You are here:

Preservice Biology Teachers’ Use of Interactive Display Systems to Support Reforms-Based Science Instruction
Article

, University of Kentucky, United States ; , University of Virginia, United States

CITE Journal Volume 9, Number 2, ISSN 1528-5804 Publisher: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education, Waynesville, NC USA

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to explore preservice science teachers’ use of an interactive display system (IDS), consisting of a computer, digital projector, interactive white board, and Internet connection, to support science teaching and learning. Participants included 9 preservice biology teachers enrolled in a master of teaching program during their full-time student teaching experience. Each participant had access to an IDS for the duration of the investigation. The research questions guiding the investigation included (a) whether teachers would use the IDS for instructional purposes, (b) what form this instruction would take, and (c) whether the instruction would reflect the recommendations of current science education reform documents. Analytic induction was used to analyze the wide variety of collected data, including classroom observation notes, entrance and exit interviews, lesson plans, and reflective essays. Results indicated that student teachers used the IDS in substantial ways to facilitate teaching reforms-based science. Furthermore, the results support the use of explicit approaches to preparing preservice teachers to use educational technology for inquiry instruction, modeling of effective uses of digital images and video clips, and specific instruction on whole-class inquiry methods.

Citation

Schnittka, C. & Bell, R. (2009). Preservice Biology Teachers’ Use of Interactive Display Systems to Support Reforms-Based Science Instruction. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(2), 131-159. Waynesville, NC USA: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education. Retrieved March 18, 2019 from .

Keywords

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Bauer, J., & Kenton, J. (2005). Toward technology integration in the schools: Why it isn't happening. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13, 519-546.
  2. Bell, L., & Park, J. (2008). Digital images and video for teaching science. In R.L. Bell, J. Gess-Newsome, & J. Luft (Eds.), Technology in the secondary science classroom. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
  3. Bell, R.L., & Garofalo, G. (2005). Projecting science and mathematics. School Science and Mathematics, 105, 48-51.
  4. Bell, R.L., Gess-Newsome, J., Luft, J. (Eds.) (2008). Technology in the secondary science classroom. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
  5. Bell, R.L., & Smetana, L. (2008). Using computer simulations to enhance science teaching and learning. In R.L.Bell, J. Gess-Newsome, & J. Luft (Eds.), Technology in the secondary science classroom. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
  6. Bell, R.L., Smetana, L., & Binns, I. (2005). Simplifying inquiry instruction: Assessing the inquiry level of classroom activities. The Science Teacher, 72(7), 30-33.
  7. Bell, R.L., & Trundle, K.C. (2008). The use of a computer simulation to promote scientific conceptions of moon phases. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 346-372.
  8. Becker, H.J., Ravitz, J.L., & Wong, Y. (1999). Teacher and teacher-directed student use of computers and software (Report No. 3). Retrieved from the Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations Website: http://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/findings/computeruse/html/startpage.htm
  9. Blumenfeld, P.C., Krajcik, J.S., Marx, R.W., & Soloway, E. (1994). Lessons learned: How collaborations helped middle grade science teachers learn project-based instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 94, 539-551.
  10. Bogdan, R.C., & Biklen, S.K. (1992). Qualitative research for education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. 154
  11. Brown, T. (1999). Osmosis. Retrieved from the Westminster Secondary School Science Department Website: http://www.tvdsb.on.ca/westmin/science/sbi3a1/Cells/Osmosis.htm
  12. Bull, G., & Garofalo, J. (2004). Internet access: The last mile. Learning and Leading with Technology, 32(1), 16-18. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ695791).
  13. Creswell, J.W., & Miller, D.L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39, 124-130.
  14. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  15. 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, 813-834.
  16. Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.; pp. 119-161). New York: Macmillan.
  17. Flick, L., & Bell, R. (2000). Preparing tomorrow's science teachers to use technology: Guidelines for science educators. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education [Online serial], 1(1). Retrieved from http://www.citejournal.org/vol1/iss1/currentissues/science/article1.htm
  18. Gess-Newsome, J. (2003, April). Implications of the definitions of knowledge and beliefs on research and practice in science teacher education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA.
  19. Irving, K. (2003). Preservice science teachers’ use of educational technology during student teaching. Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations. (AAT 3097272)
  20. Johnson, C. (2006). Effective professional development and change in practice: Barriers science teachers encounter and implications for reform. School Science and Mathematics, 106(3), 15-161.
  21. Kim, M.C., Hannafin, M.J., & Bryan, L.A. (2007). Technology-enhanced inquiry tools in science education: An emerging pedagogical framework for classroom practice. Science Education, 91(6), 1010-1030.
  22. Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P., Love, N., & Stiles, K. (1998) Designing professional development for teachers of mathematics and science. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
  23. McNall, R. (2004). Beginning secondary science teachers’ instructional use of educational technology during the induction year. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(10), 3636A. (UMI No. 3108794)
  24. Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(2)
  25. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108, 1017–1054.
  26. Mullholand, J., & Wallace, J. (2005). Growing the tree of teacher knowledge: Ten years of learning to teach elementary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 767790.
  27. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  28. Norris, C., Soloway, E., & Sullivan, T. (2002). Log on education: Examining 25 years of technology in U.S. Education. Communications of the ACM, 45(8), 15-18.
  29. Pflaum, W.D. (2004). The technology fix: The promise and reality of computers in our schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  30. Ritt, H.A., & Bell, R.L. (2009, January). Components and impact of a science-specific introduction to educational technology course. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Science Teacher Education, Hartford, CT.
  31. Sandholtz, J., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.
  32. Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
  33. Shamburg, C. (2004). Conditions that inhibit the integration of technology for urban early childhood teachers. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 2004(1), 227-244.
  34. Smetana, L.S., & Bell, R.L. (2009, April). Incorporation of computer simulations in whole-class vs. Small-group settings. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Garden Grove, CA.
  35. Winn, W., Stahr, F., Sarason, C., Fruland, R., Oppenheimer, P., & Lee, Y.-L. (2005). Learning oceanography from a computer simulation compared with direct experience at sea. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(1), 25-42.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.

View References & Citations Map

Cited By

  1. Comparison of Technology Use Between Biology and Physics Teachers in a 1:1 Laptop Environment

    Simon J. Crook, Manjula D. Sharma & Rachel Wilson, University of Sydney, Australia

    Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education Vol. 15, No. 2 (June 2015) pp. 126–160

These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact info@learntechlib.org.