science teaching orientations and technology-enhanced tools for student learning
TRANSCRIPT
Science Teaching Orientations and Technology-EnhancedTools for Student Learning
Todd Campbell & Max Longhurst & Aaron M. Duffy &
Paul G. Wolf & Brett E. Shelton
# Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013
Abstract This qualitative study examines teacher orientations and technology-enhancedtools for student learning within a science literacy framework. Data for this study came froma group of 10 eighth grade science teachers. Each of these teachers was a participant in aprofessional development (PD) project focused on reformed and technology-enhancedscience instruction shaped by national standards documents. The research is focused onidentifying teacher orientations and use of technology-enhanced tools prior to or unaffectedby PD. The primary data sources for this study are drawn from learning journals andclassroom observations. Qualitative methods were used to analyze learning journals, whiledescriptive statistics were used from classroom observations to further explore and triangu-late the emergent qualitative findings. Two teacher orientation teacher profiles were devel-oped to reveal the emergent teacher orientation dimensions and technology-enhanced toolcategories found: “more traditional teacher orientation profile” and “toward a reformed-based teacher orientation profile.” Both profiles were founded on “knowledge of” beliefsabout the goals and purposes for science education, while neither profile revealed sophisti-cated beliefs about the nature of science. The “traditional” profile revealed more teacher-centered beliefs about science teaching and learning, and the “towards reformed-based”profile revealed student-centered beliefs. Finally, only technology-enhanced tools supportive
Res Sci EducDOI 10.1007/s11165-012-9342-x
T. Campbell (*)University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, Dartmouth, MA, USAe-mail: [email protected]
M. Longhurst :A. M. Duffy : P. G. Wolf : B. E. SheltonUtah State University, Logan, UT, USA
M. Longhurste-mail: [email protected]
A. M. Duffye-mail: [email protected]
P. G. Wolfe-mail: [email protected]
B. E. Sheltone-mail: [email protected]
of collaborative construction of science knowledge were found connected to the “towardsreformed-based” profile. This research is concluded with a proposed “reformed-basedteacher orientation profile” as a future target for science teaching and learning withtechnology-enhanced tools in a science literacy framework.
Keywords Teacher orientation . Technology-enhanced tools . Science literacy
Introduction
Internationally, national standards documents in science education identify central compo-nents of science literacy that are used as a basis for defining essential understandings thatboth currently shape the world today and that will be essential in inventing tomorrow(American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) 1989; AustralianEducation Council 1994; National Research Council (NRC) 1996, 2011; Ministry ofEducation and Human Resources Development (MOE HRD) 2007; Ministry of Education2001). Science literacy in this context comprises epistemology, theoretical foundations, andpractices of science. Implicit in this focus on science literacy, as one example, is the notionthat normative knowledge foundational to the scientific disciplines (either in the form ofdiscipline-specific theoretical foundations or practices) can, should, and will influence howthe world is considered and approached.
Within the science literacy framework of national standards documents, technology-enhanced tools for student learning are instruments used in cognitive and discursive prac-tices to develop and convey understandings that are congruent with epistemological commit-ments and practices of science. National standards documents in this field identify the centralcomponents for shaping student learning to ensure they can apply technology skills inauthentic and integrated ways to solve problems and to extend their creative abilities (e.g.,International Society for Technology in Education 2007). In this context, instructionaltechnologies hold an enhanced value if situated as technology-enhanced tools for studentlearning in science; that is, situated and supportive of the practices and discourses founda-tional and consistent with epistemological commitments in science. With both a nationalstandards-based science literacy framework and the enhanced value of instructional tech-nologies in mind, it becomes prudent to consider teacher orientations with respect to thisframework, as well as the role of technology-enhanced tools in science teaching andlearning. Given this, the primary goal of this study was to investigate the following twofacets of science teaching and learning: (1) teachers’ orientations for teaching sciencealigned or misaligned with the science literacy framework outlined in this research and (2)factors that determine the fit and use of technology-enhanced tools for student learning inscience. The three guiding research questions are: What are the dimensions of teacherorientation that can be identified?, What roles do technology-enhanced tools have inteaching science?, and What science teacher orientation profiles can be created from theconvergence of the teacher orientation dimensions and identified technology-enhanced toolsleveraged in science teaching?
Conceptions of Science Literacy, Teacher Orientations, and Technology
The theoretical lens is organized such that a clear conception of science literacy is firstarticulated, before conceptions of teacher orientations and technology-enhanced tools forstudent learning in science, as well as constructs within, are reified and contextualized within
Res Sci Educ
the framework. Additionally, throughout, current literature is used as a platform for thisresearch and for demonstrating what teacher orientations are found and how these fit or donot fit with technology-enhanced tools for student learning in science.
Science Literacy as Epistemology, Theoretical Foundations, and Practices of Science
Epistemology
Epistemology refers not only to understanding theory and practices surrounding scienceknowledge, but also a metacognitive awareness of these facets and how they are coordinatedin the construction of knowledge. Sandoval (2005) argues that having a better understanding ofhow scientific knowledge is constructed enhances the capacity of doing and learning science.Additionally, articulating science literacy in terms of epistemology provides equal priority tounderstanding the nature of science, which is a dominant research strand in science educationliterature and focus of national standards documents (AAAS 1989; NRC 1996).
Theoretical Foundations
Theoretical foundations here refer to the canonical knowledge of science that is traditionallyand currently seen as a central target of the enterprise of science (Campbell et al. in press).Foundations are the well-established theories and concepts in science that are generalizableand supportive of explaining a wide range of natural phenomenon in and across disciplines(e.g., plate tectonics, evolutionary biology, atomic molecular theory). Most recently, thesetheoretical foundations have been described as “core ideas” in the newest NRC (2011)framework for K-12 science education.
Practices
Practices refer to the general term describing “a set of sensible actions that are bothperformed by members of a community and that evolve over time” (Berland 2011, p.627). In science education, practices have occasionally been described in more narrowterms, such as exclusive skills, science processes, or scientific inquiry. Here, practices aredescribed more broadly and in alignment with the newest NRC (2011) standards framework.Berland (2011) describes practices as the habits of mind and processes undertaken bycommunities of scientists as they work to develop explanations and arguments for explain-ing natural phenomena and/or leverage science for making informed decisions as citizens.These practices include science inquiry, the development of explanations (Braaten andWindschitl 2011), argumentation (Osborne and Patterson 2011), and discourse (Lemke1990) in science, among other things. Certainly, the practice of science is not separatedfrom epistemology and theoretical foundations, but an explicit distinction should be recog-nized so that the role of practice is not lost in the whole of how people construct scienceliteracy.
Finally, it is openly acknowledged that the conceptualization presented here is but oneconceptualization of science literacy, yet it is believed to be one that is consistent with theenterprise of science and framing articulated in current science education research andnational standards documents (e.g., NRC 2011). This science literacy framework has beenestablished to assist in the considerations of teachers’ orientations for teaching science first,before it is leveraged to unpack the roles of technology-enhanced tools in science andscience teaching.
Res Sci Educ
Science Teachers’ Orientations for Teaching
Investigations into teachers’ orientations for teaching science are important because theyultimately provide the lens for decisions within the classroom that shape students’ scienceliteracies. However, recent research by Friedrichsen et al. (2011) revealed problems in howteacher orientations have been conceived in science education literature over the last20 years. Major concerns identified as most problematic are (a) inconsistent and ambiguousframing of what a teaching orientation is, (b) how the teaching orientation is related morebroadly to science teacher knowledge, and (c) the categorization or pigeonholing of teachersinto one orientation, when in fact, teachers may hold a complex matrix of orientations. Basedon these problems, Friedrichsen et al. (2011) proposed the following dimensions of scienceteacher orientations, adopted to better understand teachers’ orientations in this currentresearch: “beliefs about the goals or purposes of science teaching, beliefs about the natureof science, and beliefs about science teaching and learning” (p. 373). Each of these threedimensions are described next as they relate to the science literacy framework established inthis research.
Beliefs About the Goals or Purposes of Science Teaching
When considering science teachers’ beliefs about the goals or purposes of science teaching,questions arise about the functions of science education. These functions are important,especially if the functions identified are at times in conflict with each other. The conflict maycause teachers to choose their “footing” on one function at the exclusion of another. Schulz(2009) describes three historically dominant purposes of science teaching: intellectualdevelopment (knowledge), individual fulfillment (character), and socioeconomic benefit.These purposes are seen as supportive of sometimes dichotomously framed functions ofscience education and connected to focus on “knowledge of” and “knowledge for.”“Knowledge of” is connected to understanding what science is and has been described asunderstandings about science concepts, laws, and theories (Roberts 2007). “Knowledge for”is linked to science for active citizenship, articulated as “situations in which science has arole, such as decision-making about socioscientific issues” (Roberts 2007, p. 9). Given thepotential for a dichotomy in framing of the purposes of science teaching, a better under-standing of this framing as a dimension of the orientation for science teaching will helpilluminate rationales behind the pedagogical and curriculum decisions teachers make.
Beliefs About the Nature of Science
When pursuing science teachers’ beliefs about the nature of science, a consideration ofepistemology (i.e., the nature of knowledge and ways of knowing) and ontology (i.e.,perceptions about reality) are helpful. Kang and Wallace (2005) describe a range of beliefsabout science founded on epistemological and ontological premises, which have implica-tions for teachers’ beliefs about the nature of science. This range of beliefs extends fromnaive realism, where science knowledge is seen as an “objective” absolute truth mirroringreality and is directly accessible to human senses, to a more sophisticated belief aboutscience as tentative and evolving truth constructed as human explanations of naturalphenomena. The more sophisticated belief of science knowledge is constructed and under-stood as human explanations crafted through the reliance on multiple theories over time andcoordinated with data derived from rigorous scientific inquiry. Because science in the moresophisticated view is seen as tentative (Schwab 1962), teachers with beliefs aligned to this
Res Sci Educ
more sophisticated view might orient themselves differently in decision making related tothe classroom when compared to teachers holding more naive beliefs. As an example, ateacher holding a more naive epistemological and ontological belief of science mightcontinue to isolate and prioritize the normative knowledge of a scientific discipline.Conversely, a teacher with a more sophisticated belief might prioritize science practices,nature of science, and normative knowledge similarly, which are inextricably linked in waysmore aligned with recent reform documents (Duschl et al. 2007; NRC 2011).
Beliefs About Science Teaching and Learning
The final dimension of orientation that was considered is beliefs about science teaching andlearning. This dimension is described by Friedrichsen et al. (2011):
Conceptions of science teaching and learning, including beliefs about the role of theteacher, the learner, how students learn science, and how to teach it in ways that makescience attractive and comprehensible (p. 370).
So, within this dimension, whether intentional or based on a naturalized ideology(Fairclough 1995), teachers tend to align their pedagogical and curriculum decisions withhow they themselves were taught (Adamson et al. 2003). Luft and Roehrig (2007) used anopen-ended survey to identify categories of beliefs about science teaching and learning whenexamining teachers’ beliefs about science teaching and learning. The categories wereadopted for this research to assist in understanding the dimension of teacher orientation:
& Traditional: Focus on information, transmission, structure, or sources.& Instructive: Focus on providing experiences, teacher focus, or teacher decision.& Transitional: Focus of teacher/student relationships, subjective decisions, or affective
response.& Responsive: Focus on collaboration, feedback, or knowledge development.& Reform-based: Focus on mediating student knowledge or interactions.
Luft and Roehrig (2007) connected the traditional and instructive categories of beliefswith a view of science as rules or facts; the transitional category with the view of science asconsistent, connected, and objective; and the responsive and reform-based categories with aview of science as a dynamic structure in a social and cultural context.
In summary, drawing on the recommendations of Volkmann et al. (2005), these threedimensions of teacher orientations were used to construct a range of profiles of the teacherswithin this study. The dimensions were not to “pigeonhole” teachers into categories, butrather, used to reveal teachers’ ideas in relation to teachers’ orientation informed by ourscience literacy framework. These ranges of profiles are also used as a backdrop forconsidering technology-enhanced tools for learning science and why they may or may notbe found within classrooms. But first, technology-enhanced tools for student learning inscience are described next.
Technology-Enhanced Tools for Student Learning in Science
While the types of technologies available that can be leveraged in the pursuit of science andinquiry learning are already abundant, it is also apparent that the available technologies arechanging quickly and at a rate that will likely outpace any curriculum development (Johnsonet al. 2011). Given this outpacing, instead of identifying specific technologies, we have
Res Sci Educ
chosen to identify different categories of technologies as originally articulated by Kim et al.(2007) as being technology-enhanced tools for student learning in science. The categoriesare tools supportive of mindful investigation of driving questions, tools serving as meta-cognitive scaffolds for building and revising scientific understanding, and tools supportiveof collaborative construction of scientific knowledge. Kim et al. (2007) originally used thesedesignations for inquiry learning tools. We have adapted these designations for identifyingtools that play a significant role in science literacy. Each category is further described withour adaptation made for encompassing teaching and learning more broadly—beyond inqui-ry, to science literacy (see Table 1).
The framework for science literacy, teacher orientations, and technology-enhanced tools forstudent learning in science was developed to connect this current research specifically in thefield of science education, and instructional technology in general. Next, themethods employedin this research are described for better understanding current teacher orientations and theirinternal consistencies and inconsistencies with respect to orientation dimensions. Subsequently,consideration is given to how these orientations sit with the science literacy framework and howthese orientations influence what and whether technology-enhanced tools for student learningin science are in science classrooms, as well as how they are framed by teacher orientations.
Methods
Participants and Data Selection
Data for this study came from a group of 10 eighth grade science teachers. Each of theseteachers participated in a professional development (PD) project focused on science instruc-tion and integrating technology into science instruction in ways aligned with current reformsshaped by national standards documents (AAAS 1989; NRC 1996). All participants had anundergraduate science major, although they had a range of classroom teaching experiencefrom 1 to 20 years. The data collection took place at the beginning of a PD project, focusingon identifying teacher orientations and use of technology-enhanced tools prior to or
Table 1 Categories of technology-enhanced tools for student learning in science
Categories Description
Tools supportive of mindful investigationof driving questions
These tools are supportive of students’ identification,exploration, location of resources, and developmentof problem solutions as a centrally important focusin science learning targeting science literacy (e.g.,Linn et al. 2004).
Tools serving as metacognitive scaffoldsfor building and revising scientificunderstanding
These tools help students better understand the strategiesof thinking and learning processes that are inherentlypart of science literacy, specifically the epistemologyof science (e.g., understanding how theoretical foundationsare coordinated with evidences in the development ofarguments) (e.g., Quintana et al. 2004).
Tools supportive of collaborativeconstruction of scientific knowledge
The potential of these tools resides in the dialecticaffordance of social interaction. They allow studentsto interact with students who are inherently more orless knowledgeable in supporting the co-constructionof knowledge (e.g., Hmelo-Silver 2003).
Res Sci Educ
unaffected by the PD. The primary data sources for this study are drawn from learningjournals and classroom observations. The learning journals were completed throughout 80 h/2 weeks of summer PD and, generally, each entry took participants between 10 and 15 minto complete. Each participant was provided various prompts throughout this time, so that 12total entries were completed and collected electronically. Examples of learning journalprompts used were “Where are you currently with integrating technology into scienceinstruction?” and “What does ‘teaching science as inquiry’ mean to you and where areyou currently in respect to ‘teaching science as inquiry’?”. The learning journals werecompleted during the initial 2-week summer PD, while the classrooms observations werecompleted prior to the PD as baseline data in the spring of 2011. Since learning journalswere completed during the summer PD sessions, attention was given to identifying portionsof the journals that depicted pre-orientations or current orientations and the role oftechnology-enhanced tools related to these orientations. Because of the focus on pre-orientations or current orientations when delineating the qualitative data set, informationgathered from the learning journals that revealed pre-states or current states unaffected bythe PD was included. Examples of both data that were included as meeting this criterion, aswell as data that was excluded because it reflected changing orientations judged to be shapedby the PD, are provided as examples to offer a better sense of this process:
Example InclusionI also feel it is almost a responsibility to do at least one lab/week. Where I come upshort is with the student involvement/accountability. I do too much for them.Example ExclusionMy greatest leap during the workshop has been with the technology. I am anxious totry all of this with my students.
The decision to focus this research on identifying teacher orientations and use oftechnology-enhanced tools prior to or unaffected by the PD was threefold. First, it wasbelieved that identifying how constructs of teacher orientation and technology-enhancedtools shape instruction would be useful, both within the context of the 5-year PD projectwhere this research is situated and within the greater science education community. Andbecause this state (i.e., unaffected by PD) represents a more common condition whereteachers are found without support, in this sense, the outcomes are more likely to informthe more common conditions currently found in classrooms.
Secondly, similar to the rationale supporting the use of retrospective pre-/post-items inunderstanding participant experiences used in quantitative studies (Goedhart andHoogstraten 1992; Howard et al. 1979; Klatt and Taylor-Powell 2005; Lamb 2005; Prattet al. 2000), this orientation–identification approach is useful when participants are likely tochange their perceptions or initial understanding and are then more capable to help in theidentification of original states compared to changed states (e.g., in cases where they did notrealize how much/little they knew about a topic until after they began participating in thePD). An example of how a comment in this context allows the participant to assist inrevealing salient facets of their teaching orientations or use of technology-enhanced tools isfound in the following:
Today’s example was fantastic. I do inquiry and use technology, but have never done so insuch an integrated way. For a long time I have been trying to imagine my ideal classroombut have been struggling how to put all of the pieces together in an effective way
In this particular example, technology was integrated in a learning experience for theteachers during the PD so that it was supportive of mindful investigation of driving
Res Sci Educ
questions, a subconstruct of technology-enhanced tools (Kim et al. 2007) adopted in thisresearch. Additionally, as these “retrospective” reflections were found in the learningjournals, especially in the case of this specific example, when as is later revealed, no datawas found where teachers reported the use of technologies in this way, this retrospectiveapproach provided additional triangulation for this finding. So, this method was believed tobe useful, as long as care was taken not to attribute PD influences to pre-PD states.
Thirdly, because this research is situated in the context of a 5-year project, it was believedthat recording and categorizing initial understandings would inform the project. The initialunderstandings also serve as a marker for future comparative insight as ongoing researchinvestigates the impact of the PD targeting science teaching and learning with technology-enhanced tools in a science literacy framework.
The sample population of teachers, beyond the previously described ranges of experi-ence, teaches eighth grade science in a school district in a metropolitan area in western USAthat has 67,000 students in 86 schools. More specifically, there is an eighth grade studentpopulation of approximately 5,000 served by 18 junior high schools. The western statewhere the study was completed, like most other western states, has a majority Whitepopulation, with a Hispanic population with the highest minority prevalence (US CensusBureau 2000). Based on these demographic characteristics, it is acknowledged that there aresimilarities and differences in these and other demographics when comparing the 10participant teachers in this study and other eighth grade teachers in this state, as well asnationally. However, the research team expected that these participants’ orientations anduses of technology-enhanced tools could offer valuable insight for qualitatively investigatinghow beliefs and technology use coalesce to build individual teacher orientation profiles.
Data Analysis
Our analysis was employed to analyze the dimensions of teacher orientation and the fit oftechnology-enhanced tools. The analysis was derived from Groenewald’s (2004) phasestrategy for explicating data.
First, when analyzing the teacher’s orientations, the following predesignated researchquestions were used to guide the identification of “units of meaning”:
1. What are the dimensions of teacher orientation that can be identified?2. What roles do technology-enhanced tools have in teaching science?3. What science teacher orientation profiles can be created from the convergence of the
teacher orientation dimensions and identified technology-enhanced tools leveraged inscience teaching?
“Units of meaning” are defined as statements included in the learning journals that werethought to reveal teachers’ orientations within the three dimensions in the framework ofFriedrichsen et al. (2011) and along our three-category technology-enhanced tools framework.The analysis at this stage was across all participants, with “units of meaning” as the focus (i.e.,identifying statements included in the learning journals that revealed teacher orientations orpurposes for using technology-enhanced tools). In the next phase of analysis, “units ofmeaning” were clustered. During the clustering, “units of meaning” were reviewed to elicittheir essence within the context of the phenomenon (Groenewald 2004), so that grouping the“units of meaning” could form themes. The analysis at this stage was confined to dimensions ofteacher orientations and the individual category types of technology-enhanced tools, so thatthemes developed spoke to the “dimension” or “category” level of teacher orientation and
Res Sci Educ
technology-enhanced tools, respectively. These dimensional and categorical themes werereexamined at the participant level to build profiles that would reveal what descriptors weremost salient for illuminating patterns of interactions found within and across the teacherorientation and with respect to technology-enhanced tools. These salient profiles were thenincluded in descriptive narrative and reported in the findings. Finally, at least two raters wereinvolved in all phases of analysis to ensure that multiple perspectives were available tochallenge emergent findings. As an example, during the identification of “units of meaning,”the researchers came together to compare and discuss the results of the explication. If disagree-ments arose, the researchers revisited the original “unit of meaning” identified in the data sourceto discuss and seek consensus of interpretation before finalizing the “unit of meaning.”
As additional evidence gathering beyond the learning journals, instruments were soughtand subsequently identified that could be used for classroom observations that aligned withthe science literacy and technology-enhanced tools framework. The Reformed TeachingObservation Protocol (RTOP) (Piburn et al. 2000) and the Technology Use in ScienceInstruction (TUSI) (Campbell and Abd-Hamid 2012) were selected (Table 2).
The RTOP has 25 indicators that are Likert-scaled on a 5-point scale ranging from verydescriptive (4) to never occurred (0). The items are divided into three subsets: design and
Table 2 Classroom observational instruments
Instrument Construct descriptions
RTOPMeasures “reformed” teachingas described by national science standardsdocuments (AAAS 1989; NRC 1996)
Design and implementation—designed to capturethe “model for reformed teaching. It describes alesson that begins with recognition of students’prior knowledge and preconceptions, that attemptsto engage students as members of a learningcommunity, that values a variety of solutions toproblems, and that often takes its direction fromideas generated by students” (Piburn et al. 2000, p. 8).
• Lesson design and implementation
Content—assesses the quality of the content of the lessonand the processes of inquiry
• Propositional knowledge
• Procedural knowledge
TUSIMeasures the extent to whichtechnology integration in scienceclassrooms is aligned with reformed,science inquiry focused instruction.
Classroom culture—the climate of the classroom
• Communicative interactions
• Student/teacher relationships
• In context—technology should be introduced in thecontext of science content
• Worthwhile—technology should address worthwhilescience with appropriate pedagogy
• Unique features—technology instruction in scienceshould take advantage of the unique features oftechnology
• More accessible—technology should make scientificviews more accessible
• Technology/science distinction—technology instructionshould develop students’ understanding of therelationship between technology and science (Campbelland Abd-Hamid 2012—constructs derived fromFlick and Bell 2000, p. 3)
Res Sci Educ
implementation, content, and classroom culture. One construct, lesson design and implementa-tion, is used to inform this subset. The content and classroom culture subsets are each divided andinformed by two constructs each. Content is divided into propositional knowledge and proceduralknowledge constructs. The classroom culture is also divided into two: the communicativeinteractions and student/teacher relationships constructs. Because the RTOP was created usingnational standards documents in science, it is aligned with our science literacy framework.
The TUSI consists of 26 items that are Likert-scaled on a 5-point scale ranging from verydescriptive (4) to never occurred (0). The items are divided into five constructs, where theconstructs were originally derived from Flick and Bell (2000). In addition, the TUSI hasdemonstrated concurrent validity with the RTOP. The alignment between the RTOP, TUSI, andour science literacy framework, along with the established validity and reliability of the instru-ments, provided the basis for their selection as informative rating tools for revealing more aboutthe teacher orientations and the fit of technology-enhanced tools in science teaching and learning.
Including these additional evidences (i.e., RTOP and TUSI) allowed for additional criticalevaluation of the qualitative analysis of the learning journals. These comparisons enabledmethodological triangulation between what was derived from the qualitative data of theseparticular researchers, in comparison with what many science education researchers haveconsidered in connection with the previously used classroom observation instruments.Ultimately, each of the 10 participants was asked to arrange an observation of a normalclass of instruction at a time they selected. Each participant was observed by one of twoclassroom raters who were trained with the RTOP and TUSI and established inter-rateragreement with each other and expert ratings of three prescored classroom videos at 0.80 orgreater. The emergent descriptive statistics and the findings from these ratings are presentedalongside the reported findings from the qualitative analysis of the learning journals.
Findings and Discussion
The findings and discussion subsections are organized by research questions, with the findings forall questions shared initially followed by the discussion of all questions. For research question 1,“What are the dimensions of teacher orientation that can be identified?,” the emergent dimensionsof teacher orientations are considered. For research question 2, “What roles do technology-enhanced tools have in teaching science?,” the presence or absence of the technology-enhancedtools categories are revealed. And for research question 3, “What science teacher orientationprofiles can be created from the convergence of the teacher orientation dimensions and identifiedtechnology-enhanced tools leveraged in science teaching?,” the independent teacher orientationsare connected as teacher profiles to reveal the interactions of these dimensions and thetechnology-enhanced tool categories in shaping the overall teacher orientations. Both qualitativeand quantitative results are diachronically presented at the time they were considered most timelyand relevant in the presentation of the findings and discussion subsections.
Findings
Research Question 1, “What are the Dimensions of Teacher Orientation that canbe Identified?”
As a reminder, the dimensions of teacher orientation examined were beliefs about the goalsor purposes of science teaching, beliefs about the nature of science, and beliefs about scienceteaching and learning. Each of these individual dimensions is examined next.
Res Sci Educ
Beliefs About the Goals and Purposes of Science Teaching This dimension is used toexamine the function of science education. Within this dimension, only “knowledge of”themes were identified. The knowledge of themes where described by Roberts (2007) asunderstandings about science concepts, laws, theories, and processes. Participant articula-tions revealing this focus were:
Last year I tried a front-loading approach and I think it failed. I struggled withvariables all year.There is a lot of material to get through and this particular method [teaching science asinquiry] takes a long time.I feel once we have given students some of the specific background, i.e., vocabularyterms, then students will be able to foster the true meaning behind this informationgiven.
Absent from this dimension of teacher orientation were articulations that could beconnected to “knowledge for” purposes articulated by Roberts (2007) as science for activecitizenship described as “situations in which science has a role, such as decision-makingabout socioscientific issues” (p. 9).
Beliefs About the Nature of Science This dimension of teacher orientation was the mostdifficult of the three to understand in that only a few “units of meaning” were identified,leading to only one emergent theme. The following are a few sample statements that werecoded as they were judged to reveal a belief about the nature of science:
Yesterday, as a teacher, I was feeling anxious again (geez, that happens a lot!) becauseI’m so concerned about doing everything right.I don’t like to publicly share my research questions because I feel like I have to get the“right” answer so I was pretty scared.
These statements led to the identification of a “right answer” theme thought to align withthe less sophisticated view of the nature of science associated with naïve realism. But,because only a few statements could be identified, this theme was not thought to representthe dimensional belief of all participants. Instead, the absence of statements led to thedevelopment of another theme described as “unrevealed” beliefs about the nature of science.
Beliefs About Science Teaching and Learning Unlike the previous two dimensions ofteacher orientation, this dimension was found to be most accessible (i.e., more codes wereidentified for this theme and a greater range of beliefs were found for this dimension). These“units of meaning” identified were grouped into the following themes by Luft and Roehrig(2007):
& Traditional: Focus on information, transmission, structure, or sources.& Instructive: Focus on providing experiences, teacher focus, or teacher decision.& Transitional: Focus of teacher/student relationships, subjective decisions, or affective
response.& Responsive: Focus on collaboration, feedback, or knowledge development.& Reform-based: Focus on mediating student knowledge or interactions.
Of the themes outlined by Luft and Roehrig (2007), only the “traditional,” “instruction-al,” “transitional,” and “responsive” themes were identified for participants in this study.Examples of articulations exemplifying these themes are provided in Table 3.
Res Sci Educ
Research Question 2, “What Roles do Technology-Enhanced Tools have in Teaching Science?”
To better understand the role of technology-enhanced tools in teaching science, the catego-ries of Kim et al. (2007) were used as initial themes (i.e., tools supportive of mindfulinvestigation of driving questions, tools serving as metacognitive scaffolds for building andrevising scientific understanding, and tools supportive of collaborative construction ofscientific knowledge), but, unsurprisingly, given the findings emerging from researchquestion 1, these themes were mostly nonexistent. One teacher who was using toolssupportive of collaborative construction of scientific knowledge shared:
In the lab my students have made collaborative wikis, located land forms on GoogleEarth, drawn timelines as groups in real-time on Google Docs, and shared assignmentsand data through Google Docs.
But, along with what was the limited instance reported of a theme congruent with thecategories of Kim et al. (2007), this same participant also articulated the following withrespect to his satisfaction with his ability to teach in more reformed-based ways (i.e., focusedon mediating student knowledge or interactions):
When I started teaching I looked further into inquiry and decided to try it out. It didn’twork out too well. This was partly because of my lack of understanding and partlyfrom overestimating what the students could do … my inquiry labs tend to be guidedand short without the depth I would like.
So, even when a category of technology-enhanced tools was identified, this emergedfrom a participant who shared the following concern for integrating technology tools andscience teaching:
Today’s example was fantastic. I do inquiry and use technology, but have never doneso in such an integrated way. For a long time I have been trying to imagine my ideal
Table 3 Beliefs about science teaching and learning articulations
Theme Example articulations
Traditional Currently I teach a unit with demonstrations, mini labs etc. throughout the unit.I then end the unit with a cumulative “cookie cutter” lab in which the studentsare supposed to experience and relate back to what we just learned. I have donethis for 5 years.
Traditional I like to do a lot of reading with my students, have them do questions in the bookor on a worksheet, go through a vocab challenge and then do activities or a labto pull things together, do a review and then test.
Instructive But, I know that last year I was not as inquiry based as I thought I was. I thought bysetting up a lab experiment for them to “do” that I was replicating “doing” science …I could design my bookwork differently to spark questions rather than simply answers.
Instructive I guess I am just used to step-by-step things and I need to get away from that. But atthe same time I don’t want to keep giving my students step-by-step things and I wantthem to be comfortable with what I am trying to do, too.
Transitional I think some students will really take into it [technology-enhanced tools used in teachingscience] while others will hate it at the beginning and then come around to it later.
Responsive I have good inquiry labs … I give them [students] a question and leave it open to themto decide how to test and answer that question. I try and provide whatever materialsthey think they need
Res Sci Educ
classroom but have been struggling how to put all of the pieces together in an effectiveway.
Our qualitative analysis revealed little with regard to reports of technology being used inscience teaching and learning. Considering these findings alongside the classroom observa-tions using the TUSI, the instrument designed to investigate the extent to which technologyintegration in science classrooms is aligned with reformed instruction, a similar storyemerged (see Table 4).
In Table 4, the TUSI and each of the TUSI constructs from the classroom observations arerepresented as means (M) and standard deviations (SD). When considering that a maximumscore for the TUSI is 104, it can be assumed that, currently, technology plays only a smallrole in science instruction with the resulting average score being 14. Of the 10 participantsobserved, four participants were rated at a 0/104 because no technology was used at allduring science instruction. Additionally, the TUSI is rated with a 0–4 Likert scale, with 0described as “never observed” and 4 described as “very descriptive.” Given the means foreach construct in relation to the total possible rating for each construct, it can be seen that,for the most part, technology use was restricted to the “never observed” side of the Likertscale (e.g., the “In Context”M was 2.50/20.00). It is understood that certain technologies arenot used daily, but if technology-enhanced tools were playing a significant role in scienceteaching and learning, some expectation of presence is warranted.
Now, with dimensions of teacher orientations and categories of technology-enhancedtools identified, attention is next focused on creating teacher orientation profiles to answerresearch question 3.
Research Question 3, “What Science Teacher Orientation Profiles can be Createdfrom the Convergence of the Teacher Orientation Dimensions and IdentifiedTechnology-Enhanced Tools Leveraged in Science Teaching?”
While the original intent was to create a number of profiles to reveal how the threedimensions of teacher orientation coalesced, based on the dimensions that were found, onlytwo orientations were created for capturing those orientations manifest in this research.Figures 1 and 2 show the emergent orientations.
The teacher orientation profile in Fig. 1 depicts beliefs about science teaching andlearning that ranges from traditional, instructive, and transitional. Luft and Roehrig (2007)connected the traditional and instructive categories of beliefs with a view of science as rulesor facts and the transitional category with the view of science as consistent, connected, andobjective. These beliefs about science teaching and learning were found alongside
Table 4 TUSI findings
The most salient findings are inbold
Classroom observation TUSI Teacher (N010)
M SD
Overall 14.30/104.00 18.93
In context 2.50/20.00 2.95
Worthwhile 2.80/24.00 4.08
Unique features 5.40/24.00 6.60
More accessible 2.50/20.00 3.66
Technology/science distinction 1.10/16.00 2.81
Res Sci Educ
“knowledge of” beliefs about the goals and purposes of science and either objective orunrevealed views about the nature of science. Additionally, when considering technology-enhanced tools, none were identified.
The second teacher profile depicted in Fig. 2 reveals a somewhat different teacherorientation. This teacher orientation is only slightly different in that the beliefs about thenature of science are unrevealed and the beliefs about science teaching and learning areresponsive or focused on collaboration, feedback, or knowledge development. But, as
Fig. 1 More traditional teacher orientation profile
Fig. 2 Toward a reformed-based teacher orientation profile
Res Sci Educ
alluded to earlier, when this responsive orientation was found, it was connected to strugglesas the teacher reported:
In college our methods instructor talked a lot about inquiry. At the end of the class notone student knew what she was talking about. When I started teaching I looked furtherinto inquiry and decided to try it out. It didn’t work out too well. This was partlybecause of my lack of understanding and partly from overestimating what the studentscould do without proper lead in.
When considering technology-enhanced tools for the “toward a reformed-based teachingprofile” (Fig. 2), only the “tools supportive of collaborative construction of scientificknowledge” were found.
Just as the qualitative findings about the roles of technology-enhanced tools were furtherexamined and measured against more quantitative classroom observations, the teacherprofiles were also further examined in this same manner. The RTOP was used as acomparative measure to consider the extent to which the teacher profiles identified throughqualitative theming were discernible in practice (see Table 5). But first, it should be notedthat the “toward a reformed-based teacher orientation profile” was created in alignment withone of the 10 participants in this research. This profile was created because of emergentthemes that came exclusively from this one participant, while the “more traditional teacherorientation profile” was created and seen capable of better capturing the range of beliefsidentified for the other nine participants. Table 5 was created to help further examine andilluminate the congruence of profile 1, “more traditional teacher orientation profile” (Fig. 1)and profile 2, “toward a reformed-based teacher orientation profile” (Fig. 2) with therespective classroom observations. In Table 5, the RTOP and each of the RTOP constructsfrom the classroom observations are presented as means (M) and SD when appropriate.
Discussion
Research Question 1, “What are the Dimensions of Teacher Orientation that can be Identified?”
Beliefs About the Goals and Purposes of Science Teaching
Schulz (2009) suggested that teachers likely oscillate between “knowledge of” and “knowl-edge for” goals for their teaching. Care must be taken to not overstate the findings, sinceparticipants were not asked directly to articulate the beliefs about the goals and purposes of
Table 5 RTOP findings
Classroom observation RTOP Profile 1 teachers(N09), M/SD
Profile 2 teacher(N01) score
Total possible
Overall 58.00/18.75 67.00 100.00
Lesson design/implementation 11.11/4.94 11.00 20.00
Propositional knowledge 13.78/2.22 16.00 20.00
Procedural knowledge 8.33/5.39 10.00 20.00
Communication and interaction 10.89/3.72 15.00 20.00
Student/teacher relations 13.89/4.54 15.00 20.00
The most salient findings are in italics
Res Sci Educ
science education. Instead, these beliefs were derived from statements made in learningjournals. Nevertheless, the “knowledge of” theme emerged, while the “knowledge for”theme did not. In many ways, this finding mirrors what others have noted previously. Asan example, many agree that most of the documents and assessments of the standardsmovement of the last 20 years focus on what Roberts (2007) articulates as “knowledgefor” targets for science education (Bybee et al. 2009a, b; Osborne 2007). The question,cautiously asked, then becomes how this dimension of teacher beliefs shapes other dimen-sions and ultimately the emergent teacher profiles that also manifest the fit of technology-enhanced tools in science learning.
Beliefs About the Nature of Science
As with the caution taken in not overstating findings concerning goals and purposes forscience teaching, the same caution is taken with respect to the participants’ beliefs about thenature of science. It could be that the learning journal prompts did not effectively elicitparticipants’ beliefs about the nature of science, even though a wide range of prompts wereused. But, the dearth of articulations about the nature of science also mirrors findings fromother research whereby foundational beliefs about the nature of science were found to beunderexamined at best or deeply seeded. So, even though all teachers hold a beliefsomewhere along the spectrum of “more” to “less” sophisticated, they might struggle ifasked to reveal these explicitly because, as Lederman (1999) suggested, this level ofreflection on the nature of science is “not automatic” (p. 917). The inability to accessteachers’ views about the nature of science is even more problematic when contextualizedin findings suggesting that much dissatisfaction exists with teachers’ views about the natureof science (Duschl 1990; Lederman 1992). At least two possible interpretations of how the“unrevealed” theme can be understood are suggested: (1) a worse-case scenario, validated inpast research (Duschl 1990; Lederman 1992), might suggests that teachers’ beliefs about thenature of science are misaligned with the science literacy framework developed in thisresearch (Duschl 1990; Lederman 1992) or (2) a better-case scenario might suggest that the“unrevealed” theme leaves the possibility of a more sophisticated conception of the nature ofscience “unrevealed” in the current research. Yet, even the better-case scenario may beconceived as problematic in that sophisticated beliefs about the nature of science are likely tobe not as effectively influencing student development of the understandings about the natureof science. This is especially a concern if notions of the nature of science are not intention-ally targeted in science instruction (Ackerson et al. 2000). The question becomes: does“unrevealed” in our qualitative data equate to nature of science “unrevealed” as participantsare teaching students in their science classrooms?
Beliefs About Science Teaching and Learning
A range of beliefs about science teaching and learning was found. The traditional andinstructive themes identified for these participants are judged as misaligned with the scienceliteracy framework developed in this current research, but consistent with themes found inclassrooms. As an example, Windschitl (2003) states:
For a science student, developing one’s own question and the means to resolve the questionsuggests an inquiry experience that is profoundly different from the far more common tasksof science schooling which consist of answering questions prescribed in the curriculumusing methods also preordained in the curriculum or by the classroom teacher (p. 114).
Res Sci Educ
The transitional and responsive themes identified are more aligned with the scienceliteracy framework. These two themes demonstrate evidence of an awareness of the stu-dents’ affective notions about science learning and the importance of the students’ role inconstructing knowledge, but they fail to fully recognize the role of the teacher in connectingauthentic inquiry-based experiences with normative knowledge of the scientific disciplines(Luft and Roehrig 2007).
In summary and in response to research question 1, “What are the dimensions of teacherorientation that can be identified?,” “knowledge of” as a goal and purpose for scienceeducation was identified and “right answer” and “unrevealed” themes emerged as beliefsabout the nature of science. Finally, a range of beliefs about science teaching and learningwas found (i.e., traditional, instructive, transitional, and responsive). Each of the dimensionsis further discussed in response to research question 3 as teacher orientation profiles areconstructed, but technology-enhanced tools in science learning are first considered.
Research Question 2, “What Roles do Technology-Enhanced Tools have in TeachingScience?”
Several sources can be referenced to help explain why little to no technology-enhanced toolsfor teaching science themes were found. As an example, a high percentage of students arefinding their way using technologies outside of school (Lenhart et al. 2008; Levin andArafeh 2002; Pew Internet and American Life Project 2002), but students have most recentlyreported an absence of technologies inside of school in ways that they find meaningful andrelevant to their lives (Dunleavy et al. 2009; Ito et al. 2008; Lenhart et al. 2008; Levin andArafeh 2002). Further, when considering what is necessary for effective technology inte-gration into subject matter, Koehler et al. (2007) suggest that integration takes more than justknowledge of content, technology, and pedagogy, it also takes knowledge of the relation-ships of this tripartite of knowledge. Additionally, Levinz and Klieger (2010) found that timeis also important and needed because it relates to the gaining of experiences that areconnected to guidance or modeling of the integration of technological knowledge withinteachers’ pedagogical content knowledge, which is also important and needed. Given thequalitative findings triangulated by classroom observations using the TUSI in response toresearch question 2, “What roles do technology-enhanced tools have in teaching science?,”the answer is little or no role, with the exception of one participant who was found usingtechnology-enhanced tools supportive of collaborative construction of scientific knowledge.While these findings seem dismal, especially recognizing the potential of technology-enhanced tools for transforming science learning, it should be noted that these participantsare at the precipice of PD aligned with what Levinz and Klieger (2010) suggest are needed.
Finally, while only one theme could be found aligned with the adopted technology-enhanced tools framework and categories, the following themes did emerge to help betterexplain some of the reasons for the findings for research question 2.
So, considering the current state of the roles of technology-enhanced tools in sciencelearning, it becomes important to recognize the confluence of factors that create barriers forscience teachers. Among these, found in this research, are concerns for cybersecurity,management/supervision, support, and resources (Table 6). Given the findings from researchquestion 1, combined with the fact that the adopted technology-enhanced tool categories arealigned with teacher orientations not yet realized (i.e., a reformed-based orientation), it is notsurprising that, for the most part, the science literacy-aligned tools were not found. But, it isprudent even in the absence of these tools to further examine future barriers that arise whentechnology is considered for science teaching and learning.
Res Sci Educ
Research Question 3, “What Science Teacher Orientation Profiles can be Createdfrom the Convergence of the Teacher Orientation Dimensions and IdentifiedTechnology-Enhanced Tools Leveraged in Science Teaching?”
The “more traditional teacher orientation profile” (Fig. 1) suggests a degree of reformedteaching with an average RTOP found at 58.90. This level of reformed teaching is slightlyabove what MacIsaac and Falconer (2002) described as “some levels of reform,” but withmuch discourse still with the teacher. This finding is congruent with how Luft and Roehrig(2007) described the traditional, instructive, and transitional categories of teacher beliefsabout science teaching and learning (i.e., most of the focus discourse remains with theteacher). The total score for the “toward a reformed-based teacher orientation profile”(Fig. 2) teacher is aligned to levels described by MacIsaac and Falconer (2002) as havingsome level of group work. The differences in these characterizations for profiles 1 and 2taken from MacIsaac and Falconer (2002) and applied here resonate with the responsivebelief about science teaching and learning identified for profile 2 in comparison with profile1. Where responsive and reformed-based beliefs aligned more with a view of science as adynamic structure in a social and cultural context (profile 2), the traditional, instructive, andtransitional beliefs aligned more with a view of science as consistent, connected, andobjective (Luft and Roehrig 2007). It should be noted from Table 5 that the SD for profile1 teachers is large and warrants caution about these interpretations regarding the overallscore.
As each construct of reformed teaching in Table 5 is examined more closely, room existsfor additional support and better alignment with principles of reformed teaching, a findingconsistent with both teacher profiles created (i.e., Figs. 1 and 2). An example of this “roomfor improvement” exists in the gap within the procedural knowledge construct whereteachers averaged 8 and 10 out of 20 possible points. This scale is particularly focused onengaging students as active decision-makers in the learning process. One item in thiscategory being: “Students made predictions, estimations and/or hypotheses and devisedmeans for testing them.” Another construct score that seems to triangulate with the teacherorientation profiles is the 14 (M of profile 1) and the 16 (M of profile 2) out of a possible 20-point observational score for propositional knowledge. This score represents the canonicalknowledge focus of RTOP and the fact that it is higher than all other constructs seemsupported by the “knowledge of” beliefs about the goals and purposes of science education,even though this scale only represents the theoretical foundations focus of the scienceliteracy framework for this research. Finally, when comparing the profiles 1 and 2
Table 6 Themes shaping technology-enhanced tools use
Theme Example Articulations
Cybersecurity The only big reservation is security of students online. The first factor thatwill influence how I use the technology is considering student privacy.
Management/supervision My only reservation about this is convincing the IT/computer lab/librarypeople in my building … that I will monitor my students with technologyadequately.
Support I feel that it might be an uphill battle to get access for the students to everythingthey might need … It would be a bit easier if I felt that I had their [computerlab personnel] support.
Technology resources At my school we have 2 computer labs that need to be shared—I can’t decidetoday that I want the lab tomorrow.
Res Sci Educ
communication and interaction constructs of the RTOP, it can be seen that the profile 2teacher was rated higher, more than 1 SD beyond profile 1 teachers, with respect to thisconstruct. Piburn et al. (2000) described this construct as follows:
It is important that students be heard, and often, and that they communicate with oneanother, as well as with the teacher. The nature of the communication captures thedynamics of knowledge construction in that community (p. 38).
This construct was seen as consistent with the responsive beliefs about science teachingand learning identified for profile 2. The findings from the RTOP collectively served tofurther triangulate the qualitative findings and differences thought worthy of the creation oftwo teacher orientation/technology-enhanced tools profiles.
In response to research question 3, “What science teacher orientation profiles can becreated from the convergence of the teacher orientation dimensions and identifiedtechnology-enhanced tools leveraged in science teaching?,” two profiles could be identified,the “more traditional teacher orientation profile” (Fig. 1) and “toward a reformed-basedteacher orientation profile” (Fig. 2). But, two aspects can be questioned about the twoemergent profiles found in this research. First, to what extent does a simplistic or unexam-ined belief about the nature of science and a focus on “knowledge for” as a belief about thepurposes of science education perpetuate beliefs about science teaching and learning that aremore traditional? Second, to what extent do unexamined beliefs about the nature of scienceand a focus on “knowledge for” as a belief about the purposes of science education causecontinued struggles as teachers move toward more reformed-based beliefs about scienceteaching and learning?
Conclusion
As part of this research, a framework for science literacy was articulated based on con-ceptions of epistemology, theoretical foundations, and practices of science. This reificationsought to accurately depict and target the practice of science and science education.Subsequently, by examining teacher orientations through three dimensions of beliefs andtechnology-enhanced tools aligned with our science literacy framework, this research soughtto better understand dominant teacher profiles of science teachers.
The teacher profiles identified (Figs. 1 and 2) were telling, in that they were founded onmore traditional or teacher-centered beliefs ranging toward more responsive, but stillproblematic, student-centered beliefs about science teaching and learning. Likewise, thetwo profiles were either misaligned with or undetermined with respect to beliefs about thenature of science, while both were focused exclusively on “knowledge of” beliefs about thegoals and purposes of science education. And because both of these profiles were stillmisaligned with reformed-based science teaching orientations, it was not surprising thattechnology-enhanced tools aligned with these reformed science practices and learning werenot found in classrooms observed. The exception was the set of tools used for collaborativeconstruction of knowledge identified alongside the “toward a reformed-based teachingprofile.”
Given these findings, Fig. 3 was created for consideration as a future target for howteacher orientations and technology-enhanced tools for science learning can coalesce tosupport science literacy. As can be seen in Fig. 3, both “knowledge of” and “knowledge for”are identified as beliefs about the goals and purposes of the science education dimension.This description is buttressed by a more explicit sophisticated view of the nature of science
Res Sci Educ
where science is seen as tentative and evolving truth constructed as human explanations ofnatural phenomena.
Finally, in the “reformed-based teacher orientation profile,” the two previouslydescribed dimensions of teacher orientation are juxtaposed with reformed-based beliefsabout science teaching and learning that focus on mediating student knowledge andinteractions. This teacher orientation profile is supported by each of the categories oftechnology-enhanced tools that were originally identified as aligned to the scienceliteracy framework.
Based on the teacher profiles that emerged, it is difficult to determine whether thereformed-based teacher orientation profile depicted in Fig. 3 accurately reflects the conver-gence of the balanced mix of beliefs and technology-enhanced tools that will support studentdevelopment of science literacy. As with any PD, it is important to identify explicit targets inorder to understand where participants exist with respect to these targets and to understandthe role of interventions in meeting targets. This research begins the targeting by examiningparticipants’ teacher orientations and the role of technology-enhanced tools in sciencelearning as a baseline prior to a PD intervention. Likewise, even as these targets are met(if they are), it is critical that these targets be further examined to ensure that they align withthe original intent (i.e., fostering the development of citizens who are informed in theepistemology, theoretical foundations, and practices of science and capable of leveragingtools used within these practices into the future).
A science literacy framework, teacher orientations, and the fit of technology-enhancedtools were identified as worthy and important targets for further study. The findingsdescribed a sample of teachers in terms of these targets. The findings are interrelated withthe work of others in these fields to both add to current literature and expose for furtherscrutiny. It is expected that this framework will be revisited throughout the funded PDproject, so that more elements to the framework can be explored as subsequent profilesemerge, especially related to the substance of the PD project currently targeting the “re-formed-based teacher orientation profile.”
Fig. 3 Reformed-based teacher orientation profile
Res Sci Educ
Acknowledgments Funding for this research was provided by the National Science Foundation through aDiscovery Research K-12 Project (Award Number 1020086).
References
Ackerson, V. L., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Influence of a reflective explicit activity-based approach on elementary teachers’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 37(4), 295–317.
Adamson, A. E., Banks, D., Burtch, M., Cox, F., III, Judson, E., Turley, J. B., Benford, R., &Lawson, A. E. (2003). Reformed undergraduate instruction and its subsequent impact on second-ary school teaching practice and student achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,40(10), 939–958.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1989). Science for all Americans. NewYork: Oxford University Press.
Australian Education Council. (1994). A national statement on science for all Australian schools: A jointproject of the states, territories, and commonwealth of Australia initiated by the Australian EducationCouncil (AEC). Carlton: Curriculum Corporation.
Berland, L. K. (2011). Explaining variation in how classroom communities adapt the practice of scientificargumentation. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(4), 625–664.
Braaten, M., & Windschitl, M. (2011). Working toward a stronger conceptualization of scientific explanationfor science education. Science Education, 95(4), 639–669.
Bybee, R., Fensham, P., & Laurie, R. (2009a). Scientific literacy and contexts in PISA 2006 science. Journalof Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 862–864.
Bybee, R., McCrae, B., & Laurie, R. (2009b). PISA 2006: An assessment of scientific literacy. Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching, 46(8), 865–883.
Campbell T. & Abd-Hamid, N. (2012). Technology Use in the Science Instruction (TUSI): Technologyand science education reform. Journal of Science Education and Technology. doi:10.1007/s10956-012-9415-7.
Campbell, T., Oh, P.S., & Neilson, D. (in press). Reification of five types of modeling pedagogieswith model-based inquiry (MBI) modules for high school science classrooms. In M.S. Khine &I.M. Saleh. Approaches and strategies in next generation science learning. Hershey: IGIGlobal.
Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring science education. New York: Teachers College Press.Duschl, R., Schweingruber, H., & Shouse, A. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching
science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Dunleavy, M., Dede, C., & Mitchelle, R. (2009). Affordances and limitations of immersive participatory
augmented reality simulations for teaching and learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology,18, 7–22.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Harlow: Longman Group.Flick, L., & Bell, R. (2000). Preparing tomorrow’s science teachers to use technology: Guidelines for science
educators. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education [Online Serial], 1(1). Retrievedfrom http://www.citejournal.org/vol1/iss1/currentissues/science/article1.htm.
Friedrichsen, P., van Driel, J. H., & Abell, S. K. (2011). Taking a closer look at science teaching orientations.Science Education, 95, 358–376.
Goedhart, H., & Hoogstraten, J. (1992). The retrospective pretest and the role of pretest information inevaluation studies. Psychological Reports, 70, 699–704.
Groenewald, T. (2004). A phenomenological research design illustrated. International Journal of QualitativeMethods, 3(1), 1–25.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2003). Analyzing collaborative knowledge construction: Multiple methods for integratedunderstanding. Computers in Education, 41(4), 397–420.
Howard, G. S., Ralph, K. M., Gulanick, N. A., Maxwell, S. E., Nace, D., & Gerber, S. L. (1979). Internalinvalidity in pre-test–posttest self report evaluations and the re-evaluation of retrospective pretests.Applied Psychological Measurement, 3(1), 1–23.
International Society for Technology in Education. (2007). National educational technology standardsand performance indicators for students. Eugene: International Society for Technology inEducation.
Res Sci Educ
Ito, M. et al. (2008). Living and learning with new media: Summary of findings from the digital youth project.Retrieved from http://www.macfound.org/atf/cf/%7BB0386CE3-8B29-4162-8098-E466FB856794%7D/DML_ETHNOG_WHITEPAPER.PDF.
Johnson, L., Smith, R., Willis, H., Levine, A., & Haywood, K. (2011). The 2011 Horizon Report. Austin: TheNew Media Consortium. Retrieved August 18, 2011, from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/HR2011.pdf.
Kang, N., & Wallace, C. S. (2005). Secondary science teachers’ use of laboratory activities: Linkingepistemological beliefs, goals, and practices. Science Education, 89(1), 140–165.
Kim, M. C., Hannafin, M. J., & Bryan, L. A. (2007). Technology-enhanced inquiry tools in science education:An emerging pedagogical framework for classroom practice. Science Education, 91(6), 1010–1030.
Klatt, J. & Taylor-Powell, E. (2005). Synthesis of literature relative to the retrospective pretest design. Paperread at the American Evaluation Association at Toronto, Ontario.
Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Yahya, K. (2007). Tracing the development of teacher knowledge in a designseminar: Integrating content, pedagogy and technology. Computers in Education, 49(3), 740–762.
Lamb, T. (2005). The retrospective pretest: An imperfect but useful tool. The Evaluation Exchange, XI(2). Retrievedfrom http://www.hfrp.org/var/hfrp/storage/original/application/d6517d4c8da2c9f1fb3dffe3e8b68ce4.pdf.
Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A review of theresearch. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 331–359.
Lederman, N. G. (1999). Teachers’ understanding of the nature of science and classroom practice: factors thatfacilitate or impede the relationship. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(8), 916–929.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood: Ablex PublishingCorporation.
Lenhart A, Arafeh S, Smith A, Rankin A (2008) Writing, technology and teens. Washington, DC: Pew/Internet. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org.
Levin, D. & Arafeh, S. (2002) The digital disconnect: The widening gap between internet-savvy students andtheir schools. Retrieved on February 20, 2006, from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Schools_Internet_Report.pdf.
Levinz, A., & Klieger, A. (2010). Online tasks as a tool to promote teachers’ expertise within the technolog-ical pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 354–358.
Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A., & Bell, P. (2004). Internet environments for science education. New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Luft, J. A., & Roehrig, G. H. (2007). Capturing science teachers’ epistemological beliefs: The development ofthe teacher beliefs interview. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 11(2), 38–63.
MacIsaac, D., & Falconer, K. (2002). Reforming physics instruction via RTOP. The Physics Teacher, 40, 16–22.Ministry of Education. (2001). An outline of curriculum reform of basic education. Xueke Jiaoyu, 2001(7), 1–
5 (in Chinese).Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development (MOE HRD). (2007). Science curriculum. Seoul:
MOE HRD (in Korean).National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: The
National Academies Press.National Research Council. (2011). A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting con-
cepts, and core ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science EducationStandards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Osborne, J. (2007). Science education for the twenty first century. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Scienceand Technology Education, 3(3), 173–184.
Osborne, J. F., & Patterson, A. (2011). Scientific argument and explanation: A necessary distinction? ScienceEducation, 95(4), 627–638.
Pew Internet & American Life Project (2002) Use of the internet at major life moments. Retrieved December9, 2008, from http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/toc.asp?Report058.
Piburn, M., Sawada, D., Turley, J., Falconer, K., Benford, R., Bloom, I., & Judson, E. (2000). Reformedteaching observation protocol (RTOP): Reference manual (ACEPT technical report no. INOO-3). Tempe:Arizona Collaborative for Excellence in the Preparation of Teachers (Eric Document ReproductionService, ED 447 205).
Pratt, C. C., McGuigan, W. M., & Katzev, A. R. (2000). Measuring program outcomes: Using retrospectivepretest methodology. American Journal of Evaluation, 21(3), 341–349.
Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., Kyza, E., Edelson, D., &Soloway, E. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. The Journalof the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337–387.
Res Sci Educ
Roberts, D. (2007). In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific literacy/science literacy. Handbook ofresearch on science education (pp. 729–780). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learningthrough inquiry. Science Education, 89, 634–656.
Schulz, R. M. (2009). Reforming science education, part I: The search for a philosophy of science education.Science Education, 18, 225–249.
Schwab, J. J. (1962). The teaching of science: The teaching of science as enquiry. Cambridge: HarvardUniversity Press.
US Census Bureau. (2000). Diversity. Retrieved November 2011, from http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/atlas/censr01-104.pdf.
Volkmann, M., Abell, S., & Zgagacz, M. (2005). The challenges of teaching physics to preservice elementaryteachers: Orientations of the professor, teaching assistant, and students. Science Education, 89, 847–869.
Windschitl, M. (2003). Inquiry projects in science teacher education: What can investigative experiencesreveal about teacher thinking and eventual classroom practice? Science Education, 87(1), 112–143.
Res Sci Educ