Jan 9, 2009 - ... make appropriate instructional decisions (Roschelle, Penul & Abrahamson, 2004). ..... Irving, K. E., Sanalan, V. A., & Shirley, M. L. (In press).
Implementation of Connected Classroom Technology in Mathematics and Science Classrooms Melissa L. Shirley1, Karen E. Irving1, Vehbi A. Sanalan1,2, Stephen J. Pape3, Douglas T. Owens1 The Ohio State University Erzincan University, Turkey 3 University of Florida 1
2
Presented at the Association for Science Teacher Educators Annual Conference January 9, 2009 Hartford, CT Abstract: Formative assessment has been reported to achieve large gains in student achievement. Connected classroom technology (CCT) supports formative assessment by gathering information from individual students and rapidly aggregating data for interpretation. Teachers may then use these data to change practice. However, teachers are unlikely to implement a new instructional practice unless they perceive the practical value of the reform. Practicality consists of three constructs: Congruence with teacher‟s values and practice; Instrumentality, compatibility with the existing school structures; and Cost/Benefits, whether the reward is worth the effort. This study uses practicality as a framework for understanding CCT implementation in secondary classrooms. The experiences of three science teachers in their first year implementing CCT are compared with matched-pair mathematics teachers. Findings suggest that despite some differences in specific uses and purposes for CCT, the integration of CCT into regular classroom practice is quite similar in mathematics and science classrooms.
Introduction Science education is critical for a nation to compete in a global economy and promote medical and technological advances. Furthermore, it promotes a deeper understanding of environmental and economic issues that face citizens (Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1991; National Research Council, 1996). However, students in the U.S. perform at levels lower than students in nations with comparable economic status (Programme for International Student Assessment, 2007; Martin et al., 2004). Continued attention to increasing student achievement in science is imperative. Formative assessment has been shown to be an effective instructional strategy in promoting science achievement (Black & Wiliam, 1998a; Popham, 2008). Through the process of teachers engaging in practices of questioning, collecting data about student thinking, and changing instruction accordingly, significant gains are made in student learning (Bell & Cowie, 2001; Cowie & Bell, 1999; Black & Wiliam, 1998a, 1998b; Fuchs & Fuchs, 1986). However, formative assessment remains a relatively weak area of practice in many classrooms (Daws & Singh, 1996; Assessment Reform Group, 1999). Innovations that strengthen formative assessment strategies are therefore likely to be effective in promoting student understanding. Connected classroom technology (CCT) is a technological innovation that may support formative assessment practice. By facilitating the collection and aggregation of student responses, CCT provides rich data from which teachers may make appropriate instructional decisions (Roschelle, Penul & Abrahamson, 2004). A connected classroom technology is any networked system of handheld devices and/or computers with specific instructional software. Common examples of such technology include audience response systems and classroom communication systems (Roschelle, Penuel, & Abrahamson, 2004). Many different types of CCT exist; see Fies & Marshall (2004) for a review of connected classroom systems. In the study reported here, classrooms were equipped with a CCT system, the TI-Navigator™, produced by Texas Instruments. In the Navigator™ system, student handheld graphing calculators communicate wirelessly with the teacher‟s computer. Four specific software applications, including two types of questioning software as well as the capability of collecting student-generated
data points and plotting them on a Cartesian coordinate plane, allow the teacher to design rich instructional tasks for assessing student understanding. Prior research in secondary mathematics classrooms utilizing the TI-Navigator™ system show significant gains in student achievement in the first year of implementation (Pape et al., 2008). Studies suggest that reforms requiring teacher change in classrooms have been relatively unsuccessful (Cuban, 1998, 2001; Cuban, Kirkpatrick & Peck, 2001; Priestley, 2005). Teachers are unlikely to adopt a change in instructional practice unless they perceive the practical value of the reform. This practicality ethic can be defined using three constructs: Congruence with teacher‟s values and practice; Instrumentality, compatibility with the existing school structures; and Cost/Benefits, whether the reward is worth the effort (Doyle & Ponder, 1977). The study described here uses the practicality ethic as a framework for understanding the implementation of CCT in mathematics and physical science classrooms. Previously, we have reported on case studies of physical science teachers implementing CCT (Irving, et al., in press). The current study extends this work by comparing the experience of mathematics and science teachers as they integrate connected classroom technology into their instructional practices in middle and secondary classrooms.
The Study Background: The CCMS Project Classroom Connectivity in Promoting Mathematics and Science Achievement (CCMS) is a multi-year, longitudinal randomized control trial study. It comprises over 100 mathematics teachers and 20 physical science teachers representing 28 states in the U.S. and two Canadian provinces. The intervention in the CCMS project includes the placement of technology into participants‟ classrooms, professional development and training in technology usage and pedagogy, and personal contact with the research team through biannual interviews and an annual classroom observation (see Tab. 1 for a timeline). Time July 2006 September/October 2006 November/December 2006 February 2007 February-May 2007 May 2007 May/June 2007
Event Participants attended Summer Institute in Columbus, OH Participants took teacher measures Participants obtained student assent/parent consent Participants administered student “pre” measures Fall telephone interviews conducted Professional Development Day at T 3 International Conference, Chicago IL Two-day classroom observations for selected participants Participants administered student “post” measures Participants took teacher measures Spring telephone interviews
Table 1: Typical timeline for intervention and data collection in the first year of participation. The networked classroom technology implemented in participants‟ classrooms is the Texas Instruments TINavigator™ system (see Fig. 1). Briefly, each student has a handheld graphing calculator that is plugged into a hub along with three other handhelds. Each hub communicates wirelessly with the teacher‟s computer through an access point. Many teachers also use a computer projector to display student responses for the entire class. In addition to implementation of technology into their classrooms, the intervention for participants included professional development (for details, see Sanalan et al., 2008). All participants attended a week-long Summer Institute held at The Ohio State University during the summer before they began to implement the technology. This workshop, designed and led by experienced secondary mathematics and science teachers familiar with the Navigator™ system, allowed participants to interact with the technology both in the role of a student and as a teacher. Along with technical instruction, the workshop focused on pedagogical strategies such as formative assessment and self-regulated learning that are among the hypothesized core benefits of such a system. Experiential, hands-on sessions introduced participants to the variety of instructional tasks possible and provided time to explore and develop comfort with the system. At the end of the week, each participant presented a lesson she or he had created using the Navigator™ system.
Figure 1: A typical classroom setup for the TI-Navigator™ system. While attending the Summer Institute, participants provided demographic information regarding their academic preparation and details of their teaching assignments. A Technology Use and Professional Development Survey captured self-report of participants‟ level of comfort and experience with technology and frequency of attendance at professional development events. Additionally, teachers completed a Teacher Instructional Practices and Beliefs Survey to provide context of their teaching environment and typical pedagogical strategies. A follow-up Teacher Instructional Practices and Beliefs Survey was administered after the first year of implementation to allow the researchers to detect changes from the pre-test. In the late fall following their implementation of the Navigator™ system, all participants were contacted to conduct a telephone interview, which lasted approximately 30 minutes. The purpose of this initial phone contact was to understand any successes or challenges that the teacher had faced in setting up the equipment and beginning to use it in the classroom. A more thorough telephone interview took place in late spring, probing for more details regarding specific lessons and instructional tasks implemented through the Navigator™ system as well as other aspects of teaching in a connected classroom. Interviews were audio-recorded. Participants who had successfully implemented the Navigator™ system by the time of the fall telephone interview were selected for a two-day classroom observation visit by a member of the research team. During this observation visit, the researcher videotaped at least one class period on two successive school days. A postobservation teacher interview prompted the teacher to reconstruct his or her lesson planning and relate perceptions of teaching with connected classroom technology. A Student Focus Group interview invited a subset of students to describe voluntarily their perceptions of learning in a classroom equipped with connected technology. Interviews were audio-recorded. Further professional development for participants occurred at the annual International Teachers Teaching with Technology (T3) conference. Members of the CCMS research study participated in a day of workshops related to CCT and connected classroom pedagogy, held immediately preceding the T 3 conference. Participants had opportunities to share lessons plans they had created and implemented using CCT as well as to discuss strategies they used to overcome various challenges with using CCT. To characterize student achievement and beliefs in connected classrooms, the CCMS research project included a variety of quantitative student measures. Algebra I or Physical Science pre-tests and post-tests were given to students to measure effects on student learning. A Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire asked students about how they learn, both at the beginning and the end of the school year. Additional quantitative measures probed student beliefs about mathematics or science as well as their perceptions regarding the instruction in a connected classroom. The measures described above are used in the broader CCMS research study. Quantitative data from the first year of this study in mathematics classrooms demonstrates significant differences in learning gains when comparing the treatment group (implementing CCT) to the control group (Pape, et al., 2008). However, to identify the factors that contribute to the increase in student achievement, it is also important to understand how teachers adapt their instructional practices when using CCT. The present analysis examines the practice of six participants (described below) in their first year of implementing CCT using qualitative interview sources.
Participants The study reported here examines the experiences of a subset of participants in order to gain a better understanding of how connected classroom technology fits with their school environments and regular classroom practice. Nine secondary science teachers participated in the CCMS study in the first year of the physical science pilot study. Of these, three were selected for the current analysis based on their perceived success with the technology and the diversity of their classroom situations. As an indicator of success with technology implementation, all three of the selected teachers returned for the second and third years of the longitudinal CCMS study. However, only data from the first year of implementation is considered in the present analysis. To compare experiences across disciplines, the three physical science teachers were matched to mathematics teachers representing similar school contexts and academic preparation. Eligible matches included the subset of mathematics teachers from the CCMS project who had complete data sets, including classroom observations. A numerical code was assigned to each teacher for each of several demographic attributes, including the school-level socio-economic status (as determined by the percent of students receiving free or reduced lunch), years of teaching experience, and average achievement pre-test score. Numerical codes for each mathematics teacher were compared to the individual physical science teachers, and teachers with the closest matches were identified. In cases where no clear match emerged, additional factors such as the racial/ethnic composition of the school, teacher undergraduate and graduate degrees, school size, and grade level of students were also considered. Pairs
1
2
3
Participant (pseudonyms) Mrs. C
School Size 820
% Low SES 50
Mrs. T
725
53
Mrs. R
1227
8
Mrs. N
735
1
Mrs. S
896
5
Mr. W
1699
3
Student Ethnicity 57 % 1% 51 % 2% 89 % 0% 85 % 10 % 98 % 0% 95 % 1%
Caucasian Hispanic Caucasian Hispanic Caucasian Hispanic Caucasian Hispanic Caucasian Hispanic Caucasian Hispanic
36 % African American 0 % Asian 47 % African American 1 % Asian 7 % African American 3 % Asian 0 % African American 4 % Asian 1 % African American 0 % Asian 2 % African American 2 % Asian
Score on Pretest 41.2 % 53.1% 81.7% 45.6% 53.8% 53.9%
Table 2: School-level and classroom-level demographics for selected teachers. Pairs
Participant (pseudonym) Mrs. C
1 Mrs. T Mrs. R
UG Degree Elementary Education, 1987 Psychology, 1985 Geophysics, 1984
Years Teaching 16 (5 in science) 11 21
Grades Taught 7, 8
Building Type
Course Taught
Middle School
8 10, 11, 12
Middle School High School
20 3
9 9
High School High School
5
9
High School
General Science Algebra I Conceptual Physics Algebra I Physical Science Algebra I
2 Mrs. N Mrs. S 3
Mr. W
Mathematics, 1972 Secondary Education, 2003 Mathematics Education, 2000
Table 3: Academic preparation and teaching assignments for selected teachers. Demographic information for the final selections of participants is shown in sets of pairs (Tab. 2, Tab.3). In each table, the data for a physical science teacher is presented first, followed by the mathematics teacher selected as a match. For each pair, the student composition is quite similar. However, Mrs. R‟s students performed much higher on the achievement pre-test than other participants‟ students (Tab. 2); this is likely due to their higher grade
level and the advanced nature of the course (Tab. 3). Further, the type of undergraduate education and number of years teaching is similar within each pair (Tab. 3). Although matching was used to generate a sample of mathematics teachers, the data were considered in aggregate, with the experiences of the three physical science teachers being considered together and compared to those of the set of three mathematics teachers. The matching process provides groups of physical science and mathematics teachers that are similar to one another in important ways that may affect CCT implementation.
Data Analysis The data sources used in this analysis include the fall telephone interviews (FTIP) and spring telephone interviews (STIP) as well as teacher post-observation interviews (POI), as described above. All interviews were transcribed verbatim, and analysis was conducted using the transcribed documents. A priori codes were developed using the definitions of practicality. Major categories included instrumentality, congruence, and cost-benefit ratio. Two coders independently reviewed a subset of interview transcripts. Reconciliation of coding resulted in modifications to the specific codes within each category to generate final codes (Tab. 4). Following reconciliation of the coding scheme, each interview was coded by a single researcher using nVivo (version 7) software. Findings from mathematics teachers were compared to those from physical science teachers, and assertions were developed. Construct Description Instrumentality What factors outside of the actual lesson affect implementation of the technology? This category includes issues unrelated to individual learners but characteristic of the overall school setting Congruence
Cost-benefit ratio
What factors during instruction affect implementation of the technology? This category includes issues that affect teaching and learning at the instructional level, rather than the district or building level.
What judgment does the teacher make regarding the relative costs and benefits of implementing the technology? Table 4: Codes used for data analysis.
Sub-categories Support from administrators, colleagues, and parents Technology hardware and software concerns School environment and supplies Testing and accountability (school-, district-, and state levels) Context of student groups (classes) Teacher factors General teaching strategies Instructional tasks and topics Timing and pacing issues Curricular factors Classroom and materials management Student factors Student liking Student learning Student engagement none
Findings Instrumentality Instrumentality refers to how well a given innovation fits within the school setting. Systematic difficulties, such as a lack of adequate technological infrastructure or district mandates to not use calculators, would prevent implementation of connected classroom technology. Clearly, all six of these participants worked in schools with at least a basic level of support for technology, or they would not have been able to implement the technology at all. However, teacher reports do shed light on the particular issues they faced.
A potential concern for implementation of any innovation is whether it is likely to be effective with any given set of students. The six teachers in this study were successful at implementing connected classroom technology with students of a wide range of grade levels and ability levels, including special needs populations and high numbers of English-language learners. Teachers did not report additional discipline issues due to the presence of novel technology, although a few participants indicated that they were reluctant to use the technology with certain groups of students based on the individual class dynamics and behavioral difficulties. All of the teachers in this analysis report having support from their building-level and/or district-level administrators. Furthermore, all three of the physical science teachers had colleagues that also used the TINavigator™ system; this provided an additional source of mentoring and on-site troubleshooting that the teachers recognize as being invaluable in their technology use. District- and state-wide testing influenced the curriculum taught in each of these classrooms. Mathematics teachers emphasized the need to follow specific district pacing charts. They also reported ceasing new instruction in mid-spring in order to review for district and state testing. For instance, in Mrs. T‟s mathematics class, “in April we start to focus on end-of-course testing… going over released items on the old tests” (STIP). Science teachers were more likely to conduct ongoing review. They used the technology to support district-level testing and gave preassessments to target specific skills and content areas. Teachers all faced challenges in setting up their technology. Mrs. N, a mathematics teacher, reports “tremendous technological challenges getting it in place, getting it to serve the kids” (STIP). While both mathematics and physical science teachers reported a variety of difficulties in setting up their computers to function with the Navigator™ system, physical science teachers faced the added difficulty of obtaining sufficient quantities of graphing calculators for their classrooms. In one physical science classroom, the teacher tells us, “I only had five or six [students] who had their own calculator…I tried to scrounge up some more calculators, because if they don‟t all have a calculator, it just doesn‟t work” (Mrs. S., FTIP). A variety of solutions addressed this problem: students purchased their own graphing calculators, students were asked to share calculators or to take turns using the technology, or calculators were borrowed from high school mathematics departments.
Congruence Although mathematics and physical science teachers used the technology in different ways, it fit into a number of aspects of teachers‟ typical classroom practice. One feature of this particular technology is that student responses can remain anonymous if the teacher chooses not to reveal names. However, the teacher also has the option to reveal names to the class or to identify specific student responses privately. Although these teachers tended to keep their students‟ responses anonymous in most circumstances, some students would choose to selfidentify by calling out or by including their names in open responses. Mrs. C tells the interviewer of a time when she “had the names hidden [and] they were yelling at me, „we want to see, I want to see my name up there” (FTIP). The technology system implemented in this study allows for a wide variety of assessment tasks to be given. Teachers used the system to review homework, conduct weekly content reviews, and to prepare for classroom-based tests or high-stakes tests. Some teachers also used this technology to administer short tests or quizzes. In some circumstances, teachers used student responses to stimulate class discussion, leaving individual student responses ungraded. In other cases, teachers reported appreciating the ability to rapidly score tests and quizzes, as described by Mrs. R in saying “I can get instant feedback… what they do and do not understand” (STIP). A consistent message from teachers was that they were able to collect responses from more of their students, facilitating teachers‟ knowledge of student thinking. However, the specific style of assessment differed in these three mathematics classrooms compared to their physical science counterparts. Mathematics teachers typically used features that allowed them to ask short, spontaneous questions. They used these to monitor student progress and at the beginning of class to have students vote on which homework problems they needed to review. Physical science teachers used opening questions to preview topics and review material from previous days‟ instruction. Mrs. R relates a time in class when she “sent them a Quick Poll [short question prompt] and got back all these wrong answers… I found out that they didn‟t understand it and I said, oh, we‟ll do this again” (STIP). Furthermore, physical science teachers also reported using a longer questioning application, particularly for assessing student knowledge of vocabulary terms. In general, students responded positively to using the system in their classes. However, mathematics and physical science teachers in this analysis both reported being selective in their use of connected classroom technology. Teachers were resistant to the notion of using the system merely for the sake of using instructional technology; rather, they sought out specific lessons and activities that integrated well with CCT. In some
classrooms, this affected the frequency of use, depending on the course content. Mr. W. explains that “there‟s some days where I just won‟t use the technology because I feel like it‟s too much of a stretch, and I think it‟s something that could be done a bit easier, quicker without the technology” (POI). Although the technology fit well into many aspects of teachers‟ typical instructional practice, they all reported some changes in their pedagogy. The three mathematics teachers whose experiences are presented here reported using less direct instruction and more discovery-type lessons as well as increased class-wide discussion of misconceptions. Mr. W reports that “it challenged me to create meaningful lessons … with the Navigator™, they can see, they can experience and find for themselves what makes two lines parallel and what makes two lines perpendicular” (STIP). Further, mathematics teachers focused on the variety of representations and learning modalities that they were able to incorporate through the technology. Mrs. T tells us that “[she] can immediately assess their learning. You can see how they are answering. They may be answering in different way but they may all be right” (STIP). The three physical science teachers represented here appeared to be more used to using manipulatives, hand-on learning, and discovery-based learning; their change in instructional practice centered on using CCT to pre-assess students in order to differentiate instruction and target students with specific learning needs. Mrs. C described that she would “use it to see if someone is lagging way behind, and then I go to them and see what the problem is” (POI). The ability to display and work with Cartesian coordinate graphs is a prominent feature of this particular technology. In mathematics classes, teachers tended to have students work with functions to understand how parts of expressions affected the appearance of the graphed equation. In physical science classes, teachers also worked with Cartesian graphs but in the context of having students plot raw data. Teachers then collected data from individual students, aggregated the data, and electronically sent data sets back to the entire class for further manipulation, including determination of lines of best fit. Mrs. C. explains how she would “aggregate all of their data when they send it to me. And then I can put it into a graph and have all of their plots” (FTIP). Similarly, Mrs. R. relates a physics lesson using CCT where the students “collected data with toy trucks and stopwatches… the first time they sent in ordered pairs, and the second time they sent in equations… we looked at their equations and how they were different and what the different variables meant” (FTIP). However, physical science teachers faced an additional challenge in that their students, particularly younger students, were less familiar with the graphing calculator and required additional instruction to implement these features.
Cost and Benefit Both mathematics and physical science teachers experienced challenges in setting up and using connected classroom technology in this first year of implementation. However, they found enough advantages in using it to overcome the various barriers they encountered. One physical science teacher remarks, “[In] the first quarter, I used it very little, because it was more of a problem than it was a benefit…But when I did use it, it went really well” (Mrs. S., FTIP). Similarly, Mrs. R. tells us that “[I]f I didn‟t like using it as much… I could see where it would end up by the wayside all of the time… I do like how it works well enough to fool with it and make it work (POI).” The costs of implementing this technology appear to be high in the first year. Teachers struggled with obtaining required equipment and setting up computer connections. Finding time to become proficient with the technology and adapt lessons was challenging for these teachers. However, for these six teachers, the benefits of their own professional development and the changes they perceived in their students and classes, coupled with a high level of collegial support, helped them to persist.
Conclusions This analysis of experiences of six successful teachers in their first year of implementing classroom connected technology indicates the presence of certain features. These teachers found CCT to be supported by their school contexts. They experienced support from colleagues and found technology assistance when needed. They were able to adapt their classrooms to work with the technology. Connected classroom technology was also congruence with these teachers‟ instructional practices. It supported a variety of assessment strategies and allowed teachers to learn more about students‟ thinking. Despite the number of challenges faced by teachers implementing CCT, they perceived an overall benefit to integrating this system into their pedagogical repertoires. It remains important to understand aspects of teacher practice in using connected classroom technology in order to maximize the potential learning gains seen with such tools.
This study has presented a framework for understanding the experiences of matched sets of physical science and mathematics teachers implementing connected classroom technology. Future work in this area will involve investigating potential differences in teachers‟ experiences in the second year of technology implementation. Additionally, this framework can be applied to teachers who were not as successful as the six represented in this analysis. A number of teachers in the broader CCMS study either did not implement the technology at all or implemented it at low levels in their first year. Other teachers were moderately successful in their first year but did not continue to implement the technology in successive years. Describing the factors that lead to implementation or non-implementation of technological innovations can lead to a better understanding of how to assist teachers in using technology more effectively. Furthermore, understanding challenges faced by teachers implementing technology has implications for educational policy decision-makers as well as technology designers.
References Assessment Reform Group (1999). Assessment for learning: Beyond the black box. Cambridge: University of Cambridge, School of Education. Bell, B., & Cowie, B. (2001). The characteristics of formative assessment in science education. Science Education, 85(5), 536. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998a). Assessment in classroom learning. Assessment in classroom learning: Principles, policy, & practice, 5(1), 7-74. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998b). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, October, 139-148. Council of Chief State School Officers. (2000). State Educational Assessment Center, State student assessment programs database, 1997-1998 school year. Available: http://nces.ed.gov Cowie, B. & Bell, B. (1999). A model of formative assessment in science education. Assessment in Education, 6(1), 101-116. Cuban, L. (1998) How schools change reforms: Redefining reform success and failure. Teachers College Record, 99(3), 453-477. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813-834. Daws, N. & Singh, B. (1996). Formative assessment: To what extent is its potential to enhance pupils‟ science being realized? School Science Review, 77(281), 93-100. Doyle, W. & Ponder, G.A. (1977). The practicality ethic in teacher decision-making. Interchange 8(3), 1-10. Fies, C. & Marshall, J. (2006). Classroom response systems: A review of the literature. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(1), 101-109. Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1986). Effects of systematic formative evaluation: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 53(3), 199208. Irving, K. E., Sanalan, V. A., & Shirley, M. L. (In press). Physical science connected classrooms: Case studies. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 28(3). Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., Gonzalez, E. J., & Chrostowski, S. J. (2004). Findings From IEA’s Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study at the Fourth and Eighth Grades. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College. Pape S. J., Irving, K. E., Owens, D. T., Boscardin, C. K., Sanalan, V. A., Abrahamson, L., Kaya, S., Shin, H. S. (2008, March). The impact of classroom connectivity in promoting Algebra I achievement: Results of a randomized control trial. Research Report Presented at the AERA 2008 Annual Meeting, New York, NY: 24-28 March 2008. Popham, W. J. (2008). Transformative assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Priestley, M. (2005). Making the most of the Curriculum Review: Some reflections on supporting and sustaining change in schools. Scottish Educational review, 37(1), 29-38. Programme for International Student Assessment. (2007). PISA 2006: Science competencies for tomorrow's world: Executive summary. Paris, France: OECD. Roschelle, J., Penuel, W. R., & Abrahamson, L. (2004). The networked classroom. Educational Leadership, 61(5), 50-54. Rutherford, F. J., & Ahlgren, A. (1991). Science for All Americans (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Sanalan, V. A., Irving, K. E., Pape, S. J. & Owens, D. T. (2008, January). A multi-faceted professional development program for science teachers: Classroom connectivity technology. Paper Presented at the 2008 ASTE International Conference, St. Louis, MO: 10-12 January 2008.
Acknowledgements The work presented in this paper was generously supported by grant # R305K050045 from the Institute of Educational Sciences of the U.S. Department of Education.
