Journal of Science Teacher Education

, Volume 27, Issue 1, pp 61–77 | Cite as

Designing a Deeply Digital Science Curriculum: Supporting Teacher Learning and Implementation with Organizing Technologies

  • Heather Leary
  • Samuel Severance
  • William R. Penuel
  • David Quigley
  • Tamara Sumner
  • Holly Devaul
Article

Abstract

This paper examines the impacts of technology (e.g., Chromebooks, Google Drive) on teacher learning and student activity in the development and implementation of a deeply digital high school biology unit. Using design-based implementation research, teachers co-designed with researchers and curriculum specialists a student-centered unit aligned to the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) that utilizes classroom technology. Qualitative and quantitative data were collected to understand the barriers that inhibit the implementation of a digital curriculum as well as the extent that teachers engage in the design process and begin to make shifts in their practice. We found that through the co-design process teachers began to shift their knowledge of NGSS, technology implementation, and adapted to tensions and barriers inherent in the process.

Keywords

Digital curriculum Design-based implementation research Instructional technology Teacher learning 

References

  1. Christensen, C., Horn, M., & Johnson, C. (2010). Disrupting class, expanded edition: How disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.Google Scholar
  2. Coburn, C. E., Penuel, W. R., & Geil, K. E. (2013). Research-practice partnerships at the district level: A new strategy for leveraging research for educational Improvement. New York, NY: William T. Grant Foundation.Google Scholar
  3. Cole, M., & Engeström, Y. (2007). Cultural-historical approaches to designing for development. In J. Valsiner & A. Rosa (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of sociocultural psychology (pp. 484–507). New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511611162.026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dickes, A. C., & Sengupta, P. (2013). Learning natural selection in 4th grade with multi-agent-based computational models. Research in Science Education, 43, 921–953. doi:10.1007/s11165-012-9293-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.Google Scholar
  6. Engeström, Y., Engeström, R., & Kärkkäinen, M. (1995). Polycontextuality and boundary crossing in expert cognition: Learning and problem solving in complex work activities. Learning and Instruction, 5, 319–336. doi:10.1016/0959-4752(95)00021-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2010). Studies of expansive learning: Foundations, findings and future challenges. Educational Research Review, 5, 1–24. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2009.12.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fishman, B., Penuel, W. R., Allen, A., Haugan Cheng, B., & Sabelli, N. (2013). Design-based implementation research: An emerging model for transforming the relationship of research and practice. National Society for the Study of Education, 112(2), 136–156.Google Scholar
  11. Forbes, C. T. (2013). Curriculum-dependent and curriculum-independent factors in preservice elementary teachers’ adaptation of science curriculum materials for inquiry-based science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24, 179–197. doi:10.1007/s10972-011-9245-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gutiérrez, K. (2014). Syncretic approaches to literacy learning: Leveraging horizontal knowledge and expertise. In P. J. Dunston, L. B. Gambrell, K. Headley, S. K. Fullerton, & P. M. Stecker (Eds.), LRA yearbook (pp. 48–60). Altamonte Springs, FL: Literacy Research Association.Google Scholar
  13. Johnson, R., Severance, S., Penuel, W. R., & Leary, H. (2016). Teachers, tasks, and tensions: Lessons from a research-practice partnership. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education. doi:10.1007/s10857-015-9338-3.Google Scholar
  14. 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, 1010–1030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kopcha, T. J. (2012). Teachers' perceptions of the barriers to technology integration and practices with technology under situated professional development. Computers & Education, 59(4), 1109–1121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lawless, K. A. & Pellegrino, J. W. (2007). Professional development in integrating technologin into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and answers. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 575–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mardis, M., & Everhart, N. (2013). From paper to pixel: The promise and challenges of digital textbooks for K-12 schools. In M. Orey, et al. (Eds.), Educational media and technology yearbook (Vol. 37). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  19. National Research Council. (2014). Developing assessments for the next generation science standards (J. W. Pellegrino, M. Wilson, J. A. Koenig, & A. S. Beatty, Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  20. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  21. Penuel, W. R., & Fishman, B. (2012). Large-scale science education intervention research we can use. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 281–304. doi:10.1002/tea.21001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B., Haugan Cheng, B., & Sabelli, N. (2011). Organizing research and development at the intersection of learning, implementation, and design. Educational Researcher, 40(7), 331–337. doi:10.3102/0013189X11421826 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Penuel, W. R., Roschelle, J., & Shechtman, N. (2007). Designing formative assessment software with teachers: An analysis of the co-design process. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 2, 51–74. doi:10.1142/S1793206807000300 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Reiser, B. (2013). What professional development strategies are needed for successful implementation of the next generation science standards? Paper prepared for K-12 Center at ETS, invitational symposium on science assessment. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.k12center.org/rsc/pdf/reiser.pdf
  25. Reiser, B. (2014). Designing coherent storylines aligned with NGSS for the K-12: How do we bring practices into K-12 classrooms? Presentation at the annual National Science Education Leadership Association conference, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  26. Schneider, R. M., & Krajcik, J. (2002). Supporting science teacher learning: The role of educative curriculum materials. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13, 221–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Severance, S., Leary, H., & Johnson, R. (2014). Tensions in a multi-tiered research-practice partnership. In J. L. Polman, E. A. Kyza, D. K. O’Neill, I. Tabak, W. R. Penuel, A. S. Jurow, K. O’Connor, T. Lee, & L. D’Amico (Eds.), Learning and becoming in practice: The International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2014, (Vol. 2, pp. 1171–1175). Boulder: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  28. Severance, S., Penuel, W. R., Sumner, T., & Leary, H. (2016). Organizing for teacher agency in curriculuar co-design (submitted).Google Scholar
  29. Somekh, B. (2008). Factors affecting teachers’ pedagogical adoption of ICT. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 449–460). New York: Springer-Science + Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Whitworth, B. A. & Chiu, J. L. (2015). Professional development and teacher change: The missing leadership link. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26(2), 121–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association for Science Teacher Education, USA 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Heather Leary
    • 1
  • Samuel Severance
    • 2
  • William R. Penuel
    • 2
  • David Quigley
    • 2
  • Tamara Sumner
    • 2
  • Holly Devaul
    • 3
  1. 1.Brigham Young University - IdahoRexburgUSA
  2. 2.University of Colorado BoulderBoulderUSA
  3. 3.University Corporation for Atmospheric ResearchBoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations