Research in Science Education

, Volume 43, Issue 5, pp 2035–2057 | Cite as

Science Teaching Orientations and Technology-Enhanced Tools for Student Learning

  • Todd Campbell
  • Max Longhurst
  • Aaron M. Duffy
  • Paul G. Wolf
  • Brett E. Shelton
Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Teacher orientation Technology-enhanced tools Science literacy 

References

  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1989). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. 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.Google Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Braaten, M., & Windschitl, M. (2011). Working toward a stronger conceptualization of scientific explanation for science education. Science Education, 95(4), 639–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bybee, R., McCrae, B., & Laurie, R. (2009b). PISA 2006: An assessment of scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 865–883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.
  10. 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.Google Scholar
  11. Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring science education. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  12. 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.Google Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Harlow: Longman Group.Google Scholar
  15. 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.
  16. Friedrichsen, P., van Driel, J. H., & Abell, S. K. (2011). Taking a closer look at science teaching orientations. Science Education, 95, 358–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goedhart, H., & Hoogstraten, J. (1992). The retrospective pretest and the role of pretest information in evaluation studies. Psychological Reports, 70, 699–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Groenewald, T. (2004). A phenomenological research design illustrated. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 3(1), 1–25.Google Scholar
  19. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2003). Analyzing collaborative knowledge construction: Multiple methods for integrated understanding. Computers in Education, 41(4), 397–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. International Society for Technology in Education. (2007). National educational technology standards and performance indicators for students. Eugene: International Society for Technology in Education.Google Scholar
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.Google Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
  32. Lenhart A, Arafeh S, Smith A, Rankin A (2008) Writing, technology and teens. Washington, DC: Pew/Internet. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org.
  33. 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.
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A., & Bell, P. (2004). Internet environments for science education. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
  36. 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.Google Scholar
  37. MacIsaac, D., & Falconer, K. (2002). Reforming physics instruction via RTOP. The Physics Teacher, 40, 16–22.Google Scholar
  38. Ministry of Education. (2001). An outline of curriculum reform of basic education. Xueke Jiaoyu, 2001(7), 1–5 (in Chinese).Google Scholar
  39. Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development (MOE HRD). (2007). Science curriculum. Seoul: MOE HRD (in Korean).Google Scholar
  40. National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  41. 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.Google Scholar
  42. Osborne, J. (2007). Science education for the twenty first century. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 3(3), 173–184.Google Scholar
  43. Osborne, J. F., & Patterson, A. (2011). Scientific argument and explanation: A necessary distinction? Science Education, 95(4), 627–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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.
  45. 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).Google Scholar
  46. 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.Google Scholar
  47. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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.Google Scholar
  49. Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89, 634–656.Google Scholar
  50. Schulz, R. M. (2009). Reforming science education, part I: The search for a philosophy of science education. Science Education, 18, 225–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schwab, J. J. (1962). The teaching of science: The teaching of science as enquiry. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  52. US Census Bureau. (2000). Diversity. Retrieved November 2011, from http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/atlas/censr01-104.pdf.
  53. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Todd Campbell
    • 1
  • Max Longhurst
    • 2
  • Aaron M. Duffy
    • 2
  • Paul G. Wolf
    • 2
  • Brett E. Shelton
    • 2
  1. 1.University of Massachusetts DartmouthDartmouthUSA
  2. 2.Utah State UniversityLoganUSA

Personalised recommendations