Impact of Computer Integrated Technique in Science Education at Elementary Level: A Study in Karachi
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22555/joeed.v7i2.199Keywords:
computer integrated teaching (CIT), elementary level, information and communication technology (ICT)Abstract
Computer technology plays an active role in the development of the economic, educational, and social growth of a country. Following a sequential explanatory mixed methods research design, the primary purpose of the study was to comprehend the advantages of teaching science to grade 6 students via Computer Integrated Teaching (CIT) as compared to the lecture-based approach. This study also investigated if computer integrated teaching enhanced students learning and contributed to higher achievement scores. The research was conducted for 6 months, with a focus on grade 6 science instruction. The quantitative part of the study comprised experimental research with a sample size of 62 students. Experimental group students were exposed to a strong intervention program of CIT, whereas the control group was taught by traditional methods. The findings of the study show that the experimental group scored significantly higher marks in science theory and practical tests than the control group students. The qualitative findings of the study, based on focus group interviews, support the quantitative findings as students favored technology-based learning because of its vast potential.
References
Ahmed, S.M. (2016). The role of technology in Pakistani private schools. http://www.ora.ox.ac.uk
Ali, S. (2018, February 1). The Education Crisis. Daily times. http://www.dialytimes.com.pk/192796/the-education-crisis
Annual Status of Educational Report-ASER (2013). Annual status of education report: ASER-Pakistan 2013.http://www.aserpakistan.org/document/aser/2013/reports/national/ASER_National_Report_2013.pdf
Babbie, E. R. (2015). The practice of social research. Nelson Education.
Collins, N. L., & Feeney, B. C. (2004). Working models of attachment shape perceptions of social support: evidence from experimental and observational studies. Journal of personality and social psychology, 87(3), 363 -383. http://doi.10.1037/0022-3514.87.3.363
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.
Crossman, A. (2020, March 19). Understanding purposive sampling: An overview of its methods and applications.
Deaudelin, D., & Loiselle, J. (2006). ICT implementation stages of primary school teachers: The practices and conceptions of teaching and learning. I Australian Association for Research in Education National Conference, Adelaide, Australia. AARE National Conference. http://www.aare.edu.au/data/publication/2006/lef06578.pdf
Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1-4. http://doi.10.11648/i.ajtas.20160501.11
Gértrudix, M., Rajas, M., Barrera, D., Bastida, M., & Soto, C. (2017). Realización de vídeo educativo: análisis de la producción audiovisual de los MOOC de URJCx. Sierra, J., Nuevas tecnologías audiovisuales para nuevas narrativas interactivas digitales en la era multidispositivo. Madrid: McGraw Hill Education, 289-302.
Gibson, J. E. (2012). Interviews and focus groups with children: Methods that match children's developing competencies. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 4(2), 148-159.
Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The qualitative report, 8(4), 597-606
Harlen, W. (2017). The teaching of science in primary schools. David Fulton Publishers.
Hofstein, A., Eilks, I., & Bybee, R. (2011). Societal issues and their importance for contemporary science education—a pedagogical justification and the state-of-the-art in Israel, Germany, and the USA. International journal of science and mathematics education, 9(6), 1459-1483.
Hogarth, S., Bennett, J., Lubber, F., Campbell, B., & Robinson, A. (2006). ICT in science teaching. EPPI-Centre. Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education University of London. http://www.eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Portals
Khurshid, K., Shah, A. F., & Reid, N. (2016). Information and Communication Technology in Learning Physics at Secondary School Level in Pakistan. Bulletin of Education and Research, 38(2), 135-151.
Kothari, C. R. (2004). Research methodology: Methods and techniques. New Age International.
Livingstone, S. (2012). Critical reflections on the benefits of ICT in education. Oxford Review of Education,38(1),9-24 https://doi.org10.1080/03054985.2011.577938
Lunetta, V. N., Hofstein, A., & Clough, M. P. (2007). Learning and teaching in the school science laboratory: An analysis of research, theory, and practice. Handbook of Research on Science Education, 2, 393-441.
Naqvi, K. (2020, June 27). Online education exposes lack of technology in Pakistan. http://www.technologytimes.pk/2020/06/27/online-education-exposes-lack-of-technology-in-pakistan
Newton, L. R. (2000). Data-logging in practical science: research and reality. International Journal of Science Education, 22(12), 1247-1259.http://doi.org/10.1080/095006900750036244
Nyumba, T., Wilson, K., Derrick, C. J., & Mukherjee, N. (2018). The use of focus group discussion methodology: Insights from two decades of application in conservation. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 9(1), 20-32. http://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12860
Osborne, J., & Hennessy, S. (2003). Literature review in science education and the role of ICT: Promise, problems and future directions. London: Futurelab.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 Journal of Education and Educational Development
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
