J Sci Educ Technol (2015) 24:648–662 DOI 10.1007/s10956-015-9553-9

Integrating Science and Technology: Using Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge as a Framework to Study the Practices of Science Teachers Rose M. Pringle • Kara Dawson • Albert D. Ritzhaupt

Published online: 13 March 2015 Ó Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Abstract In this study, we examined how teachers involved in a yearlong technology integration initiative planned to enact technological, pedagogical, and content practices in science lessons. These science teachers, engaged in an initiative to integrate educational technology in inquiry-based science lessons, provided a total of 525 lesson plans for this study. While our findings indicated an increase in technology-related practices, including the use of sophisticated hardware, very little improvements occurred with fostering inquiry-based science and effective science-specific pedagogy. In addition, our conceptual framework, technological pedagogical content knowledge, as a lens to examine teachers’ intentions as documented in their lesson plans, provided an additional platform from which to investigate technology integration practices within the ambit of reform science teaching practices. This study, therefore, contributes knowledge about the structure and agenda of professional development initiatives that involve educational technology and integration into content knowledge disciplines such as science. Keywords Integrating science and technology
Technological pedagogical content knowledge
Science lesson plans

R. M. Pringle
K. Dawson
A. D. Ritzhaupt (&) School of Teaching and Learning, College of Education, University of Florida, 2423 Norman Hall, PO Box 117048, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA e-mail: [email protected]

123

Introduction The National Education Technology Plan 2010 (NETP) developed by the United States Department of Education’s Office of Educational Technology signals a strong commitment to the integration of technology in all levels of the educational system. This plan recognizes the integral role of technology in every aspect of daily lives and as such calls for educators to leverage technology-based learning in order to ensure that students are provided with authentic, engaging, and meaningful learning experiences (NETP 2010). Likewise, other science educational reform documents [e.g., American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) 1989; 1993; and National Research Council (NRC) 1996] have recommended the use of technology to promote students’ participation in learning experiences that allow them to adopt the attitudes and dispositions typical of scientists (McNeill and Pimentel 2010; Slykhuis and Krall 2011). In response to these mandates, science educators and school leaders have renewed their efforts to promote the integration of learning technologies and inquiry-based practices into their instruction in order to improve students’ understanding of science and also to better prepare them for the twenty-first century workforce. Technologies, from probes to computers and digital whiteboards to smartphones, have the potential to enhance students’ understanding of natural phenomena (Hug et al. 2005; NRC National 1996) and to successfully engage them in the learning process (Blumenfeld et al. 2000). With increased accessibility to technologies, more science teachers have begun to embrace their use as essential for illustrating and reinforcing science concepts, promoting student learning, and enhancing problem solving and data analysis (Guzey and Roehrig 2009; Slykhuis and Krall 2011).

J Sci Educ Technol (2015) 24:648–662

Context Since 2002, state education agencies have awarded millions of dollars in Enhancing Education through Technology (EETT) funding to support technology-rich classroom environments and professional development experiences that increase effective technology integration practices and student learning across the USA [State Educational Technology Directors Association (SETDA) 2011]. This study is situated within one such statewide initiative in Florida designed to accomplish the following goals: (1) improve the technology integration practices of math and science teachers, (2) increase access to technological tools and infrastructure, (3) strengthen teacher and administrator ICT skills, (4) strength student ICT skills, and (5) improve student achievement (Dawson et al. 2012). This particular study is focused on the technology integration practices of science teachers (i.e., Goal 1) participating in this yearlong initiative. The technology integration initiative involved 28 funded projects within 24 school districts. These districts represent the diversity of the state with a mix of urban and rural districts. Student numbers in these districts vary from approximately 1000 students in the district to nearly 200,000 students. Likewise, teacher population varies from less than 100 teachers to more than 13,000. Economic conditions in the districts also vary, with the number of students on free or reduced lunches ranging from 36 to 100 %, the number of students living in poverty ranging from 10 to 29 %, and the unemployment rates ranging from 8 to 16 %. During the initiative, teachers were engaged in a fourday statewide professional development program. This professional development provided a forum for educators to collaborate and engage in learning experiences for themselves and their students, using digital tools. Teachers funded through this initiative as well as teachers from nonfunded districts participated in the professional development program. The program was led by educational technology specialists and focused on technologies that could be used across content areas such as digital audio, digital video, and presentation tools. It was neither focused on science nor led by science educators. This statewide professional development was complemented by local efforts throughout the grant period. These localized activities allowed individual school districts to make decisions regarding professional development based on their own needs, but the mechanisms by which districts reported this professional development make it impossible to richly describe the professional development within or across projects. Required self-reports from district leaders suggest that exemplary professional development features such as access to support and resources, opportunities for collaboration with peers, and opportunities to plan for

649

technology use within the context of science content knowledge were present in many of the local professional development efforts (Dawson et al. 2012).

Research Questions Our study contributes to the literature base by examining the way science teachers participating in a yearlong technology integration initiative used technology in their science lesson plans. While these uses cannot be directly linked to particular components of the initiative such as professional development or the acquisition of particular technology tools, understanding how teachers use technology is important in and of itself (Lei 2007; DarlingHammond 2000). Specifically, the following research questions guided the study: 1.

2.

In what ways do science teachers involved in a yearlong technology integration initiative enact technological, pedagogical and content practices in lessons? In what ways, if any, do these practices change during a yearlong technology integration initiative?

Conceptual Framework Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) was used to frame this study and capture insights into science teachers’ practices with technology. TPACK was selected because it organizes the types of knowledge needed in order to integrate technology in K-12 teaching and learning based on technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge (Mishra and Koehler 2006). TPACK builds on pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) literature first proposed by Shulman (1986). Shulman conceptualized PCK as specialized knowledge distinguishing the teacher from the content specialist and included, ‘‘an understanding of how particular topics, problems, or issues are organized, presented, and adapted to the diverse interests and abilities of learners, and presented for instruction’’ (Shulman 1986, p. 8). While PCK has two primary components—pedagogy and content—TPACK adds a third component—technology. Within the TPACK framework are a total of seven constructs visually represented in the three-circle Venn diagram shown in Fig. 1. The three major constructs include the following: (1) technological knowledge (TK) which refers to knowledge about technologies for use in teaching and learning; (2) pedagogical knowledge (PK) which refers to the processes and methods of teaching and learning; and (3) content knowledge (CK) which refers to the subject area

123

650

Fig. 1 Technological pedagogical content knowledge framework

understandings. These three major constructs intersect to form three additional constructs: (4) technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK); (5) pedagogical content knowledge (PCK); and (6) technological content knowledge (TCK). Each construct refers to the merger of two types of knowledge. For example, technological pedagogical content knowledge refers to uniting knowledge of teaching and learning pedagogy with knowledge of technology. TPACK lies within the center triadic intersection and represents a merger of all three types of knowledge. Previously, TPACK has been used as a framework to support research on technology integration including case studies of mathematics teachers involved in a learner-centered professional development project (Polly 2011) and mathematics and science preservice teachers enrolled in methods courses (Neiss 2005); survey research to ascertain K-12 online teachers perceptions of their TPACK knowledge (Archambault and Crippen 2009); studying TPACK development in faculty and students in a learning technology by design seminar (Koehler and Mishra 2005); interpretive research examining growth of TPACK knowledge exhibited by inservice teachers enrolled in an online graduate course (Niess et al. 2010); and design-based research to support TPACK development in preservice teachers (Mishra and Koehler 2006). In each case, TPACK constructs were defined within the context of the study. However, some have questioned the practicality of measuring TPACK as a multi-dimensional construct (Archambault and Barnett 2010; Brantley-Dias and Ertmer 2013). For instance, Brantley-Dias and Ertmer (2013)

123

J Sci Educ Technol (2015) 24:648–662

criticize the TPACK framework for not clearly gauging what types of pedagogy or curricula provide a ‘‘best fit’’ for technology integration. Further, Archambault and Barnett (2010) call into question the theoretical foundations of TPACK by stating that Shulman’s PCK operated with difficult to define domains that make the overall construct unclear. Brantley-Dias and Ertmer (2013) state that TPACK possesses a critical flaw of being both too large (seven distinct knowledge types) and too small (compartmentalized) for practical use or measure. In this study, the TPACK constructs were defined using literature from teaching and learning, science education, and educational technology. For example, technological content knowledge (TCK), or the merger of technology and content knowledge, was represented by the types of science-specific technologies teachers used in their lesson plans, and the pedagogical content knowledge was represented by evidence of inquiry-based science teaching (Michaels et al. 2008). These definitions are further described later in the paper.

Method Study Design There is a precedent for using lesson plans and other classroom artifacts as proxies for teacher practices (DarlingHammond 2010; Jacobs et al. 2008; Silk et al. 2009; Silver et al. 2009). Examining lesson plans can provide insight into teachers’ approaches to science teaching and learning. Furthermore, lesson plans ‘‘allow for evaluation of longer ‘chunks’ of planned instruction, allowing insight into the teachers’ decisions about sequence of and relationships between activities and topics as well as their assessment strategies, neither of which are commonly evident when observing a single class period’’ (Jacobs et al. 2008, p. 1098). Lesson plans provide a better idea, compared to a snapshot observation of the enacted curriculum, of teachers’ beliefs about teaching science with technology and reflect how teachers envision the integration of their preferred technology into contemporary science teaching practices (Brown 1998). In this study, we used lesson plans as proxies for teacher practice. We embraced the process of lesson planning as a crucial component of teachers’ practices. The TPACK framework provided us with a way to organize the types of knowledge needed in order to integrate technology in science teaching and learning. It also allowed us to develop coding criteria for the lesson plans. While the TPACK framework is inherently complex and contextually bound (Mishra and Koehler 2006), this study separated the components in order to explore science and technology integration practices in a way that is consistent

J Sci Educ Technol (2015) 24:648–662

and reliable across multiple lesson plans and multiple reviewers. We recognized that knowledge and practice are related but not synonymous. While we used a knowledge framework (i.e., TPACK) to guide our study of teacher practice, we understood that in many cases, we were coding information about practice that might not represent the complex nature of teacher knowledge. We also recognized our results were limited by the information on which we chose to focus and on the quality and level of detail provided in the lessons plans. We addressed these limitations in several ways. First, we defined our criteria based on literature in science education and educational technology. Second, our research team included both science educators and educational technologists. Third, we conducted extensive reviewer training and inter-rater agreement work. Finally, we provided an online template to collect consistent information from the teachers and the review process from the reviewers. Sample Participating science teachers were asked to submit their best science lesson using technology at the beginning of the technology integration initiative and then again at the end. Teachers submitted their lessons through an online system that required information such as lesson title, grade level, content area, estimated time, objectives/standards, procedures, and assessments (see Fig. 2). All submissions were

651

time stamped to determine whether they were submitted at the beginning or end of the initiative. The system was closed in the middle of the initiative to easily identify preand post-submissions. Each lesson plan was reviewed for completeness and to ensure a science focus. The research team analyzed a total of 525 lesson plans. Of the 525 lesson plans, 306 were pre-lessons and 219 were post-lessons. Coding Criteria Teacher practices were identified using literature-based indicators related to six constructs identified in the TPACK framework and described earlier. Table 1 overviews these literature-based indicators and each TPACK component. Technological Knowledge TK was represented by the general software and hardware used in the lesson plans. Lists of possible software (see Table 2) and hardware (see Table 3) were modified from two valid and reliable instruments used in previous studies of technology use (Hogarty et al. 2003; Lowther and Ross 2001). Pedagogical Knowledge PK was represented by the attributes of meaningful learning as defined by (Jonassen et al. 2003) and identified in the

Fig. 2 Lesson plan submission tool

123

652

J Sci Educ Technol (2015) 24:648–662

Table 1 Coding criteria in TPACK framework TPACK construct

Review criteria

Supporting literature

Content knowledge (CK)

Science topics

FLDOE (2010)

Pedagogical knowledge (PK)

Attributes of meaningful learning environments, and assessment practices

Jonassen et al. (2003), Morrison et al. (2007), Wiggins (1990)

Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK)

Science practices & cognitive demand for content area learning Level of integration

Michaels et al. (2008), Silver et al. (2009)

Technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK)

Sanholtz et al. (1997)

Technological knowledge (TK)

General hardware & software

Hogarty et al. (2003), Lowther and Ross (2001)

Technological content knowledge (TCK)

Science software

Kersaint (2003)

Table 2 Software tools in lesson plans

Software

Post-lessons (%)

v2

p value

Internet browser

45.75

63.93

16.228

0.0001

Presentation

34.64

42.92

3.368

0.0665 \0.0001

Web 2.0 tools

5.56

20.09

24.843

Digital video software

9.80

17.81

6.49

Word processing/desktop publishing

8.82

9.59

0.022

0.8821

Digital audio software

7.19

7.76

0.0059

0.9388

Digital imaging software

2.29

7.31

6.523

0.0106

Other

1.63

5.02

3.888

0.0486

Testing software

2.29

4.57

1.451

0.2283

Communication tools

0.65

3.65

4.656

0.031

Spreadsheet

7.84

2.74

5.253

0.0219

Concept mapping

2.61

1.83

0.0862

0.7691

Online textbooks

0.33

1.83

1.656

0.1981

Database

0.33

1.37

0.708

0.4002

Draw/paint/graphics Authoring

0.33 0.98

0.91 0.91

0.0796 0.14

0.7779 0.708

Digital animation

0.00

0.46

0.0311

0.8601

CD reference

0.65

0.46

0.0915

0.7623

Planning

0.00

0.00

–

–

Programming

0.00

0.00

–

–

lesson plans. Specifically, reviewers looked for evidence of four attributes of meaningful learning: (a) active; evidence of students developing knowledge and skills by interacting with their environment (i.e., manipulating objects, observing phenomena, debating, and role-playing), (b) constructive; students representing their learning in the creation of artifacts, (c) authentic; learning situated in a meaningful real-world context, and (d) cooperative; students engage in negotiations leading to the construction of new knowledge (Jonassen et al. 2003). These attributes are not mutually exclusive and reviewers selected as many attributes as were evident in the lesson (Morrison et al. 2007; Wiggins 1990). PK was also represented by the assessment methods articulated in the lesson plan. Reviewers retrieved this information from the assessment section of the lesson plan only.

123

Pre-lessons (%)

0.0108

Content Knowledge CK was retrieved from the objectives and standards sections of the lesson plan and not inferred from other areas of the lesson plan. The list of science topics came from Florida’s Next Generation Sunshine State Standards (FDLOE 2010). Technological Pedagogical Knowledge Technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK) was represented using the five-level continuum for technology integration initially developed during the Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow (ACOT) study (Sandholtz et al. 1996). These five levels were (a) entry, (b) adoption, (c) adaptation, (d) infusion, and (e) transformation. The level of

J Sci Educ Technol (2015) 24:648–662

technology integration was determined using descriptions from the Technology Integration Matrix, a nationally recognized tool for identifying technology integration practices (Allsopp et al. 2007). For example, the following technology integration descriptors show how entry and transformational levels were defined in the manual created for reviewers (Dawson et al. 2011). Details about the reviewer training are discussed later. Entry Level: Typically the teacher uses technology to deliver curriculum content to students. Entry level activities may include listening to or watching content delivered through technology or working on activities designed to build fluency with basic facts or skills, such as drill-and-practice exercises. In a lesson that includes technology use at the Entry level, the students may not have direct access to the technology they may use technology with no stated purpose (i.e., taking digital pictures but not doing anything with them). Decisions about how and when to use technology tools as well as which tools to use are made by the teacher. Students solving problems or manipulating items on an interactive whiteboard usually occur at this level as well. Transformational Level: Students use technology tools flexibly to achieve specific learning outcomes. They are encouraged to use technology tools in unconventional ways and are self-directed in combining the use of various tools. The teacher serves as a guide, mentor, and model in the use of technology. A key distinguishing feature between Infusion and Transformation is that technology tools are often used to facilitate higher order learning activities that would not otherwise have been possible, or would have been difficult to accomplish without the use of technology.

Pedagogical Content Knowledge Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) was represented by the cognitive demand of the lesson in terms of content area learning. Cognitive demand is the kind and level of thinking required of students during a learning experience. Criteria for low- and high-demand tasks aligned with another study using lesson plans as proxies for teacher practices (Silver et al. 2009). Low-demand tasks were identified as those involving skills such as recalling, remembering, or applying facts/procedures, while high-demand tasks were identified as those involving skills such as analyzing, creating, evaluating, and being metacognitive. Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) was also represented by the science practices articulated in the lesson plan. These science practices were based on the following

653

practices often associated with inquiry-based science: Lesson involves a scientifically oriented question or problem; students collect evidence; students make claims; and students engage in reasoning (Michaels et al. 2008; NRC 2000). Technological Content Knowledge Technological content knowledge (TCK) was represented by the content-specific software included in the lesson plan with reference to its usage by both teacher and students. Inputs from previous work with math-specific content specialists (Kersaint 2003) and science educators on the research team resulted in a list of TCK software. These include function probe, virtual fieldtrips, and simulations. Procedures A cohort of trained reviewers analyzed the lesson plans in four dyads. A dyad consisted of a science education doctoral student and an educational technology doctoral student. The reviewers were at various points in their doctoral studies and had an average of over 6 years of experience teaching in K-12 environments. All reviewers attended a 6-h training session conducted by members of the research team. The training session served several purposes. First, it allowed the reviewers to be introduced to each other and the project in a formal setting and allowed the reviewers to select their dyad partner based on scheduling preferences. Second, the training session allowed the research team to formally prepare the reviewers to identify teacher practices in the lesson plans following a 14-page manual that was also developed by the research team. Third, during the training session, the research team collected data for calculating the inter-rater agreement across the dyads. The reviewer training was executed in three iterations using a gradual release of responsibility model (Pearson and Gallagher 1983) in which strong scaffolds were steadily decreased to the point at which reviewers were independently analyzing the lesson plans. These iterations were: (a) independent staged walkthrough, (b) dyad staged walkthrough, and (c) coding simulation. During each stage, the reviewers either independently or in their dyads reviewed a variety of lesson plans that were previously coded using the manual by members of the research team to provide a level of consistency in the coding procedures. Finally, the reviewers were provided a sample of five science lesson plans drawn from the population lesson plans. The dyads reviewed all five of the lesson plans independently. Inter-rater agreement was calculated for each item, and scoring differences for inter-rater agreement below 80 % were resolved through dialogue among reviewers and researchers. The cumulative inter-rater agreement for the

123

654

J Sci Educ Technol (2015) 24:648–662

dyads was 0.94. The dyads coded each lesson plan within 3 weeks of the training session. Reviewers used a web-based system with a hyperlink to each lesson plan and a rubric with the codes to identify teacher practices within the lessons. Each dyad received no more than 130 lessons to review, and reviewers were compensated for their time. Data Analysis Data from the online rubric were exported into IBM SPSS Statistics 19. Descriptive statistics analysis was conducted including percentages such as the percentage of science topics. The percentage of certain level of technology integration and the percentage of specific technologies utilized in the lesson plans were calculated. Chi-square was used to compare the proportions of different categories between pre- and post-lesson plans.

Results While data analysis occurred around the six constructs of the TPACK framework, we present our findings organized around the three questions that guided the research: (1) In what ways do science teachers involved in a yearlong technology integration initiative enact technological, pedagogical and content practices in lessons? (2) In what ways, if any, do these practices change during a yearlong technology integration initiative? Technological Knowledge Technological knowledge (TK) was represented based on the generic types of software and hardware (Hogarty et al.

Table 3 Hardware tools in lesson plans

2003; Lowther and Ross 2001) used within the lessons. In term of software (see Table 2), the most commonly used software in the lessons was presentation software (i.e., MS PowerPoint, Keynote) and Internet browsers (i.e., Internet Explorer, Firefox). Notable increases were detected in the use of digital video software (v2 = 6.49, p = 0.0108), Internet browsers (v2 = 16.228, p = 0.0001), Web 2.0 tools (v2 = 24.843, p \ 0.0001), and digital imaging software (v2 = 6.523, p = 0.0106). Another notable finding was the significant decrease in the use of spreadsheets (v2 = 5.253, p = 0.0219) from pre-lesson to post-lesson. In terms of hardware, Table 3 shows that the most common tool employed was a computer (including laptops). In fact, a significant increase was detected from pre-lesson to post-lesson in the use of computers (v2 = 13.576, p = 0.0002). Significant increases also were detected in the use of tablet technologies (v2 = 13.375, p = 0.0003), classroom response units (v2 = 6.494, p = 0.0108), digital microscopes (v2 = 9.2, p = 0.0024), data collectors (v2 = 4.71, p = 0.03), and handheld devices (v2 = 12.973, p = 0.0003) from pre-lesson to post-lesson. No significant decreases were detected from pre-lesson to post-lesson.

Technological Content Knowledge Technological content knowledge (TCK) was manifested by the types of science-specific software (Kersaint 2003) employed within the lessons. As shown in Table 4, very little science-specific software was employed within the lesson plans with the exception of web-based science resources. All of the categories of science-specific software were below 35 %. More importantly, no significant changes were detected from pre-lesson to post-lesson (Table 4).

Hardware

Pre-lessons (%)

Post-lessons (%)

v2

p value

Computers (including laptops)

0.0002

67.97

82.65

13.576

Digital camcorder

9.48

12.33

0.809

0.3683

Digital camera

6.54

8.68

0.567

0.4514

Handheld devices/PDAs/cell phones

1.63

8.68

12.973

0.0003

12.42

6.85

3.771

0.0522

Tablet technologies (iPad, tablets)

0.33

5.94

13.375

0.0003

Data collectors/probes/CBL, CBR, MLB

1.96

5.94

4.71

0.03

Interactive whiteboards

5.88

4.57

0.213

0.6443

Other

123

Digital microscope

0.33

4.57

9.2

0.0024

Classroom response units (clickers)

0.33

3.65

6.494

0.0108

Document cameras

1.63

2.28

0.0457

0.8308

Microphones/headsets

1.96

2.28

0.0032

0.9549

Graphing calculators

0.00

0.00

–

–

Networked calculators

0.00

0.00

–

–

J Sci Educ Technol (2015) 24:648–662 Table 4 Science-specific software in lesson plans

Table 5 Attributes of meaningful learning environments

655

Science software

Pre-lessons (%)

Post-lessons (%)

v2

p value

Web-based science resources

0.3629

26.14

30.14

0.828

Science content via online services

9.48

9.59

0.0118

0.9137

Virtual simulations

8.17

8.22

0.0198

0.888

Science-specific software

1.96

5.48

3.773

0.0521

Science games

1.63

1.37

0.0148

0.9032

Online data sets for explorations

0.33

0.46

0.228

0.6327

Virtual fieldtrips

0.00

0.00

–

–

p value

Pre-lessons (%)

Post-lessons (%)

Active

93.14

99.09

9.42

Constructive

62.42

80.37

18.706

Cooperative

37.91

45.21

2.519

0.1125

9.15

13.70

2.246

0.134

Authentic

Pedagogical Knowledge Pedagogical knowledge (PK) was documented in two ways within the lesson plans: (1) the attributes of meaningful learning environments (Jonassen et al. 2003) and (2) the assessment practices employed (Morrison et al. 2007; Wiggins 1990). In terms of the attributes of meaningful learning environments (see Table 5), most lesson plans were active as opposed to passive within these data. Further, more than 60 % of the pre- and post-submissions were constructive in nature, indicating that students were involved with the creation of some artifact to demonstrate their knowledge, skills, and dispositions. We observed significant increases in the frequency of active (v2 = 9.42, p = 0.0021) and constructive (v2 = 18.706, p \ 0.0001) characteristics as exhibited within the lessons. The authenticity of the lessons was the least well-represented characteristic. With respect to the assessment practices employed within the lessons, Table 6 shows an extensive variety. The most common assessment practices were performance-based assessments and short response tests, which

Table 6 Assessment practices in lesson plans

v2

Attribute

Assessment practices

0.0021 \0.0001

include items like multiple-choice, true/false, fill in the blank, chapter tests, and unit tests. We observed a significant decrease in the use of extended response tests (v2 = 4.602, p = 0.0319) from pre-lesson to post-lesson. Further, we observed a significant increase in the use of performancebased assessments (v2 = 10.057, p = 0.0015) and rubrics (v2 = 4.15, p = 0.0416) from pre-submission to post-submission. There was also a decrease in the use of short response tests from pre-submission to post-submission; however, this change was not statistically significant.

Content Knowledge Content knowledge (CK) was represented in the lesson plans via standards and objectives addressed within the lesson plans themselves. Again, the list of science topics came from Florida’s Next Generation Sunshine State Standards (FDLOE 2010). Teachers focused on an array of content in their lesson plans as illustrated in Table 7. The content most frequently addressed within the lessons included the

Pre-lessons (%)

Post-lessons

v2

p value

Performance-based assessment

51.96

66.21

10.057

0.0015

Short response tests

40.85

34.25

2.086

0.1486

Rubrics Extended response tests

20.26 15.36

28.31 8.68

4.15 4.592

0.0416 0.0321

Teacher observation

0.133

11.11

6.85

2.257

Peer assessment

1.96

2.28

0.0032

0.9549

Group assessment

2.61

1.83

0.0862

0.7691

Student self-assessment

0.65

1.37

0.146

0.7022

No assessment practices specified

0.65

0.00

0.226

0.6348

123

656

J Sci Educ Technol (2015) 24:648–662

Table 7 Science topics in lesson plans Science topics

Pre-lessons (%)

Post-lessons (%)

v2

p value

The practice of science

21.57

20.09

0.0913

0.7626

Interdependence

12.09

20.09

5.663

0.0173

9.80

16.44

4.535

0.0332

Matter

16.99

15.07

0.22

0.6392

Energy

12.09

10.96

0.0678

0.7946

Diversity and evolution of living organisms

5.88

10.05

2.589

0.1076

Heredity and reproduction

6.21

9.13

1.187

0.276

Earth in space and time

6.21

8.68

0.821

0.3649

Earth systems and patterns

6.21

8.22

0.51

0.475

Organization and development of living organisms

Earth structures

7.19

6.39

0.0333

0.8552

The characteristics of scientific knowledge Science and society

6.21 2.29

5.94 4.57

0.0033 1.451

0.9542 0.2283

Motion

6.86

4.11

1.318

0.251

Matter and energy transformations

3.92

3.65

0.0052

0.9427

The role of theories, laws, hypotheses, and models

1.63

1.83

0.0279

0.8674

following lesson topics as stipulated in the state’s science standards: the practice of science, matter, interdependence, organization and development of living organisms, and energy. We observed a significant increase in organization and development of living organisms (v2 = 4.535, p = 0.0332) and interdependence (v2 = 5.663, p = 0.0173) from presubmission to post-submission. Technological Pedagogical Knowledge Technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK) was represented using the five-level continuum for technology integration (Sandholtz et al. 1996): entry, adoption, adaptation, infusion, and transformation. As shown in Table 8, more than 95 % of the lesson plans were found on the first three levels of the ACOT continuum: entry, adoption, and adaptation. However, there were significant differences detected from pre-lesson to post-lesson. In particular, we observed a significant decrease in the entry-level lesson plans (v2 = 18.903, p = 0.0003) from pre-submission to postsubmission. Conversely, we observed a significant increase in the adaptation lesson plans (v2 = 30.258, p \ 0.0001) and infusion lesson plans (v2 = 5.213, p = 0.0224). Table 8 Level of Integration (ACOT continuum) in lesson plans

123

Pedagogical Content Knowledge Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) was revealed in two ways within the lesson plans: (1) science practices (Michaels et al. 2008) and (2) cognitive demand for content area learning (Silver et al. 2009). Science practices aligned to inquiry-based teaching methods as shown in Table 9. During the post-lessons, students engaged in collecting data or evidence and making claims at comparable levels. A notable positive trend was observed in students engaging in reasoning within the lessons; however, this change was not statistically significant. Cognitive demand for content area learning was classified as either high demand or low demand based on a previous study (Silver et al. 2009). As can be gleaned in Table 10, most lesson plans were classified as low-cognitive demand, meaning the tasks required students to recall, define, remember, implement, or apply facts to science. However, we did observe a significant increase in the proportion of lessons exhibiting a high-cognitive demand (v2 = 10.126, p = 0.0015) from pre-lesson to post-lesson, meaning students more frequently had to justify, compare, assess, analyze, or evaluate facts related to mathematics or science

Level of integration

Pre-lessons (%)

Post-lessons (%)

v2

p value

Adaptation

28.43

52.51

30.258

\0.0001

Adoption

21.90

26.48

12.34

Entry

26.80

10.96

18.903

\0.0001

Infusion

0.33

3.20

5.213

0.0224

Transformation

0.33

0.00

0.0253

0.8736

0.2666

J Sci Educ Technol (2015) 24:648–662 Table 9 Science practices in lesson plans

657

Science practices

Pre-lessons (%)

Post-lessons (%)

v2

p value

Students collect data/evidence

39.87

46.12

1.793

0.1806

Students make claims

37.91

42.47

0.926

0.336

Scientifically oriented question or problem

30.39

37.44

2.547

0.1105

Students engage in reasoning

13.07

19.63

3.649

0.0561

Table 10 Cognitive demand for content area learning in lesson plans Cognitive demand

Pre-lessons (%)

Post-lessons (%)

v2

p value

Low-cognitive demand

68.30

57.99

5.45

0.0196

High-cognitive demand

27.45

41.10

10.126

0.0015

In this study, we used TPACK as a theoretical lens to examine how teachers integrated educational technology as evidenced through their science lesson plans submitted at the beginning and end of a one-year technology integration effort. Though our results show an increase in the overall sophistication of technologies used, the use of reformbased science practices was not observed as frequently in the lesson plans. In the following sections, we discuss our findings in detail.

initiative. Mobile computing devices such as tablet and handheld devices were the most commonly purchased items, while probe and peripherals were purchased in large quantities across the projects (Dawson et al. 2012). The findings from teachers’ use of the hardware were complementary to the general software with levels of increase from pre- to post-lessons. Many of the lesson plans required students to seek information on the Internet and, in developing their presentation, employed such tools as digital video and imaging software. However, we were alarmed at the significant decrease in the use of spreadsheets from pre- to post-lessons. Spreadsheets have much utility in inquiry-based science teaching and learning in constructing graphs and tables, and in analyzing large amount of data—an important science practice in the use of evidence to support conclusions.

Technological Knowledge

Pedagogical Knowledge

Educators agree that when educational technology is successfully integrated into teaching, students become engaged with tools that afford them opportunities to analyze and manipulate systems and processes in the construction of science knowledge and in problem solving (Hew and Brush 2007; Neiss 2005). A variety of technologies both hardware and software tools are easily accessible to many students. Thus, students enter the science learning environment with much familiarity and technological knowledge about the uses and applicability of computers and related current hardware and software. In this study, TK was represented by both generic software and hardware. Teachers used Internet browser software and computers in their lessons. While these were the most common educational technology tools, there were significant increases in other devices such as digital microscopes, tablets, and handheld devices from pre- to post-lesson plan submissions. We suspect the use of more sophisticated devices was related to new technologies purchased through the

Attributes of Meaningful Learning

content areas. Conversely, a significant decrease in the lessons that exhibited a low-cognitive demand (v2 = 5.45, p = 0.0196) from pre-lesson to post-lesson was detected.

Discussion

Teachers have the authority to plan and teach what they deem as necessary for students’ learning. Yet, too often, high-stakes tests with their punitive consequences are the deciding factor on what is taught. In support, Haney and McArthur (2002) posited that the choice of instructional strategies is influenced by constraints such as adherence to the local curriculum and high-stakes testing. As a result, much of K-12 science teaching still revolves around traditional science teaching dominated by reading comprehension and a search for science as a body of knowledge. Such curricular constraints do affect instructional decisions and ultimately students’ learning of science. Research and development in science education and an understanding of how learning occurs all point to the need for learners to be actively engaged in science practices supported by educational technologies and communication among peers (Michaels et al. 2008). The teachers’ lesson

123

658

plans revealed significant increase in both active and constructive attributes of a meaningful learning environment and sought to engage students in strategies that included manipulation and required the creation and production of artifacts supporting students’ learning. We posit that the significant increase in the frequency of both active and constructive characteristics could be attributed to the yearlong technology integration initiative. The initiative offered support in educational technology and may have fostered the teachers’ realization of the role of these tools in facilitating the active engagement of students in learning science. That is, during science instruction, these tools presented opportunities for students to access science content knowledge during web-based research. Authentic, real-world learning experiences and cooperative learning environments are important for science learning. This certainly is consistent with how scientists do science as advocated by science education reform efforts. However, the authentic and cooperative attributes were not well represented in the lesson plans. One plausible explanation is that teachers possibly viewed authentic as related to immediate, hands-on, in-class activities and not related to the wide range of real-time science data and other experiences accessible through the use of computer technology. A lack of such inclusion possibly indicates a lack of experience or failure on the part of the teachers to recognize the possibilities of accessing real-world data and exemplars from sites such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and others. In addition, we concluded also that the support offered by the availability of more educational technologies resulted in the teachers’ planning for individual student access and use of the devices. Thus, with increasing availability of computers and other educational technologies, the cooperative attribute of a meaningful learning environment was not promoted as indicated in the findings. Assessment Practices Assessment as a tool to gather information about teaching and learning is important in learning environments. Current lesson planning and curricular processes are guided by students’ responses to formative assessment prompts, while summative assessment tasks indicate the extent to which learning in relation to deliberate objectives has been achieved. In general, lesson plans usually reveal assessment opportunities to determine the extent to which learning has occurred. The teachers’ pre- and post-submission lesson plans included a range of common assessment practices requiring both teacher and student involvement. Noticeably, however, were the significant increases in both performance-based assessment and the

123

J Sci Educ Technol (2015) 24:648–662

use of rubrics and the decrease in the use of extended response tests. We suspect that these practices as represented in the pre- and post-lesson plans were related to each other and to the infusion of technology. Content Knowledge Science teaching in Florida is mostly guided by the science topics indicated in the state’s science standards (FLDOE 2010). However, on the national level, standards are not mandates (NRC 2000) but represent the minimum students should learn within grade-level bands in public school. Such guidance is particularly important in a time when there is a national reform effort to improve students’ science learning and embrace science as a cornerstone in twenty-first century education. Both state and national standards stress the notion that science teaching and learning should be consistent with how scientists do science. The national standards therefore state the following: Scientific inquiry refers to the diverse ways in which scientists study the natural world and propose explanations based on the evidence derived from their work. Inquiry also refers to the activities of students in which they develop knowledge and understanding of scientific ideas, as well as an understanding of how scientists study the natural world (NRC 2006, p. 23). This emphasis on inquiry as practice and as a way of understanding the world has implications for the integration of classroom strategies that can support effective science learning. An examination of the frequency of the science content knowledge topics that emerged in the teachers’ preand post-lesson plan submissions was revealing. The three content knowledge topics that occurred most frequently— the practice of science, matter, and energy—are considered major themes across science disciplinary areas related to biology, chemistry, and physics. One plausible reason for the observed frequency of the practice of science could be attributed to the focus on inquiry-based science (NRC, 1996) and current efforts to involve learners in science practices (Michaels et al. 2008). Ironically, other content knowledge topics related to the nature of science (characteristics of scientific knowledge and the role of theories, laws, hypotheses, and models) did not incur the level of frequency as the practice of science. This might suggest that teachers were more comfortable with or more inclined to treat the practice of science in a generic manner with less emphasis on the specific related content knowledge of characteristics of science knowledge, role of theories, laws, hypotheses, and models. This finding signaled the need for research to explore how science teachers’ understandings of the tenets of the nature of science impact their decisions on choice of science content knowledge topics.

J Sci Educ Technol (2015) 24:648–662

Only two content topics emerged with significant increases in their representation in the lesson plans from preto post-submission. These biological science topics were organization and development of living organisms, and interdependence. This finding might be interpreted in relation to the recent high school graduation requirement and also is reflective of the time teachers were required to submit their lesson plans. Students in Florida are required to pass the state-mandated end-of-course biology examination. While this finding might suggest a delay in teaching the topic until closer to the examination date where students are more likely to exhibit greater performance, it also indicates weaknesses in the planned treatment and delivery of science content. Technological Pedagogical Knowledge In our exploration of TPK, we embraced the notion that technology integration may take many forms and is usually captured along a variety of continuums (Hooper and Rieber 1995; Itzkan 1994; Knenek and Christensen 2000). Furthermore, multiple levels of integration from entry through to transformation can be observed in any one lesson. More than 95 % of the lesson plans ascribed to the first three levels of the ACOT continuum; thus, only 5 % of the lessons sought to allow students autonomous use of the technology. We observed a significant decrease in the frequency of plans that were at the entry levels from pre- to post-lessons indicating a reduction in the teachers’ use of technology to deliver science information. At the same time, there was a significant increase in adaptation lessons in which teachers incorporated technology tools as integral components in the development of lesson plans. While many of these lessons involved students’ independent use of the technology tools to create particular digital projects, the lessons lacked students’ use at the infusion and transformative levels. That is, teachers were limited in the ways they planned to use technology in affording variety and in supporting the development and use of higher-level skills. Pedagogical Content Knowledge Inquiry-Based Science Teaching Within the category of PCK is the consideration of how science content knowledge is formulated in ways that are accessible for learners. While there is no one single powerful representation (Shulman 1986) of science content knowledge, lesson plans should at least include the teachers’ intent for developing such knowledge. This intent should include strategies or approaches for shaping and reshaping students’ understanding of the proposed science content knowledge and practices per the curriculum.

659

Furthermore, the plan of action should be derived from the wisdom of the teachers’ own practices or from knowledge garnered in previous methods courses or professional development experiences. The focus of the one-year technology integration initiative was to provide support for integrating educational technology in science classrooms. On the national level, inquiry-based science teaching is given much priority in science curriculum as a way of allowing learners to experience how scientists do science and science knowledge is developed (NRC 1996). Inquiry-based science instruction has also been recommended as a way for teachers to promote student understanding of the nature of science (Bianchini and Colburn 2000; Forbes and Davis 2010) combining science practices, student-designed explorations, and experimentation within the context of the state’s curriculum. Science educators contend that engagement in these science practices over time will lead to a more scientifically literate population with a greater appreciation and understanding of the nature of science. Our analysis revealed a fair consistency in how teachers planned to involve students in scientifically oriented questions, collect data, make claims substantiated by the evidence collected, and engage in scientific reasoning. Each of these essential features was included in the pre- and post-lesson plans. This consistency could be attributed to the fact that although the focus of the one-year initiative was on technology integration, little or no emphasis was placed on PCK within the construct of inquiry-based lessons. A plausible explanation for the change in student reasoning though statistically insignificant could be that while the other features of inquiry require levels of individual student engagement, teachers may plan to involve students in other activities such as structured small- and whole-group discussions and, with the use of question prompts, provide opportunities for reasoning and the possibility of deepening students’ learning. Cognitive Demand We embraced cognitive demand as the kind and level of thinking required of students during a learning experience. As a critical feature of ensuring depth of understanding, Silver et al. (2009) described low-demand tasks as those relating to recall of information such as facts and procedures. For these authors, high-demand tasks included skills such as analyzing, evaluating, and being metacognitive in nature. Our findings of high incidences of low-cognitive demand in both pre- and post-lesson plan submissions support much of the criticisms directed at science teaching and facilitated by the nature of high-stakes tests. Too often, these tests—tied to teachers and school accountability processes—favor the recall of snippets of science

123

660

information. Similarly, teachers may not have had the knowledge or experience to use technology to support higher levels of cognitive demand. Further, technology is often used as a tool for students to present information, recite procedures, or memorize facts. While there was a significant decrease in the low-cognitive demand between pre- and post-test lesson plans, if the reform efforts of science teaching are to be realized, there is still the need for lessons to incorporate more of the skills consistent with high-cognitive demand. Technological Content Knowledge We found a paucity of science-specific software in the lesson plans. Two possible reasons for this deficiency could be a lack of awareness of the existence of this type of software among the teachers. We suspected that during the year, more emphasis was placed on generic educational technology hardware tools and software than sciencespecific software. Furthermore, teachers seemed unaware of the great science teaching potentials that exist in utilizing this type of software or in accessing Web sites such as NOAA and NASA.

Implications This study was one component of a large Florida technology integration initiative. Our analysis of pre- and postlesson plans identified and documented teachers’ practices with educational technologies. The implementation of the initiative offered no guarantee that teachers were positioned to interpret the goals as intended by policymakers (Brown and Campione 1996). The findings, therefore, can be attributed to the extent to which lead administrators and teachers understood and translated the goals into practice. A number of misalignments occurred between the goals of the technology integration initiative and teachers’ intended practices as documented in their lesson plans. In an era of loud calls for reforms in science teaching, our study revealed deficiencies in science technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge and practices in the pre- and postlesson plans. We recognized that a gap existed between the goals of the state’s initiative and the actual implementation by teachers. According to Lincoln and Guba (1986), this difference between the stated goals of the initiative and actual implementation may be attributed to the fact that interpretation of policies is usually dependent on the lens through which the policies are viewed. The policy interpretation became a major weakness in the technology integration initiative, as it did not have a commonly expressed framework guiding the activities of the stakeholders involved such as policymakers, district personnel,

123

J Sci Educ Technol (2015) 24:648–662

and teachers. We posit that TPACK may be a useful framework to use when educational technology policy initiatives are to be implemented. Our findings revealed the occurrence of more positive and frequent changes in technology practices than science pedagogical and content practices. Notably, the initiative provided teachers with technology tools, which could account for the increases in areas such as general software and hardware. There is a risk, however, that schools may invest in an abundance of new technologies faster than the teachers’ readiness for effective integration to promote science learning. Advances in educational technology—focused on inquirybased science reform efforts and refinement in instructional practices—all present challenges and opportunities for science teaching. It follows that a one-year initiative with a focus on technology integration may not have done enough to engage teachers in related pedagogical and content professional development experiences to afford the necessary change in science teaching practices. Morrison et al. (2007), in giving credence to collaboration among content fields in professional development, suggested that the inclusion of content experts in design and implementation in much the same way subject area experts are engaged with instructional design teams. To further effect changes in science pedagogical and content knowledge, we offer that science teachers should be explicitly engaged in content-specific technology integration efforts simultaneously conducted by the team of experts from the other related fields. This shared experience would aptly fit at the intersection of science pedagogical knowledge, content knowledge, and education technology. In such a structure, TPACK becomes a viable framework for technology integration into science lessons.

References Allsopp MM, Hohlfeld T, Kemker K (2007) The technology integration matrix: the development and field-test of an internet based multi-media assessment tool for the implementation of instructional technology in the classroom. Paper Presented at the Florida Educational Research Association, Tampa American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (1989) Project 2061: Science for All Americans American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (1993) Benchmarks for science literacy. http://www.project2061. org/ Archambault LM, Barnett JH (2010) Revisiting technological pedagogical content knowledge: exploring the TPACK framework. Comput Educ 55(4):1656–1662 Archambault L, Crippen K (2009) Examining TPACK among K-12 online distance educators in the united states. Contemp Issue Tech Teach Educ 9(1):71 Bianchini J, Colburn A (2000) Teaching the nature of science through inquiry to prospective elementary teachers: a tale of two researchers. J Res Sci Teach 37(2):177–209

J Sci Educ Technol (2015) 24:648–662 Blumenfeld PC, Fishman BJ, Krajcik JS, Marx RW (2000) Creating usable innovations in systemic reform: scaling up technologyembedded project-based science in urban schools. Educ Psychol 35(3):149–164 Brantley-Dias L, Ertmer PA (2013) Goldilocks and TPACK: is the construct ‘‘Just Right?’’. J Res Technol Educ 46(2), 103–128 Brown SD (1998) Twelve middle-school teachers’ planning. Elem Sch J 89(1):69–87 Brown AL, Campione JC (1996) Psychological theory and the design of innovative learning environments: on procedures, principles and systems. In: Schauble L, Glaser R (eds) Innovations in learning: new environments for education. Erbaulm, Hillsdale, pp 289–325 Darling-Hammond LL (2000) How teacher education matters. J Teach Educ 51(3):166–173 Darling-Hammond LL (2010) Evaluating teacher effectiveness: How teacher performance assessments can measure and improve teaching. Washington, D.C.: Center for American Progress Dawson K, Ritzhaupt A, Pringle R, Kersaint G (2011) Manual for EETT lesson plan reviewers. Unpublished document, Gainesville Dawson K, Drexler W, Ritzhaupt AD, Liu F, Barron A, Kersaint G, Cavanaugh C, Harmes C, Welsh J (2012) Charting a course for the digital science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) classroom interim research and evaluation report. Final report to the Florida Department of Education. Title II-D/ Enhancing Education Through Technology (EETT) grant program Florida Department of Education (2010) Florida next generation sunshine state standards. FLDOE, Tallahassee Forbes CT, Davis EA (2010) Curriculum design for inquiry: preservice elementary teachers’ mobilization and adaptation of science curriculum materials. J Res Sci Teach 47(7):820–839 Guzey SS, Roehrig GH (2009) Teaching science with technology: case studies of science teachers’ development of technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge. Contemp Issues Technol Teach Educ 9(1). http://www.citejournal.org/vol9/iss1/science/article1.cfm Haney J, McArthur J (2002) Four case studies of prospective science teachers’ beliefs concerning constructivist teaching practices. Sci Educ 86:783–802 Hew KF, Brush T (2007) Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educ Tech Res Dev 55(3):223–252 Hogarty KY, Lang TR, Kromrey JD (2003) Another look at technology use in classrooms: the development and validation of an instrument to measure teachers’ perceptions. Educ Psychol Meas 63(1):137–160 Hooper S, Rieber LP (1995) Teaching with technology. In: Ornstein A (ed) Teaching: theory into practice. Allyn & Bacon, Neeham Heights, pp 154–170 Hug B, Krajcik JS, Marx RW (2005) Using innovative technologies to promote learning and engagement in an urban science classroom. Urban Educ 40(4):446–472 Itzkan S (1994) Assessing the future of telecomputing environments: implications for instruction and administration. Comput Teach 4(22):60–64 Jacobs CL, Martin SN, Otieno TC (2008) A science lesson plan analysis instrument for formative and summative program evaluation of a teacher education program. Sci Educ 92(6):1096–1126. doi:10.1002/sce.20277 Jonassen D, Howland J, Moore J, Marra R (2003) Learning to solve problems with technology: a constructivist perspective, 2nd edn. Merrill Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

661 Kersaint G (2003) Technology beliefs and practices of mathematics education faculty. J Technol Teach Educ 11(4):549–577 Knenek G, Christensen R (2000) Refining best teaching practices for technology integration key instructional design strategies (KIDS). http://www.iittl.unt.edu/KIDS2000/ Koehler MJ, Mishra P (2005) What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. J Educ Comput Res 32(2):131–152 Lei J (2007) Technology uses and student achievement: a longitudinal study. Comput Educ 49(2):284 Lincoln YS, Guba EE (1986) Research, evaluation, and policy analysis: heuristics for disciplined inquiry. Rev Policy Res 5(3):546–565. doi:10.1111/j.1541-1338.1986.tb00429.x Lowther DL, Ross SM (2001) Observation of computer use: reliability analysis. Center for Research in Educational Policy, The University of Memphis, Memphis McNeill KL, Pimentel DS (2010) Scientific discourse in three urban classrooms: the role of the teacher in engaging high school teachers in high school argumentation. Sci Educ 94:203–229 Michaels S, Shouse AW, Schweingruber HA (2008) Ready, set, science: putting research to work in K-8 science classrooms. National Academy, Washington Mishra P, Koehler MJ (2006) Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a framework for teacher knowledge. Teach Coll Rec 108(6):1017–1054 Morrison GR, Kemp JE, Ross SM (2007) Designing effective instruction (5th edn). In: Hoboken NJ (ed), National Education Technology Plan (2010) Transforming American education: learning powered by technology, Wiley. http://www.ed.gov/ technology/netp-2010 National Educational Technology Plan (NETP) (2010) Transforming American education: Learning powered by technology. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/technology/netp2010 National Research Council (1996) National science education standards. National Academy Press, Washington National Research Council (2000) Inquiry and the national science education standards: a guide for teaching and learning. National Academy, Washington National Research Council (2006) Research on Future Skill Demands. Washington, DC.: National Academy Press Neiss ML (2005) Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teach Teach Educ 21(5):509–523 Pearson PD, Gallagher MC (1983) The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemp Educ Psychol 8(3):317–344 Polly D (2011) Examining teachers’ enactment of technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) in their mathematics teaching after technology integration professional development. J Comput Math Sci Teach 30(1):37–59 Sandholtz JH, Ringstaff C, Dwyer DC (1996) Teaching with technology: creating student-centered classrooms. Teachers College Press, New York Shulman LS (1986) Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educ Res 15(2):4–14 Silk Y, Silver D, Amerian S, Nishimura C, Boscardin CK (2009) Using classroom artifacts to measure the efficacy of professional development, No. 761. Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards and Student Testing Silver EA, Mesa VM, Morris KA, Star JR, Benken BM (2009) Teaching mathematics for understanding: an analysis of lessons submitted by teachers seeking NBPTS certification. Am Educ Res J 46(2):501–531

123

662 Slykhuis D, Krall R (2011) Teaching science with technology: a decade of research. In: Koehler M, Mishra P (eds),Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2011). AACE, Chesapeake, pp 4142–4151. http://www.editlib.org/p/36982 State Educational Technology Directors Association (SETDA) (2011) national trends. http://www.setda.org/web/guest/2011national trends. Accessed 15 July 2011

123

J Sci Educ Technol (2015) 24:648–662 Wiggins, G. (1990). The case for authentic assessment. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 2(2). http://PAREonline. net/getvn.asp?v=2&n=2