A pedagogical framework for developing innovative science teachers with ICT

This article was downloaded by: [York University Libraries]On: 12 August 2014, At: 17:51Publisher: 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

A pedagogical framework fordeveloping innovative science teacherswith ICTLaurence Rogersa & John Twidlea

a Loughborough Design School, Loughborough University, AshbyRoad, Loughborough, LE11 3TU, UKPublished online: 11 Oct 2013.

To cite this article: Laurence Rogers & John Twidle (2013) A pedagogical framework for developinginnovative science teachers with ICT, Research in Science & Technological Education, 31:3, 227-251

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2013.833900

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 whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout 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://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2013.833900

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

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

A pedagogical framework for developing innovative scienceteachers with ICT

Laurence Rogers* and John Twidle

Loughborough Design School, Loughborough University, Ashby Road, Loughborough, LE113TU, UK

Background: The authors have conducted a number of research projects into theuse of ICT in science teaching and most recently have collaborated with fiveEuropean partners in teacher education to develop resources to assist teacher train-ers in delivering courses for the professional development of science teachers.Purpose: 1. To describe the main aspects of pedagogy which are relevant to theuse of ICT tools which serve practical science teaching. 2. To discuss approachesto teacher education which aim to emphasise the pedagogical aspects of usingthose ICT tools.Sources of evidence: 1. A review of the research literature on the effectivenessof using ICT in education with a particular focus on pedagogical knowledge andits interaction with associated technical knowledge. 2. Authors’ experience asteacher trainers and as researchers in methods of employing ICT in scienceeducation. 3. Studies conducted by partners in the ICT for Innovative ScienceTeachers Project and training materials developed by the project.Main argument: Starting from the premise that it is the pedagogical actions ofthe teacher which determine successful learning outcomes of using ICT in sci-ence lessons, the paper describes the main components of pedagogical knowl-edge and understanding required by teachers. It examines the role of anunderstanding of affordances in helping teachers to deploy software tools appro-priately and defines some of the skills for exploiting them to benefit learning.Innovation is successful when ICT activities are incorporated in ways that com-plement non-ICT activities and serve science learning objectives. When teachersare alert to adapt their pedagogical skills, they evolve new ways of working andinteracting with students. Training courses need to provide means of helpingteachers to examine the professional beliefs which underpin their pedagogicalapproaches. This is most effectively achieved when a course blends personalhands-on experience with discourse with other professionals and when there isiteration between the training experience with activity in the classroom.Conclusions: The most significant products of professional development are theintegration of ICT in the curriculum and a change in a teacher’s pedagogytowards teaching approaches which empower students to work more indepen-dently and reflectively.

Keywords: teacher education; pedagogy; ICT and science education

Introduction

The widespread introduction of information and communication technology (ICT) ineducation in recent decades has required the design and delivery of a variety ofteacher-training programmes in many countries of the world (Kozma 2009). Many

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

© 2013 Taylor & Francis

Research in Science & Technological Education, 2013Vol. 31, No. 3, 227–251, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2013.833900

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

7:51

12

Aug

ust 2

014

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2013.833900

programmes have focused on providing teachers with the technical skills necessaryfor operating the hardware and software involved, but there has been longstandingevidence that such operational skills alone are insufficient to produce learning gainsin students, and that the role of the teacher in mediating the use of ICT is of crucialimportance (Kennewell 2001; McCarney 2004; Pedretti, Smith-Mayer, andWoodrow 1999). Established teaching skills such as those associated with planning,organisation, instruction, communication and intervention retain a vital role (Rogersand Finlayson 2004), but their adaptation to the qualities of software-based materialsso that the full learning potential may be exploited leads to a consideration of apedagogy for teaching with ICT. Since 2004 a consortium of teacher educators inseven European countries have collaborated to create training materials whichexplicitly attempt to identify pedagogical knowledge appropriate for teachingselected science topics using ICT tools and to demonstrate how such tools may beintegrated in the science curriculum. The culmination of this collaboration is the ICTfor Innovative Science Teachers (ICT for IST) Project, which has published a packof training resources (ICT for IST 2011).

Teachers and pedagogy

The fundamental role of a teacher is to create and manage an environment withinwhich learning will take place. It clearly demands expert subject knowledge andunderstanding, but more than that, it involves distinctive skills of mediating thatknowledge to others and creating the conditions that motivate and foster the develop-ment of understanding in others. The term ‘pedagogy’ describes the process ofmediation and may be regarded as the defining attribute of a teacher’s professionalism.Awidely accepted formal framework for describing teachers’ professional knowledgewas published by Shulman in his seminal paper of 1986, in which he recognised sub-ject matter knowledge (SMK) and general pedagogical knowledge (PK) but, crucially,introduced the concept of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). The concept hasbeen interpreted and elaborated in a variety of ways by different researchers (Kind2009), but in Shulman’s own words, the significant components of PCK are ‘the waysof representing and formulating the subject that make it comprehensible to others’(Shulman 1986, 9) and ‘that special amalgam of content and pedagogy that isuniquely the province of teachers; their own special form of professional understand-ing’ (Shulman 1987, 8). (Adapting the term ‘PCK’ slightly, it is perhaps helpful tothink of it as ‘content-specific’ pedagogical knowledge.) Abell (2008) has emphasisedthat PCK is not an independent category of knowledge, but rather it involves the trans-formation of other types of knowledge (subject matter knowledge, pedagogical knowl-edge and knowledge of context) into viable instruction. This transformation occurs asthe teacher interprets the subject matter, finds multiple ways to represent it and adaptsand tailors the instructional materials to alternative conceptions and students’ priorknowledge. Many studies, for example Loughran et al. (2008), indicate that PCK is atopic-specific and context-specific type of knowledge and that teachers seem todevelop PCK in response to their experience as teachers (McCrory 2008).

We now wish to consider the impact of technology on teachers’ professionalknowledge, but before doing so, it is appropriate to reflect on some of the problemsattendant on using the PCK concept in teacher-training contexts. First, the subtleinterplay of subject content and pedagogy exposes PCK to weaknesses in either orboth domains for individual student teachers (Loughran et al. 2008). Second, PCK

228 L. Rogers and J. Twidle

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

7:51

12

Aug

ust 2

014

is tacit, or hidden, knowledge and is not an explicit ‘tool’ used consciously byteachers when preparing lessons (Kind 2009). Third, for science education, theresearch literature does not contain many science topic-specific examples toilluminate the PCK concept beyond a recognition of contextualised teachingepisodes in classrooms (Van Driel et al. 1998). Despite these potential difficulties,the framework provided by PCK is a valuable teacher education tool for evaluatingteaching strategies and for guiding course development (Abell 2008).

Professional knowledge and technology

The introduction of technology further complicates the complex web of overlappingfactors which characterise pedagogical thinking involved in planning and executinglessons. Technology provides new tools for learning, but requires new technicalknowledge. The integration of technology in teaching requires thought about itsaffordances and constraints. It can make a profound impact on pedagogy as itreveals new opportunities for teaching and learning (Newton and Rogers 2001).Building on Shulman’s model, Mishra and Koehler (2006) have described a networkof interactions between content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge andtechnological knowledge. The intersection of these three knowledge domains yieldsTechnological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK), a complex fusion of under-standings involving: pedagogical techniques that use technologies in constructiveways to teach content; knowledge of what makes concepts difficult or easy to learnand how technology can help redress some of the problems that students face;knowledge of students’ prior knowledge and theories of epistemology; and knowl-edge of how technologies can be used to build on existing knowledge and todevelop new epistemologies or strengthen old ones (Mishra and Koehler 2006).Webb (2010, 181) has helpfully summarised the interaction of the three domains ofknowledge as ‘knowledge of how the wide range of technologies available maysupport the content to be taught and which pedagogical approaches are appropriate’.

There is a sense in which technology has long been integrated into education, forgenerations of students have learned through technology manifest as reading and writ-ing; to a certain extent, these tools displaced the use of discourse and memory. So whatdistinguishes the impact of ICT compared with older technologies? First, the sheer ver-satility of ICT, servicing so many different disciplines and spawning a multitude ofapplications, has led to it becoming pervasive in modern life. For education, it has cre-ated many new opportunities for teaching and learning. Secondly, ICT is in a constantstate of flux, as an inexorable stream of innovation pours out from the IT industry. Theresult for education is that TPCK is subject to a state of dynamic equilibrium betweenthe three components (Mishra and Koehler 2006). For example, technology may createnew pedagogical opportunities, and make difficult content more accessible.

Recognising that the nature of TPCK is not that of a single body of knowledgebut rather, like PCK, it is topic-specific and context-specific, we will now focus on asegment of learning related to practical activities in science and propose a set ofprinciples and components for a framework for developing TPCK. We propose toexamine the pedagogical role of the teacher using the metaphors architect andmanager. The teacher is the architect of the tasks which aim to deliver learning ben-efits to students, but is also the manager of the learning process by which studentsacquire the necessary skill with software. We begin by offering an empirical list ofcomponents for a training curriculum.

Research in Science & Technological Education 229

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

7:51

12

Aug

ust 2

014

Teacher as architect (selecting or designing activities for students):

� Selecting ICT resources for science teaching� Gaining a vision of affordances of software� Identifying skills to exploit learning benefits� Designing activities to optimise motivation and learning� Integrating the use of ICT tools in the curriculum

Teacher as manager (includes creating a context for activities and linking themwith other activities):

� Understanding and responding to students’ prior knowledge and skill� Identifying traditional teaching skills relevant to ICT use but which mightneed adaptation

� Employing new ways of organising and managing learning facilitated by ICT

In the past decade we have witnessed an explosion of ICT materials speciallydesigned for education at all levels, but in addition, ICT is now so ubiquitous ineveryday life that there is a bewildering array of software that is potentially useful toeducation. A rationale for narrowing down the choices available to the teacher wouldbe useful. Songer (2007) has distinguished between Digital Resources, the informa-tional, general-audience, non-specific-application types of technology, and CognitiveTools, software explicitly designed to develop critical thinking, evaluation, explainingfrom evidence and gathering, analysing and interpreting data. Jonassen (1996)describes computer applications that are designed to prompt critical thinking as Mind-tools; their characteristic is to scaffold different forms of reasoning about content sothat students think about what they know in different, meaningful ways. However, healso argues that many general types of computer applications, such as databases,modelling systems and information interpretation tools, may be ‘re-purposed’ asMindtools, given suitable scaffolding by a teacher.

Loveless (2011) has warned that thinking about software types is not just aclassification process; each type conditions an attitude towards pedagogy withimplicitly accepted models of teaching and learning. She has proposed the followingmetaphors for ICT types:

� Resource: ICT applications selected by teachers to support their normal prac-tice, often imitating traditional non-digital resources. The teacher’s pedagogyis essentially unchanged by the ICT.

� Tutor: Software materials employed as a teaching assistant and designedrespond to and scaffold learners’ needs. The learner experience is individua-lised, giving them more control and access and some degree of task choice.The pedagogy is determined by the software author.

� Environment: Such applications provide ‘microworlds’ which are character-ised by a high degree of learner control and autonomy, and are an intrinsic partof the conceptual learning process itself. Learning takes place through thelearner’s own exploration and invention.

� Tool: Content-free applications which can be used to support conceptualunderstanding and extend thinking. The pedagogical approach is very much inthe hands of the teacher and demands not only subject knowledge but also


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

7:51

12

Aug

ust 2

014

competence in the appropriate use of the technology – a capability to ‘orches-trate the affordances and constraints in the setting’ (Kennewell 2001, 107).

In our work we have embraced the ‘tool’ metaphor and have found Papert’s classifi-cation of software types useful for shaping thinking about pedagogical objectives.Papert (1999) describes two ‘wings’ (categories) of usage: informational (includingthe use of database systems, the Internet, multimedia, instructional and tutorialmaterials) and constructional. The latter describes software tools which support aconstructivist approach to teaching whereby students are engaged in tasks whichdemand thinking that leads to the construction of understanding. It is this wing ofusage that is addressed in this paper. For science teaching, the principal softwaretools in this category are systems for data processing, modelling, simulation, data-logging and video capture.

Ideally the use of these two types of software should complement each other:informational software communicating the authority of established facts, theoriesand understanding, contrasted with, but complemented by, constructional softwarefacilitating experimentation, discovery and the testing of theories. However, inrecent years the quantity of software published in the informational category hasbecome so large that it now dwarfs constructional tools. There is a great danger thatthis imbalance might lead to the neglect of the latter, which may deprive scienceeducation of valuable opportunities for innovative teaching and learning. Againstthis background, the ICT for Innovative Science Teachers (ICT for IST) project hasstriven to raise science teachers’ awareness of the teaching and learning benefits ofconstructional tools by developing resources for teaching training programmes inthe context of both pre-service and in-service provision.

Vision of affordances of software

A common characteristic of a constructional tool is that it endows the user with alarge measure of autonomy which, given a suitable framework, can aid motivation(Murray 1938) and provide invaluable feedback about his or her own understanding(Linn and Eylon 2011). Often, such tools possess features which are difficult toreplicate with conventional methods. Software simulations are the most popular inthis group and to illustrate the qualities that make simulations potentially useful forlearning, Appendix 1 shows an example taken from the ICT for IST Resource Pack.

Table 1. Software tools for science teaching (Adapted from Papert, 1999).

Constructional Informational

Software used for processing information;ICT serves as a tool for constructing newinformation and understanding

Examples:

� Data processing� Modelling� Simulation� Data-logging� Video capture

Software for presenting information; ICTfacilitates novel methods of transmitting andexamining ready-accumulated informationExamples:

� Internet� Multimedia� Visualisation� Instruction and tutorial


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

7:51

12

Aug

ust 2

014

Teachers and educational researchers have used various terms for describing thefeatures of software which seem to be useful or beneficial:

� ‘Qualities’ of software – suggesting valuable attributes and functionality whichmay be unique to the software.

� ‘Added value’ of software – informal terminology suggesting value abovewhat might be expected of equivalent conventional methods/tools.

� ‘Affordances’ of software – commonly used in research literature and definedas ‘the attributes of the setting which provide the potential for action’ (Kenne-well 2001, 106).

The term ‘affordance’ originates from Gibson’s (1986) theory of perception, but itsbroader application has been accompanied by interpretations which have differed inemphasis between the environment and its potential for interaction with a person. Inthe context of our work, in seeking the quality of learning outcomes, Stoffregen’sinterpretation commends itself: ‘Affordances are opportunities for action; they areproperties of the animal-environment system that determine what can be done...’(Stoffregen 2003, 124).

Our research has made several attempts to identify the ‘added value’ of ICT andthis has led us to distinguish between two types of affordance of software:

� Properties – self-evident useful attributes of software which require no inter-pretation; this type of affordance is a precondition for activity (Greeno 1994).

� Potential learning benefits – ‘potential’ because learning benefits are notguaranteed, but depend upon the quality of interactions with ‘properties’.

Here we make a key distinction between the actual properties of software and thepotential benefits to learning. The latter affordance is not the learning itself but thepotential to nurture learning that the software holds.

In the ICT for IST project, a great deal of attention has been given to identi-fying such affordances, as we believe they are essential components of knowledgerequired by innovative teachers. In the case of simulations the following are pro-posed:

Properties:

� Eliminates need for expensive apparatus and setting-up time.� Results may be obtained quickly.� Graphical tools are available for analysing data accurately.� Animated graphics with interactive controls.

Potential learning benefits:

� There is greater scope for investigation with a simulation which is not boundby the physical constraints of a real experiment.

� Visualisation of phenomena through animated images can supportmotivation and engagement with the concepts involved, and assist abstractthinking.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

7:51

12

Aug

ust 2

014

The main significance of our distinction between properties and potential learningbenefits is that the latter are closely aligned to educational goals and whose achieve-ment is strongly dependent on the pedagogical actions of a teacher, whereas theformer, although being recognised as useful attributes, are no more than technicalfeatures of software whose effect is inert unless employed in an educationallypurposeful manner (Newton and Rogers 2001). Examining the example for simula-tions given above, the properties are about saving time, obtaining results quicklyand having graphical tools available; such properties exist independently from themanner or context of application. However, the potential learning benefits of ‘greaterscope of investigation’ and ‘enhanced motivation and engagement’ demand thepedagogical skills of the teacher if they are to be realised. According to Steel andKönig (2006), time is a significant factor influencing motivation; people tend tovalue immediate rewards more than delayed outcomes. Also, the freedom to experi-ment in a simulation environment can empower students, but the setting of suitablegoals and sub goals by the teacher have an important motivational role (Steel andKönig 2006). The studies of Hsu and Thomas (2002) suggest that the effectivenessof well-designed simulations is highly dependent upon how they are used. In areview of studies on the effectiveness of simulations, Smetana and Bell (2011) assertthe importance of the teacher in providing guidance and support during the use ofsimulations. They also highlight evidence that simulations are more effective whenused in conjunction with other experiences that address the concepts targeted by thesimulation. Reviewing ICT applications in general, Cox and Webb (2004, 4) citeextensive research evidence that learning benefits ‘depend on the way in which theteacher selects and organises ICT resources, and how this use is integrated into otheractivities in the classroom and beyond’. Thus, acquiring a vision of learning benefitsbeyond self-evident software properties, and an understanding of the role of theteacher in achieving them, must be considered an important component of TPCK.Again such knowledge is topic- and context-specific, requiring focused trainingcommentaries such as those developed by the IST for ICT project.

Identifying skills for exploiting learning benefits

Having established a vision of learning benefits with ICT applications in specificcontexts, a closer examination of the skills employed reveals training needs for bothteachers and students. We identify three types of skill that are necessary for thesuccessful use of software tools:

� Operational – Technical skills for operating the computer and software.� Procedural – Strategic skills for performing activities in a manner whichbenefits teaching and learning.

� Pedagogical – Teaching approaches which benefit learning (Newton andRogers 2001).

Operational and procedural skills are required by all users – both teachers andpupils – whereas pedagogical skills are the domain of teachers only. The majority ofstudents, who since early childhood have had regular first-hand experience of usingcomputers, are usually well practised in operational skills, so much so that thereoften exists a generational divide in skills between students and their teachers, withstudents possessing great confidence and familiarity with computers and older teach-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

7:51

12

Aug

ust 2

014

ers being more tentative. Such student confidence and operational skill should notbe confused with the procedural skill necessary for achieving productive learninggoals. Procedural skills are concerned with the purposeful application of softwaretools. In a conventional non-ICT context, experienced teachers are well equippedwith such skills, so in this domain they should be able to offer students clear leader-ship. In ICT contexts, these skills need to be extended and adapted to accommodateand exploit the affordances of the software in question. Thus an important compo-nent of teacher training must address the need for developing procedural skills sothat teachers may foster the development of the same skills in their students.Although general principles for this process may be identified, procedural skills areoften context-specific. The example of a data-logging activity shown in Appendix 2illustrates the distinction between the two types of skill identified here.

Figure 1 summarises the relationship between the affordances of an ICT tool andthe skills needed for achieving successful use of the tool.

The data-logging example from the ICT for IST Resource Pack (Appendix 2)helps to illustrate why the role of the teacher is so important: students need trainingto acquire the operational skills specific to the software and although some suchtraining could be achieved through the use of worksheets or on-screen tutorials,students still look to the teacher as a role model in practical work. Teachers helpstudents acquire the procedural skills through the design of the tasks, but again, asrole models, through interactions in the classroom, they show how theory is put intopractice – applying scientific knowledge to the use of the ICT tool for the purposeof learning or understanding.

Designing activities to optimise motivation and learning

A dominant creative activity in the lives of teachers is that of designing activitiesand tasks for pupils such that they will be motivated and suitably engaged in a waythat maximises opportunities for learning. The design of tasks for pupils is asignificant manifestation of a teacher’s pedagogy and is at the heart of the process,emphasised by Abell (2008), of transforming the teacher’s knowledge andunderstanding into pupils’ learning. Teacher-training courses have long sought toidentify the complex web of issues which influence pupils’ learning and to buildbridges between theory and practice. A key concept is that knowledge cannot simplybe ‘handed over’ to pupils, but that tasks should be designed not only to introduceknowledge but also to help pupils reformulate knowledge for themselves (Sutton1998) and make connections with other knowledge (Ausubel et al. 1978). Thisapproach is a practical response to the constructivist model of learning which viewsunderstanding as a personal response in pupils to activities which engage them in

ICT Tool

Learning BenefitsProperties

Procedural SkillsOperational Skills

Figure 1. Relationship between affordances and skills for ICT tools.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

7:51

12

Aug

ust 2

014

active thought. Traditionally, ‘active learning’ techniques attempt to createunderstanding by helping pupils to make links with other knowledge, to explain interms of previous knowledge and to apply previously learned principles. These arecentral aspects of ‘inquiry’ approaches to instructional design which emphasise therole of prediction coupled with reflection and critique in activities involvingexperimentation and problem-solving (Linn and Eylon 2011). Appropriate teacherguidance is crucial for the success of such approaches in which interaction is a vitalingredient, commonly achieved through discussion and pupil talk (Mortimer andScott 2003). Studies reported by Cox and Webb (2004, 3) show that the most effec-tive uses of ICT are those in which the teacher and the software can challengepupils’ understanding and thinking, and that whole-class, paired work and individualwork can be equally effective in achieving this when a teacher has the skills to orga-nise and stimulate the ICT-based activity.

In the science domain, practical work has long been a valuable vehicle for inter-action. The example of the data-logging experiment described in Appendix 2 helpsto illustrate the interactive potential of practical work and how this is furtherenhanced by the ICT facilities implicit in the software. However, the software andhardware simply remain tools, which, if they are to achieve teaching and learninggains, need the pedagogical input of the teacher. The first stage of this is through thedesign of suitable tasks; setting challenges, specifying targets and posing questionsto prompt thinking. In the execution of the lesson the pedagogical process would becontinued by engaging in discourse with pupils through appropriate interventions. Indesigning a task it is clearly important that the teacher has a clear idea of aims andobjectives, but in this respect there is a wide range of choice. A wealth of literaturehas discussed the variety of types and purposes of practical work and their potentialpitfalls (for example, Millar 2010; Wellington 1998; Woolnough 1991). Of particularrelevance to data-logging methods is an investigative approach which emphasisesexploration and problem-solving rather than the mechanical acquisition and plottingof data; these processes are managed automatically in the data-logging method,freeing pupils to focus more attention on making observations of the phenomenonbeing studied. In the ‘real-time’ reporting mode, data are collected and displayedsimultaneously whilst the experiment is in progress, affording an interactive processwhereby direct observations may be immediately compared with the graph, forexample, encouraging thinking about the data and their representations.

The graphing and analysis facilities incorporated into data-logging, simulationand modelling software offer an immediate response to inputs provided by the user,and such interaction permits an individualised experience for each user. In thisrespect the software can fulfil the characteristics of constructivist learning whichthrives when a pupil explores different ways of analysing data or by adjusting itsgraphical presentation. Pupils’ natural curiosity will take them so far in this process,but the guidance of a teacher is needed to gain a vision of purposeful techniques.For the teacher to become an effective model for their pupils, familiarity with thesoftware tools is a target at an early stage in training; however, it is important thattraining does not stop there, but that through discourse, practice and experimentationthe teacher will come to appreciate the affordances and acquire a vision of the learn-ing potential of the tools. Progression to this pedagogical dimension should be anambition of ICT training courses and we will discuss some successful trainingmodels later in this paper.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

7:51

12

Aug

ust 2

014

Integrating the use of ICT tools in the curriculum

The manner and methods of introducing ICT activities in the classroom have beenshown to be key aspects in determining learning benefits. Cox and Webb (2004, 33)summarise three approaches most frequently employed by teachers: Integration,whereby carefully selected ICT activities are embedded into a scheme of work toaddress specific concepts, skills and subject curriculum objectives; Enhancement,whereby the conduct of lessons is improved by the use of new technology such asthe electronic whiteboard; and Complementary, in which pupils use ICT as serviceaids, such as word processing and email. The integration approach holds out mostpromise for enhancing the quality of learning and for developing innovativepedagogy, but it also demands a maturity in blending technological, subject andpedagogical knowledge (that is, TPCK) on the part of the teacher. Hughes (2004,346) describes a vision of ‘technology integrationalists’, as teachers whose‘accomplishments in the classroom reveal innovative and creative uses oftechnology that enable students to learn subject matter more deeply and with morecuriosity than without the technology.’ However, teachers should not viewtechnology as an end in itself, but rather as a means to an end serving the needs ofthe curriculum (Zhao et al. 2002). This is a worthy goal for a teacher to aspire to,but the sophisticated skill involved should not be underestimated. McCrory (2008)suggests that there are three main elements of TPCK for science teachers: knowingwhere (in the curriculum) to use technology, what technology to use and how toteach with it.

Most curricular programmes in schools are externally determined, so for manyteachers, a starting point for planning the inclusion of ICT is to select activities whichslot into existing schemes of work. Ideally this results in a mix of ICT andconventional activities, each chosen on merit and juxtaposed so that they contributecomplementary experiences and optimise learning benefits. In a survey of researchinto the use of simulations of science phenomena, Smetana and Bell (2011, 21) reportthat a simulation is more effective when integrated with other instructional activitiesthat also address the concepts targeted by the simulation. As with any lesson planningprocess, clarity of learning objectives, both for individual activities and for sequencesof lessons, is essential, and in order to establish them a sound basis of PCK is needed(Loughran et al. 2004). In this respect the needs of pre-service trainees are differentfrom those of in-service teachers: student teachers still need to gain pedagogicalawareness and build PCK, whereas experienced teachers may be unaware of theknowledge they possess, so PCK needs to be invoked from their accumulated experi-ence (Loughran et al. 2008).

The complementary use of different activities, both non-ICT and ICT-based, isillustrated in the example below (Table 2), which shows a possible teachingsequence on the topic of electricity to 14–15-year-olds. Teachers will usually havetheir preferred sequence of teaching themes, involving demonstrations, explanations,class experiments, but the table below suggests a suitable sequence exemplifying alogical development of concepts. The right hand column shows how the ICTactivities in the ICT for IST Resource Pack may be chosen to enhance the teachingsequence. In the context of a teacher-training seminar, the table is useful forstimulating discussion of teaching strategies and learning objectives. Theaccompanying pedagogical commentary highlights the unique qualities of eachsoftware tool and suggests how they may be used in a complementary manner.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

7:51

12

Aug

ust 2

014

All the activities indicated here yield numerical results, and comparisons ofthese, together with observations, form a central role in the process of integration.For example:

� A discussion of the observations and results from the first group of practicalexperiments is illuminated by the simulations which offer both images, assistingvisualisation of the abstract concepts of voltage and current, and explorations ofnumerical data generated within the simulations. The simulations are valuabletools for making sense of the experiments, whether used by pupils individuallyor in small groups or used in teacher-led discussions with the whole class.

� The investigations involved in the practical experiments may be amplified andextended by the data-logging activities, which yield graphs which may beobtained and manipulated with convenient ease. This facilitates numerouscomparisons of graphs for stimulating thinking about the relationship betweenvoltage and current: different resistors and different combinations of resistorsgive different slopes of straight line; carbon resistors, torch bulbs and diodesproduce different graph shapes.

� Models, simulations and data-logging experiments each produce results whichmay be compared with ‘real’ experimental data. In particular, models allowpupils to explore theoretical explanations of phenomena investigated in experi-ments.

Table 2. Example of a teaching sequence from the ICT for IST Resources Pack suggestinghow simulations, data-logging and modelling activities may be integrated with conventionalpractical experiments* for the topic of Electricity.

Teaching sequence ICT activities

*Experiments: Conductors and insulatorsSimulation: Currents in circuits

*Experiments: Batteries, bulbs & switches

Simulation: Voltage in seriesIntroduce concepts of charge and currentVoltage as a ‘driving force’ causing currentConcept of electrical energy: Voltage as energy percoulomb

*Experiments: Measuring voltage across components inseries

Simulation: Electrical energy incircuits

*Experiments: Measuring electrical power Simulation: Electric power

*Experiments: Find relationships between current andvoltage for components

Data-Logging: Resistorcharacteristics

Define concept of resistance

Data-Logging: Resistors in seriesand parallel

*Experiments: Resistors in series and parallel

Simulation and model: Calculatingresistance

*Experiment: With a light bulb to observe effect oftemperature on resistance

Data-Logging: Light bulbcharacteristic

*Experiment: With coils of heated wire Model: Resistance of a light bulb

*Experiment: Investigate internal resistance of a battery Model: Battery internal resistanceand ‘lost volts’


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

7:51

12

Aug

ust 2

014

In most activities the graph is a key tool in facilitating comparisons and interpreta-tions of results, and skills with graphs generally provide a common thread inexploiting the different activities. Extending the theme of exploiting links, matureuse of ICT activities will always seek to link them with other learning and othercontexts.

An important principle underpinning integration is that of discerning ‘appropriateuse’ of ICT methods – or, as Newton and Rogers (2001, 140) emphasise, ‘ensuringa match between fitness and purpose’. This reminds us again of the need torecognise affordances in all the tools and teaching approaches at our disposal andmatching them to learning objectives. Frequently this points towards the reappraisaland affirmation of traditional simple techniques; as an example, teachers quiterightly defend the use of paper and pencil graph plotting for teaching pupilsfundamental concepts about graphs. But software-based graphs possess a qualita-tively different set of affordances focused on real-time plotting, flexibility, accuracy,manipulation and analysis. Thus the two methods serve different learning objectives.In their study of teachers’ perspectives on introducing ICT into subject curriculumprogrammes, Hennessy, Ruthven, and Brindley (2005) identified this sort of criticalevaluation as an important factor contributing to successful integration. From initialconservative approaches, building upon but extending existing practice, newpedagogical practices were found to emerge as teachers gained vision of new oppor-tunities with ICT. Simulations in particular have made a large impact on classroompractice, their interactivity often facilitating inquiry-based strategies (Smetana andBell 2011).

Managing ICT in the classroom

The classroom is a complex place demanding teacher action on many issues apartfrom instruction and the supervision of student activity. Morine-Deshimer and Kent(1999) have emphasised the equal importance of classroom communication anddiscourse alongside instructional models and classroom management as facets ofgeneral pedagogical knowledge (PK) which informs the development of PCK. Asuccessful lesson involves management of issues such as how to generatemotivation, stimulate curiosity, present challenge, reinforce previous learning andknowledge, practice skills, develop new skills, and so on. In all these, communica-tion is a key element demanding thoughtful planning in both the design andimplementation of activities. So is knowledge of learners and learning, a furtheraspect of PCK, constantly employed in lessons as the teacher diagnoses students’prior knowledge and skill.

In discussing the management of ICT in the classroom, we shall consider justthree overarching aspects: the logistics of organising the use of hardware andsoftware, the application of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) and the adapta-tion of this knowledge to exploit the affordances of ICT (TPCK).

Science teachers are familiar with the task of organising the use of apparatus forpractical work in the school laboratory, but the introduction of computer equipmentis accompanied by additional challenges demanding technical expertise, skill andpreparation time. The variety of equipment and variability of provision can bedaunting: dedicated rooms with a class set of static computers, just one or twocomputers in a laboratory, portable laptops, tablet computers, graphical calculators,data-loggers and sensors. Each brings an organisational challenge: a special room


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

7:51

12

Aug

ust 2

014

may need to be booked, networked computers use access protocols, laptops requirespecial storage and provision for recharging batteries, software has to be installed onlaptops and free-standing computers. Readily available technical support is often acrucial factor in coping with these challenges and inevitable malfunctions in themidst of lessons. In a study of teachers innovating with ICT, Zhao et al. (2002) iden-tify a range of factors which support or inhibit innovation. A recurrent theme is thatthe greater the dependency on a quantity of equipment or technical support, the lesssuccessful the result. In other words, success is favoured by simplicity, whereassophistication constrains.

The traditional class practical commonly involves the whole class working ingroups on the same exercise simultaneously. With computers this might still beappropriate for some activities such as research and project work; however, forpractical work in general it is not necessary for the same pattern to be employed. Alimited number of computers in the classroom can be an advantage in terms of logis-tics and learning benefits. For example, data-logging experiments, although theyinvolve specialised hardware, often yield results within a few minutes, so that alimited number of sets of equipment could be used on a rotational basis by smallgroups of students. Similarly, one or two data-logging experiments may be organisedas part of a ‘circus’ of mixed activities involving non-ICT tasks or perhapscomputer-based simulations. Also, working with computers in pairs or small groupsfosters discussion between students within which they can explain, compare andchallenge each other’s ideas. If equipment is very scarce, a demonstration by ateacher can suffice, and as Cox and Webb (2004, 3) remark, whole-class teachingwith a single computer can successfully enhance learning, especially when theteacher models an inquiry style of thinking.

It is sometimes asserted that present-day students exhibit a confidence and skillwith ICT which appears to be greater than that of their teachers. This may be true insome technical aspects of ICT, and although this paper has identified some of thetechnical knowledge required for innovative teaching with ICT, the quality of thelearning environment of the classroom is underpinned by the teacher’s pedagogicalknowledge and skill. In this domain the teacher has a considerable advantage overstudents by virtue of their professional experience. Everyday expressions of teachers’pedagogy appear in their classroom role: motivating students, creating a context foractivities and linking them with other activities, understanding and responding to stu-dents’ prior knowledge and skill, setting and differentiating targets, asking questions,and so on. The teacher’s knowledge of learners and learning is a vital aspect of PCK.Teachers’ interventions are needed to control quality of learning, minimise miscon-ceptions, minimise time wasted and maintain an emphasis on cognitive rather thanphysical participation (Hennessy et al. 2007, 147). With the introduction of ICT,teachers must be alert to the need to adapt their skills, but they may be assured thatmuch of their pedagogical practice remains as a stable platform upon which to build.For example, the fostering of group work and collaborative work has been commonpractice for many years but now these modes of working are enhanced by new tech-nologies; members of a group can communicate with each other electronically, soft-ware allows them to collaborate to produce composite outcomes and presentationsoftware facilitates team presentations to a whole class. Whole-class teaching can betransformed with a data projector, encouraging interaction with many students atonce. Teachers have reported efficiency and quality gains using this device (Rogersand Finlayson 2004, 291) and Kennewell (2004) has described how teachers’ oral


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

7:51

12

Aug

ust 2

014

questioning techniques have been enhanced through the use of projectors and interac-tive whiteboards. Such reports indicate how traditional methods may be amplified byICT, but mature development of ICT usage leads to innovative pedagogy whichexploits newly available affordances. As a facet of general pedagogical knowledge(Morine-Deshimer and Kent 1999), classroom communication needs serious reap-praisal in response to burgeoning digital technologies.

In a study of data-logging usage, Newton (1998) has highlighted the impor-tance of a pedagogical strategy for exploiting the affordances of software, withoutwhich ICT may fail to deliver the full potential of learning benefits. In muchconventional practical work there is a strong focus on the collection of results, butwith data-logging, the automatic collection and graphical display of data shifts theemphasis towards analysing and interpreting the data. Newton argues that this newemphasis has a greater synergy with an inquiry-led approach to learning than withthe traditional activities of gathering and presenting data. Thus, recognising theaffordances of the ICT method, an innovative teacher adapts his or her teachingapproach to maximise the learning benefits. In their review of the literature on theuse of simulations, Smetana and Bell (2011) also report on the value of inquiry-ledapproaches, but caution the importance of teacher scaffolding; simulations can becounterproductive if the teaching approach is too open-ended. As with any teach-ing, the needs of the particular student group must be accommodated. Hennessyet al. (2007) outline different teaching strategies for using a simulation with lessand more able students. With a less able group, planning around the visual repre-sentation is key but with a more able group, the teacher may address the premiseson which the underlying model is based. There are also choices about the role of asimulation in a lesson: it may be used as part of a briefing before a class experi-ment, as a means of extending an experiment, as revision or for distance learning(ICT for IST Resource Guide, 2011).

Hennessy, Ruthven, and Brindley (2005, 20–21) offer this summary ofaffordances of technology use, as perceived and reported by a group of teachers:

� Effecting working processes and improving production.� Supporting processes of checking, trialling and refinement.� Enhancing the variety and appeal of classroom activity.� Fostering pupil independence and peer support.� Overcoming pupil difficulties and building assurance.� Broadening reference and increasing currency of activity.� Focusing on overarching issues and accentuating important features.

Teacher education and professional development

Any process of teacher education or professional development must have a vision ofthe knowledge, understanding and skills that teachers should acquire through partici-pation in the process. Drawing on Shulman’s descriptions of pedagogical contentknowledge (PCK), then expanding the concept to TPCK and embracing technology,we have attempted to identify the principles for designing a training curriculum andits main components for introducing ICT in science teaching. However, taking theTPCK model as a basis for planning courses to achieve pedagogical development,there are several practical difficulties, which we noted previously:


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

7:51

12

Aug

ust 2

014

(1) TPCK lacks a single explicit definition: Kind (2009) describes the ‘hidden’quality of PCK which teachers tend to use tacitly rather than explicitly.Rather than attempting to define PCK as a quantity of knowledge, Abell(2008) commends the essence of PCK as the application of several types ofknowledge to solve classroom problems. Probing this in more detail, it canbe seen to be topic-specific and context-specific (McCrory 2008). Theseviews equally apply to TPCK, with the additional variable that ICTapplications tend to be similarly specific. We submit that the materialsdeveloped by the ICT for IST project, as illustrated by the previous exam-ples, contribute to TPCK for a sector of the science curriculum.

(2) The nature of TPCK is dynamic: Abell (2008) has posited that teachersdevelop PCK over time as they learn from teacher preparation programmes,from the authority of experience and from professional developmentopportunities. Gilbert (2010) has stressed that PCK needs continuous devel-opment. So too, with technology in a constant state of flux, TPCK cannot beregarded as static but rather as a journey towards critical use of ICT (Schi-beci et al. 2008).

(3) The acquisition of TPCK is strongly influenced by teachers’ beliefs: Morine-Dershimer and Kent (1999) have indicated the role of teachers’ beliefs indeveloping their personal pedagogical knowledge which contributes to PCK.Gilbert (2010) has emphasised the importance of challenging teachers toreview the beliefs which drive their professional conduct (for example,beliefs about the learning process, effective teaching approaches and thepotential of ICT). Beliefs are often deep-rooted and not easily changed, par-ticularly in the case of experienced teachers.

Recognising the role of beliefs in teachers’ disposition towards innovation, manyprofessional development courses have attempted to promote change in beliefs inthe expectation that they will lead to changes in classroom practice and consequentlyimproved student learning (Guskey, 2002). However, Guskey has proposed thatchange in beliefs is an outcome of improved student performance rather than apre-requisite of changed classroom practice. He argues that it is the experience ofsuccessful implementation that changes teachers’ attitudes and beliefs rather than theovert promotion of innovation in training courses. In a refinement of this model,Clarke and Hollingsworth (2002) have avoided an implied linearity, pointing toevidence that the processes of change in four different domains (teachers’ knowl-edge, beliefs and attitudes; professional experimentation; salient outcomes; externaltraining influences) are interconnected and therefore influence each other. As aconsequence, rather than focusing on ‘changes’, they prefer to characterise teacherdevelopment holistically as ‘professional growth’. Such a perspective is identifiedwith learning through a variety of experiences, including reflection, action anddialogue with other professionals.

A model of progression with ICT

Embracing the metaphor of professional development as a journey in which thestarting points for individual teachers might be different and the aim of any particu-lar form of training should be to travel further on this journey, the following model


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

7:51

12

Aug

ust 2

014

summarises a progression in the use of ICT which has been confirmed by our expe-rience of teachers attending a variety of training courses:

� Non-user – Teacher may have personal ICT skills, but has not taught withICT in the classroom.

� Adopter – Teacher uses ICT materials as they come, when they fit in with theteaching programme.

� Adapter – Teacher modifies materials to suit different student groups andexisting teaching style.

� Innovator – Teacher develops and uses the ICT materials in a differentcontext or novel mode of use.

� Creator/mentor – Teacher creates new materials and/or fosters ICT use incolleagues.

(Adapted from Dwyer et al. 1991)

The descriptors in this model only refer to the characteristic practice observed ateach stage, but it is implicit that progression also implies concurrent development ofa teacher’s beliefs and pedagogy. As observed in the previous discussion, theprocess of achieving this is complex, requiring consideration of many factors suchthat only a sophisticated approach to course design can succeed. The key ingredientis to engage teachers as active learners who shape their professional growth throughreflective participation in training programmes and in classroom practice (Clarkeand Hollingsworth 2002). Learning is not an instant process, and Clarke andHollingsworth cite numerous studies which have pointed to the weakness of‘one-shot’ short-term training events for professional development. Loucks-Horsleyand Matsumoto (2002) have underlined the need to provide time, contexts andsupport for revising thinking. In a survey of a variety of in-service training formatsemployed in a Scottish county, McCarney (2004) reported that teachers most valuedface-to-face contact with an experienced tutor, hands-on activity and opportunities towork and share with other teachers. He argues strongly that the pedagogy of ICTbecomes the main focus of staff development as a foundation for success in theclassroom. In a different survey of training models, this time in the USA, Cradleret al. (2002, 51) indicate the value of iteration between training and classroompractice which demonstrates the ‘infusion of technology into instructional practices’and allows ‘sufficient time for collaborative learning’. Collaboration betweenprofessionals emerges as a significant contribution to successful development andimplementation observed in school-based case studies reported by Finlayson andRogers (2003). The contribution is most effective in science departments wherecooperation, the sharing of decisions and the exchange of ideas and experiencebetween teachers is the norm. Hughes (2004, 351) advocates ‘focused discussion ofsubject matter’ in which ‘connections between technology and subject matter andpedagogical content knowledge must be prioritized’. In her study of the role ofteacher talk during professional development, Prestridge (2009) identifies two maintypes of dialogue: collegial and critical discussion. Collegial discussion is found tobe important in developing community and common understandings, whilst criticaldiscussion is vital for its role in transforming teachers’ beliefs and practices.

Summarising these themes, the research literature suggests that professionaldevelopment is most successful when it makes provision for:


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

7:51

12

Aug

ust 2

014

� active learning;� personal reflection;� teacher talk;� collaboration;� iteration between training and classroom activity.

We now consider some examples of professional development programmeswhose structure incorporates these provisions.

Models for professional development

Partners in seven European countries in the ICT for IST project (2011) conductedteacher-training programmes in a variety of different formats, ranging from one-dayinstructional events to blended learning courses over periods of several weeks (for asummary, see ICT for IST Resource Guide 2011, 39–46). Such programmes weredesigned to provide as many of the following experiences as possible for participat-ing teachers:

� An introductory session which sets out a vision of learning opportunities withICT and gives explanations and demonstrations of course activities.

� Teachers are provided with software, hardware and curriculum materials forperforming activities.

� Teachers try the activities themselves and practise using them in real lessonswith pupils.

� Teachers have ongoing access to technical and tutorial support.� Teachers report back and share experiences with other teachers.

Although it was not always possible to provide all experiences, their distinctivecontributions to the quality of the training process may be recognised: the introduc-tory session allows an expert instructor to empathise with teachers’ training needsand to promote a vision of ICT as a valuable teaching tool; ready-made materials ofproven value give a good start to teacher engagement; hands-on activity and practiceare essential for learning new techniques; prompt access to a mentor who can giveadvice at the point of need and feedback on progress is valuable for buildingpersonal confidence; collaboration with other teachers through discussion andplenary sessions is valuable for consolidating and broadening learning.

For the shorter courses, advance information from the ICT for IST ResourcePack given to teachers before the event and ready-for-use practical activities on theday were considered crucial factors for maximising the learning value. For longercourses, there were opportunities for blending participation and collaboration ingroup sessions with personal study, online study and classroom activity, allsupported by the Resource Pack. One such course was designed to contain twophases, ‘teachers as learners’ and ‘teachers as designers’ (Papaevripidou et al.2011), with the explicit intention of engaging teachers in modes of working whichchallenge their personal response and allow them to reflect upon their professionalvalues and beliefs. In the first (‘learner’) phase, teachers performed data-loggingexperiments together with corresponding simulation and modelling activities.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

7:51

12

Aug

ust 2

014

Through comparing the results from the different methods and refining the models,teachers tested their understanding and were prompted to reflect on their ownlearning process. In the second (‘designer’) phase, teachers reconstructed a schemeof work from their school to incorporate the workshop activities, designing theirown activity sheets and assessment tasks for pupils. In further phases, teachersrefined their products through group discussion, feedback and implementation intheir classrooms. The ‘teacher as designer’ philosophy for the course design wasconsidered successful in promoting ICT integration and, generally, the revised les-son plans revealed that the course had encouraged most teachers to adapt theirteaching style to allow more pupil-centred activity involving exploration andknowledge construction (Papaevripidou et al. 2011). Longer courses like this pro-vide scope for assessing teachers’ needs and then tailoring the course activitiesaccordingly. When time, structure and facilities permit, courses containing a designelement have good potential for ‘weaving together components of technology, con-tent, and pedagogy’ and, as such, foster the growth of TPCK (Koehler and Mishra2005, 135).

A national programme of ICT training organised in England by the ScienceConsortium (Rogers and Finlayson 2003) succeeded in combining all the desirabletraining elements we have identified so far. Although mainly delivered throughdistance learning, the programme encouraged teachers to engage in an iterative cycleof reflective teaching in their own classrooms based on activities chosen from apre-prepared framework of lessons. The introductory group session led by a tutorwould normally be held in the school and involve all the teachers in a sciencedepartment. The course contained six modules, each looking at a different applica-tion or way of using ICT within science. For each module teachers were required toteach one of their normal science classes using ICT and send in a written evaluationof it. All the necessary materials were provided, including software, lesson plansand worksheets, and within a particular module a wide range of topic areas andlevels of presentation were available to suit the requirements of a range of pupilgroups. Each science teacher was individually registered and had online contact witha mentor who gave advice on demand and feedback on their evaluations. Teacherswere also supported by an online forum in which they could share experiences andswap ideas with other teachers. When all tasks had been completed, teachers fromgroups of schools would attend a one-day feedback and consolidation conferencewith the team of mentors. The enrolment process mandated all teachers in a depart-ment to participate in the training programme. It was notable that the peer supportthis provided was a significant factor in the success of the teaching outcomes(Rogers and Finlayson 2003).

A model for pre-service education

Most aspects of the development models indicated in the previous section may beapplied to courses for student teachers in pre-service education. However, there is anadditional need to stimulate pedagogical awareness and develop TPCK as a soundbasis for planning lessons with ICT. Loughran et al. (2008) have noted that attemptsto teach about the construct of PCK appear to meet with little success, as studentteachers struggle to apply the theory to the practical realities of the classroom. As aresponse, Loughran et al. advocate the building of PCK by stealth rather than expli-cit instruction, and have devised instruments for capturing and portraying PCK. We


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

7:51

12

Aug

ust 2

014

summarise their approach here, as we believe it can readily be extended to developTPCK through seeking links to affordances of ICT applications relevant to the topic.

The essence of the approach is to create a Content Representation (CoRe) frame-work for the specific topic to be taught. This is achieved by seeking answers to thefollowing list of questions:

� What you intend the students to learn about this idea?� Why it is important for students to know this?� What else you might know about this idea (that you don’t intend students toknow yet)?

� Difficulties / limitations connected with teaching this idea.� Knowledge about students’ thinking that influences your teaching of this idea.� Other factors that influence your teaching of this idea.� Teaching procedures (and particular reasons for using these to engage with thisidea).

� Specific ways of ascertaining students’ understanding or confusion around thisidea.

(Loughran et al. 2004, 376)

Although originally designed to elicit pedagogical thinking in experienced teach-ers, this framework of questions has been found to be effective in helping studentteachers to see PCK not so much as an educational theory, but as a way of lookinginto how they might develop their own professional knowledge of practice(Loughran et al. 2008).

Summary and conclusions

From the initial premise that ICT needs well-tuned pedagogy to yield successfullearning outcomes in science lessons, we have sought to describe the main elementsof pedagogical knowledge and understanding required for professional developmenttowards a goal of creating teachers who innovate not only by devising new materialsfor using ICT, but also by evolving new teaching approaches.

The pervasive use of computer technology in everyday life outside the classroomallows us to assume that the majority of teachers possess a baseline of technical com-petence before embarking on professional development with ICT, so an early priorityfor training involves acquiring a vision of the affordances of a range of ICT resourcesrelevant to science teaching. To help distinguish between technical and pedagogicalaspects, affordances may be classified into two types: properties and potential learn-ing benefits (Newton and Rogers 2001). Teachers need to understand the relationshipbetween affordances and the detailed knowledge of the concepts, processes and skillsin their subject (Cox and Webb 2004). Such understanding can inform ways ofdeploying ICT resources and devising teaching approaches to fulfil science learningobjectives. The successful use of software tools also depends upon the acquisition oftwo types of skill: operational and procedural. The latter, being concerned with thepurposeful application of software tools, are important for securing learning benefits(Newton and Rogers 2001). The design of classroom activities needs to incorporatestrategies for acquiring these skills as well as exploiting the affordances of software.

ICT-based activities should be integrated into the curriculum so that they com-plement relevant non-ICT activities and are linked to previous learning (Hennessy,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

7:51

12

Aug

ust 2

014

Ruthven, and Brindley 2005). For such integrated use, ICT activities are selected fortheir appropriateness to the science learning objectives in question. This is an impor-tant aspect of critical scrutiny which should be a development aim in teacher educa-tion. The introduction of ICT brings additional challenges in managing theclassroom environment; the logistics of organising the use of hardware and softwaredemand a certain level of technical expertise, but more significantly, teachers needto be alert to the need to adapt their pedagogical skills. Building upon theirpedagogical skill in motivating and monitoring students, teachers may evolve newways of working and interacting with them to exploit the affordances of ICT. It isdifficult to hurry this process (Guskey 2002); the initial approach of most teachers isconservative, but given practice, support and cumulative experience, the use of ICTcan influence change in a teacher’s pedagogy (Hennessy et al. 2005).

All learning has to be seen as an incremental process, and for teachers learningto use ICT effectively we have seen that many steps in this process are dependenton specific contexts related to subject content, local environments and teachers’professional beliefs. Thus professional development is unique to each teacher and aconstant challenge to teacher educators is to devise ways in which individual needsare addressed. The most effective contributions to success are the provision ofopportunities for ‘active’ learning, personal reflection and talk and collaborationwith other teachers. To challenge teachers’ beliefs about learning and ICT, it isessential to blend personal hands-on experience with discourse with other profes-sionals. Also important is the possibility of iteration between the training experienceand classroom activity. The classroom is a vital test-bed for the development andrefinement of pedagogical practice and, as ever, the response of students is theultimate educator for teachers. Innovation can sometimes be a lonely path to tread,but made easier by the support of a mentor or colleagues. Collaboration within aschool science department can accelerate and enhance the quality of teacher devel-opment (Finlayson and Rogers 2003).

Of the products of successful professional development, perhaps the most signifi-cant are the integration of ICT in the curriculum and a change in a teacher’spedagogy towards teaching approaches which empower students to work more inde-pendently and reflectively. We have given examples of how teachers’ subject andpedagogical knowledge may be adapted and blended with new technical knowledge,recognising that different teachers will have different starting points for developmentand will have different priorities for training which are best fulfilled by participationin several single training events or courses. Thus progress towards innovation willvary in rate and kind from teacher to teacher but its goal is always to exploit ICT toenhance science learning.

ReferencesAbell, S. K. 2008. “Twenty Years Later: Does Pedagogical Content Knowledge Remain a

Useful Idea?” International Journal of Science Education 30 (10): 1405–1416.Ausubel, D., J. Novak, and H. Hanesian. 1978. Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View.

2nd ed. , 27. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Clarke, D., and H. Hollingsworth. 2002. “Elaborating a Model of Teacher Professional

Growth.” Teaching and Teacher Education 18: 947–967.Cox, M. J., and M. E. Webb. 2004. ICT and Pedagogy: A Review of the Research Literature.

Coventry and London: British Educational Communications and Technology Agency/Department for Education and Skills.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

7:51

12

Aug

ust 2

014

Cradler, J., M. Freeman, R. Cradler, and M. McNabb. 2002. “Research Implications for Pre-paring Teachers to Use Technology.” Learning & Leading with Technology 30 (1): 50–53.

van Driel, J. H., N. Verloop, and W. de Vos. 1998. “Developing Science teachers’ Pedagogi-cal Content Knowledge.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 35 (6): 673–695.

Dwyer, D., C. Ringstaff, and J. Sandholtz. 1991. “Changes in Teachers’ Beliefs and Practicesin Technology-Rich Classrooms.” Educational Leadership 48 (8): 45–54.

Finlayson, H., and L. T. Rogers. 2003. “Does ICT in Science Really Work in the Classroom?Part 2. the Importance of the Department and Its Organisation.” School Science Review85 (310): 69–74.

Gilbert, J. 2010. “Supporting the Development of Effective Science Teachers.” In GoodPractice in Science Teaching – What Research Has to Say, edited by J. Osborne and J.Dillon, 283–287. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Greeno, J. G. 1994. “Gibson’s Affordances.” Psychological Review 101 (2): 340.Guskey, T. R. 2002. “Professional Development and Teacher Change.” Teachers and

Teaching 8 (3): 381–391.Hennessy, S., K. Ruthven, and S. Brindley. 2005. “Teacher Perspectives on Integrating ICT

into Subject Teaching: Commitment, Constraints, Caution and Change.” Journal ofCurriculum Studies 37 (2): 155–192.

Hennessy, S., J. Wishart, D. Whitelock, R. Deaney, R. Brawn, L. la Velle, A. McFarlane, K.Ruthven, and M. Winterbottom. 2007. “Pedagogical Approaches for Technology-Inte-grated Science Teaching.” Computers & Education 48 (2007): 137–152.

Hsu, Y., and R. Thomas. 2002. “The Impacts of a Web-Aided Instructional Simulation onScience Learning.” International Journal of Science Education 24 (9): 955–979.

Hughes, J. 2004. “Technology Learning Principles for Preservice and in-Service TeacherEducation.” Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education 4 (3): 345–362.

ICT for Innovative Science Teachers Project (2011). Leonardo da Vinci Programme 2009-1-PL1- LEO05- 05046. http://www.ictforist.oeiizk.waw.pl/

ICT for IST Resource Guide (2011) http://ictforist.oeiizk.waw.pl/upload/Resource_Guide_EN.pdf.

Jonassen, D. H. 1996. Computers in the Classroom: Mindtools for Critical Thinking.Columbus, OH: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.

Kennewell, S. 2001. “Using Affordances and Constraints to Evaluate the Use of ICT inTeaching and Learning.” Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education 10:101–115.

Kennewell, S. (2004). Researching the Influence of Interactive Presentation Tools onteachers’ Pedagogy. In Annual Conference of the British Educational Research Associa-tion (BERA), September 2004, Manchester.

Kind. 2009. “Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Science Education: Perspectives and Poten-tial for Progress.” Studies in Science Education 45 (2): 169–204.

Koehler, M. J., and P. Mishra. 2005. “What Happens When Teachers Design EducationalTechnology? the Development of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge.” Jour-nal of Educational Computing Research 32 (2): 131–152.

Kozma, R. B. 2009. “Comparative Analysis of Policies for ICT in Education.” In Interna-tional Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education, editedby J. Voogt and C. Knezek. New York: Springer.

Linn, M. C., and B. Eylon. 2011. Science Learning and Instruction – Taking Advantage ofTechnology for Knowledge Integration, 10–15. New York: Routledge.

Loucks-Horsley, S., and C. Matsumoto. 1999. “Research on Professional Development forTeachers of Mathematics and Science: The State of the Scene.” School Science andMathematics 99(5): 258–271.

Loughran, J., P. Mulhall, and A. Berry. 2004. “In Search of Pedagogical Content Knowledgein Science: Developing Ways of Articulating and Documenting Professional Practice.”Journal of Research in Science Teaching 41 (4): 370–391.

Loughran, J., P. Mulhall, and A. Berry. 2008. “Exploring Pedagogical Content Knowledge inScience Teacher Education.” International Journal of Science Education 30 (10):1301–1320.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

7:51

12

Aug

ust 2

014

http://www.ictforist.oeiizk.waw.pl/

http://ictforist.oeiizk.waw.pl/upload/Resource_Guide_EN.pdf

http://ictforist.oeiizk.waw.pl/upload/Resource_Guide_EN.pdf

Loveless, A. 2011. “Technology, Pedagogy and Education: Reflections on the Accomplish-ment of What Teachers Know, Do and Believe in a Digital Age.” Technology, Pedagogyand Education 20 (3): 301–316.

McCarney, J. 2004. “Effective Models of Staff Development in ICT.” European Journal ofTeacher Education 27 (1): 61–72.

McCrory, (2008) The Topic-Specific Challenges of TPCK in Science. In Handbook ofTechnological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPCK) for Educators. New York: Routledge,193–206

Millar, R. 2010. “Practical Work.” In Good Practice in Science Teaching – What ResearchHas to Say, edited by J. Osborne and J. Dillon, 108–134. Maidenhead: Open UniversityPress.

Mishra, P., and M. J. Koehler. 2006. “Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: AFramework for Teacher Knowledge.” Teacher College Record 108 (6): 1017–1054.

Morine-Dershimer, G., and T. Kent. 1999. “The Complex Nature and Sources of teachers’Pedagogical Knowledge.” In Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge, edited by J.Gess-Newsome and N. G. Lederman, 19–32. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Mortimer, E. F., and P. H. Scott. 2003. Meaning Making in Secondary Science Classrooms.Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Murray, H. 1938. Explorations in Personality. New York: Oxford University Press.Newton, L. R. 1998. “Gathering Data: Does It Make Sense?” Journal of Information

Technology for Teacher Education 7: 379–394.Newton, L., and L. Rogers. 2001. Teaching Science with ICT. London: Continuum.Papaevripidou, M., M. Lividjis and C.P. Constantinou(2011) Teachers as Learners and

Designers of ICT-Driven Science Curriculum Materials: Findings from the “ICT for Inno-vative Science Teachers” Project. In Proceedings of ESERA 2011 Conference, Lyon,France.

Papert, S.. 1999. Introduction in: Logo Philosophy and Implementation, Logo ComputerSystems Inc. (www.lcsi.ca)

Pedretti, E., J. Smith-Mayer, and J. Woodrow. 1999. “Teaming Technology EnhancedInstruction in the Science Classroom and Teacher Professional Development.” Journal ofTechnology and Teacher Education 7: 131–143.

Prestridge, S. 2009. “Teachers’ Talk in Professional Development Activity That SupportsChange in Their ICT Pedagogical Beliefs and Practices.” Teacher Development: An Inter-national Journal of teachers’ Professional Development 13 (1): 43–55.

Rogers, L. T., and H. Finlayson. 2003. “Does ICT in Science Really Work in the Classroom?Part 1. the Individual Teacher Experience.” School Science Review 84 (309): 105–111.

Rogers, L. T., and H. Finlayson. 2004. “Developing Successful Pedagogy with Informationand Communications Technology: How Are Science Teachers Meeting the Challenge?”Technology, Pedagogy and Education 13 (3): 2004.

Schibeci, R., J. MacCallum, W. Cumming‐Potvin, C. Durrant, B. Kissane, and E. Miller.2008. “Teachers’ Journeys towards Critical Use of ICT.” Learning, Media andTechnology 33 (4): 313–327.

Shulman, L. S. 1986. “Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching.” Educa-tional Researcher 15 (4).

Shulman, L. S. 1987. “Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform.” HarvardEducation Review 57(1): 1–22.

Smetana, L. K., and R. L. Bell. 2011. “Computer Simulations to Support Science Instructionand Learning: A Critical Review of the Literature.” International Journal of ScienceEducation. doi:10.1080/09500693.2011.605182.

Songer, N. B. 2007. “Digital Resources versus Cognitive Tools: A Discussion of LearningScience with Technology.” In Handbook of Research on Science Education, edited byS. K. Abell and N. G. Lederman, 471. New York: Routledge.

Steel, P., and C. J. König. 2006. “Integrating Motivational Theories.” Academy of Manage-ment Review 31 (4): 889–913.

Stoffregen, T. A. 2003. Affordances as Properties of the Animal-Environment System.Ecological Psychology 15 (2), 115–134.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

7:51

12

Aug

ust 2

014

http://www.lcsi.ca

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.605182

Sutton, C. R. 1998. “Science as Conversation: Come and See My Air Pump!.” In PracticalWork in School Science – Which Way Now?, edited by J. J. Wellington. London:Routledge.

Webb, M. 2010. “Technology-Mediated Learning.” In Good Practice in Science Teaching –What Research Has to Say, edited by J. Osborne and J. Dillon, 181. Maidenhead: OpenUniversity Press.

Wellington, J. J. 1998. Practical Work in School Science. London: Routledge.Woolnough, B. E. 1991. Practical Science. Milton Keynes: Oxford University Press.Zhao, Y., K. Pugh, S. Sheldon, and J. L. Byers. 2002. “Conditions for Classroom Technology

Innovations.” Teachers College Record 104 (3): 482–515.

Appendix 1. Example of simulation software from the ICT for IST ResourcesPackFigure 2a shows a simulation which leads to ideas about terminal velocity. Exerting a forceon the pedals causes acceleration. Exploring this you soon discover that a constant force doesnot produce a constant acceleration. The velocity increases at first but as the accelerationdiminishes the velocity reaches a maximum value. Increasing the force on the pedals doesproduce more acceleration, but it is short lived. The physics of this scenario requires consid-eration of not only the force exerted on the pedals but also the forces of friction which arisedue to air resistance and friction in the mechanism of the bicycle. Switching the display toshow the model (Figure 2b) helps pupils understand how the forces and resulting motion arerelated.

The situation is made complex by the fact that the frictional force of air resistance is notconstant but varies with velocity. A great virtue of the model is that it helps to break downsophisticated motion into smaller easily understood steps.

� The acceleration is calculated from the resultant force using Newton’s 2nd Law ofMotion.

� The resultant force is obtained from the vector sum of friction and pedalling force.Since they are opposed this is achieved by subtracting the frictional force from thepedal force.

� The frictional force depends upon the velocity (directly proportional in streamline flow

Figure 2a. Simulation and graph.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

7:51

12

Aug

ust 2

014

but proportional to the square of velocity in turbulent flow).� The velocity changes according to the magnitude of the acceleration.� The mutual dependence of variables in a feedback loop emerges.

Doing such multiple calculations manually is out of the question, but the computermodelling system performs these calculations without difficulty. So here is an example of apiece of software which apparently provides a novel experience for experimenting.

Appendix 2. Example of a data-logging experiment from the ICT for ISTResources Pack

Data-logging experiment using the motion sensorThe essence of data-logging in general is the use of sensors for making measurements in realexperiments. When connected to the computer they send a stream of data which can beimmediately presented on a graph in data-logging software. In this example a motion sensordetects the position of objects placed in front of it and allows distance-time graphs to be plot-ted simultaneously on the screen. Whilst standing in front of the sensor, any movement madeby a pupil is recorded as a distance-time graph.

The immediacy of plotting gives pupils a first-hand opportunity to make mental connec-tions between their physical movement and the shape of its symbolic representation in thegraph. This is a quality of experience which is unequalled with conventional measuringinstruments. The speed of movement, its direction and steadiness are all represented byfeatures of the graph. The shape of the graph tells a story of a pupil’s motion as he or she

Figure 2b. Model window.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

7:51

12

Aug

ust 2

014

walks backwards or forwards or pauses in between. Once captured, the data may be analysedusing software tools; for example, the furthest distance may be measured using cursors, thegradient indicating speed and direction may be measured at any point on the graph, a newgraph of velocity against time may be plotted from calculations performed on the originaldata.

This experiment illustrates a powerful measuring tool, but some of the skills needed tomake it useful in the classroom are as follows:

Operational skills with data-logging

� Connecting sensors and interfaces.� Choosing logging parameters.� Starting and finishing real-time logging.� Retrieving data stored in data-loggers.

Employing data-logging in an educationally purposeful way involves these proceduralskills:

� Exploiting opportunities for novel experiments.� Active observation during real-time logging.� Evaluating measurement quality.� Analysing data using graphs.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

7:51

12

Aug

ust 2

014

Documents

A pedagogical framework for developing innovative science teachers with ICT