Date: 09 Jan 2013
Science Teaching Orientations and Technology-Enhanced Tools for Student Learning
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
This qualitative study examines teacher orientations and technology-enhanced tools for student learning within a science literacy framework. Data for this study came from a group of 10 eighth grade science teachers. Each of these teachers was a participant in a professional development (PD) project focused on reformed and technology-enhanced science instruction shaped by national standards documents. The research is focused on identifying teacher orientations and use of technology-enhanced tools prior to or unaffected by PD. The primary data sources for this study are drawn from learning journals and classroom observations. Qualitative methods were used to analyze learning journals, while descriptive statistics were used from classroom observations to further explore and triangulate the emergent qualitative findings. Two teacher orientation teacher profiles were developed to reveal the emergent teacher orientation dimensions and technology-enhanced tool categories found: “more traditional teacher orientation profile” and “toward a reformed-based teacher orientation profile.” Both profiles were founded on “knowledge of” beliefs about the goals and purposes for science education, while neither profile revealed sophisticated beliefs about the nature of science. The “traditional” profile revealed more teacher-centered beliefs about science teaching and learning, and the “towards reformed-based” profile revealed student-centered beliefs. Finally, only technology-enhanced tools supportive of collaborative construction of science knowledge were found connected to the “towards reformed-based” profile. This research is concluded with a proposed “reformed-based teacher orientation profile” as a future target for science teaching and learning with technology-enhanced tools in a science literacy framework.
Ackerson, V. L., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Influence of a reflective explicit activity-based approach on elementary teachers’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(4), 295–317.CrossRef
Adamson, A. E., Banks, D., Burtch, M., Cox, F., III, Judson, E., Turley, J. B., Benford, R., & Lawson, A. E. (2003). Reformed undergraduate instruction and its subsequent impact on secondary school teaching practice and student achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(10), 939–958.CrossRef
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1989). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
Australian Education Council. (1994). A national statement on science for all Australian schools: A joint project of the states, territories, and commonwealth of Australia initiated by the Australian Education Council (AEC). Carlton: Curriculum Corporation.
Berland, L. K. (2011). Explaining variation in how classroom communities adapt the practice of scientific argumentation. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(4), 625–664.CrossRef
Braaten, M., & Windschitl, M. (2011). Working toward a stronger conceptualization of scientific explanation for science education. Science Education, 95(4), 639–669.CrossRef
Bybee, R., Fensham, P., & Laurie, R. (2009a). Scientific literacy and contexts in PISA 2006 science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 862–864.CrossRef
Bybee, R., McCrae, B., & Laurie, R. (2009b). PISA 2006: An assessment of scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 865–883.CrossRef
Campbell T. & Abd-Hamid, N. (2012). Technology Use in the Science Instruction (TUSI): Technology and science education reform. Journal of Science Education and Technology. doi:10.1007/s10956-012-9415-7.
Campbell, T., Oh, P.S., & Neilson, D. (in press). Reification of five types of modeling pedagogies with model-based inquiry (MBI) modules for high school science classrooms. In M.S. Khine & I.M. Saleh. Approaches and strategies in next generation science learning. Hershey: IGI Global.
Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring science education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Duschl, R., Schweingruber, H., & Shouse, A. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Dunleavy, M., Dede, C., & Mitchelle, R. (2009). Affordances and limitations of immersive participatory augmented reality simulations for teaching and learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18, 7–22.CrossRef
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Harlow: Longman Group.
Flick, L., & Bell, R. (2000). Preparing tomorrow’s science teachers to use technology: Guidelines for science educators. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education [Online Serial], 1(1). Retrieved from http://www.citejournal.org/vol1/iss1/currentissues/science/article1.htm.
Friedrichsen, P., van Driel, J. H., & Abell, S. K. (2011). Taking a closer look at science teaching orientations. Science Education, 95, 358–376.CrossRef
Goedhart, H., & Hoogstraten, J. (1992). The retrospective pretest and the role of pretest information in evaluation studies. Psychological Reports, 70, 699–704.CrossRef
Groenewald, T. (2004). A phenomenological research design illustrated. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 3(1), 1–25.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2003). Analyzing collaborative knowledge construction: Multiple methods for integrated understanding. Computers in Education, 41(4), 397–420.CrossRef
Howard, G. S., Ralph, K. M., Gulanick, N. A., Maxwell, S. E., Nace, D., & Gerber, S. L. (1979). Internal invalidity in pre-test–posttest self report evaluations and the re-evaluation of retrospective pretests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 3(1), 1–23.CrossRef
International Society for Technology in Education. (2007). National educational technology standards and performance indicators for students. Eugene: International Society for Technology in Education.
Ito, M. et al. (2008). Living and learning with new media: Summary of findings from the digital youth project. Retrieved from http://www.macfound.org/atf/cf/%7BB0386CE3-8B29-4162-8098-E466FB856794%7D/DML_ETHNOG_WHITEPAPER.PDF.
Johnson, L., Smith, R., Willis, H., Levine, A., & Haywood, K. (2011). The 2011 Horizon Report. Austin: The New Media Consortium. Retrieved August 18, 2011, from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/HR2011.pdf.
Kang, N., & Wallace, C. S. (2005). Secondary science teachers’ use of laboratory activities: Linking epistemological beliefs, goals, and practices. Science Education, 89(1), 140–165.CrossRef
Kim, M. C., Hannafin, M. J., & Bryan, L. A. (2007). Technology-enhanced inquiry tools in science education: An emerging pedagogical framework for classroom practice. Science Education, 91(6), 1010–1030.CrossRef
Klatt, J. & Taylor-Powell, E. (2005). Synthesis of literature relative to the retrospective pretest design. Paper read at the American Evaluation Association at Toronto, Ontario.
Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Yahya, K. (2007). Tracing the development of teacher knowledge in a design seminar: Integrating content, pedagogy and technology. Computers in Education, 49(3), 740–762.CrossRef
Lamb, T. (2005). The retrospective pretest: An imperfect but useful tool. The Evaluation Exchange, XI(2). Retrieved from http://www.hfrp.org/var/hfrp/storage/original/application/d6517d4c8da2c9f1fb3dffe3e8b68ce4.pdf.
Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 331–359.CrossRef
Lederman, N. G. (1999). Teachers’ understanding of the nature of science and classroom practice: factors that facilitate or impede the relationship. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(8), 916–929.CrossRef
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Lenhart A, Arafeh S, Smith A, Rankin A (2008) Writing, technology and teens. Washington, DC: Pew/Internet. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org.
Levin, D. & Arafeh, S. (2002) The digital disconnect: The widening gap between internet-savvy students and their schools. Retrieved on February 20, 2006, from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Schools_Internet_Report.pdf.
Levinz, A., & Klieger, A. (2010). Online tasks as a tool to promote teachers’ expertise within the technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 354–358.CrossRef
Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A., & Bell, P. (2004). Internet environments for science education. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Luft, J. A., & Roehrig, G. H. (2007). Capturing science teachers’ epistemological beliefs: The development of the teacher beliefs interview. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 11(2), 38–63.
MacIsaac, D., & Falconer, K. (2002). Reforming physics instruction via RTOP. The Physics Teacher, 40, 16–22.
Ministry of Education. (2001). An outline of curriculum reform of basic education. Xueke Jiaoyu, 2001(7), 1–5 (in Chinese).
Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development (MOE HRD). (2007). Science curriculum. Seoul: MOE HRD (in Korean).
National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2011). A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Osborne, J. (2007). Science education for the twenty first century. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 3(3), 173–184.
Osborne, J. F., & Patterson, A. (2011). Scientific argument and explanation: A necessary distinction? Science Education, 95(4), 627–638.CrossRef
Pew Internet & American Life Project (2002) Use of the internet at major life moments. Retrieved December 9, 2008, from http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/toc.asp?Report=58.
Piburn, M., Sawada, D., Turley, J., Falconer, K., Benford, R., Bloom, I., & Judson, E. (2000). Reformed teaching observation protocol (RTOP): Reference manual (ACEPT technical report no. INOO-3). Tempe: Arizona Collaborative for Excellence in the Preparation of Teachers (Eric Document Reproduction Service, ED 447 205).
Pratt, C. C., McGuigan, W. M., & Katzev, A. R. (2000). Measuring program outcomes: Using retrospective pretest methodology. American Journal of Evaluation, 21(3), 341–349.
Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., Kyza, E., Edelson, D., & Soloway, E. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337–387.CrossRef
Roberts, D. (2007). In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific literacy/science literacy. Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729–780). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89, 634–656.
Schulz, R. M. (2009). Reforming science education, part I: The search for a philosophy of science education. Science Education, 18, 225–249.CrossRef
Schwab, J. J. (1962). The teaching of science: The teaching of science as enquiry. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
US Census Bureau. (2000). Diversity. Retrieved November 2011, from http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/atlas/censr01-104.pdf.
Volkmann, M., Abell, S., & Zgagacz, M. (2005). The challenges of teaching physics to preservice elementary teachers: Orientations of the professor, teaching assistant, and students. Science Education, 89, 847–869.CrossRef
Windschitl, M. (2003). Inquiry projects in science teacher education: What can investigative experiences reveal about teacher thinking and eventual classroom practice? Science Education, 87(1), 112–143.CrossRef
- Science Teaching Orientations and Technology-Enhanced Tools for Student Learning
Research in Science Education
Volume 43, Issue 5 , pp 2035-2057
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- Teacher orientation
- Technology-enhanced tools
- Science literacy