Abstract
The notion that teachers and students can incorporate digital technology to support science investigations and enhance learning experiences has received considerable interest from researchers, practitioners, and policymakers (Loveless & Ellis, 2001; New Zealand Ministry of Education, 2007; Somekh, 2007). For instance, the World Wide Web offers easy access to multimodal and up-to-date information and opportunities to interact with people and information, compared to facilitating face-to-face meetings or using standard texts (Cowie, Moreland, Jones, & Otrel-Cass, 2008; Slotta & Linn, 2000). Careful orchestration of digital technology in classrooms has the potential to enhance understanding of science ideas, promote learners’ independence, motivation and engagement in science, and support visualizing investigations and science learning. However, this requires that teachers and students have sandpit time, which means time to practice, and reflect for, the use of digital technology (Otrel-Cass, Cowie, & Khoo, 2011). It has been argued that if teachers want their students to learn about what it means to think and work as a scientist, then they should be involved in activities that are authentic and meaningful. This means that students should get opportunities to apply their growing scientific literacy, practice decision making (Roth, van Eijck, Reis, & Hsu, 2008), and learn about social practices and discourses that contribute to the way scientists generate knowledge (Kovalainen & Kumpulainen, 2009). This demand for authenticity is challenging the traditional school environment, because activities that involve students as self-directed learners, who investigate, interpret, and assess the trustworthiness of information from a variety of sources, for the purpose of answering their own questions, are not easily achieved (Duschl, 2008; Otrel-Cass et al., 2011). Although Information and Communication Technology (ICT) has been identified to provide a suite of tools that support such endeavors, digital technology alone will not change teacher practices in science classrooms. If digital technology is to contribute to transforming science learning, those involved with shaping teacher pedagogy, including researchers and teacher educators, need to explore how teachers can use the creative, collaborative, experimental, and evaluative possibilities ICT may have to offer (Somekh, 2007). It is also not enough to assume that twenty-first century students may be digitally literate in using technology for recreational purposes, such as social networking, and to then believe that they can, or want, to automatically transfer those skills into educational settings (Kennedy, Judd, Churchward, Gray, & Krause, 2008). Such oversimplifications of digital technology use and practices in science, or other subjects, may lead to less productive teaching and learning outcomes, and alienate both teachers and students from using digital technology in class.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Akyol, Z., Garrison, D. R., & Ozden, M. Y. (2009). Development of a community of inquiry in online and blended learning contexts. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 1834–1838. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.324.
Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2005). Preservice teachers as ICT designers: An instructional design model, based on an expanded view of pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning, 21(4), 292–302.
Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT-TPCK: Advances in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers & Education, 52(1), 154–168.
Banister, S., & Reinhart, R. V. (2011). TPCK for impact: Classroom teaching practices that promote social justice and narrow the digital divide in an urban middle school. Computers in the Schools, 28(1), 5–26.
Carlsen, W. S. (1999). Domains of teacher knowledge. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (pp. 133–144). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Cowie, B., Moreland, J., Jones, A., & Otrel-Cass, K. (2008). The classroom InSiTE project: Understanding classroom interactions to enhance teaching and learning in science and technology in Years 1-8. Final report to the Teaching and Learning Research Initiative Fund. Retrieved from http://www.tlri.org.nz/assets/pdf/9215_final
Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 268–291.
Duschl, R., Schweingruber, H., & Shouse, A. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Feldman, A., Konold, C., & Coulter, B. (2000). Network science, a decade later: The Internet and classroom learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Garrison, R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical thinking in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2), 87–105. doi:10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6.
Garrison, D., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(3), 157–172.
Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education. Framework, principles and guidelines. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
Gess-Newsome, J. (1999). Pedagogical content knowledge: An introduction and orientation. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (pp. 3–17). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Graham, C. R. (2011). Theoretical considerations for understanding technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Computers & Education, 57(3), 1953–1960.
GTC. (2006). PELRS Summary of research findings. The pedagogies with e-learning resources project. London: General Teaching Council for England.
Gutiérrez, K. D., Baquedano-López, P., Alvarez, H. H., & Chiu, M. M. (1999). Building a culture of collaboration through hybrid language practices. Theory Into Practice, 38(2), 87–93.
Hennessy, S., Deaney, R., & Ruthven, K. (2005). Emerging teacher strategies for mediating “Technology-integrated Instructional Conversations”: A socio-cultural perspective. Curriculum Journal, 16(3), 265–292. doi:10.1080/09585170500256487.
Hipkins, R. (2006). Learning to do research: Challenges for students and teachers. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.
Hopmann, S., & Riquarts, K. (2000). Starting a dialogue: A beginning conversation between the Didaktik and curriculum traditions. In I. Westbury, S. Hopmann, & K. Riquarts (Eds.), Teaching as a reflective practice: The German Didaktik tradition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kennedy, G., Judd, T. S., Churchward, A., Gray, K., & Krause, K. (2008). First year students’ experiences with technology: Are they really digital natives. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(1), 108–122.
Khoo, E. G. L. (2010). Developing an online learning community: A strategy for improving lecturer and student learning experiences. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand. Retrieved from http://researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz//handle/10289/3961
Kovalainen, M., & Kumpulainen, K. (2009). Discourse-enriched instruction in the Mathematics classroom: Analysing collective-problem solving. In K. Kumpulainen, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, & M. Cesar (Eds.), Investigating classroom interaction: Methodologies in action (pp. 43–71). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Künzli, R. (2000). German Didaktik: Models of representation, of intercourse and of experience. In I. Westbury, S. Hopmann, & K. Riquarts (Eds.), Teaching as a reflective practice. The German didaktik tradition (pp. 41–54). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lee, H.-S., Linn, M. C., Varma, K., & Liu, O. L. (2010). How do technology-enhanced inquiry science units impact classroom learning? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(1), 71–90. doi:10.1002/tea.20304.
Loveless, A., & Ellis, V. (2001). ICT, pedagogy and the curriculum: Subject to change. New York: Routledge Falmer.
Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 95–132). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
McCrory, R., Putnam, R., & Jansen, A. (2008). Interaction in online courses for teacher education: Subject matter and pedagogy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16(2), 155–180. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.zorac.aub.aau.dk/ docview/200001834
McKinley, E. (2005). Locating the global: Culture, language and science education for indigenous students. International Journal of Science Education, 27(2), 227–241.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x.
New Zealand Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand curriculum. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media.
Niess, M. L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(5), 509–523.
Norman, D. A. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.
Osborne, J. (2007, May 28-29). Engaging young people with science: Thoughts about future direction of science education. In Promoting scientific literacy: Science education research in transaction (pp. 105–112). Proceedings of the Linnaeus Tercentenary Symposium, Uppsala, Sweden.
Otrel-Cass, K., Cowie, B., & Khoo, E. (2011). Augmenting primary teaching and learning science through ICT. A summary report. Wellington: Teaching Learning Research Initiative. Retrieved from http://www.tlri.org.nz/tlri-research/research-completed/school-sector/augmenting-primary-teaching-and-learning-science
Pea, R. D. (1993). Distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 47–87). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Pierson, M. E. (2001). Technology integration practice as a function of pedagogical expertise. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33, 413–430.
Roth, W. M., van Eijck, M., Reis, G., & Hsu, P. L. (2008). Authentic science revisited: In praise of diversity, heterogeneity, hybridity. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Schwartz, N. H. (2008). Exploiting the use of technology to teach: The value of distributed cognition. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(3), 389–404.
Selwyn, N. (2011). Education and technology: Key issues and debates. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4–14.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1–22.
Slotta, J. D., & Linn, M. C. (2000). How do students make sense of Internet resources in the science classroom? In M. Jacobson & R. Kozma (Eds.), Learning the sciences of the 21st century (pp. 193–226). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Somekh, B. (2007). Pedagogy and learning with ICT: Researching the art of innovation. New York: Routledge.
Sutherland, R., Armstrong, V., Barnes, S., Brawn, R., Breeze, N., Gall, M., et al. (2004). Transforming teaching and learning: Embedding ICT into everyday classroom practices. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(6), 413–425.
Thompson, A. D., & Mishra, P. (2007). Breaking news: TPCK becomes TPACK! Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 24(2), 38.
Van Dijk, E. M., & Kattmann, U. (2007). A research model for the study of science teachers’ PCK and improving teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(6), 885–897.
Vaughan, N. (2007). Perspectives on blended learning in higher education. International Journal on E-Learning, 6(1), 81–94.
Webb, M. E. (2005). Affordances of ICT in science learning: Implications for an integrated pedagogy. International Journal of Science Education, 27(6), 705–735. doi:10.1080/09500690500038520.
Webb, M., & Cox, M. (2004). A review of pedagogy related to information and communications technology. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 13(3), 235–286. doi:10.1080/14759390400200183.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Otrel-Cass, K. (2015). Theorizing Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge to Support Networked Inquiry Learning in Science: Looking Back and Moving Forward. In: Angeli, C., Valanides, N. (eds) Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-8080-9_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-8080-9_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4899-8079-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-4899-8080-9
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)