Learning in context: Technology integration in a teacher preparation program informed by situated learning theory

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Volumn 50, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 348-379

  Bell, Randy L ^a   Maeng, Jennifer L ^b   Binns, Ian C ^c  

^a OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHARLOTTE   (United States)

Author keywords

science teacher preparation; situated learning theory; technology education

Indexed keywords

DATA-SOURCES; DIGITAL IMAGE; IN CONTEXTS; INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES; INTEGRATE TECHNOLOGIES; INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGIES; LEARNING AND TEACHINGS; LESSON PLANS; PRE-SERVICE TEACHER; PROGRAM GOALS; SCIENCE INSTRUCTIONS; SCIENCE TEACHERS; SCIENCE TEACHING; SITUATED LEARNING THEORIES; STUDENT ENGAGEMENT; TEACHER PREPARATION; TEACHING EXPERIENCE; TEACHING PROGRAMS; TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION; TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION;

APPLICATION PROGRAMS; ENGINEERING EDUCATION; INNOVATION; STUDENTS; TECHNOLOGY;

TEACHING;

EID: 84873705733     PISSN: 00224308     EISSN: 10982736     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/tea.21075     Document Type: Article

References (87)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
2. Arora, A. G., Kean, E., &, Anthony, J. L., (2000). An interpretive study of a teacher's evolving practice of elementary school science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 11, 155-172. DOI: 10.1023/A:1009472909785
3. 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.
4. 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 (pp. 9-22). Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.
5. Bell, R. L., Mulvey, B. K., &, Maeng, J. L., (2012). Beyond understanding: Process skills as a context for nature of science instruction. In, M. S. Khine, (Ed.), Advances in nature of science research: Concepts and methodologies (pp. 225-245). New York: Springer.
6. 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, 346-372.
7. Belland, B. R., (2009). Using the theory of habitus to move beyond the study of barriers to technology integration. Computers & Education, 52, 353-364.
8. Berns, B. B., &, Swanson, J., (2000, April). Middle school science: Working in a confused context. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED444944).
9. Beyerbach, 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, 105-127.
10. Binns, I. C., Bell, R. L., &, Smetana, L., (2010). Using technology to promote conceptual change in secondary earth science pupils' understandings of moon phases. Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology, 6, 112-129.
11. 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. DOI: 10.1086/461782
12. Bogdan, R. C., &, Biklen, S. K., (1992). Qualitative research for education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
13. Brown, V., (2007). The power of PowerPoint™: Is it in the user or the program ? Childhood Education, 83, 231-233.
14. Bryan, L., &, Abell, S., (1999). Development of professional knowledge in learning to teach elementary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 121-139. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199902)36:2<121:: AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-U
15. Bull, G., &, Garofalo, J., (2004). Internet access: The last mile. Learning and Leading with Technology, 32 (1), 26-29.
16. Capobianco, B. M., (2007). A self-study of the role of technology in promoting reflection and inquiry-based science teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 271-295. DOI: 10.1007/s10972-007-9041-z
17. Collins, A., (2006). Cognitive apprenticeship. In, R. Keith Sawyer, (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 47-60). Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
18. Cooper, S., (2001). The development of a technology committee in undergraduate teacher education courses: Is this an effective strategy ? Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9 (1), 75-82.
19. 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. DOI: 10.3102/ 00028312038004813
20. Dani, D., &, Koenig, K. M., (2008). Technology and reform-based science education. Theory into Practice, 47, 204-211. DOI: 10.1080/ 00405840802153825
21. Dickerson, J., &, Kubasko, D., (2007). Digital microscopes: Enhancing collaboration and engagement in science classrooms with information technologies. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 7 (4), 279-292.
22. Doherty, K. M., &, Orlofsky, G. F., (2001). Student survey says: Schools are not using educational technologies as wisely or effectively as they could. Education Week: Technology Counts 2001, 20, 45-48. Downloaded June 2, 2008 from www.edweek.org/sreports/tc01/tc01article.cfm?slug=35student-survey.h20
23. Donovan, M. S., &, Bransford, J. D., (Eds.). (2005). How students learn: Science in the classroom. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
24. Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., &, Shouse, A. W., (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
25. Engle, R. A., Lam, D. P., Meyer, X. S., &, Nix, S. E., (2012). How does expansive framing promote transfer? Several proposed explanations and a research agenda for investigating them. Educational Psychologist, 47, 215-231. DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2012.695678
26. Flick, L., &, Bell, R., (2000). Preparing tomorrow's science teachers to use technology: Guidelines for Science educators. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 1, 39-60.
27. Friedrichsen, P. M., Dana, T. M., Zembal-Saul, C., Munford, D., &, Tsur, C., (2001). Learning to teach with technology model: Implementation in secondary science teacher education. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 20, 377-394.
28. 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.
29. Graham, C. R., Burgoyne, N., Cantrell, P., Smith, L., St. Clair, L., &, Harris, R., (2009). TPACK development in science teaching: Measuring the TPACK confidence of inservice science teachers. TechTrends, 53 (5), 70-79.
30. Guzey, S. S., &, Roehrig, G. H., (2009). Teaching science with technology: Case studies of science teachers' development of technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9 (1), 25-45.
31. Hammond, M., Crosson, S., Fragkouli, E., Ingram, J., Johnston-Wilder, P., Johnston-Wilder, S., Kingston, Y., Pope, M., &, Wray, D., (2009). Why do some student teachers make very good use of ICT? An exploratory case study. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 18 (1), 59-73.
32. Hargrave, C. P., &, Hsus, Y., (2000). Survey of instructional technology courses for preservice teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 8, 303-314.
33. Hennessy, S., Deaney, R., &, Ruthven, K., (2006). Situated expertise in integrating use of multimedia simulation into secondary science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 701-732. DOI: 10.1080/09500690500404656
34. Higgins, T. E., &, Spitulnik, M. W., (2008). Supporting teachers' use of technology in science instruction through professional development: A literature review. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17, 511-521.
35. IES (2010, May). Educational technology in U.S. public schools: Fall 2008. Retrieved May 2010 from: http://ies.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid= 2010034
36. Irving, K., (2009). Preservice science teachers' use of educational technology in student teaching. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 28, 45-70.
37. International Society for Technology in Education [ISTE]. (2008). National education technology standards. Retrieved October 2011 from: http://www.iste.org/standards.aspx
38. Johnson, C. C., (2006). Effective professional development and change in practice: Barriers science teachers encounter and implications for reform. School Science and Mathematics, 106, 150-161. DOI: 10.1111/j.1949-8594.2006. tb18172.x
39. Johnson, C. C., (2007). Whole-school collaborative sustained professional development and science teacher changes: Signs of progress. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 629-661. DOI: 10.1007/s10972-007-9043-x
40. Kay, R., (2006). Evaluating strategies used to incorporate technology into preservice education: A review of the literature. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38, 383-408.
41. Keys, C., &, Bryan, L., (2001). Co-constructing inquiry-based science with teachers: Essential research for lasting reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 631-645. DOI: 10.1002/tea.1023
42. Keys, C. W., &, Kennedy, V., (1999). Understanding inquiry science teaching in context: A case study of an elementary teacher. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 10, 315-333. DOI: 10.1023/A:1009406511999
43. 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, 1010-1030. DOI: 10.1002/sce.20219
44. Kopcha, T. J., (2010). A systems-based approach to technology integration using mentoring and communities of practice. Educational Technology and Research Development, 58, 1042-1629. DOI: 10.1007/s11423-008-9095-4
45. Lederman, N. G., (1999). Teachers' understanding of the nature of science and classroom practice: Factors that facilitate or impede the relationship. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 916-929.
46. Lee, H., Linn, M. C., Varma, K., &, Liu, O. L., (2010). How do technology-enhanced inquiry science units impact classroom learning ? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 71-90.
47. Lincoln, Y. S., &, Guba, E. G., (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills. California: Sage Publications.
48. Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A., &, Bell, P., (2004). Inquiry and technology. In, M. C. Linn, E. Davis, &, P. Bell, (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 3-28). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
49. Linn, M. C., Lee, H. S., Tinker, R., Husic, F., &, Chiu, J. L., (2006). Teaching and assessing knowledge integration in science. Science, 313, 1049-1050.
50. Loucks-Horsley, S., (1999). Research on professional development for teachers of mathematics and science: The state of the scene. School Science and Mathematics, 99, 258-271. DOI: 10.1111/j.1949-8594.1999.tb17484.x
51. Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P., Love, N., &, Stiles, K., (1998). Designing professional development for teachers of mathematics and science. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
52. Luft, J. A., Roehrig, G. H., &, Patterson, N. C., (2003). Contrasting landscapes: A comparison of the impact of different induction programs on beginning science teachers' practices, beliefs, and experiences. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 77-97. DOI: 10.1002/tea.10061
53. McLellan, H., (1996). Situated learning: Multiple perspectives. In, H. McLellan, (Ed.), Situated learning perspectives (pp. 5-17). New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications.
54. Mims, C., Polly, D., Shepherd, C., &, Inan, F., (2006). Examining PT3 projects designed to improve preservice education. TechTrends, 50 (3), 16-24. DOI: 10.1007/s11528-006-7599-5
55. Mishra, P., &, Koehler, M. J., (2007). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK): Confronting the wicked problems of teaching with technology. In R. Carlsen, K. McFerrin, J. Price, R. Weber, & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2007 (pp. 2214-2226). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
56. Mistler-Jackson, M., &, Songer, N. B., (2000). Student motivation and Internet technology: Are students empowered to learn science ? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 459-479. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(200005) 37:5<459::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-C
57. National Research Council [NRC]. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
58. National Research Council [NRC]. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
59. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
60. Norris, C., Soloway, E., &, Sullivan, T., (2002). Examining 25 years of technology in U.S. education. Communications of the ACM, 45 (8), 15-17.
61. Orgill, M., (2007). Situated cognition. In, G. M. Bodner, &, M. Orgill, (Eds.), Theoretical frameworks for research in chemistry/science education (pp. 187-203). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
62. Pflaum, W. D., (2004). The technology fix: The promise and reality of computers in our schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
63. Plass, J. L., Milne, C., Homer, B. D., Schwartz, R. N., Hayward, E. O., Jordan, T., Verkuilen, J., Ng, F., Wang, Y., &, Barrientos, J., (2012). Investigating the effectiveness of computer simulations for chemistry learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 394-419.
64. 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.
65. Scalise, K., Timms, M., Morrjani, A., Clark, L., Holtermann, K., &, Irvin, P. S., (2011). Student learning in science simulations: Design features that promote learning gains. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 1050-1078.
66. Schnittka, C. G., &, Bell, R. L., (2009). Preservice biology teachers' use of interactive display systems to support reforms-based science instruction. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9 (2), Retrieved from http://www.citejournal.org/vol9/iss2/science/article1.cfm
67. Scott, P., Asoko, H., &, Leach, J., (2007). Student conceptions and conceptual learning in science. In, S. Abell, &, N. Lederman, (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 31-74). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
68. Shamburg, C., (2004). Conditions that inhibit the integration of technology for urban early childhood teachers. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 1, 227-244.
69. Showm, B. L., (2003). " The great man has spoken. Now what do I do?" A response to Edward R. Tufte's "Cognitive style of PowerPoint™ ". Communication Insight, 1, 1-16.
70. Smetana, L. K., &, Bell, R. L., (2011). Computer simulations to support science instruction and learning: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 34, 1337-1370. DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2011.605182
71. Soloway, E., Norris, C., Blumenfeld, P., Fishman, B., Krajcik, J., &, Marx, R., (2001). Handheld devices are ready-at-hand. Communications of the ACM, 44 (6), 15-20. DOI: 10.1145/376134.376140
72. Songer, N. B., (2007). Digital resources or cognitive tools: A discussion of learning science with technology. In, S. Abell, &, N. Lederman, (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 471-491). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
73. Supovitz, J. A., &, Turner, H. M., (2000). The effects of professional development on science teaching practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 963-980. DOI: 10.1002/1098- 2736(200011)37:9<963::AID-TEA6>3.0.CO;2-0
74. Swan, K., Holmes, A., Vargas, J. D., Jennings, S., Meier, E., &, Rubenfeld, L., (2002). Situated professional development and technology integration: The capital area technology and inquiry in education (CATIE) mentoring program. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10, 169-190.
75. Trundle, K. C., &, Bell, R., (2010). The use of a computer simulation to promote conceptual change: A quasi-experimental study. Computers & Education, 54, 1078-1088. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.10.012
76. Tufte, E., (2003). PowerPoint is evil: Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely. Wired Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.wired.com/wired/ archive/11.09/ppt2.html
77. van Joolingen, W. R., de Jong, T., &, Dimitrakopoulout, A., (2007). Issues in computer supported inquiry learning in science. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 111-119. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00216.x
78. Varma, K., Husic, F., &, Linn, M. C., (2008). Targeted support for using technology-enhanced science inquiry models. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17, 341-356. DOI: 10.1007/s10956-008-9104-8
79. Waight, N., &, Abd-el-Khalick, F. A., (2006). The impact of technology on the enactment of "inquiry" in a technology enthusiast's sixth grade science classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 154-182. DOI: 10.1002/tea.20158
80. Way, J., Lilley, E., Ruster, C., Johnco, S., Mauric, L., &, Ochs, L., (2009). Interactive whiteboards and pedagogy in primary classrooms. Canberra, Australia: A symposium for the Australian Association for Research in Education. http://aare.edu.au/09pap/way091149.pdf
81. Wetzel, K., Zambo, R., Buss, R., &, Arbaugh, N., (1996). Innovations in integrating technology into student teaching experiences. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 29, 197-214.
82. Willis, J. W., &, Mehlinger, H. D., (1996). Information technology and teacher education. In, J. Sikula, T. J. Buttery, &, E. Guyton, (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 978-1029). New York: Macmillan.
83. 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, 25-42.
84. Wu, H., &, Huang, Y., (2007). Ninth-grade student engagement in teacher-centered and student-centered technology-enhanced learning environments. Science Education, 91, 727-749. DOI: 10.1002/sce.20216
85. Yerrick, R., Parke, H., &, Nugent, J., (1997). Struggling to promote deeply rooted change: The "filtering effect" of teachers' beliefs on understanding transformational views of teaching science. Science Education, 81, 138-159.
86. Zacharia, Z., (2003). Beliefs, attitudes, and intentions of science teachers regarding the educational use of computer simulations and inquiry-based experiments in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 792-823.
87. Zucker, A. A., Tinker, R., Staudt, C., Mansfield, A., &, Metcalf, S., (2008). Learning science in grades 3-8 using probeware and computers: Findings from the TEEMSS II project. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17, 42-48. DOI: 10.1007/s10956-007-9086-y