{"id":898,"date":"2009-06-01T01:11:00","date_gmt":"2009-06-01T01:11:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost:8888\/cite\/2016\/02\/09\/meeting-the-needs-of-middle-grade-science-learners-through-pedagogical-and-technological-intervention\/"},"modified":"2016-06-04T01:50:48","modified_gmt":"2016-06-04T01:50:48","slug":"meeting-the-needs-of-middle-grade-science-learners-through-pedagogical-and-technological-intervention","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/volume-9\/issue-3-09\/science\/meeting-the-needs-of-middle-grade-science-learners-through-pedagogical-and-technological-intervention","title":{"rendered":"Meeting the Needs of Middle Grade Science Learners Through Pedagogical and Technological Intervention"},"content":{"rendered":"

National Science Achievement and the Need for Improved Science Teaching<\/strong><\/p>\n

Recent National Assessment of Educational Progress (Campbell, Hombo, & Mazzeo, 2000) scores revealed that reading scores of US 17-year-olds were not significantly different from 1971 to 1999.\u00a0 Although mathematics scores for 17-year-olds showed a significant, though slight (1.3%), increase from 1973 to 1999, science performances painted a less encouraging picture.\u00a0 The overall scores of 17-year-olds declined from 1969 to 1982, increased modestly from 1982 to 1992, and have since leveled off.\u00a0 The 1999 end-of-the-study levels of science for 17-year-olds were significantly below (3.4%) the 1969 beginning-of-the-study levels (Campbell et al., 2000).\u00a0 An analysis of student reading skills revealed that average US 15-year-olds read as well as their peers in 27 other countries that make up the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, but perform nowhere near the top.<\/p>\n

In mathematics, students attending high school physics since the beginning of the 21st century slightly exceeded the average international samples. Fewer than 25%, however, were proficient in math skills appropriate for their grade level.\u00a0 Although international comparisons in science show US students yielding better-than-average results, overall findings are disappointing. Science performance has not improved in the past decade, and fewer than a third exhibit science concepts and skills appropriate for their grade level. Clearly, across each of these academic areas, schools are not supporting the learning needs of all science students (National Center for Education Statistics, 2002).<\/p>\n

The Third International Mathematics and Science Study (1999) studied global trends in math and science education achievement and curriculum with a focus on fourth- and eighth-grade science and mathematics.\u00a0 In the 1999 report on science, eighth-grade US students ranked significantly below 14 countries, were statistically even with five, and were significantly higher than 18 countries.\u00a0 This middle of the pack placement was not a flattering portrayal of the U.S. education system and prompted many reports, including one entitled Before It\u2019s Too Late<\/em> (Glenn, 2000).<\/p>\n

Calls for Science Education Reform<\/strong><\/p>\n

One response to the emergence of such startling numbers was the No Child Left Behind Act, which aimed to improve the performance of US primary and secondary schools through more rigorous standards of accountability. It has shaped the ways curriculum is delivered, how students view learning, and how teachers interpret their success in teaching.<\/p>\n

Often called \u201cstandards-based\u201d educational reform, its goal was to establish high standards for all children through accountability for teachers\u2019 professional preparation and measurement of student learning through increased standardized testing.\u00a0 The underlying principle was that setting lofty goals would improve the performance of all students.\u00a0 One key component to this legislation was improving teacher quality by insisting that teachers were highly qualified.\u00a0 The measure for highly qualified focused on minimally achieving a bachelor\u2019s degree, teaching only in areas of their major or minor, or passing rigorous academic state tests.<\/p>\n

Though no one disagrees with the focus on achievement as a goal for science education, few agree on a definition.\u00a0 Typically, reformers mean a continual focus on curriculum standards, funding, policies, and billions of dollars of reform, with standard assessments as a main indicator of value and thrust for future directions.\u00a0 All of these drive teacher instruction in one way or another.\u00a0 Another interpretation, however, may be drawn from the perspective of teacher educators and university science education professors vested in producing future science teachers.\u00a0 For teacher educators this gap presents an opportunity to study how best to engage children in science with creative pedagogy and tools more responsive to children\u2019s attributes and needs.<\/p>\n

Part of the discussion among science teacher educators has focused upon technological implementation to improve instruction. In fact, technology has been promoted as an appropriate tool for teaching current K-12 students for a variety of reasons, including its ability to provide familiarity with tools students use outside of school (Achievement for All Children: An Apple Perspective<\/em>, 2003; Lenhart et al., 2003; Lemke & Martin, 2004), to provide better training opportunities for future jobs (Tapscott, 1999; Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2005), and to provide venues for better inquiry teaching (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1990, 1993; National Resource Council [NRC], 1996).<\/p>\n

Some authors have argued that US teens in today\u2019s schools need new tools for learning because there are fundamental differences in current American culture and the way students learn best (Friedman, 2005; Pink, 2005). For example, according to the Pew Internet & American Life Project (2005), 87% of children ages 12 to 17 use the Internet regularly. This number has increased more than one fourth since the year 2000. Seventy-five percent of today\u2019s teens use at least two digital devices daily and spend an average of nearly 6.5 hours a day with media. Such observed changes in student behavior may suggest a false hope and a quick fix for educators eagerly looking to incorporate technology familiar to students as a way to stay consistent with Dewey\u2019s (1956) challenge that we use the same psychology in schools that we apply to learning outside of schools.<\/p>\n

Though the arguments are compelling, educators must consider carefully what current research says and what has not yet been answered. Such arguments ignore the fact that other nations to which the US is being compared are investing less resources in technology than is the US.\u00a0 Oppenheimer (2003) and Cuban (1986, 2001) have clearly offered important challenges to the notion that technology is an automatic improvement in classrooms. They said that many of the claims that technology should be integrated into school learning environments are not based upon empirical evidence about students or learning environments.<\/p>\n

Yet the growth and investment in technology by the US is increasing. According to Abd-El-Khalick and Waight (2007) the rapid integration is not always based upon established research, and often the research available to make important technological implementation decisions does not take a critical eye when viewing the use of technology or the specific focus for specific interventions in using technology to promote inquiry.\u00a0 Though compelling, science educators must consider carefully which tools assist in promoting science inquiry and how these can be thoughtfully incorporated into instruction in ways that add value to science teaching.<\/p>\n

Considerations for Technology Implementation in Science Instruction<\/strong><\/p>\n

Some researchers have argued that meeting National Science Education Standards<\/em> without technology would be difficult (Metcalf & Tinker, 2004; Lento, 2005), but which tools should be considered? Researchers argue that data guiding decisions of implementation ought to be critical in perspective and related specifically to the context in which they are applied and not based upon dissimilar educational contexts (Abd-El-Khalick & Waight, 2007; Ballone & Czerniak, 2001; Czerniak, Lumpe, Haney, & Beck, 2001).\u00a0 One important research finding that confounds the notion that inserting technology will raise science student test scores is the research on teachers\u2019 poor implementation of technology.\u00a0 Oppenheimer (2003) described at length his observations of teachers allowing the technology to be the focus of instruction instead of the content it is meant to teach.\u00a0 The focus on adding sound effects, transitions, and meaningless pictures to presentations is but one of many examples of how inappropriate teaching strategies can wrongly emphasize the tool over the learning.<\/p>\n

As Mehan (1989) and more recently Cuban (2001) have described, classrooms reflect the social values of the teachers and students who inhabit them, and the artifacts (computers) simply take on the roles that fit those learning environments.\u00a0\u00a0 If a science teacher\u2019s epistemological orientation toward science is a collection of facts, then the computer is likely going to become a tool that collects, organizes, and repeats facts more efficiently.\u00a0 Obviously, this approach is not an improvement toward national reforms challenging teachers to a more inquiry-based approach to science instruction.<\/p>\n

Teachers\u2019 orientation toward science learning is one of the primary factors that must be attended to in any technological implementation. \u00a0It has been well documented by several researchers that making changes toward a constructivist orientation in teaching is more difficult than simply learning new technologies (Becker & Riel, 2000; Rakes, Flowers, Casey, & Santana, 1999).\u00a0 For example, in a recent survey of 655 teachers (grade 4 to 12), Becker and Riel (2000) found that less than 4% of the teachers surveyed used computers during instruction to assist students in constructing their own understanding of content knowledge in accordance with constructivist learning frameworks.<\/p>\n

In addition Rakes et al. (1999) found that in a survey of 435 teachers who use technology in K-12 contexts, less than half of the teachers who professed to be constructivist acknowledged implementing 6 out of 14 commonly identified constructivist strategies. Furthermore, only 40% of the participating teachers used even three of these strategies, and less than 20% of those who claimed to use constructivist strategies in their classrooms implemented them \u201cfairly often\u201d (monthly).\u00a0 Clearly, providing technology in science classrooms is insufficient for making needed change. In addition, providing technical and professional development support will not likely effect longlasting change even for self-reported constructivist teachers (Becker & Riel, 2000; Cuban, 1986; Rakes et al., 1999).<\/p>\n

Few empirical studies focus on the process of using technologies in elementary and middle school science classrooms and how these technologies function within the expectations, norms, and practices in current classrooms. Considerations for integrating computers in science classrooms include (a) students\u2019 skills, attributes, and needs, (b) teacher professional development opportunities, and (c) desired learning outcomes.<\/p>\n

Student Skills, Attributes, and Needs<\/strong><\/p>\n

Different science students bring their own repertoire of skills, knowledge, experiences, attitudes, and assumptions to the classroom, and no single teaching strategy best suits all students (Coffield, Moseley, Hall, & Eccelstone, 2004; Duff, 2002; Dunn & Griggs, 2000; Felder & Silverman, 1988; Kolb & Kolb, 2005).\u00a0 Learning style theory has been applied to a variety of learning environments and can be defined as the manner in which students of all ages are affected by sociological needs, immediate environment, physical characteristics, and emotional and psychological inclinations.\u00a0 Having teachers learn about different learning styles of students and how they relate to technology implementation can help science\u00a0 teachers make better decisions about teaching strategies and which tools best can engage which students.<\/p>\n

Differences exist among and between student groups, and not all curricula or technological innovations developed by teachers or science experts should be expected to achieve similar ends for all students.\u00a0 A teacher\u2019s individual learning style or favored teaching style may also be different from many of the students\u2019 learning styles. When the teacher is not aware of students\u2019 learning styles, the cognitive and psychological impact can be negative toward learning (Keefe, 1982).\u00a0 Dunn and Dunn (1992) suggested that research on learning styles provides insight for teachers to address the needs of individuals through matching styles or capitalizing on students\u2019 personal strengths.<\/p>\n

Technological implementations for students should consider ways that tools can expand opportunities to all students by offering different kinds of access to knowledge. Incorporating into science lessons opportunities for students to demonstrate science competency through musical, dramatic, artistic, or other representations is one way to honor students\u2019 diverse skill sets. Orchestrating collaboration of diverse student knowledge and skill sets around a central problem or concept can also offer greater opportunity for success in classrooms.<\/p>\n

Becoming familiar with differences in learners\u2019 specific styles of preferred knowledge acquisition allows in-depth understanding and interaction with the interests and needs of a greater diversity of students. Research studies confirm the need for identifying each student\u2019s preferred learning style and for teaching in ways that complement that style (Duff, 2004; Dunn & Dunn, 1992; Dunn &\u00a0 Griggs, 2000; Felder & Silverman, 1988; Kolb & Kolb, 2005).<\/p>\n

Academic achievement is elevated when teachers use instructional strategies consistent with students\u2019 preferred learning styles (Ballone & Czerniak, 2001). In the converse, students tend to achieve lower when their learning style and environment are mismatched (MacMurren, 1985; Pizzo, 1981). In fact, some have even argued for a direct correlation between the match of learning styles and environment and student grade point average (Cafferty, 1981).<\/p>\n

To achieve the goal of having all students succeed in science requires teachers\u2019 practices and curriculum content to meet students\u2019 various interests, abilities, experiences, understandings, and knowledge. Accepting diversity in learning styles means also accepting that all students can learn, and effective teachers consider both the content to be learned and the learning context, including the background of the students. Instructional materials must be designed to be not only flexible, but also supportive of diversity and capable of accommodating a wide range of learning styles (McLoughlin, 1999). Technology integration has been said to initiate the desired curricular and pedagogical change given the opportunity, equipment, and support (Wetzel, 2001).<\/p>\n

Teacher Professional Development<\/strong><\/p>\n

Technology insertion into classrooms, in and of itself, will not likely result in any positive change toward inquiry. Teachers need support, incentive, and practice in applying new pedagogical and technological innovations. Science teachers generally agree that technology should be incorporated into science instruction, but most are passive about seeking professional development in technology or finding time to learn new strategies and tools (Odom,\u00a0 Settlage,\u00a0 & Pedersen, 2002; Pedersen & Yerrick, 2000). In fact a major gap exists between science teachers\u2019 desired versus actual use of technology in most science classrooms.\u00a0 Researchers argue that the vast majority of teachers have had little or no formal training on how to apply computers specifically to their science content teaching (Berger, Lu, Belzer, & Voss, 1994).<\/p>\n

Such findings support prior research indicating that a significant amount of practice and training are needed before teachers become comfortable with the use of technological tools to facilitate student learning (Gado, Ferguson, & van ‘t Hooft, 2006). Although resistance to change in science teaching practices remains high, research supports teaching practices that consider students\u2019 learning styles through the use of technology to improve the quality of both teaching and learning (Ballone & Czerniak, 2001; Grasha & Yangarber-Hicks, 2000).<\/p>\n

Constructivist teaching methods can be as influential in improving student learning as any technology intervention and can enhance student engagement in classrooms.\u00a0 Study after study has demonstrated that it is not the technology tool that makes the difference, but the willingness of teachers to change their classroom practices that causes the greatest impact on learning (Cuban, 1986; Quinn & Valentine, 2001; Wenglinsky, 1998; Yerrick & Hoving, 1999). Despite the reports that teachers are open and willing to try technological innovations in their science teaching (Czerniak et al., 2001; Pedersen & Yerrick, 2000), studies show relatively low rates of classroom transformation (Becker & Riel, 2000; Cuban, 1986; Rakes et al., 1999).<\/p>\n

Younger generations are presumed to have a greater affinity for and ability to use technology, but researchers found that novice teachers were generally cautious about implementing technology into teaching (Gado et al., 2006).\u00a0 Teachers instead felt it important to present both traditional and technology enhanced experimentation, demonstrating how new technologies foster critical thinking and simplify experimentation and improve reliability of data. Paradoxically, these same novice teachers felt that proper training for both teachers and students on the use of new technological tools was essential to their successful integration and would not feel comfortable teaching without it.<\/p>\n

Student access and devoted on-task time with the tool also are necessary considerations for teachers and students. In data from student pre- and posttests, Metcalf and Tinker (2004) found significant increases in scores associated with the use of probeware in science. Maximum gains were observed when extended time was provided for use of the tools, and minimum gains were found when use was rushed. Teachers reported that students learned more with the use of technological tools and found that the direct experience of doing the activity was particularly beneficial. Students were able to confront their misconceptions and improve graph-reading skills while learning science content. These findings were also confirmed through classroom observations. Students stated in interviews that they learned science better using technology than they had with activities in other science courses. These gains were limited by a lack of availability of equipment and time due to sharing of tools and resources.<\/p>\n

Research Questions\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

The goal of our study was to examine the effects of inserting laptops and science technology tools into middle school environments while providing responsive professional development in the classrooms of motivated middle school science teachers. For the 2007-2008 academic year, one middle school offered the opportunity for teachers to learn the tools, associated pedagogical strategies, and curriculum throughout the year, as student engagement, achievement, and perceptions were studied in collaboration with the local university.<\/p>\n

Beginning in the summer and throughout the year a small group of middle school science teachers explored exemplary tools and strategies to engage children more and help them learn science in ways consistent with science education and technology education reform visions.\u00a0 Working together with a local New York university (LNYU), science teaching faculty member wrote and aligned curricula, checked out LNYU equipment, explored science education literature, tested lessons with summer school students, and prepared evaluation measures for their 2007-2008 implementation of laptops, probeware, and a host of other scientific hardware and software. As we had the opportunity to study different teachers in the same middle school environment covering the same curriculum but using different tools and teaching strategies, we considered the following research questions:<\/p>\n