Journal of Science Teacher Education

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 271–295 | Cite as

A Self-Study of the Role of Technology in Promoting Reflection and Inquiry-Based Science Teaching

Article

 

This self-study examined the 1st-year science teacher educator's integration of instructional technology into a science methods course and modeled the reflective practice of her own teaching. Elementary science methods students participated in a series of inquiry-based activities that utilized various instructional technologies. Data sources included daily reflections, formative assessments, concern-based surveys, and class assignments. Findings from this self-study revealed that the teacher educator's own reflections and practical inquiry influenced and paralleled her students’ development of learning how to teach scientific inquiry using instructional technology. Results suggest that inviting preservice teachers into reflective practice and modeling for them the development of professional practical knowledge allow them to address the uncertainties in their own learning about using technology for inquiry-based science teaching.

References

  1. Abell, S., Bryan, L., & Anderson, M. (1998). Investigating preservice elementary science teacher reflective thinking using integrated media case-based instruction in elementary science teacher preparation. Science Education, 6, 491–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Angelo, T. A., & Cross, P. A. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  3. Barnes, D. (1998). Forward: Looking forward: The concluding remarks at the Castle Conference. In M. L. Hamilton (Ed.), Reconceptualizing teaching practice: Self-study in teacher education (pp. ix–xiv). London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  4. Becker, H. J. (2001, April). How are teachers using computers in instruction? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
  5. Boone, W. J. (1993). Preservice elementary teachers’ view toward a science methods curriculum. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 5(2), 37–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1990). Communities of learning and thinking, or a context by any other name. Contributions to Human Development, 21, 108–126.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational researchers, 18, 32–42.Google Scholar
  8. Brush, T. (Ed.). (2003). Preparing tomorrow's teachers to use technology (PT3) [Special issue]. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1).Google Scholar
  9. Butts, D., Koballa, T., & Elliott, T. (1997). Does participating in an undergraduate science methods course make a difference? Journal of Elementary Science Education, 9(2), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Capobianco, B. M. (2007). Science teacher' attempts at integrting feminist pedagogy through collaborative action research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(1), 1--32.Google Scholar
  11. Capobianco, B. M., Horowitz, R., Canuel-Browne, D., & Trimarchi, R. (2004). Action research for teachers: Understanding the necessary steps for developing and implementing productive action plans. The Science Teacher, 48–53.Google Scholar
  12. Capobianco, B. M., Lincoln, S., Canuel-Browne, D., & Trimarchi, R. (2006). Examining the experiences of three generations of teacher researchers through collaborative science teacher inquiry. Teacher Education Quarterly, 33(3), 61–78.Google Scholar
  13. Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge, and action research. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  14. Cochran, K. F., DeRuiter, J. A., & King, R. A. (1993). Pedagogical content knowing: An integrative model for teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 44, 263–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cochran, K., & Jones, L. (1998). The subject matter knowledge of preservice teachers. In K. Tobin & B. Frazer (Eds.), International handbook of science education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  16. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1993). Inside/outside: Teacher research and knowledge. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  17. Eden, C., & Huxham, C. (1999). Action research for the study of organizations. In S. Clegg & C. Hardy (Eds.), Studying organization: Theory and method (pp. 526–542). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Elliott, J. (1991). Action research for educational change. Philadelphia: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Feldman, A. (1994). Erzberger's dilemma: Validity in action research and science teachers’ need to know. Science Education, 78(1), 83–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Feldman, A., & Capobianco, B. M. (2002). Action research in science education. ERIC Digest: Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education. Retrieved December 7, 2006, from http://www.ericdigests.org/2003-1/action.htm.Google Scholar
  21. Fullan, M. G. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  22. Hall, G. E., & Loucks, S. (1978). Teacher concerns as a basis for facilitating and personalizing staff development. Teaches College Record, 80(1), 36–53.Google Scholar
  23. Hall, G. E., George, A. A., & Rutherford, W. L. (1998). Measuring stages of concern about the innovation: A manual for use of the SoC questionnaire. Austin: Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, University of Texas.Google Scholar
  24. Hamilton, M. L. (Ed.). (1998). Reconceptualizing teaching practice: Self-study in teacher education. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  25. Hewson, P. W., Tabachnick, R. B., Zeichner, K. M., Blomerk, K. B., Meyer, H., Lemberger, J., Marion, R., Park, H., & Toolin, R. (1999). Educating prospective teachers of biology: Introduction and research methods. Science Education, 83(3), 247–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hodson, D., & Bencze, L. (1998). Becoming critical about practical work: Changing views changing practice through action research. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 683–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Holly, M. (1989). Reflective writing and the spirit of inquiry. Cambridge Journal of Education, 19(1), 71–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hord, S. M., Rutherford, W. L., Huling-Austin, L., & Hall, G. E. (1987). Taking charge of change. Alexandria, VA: ASCD Publications.Google Scholar
  29. Joyce, B. (Ed). (1990). Changing school culture through staff development, 1990 yearbook. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  30. Knowles, J. G., & Cole, A. L. (1995). Teacher educators reflecting on writing in practice. In T. Russell & F. Korthagen (Eds.), Teachers who teach teachers: Reflections on teacher education (pp. 71–94). London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  31. Lehman, J. D. (2003). P3T3: [Name of university] program for preparing tomorrow's teachers to use technology. In M. A. Fitzgerald, M. Orey, & R. M. Branch (Eds.), Educational media and technology yearbook 2003 (pp. 161–168). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.Google Scholar
  32. Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (Eds.). (1991). Staff development for education in the 90s: New demands, new realities, new perspectives (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  34. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  35. Loughran, J. (1996). Developing reflective practice: Learning about teaching and learning through modeling. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  36. Loughran, J., Hamilton, M. L., LaBoskey, V. K., & Russell, T. L. (Eds.). (2004). International handbook of self-study on teaching and teacher education (vol. 12). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  37. Loughan, J., Milroy, P., Berry, A., Gunstone, R., & Mulhall, P. (2001). Documenting science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge through PaP-eR's. Research in Science Education, 31, 289–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Loughran, J., & Northfield, J. (1998). A framework for the development of self-study practice. In M. L. Hamilton (Ed.), Reconceptualizing teaching practice: Self-study in teacher education (pp. 7–18). London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  39. McKernan, J. (1988). The countenance of curriculum action research: Traditional, collaborative, and emancipatory-critical conceptions. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 3, 173–200.Google Scholar
  40. McKernan, J. (1991). Curriculum action research: A handbook of methods and resources for the reflective practitioner. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  41. McNiff, J. (2002). Action research: Principles and practice (2nd ed.). London: Routhledge.Google Scholar
  42. Munby, H., & Russell, T. (1994). The authority of experience in learning to teach: Messages from a physics methods class. Journal of Teacher Education, 45(2), 86–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  44. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  45. Noffke, S. (1997). Professional, personal, and political dimensions of action research. The 1997 Review of Educational Researcher, 22. Washington, DC: AERA.Google Scholar
  46. Northfield, J., & Loughran, J. (1997, March). The nature of knowledge development in self-study practice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
  47. Padilla, M. J. (1990, March). The science process skills. Research Matters, No. 9004. Retrieved December 7, 2006, from http://www.narst.org/publications/research/skill.htm.Google Scholar
  48. Pedersen, J. E., & Yerrick, R. K. (2000). Technology in science teacher education: Survey of current uses and desired knowledge among science educators. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 11, 131–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pinnegar, S. (1995). (Re-)Experiencing beginning. Teaching Education Quarterly, 22(3), 65–83.Google Scholar
  50. Rice, D., & Roychoudhury, A. (2003). Preparing more confident preservice elementary science teachers: One elementary science methods teacher's self-study. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 14, 97–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Russell, T. (1995). Returning to the physics classroom to re-think how one learns physics. In T. Russell & F. Korthagen (Eds.), Teachers who teach teachers: Reflections on teacher education (pp. 95–109). Washington, DC: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  52. Russell, T., & Korthagen, F. (Eds.). (1995). Teachers who teach teachers: Reflections on teacher education. Washington, DC: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  53. Russell, T., & Munby, H. (1992). Transforming chemistry research into teaching: The complexities of adopting new frames for experience. In T. Russell & H. Munby (Eds.), Teachers and teaching: From classroom to reflection (pp. 90–108). London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  54. Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  55. Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  56. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.Google Scholar
  57. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
  58. Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  59. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  60. Tabachnick, B. R., & Zeichner, K. M. (1999). Idea and action: Action research and the development of conceptual change teaching of science. Science Education, 83, 309–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. van Zee, E. H. (1998a). Fostering elementary teachers’ research on their science teaching practices. Journal of Teacher Education, 49, 245–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. van Zee, E. H. (1998b). Preparing teachers as researchers in courses on methods of teaching science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 791–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. van Zee, E., Lay, D., & Roberts, D. (2003). Fostering collaborative inquiries by prospective and practicing elementary and middle school teachers. Science Education, 87, 588–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Curriculum and InstructionPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteU.S.A

Personalised recommendations