University of South Florida

Scholar Commons
Graduate Theses and Dissertations

Graduate School

2010

Technology integration for preservice science

teacher educators
Nina C. Stokes
University of South Florida

Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd

Part of the American Studies Commons
Scholar Commons Citation
Stokes, Nina C., "Technology integration for preservice science teacher educators" (2010). Graduate Theses and Dissertations.
http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/1782

This Ed. Specalist is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in
Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact
[email protected].

Technology Integration For Preservice Science Teacher Educators

by

Nina C. Stokes

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree of
Education Specialist
Department of Secondary Education
College of Education
University of South Florida

Major Professor: Dana Zeidler, Ph.D.

Elaine Howes, Ph.D.
Janet Richards, Ph.D.

Date of Approval:
November 6, 2009

Keywords: adaptive technologies, cai, computers, telecommunication

Copyright 2010 , Nina C. Stokes

Table of Contents
List of Tables

ii

Abstract

iii

Chapter 1 Computers, Related Communication Technologies, and Science

Teacher Education Reform: History and Background

Chapter 2 How Technology and the Reform fit Together

Chapter 3 What is Meant by Technology and Associated Terms?

15

Chapter 4 Integration of Technology in Science Education

20

Examples of Technologies Currently Being Used in Science Education

28

Recommendations for Choosing and Evaluating Science Technologies

42

Chapter 5 Implications for the Future

46

References

49

List of Tables
Table 1 Classification of Education Technologies

ii

30

Technology Integration for Preservice Science Teacher Educators

Nina C. Stokes
ABSTRACT
The current state of technology integration in science teacher education programs
is examined with a view to providing science teacher educators with practical information
and diverse examples of technologies they can model in their own courses. Motivators
and barriers to technology integration and use are discussed, and recommendations for
choosing and evaluating science technologies made. A brief history of how computers,
related communication technologies, and science teacher education reform "fit" together
is provided. Multiple interpretations of what is meant by "technology" and associated
terms (distance learning, online courses, Web-enhanced courses, simulations, authentic
data sets etc.) are included to set the context.

iii

Chapter 1
Computers, Related Communication Technologies, and Science Teacher Education
Reform: History and Background
The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
reminds us that "As long as there have been people, there has been technology." (AAAS,
1989, chap. 3). Sherman (2000) says, "Technology both shapes and reflects the values of
our social enterprise." (p. 317). Science teacher educators have used computers and other
information technologies as tools to increase students learning of science in America's
schools, universities and colleges for over 30 years. In 1934, the first teaching machine
was invented by Sydney L. Pressey, but it was not until the 1950s that practical methods
of programming were developed. In 1954, B.F. Skinner of Harvard reintroduced
programmed instruction, and much of the system is based on his theory of the nature of
learning. The range of teaching machines and other programmed instruction materials
developed along with programming technology. Programs have been devised for the
teaching of almost every subject imaginable, some being linear in concept, allowing
advancement only in a particular order as the correct answer is given, while others are
branching, giving additional information at the appropriate level whether a correct or
incorrect answer is given (Hezfallah, 1990).
The 1960s brought with them the introduction of computer-assisted instruction
(CAI). CAI was developed with the goal of aiding in the acquisition of basic skills,
providing opportunities to practice these skills, and then to measure learning gains.
1

Patrick Suppes developed some of the first CAI at Stanford University in 1963, and set
standards for subsequent instructional software. Suppes designed highly structured
computer systems featuring learner feedback, lesson branching, and student
record-keeping (Coburn et al., 1982).
In the late 1960s the National Science Foundation (NSF) supported the
development of 30 regional computing networks, which included 300 institutions of
higher education and some secondary schools, to increase computer access. In excess of 2
million students used computers in their classes by 1974. In 1963, a mere 1% of the
nations secondary school teachers used computers for instructional purposes. By 1975,
55% of the schools had access, and 23% were using computers primarily for instruction
(Molnar, 1975).
In 1969, the British Open University was established as a fully autonomous
degree-granting institution. The basic Open University system utilizes television courses
rigorously developed by a team of content specialists and instructional designers. The
British Open University broke traditional barriers to education by allowing any student to
enroll regardless of previous educational experience or background. It currently serves
more than 200,000 students and has enrolled more than 2 million people. It is recognized
throughout the world as a prototype for current-day, non-traditional learning.
LOGO, a computer language developed by Seymour Papert and his colleagues at
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the 1970s, provides one of the earliest
examples of computer-based exploratory learning. Papert used LOGO to aid students in
acquiring critical thinking and mathematical problem-solving skills (Papert, 1980).

Personal computers were ubiquitous by the end of the seventies and could be
found in classrooms, offices, homes, laboratories and libraries. The computer was no
longer a luxury, but a necessity for schools and universities. In 1971 the microprocessor
was invented by Intel and the first e-mail messages were sent, and in 1978, the first
computer Bulletin Board System (BBS) was established. In the early 1980s, low-cost
personal computers allowed the use of technology in education to expand to include
general-purpose tools such as word processors and spreadsheets. In addition, new
technology allowed classes to be given "remotely", programs being transmitted to
classrooms via cables, fiber optics and satellites. In 1984, the first such "distance
learning", undergraduate courses were delivered by the New Jersey Institute of
Technology. This opened the door to individuals who, because of other commitments and
responsibilities (careers, children, family etc.), would have otherwise been unable to take
courses, as well as people located in remote regions of the nation, and in typically
underserved communities.
Telecommunication technologies have leaped forward. The Internet, a global
telecommunications system that began in 1969 as a U.S. Department of Defense project,
is an incredibly powerful resource, making a vast amount of information immediately
accessible. It provides instant access to educational research, as well as curricula, lesson
plans, discussion forums, online experts and communication tools. The World Wide Web
was first developed in 1991 and provides the connections to resources on the Internet,
allowing users to travel from resource to resource with the click of a mouse button. This
wealth of information opens doors for collaboration, encourages alternative instructional
strategies, and enhances the curriculum (Barron & Ivers, 1996). Telecomputing tools
3

include e-mail, electronic bulletin boards, electronic mailing lists, discussion groups,
Web browsers, real-time chatting, and audio- and videoconferencing. Online resources
include Web sites (including social networking sites such as My Space), and interactive
environments, and remotely-operated robotic devices.
The 21st Century has brought with it many new and extremely powerful
technologies that have already made their way into school and university science
classrooms all over the United States. Multimedia software allows science teacher
educators to teach preservice teachers (who, in turn can teach their K-12 students),
concepts and skills through the use of programs that employ both sound and video.
HyperStudio and other multimedia authoring tools are used to link and branch screens,
making them interactive and layered with information, photos, scanned images, movies
and text. PowerPoint and other slide show programs add tools for developing sequenced
screens including all the elements of multimedia. "New ways of obtaining and presenting
information have given students powerful new ways of analyzing and understanding the
world around them." (U.S. Dept. of Education, 1996, Benefits of Technology Use
section, para. 3).
Computer simulations provide teachers with tools to allow students to conduct
experiments and control variables as they never could otherwise. Students can carry out
virtual genetics experiments with software such as "GenScope", or analyze ecological
data, simulating live data that would have taken decades or centuries to collect in the
field. Computer software also allows simulations in population growth, competition and
evolutionary theory to be run, exposing students to hands-on analysis of data, which
reinforces the concepts they hear in their usual science classroom sessions. The Higher
4

Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) program designed by Stanley Pogrow of the University of
Arizona, is a computer-based thinking program for disadvantaged students, that
emphasizes "the basic thinking processes that underlie all learning" (Pogrow, 1987, p.
11). The project includes the utilization of computer simulations to study topics such as
the dynamics of a balloon in flight, exploring the effects of different variables such as
fuel, wind direction and terrain.
Students can utilize the smaller and more portable computers available now, as
valuable science research tools and guides in the laboratory, and in the field.
Microcomputer-based measurement and monitoring devices can be used for gathering
and analyzing scientific data such as temperature, relative humidity, light intensity,
pressure and voltage (Rohwedder & Alm, 1994).
Virtual dissection programs are also becoming more popular, both as valuable
preparation tools, enhancements to dissections, and as a way for students who feel
uncomfortable actually performing the dissection, or are physically unable to do so, to
participate. It also provides a means for science teacher educators to provide preservice
teachers with learning experiences that would otherwise be impossible because of lack of
time, funds, or availability of materials. Researchers at Stanford University created "The
Virtual Frog Project". Using the Internet to access the virtual frog, students can view and
explore three dimensional renderings of the different biological systems as well as being
able to make the frog's skin transparent to view a particular process, e.g. digestion, or to
virtually stain an organ to facilitate viewing.
Web cams (a simple Web cam consists of a digital camera attached to a
computer), can also help to bring science lessons to life allowing teachers to take their
5

students on virtual field trips all over the world, providing them with a birds-eye view
that serves to enhance their understanding of material studied and discussed in class. Web
cams are an excellent way for information to be communicated visually over time.
In addition to being more powerful, new technologies are also more user-friendly
and accessible. Adaptive technologies ensure that students with disabilities are no longer
precluded from computer use. Physically disabled individuals can use modified joysticks,
keyboards and head pointers (Day (Ed.), 1995), while the speech impaired talk through
the computer by typing words which are translated into speech by text-to-speech
translators (Middleton & Means, 1991). Visually impaired students can use speechenabled products such as talking watches, calculators and computers, as well as products
with Braille feedback.
In today's technological world, it is essential that science teacher educators
furnish preservice teachers with the skills and knowledge necessary for them to utilize the
wealth of resources that technology offers. As stated in the report, "Getting America's
Students Ready for the 21st Century", "Success as a nation will depend substantially on
our students' ability to acquire the skills and knowledge necessary for high-technology
work and informed citizenship." (U.S. Department of Education, 1996, The Technology
Literacy Challenge section, para. 1). It follows then, that science teacher educators have
the responsibility for ensuring future science teachers are prepared and experienced
enough to go into the classroom feeling confident and comfortable integrating and using
technology in their science instruction. As Gillingham and Topper (1999) emphasize We
need a clear sense of our own expectations for technology-using educators if we are to
prepare future teachers for appropriate use of technology in their classrooms, (p. 305).
6

Their definition of technology literacy focuses on educator beliefs and knowledge about
using technology in instruction and learning, and on having the skill and dispositions to
use technology in flexible and adaptive ways for the purposes of classroom instruction
and professional development. (p. 305). Science teacher educators need to open
preservice science teachers eyes to the important role technology can play in providing a
real-world context in which they can ground their instruction. Technology, if used
appropriately, can greatly enhance the educational experience and lead to deeper, more
meaningful learning. It is not enough to furnish classrooms with numerous computers and
vast arrays of software packages the fact that the technology works has already been
established. The big question is, when does it work and under what circumstances.
Technology is no different from any other educational tool teachers must come up with
an effective strategy or pedagogy to make it work.

Chapter 2
How Technology and the Reform fit Together
Technology and reform do not necessarily go hand in hand, as illustrated by
technologies that were expected to revolutionize the classroom, such as television in the
1960s, computers in the 1970s and videodisc and artificial intelligence in the 1980s. The
revolution didn't happen (U.S. Department of Education, 1993). Studies of specific
school sites that spent substantial amounts on technology, aiming to change the school,
only to discover that the equipment sat unused in closets gathering dust, or that teachers
used the technology to teach in the same way they had always done (Oakes & Schneider,
1984; U.S. Department of Education, 1993), also illustrate this fact. On the flip side, there
are also many instances where technology and school reform were partnered successfully
(Sheingold & Tucker (Eds.), 1990; Stearns, Hanson, Ringstaff & Schneider, 1991;
Zorfass, 1991) and from these successes, it has become evident that technology often
produces unexpected benefits for teachers and students (Stearns et al., 1991). The failures
illustrate that successful implementation of technology requires extensive and thoughtful
planning, as well as sustained support. In a review of educational reform, Fullan (2000),
points out that because technology is everywhere, the issue is how we contend with it, not
whether we do. As technology becomes more powerful, good teachers will become
increasingly invaluable.
Millar and Osborne (1998), report that the traditional form of science education,
where emphasis is on transmitting science content through lectures and cookbook labs,
8

does not prepare students to function effectively in todays rapidly evolving society
where citizens are expected to understand science and technology issues. Science teacher
educators must focus on preparing preservice science teachers to teach in our
technological world, ensuring they are well equipped and knowledgeable about the huge
diversity of instructional and learning opportunities provided by using technology in the
science classroom. The National Science Education Standards state The current reform
effort requires a substantive change in how science is taught; an equally substantive
change is needed in professional development practices. (NRC, 1995, p. 4). Current
national standards for technology in teacher preparation stress the importance of
developing skills and competencies for using technology (International Society for
Technology in Education [ISTE], 2008).
Reports on curricular reform (National Association of Secondary School
Principals, 1996; National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM], 1989; National
Research Council [NRC], 1995; National Science Teachers Association [NSTA], 1990),
highlight the change from the traditional, didactic, transmission teaching mode to a
constructivist, learner-centered instructional method. Unfortunately adoption and use of
reform-based instructional techniques is often hindered by the fact that many of todays
preservice and inservice science teachers were taught in the traditional, teacher-directed
manner and tend to adopt the same methods in their own classrooms (Stofflett &
Stoddart, 1994). Battista (1994) reports that as a result of being students in didactic
classrooms, these individuals tend to interpret reform-oriented activities in light of their
previous school experiences, adapting constructivist practices that fit with the didactic
pedagogy with which they are already familiar and feel comfortable using. Teachers are
9

the ones who determine how technology gets implemented in the classroom and despite
the assumptions of many policymakers and administrators, Niederhauser, Salem and
Fields (1999) report, there is nothing inherent in technology that ensures reform-oriented
uses. To date, many teachers continue to hold traditional beliefs about instruction and
have incorporated technology in didactic ways. (p. 156). This problem can be solved
only by helping teachers to change their underlying beliefs about teaching and learning.
They must be given opportunities to analyze their own learning under a variety of
instructional conditions to understand fully the relationships between teaching and
learning. In addition, teacher educators must model effective integration of technology in
their courses. One of the specific objectives of the National Council for Accreditation of
Teacher Education (NCATE) standards is "to prepare candidates who can integrate
technology into instruction to enhance student learning" (NCATE, 2008, p. 4). NCATE
standards also "expect teacher educators to model effective teaching. The traditional
lecture alone is inadequate. Teacher educators must use strategies they expect their
candidates to use. Why? Teachers teach as they are taught. Teacher educators should
model expert teaching." (Wise, 2000).
In a presidential report on the use of technology in K-12 education, the authors
argue that technology supports the constructivist teaching paradigm, and list uses of
computers and computer networks by teachers to support constructivist learning.
Although the report is general in scope, the technology uses listed are all directly
applicable to science education:
1. Monitor, guide, and assess the progress of their students.
2. Maintain portfolios of student work.
10

3. Prepare (both computer-based and conventional) materials for use in

the classroom.
4. Communicate with students, parents and administrators.
5. Exchange ideas, experiences, and curricular materials with other
teachers.
6. Consult with experts in a variety of fields.
7. Access remote databases and acquire educational software over the
Internet.
8. Further expand their own knowledge and professional capabilities.
(Presidents Committee of Advisors on Science and
Technology, 1997, p. 17).
This report goes on to stress that colleges of education have a valuable opportunity
to introduce future teachers to the use of educational technology before the demands of
an actual teaching position begin to impinge on the time available for such training (p.
53). New and innovative technologies provide empowering tools to support the science
education reform, and in order for us to produce technology-literate science teachers,
science teacher educators will also have to be technology-literate. Science teacher
education programs are the key to ensure that new science teachers are fully aware of the
huge potential of technology, and how it can be used both in their own professional
development, and in their classrooms.
Dexter, Anderson, and Becker (1999), report that, The research on
technology-using teachers characterizes different ways teachers employ technology in
instruction. Data from this literature suggest that technology-using teachers range along a
11

continuum of instructional styles from instruction to construction. (p. 221). Examples of

technology-using teachers who fall at every point along this instruction--construction
continuum can be found, but research on exemplary technology use suggests that expert
technology-using teachers (do or should) fall on the constructivist side of the continuum
(Becker, 1994; Dede, 1998; Dexter et al., 1999). Studies on classroom practice in general
(Brown, 1997; Bruer, 1994) and technology use within that practice (Becker, 1994; Berg,
Benz, Lasley II, & Raisch, 1998; Hadley & Sheingold, 1993) have tended to define
exemplary in terms of the extent to which teachers instructional methods embody a
constructivist teaching philosophy.
In the research literature, there is some indication that over time, technologyusing teachers will evolve into constructivist teachers (Fisher, Dwyer, & Yocam, 1996;
Hadley & Sheingold, 1993; Sandholtz, Ringstaff, & Dwyer, 1997). The supposition is
that the use and integration of technology into practice actually prompts teachers to
change their methods so that they are more student-centered. Dexter et al. (1999) noted
that if this were true then, This makes the issue one of time. That is, given enough time,
the variety of approaches to using technology will homogenize into a constructivist
approach. (p. 222). On the other hand, some researchers (Miller and Olson, 1994; Hativa
& Lesgold, 1996; Kerr, 1996) disagree, believing that just because teachers have new
technologies available for utilization in their classrooms, does not mean that they will
become constructivists. Pedagogical beliefs explain how teachers teach, with or without
the use of technology, and these beliefs go much deeper than technological capability or
accessibility. Changing beliefs is no easy task and usually takes a significant amount of
time (Cuban, 1993; Ertmer, 1999; Ertmer & Hruskocy, 1999). In spite of the fact that
12

research studies have shown that most teachers today understand the importance of using
technology in their classrooms (Beichner, 1993; Fulton, 1993), Robyler (1993) reports
that they don't know how to utilize technology to support educational best practices.
Technological tools change every day, as do current opinions on how teachers should use
these technologies in schools. Technology best practice is still evolving and individual
teachers may have significantly contrasting ideas of what exactly exemplary technology
integration and use entails. This is echoed by Ertmer, Gopalakrishnan and Ross (2001)
who suggest, "it is quite possible that todays practitioners and researchers have very
different beliefs about what constitutes exemplary classroom technology use." (, p.1). As
Earle (2002), points out, Teaching with technology causes teachers to confront their
established beliefs about instruction and their traditional roles as classroom teachers. (p.
8).
The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) published the
National Educational Technology Standards for students (NETSS), in 1998, and they
have been subsequently reviewed and refreshed. The NETSS (2007) describe what
students at each grade level should know about technology and what they should be able
to do with it, as well as outlining how technology should be used throughout the
curriculum. Educational technology standards for students are divided into six categories:
(1) creativity and innovation; (2) communication and collaboration; (3) research and
information fluency; (4) critical thinking, problem solving, and decision making; (5)
digital citizenship; and (6) technology operations and concepts. Categories provide a
framework for linking performance indicators found within the profiles for technologyliterate students. Together, the standards and profiles guide educators in their planning of
13

technology-based activities "in which students achieve success in learning,

communication, and life skills." (ISTE, 1998, Technology Foundations for All Students
section, para. 1).
The ISTE also developed NETS for Teachers (NETST) in 2000. These standards
focus on preservice teacher education, and define the fundamental concepts, knowledge,
skills, and attitudes for applying technology in educational settings. They state that "
Effective teachers model and apply the National Educational Technology Standards for
Students (NETSS) as they design, implement, and assess learning experiences to engage
students and improve learning; enrich professional practice; and provide positive models
for students, colleagues, and the community." (ISTE, 2008, Educational Technology
Standards for Teachers section, para. 1). They list five standards areas with performance
indicators designed to be general enough to be customized to fit state, university, or
district guidelines, and yet specific enough to define the scope of the topic. Performance
indicators for each standard provide specific outcomes to be measured when developing a
set of assessment tools. Teachers: (1) facilitate and inspire student learning and creativity;
(2) design and develop Digital-Age learning experiences and assessments; (3) model
Digital-Age work and learning; (4) promote and model digital citizenship and
responsibility; and (5) engage in professional growth and leadership. ISTE reported that
as of September 2008, every U.S. state and many countries have adopted, adapted or
referenced at least one set of ISTE standards in their technology plans or other official
state documents. ISTEs 2008-2009 Annual Report stresses that the next generation (of
NETS) focuses more on using technology to learn and less on learning to use the tools.
(p. 4).
14

Chapter 3
What is Meant by Technology and Associated Terms?
The word technology has several meanings. The term is derived from the Greek
words, tekhnf, which refers to an art or a craft, and logia meaning an area of study, so,
literally, technology means the study, or science, of crafting. Besides computer
technology, also called educational technology or instructional technology, there is
technology education. In this sense, technology refers to the diverse collection of
processes and knowledge that people use to extend human abilities and to satisfy human
needs and wants. (International Technology Education Association [ITEA] 2000, p. 2).
Technology does this by identifying and solving problems that people face. Technology
education involves teaching people to solve problems and satisfy human needs and wants
in a practical way. A wide range of factors must be considered simultaneously to
determine just what these needs and wants are. Thus technology meshes, or integrates,
many different subject areas. It forms the interface between learning about the natural
world and solving societal problems. The ITEA captures the science educator's idea of
technology in their logo, "Technology is human innovation in action!" (Technology for
All Americans Project, 1996, p. 16).
In Benchmarks for Science Literacy (AAAS, 1993), technology is described as
being "an overworked term". The authors go on to say that:
It [technology] once meant knowing how to do things - the practical arts or the
study of the practical arts. But it has also come to mean innovations such as
15

pencils, television, aspirin, microscopes etc., that people use for specific purposes,
and it refers to human activities such as agriculture or manufacturing and even
processes such as animal breeding or voting or war that change certain aspects of
the world. Further, technology sometimes refers to the industrial and military
institutions and know-how. In any other senses, technology has economic, social,
ethical, and aesthetic ramifications that depend on where it is used and on people's
attitudes towards its use. (p. 43)
As noted by the ITEA (2000), there are three commonly occurring
misconceptions regarding technology. The first is that technology is applied science.
The lack of technological literacy is compounded by one prevalent misconception:
When asked to define technology, most individuals reply with the archaic and mostly
erroneous idea that "technology is applied science (Bybee, 2000, p. 23). This is
illustrated clearly by the following definition for technology taken from the "American
Heritage Dictionary" which defines technology as The application of science, esp. to
industrial or commercial objectives. (Berube et al. (Eds.). p. 1248). In fact, the history of
technology is older than the history of science as we know it. Technology has been
around since the appearance of the human species on Earth. The second misconception
concerns peoples tendency to equate technology education with teaching computers and
information technology, and the third, the confusion of the term technology with
technical.
Carnevale (2000), reports on an Internet survey of 2,227 learning-and-training
professionals, conducted by a learning and technology research group (the Masie Center,
based in Saratoga Springs, N.Y.), which goes a long way towards illustrating the multiple
16

interpretations of technology in education. Individuals were asked what term they would
use to describe "learning with technology". The respondents were given a list of possible
terms, as well as the opportunity to write their own choices. The results showed a wide
range of responses as well as significant differences between individuals who take online
courses, and vendors who offer course material. Forty percent of people who work for
institutions and vendors offering online course material, responded with the term,
" e-learning", while of the people who take online courses, "computer-based training"
was the number one response, closely followed by "Web-based training". The Director of
Development for the Masie Center believes the inconsistency probably stems from the
swift development of learning technology, which has caused a rhetorical rift between
those who stay current with the technology industry, and those who do not follow it.
Distance education or distance learning is terms that have been applied
interchangeably to a huge variety of programs, providers, audiences and media. Its
characteristics are the separation of teacher and learners in space, and/or time (Perraton,
1987), the conscious control of learning by the student rather than the distant instructor
(Jonassen, 1992), and noncontiguous communication between student and instructor,
mediated by print or some form of technology (Keegan, 1986; Garrison & Shale, 1987).
Carnevale (2000) quotes the director of a business providing computer-certification
courses using distance education, who states that the rapidly increasing number of terms
causes a great deal of confusion. This individual earned her Ph.D. in adult education and
found, during the course of doing her dissertation research that, within the distance
education community, different meanings are attached to the same terms and concepts by
different individuals. Some students assume that distance education involves technology,
17

while others still think of correspondence schools where communication between

instructor and student is via mail. Even some of those who expect a technology
component assume that they will use a CD-ROM and don't immediately understand the
practice of taking a course on the Internet.
Jackson (2001) reports having several problems talking with colleagues about
'online courses' as the term seems to be used in radically (and confusingly) different ways
by different people. (p. 3, Defining eLearning section). He uses a definitional
dichotomy to help clarify meanings: Technology-enhanced learning versus
technology-delivered learning. The former includes courses in which the students have
frequent opportunities to meet face-to-face with the instructor, and in which technology is
used as a supplement to classes held face-to-face in classrooms. Technology-enhanced
courses are those in which information (typically the syllabus, readings, reference list
etc.) usually given to students in shrink-wrap course kits purchased from copy centers, is
instead posted online for the students to access and print out. Online communication is
typically asynchronous through either a Web editor or an asynchronous course system. In
contrast, students are never, or only very rarely, in the physical presence of the instructor
in technology-delivered learning, the more usual, teacher-directed instruction being
perhaps limited to the first and last classes of the semester, or eliminated all together and
sometimes replaced with real-time virtual classrooms. According to Jackson (2001),
technology-delivered learning has the same meaning as the terms distance learning,
distributed education, and distance education. Instruction can be delivered through blend
of synchronous (traditional classroom, face-to-face activity, real-time virtual classrooms,
live Web-casts, live online discussions) and asynchronous (e.g. e-mail, voice mail,
18

comments from threaded discussions) technologies. He stresses that combinations of

both technology-enhanced, and technology-delivered methods of instruction and delivery
often represent the ideal program structure resulting in the most learning.
Hefzallah (1999) talks about two types of interactive learning environments made
possible by new learning and telecommunications technologies: (a) face-to-face, and (b)
mediated interactions. These overlap and blend with Jacksons categories in many ways.
During face-to-face interactions, both the student and the instructor are present in the
learning environment, whereas mediated interaction occurs when space and/or time
separates the source of information or the teaching program or material from the student
(p.59). He outlines three types of mediated interaction: (a) live mediated interaction
where there is immediate feedback between the student and instructor and the only
separation is space. This would include audio interaction, visually augmented audio
interaction, live video interaction and computer-interaction-synchronous mode; (b)
computer interactions in the asynchronous mode. In this type of interaction, students and
teacher are separated by space and time. Examples of this type of interaction would be email, discussion groups and electronic mailing lists; (c) totally mediated interaction in
which there is an absence of feedback. Again the student and instructor are separated by
space and time. Examples would be multimedia CD-ROM programs, interactive video
programs and multimedia-assisted instruction, where feedback is indirect. For example, a
teacher might recommend a particular interactive video or CD-ROM program to another
teacher.

19

Chapter 4
Integration of Technology in Science Education
As Rakow (1999) states, "The sciences are a natural place for the integration of
instructional technologies to improve teaching and learning." The challenge lies in
integrating technology into classrooms and in making it an integral tool for learning
within the context of science and science education. Technology use needs to match
teachers' instructional goals (Strehle, Whatley, Kurz, & Hausfather, 2001; Windschitl &
Sahl, 2002; Zhao, Pugh & Sheldon, 2002). Science and technological knowledge are
constantly changing and increasing in complexity and it is essential for educators to keep
current and abreast of changes and new developments.
Teachers must have the ability to make choices about technology integration
without becoming technocentric by placing undue emphasis on technology for its own
sake without connections to learning and the curriculum. (Earle, 2002). Preservice (and
inservice), teachers must be given opportunities to experience and observe technology
integration in action, time to reflect on their ideas and experiences with colleagues and
peers, and to collaborate with other educators to try out new ideas and methodologies
(Ertmer, 1999). Continuous training and practice are essential.
According to The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, 2005), the
percentage of public schools with Internet access increased from 35 to 99 percent,
between 1994 and 2002. Additionally, in 2001-2002, 87 percent of public schools with
Internet access reported that professional development focusing on how to integrate the
20

use of the Internet into the curriculum was offered to teachers (Kleiner and Lewis 2003).
Hattler (1999) stresses that professors in teacher education programs are responsible for
integrating information technology into courses necessary for, and leading to,
certification. By adding technological assignments via the Internet into our teachers'
certification courses, preservice teachers can be better prepared to meet the technological
challenges present in the classrooms of tomorrow. (p. 327). More and more states are
starting to include new technologies in learning standards for all disciplines, increasing
the urgency for teacher competence in this area. If technology is to be integrated
successfully into classroom instruction, teacher educators must be able to exhibit
successful technology use in preservice course work (Beichner, 1993).
Levin (1994) outlines the three main foci embodied in the guidelines developed
by the ISTE and National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) for
teacher education programs to ensure that preservice teachers are furnished with the
know-how, skills and attitudes necessary for them to use technology effectively in their
own future classrooms.
1.

Use technology for personal and professional productivity.

2.

Acquire both the content and pedagogical understanding needed to

teach with computer-based technologies.

3.

Gain knowledge about the impact of technology on schools and society.

(p.13)

These foci are echoed by Yerrick and Hoving (1999) who stress that,
In order to incorporate appropriate technology applications and teach in ways
consistent with National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996), teachers
21

need, among other things, to be proficient in ways of speaking, thinking, and

interacting with science content and microcomputers. To teach constructively via
technology takes special knowledge of microcomputer capabilities and skills. It
also requires teachers to think broadly across all content areas and about the many
areas of available technological resources (Greenberg, Raphael, Keller, & Tobias,
1998; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1989). (p. 292).
In recent years a number of research studies focusing on barriers to technology
infusion and strategies to break down these barriers have been conducted. During a
discussion at the 2003 Association for the Education of Teachers in Science (AETS)
Conference, motivators and barriers to the infusion of technology into the science
curriculum were examined with a view to discovering how technology might "act as an
amplifier for and catalyst of the pedagogical revolution we seek in science education,
rather than as a vehicle for the entrenchment of traditional practices?" (Gess-Newsome,
J., Clark, J., & Menasco, J., 2003, Discussion section, para. 1). These included personal
factors, contextual factors and teacher thinking.
Personal factors affecting teachers' technology use were age, gender, teaching
experience, background and experience in technology use, content area or grade level,
and quality of professional development experienced. Becker (1994) reported on a 1989
national survey of 516 teachers in grades 3-12, five percent of whom were categorized as
exemplary users of technology (i.e. they used technology for exemplary teaching
practices such as inquiry and problem-solving). Exemplary users were found to be mostly
males, with backgrounds in content discipline, holding advanced degrees, having had
formal training in computer use, and using computers at home more often than non22

exemplary users. Recent research studies however, indicate that demographic

characteristics including exposure to technology are not particularly useful in explaining
technology integration (Cuban, Kilpatrick & Peck, 2001).
Research demonstrates that teachers with greater teaching experience are more
likely to use technology in their teaching (Becker, 1994; Pierson, 2001), and that
teachers' level of expertise in using technology determines their level of understanding of
the potential of the technologies, how effectively they use them in classrooms, and how
effectively they overcome barriers (Atkins & Vasso, 2000; Friedrichsen, Dana &
Zembal-Saul, 2001; Germann & Sasse, 1997; Jaber & Moore, 1999; Zhao, Pugh &
Sheldon, 2002).
Teachers want additional professional development in technology use and
infusion (Clark, 2002; Jaber & Moore, 1999), and attendance at technology infusionrelated professional development activities (inservice and methods classes) has been
shown to increase integration into practice (Adams, 2000; Beyerback, Walsh, & Vanatta,
2001). In spite of the fact that technology use in the classroom increased following
professional development, uses were often limited to didactic presentation modes, word
processing and data access, or class management (Mullen, 2001; Sandholtz, 2001). By
modeling technology integration in constructivist classroom settings, science teacher
educators can provide future science teachers with examples of effective technology use
that develops students' higher order thinking skills and focuses on science inquiry.
Contextual factors affecting teachers' technology use were defined as being either
structural (availability and reliability of hardware, how easy the software is to use and its
educational appropriateness, teachers' preparedness/willingness to infuse technology in
23

their curricula), or cultural. Cultural factors would include threats to technology infusion
such as lack of administrative and technical support and time for teacher learning and
planning.
Research has shown that technology infusion is rare, even in cases where
contextual factors have been mitigated. Although computer access issues have decreased,
neither the frequency in use of computers for science instruction, nor the frequency of
students doing hands-on/laboratory activities have changed (Horizon Research, Inc.,
2002). Cuban et al. (2001) and Norton, McRobbie and Cooper (2000), report that access
to equipment rarely led to widespread teacher and student use. Access to technology is
not an issue for science educators' infusion of technology, but "Because technology is
constantly changing, keeping current is a full time job in itself." (Pederson & Yerrick,
2000, p. 144).
Teacher thinking is the third factor that Gess-Newsome et al. (2003) discuss as
affecting the infusion of technology into the science curriculum, proposing that research
has shown that teacher thinking acts as the most consistent predictor of the success of
infusion (Woodbury & Gess-Newsome, 2002). The likelihood of a science teacher using
technology in the classroom and how that technology is used depends largely on his/her
knowledge and beliefs about teaching and how students learn. This is demonstrated in
studies by Ertmer, Addison and Lane (1999), and Windschitl and Sahl (2002), who found
that teachers' basic beliefs about teaching and learning were more powerful predictors of
teacher classroom instruction than attempts to reform their teaching, and studies by
Germann and Sasse (1997), Strehle et al. (2001), and, Zhao and Cziko (2001), indicating
that teacher beliefs about teaching efficiency and effectiveness are more critical to the
24

infusion of technology than the availability of technological resources. Past research

indicates that teachers' opinions of teaching with technology corresponded with their
views of teaching as either a didactic or active process (Hakkarainen et al., 2001;
Friedrichsen et al. 2001; Mullen, 2001; Norton, McRobbie & Cooper, 2000). In their
study of use of technology in high school classrooms, Cuban et al. reported that teachers
adapted the technology to fit their customary patterns of traditional, teacher-centered
instruction, so computers sustained, rather than altered existing teaching methods.
Technology use, if partnered with teachers' commitment to change, dissatisfaction with
current practices, or reflection, can function as a catalyst for the change to more
constructivist teaching methods (Dexter, Anderson & Becker, 1999; Greenburg, Raphael,
Keller, & Tobias, 1998; Holland, 2001; Strehle et al. 2001; Windschitl & Sahl, 2002).
Some research studies indicate that the most powerful predictor of technology infusion is
the presence of other teachers who are attempting to do the same and willing to work
with others (Becker, 1994; Holland, 2001; Hunter, 2001, Windschitl & Sahl, 2002).
Barriers to technology infusion and strategies to break down those barriers were
also discussed at the Florida Educational Technology Conference (FETC) in February
2003, where the International Society for Technology in Education facilitated a session
designed to gather comments and suggestions for the National Education Technology
Plan (NETP). Attendees included representatives from schools, districts and teacher
education programs, and although the discussion was general in scope, the barriers to
technology infusion and strategies to overcome them are all applicable to science teacher
education.

25

Barriers to technology infusion fell into eleven categories:

1)

Access/Equity (getting a chance to use a computer)

2)

Collaboration (with business and community partners)

3)

Funding/Resources (infrastructure, hardware, software)

4)

Leadership

5)

Motivation/Incentives/Time

6)

Professional Development/Training

7)

Planning

8)

Research/Information Gathering/Dissemination

9)

Standards/Accountability/Evaluation

10)

Technology Facilitation/Technical Assistance

11)

Technology Integration/Curriculum/Teaching and Learning Strategies

(ISTE NETS FETC Forum, 2003)

The group as a whole, listed Funding/Resources (infrastructure, hardware, software,
connectivity, other) as the number one barrier to technology integration, followed closely
by the Motivation/Incentives/Time and Professional Development categories. The
Teacher Education group (consisting of teacher educators, teacher candidates, and
administrators) identified the Motivation/Incentives/Time category as being the number
one barrier (interesting to note that this differs from the Gess-Newsome et al. (2003)
proposal that research has shown teacher thinking acts as the most consistent predictor of
the success of infusion). The Teacher Education group identified the following strategies
as being most pertinent strategies for addressing the barriers identified:

Support for ISTE NETS-type structure

26

Include funding for higher education faculty, administrators, and leaders

Include content-focus, learning styles, sharing of models, effective research

Collaboration among teacher education faculty and others outside teacher

education

Include tenure requirements and incentives/rewards for teacher educators

using technology effectively

NCLB [No Child Left Behind] should ensure that teacher preservice
preparation/administration/preservice teachers are not left out of the funding,
structure, and model sharing

Structure funding for effective model sharing and dissemination of lessons

learned in currently funded teacher preparation programs (ISTE NETS FETC
Forum, 2003, Strategies section)

Research studies such as these have identified numerous road blocks hindering
the integration of technology, as well as strategies for surmounting them. It is clear that
science teacher education programs play a key role in successful technology infusion. As
Kent and McNergney (1999) emphasize,
the use of technology by school children necessarily depends on the ability of
teachers to integrate technology into their teaching. Preservice education can
provide rising teachers with the confidence and knowledge required to use the
technological tools available to them (p. 4).
The current education of preservice science teachers will be a determining factor in the
future part technology plays in science education, and it follows that for them to learn

27

how to infuse technology into their own science classrooms, first it must be integrated
into their professional education course work. As Bell (2001) states:
Technology access and skills are necessary but insufficient steps toward using
technology effectively in science instruction. Rather science educators should
explicitly instruct preservice teachers on ways to integrate technology into their
instructional practice. Such instruction will require science educators to provide
conceptual frameworks for technology integration, and opportunities for
preservice teachers to develop and practice teaching lessons that appropriately
integrate technology. Like most worthwhile goals, such explicit instruction is
inherently more difficult to achieve, but much more likely to produce desired
results. (p. 5).
In the next ten years, more than two thirds of the nation's teachers will be replaced
by new teachers so it is critical to ensure that this new generation of teachers is equipped
with the knowledge and skills necessary to meet this challenge successfully. A study by
the Milken Exchange on Education Technology (1999), and the International Society for
Technology in Education found that, "in general, teacher-training programs do not
provide future teachers with the kinds of experiences necessary to prepare them to use
technology effectively in their classrooms." (p. i, para. 4). It emphasized that since the
United States will need a projected 2.2 million new teachers over the next decade, "the
time to examine and re-engineer our teacher preparation programs is now." (p. i, para. 4).
Examples of Technologies Currently Being Used in Science Education
There are a plethora of different applications of technology being used in science
teacher education programs today. Educational technologies consist of many different
28

combinations of hardware and software and may employ many different combinations of
audio channels, code, data, text, graphics or video. Technology applications are usually
characterized in terms of their most obvious hardware feature (e.g. a VCR or computer),
but for educators, it is the nature of the instruction delivered that is important not the
equipment delivering it.
In the U.S. Department of Education's 1993 report, "Using Technology to Support
Education Reform", the authors classified educational technologies into four categories
based on their different uses: tutorial, exploratory, application, and communication. They
explain, "Our categories are designed to highlight differences in the instructional
purposes of various technology applications, but we recognize that purposes are not
always distinct, and a particular application, may in fact be used in several of these
ways." (Educational Technologies section, para. 1). Although their classification scheme
is general in scope, it provides a concise and useful guide for science teacher educators
and preservice science teachers.
Tutorial uses are those in which technology does the teaching and controls the
material presented to students. The format is usually lecture or workbook. Exploratory
uses of technology allow students to explore freely the information presented in a
particular medium, while application uses provide students with tools to help them
complete various educational tasks such as data analysis and writing. Finally,
communication uses allow students and teachers to communicate with each other and
with others through networks or other technologies. Table 1 summarizes the technology
classification scheme giving definitions and examples of each of the four categories of
educational technology use.
29

Table 1 Classification of Education Technologies

_____________________________________________________________________________________
Category

Definition

Examples

_____________________________________________________________________________________
Tutorial

Systems designed to teach by

Computer-assisted instruction

providing information, demonstrations,

(CAI)

or simulations in a sequence deter-

Intelligent CAI

mined by the system. Tutorial systems

Instructional television

may provide for expository learning

Some videodisc/ multimedia

(the system displays a phenomenon or

systems

procedure) and practice (the system

requires the student to answer or
questions or solve problems).

Exploratory

Systems designed to facilitate student

Microcomputer-based

learning by providing information,

laboratories

demonstrations, or simulations when

Microworlds/Simulations

requested to do so by the student.

Some videodisc/multimedia

Under student control, the system

systems

provides the context for discovery

(or guided discovery) of facts,
concepts, or procedures.

30

Table 1 (Continued)
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Category

Definition

Examples

_____________________________________________________________________________________
Application

General-purpose tools for accomplishing

Word processing software

tasks such as composition, data storage,

Spreadsheet software

or data analysis.

Database software
Desktop publishing systems
Video recording and editing
equipment

Communication

Systems that allow groups of teachers

Local area networks

and students to send information and

Wide area networks

data to each other through networks

Interactive distance learning

or other technologies.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Note. From "Using Technology to Support Education Reform," U.S. Department of Education, 1993.
Retrieved May 20, 2003, from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/EdReformstudies/TechReforms/chap2a.html

The state-of-the-art in technology changes almost constantly, but there are many
uses of technology in science education that support science education reform and what
we know about how students learn best. The ISTE, in an effort to implement the NETS
for Teachers across universities, has identified and described many methods and
strategies for successfully integrating technology and state, "having a set of generic
models and strategies that are multipurpose in application assists teacher candidates in
quickly developing technology-rich lessons" (ISTE, 2002, p. 31). In ISTE's "NETS for
31

Teachers: Preparing Teachers to use Technology" publication, examples of proven

effective strategies for integrating technology into teaching for Web-based lessons,
multimedia presentations, telecomputing projects and online discussions are given.
These examples provide a wonderful resource for science teacher educators looking for
explicit ways to instruct preservice teachers on how to integrate technology into their
practice.
WebQuests provide an example of Web-based lessons. They utilize information
exclusively from the Web. They are inquiry-oriented activities designed to use learners'
time efficiently by focusing on using information rather than searching for it, supporting
higher order thinking skills: analysis, synthesis, and evaluation (Dodge, 1997). The
WebQuest model was developed in early 1995 at San Diego State University by Bernie
Dodge with Tom March. WebQuests are reflective, fluid, and dynamic. They provide
teachers with the opportunity to integrate Internet technology into the course curriculum
by allowing students to experience learning as they construct perceptions, beliefs, and
values out of their experiences (Beane, 1997).
The Internet offers such an incredible wealth of information, teachers can become
frustrated and overwhelmed spending hours searching for the best resources to support a
particular classroom activity or unit. The WebQuest model provides the option of
reviewing and selecting Web-based lessons structured in a lesson-type format, hence
cutting down on the time needed for a specific search and allowing more focus on student
learning. Diverse examples of science WebQuests can be found on the WebQuest site.
Tasks range from genetically altering a plant or animal, to learning about the people and

32

culture of a particular geographic area, while simulating the work of a team of

epidemiologists.
A WebQuest comprises of 6 sections or 'blocks': introduction, task, process,
resources, evaluation and conclusion. The introduction serves to orient the learner and
peak their interest in the subject. The task block in a WebQuest describes what the learner
should have accomplished at the completion of the exercise. This could take the form of a
verbal presentation, such as the student being able to explain a particular topic, or a
product such as a PowerPoint presentation or HyperStudio stack. The teacher suggests
the steps that students should follow to complete the task in the process block. Depending
on the task, these might include descriptions of roles to be played, or strategies for
dividing the task into smaller, more manageable subtasks. The resources block lists the
Web pages identified by the teacher to aid the student in accomplishing the task, and
since these resources are preselected, learners can focus on the topic, rather than on
searching. Resources may include audio conferences with distant experts, videotapes, or
the hard copy of a report--they are by no means limited to Web pages. The evaluation
block is a recent addition to the model and involves the use of rubrics for evaluators (e.g.
teachers, parents, or peers) to evaluate accomplishments. The conclusion section of a
WebQuest allows the experience to be summarized, and encourages reflection about the
process, so that learning can be extended and generalized.
Science teacher educators may design their own WebQuests, or require their
preservice students to design a WebQuest as a course assignment. Topics that mesh with
the science curriculum, and for which there are appropriate online materials, are
identified. Teachers then follow the specific WebQuest design steps and/or utilize a
33

template to create their own WebQuest (Dodge, 1997). "The WebQuest teaching strategy
provides an excellent framework for teacher candidates designing technology-rich
experiences for students." (ISTE, 2002, p. 33). WebQuests provide preservice teachers
with valuable opportunities to become comfortable with aspects of technology within the
context of their preparation for the profession of teaching (Stinson, 2003). WebQuests
can be especially useful for teachers who are inexperienced in technology use in that they
offer prepackaged, self-contained lessons ready for implementation. The WebQuest site
contains lessons, rubrics, and teaching tips, all of which aid teachers in making an easier
transition into using Internet technology (Watson, 1999).
Multimedia represents and conveys information through combinations of text,
graphics, video, animation and sound. Multimedia presentation software such as
PowerPoint and HyperStudio provide an easily updateable way to produce artistic
presentations in which the learner controls the order and pace of the presentation.
PowerPoint also allows the establishment of links between any object on the slide and
objects on another page, or in another presentation. Slides may also be linked with
Internet sites, CD, or Laser disc players. Teachers have found that multimedia projects
motivate students to learn, as illustrated in a study by Cradler and Cradler (1999), in
which students and teachers reported a positive change in student motivation for class
assignments when the use of multimedia was incorporated into classroom instruction.
According to ISTE (2002), "Exemplary project-based learning with multimedia is
anchored in core curriculum, multidisciplinary, demonstrates sustained effort over time,
promotes student decision making, supports collaborative group work, exhibits a

34

real-world connection, utilizes systemic assessment, both along the way and for the end
product, and employs multimedia as a communication tool." (p. 36).
Another dimension is provided by publishing students' multimedia products (e.g.
Web pages, sites, computer presentations created with PowerPoint or computer-generated
movies) over the Internet so that they can be viewed by distant audiences. Research has
shown that the quality of student work increases significantly when students realize their
work will be viewed by an audience other than teachers and students at their school
(Coley, Cradler, & Engel, 1997).
The CyberFair sponsored by Mankato, MN schools allows third through sixth
grade students to share their science projects on the Internet, while Brentwood School in
California has a virtual science fair in which projects competing in the school-wide
science fair have no printed reports or display. Preservice science students can visit these
Web sites and see examples of student science projects ranging from "Which tile cleaner
removes soap scum best?" to studies of carnivorous plants! These projects engage
students in learning and teach them educational technology skills, while supporting
standard-based coursework. They serve to connect students to their local communities
through collaborations with local leaders, businesses, special populations and increase
environmental awareness. In addition they increase real-world, transferable skills and
involve students in peer evaluation.
ThinkQuests are another example of multimedia projects. ThinkQuest Programs
provide a highly motivating opportunity for students and educators to work
collaboratively in teams to learn as they create Web-based learning materials, and teach
others about a huge variety of different topics. Students (Grades 4 through 12), can
35

collaborate on Web projects hosted on a searchable library at the ThinkQuest Web site.
ThinkQuest programs also provide electronic meeting places designed for educational
collaboration. Teachers can expand their professional development while learning a
student-centered model of education, and experimenting with the potential of the Internet.
They can examine modes of learning and interact with students to obtain a true
understanding of how young people want to learn. Students in California created a
ThinkQuest project focusing on the plight of threatened Southern sea otters. As well as
including a wealth of information about sea otters, (e.g. life cycle, habitat, population
counts, and range), the site includes live streaming video of sea otters housed at the
Monterey Bay Aquarium, and an audio interview with a marine mammal trainer.
Telecomputing projects utilize Internet communication tools as essential
resources. Tools include e-mail, electronic mailing lists, electronic bulletin boards,
discussion groups, Web browsers, real-time chatting, and audio- and videoconferencing.
Harris (1994) identifies three different general classes of educational telecomputing
activities: interpersonal exchanges (incorporating the use of interpersonal resources),
information collections (involves students collecting, organizing, and sharing
information), and problem-solving projects. Each category of activities includes five, six
or seven different activity structures, and for each structure, an example activity that has
been classroom-tested and shared by telecomputing teachers is provided.
Interpersonal exchanges involve individuals or groups communicating via e-mail
electronically with other individuals or groups. According to Harris (1994), these types of
educational telecomputing activities are the most popular. Teachers and students may
also use newsgroups and Internet-connected bulletin boards for projects such as
36

"Keypals" which involves student-student communication. Harris notes that studentstudent exchanges involves the transfer and processing of multiple e-mail messages sent
to a single account, and may prove to be too time consuming for the teacher. Global
classrooms, in which two or more classrooms located anywhere in the world, study a
common topic together, sharing their new knowledge about that topic during a
previously-specified time period, are easier to manage. Other activity structures for
interpersonal exchanges include electronic appearances (a special guest is hosted,
students corresponding with him/her either asynchronously, or real-time), electronic
mentoring (students can mentor other students, or experts from universities, businesses,
government, or other schools can serve as electronic mentors), and impersonations
(participants communicate with each other "in character").
Activity structures falling within the information collection category of
educational telecomputing are information exchanges, electronic publishing, database
creation, tele-fieldtrips, and pooled data analysis. Information exchanges provide
students with the opportunity to become both the creators and consumers of the
information that they are sharing and have resulted in students collecting a wide variety
of topic-specific data from around the world. Some examples are: local agricultural
information, biome data, water usage information, recycling practices, and personal
health information. KidsNetwork (developed by the Technical Education Research
Centers [TERC], and funded by the National Science Foundation [NSF] and the National
Geographic Society) is a telecommunication-based science curriculum for elementary
and middle school students in the United States, Canada, Israel, and Argentina.
Participants focus on a number of real-world issues, examples of which include acid rain,
37

weather and health. This project provides an exciting and innovative way to bring
inquiry-based learning to students. Students perform experiments, gather data, and
analyze trends and patterns on topics of current social, scientific and geographic interest.
E-mail is used to communicate with each other and with participating scientists who help
students review the data and make interpretations. The data and findings are then shared
with other participating schools, and there have been several significant instances in
which students findings led to the discovery that school drinking water and air pollution
standards were not being met. In 1991, KidsNet units were used in more than 6,000
classrooms in 72 countries. More than 90% of teachers using KidsNet reported that
students' interest in science increased significantly, and that their classes spent almost
twice the amount of time on science than they otherwise did (TERC, 1991).
A great example of an electronic publishing project is provided by the Global
Schoolhouse's NewsDay project in which students write articles about a variety of issues
and topics including science and technology, and post them on an electronically shared
newswire. Different schools publish different newspapers locally but also read and
choose articles from other schools to download and include in their own newspaper.
Some information exchange projects involve database creation where students not
only collect data, but organize it into databases that project participants and other students
can use for study. Harris (1994) notes that "successful projects of this genre are
well-structured; they have a definite time schedule, requirements for participation are
clearly stated, and teachers are asked (often by filling out a registration form) to commit
to following these guidelines." (Database Creation section, last para.).

38

Tele-field trips allow sharing of experiences and observations of local field trips
to museums, zoos, aquariums etc. with students and teachers all over the world via the
Internet. These informal science centers house an incredible wealth of information that
can be used to support science learning in the classroom. Access is usually limited
because of travel expenses or time limitations, but through the Internet, students can learn
about the work of Benjamin Franklin at the Franklin Institute, or participate in science
experiments online from the Exploratorium in San Francisco. Some tele-fieldtrips can be
taken either directly or vicariously via a variety of telecommunications networks, using
robotic devices that can be controlled remotely via the Internet.
The JASON ProjectTM is a multidisciplinary, real-time science teaching and
learning program that enhances the curriculum by exposing students to experts and
leading scientists who work with them to examine the biological and geological
development of Earth. The JASON ProjectTM has been a pioneer in the field of Virtual
Field Trips. Students can journey to the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean in search of the
wreck of the RMS Titanic, view rain forests, volcanoes, or journey to Polar Regions.
Through the JASON AcademyTM, teachers can take content-rich, continuing education
science courses anytime, anywhere via the Internet. There are no text materials involved
in the courses, instead hot-linked references and many classroom applications with
demonstrations and hands-on activities are utilized.
Pooled data analysis involves students collecting data at multiple sites, and
combining them for analyses. The simplest of these types of activities involve students
sending out a survey electronically, collecting the responses, analyzing the results, and
reporting their findings to all participants. Water acidity projects, in which rainwater or
39

stream water is collected at different sites, tested for acidity, then examined for patterns
over time and distance provides an example of a pooled data analysis project. WaterNet
(developed by Berger and Wolfe at the University of Michigan and funded by the
Department of Education), is a telecommunication-based water pollution study involving
high schools in the United States, West Germany, and Australia. Students gathered water
quality data from their local rivers and stored the information in a database. Through data
sharing, it is hoped that students will gain a deeper understanding of the problems of
water pollution and develop an interest in solving these social problems (Roberts,
Blakeslee, Brown, & Lenk, 1990).
Problem-solving projects include information searches (students are provided
with clues, and must use electronic or hard copy reference sources to solve problems),
electronic process writing, sequential creations (in which participants progressively create
either a common written text or a shared visual image), parallel problem-solving (a
similar problem is presented to students in several locations, solved separately at each
site, and their successful problem-solving methods shared electronically), simulations,
and social action projects.
Online discussions allow students to communicate with peers, teachers, and
experts worldwide either asynchronously (via electronic bulletin boards, e-mail) or in
real-time (via chat groups). Asynchronous communication allows students time to reflect
before responding and also allows for time differences in different geographic areas,
while real-time communication provides students with immediate feedback. TAPPED
IN is an excellent online resource for professional development. It is "the online
workplace of an international community of education professionals. K-12 teachers and
40

librarians, professional development staff, teacher education faculty and students, and
researchers engage in professional development programs and informal collaboration
with colleagues." (SRI, para. 1). Science teachers can participate in After School Online
science teacher forums which are discussions designed for science educators on various
topics related to the field of science education. In addition, TAPPED IN offers e-mail
groups to locate and communicate with others who have shared interests or expertise.
Examples of online activities conducted by other teachers can also be viewed.
The emergence of social networking technologies and evolution of digital games
and simulations have significant implications for education. These technologies have
been utilized for decades by institutions including government, medicine and business,
mainly for training purposes, but as reported by Klopfer, Osterweil, Groff and Haas,
2009, digital simulations, games and social networking technologies provide deeper
educational benefits. Security issues and possible dangers of using social networking sites
definitely raise significant concerns that must be addressed, but Klopfer et. Al (2009)
take the position that these technologies are safe, valuable tools schools must take
seriously. (p.2). Green and Hannon (2007) discuss the fact that the newest generation of
K-12 students has been completely normalized by digital technologies these
technologies are a fully integrated part of their lives. Teachers and teacher educators must
appreciate and realize that students sitting in todays classrooms have a very different
perspective on the world, and experiment with new ways to connect with students
through these technologies. Research is supporting this kind of work illustrating that
multimedia education improves both comprehension of the lesson material and students
interest in the lesson topic (Brady, 2004).
41

These examples represent only a fraction of the many creative and reformoriented ways technology can be infused into the science curriculum. By modeling best
practices in technology integration (such as the in examples previously discussed), and by
providing preservice science teachers opportunities to develop and practice teaching
lessons that appropriately integrate technology, science teacher educators can aid them in
reforming their instructional practice (Yerrick & Hoving, 1999).
Recommendations for Choosing and Evaluating Science Technologies
Technology should be examined in the same way that any other material or tool
being considered for use in the classroom would be, with how students' learning will be
enhanced through its use, being the primary focus. Bernhard, Mellissions Lernhardt, and
Miranda-Decker (1999) stress that in considering a particular technology for use in the
classroom, whether it aids students in understanding technology's role and importance in
the real world should be a major consideration. The technology should have the ability to
engage student interest and make use of computer capabilities. This is echoed by Jones,
Valdez, Nowakowski, and Rasmussem, (1995), who report that successful use of
technology in the classroom is characterized by student engagement.
Reed and McNergney (2000) review how educators can evaluate technologybased curriculum materials for use in the classroom stating that "Only through evaluation
of technology-based curricula can educators make informed decisions about the purchase
and use of technology, and ultimately about the wisdom of their investments."
(Conclusion section, para. 1). The first concept they identify as being key in evaluating
technology-based curriculum materials are authenticity. This concept gives rise to
questions such as: Does the technology help students learn by utilizing real-world
42

examples? Do such examples integrate technology and subject matter to enhance

conceptual understanding of complex, naturally-occurring phenomena? Does the
technology encourage students to learn actively (i.e. by doing, interacting, and exploring)
rather than focusing on passive activities such as listening or watching? These are
excellent questions for science teacher educators to ask about a technology they are
considering for use in their courses.
Educators can construct their own evaluation framework by defining the
instructional context, establishing who the learners are, what constitutes the learning
environment (of which the instructor is a part), and determining the nature of any
technical limitations (Comer and Geissler, 1998). Once this context has been established,
aspects of the curriculum such as content, required technology and instructional tools,
learning assessment, and teacher support can be evaluated (Bernhard et al., 1999).
Educators must evaluate digital content to ensure that it emphasizes open-ended
exploration rather than drill-and-practice (Zehr, 1999). Learning can be promoted through
the effective integration of digital content by educators, providing students with
opportunities to search and manipulate digital information in collaborative, creative and
engaging ways (CEO Forum, 2000). McKenzie (1999) reports that "successful searching
and efficient electronic investigations must rest upon a carefully developed, structured
foundation of information literacy skills that would include solid questioning,
prospecting, translating and inventive abilities." (p. 17). WebQuests are a perfect example
of how students can be guided through the information-gathering process and their
searching abilities improved (Dodge, 2000). Students themselves also become contentproducers, products taking a multitude of different forms ranging from Web sites and e43

mail, to computer simulations and streamed discussions. The ThinkQuest site provides
visitors with insight into what kinds of products today's students can create.
Bell (2001) summarized questions pertinent to educators' reluctance to embrace
technology raised by participants in a National Technology Leadership Retreat that
brought together the leaders of a dozen national education associations. Specific to
science teacher preparation, Bell reports on the concerns of representatives from the
Association for Education of Teachers of Science (AETS):

Does technology help students accomplish the recommendations of the

science education standards?

If we teach preservice teachers to use appropriate technology, will they teach

more in the way we want them to teach?

Does technology enable students to ask questions they would not thought of
asking before?

Do students learn science differently with technology? Is the quality, nature,

or efficiency of learning improved?

Are students learning different science content or concepts with the

technology than they would have otherwise?

Does technology enhance inquiry learning? Can technology provide an

inquiry environment?

If science educators determine that technology is worthwhile, what do they

need to do, or what experiences do they need to provide, to convince
preservice teachers of its benefits?

What are the stages teachers have to go through to appropriately use

44

technology in learning? (Some take the technology and teach in the same old
way.)

Can technology help educators maintain an ongoing relationship between

education faculty and new teachers in the classroom? (p. 13).

When considering a particular technology for use in their classroom, science

teacher educators can apply these suggestions to determine whether it aligns with the
standards, supports scientific inquiry, advances student learning and/or surpasses the
possibilities of less advanced technologies. If the answer to these questions is affirmative,
then they can be reasonably assured that the technology is worth implementing. As
Odom, Settlage, and Pedersen (2002) point out, "The varieties of technology that could
be potentially be incorporated into science instruction and teacher preparation seem to be
increasing at a rapid rate. Given the impossibility of adopting every new gizmo,
individually and organizationally, we should be wiser and more selective about the
technological routes we pursue." (p. 395).

45

Chapter 5
Implications for the Future
As Thornburg (1999) asserts, "Just because an educational task can be conducted
using technology doesn't mean it should be." (p. 7). Face-to-face meetings are always
better than videoconferencing and, "no portable display device on the market is as cheap,
or has the image quality of the printed page." (p. 7). The key is to look for opportunities
where technology can be used to accomplish tasks that without it would be impossible.
Technology should not be taught merely for its own sake in the preparation of science
teachers. Science teacher education programs obviously play a key role in ensuring that
new science teachers enter the classroom as technologically-literate individuals, able to
implement and use varied technologies as part of their instructional methods. As
emphasized in the U.S. Department of Education (1996) report, Getting Americas
Students Ready for the 21st Century, teacher preparation programs can make a
significant difference by focusing on teaching with technology, not merely teaching
about it. (Supporting Professional Development section, para. 1), and also by Flick and
Bell (2000) who stress that,
Technology modeled in science education courses should take advantage of the
capabilities of technology and extend instruction beyond or significantly enhance
what can be done without technology. New teachers should experience
technology as a means of helping students explore topics in more depth and in
more interactive ways. (Proposed Guidelines section).
46

Flick and Bell go on to propose the following guidelines for using technology in the
preparation of science teachers:
1.

Technology should be introduced in the context of science content.

2.

Technology should address worthwhile science with appropriate

pedagogy.

3.

Technology instruction in science should take advantage of the unique

features of technology.

4.

Technology should make scientific views more accessible.

5.

Technology instruction should develop students' understanding of the

relationship between technology and science. (Proposed Guidelines
section).

To many, technological development means change, and change is

uncomfortable, unsafe. This is why so often, people are negative and resistant to learning
about, and using new technology. Science teacher educators are responsible for helping
future science teachers push through that initial resistance, so that they can learn enough
about the ideas that guide the use of technology to realize its massive potential as a
teaching and learning tool.
If the educational system is viewed as a series of waves, continually breaking on
the shore, gently changing the beach landscape--each wave represents a different
component or facet of the educational system, and although the waves all leave their own
impression, changes in the beach are small. Technology is like a tidal wave breaking on
the beach. In a matter of seconds, the whole topography of the shore is totally altered.

47

The education system of the future based in the context of an information society
--an environment rich in technology and information, demands that teachers make radical
shifts in their instructional and learning paradigms. In order for this to occur, intensive,
continuing technology education will be needed, in addition to a sustained support
structure teachers can turn to for help and advice.

48

References
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all
Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for
science literacy: Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press.
Atkins, N. E. & Vasu, E. S. (2000). Measuring knowledge of technology usage
and stages of concern about computing: A study of middle school teachers. Journal of
Technology and Teacher Education, 8(4), 279-302.
Barron, A. & Ivers, K. S. (1996). The Internet and instruction: Ideas and
activities. Colorado: Libraries Unlimited.
Battista, M. T. (1994). Teacher beliefs and the reform movement in mathematics
education. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(6), 462-470.
Beane, J. A. (1997). Curriculum integration designing the core of democratic
education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Becker, H. J. (1994). How exemplary computer-using teachers differ from other
teachers: Implications for realizing the potential of computers in schools. Journal of
Research in Computing in Education, 26(3), 291-321.
Beichner, R. J. (1993). Technology competencies for new teachers: Issues and
suggestions. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 9(3), 17-20.

49

Bell, L. (Ed.). (2001). Preparing tomorrow's teachers to use technology:

Perspectives of the leaders of twelve national education associations. Contemporary
Issues in Technology and Teacher Education. Retrieved May 5, 2003, from
http://www.citejournal.org/col1/iss4/currentissues/general/article.htn
Bell, R. (2001). Implicit instruction in technology integration and the nature of
science: There's no such thing as a free lunch. Contemporary Issues in Technology and
Teacher Education. Retrieved May 5, 2003, from
http://www.citejournal.org/vol1/iss4/currentissues/science/article2.htm
Berg, S., Benz, C. R., Lasley II, T. J., & Raisch, C. D. (1998). Exemplary
technology use in elementary classrooms. Journal of Research on Computing in
Education, 31(2), 111122.
Bernhard, J. M., Mellissions Lernhardt, M., & Miranda-Decker, R. (1999).
Evaluating instructional materials. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 5(3).
Berube, M.S. et al. (Eds.). (1985). The American heritage dictionary. (2nd
College ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Beyerback, B., Walsh, C., & Vannatta, R. (2001). From teaching technology to
using technology to enhance student learning: Preservice teachers' changing perceptions
of technology infusion. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 105-127.
Brady, J. (2004). More than just fun and games? Applied Clinical Trials
(November 2004). Retrieved July 16, 2007, from
http://www.actmagazine.com/appliedclinicaltrials/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=131
503

50

Brown, A. L. (1997). The advancement of learning. In H. J. Walberg & G. D.

Haertel (Eds.), Psychology and educational practice (pp. 5276). Berkeley, CA:
McCutchan.
Bruer, J. T. (1994). Schools for thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Brundage, D., Keane, R., & Mackneson, R. (1993). Application of learning theory
to the instruction of adults. In T. Barer-Stein & J. A. Draper (Eds.), The craft of teaching
adults (pp.131-144). Toronto, Ontario: Culture Concepts. (ED 362 644).
Burge, E. (1993). Adult distance learning: Challenges for contemporary practice.
In T. Barer-Stein & J. A. Draper (Eds.), The craft of teaching adults (pp.215-230).
Toronto, Ontario: Culture Concepts. (ED 362 644).
Bybee, R. W. (2000). Achieving technological literacy: A national imperative.
Technology Teacher, 60(1), 23-28.
Byrum, D. C., & Cashman, C. (1993). Preservice teacher training in educational
computing: Problems, perceptions, and preparation. Journal of Technology and Teacher
Education, 1, 259-274.
Carnevale, D. (2000). Its education. Its online. Its someplace you arent. What
do you call it? The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved September 4, 2000, from
http://chronicle.com/free/2000/12/2000120801u.htm
Catlin, D., & Douglas, P. (1998). How to use inventa. London: Valiant
Technology Limited.
CEO Forum on Educational Technology. (2000, June). School technology and
readiness: A focus on digital learning. Washington, D.C.: CEO Forum on Educational
Technology. Retrieved April, 25, 2003, from http://www.ceoforum.org/reports.cfm.
51

Coburn, P., Kelman, P., Roberts, N., Snyder, T. F. F., Watt, D. H., & Weiner, C.
(1982). Practical guide to computers in education. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Coley, R., Cradler, J. & Engel, P. (1997). Computers and classrooms: The status
of technology in U.S. schools. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, Policy
Information Center, 37.
Comer, P., & Geissler, C. (1998, March). A methodology for software evaluation.
SITE 98: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education, Washington, DC.
Cradler, J., & Cradler, R. (1999). Just in time: A new model for multimedia
training. Evaluation report for 1999. Washington DC: US Office of Education.
Cuban, L. (1993). Computers meet classroom: Classroom wins. Teachers College
Record, 95, 185210.
Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of
technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American
Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813-834.
Day, J. (Ed.). (1995). Access technology: Making the right choice. National
Council for Educational Technology (NCET).
Dede, C. (Ed.). (1998). Learning with technology: The 1998 ASCD Yearbook.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Dexter, S. L., Anderson, R. E., & Becker, H. J. (1999). Teachers' view of
computers as catalysts for changes in their teaching practice. Journal of Research in
Computing in Education, 31(3), 221-239.
Dodge, B. (1997). Some thoughts about WebQuests. Retrieved May 5, 2003 from
http://edweb.sdsu.edu/courses/edtec596/about_webquests.html
52

Earle, R. S. (2002). The integration of instructional technology into public

education: Promises and Challenges, Educational Technology, 42(1), 5-13.
Ertmer, P.A. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change:
Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 47(4), 4761.
Ertmer, P. A., Addison, P., & Lane, M. (1999). Examining teachers' beliefs about
the role of technology in the elementary classroom. Journal of Research on Computing in
Education, 32(1), 54-72.
Ertmer, P. A., & Hruskocy, C. (1999). Impacts of a university-elementary school
partnership designed to support technology integration. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 47(1), 8196.
Ertmer, P. A., Gopalakrishnan, S., & Ross, E. M. (2001). Technology-using
teachers: Comparing perceptions of exemplary technology use to best practice. Journal of
Research in Technology in Education, 33(5). Retrieved May 4, 2003, from
http://www.iste.org/jrte/33/5/ertmer.cfm
Fisher, C., Dwyer, D. C., & Yocam, K. (1996). Education and technology:
Reflections on computing in classrooms. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Friedrichsen, P. Dana, T., & Zemba-Saul, C. (2001). Learning to teach with
technology model: Implementation in secondary science teacher education. The Journal
of Computing in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 20(4), 377-394.
Fullan, M. (2000). The three stories of education reform. Phi
Delta Kappan, 81(8), 581584.

53

Fulton, K. (1993). Teaching matters: The role of technology in education. Ed

Tech Review, (Autumn-Winter), 510.
Garrison, D. R. & Shale, D. G. (1987). Mapping the boundaries of distance
education: The concept of control. American Journal of Distance Education, 7-13.
Germann, P. J. & Sasse, C. M. (1997). Variations in concerns and attitudes of
science teachers in and educational technology development program. The Journal of
Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 6(2-3), 405-423.
Gess-Newsome, J., Clark, J., & Menasco, J. (2003). Ubiquitous computing: Seeds
of a technological or pedagogical revolution? A Discussion at the AETS Conference, St.
Lois, MO, January 30-February 1, 2003. Retrieved April 29, 2003, from
http://www.nau.edu/~smlc/Ubiqitous%20Computing%20handout.pdf
Gillingham, M. G. & Topper, A. (1999). Technology in teacher preparation:
Preparing teachers for the future. Journal of Technology in Teacher Education, 7(4), 303321.
Gordin, D. N. & Pea, R. D. (1995). Prospects for scientific visualization as an
educational technology. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(3), 249-279.
Greenburg, R., Raphael, J., Keller, J., & Tobias, S. (1998). Teaching high school
science using image processing: A case study of implementation of computer technology.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 297-327.
Hadley, M., & Sheingold, K. (1993). Commonalties and distinctive patterns in
teachers integration of computers. American Journal of Education, 101, 261315.

54

Hakkarainen, K., Muukonen, H., Lipponen, L., Ilomaki, L., Rahikainen, M., &
Lehtinen, E. (2001). Teachers' information and communication technology (ICT) skills
and practices of using ICT. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9(2), 181197.
Green, H. & Hannon, C. (2007). Their Space: Education for a digital generation,
online version, accessed September 4, 2007 from
http://www.demos.co.uk/files/Their%20space%20-%20web.pdf
Harris, J. (1994). Information Collection Activities for Students of the
Information Age, in "Mining the Internet" column, The Computing Teacher. Retrieved
April 2, 2003, from http://lrs.ed.uiuc.edu/Mining/March94-TCT.html
Hativa, N., & Lesgold, A. (1996). Situational effects in classroom technology
implementations: Unfulfilled expectations and unexpected outcomes. In S. T. Kerr (Ed.),
Technology and the future of schooling: Ninety-fifth yearbook of the National Society for
the Study of Education, part 2 (pp. 131171). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hattler, J. A. (1999). Technology for preservice teachers: Driver education for
the information superhighway. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 7(4), 323332.
Hefzallah, I. M. (1999). Forerunners to computers in education. In I. M.
Hefzallah (Ed.). The new learning and telecommunications technologies: Their potential
applications in education. Charles C Thomas: Springfield.
Holland, P. E. (2001). Professional development in technology: Catalyst for
school reform. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9(2), 245-267.

55

Horizon Research, Inc. (2002). The national survey of science and mathematics
education: Trends from 1977 to 2000. Retrieved April 3, 2003, from
http://www.2000survey.horizon-research.com
Hunter, B. (2001). Against the odds: Professional development and innovation
under less-than-ideal conditions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9(4),
473-496.
International Society for Technology in Education (1997). National standards for
technology in teacher preparation. Retrieved May 6, 2003, from
http://iste.org/Resources/Projects/TechStandards/intro.html
International Society for Technology in Education (2007). National educational
technology standards for students. Retrieved October 4, 2009, from
http://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/NETS/ForStudents/2007Standards/NETS_f
or_Students_2007_Standards.pdf
International Society for Technology in Education (2008). National educational
technology standards for teachers. Retrieved October 1, 2009, from
http://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/NETS/ForTeachers/2008Standards/NETS_
for_Teachers_2008.htm
International Society for Technology in Education (2008-2009) Annual Report.
Retrieved November 1, 2009 from
http://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/AboutISTE/AnnualReports2/ISTE_Annual
_Report_08_09.pdf

56

International Technology Education Association (2000). Standards for

technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Retrieved May 7, 2003, from
http://www.iteawww.org
International Technology Education Association's Florida Educational
Technology Conference Forum (2003). Compilation of comments and suggestions
concerning barriers to effective use of technology in education. Retrieved May 8, 2003,
from http://cnets.iste.org/netpx/fetc_barriers.html
Jaber,W. E. & Moore, D. M. (1999). A survey of factors which influence teachers'
use of computer-based technology. International Journal of Instructional Media, 26(3),
253-266.
Jackson, R. H. (2001) Web based learning resources library. Retrieved August
29, 2001, from http://www.outreach.utk.edu/weblearning/
Jonassen, D. H. (1992). Applications and limitations of hypertext technology for
distance learning. Paper presented at the Distance Learning Workshop, Armstrong
Laboratory, San Antonio, TX.
Jones, B., Valdez, G., Nowakowski, J., & Rasmussen, C. (1995). Indicators of
engaged learning. Plugging in: Choosing and using educational technology. Retrieved
April 8, 2003, from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/edtalk/toc.htm.
Keegan, D. (1986). The foundation of distance education. Croom Helm: London.
Kent, T. W. & McNergney, R. F. (1999). Will technology really change
education? From blackboard to Web. California: Corwin Press, Inc.

57

Kerr, S. T. (1996). Visions of sugarplums: The future of technology, education,

and the schools. In S. T. Kerr (Ed.), Technology and the future of schooling: Ninety-fifth
yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, part 2 (pp. 127). Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Kleiner, A. & Lewis, L. (2003). Internet Access in U.S. Public Schools and
Classrooms: 1994-2002 (NCES 2004-011). U.S. Department of Education. Washington,
DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Klopfer, E., Osterweil, S., Groff, J. & Haas, J. (2009). Using the technology of
today, in the classroom today: The instructional power of digital games, social
networking, simulations and how teachers can leverage them. The Education Arcade,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Levin, B. L. (1994). Using portfolios to fulfill ISTE / NCATE technology
requirements for preservice teacher candidates. Journal of Computing in Teacher
Education, 13(3), 13-20.
McKenzie, J. (1999). How teachers learn technology best. FNO Press,
Bellingham, Washington.
Middleton, B. & Means, T. (1991). Exploring technologies for the education of
children with disabilities. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
Milken Exchange on Education Technology. (1999). Will new teachers be
prepared to teach in a digital age? A national survey on information technology in
teacher education. Retrieved September 6, 2001, from http://www.mff.org/publications/
Millar, R. & Osborne, J. (Eds.). (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the
future. London: Kings College.
58

Miller, L., & Olson, J. (1994). Putting the computer in its place: A study of
teaching with technology. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 26, 121141.
Molnar, A. R., (1975). Viable goals for new Educational technology efforts:
Science education and the new technological revolution. Educational Technology, 15(9).
Mullen, L. (2001). Beyond infusion: Preservice students' understanding about
educational technologies for teaching and learning. Journal of Technology and Teacher
Education, 9 (3), 447-466.
National Association of Secondary School Principals. (1996). Breaking ranks:
Changing an American institution. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary
School Principals.
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2008). Professional
standards for the accreditation of teacher preparation institutions. Washington, DC:
Author.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation
standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.
National Research Council. (1995). National science education standards.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Science Teachers Association. (1990). The content core: Guide for
curriculum designers. Washington, DC: NSTA.
Niederhauser, D., Salem, D. & Fields, M. (1999). Exploring teaching, learning,
and instructional reform in an introductory technology course. Journal of Technology and
Teacher Education, 7(2), 153-172.

59

Norton, S., McRobbie, C. J. & Cooper, T. J. (2000). Exploring secondary

teachers' reasons for not using computers in their teaching: Five case studies. Journal of
Research on Computing in Education, 33(1), 87-109.
Oakes, J., & Schneider, M. (1984). Computers and schools: Another case of
"...The more they stay the same"? Educational Leadership, 73-79.
Odom, A. L. , Settlage, J. & Pedersen, J. E. (2002). Technology Knowledge and
Use: A Survey of Science Educators. Journal of Science Education and Technology,
11(4), 389-396.
ONeil, J. (1995). Teachers and technology: Potential and pitfalls. Educational
Leadership, 53(2), 10-11.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers and powerful ideas. New
York, NY: Basic Books, Inc.
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(2): 131-153.
Perraton, H. (1987). The roles of theory and generalisation in the practice of
distance education. Three related systems for analysing distance education. ZIFF Papiere
67.
Pierson, M. (2001). Technology integration practice as a function of pedagogical
expertise. Journal of Research of Computing in Education, 33(4), 413-431.
Pogrow, S. (1987). Developing higher order thinking skills: The HOTS program.
The Computing Teacher, 15(1), 11-15.

60

President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology, Panel on

Educational Technology (1997). Summary of findings and recommendations from the
report to the President on the use of technology to strengthen K-12 education in the
United States. In Jossey-Bass (2000). The Jossey-Bass reader on technology and
learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
Reed, D. S., & McNergney, R. F. (2000). Evaluating technology-based
curriculum materials. ERIC Digest. ED449118. Retrieved September 6, 2001, from
http://www.ericfacility.net/ericdigests/ed449118.html
Roberts, N., Blakeslee, G., Brown, M. & Lenk, C. (1990). Integrating
telecommunication into education. NJ: Prentice Hall.
Roblyer, M. D. (1993). Why use technology in teaching? Making a case beyond
research results. Florida Technology in Education Quarterly, 5(4), 713.
Rohwedder, W.J. & Alm, A. (1994). Using computers in environmental
education: Interactive multimedia and on-line learning. Retrieved May, 3, 2003, from
http://eelink.umich.edu/Computers/pp.html#Problems%20and%20Promises
Sandholtz, J. H. (2001). Learning to teach with technology: A comparison of
teacher development programs. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9(3),
349-374.
Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. C. (1997). Teaching with technology:
Creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Higher levels of agency for children in
knowledge building: A challenge for the design of new knowledge media. The Journal of
Learning Sciences, 1(1), 37-68.
61

Schiller, E., Malouf, D., Hauser, J., & Fein, J. (in press). Technology and children
with disabilities: Enhancing the integration of children with disabilities. Baltimore, MD:
Brooks Cole.
Sheingold, K., & Tucker, M. S. (Eds.). (1990). Restructuring for learning with
technology. New York: Bank Street College of Education, Center for Technology in
Education; and Rochester, NY: National Center on Education and the Economy.
Sherman, S. J. (2000). Science and science teaching: Science is something you
can do! New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.
SRI International. TAPPED INTM Web site home page. Retrieved April 30, 2003
from http://www.tappedin.org
Stearns, M. S., David, J. L., Hanson, S. G., Ringstaff, C., & Schneider, S. A.
(1991). Cupertino-Fremont model technology schools project research findings:
Executive summary (Teacher-centered model of technology integration: End of year 3).
Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
Stinson, A. D. (2003, March). Encouraging the use of technology in the
classroom: The WebQuest connection. Reading Online, 6(7). Retrieved May 15, 2003,
from http://www.readingonline.org/articles/art_index.asp?HREF=stinson/
Stofflett, R. T. & Stoddard, T. (1994). The ability to understand and use
conceptual change pedagogy as a function of prior content learning experience. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 31(1), 31-51.
Strehle, E. L., Whatley, A., Kurtz, K. A., & Hausfather, S. J. (2001). Narratives of
collaboration: Inquiring into technology integration in teacher education. Journal of
Technology and Teacher Education, 10(1), 27-27.
62

Technology for All Americans Project. (1996). Technology for all Americans: A
rationale and structure for the study of technology. Reston, Virginia: International
Technology Education Association.
Technical Education Research Centers. (1991). Hands On! Fall Issue. TERC,
Cambridge, MA.
Thornburg, D. (1999). Technology in K-12 education: Envisioning a new future.
Retrieved January 24, 2003, from http://www.air.org/forum/Thornburg.pdf
United States Department of Education. (1993). Using technology to support
education reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved May 5,
2003, from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/EdReformStudies/TechReforms
United States Department of Education. (1996). Getting America's students ready
for the 21st Century: Meeting the technology literacy challenge. A report to the nation on
technology and education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved
August 23, 2001, from http://www.ed.gov/Technology/Plan/NatTechPlan/
Watson, K. L. (1999). WebQuests in the middle school curriculum: Promoting
technological literacy in the classroom. Meridian: A Middle School Computer
Technologies Journal, 2(2).
Wiebe, J. H., & Taylor, H. G. (1997). What should teachers know about
technology? A revised look at the ISTE foundations. Journal of Computing in Teacher
Education, 13(4), 5-9.
Windschitl, M. & Sahl, K. (2002). Tracing teachers' use of technology in a laptop
computer school: The interplay of teacher beliefs, social dynamics, and institutional
culture. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 165-205.
63

Wise, A. E. (2000). Performance-based accreditation: Reform in action. Retrieved

November 6, 2009, from
http://www.ncate.org/documents/QualityTeaching/qtspring2000.pdf
Woodbury, S. & Gess-Newsome, J. (2002). Overcoming the paradox of change
without difference: A model of change in the arena of fundamental school reform.
Educational Policy, 16(5), 763-782.
Yerrick, R., & Hoving, T. (1999). Obstacles confronting technology initiatives as
seen through the experience of science teachers: A comparative study of science teachers'
beliefs, planning, and practice. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(4), 291307.
Zehr, M. (1999). Reviewers play critical role in market for digital content.
Education Week, 19(4), p28. Retrieved May 6, 2003, from
http://www.edweek.org/sreports/tc99/articles/eval.htm.
Zhao, Y., & Cziko, G. A. (2001). Teacher adoption of technology: A perceptual
control theory perspective. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 5-30.
Zhao, Y., & Sheldon, S. (2002). Conditions for classroom technology
innovations. Teachers College Record, 104(3), 482-515.
Zorfass, J. M. (1991, April). Promoting successful technology integration through
active teaching practices. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Chicago.

64