 2000) because databases and hypermedia applications have different, yet related, strengths and functionality. The strengths of databases lie in the storage, organization, and retrieval of information; the strengths of hypermedia lie in the structurin g and navigation of information and the ability to track various user actions and a ddress access issues (Bhaumik et al., 2001). Hence, database applic ations can be structur ed to involve similar tasks as hypermedia (information storage, rest ructuring, transfer, and evaluation), but in a manner that is less overwhelming to the learne r and focuses on the strengths of each tool. Third, Jonassen (2000) argued the “greatest problem related to using hypermedia to facilitate learning is how learners will integrate the information they acquire in the hypertext into their own knowledge structures” (p. 210). Data base applications address this issue by helping students make their ow n content relationships and then relate those relationships to their existi ng knowledge structures (Jonassen, 2000; Rieber, 1994). This freedom to browse through the content is cons istent with the constructivist principle that learners should be given the opportunity to discover knowledge through their own active exploration. In sum, using database stru ctures in hypermedia applications assists

PAGE 45

34 teaching and learning processes. In doing so, database structures act as intermediaries between the learner and the hypermedia environm ent, and they are effective in addressing the constraints of hypermedia applications whil e highlighting the strengt hs of these tools. Theoretical Framework The third section of the re view of literature will discuss the theoretical underpinnings of this study. This section will begin with a discussion of the basic tenets of constructivism and how these ideas relate to the study. This section will be followed by a discussion of cognitive constructivism and cognitive flexibility theory and the role of these theories in the development of th is study and the connections to hypermedia. Constructivism The theoretical basis for this study is root ed in the ideas of constructivist theory, with a major focus on learner-centered facets of constructivism. One of the basic tenets of constructivism is that knowledge is cons tructed by the individual learner, as opposed to being passed from one le arner to another (Bruner, 1961, 1966). In constructivist learning environments, the focus of the instruct or is to create learning environments in which the learner is not a passive receiver of information. Th e learner instead is actively involved in the learning process and devel ops his own knowledge structures based on interactions in the learning environment. In structors develop learni ng environments that provide appropriate opportunities for learners to make discoveries and become engaged with various learning materials. One major factor of constructivist theo ries is the role of prior experience in the learning process (Ba ndura, 1976; Carroll, 1990). Bruner (1961) stated that learning is an active process in which the learner, based on his previous experiences, constructs knowledge. Additi onally, according to many constructivists, the role in which social interact ion plays in the formation of new knowledge structures is

PAGE 46

35 vital to the learning proc ess (Jonassen, 1996; Piaget, 1970; Vygotsky, 1978). These theorists believe learners should be immers ed in real-world, contextual learning environments that promote dialogue and avoid learning in isolation. Issues related to both social processes and experience have majo r influences on the learning process. A number of models have integrated the ma jor tenets of constructivism in both the psychological and social aspects of profe ssional development (Tobin, Kahle, & Fraser, 1990; Yager, 1996). Models addressing the soci al aspects of constr uctivist theory focus on promoting social communities within prof essional development settings (Richardson, 1999). Models addressing psychol ogical aspects of construc tivism have focused on the development of learner-centere d settings that promote th e construction of knowledge by the learner. This would resu lt in constructivist-based professional development settings that foster knowledge construc tion as participants investig ate inquiry and activity-based pedagogy (Hassard, 1992). As with the professional development environments implemented in this study, the theoretical foundation for the design of most hypermedia environments is derived from constructivist theory. Features such as learner control, nonlinearity, open access to information, hyperlink functionality, and the non -sequential presentation of information associate hypermedia applications with cons tructivist theory (Aye rsman, 1995; Vrasidas, 2002). The major reason for this is these feat ures foster the development of complex and unique knowledge representations (McGuire 1996). While constructivism provides many of the basic principles of this study, it is important to note that the study is further rooted in cognitive constructivism.

PAGE 47

36 Cognitive Constructivism One of the areas of focus within cognitive constructivism is the role of interacting with both physical and social settings dur ing the process of k nowledge construction. Also important to the theory of cognitive constructivism is the role of cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance occurs through inconsistencies in our current knowledge structure that arise through soci al interaction in the learning process (Festinger, 1957; Lyddon, 1995). New knowledge structures ar e constructed through the resolutions of inconsistencie s (Bruner, 1986). The continui ng process of incorporating past experiences and knowledge with new one s is extremely importa nt in the learning process (Piaget & Inhelder, 1973). Researchers have found that professiona l development opportunities can act as catalysts in changing teachers’ conceptions by addressing many of the principles of cognitive constructivism (Radford, 1998; Tobin, 1993). Models of professional development, which are anchored in cogniti ve constructivist theo ry, provide teachers with a variety of opportuniti es to resolve inconsistenc ies through encounters with material and through social in teractions with other indivi duals involved in the learning process. Cognitive constructivist ideas also play a key role in the design of hypermedia applications (Moreno & Mayer, 1999). Being closely aligned with constructivist theory, cognitive constructivists hol d many of the same beliefs as constructivist theorists (Phillips, 1995, 1997). These id eas include the role of auth entic tasks in the learning environment, active learner role in the learni ng process, the social nature of learning, and the focus on learner-centered learning envi ronments (Jonassen, 1999). In addition to addressing these roles, other aspects of c ognitive constructivism are also addressed in

PAGE 48

37 hypermedia applications. For instance, while the teacher acts as a guide in the humancentered learning environments, the computer acts as the guide in hypermedia-based learning environments. Further, professi onal development models and hypermedia environments implemented in this study are using principles of cognitive flexibility theory. Cognitive Flexibility Theory One theoretical viewpoint that plays a majo r role in the design, development, and implementation of hypermedia applications to teaching and learning environments is cognitive flexibility theory (Spiro et al., 1988) Cognitive flexibility theory is rooted in Wittgenstein’s (1953) idea of “criss-crosse d landscapes,” which acts as the driving metaphor for learning through hypermedia appli cations. According to Spiro and Jehng (1990), …one learns by criss-crossing conceptual landscapes; instruction involves the provision of learning materials that channel multidimensional landscape explorations under the active in itiative of the learner (as well as providing expert guidance and commentary to help the learne r to derive maximum benefit from his or her explorations); and knowledge repres entations reflect the criss-crossing that occurred during learning. (p. 170) Cognitive flexibility theory also focuse s on the idea that the construction of knowledge is more effective if information is revisited from a vari ety of perspectives, both in various contexts and at different times. According to Collins, Brown, and Newman (1989), the goal of addressing concepts from multiple perspectives in various contexts and at different times is advanced acquisition of knowledge suitable for in-depth understanding and transfer. According to Jacobson, Maouri, Mishra, and Kolar (1996), the integration of hypermedia into learning environments allows for the development of more complex knowledge structures which can be applied in new contexts.

PAGE 49

38 Social interaction also plays a major role in cognitive flexibility theory (Jonassen, 1999; Spiro et al., 1991). The integration of social interactions into learning environments allows learners to discuss va rious inconsistencies a nd ambiguities in the learner’s existing knowledge structures. Addressing these inconsistencies and ambiguities results in improved knowledge structures. Another characteristic of cognitive flex ibility theory, which is evident in hypermedia applications, is the ability to a ddress multiple, alternative representations of various concepts. Through interconnected hyperlinks, users can explore these multiple representations and assim ilate these new representations with their current representations. This results in the development of new, improved knowledge structures (Jacobson, Maouri, Mishra, & Kolar, 1996; Jonassen & Wang, 1993). While other theoretical viewpoints are rele vant to the design, developm ent, and implementation of hypermedia applications, the basic tenets of cognitive flexibility theory play an instrumental role in the integration of hyperm edia applications to teaching and learning environments. Summary A number of issues in the teaching of sc ience at the elementary level currently exist. These include lack of instructional time in science and ineffective science instruction (Muttlefehldt, 1985; Tressel, 1988). These issues are driven by factors such as the lack of teacher preparation in elem entary science, lack of science content knowledge, lack of confidence in teaching scie nce, negative teacher attitudes toward science, and lack of elementary science resources (Harlen & Holroyd, 1997; Helgeson et

PAGE 50

39 al., 1977; Hurd, 1982; Koballa & Crawley, 1985; Tilgner, 1990; Vaidya, 1993; Weiss, 1994). New methods of reform need to focus on the development of effective elementary science teachers and methods of instruction (Smith et al., 2002). By focusing on the teachers as a critical part of the reform, numerous benefits will be observed. Reform efforts that focus on the preparation of teachers--rather than the development of standards--have a number of benefits. These include increased confidence in teaching content, increased content knowledge, a nd improved teaching strategies (Hanushek, 1992; National Center for Education Statis tics, 2000). One method of addressing the current issues in elementary science is through inservice professional development opportunities (Kahle, 2000; Shri gley, 1977; Smith et al., 2002) Appropriate professional development opportunities, while addressing th e issues related to elementary science instruction, can also result in increased student achieve ment (Anderson, 1984; Klein et al., 1999; Monk, 1994). Integrating hypermedia into elementa ry science professional development environments is one method of improving in service elementary science professional development. Hypermedia has a number of characteristics that can make it an effective tool for addressing the barrier s to effective instruction in elementary science, and professional development works hops provide a structured envi ronment to address them. In this study, the design of the profe ssional development opportunities was founded in constructivist and cognitive-constructivist th eory. The workshops were designed in an effort to promote knowledge construction thr ough inquiry and activity -oriented events. The purpose of this was to promote active i nvolvement of participants in the learning

PAGE 51

40 process and the development of new knowledge structures based on various interactions in the professional development setting. As with the professional development settings implemented in the study, the theoretical underpinnings for the hype rmedia application utilized was rooted in the constructivis t and cognitive constructivist theories. Characteristics implemented that relate to constructivist and cognitive constructivist ideas include learner control, non-sequential presentation of information, hyperlink functionality, and open access to informa tion. These were implemented in the hypermedia environment to encourage th e development of complex and unique knowledge representations. The professional development workshops a nd the hypermedia application in this study were designed to address two major issues related to the eff ective instruction of science in the elementary classroom: impr oving content knowledge and attitudes toward science. Further, this study examined the effectiveness of integrating hypermedia into professional development workshops in changi ng elementary teachers’ science content knowledge and attitudes toward science. Mo re specifically, the ex tent to which the integration of hypermedia into a series of professional development workshops positively influenced teachers’ content knowledge and attitudes toward elementary science was examined.

PAGE 52

41 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Introduction The purpose of this study was to examine the change in elementary teachers’ science content knowledge and attitudes toward science when hypermedia is integrated into professional development opportunities. To accomplish this, inservice elementary teachers who teach science experienced one of two different series of professional development workshops. The first series consisted of prof essional development workshops that used constructivist learni ng environments to present content with appropriate instructional stra tegies in the elementary sc ience classroom. The second series contained similar conten t but also included the integration of hypermedia into the professional development setting. A control group was also used to measure the effects of confounding variables. The two series of professional development workshops were constructed specifically for th is study and contained identi cal content with the exception of the hypermedia environment. Study Procedures In order to answer the research questi ons in this study, a non-equivalent control group quasi-experimental design was used (Affleck, Madge, Adams, & Lowenbraun, 1988; Campbell & Stanley, 1963). According to Campbell and Stanley (1963), it is appropriate to use a non-equi valent control group quasi-e xperimental design when group randomization is not possible and the groups are as similar as availability permits, but not similar enough to eliminate pretest measures While true experimental designs are

PAGE 53

42 stronger than quasi-experimental, this non-equi valent control group desi gn is widely used (Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996). Table 1 illustrates the design of the study. Three groups were examined in this study: a control group and two experiment al groups. Group 1 was the control group, which received no treatment. Groups 2 a nd 3 were the experimental groups, which received different treatments. Group 2 memb ers participated in a series of traditional inservice science workshops without hypermedia ( X1). Group 3 members participated in similar inservice science workshops with the addition of hypermedia to the professional development environment ( X2). The professional development workshops were conducted during a three-week period. During this three-week peri od, two measures, the Project to Improve Elementary Science (PIE S) Science Knowledge Test (Zielinski & Smith, 1990) and the Science Attitude Scale for Inservice Elementary Teachers II (Shrigley & Johnson, 1974), were administ ered to the control group and each experimental group. These measures were given to participants prior to the administration of the elementary science workshops and at the conclusion of the workshops. Table 1. Quasi-experimental Design Group Pretest Treatment Posttest 1 O1 O2 2 O1 X1 O2 3 O1 X2 O2 Research Population Participants. A total of 57 inservice teachers participated in this study with 19 participants in each group. The professi onal development workshops consisted of inservice teachers from 21 schools in Duva l County, a northeast Florida public school

PAGE 54

43 district. Tables 2 through 14 provide demographic information about the participants: gender, ethnicity, level of education, gr ade level taught, number of years teaching, science professional development experience, comfort level/experi ence with computers and hypermedia, hours of computer usage fo r instructional and productivity purposes, science content knowledge, confidence in teaching science, a nd attitudes toward elementary science. Demographic information. As is consistent with the field of elementary education, a majority of the pa rticipants in the study were female. Table 2 provides the number and percentages for each gender by group. Table 2. Gender of Participants Male Female Group N Percentage N Percentage Traditional 0 0 19 100 Hypermedia 2 10.5 17 89.5 Control 1 5.3 18 94.7 All participants in the st udy were either African-Ame rican or non-Hispanic white. Table 3 describes the ethnic ity of each group in the study. Table 3. Ethnicity of Participants Black or African American Non-Hispanic White Group N Percentage N Percentage Traditional 7 36.8 12 63.2 Hypermedia 1 5.3 18 95.7 Control 5 26.3 14 73.7 All participants in the study hold a ba chelor’s degree. More than 20% of participants also have a master’s degree in various fields. Table 4 provides a breakdown of the highest degree obtained by participants in each group.

PAGE 55

44 Table 4. Highest Degree Obtained by Participants Group Bachelor’s Master’s N Percentage N Percentage Traditional 13 68.4 6 31.6 Hypermedia 15 78.9 4 21.1 Control 15 78.9 4 21.1 A majority of the participants in the st udy taught the upper elementary grade levels. Table 5 provides a description of the grade levels taught by participants in each group. Table 5. Grade Level Taught Group Kindergarten 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Traditional 1 (5.3%) 3 (15.8%) 1 (5.3%) 3 (15.8%) 5 (26.3%) 6 (31.6%) Hypermedia 3 (15.8%) 3 (15.8%) 3 (15.8%) 6 (31.6%) 1 (5.3%) 3 (15.8%) Control 0 (0%) 1 (5.3%) 2 (10.6%) 4 (21.1%) 7 (36.8%) 5 (26.3%) The classroom teaching experience of study pa rticipants varied greatly with a range of 0 years to more than 20 years. While the majority of participants have been teaching for less than 5 years, there were also a numbe r of participants who have been teaching for more than 20 years. Table 6 provides information on the teaching experience of participants in each group. Table 6. Years Teaching Group 0-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years More than 20 years Traditional 9 3 1 1 5 Hypermedia 6 4 2 3 4 Control 8 3 1 3 4 Science professional development plays a significant role in the continuing education of teachers. Many opportunities in a variety of formats are provided during the school year and in the summer. However, the majority of teachers participating in this study had not participated in science professional developmen t activities with in the past year (61.4%), and more than a third of par ticipants had not participated in science

PAGE 56

45 professional development for more than three years (36.8%). Table 7 provides information on participant involvement in el ementary science prof essional development activities by group. Table 7. Amount of Time Since Last Particip ation in Science Professional Development Activity Group Past 6 months Past year Past 2 years Past 3 years More than 3 years Traditional 1 8 2 3 5 Hypermedia 2 4 0 3 10 Control 2 5 3 3 6 Because the activities in this study integrat ed the use of computers and hypermedia into the elementary science professional development workshops, it was important to have participants self-report their comfort level and fee lings toward computers and hypermedia. Tables 8 through 11 provide a variety of information addressing participants’ comfort level and feelings towa rd computers, hypermedia, and the amount of time spent using computers for inst ructional and productivity purposes. Participants’ comfort level and experien ce with computers in this study were varied. As illustrated in Table 8, almost 90% of the participants considered themselves to have at least an “average” comfort level with computers, while slightly more than 10% considered themselves “beginners.” Table 8. Comfort Level and Experience with Computers Group Beginner Average Experienced Advanced Traditional 4 7 8 0 Hypermedia 2 10 7 0 Control 0 14 4 1 While most participants felt comfortable with computers, this was not the case with hypermedia. A large percentage of pa rticipants (61.4%) were not familiar with hypermedia and 12.3% were “beginners” with hypermedia. Just over a quarter of the

PAGE 57

46 participants (26.3%) felt they had either average, experienced, or advanced experience with hypermedia. Table 9. Comfort Level and Experience with Hypermedia Group What Is Hypermedia? Beginner Average Experienced Advanced Traditional 9 2 6 2 0 Hypermedia 15 2 1 1 0 Control 11 3 2 2 1 Computer usage for participants also va ried. As illustrated in Table 10, almost 80% of participants used computers for instru ctional purposes on a weekly basis. Almost 45% of participants used computers for inst ructional purposes from one to two hours per week and slightly more than a third (35 %) used computers for instructional purposes more than three hours weekly. Table 10. How Many Hours per Week Do Y ou Use the Computer for Instructional Purposes? Group 0 hours 1-2 hours 3-4 hours 5-6 hours more than 6 hours Traditional 4 8 5 1 1 Hypermedia 6 5 4 2 2 Control 1 12 2 3 1 Participants in this study used comput ers for teacher productivity purposes more often than for instructional purposes. As shown in Table 11, more than 90% of participants used a computer each week fo r teacher productivity purposes. More than a third of the participants (35.1%) use computers for produc tivity purposes between one and two hours a week and over half (55%) use computers for three or more hours a week for productivity purposes.

PAGE 58

47 Table 11. How Many Hours per Week Do You Use the Computer for Productivity Purposes? Group 0 hours 1-2 hours 3-4 hours 5-6 hours More than 6 hours Traditional 2 4 7 2 4 Hypermedia 2 7 6 2 2 Control 0 9 5 2 3 Because the activities in this study addre ssed topics related to science in the elementary classroom, it was important to examine the participants science comfort level, content knowledge, and attitudes toward science. While most participants liked science and felt comfortable teaching science, more than 40% felt they did not possess enough content knowledge to effectively teach science. Tables 12 through 14 provide information addressing participants comfort level with science, content knowledge, and attitude toward science. Table 12. Do You Feel Comfortable Teaching Science? Group Yes No N PercentageN Percentage Traditional 17 89.5 2 10.5 Hypermedia 16 84.2 3 15.8 Control 17 89.5 2 10.5 Table 13. Do You Feel You Have Enough Science Content Knowledge? Group Yes No N PercentageN Percentage Traditional 10 52.6 9 47.4 Hypermedia 11 57.9 8 42.1 Control 11 57.9 8 42.1 Table 14. Do You Like Science? Group Yes No N PercentageN Percentage Traditional 19 100 0 0 Hypermedia 18 94.7 1 5.3 Control 17 89.5 2 10.5

PAGE 59

48 School district. Inservice elementary teachers from Duva l County, a school dist rict in northeast Florida that encompasses all of Jacksonvill e, participated in this study. The school district is situated within a county of more than 1 million residents; the district services 129,000 students. Student ethnicity for the dist rict is as follows: White: 46%, Black: 42.6%, Hispanic: 4.7%, Asia n: 3.1%, and Other: 2.9%. The school district encompasses 109 elemen tary schools. On a scale of 1 to 500, the mean scale score on the FCAT Elementary Science Exam for the district was 285, equivalent to the state mean scale score. However, the district’s average scores were slightly lower than the state average on th ree out of four cate gories of the FCAT Elementary Science Exam (Physical Science, Life and Environmental Science, and Scientific Thinking), but higher than the state average on the Earth and Space Science section. Table 15 contains detailed informati on of the district average on each section of the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) for Elementary Science, as compared with the state of Florida average. Table 15. District and State Averages on 2003 FCAT Science Exam FCAT Science Section District Average Florida Average Schools above State Average Schools at State Average Schools below State Average N N N Physical and Chemical Sciences 6.8 (out of 12) 7.0 (out of 12) 30 33 44 Life and Environmental Sciences 7.46 (out of 13) 8.0 (out of 13) 17 38 52 Scientific Thinking 6.0 (out of 12) 7.0 (out of 12) 6 46 55 Earth and Space Sciences 6.24 (out of 12) 6.0 (out of 12) 45 35 27 Note : The data in this table were taken from the Research and Evaluation section of the Duval County Public Schools Website (2004a).

PAGE 60

49 Individual schools. Study participants taught at 21 schools in the district. Th e number of participants from individual schools ranged between 1 and 10 with an average of 2.7 participants per school. School populations for participants ranged between 138 and 744 students with the average school population be ing 458 students. Also, 50.9% of participants taught at schools that performed below the state and di strict averages on the 2003 FCAT Science Exam. The remaining 49.1% of participants taught at schools perf orming above the state and district averages on the 2003 FCAT Sc ience Exam. Table 16 provides the school demographic information including school en rollment, student ethn icity percentages, 2003 FCAT Science mean scores, and the numbe r of teachers who participated in the study. Treatments For each experimental group, there were a to tal of six hours of elementary science professional development workshops divided into two-hour segments. The workshops addressed seven elementary science topics as well as the developm ent of constructivist learning environments in the elementary classr oom. Because the school district’s scores on the Physical and Chemical Sciences and th e Scientific Thinking se ctions of the FCAT Elementary Science Exam were below the stat e average, the conten t of the professional development workshops was designed to address topics in these areas. Areas of focus included Newton’s laws of motion, energy, a nd electricity from the Physical and Chemical Sciences, and the scientific method, observation, experimentation, and measurement from the area of Scientific Thi nking. The schedule of workshops can be found in Appendix D and the activities of each workshop session are detailed in Appendix E.

PAGE 61

50 Table 16. School Demographic Information School Number of Participants School Size (Enrollment) Ethnicity (%) 2003 FCAT Science (Mean Score) Biltmore 1 324 Black: 85%, Mixed: 1%, White: 14% 251 Cedar Hills 1 318 White: 50%, Black: 38%, Hispanic: 6%, Mixed: 4%, Indian: 1%, Asian: 1% 295 Central Riverside 2 434 Black: 69%, White: 20%, Mixed: 6%, Hispanic: 4%, Asian: 2% 300 Crystal Springs 10 204 White: 64%, Black: 27%, Mixed: 4%, Hispanic: 3%, Asian: 2% 295 Gregory Drive 3 652 White: 48%, Black: 38%, Hispanic: 6%, Mixed: 4%, Asian: 3% 298 Hendricks Avenue 4 620 White: 73%, Black: 19%, Mixed: 3%, Hispanic: 2%, Asian: 2% 307 Holiday Hill 2 557 White: 67%, Black: 26%, Mixed: 4%, Hispanic: 2%, Asian: 1% 289 Hyde Grove 6 590 Black: 70%, White: 21%, Mixed: 4%, Hispanic: 3%, Asian: 1% 276 Hyde Park 1 516 White: 48%, Black: 45%, Mixed: 4%, Hispanic: 2%, Asian: 1% 277 Stonewall Jackson 3 322 Black: 46%, White: 43%, Mixed: 5%, Hispanic: 4%, Asian: 2% 276 Thomas Jefferson 3 510 White: 83%, Black: 14%, Hispanic: 2%, Indian: 1% 283 Normandy 1 138 White: 59%, Black: 29%, Hispanic: 7%, Mixed: 3%, Asian: 2% 266 Oak Hill 1 530 Black: 54%, White: 30%, Hispanic: 7%, Mixed: 5%, Asian: 4% 284

PAGE 62

51 Table 16 Contd. School Number of Participants School Size (Enrollment) Ethnicity (%) 2003 FCAT Science (Mean Score) Pinedale 5 537 Black: 72%, White: 22%, Hispanic: 2%, Mixed: 2%, Asian: 2% 256 Ramona 2 461 Black: 52%, White: 39%, Hispanic: 4%, Mixed: 3%, Asian: 2% 273 Reynolds Lane 1 310 Black: 49%, White: 29%, Hispanic: 15%, Asian: 5%, Mixed: 2% 292 Sadie Tillis 1 391 Black: 50%, White: 35%, Hispanic: 9%, Mixed: 4%, Asian: 2% 277 Louis Sheffield 2 744 White: 93%, Black: 4%, Hispanic: 1%, Mixed: 1% 306 Spring Park 3 373 Black: 51%, White: 34%, Hispanic: 6%, Mixed: 6%, Asian: 4% 259 Timucuan 2 658 White: 59%, Black: 29%, Hispanic: 7%, Mixed: 3%, Asian: 2% 275 Venetia 5 420 White: 45%, Black: 35%, Hispanic: 9%, Mixed: 8%, Asian: 2% 303 Note : The data in this table were taken from th e Individual School Profiles section of the Duval County Public Schools Website (2004b). After gaining approval to conduct research from the University of Florida’s Institutional Review Boar d (UF IRB Protocol Number : 2004-U-298), approval to conduct research was attained from the Re search and Evaluation Department of the Duval County School Board. After approval wa s granted by the Research and Evaluation Department, approval to carry out two series of professional development workshops had to be granted by the Professional Developmen t Department and Science Department of the Duval County School Board. Permission to conduct the workshops was granted and

PAGE 63

52 the workshops were recognized as part of the teachers’ co ntinuing professional development. As a result, participants in the experimental groups that completed the workshops received six inservice points that c ould be applied to teacher re-certification and an hourly stipend from Duval County. Both series of workshops addressed iden tical content (see Appendix F). In the workshops, a variety of issues were addr essed through an assortment of different activities. For example, after the pretest da ta collection on the firs t day, an introductory discussion was held regarding current issues in elementary science. This allowed participants to voice their feelings on the state of science teaching in the elementary classroom and provide the rati onale for their feelings. Following this discussion, prestructuring for the first activity began. The presentation was conducted as an instructorled whole-group discussion. Ideas and concep ts were introduced to participants and follow-up questions were asked in an effort to determine the level of science content knowledge regarding kinematics, the topic for the particular activity. Following this, the first activity was performed in small groups. After the activity was completed, a wholegroup discussion of the findings was held. A similar format was followed for the second activity of the day by modeling a different in structional strategy. After the two daily activities, a closing discussion was c onducted. The workshop concluded with participants writing reviews of the lessons. Differences in the workshops consisted of the manner in which activities were accesse d and presented, the manner in which presentations were accessed and presented, a nd the method used to read and write lesson reviews (See Appendix F). First, for the hypermedia group, activitie s and pre-structuring presentations were accessed via the hypermed ia environment Elementary Level Lessons

PAGE 64

53 in Physical Science (ELLIPS). To do this, participants were fi rst introduced to the hypermedia environment. Following this, they were provided an opportunity to search for content resources related to the first topi c: kinematics. Following this, a discussion on kinematics ensued. After this, participan ts were prompted to use the hypermedia environment to access various lessons relate d to kinematics. When lessons were accessed, a single lesson was selected and then conducted in small groups. This procedure was then conducted for each act ivity presented throughout the series of workshops. Lesson reviews were completed online with the lesson review feature of ELLIPS. After each workshop session had conc luded, participants were prompted to add lesson reviews utilizing the hypermedia environmen t. To do this, participants selected the specific activity that was performed (See Appendix D). When the activity was selected, an ‘Add A Review’ link was selecte d. Participants were then provided an opportunity to write reviews for each lesson. For the traditional group, activities and prestructuring presentations were found in the wo rkshop book provided to participants. Participants accessed lessons and content res ources related to similar topics in the workshop book. After accessing content resources, a group discussion ensued. Following the discussion, indivi dual activities were conducted in small groups. At the conclusion of each workshop session, participants were prompted to complete lesson review forms located in th e individual workshop books. A similar format took place for each works hop. The content in the three workshops was (1) kinematics and acceleration, (2) mass, we ight, gravity, and simple electricity, and (3) waves and simple machines.

PAGE 65

54 Instrumentation The two instruments used in this study were the Program to Improve Elementary Science (PIES) Science Knowledge Test (Zielinski & Smith, 1990) and the Science Attitude Scale for Inservice Elementary Teachers II (Shrigley & Johnson, 1974). The PIES Science Knowledge Test. The PIES Science Knowledge Test is a 25-item multiple-choice instrument designed by Zielinski and Smith (1 990) to evaluate the effectiv eness of the PIES Project. The instrument was derived from an original PIES test that included 50 multiple-choice items and had a test-retest re liability of r=.67 using 24 pa rticipants over a two-week period. The instrument was designed to meas ure participants’ comprehension of basic science principles and processes. Areas of science content addresse d by this instrument include life sciences, earth sciences, and physic al sciences. Science processes addressed by this instrument include data analysis, data clarification, and identifi cation of variables. An internal consistency of r = .89 was dete rmined using Kuder-Richardson-20 procedures (Zielinski & Smith, 1990). The instrument can be found in Appendix B. The Science Attitude Scale for Inservice Elementary Teachers II. The Science Attitude Scale for Inservice Elementary Teachers II is a 26-item Likert-type instrument designed by Shrigley and Johnson (1974) to assess inservice teachers’ attitudes toward science. The s cale consists of 16 positive statements and 10 negative statements on a Likert-scale. Topics of the Science Attitude Scale for Inservice Elementary Teachers II include enjoyment of sc ience, interest in science, and confidence in teaching science and conducting scientific experiments. The items on the scale were submitted to Likert Analysis. In conducting th e Likert Analysis, items were weighted as follows: “On positive statements, ‘strongly agree’ was weighted as 5 points; ‘agree,’ 4

PAGE 66

55 points; ‘undecided,’ 3 points; ‘d isagree,’ 2 points; and ‘stron gly disagree,’ 1 point. In scoring negative statements, the weights were reversed” (Shrigley & Johnson, 1974, p. 439). In order to establish reliability of th e instrument, the scale was administered to 114 inservice elementary teachers. A reliability coefficient alpha of .92 was calculated for the instrument. When the scale was submitted to test-retest procedures a correlation coefficient of .94 was calculated. All items on the scale reported an item-total correlation greater than .30 (Shrigley & J ohnson, 1974). The item-total co rrelation consists of “each respondent’s score on a particular item when correlated with that respondent’s score on the remaining items” (Shrigley & Johnson, 1974, p. 439). Table 17 illustrates each statement type (positive or negative) and th e item-total correlation for each item. The instrument can be found in Appendix A.

PAGE 67

56 Table 17. Item-Total Correlations for the Sc ience Attitude Scale for Inservice Teachers II Statement Statement Type Item-total Correlation As a teacher, I am afraid that science demonstrations will not work. Negative .34 I enjoy discussing science topics with fellow teacher s. Positive .76 If I had time, I would like to attend an elementary science workshop during the summer. Positive .55 If I were to enroll in a college science course, I would enjoy the laboratory periods of the course. Positive .55 I am afraid that I do not have enough background to teach science adequately. Negative .61 If I were to return to college for additional graduate work, I would enroll in at least one science course. Positive .59 I enjoy manipulating science equipment. Positive .69 I believe science is too difficult for me to learn. Negative .36 I would like to have a desk barometer th at measures air pr essure. Positive .72 I would like to work with the science consultant on my science program. Positive .55 Most science equipment confuses me. Negative .56 I enjoy constructing simple equipment. Positive .62 I would not enjoy working in a science laboratory for a summer. Negative .42 I enjoy science courses. Positive .53 I would enjoy participating in a science inservice program in my school district. Positive .57 I eagerly anticipate the teaching of science to elementary school children. Positive .71 Science is my favorite subject. Positive .70 If I were to enroll in any college science course, I would likely be bored. Negative .38 I prefer teaching science over any other subject of elementary school. Positive .68 I would not like to keep a hamster in my classroom. Negative .33 In a departmental situation or similar situation, I would like to be responsible for teaching all of the science. Positive .71 I am apprehensive about anything that is associated with science. Negative .54 I would read an issue of the professional journal, Science and Children if it were in the teacher’s room. Positive .59 I would be interested in working in an experimental science curriculum project. Positive .68 If given a choice in professional improvement, I would choose any area but science. Negative .73 I would prefer to be a team leader in an y curriculum area but science. Negative .56 Note: Adapted from “The Attitude of Inse rvice Elementary Teachers Toward Science” by R. L. Shrigley and T.M. Johnson, 1974, School Science and Mathematics 74(5), pp. 439-440. The Hypermedia Environment Due to the fact that inservice elementa ry teachers are often inexperienced with physical science content (Harlen & Ho lroyd, 1997; Hurd, 1982; Stevens & Wenner,

PAGE 68

57 1996; Tilgner, 1990; Weiss, 1994), a hypermedia environment was designed to aid in the structuring and organization of the material. The Elementary Level Lessons in Physical Science (ELLIPS) is a web-based hypermed ia environment developed for inservice teachers. There are a number of components and teacher resources embedded in ELLIPS. First, it contains a collection of searchable elementary school level physical science activities. Physical science activit ies are organized according to a number of criteria, including topic, type of activity, grade level, am ount of equipment needed, and the Sunshine State Standards (statewide academic standards for all K-12 Florida students). Second, ELLIPS contains a collecti on of teacher conten t resources. These resources are organized utilizi ng identical topic areas present in the collection of physical science activities. Third, ELLIPS contains a di scussion board. With this tool, teachers can post discussion topics as well as reply to topics posted by others. Finally, ELLIPS users have the ability to read and writ e reviews for the lessons embedded in the hypermedia structure. Information that is both complex and ofte n new to the learner was presented using ELLIPS. Due to the environment and conten t being new to the learners, a database structure was embedded in ELLIPS in an effort to diminish many of the constraints of the hypermedia environment. Another important no te is that the strengths of each medium, databases and hypermedia, were a major focus during the development of the tool. The database structure was used for the storage, organization, and retr ieval of information while the hypermedia structure was used to address navigation, structure, and presentation of the information. All of thes e factors were implemented to develop a more effective learning environment.

PAGE 69

58 Data Collection The professional development workshops (see Appendices C and D) were held from April 27 to May 13, 2004; each workshop series was six hours (see Table 18). The six hours of professional development were divided into two-hour segments scheduled one week apart. They were carried out at Edward H. White High School, a local high school near a majority of participants’ home sc hools, from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. Each of the instruments was administered prior to the begi nning of the first prof essional development workshop and after the final activity of each group’s third workshop. The instruments were administered to the cont rol group prior to the beginni ng of any of the workshops and again after a three-week interval. Th e time interval of three weeks between the administration of the pretest and posttest meas ures was identical for all three groups. The Science Attitude Scale (Shr igley & Johnson, 1974) took betw een 10 and 15 minutes to complete and the PIES Science Knowledge Test (Zielinski & Sm ith, 1990) took between 15 and 25 minutes to complete. Table 18. Schedule of Data Collection and Workshops Control Hypermedia Traditional Pretest data collection April 26 & 27, 2004 April 27, 2004 April 29, 2004 Workshop 1 None April 27, 2004 April 29, 2004 Workshop 2 None May 4, 2004 May 6, 2004 Workshop 3 None May 11, 2004 May 13, 2004 Posttest data collection May 11-14, 2004 May 11, 2004 May 13, 2004 Data Analysis The scores of each survey were analyzed by examining the range and means of the pretest and posttest scores to assess change s in science content knowledge and attitudes

PAGE 70

59 towards science. The Statistical Package fo r the Social Sciences (SPSS) software was used to analyze all quantitative data. In order to increase st atistical power and to control for the effects of the covariates, an anal ysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted on the groups to determine if there were signi ficant main effects a nd interaction effects (Borg & Gall, 1989). Significant differen ces in means were measured using a probability value of p < 0.05. Th e pretest served as the baseline measure for attitudes toward science and science c ontent knowledge. In situa tions in which there were significant effects or effects approaching significance, Tukey HSD post-hoc pairwise comparisons were conducted to further ex amine differences between groups and to control for type I error across additional co mparisons. Hays (1994) reported the Tukey HSD post-hoc test is a suitable follow-up procedure for an ANCOVA. Also, according to Hinkle, Wiersma, and Jurs (1994), the Tukey HSD post-hoc analysis is an appropriate procedure for equal group sizes that illust rate a significant F-ratio. The Tukey HSD analysis is also useful with less complex c ontrasts, such as those implemented in this study. Hypotheses The following research hypotheses were test ed using an analysis of covariance statistical test. This was done to increase stat istical power and to control for the effects of the covariates. The ANCOVA allows for an appropriate comparison of group mean scores on each posttest measure, accounting for group mean score adjustments based on the covariate variable (pretest measures). Th is provides for a more effective investigation of the effects of the independent variables (Hinkle et al., 1994).

PAGE 71

60 Hypothesis 1 There is a significant differen ce in scores on the PIES Science Knowledge test between the control group and the tradit ional group after inservice professional development. Hypothesis 2 There is a significant differen ce in scores on the PIES Science Knowledge test between the contro l group and the hypermedia group after inservice professional development. Hypothesis 3 There is a significant differen ce in scores on the PIES Science Knowledge test between the traditio nal group and the hypermedia group after inservice professional development. Hypothesis 4 There is a significant difference in scores on the Science Attitude Scale between the control group and th e traditional group after inservice professional development. Hypothesis 5 There is a significant difference in scores on the Science Attitude Scale between the control group and the hypermedia group after inservice professional development. Hypothesis 6 There is no significant difference in scores on the Science Attitude Scale between the traditional group a nd the hypermedia group after inservice professional development. Internal Validity Concerns In addressing internal validity issues, it is important to control for various extraneous variables in such a manner that any observed differences in the experiment can be attributed to the tr eatment (Tuckman, 1978). In non-equivalent control group designs, Campbell and Stanley (1963) recorded eight vari ables that can potentially confound the effects of the treatment. These threats are history, maturation,

PAGE 72

61 instrumentation, testing, selection, morta lity, selection-maturation interaction, and regression. In an effort to re duce the effect of these factors on the internal validity of the study, these threats to internal validity were addressed in the following ways. History and Maturation History and maturation are two internal vali dity concerns that did not play a large role in this study. To address history concer ns, the content and structure of each of the treatment groups were identical. Maturation conc erns were also negligible in this study because the length of the study was only thr ee weeks. Therefore, maturation had little effect on participants an d/or results of the study. Instrumentation and Testing To address instrumentation concerns, particip ants from all groups were subjected to identical testing material. Also, instrument items were in a multiple choice or Likertscale format to reduce rater-bias. Because the same instruments were used for both the pretest and posttest measures, test-retest was a concern in this study. A control group was used to address potential increases in posttest scores that may have resulted from participants having taken an iden tical pretest. During the anal ysis of the data, appropriate statistical analyses were implemented to adjust for initial group differences. Selection Selection issues are often a problem in qua si-experimental designs. In this study, ttests were conducted on both pretest meas ures for all groups and resulted in no statistically significant diffe rences between the groups for either science content knowledge or attitudes toward science. However, this method, in itself, is not sufficient to address selection issues and to assure group equivalen ce (Cook & Campbell, 1979). As a result, the statistical analyses that were conducted on the posttest scores for both

PAGE 73

62 science content knowledge and attitudes toward science used the pretest measures as covariates. The covariates adjusted the analyses for initial group differences. Mortality In this study, it was difficult to control for mortality issues. To address absentee issues, any participant absent for more than 34% of the workshops was excluded from the study. Mortality and absentee rates for each treatment group were similar. Each experimental group in the study began with 22 participants an d concluded with 19 participants. Selection-maturation Interaction As in many quasi-experimental designs, selection differences and resulting interactions with maturation can pose threats to internal validity. However, due to the method of group selection and the brief dur ation of the professional development workshops (treatments), selection differences and interactions with maturity had only minimal negative effects on the in ternal validity of the study. Regression In this study, participants re gistered for one of two diffe rent series of elementary science professional development workshops. Many participants opte d for the series of workshops (Tuesdays or Thursdays) that be st fit their schedule. However, some participants let the re searcher assign the individual works hop. As a result, the researcher attempted to make the non-randomly assigned gr oups as similar as pos sible. Statistical tests indicated no significant di fferences existed between groups on either the science content knowledge or attitudes toward science pretest measures.

PAGE 74

63 Summary of Internal Validity Concerns Having reviewed the factors affecting in ternal validity, only selection, mortality, and regression threatened the internal valid ity of this study. While these factors may have diminished the internal va lidity of this study, each factor was addressed in an effort to minimalize its negative influences on the internal validity of this study. External Validity Concerns In addition to addressing internal validity issues, it is also important to control for external validity, or generali zability, concerns. In non-equi valent control group designs, four variables can pot entially confound the effects of the treatment. Campbell and Stanley (1963) identified th ese threats as testing-inte raction effects, maturation, treatment-interaction effects, and other interactions with the treatment. In this study, these threats to external validity were addressed in the following ways. Testing-interaction Effects In this study, a pretest measure was ad ministered for each of the dependent variables, science content knowle dge, and attitudes toward scie nce. By either increasing or decreasing a participant’s responsiveness to the experimental va riable, the use of a pretest measure may significantly reduce the generalizability of a study. Therefore, a pretest was administered to both experi mental groups and the control group. Maturation In non-equivalent control group research desi gns, maturation can be a threat to both internal and external valid ity. As mentioned previously, maturation concerns were minimal in this study due to the brief duration of the prof essional development workshops. As a result, maturation had little im pact on participants a nd/or the results of this study.

PAGE 75

64 Treatment-interaction Effects Treatment-interaction effects can also influence the extern al validity of a study. In this study, because participants underwent a va riety of experiences throughout the school day, and that the treatment, combined with these experiences, may have unique effects, the generalizability of the study may be compromised. However, in an effort to control for these effects, participants experien ced workshops typical of the Duval County professional development program. Due to si milarities in partic ipants’ schools and the in-school events that occur at the end of the school year, it is reasonable to presume that the experiences of the partic ipants were similar enough to only minimally influence the external validity of the study. Other Interactions with the Treatment Another potential threat to external validity was the interaction of selection with the treatment. This relates to the generalizability of the findings of this study in that if the participants do not accurately represent the larg er population, it is diffi cult to generalize the findings. However, demographic informati on collected from participants indicated a wide array of backgrounds. While the vast major ity of the participants were female, as is typical at the elementary level, other demogr aphic information, such as number of years teaching, grade taught, and comfort level with computers all showed a wide array of responses. As a result, the interaction of sel ection with the treat ment had a minimal impact on the external validity of this study. An additional potential threat to external validity was the “Hawthorne Effect,” or the Reactive Effects of Experime ntal Arrangements. This potential threat occurs when participants, as a result of taking part in an experimental study, react strongly to the treatment. While participants in this study knew they were pa rt of an experimental study,

PAGE 76

65 they were provided with professional development opportunities that paralleled experiences they would typical ly experience in the professi onal development setting. As a result, the reactive effects to the treatments had no effect on the external validity of this study. Summary of External Validity Concerns In examining the factors that influence external validity, it was determined that there were only minimal influences on the study ’s external validity. While issues such as treatment-interaction effects, maturity, testing-interaction effects, and other interactions with the treatment were present, they were adequately controlled in the design of the study. Although these factors were controlled ot her issues restricted the generalizability of the study. These issues included the length of the workshops, the lack of measures of treatment over time, and the ab sence of measures of stude nt achievement. Without further research, the generalizability of th is study to other pop ulations is limited.

PAGE 77

66 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Introduction The purpose of this study was to examine the growth in scien ce content knowledge and changes in attitudes toward science w ith the integration of hypermedia into professional development workshops for elementa ry teachers. In particular, this study observed whether or not a professional development setting that implemented a hypermedia environment had a positive infl uence on elementary teachers’ attitudes toward science and knowledge of scientific topi cs and processes. In this chapter, the results of the statistic al analyses for the study are pres ented. An explanation of the findings will occur in Chapter 5. Study que stions and corresponding research hypotheses were as follows: Research Question 1 To what extent does the us e of hypermedia during inservice professional development increase elementary teachers’ understanding of elementary science concepts? Hypothesis 1. There is a significant differen ce in scores on the PIES Science Knowledge test between the control group and the tradit ional group after inservice professional development. Hypothesis 2. There is a significant differen ce in scores on the PIES Science Knowledge test between the contro l group and the hypermedia group after inservice professional development.

PAGE 78

67 Hypothesis 3 There is a significant differen ce in scores on the PIES Science Knowledge test between the traditio nal group and the hypermedia group after inservice professional development. Research Question 2 To what extent does the us e of hypermedia during inservice professional development influence elementa ry teachers’ attitudes toward science? Hypothesis 4 There is a significant difference in scores on the Science Attitude Scale between the control group and th e traditional group after inservice professional development. Hypothesis 5 There is a significant difference in scores on the Science Attitude Scale between the control group and the hypermedia group after inservice professional development. Hypothesis 6 There is a significant difference in scores on the Science Attitude Scale between the traditional group a nd the hypermedia group after inservice professional development. General Study Details This non-equivalent control group quasi-expe rimental study took place from April 27 to May 13, 2004, in a physics lab and comput er lab at Edward H. White High School in Jacksonville, Florida. A total of 57 in service elementary teachers from Duval County comprised three groups: a control group and tw o experimental groups (one with and one without hypermedia). Participants in each of the experimental groups experienced a series of three two-hour professional de velopment workshops addressing issues, concepts, and skills associated with teaching science in the elementary classroom.

PAGE 79

68 Study Sample The sample in this study consisted of 57 inservice elementary teachers from 21 schools in the Duval County school system. In the study, 95% of the teachers were female and 5% were male; 77% of the partic ipants were non-Hispani c white individuals, and 23% were African-American. All partic ipants had a bachelor’s degree, and 25% listed a master’s degree as their highest le vel of education. Almost three-quarters (70.2%) of the participants ta ught in the upper elementary gr ades (third through fifth), and the remaining participan ts (29.8%) taught in the lowe r elementary grade levels (kindergarten through second). In this study, 40% of participan ts had less than five years of teaching experience. Yet, there were al so participants (22.8%) with more than 20 years of teaching experience. Hence, the e xperience level of the sample varied. While many of the teachers (38.6%) have participated in sc ience professional development activities within the past year 61.2% have not participated in science professional development activities in more th an a year, and 36.8% have not participated in elementary science professional development activities in more than three years. Nearly 90% of the participan ts rated themselves as an average or above-average computer user. Yet only 38.7% of the particip ants rated themselves as an average or above hypermedia user. Participants also re ported using computers more for productivity purposes (93%) than for instru ctional purposes (81%). Participants were also surveyed on thei r attitudes, knowledge, and comfort level toward science. Nearly a ll participants (94.7%) “liked” science and many participants (88.7%) felt comfortable teaching elementary science concepts. Yet only 56.1% felt they had sufficient science content knowledge.

PAGE 80

69 Assignment to Groups This research study had 57 participants in three groups: control, hypermedia, and traditional. Due to issues related to ava ilability of participants, duration of the workshops, and lab space for the workshops, random assignment was not implemented in this study. During the recruitment process, teachers from Duval C ounty were asked to register for one of two series of workshops (either Tuesdays or T hursdays), unaware of any differences between the series of works hops. The researcher decided prior to the selection of teachers that the Tuesday work shops would be the hypermedia group and the Thursday workshops would comprise the trad itional group. Control group participants were also recruited from Duval County. Th ese participants cons isted of teachers who were asked to complete the pretest and postte st measures at designated times. Control group participants were aware they would not be receiving a treatment. Both the traditional group and the hypermedia group began with 22 participants. Due to resignation, illness, and other reasons, each group concluded the study with 19 participants. Participants in the experimental groups r eceived an hourly stipend and inservice points from the Duval County school district as part of their continuing professional development. Statistical Analyses Statistical Tests In order to increase power and to account fo r initial group differences, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted to de termine if there were significant main effects and interaction eff ects between groups (Borg & Gall, 1989). When there were significant effects or effects approaching significance, Tukey HSD post-hoc pairwise comparisons were conducted to further examine the results. An a priori alpha level was

PAGE 81

70 set at .05 to determine the leve l of significance. The pretes t measures for science content knowledge (PIES Science Knowledge Test) and attitudes toward science (Science Attitude Scale for Inservice Elementary T eachers II) acted as the baseline measures. Descriptive and Inferential Statistics Descriptive statistics for both science content knowledge and attitudes toward science on the pretest and posttest measures are reported in Tables 23 and 24. Table 19 reports each group’s mean and standard devia tion on the pretest and posttest measures for science content knowledge. Table 20 provide s each group’s mean and standard deviation of the pretest and posttest measures of attitudes toward science. Table 19. Means and Standard Deviations of Science Content Knowledge Scores Pretest Posttest M SD M SD Control (N=19) 15.63 2.83 16.11 2.75 Traditional (N=19) 15.95 3.75 19.26 2.45 Hypermedia (N=19) 16.37 3.56 19.38 1.73 Table 20. Means and Standard Devi ations on Science Attitude Scale Pretest Posttest M SD M SD Control (N=19) 95.00 17.17 94.68 16.35 Traditional (N=19) 95.32 16.04 92.84 15.82 Hypermedia (N=19) 92.05 17.66 99.68 14.55 Means on the pretest measure for science content knowledge were similar for all groups (F2,57=.224, p=.800). Group mean scores on the pretest measure of science content knowledge were 15.63 (control gr oup), 15.95 (traditional group), and 16.37 (hypermedia group). Posttest scores were greatest for the hypermedia group (M=19.38, SD=1.73), followed closely by the traditiona l group (M=19.26, SD=2.45) and further by the control group (M=16.11, SD=2.75). Means on the pretest measure for attitude toward science were also similar for all groups (F2,57=.214, p=.808). Group mean scores on the

PAGE 82

71 pretest measure of attitudes toward scie nce were 95.00 (control group), 95.32 (traditional group), and 92.05 (hypermedia group). Posttest scores were greatest for the hypermedia group (M=99.68, SD=14.55), followed by the control group (M=94.68, SD=16.35) and further by the traditional gr oup (M=92.84, SD=15.82). Science Content Knowledge Data from Table 19 provide the mean and standard deviation of science content knowledge for each group, as measured by the Project to Improve Elementary Science (PIES) Science Content Knowledge Test. Pret est scores were greatest for the hypermedia group (M=16.37, SD=3.56), followed by the traditional group (M=15.95, SD=3.75) and the control group (M=15.63, SD=2.83). Posttest scores were greatest for the hypermedia group (M=19.38, SD=1.73), followed closel y by the traditional group (M=19.26, SD=2.45) and concluding with the control group (M=16.11, SD=2.75). To analyze the results of each group’s pretest and posttest scores for science content knowledge, an analysis of covariance was conducted. Adjusted means and standard errors of the science content knowledge scores, which result from th e analysis of covariance, are reported in Table 21. In this analysis, the fixed factor was the group (treatment ) with three levels (control, traditional, and hypermedia), the covariate was the PIES Science Content Knowledge pretest score, and the dependent variable was the PIES Science Content Knowledge posttest score. Results of th e ANCOVA (see Table 22) revealed that the pretest covariate was significantly related to the corresponding posttest scores (F=42.782, p<.001, ES=.456), and the professional devel opment workshops (groups) explained 62% of the variance in th e posttest (Adjusted R2=.62). There were also significant group effects (F1,57=11.444, p<.001, ES=.310) and interaction e ffects between the pretest scores and the groups (F1,57=6.679, p=.003, ES=.208).

PAGE 83

72 Table 21. Adjusted Means and Standard Error of Science Content Knowledge Scores (Dependent Variable: PI ES Posttest Score) Mean SE Group Control 16.248 .439 Hypermedia 19.527 .439 Traditional 19.277 .438 a. Evaluated covariates appeared in the model: PIES Pretest Score = 15.98. Table 22. Tests of Between-Subjects Eff ects for Group Means (Dependent Variable: PIES Posttest Score) Source SS df MS F p 2 Corrected Model 289.645 5 57.929 19.267 .000 .654 Intercept 268.601 1 268.601 89.336 .000 .637 GROUP 68.814 2 34.407 11.444 .000 .310 PIESPRE 128.631 1 128.631 42.782 .000 .456 GROUP PIESPRE 40.161 2 20.080 6.679 .003 .208 Error 153.338 51 3.007 Total 19638.000 57 Corrected Total 442.982 56 a R Squared = .654 (Adjusted R Squared = .620) It appears that there may have been a main effect (F1,57=11.444, p<.001, ES=.310) of the treatment on science content knowle dge. However, this may be somewhat misleading because of the interaction effect between the pretest scores and the groups (F1,57=6.679, p=.003, ES=.208). In essence, th e effects of the treatment (groups) depended on the pretest scores. To examine th e interaction effects, a plot of pretest and posttest scores for each group was investigated (see Figure 1) For the control group members, PIES Scie nce Knowledge Test pretest and posttest scores correlated highly (R=.7934), as seen in Figure 1. Control group participants with low PIES Science Knowledge Test pretest sc ores also had low PIES Science Knowledge Test posttest scores. Control group participan ts with high PIES Science Knowledge Test pretest scores also had high PIES Science Know ledge Test posttest scores. Overall, there

PAGE 84

73 was little increase in scien ce content knowledge scores fo r the control group. For traditional group members, PIES Science Knowledge Test pretest and posttest scores had a smaller correlation (R=.2365). Traditional gr oup participants with low PIES Science Knowledge Test pretest scores had relatively large increase s in PIES Science Knowledge Test posttest scores. Traditional group participants with high PIES Science Knowledge Test pretest scores had smaller increases in PIES Science Knowledge Test posttest scores. This indicated that the profes sional development workshops had a more significant positive influence on the science content knowledge of participants that entered the professional development setti ng with limited science content knowledge and less influence on the science content knowledge of partic ipants that entered the professional development setting with more science content knowledge This trend was similar for the hypermedia group. Hypermedia group participants with low PIES Science Knowledge Test pretest scores had relatively large increase s in PIES Science Knowledge Test posttest scores. Hypermedia group part icipants with high PIES Science Knowledge Test pretest scores had smaller increases in PIES Science Knowledge Test posttest scores. Again, this indicated that the professional development workshops with hypermedia had a more significant positive influence on the science content knowledge of participants that entered the professional development setting with limited science content knowledge and less influence on the science content knowledge of participants that entered the professiona l development environment with more science content knowledge. Evidence of these interaction eff ects are illustrated in Table 22 and Figure 1.

PAGE 85

74 PIES Pre-Test Score22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Grouptraditional Rsq = 0.2365 hypermedia Rsq = 0.2040 control Rsq = 0.7934 Figure 1. Plot of PIES Pretest and Posttest Scores for each group. In determining the extent to which the tr eatment (the use of hypermedia) influenced changes in science content knowledge, the eff ect size was examined. The effect size for the change in science content knowledge indicated a small practical significance (ES=.31). Examining the mean score gains (see Table 19), the growth in science content knowledge was greater for the traditional group (3.31) and the hypermedia group (3.01) than it was for the control group (.48). This analysis shows the tr aditional group had the greatest growth in science c ontent knowledge, followed clos ely by the hypermedia group. There was little growth in science content knowledge for the contro l group. Hence, the extent of the hypermedia environment wo rkshops on growth in science content knowledge was negligible.

PAGE 86

75 Attitudes Toward Science Data from Table 20 provide the means and st andard deviations of attitudes toward science for each group, as measured by the Scie nce Attitude Scale fo r Inservice Teachers II. Pretest scores were greatest for th e traditional group (M =95.32, SD=16.04), followed by the control group (M=95.00, SD=17.17) and the hypermedia group (M=92.05, SD=17.66). Posttest scores were gr eatest for the hypermedia group (M=99.68, SD=14.55), followed by the control group (M=94.68, SD=16.35) and further by the traditional group (M=92.84, SD=15.82). An analysis of covariance was conducted to analyze the results of each group’s pretest and po sttest scores of attitudes toward science. Adjusted means and standard errors of attitudes toward science scores, which resulted from the analysis of covariance, are reporte d in Table 23. In this analysis, the fixed factor was the group (treatment) with three le vels (control, traditi onal, and hypermedia), the covariate was the Science Attitude Scale for Inservice Teachers II pretest score, and the dependent variable was the Science Attit ude Scale for Inservice Teachers II posttest score. Results of the ANCOVA (see Table 24) revealed the pretest covariate was significantly related to the co rresponding posttest scores (F2,57=192.666, p<.001, ES=.791). The professional development wo rkshops (groups) explained 78.1% of the variance in the posttest (Adjusted R2=.781). There were no significant group main effects (F1,57=2.980, p<.060, ES=.105) or interactions be tween the pretest scores and the groups (F1,57=1.724, p=.189, ES=.063).

PAGE 87

76 Table 23. Adjusted Means and Standard Error of Attitudes Toward Science Scores (Dependent Variable: Science Attitude Scale Posttest Score) Mean SE Group Control 93.973 1.695 Hypermedia 101.364 1.699 Traditional 91.874 1.696 Table 24. Tests of Between-Subjects Effect s for Attitudes Toward Science (Dependent Variable: Science Attitude Scale Posttest Score) Source SS df MS F p 2 Corrected Model 10891.159 5 2178.232 41.024 .000 .801 Intercept 610.635 1 610.635 11.501 .001 .184 GROUP 316.419 2 158.210 2.980 .060 .105 ATTPRE 10229.804 1 10229.804 192.666 .000 .791 GROUP ATTPRE 183.068 2 91.534 1.724 .189 .063 Error 2707.894 51 53.096 Total 536035.000 57 Corrected Total 13599.053 56 a. R Squared = .801 (Adjusted R Squared = .781) Although the ANCOVA results showed no si gnificant group main effects, Tukey HSD post-hoc pairwise comparisons were condu cted because the level was close to the pre-determined alpha level (F1,57=2.980, p=.060). These analyses indicated a significant difference in the Science Attitude for Inservi ce Teachers II posttest scores for the control group and hypermedia group (F1,57=9.463, p=.003) as noted in Table 25. Table 26 data did not illustrate a signifi cant difference in the Science Attitude Scale for Inservice Teachers II posttest scores between th e control group and traditional group (F1,57=.767, p=.385). Finally, data from Table 27 indica ted a significant difference between the hypermedia group and the tr aditional group scores (F1,57=15.581, p<.001).

PAGE 88

77 Table 25. Tests of Significant Differences Between Control Group’s and Hypermedia Group’s Attitudes Toward Science (Dep endent Variable: Science Attitude Scale Posttest Score) Source SS df MS F p Contrast 516.199 1 516.199 9.463 .003 Error 2890.962 53 54.546 Table 26. Tests of Significant Differences Between Control Group’s and Traditional Group’s Attitudes Toward Science (Dep endent Variable: Science Attitude Scale Posttest Score) Source SS df MS F p Contrast 41.823 1 41.823 .767 .385 Error 2890.962 53 54.546 Table 27. Tests of Significant Differences Be tween Traditional Gr oup’s and Hypermedia Group’s Attitudes Toward Science (Dep endent Variable: Science Attitude Scale Posttest Score) Source SS df MS F p Contrast 849.889 1 849.889 15.581 .000 Error 2890.962 53 54.546 In determining the extent to which the treatment (the use of hypermedia in the workshop) influenced changes in attitudes towa rd science, effect size was examined. The effect size for the change in attitudes toward science (ES=.791) indi cated more practical significance than existed for changes in sc ience content knowledge. Examining the mean score gains, the increase in positive attitudes toward science was significantly greater for the hypermedia group (7.63) than it was for th e traditional group (-2.48) and the control group (-.32). Examining the pr etest and posttest differences, there were slight decreases in positive attitudes toward science for both the traditional and cont rol group. Hence, the professional development workshop with hypermed ia contributed to ch ange in attitudes.

PAGE 89

78 Research Hypotheses Using the results from the data analysis the research hypotheses findings will be presented. A discussion of the meaning, si gnificance, and implicat ions of the findings will be presented in Chapter 5. Research Hypothesis #1 Hypothesis #1 of this study wa s there will be a significant difference in scores on the Project to Improve Elementary Scien ce (PIES) Science Content Knowledge Test between the control group and the traditional group after the science inservice professional development workshops. A pa irwise comparison indicated there was a significant difference (p<.001) between the control group and traditional group on science content knowledge. Therefore, this study fails to reject research hypothesis #1. Research Hypothesis #2 Research hypothesis #2 of this study was there will be a significant difference in scores on the Project to Improve Elementary Science (PIES) Science Content Knowledge Test between the control group and the hype rmedia group after the science inservice professional development workshops. A pa irwise comparison indicated there was a significant difference (p<.001) between th e control group and the hypermedia group. Therefore, this study fails to reject research hypothesis #2. Research Hypothesis #3 Research hypothesis #3 of this study was there will be a significant difference in scores on the Project to Improve Elementary Science (PIES) Science Content Knowledge Test between the traditiona l group and the hypermedia group after a series of science inservice professional development workshops A pairwise comparison indicated there

PAGE 90

79 was no significant difference (p=.690) between the traditional group and the hypermedia group. Therefore, this study reje cts research hypothesis #3. Research Hypothesis #4 Research hypothesis #4 of this study was there will be a significant difference in scores on the Science Attitude Scale between the control group and the traditional group after the science inservice pr ofessional development workshops. A Tukey HSD post-hoc pairwise comparison indicated no significant difference (F1,57=.767, p=.385) between the control group and the traditional group. Therefore, this study rejects research hypothesis #4. Research Hypothesis #5 Research hypothesis #5 of this study was there will be a significant difference in scores on the Science Attitude Scale between the control group and the hypermedia group after the science inservice pr ofessional development workshops. A Tukey HSD post-hoc pairwise comparison indicated a significant difference (F1,57=9.463, p=.003) between the control group and the hypermedia group. Theref ore, this study fails to reject research hypothesis #5. Research Hypothesis #6 Research hypothesis #6 of this study was there will be a significant difference in scores on the Science Attitude Scale betw een the traditional group and the hypermedia group after the inservice professional devel opment workshops. A Tukey HSD post-hoc pairwise comparison indicated a significant difference (F1,57=15.581, p<.001) between the traditional group and the hypermedia group. Therefore, this study fails to reject research hypothesis #6.

PAGE 91

80 Summary The range and means of the pretest and posttest scores on both science content knowledge and attitudes toward science were anal yzed in this study. In order to increase statistical power and to adjust for initial group differences, an analysis of covariance was the statistical procedure conducted on the data. The pretest scores pr ovided baseline data for measures of science content knowledge and attitudes toward science. Tukey HSD post-hoc pairwise comparisons were conducted when either significan t effects or effects approaching significance were present. As a result of the participants’ participa tion in a series of professional development workshops in science with or without hype rmedia, it was expected there would be significant differences in science content know ledge increases between the control group and each of the experimental groups. A lthough both experimental groups addressed identical content, it was expected there woul d be a difference in increases in science content knowledge between the traditiona l treatment group and the hypermedia group. These expectations were not fully supporte d by the data analysis. While the ANCOVA indicated significant group main effects (F1,57=11.444, p<.001), these were somewhat misleading as there were also si gnificant interaction effects (F1,57=6.679, p=.003, ES=.208). Pairwise comparisons indicated significant differences on the increase in science content knowledge between the cont rol group and the traditional group (p<.001) and between the control group and the hypermedia group (p<.001). A pairwise comparison indicated no significant differe nce between the traditional group and the hypermedia group (p=.690). Implications of these results will be further discussed in Chapter 5.

PAGE 92

81 Because of some participants’ experiences in professional development in science utilizing hypermedia, it was expected there would be significant differences in the increases of positive attitudes toward scie nce between the hypermedia group and the control group, between the hypermedia group and traditional group, and between the control group and the traditional group. The an alysis of covariance values resulted in group main effects that approached significance (F1,57=2.980, p=.060). Therefore, Tukey HSD post-hoc pairwise comparisons were pe rformed. Tukey HSD pairwise comparisons indicated significant increases in positive at titudes toward science in the hypermedia group when compared to both the control gr oup and the traditional group. There was no significant difference in increases in positive attitudes toward science for the control group and the traditional group. Implications of these results will be further discussed in Chapter 5.

PAGE 93

82 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION Introduction Past research has indicated that a number of problems in the teaching of science in elementary classrooms are rooted in the pr eparation of inservice teachers (Ginns & Watters, 1998; Plourde, 2002). Two problem s prevalent in the research include elementary teachers’ lack of science cont ent knowledge and negative attitudes toward science. As indicated by numerous research studies reporting positive results, one method of addressing these problems is through inservice teacher professional development workshops (Henson, 1987; Monk, 1 994; Smith et al., 2002; Tilgner, 1990). Positive results of the professional development workshops include improved content knowledge (Kahle, 2000), increased attitudes toward specific content areas (Tilgner, 1990; Henson, 1987), increased confidence in teaching (Shrigley, 1977), and increased student achievement (Anderson & Smith, 1986; Monk, 1994). However, elementary science professional development workshops have not resulted in the same success levels as other subject areas. This study examined whether the integrati on of hypermedia into elementary science professional development workshops resulted in more positive outcomes than traditional methods of elem entary science professional development workshops.

PAGE 94

83 Review of the Study Purpose The aim of this study was to examine whether or not the integration of a hypermedia environment into a series of in service professional development workshops would result in increases of elementary te achers’ science content knowledge and more positive attitudes toward science. To accomp lish this, two series of inservice science professional development workshops were c onducted to address major topics in the elementary science curriculum. Both seri es of workshops were designed from a cognitive constructivist pers pective and implemented a hands-on approach. They focused on the development of scientific content knowledge, as well as modeling a variety of pedagogical methods appropriate for effective elementary science instruction. While both series of workshops addressed th e same content, one series of workshops included the integration of a hypermedia enviro nment while the other series of workshops was conducted without the hypermedia envi ronment. A control group receiving no treatment was used to measure and li mit the effects of confounding variables. Design of the Study In this study, a non-equivalent control group quasi-experimental design was used (Affleck, Madge, Adams, & Lowenbraun, 1988; Campbell & Stanley, 1963). Each experimental group experienced three, tw o-hour professional development workshops conducted over a three-week pe riod. Two measures, the Project to Improve Elementary Science (PIES) Science Knowledge Test (Zielinski & Smith, 1990) and the Science Attitude Scale for Inservice Elementary Teachers II (Shrigley & Johnson, 1974), were administered to the control group and each experimental group. They were given prior to

PAGE 95

84 the administration of the elementary scienc e workshops and at the conclusion of the series of workshops. Additional Data Collection While the PIES Science Knowledge Test a nd Science Attitude Scale for Inservice Teachers II were administered as pretest and posttest measures, at the conclusion of the workshops, all participants also completed an evaluation of the professional development workshops. This evaluation form (see A ppendix C) was provided by the Professional Development Department of the Duval Count y School Board and is required to be completed by all participants of all inservice professiona l development opportunities. Data from these evaluation forms was used in the discussion of the re sults related to each of the study’s research questions. Participants A total of 57 inservice elem entary teachers participated in this study. Participants were recruited from 21 schools in the northeast Florida school district of Duval County. Three groups, each consisting of 19 participan ts, were formed and included a control group and two experimental groups. The first experimental group experienced professional development workshops with hypermedia, and the second experimental group experienced professional development workshops without hypermedia. The control group received no treatment. Research Questions The following research questions and a ssociated research hypotheses were addressed in this study:

PAGE 96

85 Research Question 1 To what extent does the us e of hypermedia during inservice professional development increase elementary teachers’ understanding of elementary science concepts? Hypothesis 1 There is no significant differenc e in scores on the PIES Science Knowledge Test between the control gr oup and the traditional group after the inservice professional development workshop. Hypothesis 2 There is no significant differenc e in scores on the PIES Science Knowledge Test between the control group and the hypermedia group after the inservice professional development workshop. Hypothesis 3 There is no significant differenc e in scores on the PIES Science Knowledge Test between the traditiona l group and the hypermedia group after the inservice professional development workshops. Research Question 2 To what extent does the us e of hypermedia during inservice professional development influence elementa ry teachers’ attitudes toward science? Hypothesis 4 There is no significant difference in scores on the Science Attitude Scale between the control group and the traditional group af ter the inservice professional development workshop. Hypothesis 5 There is no significant difference in scores on the Science Attitude Scale between the control group and th e hypermedia group after the inservice professional development workshop. Hypothesis 6 There is no significant difference in scores on the Science Attitude Scale between the traditional group and the hypermedia group after the inservice professional development workshop.

PAGE 97

86 Research Question #1 The first question examined if and to what extent hypermedia influenced growth in science content knowledge when integrat ed into a professional development environment. The statistical analysis of the PIES Science Knowledge Test posttest using an analysis of covariance provided evidence of significant group main effects (F1, 57=11.444, p<.001) and interactions between the pretest scores and the groups (F1,57=6.679, p=.003) for science content knowledge. The results are in terpreted in the following manner: While there was a significa nt difference in the increase in science content knowledge between the control group and the two experimental groups, there was no significant difference in the increase in content knowledge between the two experimental groups. Therefore, while the trea tments resulted in st atistically significant gains in science content knowledge as co mpared to the control group, there was no significant difference in the gains between th e two types of treatments (hypermedia vs. no hypermedia). Also, increases in science content knowledge for each treatment group was somewhat dependent upon PIES Science Knowle dge Test pretest scor es. Traditional and hypermedia group members who entered the professional development setting with limited science content knowledge had the gr eatest increases in science content knowledge. Traditional and hypermedia group members who entered the professional development environment with higher PIES Science Knowledge Test pretest scores had smaller increases in sc ience content knowledge. It was also important to examine the exte nt to which the professional development workshops influenced changes in science cont ent knowledge. To do this, the effect size for the science content knowle dge data analysis was examin ed and indicated a practical significance (ES=.31) on the influence of the use of hypermedia in professional

PAGE 98

87 development workshops on science content knowledge (Bialo & Sivin-Kachala, 1996; Cohen, 1988). Exploring further, the mean sc ore gains were greatest for the traditional group (3.31) and hypermedia group (3.01). As expected, there were negligible mean score gains in the control group (.48). In this study, the use of hypermedia in professional development workshops did not sign ificantly contribute to an increase in science content knowledge. Although study results show a negligible difference in the increase in science content knowledge between the two experi mental groups, it should be noted that providing professional development workshops that demonstrate best practices in teaching and strong content contribute to incr easing elementary teac hers’ science content knowledge. This finding supports other studies in the literature (Anderson, 1984; Kahle, 2000; Monk, 1994; Shrigley, 1977; Smith et al., 2002). In addition, a number of factors possibly contributed to and pot entially hindered the effectiveness of both the traditional and hypermedia groups. These factors will be discussed in detail. The first factor that contributed to positive gains in science content knowledge was the constructivist approach taken in designing and c onducting the workshops. Comments by participants in both groups indicated the hands-on approach was more beneficial to them. One participant in the traditional workshop stated, “I liked being active and engaged instead of just listening to lectures.” A member of the hypermedia group paralleled this statement in saying, “H ands-on experiments were very helpful in explaining concepts”. The constructivist approach promoted the integration of the workshop content into participants’ existing knowledge structures.

PAGE 99

88 A second factor that positively influenced gains in science content knowledge was the variety of activities implemented in the workshops. Having numerous types of activities allowed participants to address topi cs and issues through a variety of methods. Activities such as small group discussions whole group discussions, small group handson activities, and demonstrations promoted an active and collegial environment in the workshops, contributing to more significan t gains in science content knowledge. While a number of factors increased the ex tent of the influence of the hypermedia workshops on science content knowledge, a num ber of factors also inhibited more positive gains in science content knowledge. The first factor was the length of the study. As previously mentioned, each series of wo rkshops was a total of six hours in length. Participants in both experimental gro ups commented on the brief length of the workshops. One participant in the traditional group noted, “The workshop was insightful and informative. I just wish it was longer. There is much more I need to learn!” A participant in the hypermedia group st ated, “Each and ev ery time I witness knowledgeable instructors ‘model’ the con cepts with demonstrations, the more comfortable and excited I become regardi ng providing my students with in-depth instruction in science. Unfortunately, si x-hours was not enough time to cover many of the subjects for my grade level.” This theme was common in other participants’ comments. With a longer series of works hops, it is expected there would be more significant differences in science content knowledge gains by the two experimental groups and possibly larger gain s by the hypermedia group. A second factor that may have hindered more positive gains in science content knowledge was the time of year in which the professional development workshops were

PAGE 100

89 conducted. All workshops took place during th e last month of the 2004 school year. As a result, extraneous events that typically o ccur at the end of the school year may have obstructed more positive gains in science content knowledge. Also, because of the time of the year, participants may not have been completely focused on the content or may not have seen immediate results from the works hops. One participant commented, “I had a lot of fun with the experiments. They made me want to go back to school (referring to the fact that it was th e end of the school year).” Anothe r participant noted, “I wish we had this opportunity ea rlier in the year. I look forward to using so me of these lessons next year.” A third factor that may have hindered mo re positive increases in science content knowledge was that the full benefits of hypermedia were not accessible to the hypermedia workshop participants. In order to control for confoundi ng variables and to keep the study as sound as possible, partic ipants in the hypermedia group had extremely limited access to the ELLIPS tool. Although this allowed the researcher to ensure that the access to content was consistent between the traditional and hypermedia groups, this may have hindered the effectiveness of the integration of hypermedia into the professional development environment. Partic ipants saw value in the use of Elementary Level Lessons In Physical Science (ELLIPS) the hypermedia environment implemented in the study. One participant affirmed, “T he ELLIPS program will be a lifesaver as I believe children learn best by seeing a nd doing. ELLIPS will provide an easy and effective way to utilize experiments in the cl assroom.” Another participant stated, “With science textbooks and materials being very scarce in kindergarten, first, and second grade, by attending this workshop I am now able to teach science to my students without

PAGE 101

90 the need to borrow a teachers’ manual from my colleague down the hall.” It is expected that continuous access to the hypermedia environment used would have resulted in more positive increases in science content know ledge for the hypermedia group members. Another factor that may have contributed to smaller increases in science content knowledge was the time of day in which the workshops were conducted. Workshops were held from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m., on a weekly ba sis. As a result, teachers were tired and most likely less focused on the content. This, coupled with the fact that the workshops were being conducted at the end of the school year, could have had a significant effect on the outcomes of the study. In this study, the resulting l ack of a significant difference in the increases in science content knowledge of the hypermedia group a nd the traditional group is important to note. Both groups, however, di d have significantly greater in creases in science content knowledge than the control group. Examining the statistical results, this study provides evidence that the integration of hypermed ia into the professional development environment does not result in significantly smaller increases in science content knowledge. In other words, integrating hype rmedia into the professional development environment can result in content knowledge increases that are at least equal to traditional professional development settings. This is important for a number of reasons. First, hypermedia environments have the poten tial to more adequately address individual needs of inservice teachers than traditional professional development settings. Second, one major goal of education, at any level, is the creation of new mental schemas that promote our ability to make sense of and ad apt to changes in our world. According to Piaget (1971) and Vygotsky (1978), this is accomplished by interacting with our

PAGE 102

91 surrounding physical and social worlds. In a professional development environment, hypermedia allows this to be done more easily. Third, integra ting hypermedia into professional development opportunities in creases access to both professional development opportunities and teacher resources. In this study, for example, inservice teachers left the professional development setting with access to numerous lessons, content resources, and communi cation tools. Finally, integrating hypermedia into professional development environment promot es collaborative learning. According to Bruner (1961), Vygotsky (1978), an d Piaget (1970), learners s hould not be isolated in the learning environment, but shoul d be engaged in a dialogue. Integrating hypermedia into the professional development environment encourages dialogue and promotes a more meaningful learning environment (Spencer, 1991 ). Hence, while empirical researchers are still interested in statistical significan ce, it is still important to consider the educational importance of vari ous instructional technologies and methods as well as the added value of the integrati on of technology into the lear ning environment (McIsaac & Gunawardena, 1996). In this study, integr ating hypermedia into the professional development setting resulted in equivalent in creases in science cont ent knowledge as in the traditional professional development setting. However, the added value of integrating hypermedia into the learning environment offers promising reasons for providing elementary science professional development opportunities that include the integration of hypermedia. Findings from this study illustrate that while professional development workshops resulted in increased knowledge of scientific concepts and processes, this increase was not dependent on the integration of hypermedia into the professional development setting.

PAGE 103

92 As illustrated by the statistical analysis, ther e was no significant difference in the increase of science content knowledge between th e two treatment groups. Yet there are indications that given certain circumstances, such as length of time of the workshop and full exposure to hypermedia applications, hypermedia environments could influence gains in science content know ledge in a positive manner. Research Question #2 The second research question in this st udy examined if and to what extent hypermedia influenced positive attitudes toward science when integrated into professional development workshops. The analysis of covariance statistical analysis of the Science Attitude Scale for Inservice Elemen tary Teachers II posttest resulted in group main effects that approached significance (F1,57=2.980, p=.060). As a result, Tukey HSD post-hoc pairwise comparisons were conduc ted. The results are interpreted in the following manner: Increases in positive atti tudes toward science were dependent on the type of workshop (the treatment). There wa s no significant difference in the increases in positive attitudes toward science between the control group and the traditional group (F1,57=41.823, p=.385). However, there was a signi ficant difference in the increases in positive attitudes toward science between th e hypermedia group and the control group (F1,57=9.463, p=.003) and between the hypermed ia group and the traditional group (F1,57=15.581, p<.001). Although professional de velopment workshops alone did not result in increased positive attitudes toward science, the integration of hypermedia into the professional development workshops did re sult in increased posi tive attitudes toward science. To fully answer the second question, it is important to examine the extent to which the integration of hypermedia into profe ssional development workshops influenced

PAGE 104

93 changes in attitudes toward science. To do th is, the effect size for the attitudes toward science data analysis was examined and provi ded an indication of practical significance (ES=.78). Effect sizes of .78 are traditionally considered to be medium to large effects (Bialo & Sivin-Kachala, 1996; Cohen, 1988). This effect size not only shows the confidence in hypermedia’s ability to improve attitudes toward science, but also the practical significance of this study. Examin ing individual changes in the pretest and posttest mean scores, the mean score gains we re largest for the hypermedia group (7.63). Both the traditional group (-2.48) and the cont rol group (-.32) resulted in decreases in mean score gains, indicating a reduction in positive attitudes towa rd science for these groups. Of the two experimental gro ups, only the hypermedia group experienced increases in positive attitudes toward science. Hence, we have a strong indication the integration of hypermedia into science profe ssional development workshops played a part in increasing participants’ attitudes toward science. Throughout the study, a number of factors arose that potent ially contributed to the effectiveness of the workshops at increasing the att itudes toward scienc e of participants in the experimental groups. First, the constructivist approach in the design and implementation of the workshops could have influenced more significant increases in positive attitudes toward science. Participants from each experimental group commented that one of the more beneficial characteri stics of the workshops was the “hands-on” approach and avoidance of the “lecture” approach to conducting the workshops. The second factor that potentially contribu ted to the success of the workshops at increasing participants’ attit udes toward science was the le ngth of each workshop session. A number of participants from each treatme nt group noted they enjoyed the two-hour

PAGE 105

94 workshops as opposed to more traditional fullday workshops. While the time of day and time of school year in which the workshops were conducted contributed to smaller or no increases in positive attitudes toward scienc e, the two-hour workshop sessions appeared to promote a more focused environment for participants. Another factor that potentially contributed to more positive increases in attitudes toward science was the variety of instructional methods implemented throughout the workshops. A variety of activity types and in structional strategies were implemented and modeled in an effort to increase teacher enga gement, focus, motivati on, and participation. This could have played a significant role in counteracting a number of the factors that resulted in smaller increases in positive attitudes toward science. A final factor that may have resulted in more positive attitudes toward science was the integration of teacher resources into the hypermedia workshops. Although access to the hypermedia environment was limited for th e duration of the prof essional development workshops, participants in the hypermedia group used the tool throughout the workshops and were provided full access at the conclusi on of the workshops. Participants in the traditional workshop took home their workshop book containing a multitude of resources. As a result of providing teacher resources in the professional development environment, teachers’ attitudes toward sc ience may have been improved. While there were a number of issues that contributed to increases in positive attitudes toward science, there were also factors that could have inhibited gains in positive attitudes toward science. These fact ors included the length of the study, the time of year in which the study was conducted, limited access to the hypermedia environment, and the time of day in which the workshops were held.

PAGE 106

95 First, the length of the study could have negatively influenced participants’ attitudes toward science. Because the works hops totaled six hours, participants may have felt rushed to learn the content knowledge pr oducing negative attitude s toward science. One participant noted, “More time would have been better,” a theme that was common in participant comments. A second factor that may have hindered an increase in attitudes toward science was the time of year in which the professiona l development workshops were held. As previously mentioned, all workshops were co nducted toward the end of the academic school year. Because teachers are often ti red and overwhelmed with end of the school year activities, the teachers may not have valu ed the workshops as much as if they had taken place earlier in the school year; hence, attitudes toward science could have been affected. A third factor that may have resulted in diminished increases in positive attitudes toward science is that acce ss to the hypermedia environment was limited throughout the study. While this was done to ensure e quivalent access to content for the two experimental groups, this may have had negati ve influences on participants’ attitudes toward science. For example, participan ts worked with a hypermedia tool in the workshop but were then denied full access to th at tool when they left the professional development environment. Although there was an increase in pos itive attitudes toward science in the hypermedia group, this may have resulted in smaller increases in positive attitudes toward science than would have occurred if partic ipants had full access to the tool.

PAGE 107

96 Finally, the time of day in which the work shops were held may have contributed to smaller increases in positive attitudes toward science. Because the workshops were held at the end of the normal school day, teachers ma y have been both unfocused and tired. This factor potentially had a significant nega tive effect on the participants’ attitudes toward science. Contributions to the Body of Knowledge This research may be especially significant to the fields of inservice science professional development and hypermedia. Inservice Science Professional Development Significant research indicates that profe ssional development is beneficial to the development of for inservice teachers (A nderson & Smith, 1986; Henson, 1987; Shrigley, 1977; Smith et al., 2002; Tilgner, 1990). Two major areas addressed in the literature related to the benefits of professional development are the improvement of teacher content knowledge and attitude s toward particular subjec t areas (Anderson, 1984; Kahle, 2000; Klein et al., 1999; Monk, 1994). Yet re search related to inservice science professional development has not shown the same positive results as other areas. This study, however, provided evidence of the effectiv eness of inservice science professional development and its positive influences on bot h content knowledge and attitudes. More specifically, the results of this study provide support and rationale for the development of elementary science inservice professional de velopment opportunities utilizing a cognitive constructivist approach. This study also provided quantit ative data illustrating the effectiveness of inservice science professional development at increa sing elementary teachers’ science content knowledge. While there were increases in pa rticipants’ science c ontent knowledge in

PAGE 108

97 both experimental groups, the effect of th e professional development workshops, with respect to the integration of hypermedia, wa s small (ES=.31). As a result of the small increases in science content knowledge, a clos er look was taken at constraining factors in the study. It was determined that longer, more appropriately timed workshops would provide more significant increa ses in content knowledge and attitudes toward science. This study also provided evidence that works hops should integrate mo re than six hours of professional development and should not be conducted within the last month of the school year. As a result of negative attitudes being commonplace among elementary teachers, many studies have examined methods of impr oving elementary teache rs’ attitudes toward science (Bogut & McFarl and, 1975; Kennedy, 1973; Stollberg, 1969). As with improving content knowledge, professional development workshops have been one method of improving attitudes toward science that has received a grea t deal of attention (Tilgner, 1990; Shrigley, 1977). This is because professional development workshops provide opportunities for elementary teacher s to increase their content knowledge and teaching skills (Shrigley, 1977), hence increasi ng teachers’ comfort level and attitudes. In this study, evidence was provided for effectiveness of integrating hypermedia environments into professional development workshops in improving elementary science teachers’ attitudes toward science. In conclusion, this study supported the id eas that elementary science inservice professional development opportunities, which can be developed from a cognitive constructivist approach, can increase elemen tary teachers’ content knowledge. Also, integrating hypermedia into professional deve lopment settings can result in more positive

PAGE 109

98 attitudes toward science and potentially a gain in scienc e content knowledge. This study indicates that the integration of hypermedia does not appear to decrease science content knowledge. This research also provides alternatives to trad itional professional development workshops that are effective in increasing elementary science teachers’ content knowledge and at titudes toward science. Hypermedia As a result of the increased use of hypermedia into teaching and learning environments, the benefits and constraints of hypermedia have become common themes in the body of literature related to hypermed ia. The results of this study complement other studies that suggest the integration of hypermedia into the learning environment results in more positive at titudes toward science (Bogut & McFarland, 1975; Kahle, 2000; Kennedy, 1973; Stollberg, 1969). Further, this study provided evidence that the integration of hypermedia into a struct ured learning environment (professional development workshops) can diminish the experi ential constraints of hypermedia, such as inexperience with the content or the hypermed ia application, on improving attitudes. The results of greater increases in attitudes toward science with the integration of hypermedia into professional development workshops are promising. These results provide preliminary evidence that hypermedia can be a powerful tool in the professional development of inservice elementary teachers of science. Implications for Inservice Science Professional Development The results of this study provide evid ence that integrating hypermedia into professional development workshops, while not necessarily effective at increasing elementary teachers’ science content knowle dge more than traditional professional development workshops, can be effective at in creasing positive attitude s toward science.

PAGE 110

99 As a result, this study provides a number of implications for educators involved in providing inservice elementary science professional deve lopment opportunities in the area of teaching science in the elementary curricula. First, the results of this study suggest that professional development workshops short in duration are not as effective in increasing content knowledge. In this professional development environment, it wa s evident that having only three two-hour workshops limited the effectiveness on the gain in content knowledge. While there were significant increases in the science content knowledge of both experimental groups, the increases were small. This idea was also supported by participant comments such as, “More time would have been better.” Increasing the duration of professional development workshops would potentially in crease their effectiveness at improving science content knowledge. This idea that change takes time and is a process also complements other research findings on cha nge (Ely, 1990; Fullan & Stiegelbauer, 1991; Hall, 1974; Rogers, 1995). Study findings also suggest that the time of year in which the opportunities are conducted could be a second factor that infl uences the effectiveness of professional development workshops is the time of year in which the opportunities are conducted. It was apparent throughout this study that teacher s were less focused and less motivated in the workshops. Because the workshops were offered at the end of the academic year, teachers potentially had difficulty seeing the immediate benefit of the knowledge they were gaining. This suggests th at it is important to schedule workshops at the time of year in which teachers can immediately utilize the information they obtain in the professional

PAGE 111

100 development environment. This implication me shes with one of the tenets in Knowles’s (1970) theory of adult learning. Third, this study suggests that teachers en joy having access to tools and resources that will assist them in th e classroom as a product of their professional development opportunities. In this study, the hypermedia environment utilized had a number of characteristics teachers found beneficial. These included a collection of searchable lessons, teacher content resources, lesson revi ews, and a discussion board. Therefore, teachers find professional development enviro nments that provide useful resources as more engaging and useful. This was illustrated by a number of comments regarding the ELLIPS hypermedia environment. These in cluded, “The website is a wonderful resource,” “The web site will be helpful in planning lessons for next year, now that I understand the third grade curriculum a littl e bit more,” and “The ELLIPS program will be a lifesaver.” Participants in the traditio nal workshop had printed materials that could be used as a resource in the classroom and provided positive statements about their usefulness. These comments suggest that professional development workshops can potentially be more effective by providing partic ipants with practical resources that will enhance their classroom. Data in this study did no t specifically examine aspects of the hypermedia environment that teachers found most benefici al. However, from workshop reviews and comments, it can be inferred that participan ts enjoyed participating in a professional development opportunity that used a hypermed ia environment and leaving the workshop with a resource that can be utilized when teaching science. Know ing that integrating hypermedia into the elementary science profe ssional development sett ings can result in

PAGE 112

101 increased positive attitudes toward science, educators who develop professional development opportunities should consider hypermedia as an effective option. Recommendations for Future Research The goal of this study was to investigate th e effects of integrating hypermedia into elementary science professional developm ent workshops on science content knowledge and attitudes toward science. The results of this study provide some encouraging results, but also lead to new questions. Because ra ndom assignment was not possible in this study groups could have been different on variab les, such as teach ing experience and hypermedia experience, other than the covariates Hence, the need for further research. Based on this idea, as well as the limitations and findings for this study, the following are suggestions for future research. One of the delimitations of this study wa s that there were no measures of the effectiveness of the teachers’ gr owth in terms of their students’ achievement. As a result, it would be beneficial to furt her study whether or not the increases in science content knowledge and positive attitudes toward science by teachers influence student achievement. Measures of student achievem ent would provide information on whether or not integrating hypermedia into the professi onal development setting influenced teacher behaviors in the classroom. More importantly, measures of student achievement would provide information on whether or not in creases in teacher content knowledge and attitudes toward science influence student performance in elementary science. Another limitation of this study was there were no measures of treatment effects over time. It would be bene ficial to administer the m easures of science content knowledge and attitudes toward science at va rious time intervals in the future in an attempt to examine the sustained effects of integrating hypermedia into elementary

PAGE 113

102 science professional development workshops. This would also assist in determining whether or not initial increases in cont ent knowledge and positive attitudes toward science were superficial or substantial. The structured settings of workshops may not provide environments that are conducive to the strengths of hypermedia. One of the tenets of hypermedia is the user controls his own learning. In some professional development workshops, this is difficult to attain. Therefore, rese arch on the integration of hype rmedia into less structured professional development settings might resu lt in more positive increases in science content knowledge and greater increases in positive attitudes toward science. Another beneficial research strand would be the examination of which characteristics of hypermedia result in greate r teacher and student gr owth. For example, a variety of hypermedia tools were used in the study. These included a variety of lesson searches, a discussion board, teacher content resources, and a lesson review feature. These characteristics were integrated into the hypermedia environment in an effort to address problems in elementary science educ ation. However, future research should examine which aspects of hypermedia have the greatest influence on increases in teachers’ science content knowledge, positive at titudes toward science, and ultimately student achievement. Summary This non-equivalent control group quasi-experi mental study consisted of a total of 57 inservice elementary teachers participati ng in one of three groups: a control group and two experimental groups (one with and one without hypermedia). Each experimental group participant underwent th ree two-hour workshops aimed at improving inservice teachers’ science content knowledge and positiv e attitudes toward science. This study

PAGE 114

103 found that those workshops that integrated hyp ermedia into the professional development environment resulted in a significant increase in inservice elementary teachers’ science content knowledge. When compared to the control group, there was a significant difference in increases of science cont ent knowledge. When compared to the experimental group that partic ipated in workshops without hypermedia, however, there was no significant difference in increases of science content knowledge. This study also attempted to determine whether or not inte grating hypermedia prof essional development workshops had a positive effect on inservic e elementary teachers’ attitudes toward science. It was found there were significant in creases in teacher attitudes toward science in the hypermedia group when compared to both the control group and the traditional workshop group. The results of this study complement other studies that have suggested the integration of hypermedia into the learning en vironment results in more positive attitudes toward science (Bogut & McFarland, 1975; Kahle, 2000; Kennedy, 1973; Stollberg, 1969). The results of greater increases in atti tudes toward science w ith the integration of hypermedia into the professional development workshops are promising. They provide preliminary evidence that hypermedia can be a powerful tool in the professional development of inservice elementary teacher s of science. Although there were limiting factors present in this study, the findings of this study are encouraging and provide a sound basis for future research regarding the integration of hypermedia into professional development environments.

PAGE 115

104 APPENDIX A SCIENCE ATTITUDE SCALE FOR IN SERVICE ELEMENTARY TEACHER II Directions: This is not a test. You are to indi cate your feelings to ward the subject of science and the teaching of scien ce. You may react to the statements in one of five ways. A: Strongly Agree B: Agree C: Undecided D: Disagree E: Strongly Disagree Please mark your choice on the answer sheet. Statements: 1. As a teacher, I am afraid that science demonstrations will not work. 2. I enjoy discussing science topics with fellow teachers. 3. If I had time, I would like to attend an elementary science workshop during the summer. 4. If I were to enroll in a college science c ourse, I would enjoy the laboratory periods of the course. 5. I am afraid that I do not have enough background to teach science adequately. 6. If I were to return to college for additiona l graduate work, I would enroll in at least one science course. 7. I enjoy manipulating science equipment. 8. I believe science is too difficult for me to learn. 9. I would like to have a desk barome ter that measures air pressure. 10. I would like to work with the scien ce consultant on my science program.

PAGE 116

105 11. Most science equipment confuses me. 12. I enjoy constructing simple equipment. 13. I would not enjoy working in a sc ience laboratory for a summer. 14. I enjoy science courses. 15. I would enjoy participating in a science inserv ice program in my school district. 16. I eagerly anticipate the teaching of sc ience to elementary school children. 17. Science is my favorite subject. 18. If I were to enroll in any college science course, I would likely be bored. 19. I prefer teaching science over any ot her subject of elementary school. 20. I would not like to keep a hamster in my classroom. 21. In a departmental situation or similar s ituation, I would like to be responsible for teaching all of the science. 22. I am apprehensive about anything th at is associated with science. 23. I would read an issue of the professional journal, Science and Children if it were in the teacher’s room. 24. I would be interested in working in an experimental science curriculum project. 25. If given a choice in professional improveme nt, I would choose any area but science. 26. I would prefer to be a team leader in any curriculum area but science.

PAGE 117

106 APPENDIX B PROGRAM TO IMPROVE ELEMENTARY SCIENCE (PIES) SCIENCE KNOWLEDGE TEST Directions: For each of the questions below, blacken in the correct answer on the enclosed answer sheet. Questions 1-5: The following story is broken into numbered segments. Each of the numbered statements refers to one of the scien ce process skills lettered A, B, C, D, & E. For each of the numbered statements, blacken in the letter of correct science process skill onto the answer sheet. (1) John and Mary were walking in the fore st looking at the leaves on the trees Mary noticed the leaves possesse d a wide variety of shapes. (2) John said to Mary, I think thes e trees are different species Mary began to assemble leaves from each of the trees into a pile. She counted the number of points on each (3) leaf and placed it into a pile according to the shap e and number of points on each of the leaves (4) John drew a sketch of each type of le af and wrote down the number of leaves in each of the piles (5) “I believe we need to determine the size of the area we just observed, ” John said. A. Recording data B. Measuring C. Inferring D. Observing E. Classifying

PAGE 118

107 Questions 6-10 : The story continues. Each of the numbered statements below refers to one of the science process sk ills lettered A, B, C, D, E, for each of the numbered statements, blacken in the letter of correct science process skill ont o the answer sheet. (6) Mary said, “I think that if we move to another part of the forest, we will see the same kinds of leaves on the trees .” (7) We need to insure that all of the c onditions of the first investigation are repeated exactly in the second experiment (8) Mary said she thought they could find out if forests everywhere were similar. All they need to do is write a procedure which controls the variables necessary to determine whether there is support fo r the hypothesis that all forests are the same (9) They went to another part of the fore st, constructed a hypothesis, designed and conducted an investigation to demonstr ate whether or not the hypothesis was acceptable (10) John said, “Let’s write a report so ever yone can learn about the trees in this forest .” A. Experimenting B. Controlling variables C. Predicting D. Communicating E. Designing experiments 11-20: Please choose the best answer a nd “blacken it in” on the answer sheet. 11. A simple machine can be used to A. store energy B. gain work from the operation of a small force C. change the direction of a force. D. increase energy put into it.

PAGE 119

108 12. A drinking glass containing water and ice is placed on a table in a warm room. After a time during which the glass remains untouched, droplets of moisture can be seen on the outside surface of the glass below the water line. The most likely explanation for the appearance of moisture on th e outside of the glass is A. the water has come out through the glass, something like osmosis in plants. B. the ice in the water has c ooled the glass below the dewpoint of the surrounding air. C. the water from inside the glass has move d over the edge of the glass by capillary action. D. transpiration has occurred due to uneven cooling and heating. 13. When you see a brown-eyed pe rson, his/her eye color is caused by A. reflection of light from the iris of the eye. B. refraction of light by the lens of the eye. C. emission of blue light by the iris. D. diffraction of light throu gh the pupil of the eye. 14. A boy some distance up the railroad trac k from a workman holds his ear to the rail and listens to the workman drive spikes. He notes that he hears the sound of each blow twice and correctly decides it is because A. part of the wave is reflected between the rails. B. longitudinal and transverse wa ves have different speeds. C. the speed of sound is greate r in air than in a solid. D. the speed of sound is greater in a solid than in air. 15. Of the following, the ultimate source of all food in a freshwat er pond is/are the A. microscopic green plants. B. minnows, aquatic insects and mollusks. C. large fish. D. bacteria and fungi. 16. Water (150 g.) at 80 degrees Celsius is added to 150 g. of water at 20 degrees Celsius resulting in a beaker containi ng 300 g. of water. The best predicted temperature of the 300 g. of water would be A. 100 degrees Celsius. B. 60 degrees Celsius. C. 50 degrees Celsius. D. 40 degrees Celsius.

PAGE 120

109 17. Air expired from huma n lungs usually contains A. approximately the same amount of nitr ogen as is present in inhaled air. B. practically no oxygen. C. less carbon dioxide than is present in inhaled air. D. less water vapor than is present in inhaled air. 18. During the summer (approximately June 21 to September 21) in Pennsylvania, the noon shadow of a flagpole in a schoolyard will A. be shortest half way through the summer period. B. be longest half way through the summer period. C. lengthen as the summer goes on. D. shorten as the summer goes on. 19. An acidic substance can be distinguish ed from a basic substance by bringing the substance into contact with A. filter paper. B. vinegar. C. iodine D. litmus paper. 20. Which of the following has the largest mass? A. 1 kg of feathers. B. 1 lb. of feathers. C. 1 lb. of gold. D. 100 g. of gold. 21. Which of the following is an example of a chemical change? A. Rust on a bike. B. An Alka-Seltzer tablet in H2O. C. Fermentation of fruit juice. D. All of the above. 22. A student is given a graduated cylinder c ontaining 200 ml. of water. The student is also given a 4-cm3 sphere of aluminum and an equal size sphere of lead. The student gently lowers the aluminum sphere into the flask and observes the water level to be 204 ml. How much additional rise will occur in the water level when the lead sphere is lowered into the cylinder? A. 4 ml. B. 6 ml. C. 8 ml. D. 16 ml.

PAGE 121

110 23. Which of the following best describes an inquiry or discovery investigation? A. The teacher discusses the results that s hould be obtained by performing a certain investigation. B. The teacher describes the step-by-step procedure that should be followed in performing an investigation. C. The student performing the experiment does not know the outcome of the investigation until it is completed. D. The student used the library to determ ine results by others who performed the same investigation. 24. A child is given a closed show box containing an unknown object. He/She is directed to manipulate the box, using their sens es to acquire some information about the object. They are further instructed to try to draw a picture of what they think the object is. This lesson is best designed to develop skill in A. measuring and observing. B. observing and data collecting. C. observing and inferring. D. data collecting and measuring. 25. Which of the following diagrams show th e expected path of light rays passing from air into and through a convex (glass) lens?

PAGE 122

111 APPENDIX C EVALUATION OF INSERVICE ACTIVITY Component Number: ____________ In structor of Activity: _________________ Component Title: __________________________________ Date: __________ DIRECTION: The information requested on this form is used to evaluate the effectiveness of this inservice activity and is required as supportive data for future implementation of this component. If the an swers provided do not reflect your opinion, or if you wish to add response, use the space provided for comments. 1. Were the objectives stated? Yes_____ No_____ Comments: ____________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 2. Is the length of this component ad equate for completion of the objectives? Yes_____ No_____ Comments: ____________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 3. Were the materials used a ppropriate for the objectives? Yes_____ No_____ Comments: ____________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 4. Did the consultant(s) and/or instructor(s) exhibit in-dep th knowledge of the subject matter covered during this component? Yes_____ No_____ Comments: ____________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________

PAGE 123

112 5. Was the method of in struction effective? Yes_____ No_____ Comments: ____________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 6. Was the component, as presented, applicab le to your area of in struction and/or your special interest? Yes_____ No_____ Comments: ____________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

PAGE 124

113 APPENDIX D SCHEDULE/OUTLINE OF PROFESSI ONAL DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOPS Week 1: Workshop #1 Pretests : Science Attitude Scale & PIES Science Content Knowledge Test Activity 1 Pre-structuring : Discussion, providing background knowledge and activity directions. Activity 1 : Kinematics: The Study of Moti on Without Regard for Mass or Force. Sunshine State Standards : Strand C: Force and Motion Standard 1 : The student understands t hat types of motion may be described, measured, and predicted. Benchmark SC.C.1.2.1 : The student understands that the motion of an object can be described and measured. Strand H: The Nature of Science Standard 1 : The student uses the scientific processes and habits of mind to solve problems. Benchmark SC.H.1.2.1 : The student knows that it is important to keep accurate records and descriptions to provide information and clues on causes of discrepancies in repeated experiments. Benchmark SC.H.1.2.2 : The student knows that a su ccessful method to explore the natural world is to observe and reco rd, and then analyze and communicate the results. Benchmark SC.H.1.2.3 : The student knows that to wo rk collaboratively, all team members should be free to reach, explai n, and justify their own individual conclusions.

PAGE 125

114 Standard 2 : The student understands that most natu ral events occur in comprehensible, consistent patterns. Benchmark SC.H.2.2.1 : The student knows that na tural events are often predictable and logical. Benchmark SC.H.3.2.2 : The student knows that data are collected and interpreted in order to expl ain an event or concept. Activity 2 Pre-structuring : Discussion, providing background knowledge and activity directions. Activity 2 : Acceleration: The Act of Changing Velocity. Sunshine State Standards : Strand C: Force and Motion Standard 1 : The student understands t hat types of motion may be described, measured, and predicted. Benchmark SC.C.1.2.1 : The student understands that the motion of an object can be described and measured. Standard 2 : The student understands that the types of force that act on an object and the effect of that force can be described, measured, and predicted. Benchmark SC.C.2.2.2 : The student knows that an object may move in a straight line at a constant speed, sp eed up, slow down, or change direction dependent on net force acting on the object. Benchmark SC.C.2.2.4 : The student knows that the motion of an object is determined by the overall effect of all of the forces acting on the object. Strand H: The Nature of Science Standard 1 : The student uses the scientific processes and habits of mind to solve problems. Benchmark SC.H.1.2.1 : The student knows that it is important to keep accurate records and descriptions to provide information and clues on causes of discrepancies in repeated experiments.

PAGE 126

115 Benchmark SC.H.1.2.2 : The student knows that a su ccessful method to explore the natural world is to observe and reco rd, and then analyze and communicate the results. Benchmark SC.H.1.2.3 : The student knows that to wo rk collaboratively, all team members should be free to reach, explai n, and justify their own individual conclusions Benchmark SC.H.1.2.4 : The student knows that to compare and contrast observations and results is an essential skill in science. Standard 2 : The student understands that most natu ral events occur in comprehensible, consistent patterns. Benchmark SC.H.2.2.1 : The student knows that na tural events are often predictable and logical. Wrap-up (Post-discussion of activities) : Themes of discussion: Sunshine State Standards and in tegrating them into lessons Teacher content knowledge and knowledge of pedagogy Instructional Strategies (modeled and discussed: inquiry-based) The Nature of Science Developing a Community of Practice Homework : Reflect upon today’s activities: Ho w could these activities/topics be implemented into the elementary classroom. Week 2: Workshop #2 Discussion : The implementation of week 1 activ ities in the elementary classroom (homework). Activity 1 Pre-structuring : Discussion, providing background knowledge and activity directions. Activity 1 : Mass: The Quantity of Matter Contai ned in an Object (A Measure of Its Inertia). Sunshine State Standards : Strand C: Force and Motion Standard 1 : The student understands t hat types of motion may be described, measured,

PAGE 127

116 and predicted. Benchmark SC.C.1.2.1 : The student understands that the motion of an object can be described and measured. Benchmark SC.C.2.2.2 : The student knows that an object may move in a straight line at a constant speed, sp eed up, slow down, or change direction dependent on net force acting on the object. Standard 2 : The student understands that the types of force that act on an object and the effect of that force can be described, measured, and predicted. Benchmark SC.C.2.2.1 : The student recognizes that forces of gravity, magnetism, and electricity ope rate simple machines. Benchmark SC.C.2.2.2 : The student knows that an object may move in a straight line at a constant speed, sp eed up, slow down, or change direction dependent on net force acting on the object. Benchmark SC.C.2.2.3 : The student knows that the mo re massive an object is, the less effect a given force has. Benchmark SC.C.2.2.4 : The student knows that the motion of an object is determined by the overall effect of all of the forces acting on the object. Strand H: The Nature of Science Standard 1 : The student uses the scientific processes and habits of mind to solve problems. Benchmark SC.H.1.2.2 : The student knows that a su ccessful method to explore the natural world is to observe and reco rd, and then analyze and communicate the results. Benchmark SC.H.1.2.3 : The student knows that to wo rk collaboratively, all team members should be free to reach, explai n, and justify their own individual conclusions. Benchmark S.H.1.2.4 : The student knows that to compare and contrast observations and results is an essential skill in science. Benchmark SC.H.1.2.5 : The student knows that a mode l of something is different from the real thing, but can be used to learn something about the real thing. Standard 2 : The student understands that most natu ral events occur in comprehensible,

PAGE 128

117 consistent patterns. Benchmark SC.H.2.2.1 : The student knows that natural ev ents are often predictable and logical. Activity 2 : Simple Electricity: “Static and Current”. Sunshine State Standards : Strand A: The Nature of Matter Standard 2 : The student understands the basic principles of atomic theory. Benchmark SC.A.2.2.1 : The student knows that materi als may be made of parts too small to be seen without magnification. Strand B: Energy Standard 1 : The student recognizes that energy may be changed in form with varying efficiency. Benchmark SC.B.1.2.2 : The student recognizes various forms of energy (e.g., heat, light, and electricity). Benchmark SC.B.1.2.5 : The student knows that various forms of energy (e.g., mechanical, chemical, electrical, magnetic, nuclear, and radiant) can be measured in ways that make it possible to determine the amount of energy that is transformed. Strand H: The Nature of Science Standard 1 : The student uses the scientific processes and habits of mind to solve problems. Benchmark SC.H.1.2.2 : The student knows that a su ccessful method to explore the natural world is to observe and reco rd, and then analyze and communicate the results. Benchmark SC.H.1.2.3 : The student knows that to work collaboratively, all team members should be free to re ach, explain, and justify their own individual conclusions. Benchmark SC.H.1.2.4 : The student knows that to compare and contrast observations and results is an essential skill in science.

PAGE 129

118 Benchmark SC.H.1.2.5 : The student knows that a mode l of something is different from the real thing, but can be used to learn something about the real thing. Standard 2 : The student understands that most natu ral events occur in comprehensible, consistent patterns. Benchmark SC.H.2.2.1 : The student knows that na tural events are often predictable and logical. Standard 3 : The student understands that science, technology, and society are interwoven and interdependent. Benchmark SC.H.3.2.1 : The student understands th at people, alone or in groups, invent new tools to solve problems and do work that affects aspects of life outside of science. Benchmark SC.H.3.2.2 : The student knows that data are collected and interpreted in order to explai n an event or concept. Wrap-up (Post-discussion of activities) : Themes of discussion: Sunshine State Standards and in tegrating them into lessons Teacher content knowledge and knowledge of pedagogy Instructional Strategies (modeled and discussed: inquiry-based) The Nature of Science Developing a Community of Practice Homework : Reflect upon today’s activities: Ho w could these activities/topics be implemented into the elementary classroom? Week 3: Workshop #3 Discussion : The implementation of week 2 activ ities in the elementary classroom (homework). Activity 1 Pre-structuring : Discussion, providing background knowledge and activity directions. Activity 3 Pre-structuring : Discussion, providing background knowledge and activity directions. Activity 3 : Waves and Wave Properties.

PAGE 130

119 Sunshine State Standards : Strand A: The Nature of Matter Standard 1 : The student understands that all ma tter has observable, measurable properties Benchmark SC.A.1.2.1 : The student determines that the properties of materials (e.g., density and volume) can be compar ed and measured (e.g., using rulers, balances, and thermometers). Strand B: Energy Standard 1 : The student recognizes that energy may be changed in form with varying efficiency. Benchmark SC.B.1.2.2 : The student recognizes various forms of energy (e.g., heat, light, and electricity). Benchmark SC.B.1.2.5 : The student knows that various forms of energy (e.g., mechanical, chemical, electrical, magnetic, nuclear, and radiant) can be measured in ways that make it possible to determine the amount of energy that is transformed. Standard 2 : The student understands the inte raction of matter and energy. Strand C: Force and Motion Standard 1 : The student understands that types of motion may be described, measured, and predicted. Benchmark SC.C.1.2.1 : The student understands that the motion of an object can be described and measured. Benchmark SC.C.1.2.2 : The student knows that waves travel at different speeds through different materials. Strand H: The Nature of Science Standard 1 : The student uses the scientific processes and habits of mind to solve problems. Benchmark SC.H.1.2.2 : The student knows that a su ccessful method to explore the natural world is to observe and reco rd, and then analyze and communicate the results.

PAGE 131

120 Benchmark SC.H.1.2.3 : The student knows that to work collaboratively, all team members should be free to re ach, explain, and justify their own individual conclusions. Benchmark SC.H.1.2.4 : The student knows that to compare and contrast observations and results is an essential skill in science. Benchmark SC.H.1.2.5 : The student knows that a mode l of something is different from the real thing, but can be used to learn something about the real thing. Standard 2 : The student understands that most natu ral events occur in comprehensible, consistent patterns. Benchmark SC.H.2.2.1 : The student knows that na tural events are often predictable and logical. Standard 3 : The student understands that science, technology, and society are interwoven and interdependent. Benchmark SC.H.3.2.2 : The student knows that data are collected and interpreted in order to expl ain an event or concept. Activity 2 Pre-structuring : Discussion, providing background knowledge and activity directions. Activity 2 : Simple Machines. Sunshine State Standards : Strand B: Energy Standard 1 : The student recognizes that energy may be changed in form with varying efficiency. Benchmark SC.B.1.2.2 : The student recognizes various forms of energy (e.g., heat, light, and electricity). Benchmark SC.B.1.2.5 : The student knows that various forms of energy (e.g., mechanical, chemical, electrical, magnetic, nuclear, and radiant) can be measured in ways that make it possible to determine the amount of energy that is transformed. Strand C: Force and Motion Standard 1 : The student understands t hat types of motion may be described, measured,

PAGE 132

121 and predicted. Benchmark SC.C.1.2.1 : The student understands that the motion of an object can be described and measured. Standard 2 : The student understands that the types of force that act on an object and the effect of that force can be described, measured, and predicted. Benchmark SC.C.2.2.1 : The student recognizes that forces of gravity, magnetism, and electricity ope rate simple machines. Benchmark SC.C.2.2.2 : The student knows that an object may move in a straight line at a constant speed, sp eed up, slow down, or change direction dependent on net force acting on the object. Benchmark SC.C.2.2.3 : The student knows that the mo re massive an object is, the less effect a given force has. Benchmark SC.C.2.2.4 : The student knows that the motion of an object is determined by the overall effect of all of the forces acting on the object. Strand H: The Nature of Science Standard 1 : The student uses the scientific processes and habits of mind to solve problems. Benchmark SC.H.1.2.2 : The student knows that a su ccessful method to explore the natural world is to observe and reco rd, and then analyze and communicate the results. Benchmark SC.H.1.2.3 : The student knows that to work collaboratively, all team members should be free to re ach, explain, and justify their own individual conclusions. Benchmark SC.H.1.2.4 : The student knows that to compare and contrast observations and results is an essential skill in science. Standard 2 : The student understands that mo st natural events occur in comprehensible, consistent patterns. Benchmark SC.H.2.2.1 : The student knows that na tural events are often predictable and logical.

PAGE 133

122 Activity 3 Pre-structuring : Discussion, providing background knowledge and activity directions. Wrap-up (Post-discussion of activities) : Themes of discussion: Sunshine State Standards and in tegrating them into lessons Teacher content knowledge and knowledge of pedagogy Instructional Strategies (modeled and discussed: inquiry-based) The Nature of Science Developing a Community of Practice Posttests : Science Attitude Scale & PIES Science Content Knowledge Test

PAGE 134

123 APPENDIX E PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOP ACTIVITIES Activity 1: Kinematics: The Study of Motion Without Regard for Mass or Force. Can you define the word “motion” without using some form of the word "move"? How can you measure a runner's speed? Does running twice as far take twice as much time? We will measure off a track by placing marks at 0-, 5-, 10-, 15-, and 20-m. We will place a participant, with a stopw atch, at the 5-, 10-, 15-, and 10-m marks. A runner will be asked to tr averse the assigned course. A starter will give a starting si gnal, such as, "Ready, Set, Go!" All watches should be started on the "G o" signal and each successive watch stopped as the runner passes the timer’s position. Produce a table to record the times it takes the runner to reach each mark. Calculate the time taken to run each 5-m in terval and record this in your table. (This is called the “split time”). Use the equation t = t2 t1. the symbol " means "the change in." Of course, "t" means time. Calculate the average speed during each 5m interval. Use the equation: Average speed = Distance traveled/Time taken. Record the average speed during e ach 5-m interval in your table. **The material for this activity was taken from "It's About Time,” "Ac tive Physics,” "Sports."

PAGE 135

124 Activity 2: Acceleration: The Act of Changing Velocity In this activity you will build and use an acce lerometer. There are many different types of accelerometer, however, the one you will make today is called an "Inertial Accelerometer." To build the accelerometer, begin by hot gl uing a short piece of thread (about 15 cm.) to the inside of the cap from a 1/2 li ter water bottle. To the other end of the thread attach a small fishing cork. Fill the bottle with water and carefully insert the cork and thread into th e bottle, screw on the top and invert the bottle. The cork should float freely at the end of the string. You now have an accelerometer. Take the accelerometer for a walk. Observ e any movement of the cork, especially as you start from a resting position and speed up (accelerate). Walk at a fairly constant speed, and then slow down to a stoop (decelerate). Try it a few times-starting, walking, and stopping at normal rates. Repeat the above walk and observe what happens if you start faster, if you walk faster at a constant speed and if you stop faster. Repeat the walk above, but walk backward. Using your observations from your "walks," describe the amount and the direction the cork leans in each of the following situations: 1. standing at rest 2. low acceleration while walking forward 3. high acceleration while walking forward 4. low constant speed while walking forward 5. high constant speed while walking forward 6. high deceleration (slowing down) while walking forward 7. low deceleration while walking forward 8. rotating slowly at a constant speed 9. rotating quickly at a constant speed What do you see as the cause of the accelera tion? What relationship do you observe between the cause a nd the acceleration? The relationship between acceleration, sp eed, and time can be written as: Acceleration = Change in sp eed/Time interval or a = v/ t **The material for this activity was taken from "It's About Time,” "Ac tive Physics,” "Sports."

PAGE 136

125 Activity 3: Mass: The Quantity of Matter Contained In An Object. (A Measure of Its Inertia) Weight: A Force Produced On An Objects Mass Due to Gravity. Gravity: The Attractions Between Masses. If an object has a mass of 1 kg on Earth, what would be its mass on the moon? If a 1 kg object weighs about 10 Newtons on Earth, what would be its weight on the moon? We have prepared a number of plastic bottles labeled "1 kg Earth," and "1 kg Moon." To keep the simulation accurate and re alistic, follow the rules below: Leave the bottles lying on th eir sides on the table; do not stand the bottles upright. You may move the bottles only by rolli ng them; do not lift the bottles. Using the bottle labeled "1 kg Ea rth" roll the bottle back and forth with a partner across the table. Do this until you and your partner have the "feel" of the pushing force needed to accelerate and decelerate the "1 kg Earth" bottle. Now change to the bottle marked "1 kg Moon" and do the same task. Based on your observations, how does the amount of force needed to accelerate a 1-kg mass on Earth compare to the amount of force needed to accelerate a 1-kg object by the same amount on the moon? Is the amount of force needed to produce equal accelerations significan tly different or about the same? Keeping in mind Newton's Second Law, F= ma, if equal forces applied to two objects produce equal accelerat ions of the objects, what else must be equal about the objects? Grasp the string attached to the bottle labeled "1 kg Earth" and lift th e bottle vertically. Get the "feel" of the downward gravitationa l pull of the Earth on the bottle and then carefully lower it back to the ta ble to rest in a vertical up right position. Attach a spring scale to the bottle and determine its weight in Newtons. Lower the bottle to the table as before. Repeat the same steps for th e bottle marked "1 kg Moon."

PAGE 137

126 Divide the weight of the Eart h bottle by the weight of the m oon bottle. What is the ratio as an integer? Why do you think the weights of equal masse s, one on the Earth and one on the moon, are different? To satisfy the two simulations, it may have been necessary to "fake" some of the bottles. Which bottles, if any, do you think were faked? Why and how? **The material for this activity was taken from "It's About Time,” "Ac tive Physics,” "Sports."

PAGE 138

127 Activity 4: Simple Electricity: "Static and Current" Most people assume electrons to be safely c ontained within the atom, however, infinite numbers of them are freely and happily liv ing on the surface of everything you see or touch. How do we know? Have you ever walked acro ss a carpet, touched a metal object or another person and felt a shock? If so, you experienced the movement of free electrons in what is known as "static discharge." Stat ic discharge can occur in small or very large amounts (lightning). As far as pr actical usage of stat ic electricity as a form of energy is concerned the outlook is doubtful. The discha rge rate is too fast and collection and storage are prohibitive. Current electricity, on the other hand, is qui te practical. The simplest way to study current electricity is through ba tteries and simple circuitry. Let's Build a Simple Battery. A battery is a very simple device. All that is needed are two dissimilar metals. Some metals have a tendency to take on electrons, while others tend to release them. This tendency is defined by the electr o-negativity of the metal. Metals, such as zinc, have a decided tendency to release electrons. Ot her metals, like copper, tend to collect or receive electrons, As a result, electrons would pass from the zi nc to the copper, giving the zinc a positive charge and the copper a negative charge. A battery is born. When bringing the two metals into contact will "do the trick,” the efficiency of the system would be very low. We much make sure to increase the su rface contact area in some way. The easiest way is to introdu ce a liquid solution, which is conductive, between the metals in question. An acid or al kaline solution is what is needed. Fruit or root vegetables will do a great job of supplyi ng the required liquids. To build a lemon cell, simply insert a piece of heavy gauge copper wire (#12 or larger) into one end of the fruit and an iron nail into the other. The lemon cell should produce voltage at this point. Using a voltmeter, test your cell to determine its output. Let’s try this with a variety of fruits a nd vegetables. Build a battery with each fruit at your station and measure its vo ltage. Record your group’s values on the chart at the front of the room. Putting your cells in series should increase the voltage. Try it and see if it works.

PAGE 139

128 Activity 5: Waves and Wave Properties We will be using a slinky to help us si mulate two different types of waves. Stretch your slinky out on a flat surface, such that the ends are about two meters apart. Mark the ends of the slinky on the surface with tape. Using your hand, snap the slinky side ways about 20-cm. This will send a pulse from your hand to your partner's hand. In which direction does the slinky move as the pulse moves along the slinky? Describe this motion in your own words. Next, pull back 10 to 15 loops of the s linky, release these loops. Describe the motion of the slinky as the new pulse moves along the slinky. How is this movement different? Compare the movement of the two pulses. Using a continuous side-to-side motion, se t up a consecutive series of pulses in your slinky. Describe the appearance of th ese forms. Does your wave form look like this? Let's identify the parts of this wave form:

PAGE 140

129 Quickly move your hand back and forth to set up a series of pulses in the slinky. Does your wave form look like this? Let's name the parts of this wave form: (see above) Are there any similarities in the forms? How are they different? The speed you repeat pulses is called the “frequency.” The distance between crests is called “wavelength”. If you multiply the frequency by the wavelength, you will determine the velocity of the wa ve as it moves through the slinky. Moving your hand back and forth sets up cres ts and troughs in the wave. Count the number of times you make a complete back and forth motion in one minute (60 seconds), divide the number of repetiti ons by 60 seconds to calculate the frequency. Have one of your partners measure the distance from crest to crest in your waveform. Now multiply. You will now know the speed you are transf erring energy from your hand to your partner's hand. The same can be done for the other type of wave you created. The first wave type is called a “Trans verse Wave”, the second is called a “Longitudinal Wave.”

PAGE 141

130 Activity 6: Simple Machines There are two types of simple machines, th e passive (inclined pl ane) and the active (lever). The inclined plane does its job by di viding forces, due to its shape. See below: How simple can you get? The angle of the plane controls the division of forces. The lever, on the other hand, is a machine w ith motion. The lever is divided into three parts: the fulcrum or pivot point, the effort arm (the pa rt your push or pull), and the resistance or load arm (the part that lifts your load). See below: Using a meter stick and a round glue stick, build a lever with a fulcrum at 35 cm. Place a lump of clay (or reasonable size) on the short end of your meter stick.

PAGE 142

131 Attempt to balance the lever system by using clay on the other end. Try to balance the system as best you can. Using a Digital balance, determine th e weights of your two clay "wads." Multiply the weight on the short end (we will call this the load) by the distance from the end of the meter stick to the fu lcrum (35 cm). Multiply the weight on the other end (we will call this the “effort”) by the distance from the long end of the fulcrum (65 cm). Compare the two products. Are they equal? You have just calculated the clockwise a nd counterclockwise torques (or moments) for your lever system. What can you say about th e clockwise and counterclockwise torques of a balanced lever system? FR x dR = FE x dE is called the law of Torques and it controls all lever systems. 1st, 2nd, and 3rd class. See below:

PAGE 143

132 APPENDIX F WORKSHOP DETAILS Traditional Workshop: Day 1 a. Introduction b. Pretest Data Collection PIES Science Knowledge Test Science Attitude Scale for Inservice Teachers II Demographic Information Sheet c. Introductory Discussion : Issues in the Elementary Science Classroom, conducted verbally d. Activity 1 Pre-structuring : Introduction to Workshop Packet PowerPoint presentation providing background knowledge for lesson, accessed via Workshop Packet containing PowerPoint document PowerPoint presentation of activity directions e. Break into Groups of 4 f. Access Activity 1 : Kinematics, via Workshop Packet containing Word documents g. Run Activity 1 : Kinematics h. Activity 2 Pre-structuring : PowerPoint presentation providing background knowledge for lesson accessed via Workshop Packet containing PowerPoint documents PowerPoint presentation of activity directions i. Break into Different Groups of 4 j. Access Activity 2 : Acceleration, via Workshop Packet containing Word documents k. Run Activity 2: Acceleration l. Closing discussion : conducted verbally Instructional strategies Sunshine State Standards m. Distribute Homework: Review of lessons conducted via handout Hypermedia Workshop: Day 1 a. Introduction b. Pretest Data Collection PIES Science Knowledge Test Science Attitude Scale for Inservice Teachers II Demographic Information Sheet c. Introductory Discussion : Issues in the Elementary Science Classroom, conducted verbally d. Activity 1 Pre-structuring : Introduction to ELLIPS PowerPoint presentation providing background knowledge for lesson, accessed via Teacher Content Resources feature of ELLIPS PowerPoint presentation of activity directions e. Break into Groups of 4 f. Access Activity 1 : Kinematics, via Lesson Search feature of ELLIPS g. Run Activity 1 : Kinematics h. Activity 2 Pre-structuring : PowerPoint presentation providing background knowledge for lesson, accessed via Teacher Content Resources feature of ELLIPS PowerPoint presentation of activity directions i. Break into Different Groups of 4 j. Access Activity 2 : Acceleration, via Workshop Packet containing Word documents k. Run Activity 2: Acceleration l. Closing discussion : conducted verbally Instructional strategies Sunshine State Standards m. Distribute Homework: Review of lessons conducted via Lesson Review feature of ELLIPS (1 minute).

PAGE 144

133 Traditional Workshop: Day 2 a. Introduction b. Introductory Discussion : Implementing Day 1 Activities in the elementary classroom, conducted verbally c. Activity 3 Pre-structuring : PowerPoint presentation providing background knowledge for lesson, accessed via Workshop Packet containing PowerPoint documents PowerPoint presentation of activity directions d. Break into Groups of 4 e. Access Activity 3 : Mass, Weight, and Gravity, via Workshop Packet containing Word documents f. Run Activity 3 : Mass, Weight, and Gravity g. Activity 4 Pre-structuring : PowerPoint presentation providing background knowledge for lesson, accessed via Workshop Packet containing PowerPoint documents PowerPoint presentation of activity directions h. Break into Different Groups of 4 i. Access Activity 4 : Simple Electricity: “Static and Current,” via Workshop Packet containing Word documents j. Run Activity 4 : Simple Electricity: “Static and Current” k. Review of lessons conducted via handout l. Closing discussion : conducted verbally Sunshine State Standards in the elementary science classroom Instructional strategies The Nature of Science Hypermedia Workshop: Day 2 a. Introduction b. Introductory Discussion : Implementing Day 1 Activities in the elementary classroom, conducted verbally c. Activity 3 Pre-structuring : PowerPoint presentation providing background knowledge for lesson, accessed via Teacher Content Resources feature of ELLIPS PowerPoint presentation of activity directions d. Break into Groups of 4 e. Access Activity 3 : Mass, Weight, and Gravity, via Lesson Search feature of ELLIPS f. Run Activity 3 : Mass, Weight, and Gravity g. Activity 4 Pre-structuring : PowerPoint presentation providing background knowledge for lesson, accessed via teacher Content Resources feature of the ELLIPS PowerPoint presentation of activity directions h. Break into Different Groups of 4 i. Access Activity 4 : Simple Electricity: “Static and Current,” via Lesson Search feature of ELLIPS j. Run Activity 4 : Simple Electricity: “Static and Current” k. Review of lessons conducted via Lesson Review feature of ELLIPS tool l. Closing discussion : conducted via ELLIPS Discussion Forum Sunshine State Standards in the elementary science classroom Instructional strategies The Nature of Science

PAGE 145

134 Traditional Workshop: Day 3 a. Introduction b. Activity 5 Pre-structuring : PowerPoint presentation providing background knowledge for lesson, accessed via Workshop Packet containing PowerPoint documents PowerPoint presentation of activity directions c. Break into Groups of 4 d. Access Activity 5 : Waves and Wave Properties, via Workshop Packet containing Word documents e. Run Activity 5 : Waves and Wave Properties f. Activity 6 Pre-structuring : PowerPoint presentation providing background knowledge for lesson, accessed via Workshop Packet containing PowerPoint documents PowerPoint presentation of activity directions g. Break into Different Groups of 4 h. Access Activity 6 : Simple Machines, via Workshop Packet containing Word documents i. Run Activity 6 : Simple Machines j. Lesson Reviews via handout k. Closing discussion : conducted verbally Sunshine State Standards in the elementary science classroom Instructional strategies The Nature of Science l. Posttest Data Collection PIES Science Knowledge Test Science Attitude Scale for Inservice Teachers II Hypermedia Workshop: Day 3 a. Introduction b. Activity 5 Pre-structuring : PowerPoint presentation providing background knowledge for lesson, accessed via Teacher Content Resources section of ELLIPS PowerPoint presentation of activity directions c. Break into Groups of 4 d. Access Activity 5 : Waves and Wave Properties, via Lesson Search feature of E.L.L.I.P.S e. Run Activity 5 : Waves and Wave Properties f. Activity 6 Pre-structuring : PowerPoint presentation providing background knowledge for lesson, accessed via Teacher Content Resources feature of the ELLIPS tool PowerPoint presentation of activity directions g. Break into Different Groups of 4 h. Access Activity 6 : Simple Machines, via Lesson Search feature of ELLIPS i. Run Activity 6 : Simple Machines j. Lesson Reviews, via Lesson Review feature of ELLIPS k. Closing discussion : conducted verbally Sunshine State Standards in the elementary science classroom Instructional strategies The Nature of Science l. Posttest Data Collection PIES Science Knowledge Test Science Attitude Scale for Inservice Teachers II

PAGE 146

135 LIST OF REFERENCES Abell, S. K., & Roth, M. (1991, April). Coping with constraints of teaching elementary science: A case study of a sc ience enthusiast student teacher Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science, Lake Geneva, WI. Abell, S., & Roth, M. (1992). Constraints to teaching elemen tary science: A case study of a science enthusiast student. Science Education 76 (6), 581-595. Abrams, A., & Streit, L. (1986). Effectiveness of the interactive vi deo in teaching basic photography. T.H.E. Journal 14 (2), 92-96. Affleck, J. Q., Madge, S., Adams, A., & Lo wenbraun, S. (1988). In tegrated classroom versus resource model: Academic viability and effectiveness. Exceptional Children 54 339-348. American Association for the A dvancement of Science. (1989). Project 2061: Science for all Americans Washington, DC: AAAS. American Association for the Adva ncement of Science. (1993). Science for All Americans: Project 2061 New York: Oxford University Press. Anderson, R. C. (1984). Some reflect ions on the acquisition of knowledge. Educational Researcher 13 (10), 5-10. Anderson, C. W., & Smith, E. L. (1986). Teaching science East Lansing, MI: Institute of Research on Teaching. Ashton, P. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A motiv ational paradigm for effective teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education 35 (5), 28-32. Astleitner, H., & Leutner, D. (1995). Lear ning strategies for unstructured hypermedia: A framework for theory, research, and practice. Journal of Educational Computing Research 13 (4), 387-400. Atkins, M. J. (1992). Theories of learning and multimedia applications: An overview. Research Papers in Education, 8 (2), 251-271. Ayersman, D. J. (1995). Introduction to hype rmedia as a knowledge representation system. Computers in Human Behavior, 11 (3-4), 529-531.

PAGE 147

136 Ayersman, D. J. (1996). Reviewing the research on hypermedia-based learning. Journal of Research on Computing in Education 28 (4), 500-520. Ayersman, D. J., & Reed, W. M. (1995). The impact of instructional design and hypermedia software type on graduate students’ use of theoretical models. Computers in Human Behavior 11 (3/4), 557-580. Ayersman, D. J., & Reed, W. M. (1998). Re lationships among hypermedia-based mental models and hypermedia knowledge. Journal of Research on Computing in Education 30 (3), 222-240. Baker, E. L., Niemi, D., & Herl, H. ( 1994). Using Hypercard technology to measure understanding. In E. L. Baker & H. F. O'Neil, Jr. (Eds.), Technology assessment in education and training (pp. 133-152). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bandura, A. (1976). Social learning theory New York, NY: Prentice Hall. Barab, S. A., Bowdish, B. E., & Lawless, K. A. (1997). Hypermedia navigation: Profiles of hypermedia users. Educational Technology Research and Development 45 (3), 23-41. Beaufils, A. (2000). Tools and strategies for searching in hypermedia environments, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16, 114-124. Beeman, W. O., Anderson, K. T., Bader, G., La rkin, J., McClard, A. P., McQuillan, P. J., & Shields, M. (1988). Intermedia: A case study of innovation in higher education (Final report to the Annenberg/CPB Project) Providence, RI: Brown University, Office of Program Analysis, Institute for Research in Information and Scholarship. Berman, P., McLaughlin, M. W., Bass, G., Pauly, E., & Zellman, G. (1977). Federal programs supporting educational change. Vol. VII: Factors affecting implementation and continuation Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation. Bhaumik, A., Dixit, D., Glanares, R., Krishna A., Tzagarakis, M., Vaitis, M., et al. (2001). Towards hypermedia support for database systems. In J.F. Nunamaker (Eds.). Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference of Systems Sciences (Maui, HI, January 3-6, 2001). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Press, Bialo, E., & Sivin-Kachala, J. (1996). The effectiveness of t echnology in schools: A summary of recent research Washington, DC: Software Publishers Association. Bogut, T. L., & McFarland, L. (1975). The effects of instruction on elementary teachers’ realistic and idealistic attitudes toward selected science related concepts Washington, DC: (ERIC Document No. ED 106125). U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Nati onal Institute of Education. Borg, W. R., & Gall, M. D. (1989). Educational research: An introduction (5th ed.). New York: Longman.

PAGE 148

137 Brown J., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher 18 32-42. Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review 31 (1), 21-32. Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press. Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Burton, J. K., Moore, D. M., & Holmes, G. A. (1995). Hypermedia concepts and research: An overview. Computers in Human Behavior 11 (3/4), 345-369. Bush, V. (1945). As we may think. Atlantic Monthly 176 (1), 101-108. Bybee, R. W. (1993). Reforming science education: Social perspectives and personal reflections New York: Teachers College Press. Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Carroll, J. M. (1990). The Nurnberg funnel: Designi ng minimalist instructions for practical computer skills Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral science (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Cohen, A. R. (1964). Attitude change and social influence. New York: Basic Books, Inc. Collier, G. H. (1987). Thoth-II: Hy pertext with explicit semantics. Proceeding of the ACM conference on Hypertext (pp.269-289). New York: ACM Press. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and ma thematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Conklin, J. (1987). Hypertext: An introduction and survey. Computer 20 (9), 17-41. Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation Boston: HoughtonMifflin. Czerniak, C., & Schriver, M. (1994). An ex amination of preservice science teachers’ beliefs and behaviors as related to self-efficacy. Journal of Science Teacher Education 5 (3), 77-86. Danielson, C. (1996). Enhancing professional practices : A framework for teaching Arlington, VA: Association for Superv ision and Curriculum Development.

PAGE 149

138 Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives 8 (1). Retrieved May 14, 2004, from http://olam.ed.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1/ Darling-Hammond, L., & Ball, D. L. (1998). Teaching for high standards: What policymakers need to know and be able to do Philadelphia: The Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) (ERIC Document No. ED426491) DeTure, C., Gregory, H., & Ramsey, S. (1990, April). The science of preparation of elementary teachers Paper presented at the an nual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Atlanta, GA. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education New York: Collier Books. Dillon, A., & Gabbard, R. (1998). Hypermedia as an educational technology: A review of the quantitative research lit erature on learner comprehens ion, control, and style. Review of Educational Research 68 (3), 322-349. Duffy, T. M., & Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Constructivism: New implications for instructional technology? Educational Technology, 31 (5), 7-12. Duval County Public Schools Rese arch and Evaluation. (2004a). District performance Retrieved April 23, 2004, from the D uval County Public Schools Web site: http://www.educationcentral.org/reseval/Default1.asp Duval County Public Schools Rese arch and Evaluation. (2004b). Individual school performance Retrieved April 23, 2004, from the Duval County Public Schools Web site: http://www.educationcentr al.org/reseval/Schools/Schools.asp Ely, D. (1990). Conditions that facilitate th e implementation of educational technology innovations. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 23 (2), 298-305. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson, & Evanston. Franz, J. R., & Enochs, L. G. (1982). Elem entary school science: State certification requirements in science and their implications. Science Education, 66 287-292. Fraser, B. J., & Walberg, R. J. (1995). Improving science education Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Fullan, M., & Stiegelbauer, S. (1991). The new meaning of educational change New York: OISE/Teachers College Press. Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research: An introduction (6th ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.

PAGE 150

139 Gardarin, G., & Yoon, S. (1995). Filte ring hypermedia network by using view mechanism. Proceedings of the ACM Workshop on Effective Abstractions in Multimedia San Francisco, CA: Retrieved on November 27, 2003, from http://www.cs.tufts.edu/~isabel/yoon/yoon.html Ginns, I. S., & Watters, J. J. (1998, April 19-22). Beginning elementary teachers and the effective teaching of science Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science, San Diego, CA. Grabowski, B. L., & Small, R. V. (1997) Information, instruc tion, and learning: A hypermedia perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly 10 (1), 156-166. Halasz, F. G. (1988). Reflections on notecards: Seven issues for the next generation of hypermedia systems. Communications of the ACM 31 (7), 836-852. Hall, G. E., (1974). The concerns-based adoption model: A developmental conceptualization of th e adoption process within educational institutions Research and Development Center for Teacher Edu cation, Austin: University of Texas. Hanushek, E. A. (1992). The trade-off between child quantity and quality. Journal of Political Economy 100 (1), 84-117. Hardiman, B., & Williams, R. (1990). Teach ing developmental mathematics: The interactive video approach. T.H.E. Journal 17 (8), 154-159. Harlen, W., & Holroyd, C. (1997). Primary teachers understanding of concepts in science impact on confidence and teaching. International Jour nal of Science Education 19 (1), 93-105. Hassard, J. (1992). Minds on science New York: Harper Collins. Hays, W. L. (1994). Statistics (5th ed.) Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt-Brace. Hede, A. (2002). An integrated mode l of multimedia effects on learning Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia 11 (2), 177-199. Helgeson, S. L., Blosser, P. E., & Howe, R. W. (1977). The status of pre-college science, mathematics, and social science educa tion: 1955-1975. Volume 1: Science education Columbus, OH: Ohio State University. Henson, K. T. (1987). Strategies for overc oming barriers to educational change. NASSP Bulletin 71 (479), 125-127. Higgins, K., & Boone, R. (1990). Hypertext co mputer study guides and the social studies achievement of students with learning disa bilities, remedial students, and regular education students. Journal of Learning Disabilities 23(9), 529-540.

PAGE 151

140 Hilliard, A. (1997). The structure of valid staff development. Journal of Staff Development. 18 (2), 28-34. Hinkle, D., Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. (1994). Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. Hone, E. (1970). Science scarecrows. School Science and Mathematics 70 (4), 322-326. Hughes, J. E., Packard, B. W., & Pearson, P. D. (1997). Reading classroom explorer: Visiting classrooms via hypermedia. 46th Annual National Reading Conference Yearbook Chicago: National Reading Conference. Hurd, P. D. (1982). Scientific enlig htenment for an age of science. The Science Teacher 37 (1), 13-15. International Assessment of Educational Progress. (1992). Learning science (Report No. 22-CAEP-02) Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. International Association for the Evaluation of Achievement. (1988). Science achievement in seventeen countries: A preliminary report. Oxford, UK: Pergamon. Jacobson, M. J., Maouri, C., Mishra, P., & Kolar, C. (1996). Learning with hypertext learning environments: Theo ry, design and research. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia 5 (3/4), 239-281. Jacobson, M. J., & Spiro, R. J. (1995). Hypertext learning environments, cognitive flexibility, and the transfer of comple x knowledge: An empirical investigation. Journal of Educational Computing Research 12 (4), 301-333. Janda, K. (1992). Multimedia in political sc ience: Sobering lessons from a teaching experiment. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia 1 (3), 341-354. Jesky-Smith, R. (2002). Me, teach science? Science and Children 39 (6), 26-30. Jonassen, D. H. (1988). Designing structured hypertext and structuring access to hypertext. Educational Technology, 28 (11), 13-16. Jonassen, D. H. (1989). Hypertext/Hypermedia Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications. Jonassen, D. H. (1993). Effects of semantica lly structured hypertext knowledge bases on users’ knowledge structures. In C. McKn ight, A. Dillon, & J. Richardson (Eds.), Hypertext: A psychol ogical perspective (pp. 153-168). Chichester, UK: Ellis Horwood Limited. Jonassen, D. H. (1996). Computers in the classroom: Mindtools for critical thinking Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

PAGE 152

141 Jonassen, D. H. (1999). Designing constructiv ist learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth (ed.) Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory, Vol. II. (pp. 215-239). Mahw ah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Computers as mindtools for schools: Engaging critical thinking (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill. Jonassen, D. H., & Wang, S. (1993). Acquiring structural kn owledge from semantically structured hypertext. Journal of Computer -Based Instruction 20 (1), 1-8. Jung, C. G. (1978). Psychology and the east Princeton, NJ: Prince ton University Press. Kahle, J. B. (2000). Teacher professional d evelopment: Does it make a difference in student learning ? Draft testimony for U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science. Keeves, J. P. (Ed.). (1992). The IEA study of sciences III: Changes in science education and achievement: 1970-1984 Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press. Keeves, J. P. (1995). Cross-national comparisons of outcomes in science education. In B. J. Fraser & R. J. Walberg (Eds.), Improving science education (pp. 211-233). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kennedy, G. (1973). The effect of proce ss approach instruction upon changing preservice elementary teachers’ attitudes toward science. School Science and Mathematics 73 (7), 569-574. Klein, S., Hamilton, L., McCaffrey, D., St echer, B., Robyn, A., & Burroughs, D. (1999, May). Teaching practices and student achievem ent: Report of first-year findings from the "Mosaic" study of systemic initiatives in math ematics and science Los Angeles: Rand Corporation. Knowles, M. S. (1970). The modern practice of adult education: Andragogy vs. pedagogy. New York: Associated Press. Knuth, R. A., Jones, B. F., & Baxendale S. (1991). What does research say about science? Retrieved October 15, 2003, from NCREL, EDUTECH web site: http://agora.unige.ch/tecfa/ edutech/welcome_frame.html Koballa, T. R., & Crawley, F. E. (1985). The influence of attitude on science teaching and learning. School Science and Mathematics 85 (3), 222-231. Koehler, M. J. (2002). Designing case-based hypermedia for devel oping understanding of children’s mathematical reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 20 (2), 151-195. Kumar, D., & Sherwood, R. (1997). Hyperm edia in science and mathematics: Applications in teacher education. Journal of Educational Computing Research 17 (3), 249-262.

PAGE 153

142 Landow, G. (1992). Hypertext: Th e convergence of contempora ry critical theory and technology. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Lee, Y. B., & Lehman, J. D. (1993). Instru ctional cuing in hype rmedia: A study with active and passive learners. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia 2 (1), 25-37. Lehrer, R. (1993). Authors of knowledge: Patter ns of hypermedia design. In S. P. Lajoie, & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Computers as cognitive tools (pp. 197-227). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Linn, M. C., & Hsi, S. (2000). Computer, teachers, peers: Science learning partners Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Loucks-Horsley, S. (1996). Reforming professional development Paper presented at the NSTA Workshops. Loucks-Horsley, S., Kaptian, R., Carlson, M. O ., Kuerbis, P. J., Clark, R. S., Nelle, M. G., et al. (1990). Elementary school science for the 90’s. Andover, MA: The National Center for Improving Science Education. Lyddon, W. J. (1995). Forms and f acets of constructivist psychology. In R. A. Neimeyer & M. J. Mahoney (Eds.), Constructivism in psychotherapy (pp. 69-92) Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Manning, P., Elser, W., & Baird, J. R. (1982). How much elementary science is really being taught? Science and Children 19 (8): 40-41. Marchionini, G. (1988, November). Hypermedia and learning: Freedom and chaos. Educational Technology, 28 (11), 8-12. Marchionini, G., & Crane, G. (1994). Eval uating hypermedia and learning: Methods and results from the Perseus Project. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 12 (1), 5-34. McGuire, E. G. (1996). Knowledge repres entation and construction in hypermedia environments. Telematics and Informatics, 13 (4), 251-260. McGuire, W. J. (1969). The nature of attitude s and attitude change. In G. Lindzey & E. Arondson (Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 3. (pp. 136-314) Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. McIsaac, M. S., & Gunawardena, C. N. ( 1996). Distance Education. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.) Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan. Mechling, K., Stedman, C., & Donnellson, K. (1982). Preparing and certifying science teachers. Science and Children 20 (2), 9-14.

PAGE 154

143 Mitchner, C. P. & Anderson, R. D. (1989). Teacher's perspective: Developing and implementing an STS curriculum. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 26 (4), 351-369. Monk, D. H. (1994). Subject ar ea preparation of secondary mathematics and science teachers and student achievement. Economics of Education Review 13 (2), 125-145. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. 1999. Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91 (2), 358-368. Morgan, S., Reichert, T., & Harrison, T. (2002). From numbers to words: Reporting statistical results for the social sciences Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Mulholland, J., & Wallace, J. (1996). Breaking th e cycle: Preparing elementary teachers to teach science. Journal of Elementary Science Education 8 (1), 17-38. Muttlefehldt, B. (1985). Changing pr iorities in elementary science. Curriculum Review 24 61-69. National Academy on Science. (1995). The national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. National Assessment of Edu cational Progress. (1983). The third assessment of science. Denver, CO: Author. National Center for Education Statistics. ( 2000). Teacher preparation and professional development. Education Statistics Quarterly 3 (3). Retrieved September 25, 2003, from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/quarterly/vol_3/3_3/q3-3.asp National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. National Education Goals Panel. (1991). The national education goals report: Building a nation of learners. Washington, DC: Author. National Research Council, 1996. National science education standards Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Retrieved October 14, 2003, from http://nap.edu/catalog/4962.html National Science Foundation. (1996). Chapter 7: Science and technology: Public attitudes and public understanding. In National Science Foundation, Science, and Engineering Indicators, 1996 (pp. 3-26). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

PAGE 155

144 Nelson, W. A. (1994). Efforts to improve co mputer-based instruction: The role of knowledge representation and knowledge c onstruction in hypermedia systems. In W. M. Reed, J. K. Burton, & M. Liu (Eds.), Multimedia and megachange: New roles for educational computing (pp. 371-400). New York: The Haworth Press. Newman, F., & King, B. (2000). Professiona l development to improve schools. WCER Highlights, 12 (1), 1-7. Nielsen, J. (1995). Multimedia and hypertext: The Internet and beyond London: Academic Press. Olson, L. (1997). Bad news about bad teaching. Education Week 16 (19), 22. Park, O. (1991). Hypermedia: Functiona l features and research issues. Educational Technology 31 (8), 24-31. Phillips, D. C. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism. Educational Researcher 24 (7), 5-12. Phillips, D. C. (1997). How, why, what, when, and where: Perspectives on constructivism in psychology and education. Issues in Education 3 (2), 151-194. Piaget, J. (1970). The science of education and the psychology of the child New York: Grossman. Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1973). Memory and intelligence. New York: Basic Books. Plourde, L. (2002). Elementary science educ ation: The influen ce of student teaching— Where it all begins. Education 123 (2), 253-259. Radford, D. L. (1998). Transferring theory into practice: A model for professional development for science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35 (1), 73-88. Raizen, S. (1998) Increasing educational productiv ity through improving the science curriculum Washington, DC: NCISE. Ramsey-Gassert, L., Shroyer, M. G., & Stav er, J. R. (1996). A qualitative study of factors influencing science teaching self-efficacy of elementary level teachers. Science Education 80 (3), 283-315. Reed, W. M., & Oughton, J. M. (1997). Co mputer experience and interval-based hypermedia navigation. Journal of Research on Computing in Education 30 (1), 38-52.

PAGE 156

145 Richardson, K. (1999). Hyperstruc tures in brain and cognition. Psycoloquy 10 (031). Retrieved March 14, 2004, from ftp://ftp.princeton.edu/pub/harnad/Psycoloquy/1999.volume.10/ psyc.99.10.031.hyperstructure.1.richardson h ttp://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/psycbin/newspy?10.031. Rieber, L. P. (1994). Computers, graphics, and learning Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown Communications, Inc. Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: The Free Press. Rowe, M. B. (1992). Science education, elem entary schools. In M. C. Alkin (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Educational Research, ( 6th ed., pp. 1172-1177). New York: Macmillan. Sanders, W.L. & Rivers, J.C. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student academic achievement Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment Center. Schwerian, P. (1969). Characteri stics of elementary teachers related to attitudes toward science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 6 203-213. Shrigley, R. (1977). The func tion of professional reinforcement in supporting a more positive attitude of elementary teachers toward science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 14 (4), 317-322. Shrigley, R., & Johnson, T. (1974). The attitude of inservice elemen tary teachers toward science. School Science and Mathematics 74 (5), 437-446. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who unders tand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15 (2), 4-14. Shulman, L.S. (1992): Toward a pedagogy of cases. In J.H.Shulman (Ed.), Case methods in teacher education (p. 1-33). New York: Teachers College Press. Shyu, H., & Brown, S. (1995). Learner-control: Th e effects of learning a procedural task during computer based videodisk instruction. International Journal of Instructional Media, 22 (3), 217-231. Smith, L. C. (1987). Artificial intelligence and information retrieval. In M. E. Williams (Ed.), Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (Vol. 22,pp. 41-77). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Smith, P. S., Banilower, E. R., McMahon, K. C., & Weiss, I. R. (2002). The national survey of science and mathematics ed ucation: Trends from 1977 to 2000 Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.

PAGE 157

146 Spencer, K. A. (1991). Modes, media, and methods: The search for educational effectiveness. British Journal of Educational Technology, 22 (1), 12-22. Spiro, R J., Coulson, R. L., Feltovich, P. J., & Anderson, D. K. (1988). Cognitive flexibility theory: Advan ced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains In V. Patel (Ed.), Tenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 375383), Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1991). Cognitive flexibility, constructiv ism, and hypertext. Educational Technology 31 (5), 24-33. Spiro, R., & Jehng, J. (1990). Cognitive flexib ility and hypertext: Th eory and technology for the linear and non-linear multidimensional traversal of complex subject matter. In D. Nix & R. Spiro (Eds.), Cognition, education, and multimedia: Exploring ideas in high technology (pp. 163-205). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Stepans, J., & McCormack, A. (1986, March). A study of scientific conceptions and attitudes toward science of pr ospective elementary teachers Paper presented at NSTA (AETS), San Francisco. Stevens, C., & Wenner, G. (1996). Elementary preservice teachers’ knowledge and beliefs regarding science and mathematics. School Science and Mathematics 96 (1), 2-9. Stolberg, R. (1969). The task be fore us. The education of el ementary school teachers in science. Reprinted by L. I. Kuslan and A. H. Stone in Readings on teaching children science, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Tao, S. (1998). Promotion of transfer of knowledge and skill through hypermediaassisted comprehensive self-study procedures. Global Journal of Engineering Education 2 (1), 87-97. Thompson, A. G. (1992). Teacher’s beliefs and c onceptions: A synthesis of research. In D. A. Grows (ed.) Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 127-146) New York: Macmillan. Tilgner, P. J. (1990). Avoiding sc ience in the elementary school. Science Education 74 (4), 421-431. Tobin, K. (1993). Referents for making sense of science teaching. International Journal of Science Teaching 15 (3), 241-254. Tobin, K., Kahle, J. B., & Fraser, B. J. (Eds.). (1990). Windows into science classrooms: Problems associated with higher-level learning in science London: Falmer Press. Tobin, K., Tippins, D. J., & Gallard, A. J. (1994) Research on instructional strategies for teaching science. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 45-93). New York: Macmillan.

PAGE 158

147 Tosun, T. (2000). The beliefs of preservice elementary teachers toward science and science teaching. School Science and Mathematics 100 (7), 374-379. Tressel, G. W. (1998). A strategy for improv ing science education Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Tuckman, B. W. (1978). Conducting educational research New York: Harcourt-BraceJovanovich. Vaidya, S. R. (1993). Restructuring elemen tary and middle school science for improved teaching and learning. Education 114 (1), 63-70. von Glaserfeld, E. (1987). Learning as a c onstructive activity. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 317 ) Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. von Glaserfeld, E. (1989). Constructivism in education. In T. Husn & T. L. Postlethwaite (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of education (pp. 162-163). Oxford, UK: Pergamon. Vrasidas, C. (2002). Systematic approach for designing hypermedia environments for teaching and learning. International Journal of Instructional Media 29 (1), 13-25. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Wayne, A. J., & Youngs, P. (2003). Teacher characteristics and student achievement Gains: A review. Review of Educational Research 73 (1), 89-122. Weiss, I. R. (1987). Report of the 1985-1986 national surv ey of science and mathematics education Washington, DC: National Science Foundation. Weiss, I. R. (1994). A profile of science and mathematic s education in the United States: 1993 Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research. Weiss, I. R. (1997). Comparing teacher views and classroom practice to national standards. National Institute for Science Education Brief 1 (3), 1-11. Weiss, I. R., Banilower, E. R., Mc Mahon, K. C., & Smith, P. S. (2001). Report of the 2000 national survey of science and mathematics education Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research. Westerback, M. E. (1982). Studies on attitude toward teaching science and anxiety about teaching science in preservice elementary teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19 (7), 603-616. Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical Investigations New York: Macmillan.

PAGE 159

148 Wolff, M. R., Tobin, K., & Ritchie, S. (2001). Re/constructing elementary science New York: Peter Lang Publishing. Yager, R. (1993). The need for reform in science teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education 4 (4), 144-148. Yager, R. E. (1996). Iowa assessment handbook Iowa City, IA: University of Iowa, Science Education Center. Zielinski, E. J., & Smith, B. G. (1990, April). An evaluation of the program to improve elementary science (PIES) Paper presented at the A nnual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Atlanta, GA.

PAGE 160

149 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH C. Richard Hartshorne wa s born on September 21, 1971, in Ulysses, Kansas, and he is the eldest of four childre n. Richards family moved to Florida when he was 6 years old. It was there he attended N.B. Forre st High School for his secondary schooling and then Jacksonville University for his undergraduat e studies. At Jacks onville University he studied general and applied physics under Dr. Pa ul Simony and Dr. J. Steve Browder. He received his Bachelor of Scie nce in physics in May, 1995. After graduating from Jacksonville Univers ity, Richard immediately began a career as a high school physics teacher at Edward H. White High School. After five years of teaching he decided to pursue a graduate degree in educational technology at the University of Florida. During his master s studies Richard studied under Dr. Colleen Swain, Dr. Sebastian Foti, Dr Kara Dawson, Dr. Lee Mullal ly, and Dr. Jeff Hurt. His major areas of study were rooted in the produc tion aspects of edu cational technology. He received his Master of Education degree in curriculum and instruction with a focus in educational technology production in May, 2001. While content with his teaching career, Richard was excited about his masters studies and the field of educational tec hnology. In December, 2001, he and his wife Leigh Ann moved to Gainesville, Florida, so he could continue his graduate studies. In his doctoral studies, Richard worked closely with Dr. Colleen Swain (committee chairperson) and Dr. Richard Ferdig (committee cochairperson). It was with their guidance and mentorship that he merged his two major areas of (doctoral) study within

PAGE 161

150 the field of educational technology: production and technology in teac her education. In August, 2004, Richard received a Ph.D. in e ducational technology from the School of Teaching and Learning, College of Education, of the University of Florida. In the fall, 2004, Richard will begin a new career as an assistant professor in the Instructional Systems Technology program, Department of Educational Leadership, College of Education, at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte in Charlotte, North Carolina.


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0006320/00001

Material Information

Title: Integrating Hypermedia into Elementary Teachers' Science Professional Development Opportunities: The Effects on Content Knowledge and Attitudes toward Science
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0006320:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0006320/00001

Material Information

Title: Integrating Hypermedia into Elementary Teachers' Science Professional Development Opportunities: The Effects on Content Knowledge and Attitudes toward Science
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0006320:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












INTEGRATING HYPERMEDIA INTO ELEMENTARY TEACHERS' SCIENCE
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES: THE EFFECTS ON
CONTENT KNOWLEDGE AND ATTITUDES TOWARD SCIENCE














By

CHARLES RICHARD HARTSHORNE


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2004


































Copyright 2004

by

Charles Richard Hartshorne















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my sincerest thanks to all who have helped me throughout

the dissertation process and the rest of my graduate experience:

First, I would like to express the most sincere thanks to my committee chairperson,

Dr. Colleen Swain, whose mentorship, patience, understanding, and assistance

throughout all phases of my graduate education are appreciated more than she will ever

know. Not only were the long hours spent guiding me through this process far above and

beyond the call of duty, but her contributions to my growth as a researcher and a scholar

have been invaluable.

I would also like to thank my committee cochairperson, Dr. Richard Ferdig, who

provided a source of inspiration, ideas, and words of encouragement throughout all

aspects of my doctoral experience.

I would also like to express thanks to Dr. Eugene Dunnam, who always provided a

fresh perspective, positive outlook, and endless support and guidance. I thoroughly

enjoyed every aspect of our collaborations.

Next, I would like to thank my committee members, Dr. Anne Seraphine and Dr.

Rose Pringle for their insight, support, and assistance throughout the dissertation

experience.

I would like to extend gratitude to all of the individuals in the Science Department

of the Duval County School Board that provided assistance in various aspects of my

research. Specifically I would like to thank the following: Dr. Ruth Senftleber, for aid in









gaining access to the schools and teachers of Duval County; Andrea Valdevinos, for

providing various support throughout the data collection process and acting as a liaison

between myself and the Duval County schools; and Ted West, for his assistance in

developing the workshops used in my research and providing many ideas and much of

the necessary equipment utilized in the professional development sessions. All of your

help was greatly appreciated.

I would like to thank my wife, Leigh Ann Hartshorne. Without her I would not be

in the position I am today. Her love, companionship, and support were extremely

important and valued throughout this long and arduous time in both of our lives.

Finally, I would also like to thank the many friends and colleagues I have met

while at the University of Florida. I appreciate their friendship, knowledge, support, and

help during my entire graduate experience.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ................................................................................................. iii

LIST OF TABLES .......................................... viii

A B ST R A C T ...................................................................................................... ........ .. x

CHAPTER

1 IN T R O D U C T IO N .................................................................. .. ... .... ............... 1

Statem ent of the P problem ...................................................................... ...............3...
Purpose of the Study .................... .. ........... .........................................5
Significance of the Stu dy ............................................ .......................... ...............6...
Theoretical Fram ew ork for the Study...................................................... ...............8...
R research Q questions ..... .. ................................ .................................................. 11
V a riab le s ..................................................................................................................... 12
Independent V ariables ......................................... ........................ ............... 12
Dependent Variables ................ ........... ............... 12
Lim stations and D elim stations of the Study........................................... ............... 12
L im itatio n s ........................................................................................................... 12
D elim itatio n s ....................................................................................................... 13
Definition of Terms ............................................. ........ ................... 14
S u m m ary .................................................................................................... ........ .. 15

2 REV IEW OF TH E LITER A TU RE .......................................................... ............... 18

In tro d u c tio n ........................................................... .............................. ..................... 1 8
Calls for Science in the Elementary Curriculum ...................................................18
Barriers to Effective Science Teaching in the Elementary Classrooms ..................20
Elementary Teachers' Lack of Science Content Knowledge..............................20
Elementary Teachers' Attitudes Toward Science ..........................................21
Elementary Teachers' Lack of Preparedness to Teach Science .......................22
Elementary Teachers' Lack of Confidence Teaching Science.........................23
Lack of Educational Resources for Elementary Teachers...............................24
Science Instruction and Student Achievement .......................................................25
Inservice Elementary Science Professional Development ....................................26
Professional Development and Teacher Attitudes .........................................27
H y p e rm e d ia ................................................................................................................ 2 8









B benefits of H yperm edia........................................ ....................... ................ 29
C onstraints of H yperm edia............................................................. .................. 3 1
D atabases as Interm diaries ........................................................... ................ 32
T heoretical Fram ew ork .. ..................................................................... ................ 34
C o n stru c tiv ism .....................................................................................................3 4
C ognitive C onstructivism ...................................... ...................... ................ 36
C ognitive Flexibility Theory ....................... ............................................... 37
S u m m a ry ..................................................................................................................... 3 8

3 M E T H O D O L O G Y ................................................... ............................................ 4 1

Introduction .................................................................................. ....................... 4 1
S tu d y P ro c e d u re s ........................................................................................................4 1
R research Population .............. .. ............. ................................................ 42
T reatm ents .................................................................................................... 49
In stru m en tatio n .............................. ................................................. ...............54
The H yperm edia Environm ent ....................................................... ................ 56
D ata C o lle ctio n ....................................................................................................5 8
D ata A analysis .................................................................................................. 58
H y p o th e se s ..........................................................................................................5 9
Internal V alidity C concerns .......................................................................................60
H history and M aturation .....................................................................................61
Instrumentation and Testing .............................................................. ...............61
Selection .............. ..................................................................... ......6 1
M o rta lity .............. ...............................................................................................6 2
Selection-maturation Interaction ................. ........................................... 62
Regression ....................................................62
Summary of Internal Validity Concerns............................................ ...............63
E external V alidity C oncerns.......................................... ........................ ................ 63
Testing-interaction Effects ...............................................................................63
M atu ratio n .............. ................................................................................. 6 3
Treatm ent-interaction E ffects........................................................... ................ 64
Other Interactions with the Treatment ...............................................................64
Summary of External Validity Concerns ............... ...................................65

4 R E SU L T S .................................................................................................. ...........6 6

Introduction .................................................................................. ....................... 66
G general Study D details ................................................. ............... ................ 67
Study Sam ple ....................................................................................................... 68
A ssignm ent to G roups .............................................................................................69
S statistic al A n aly se s .....................................................................................................6 9
S statistic a l T e sts ................................................ ............................ ............... 6 9
D descriptive and Inferential Statistics.............................. .............. ................ 70
Science C content K now ledge...................................... ............... ................ 71
Attitudes Toward Science ............................... ..................................... 75
R research H ypotheses ......................................................................................78









R research H ypothesis # 1 ....................................... ....................... ................ 78
R research H ypothesis #2 ................................................................. ................ 78
R research H ypothesis #3 ....................................... ....................... ................ 78
R research H ypothesis #4 ....................................... ....................... ................ 79
R research H ypothesis #5 ....................................... ....................... ................ 79
R research H ypothesis #6 ....................................... ....................... ................ 79
Sum m ary ......................................................................................... ............. ....... 80

5 D ISCU SSION ............................................................................... . .................82

Introduction .................................................................................. ........................82
R ev iew o f th e S tu d y ....................................................................................................8 3
P purpose .................................................................................. ...................... 83
D esign of the Study ..........................................................................................83
A additional D ata Collection...............................................................................84
P a rtic ip a n ts ..........................................................................................................8 4
R e search Q u e stio n s.....................................................................................................8 4
R research Q u estion # 1 ..................................................................... ...............86
R research Q question #2 .......................................................................................92
Contributions to the Body of Knowledge ................................................................96
Inservice Science Professional Development ..................................................96
H yperm edia ...................................................... ...................................98
Implications for Inservice Science Professional Development ...............................98
Recommendations for Future Research..................................101
Su m m ary ............................................................................. ............. .................. 102

APPENDIX

A SCIENCE ATTITUDE SCALE FOR INSERVICE ELEMENTARY
TEA CH ER II .............. ....................................................................................104

B PROGRAM TO IMPROVE ELEMENTARY SCIENCE (PIES) SCIENCE
K N O W L E D G E TE ST ......................................................................... ...............106

C EVALUATION OF INSERVICE ACTIVITY ........................................................111

D SCHEDULE/OUTLINE OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
W O R K S H O P S ..........................................................................................................1 13

E PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOP ACTIVITIES........................123

F W O R K SH O P D E T A IL S .......................................................................................... 132

LIST OF REFEREN CE S ...........................................................................................135

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK ETCH ...................................................................... ...............149
















LIST OF TABLES

Table page

1 Q uasi-experim ental D esign ....................................... ....................... ................ 42

2 G ender of P participants ...................................................................... ................ 43

3 E thnicity of P participants .......................................... ......................... ................ 43

4 H highest D egree Obtained by Participants ........................................... ................ 44

5 Grade Level Taught..................................................................... 44

6 Y ears T each in g ......................................................................................................... 4 4

7 Amount of Time Since Last Participation in Science Professional
D evelopm ent A activity ..................................................................... ................ 45

8 Comfort Level and Experience with Computers.................................................45

9 Comfort Level and Experience with Hypermedia...............................................46

10 How Many Hours per Week Do You Use the Computer for Instructional
P u rp o se s? ............................................................................................................... .. 4 6

11 How Many Hours per Week Do You Use the Computer for Productivity
P u rp o se s? ............................................................................................................... .. 4 7

12 Do You Feel Comfortable Teaching Science?....................................................47

13 Do You Feel You Have Enough Science Content Knowledge? ..............................47

14 D o Y ou Like Science?............................................. ............. ................ 47

15 District and State Averages on 2003 FCAT Science Exam...............................48

16 School D em graphic Inform ation ....................................................... ................ 50

17 Item-Total Correlations for the Science Attitude Scale for Inservice
T e a c h e rs II ............................................................................................................... 5 6

18 Schedule of Data Collection and Workshops......................................................58









19 Means and Standard Deviations of Science Content Knowledge Scores .............70

20 Means and Standard Deviations on Science Attitude Scale................................70

21 Adjusted Means and Standard Error of Science Content Knowledge Scores
(D dependent Variable: PIES Posttest Score) ........................................ ................ 72

22 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects for Group Means (Dependent Variable:
P IE S P osttest Score) ... .................................................................... .............. 72

23 Adjusted Means and Standard Error of Attitudes Toward Science Scores
(Dependent Variable: Science Attitude Scale Posttest Score) ...............................76

24 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects for Attitudes Toward Science (Dependent
Variable: Science Attitude Scale Posttest Score)................................ ................ 76

25 Tests of Significant Differences Between Control Group's and Hypermedia
Group's Attitudes Toward Science (Dependent Variable: Science Attitude
Scale P osttest Score) .............. ............. ............................................... 77

26 Tests of Significant Differences Between Control Group's and Traditional
Group's Attitudes Toward Science (Dependent Variable: Science Attitude
Scale P osttest Score) .............. .. ............. ............................................... 77

27 Tests of Significant Differences Between Traditional Group's and Hypermedia
Group's Attitudes Toward Science (Dependent Variable: Science Attitude
Scale P osttest Score) .............. .. ............. ............................................... 77














Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

INTEGRATING HYPERMEDIA INTO ELEMENTARY TEACHERS' SCIENCE
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES: THE EFFECTS ON
CONTENT KNOWLEDGE AND ATTITUDES TOWARD SCIENCE

By

Charles Richard Hartshorne

August, 2004

Chair: Colleen R. Swain
Cochair: Richard E. Ferdig
Major Department: Teaching and Learning

Recent calls for improvements in the teaching of science gave rise to the

implementation of numerous reform strategies in the elementary classroom. Reviews of

the different reform strategies showed varying levels of effectiveness in the overall

quality of teaching and student learning. One method shown to be effective in producing

changes in teachers, the teaching process, and ultimately student learning is the

professional development workshop. Due to the success of professional development

workshops in other subject areas, researchers have suggested this could be an effective

strategy in addressing major concerns related to the teaching of science in elementary

classrooms. However, past elementary science professional development workshops

have not met with the same levels of success as other content areas.

The integration of hypermedia into professional development settings is one

method of improving the effectiveness of elementary science professional development









workshops. Integrating hypermedia into structured professional development settings can

be helpful in addressing two major concerns with the teaching of science in the

elementary classroom: lack of teacher content knowledge and poor teacher attitudes

toward science.

In this study, the extent to which the integration of hypermedia into professional

development workshops influenced elementary teachers' science content knowledge and

attitudes toward science was examined. Results indicated that while the integration of

hypermedia into the professional development environment could have contributed to

elementary teachers' science content knowledge, the increases in content knowledge

were not dependent on the presence of hypermedia in the professional development

setting. Study findings did indicated the integration of hypermedia into professional

development workshops had a positive influence on elementary teachers' attitudes toward

science and was an integral component to the increase in elementary teachers' attitudes

toward science. The results of this study provide a foundation for future research related

to integrating hypermedia into professional development settings.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Science is the tool of the Western mind and with it more doors can be opened than
with bare hands. It is part and parcel of our knowledge and obscures our insight
only when it holds that the understanding given by it is the only kind there is.

-C. G. Jung, 1978

Within the past decade, numerous calls for reforming the teaching of elementary

science in American public schools have been made (Bybee, 1993; Loucks-Horsley,

1996; National Research Council, 1996; Raizen, 1998; Yager, 1993). Two major

premises form part of the foundation for these calls. First, research has shown that

exposure to science processes at young ages enhances future science performance and the

skills associated with 'doing' science (Keeves, 1995; Rowe, 1992). This is due, in part,

to the idea that the study of science promotes the development of evaluative and

analytical skills, as well as a logical approach to problem-solving, skills which promote

scientific literacy (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1989, 1993;

Plourde, 2002; Tilgner, 1990). The second premise for the call for elementary science

reform originates from research indicating a lack of student enrollment in more advanced

science courses (Fraser & Walberg, 1995). Consequently, when compared to other

technological nations, American students perform poorly on international science

assessments (International Association for the Evaluation of Achievement, 1988; Knuth,

Jones, & Baxendale, 1991; Plourde, 2002). These two premises, along with other factors,

have influenced the introduction of science topics and skills on statewide standardized

examinations and the formation of national science mandates and standards focusing on









the inclusion of the development of science skills in the elementary classroom (American

Association for the Advancement of Science, 1989, 1993; National Academy on Science,

1995).

Energies must be expended to improve the teaching of science in elementary

classrooms. In an effort to improve the teaching of science at the elementary level, and

ultimately student learning, different instructional strategies have been utilized and

studied. These teaching methods include group learning, management by objectives, and

smaller class sizes (Linn & Hsi, 2000). While the levels for success of these methods

have differed, findings indicate that merely focusing on the instructional strategies used

in the classroom are not enough. Elementary teachers of science are a critical component

of students' academic achievement in science; hence, elementary teachers must be part of

the solutions to improve science learning in elementary classrooms (Darling-Hammond,

2000; Sanders & Rivers, 1996). Tilgner (1990) suggested that one method of improving

science teaching in elementary classrooms would be professional development

workshops. This notion of focusing on professional development workshops is also

supported by Smith, Banilower, McMahon, and Weiss (2002) who found that

participation in professional development resulted in increased teacher preparedness.

Other positive results of professional development have been reported. These benefits

include increased student achievement (Anderson & Smith, 1986; Monk, 1994),

improved content knowledge (Kahle, 2000), increased attitudes toward specific content

areas (Henson, 1987; Tilgner, 1990), and increased confidence in teaching (Shrigley,

1977). However, the results of professional development efforts in elementary science

have not reported the levels of success in other subject areas (Hilliard, 1997; Loucks-









Horsley et al., 1990; Newman & King, 2000; Tilgner, 1990). Therefore, the effectiveness

of different strategies used in elementary science professional development needs to be

examined.

One method of improving the effectiveness of professional development

opportunities for elementary teachers is with the integration of hypermedia into the

professional development environment. Hypermedia has a number of characteristics that

can make it an effective tool for improving inservice opportunities for elementary science

teachers. It allows for the contextualization and interaction with topics (Kumar &

Sherwood, 1997), and potentially reduces the amount of time required to access materials

on complex issues in various contexts (Collier, 1987; Halasz, 1988). Hypermedia also

provides for more efficient searches of material (Ayersman & Reed, 1998; Burton,

Moore, & Holmes, 1995), and allows for the exploration of topics from multiple

perspectives (Astleitner & Leutner, 1995; Ayersman & Reed, 1995; Park, 1991).

Many of the characteristics inherent in hypermedia offer benefits that address the

issues in inservice professional development opportunities for elementary teachers.

Professional development workshops offer structured environments for the integration of

hypermedia into the professional development of elementary teachers and address some

of the current problems of elementary science professional development. This study will

examine the influences of professional development opportunities that utilize hypermedia

on inservice elementary teachers' content knowledge and attitudes toward science.

Statement of the Problem

Currently, the manner in which science is taught in many elementary classrooms

does not afford students sufficient opportunities to understand science concepts and does

not develop the skills commonly associated with science (Ginns & Watters, 1998;









Plourde, 2002; Tilgner, 1990). One reason for this is that elementary teachers often lack

confidence in teaching science (Weiss, 1997). This lack of confidence can originate from

a number of sources but is most commonly rooted in feelings of being unqualified to

teach science (Abell & Roth, 1991; Czerniak & Schriver, 1994; Plourde, 2002). A

second, yet related, barrier is elementary teachers' lack of science content knowledge

(Abell & Roth, 1992; Jesky-Smith, 2002; Plourde, 2002), resulting from inservice

teachers' inadequate backgrounds in science (Jesky-Smith, 2002; Tilgner, 1990).

Because of limited science backgrounds, elementary teachers often have inadequate

knowledge of stand-alone science topics and the interconnectedness between related

topics. This leads to difficulties in the conceptualization of science topics (Jesky-Smith,

2002; Plourde, 2002). Third, lack of support for teachers inhibits quality science teaching

(Mitchner & Anderson, 1989). Effective science teaching requires not only a variety of

instructional strategies but also varied instructional settings and equipment. With

elementary schools' current emphasis on the development of math and language arts

skills, science has somewhat been ignored. Thus, teachers are frequently not provided

with appropriate facilities and equipment necessary for effective science instruction

(Helgeson, Blosser, & Howe, 1977; Plourde, 2002; Tilgner, 1990; Tosun, 2000). Fourth,

teachers lack time to prepare science lessons and materials, which adversely influences

science instruction (Tilgner, 1990; Weiss, Banilower, McMahon, & Smith, 2001).

Science lessons frequently require more preparation time than lessons in other content

areas; hence, teachers are often reluctant to integrate science into their classroom (Wolff,

Tobin, & Ritchie, 2001). A final obstacle, which is closely related to many of the

previous barriers, is that teachers have negative attitudes toward science in the









elementary classroom (Koballa & Crawley, 1985; Mulholland & Wallace, 1996; Stepans

& McCormack, 1986; Tilgner, 1990; Tosun, 2000; Westerback, 1982). These negative

attitudes can have two major impacts on elementary science teaching (Bogut &

McFarland, 1975; Cohen, 1964; Stollberg, 1969). First, these negative attitudes can

result in teachers spending less time teaching science curriculum (Kennedy, 1973;

Plourde, 2002), leading to decreased student achievement in science (Fraser & Walberg,

1995). Second, teachers can pass negative attitudes toward science to their students,

which also decreases student achievement (Plourde, 2002; Shrigley & Johnson, 1974;

Stollberg, 1969). The combination of these barriers to effective science teaching and the

documented poor achievement of elementary science students indicate methods of

professional development need to be developed to address these deficiencies. One such

method involves the integration of hypermedia into professional development

opportunities. This study investigated the influences of integrating hypermedia into

professional development opportunities on two of the major barriers to effective science

instruction in elementary classrooms: teachers' content knowledge and attitudes toward

science.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to examine the change in content knowledge and

attitudes in elementary teachers of science when hypermedia is integrated into

professional development opportunities. More specifically, this study examined the

extent to which the use of a hypermedia environment during an inservice professional

development setting positively influenced elementary teachers' content knowledge of

scientific topics and processes and attitudes toward science.









Significance of the Study

A number of the issues with the teaching of science in elementary classrooms begin

with the lack of preparation of current teachers to teach science (Abell & Roth, 1992;

Helgeson et al., 1977; Plourde, 2002; Tilgner, 1990; Tosun, 2000; Weiss, 1997). Many

of the problems with elementary science teaching originate with inadequate science

backgrounds (Jesky-Smith, 2001; Tilgner, 1990); lack of confidence in the ability to

teach science effectively (Abell & Roth, 1991; Czerniak & Schriver, 1994; Weiss, 1997);

lack of science content knowledge (Abell & Roth, 1992; Jesky-Smith, 2002; Plourde,

2002); lack of equipment and resources (Helgeson et al., 1977; Tilgner, 1990; Tosun,

2000); and lack of time (Hone, 1970; Weiss et al., 2001; Wolff, Tobin, & Ritchie, 2001).

In order to deal with these issues, it is important to focus on methods that afford inservice

teachers opportunities to become better prepared to teach science. Using hypermedia

during inservice teachers' professional development workshops addresses several of the

barriers hindering effective elementary science instruction.

Due to the complexities associated with the creation and implementation of

effective elementary science learning environments, it is important to look at teaching as

an ill-structured domain (Shulman, 1992; Spiro, Feltovich, Jacobson, & Coulson, 1991).

In order to understand complex, ill-structured domains, multiple representations are

necessary (Spiro, Coulson, Feltovich, & Anderson, 1988). Kumar and Sherwood (1997)

purport that using multiple knowledge representations are necessary to maximize transfer

of learned information. Studies indicate effective science instructors possess multiple

knowledge representations of a number of different types of scientific knowledge (Knuth,

Jones, & Baxendale, 1991; Loucks-Horsley et al., 1990; National Research Council,

1996; Raizen, 1998). Among these different types of scientific knowledge are science









content knowledge, science pedagogical knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge

(Shulman, 1986). Hypermedia environments can be used to address issues related to these

various types of scientific knowledge and allow teachers to explore them in depth

(Jonassen, 1988; Marchionini, 1988; Park, 1991).

Hypermedia environments can also be effective for use with internalizing

information, interacting with tools for organization, and creating meaningful contexts in

teaching and learning (Jacobson & Spiro, 1995; Marchionini, 1988). The attributes of

hypermedia provide a number of benefits. First, hypermedia prevents the

overgeneralization of topics and the teaching and learning of topics in isolation (Landow,

1992). This is effective in improving science content knowledge and providing teachers

with a more structured science background (Kumar & Sherwood, 1997). Second,

hypermedia environments can promote the ability to apply knowledge to new situations

with different characteristics other than those of the initial setting, leading to the ability to

transfer knowledge to new contexts (Astleitner & Leutner, 1995; Jacobson & Spiro,

1995; Jacobson, Maouri, Mishra, & Kolar, 1996; Jonassen, 1996; Marchionini, 1988; Tao, 1998).

Third, as an organizational tool (Bush, 1945), hypermedia can reduce the amount of time

necessary to access, organize, and address complex issues involving a large number of

cases (Collier, 1987; Halasz, 1988; Landow, 1992). Finally, material can be presented

from multiple perspectives within hypermedia environments, allowing users to form

multiple representations about the topic (Astleitner & Leutner, 1995; Ayersman & Reed,

1998; Burton et al., 1995; Park, 1991). The attributes of hypermedia allow for the

construction of more comprehensive knowledge structures by inservice elementary

teachers.









Theoretical Framework for the Study

The theoretical foundation of this study is rooted in the principles of constructivist

learning theory, emphasizing learner-centered aspects of constructivism. Constructivists

believe knowledge is not transmitted from one learner to another but instead is

constructed by the learner (Bruner, 1961; von Glaserfeld, 1989). In constructivist

learning environments, the role of the instructor is to encourage learners to discover

principles on their own and to provide appropriate formats for learners to interact with

various learning materials. According to many constructivist theorists, experience is

another factor that plays a major role in the learning process (Bandura, 1976; Brown

Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Dewey, 1938; von Glaserfeld, 1987). For example, Bruner

(1961) states learning is an active process in which the learner constructs his own

knowledge based on prior experiences. Bruner and many other constructivists also think

that social interaction plays a major role in the formation of knowledge structures. These

theorists state learners should not be isolated in the learning environment but actively

engaged in dialogue and experience contextual, real-world learning situations (Jonassen,

1996; Piaget, 1970; Vygotsky, 1978). Both experiential and social processes have a

major effect on learning and have been integrated into a number of professional

development models, which are also anchored in other basic tenets of constructivist

theory.

Yager (1996) states that recent attempts to improve science education are rooted in

constructivist learning theory. Both the social and psychological contexts for

professional development have been addressed within constructivist learning

environments (Tobin, Kahle, & Fraser, 1990). From a psychological perspective,

constructivism holds the belief that knowledge is constructed by the learner. In









constructivist-based professional development environments, knowledge is constructed as

participants examine inquiry and activity-based pedagogy (Hassard, 1992). From a social

perspective, constructivists hold the belief that knowledge is constructed both within the

mind as well as within social communities (Richardson, 1999). In professional

development environments that address the social perspective of constructivism,

participants are provided with opportunities to interact and discuss various situations with

others in the professional development setting.

More specifically, the branch of constructivism that provides the basis for this

study is cognitive constructivism. Within cognitive constructivist theory, there is a focus

on the importance of the interactions with social or physical environments during the

knowledge construction process. One example of this is the role of cognitive dissonance

in the learning process. It is through social interaction that cognitive dissonance typically

occurs (Festinger, 1957; Lyddon, 1995). Discussing ideas and information with others

allows learners to develop an understanding of concepts that are inconsistent with current

beliefs. Resolving these inconsistencies results in the construction of new knowledge

structures (Bruner, 1986). This ongoing process of assimilating past experiences and

knowledge with new experiences and knowledge contributes to an enhanced view of the

external world (Piaget & Inhelder, 1973). Based on the assumption that learning occurs

as a result of resolving inconsistencies encountered by learners, it is critical that inservice

teachers experience opportunities to encounter, discuss, and resolve these inconsistencies.

This is also important because professional development opportunities provide for

experiences that act as catalysts for change in teachers' conceptions (Radford, 1998;

Tobin, 1993).









As with the professional development environments implemented in this study, the

theoretical foundation for the design of most hypermedia environments is based on the

constructivist paradigm. Among the many features of hypermedia that make it

compatible to constructivist learning environments are learner control, non-linearity and

non-sequential presentation of information, hyperlink functionality, open access to

information, and associative properties of information (Ayersman, 1995; Vrasidas, 2002).

These functions promote the individual development of complex and unique knowledge

representations (McGuire, 1996).

Cognitive constructivism is also closely related to the construction of many

hypermedia environments (Burton et al., 1995; Duffy & Jonassen, 1991). According to

cognitive constructivist theory, teachers act as guides in the learning process (Piaget,

1970; Vygotsky, 1978). Consistent with this idea, the computer can act as a partner and

help facilitate the learning process. As a branch of constructivism, cognitive

constructivists also hold many of the same views as other constructivists (Phillips, 1995,

1997). These include the importance of an active learner role in the learning process,

learner involvement with authentic tasks, and the social nature of learning (Jonassen,

1999).

Another theoretical viewpoint addressed with the design and implementation of

hypermedia environments is cognitive flexibility theory. Cognitive flexibility theory is a

branch of constructivism focusing on the idea that knowledge of a concept will be more

thorough if information is revisited from multiple perspectives at various times and in

different contexts. The goal of addressing concepts in this manner is advanced

knowledge acquisition suitable for understanding and transfer (Collins, Brown, &









Newman, 1989; Spiro et al., 1991). According to Jacobson, Maouri, Mishra, and Kolar

(1996), hypermedia

proposes complex knowledge may be better learned for flexible applications in new
contexts by employing case-based learning environments that include features such
as: (a) use of multiple knowledge representations, (b) link abstract concepts in
cases to depict knowledge in-use, (c) demonstrate the conceptual
interconnectedness or web-like nature of complex knowledge, (d) emphasize
knowledge assembly rather than reproductive memory, (e) introduce both
conceptual complexity and domain complexity early, and (f) promote active student
learning. (p. 241)

As with other constructivist theories, social interaction plays an important role in

cognitive flexibility theory (Jonassen, 1999; Spiro et al., 1991). As a result of integrating

social interaction into the learning environment, learners can discuss ambiguities and

inconsistencies present in various situations creating improved knowledge structures.

Hypermedia environments are extremely well suited to address social interaction issues.

Hypermedia also addresses other tenets of cognitive flexibility theory in that it allows

multiple alternative representations of the same concepts. Learners, through

interconnected hyperlinks, can explore these representations and develop their own

knowledge structures (Jonassen & Wang, 1993). These multiple representations promote

the re-assembling of structures in new domains resulting in improved knowledge

structures. This intertwining of constructivism, cognitive constructivism, and cognitive

flexibility theory with professional development models and hypermedia provide the

theoretical underpinnings for this study.

Research Questions

The following two research questions will be addressed in this study:









1. To what extent does the use of hypermedia during inservice professional

development increase elementary teachers' understanding of elementary science

concepts?


2. To what extent does the use of hypermedia during inservice professional

development influence elementary teachers' attitudes toward science?


Variables

Independent Variables

In this study, there was a single independent variable with two factors. The

independent variable was the professional development workshops for elementary

science teachers. The first factor was the absence of hypermedia in the professional

development workshops, and the second factor was the integration of hypermedia into the

professional development workshops.

Dependent Variables

In this study, there were two dependent variables. The first dependent variable was

teacher science content knowledge, as measured by the Project to Improve Elementary

Science (PIES) Science Knowledge Test (Zielinski & Smith, 1990). The second

dependent variable was teacher attitudes toward science, as measured by the Science

Attitude Scale (Shrigley & Johnson, 1974).

Limitations and Delimitations of the Study

Limitations

1. This study does not address technological issues. Some of these issues may include

the participants' comfort level with computers (computer anxiety) or the amount of

computer usage in the classroom. The gains in content knowledge and attitudes









toward science for participants with higher levels of computer anxiety may be

smaller than those participants who feel more comfortable with computers. Also,

the gains in science content knowledge and attitudes toward science for participants

who already use computers in the class more frequently may be greater than for

participants who rarely use computers in the classroom.


2. The sample size for the study is small. Due to the availability of participants, lab

space, and equipment, the size of each experimental group was limited. As a result,

the statistical power for the study was diminished. Increasing the sample size

would result in a more statistically powerful study.


3. It is not clear whether or not the research generalizes to other levels of science

education. This is because the problems in secondary and postsecondary science

education differ significantly from those of elementary science. For example,

secondary and postsecondary science educators are typically much more confident

with the content, have more content knowledge, and have more positive attitudes

toward science. Therefore, hypermedia may not be an appropriate tool to address

many of the problems associated with science education at other levels. Further

research would be necessary to determine the effectiveness of hypermedia in

addressing problems associated with science education at other levels.


Delimitations

1. There are no examinations of the effects of the treatments over time. While pretest

and posttest measures are investigated, no future measures to examine the sustained









effectiveness of the treatments will be taken. Further research is necessary to

examine the sustained effects of the treatments.

2. There are no measures of the effects of the professional development on student

achievement. While a link between teacher attitudes toward science and science

content knowledge is referenced in the review of literature, no direct measures of

the degree to which the professional development workshops influenced student

achievement were collected during the study. It is expected that there will be a

positive effect on student achievement, but further research would be necessary to

determine the effects of hypermedia on student achievement.

3. The length of the professional development workshops was short. Participants

experienced three two-hour elementary science professional development

workshops totaling six hours. This was due to participant availability, time of the

school year, district funding, and lab space availability. Further research would be

necessary to examine the effectiveness of hypermedia at improving science content

knowledge and attitudes toward science in a longer series of professional

development workshops.

Definition of Terms

In research regarding topics related to the teaching of science in the elementary

classrooms and the integration of technology into professional development activities,

many of the terms used in this study have a wide array of definitions. This is due to the

fact that frequently researchers come from different fields and attempt to fuse information

from their fields into this area. For this study, the following terms and definitions are

provided to clarify meaning and promote a clearer understanding.









Attitudes. Attitudes are learned predispositions that result in consistent responses,

either favorable or unfavorable, toward a specific entity (McGuire, 1969).

Constructivism. Constructivism refers to a learning theory based on the principle

that learners construct their own knowledge structures based on prior knowledge and

experience (Bruner, 1966).

Hypermedia. Hypermedia are a nonlinear and nonsequential method for

displaying and organizing multiple forms of media, such as sound, graphics, videos, or

text (Jonassen, 1989, 2000).

Hypermedia environment. A hypermedia environment refers to the inclusion of

hypermedia into the professional development workshops.

Professional development. Professional development encompasses a variety of

opportunities afforded to educators with the purpose of developing teaching approaches,

dispositions, and knowledge skills in an effort to improve the effectiveness of classroom

teaching (Loucks-Horsley, 1996).

Workshops. Workshops refer to a series of three two-hour on-site teacher

preparation sessions in which the researcher guided the participants through basic

processes related to a variety of scientific concepts and processes.

Summary

Recent calls for science education reform have arisen from American students'

poor performance on international science assessments (International Association for the

Evaluation of Achievement, 1988; Knuth, Jones, & Baxendale, 1991; Plourde, 2002),

research that supports the development of science skills at the elementary level (Keeves,

1995; Rowe, 1992), and a lack of student enrollment in advanced science courses (Fraser

& Walberg, 1995). As a result of these calls, a number of methods of science education









reform have been implemented with varying levels of success (Linn & Hsi, 2002). Due

to successes in other subject areas and parallels with the issues related to elementary

science instruction, researchers (Tilgner, 1990; Smith et al., 2002) suggested that

professional development workshops could be a successful method to address problems

in the teaching of science in elementary classrooms. In other content areas, professional

development workshops have reported significant positive results, such as improved

positive attitudes toward subject areas (Henson, 1987; Tilgner, 1990), increased student

achievement (Anderson & Smith, 1986; Monk, 1984), and increased confidence in

teaching (Shrigley, 1977). While these results positively correlate with the problems in

professional development opportunities for inservice elementary teachers (Abell & Roth,

1991; Czerniak & Schriver, 1994; Helgeson et al., 1977; Jesky-Smith, 2002; Koballa &

Crawley, 1985; Mulholland & Wallace, 1996; Plourde, 2002; Stepans & McCormack,

1986; Tilgner, 1990; Tosun, 2000; Weiss, 1997; Weiss et al., 2001; Westerback, 1982),

professional development environments have been significantly less effective in

addressing the barriers to effective elementary science instruction.

One method of improving inservice elementary science professional development

is with the integration of hypermedia into the professional development environment. A

number of traits inherent in hypermedia make it effective in addressing many of the

barriers to effective science instruction in elementary classrooms. Professional

development workshops also provide a structured environment to address these barriers.

In this study, changes in elementary teachers' science content knowledge and attitudes

toward science, which resulted from the integration of a hypermedia environment into a

series of professional development workshops, were examined. More specifically, this






17


study examined the extent to which the integration of hypermedia into a series of

professional development workshops positively influenced teachers' content knowledge

and attitudes toward elementary science.














CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction

In many elementary classrooms, science is currently being taught in a manner that

does not provide students with adequate opportunities to comprehend various science

concepts or construct the skills associated with "doing" science (Ginns & Watters, 1998;

Plourde, 2002; Tilgner, 1990). While numerous efforts have been implemented to

improve the state of science instruction in the elementary classroom, many efforts have

been largely unsuccessful. This review of literature will be divided into three sections.

The first section is an examination of how science fits into the elementary curriculum, the

barriers associated with effective science teaching in the elementary classroom, and

methods for addressing these barriers. The second section will discuss hypermedia and

database-driven hypermedia environments. Various benefits and constraints of

hypermedia and database-driven hypermedia environments will be explored. The third

section will examine the theories that provide the underpinnings for this study.

Specifically, constructivism, cognitive constructivism, and cognitive flexibility theory

will be discussed.

Calls for Science in the Elementary Curriculum

The importance of science in education can be seen in the multitude of documents

that specifically address science (International Assessment of Educational Progress,

1992; International Association for the Evaluation of Achievement, 1988; National

Academy on Science, 1995; National Assessment of Educational Progress, 1983;









National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983; National Education Goals

Panel, 1991; National Science Foundation, 1996). Goal Four of the National Education

Goals stated, "By the year 2000, U.S. students will be first in the world in mathematics

and science achievement" (National Education Goals Panel, 1991, p. 16). Initiatives,

such as Project 2061, various state systemic initiatives, the National Science Education

Standards, and state science standards have begun focusing on the integration of science

into elementary education and the improvement of science instruction at the elementary

level (Knuth, Jones, & Baxendale, 1991). A number of reasons exist for the integration

of science into these initiatives and standards. First, research has indicated the inclusion

of science at the elementary level results in enhanced scientific performance at higher

levels, such as secondary and postsecondary levels (Keeves, 1995; Rowe, 1992). Second,

American students lag behind students from most other industrialized nations in both

science and mathematics achievement (International Assessment of Educational Progress,

1992). This can be illustrated by American students' poor performance on various

international science assessments, such as the Third International Mathematics and

Science Study and the Second International Science Study (International Association for

the Evaluation of Achievement, 1988; Knuth, Jones, & Baxendale, 1991; Plourde, 2002).

This poor performance, coupled with other issues in science education, has resulted in the

introduction of science topics on standardized examinations (American Association for

the Advancement of Science, 1989, 1993; National Academy on Science, 1995). Third, a

recent trend in science shows a decline in student enrollment in both upper level and

advanced science courses (Fraser & Walberg, 1995). One reason for this lack of

enrollment is students are not provided with adequate opportunities to address science









concepts and skills effectively (Plourde, 2002; Tilgner, 1990; Tosun, 2000). Also,

negative attitudes toward science are often fostered by elementary teachers of science and

can negatively influence student achievement and attitudes toward science (Ashton,

1984; Bogut & McFarland, 1975; Ginns & Watters, 1998; Plourde, 2002; Tilgner, 1990).

Barriers to Effective Science Teaching in the Elementary Classrooms

As with all academic areas, barriers specifically associated with effective teaching

of science must be addressed. These obstacles include: lack of content knowledge

(Harlen & Holroyd, 1997; Stevens & Wenner, 1996; Weiss, 1994); negative teacher

attitudes toward science (Koballa & Crawley, 1985; Mechling, Stedman, and Donnellson,

1982); lack of teacher preparedness (Tilgner, 1990; Weiss, 1987); lack of confidence

(Hurd, 1982; Mechling, Stedman, & Donnellson, 1982; Weiss et al., 2001); and lack of

educational resources for teachers (Anderson, 1984; Helgeson et al., 1977). One problem

resulting from these barriers is the fact that elementary science does not receive the same

amount of instructional time as other academic areas, such as language arts and

mathematics. Tressel (1988) stated, "For all practical purposes, we do not teach science

in elementary schools. One hour a week of so-called science does not count" (p. 2).

Another related problem with elementary science education is the method in which most

elementary science is taught. Muttlefehldt (1985) found that many instructional

strategies being implemented in elementary science classrooms are not effective at

promoting cognitive or affective learning. In order to address these problems, it is

important to first examine the barriers that led to these problems.

Elementary Teachers' Lack of Science Content Knowledge

Lack of science content knowledge is a serious issue for elementary teachers.

Interactions with other barriers compound the problems of effective science teaching in









elementary classrooms (Abell & Roth, 1992; Franz & Enochs, 1982; Hurd, 1982; Jesky-

Smith, 2002; Plourde, 2002; Tilgner, 1990; Weiss, 1997). Vaidya (1993) stated,

"teachers' science content knowledge, as well as their pedagogical content knowledge,

are both issues of concerns" (p. 63). Studies such as those conducted by Harlen and

Holroyd (1997) and Stevens and Wenner (1996) focused on the lack of inservice

elementary teachers' science content knowledge. Theses studies documented their lack

of sufficient scientific content knowledge to address many of the topics in elementary

science effectively and appropriately. A lack of content knowledge has a major influence

on classroom practice and student achievement. Weiss (1994) found that most

elementary teachers self-report inadequate understanding of science content knowledge

and, as a result, lack confidence in teaching elementary science concepts. This lack of

science content knowledge can impact other issues related to the effective instruction of

science, such as attitudes toward science, feelings of preparedness to teach science, and

teacher confidence.

Elementary Teachers' Attitudes Toward Science

Another problem in the teaching of science in the elementary classroom is that

negative attitudes toward science are particularly prevalent among teachers. Mechling,

Stedman, and Donnellson (1982) found that more than half of the elementary teachers

they surveyed rank science fourth among the five major subject areas. Attitudes toward

science are significant to examine because of their importance in every aspect of the

learning environment and their role as foundations of behavior (Ashton, 1984; Cohen,

1964). Ramsey-Gassert, Shroyer, and Staver (1996) found that attitudes played a

significant role in the development of a teacher's belief in his or ability to teach science

effectively. Beliefs and attitudes toward science also play a major role in shaping









teachers' instructional beliefs (Thompson, 1992; Tobin, Tippins, & Gallard, 1994). For

example, consequences of having negative attitudes toward science may include either

reluctance in teaching or complete avoidance of teaching scientific content (Kennedy,

1973). Conversely, more positive attitudes result in an increase in the teaching of

science, positively influencing student achievement (Ashton, 1984; Plourde, 2002).

Another important aspect of attitudes is that teacher attitudes are often transferred to

students and influence the learning process. Negative teacher attitudes can be passed to

students and, as a result, negatively influence the learning process (Bogut & McFarland,

1975).

Elementary Teachers' Lack of Preparedness to Teach Science

Numerous studies have focused on the lack of inservice elementary teachers'

experience and enrollment in postsecondary science courses. Tilgner (1990) stated, "Not

only do many elementary teachers not like science; many feel totally unprepared to do an

adequate job teaching science" (p. 423). This lack of teacher preparedness is often rooted

in a poor scientific background. Manning, Elser, and Baird (1982) surveyed inservice

elementary teachers and found that 12 percent had never participated in a postsecondary

science content or methods course and 65 percent had never participated in any inservice

science programs. Weiss (1987) found similar results when he surveyed kindergarten

through third grade teachers and noted only 31 percent had participated in a

postsecondary science course. This percentage was slightly higher, at 42 percent, for

fourth through sixth grade teachers (Weiss, 1987). Loucks-Horsley et al. (1990) noted

there is a lack of science preparation for elementary teachers. One reason for this is the

increased emphasis on the development of teaching skills related to language arts and

mathematics. They also documented a lack of elementary science professional









development opportunities. Once preservice teachers enter the classroom, science

professional development opportunities are oftentimes not provided. The lack of

preparation of elementary science is very important in that it contributes to other

obstacles that hinder effective elementary science instruction, such as elementary

teachers' confidence in teaching science.

Elementary Teachers' Lack of Confidence Teaching Science

One prevalent theme in research related to science teaching in elementary

classrooms is inservice elementary teachers' lack of confidence in teaching science

(DeTure, Gregory, & Ramsey, 1990; Manning, Elser, & Baird 1982; Mechling, Stedman,

& Donnellson, 1982; Weiss et al., 2001). Jesky-Smith (2002) found that although

teachers view science as an important topic at the elementary level, many of them did not

feel confident in their ability to teach science in their classroom. Lack of confidence

seems to be prevalent in teaching all areas of science. Weiss (1987) found that slightly

more than a quarter of inservice elementary teachers felt competent to teach content

related to the life sciences. This overall lack of confidence in teaching science was not

only evident with the life sciences but also with the physical sciences (Harlen & Holroyd,

1997). Weiss (1987) also found that only 15 percent of elementary teachers felt

confident in teaching the physical or earth/space sciences. A decade later, Weiss (1997)

confirmed his previous findings when he surveyed elementary teachers and noted that

less than a third of the teachers were confident in their abilities to teach elementary

science content, indicating an ongoing trend in elementary science. In addition, Abell

and Roth (1991) found that elementary teachers not only lack confidence in teaching

science, but also do not feel as comfortable teaching science as they do in teaching other

content areas. Ginns and Watters' (1998) findings supported the premise that beginning









elementary teachers often lack confidence in teaching science. This lack of confidence

has serious implications for students. Ashton (1984) found that lack of confidence in

teaching a subject area has major negative impacts on student achievement, as well as

other negative implications for the teacher, such as the lack of participation in ongoing

science professional development, avoidance of science instruction, and the development

of negative attitudes toward science.

Lack of Educational Resources for Elementary Teachers

Another factor inhibiting the effective instruction of science at the elementary level

is the lack of educational resources available to elementary teachers (Helgeson et al.,

1977; Loucks-Horsley, 1990; Tilgner, 1990; Weiss, 1978). Educational resources are

materials that either help students prepare to learn or facilitate the process of teaching

(Danielson, 1996). Examples of educational resources include teacher lesson plans and

student activities, lesson materials and equipment, videos or laserdiscs, and

communication tools, such as online bulletin boards and e-mail. The lack of readily

available educational resources inhibits teachers from creating certain science lessons, as

well as discourages the implementation of hands-on lessons in elementary science

(Helgeson et al., 1977). Anderson (1984) purported that resources play a major role in

increasing student achievement. He reinforced this idea by stating the improvement of

student achievement is not about the development of standards, but it is about making

resources available to children and their teachers so effective instruction can occur. This

can be problematic because in elementary science a shortage of adequate resources and

support materials for primary teachers exists (Loucks-Horsley et al., 1990). Addressing

the lack of teacher resources necessary for effective elementary science instruction can









promote the integration of hands-on lessons into the science classroom and have a

positive impact on student achievement and teacher effectiveness.

Science Instruction and Student Achievement

One major implication of effective science instruction at the elementary level is that

student achievement at earlier levels of education influences achievement at higher levels

of education. Rowe (1992) stated, "Increasing early exposure to the kinds of science

experiences and discursions that develop analytic and proportional reasoning could

reasonably be expected to enhance science performance of all students" (p. 1174).

Research also indicates a positive correlation between the amount of time spent on

science instruction and science understanding (Schwerian, 1969). Keeves (1992) found

the amount of time spent addressing a subject area plays a major role in influencing

student achievement in the particular subject area. This is also supported by recent

research on learning and understanding (Bransford, 2002). Rowe (1992) reported that

providing students with appropriate experiences with science in the elementary grades

increases the amount of quality time spent interacting with science content. This can

have a positive impact on science achievement in secondary and postsecondary science

grades.

A number of additional factors influence student achievement in science at the

elementary level. These include teacher attitudes, beliefs, and confidence with science

content. Plourde (2002) documented that more positive attitudes toward science result in

more teaching of science, which, in turn, results in greater levels of student achievement.

Other research has demonstrated that beliefs about science play a major role in

developing instructional strategies with science (Thompson, 1992; Tobin, Tippins, &

Gallard, 1994). The development and use of appropriate instructional strategies at the









elementary level has major implications on student achievement. Finally, Ashton (1984)

found that confidence in the ability to teach a subject area has major implications on

student achievement. Teachers with greater confidence and more positive beliefs about

their ability to influence student achievement see higher levels of student achievement

than teachers with less confidence and less positive beliefs (Ashton, 1984; Berman,

McLaughlin, Bass, Pauly, & Zellman, 1977). Addressing these issues by providing early

exposure to science, improving teacher attitudes, beliefs, and confidence toward science,

and increasing the amount of time of science instruction can have major positive

implications for science in the elementary classroom.

Inservice Elementary Science Professional Development

Smith et al. (2002) demonstrated the preparation of teachers is a major issue in

science education. Areas of particular concern include inservice teachers' lack of content

knowledge and lack of the ability to choose and implement appropriate and effective

instructional strategies to address science standards. Yet Smith et al. (2002) found that

when inservice professional development opportunities addressed science education

standards, teachers' content knowledge increased. Their ability to choose and implement

appropriate instructional strategies for teaching science in the elementary classroom also

improve (Smith et al., 2002). Shrigley (1977) reinforced these ideas in her findings that

an improved self-concept and an increase in confidence resulted when teachers were

provided with opportunities to improve their science teaching skills and science content

knowledge.

Kahle (2000) provided a strong argument for the professional development of

teachers by stating the development of teacher content knowledge and improved teaching

practices are two results of good inservice professional development. Increased content









knowledge influences classroom practice in a number of ways. First, class discussions

are encouraged because discussion provides opportunities for students to become

engaged with the material. Second, more time is spent focusing on the concepts being

discussed, providing students with opportunities to examine the content in more depth

and spend less time on extraneous events in the classroom. Finally, Kahle (2000) noted

professional development that results in increased attitudes and content knowledge

toward a particular subject area, also leads to increased student achievement. These ideas

are supported by other studies that indicate a positive relationship between improved

student achievement and appropriate inservice teacher professional development

(Anderson, 1984; Klein, Hamilton, McCaffrey, Stecher, Robyn, & Burroughs, 1999;

Monk, 1994).

Professional Development and Teacher Attitudes

Research suggests the teacher should be an important and critical factor in all

reform. Bybee (1993) stated, "The decisive component in reforming science education is

the classroom teacher" (p. 144). Recent research suggests that teacher quality has a

major influence on student achievement (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Darling-Hammond &

Ball, 1998; Monk, 1994; National Center for Education Statistics, 2000; Olson, 1997;

Wayne & Youngs, 2003). Hanushek (1992) found that differences of more than one

grade-level of achievement are evident in students who have a good teacher versus a bad

teacher. An issue related to the improvement of science instruction at the elementary

level is the development of positive teacher attitudes toward science. Because negative

teacher attitudes toward science are commonplace among elementary teachers, the

improvement of teacher attitudes toward science has been the subject of numerous studies

(Bogut & McFarland, 1975; Kennedy, 1973; Stollberg, 1969;). Tilgner (1990) suggested









one effective method of changing teachers' attitudes would be professional development

workshops. One reason for this is that professional development workshops provide

teachers with opportunities to gain additional content knowledge and teaching skills, thus

improving confidence in their ability to effectively teach science (Shrigley, 1977). While

many studies have touted the effectiveness of professional development workshops in

subject areas such as math and language arts (Anderson, 1984; Kahle, 2000; Monk,

1994), science professional development workshops have not been as successful. Other

studies, however, have suggested that the integration of hypermedia into learning

environments can result in more positive learning outcomes (Baker, Niemi, & Herl,

1994; Jacobson & Spiro, 1995; Jonassen & Wang, 1993).

Hypermedia

This second section of the review of literature will begin by defining hypermedia

and discussing various characteristics of hypermedia environments. This section will

continue with a discussion of the benefits and constraints of hypermedia and conclude

with a presentation of research related to the integration of hypermedia into the learning

environment.

Hypermedia are defined as a non-linear and non-sequential method for displaying

and organizing multiple forms of media, such as sound, graphics, videos, or text

(Jonassen, 1989, 2000). Hypermedia are typically seen as possessing the three primary

applications of information representation, information presentation, and information

construction (Ayersman & Reed, 1995; Nelson, 1994). Hypermedia provide a way to

organize, manage, and represent information in a variety of methods utilizing different

media (Kumar & Sherwood, 1997). As a result of its many strengths, there has recently

been an increase in the integration of hypermedia applications into the teaching and









learning environment (Grabowski & Small, 1997). In professional development settings,

hypermedia has a number of benefits, such as allowing teachers to examine classroom

settings, viewing various models of instruction, searching for teacher resources, and

communicating with other teachers and experts (Koehler, 2002; Kumar & Sherwood,

1997). As a result of increases in the incorporation of hypermedia into the learning

environment, it is essential to address both the beneficial and constraining factors

associated with this relatively new educational tool (Grabowski & Small, 1997).

Benefits of Hypermedia

Numerous studies have found positive influences on learning outcomes with the

integration of hypermedia into the learning environment (Baker, Niemi, & Herl, 1994;

Beeman, Anderson, Bader, Larkin, McClard, McQuillan, & Shields, 1988; Jacobson &

Spiro, 1995; Jonassen & Wang, 1993; Lehrer, 1993). First, research has provided

evidence that the structure and navigational freedom associated with hypertext

environments possess various benefits to the learning process (Ayersman, 1996; Dillon &

Gabbard, 1998; Hede, 2002; Jonassen, 1996; Landow, 1992). Hypermedia environments

provide non-linear access to information, allowing users more freedom in the learning

process (Nielsen, 1995; Reed & Oughton, 1997). Barab, Bowdish, and Lawless (1997)

stated:

Hypermedia allows for learners with unique intentions and purposes to determine
which, and in what order, information will be displayed; potentially configuring
what, when, and how learning will transpire. As a result, learners can tailor the
educational experience to meet their own unique needs, interests, and goals, many
of which emerge while interacting with the hypermedia. (p. 37)

Hypermedia environments allow students to access information in depth (Collier,

1987), affording complex representations of fundamental concepts and comprehensive

illustrations of more abstract concepts. This deeper examination of material results in









increases in students' conceptual connections between related topics (Landow, 1992). By

participating in multi-case analyses, students create more personal interpretations of the

content (Landow, 1992; Marchionini & Crane, 1994). A second benefit of hypermedia

applications is they address many of the attributes that foster meaningful learning

(Jonassen, 2000). Hypermedia applications provide environments for interacting with and

developing meaningful contexts for teaching and learning (Kumar & Sherwood, 1997).

They are engaging to the learner (Jonassen, 1989), allow for active learner participation

(Landow, 1992; Shyu & Brown, 1995), involve complex, contextual situations (Jonassen,

1989), and promote reflection (Hede, 2002).

In addition, hypermedia applications offer a number of other benefits directly

related to the critical issues of teaching science in the elementary classroom. As

mentioned previously, teacher attitudes toward science are a major barrier to effective

science instruction in the elementary classroom. Janda (1992) found the integration of

hypermedia into learning environments resulted in more positive attitudes toward

hypermedia applications. Ayersman (1996) stated, "Generally speaking, positive attitudes

are reported following hypermedia based learning situations. Perceptions and attitudes

toward hypermedia are fundamentally important because they often accompany effective

learning" (p. 505). Results from studies of hypermedia and attitudinal changes have

indicated that individuals with more hypermedia experience tend to have more positive

attitudes toward hypermedia (Ayersman, 1996). Another issue in science education, and

a catalyst for science education reform, is poor student performance in science. Abrams

and Streit (1986) found that the integration of hypermedia applications into the learning

environment resulted in an increase in student achievement. The amount of instructional









time allocated for science is also a critical issue in the teaching of science at the

elementary level. Teachers tend to spend less time teaching science in the elementary

classroom. Higgins and Boone (1990) reported that the integration of hypermedia into

the teaching and learning environment resulted in a decreased demand on teaching time.

Hence, the use of hypermedia in the teaching of elementary science could prove to be

beneficial. Smith (1987) concluded in a review of literature that hypermedia is both an

effective and efficient medium for instruction.

Constraints of Hypermedia

Although hypermedia has many benefits, it may not be beneficial for all learning

scenarios. Certain issues related to learner type, ability level, and the type of learner

activity in the hypermedia environment can have major influences on the effectiveness of

the hypermedia application. Conklin (1987) reported that learner control of the

hypermedia environment is the most prevalent concern and advantage of hypermedia

applications. Dillon and Gabbard (1998) stated that while hypermedia "can offer

techniques that can help the less able student perform better" (p. 345), lower ability

learners typically have more difficulty effectively utilizing hypermedia. Jonassen and

Wang (1993) found that field independent learners "are better hypermedia processors,

especially as the form of the hypermedia becomes more inferential and less overtly

structured" (p. 7). Lee and Lehman (1993) suggested the level of activity the learner

engages in affects the learner's achievement in the hypermedia environment. Reed and

Oughton (1997) found that more experienced hypermedia users take more non-linear

steps through the hypermedia environment, thus increasing the effectiveness of the

hypermedia application as a learning tool. They also noted that the structure and freedom









associated with hypermedia environments, while providing some benefits, can also act as

constraining factors (Reed & Oughton, 1997).

Other limitations involve navigational and experiential issues (Gardarin & Yoon,

1995). Users who are unfamiliar with the content and hypermedia environment face

various problems including: 1) goal attainment, in which inexperienced users can often

overlook important information; 2) spatial disorientation, in which users can be

overwhelmed and have a sense of being lost in the information; and 3) knowledge

acquisition, in which students feel cognitively overloaded due to having to perform

multiple tasks of information storage, restructuring, transfer, and evaluation (Astleitner &

Leutner, 1995). Finally, if the environment or content is too new, hypermedia structures

can initially be too advanced for many inexperienced learners. Hence, it is critical that

hypermedia environments be explored before being implemented in teaching and learning

environments.

Databases as Intermediaries

While hypermedia can be an extremely powerful tool for learning, it is essential to

be cautious with the manner in which it is implemented. In order to ensure growth in the

ability to teach or learn when integrating hypermedia into the learning scenario, the

constraints associated with hypermedia must be addressed. One solution that addresses

the constraints of hypermedia is the use of hypermedia-integrated databases (Beaufils,

2000; Bhaumik, Dixit, Glanares, Krishna, Tzagarakis, Vaitis, et al., 2001). In general,

hypermedia-integrated databases address many of the constraints of hypermedia. For

example, databases can be used to address complexity issues related to navigation,

flexibility, and organization of information, by reducing the users' sense of being

overwhelmed (Reed & Oughton, 1997). Database structures can also help low ability









learners and those not experienced with hypermedia applications or the specific content

area in manipulating the learning environment (Jonassen, 2000). There are three main

ways this may occur. First, database applications allow the developers to sort

information to control for cognitive overload issues. As a result, the user has less control

over the environment and experiences less cognitive overload. More experienced and

proficient users can be provided with more control of the environment to enhance the

learning experience. One method of doing this is by providing advanced search

procedures. Second, databases are effective as pre-structuring tools (Beaufils, 2000)

because databases and hypermedia applications have different, yet related, strengths and

functionality. The strengths of databases lie in the storage, organization, and retrieval of

information; the strengths of hypermedia lie in the structuring and navigation of

information and the ability to track various user actions and address access issues

(Bhaumik et al., 2001). Hence, database applications can be structured to involve similar

tasks as hypermedia (information storage, restructuring, transfer, and evaluation), but in a

manner that is less overwhelming to the learner and focuses on the strengths of each tool.

Third, Jonassen (2000) argued the "greatest problem related to using hypermedia to

facilitate learning is how learners will integrate the information they acquire in the

hypertext into their own knowledge structures" (p. 210). Database applications address

this issue by helping students make their own content relationships and then relate those

relationships to their existing knowledge structures (Jonassen, 2000; Rieber, 1994). This

freedom to browse through the content is consistent with the constructivist principle that

learners should be given the opportunity to discover knowledge through their own active

exploration. In sum, using database structures in hypermedia applications assists









teaching and learning processes. In doing so, database structures act as intermediaries

between the learner and the hypermedia environment, and they are effective in addressing

the constraints of hypermedia applications while highlighting the strengths of these tools.

Theoretical Framework

The third section of the review of literature will discuss the theoretical

underpinnings of this study. This section will begin with a discussion of the basic tenets

of constructivism and how these ideas relate to the study. This section will be followed

by a discussion of cognitive constructivism and cognitive flexibility theory and the role

of these theories in the development of this study and the connections to hypermedia.

Constructivism

The theoretical basis for this study is rooted in the ideas of constructivist theory,

with a major focus on learner-centered facets of constructivism. One of the basic tenets

of constructivism is that knowledge is constructed by the individual learner, as opposed

to being passed from one learner to another (Bruner, 1961, 1966). In constructivist

learning environments, the focus of the instructor is to create learning environments in

which the learner is not a passive receiver of information. The learner instead is actively

involved in the learning process and develops his own knowledge structures based on

interactions in the learning environment. Instructors develop learning environments that

provide appropriate opportunities for learners to make discoveries and become engaged

with various learning materials. One major factor of constructivist theories is the role of

prior experience in the learning process (Bandura, 1976; Carroll, 1990). Bruner (1961)

stated that learning is an active process in which the learner, based on his previous

experiences, constructs knowledge. Additionally, according to many constructivists, the

role in which social interaction plays in the formation of new knowledge structures is









vital to the learning process (Jonassen, 1996; Piaget, 1970; Vygotsky, 1978). These

theorists believe learners should be immersed in real-world, contextual learning

environments that promote dialogue and avoid learning in isolation. Issues related to

both social processes and experience have major influences on the learning process.

A number of models have integrated the major tenets of constructivism in both the

psychological and social aspects of professional development (Tobin, Kahle, & Fraser,

1990; Yager, 1996). Models addressing the social aspects of constructivist theory focus

on promoting social communities within professional development settings (Richardson,

1999). Models addressing psychological aspects of constructivism have focused on the

development of learner-centered settings that promote the construction of knowledge by

the learner. This would result in constructivist-based professional development settings

that foster knowledge construction as participants investigate inquiry and activity-based

pedagogy (Hassard, 1992).

As with the professional development environments implemented in this study,

the theoretical foundation for the design of most hypermedia environments is derived

from constructivist theory. Features such as learner control, non-linearity, open access to

information, hyperlink functionality, and the non-sequential presentation of information

associate hypermedia applications with constructivist theory (Ayersman, 1995; Vrasidas,

2002). The major reason for this is these features foster the development of complex and

unique knowledge representations (McGuire, 1996). While constructivism provides

many of the basic principles of this study, it is important to note that the study is further

rooted in cognitive constructivism.









Cognitive Constructivism

One of the areas of focus within cognitive constructivism is the role of interacting

with both physical and social settings during the process of knowledge construction.

Also important to the theory of cognitive constructivism is the role of cognitive

dissonance. Cognitive dissonance occurs through inconsistencies in our current

knowledge structure that arise through social interaction in the learning process

(Festinger, 1957; Lyddon, 1995). New knowledge structures are constructed through the

resolutions of inconsistencies (Bruner, 1986). The continuing process of incorporating

past experiences and knowledge with new ones is extremely important in the learning

process (Piaget & Inhelder, 1973).

Researchers have found that professional development opportunities can act as

catalysts in changing teachers' conceptions by addressing many of the principles of

cognitive constructivism (Radford, 1998; Tobin, 1993). Models of professional

development, which are anchored in cognitive constructivist theory, provide teachers

with a variety of opportunities to resolve inconsistencies through encounters with

material and through social interactions with other individuals involved in the learning

process.

Cognitive constructivist ideas also play a key role in the design of hypermedia

applications (Moreno & Mayer, 1999). Being closely aligned with constructivist theory,

cognitive constructivists hold many of the same beliefs as constructivist theorists

(Phillips, 1995, 1997). These ideas include the role of authentic tasks in the learning

environment, active learner role in the learning process, the social nature of learning, and

the focus on learner-centered learning environments (Jonassen, 1999). In addition to

addressing these roles, other aspects of cognitive constructivism are also addressed in









hypermedia applications. For instance, while the teacher acts as a guide in the human-

centered learning environments, the computer acts as the guide in hypermedia-based

learning environments. Further, professional development models and hypermedia

environments implemented in this study are using principles of cognitive flexibility

theory.

Cognitive Flexibility Theory

One theoretical viewpoint that plays a major role in the design, development, and

implementation of hypermedia applications to teaching and learning environments is

cognitive flexibility theory (Spiro et al., 1988). Cognitive flexibility theory is rooted in

Wittgenstein's (1953) idea of "criss-crossed landscapes," which acts as the driving

metaphor for learning through hypermedia applications. According to Spiro and Jehng

(1990),

... one learns by criss-crossing conceptual landscapes; instruction involves the
provision of learning materials that channel multidimensional landscape
explorations under the active initiative of the learner (as well as providing expert
guidance and commentary to help the learner to derive maximum benefit from his
or her explorations); and knowledge representations reflect the criss-crossing that
occurred during learning. (p. 170)

Cognitive flexibility theory also focuses on the idea that the construction of

knowledge is more effective if information is revisited from a variety of perspectives,

both in various contexts and at different times. According to Collins, Brown, and

Newman (1989), the goal of addressing concepts from multiple perspectives in various

contexts and at different times is advanced acquisition of knowledge suitable for in-depth

understanding and transfer. According to Jacobson, Maouri, Mishra, and Kolar (1996),

the integration of hypermedia into learning environments allows for the development of

more complex knowledge structures which can be applied in new contexts.









Social interaction also plays a major role in cognitive flexibility theory (Jonassen,

1999; Spiro et al., 1991). The integration of social interactions into learning

environments allows learners to discuss various inconsistencies and ambiguities in the

learner's existing knowledge structures. Addressing these inconsistencies and

ambiguities results in improved knowledge structures.

Another characteristic of cognitive flexibility theory, which is evident in

hypermedia applications, is the ability to address multiple, alternative representations of

various concepts. Through interconnected hyperlinks, users can explore these multiple

representations and assimilate these new representations with their current

representations. This results in the development of new, improved knowledge structures

(Jacobson, Maouri, Mishra, & Kolar, 1996; Jonassen & Wang, 1993). While other

theoretical viewpoints are relevant to the design, development, and implementation of

hypermedia applications, the basic tenets of cognitive flexibility theory play an

instrumental role in the integration of hypermedia applications to teaching and learning

environments.

Summary

A number of issues in the teaching of science at the elementary level currently

exist. These include lack of instructional time in science and ineffective science

instruction (Muttlefehldt, 1985; Tressel, 1988). These issues are driven by factors such

as the lack of teacher preparation in elementary science, lack of science content

knowledge, lack of confidence in teaching science, negative teacher attitudes toward

science, and lack of elementary science resources (Harlen & Holroyd, 1997; Helgeson et









al., 1977; Hurd, 1982; Koballa & Crawley, 1985; Tilgner, 1990; Vaidya, 1993; Weiss,

1994).

New methods of reform need to focus on the development of effective elementary

science teachers and methods of instruction (Smith et al., 2002). By focusing on the

teachers as a critical part of the reform, numerous benefits will be observed. Reform

efforts that focus on the preparation of teachers--rather than the development of

standards--have a number of benefits. These include increased confidence in teaching

content, increased content knowledge, and improved teaching strategies (Hanushek,

1992; National Center for Education Statistics, 2000). One method of addressing the

current issues in elementary science is through inservice professional development

opportunities (Kahle, 2000; Shrigley, 1977; Smith et al., 2002). Appropriate professional

development opportunities, while addressing the issues related to elementary science

instruction, can also result in increased student achievement (Anderson, 1984; Klein et

al., 1999; Monk, 1994).

Integrating hypermedia into elementary science professional development

environments is one method of improving inservice elementary science professional

development. Hypermedia has a number of characteristics that can make it an effective

tool for addressing the barriers to effective instruction in elementary science, and

professional development workshops provide a structured environment to address them.

In this study, the design of the professional development opportunities was founded

in constructivist and cognitive-constructivist theory. The workshops were designed in an

effort to promote knowledge construction through inquiry and activity-oriented events.

The purpose of this was to promote active involvement of participants in the learning









process and the development of new knowledge structures based on various interactions

in the professional development setting. As with the professional development settings

implemented in the study, the theoretical underpinnings for the hypermedia application

utilized was rooted in the constructivist and cognitive constructivist theories.

Characteristics implemented that relate to constructivist and cognitive constructivist ideas

include learner control, non-sequential presentation of information, hyperlink

functionality, and open access to information. These were implemented in the

hypermedia environment to encourage the development of complex and unique

knowledge representations.

The professional development workshops and the hypermedia application in this

study were designed to address two major issues related to the effective instruction of

science in the elementary classroom: improving content knowledge and attitudes toward

science. Further, this study examined the effectiveness of integrating hypermedia into

professional development workshops in changing elementary teachers' science content

knowledge and attitudes toward science. More specifically, the extent to which the

integration of hypermedia into a series of professional development workshops positively

influenced teachers' content knowledge and attitudes toward elementary science was

examined.














CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to examine the change in elementary teachers'

science content knowledge and attitudes toward science when hypermedia is integrated

into professional development opportunities. To accomplish this, inservice elementary

teachers who teach science experienced one of two different series of professional

development workshops. The first series consisted of professional development

workshops that used constructivist learning environments to present content with

appropriate instructional strategies in the elementary science classroom. The second

series contained similar content but also included the integration of hypermedia into the

professional development setting. A control group was also used to measure the effects

of confounding variables. The two series of professional development workshops were

constructed specifically for this study and contained identical content with the exception

of the hypermedia environment.

Study Procedures

In order to answer the research questions in this study, a non-equivalent control

group quasi-experimental design was used (Affleck, Madge, Adams, & Lowenbraun,

1988; Campbell & Stanley, 1963). According to Campbell and Stanley (1963), it is

appropriate to use a non-equivalent control group quasi-experimental design when group

randomization is not possible and the groups are as similar as availability permits, but not

similar enough to eliminate pretest measures. While true experimental designs are









stronger than quasi-experimental, this non-equivalent control group design is widely used

(Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996).

Table 1 illustrates the design of the study. Three groups were examined in this

study: a control group and two experimental groups. Group 1 was the control group,

which received no treatment. Groups 2 and 3 were the experimental groups, which

received different treatments. Group 2 members participated in a series of traditional

inservice science workshops without hypermedia (Xi). Group 3 members participated in

similar inservice science workshops with the addition of hypermedia to the professional

development environment (X2). The professional development workshops were

conducted during a three-week period. During this three-week period, two measures, the

Project to Improve Elementary Science (PIES) Science Knowledge Test (Zielinski &

Smith, 1990) and the Science Attitude Scale for Inservice Elementary Teachers II

(Shrigley & Johnson, 1974), were administered to the control group and each

experimental group. These measures were given to participants prior to the

administration of the elementary science workshops and at the conclusion of the

workshops.

Table 1. Quasi-experimental Design
Group Pretest Treatment Posttest
1 01 02
2 01 Xi 02
3 O1 X2 02


Research Population

Participants. A total of 57 inservice teachers participated in this study with 19

participants in each group. The professional development workshops consisted of

inservice teachers from 21 schools in Duval County, a northeast Florida public school









district. Tables 2 through 14 provide demographic information about the participants:

gender, ethnicity, level of education, grade level taught, number of years teaching,

science professional development experience, comfort level/experience with computers

and hypermedia, hours of computer usage for instructional and productivity purposes,

science content knowledge, confidence in teaching science, and attitudes toward

elementary science.


Demographic information. As is consistent with the field of elementary

education, a majority of the participants in the study were female. Table 2 provides the

number and percentages for each gender by group.


Table 2. Gender of Participants
Male Female
Group N Percentage N Percentage
Traditional 0 0 19 100
Hypermedia 2 10.5 17 89.5
Control 1 5.3 18 94.7

All participants in the study were either African-American or non-Hispanic white.

Table 3 describes the ethnicity of each group in the study.

Table 3. Ethnicity of Participants
Black or African American Non-Hispanic White
Group N Percentage N Percentage
Traditional 7 36.8 12 63.2
Hypermedia 1 5.3 18 95.7
Control 5 26.3 14 73.7


All participants in the study hold a bachelor's degree. More than 20% of

participants also have a master's degree in various fields. Table 4 provides a breakdown

of the highest degree obtained by participants in each group.











Table 4. Highest Degree Obtained by Participants
Group Bachelor's Master's
N Percentage N Percentage
Traditional 13 68.4 6 31.6
Hypermedia 15 78.9 4 21.1
Control 15 78.9 4 21.1

A majority of the participants in the study taught the upper elementary grade levels.

Table 5 provides a description of the grade levels taught by participants in each group.

Table 5. Grade Level Taught
Group Kindergarten 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th

Traditional 1 (5.3%) 3 (15.8%) 1 (5.3%) 3 (15.8%) 5 (26.3%) 6(31.6%)
Hypermedia 3 (15.8%) 3 (15.8%) 3 (15.8%) 6(31.6%) 1 (5.3%) 3 (15.8%)
Control 0 (0%) 1 (5.3%) 2 (10.6%) 4 (21.1%) 7 (36.8%) 5 (26.3%)

The classroom teaching experience of study participants varied greatly with a range

of 0 years to more than 20 years. While the majority of participants have been teaching

for less than 5 years, there were also a number of participants who have been teaching for

more than 20 years. Table 6 provides information on the teaching experience of

participants in each group.

Table 6. Years Teaching
Group 0-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years More than 20 years
Traditional 9 3 1 1 5
Hypermedia 6 4 2 3 4
Control 8 3 1 3 4

Science professional development plays a significant role in the continuing

education of teachers. Many opportunities in a variety of formats are provided during the

school year and in the summer. However, the majority of teachers participating in this

study had not participated in science professional development activities within the past

year (61.4%), and more than a third of participants had not participated in science









professional development for more than three years (36.8%). Table 7 provides

information on participant involvement in elementary science professional development

activities by group.

Table 7. Amount of Time Since Last Participation in Science Professional Development
Activity
Group Past 6 Past year Past 2 years Past 3 years More than 3 years
months
Traditional 1 8 2 3 5
Hypermedia 2 4 0 3 10
Control 2 5 3 3 6

Because the activities in this study integrated the use of computers and hypermedia

into the elementary science professional development workshops, it was important to

have participants self-report their comfort level and feelings toward computers and

hypermedia. Tables 8 through 11 provide a variety of information addressing

participants' comfort level and feelings toward computers, hypermedia, and the amount

of time spent using computers for instructional and productivity purposes.

Participants' comfort level and experience with computers in this study were

varied. As illustrated in Table 8, almost 90% of the participants considered themselves to

have at least an "average" comfort level with computers, while slightly more than 10%

considered themselves "beginners."

Table 8. Comfort Level and Experience with Computers
Group Beginner Average Experienced Advanced
Traditional 4 7 8 0
Hypermedia 2 10 7 0
Control 0 14 4 1

While most participants felt comfortable with computers, this was not the case

with hypermedia. A large percentage of participants (61.4%) were not familiar with

hypermedia and 12.3% were "beginners" with hypermedia. Just over a quarter of the









participants (26.3%) felt they had either "average," "experienced," or "advanced"

experience with hypermedia.

Table 9. Comfort Level and Experience with Hypermedia
Group What Is Beginner Average Experienced Advanced
Hypermedia?
Traditional 9 2 6 2 0
Hypermedia 15 2 1 1 0
Control 11 3 2 2 1


Computer usage for participants also varied. As illustrated in Table 10, almost

80% of participants used computers for instructional purposes on a weekly basis. Almost

45% of participants used computers for instructional purposes from one to two hours per

week and slightly more than a third (35%) used computers for instructional purposes

more than three hours weekly.

Table 10. How Many Hours per Week Do You Use the Computer for Instructional
Purposes?
Group 0 hours 1-2 hours 3-4 hours 5-6 hours more than 6 hours
Traditional 4 8 5 1 1
Hypermedia 6 5 4 2 2
Control 1 12 2 3 1



Participants in this study used computers for teacher productivity purposes more

often than for instructional purposes. As shown in Table 11, more than 90% of

participants used a computer each week for teacher productivity purposes. More than a

third of the participants (35.1%) use computers for productivity purposes between one

and two hours a week and over half (55%) use computers for three or more hours a week

for productivity purposes.












Table 11. How Many Hours per Week Do You Use the Computer for Productivity
Purposes?
Group 0 hours 1-2 hours 3-4 hours 5-6 hours More than 6 hours
Traditional 2 4 7 2 4
Hypermedia 2 7 6 2 2
Control 0 9 5 2 3


Because the activities in this study addressed topics related to science in the

elementary classroom, it was important to examine the participants' science comfort

level, content knowledge, and attitudes toward science. While most participants liked

science and felt comfortable teaching science, more than 40% felt they did not possess

enough content knowledge to effectively teach science. Tables 12 through 14 provide

information addressing participants' comfort level with science, content knowledge, and

attitude toward science.

Table 12. Do You Feel Comfortable Teaching Science?
Group Yes No
N Percentage N Percentage
Traditional 17 89.5 2 10.5
Hypermedia 16 84.2 3 15.8
Control 17 89.5 2 10.5


Table 13. Do You Feel
Group Yes
N
Traditional 10
Hypermedia 11
Control 11


Table 14. Do You Like
Group Yes
N
Traditional 19
Hypermedia 18
Control 17


You Have Enough Science Content Knowledge?
No
Percentage N Percentage
52.6 9 47.4
57.9 8 42.1
57.9 8 42.1


Science?
No
Percentage N
100 0
94.7 1
89.5 2


Percentage
0
5.3
10.5









School district.

Inservice elementary teachers from Duval County, a school district in northeast

Florida that encompasses all of Jacksonville, participated in this study. The school

district is situated within a county of more than 1 million residents; the district services

129,000 students. Student ethnicity for the district is as follows: White: 46%, Black:

42.6%, Hispanic: 4.7%, Asian: 3.1%, and Other: 2.9%.

The school district encompasses 109 elementary schools. On a scale of 1 to 500,

the mean scale score on the FCAT Elementary Science Exam for the district was 285,

equivalent to the state mean scale score. However, the district's average scores were

slightly lower than the state average on three out of four categories of the FCAT

Elementary Science Exam (Physical Science, Life and Environmental Science, and

Scientific Thinking), but higher than the state average on the Earth and Space Science

section. Table 15 contains detailed information of the district average on each section of

the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) for Elementary Science, as

compared with the state of Florida average.

Table 15. District and State Averages on 2003 FCAT Science Exam
FCAT Science District Florida Schools above Schools at Schools
Section Average Average State Average State below State
Average Average
N N N
Physical and 6.8 (out of 7.0 (out of 30 33 44
Chemical Sciences 12) 12)
Life and 7.46 (out 8.0 (out of 17 38 52
Environmental of 13) 13)
Sciences
Scientific Thinking 6.0 (out of 7.0 (out of 6 46 55
12) 12)
Earth and Space 6.24 (out 6.0 (out of 45 35 27
Sciences of 12) 12)
Note: The data in this table were taken from the Research and Evaluation section of the
Duval County Public Schools Website (2004a).









Individual schools.

Study participants taught at 21 schools in the district. The number of participants

from individual schools ranged between 1 and 10 with an average of 2.7 participants per

school. School populations for participants ranged between 138 and 744 students with

the average school population being 458 students. Also, 50.9% of participants taught at

schools that performed below the state and district averages on the 2003 FCAT Science

Exam. The remaining 49.1% of participants taught at schools performing above the state

and district averages on the 2003 FCAT Science Exam. Table 16 provides the school

demographic information including school enrollment, student ethnicity percentages,

2003 FCAT Science mean scores, and the number of teachers who participated in the

study.

Treatments

For each experimental group, there were a total of six hours of elementary science

professional development workshops divided into two-hour segments. The workshops

addressed seven elementary science topics as well as the development of constructivist

learning environments in the elementary classroom. Because the school district's scores

on the Physical and Chemical Sciences and the Scientific Thinking sections of the FCAT

Elementary Science Exam were below the state average, the content of the professional

development workshops was designed to address topics in these areas. Areas of focus

included Newton's laws of motion, energy, and electricity from the Physical and

Chemical Sciences, and the scientific method, observation, experimentation, and

measurement from the area of Scientific Thinking. The schedule of workshops can be

found in Appendix D and the activities of each workshop session are detailed in

Appendix E.










Table 16. School Demographic Information
School Number of School Size Ethnicity (%) 2003 FCAT
Participants (Enrollment) Science
(Mean Score)
Biltmore 1 324 Black: 85%, Mixed: 1%, 251
White: 14%


Cedar Hills




Central Riverside



Crystal Springs




Gregory Drive



Hendricks Avenue



Holiday Hill



Hyde Grove



Hyde Park



Stonewall Jackson


White: 50%, Black: 38%,
Hispanic: 6%, Mixed:
4%, Indian: 1%, Asian:
1%

Black: 69%, White: 20%,
Mixed: 6%, Hispanic:
4%, Asian: 2%

White: 64%, Black: 27%,
Mixed: 4%, Hispanic:
3%, Asian: 2%


White: 48%, Black: 38%,
Hispanic: 6%, Mixed:
4%, Asian: 3%

White: 73%, Black: 19%,
Mixed: 3%, Hispanic:
2%, Asian: 2%

White: 67%, Black: 26%,
Mixed: 4%, Hispanic:
2%, Asian: 1%

Black: 70%, White: 21%,
Mixed: 4%, Hispanic:
3%, Asian: 1%

White: 48%, Black: 45%,
Mixed: 4%, Hispanic:
2%, Asian: 1%

Black: 46%, White: 43%,
Mixed: 5%, Hispanic:
4%, Asian: 2%

White: 83%, Black: 14%,
Hispanic: 2%, Indian: 1%

White: 59%, Black: 29%,
Hispanic: 7%, Mixed:
3%, Asian: 2%

Black: 54%, White: 30%,
Hispanic: 7%, Mixed:
5%, Asian: 4%


Thomas Jefferson


Normandy



Oak Hill










Table 16 Contd.
School Number of School Size Ethnicity (%) 2003 FCAT
Participants (Enrollment) Science
(Mean Score)
Pinedale 5 537 Black: 72%, White: 22%, 256
Hispanic: 2%, Mixed:
2%, Asian: 2%

Ramona 2 461 Black: 52%, White: 39%, 273
Hispanic: 4%, Mixed:
3%, Asian: 2%

Reynolds Lane 1 310 Black: 49%, White: 29%, 292
Hispanic: 15%, Asian:
5%, Mixed: 2%

Sadie Tillis 1 391 Black: 50%, White: 35%, 277
Hispanic: 9%, Mixed:
4%, Asian: 2%

Louis Sheffield 2 744 White: 93%, Black: 4%, 306
Hispanic: 1%, Mixed: 1%


Spring Park 3 373 Black: 51%, White: 34%, 259
Hispanic: 6%, Mixed:
6%, Asian: 4%

Timucuan 2 658 White: 59%, Black: 29%, 275
Hispanic: 7%, Mixed:
3%, Asian: 2%

Venetia 5 420 White: 45%, Black: 35%, 303
Hispanic: 9%, Mixed:
8%, Asian: 2%

Note: The data in this table were taken from the Individual School Profiles section of the
Duval County Public Schools Website (2004b).

After gaining approval to conduct research from the University of Florida's

Institutional Review Board (UF IRB Protocol Number: 2004-U-298), approval to

conduct research was attained from the Research and Evaluation Department of the

Duval County School Board. After approval was granted by the Research and Evaluation

Department, approval to carry out two series of professional development workshops had

to be granted by the Professional Development Department and Science Department of

the Duval County School Board. Permission to conduct the workshops was granted and









the workshops were recognized as part of the teachers' continuing professional

development. As a result, participants in the experimental groups that completed the

workshops received six inservice points that could be applied to teacher re-certification

and an hourly stipend from Duval County.

Both series of workshops addressed identical content (see Appendix F). In the

workshops, a variety of issues were addressed through an assortment of different

activities. For example, after the pretest data collection on the first day, an introductory

discussion was held regarding current issues in elementary science. This allowed

participants to voice their feelings on the state of science teaching in the elementary

classroom and provide the rationale for their feelings. Following this discussion, pre-

structuring for the first activity began. The presentation was conducted as an instructor-

led whole-group discussion. Ideas and concepts were introduced to participants and

follow-up questions were asked in an effort to determine the level of science content

knowledge regarding kinematics, the topic for the particular activity. Following this, the

first activity was performed in small groups. After the activity was completed, a whole-

group discussion of the findings was held. A similar format was followed for the second

activity of the day by modeling a different instructional strategy. After the two daily

activities, a closing discussion was conducted. The workshop concluded with

participants writing reviews of the lessons. Differences in the workshops consisted of the

manner in which activities were accessed and presented, the manner in which

presentations were accessed and presented, and the method used to read and write lesson

reviews (See Appendix F). First, for the hypermedia group, activities and pre-structuring

presentations were accessed via the hypermedia environment Elementary Level Lessons









in Physical Science (ELLIPS). To do this, participants were first introduced to the

hypermedia environment. Following this, they were provided an opportunity to search

for content resources related to the first topic: kinematics. Following this, a discussion

on kinematics ensued. After this, participants were prompted to use the hypermedia

environment to access various lessons related to kinematics. When lessons were

accessed, a single lesson was selected and then conducted in small groups. This

procedure was then conducted for each activity presented throughout the series of

workshops. Lesson reviews were completed online with the lesson review feature of

ELLIPS. After each workshop session had concluded, participants were prompted to add

lesson reviews utilizing the hypermedia environment. To do this, participants selected

the specific activity that was performed (See Appendix D). When the activity was

selected, an 'Add A Review' link was selected. Participants were then provided an

opportunity to write reviews for each lesson. For the traditional group, activities and pre-

structuring presentations were found in the workshop book provided to participants.

Participants accessed lessons and content resources related to similar topics in the

workshop book. After accessing content resources, a group discussion ensued.

Following the discussion, individual activities were conducted in small groups. At the

conclusion of each workshop session, participants were prompted to complete lesson

review forms located in the individual workshop books.

A similar format took place for each workshop. The content in the three workshops

was (1) kinematics and acceleration, (2) mass, weight, gravity, and simple electricity, and

(3) waves and simple machines.









Instrumentation

The two instruments used in this study were the Program to Improve Elementary

Science (PIES) Science Knowledge Test (Zielinski & Smith, 1990) and the Science

Attitude Scale for Inservice Elementary Teachers II (Shrigley & Johnson, 1974).

The PIES Science Knowledge Test.

The PIES Science Knowledge Test is a 25-item multiple-choice instrument

designed by Zielinski and Smith (1990) to evaluate the effectiveness of the PIES Project.

The instrument was derived from an original PIES test that included 50 multiple-choice

items and had a test-retest reliability of r-.67 using 24 participants over a two-week

period. The instrument was designed to measure participants' comprehension of basic

science principles and processes. Areas of science content addressed by this instrument

include life sciences, earth sciences, and physical sciences. Science processes addressed

by this instrument include data analysis, data clarification, and identification of variables.

An internal consistency of r =.89 was determined using Kuder-Richardson-20 procedures

(Zielinski & Smith, 1990). The instrument can be found in Appendix B.

The Science Attitude Scale for Inservice Elementary Teachers II.

The Science Attitude Scale for Inservice Elementary Teachers II is a 26-item

Likert-type instrument designed by Shrigley and Johnson (1974) to assess inservice

teachers' attitudes toward science. The scale consists of 16 positive statements and 10

negative statements on a Likert-scale. Topics of the Science Attitude Scale for Inservice

Elementary Teachers II include enjoyment of science, interest in science, and confidence

in teaching science and conducting scientific experiments. The items on the scale were

submitted to Likert Analysis. In conducting the Likert Analysis, items were weighted as

follows: "On positive statements, 'strongly agree' was weighted as 5 points; 'agree,' 4









points; 'undecided,' 3 points; 'disagree,' 2 points; and 'strongly disagree,' 1 point. In

scoring negative statements, the weights were reversed" (Shrigley & Johnson, 1974, p.

439). In order to establish reliability of the instrument, the scale was administered to 114

inservice elementary teachers. A reliability coefficient alpha of .92 was calculated for the

instrument. When the scale was submitted to test-retest procedures a correlation

coefficient of .94 was calculated. All items on the scale reported an item-total correlation

greater than .30 (Shrigley & Johnson, 1974). The item-total correlation consists of "each

respondent's score on a particular item when correlated with that respondent's score on

the remaining items" (Shrigley & Johnson, 1974, p. 439). Table 17 illustrates each

statement type (positive or negative) and the item-total correlation for each item. The

instrument can be found in Appendix A.










Table 17. Item-Total Correlations for the Science Attitude Scale for Inservice Teachers
II
Statement Statement Item-total
Type Correlation
As a teacher, I am afraid that science demonstrations will not work. Negative .34
I enjoy discussing science topics with fellow teachers. Positive .76
If I had time, I would like to attend an elementary science workshop Positive .55
during the summer.
If I were to enroll in a college science course, I would enjoy the Positive .55
laboratory periods of the course.
I am afraid that I do not have enough background to teach science Negative .61
adequately.
If I were to return to college for additional graduate work, I would Positive .59
enroll in at least one science course.
I enjoy manipulating science equipment. Positive .69
I believe science is too difficult for me to learn. Negative .36
I would like to have a desk barometer that measures air pressure. Positive .72
I would like to work with the science consultant on my science Positive .55
program.
Most science equipment confuses me. Negative .56
I enjoy constructing simple equipment. Positive .62
I would not enjoy working in a science laboratory for a summer. Negative .42
I enjoy science courses. Positive .53
I would enjoy participating in a science inservice program in my school Positive .57
district.
I eagerly anticipate the teaching of science to elementary school Positive .71
children.
Science is my favorite subject. Positive .70
If I were to enroll in any college science course, I would likely be Negative .38
bored.
I prefer teaching science over any other subject of elementary school. Positive .68
I would not like to keep a hamster in my classroom. Negative .33
In a departmental situation or similar situation, I would like to be Positive .71
responsible for teaching all of the science.
I am apprehensive about anything that is associated with science. Negative .54
I would read an issue of the professional journal, Science and Children, Positive .59
if it were in the teacher's room.
I would be interested in working in an experimental science curriculum Positive .68
project.
If given a choice in professional improvement, I would choose any area Negative .73
but science.
I would prefer to be a team leader in any curriculum area but science. Negative .56
Note: Adapted from "The Attitude of Inservice Elementary Teachers Toward Science"
by R. L. Shrigley and T.M. Johnson, 1974, School Science and Mathematics, 74(5), pp.
439-440.

The Hypermedia Environment

Due to the fact that inservice elementary teachers are often inexperienced with

physical science content (Harlen & Holroyd, 1997; Hurd, 1982; Stevens & Wenner,









1996; Tilgner, 1990; Weiss, 1994), a hypermedia environment was designed to aid in the

structuring and organization of the material. The Elementary Level Lessons in Physical

Science (ELLIPS) is a web-based hypermedia environment developed for inservice

teachers. There are a number of components and teacher resources embedded in

ELLIPS. First, it contains a collection of searchable elementary school level physical

science activities. Physical science activities are organized according to a number of

criteria, including topic, type of activity, grade level, amount of equipment needed, and

the Sunshine State Standards (statewide academic standards for all K-12 Florida

students). Second, ELLIPS contains a collection of teacher content resources. These

resources are organized utilizing identical topic areas present in the collection of physical

science activities. Third, ELLIPS contains a discussion board. With this tool, teachers

can post discussion topics as well as reply to topics posted by others. Finally, ELLIPS

users have the ability to read and write reviews for the lessons embedded in the

hypermedia structure.

Information that is both complex and often new to the learner was presented using

ELLIPS. Due to the environment and content being new to the learners, a database

structure was embedded in ELLIPS in an effort to diminish many of the constraints of the

hypermedia environment. Another important note is that the strengths of each medium,

databases and hypermedia, were a major focus during the development of the tool. The

database structure was used for the storage, organization, and retrieval of information

while the hypermedia structure was used to address navigation, structure, and

presentation of the information. All of these factors were implemented to develop a more

effective learning environment.









Data Collection

The professional development workshops (see Appendices C and D) were held

from April 27 to May 13, 2004; each workshop series was six hours (see Table 18). The

six hours of professional development were divided into two-hour segments scheduled

one week apart. They were carried out at Edward H. White High School, a local high

school near a majority of participants' home schools, from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. Each of the

instruments was administered prior to the beginning of the first professional development

workshop and after the final activity of each group's third workshop. The instruments

were administered to the control group prior to the beginning of any of the workshops

and again after a three-week interval. The time interval of three weeks between the

administration of the pretest and posttest measures was identical for all three groups. The

Science Attitude Scale (Shrigley & Johnson, 1974) took between 10 and 15 minutes to

complete and the PIES Science Knowledge Test (Zielinski & Smith, 1990) took between

15 and 25 minutes to complete.

Table 18. Schedule of Data Collection and Workshops
Control Hypermedia Traditional

Pretest data collection April 26 & 27, 2004 April 27, 2004 April 29, 2004

Workshop 1 None April 27, 2004 April 29, 2004

Workshop 2 None May 4, 2004 May 6, 2004

Workshop 3 None May 11, 2004 May 13, 2004

Posttest data collection May 11-14, 2004 May 11, 2004 May 13, 2004



Data Analysis

The scores of each survey were analyzed by examining the range and means of the

pretest and posttest scores to assess changes in science content knowledge and attitudes









towards science. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software was

used to analyze all quantitative data. In order to increase statistical power and to control

for the effects of the covariates, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted on

the groups to determine if there were significant main effects and interaction effects

(Borg & Gall, 1989). Significant differences in means were measured using a

probability value of p < 0.05. The pretest served as the baseline measure for attitudes

toward science and science content knowledge. In situations in which there were

significant effects or effects approaching significance, Tukey HSD post-hoc pairwise

comparisons were conducted to further examine differences between groups and to

control for type I error across additional comparisons. Hays (1994) reported the Tukey

HSD post-hoc test is a suitable follow-up procedure for an ANCOVA. Also, according to

Hinkle, Wiersma, and Jurs (1994), the Tukey HSD post-hoc analysis is an appropriate

procedure for equal group sizes that illustrate a significant F-ratio. The Tukey HSD

analysis is also useful with less complex contrasts, such as those implemented in this

study.

Hypotheses

The following research hypotheses were tested using an analysis of covariance

statistical test. This was done to increase statistical power and to control for the effects of

the covariates. The ANCOVA allows for an appropriate comparison of group mean

scores on each posttest measure, accounting for group mean score adjustments based on

the covariate variable pretestt measures). This provides for a more effective investigation

of the effects of the independent variables (Hinkle et al., 1994).









Hypothesis 1. There is a significant difference in scores on the PIES Science

Knowledge test between the control group and the traditional group after

inservice professional development.

Hypothesis 2. There is a significant difference in scores on the PIES Science

Knowledge test between the control group and the hypermedia group after

inservice professional development.

Hypothesis 3. There is a significant difference in scores on the PIES Science

Knowledge test between the traditional group and the hypermedia group after

inservice professional development.

Hypothesis 4. There is a significant difference in scores on the Science Attitude

Scale between the control group and the traditional group after inservice

professional development.

Hypothesis 5. There is a significant difference in scores on the Science Attitude

Scale between the control group and the hypermedia group after inservice

professional development.

Hypothesis 6. There is no significant difference in scores on the Science Attitude

Scale between the traditional group and the hypermedia group after inservice

professional development.

Internal Validity Concerns

In addressing internal validity issues, it is important to control for various

extraneous variables in such a manner that any observed differences in the experiment

can be attributed to the treatment (Tuckman, 1978). In non-equivalent control group

designs, Campbell and Stanley (1963) recorded eight variables that can potentially

confound the effects of the treatment. These threats are history, maturation,









instrumentation, testing, selection, mortality, selection-maturation interaction, and

regression. In an effort to reduce the effect of these factors on the internal validity of the

study, these threats to internal validity were addressed in the following ways.

History and Maturation

History and maturation are two internal validity concerns that did not play a large

role in this study. To address history concerns, the content and structure of each of the

treatment groups were identical. Maturation concerns were also negligible in this study

because the length of the study was only three weeks. Therefore, maturation had little

effect on participants and/or results of the study.

Instrumentation and Testing

To address instrumentation concerns, participants from all groups were subjected to

identical testing material. Also, instrument items were in a multiple choice or Likert-

scale format to reduce rater-bias. Because the same instruments were used for both the

pretest and posttest measures, test-retest was a concern in this study. A control group

was used to address potential increases in posttest scores that may have resulted from

participants having taken an identical pretest. During the analysis of the data, appropriate

statistical analyses were implemented to adjust for initial group differences.

Selection

Selection issues are often a problem in quasi-experimental designs. In this study, t-

tests were conducted on both pretest measures for all groups and resulted in no

statistically significant differences between the groups for either science content

knowledge or attitudes toward science. However, this method, in itself, is not sufficient

to address selection issues and to assure group equivalence (Cook & Campbell, 1979).

As a result, the statistical analyses that were conducted on the posttest scores for both









science content knowledge and attitudes toward science used the pretest measures as

covariates. The covariates adjusted the analyses for initial group differences.

Mortality

In this study, it was difficult to control for mortality issues. To address absentee

issues, any participant absent for more than 34% of the workshops was excluded from the

study. Mortality and absentee rates for each treatment group were similar. Each

experimental group in the study began with 22 participants and concluded with 19

participants.

Selection-maturation Interaction

As in many quasi-experimental designs, selection differences and resulting

interactions with maturation can pose threats to internal validity. However, due to the

method of group selection and the brief duration of the professional development

workshops (treatments), selection differences and interactions with maturity had only

minimal negative effects on the internal validity of the study.

Regression

In this study, participants registered for one of two different series of elementary

science professional development workshops. Many participants opted for the series of

workshops (Tuesdays or Thursdays) that best fit their schedule. However, some

participants let the researcher assign the individual workshop. As a result, the researcher

attempted to make the non-randomly assigned groups as similar as possible. Statistical

tests indicated no significant differences existed between groups on either the science

content knowledge or attitudes toward science pretest measures.









Summary of Internal Validity Concerns

Having reviewed the factors affecting internal validity, only selection, mortality,

and regression threatened the internal validity of this study. While these factors may

have diminished the internal validity of this study, each factor was addressed in an effort

to minimalize its negative influences on the internal validity of this study.

External Validity Concerns

In addition to addressing internal validity issues, it is also important to control for

external validity, or generalizability, concerns. In non-equivalent control group designs,

four variables can potentially confound the effects of the treatment. Campbell and

Stanley (1963) identified these threats as testing-interaction effects, maturation,

treatment-interaction effects, and other interactions with the treatment. In this study,

these threats to external validity were addressed in the following ways.

Testing-interaction Effects

In this study, a pretest measure was administered for each of the dependent

variables, science content knowledge, and attitudes toward science. By either increasing

or decreasing a participant's responsiveness to the experimental variable, the use of a

pretest measure may significantly reduce the generalizability of a study. Therefore, a

pretest was administered to both experimental groups and the control group.

Maturation

In non-equivalent control group research designs, maturation can be a threat to both

internal and external validity. As mentioned previously, maturation concerns were

minimal in this study due to the brief duration of the professional development

workshops. As a result, maturation had little impact on participants and/or the results of

this study.









Treatment-interaction Effects

Treatment-interaction effects can also influence the external validity of a study. In

this study, because participants underwent a variety of experiences throughout the school

day, and that the treatment, combined with these experiences, may have unique effects,

the generalizability of the study may be compromised. However, in an effort to control

for these effects, participants experienced workshops typical of the Duval County

professional development program. Due to similarities in participants' schools and the

in-school events that occur at the end of the school year, it is reasonable to presume that

the experiences of the participants were similar enough to only minimally influence the

external validity of the study.

Other Interactions with the Treatment

Another potential threat to external validity was the interaction of selection with the

treatment. This relates to the generalizability of the findings of this study in that if the

participants do not accurately represent the larger population, it is difficult to generalize

the findings. However, demographic information collected from participants indicated a

wide array of backgrounds. While the vast majority of the participants were female, as is

typical at the elementary level, other demographic information, such as number of years

teaching, grade taught, and comfort level with computers all showed a wide array of

responses. As a result, the interaction of selection with the treatment had a minimal

impact on the external validity of this study.

An additional potential threat to external validity was the "Hawthorne Effect," or

the Reactive Effects of Experimental Arrangements. This potential threat occurs when

participants, as a result of taking part in an experimental study, react strongly to the

treatment. While participants in this study knew they were part of an experimental study,









they were provided with professional development opportunities that paralleled

experiences they would typically experience in the professional development setting. As

a result, the reactive effects to the treatments had no effect on the external validity of this

study.

Summary of External Validity Concerns

In examining the factors that influence external validity, it was determined that

there were only minimal influences on the study's external validity. While issues such as

treatment-interaction effects, maturity, testing-interaction effects, and other interactions

with the treatment were present, they were adequately controlled in the design of the

study. Although these factors were controlled other issues restricted the generalizability

of the study. These issues included the length of the workshops, the lack of measures of

treatment over time, and the absence of measures of student achievement. Without

further research, the generalizability of this study to other populations is limited.














CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to examine the growth in science content knowledge

and changes in attitudes toward science with the integration of hypermedia into

professional development workshops for elementary teachers. In particular, this study

observed whether or not a professional development setting that implemented a

hypermedia environment had a positive influence on elementary teachers' attitudes

toward science and knowledge of scientific topics and processes. In this chapter, the

results of the statistical analyses for the study are presented. An explanation of the

findings will occur in Chapter 5. Study questions and corresponding research hypotheses

were as follows:

Research Question 1. To what extent does the use of hypermedia during inservice

professional development increase elementary teachers' understanding of elementary

science concepts?

Hypothesis 1. There is a significant difference in scores on the PIES Science

Knowledge test between the control group and the traditional group after

inservice professional development.

Hypothesis 2. There is a significant difference in scores on the PIES Science

Knowledge test between the control group and the hypermedia group after

inservice professional development.









Hypothesis 3. There is a significant difference in scores on the PIES Science

Knowledge test between the traditional group and the hypermedia group after

inservice professional development.

Research Question 2. To what extent does the use of hypermedia during inservice

professional development influence elementary teachers' attitudes toward science?

Hypothesis 4. There is a significant difference in scores on the Science Attitude

Scale between the control group and the traditional group after inservice

professional development.

Hypothesis 5. There is a significant difference in scores on the Science Attitude

Scale between the control group and the hypermedia group after inservice

professional development.

Hypothesis 6. There is a significant difference in scores on the Science Attitude

Scale between the traditional group and the hypermedia group after inservice

professional development.

General Study Details

This non-equivalent control group quasi-experimental study took place from April

27 to May 13, 2004, in a physics lab and computer lab at Edward H. White High School

in Jacksonville, Florida. A total of 57 inservice elementary teachers from Duval County

comprised three groups: a control group and two experimental groups (one with and one

without hypermedia). Participants in each of the experimental groups experienced a

series of three two-hour professional development workshops addressing issues,

concepts, and skills associated with teaching science in the elementary classroom.









Study Sample

The sample in this study consisted of 57 inservice elementary teachers from 21

schools in the Duval County school system. In the study, 95% of the teachers were

female and 5% were male; 77% of the participants were non-Hispanic white individuals,

and 23% were African-American. All participants had a bachelor's degree, and 25%

listed a master's degree as their highest level of education. Almost three-quarters

(70.2%) of the participants taught in the upper elementary grades (third through fifth),

and the remaining participants (29.8%) taught in the lower elementary grade levels

(kindergarten through second). In this study, 40% of participants had less than five years

of teaching experience. Yet, there were also participants (22.8%) with more than 20

years of teaching experience. Hence, the experience level of the sample varied.

While many of the teachers (38.6%) have participated in science professional

development activities within the past year, 61.2% have not participated in science

professional development activities in more than a year, and 36.8% have not participated

in elementary science professional development activities in more than three years.

Nearly 90% of the participants rated themselves as an average or above-average

computer user. Yet only 38.7% of the participants rated themselves as an average or

above hypermedia user. Participants also reported using computers more for productivity

purposes (93%) than for instructional purposes (81%).

Participants were also surveyed on their attitudes, knowledge, and comfort level

toward science. Nearly all participants (94.7%) "liked" science and many participants

(88.7%) felt comfortable teaching elementary science concepts. Yet only 56.1% felt they

had sufficient science content knowledge.









Assignment to Groups

This research study had 57 participants in three groups: control, hypermedia, and

traditional. Due to issues related to availability of participants, duration of the

workshops, and lab space for the workshops, random assignment was not implemented in

this study. During the recruitment process, teachers from Duval County were asked to

register for one of two series of workshops (either Tuesdays or Thursdays), unaware of

any differences between the series of workshops. The researcher decided prior to the

selection of teachers that the Tuesday workshops would be the hypermedia group and the

Thursday workshops would comprise the traditional group. Control group participants

were also recruited from Duval County. These participants consisted of teachers who

were asked to complete the pretest and posttest measures at designated times. Control

group participants were aware they would not be receiving a treatment. Both the

traditional group and the hypermedia group began with 22 participants. Due to

resignation, illness, and other reasons, each group concluded the study with 19

participants. Participants in the experimental groups received an hourly stipend and

inservice points from the Duval County school district as part of their continuing

professional development.

Statistical Analyses

Statistical Tests

In order to increase power and to account for initial group differences, an analysis

of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted to determine if there were significant main

effects and interaction effects between groups (Borg & Gall, 1989). When there were

significant effects or effects approaching significance, Tukey HSD post-hoc pairwise

comparisons were conducted to further examine the results. An a priori alpha level was









set at .05 to determine the level of significance. The pretest measures for science content

knowledge (PIES Science Knowledge Test) and attitudes toward science (Science

Attitude Scale for Inservice Elementary Teachers II) acted as the baseline measures.

Descriptive and Inferential Statistics

Descriptive statistics for both science content knowledge and attitudes toward

science on the pretest and posttest measures are reported in Tables 23 and 24. Table 19

reports each group's mean and standard deviation on the pretest and posttest measures for

science content knowledge. Table 20 provides each group's mean and standard deviation

of the pretest and posttest measures of attitudes toward science.

Table 19. Means and Standard Deviations of Science Content Knowledge Scores
Pretest Posttest
M SD M SD
Control (N=19) 15.63 2.83 16.11 2.75
Traditional (N=19) 15.95 3.75 19.26 2.45
Hypermedia (N=19) 16.37 3.56 19.38 1.73


Table 20. Means and Standard Deviations on Science Attitude Scale
Pretest Posttest
M SD M SD
Control (N=19) 95.00 17.17 94.68 16.35
Traditional (N=19) 95.32 16.04 92.84 15.82
Hypermedia (N=19) 92.05 17.66 99.68 14.55


Means on the pretest measure for science content knowledge were similar for all

groups (F2,57=.224, p=.800). Group mean scores on the pretest measure of science

content knowledge were 15.63 (control group), 15.95 (traditional group), and 16.37

(hypermedia group). Posttest scores were greatest for the hypermedia group (M=19.38,

SD=1.73), followed closely by the traditional group (M=19.26, SD=2.45) and further by

the control group (M=16.11, SD=2.75). Means on the pretest measure for attitude toward

science were also similar for all groups (F2,57=.214, p=.808). Group mean scores on the









pretest measure of attitudes toward science were 95.00 (control group), 95.32 (traditional

group), and 92.05 (hypermedia group). Posttest scores were greatest for the hypermedia

group (M=99.68, SD=14.55), followed by the control group (M=94.68, SD=16.35) and

further by the traditional group (M=92.84, SD= 15.82).

Science Content Knowledge

Data from Table 19 provide the mean and standard deviation of science content

knowledge for each group, as measured by the Project to Improve Elementary Science

(PIES) Science Content Knowledge Test. Pretest scores were greatest for the hypermedia

group (M=16.37, SD=3.56), followed by the traditional group (M=15.95, SD=3.75) and

the control group (M=15.63, SD=2.83). Posttest scores were greatest for the hypermedia

group (M=19.38, SD=1.73), followed closely by the traditional group (M=19.26,

SD=2.45) and concluding with the control group (M=16.11, SD=2.75). To analyze the

results of each group's pretest and posttest scores for science content knowledge, an

analysis of covariance was conducted. Adjusted means and standard errors of the science

content knowledge scores, which result from the analysis of covariance, are reported in

Table 21. In this analysis, the fixed factor was the group (treatment) with three levels

(control, traditional, and hypermedia), the covariate was the PIES Science Content

Knowledge pretest score, and the dependent variable was the PIES Science Content

Knowledge posttest score. Results of the ANCOVA (see Table 22) revealed that the

pretest covariate was significantly related to the corresponding posttest scores (F=42.782,

p<.001, ES=.456), and the professional development workshops (groups) explained 62%

of the variance in the posttest (Adjusted R2=.62). There were also significant group

effects (Fi,57=11.444, p<.001, ES=.310) and interaction effects between the pretest scores

and the groups (Fi,57=6.679, p=.003, ES=.208).









Table 21. Adjusted Means and Standard Error of Science Content Knowledge Scores
(Dependent Variable: PIES Posttest Score)
Mean SE
Group
Control 16.248 .439
Hypermedia 19.527 .439
Traditional 19.277 .438
a. Evaluated covariates appeared in the model: PIES Pretest Score = 15.98.


Table 22. Tests of Between-Subjects Effects for Group Means (Dependent Variable:
PIES Posttest Score)
Source SS df MS F p r2
Corrected Model 289.645 5 57.929 19.267 .000 .654
Intercept 268.601 1 268.601 89.336 .000 .637
GROUP 68.814 2 34.407 11.444 .000 .310
PIESPRE 128.631 1 128.631 42.782 .000 .456
GROUP PIESPRE 40.161 2 20.080 6.679 .003 .208
Error 153.338 51 3.007
Total 19638.000 57
Corrected Total 442.982 56
a R Squared = .654 (Adjusted R Squared = .620)


It appears that there may have been a main effect (Fi,57=11.444, p<.001, ES=.310)

of the treatment on science content knowledge. However, this may be somewhat

misleading because of the interaction effect between the pretest scores and the groups

(Fi,57=6.679, p=.003, ES=.208). In essence, the effects of the treatment (groups)

depended on the pretest scores. To examine the interaction effects, a plot of pretest and

posttest scores for each group was investigated (see Figure 1)

For the control group members, PIES Science Knowledge Test pretest and posttest

scores correlated highly (R=.7934), as seen in Figure 1. Control group participants with

low PIES Science Knowledge Test pretest scores also had low PIES Science Knowledge

Test posttest scores. Control group participants with high PIES Science Knowledge Test

pretest scores also had high PIES Science Knowledge Test posttest scores. Overall, there









was little increase in science content knowledge scores for the control group. For

traditional group members, PIES Science Knowledge Test pretest and posttest scores had

a smaller correlation (R=.2365). Traditional group participants with low PIES Science

Knowledge Test pretest scores had relatively large increases in PIES Science Knowledge

Test posttest scores. Traditional group participants with high PIES Science Knowledge

Test pretest scores had smaller increases in PIES Science Knowledge Test posttest

scores. This indicated that the professional development workshops had a more

significant positive influence on the science content knowledge of participants that

entered the professional development setting with limited science content knowledge and

less influence on the science content knowledge of participants that entered the

professional development setting with more science content knowledge. This trend was

similar for the hypermedia group. Hypermedia group participants with low PIES Science

Knowledge Test pretest scores had relatively large increases in PIES Science Knowledge

Test posttest scores. Hypermedia group participants with high PIES Science Knowledge

Test pretest scores had smaller increases in PIES Science Knowledge Test posttest

scores. Again, this indicated that the professional development workshops with

hypermedia had a more significant positive influence on the science content knowledge

of participants that entered the professional development setting with limited science

content knowledge and less influence on the science content knowledge of participants

that entered the professional development environment with more science content

knowledge. Evidence of these interaction effects are illustrated in Table 22 and Figure 1.










24


22


20 [[


18
Sa aGroup

O 16 y a
S16 traditional
4- /Rsq = 0.2365
14 14
hypermedia
SRsq = 0.2040
S12
1O no control
0- 10- Rsq = 0.7934
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22


PIES Pre-Test Score
Figure 1. Plot of PIES Pretest and Posttest Scores for each group.

In determining the extent to which the treatment (the use of hypermedia) influenced

changes in science content knowledge, the effect size was examined. The effect size for

the change in science content knowledge indicated a small practical significance

(ES=.31). Examining the mean score gains (see Table 19), the growth in science content

knowledge was greater for the traditional group (3.31) and the hypermedia group (3.01)

than it was for the control group (.48). This analysis shows the traditional group had the

greatest growth in science content knowledge, followed closely by the hypermedia group.

There was little growth in science content knowledge for the control group. Hence, the

extent of the hypermedia environment workshops on growth in science content

knowledge was negligible.









Attitudes Toward Science

Data from Table 20 provide the means and standard deviations of attitudes toward

science for each group, as measured by the Science Attitude Scale for Inservice Teachers

II. Pretest scores were greatest for the traditional group (M=95.32, SD=16.04), followed

by the control group (M=95.00, SD=17.17) and the hypermedia group (M=92.05,

SD=17.66). Posttest scores were greatest for the hypermedia group (M=99.68,

SD=14.55), followed by the control group (M=94.68, SD=16.35) and further by the

traditional group (M=92.84, SD=15.82). An analysis of covariance was conducted to

analyze the results of each group's pretest and posttest scores of attitudes toward science.

Adjusted means and standard errors of attitudes toward science scores, which resulted

from the analysis of covariance, are reported in Table 23. In this analysis, the fixed

factor was the group (treatment) with three levels (control, traditional, and hypermedia),

the covariate was the Science Attitude Scale for Inservice Teachers II pretest score, and

the dependent variable was the Science Attitude Scale for Inservice Teachers II posttest

score. Results of the ANCOVA (see Table 24) revealed the pretest covariate was

significantly related to the corresponding posttest scores (F2,57=192.666, p<.001,

ES=.791). The professional development workshops (groups) explained 78.1% of the

variance in the posttest (Adjusted R2=.781). There were no significant group main

effects (Fi,57=2.980, p<.060, ES=.105) or interactions between the pretest scores and the

groups (Fi,57=1.724, p=.189, ES=.063).









Table 23. Adjusted Means and Standard Error of Attitudes Toward Science Scores
(Dependent Variable: Science Attitude Scale Posttest Score)
Mean SE
Group
Control 93.973 1.695
Hypermedia 101.364 1.699
Traditional 91.874 1.696


Table 24. Tests of Between-Subjects Effects for Attitudes Toward Science (Dependent
Variable: Science Attitude Scale Posttest Score)
Source SS df MS F p r2
Corrected Model 10891.159 5 2178.232 41.024 .000 .801
Intercept 610.635 1 610.635 11.501 .001 .184
GROUP 316.419 2 158.210 2.980 .060 .105
ATTPRE 10229.804 1 10229.804 192.666 .000 .791
GROUP ATTPRE 183.068 2 91.534 1.724 .189 .063
Error 2707.894 51 53.096
Total 536035.000 57
Corrected Total 13599.053 56
a. R Squared = .801 (Adjusted R Squared = .781)


Although the ANCOVA results showed no significant group main effects, Tukey

HSD post-hoc pairwise comparisons were conducted because the level was close to the

pre-determined alpha level (Fi,57=2.980, p=.060). These analyses indicated a significant

difference in the Science Attitude for Inservice Teachers II posttest scores for the control

group and hypermedia group (Fi,57=9.463, p=.003) as noted in Table 25. Table 26 data

did not illustrate a significant difference in the Science Attitude Scale for Inservice

Teachers II posttest scores between the control group and traditional group (Fi,57=.767,

p=.385). Finally, data from Table 27 indicated a significant difference between the

hypermedia group and the traditional group scores (Fi,57=15.581, p<.001).









Table 25. Tests of Significant Differences Between Control Group's and Hypermedia
Group's Attitudes Toward Science (Dependent Variable: Science Attitude
Scale Posttest Score)
Source SS df MS F p
Contrast 516.199 1 516.199 9.463 .003
Error 2890.962 53 54.546


Table 26. Tests of Significant Differences Between Control Group's and Traditional
Group's Attitudes Toward Science (Dependent Variable: Science Attitude
Scale Posttest Score)
Source SS df MS F p
Contrast 41.823 1 41.823 .767 .385
Error 2890.962 53 54.546


Table 27. Tests of Significant Differences Between Traditional Group's and Hypermedia
Group's Attitudes Toward Science (Dependent Variable: Science Attitude
Scale Posttest Score)
Source SS df MS F p
Contrast 849.889 1 849.889 15.581 .000
Error 2890.962 53 54.546

In determining the extent to which the treatment (the use of hypermedia in the

workshop) influenced changes in attitudes toward science, effect size was examined. The

effect size for the change in attitudes toward science (ES=.791) indicated more practical

significance than existed for changes in science content knowledge. Examining the mean

score gains, the increase in positive attitudes toward science was significantly greater for

the hypermedia group (7.63) than it was for the traditional group (-2.48) and the control

group (-.32). Examining the pretest and posttest differences, there were slight decreases

in positive attitudes toward science for both the traditional and control group. Hence, the

professional development workshop with hypermedia contributed to change in attitudes.









Research Hypotheses

Using the results from the data analysis, the research hypotheses findings will be

presented. A discussion of the meaning, significance, and implications of the findings

will be presented in Chapter 5.

Research Hypothesis #1

Hypothesis #1 of this study was there will be a significant difference in scores on

the Project to Improve Elementary Science (PIES) Science Content Knowledge Test

between the control group and the traditional group after the science inservice

professional development workshops. A pairwise comparison indicated there was a

significant difference (p<.001) between the control group and traditional group on

science content knowledge. Therefore, this study fails to reject research hypothesis #1.

Research Hypothesis #2

Research hypothesis #2 of this study was there will be a significant difference in

scores on the Project to Improve Elementary Science (PIES) Science Content Knowledge

Test between the control group and the hypermedia group after the science inservice

professional development workshops. A pairwise comparison indicated there was a

significant difference (p<.001) between the control group and the hypermedia group.

Therefore, this study fails to reject research hypothesis #2.

Research Hypothesis #3

Research hypothesis #3 of this study was there will be a significant difference in

scores on the Project to Improve Elementary Science (PIES) Science Content Knowledge

Test between the traditional group and the hypermedia group after a series of science

inservice professional development workshops. A pairwise comparison indicated there









was no significant difference (p=.690) between the traditional group and the hypermedia

group. Therefore, this study rejects research hypothesis #3.

Research Hypothesis #4

Research hypothesis #4 of this study was there will be a significant difference in

scores on the Science Attitude Scale between the control group and the traditional group

after the science inservice professional development workshops. A Tukey HSD post-hoc

pairwise comparison indicated no significant difference (Fi,57=.767, p=.385) between the

control group and the traditional group. Therefore, this study rejects research hypothesis

#4.

Research Hypothesis #5

Research hypothesis #5 of this study was there will be a significant difference in

scores on the Science Attitude Scale between the control group and the hypermedia group

after the science inservice professional development workshops. A Tukey HSD post-hoc

pairwise comparison indicated a significant difference (Fi,57=9.463, p=.003) between the

control group and the hypermedia group. Therefore, this study fails to reject research

hypothesis #5.

Research Hypothesis #6

Research hypothesis #6 of this study was there will be a significant difference in

scores on the Science Attitude Scale between the traditional group and the hypermedia

group after the inservice professional development workshops. A Tukey HSD post-hoc

pairwise comparison indicated a significant difference (Fi,57=15.581, p<.001) between

the traditional group and the hypermedia group. Therefore, this study fails to reject

research hypothesis #6.









Summary

The range and means of the pretest and posttest scores on both science content

knowledge and attitudes toward science were analyzed in this study. In order to increase

statistical power and to adjust for initial group differences, an analysis of covariance was

the statistical procedure conducted on the data. The pretest scores provided baseline data

for measures of science content knowledge and attitudes toward science. Tukey HSD

post-hoc pairwise comparisons were conducted when either significant effects or effects

approaching significance were present.

As a result of the participants' participation in a series of professional development

workshops in science with or without hypermedia, it was expected there would be

significant differences in science content knowledge increases between the control group

and each of the experimental groups. Although both experimental groups addressed

identical content, it was expected there would be a difference in increases in science

content knowledge between the traditional treatment group and the hypermedia group.

These expectations were not fully supported by the data analysis. While the ANCOVA

indicated significant group main effects (Fi,57=11.444, p<.001), these were somewhat

misleading as there were also significant interaction effects (Fi,57=6.679, p=.003,

ES=.208). Pairwise comparisons indicated significant differences on the increase in

science content knowledge between the control group and the traditional group (p<.001)

and between the control group and the hypermedia group (p<.001). A pairwise

comparison indicated no significant difference between the traditional group and the

hypermedia group (p=.690). Implications of these results will be further discussed in

Chapter 5.









Because of some participants' experiences in professional development in science

utilizing hypermedia, it was expected there would be significant differences in the

increases of positive attitudes toward science between the hypermedia group and the

control group, between the hypermedia group and traditional group, and between the

control group and the traditional group. The analysis of covariance values resulted in

group main effects that approached significance (Fi,57=2.980, p=.060). Therefore, Tukey

HSD post-hoc pairwise comparisons were performed. Tukey HSD pairwise comparisons

indicated significant increases in positive attitudes toward science in the hypermedia

group when compared to both the control group and the traditional group. There was no

significant difference in increases in positive attitudes toward science for the control

group and the traditional group. Implications of these results will be further discussed in

Chapter 5.














CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION

Introduction

Past research has indicated that a number of problems in the teaching of science in

elementary classrooms are rooted in the preparation of inservice teachers (Ginns &

Watters, 1998; Plourde, 2002). Two problems prevalent in the research include

elementary teachers' lack of science content knowledge and negative attitudes toward

science. As indicated by numerous research studies reporting positive results, one

method of addressing these problems is through inservice teacher professional

development workshops (Henson, 1987; Monk, 1994; Smith et al., 2002; Tilgner, 1990).

Positive results of the professional development workshops include improved content

knowledge (Kahle, 2000), increased attitudes toward specific content areas (Tilgner,

1990; Henson, 1987), increased confidence in teaching (Shrigley, 1977), and increased

student achievement (Anderson & Smith, 1986; Monk, 1994). However, elementary

science professional development workshops have not resulted in the same success levels

as other subject areas. This study examined whether the integration of hypermedia into

elementary science professional development workshops resulted in more positive

outcomes than traditional methods of elementary science professional development

workshops.









Review of the Study

Purpose

The aim of this study was to examine whether or not the integration of a

hypermedia environment into a series of inservice professional development workshops

would result in increases of elementary teachers' science content knowledge and more

positive attitudes toward science. To accomplish this, two series of inservice science

professional development workshops were conducted to address major topics in the

elementary science curriculum. Both series of workshops were designed from a

cognitive constructivist perspective and implemented a hands-on approach. They

focused on the development of scientific content knowledge, as well as modeling a

variety of pedagogical methods appropriate for effective elementary science instruction.

While both series of workshops addressed the same content, one series of workshops

included the integration of a hypermedia environment while the other series of workshops

was conducted without the hypermedia environment. A control group receiving no

treatment was used to measure and limit the effects of confounding variables.

Design of the Study

In this study, a non-equivalent control group quasi-experimental design was used

(Affleck, Madge, Adams, & Lowenbraun, 1988; Campbell & Stanley, 1963). Each

experimental group experienced three, two-hour professional development workshops

conducted over a three-week period. Two measures, the Project to Improve Elementary

Science (PIES) Science Knowledge Test (Zielinski & Smith, 1990) and the Science

Attitude Scale for Inservice Elementary Teachers II (Shrigley & Johnson, 1974), were

administered to the control group and each experimental group. They were given prior to









the administration of the elementary science workshops and at the conclusion of the

series of workshops.

Additional Data Collection

While the PIES Science Knowledge Test and Science Attitude Scale for Inservice

Teachers II were administered as pretest and posttest measures, at the conclusion of the

workshops, all participants also completed an evaluation of the professional development

workshops. This evaluation form (see Appendix C) was provided by the Professional

Development Department of the Duval County School Board and is required to be

completed by all participants of all inservice professional development opportunities.

Data from these evaluation forms was used in the discussion of the results related to each

of the study's research questions.

Participants

A total of 57 inservice elementary teachers participated in this study. Participants

were recruited from 21 schools in the northeast Florida school district of Duval County.

Three groups, each consisting of 19 participants, were formed and included a control

group and two experimental groups. The first experimental group experienced

professional development workshops with hypermedia, and the second experimental

group experienced professional development workshops without hypermedia. The control

group received no treatment.

Research Questions

The following research questions and associated research hypotheses were

addressed in this study:









Research Question 1. To what extent does the use of hypermedia during inservice

professional development increase elementary teachers' understanding of elementary

science concepts?

Hypothesis 1. There is no significant difference in scores on the PIES Science

Knowledge Test between the control group and the traditional group after the

inservice professional development workshop.

Hypothesis 2. There is no significant difference in scores on the PIES Science

Knowledge Test between the control group and the hypermedia group after the

inservice professional development workshop.

Hypothesis 3. There is no significant difference in scores on the PIES Science

Knowledge Test between the traditional group and the hypermedia group after the

inservice professional development workshops.

Research Question 2. To what extent does the use of hypermedia during inservice

professional development influence elementary teachers' attitudes toward science?

Hypothesis 4. There is no significant difference in scores on the Science Attitude

Scale between the control group and the traditional group after the inservice

professional development workshop.

Hypothesis 5. There is no significant difference in scores on the Science Attitude

Scale between the control group and the hypermedia group after the inservice

professional development workshop.

Hypothesis 6. There is no significant difference in scores on the Science Attitude

Scale between the traditional group and the hypermedia group after the inservice

professional development workshop.









Research Question #1

The first question examined if and to what extent hypermedia influenced growth in

science content knowledge when integrated into a professional development

environment. The statistical analysis of the PIES Science Knowledge Test posttest using

an analysis of covariance provided evidence of significant group main effects (F1,

57=11.444, p<.001) and interactions between the pretest scores and the groups

(Fi,57=6.679, p=.003) for science content knowledge. The results are interpreted in the

following manner: While there was a significant difference in the increase in science

content knowledge between the control group and the two experimental groups, there was

no significant difference in the increase in content knowledge between the two

experimental groups. Therefore, while the treatments resulted in statistically significant

gains in science content knowledge as compared to the control group, there was no

significant difference in the gains between the two types of treatments (hypermedia vs. no

hypermedia). Also, increases in science content knowledge for each treatment group was

somewhat dependent upon PIES Science Knowledge Test pretest scores. Traditional and

hypermedia group members who entered the professional development setting with

limited science content knowledge had the greatest increases in science content

knowledge. Traditional and hypermedia group members who entered the professional

development environment with higher PIES Science Knowledge Test pretest scores had

smaller increases in science content knowledge.

It was also important to examine the extent to which the professional development

workshops influenced changes in science content knowledge. To do this, the effect size

for the science content knowledge data analysis was examined and indicated a practical

significance (ES=.31) on the influence of the use of hypermedia in professional









development workshops on science content knowledge (Bialo & Sivin-Kachala, 1996;

Cohen, 1988). Exploring further, the mean score gains were greatest for the traditional

group (3.31) and hypermedia group (3.01). As expected, there were negligible mean

score gains in the control group (.48). In this study, the use of hypermedia in

professional development workshops did not significantly contribute to an increase in

science content knowledge.

Although study results show a negligible difference in the increase in science

content knowledge between the two experimental groups, it should be noted that

providing professional development workshops that demonstrate best practices in

teaching and strong content contribute to increasing elementary teachers' science content

knowledge. This finding supports other studies in the literature (Anderson, 1984; Kahle,

2000; Monk, 1994; Shrigley, 1977; Smith et al., 2002). In addition, a number of factors

possibly contributed to and potentially hindered the effectiveness of both the traditional

and hypermedia groups. These factors will be discussed in detail.

The first factor that contributed to positive gains in science content knowledge was

the constructivist approach taken in designing and conducting the workshops.

Comments by participants in both groups indicated the hands-on approach was more

beneficial to them. One participant in the traditional workshop stated, "I liked being

active and engaged instead of just listening to lectures." A member of the hypermedia

group paralleled this statement in saying, "Hands-on experiments were very helpful in

explaining concepts". The constructivist approach promoted the integration of the

workshop content into participants' existing knowledge structures.









A second factor that positively influenced gains in science content knowledge was

the variety of activities implemented in the workshops. Having numerous types of

activities allowed participants to address topics and issues through a variety of methods.

Activities such as small group discussions, whole group discussions, small group hands-

on activities, and demonstrations promoted an active and collegial environment in the

workshops, contributing to more significant gains in science content knowledge.

While a number of factors increased the extent of the influence of the hypermedia

workshops on science content knowledge, a number of factors also inhibited more

positive gains in science content knowledge. The first factor was the length of the study.

As previously mentioned, each series of workshops was a total of six hours in length.

Participants in both experimental groups commented on the brief length of the

workshops. One participant in the traditional group noted, "The workshop was insightful

and informative. I just wish it was longer. There is much more I need to learn!" A

participant in the hypermedia group stated, "Each and every time I witness

knowledgeable instructors 'model' the concepts with demonstrations, the more

comfortable and excited I become regarding providing my students with in-depth

instruction in science. Unfortunately, six-hours was not enough time to cover many of

the subjects for my grade level." This theme was common in other participants'

comments. With a longer series of workshops, it is expected there would be more

significant differences in science content knowledge gains by the two experimental

groups and possibly larger gains by the hypermedia group.

A second factor that may have hindered more positive gains in science content

knowledge was the time of year in which the professional development workshops were









conducted. All workshops took place during the last month of the 2004 school year. As

a result, extraneous events that typically occur at the end of the school year may have

obstructed more positive gains in science content knowledge. Also, because of the time

of the year, participants may not have been completely focused on the content or may not

have seen immediate results from the workshops. One participant commented, "I had a

lot of fun with the experiments. They made me want to go back to school (referring to

the fact that it was the end of the school year)." Another participant noted, "I wish we

had this opportunity earlier in the year. I look forward to using some of these lessons

next year."

A third factor that may have hindered more positive increases in science content

knowledge was that the full benefits of hypermedia were not accessible to the

hypermedia workshop participants. In order to control for confounding variables and to

keep the study as sound as possible, participants in the hypermedia group had extremely

limited access to the ELLIPS tool. Although this allowed the researcher to ensure that

the access to content was consistent between the traditional and hypermedia groups, this

may have hindered the effectiveness of the integration of hypermedia into the

professional development environment. Participants saw value in the use of Elementary

Level Lessons In Physical Science (ELLIPS), the hypermedia environment implemented

in the study. One participant affirmed, "The ELLIPS program will be a lifesaver as I

believe children learn best by seeing and doing. ELLIPS will provide an easy and

effective way to utilize experiments in the classroom." Another participant stated, "With

science textbooks and materials being very scarce in kindergarten, first, and second

grade, by attending this workshop I am now able to teach science to my students without