Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 341–356 | Cite as

Targeted Support for Using Technology-Enhanced Science Inquiry Modules

  • Keisha Varma
  • Freda Husic
  • Marcia C. Linn


Designing effective professional development experiences for technology-enhanced inquiry instruction is the goal of the Technology Enhanced Learning in Science (TELS) NSF funded Center for Learning and Teaching. In order to provide this type of support to a large number of teachers, we devised a targeted professional development approach. Participating teachers implemented short inquiry modules that featured interactive scientific visualizations. We collaborated with 16 schools in eight districts and five states. This paper reports the design, implementation, and refinement of the targeted approach. Findings from interview data show that teachers faced challenges that are often associated with enacting technology innovations in K-12 classrooms. The targeted professional development approach addressed the challenges and allowed teachers to successfully implement the modules in their classrooms. The interview data clarify teachers’ perspectives on how using technology impacted their teaching practices and their ideas about student learning. This work contributes to a growing body of literature that identifies and addresses barriers to integrating technology into K-12 classrooms.


Professional development Science Technology Visualization Teacher learning 



This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under grant No. 0334199. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. The authors gratefully acknowledge helpful discussions of these ideas with members of the Web-based Inquiry Science Environment group and the Technology Enhanced Learning in Science center. Special thanks go to Stephanie Corliss, Tara Higgins, Doug Kirpatrick, Hee-Sun Lee, Ji Shen, and Michele Spitulnik for stimulating discussions and comments on earlier drafts. The authors appreciate help in production of this manuscript from Jonathan Breitbart.


  1. Ball DL (1996) Teacher learning and the mathematics reforms: what do we think we know and what do we need to learn? Phi Delta Kappan 77:500–508Google Scholar
  2. Ball DL, Cohen DK (1996) Reform by the book: what is—or might be—the role of curriculum materials in teacher leaning and instructional reform. Edu Res 25(9):6–8, 14Google Scholar
  3. Becker HJ, Ravitz JL, Wong Y (1999) Teacher and teacher-directed student use of computers and software. Teaching, learning, and computing: 1998 national survey report #3. Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations: University of California, Irvine & University of MinnesotaGoogle Scholar
  4. Bielaczyc K (2006) Designing social infrastructure: critical issues in creating learning environments with technology. J Learn Sci 15(3):301–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blumenfeld P, Fishman BJ, Krajcik J, Marx RW, Soloway E (2000) Creating usable innovations in systemic reform: scaling up technology-embedded project-based science in urban schools. Edu Psychol 35(3):149–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bowyer JB, Gerard LF, Marx RW (accepted) Leadership and policy. In: Kali Y, Linn MC, Koppal M, Roseman JE (eds) Designing coherent science education. Teachers College Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Bransford JD, Brown AL et al. (eds) (2000) How people learn: brain, mind, experience, and school. National Research Council, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown AL (1992) Design experiments: theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. J Learn Sci 2(2):32–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown JS, Collins A, Duguid P (1989) Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Edu Res 18:32–42Google Scholar
  10. Bybee RW, Fuchs B (2006) Preparing the 21st century workforce: a new reform in science and technology education. J Res Sci Teach 43(4):349–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cobb P, Confrey J, diSessa A, Lehrer R, Schauble L (2003) Design experiments in educational research. Edu Res 32(1):9–13Google Scholar
  12. Cuban L, Kirpatrick H, Peck C (2001) High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: explaining an apparent paradox. Am Edu Res J 38(4):813–834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Davis EA (2004) Knowledge integration in science teaching: analyzing teachers’ knowledge development. Res Sci Edu 34:21–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Davis EA (2006) Preservice elementary teachers’ critique of instructional materials for science. Sci Edu 90(2):3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Davis EA, Krajcik JS (2005) Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Edu Res 34(3):3–14Google Scholar
  16. Fishman B, Marx RW, Blumenfeld P, Krajick J, Soloway E (2004) Creating a framework for research on systemic technology innovations. J Learn Sci 13(1):43–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fogelman J, Fishman B, Krajcik J (2006) Sustaining innovations through lead teacher learning: a learning sciences perspective on supported professional development. Teach Edu 17(2):181–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hew KF, Brush T (2006) Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational technology research development (published online). Available at
  19. Johnson CC (2006) Effective professional development and change in practice: barriers science teachers encounter and implications for reform. School Sci Math 106(3):150–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Krajcik JS, Blumenfeld PC, Marx RW, Soloway E (2004) A collaborative model for helping middle grade science teachers learn project-based instruction. Elementary School J 94(5):483–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Linn MC (2006a) The knowledge integration perspective on learning and instruction. In: Sawyer RK (ed) The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 243–264Google Scholar
  22. Linn MC (2006b) WISE teachers: using technology and inquiry for science instruction. In: Ashburn EA, Floden RE (eds) Meaningful learning using technology: what educators need to know. Teachers College Press, New York, pp 45–69Google Scholar
  23. Linn MC, Clark D, Slotta JD (2003) WISE design for knowledge integration. Sci Edu 87:517–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Linn MC, Davis EA, Bell P (2004) Internet environments for science education. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  25. Linn MC, Eylon BS, Davis EA (2004) The knowledge integration perspective on learning. In: Linn MC, Davis EA, Bell P (eds) Internet environments for science education. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, pp 29–46Google Scholar
  26. Linn MC, Hsi S (2000) Computers, teachers, and peers: science learning partners. Erlbaum, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  27. Linn MC, Lee H, Tinker R, Husic F, Chiu JL (2006) Inquiry learning: teaching and assessing knowledge integration in science. Science 313(5790):1049–1050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Matese G, Marshall S, Edelson D (2000) Understanding adoption of software tools: comparative case studies of teacher beliefs about and use of inquiry-support software. In: Fishman B, O’Connor-Divelbiss S (eds) Fourth international conference of the learning sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, pp 33–38Google Scholar
  29. National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (2007) Guide to National Board Certification. Retrieved, February 14, 2007 from
  30. Olson J (2000) Trojan horse or teaches pet? Computers and the culture of the school. J Curriculum Stud 32(1):1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Peers CE, Diezmann CM, Watters JJ (2003) Supports and concerns for teacher professional growth during the implementation of a science curriculum innovation. Res Sci Edu 33:89–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Putnam RT, Borko H (2000) What do new views on knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Edu Res 29(1):4–15Google Scholar
  33. Quintana C, Reiser BJ, Davis EA, Krajcik J, Fretz E, Duncan RG, Kyza E, Edelson D, Soloway E (2004) A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. J Learn Sci 13(3):337–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schlager M, Fusco J (2004) Teacher professional development, technology, and communities of practice: are we putting the cart before the horse? In: Barab S, Kling R, Gray J (eds) Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  35. Schneider RM, Krajcik J, Blumenfeld P (2005) Enacting reform-based science materials: the range of teacher enactments in reform classrooms. J Res Sci Teach 42(3):283–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Selwyn N (1999) Differences in educational computer use: the influences of subject cultures. Curriculum J 10(1):83–90Google Scholar
  37. Singer J, Marx RW, Krajcik JS, Clay-Chambers J (2000) Constructing extended inquiry projects: curriculum materials for science education reform. Edu Psychol 35(3):164–178Google Scholar
  38. Slotta JD (2004) The web-based inquiry science environment (WISE): scaffolding knowledge integration in the science classroom. In: Linn MC, Davis EA, Bell P (eds) Internet environments for science education. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, pp 202–232Google Scholar
  39. Songer N (1996) Exploring learning opportunities in coordinated network-enhanced classrooms: a case of kids as global scientists. J Learn Sci 5(4):297–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Songer NB, Lee HS, Kam R (2002) Technology-rich inquiry science in urban classrooms: what are the barriers to inquiry pedagogy? J Res Sci Teach 39(2):128–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Spitulnik M, Linn MC (2006) Professional development and teachers’ curriculum customizations: supporting science in diverse middle schools. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), San Francisco, CAGoogle Scholar
  42. Tate ED, Finley J (2006) How do multiple visualizations impact middle school students’ understanding of velocity? Poster presented at the annual meeting of American Educational Research Association (AERA), San Francisco, CAGoogle Scholar
  43. U.S. Department of Education (2004) New no child left behind flexibility: highly qualified teachers fact sheet. Retrieved, February 14, 2007 from
  44. Watson DM (2001) Pedagogy before technology: re-thinking the relationship between ICT and teaching. Edu Inf Technol 6(4):251–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Williams M, Linn M, Ammon P, Gearhart M (2004) Learning to teach inquiry science in a technology-based environment: a case study. J Sci Edu Technol 13(2):189–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. York-Barr J, Duke K (2004) What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings from two decades of scholarship. Rev Edu Res 74(3):255–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zhao Y, Pugh K, Sheldon S, Byers JL (2002) Conditions for classroom technology innovations. Teachers College Record 104(3):482–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zembal-Saul C, Blumenfeld P, Krajcik J (2000) Influence of guided cycles of planning, teaching, and reflection on prospective elementary teachers’ science content representations. J Res Sci Teach 37(4):318–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationUniversity of California, BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations