- \n
- What were the differences in the practices of the teachers and students in physics compared to those in biology?<\/li>\n
- Are there any differences in the mandatory and recommended uses of technology in the respective curriculum documents?<\/li>\n
- Can this difference be related to technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge (TPACK)?<\/li>\n
- What implications would these answers have on the preservice training and professional development of science teachers?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Background<\/p>\n
From 2008-2012, the Australian Government implemented a $2.1 billion 1:1 laptop initiative known as the Digital Education Revolution (DER) across the whole country (Digital Education Advisory Group, 2013). The objective of the DER was to create a 1:1 computer-to-student ratio for grades 9-12 in all secondary schools within 5 years. In recent years a variety of research has been undertaken to review the DER (Crook & Sharma, 2013; Crook\u00a0et al., 2015; Crook, Sharma, Wilson, & Muller, 2013; Dandolopartners, 2013; Howard & Mozejko, 2013). However, of the studies we found, none thus far have examined the role of prescribed curriculum content in the uptake and integration of technology in class, nor have any incorporated the TPACK framework.<\/p>\n
Across the state of New South Wales (NSW), Australia, all senior students (Grades 11 and 12) within particular subjects follow the same curriculum documents created and prescribed by the Board of Studies NSW (Board of Studies NSW, 2009b). These curriculum documents or syllabuses specify detailed content that should be taught, often recommending how<\/em> the content should be taught and specifying what students should learn<\/em> and do<\/em>. At the end of Grade 12 all students sit for the statewide Higher School Certificate (HSC) external standardized examinations, which ultimately determine a student\u2019s overall score and eligibility for admission into various university degree programs (Universities Admissions Centre, 2009). The curriculum documents specify the precise content that is examined in these high-stakes examinations. Furthermore, the Board of Studies NSW provides standards packages to illustrate performance in different syllabus areas in relations to standards-based assessment (Board of Studies NSW, 2006).<\/p>\n
This study focuses on seven high schools from the Catholic Education Office (CEO) Sydney, Southern Region, that were issued laptops for every Grade 9 student in 2008, as part of the first roll out of the DER. Consequently, this first cohort of students with 1:1 laptops graduated from Grade 12 in 2011 having sat for the external, standardized NSW HSC examinations. This study examines the 2011 Grade 12 physics and biology students and teachers from these seven schools to explore their integration of technology with the 1:1 laptops and uncover any notable differences.<\/p>\n
A particular focus of our previous studies has been on the impact of the 1:1 laptop environment on teaching and learning in the sciences. These studies have concentrated on the practices of teachers and students and comparisons between them, the activities in which they engage in terms of higher and lower order thinking, and multiple regression analyses to determine whether being schooled in a 1:1 laptop environment offered any advantage in external standardized examinations (Crook & Sharma, 2013; Crook et al., 2015; Crook et al., 2013). Having determined what<\/em> happens to student attainment in a 1:1 laptop environment in the previous studies, this study determined to find out why<\/em>.<\/p>\n
Review of the Literature<\/p>\n
Given the context of this study, we reviewed the literature around technology in teaching, particularly science teaching; 1:1 laptops in teaching, particularly science teaching; approaches to technology integration in science curricula; and TPACK.<\/p>\n
Technology in Science Teaching<\/p>\n
Technology has long been a part of science instruction, with science teachers often being considered innovators and leaders in the use of technology over many decades (McCrory, 2006). In more recent times the technologies used in science teaching have been specifically digital technologies, be they online resources, software, or physical computers and devices.<\/p>\n
Some of the latest practices and research in teaching science have been around the use of tablets (such as iPads\u00ae; Miller, Krockover, & Doughty, 2013; Wilson, Goodman, Bradbury, & Gross, 2013). The use of technology in the classroom or laboratory has been shown to increase motivation and learning and offer new opportunities through various simulations (Khan, 2010; Quellmalz, Timms, Silberglitt, & Buckley, 2012; Wieman, Adams, & Perkins, 2008), and science software (Baggott la Velle, Wishart, McFarlane, Brawn, & John, 2007; Zheng, Warschauer, Hwang, & Collins, 2014). Similarly, students who are confident with basic information and communications technology (ICT) tasks have been found to have higher scientific literacy (Luu & Freeman, 2011).<\/p>\n
Of course, no one is suggesting that science teaching should be conducted through technology alone. The best learning outcomes are obtained through a combination of real and virtual experiences (Olympiou & Zacharia, 2012), and evidence-based effective teaching practices should be followed (Bryan, 2006). New tools are also evolving that might change the landscape of science teaching, such as those that can automatically score students work, offering personalized guidance in science inquiry (Linn et al., 2014) and effecting instructional quality through their mediation of research-proven practices and classroom instruction (Weston & Bain, 2014).<\/p>\n
To understand the role of technology in science attainment, researchers have examined ICT access and use in relation to international attainments in scientific literacy, as assessed by PISA (e Silva, 2014; Luu & Freeman, 2011). After controlling for demographic characteristics, use of technology was found to have a modest but consistently positive impact upon scientific literacy. However, Luu and Freeman (2011) pointed out that the ways in which students use computers in schools may have a stronger effect than how often computers are accessed, and e Silva (2014) said, \u201cWhat we loose [sic] in these huge statistical studies is the detail. We need now to know what works and what does not work in each situation\u201d (p. 6).<\/p>\n
However, the detail in implementation of innovative technology tools by science teachers is very much dependent on their personal beliefs, motivations, and contexts regarding technology and science teaching as a whole (Kim, Hannafin, & Bryan, 2007; Stylianidou, Boohan, & Ogborn, 2005). In technologically enhanced environments, student-centered approaches have been demonstrated to be more effective than teacher-guided approaches (Hsu, 2008) and to facilitate significantly higher emotional engagement in the students (Wu & Huang, 2007).<\/p>\n
A variety of literature exists specifically around the use of 1:1 laptops in science teaching. Within a middle school context, Yerrick and Johnson (2009) found that by inserting laptops and science technology tools in the classrooms of motivated science teachers, students found their teachers to be more effective, and the teachers themselves also reported renewed vigor in their teaching with improved scores on students\u2019 attainment.<\/p>\n
In another middle school context, Berry and Wintle (2009) noted that students learning science with 1:1 laptops experienced increased engagement, comprehension, and retention of learning. Even though learning required more effort than traditional methods, it was more fun.<\/p>\n
Zucker and Hug (2007, 2008) provided examples of ways 1:1 laptops can be used effectively to teach and learn high school physics at the Denver School of Science and Technology. They found that the physics teachers there made use of the many affordances of the digital technology, providing their students with high-quality tools to explore scientific concepts. Again in a middle school context, a quantitative analysis by Dunleavy and Heinecke (2008) showed significant positive effects of 1:1 laptop instruction on student achievement in science.<\/p>\n
Along with our previous work, this study will provide some much-needed research documenting and analyzing the use of 1:1 laptops in senior high school science beyond middle school. Our aim is to identify practices that are reported in classrooms where 1:1 laptop use is positively associated with higher attainment.<\/p>\n
Technology in Science Curricula<\/p>\n
An important part of this study is the embedding (or lack thereof) of technology in the recommended and mandatory activities in science curricula. Hennessy et al. (2007) highlighted that existing pedagogical approaches and thinking are limited by \u201cthe systemic subject culture of secondary science which imposes tight curriculum time constraints\u201d (p. 147). In a similar contemporary vein, teachers have expressed concerns about the limited connections between curricula and game-based learning (Sadler, Romine, Stuart, & Merle-Johnson, 2013). Others have noted that the success of integrating new technology into education varies from curriculum to curriculum (Becta, 2003; Bingimlas, 2009).<\/p>\n
Braund and Reiss (2006) argued that to create a more authentic science curriculum requires learning both in and out of school, particularly capitalizing on virtual worlds through information technologies. In a recent study, 48 preservice science teachers were asked, \u201cWhat does technology integration mean to you?\u201d (Green, Chassereau, Kennedy, & Schriver, 2013, p. 397). The common misconception that emerged was that many teachers see technology integration as a tool in itself but do not see how that tool can enhance the curriculum; that is, some teachers use technology for the sake of using technology rather than understanding how it can improve teaching and learning.<\/p>\n
The Board of Studies NSW prescribes syllabuses to be followed by all students within every subject. The syllabuses not only recommend and mandate activities that teachers should employ, including the integration of technology, but also specify what students should learn and, oftentimes, how they should learn it (Board of Studies NSW, 2009b). More recently, in preparation for the new Australian Curriculum, the national Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority\u00a0(ACARA, 2011b) has prepared curriculum documents for K-10 specifying the integration of technology in every subject through the ICT General Capability<\/em>. In NSW, the Board of Studies has adapted the ACARA material to create syllabuses for every subject, K-10, again including the ICT General Capability<\/em> (Board of Studies NSW, 2012). However, in the interim and at the time of this study for Grades 11 and 12, in NSW students will still follow the Board of Studies NSW HSC syllabuses (Board of Studies NSW, 2009b).<\/p>\n
Within this context of specific and detailed curricula, our study examines classroom practice with 1:1 laptops. To analyze the complexities involved we drew on the TPACK theoretical framework in order to examine the different aspects of classroom practice reported by students and teachers.<\/p>\n
TPACK<\/p>\n
Building on Shulman\u2019s (1986, 1987) construct of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), Mishra and Koehler described technological knowledge as a domain of a more specific technological <\/em>pedagogical content knowledge (Koehler & Mishra, 2009; Mishra & Koehler, 2006), which later became referred to as technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge, or TPACK (Thompson & Mishra, 2007). TPACK is a conceptual framework to describe the knowledge base teachers need to teach effectively with technology (see Figure 1).<\/p>\n
![\"figure](\"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/04\/v15i2Science1Fig1.png\")
<\/p>\nFigure 1.<\/strong> Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Reproduced by permission of the publisher, \u00a9 2012 by tpack.org<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Prior to Mishra and Koehler describing TPCK\/TPACK, Niess (2005) described an adaptation of PCK she called \u201ctechnology-enhanced PCK\u201d (and also \u201ctechnological pedagogical content knowledge\u201d). In her study, Niess examined a teacher preparation program designed to empower science and mathematics teachers to integrate technology. Of the 22 teachers studied, 17 were science teachers of various disciplines. The study \u201cuncovered an important consideration in the development of TPCK\u2014the interaction of the content of science\/mathematics and the content of the specific technology\u2026[however,] only some of the students recognized the interplay of technology and science\u201d (p. 520).<\/p>\n
In a study of 4 in-service secondary science teachers, researchers found that \u201ccontextual constraints such as availability of technology tools and characteristics of student population had large impacts on the teachers\u2019 development of TPACK\u201d (Guzey & Roehrig, 2009, p. 40). In another study by the same authors looking at three beginning science teachers, they found that \u201cintrinsic motivation in conjunction with beliefs and knowledge drives teachers to use educational technology tools in their teaching\u2026[and] that reflection is critical for sustained technology use\u201d (Guzey & Roehrig, 2012, p. 178).<\/p>\n
In a case study of three preservice physics teachers, Srisawasdi (2012) recorded their respective transformation over time in PCK, technological content knowledge (TCK), technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK), and ultimately, their increased competence in TPACK. Srisawasdi was also noted that \u201ccompetency of TPACK could directly impact on students\u2019 conceptual learning in physics\u201d (p. 3243). In a study of 4 physics student teachers Alev and Yi\u011fit (2011) found that they began with limited technological knowledge and insufficient pedagogical knowledge. However, through a process of reflection they developed transformative uses of technology through new pedagogical practices, that is, TPACK.<\/p>\n
TPACK has also been used in the context of biology preservice teachers around using computer technology to support reforms-based science instruction (Schnittka & Bell, 2009). Recently, a study examined the development of TPACK in mathematics and science preservice special education teachers (Tournaki & Lyublinskaya, 2014). Focusing on three domains of knowledge related specifically to integrating instructional technology (i.e., TPK, TCK, and TPACK), they found significant gains with large effect sizes in teachers\u2019 knowledge in these domains due to the embedding of TPACK in their preservice course. A byproduct was a significant gain but moderate effect size in PCK.<\/p>\n
The idea of TPACK is constantly evolving from its original PCK (Shulman, 1986) roots.\u00a0 Of potential use for science teachers (although yet to gain traction), Jimoyiannis (2010) took TPACK and an authentic learning approach in science to create technological pedagogical and science knowledge (TPASK); a new model for science teachers professional development, essentially TPACK in science education (Voogt, Fisser, Pareja Roblin, Tondeur, & van Braak, 2013). It remains to be seen if TPASK is adopted and is of any benefit within science education.<\/p>\n
Using TPACK as a theoretical framework, Khan (2010) examined how simulations were employed across 11 science topics in the science curriculum and enhanced conceptual understanding. Khan found that \u201cspecial insights into an experienced science teacher\u2019s TPACK can reveal key heuristics and instructional patterns on effective classroom-based methods for teaching with technology\u201d (p. 229). Using TPACK as a framework to investigate technology-enhanced scientific inquiry instruction in 27 preservice teachers, it was found that \u201cintegrating technologies such as digital images, simulations, spreadsheets, and probeware can help teachers engage their students in observational, correlational, and experimental inquiry investigations\u201d (Maeng, Mulvey, Smetana, & Bell, 2013, p. 855).<\/p>\n
TPACK has also been used recently as a framework in a 1:1 laptop environment, albeit in a social studies context. A recent study found that since \u201caccess to classroom technologies continues to become more ubiquitous, more novice teachers are going to be asked to teach in technology-rich environments, so it is imperative that they learn to think from a TPCK standpoint before entering the field as professionals\u201d (Walker Beeson, Journell, & Ayers, 2014, p. 10).<\/p>\n
Harris, Mishra, and Koehler (2009) highlighted the problems with the general approaches that dominate current and past technology integration efforts in teaching. They stated that \u201cthese approaches tend to initiate and organize their efforts according to the educational technologies being used, rather than students\u2019 learning needs relative to curriculum-based content standards, even when their titles and descriptions address technology integration directly\u201d (p. 395). The solution they purport is TPACK: \u201ca form of professional knowledge that technologically and pedagogically adept, curriculum-oriented teachers use when they teach\u201d (p. 401). This work supports the use of TPACK as an organizing framework to assure that technology, pedagogy and content are all included in the researcher\u2019s lens when exploring technology integration phenomena.<\/p>\n
There are no references to TPACK within the Board of Studies NSW physics and biology syllabus documents examined in this study. This was to be expected since they were first written in 2002 and predate references to TPACK in the literature. However, with the advent of the new Australian Curriculum, there is a brief reference to TPCK by ACARA (2014), where it is stated, \u201cProfessional learning and resources that highlight suitable pedagogies, for example technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) would be desirable\u201d (p. 1). However, this occurrence is only within the curriculum area of Digital Technologies<\/em> and not within the cross-curricula ICT General Capability<\/em>. At the time of writing no references to TPCK\/TPACK appear at all in the Board of Studies NSW materials for sciences.<\/p>\n
Purpose of the Study<\/p>\n
In view of the extant literature, including our previous study which found that the effect size of 1:1 laptops on student attainment was greater in physics than biology, this study examined the technology uses of teachers and students in senior physics and biology in a 1:1 laptop environment and compared between these subject disciplines to provide some explanation for the greater effect size in physics. To inform this comparison we needed to consider the respective curriculum documents in terms of the integration of technology and present these findings within the framework of TPACK.<\/p>\n
Research Questions<\/p>\n
- \n
- Given that the effect size of the impact of 1:1 laptops on student attainment in NSW HSC physics was previously found to be significantly larger than that in biology, what are the differences in the teacher and student use of the laptops between the two subject disciplines?<\/li>\n
- Are there any differences in the opinions of the physics and biology teachers and students regarding the value and impact of the 1:1 laptops on their respective teaching and learning?<\/li>\n
- Are there any differences in the syllabus requirements for the integration of technology between the prescribed NSW HSC physics and biology curriculum documents? If so, how do these differences relate to differences in use identified in Questions 1 and 2?<\/li>\n
- Can any differences found in Questions 1, 2, and 3 be interpreted in terms of the TPACK framework?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
Methods<\/p>\n
Within this study we used a mixed-method approach to address the research questions sequentially:<\/p>\n
- \n
- A quantitative analysis of exit questionnaires for teachers and students to explore their self-reported integration of technology via 1:1 laptops in the teaching and learning of physics and\/or biology.<\/li>\n
- A qualitative analysis of written comments from teachers and students from exit questionnaires regarding their perceived value and impact of 1:1 laptops on the teaching and learning of their subject.<\/li>\n
- A curriculum document analysis to identify mandatory and recommended inclusions for the integration of technology in the respective statewide prescribed physics and biology curriculum documents.<\/li>\n
- A mapping and interpretation exercise to frame any inclusions of the integration of technology in terms of TPACK found in teachers\u2019 and students\u2019 practices, in teachers\u2019 and students\u2019 perceptions, and in the curricula.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
In 2011, in the 2 months prior to Grade 12 students sitting their statewide HSC examinations, we issued questionnaires to every Grade 12 student in physics (n <\/em>= 113) and biology (n <\/em>= 246), and every Grade 12 teacher in physics (n <\/em>= 8) and biology (n <\/em>= 13) from the seven schools in the CEO Sydney, Southern Region, with 1:1 laptops. The questionnaires were administered via Google Doc Forms (with the links sent via email) for ease, efficiency, security (then 128-bit encryption), anonymity, and the minimization of errors due to transcription. The respective response rates to the questionnaires were 47% for physics students, 51% for biology students, 88% for physics teachers, and 77% for biology teachers. These response rates far exceeded the average response rate for email-administered online surveys of 24% (Kaplowitz, Hadlock, & Levine, 2004), but nevertheless, constrained the representativeness of the sample.<\/p>\n
Sample<\/p>\n
The Grade 12 physics and biology teachers and students were from seven comprehensive high schools in CEO Sydney of varying socioeconomic, gender, and grade profiles (see Table 1). However, these schools all had a similar technological profile, with every student having been provided with a laptop due to the DER. Similarly, each school provided all teachers with their own laptops. Table 1 presents the profiles of the seven schools and the two respondent groups for students and teachers in physics and biology.<\/p>\n
Table 1<\/strong>
\nProfiles of Schools, Students, and Teachers<\/p>\n
![\"Figure](\"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/04\/v15i2Science1Fig2a.jpg\")
a. All activities. ![\"Figure](\"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/04\/v15i2Science1Fig2b.jpg\")
b. Activities most enjoyed. ![\"figure](\"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/04\/v15i2Science1Fig2c.jpg\")
c. Activities most often. Figure 2. <\/strong>Laptop activities engaged in by physics teachers.<\/em><\/p>\n![\"figure](\"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/04\/v15i2Science1Fig3a.jpg\")
a. All activities. ![\"Figure](\"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/04\/v15i2Science1Fig3b.jpg\")
b. Activities most enjoyed. ![\"Figure](\"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/04\/v15i2Science1Fig3c.jpg\")
c. Activities often. Figure 3.<\/strong> Laptop activities engaged in by biology teachers.<\/em><\/p>\n![\"figure](\"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/04\/v15i2Science1Fig4a.jpg\")
a. All activities. ![\"figure](\"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/04\/v15i2Science1Fig4b.jpg\")
b. Activities enjoyed. ![\"figure](\"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/04\/v15i2Science1Fig4c.jpg\")
c. Activities often. Figure 4. <\/strong>Laptop activities engaged in by physics students.<\/em><\/p>\n![\"Figure](\"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/04\/v15i2Science1Fig5a.jpg\")
a. All activities. ![\"Figure](\"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/04\/v15i2Science1Fig5b.jpg\")
b. Activities enjoyed. ![\"figure](\"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/04\/v15i2Science1Fig5c.jpg\")
c. Activities often. Figure 5. <\/strong>Laptop activities engaged in by biology students.<\/em><\/p>\n