Preservice Teachers' TPACK: Using Technology to ... - Springer Link

J Sci Educ Technol (2013) 22:838–857 DOI 10.1007/s10956-013-9434-z

Preservice Teachers’ TPACK: Using Technology to Support Inquiry Instruction Jennifer L. Maeng • Bridget K. Mulvey Lara K. Smetana • Randy L. Bell

•

Published online: 22 January 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Abstract This investigation provides detailed descriptions of preservice secondary science teachers’ technologyenhanced inquiry instruction and their developing TPACK. Prior to student teaching, 27 preservice teachers were introduced to general guidelines for integrating technology to support reform-based science instruction. This instruction was in the context of a 2-year Master of Teaching program. Of the 27 preservice teachers, 26 used technology for inquiry instruction during student teaching. Our goals were to describe how these 26 preservice science teachers: (1) used educational technologies to support students’ investigations and (2) demonstrated their developing TPACK through technology-enhanced inquiry instruction. Multiple data sources (observations, lesson plans, interviews, and reflections) allowed for characterization of participants’ technology integration to support inquiry instruction and their decision-making related to the use of technology to support inquiry. Results indicated that participants incorporated technologies appropriate to the content and context to facilitate non-experimental and experimental inquiry experiences. Participants developing TPACK was evidenced by their selective and appropriate use of technology. Appropriate technology use for inquiry included the

J. L. Maeng (&) University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA e-mail: [email protected] B. K. Mulvey Kent State University, Kent, OH, USA L. K. Smetana Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA R. L. Bell Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA

123

following: (1) to present an engaging introduction, (2) to facilitate data collection, (3) to facilitate data analysis, and (4) to facilitate communication and discussion of results. These results suggest that using digital images to facilitate whole-class inquiry holds considerable promise as a starting point for teachers new to inquiry instruction. Results of the present study may inform science teacher educators’ development of content-specific, technology-enhanced learning opportunities that: prepare preservice teachers for the responsibility of supporting inquiry instruction with technology, facilitate the transition to student-centered instruction, and support TPACK development. Keywords TPACK Inquiry Preservice teachers Secondary teachers

Introduction Inquiry is one of the core scientific practices highlighted in the recently published A Framework for K-12 Science Education (National Research Council [NRC] 2012). This framework outlines the essential scientific ideas and practices all K-12 students should learn and provide guidance for forthcoming revised national science education standards. It promotes instruction that supports the integration of scientific knowledge with the practices needed to engage in scientific inquiry and facilitate both an understanding of scientific knowledge and an appreciation for the means through which scientific knowledge is developed. The Framework identifies several key science practices through which scientists study the natural world and use collected evidence to propose explanations about how the natural world works. These practices, which constitute the elements of scientific inquiry (Martinez et al. 2012), include

J Sci Educ Technol (2013) 22:838–857

the following: asking questions, planning and carrying out investigations, analyzing and interpreting data, constructing explanations, and obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information (NRC 2012). Inquiry instruction has not been widely adopted by science teachers, despite the emphasis in science education reform documents (Johnson 2006, 2007). Additionally, teachers’ understandings of science inquiry are commonly not aligned with those promoted by science education reforms (Crawford 2000; Lederman et al. 2012). For example, some teachers conflate inquiry with hands-on instruction (NRC 2000). Lack of familiarity with content knowledge, pedagogical approaches and teacher experience also acts as barriers to teachers’ enactment of inquiry instruction (e.g., Berns and Swanson 2000; Gess-Newsome 2003; Johnson 2006, 2007; Loucks-Horsley et al. 2010; Supovitz and Turner 2000). Other documented barriers to inquiry instruction include emphasis on preparation of students for standardized assessments (Anderson 2002; Johnson 2006) and lack of equipment, curricular materials, and other resources (Bauer and Kenton 2005; Blumenfeld et al. 1994). Technology-enhanced Inquiry Instruction More encouraging, though, is recent research indicating that educational technologies, including digital media, probeware, modeling tools, computer simulations, and virtual collaborative environments, can effectively support teachers’ efforts to integrate inquiry instruction in their science classrooms (Flick and Bell 2000; Higgins and Spitulnik 2008; Kim et al. 2007; Lee et al. 2010; MistlerJackson and Songer 2000; Sandholtz et al. 1997; Varma et al. 2008). Such technologies also have been shown to be effective in promoting student learning (Bell and Trundle 2008; Lee et al. 2010; Linn et al. 2006; Trundle and Bell 2010; Zucker et al. 2008) and the development of students’ scientific practices (Linn et al. 2004). For example, MistlerJackson and Songer (2000) reported middle school students’ improved scientific conceptions and motivation to learn science when Internet-based software was integrated into an inquiry-based curriculum coupled with opportunities to collaborate with peers, opportunities to explore authentic questions, and time to develop conceptual understandings in context. The use of probeware facilitates students’ grappling with data and graphical interpretation, learning science concepts, and model construction and testing (Dani and Koenig 2008; Metcalf and Tinker 2004). In an exploratory study of integration of digital microscopes and laptops in a high school biology class, Dickerson and Kubasko (2007) reported students worked in groups to analyze images and videos of organisms viewed with the digital microscopes and develop multimedia

839

PowerPointTM presentations to share findings with their peers. The authors note that integrating this technology resulted in greater opportunity for collaboration among students during data analysis and ‘‘enhanced student processes and products’’ (p. 279) than when students used traditional light microscopes for similar investigations. Computer-based modeling tools may similarly support the integration of science knowledge, abilities, and practices (Schwartz and White 2005; vanJoolingen et al. 2007). For example, Schwartz and White (2005) reported that middle school students improved their inquiry skills, understanding of the purpose of models, and physics content knowledge when the inquiry-oriented ModelEnhanced ThinkerTools Curriculum was integrated into instruction. Computer simulations, a specific form of computer modeling tools, may facilitate inquiry learning by providing visualization opportunities that may not be possible in actual field work (vanJoolingen et al. 2007; Winn et al. 2005). In a synthesis of the literature on simulations, Scalise et al. (2011) found that 17 % of analyzed studies reported at least some learning gains among secondary students associated with science inquiry and the use of science simulations. In a review of 61 empirical studies involving computer simulations in science instruction, Smetana and Bell (2011) concluded that when appropriately used, computer simulations provide students the opportunity to engage in inquiry-based, authentic science explorations. For example, Zacharia (2003) reported that instruction supplemented with computer simulations fostered more sophisticated causal explanations for scientific phenomena among students than textbook-only instruction. Similarly, Windschitl (2001) found computer simulations coupled with a conceptual change approach helped middle school biology students make and test predictions as part of self-designed explorations about cardiovascular health. In doing so, they developed scientifically accurate conceptions about the structure and function of the heart and cardiovascular system. Taken together, the results of these studies suggest that facilitating teachers’ incorporation of technology to support inquiry can promote students’ deeper conceptual understanding of scientific ideas, motivation to learn science, and scientific practices necessary for inquiry. Therefore, technology holds promise in facilitating teachers’ efforts to teach via inquiry. TPACK and Inquiry Despite this promise, using technology to support inquiry teaching and learning remains ‘‘complex and demanding for teachers’’ (Williams et al. 2004, p. 190). Such instruction requires that teachers have a deep understanding of content, incorporate a variety of representations of

123

840

science content, utilize a variety of instructional and logistical practices, and understand how to troubleshoot technology-related issues (Williams et al. 2004). The goal of involving students in inquiry activities that promote the development of deep scientific understandings will not be realized through exposure to technological advances alone (Schrum et al. 2007). To be most effective, educational technologies should be situated in a substantial and flexible framework of knowledge of content, pedagogy, and technology. A teacher’s technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) demonstrates an understanding of the interaction between these knowledge types (Koehler and Mishra 2008; Mishra and Koehler 2006). According to the TPACK framework, teachers need to judiciously consider what and how specific technologies might assist students in making sense of complex ideas and phenomena associated with a particular discipline (Bozdin and Park 2005; International Society for Technology in Education [ISTE] 2008; NRC 1996). In order for teachers to develop the TPACK necessary for successful integration of educational technologies, it is important for them to understand what such instructional practices involve and consider how they may be of value to teaching and learning (e.g., Jang and Chen 2010; Niess 2005). Unfortunately, there is no standard template to present. Teaching with technology is, according to Koehler and Mishra (2008), a ‘‘wicked problem’’ (complex, illstructured, and situation-specific). Therefore, the effective use of computer technologies requires teachers to consider the pedagogical challenges specific to the curriculum, students, and classroom setting, as well as how technology can help to overcome these challenges. Due to the interaction between a teacher’s knowledge of content, pedagogy, and technology, preparing science teachers to effectively use technology for science instruction should occur within the context of learning to teach science (Clark 1983; Luft et al. 2003; Mishra and Koehler 2007; Schnittka and Bell 2009a). Preservice science teachers in particular need content-specific examples, resources, and opportunities to practice designing and teaching technology-enhanced science lessons (Flick and Bell 2000). As Niess (2005) asserted, ‘‘Preservice teachers must be challenged to reconsider their subject matter content and the impact of technology … on teaching and learning that subject’’ (p. 511). That is, they must consider, practice, and reflect on how the available technologies can support inquiry instruction.


instruction of core science concepts and skills (e.g., Schnittka and Bell 2009b; Schnittka et al. 2007; Zatz et al. 2009). The current study extends the previous work by examining participants’ technology use specifically associated with inquiry instruction, a key reform-based instructional model. Specifically, this study explored participants’ TPACK as it related to the intersection of participants’ use of inquiry as pedagogical approach, as supported by appropriate technology (Fig. 1). The research literature exploring the development of TPACK among preservice science teachers is small (e.g., Jang and Chen 2010; Niess 2005), and, to our knowledge, there are no studies that explore preservice science teachers’ TPACK as it pertains specifically to inquiry teaching and learning. The goal of the present work is to describe how preservice science teachers promote students’ inquiry skills by engaging students in science inquiry using technology. The research questions that informed this investigation were: 1.

2.

How do preservice teachers, who were taught to use technology to support reform-based instructional practices, use educational technologies to support students’ inquiry investigations? How does preservice teachers’ incorporation of technology-enhanced inquiry instruction demonstrate their developing TPACK?

Methods This study employed a qualitative case study research design with the goal of characterizing participants’ use of

Purpose A recent series of investigations has demonstrated that teachers can use a computer/projector system in wholeclass settings to support active and cognitively engaging

123

Fig. 1 TPACK model as related to the present investigation


instructional technology to support inquiry instruction through analysis of classroom observations, participant interviews, and artifacts such as lesson plans, student assignments, PowerPointTM/SMARTBoardTM presentations, and teaching reflections. Participants and Context The author team’s previous interpretive investigations characterized the ways that 27 preservice teachers in a technology-enriched science teacher preparation program integrated technology in their instruction during student teaching (e.g., Bell et al. in press; Schnittka and Bell 2009b; Schnittka et al. 2007). Results of these investigations indicated substantial technology integration by the majority of the 27 participants. Additionally, all of the participants in the previous investigations used technology to support reform-based science instruction, providing students with opportunities to construct conceptual understandings of scientific understandings through studentcentered, active learning. For example, Bell et al. (in press) assessed the extent of substantive technology integration by participants, as defined by the Flick and Bell (2000) guidelines. They reported the percentage of these lessons that represented a direct application of the technology, as modeled in the educational technology or science methods course, an adaptation, or an innovation. Results indicated the majority of lessons, some of which involved science being taught through inquiry, constituted ‘‘adaptation,’’ in which participants developed novel technology-enhanced lessons that incorporated technologies modeled in the science teacher preparation program to teach science content relevant to their student teaching placement. As the purpose of the present investigation was to characterize the authentic science inquiry instruction supported by technology, the 26 participants (96.3 %) who used technology to support such instruction were selected from the 27 participants of previous investigations. These 10 male and 16 female participants were enrolled in a 2-year Master of Teaching (M.T.) program at a large, public Mid-Atlantic University. Participants ranged in age from 21 to 54, held undergraduate degrees in a natural science, and were seeking initial teaching licensure in earth science, biology, chemistry, or physics. The participants completed their student teaching placements in eight different public middle or high schools under the guidance of a mentor classroom teacher. Pseudonyms for participants are used throughout. Details of the Teacher Preparation Program At the university that served as the context for this investigation, preservice science teachers complete a sequence

841

of four methods courses across multiple semesters. These courses include an educational technology class with an emphasis on science content and pedagogy, two science teaching methods classes that include emphasis on the use of educational technologies for science instruction, and a microteaching course (Fig. 2). In each course, educational technology instruction is structured around guidelines that reflect science education reforms and National Education Technology Standards for Teachers and that are designed to facilitate the development of TPACK (Flick and Bell 2000; ISTE 2008). These guidelines recommend that technology should: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

be introduced in the context of science content, address worthwhile science with appropriate pedagogy, take advantage of the unique features of the technology, be used in ways that make scientific views more accessible, and develop students’ understanding of the relationship between technology and science.

The preservice teachers witness, experience, and critique examples of appropriate uses and misuses of technology, as defined by the guidelines, and are given the opportunity to practice technology integration themselves. To assist in the development of technology integration mastery, preservice teachers are required to integrate educational technology into multiple peer-teaching and student-teaching lessons in ways that reflect the guidelines. Peers, supervisors, and professors provide constructive feedback to each preservice teacher based on these guidelines. In the science teaching methods courses, preservice teachers learn to use a practical and easily applicable framework for inquiry instruction. In this framework, inquiry is defined as ‘‘an active learning process in which students answer research questions through data analysis in a manner consistent with how scientists do their work’’ (Bell et al. 2005). Preservice teachers use this framework to assess the extent to which existing and self-created activities support inquiry and as a outline for scaffolding inquiry instruction. During the science methods courses, technology-enhanced inquiry is modeled for students using a variety of technologies (e.g., online simulations, digital images and videos, and various Internet resources). Additionally, during the science teaching methods courses, preservice teachers are also explicitly introduced to a general model of technology-enhanced inquiry instruction that integrates key components of the TPACK framework and technology use guidelines (Flick and Bell 2000; Table 1). This model provides a basis for teaching specific scientific content in a student-centered and

123

842


Fig. 2 Organization of the science teacher preparation program

Semester 4 Capstone Project(research in science education)

Semester 3 Student Teaching Student Teaching Seminar

Semester 2 Teaching Secondary Science (methods course) Teaching Secondary Science Lab

Semester 1 Educational Technology for Science and Math Teachers Teaching Secondary Science (methods course)

engaging manner using appropriately selected technologies. Each step of the model is described below. To begin a lesson, teachers frame the content-oriented context in which students will be working. The teacher or student then poses an overarching scientific research question that can be answered through analysis of a digital image or other digital media (e.g., animations, simulations, video) or the teacher asks students to develop a research question based on their prior knowledge of the topic.

Depending on the question and the content, digital images, videos, simulations, or animations can be potential data sources for student analysis. Next, students gather the evidence needed to answer the research question either by making observations or by designing and conducting investigations to test their hypotheses. Then, students draw evidence-based inferences or conclusions to answer the initial research question and debate the merit of their conclusions. The final step of the model is essential to

Table 1 Alignment between model and technology use guidelines Model steps

Associated guidelines

1. Teacher engages students with an introduction to scientific content

Introduce technology in context of teaching science content

2. Teacher or students pose research question related to content

Address worthwhile science with appropriate pedagogy

3. Students make observations/conduct experiments using digital media or student generated data.

Address worthwhile science with appropriate pedagogy. Take advantage of the unique features of technology Be used in ways that make scientific views more accessible

4. Students generate inferences, predictions conclusions

Develop students’ understanding of the relationship between science and technology

5. Teacher refers to the activity in the context of lesson or unit.

Introduce technology in context of teaching science content Develop students’ understanding of the relationship between science and technology

123


connecting the technology-enhanced inquiry investigation to the rest of the lesson and/or unit. During the microteaching laboratory section associated with the science teaching methods courses, preservice teachers practice using this instructional model and incorporating technology to support inquiry instruction. For example, in one lesson that modeled this approach, the instructor selected an online simulation (http://phet.colorado.edu/en/simulation/ projectile-motion) that allows students to explore projectile motion by manipulating variables including launch angle, mass, and initial speed. To begin the lesson, the instructor posed the following question: ‘‘In the absence of air resistance, what factors influence the range a projectile travels?’’ Prior to conducting the investigation, preservice teachers made predictions about which variables they thought would impact projectile range, and in what way. Preservice teachers then worked in pairs on laptops to manipulate the variables to test their predictions and analyze trends in the collected data to answer the research question. The instructor then facilitated a discussion of preservice teachers’ conclusions. To debrief the lesson, the class discussed: how they might use this approach in their science instruction, the topics from their content area they could teach through this technology-enhanced approach, and the advantages and disadvantages of using simulations in science instruction. For example, this particular simulation was selected for the model lesson because it is free, downloadable, and shows the path the projectile takes, which facilitates comparison, both visually and numerically. See Bell et al. (in press) for other examples of model lessons, activities, and assignments integrated in the science methods course sequence to support teachers’ technology-enhanced instruction. The preservice teachers complete their student teaching experience in a public school under the supervision of a classroom science teacher during the fall semester of their second year in the program. Access to a laptop computer with Internet access and digital projector for the entire student teaching semester ensures that the preservice teachers have the resources necessary to integrate technology during student teaching. To further facilitate translation of what they learned in the methods course sequence into instruction, preservice teachers meet weekly during their 16-week student teaching experience for a seminar course. The seminar assignments and discussions focus on the major goals and instructional approaches addressed throughout the program. These include the following: classroom management, teaching about the nature of science, inquiry instruction, and teaching with educational technology. For each of these topics, the student teachers write thoughtful reflections analyzing the effectiveness of their lessons, drawing upon examples from their teaching experiences.

843

Data Collection Participants’ instructional practices with technology were characterized through analysis of a wide variety of qualitative data. These data included formal and informal interviews, classroom observations, and additional teaching artifacts including lesson plans and teaching reflections, as described below. This variety of data sources allowed for a full characterization of each participant’s technologyenhanced inquiry instruction; triangulation of these data sources increased the internal validity of the findings. Interviews Following the science methods and educational technology courses and prior to beginning student teaching, each participant completed an approximately 30-min formal entrance interview to elucidate their thinking about technology-enhanced instruction. This interview followed a protocol that included open-ended questions pertaining to beliefs about technology use, pedagogy, content, and intent for technology use (‘‘Appendix 1’’). Prior to use, the protocol was reviewed and validated by a panel of three science education, technology education, and research design experts. (See Schnittka and Bell 2009a, for additional details). Throughout the student teaching semester, the researchers periodically conducted brief informal interviews with each participant to track their developing thoughts about technology integration. Interview questions focused on the student teachers’ thinking processes as they chose when and how to integrate technology into their lessons, the extent to which technology impacted student engagement, and their students’ understanding of curricular objectives. Finally, each participant completed an approximately 50-min formal exit interview at the end of their student teaching experience, using a modified and extended version of the entrance interview protocol (‘‘Appendix 2’’). Additional questions in the exit interview protocol probed participants’ goals for and decisions about the use or non-use of technology for particular lessons, their perceived successes and frustrations with incorporating technology into instruction, and elicited specific examples of successful and unsuccessful lessons integrating technology. Observations Classroom observations constituted the primary data source for characterizing participants’ technology-enhanced inquiry instruction. Each participant was observed for an entire 90-min lesson at least six times during the student teaching semester, for a combined total of 234 h of observations across 156 lessons. These observations were

123

844

scheduled as a part of normal supervision of student teaching; thus, lesson content, instructional model, and any technology use represented the participants’ typical science instruction. Field notes captured lesson content, student/ teacher interactions, technology use, and/or inquiry instruction within each observed lesson. Lesson Plans and Other Artifacts All lesson plans written and implemented throughout the entire student teaching experience were collected. Additionally, participant-created supplemental resources, including PowerPointTM presentations, URLs for Internet resources, handouts, labs, and assessment documents, were collected. Finally, reflective essays associated with the student teaching seminar provided additional insight into how often and in what ways the preservice teachers implemented inquiry and used technology throughout the semester. These artifacts served as valuable tools to validate statements made by participants during interviews. Data Analysis The researchers followed an inductive data analysis process (Bogden and Biklen 1992). First, the data corpus associated with all 27 preservice teachers was examined for instances of technology and inquiry usage. Data sources included interview responses, observation notes, lesson plans, supplemental lesson plan materials, and teaching reflections. Then, analysis focused on identifying instances of technology use associated with the facilitation of inquiry instruction, ‘‘an active learning process in which students answer research questions through data analysis’’ (Bell et al. 2005, p. 31). These instances included a student or teacher-generated research question and whole-class, small group, or individual data analysis. During this round of analysis, all data were independently analyzed, compared, and reanalyzed by three coders in order to establish intercoder agreement with regard to instances of technology use and inquiry instruction. Initial agreement was approximately 90 % between coders. Differences were noted, discussed, and the data were revisited until consensus was achieved. This data analysis resulted in the selection of those 26 preservice teachers (out of the pool of 27) whose data indicated the use of technology to support inquiry instruction. A third round of analysis focused solely on the 26 participants who used technology to support inquiry instruction. Instances of technology-enhanced inquiry instruction were coded to reflect the ways each participant used particular technologies to support inquiry instruction resulting in two main codes: observational and experimental investigations.

123


These codes represented participants’ pedagogical approach to inquiry. For the purposes of this study, inquiry activities in which variables were not controlled to determine causal explanations were defined as ‘‘non-experimental investigations.’’ In contrast, ‘‘experimental investigations’’ were defined as inquiry activities involving manipulation of variables in an attempt to derive causal relationships. Subcodes were related to technology type (e.g., simulation, digital image, multiple technologies), context of how the technology was used to support inquiry (e.g., data collection, data analysis, data presentation), instructional context (e.g., full lesson, introduction, body), and student grouping (e.g., whole class, small group). A second goal of this analysis was to determine how and to what extent these participants employed TPACK. Specifically, we analyzed the data set for evidence of participants’ decisionmaking related to the use of technology to support inquiry: When and what technologies they selected to use to promote active learning and support students’ non-experimental and experimental inquiry investigations. Results of this analysis of individual participants’ data were shared among the research team along with supporting data. The team discussed instances of ambiguous or contradictory data from diverse sources until consensus was reached on coding. In the results, we describe the quantity and type (nonexperimental or experimental) of technology-enhanced inquiry investigations participants taught and provide examples of the varied technologies participants used to support inquiry instruction. Supporting evidence is presented in the form of quotes, observation notes, and vignettes.

Results The purpose of this study was to provide detailed descriptions of secondary science student teachers’ use of technology-enhanced inquiry instruction and to characterize participants’ TPACK during student teaching. Results indicated that participants’ demonstrated TPACK through judicious choices of when and what technologies to use to support students’ non-experimental and experimental inquiry investigations. Further, they deepened their realization of the affordances of educational technologies for promoting active and engaged learning in the science classroom. Thus, their TPACK was reflected in their decision-making about technology-enhanced science inquiry. Quantity and Type of Use All 27 participants from previous investigations (e.g., Bell et al. in press; Schnittka and Bell 2009b; Schnittka et al. 2007) incorporated inquiry in their lessons, as evidenced by their lesson plans, reflections, and classroom observations.


845

The following excerpt from Gail’s teaching reflection illustrates the importance the participants placed on inquiry instruction:

simulations, animations, images, software packages, etc., especially when trying to use technology as a bridge to inquiry. (Derek, Technology Reflection).

I believe that inquiry should play a significant role in science education as a means for students to explore science concepts through research and reasoning. Students should be exposed and given practice in utilizing inquiry skills such as observation, inference, experimentation, and analysis and reasoning. Inquiry skills must be discussed and modeled by the teacher in order for students to learn how to use them effectively. (Gail, Inquiry Reflection)

While Derek saw the potential for certain technologies to support his inquiry instruction, he did not incorporate these into his student teaching. Derek’s response indicated an understanding of what technologies may be useful in facilitating inquiry, but he felt unable to enact these in his student teaching placement. Of those 26 participants who integrated technology to support inquiry instruction, 92 % used technology for nonexperimental investigations, 54 % used technology to support students’ experimental investigations, and 46 % used technology to support both students’ non-experimental and experimental investigations (Table 2). Results also indicated that participants gave priority to inquirybased instructional approaches and strategically considered when it would be appropriate to use technologies to support this instruction. In interviews and reflections, many participants discussed the importance of incorporating inquiry and technology into instruction, and how they perceived technology can enhance students’ inquiry experiences. In the following sections, we provide descriptions of participants’ technology-enhanced non-experimental and experimental investigations and evidence of decision-making that reflects their TPACK development.

Additionally, all 27 participants used educational technology in their science instruction. For example, all participants used digital images embedded in PowerPointTM presentations. Most participants also incorporated digital videos, simulations, animations, and Websites into multiple lessons. In his technology reflection, Joey described how technology can play an appropriate role both in his instruction and in science: Technology can serve as a medium for lecture, demonstration, or inquiry, but should be at least as efficient and effective as more classical methods. In some cases, technology can offer instructional options that in yesterday’s world were not there, such as online research and communication, enhanced methods of differentiation, and much more. Moreover, science and technology are (increasingly) intertwined, and this relationship is a natural one to foster. (Joey, Technology Reflection) Like the other participants, Joey recognized the value of integrating technology into science instruction and the considerations that should be made when deciding whether technology will enhance a lesson. Further analysis of the data revealed that 26 of these participants used educational technology to support their inquiry instruction. The only participant who did not use technology to support inquiry, Derek, indicated in his exit interview that he incorporated minimal inquiry instruction overall during student teaching due to ‘‘tight scheduling’’ and because ‘‘experimental design is not taught until later in the year… it makes it harder to do inquiry labs because they’re not asking the right questions’’ (Exit Interview). The frustrations prevented him from using technology to support inquiry in his placement. Despite these frustrations, Derek describes his hope to incorporate technology much more in the future in his technology reflection: As I get more time to prepare for lessons, I look forward to discovering and perhaps creating more ways to use technology in the classroom: finding

Non-experimental Investigations Almost all of the participants who used technology to support inquiry instruction (24/26, 92 %) used technology to engage students in non-experimental investigations. Generally, these investigations were observational in nature and involved the participant first posing a question or problem to the class and then guiding pupils to make observations of one or more digital images, animations, simulations, or video clips. In a few instances, participants also engaged students in correlational investigations in which students engaged in finding relationships and trends in data without manipulating variables. The majority of these investigations took place in the context of whole-class instruction; however, some lessons incorporated technology-enhanced non-experimental inquiries in which students worked in small groups. In all cases, the investigation was followed by a class discussion that included the development of inferences based on pupils’ observations. Participants commonly engaged students in these technologyenhanced non-experimental investigations in the structure of a broader lesson. In many cases, non-experimental investigations functioned as short lesson openers; in other cases, they constituted the main activity within the body of the lesson. Overall, non-experimentalz investigations engaged students

123

846


Table 2 Participants’ use of technology for inquiry, by content area and investigation type Content area

Participants using technology for inquiry Number (%)

Observational investigations

Experimental investigations

Both types of inquiry

Number (%) of those who used technology for inquiry



15/15 (100)

14/15 (93.3)

9/15 (60)

8/15 (53.3)

Chemistry

4/5 (80)

3/4 (75)

3/4 (75)

2/4 (50)

Earth science

5/5 (100)

5/5 (100)

1/5 (20)

1/5 (20)

Physics

2/2 (100)

2/2 (100)

1/2 (50)

1/2 (50)

Total

26/27 (96)

24/26 (92)

14/26 (54)

12/26 (46)

Biology

in content that was elaborated upon in the subsequent lesson or unit or helped students to review previously taught science content. Below, exemplars of participants’ use of non-experimental investigations are presented. Whole-class Non-experimental Investigations All participants used short, technology-enhanced inquiryoriented lesson openers to engage students in inquiry and to introduce a variety of content-based topics. These wholeclass investigations took place at the beginning of lessons and typically involved the participant posing a question to the entire class then providing students with a digital image, or series of images projected on the LCD projector. Less commonly, participants provided students with a short video clip or animation. Students shared their observations and then drew inferences supported by their observations. The group analysis culminated with the class answering the research question. These inquiry-oriented lesson openers helped participants tap into students’ existing content knowledge and gave them a shared experience that could be referenced throughout the remainder of the lesson. Participants taught a variety of science content using these short inquiry-oriented lesson openers. For instance, Jamie utilized a photograph of a large crack in the road to pique the interest of her earth science students as an introduction to a lesson about earthquakes. Students made initial observations of the image, followed by the teacherposed question, ‘‘What happened to cause the split in the ground?’’ This led to a variety of inferences, including the possibility that the crack was formed by an earthquake, which segued into the content of the lesson. In a biology class, Kelly posed a straightforward question, ‘‘Is this from a plant or an animal?’’ to guide students’ observations of different cells. Students then inferred whether or not these cells came from plants or animals, supporting their conclusions with evidence from their observations of the images. These engaging lesson openers took approximately

123

5 min each and segued into full lessons that expanded upon the concepts introduced. Other whole-class observational investigations functioned as longer, more extensive activities within the context of the lesson. For instance, Caroline utilized an observational investigation incorporating digital images to engage students in an investigation of rock types while reviewing for a test. She projected digital photographs of three different rock types side by side and posed the challenge, ‘‘Let’s figure out what types of rock are present in the image.’’ Her earth science students made observations of what they saw in the images with the goal of determining the initial conditions under which each rock was formed and thus the type of rock present in the image. Caroline encouraged students to observe specific features of each rock such as grain size and texture. In particular, students noted that only Rock #1 had a coarse grain size, the minerals in Rock #1 were random in arrangement, Rock #2 was glassy and exhibited a special type of fracture (conchoidal fracture), and Rock #3 had many vesicles. Based on these observations, students worked as a class to infer how each of the rocks formed, supporting their conclusions with observational evidence. For example, multiple students inferred that the random arrangement of mineral grains in Rock #1 indicated that it was formed from magma. One student then clarified that the rock had to have formed from magma that cooled slowly underground to develop the large mineral crystals. In the same way, students made inferences about the other two rocks. Finally, Caroline challenged students to determine whether each image represented an igneous, metamorphic, or sedimentary rock based on their observations and inferences. The class as a whole declared all three rock samples to be igneous rocks. (Caroline, Lesson Plan and Exit Interview). When asked how she decided what instructional approach to use, Caroline responded: With the content and based on what it allows me to do. With rocks, you can’t… it doesn’t do as much if you just stand up there and talk about it and tell


them-so letting them kind of see the rocks themselves. Kind of an inquiry lesson, letting them see the different features and see how they are separated works the best. (Caroline, Exit Interview) This participant selected inquiry as the appropriate instructional approach for multiple lessons in the rock unit because she saw this as a way for the content to be more memorable. She used technology for the observational investigation that served as a review of this unit, but she used authentic samples for a similar investigation earlier in the same unit. Students first had exposure to identifying real rocks and later used digital images for a more timeefficient review. This reflected an appropriate choice of when technology use would enhance a lesson. In a slightly more complex use of digital images for wholeclass inquiry in her biology class, Lisa projected a series of fossil footprint images, shown one at a time using a computer and projector system (Fig. 3). The goal of this lesson was to expose students to several ideas central to understanding the nature of science. A second goal of the lesson was to provide her students with an opportunity to practice making observations and inferences. For each image, students made observations regarding the size, spacing, and orientation of the fossil impressions. Based on their observations, students generated a list of inferences as potential answers to the teacher-posed question, ‘‘What’s going on?’’ As each subsequent image was revealed, students revised their previous inferences to incorporate the new data. As a class, students discussed how their inferences about the scene changed as they gained new evidence. The teacher-posed question had no single correct answer, although the students soon figured out that some of their inferences had stronger empirical support. The teacher’s open-ended question supported explicit nature of science instruction on the following tenets: Scientific knowledge is based on empirical evidence, is comprised of both observation and inference, and can change with new evidence (Lisa, Observation). Lisa is an example of a participant who thought more specifically about how the technology would benefit science teaching and learning. She reflected on the use of technology during her student teaching placement, writing: Because 7th grade life science is essentially a very basic introduction to the science of biology, many of the ideas and concepts are new to students, making digital images a very powerful instructional tool. Near the beginning of my student teaching, I used digital images more to show examples of things (organization of living things lesson plan), but as my placement went on, I tried to get students to do more with the images like make observations about them and think about the significance of a given image. (Lisa, Technology Reflection)

847

As Lisa’s comfort incorporating digital images into instruction increased, instead of merely showing students’ images, she used these images in an active, studentcentered way to support her students’ making observations and analyzing images in the context of observational investigations, as in the example presented above. These examples demonstrate how participants understood the affordances of technology (e.g., digital images, videos, animations) to engage the students in making observations and drawing inferences in the context of whole-class observational investigations. Each participant used their knowledge of the specific science content they were teaching to select appropriate images and video for students to analyze in order to meet the lessons’ instructional objectives. Through the use of whole-class, studentcentered instruction, which included presentation of data (e.g., digital media), facilitative questioning, students’ image analysis, inferencing, discussion, and drawing conclusions, participants demonstrated an understanding of how to use digital media to teach science content within an non-experimental inquiry context. Using a digital projector facilitated the lesson by allowing the whole class to simultaneously view the same images and refer back to the image when providing evidence for conclusions during discussions. The whole-class setting allowed for incorporation of such investigations in a structured environment while providing students the opportunity to frequently and efficiently practice key scientific practices associated with inquiry. Thus, in designing and implementing the wholeclass observational inquiry investigations, Jamie, Kelly, Caroline, Lisa, and other participants demonstrated their developing TPACK. Small-group Non-experimental Investigations Participants also used a variety of digital media and other technology to facilitate non-experimental inquiries in small-group settings. While the previous examples consisted entirely of whole-class investigations, some nonexperimental investigations involved small-group work components. In these cases, technology was primarily used for small-group data collection, data analysis, and/or to communicate students’ conclusions to the whole class. In many instances, participants used technology in smallgroup laboratory settings to facilitate non-experimental inquiry investigations. These inquiries typically involved students using laptops as a data collection and interpretation tool and/or interacting with online simulations via laptops. For example, in his ecology class, Joey commonly facilitated student laptop use for data collection and analysis. Associated with a multiday inquiry investigation, Joey first took his ecology students down to a lake. He asked his students, ‘‘What is the difference between shallow and deep

123

848


Fig. 3 Images used by Lisa to help students practice making observations and inferences. (Lisa, PowerPoint) (Figure adapted from an activity in Investigating the Earth by William H. Matthew et al. 1973)

water in this lake?’’ The students collected water samples close to shore and then climbed into canoes to paddle out to deep water. A few students remained on shore to record qualitative descriptions of the lake and surrounding land and vegetation. These students also estimated the distance from shore to the deep-water sample collection. Back in the classroom, students used probeware connected to laptops to show and record measurements of pH and dissolved oxygen and nitrogen. Then, student groups examined and analyzed the data, discussing the environmental implications and potential causes of the differences between the shallow and deep lake water. This prepared the class up for the second stage of the inquiry: comparing the lake water to water from a wetland. After the full inquiry was complete, the class held an extended discussion of their methodologies, the scientific practices they engaged in, and their overall conclusions. In his exit interview, Joey noted, ‘‘Probes can be very useful and very efficient in lab activities, so if I have an opportunity to use a pH sensor or a pressure gauge… I incorporate those things.’’ In this example, Joey demonstrated developing TPACK in the decisions he made about what aspects of the investigation would best be supported through technology (probeware connected to laptops for data collection and analysis), how to group students effectively to support their active engagement in the investigation, and through recognizing the need to debrief the small-group investigations as a whole class. The most frequent small-group use of technology, however, involved students using laptops to access a variety of Internet resources. For example, in her earth science class, Krissy engaged her students in an examination of trends in online data about Hurricane Katrina. Students worked on laptops in small groups to consider data available on a National Geographic website. The students investigated factors associated with increases in storm intensity. Students concluded that increased storm intensity was accompanied by increased wind speed and decreased pressure. After the small-group explorations, students worked as a class to build on each other’s ideas and asked questions that promoted another round of data analysis. This same participant also facilitated inquiries for

123

which students investigated other natural phenomena using online simulations. In one such lesson, Krissy asked students to consider, ‘‘What causes the seasons?’’ She used a series of follow-up questions to guide students in their effective and efficient use of a simulation to address the main question of this correlational investigation. In these examples, the student teachers capitalized on technologies which could help facilitate students’ visualization of abstract concepts and make scientists’ actual data sets available for the analysis. In these technology-enhanced non-experimental investigations, participants’ TPACK was demonstrated in their consideration of how having students work in small groups would enhance students’ understanding of specific science content. In these lessons, students first worked in small groups to analyze data using technology, and then participants brought the whole class together for a discussion of group findings. Participants’ choices of technologies for these investigations demonstrated their TPACK in that they reflected technologies designed specifically to do science (e.g., probeware) or that provided students access to scientists’ actual data sets for analysis (e.g., Internet resources). In contrast to the whole-class examples, having students work in small groups during the data analysis phase of these investigations allowed some flexibility in the questions groups answered, allowed students access to technologies scientists use in investigations in ways that scientists would use them, and provided the potential for more open-ended whole-class discussion of individual groups’ conclusions following data analysis. Overall, participants developed and implemented a variety of technology-enhanced non-experimental investigations. In these activities and lessons, participants posed a question or problem to the class, and then students made observations and drew inferences or conclusions through analysis of digital media in whole-class or small-group contexts. Participants integrated a variety of types of digital media including digital images, video clips, animations, and simulations into these investigations to support students’ visualization, data collection, group analyses, and class discussions.


Experimental Investigations Participants also used a variety of technologies including the computer/projector system to project simulations in which one or more variables could be manipulated, probeware for data collection, and ExcelTM for data analysis and graphical representation for experimental investigations. For the purposes of this category, experimental investigations were defined as activities, either hands-on or simulated, that allowed students to manipulate variables to test hypotheses or develop relationships between variables. Overall, 56 % of the participants incorporated technologyenhanced experimental inquiries into their instruction. In these activities, students brainstormed questions, made predictions, explored phenomena, manipulated variables, collected and analyzed quantitative and qualitative data, and developed conclusions. These investigations made use of various technologies including the computer/ projector system to project simulations in which one or more variables could be manipulated, probeware for data collection, and ExcelTM for data analysis and graphical representation. Participants used experimental investigations as components within a longer lesson or as extended lessons of one or more class periods. As with non-experimental inquiries, experimental inquiries were conducted in whole class and small-group settings. Whole-class Experimental Investigations Participants engaged students in whole-class experimental investigations in which the teacher manipulated the variables of a simulation projected via the computer/projector system based on student predictions or hypotheses. Students then recorded and analyzed data to answer the research question. In a representative biology lesson, Thomas asked, ‘‘What is the effect of temperature on enzyme activity?’’ To answer this question, he introduced a computer simulation in which temperature could be manipulated. Thomas elicited predictions from many students in the class regarding what they thought would happen to the number of effective collisions between the enzyme and the substrate variables as the temperature was changed (Fig. 4). Using the computer/ projector system, Thomas altered the temperature and the simulation plotted a graph of temperature versus reaction rate. He asked the class to observe how the number of collisions changed as he manipulated the temperature variable on the simulation. After considering the number of effective collisions at a variety of temperatures, students analyzed their collected data, concluding that the number of effective collisions increases with an increase in temperature. Thomas referenced students’ conclusions as he continued the lesson on enzyme properties.

849

During the post-lesson interview, Thomas explained that he was excited to use the simulation because it provided a practical visualization of the relationship between temperature and enzyme activity in a format that allowed pupils to conduct investigations through manipulating variables. He noted: Computer simulations are powerful and engaging. For the simulation of enzyme activity we asked, ‘‘What is the effect of temperature on enzyme activity?’’ The simulation does a great job of simulating the concept. I made it more engaging by having the students make observations and predictions. This worked well and the exit tickets reflected that the lesson was largely a success. (Thomas, Post-observation Interview) Thomas not only felt comfortable using simulations such as this to facilitate manipulating variables and visualizing the effects, he also modified materials that supported those inquiries to make the lesson even more engaging. In a slightly more complex use of an online simulation for an experimental investigation, Lisa taught a biology lesson about the relationship between populations in a food chain. She used a simulation in which multiple variables could be manipulated independently of each other or in conjunction with other variables. First, Lisa challenged her students to make predictions about what would happen to a food chain as the population of hawks, snakes, rabbits, and grass increased or decreased. Lisa then projected the simulation so that students could collect data as a class to test their predictions (Fig. 5). As Lisa changed conditions in response to student predictions, the simulation generated line graphs of the balance in the food chain over time. Students used this data to draw conclusions regarding the relationship between the animals in the food chain. As the lesson progressed into a discussion of energy transfer in ecosystems, Lisa referred back to the conclusions students had drawn. She reflected on this lesson in her exit interview, explaining that she selected it both because of the level of interactivity it allowed and because of its correlation to content, ‘‘You could change the populations and they could make predictions. It made line graphs [they could interpret], which is one of the [grade-level standards].’’ In all, she felt this promoted student engagement in the lesson. In other biology and chemistry classes, participants incorporated simulations about natural and artificial selection, cellular respiration, dominant and recessive traits, and solution pH to support whole-class experimental inquiry. Similar to the two examples described above, participants most commonly presented computer simulations from which students made predictions or developed hypotheses based on prior knowledge. Then, the teacher

123

850


Fig. 4 Enzyme simulation used by Thomas. Courtesy of NGfL Cymru (www.ngfl-cymru.org.uk). Used with permission

manipulated variables on the simulation based on these hypotheses. Students recorded and analyzed data to answer the research question. In her exit interview, Krissy summarized the role technology played in supporting students’ experimental investigations in her class. She commented: If I found something really cool, like on ExploreLearningTM or something, I would try to incorporate that in because I thought that the kids would be able to get something out of being able to manipulate certain variables. …And as far as SmartBoardTM Fig. 5 ExploreLearning GizmosTM used by Lisa’s students to make and test predictions. Courtesy of ExploreLearning GizmosTM (www.explorelearning.com). Used with permission

123

goes, the kids like to come out and write on it and stuff. (Krissy, Exit Interview) This participant saw technology as a way to engage her students in making and testing their own predictions. She also saw the SmartBoardTM as facilitating communication through students recording their ideas. Similarly, in his technology reflection, Joey indicated that he enjoyed designing technology-enhanced inquiry lessons and specifically noted the role simulations can have in supporting such investigations. He noted, ‘‘When


possible, I would like to use simulations to actually experiment with variables that we are not able either to fully manipulate or visualize without the use of technology’’ (Joey, Exit Interview). Joey clearly recognized the power of incorporating simulations to support students’ data collection and analysis in the context of experimental investigations when it would otherwise be difficult to do so. In the examples described, participants demonstrated their developing TPACK and decision-making with regard to using simulations to engage students in whole-class experimental investigations. Participants engaged students in scientific practices of making predictions, hypothesizing, predicting, manipulating variables, discussion, and drawing conclusions. A digital projector supported whole-class data analysis through guided questions. The class then references the projected data to provide evidence for conclusions. Participants selected simulations that allowed students to visualize processes and manipulate variables that otherwise are too small and/or too difficult to manipulate variables with real materials. In this way, simulations enabled teachers to successfully meet lesson objectives. The whole-class setting allowed for incorporation of such investigations in a structured environment while providing students the opportunity to frequently and efficiently practice key scientific practices associated with inquiry. Thus, these examples demonstrated how Tommy, Lisa, Krissy, Joey, and other participants leveraged the power of simulations in the context of wholeclass, student-centered, experimental investigations. Small-group Experimental Inquiries While the previous examples consisted entirely of wholeclass investigations, participants also used a variety of digital media and other technology to implement fulllesson experimental investigations incorporating smallgroup works. Technology was primarily used to facilitate data collection, data analysis, and/or to communicate students’ conclusions to the whole class. These investigations often extended across multiple days. For example, Linda used the computer/projector system to compile and present data collected by small groups of students to be analyzed by the entire class. During a unit on nuclear chemistry, Linda introduced her students to the concept of nuclear instability and nuclear decay. She then challenged her students to determine the half-life of ‘‘Pennium,’’ a fictitious element. In this activity, Linda’s students determined an empirical relationship between the number of half-lives elapsed and the fraction of the sample remaining. Students worked in groups to collect data by shaking a box one time and recording the number of pennies that ‘‘decayed’’ (landed heads up). Once all of the pennies in the box had ‘‘decayed,’’ students recorded their data on an interactive white board in the table as shown in

851

Fig. 6. Students then analyzed the class data displayed on the board to determine the half-life of Pennium. Linda explained, ‘‘I was projecting the graph on the board and they wrote all their data in so we could have the group data together. We could save the data if we needed to. Even in a lab setting, I’m finding the computer [and projector] useful’’ (Linda, Exit Interview). Other participants incorporated technology to facilitate hands-on experimental investigations. In a physics class, Kimberly used a series of mini-inquiry stations to introduce a unit on Newton’s laws of motion. At various stations, students used Darda cars (small model cars that have a clutch and a small motor in the back to provide a constant acceleration) and online simulations on a laptop (as well as multiple non-technology-based inquiry stations) to investigate kinematics. The choice of which stations would benefit from technology use illustrated this participant’s purposeful use of technology to facilitate effective instruction. After the multiple mini-inquiries, Kimberly brought the class together for the lesson closure. She elicited students’ ideas about kinematics associated with each station and then showed the class multiple related animations and short video clips, one station at a time. This helped to reinforce students’ understanding of key concepts. In general, she recognized technology as a good way to support inquiry in physics: I think the technology can really explain things in a way, especially in physics, that it’s impossible without it. … If you can slow down what’s happening or dissect it, or graph it, or describe it or illustrate it in a way that you can’t physically show somebody, then they might have a chance and understanding it better. And that’s what were all about, right? (Kimberly, Exit Interview)

Fig. 6 Data table used by Linda to project class data for analysis. (Linda, SmartNotebookTM)

123

852

Kimberly articulated the power of technology to enhance what could be observed, helping students to make sense of a phenomenon. Susan perceived both inquiry and technology as ways to increase student engagement. In her classroom management reflection, Susan addressed the value of including inquiry and technology in her instruction: I would like to include as many lab and inquiry activities as possible… I also want to include the use of technology in my lessons as often as possible. Whether I am displaying a website or showing an ExploreLearningTM Gizmo on the SmartBoardTM, having the students use the laptop carts from the library, or incorporating pod casting as a project or lab activity, I think that technology will increase student activity and engagement, and will at least change the pace of the class a little bit. (Susan, Classroom Management Reflection) For example, Susan demonstrated understanding of technology integration to support multiple aspects of experimental investigations. Susan began the lesson by showing two short television commercials from YouTubeTM to engage her biology students in wondering about antacids in the context of heartburn. She asked the class, ‘‘What is going on here? What role do antacids play in combatting heartburn?’’ By using these commercials, Susan was able to efficiently help students make a real-world connection between the content that would become the subject of students’ investigations and a problem with which most students were probably familiar. Susan then guided the class’s brainstorming of possible antacid experiments using the 4-Question Strategy (Cothron et al. 2000) in a wholeclass environment. The technology use and brainstorming discussion were jumping-off points for small groups to design and conduct their own experiments. During the inquiry, students used probeware to measure pH. Technology, in the form of PowerPointTM, also facilitated small groups’ reporting of their conclusions about the impact of antacid tablet size, antacid brand, antacid in liquid or solid form, flavor of antacid, and amount of antacid or vinegar (representing stomach acid) on pH. After sharing the results, the class discussed how antacids help a stomach suffering from heartburn. Thus, Susan incorporated technology in multiple aspects of this investigation. Specifically, she demonstrated TPACK by recognizing how various technologies would facilitate different aspects of the investigation and incorporated these into the lesson. Susan used videos in the introduction to ‘‘hook’’ students and introduce the problem. Additionally, students used probeware for data collection and PowerPointTM for efficient communication of their group’s inquiry results to entire class.

123


Adam also used technology to begin a 3-week inquiry investigation in which students tested the effect of different variables, such as type or amount of fertilizer on plant growth. During the investigation, students used ExcelTM to record and graph their data, supporting their later efforts to analyze the data. Most students in his class had not used ExcelTM for data analysis prior to this investigation. By teaching his students to use ExcelTM, Adam introduced them to a technology often used by scientists in support of science within an authentic and meaningful context. Adam noted, ‘‘I had … students come to my classroom to learn and ask questions about how to use ExcelTM because they were eager to learn’’ (Adam, Technology Reflection). Adam highlighted how ExcelTM supported student engagement, in addition to supporting science inquiry. As evidenced in the examples above, participants demonstrated their developing TPACK by leveraging the power of a number of different technologies to support various scientific practices within the context of small-group experimental investigations. In many of these examples, online simulations, ExcelTM, and probeware facilitated efficient data collection and analysis by small groups of students. In these investigations, questions were student-driven and the technology afforded students the opportunity to collect and analyze data appropriate to these questions. In these investigations, technology (e.g., ExcelTM, PowerPointTM) helped students share their findings of small-group investigations with the whole class so that overarching conclusions could be developed. In other instances, participants’ decisions to use SmartNotebookTM and PowerPointTM to support presentation of data collected in small groups related to efficiency. Small groups of students were able to collect data more efficiently than the whole class for subsequent wholeclass analysis, discussion, and conclusion-making. In summary, participants developed and implemented experimental investigations to engage students in contentoriented, technology-enhanced inquiry. Participants used these experimental investigations as short inquiry activities embedded in larger lessons or as entire lessons. In these investigations, technology was used to collect and/or analyze data, to present data for whole- or small-group analysis, and/or to communicate students’ conclusions to the whole class. Participants used a variety of technologies including simulations, spreadsheets, and digital video as well as non-digital technologies (e.g., probeware) to support these experimental investigations. Areas for Growth in Participants’ TPACK Though all participants recognized that technology could effectively support their efforts to incorporate inquiry, not all took advantage of every opportunity to incorporate technology-enhanced inquiry instruction during their


student teaching semester. Every participant indicated in their technology reflection or exit interview that they perceived value in using technology and mentioned inquiry investigations as one pedagogical approach that educational technology can support. Some of the participants reflected that they were not able to incorporate technology to the extent they envisioned prior to student teaching. For example, Adriane wrote in her technology reflection, ‘‘I have used technology a little less often than I expected to. I have been using my teacher’s methods more than I had expected to. One piece of technology that I have not used thus far that I have expected to is the QX3 microscopes’’ (Adriane, Technology Reflection). Adriane anticipated using digital microscopes to support her biology instruction; however, her comment reflected the influence of the mentor teacher on her instructional decision-making. Thus, it is likely that preservice teachers’ impressions of when and how to use technology to support inquiry, and subsequently their TPACK development, may be facilitated or mitigated in part by their mentor teacher. Evidence from classroom observations also indicated that not all participants used technology-enhanced inquiry to the fullest potential when incorporating it into their instruction. For example, there were a few instances when Evan could have incorporated simulations and animations to engage students in inquiry investigations about cell processes such as diffusion, tonicity, and active transport. Incorporating simulations and animations to facilitate investigations of these biology topics would have afforded students the opportunity to visualize, via representations and models, how these microscale processes occur. Similarly, though participants’ PowerPointsTM often included digital images, participants did not always take advantage of opportunities to use these in ways that supported student-centered, inquiry-oriented instruction. For example, ‘‘While Gillian included a lot of powerful images and interesting content, she did not use them very effectively. She did not always engage the students in the lesson by asking questions and eliciting their ideas’’ (Gillian, Observation Notes). Though she incorporated digital media, she did not do so in student-centered ways that would facilitate deep engagement with and understanding of content. Overall, though, throughout their student teaching field experiences, participants used digital images, animations, simulations, probeware, and other technologies to support inquiry experiences. Participants used technology selectively, when they felt it was most appropriate. Appropriate technology use for inquiry included the following: (1) to present an engaging ‘‘hook’’ to a lesson, (2) to facilitate data collection, (3) to facilitate data analysis, and (4) to facilitate communication and discussion of results. Participants deemed technology to be especially important in

853

supporting inquiry in situations when the natural phenomenon could not be examined without technology, or when slowing down and being able to zoom in on particular aspects would support stronger and more observations. This was evidenced by the ubiquitous use of technology to support students’ data analysis across investigation type (non-experimental and experimental) and context (wholeclass and small group).

Discussion This study explored how preservice teachers with extensive content-specific educational technology preparation effectively used technology to support inquiry instruction. The results of this study lend further support to earlier research that identified technology as a potential bridge to reformbased instruction (Irving 2009; Kim et al. 2007; MistlerJackson and Songer 2000; Sandholtz et al. 1997; Schnittka and Bell 2009a). Participants used a variety of technologies including digital images, animations, simulations, spreadsheets, and probeware to support inquiry in both wholeclass and small-group contexts. Participants’ application of the technology-enhanced inquiry model they learned in the science teacher preparation program and selection of what technology(s) to use to support specific content-related inquiries reflected their developing TPACK. Non-experimental Versus Experimental Inquiries Use of technology for non-experimental investigations was ubiquitous among participants and proved to be an accessible instructional goal for these preservice teachers. There was, however, considerable variation in the type and length of participants’ inquiry investigations depending on the participants’ content objectives, which we see as a reflection of participants’ developing TPACK. Some participants’ non-experimental investigations incorporated only a single digital image or were brief lesson openers, while others involved a series of digital images, a short video/ audio clip, and/or animations. Additionally, these inquiries were predominately whole-class inquiries in which participants made use of a computer/projector system and guided students through the data analysis by asking students to make observations and inferences that were supported by their observations to answer a question. Thus, we conclude that digital images hold considerable promise as a starting point for teachers new to inquiry instruction. In contrast to this, fewer participants (54 %) incorporated experimental investigations into their instruction. Those participants who incorporated experimental investigations frequently made use of online simulations to facilitate data collection and/or analysis. Such investigations entailed the

123

854

teacher manipulating variables (often as directed by students) to provide a series of experimental results that the class then interpreted. Both in investigations that served as lesson components and those that acted as full lessons, students went through iterations of data collection based on variable manipulation. Additionally, participants encouraged students to generate content-based research questions, develop hypotheses based on prior knowledge, analyze data, and draw appropriate conclusions, all key components of scientific inquiry (NRC 1996).

Whole-class Inquiry Instruction Access to only a single computer is often cited as a barrier to teachers’ ability to use technology effectively for instruction (Bull and Garofalo 2004; Institute of Educational Sciences 2010; Norris et al. 2002; Soloway et al. 2001). Without readily available Internet to be able to take advantage of digital resources and a projector to present these resources, a single-computer classroom is not conducive to using computer technologies for instruction (Bell 2005). However, participants in the present study effectively integrated technology using a single computer connected to a projector and the Internet to support wholeclass inquiry instruction for both experimental and nonexperimental investigations. The structured nature of whole-class investigations may have supported these preservice teachers in incorporating technology-enhanced inquiry into instruction on a regular basis. Therefore, harnessing the power of technology to facilitate inquiry in the whole-class setting may minimize pedagogical concerns such as off-task behavior, allowing teachers to focus more on meaningful teacher–student interactions (Hennessy et al. 2006; Smetana and Bell 2009). Further, previous research indicates that simulations used as part of whole-class instruction can be a powerful instructional strategy, provided the technology is used to enhance instruction and the teacher acts as a facilitator of knowledge construction, encouraging student discussion and reflection on learning (Ardac and Sezen 2002; Chang and Tsai 2005; Smetana and Bell 2009). Interactive whiteboard features further facilitated whole-class data analysis for a number of participants in this study including Linda, who’s students used the SmartBoardTM and ExcelTM in their exploration of radioactive decay. Thus, the results of this study substantiate the findings of previous studies in which a single-computer/projector system facilitated reform-based, creative, student-centered science instruction (Irving 2009; Perkins 2002; Schnittka and Bell 2009a). This study supports the efficacy of using a computer/projector system to facilitate inquiry instruction and engage students in whole-class inquiry. Thus, more extensive

123


educational technologies are not necessary to facilitate strong inquiry lessons. Evidence of TPACK The TPACK framework outlines the complex interaction of three bodies of knowledge: content, pedagogy, and technology. In a study of 20 preservice math teachers, Ozgun-Koca et al. (2009) reported similar results to ours. Those teachers took a secondary mathematics methods course in which technology was heavily integrated. Through analysis of surveys, field experience reports, and lesson plans, researchers concluded, ‘‘TPACK was evident in the content-specific ways that preservice teachers took advantage of the functionalities and affordances of the technology to engage students in inquiry-based tasks’’ (p. 13). Taken together, the findings of the study by OzgunKoca et al. (2009) and the present study support the recommendations of Flick and Bell (2000) and ISTE (2008) across content areas; teaching methods courses should emphasize how technology may be used to support pedagogical approaches in teaching specific content. The Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Educators provides examples of how technologies are used in science instruction to transform science content and pedagogical practices (McCrory 2008). These include the following: using simulations to speed up time, having access to real-time data, using data collection devices/recording data that would be otherwise difficult to gather, and organizing data that would be difficult to organize otherwise. Data from the present study suggested participants integrated technology in ways aligned closely with these examples. This further substantiates that our participants exhibited developing levels of TPACK in their student teaching. Evidence across the multiple data sources in the present study suggested the preservice teachers made intentional decisions regarding how, when, and what technologies to incorporate to support inquiry instruction. Participants intentionally selected technologies (digital images, simulations, probeware, etc.), the pedagogical context (whole class or small group), and the inquiry investigation type (non-experimental or experimental) that, when employed together, would facilitate students’ mastery of content-related objectives. In the present study, participants’ development of TPACK was apparent in the way that they applied the general model of technology-enhanced inquiry instruction they learned in the science teacher preparation program to their own of classroom context. We noted the most variation in participants’ use of technology to support students’ in their observing, inferring, and experimenting with the aid of a variety of technologies. Participants incorporated simulations, probeware, and spreadsheets frequently in


855

small-group settings to support experimental investigations. In some cases (i.e., Tommy, Lisa, Krissy, Joey), digital media presented by the teacher allowed students to collect and analyze data to determine a relationship between variables and answer a teacher-driven research question. In other cases (i.e., Linda, Susan), small groups of students completed a hands-on activity to collect data, which was then compiled and projected using the computer/projector system for subsequent whole-class analysis or discussion. In contrast, participants used digital images, videos, and animations more for technology-enhanced observational inquiries in whole-class settings. In some instances, however, participants did not take advantage of the full potential of technology to support students’ investigations. In these cases, participants’ reflections and interviews indicated awareness that they were not harnessing the potential of technology to support inquiry to the extent possible and cited external factors such as their mentor teacher, scheduling, and when experimental design is taught within the curriculum as barriers to technology-enhanced inquiry instruction. Findings of a case study of four in-service science teachers indicated that contextual constraints had an impact on in-service science teachers’ TPACK development and integration of technology to support inquiry following professional development (Guzey and Roehrig 2009). Higgins and Spitulnik’s (2008) described analogous results among in-service science teachers in their synthesis of empirical research on professional development that supports science teachers’ integration of technology noting, ‘‘Professional development may not be able to solve the organizational barriers and technological resources, but it can provide teachers and teacher educators with instructional support’’ (p. 514). While these two studies addressed in-service science teacher professional development, context appeared to play a similar role in inhibiting development of teachers’ TPACK and full integration of technology to support inquiry in the present study. Thus, the present study contributes to a deeper understanding of the factors that influence preservice science teachers’ incorporation of technology-enhanced science inquiry and can inform preservice teacher education that seeks to support TPACK development.

pedagogical issues related to the use of computer technologies in secondary science classrooms. This study’s realistic and practical examples of technology-enhanced inquiry offer insight that may ease the necessary transition from traditional teacher-centered, lecture-style teaching to more learner-centered, reform-based teaching. As the lesson examples presented in this study were developed and implemented by preservice teachers, the examples represent attainable goals for teachers new to inquiry, preservice and inservice alike. They will be useful for science teachers and teacher educators as they make decisions regarding pedagogical approaches and educational technologies that support students’ scientific practices and core concepts. Although it is unrealistic to think that a complete how to manual could exist for solving the ‘‘wicked problem’’ of teaching with technology (Koehler and Mishra 2008), researchers and teacher educators should continue to share examples of what has worked in various contexts to spark ideas in others. Additionally, future research should seek to develop a better understanding of how beginning and experienced teachers navigate the complex decision-making process of when and how to appropriately use technology to support inquiry teaching and learning. These investigations should address different student populations, classroom environments, and science content. Results of these investigations, when coupled with those of the present investigation, will inform science teacher educators’ development of contentspecific, technology-enhanced learning opportunities that prepare teachers for the responsibility of supporting inquiry instruction with technology.

Implications

2.

This study provides evidence that integrating technologies such as digital images, simulations, spreadsheets, and probeware can help teachers engage their students in observational, correlational, and experimental inquiry investigations. Specifically, by characterizing preservice science teachers’ use of technology-enhanced inquiry, it contributes to the existing literature concerned with

3.

Acknowledgments This research was supported in part by a Fund for the Improvement in Post-Secondary Education (FIPSE) grant. The results represent the findings of the authors and do not necessarily represent the view of personnel affiliated with the United States Department of Education.

Appendix 1: Sample Entrance Interview Questions 1.

4.

5.

How do you define technology, as used in science classrooms? When do you think it is appropriate to incorporate technology into the lesson? What do you see as the purpose of using technology in teaching science? Do you think having the computer and projector in your classroom will impact your science instruction? If so, how? What are some specific ways that you plan to use the computer and projector?

123

856


Appendix 2: Sample Exit Interview Questions 1. 2. 3. 4.

5. 6.

Describe your most and least successful technology lessons. How did your cooperating teacher affect your technology use during your student teaching experience? What are some specific ways that you used the computer and projector? What are the most significant outcomes on student learning or engagement resulting from your use of the computer and projector? What were you able to with the technology that you would not have been able to do without the technology? Can you recall an instance where you had planned to teach in a particular manner and you changed your approach because you had access to technology?

References Anderson RD (2002) Reforming science teaching: what research says about inquiry. J Sci Teacher Educ 13(1):1–12 Ardac D, Sezen AH (2002) Effectiveness of computer-based chemistry instruction in enhancing the learning of content and variable control under guided versus unguided conditions. J Sci Educ Technol 11(1):39–48 Bauer J, Kenton J (2005) Toward technology integration in the schools: why it isn’t happening. J Technol Teach Educ 13:519–546 Bell RL (2005) Cultivating whole-class inquiry: science. Learn Lead Technol 32(8):45–47 Bell RL, Trundle KC (2008) The use of a computer simulation to promote scientific conceptions of moon phases. J Res Sci Teach 45:346–372 Bell RL, Smetana LK, Binns IC (2005) Simplifying inquiry instruction: assessing the inquiry level of classroom activities. Sci Teach 72(7):30–33 Bell RL, Maeng JL, Binns IC (in press). Learning in context: technology integration in a teacher preparation program informed by situated learning theory. J Res Sci Teach Berns BB, Swanson J (2000). Middle school science: working in a confused context. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED444944) Blumenfeld PC, Krajcik JS, Marx RW, Soloway E (1994) Lessons learned: how collaborations helped middle grade science teachers learn project-based instruction. Elem Sch J 94:539–551 Bodzin A, Park JC (2005) ASTE position statement on technology in science teacher education. Retrieved from http://theaste.org/aboutus/ technology_position_stateme.htm Bogden RC, Biklen SK (1992) Qualitative research for education. Allyn & Bacon, Boston Bull G, Garofalo J (2004) Internet access: the last mile. Learn Lead Technol 32(1):16–18 Chang CY, Tsai CC (2005) The interplay between different forms of CAI and students’ preferences of learning environment in the secondary science class. Sci Educ 89:707–724 Clark R (1983) Reconsidering research on learning from media. Rev Educ Res 53:445–459 Cothron J, Giese R, Rezba R (2000) Students and research: practical strategies for science classrooms and competitions, 4th edn. Kendall Hunt Publishing, Dubuque

123

Crawford B (2000) Embracing the essence of inquiry: new roles for science teachers. J Res Sci Teach 37:917–937 Dani D, Koenig KM (2008) Technology and reform-based science education. Theory Pract 47:204–211. doi:10.1080/00405840802 153825 Dickerson J, Kubasko D (2007) Digital microscopes: enhancing collaboration and engagement in science classrooms with information technologies. Contemp Issues Technol Teach Educ 7(4):279–292 Flick L, Bell R (2000) Preparing tomorrow’s science teachers to use technology: guidelines for Science educators. Contemp Issues Technol Teach Educ 1:39–60 Gess-Newsome J (2003) Implications of the definitions of knowledge and beliefs on research and practice in science teacher education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia Guzey SS, Roehrig GH (2009) Teaching science with technology: case studies of science teachers’ development of technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge. Contemp Issues Technol Teach Educ 9(1):25–45 Hennessy S, Deaney R, Ruthven K (2006) Situated expertise in integrating use of multimedia simulation into secondary science teaching. Int J Sci Educ 28:701–732. doi:10.1080/0950069050 0404656 Higgins TE, Spitulnik MW (2008) Supporting teachers’ use of technology in science instruction through professional development: a literature review. J Sci Educ Technol 17:511–521 Institute of Educational Sciences (2010) Educational technology in U.S. public schools: Fall 2008. Retrieved May 2010 from: http://ies.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2010034 International Society for Technology in Education [ISTE] (2008) National Education Technology Standards. Retrieved from: http://www.iste.org/standards.aspx Irving K (2009) Preservice science teachers’ use of educational technology in student teaching. J Comput Math Sci Teach 28(1): 45–70. AACE, Chesapeake. Retrieved from http://www. editlib.org/p/26150 Jang S, Chen K (2010) From PCK to TPACK: developing a transformative model for pre-service science teachers. J Sci Educ Technol 19:555–564. doi:10.1007/s10956-010-9222-y Johnson CC (2006) Effective professional development and change in practice: barriers science teachers encounter and implications for reform. Sch Sci Math 106(3):15–161 Johnson CC (2007) Whole-school collaborative sustained professional development and science teacher changes: signs of progress. J Sci Teacher Educ 18:629–661. doi:10.1007/s10972007-9043-x Kim MC, Hannafin MJ, Bryan LA (2007) Technology-enhanced inquiry tools in science education: an emerging pedagogical framework for classroom practice. Sci Educ 91(6):1010–1030 Koehler M, Mishra P (2008) Introducing TPCK. In: AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (ed) Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for educators. Routledge, New York, pp 3–31 Lederman JS, Lederman NG, Kim BS, Ko EK (2012) Teaching and learning of nature of science and scientific inquiry: building capacity through systematic research-based professional development. In MS Khine (ed) Advances in the nature of science research: concepts and methodologies. doi:10.1007/978-942457-0 Lee H, Linn MC, Varma K, Liu OL (2010) How do technologyenhanced inquiry science units impact classroom learning? J Res Sci Teach 47:71–90 Linn MC, Davis EA, Bell P (2004) Inquiry and technology. In: Linn MC, Davis E, Bell P (eds) Internet environments for science education. Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp 3–28

J Sci Educ Technol (2013) 22:838–857 Linn MC, Lee HS, Tinker R, Husic F, Chiu JL (2006) Teaching and assessing knowledge integration in science. Science 313:1049– 1050 Loucks-Horsley S, Stiles KE, Mundry S, Love N, Hewson P (2010) Designing professional development for teachers of mathematics and science, 3rd edn. Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks Luft JA, Roehrig GH, Patterson NC (2003) Contrasting landscapes: a comparison of the impact of different induction programs on beginning science teachers’ practices, beliefs, and experiences. J Res Sci Teach 40:77–97 Martinez JF, Borko H, Stecher BM (2012) Measuring instructional practice in science using classroom artifacts: lessons learned from two validation studies. J Res Sci Teach 49:38–67 McCrory R (2008) Science, technology, and teaching: the topicspecific challenges of TPCK in science. In: AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (ed) Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for educators. Routledge, New York, pp 193–206 Metcalf SJ, Tinker RF (2004) Probeware and handhelds in elementary and middle school science. J Sci Educ Technol 13:43–49. doi: 10.1023/B:JOST.0000019637.22473.02 Mishra P, Koehler M (2006) Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a new framework for teacher knowledge. Teach Coll Rec 108:1017–1054 Mishra P, Koehler MJ (2007) Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK): confronting the wicked problems of teaching with technology. In: Carlsen R et al (eds) Proceedings of society for information technology and teacher education international conference 2007. AACE, Chesapeake, pp 2214–2226 Mistler-Jackson M, Songer NB (2000) Student motivation and Internet technology: are students empowered to learn science? J Res Sci Teach 37:459–479 National Research Council (1996) National science education standards. National Academies Press, Washington National Research Council (2000) Inquiry and the national science education standards: a guide for teaching and learning. National Academic Press, Washington National Research Council (2012) A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press, Washington Niess ML (2005) Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teach Teach Educ 21:509–523 Norris C, Soloway E, Sullivan T (2002) Examining 25 years of technology in U.S. education. Commun ACM 45(8):15–17 Ozgun-Koca SA, Meagher M, Edwards MT (2009) Preservice teachers’ emerging TPACK in a technology-rich methods class. Math Educ 19(2):10–20 Perkins R (2002) One for all: the single computer and technology integration. Va Soc Technol Educ 16(2):14–20 Sandholtz J, Ringstaff C, Dwyer D (1997) Teaching with technology: creating student-centered classrooms. Teachers College Press, New York Scalise K, Timms M, Morrjani A, Clark L, Holtermann K, Irvin PS (2011) Student learning in science simulations: design features that promote learning gains. J Res Sci Teach 48:1050–1078 Schnittka CG, Bell RL (2009a) Preservice biology teachers’ use of interactive display systems to support reforms-based science instruction. Contemp Issues Technol Teach Educ 9(2). Retrieved from http://www.citejournal.org/vol9/iss2/science/article1.cfm Schnittka CG, Bell RL (2009b) PowerPoint in the science classroom: Reforms-based instruction or high-tech chalk & talk? Proceedings

857 of the national association for research in science teaching, Garden Grove Schnittka CG, Bell RL, Farquhar HM (2007) Preservice teachers’ use of interactive display systems to support reforms-based science instruction. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the association for science teacher education, Clearwater Schrum L, Thompson A, Maddux C, Sprague D, Bull G, Bell L (2007). Editorial: research on the effectiveness of technology in schools: the role of pedagogy and content. Contemp Issues Technol Teach Educ 7(1), Available: http://www.citejournal.org/ vol7/iss1/editorial/article1.cfm Schwartz CV, White BY (2005) Metamodeling knowledge: developing students’ understanding of scientific modeling. Cogn Instr 23(2):165–205 Smetana LK, Bell RL (2009) Incorporation of computer simulations in whole-class vs. small-group settings. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Garden Grove Smetana LK, Bell RL (2011) Computer simulations to support science instruction and learning: a critical review of the literature. Int J Sci Educ. doi:10.1080/09500693.2011.605182 Soloway E, Norris C, Blumenfeld P, Fishman B, Krajcik J, Marx R (2001) Handheld devices are ready-at-hand. Commun ACM 44(6):15–20 Supovitz JA, Turner HM (2000) The effects of professional development on science teaching practices and classroom culture. J Res Sci Teach 37:963–980. doi:10.1002/1098-2736(200011) 37:9\963:AID-TEA6[3.0.CO;2-0 Trundle KC, Bell R (2010) The use of a computer simulation to promote conceptual change: a quasi-experimental study. Comput Educ 54:1078–1088. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.10.012 vanJoolingen WR, deJong T, Dimitrakopoulout A (2007) Issues in computer supported inquiry learning in science. J Comput Assist Learn 23:111–119. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00216.x Varma K, Husic F, Linn MC (2008) Targeted support for using technology-enhanced science inquiry models. J Sci Educ Technol 17:341–356. doi:10.1007/s10956-008-9104-8 Williams M, Linn MC, Ammon P, Gearhart M (2004) Learning to teach inquiry science in a technology-based environment: a case study. J Sci Educ Technol 13:189–206. doi:10.1023/B:JOST. 0000031258.17257.48 Windschitl M (2001) Using simulations in the middle school: does assertiveness of dyad partners influence conceptual change? Int J Sci Educ 23:17–32 Winn W, Stahr F, Sarason C, Fruland R, Oppenheimer P, Lee YL (2005) Learning oceanography from a computer simulation compared with direct experience at sea. J Res Sci Teach 43(1): 25–42 Zacharia Z (2003) Beliefs, attitudes, and intentions of science teachers regarding the educational use of computer simulations and inquiry-based experiments in physics. J Res Sci Teach 40: 792–823 Zatz P, Bell RL, Binns IC (2009) Preservice physical science teachers’ use of presentation technologies to promote reformsbased instruction. A paper presented at the association for science teacher education international conference, Hartford Zucker AA, Tinker R, Staudt C, Mansfield A, Metcalf S (2008) Learning science in grades 3–8 using probeware and computers: findings from the TEEMSS II project. J Sci Educ Technol 17: 42–48. doi:10.1007/s10956-007-9086-y

123