professional development for computer‐enhanced learning: a case study with science teachers

This article was downloaded by: [North Dakota State University]On: 03 December 2014, At: 21:58Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Research in Science & TechnologicalEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/crst20

Professional development forcomputer‐enhanced learning: a casestudy with science teachersNicos Valanides a & Charoula Angeli aa University of Cyprus , Nicosia, CyprusPublished online: 11 Mar 2008.

To cite this article: Nicos Valanides & Charoula Angeli (2008) Professional development forcomputer‐enhanced learning: a case study with science teachers, Research in Science &Technological Education, 26:1, 3-12, DOI: 10.1080/02635140701847397

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02635140701847397

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/crst20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/02635140701847397

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02635140701847397

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Research in Science & Technological EducationVol. 26, No. 1, April 2008, 3–12

ISSN 0263-5143 print/ISSN 1470-1138 online© 2008 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/02635140701847397http://www.informaworld.com

Professional development for computer-enhanced learning: a case study with science teachers

Nicos Valanides* and Charoula Angeli

University of Cyprus, Nicosia, CyprusTaylor and Francis LtdCRST_A_284879.sgm10.1080/02635140701847397Research in Science & Technological Education0263-5143 (print)/1470-1138 (online)Original Article2008Taylor & Francis261000000April [email protected] The preparation of science teachers to integrate computers in their teaching seems to be a

challenging task, and teacher educators need to undertake systematic and coordinated effortsfor effectively preparing teachers to teach with computers. The present study implemented aprofessional development approach for in-service science teachers regarding the pedagogicaluses of computers in teaching and learning, and examined its effectiveness. The results showedthat the approach was effective in adequately preparing science teachers to design computer-enhanced learning with various computer applications. Specifically, the majority of theteachers who participated in the study selected appropriate science topics to be taught withcomputers, transformed science content with appropriate computer tools and computer-supported representations, identified computer-supported teaching tactics, and integrated theircomputer-enhanced activities in the classroom with inquiry-based pedagogy. The results of thestudy provide baseline data about the effectiveness of the approach, and they can be used forcomparison purposes in future studies, which may be conducted with the intention of furthervalidating or even improving the suggested professional development approach.

Keywords: computer-enhanced learning; science; teacher professional development

Introduction

Whether computers should be used in teaching and learning is no longer the issue in education.Instead, the current emphasis is ensuring that computers are used effectively to create new oppor-tunities for teaching and learning. Lack of effective teacher professional development targetingthe pedagogical uses of computers in the classroom is one of the most serious obstacles to fullyintegrating computers into the curriculum (Fatemi 1999; Office of Technology Assessment 1995;Panel on Educational Technology 1997). According to Gess-Newsome et al. (2003) preparingteachers to teach with computers constitutes a key component in almost every improvement planfor education and educational reform programs. In consideration of the meaning of professionaldevelopment in the technological age, Grant (1996) proposed a definition of professional devel-opment that includes the use of computers in ways that go beyond helping teachers to learn newskills. Grant (1996) emphasized the need to help teachers, not only to develop basic computingskills, but most importantly to develop new insights about pedagogy, explore new or advancedunderstandings of content, and use computers to support inquiry-based learning.

A review of the literature indicates that for the most part computer professional developmentfor in-service teachers has focused on the mechanical uses of computers and not on the pedagog-ical uses of computers in teaching and learning (Gess-Newsome 2001; Lieberman and Miller1991; Little 1993; Schrum 1999). The main focus of the skills-based approaches has been onteaching teachers how to use various computer applications, such as word processing, spread-sheets, email, Internet and graphics. Despite the fact that basic computing skills constitute the

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:58

03

Dec

embe

r 20

14

4 N. Valanides and C. Angeli

cornerstone of computer literacy, there have been serious reactions to this approach. Theopposition is mainly based on the argument that skills-based courses are not enough for preparingteachers how to teach with computers, as they are usually taught in isolation from a pedagogicalcontext (Becker and Riel 2001; Selinger 2001). For these reasons, systematic efforts have beenundertaken during the last decade to move away from didactic and out-of-context computing-skills courses towards subject-specific computer applications in teaching and learning. Kenny(2002) stated that the lack of a subject-specific focus in many computer-training programsremains an issue, but even in those cases where subject applications are discussed, matters ofsubject-specific pedagogy are not sufficiently explored and teachers still find it difficult to linkcomputers with pedagogy and content.

Within the context of teacher professional development in science education, as advocated bythe American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993) and the National ResearchCouncil (1996), educating science teachers in the pedagogical uses of computers should involvea commitment to the inclusion of the computer as a tool for learning both science content andscientific processes. The National Science Education Standards (National Research Council1996) call for science educators to act as facilitators of student inquiry. The recommendations askscience educators to integrate in their classrooms appropriate computer tools for the purpose ofengaging students in inquiry, collaboration, and in a process of constructing authentic scientificknowledge.1 Hence, achieving the visions for a reformed K-12 science education entails peda-gogical practices that are different from the typical practices in the majority of K-12 classrooms(National Research Council 1996). Computer tools, such as simulations, web-based conferencingsystems, multimedia, visualization, and modeling tools can be utilized to support inquiry inscience teaching and learning (Bransford, Brown and Cocking 2001; Penner 2000/2001). Ininquiry science classrooms, the computer should not be viewed as an independent entity that ispursued for its own sake, but as a tool with intentionality. More importantly, the effective designof computer-enhanced science learning should greatly depend on aligning inquiry-centered peda-gogy with the inherent features and affordances of computer tools to transform science contentinto pedagogically powerful forms through visualization, modeling, and multiple external repre-sentations (American Association for the Advancement of Science 1993; Gordon and Pea 1995).

Rodrigues (2003) stated that teacher professional development with respect to computers andscience has not promoted any real change in classroom teaching. The difficulty of professionaldevelopment programs to effectively restructure science teaching and learning with computershas been attributed to several reasons, such as: (a) the failure to consider science teachers’ beliefsabout the uses of computers in science (Czerniak et al. 1999); (b) the emphasis on technical skillsand not on computer-enhanced science pedagogy (Grant 1996; Galanouli, Murphy and Gardner2004); (c) the failure to show teachers a direct link between computers and the science curriculumthat they are responsible to teach (Byrom 1998); and (d) teachers’ lack of confidence to transferwhat they learned during the training into their classroom instruction (Halpin 1999).

Considering the ineffectiveness of current teacher professional development programs forscience teachers, the National Science Education Standards (National Research Council 1996)presented a vision for a substantive change in how science is taught and indicated that an equallysubstantive change is also needed in professional development practices. A lot of current profes-sional development practices for science teachers involve traditional lectures for conveying sciencecontent, and training about the technical aspects of teaching. For example, emphasis is put onscience as a body of facts and rules to be memorized, and in-service activities in methods of teachingscience frequently emphasize technical skills (National Research Council 1996). If reform is tobe accomplished, professional development approaches must shift from de-contextualizedtechnical training for specific skills to contextualized or situated training approaches (Dall’Albaand Sandberg 2006). This implies that teacher professional development should be situated in

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:58

03

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Research in Science & Technological Education 5

authentic teaching and learning experiences where knowledge about content, pedagogy, learners,resources and tools is used in integrated ways to achieve learning objectives.

In view of recognizing the need to foster effective contextualized teacher professional devel-opment practices, this study set out to (a) develop an approach for guiding in-service scienceteachers in their efforts to integrate computers in teaching and learning; and (b) report on itseffectiveness. The focus of the approach was not on the development of teachers’ basic comput-ing skills, but on the pedagogical uses of computers in teaching and learning. The present workconstitutes a starting point of intensive future research efforts for the validation or modificationof the approach described herein by extending its application in other contexts with differentscience topics and various computer tools. The impetus for this research is motivated by a needto develop robust methodologies for the optimal design of computer-enhanced learning in scienceeducation. Within the context of science teacher professional development, this impetus is guidedby a pressing need to depart from traditional de-contextualized teacher professional approachesto more culturally-bound or situated approaches. Despite the local nature of the study, the resultscan be used as baseline data for future efforts that may be conducted to further validate, modify,or even improve the proposed professional development approach.

Methodology

The context of the study

Ten secondary science teachers with varied experiences and expertise in science participated inthe study. Specifically, five of them were Physics teachers (P1, P2, P3, P4 and P5), two wereBiology teachers (B6 and B7), and three Chemistry teachers (C8, C9 and C10). Their teachingexperience ranged from 6 to 25 years with an average teaching experience of 14.3 years. The ageof the students that the teachers were working with ranged from 13- to 17-years-old.

At the beginning of the study, participants were asked to provide a self-assessment regardingtheir (a) familiarity with student misconceptions in science; (b) computing skills; (c) pedagogicalknowledge; and (d) content knowledge. As shown in Table 1, three of the physics teachers (P2,P3 and P5) stated that they had advanced computing skills and clarified that they were usingcomputers in their teaching to deliver information to students. One teacher (C10) rarely used acomputer before, while the other teachers had basic computing skills. In terms of their pedagogicalknowledge, they were mostly unaware of the basic tenets of constructivism, and they favouredteacher-centered teaching approaches. Only four teachers (P3, P4, C8 and C9) had formal

Table 1. Self-reported characteristics of the participating teachers.

TeacherYears of teaching

Knowledge of learners

Computing skills

Pedagogical knowledge

Content knowledge

P1 9 Good Basic Limited StrongP2 15 Limited Expert Limited StrongP3 7 Good Expert Very good StrongP4 11 Good Basic Good StrongP5 13 Limited Expert Limited StrongB6 14 Good Basic Limited StrongB7 25 Limited Basic Limited StrongC8 18 Good Basic Very good StrongC9 6 Good Basic Good StrongC10 25 Limited None Limited Strong

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:58

03

Dec

embe

r 20

14


pedagogical training prior to their appointment as teachers, or as part of their previous in-servicetraining. In addition, only six teachers (P1, P3, P4, B6, C8 and C9) recognized, to a certain extent,the importance of students’ prior conceptions in science and students’ difficulties regardingscience concepts in general. Lastly, all teachers indicated that they were strong in subject-matterknowledge.

The span of the in-service training program was 70 45-minute periods. The duration ofeach training session was four periods, and there were either one or two meetings every week.The program was completed in four months. Despite the fact that there was only a smallnumber of participants, there were many challenges to be faced in the program, because theparticipants (a) had different needs and expectations from the program; (b) did not have thesame level of readiness (knowledge, attitudes, beliefs); (c) were at different levels of technicalexpertise; and (d) most of them were not familiar with the framework of constructivism and itseducational implications.

An approach to in-service computer education

Based on the model in Figure 1, the process of designing computer-enhanced learning inscience begins with identifying topics that students find too abstract and thus difficult to under-stand, or topics that science teachers find difficult to teach without computer tools. After theidentification of topics to be taught with computers, the content is transformed or representedinto forms that are pedagogically powerful, so that it becomes more accessible or understand-able to learners. Thereafter, appropriate computer tools and specific teaching strategies that canafford the desired content transformations/representations are selected, and computer-enhancedactivities are integrated in the classroom with appropriate pedagogy, such as inquiry-basedpedagogy. Before integration, representations are tailored to students’ specific characteristics,such as, prior knowledge, preconceptions, and gaps related to lack of strong computing skills.During learning, assessment takes place as an ongoing process and feedback is continuouslyprovided and used for revisions and improvements. The process concludes with reflection andfinal revision.Figure 1. A model for designing computer-enhanced learning.The trainers employed the model shown in Figure 1 to design computer-enhanced lessons andactivities for science and thereafter model them in class. In addition, the participating teacherswere asked to design their own computer-enhanced lessons for teaching science and present themin class. In particular, each teacher was guided to first identify science concepts or areas from thesecondary science curriculum that students find difficult to understand and teachers find difficultto present or teach. Subsequently, they were asked to think about the alignment between comput-ers, the content to be taught and inquiry-based teaching, so that they could understand howcomputers could, in an inquiry-based science classroom, effectively transform abstract sciencecontent into more concrete or realistic forms. Thus, teachers had plenty of opportunities throughout the program to observe, and study the structure and process of designing and developingcomputer-enhanced lessons for science as well as practice the use of computers in scienceteaching. Teachers were asked to design a number of computer-enhanced science lessons withvarious computer tools, such as, spreadsheets, concept-mapping tools, modeling tools, simula-tions, the Internet, and multimedia authoring software.

As mentioned previously, the fact that not all participants had the same computing skillswas a real challenge for the training program. For this reason, we structured our trainingsessions to include demonstrations of tools and workshops for teaching teachers how to usecertain tools. Then, we covered topics on pedagogy, curriculum development, and instructionaldesign, and we modeled computer integration in various science topics, such as, the watercycle, food chains, human systems and the simple electric circuit, showing how the alignment

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:58

03

Dec

embe

r 20

14


��

� ��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

� ��

� ��

��

��

��

� ��

� ��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

� ��

�� !�"�"#

��

�$��# ��#

�� #

�� $��%

Figure 1. A model for designing computer-enhanced learning.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:58

03

Dec

embe

r 20

14


between computer tools, science content, pedagogy and learners was conceptualized and imple-mented.

Data analysis

The main source for data analysis included teachers’ computer-enhanced lesson plans, but addi-tional qualitative information was collected from discussions with groups of participants and otherinformal sources, such as discussions with individual participants during the instructors’ officehours, or feedback and discussions during the presentations of participants’ computer-enhancedlesson plans.

In the qualitative analysis of participants’ lesson plans we used as guiding themes the follow-ing design criteria: (a) selection of science topics to be taught with computers; (b) use of computerrepresentations to transform science content; (c) use of computers to support constructivistlearning; and (d) integration of computer activities with appropriate pedagogy in the classroom.Two independent raters, a doctoral student in science education and an expert in instructionaltechnology, evaluated all lesson plans and activities, and a Pearson r between the two ratings wascalculated and found to be .89. The two raters and the researchers discussed the observeddisagreements between the two raters and resolved after discussion the existing differences.Pearson r, also known as the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient, is used to calculatethe degree to which two variables are related, either inversely or directly. An inverse relationshipmeans that high values on one variable tend to occur with low values on the other variable. Adirect relationship means that high values on one variable tend to occur with high levels on theother variable (Pyrczak 2002).

Results

Selection of science topics to be taught with computers

The majority of teachers recognized that the computer provided added value in some instruc-tional situations and that it was not the case that every science topic could be effectively taughtwith computers. Only a chemistry teacher (C10) with 25 years of teaching experience haddifficulty in identifying a science topic to be taught with computers. The same teacher did nothave any computing skills, had limited pedagogical training, and was not really willing toinvest time and effort in learning how to use and integrate computer tools in his teaching. Afterlong discussions with the instructors of the program and extensive guidance, the teacher wasable to identify an appropriate science topic to be taught with computers. The other participantseasily identified science topics to be taught with computers and provided insights and validjustifications for their selection. Particularly, teachers selected science topics that are generallyconsidered too abstract to be understood or taught with traditional methods or means of instruc-tion, such as, the topics of thermal expansion, photosynthesis, evaporation, perspiration, andstates of matter.

Use of computer representations to transform science content

The instructors with their extensive guidance and assistance helped the 10 teachers to select avariety of computer tools in order to transform and teach the respective science concepts. But,only six of them used appropriate computer representations to transform the content consideringstudents’ prior understandings and content-related difficulties. These were mainly the teacherswho had pedagogical training (P3, P4, C8 and C9), or a good understanding of students’ alternativeconceptions in science (P1 and B6). The remaining teachers used the tools as delivery vehicles,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:58

03

Dec

embe

r 20

14


and not as cognitive tools, to simply deliver the content of a science textbook. Interestinglyenough, two of the teachers (P2 and P5) who had been using computers in their teaching for manyyears, but had limited pedagogical knowledge and limited knowledge of students’ conceptions orscience-specific difficulties, continued to use the computer tools as delivery media and not ascognitive tools for scaffolding students’ thinking.

Use of computers to support constructivist learning

The results also showed that some teachers had difficulty with aligning the unique features oraffordances of the tools with appropriate pedagogy for teaching science content. According to thefindings, seven teachers used to a certain extent the tools to support a student-centered pedagogy,while the remaining teachers (P2, P5, B7 and C10) used the computer tools as media to presentinformation to students, and thus simply to support existing old practices of disseminatinginformation. The failure to align the affordances of computer tools with appropriate pedagogy canbe attributed to either the fact that some teachers found it difficult to learn how to use the tools,or to the lack of adequate pedagogical knowledge (P2, P5). In order to overcome skills-relateddifficulties, the trainers provided workshops for teaching teachers how to use different software.During these sessions though, learning how to use the different software often turned out to bethe point of instruction. Thus, it could be the case that teachers were so caught up in learning howto use the tools that they lost sight of the design tasks. Moreover, it could also be the case that thecognitive load imposed by learning how to use the tools was so high, that teachers were left withnot enough cognitive resources to attend to the process of designing appropriate computer-enhanced learning.

The tendency to use computer tools as delivery mechanisms was particularly evident in thosecases where teachers (P2, P3, P5 and C10) used multimedia in their lessons. Amongst them, onlyone physics teacher (P3) integrated the multimedia tools in an appropriate manner taking advantageof their added value in teaching and learning. Teachers, in other words, did not utilize the uniquefeatures of the multimedia tools to appropriately transform science content into powerfulpedagogical forms, and they only used them to incorporate pictures in their lesson plans. On thecontrary, the lessons with modeling tools (P1, P4, B6, B7, C8 and C9) were of better quality thanthe multimedia lessons. This difference in quality between the lesson plans with multimedia toolsand those with modeling software can be attributed to the scaffolds afforded by the tools. Themultimedia authoring tools that were used are open software systems that can be used for the teach-ing of any content domain, not just science. The modeling software, although, open software aswell, has a built-in interface, which scaffolds the construction of computer models. Thus, theaffordances of the modeling tool guided teachers in their efforts to create interactive computermodels for testing out hypotheses and controlling variables.

Integration of computer activities with appropriate pedagogy in the classroom

Furthermore, only some teachers (P1, C8 and C9) integrated their computer activities withinquiry-based pedagogy in the classroom. The remaining teachers simply used the activities tosupport traditional teacher-centered practices. For example, some teachers who used multimediatools or the Internet envisioned a classroom environment in which the teacher used the tools topresent information to students, or a learning environment in which students used the teacher-made ‘multimedia presentations’ to simply read and become informed about a topic. Along thesame line of reasoning, some teachers who used modeling tools or concept maps recommendeda teacher-directed presentation of a computer model or concept map. Finally, teachers (P4, C8 andC9) who had a good grasp of pedagogical knowledge, but only basic computing skills, were

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:58

03

Dec

embe

r 20

14


concerned about the time and effort needed to learn how to use the tools themselves, whereassome others (P1, B6, B7 and C10), with limited pedagogical knowledge and basic computingskills, found the task of developing computer-enhanced lesson plans based on constructivistprinciples difficult, demanding and daunting.

Discussion and implications

The results show that the majority of the participating teachers selected appropriate science topicsto be taught with computers, six teachers transformed science content with appropriate computertools and computer-supported representations, seven teachers identified computer-supportedteaching tactics, and only three teachers integrated computer activities with inquiry-basedpedagogy in their lesson plans. The results indicate that there were some teachers who faced diffi-culties in (a) transforming science content with appropriate computer-supported representations;(b) using computers to support a powerful learner-centered pedagogy; and (c) integrating computeractivities with inquiry-based pedagogy in their lesson plans. These difficulties can also be attributedto the lack of appropriate pedagogical knowledge, adequate computing skills, knowledge aboutstudents’ conceptions and science-related difficulties, the duration of the program, and /or to thecombined effect of all of these factors. Nonetheless, despite teachers’ overall limited pedagogicalknowledge, poor computing skills, and limited knowledge of students’ conceptions and learningdifficulties, their computer-enhanced lesson plans indicated progress and showed that teacherslearned and applied new strategies in designing learning activities for science. Gradually, the partic-ipating teachers designed computer-enhanced lesson plans of better quality, which reflected theirenhanced understandings of how the affordances of the computer tools could transform abstractscience concepts into more concrete forms that students could find easier to comprehend.

The findings of the study suggest that preparing computer-competent teachers is a challeng-ing and difficult issue that needs to be systematically planned and carefully implemented. Anumber of implications arise from the study. First, teacher educators need to carefully select thetools to use in their professional development programs. If the tools are difficult to learn, then theparticipating teachers will get caught up in just learning how to use the tools themselves and theywill fail to design appropriate computer-supported learning activities. It is very important thatteacher educators evaluate, in a systematic way, participants’ computing skills in conjunctionwith their pedagogical knowledge and their knowledge about students. Only then, they can designand implement ways to effectively assist teachers to improve their computing skills, and constructnew and improved understandings about teaching. Second, teacher educators need to explicitlyteach how the unique features of a tool can be used to transform a specific content domain in waysnot possible without the tool. In other words, teacher educators have to explicitly demonstrate theadded value of a tool in teaching and learning. Teachers need to be persuaded about the value thatis added by computers in order to have a positive outlook toward integrating them in their teach-ing. Third, teacher educators need to explicitly teach how interactive learning activities can bedeveloped with computers, that is, they need to explicitly teach the link between computers andpedagogy. Lastly, teacher educators need to explicitly teach the connections between computers,content, pedagogy and learners.

In conclusion, the preparation of teachers to teach with computers is not an easy task andintensive efforts need to be invested and coordinated to extend the knowledge base of how toencourage its evolution and growth. For example, the participating teachers were not willingto invest time and effort for improving their computing skills and the quality of their design tasksoutside the scheduled 70 periods of the program. Similarly, they did not invest enough time toenrich their pedagogical knowledge for the purpose of improving their teaching practices. Therestricted time devoted by teachers beyond the training sessions, their limited technical expertise,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:58

03

Dec

embe

r 20

14


and limited pedagogical knowledge influenced the effectiveness of the program. These experi-ences lead to the conclusion that in any new efforts (a) the problem of inadequate initial technicalexpertise should be addressed by providing initial technical training; (b) teacher educators needto also find effective ways to improve and expand teachers’ limited pedagogical knowledge; and(c) prospective participants need to be adequately informed about the expectations of the trainingprogram and about their obligations. Finally, we strongly suggest that every teacher professionaldevelopment program should have a practical component during which teachers can actuallyteach with computers in their classrooms. These experiences will allow teachers to reflect on thefeasibility of their designs as well as to situate their training in authentic contexts, that is, in thecontext of real classrooms.

Lastly, we do hope that despite the local nature of this research, other researchers will find theresults of the study useful and use them as baseline data in their efforts to further validate, modify,or even improve the proposed professional development approach. The overall findings of thestudy clearly suggest that preparing computer-competent teachers is a challenging and difficultissue and invite more research efforts that will provide accumulated evidence and guidelinesabout the effective use of computers in teaching and learning as cognitive and learning tools andnot as means for electronic delivery of information.

Note

1. More information can be found at http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/nses/

References

American Association for the Advancement of Science. 1993. Benchmarks for scientific literacy: Project2061. New York: Oxford University Press.

Becker, J.H., and M.M. Riel. 2001. Teacher professional engagement and constructivist compatiblecomputer use. www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/findings/report_7.

Bransford, J.D., A.L. Brown, R.R. Cocking. 2001. How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Byrom, E. 1998. Factors influencing the effective use of technology for teaching and learning: Lessonslearned from the SEIR-TEC intensive site schools. www.serve.org/seir-tec/publications/lessons.html.

Czerniak, C., A. Lumpe, J. Haney, J. Beck. 1999. Teachers’ beliefs about using educational technology inthe science classroom. International Journal of Educational Technology 1, no. 2. www.outreach.uiuc.edu/ijet/v1n2/czerniak/index.html.

Dall’ Alba, G., and J. Sandberg. 2006. Unveiling professional development: A critical review of stagemodels. Review of Educational Research 76, no. 3: 383–412.

Fatemi, E. 1999. Building the digital curriculum, Education Week on the Web. www.edweek.org/sreports/tc99/articles/summary.htm.

Galanouli, D., C. Murphy, J. Gardner. 2004. Teachers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of ICT-competencetraining. Computers and Education 43, no. 1/2: 63–79.

Gess-Newsome, J. 2001. The professional development of science teachers for science education reform:A review of the research. In Professional development: Planning and design, ed. J. Rhoton, P. Bowers,91–100. Reston, VA: NSTA Press.

Gess-Newsome, J., M. Blocher, J. Clark, J. Menasco, E. Willis. 2003. Technology infused professionaldevelopment: A framework for development and analysis. Contemporary Issues in Technology andTeacher Education 3, no. 3: 324–40.

Gordon, D.N., and R.D. Pea. 1995. Prospects of scientific visualization as an educational technology. TheJournal of the Learning Sciences 4: 249–79.

Grant, C.M. 1996. Professional development in a technological age: New definitions, old challenges, newresources. http://ra.terc.edu/publications/TERCpubs/techinfusion/prof_dev/prof_dev_frame.html.

Halpin, R. 1999. A model of constructivist learning in practice: Computer literacy integrated into elemen-tary mathematics and science teacher education. Journal of Research on Computing in Education 32,no. 1: 128–38.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:58

03

Dec

embe

r 20

14


Kenny, J. 2002. What did we get for our training money? TES Online. http://www.tes.co.uk/search/story/?story_id=357732

Lieberman, A., and L. Miller. 1991. Staff development for education in the 90’s: New demands, newrealities, new perspectives. New York: Teachers College Press.

Little, J.W. 1993. Teachers’ professional development in a climate of education reform. Education Evaluationand Policy Analysis 15, no. 2: 129–51.

National Research Council. 1996. The national science education standards. Washington, DC: NationalAcademy Press.

Office of Technology Assessment. 1995. Teachers and technology: Making the connection, OTA-HER-616.Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.

Panel on Educational Technology, President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology. 1997,March. Report to the President on the use of technology to strengthen K-12 education in the UnitedStates. www.ostp.gov/PCAST/k-12ed.html.

Penner, D.E. 2000/2001. Cognition, computers, and synthetic science: Building knowledge and meaningthrough modeling. Review of Research in Education 25: 1–36.

Pyrczak, F. 2002. Success at statistics: A worktext with humor. Glendale, CA: Pyrczak Publishing.Rodrigues, S. 2003. Experiences from the partnership in primary science project: Teacher professional

development involving ICT and science pedagogical content knowledge. Science Education Interna-tional 14, no. 2: 2–11.

Schrum, L. 1999. Technology professional development for teachers. Educational Technology Researchand Development 47, no. 4: 83–90.

Selinger, M. 2001. Learning information and communications technology skills and the subject context ofthe learning. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education 10, no. 1/2: 143–54.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:58

03

Dec

embe

r 20

14

professional development for computer‐enhanced learning: a case study with science teachers

Documents