Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Science Teaching Orientations and Technology-Enhanced Tools for Student Learning

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1989). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braaten, M., & Windschitl, M. (2011). Working toward a stronger conceptualization of scientific explanation for science education. Science Education, 95(4), 639–669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, R., McCrae, B., & Laurie, R. (2009b). PISA 2006: An assessment of scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 865–883.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring science education. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Harlow: Longman Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Friedrichsen, P., van Driel, J. H., & Abell, S. K. (2011). Taking a closer look at science teaching orientations. Science Education, 95, 358–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goedhart, H., & Hoogstraten, J. (1992). The retrospective pretest and the role of pretest information in evaluation studies. Psychological Reports, 70, 699–704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groenewald, T. (2004). A phenomenological research design illustrated. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 3(1), 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2003). Analyzing collaborative knowledge construction: Multiple methods for integrated understanding. Computers in Education, 41(4), 397–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Society for Technology in Education. (2007). National educational technology standards and performance indicators for students. Eugene: International Society for Technology in Education.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenhart A, Arafeh S, Smith A, Rankin A (2008) Writing, technology and teens. Washington, DC: Pew/Internet. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org.

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A., & Bell, P. (2004). Internet environments for science education. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • MacIsaac, D., & Falconer, K. (2002). Reforming physics instruction via RTOP. The Physics Teacher, 40, 16–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Education. (2001). An outline of curriculum reform of basic education. Xueke Jiaoyu, 2001(7), 1–5 (in Chinese).

  • Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development (MOE HRD). (2007). Science curriculum. Seoul: MOE HRD (in Korean).

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Osborne, J. (2007). Science education for the twenty first century. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 3(3), 173–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J. F., & Patterson, A. (2011). Scientific argument and explanation: A necessary distinction? Science Education, 95(4), 627–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89, 634–656.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulz, R. M. (2009). Reforming science education, part I: The search for a philosophy of science education. Science Education, 18, 225–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwab, J. J. (1962). The teaching of science: The teaching of science as enquiry. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • US Census Bureau. (2000). Diversity. Retrieved November 2011, from http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/atlas/censr01-104.pdf.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Funding for this research was provided by the National Science Foundation through a Discovery Research K-12 Project (Award Number 1020086).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, Dartmouth, MA, USA

    Todd Campbell

  2. Utah State University, Logan, UT, USA

    Max Longhurst, Aaron M. Duffy, Paul G. Wolf & Brett E. Shelton

Authors
  1. Todd Campbell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Max Longhurst
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Aaron M. Duffy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Paul G. Wolf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Brett E. Shelton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Todd Campbell.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Campbell, T., Longhurst, M., Duffy, A.M. et al. Science Teaching Orientations and Technology-Enhanced Tools for Student Learning. Res Sci Educ 43, 2035–2057 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9342-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9342-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation