Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [University of Prince Edward Island]On: 19 November 2014, At: 23:54Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK
Computers in the Schools:Interdisciplinary Journal ofPractice, Theory, and AppliedResearchPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wcis20
Using Technology to EnhanceScience Inquiry in an OutdoorClassroomPamela Cantrell a b & Mark S. Knudson ca Raggio Research Center for Science, Technology ,Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Education ,USAb Science and Mathematics Education, Departmentof Educational Specialties , College of Education/MS432, University of Nevada, Reno , Reno, NV, 89557,USAc Nevada Department of Education , Carson City, NV,89701, USAPublished online: 08 Sep 2008.
To cite this article: Pamela Cantrell & Mark S. Knudson (2006) Using Technologyto Enhance Science Inquiry in an Outdoor Classroom, Computers in the Schools:Interdisciplinary Journal of Practice, Theory, and Applied Research, 23:1-2, 7-18, DOI:10.1300/J025v23n01_02
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J025v23n01_02
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Pr
ince
Edw
ard
Isla
nd]
at 2
3:54
19
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Pamela CantrellMark S. Knudson
Using Technologyto Enhance Science Inquiryin an Outdoor Classroom
SUMMARY. Participants in a science professional development fieldexperience were surveyed for their perceptions of the impacts of inte-grating a wireless local area network (WLAN), pocket PCs, and laptopsas tools for enhancing science inquiry. Pocket PCs and laptops wereused for data collection and analysis and for communication of researchresults to peers. Data were stored and disseminated via the WLAN us-ing wireless adapters in the pocket PCs. A laptop provided the storagecapacity and the base for a wireless access point and omni-directionalantenna. While over half the participants reported positive attitudesabout learning new technology, some reported that it interfered withtheir doing science inquiry. Others felt more training in advance of the
.
PAMELA CANTRELL is Director, Raggio Research Center for Science, Technology,Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Education and Assistant Professor of Scienceand Mathematics Education, Department of Educational Specialties, College of Edu-cation/MS 432, University of Nevada, Reno, Reno, NV 89557 (E-mail: [email protected]).MARK S. KNUDSON is Educational Technology Consultant, Nevada Department ofEducation, Carson City, NV 89701 (E-mail: [email protected]).Copies of data collection instruments and complete technology plan are available fromDr. Cantrell via e-mail <[email protected]>.
[Haworth co-indexing entry note]: “Using Technology to Enhance Science Inquiry in an Outdoor Classroom.”Cantrell, Pamela, and Mark S. Knudson. Co-published simultaneously in Computers in the Schools (The Haworth Press,Inc.) Vol. 23, No. 1/2, 2006, pp. 7-18; and: Type II Uses of Technology in Education: Projects, Case Studies, and SoftwareApplications (ed: Cleborne D. Maddux, and D. LaMont Johnson) The Haworth Press, Inc., 2006, pp. 7-18. Single or multi-ple copies of this article are available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service [1-800-HAWORTH, 9:00a.m. - 5:00 p.m. (EST). E-mail address: [email protected]].
Available online at http://www.haworthpress.com/web/CITS© 2006 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
Digital Object Identifier: 10.1300/J025v23n01_02 7
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Pr
ince
Edw
ard
Isla
nd]
at 2
3:54
19
Nov
embe
r 20
14
field experience would have been beneficial. Those who used the tech-nology as data collection tools reported the technology was vital to theirresearch projects. Results of this study were incorporated into our planfor integrating technology into future field experiences in scienceinquiry. [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document DeliveryService: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <[email protected]>Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2006 by The Haworth Press, Inc.All rights reserved.]
KEYWORDS. Scientific literacy, scientific inquiry, wireless LAN, out-door education, wireless network, handheld devices, pocket PC, teacherprofessional development, technology integration, data analysis tools,science education
BACKGROUND
The NERDS (Nevada Educators Really Doing Science) program be-gan in Summer 2001 to provide science inquiry field courses for teach-ers. Based on a model used by three universities in Utah (Vineyard,1997), the NERDS model provides opportunities for teachers to learnscience inquiry by doing science inquiry. Funded by Eisenhower andNo Child Left Behind grants, the NERDS program offered a marine sci-ence course in Newport, Oregon, in Summer 2001. In Summer 2002,the Oregon course was followed by a natural history course focusing onthe Colorado Plateau in Zion Canyon National Park, Utah. The NERDScourses consisted of a half-day pre-session where participants were in-troduced to science inquiry through guided activities and modeling.Following the pre-session was a six-day field experience in either Ore-gon or Utah where participants worked in small groups facilitated by atrained staff person. While in the field, groups developed a researchablequestion, designed an investigation, and collected the data. Each eve-ning in camp, the groups reported on their research progress. They useddata collected with handheld pocket PCs and analyzed the data onlaptops after performing a wireless transfer. Each group communicatedtheir results to peers using presentation software with images taken bydigital cameras. Several weeks after the field experience, participantsmet together in a post-session and reported on their experiences in im-plementing science inquiry into their own classrooms.
Data for the first year showed statistically significant increases in sci-ence teaching efficacy and understanding of the nature of science and
8 TYPE II USES OF TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Pr
ince
Edw
ard
Isla
nd]
at 2
3:54
19
Nov
embe
r 20
14
science inquiry, and showed a statistically significant decrease in theirviews of scientists as stereotypical lab-coated, bespectacled, bubbling,flask-bearing, wild-haired white males.
For the 2002 courses, a supplemental grant allowed us to purchasetechnology tools for data collection and projection in the field includingpocket PCs, a wireless local area network (WLAN), GPS units, an inter-active whiteboard, and LCD projector. While we recognize the impor-tance of technology in today’s world and its link to the enterprise ofscience, the focus of the NERDS Institute is on doing science inquiryand not on doing technology. Technologies can be powerful tools foreducational improvement, but they are only tools (Hawkins, 2002). Ourgoal was to integrate technology as a tool to support the science inquirylearning, and participants would select the technology that best fit theirparticular learning task in a seamless manner, an approach advocated bythe National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers (NETS)(ISTE, 2000). We also hoped participants would come away with thebelief that appropriate use of integrated technology would enhance sci-ence inquiry. We therefore designed the Colorado Plateau experienceduring Summer 2002 as a pilot course for the integrated technologycomponent. We included wireless technology because it fit our field re-search model and because the teaching and learning options usingwireless technology are just starting to be realized (ISTE, 2000). Par-ticipants could exercise the option of using the pocket PCs and WLANin any way that was useful to them during their research experience.Just-in-time training was implemented using a train-the-trainer model.
This study was designed to examine teachers’ use of a wireless net-work and pocket PCs in a field setting during a six-day intensive profes-sional development course in science inquiry. We hoped to build onteachers’ skills in using Microsoft Word and Excel by providing themwith Pocket PCs containing pocket editions of the Windows and Officesoftware. Participants were trained how to use pocket PCs in the field fordata collection and analysis and how to transfer the data files to the servervia the wireless network. While use of the pocket PCs and the wirelessnetwork was not a course requirement, we hoped that teachers would bemotivated to use the technology as a tool for their inquiry investigations.Specifically, we sought answers to the following questions:
1. How much of participants’ time would be spent learning newtechnology compared to the time spent doing inquiry while in thefield?
2. How much of a frustration level was associated with the technol-ogy learning curve?
3. How useful was the technology in supporting science inquiry?
Pamela Cantrell and Mark S. Knudson 9
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Pr
ince
Edw
ard
Isla
nd]
at 2
3:54
19
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Our intent was to use the results of this study to inform our decisionsabout including integrated technology as a required component of thecourse in the future.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Science education has embraced technology as an integral compo-nent of the processes and activities of scientific work. The recent stan-dards movement includes the notion that a complete science educationincorporates technology skills as both a tool for learning science contentand processes and as a stand-alone topic of instruction (AAAS, 1993;NRC, 1996). Children who are learning science should be exposed totechnology applications and skills within the context of meaningful sci-ence explorations. However, many teachers lack the training to do thiseffectively. Technology skills are often taught in isolation rather thanintegrated in a meaningful context (Flick & Bell, 2000). Teachers areoften left on their own to devise ways to apply these technology skills totheir various situations and content areas.
Effective professional development is one way to help in-serviceteachers increase their skills for integrating technology in meaningfulscience context in their classrooms. The report to the nation by the Na-tional Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21stCentury (USDOE, 2000) identifies professional development as prereq-uisite for a well-qualified teaching force and encourages teachers totake responsibility for their own professionalism as they work to im-prove their skills. The Commission also stresses the need for summerinstitutes that provide opportunities for teachers to upgrade contentknowledge and learn to integrate technology into the teaching of mathe-matics and science.
Improving scientific literacy among teachers of science, including el-ementary teachers, has become a national goal, and great effort on manylevels is being expended to meet this goal. The process of inquiry is crit-ical to scientific literacy and is understood to be the way knowledge isproduced (Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1990; Trowbridge, Bybee, & Powell,2000). The abilities and understandings that students need to inquirehelp them to understand what we know and what evidence supportswhat we know and are central to the national science teaching standards(NRC, 2000). Science inquiry provides an effective avenue for learningscience content and acquiring technology skills.
10 TYPE II USES OF TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Pr
ince
Edw
ard
Isla
nd]
at 2
3:54
19
Nov
embe
r 20
14
The essence of inquiry in the classroom should include learning theway that scientists conduct themselves as a community through sharedunderstanding, empirical testability, expanding the basis for discussion,and openness. If students can engage in discourse aimed at explainingnatural phenomena–the “how” of science in a way that is faithful to theconduct of real science–they are doing science (Bereiter, Scardamalia,Cassells, & Hewitt, 1997).
The digital age has impacted the way teachers are thinking about de-livering science content in their classrooms. The flexibility, speed, andstorage capacity of computers and other technology devices is causingteachers to redefine what it means to offer hands-on experiences fortheir science students (Flick & Bell, 2000). For some science teachers,“hands-on” instruction now includes integrating technology to collect,analyze, exchange, and disseminate data via wireless technologies orthrough virtual discussions using pocket PCs, cell phones, pagers, andfeatures of the Web. When interviewing middle school students carry-ing laptops in their backpacks, Chen and Armstrong (2002) reportedone student’s belief that computers shouldn’t be machines you go to,but machines that go with you. The future of technology in schools maybe to move away from strong reliance on general computing devicessuch as large computers toward lower-cost pocket devices that use wire-less technologies (Norman, 1998). When combined with wireless net-works, servers, and teacher workstations, the pocket devices may beeasier to use, facilitate more in-depth learning, and foster more informa-tion exchange between student-to-student and student-to-teacher thandesktop computers (Means, 2000). Flick and Bell (2000) also suggesttechnology should be introduced in the context of science content andshould address worthwhile science with appropriate pedagogy.
The National Technology Education Standards call for all areas ofthe curriculum to be integrated with technology (ISTE, 2002). In addi-tion, standards from the National Staff Development Council (NSDC,2003) advocate for professional development experiences that are re-search-based and that use content to increase student learning and de-velopment. Learning and doing science inquiry that meets expectedstandards is a complex and intricate process that involves several layersof activity. Teaching teachers how to do science inquiry requires hands-on, situation-specific experience, an approach advocated by a numberof researchers (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1996; Loucks-Hors-ley, Hewson, Love, & Stiles, 1988; Loughran & Gunstone, 1997). TheNERDS model accomplishes this by focusing on providing teacherswith field experiences that include a full spectrum of participant-driven
Pamela Cantrell and Mark S. Knudson 11
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Pr
ince
Edw
ard
Isla
nd]
at 2
3:54
19
Nov
embe
r 20
14
hands-on investigations so that teachers learn science inquiry by doingscience inquiry.
METHODS AND PROCEDURES
Seventeen teachers participated in the Colorado Plateau NERDScourse during Summer 2002. This included fourteen elementary schoolteachers and three high school teachers. There were eleven females andsix males with the number of years of teaching experience in the groupranging from 1-18 years. Upon arrival at camp, the participants were di-vided into research groups consisting of four to five people, and oneperson from each group was given training on the pocket PCs and use ofthe wireless network using a train-the-trainer model. Other members ofthe group received training on the digital cameras, GPS units, and sam-pling procedures. Each of these participants then trained his/her respec-tive group. pocket PCs were distributed to each participant. Duringsubsequent days, the wireless network was set up to operate both incamp and in the field. Field operation of the network was powered by aportable power inverter that could recharge in the vehicles while in tran-sit to the field experiences. The access point, omni-directional antenna,power inverter, and laptop server were carried into the field in a back-pack worn by the technology coordinator. The network was set up sothat participants could transfer files to and from the file server up to1500 meters away. This occurred while traveling in the vans, perform-ing field investigations, and analyzing data back at camp.
Participants were given ample opportunities to integrate technologyinto their research projects. For example, one group’s research questionrequired them to collect circumference and height measures on pinyonpine trees in order to investigate a relationship with elevation. Theyused a GPS device to establish the location of each sampled tree, en-tered the tree measurements in a spreadsheet in the field using pocketPCs, transferred the data to a file server back at camp, generated graphsto represent the data, and inserted the graphs into presentation softwarefor communicating their day’s progress at the evening campfire. Theyalso included digital images documenting their procedures as part oftheir presentations.
12 TYPE II USES OF TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Pr
ince
Edw
ard
Isla
nd]
at 2
3:54
19
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Data Sources
To evaluate participants’ use of technology and possible enhance-ment of their inquiry investigations we designed two questionnaires.The Technology Survey assessed baseline use and familiarity withhardware and software that would be available on the NERDS field ex-perience and asked participants to rate their level of proficiency ac-cording to the Nevada State Department of Education’s Technology Pro-ficiency Levels of early, emergent, fluent, and proficient. The Post FieldExperience Survey was administered on the last day of the field experi-ence and contained questions related to their use and attitudes about thetechnology during the field experience. We used three additional sourcesof data–we examined the contents of their files on the server to see theextent of their use of the pocket PCs for data collection and analysis, andwe analyzed participants’ journal entries and the open-ended questionson the Post Field Experience Survey.
RESULTS
One-third of the participants rated themselves at the early level on the16 skills listed on the Technology Survey, while 53% rated themselvesat the emergent level, and 14% at the fluent level. About half of the par-ticipants returned the pocket PCs to staff on the second day, most statingthat someone else in their group was going to operate them. Those whoretained the pocket PCs served as the “resident experts” within their re-search groups and were depended upon by the others to handle any taskrelative to that technology. Analysis of the data on the server files re-vealed that three of the participants used the wireless network to transferthree or more files to the server. An additional seven participants ac-cessed the server to download the daily schedule to their pocket PCs onbehalf of their group. Two teachers used the pocket PCs to enter datainto spreadsheets as they collected the data in the field.
When asked which technologies they spent time learning, 37.5% ofparticipants reported learning the digital video cameras, 50% learned touse Word and 43.8% learned Excel on the pocket PC, 81% spent timelearning to use the GPS units, and 43.8% reported learning to use thedigital still cameras as well as learning to transfer files using infraredtechnology. When asked whether learning these new technologies inter-fered or assisted with doing science inquiry, half responded one way,and half the other. About 44% reported that learning the new technolo-
Pamela Cantrell and Mark S. Knudson 13
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Pr
ince
Edw
ard
Isla
nd]
at 2
3:54
19
Nov
embe
r 20
14
gies was stressful, while 56% reported it was exciting for them. It wasinteresting to note that participants reported that an average of 10% oftheir time was spent learning the new technologies while 59% was spentdoing science inquiry.
Comments from open-ended questions and journal responses indi-cated that participants were feeling some stress relative to the technol-ogy. The proficiency levels of quoted teachers appear in parentheses.One teacher (emergent) commented, “There wasn’t enough time to be-come proficient in transferring data into a presentation. Luckily, therewere many there to assist me.” Another teacher (emergent) made a simi-lar comment, “Too short of time for real training–it was more of an in-troduction, which makes it hard to use.” One teacher (fluent) statedshe/he felt forced into using the technology, while another teacher(early) refused to feel anxious about learning the new technology, “Ionly did as much as I felt like doing. I learned some new things, butdidn’t let it bog me down.”
While our focus was on demonstrating how spreadsheet applicationsthat are available in their own classrooms could be used for data collec-tion and analysis, some participants didn’t see it that way. One teacher(emergent) said, “I think we need to spend time learning technology wealready have available and not so much with technology we may neveruse like GPS and pocket PCs.” Another teacher (emergent) commented,“I am not interested in technology that is not available to me. Our timecould have been better spent doing inquiry.”
Some participants felt anxiety as they anticipated the technologylearning curve, but it turned out not to be quite as stressful as theythought it would be. One teacher (early) said, “It stressed me to thinkabout it before I got here, but I was very pleased to have the opportunityto learn new technology and use it as I felt comfortable.” Other teachersseemed to rise to the challenge without feeling much stress. One teacher(early) commented, “Entering data in the spreadsheet program on thepocket PC was new for me. Our field project was helped by the technol-ogy–it was vital! I learned so much.” Another teacher (emergent) said,“The technology never interfered with the science. I strongly believethat technology must be used by me and by my students.” Several otherscommented on how much they enjoyed learning the new way of inte-grating technology into science.
Another interesting finding emerged by looking at the teachers groupedby proficiency levels. Early level teachers as a whole seemed to havethe most positive attitude about learning the new technologies. They ad-mitted to feeling stress, but took it in stride and for the most part, were
14 TYPE II USES OF TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Pr
ince
Edw
ard
Isla
nd]
at 2
3:54
19
Nov
embe
r 20
14
pleased to learn new skills. The emergent level teachers tended to alsofeel the stress, but allowed it to turn into a negative experience. Theirprimary concerns were lack of time to learn the technology adequatelyand feeling it was a waste of time to work with technology that was notavailable in their classrooms such as the pocket PCs and GPS units. Thefluent level teachers were the most critical. They reported feeling forcedinto using the technology and felt a keen sense of needing more advancetraining on the technology.
DISCUSSION
Several important findings emerged from this study that will impactour future direction with a technology component for NERDS. First, itwas evident that participants felt there was not adequate training for thetechnology in the field. This is not surprising given the results from a re-cent report from the U. S. Department of Education (NCES) that foundone of the major barriers to teachers’ use of technology to be adequatetime to learn computers. Several teachers felt that the brief introductorytechnology training they received rather than a more in-depth trainingplaced them under more stress and made their work more difficult. Thisfinding suggests that we must set aside adequate time for training. Also,waiting until we are in the field with the pressures of completing groupinvestigations weighing heavily on participants may not be the best timeto do the training.
Second, although our intent was to make the technology available forparticipants and we stated repeatedly that it was not required, many par-ticipants felt pressured, even coerced, into pushing themselves beyondtheir comfort levels, resulting in the perception that the technology in-terfered with their doing science. Although only 50% reported feelingthat way, that was a much higher percentage than we anticipated. It maybe that, although the two program directors held the stance that technol-ogy was optional, competition among the groups at the evening firesidesessions was fostered by groups whose presentations were more tech-nology-rich. The fact that 87% of the participants rated themselves atthe early or emergent levels of proficiency with most of the technolo-gies we used may also have contributed to their anxiety levels. It alsocould be that we inadvertently created more stress by not having spe-cific requirements for participants to meet in terms of technology skillsimprovement. Many teachers are lifelong learners and place themselvesunder their own high expectations to learn more than is required. When
Pamela Cantrell and Mark S. Knudson 15
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Pr
ince
Edw
ard
Isla
nd]
at 2
3:54
19
Nov
embe
r 20
14
the requirement is not clearly articulated, it may be that they begin towonder how much effort is enough and are brought into time conflictsas well.
Third, in observing the participants at work in the field, we noted thatthe pocket PCs were passed around with different participants utilizingthem for doing different tasks. This may be a more effective strategythan to issue a pocket PC to each person. With two pocket PCs pergroup, data could be collected, backed up, and transferred back andforth using infrared technology with various group members participat-ing in different tasks. The data could then be transferred to the server viawireless technology when within range of the network.
In terms of the apparent attitudes of the three proficiency levelgroups, it was interesting to note that the early level group of teachersseemed to show the most positive attitude about learning the new tech-nology. Perhaps they had not yet experienced a steep technology learn-ing curve to know what to expect in such a situation. Their willingnessto set aside anxiety and learn as much as they could has resulted in less-ening our reluctance to accept teachers into the NERDS courses whomay be performing at the early proficiency level. The less positive atti-tudes of the emergent and fluent level groups may be due to their per-sonal expectations that, because they possessed higher technologyskills, they should be performing at a higher level with this new technol-ogy; but when they could not achieve their expected performance level,they placed the blame elsewhere.
Finally, the fact that several participants saw the value of the technol-ogy component in the context of the science inquiry experience is reas-suring. More than half of the participants were excited about learningnew technology skills and applications. Also, from a larger study com-paring the Oregon participants with the Colorado Plateau participants(Cantrell & Vineyard, 2003), it is interesting to note that the two groupsdid not differ significantly in the time spent on inquiry, the time spentlearning new technology, or in their understanding and application ofscience inquiry. Even though the Colorado Plateau group voiced moreconcerns about technology, and indeed, had more exposure to technol-ogy than did the Oregon group, the groups performed equally well.
IMPLICATIONS
The results of this study have provided a clear direction for us as wemove forward with an improved technology component for NERDS.
16 TYPE II USES OF TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Pr
ince
Edw
ard
Isla
nd]
at 2
3:54
19
Nov
embe
r 20
14
We have increased the course credit from three graduate credits to sixand have added a clearly articulated technology plan that includes am-ple technology training experience prior to the field experience. Wehave added a laptop computer for each study group that will facilitatedata transfer capability as well as access for creating presentations forevening campfire report sessions. We have added a staff technologytraining component that will enhance our capacity for modeling andfacilitating technology use in the field.
We are committed to the belief that technology should be introducedand utilized in the context of authentic science investigations and its usecan enhance science teaching and learning. We understand that not allteachers who attend NERDS will come away with an increased appreci-ation for integrated technology. One teacher reflected this attitude in acomment on her survey, “If pencil and paper were good enough forLewis and Clark, then they are good enough for me.” However, our goalis to help teachers gain technology skills by providing them an opportu-nity to experience authentic science inquiry with integrated technolo-gies so they can develop documents with more information, with morediverse formats, by using a wide variety of technology applications, andaccessing more databases and resources than Lewis and Clark everdreamed would be possible.
The optimum expected outcome from our NERDS courses is thatteachers will come to understand that anyone can be a scientist, includ-ing themselves and their students, and that the enterprise of science isbased on the process of inquiry–asking questions, designing an investi-gation, collecting data, and formulating and communicating data-basedresults, all of which can be enhanced through technology.
REFERENCES
AAAS [American Association for the Advancement of Science]. (1993). Benchmarksfor science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bereiter, C., Scardamalia, M., Cassells, C., & Hewitt, J. (1997). Postmodernism,knowledge building, and elementary science. Elementary School Journal, 97(4),329-340.
Cantrell, P., & Vineyard, R. (2003). The effects of including a technology component ina science inquiry field experience for teachers. Unpublished manuscript.
Chen, M., & Armstron, S. (Eds.). (2002). Edutopia: Success stories for learning in thedigital age. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pamela Cantrell and Mark S. Knudson 17
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Pr
ince
Edw
ard
Isla
nd]
at 2
3:54
19
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1996). Policies that support profes-sional development in an era of reform. In M. W. McLaughlin & I. Oberman (Eds.),Teacher learning: New policies, new practices. New York: Teachers College Press.
Flick, L., & Bell, R. (2000). Preparing tomorrow’s science teachers to use technology:Guidelines for science educators. Contemporary Issues in Technology and TeacherEducation, 1(1), 39-60.
Hawkins, J. (2002). Imagine the possibilities. In W. Snider (Ed.), Learn & live. SanRafael, CA: George Lucas Educational Foundation.
ISTE [International Society for Technology Education]. (2000). National educationaltechnology standards for students: Connecting curriculum and technology. Eu-gene, OR: Author.
ISTE [International Society for Technology Education]. (2002). National educationaltechnology standards for teachers: Preparing teachers to use technology. Eugene,OR: International Society for Technology Education.
Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P. W., Love, N., & Stiles, K. E. (1988). Designing pro-fessional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks,CA: Corwin.
Loughran, J., & Gunstone, R. (1997). Professional development in residence: Develop-ing reflection on science teaching and learning. Journal of Education for Teaching,23(2).
NCES [National Center for Educational Statistics]. Teachers’ tools for the 21st cen-tury: A report on teachers’ use of technology. National Center for Educational Sta-tistics.
Norman, D. A. (1998). The invisible computer: Why good products can fail, the per-sonal computer is so complex, and information appliances are the solution. Cam-bridge, MA: MIT Press.
NRC [National Research Council]. (1996). National science education standards.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
NRC [National Research Council]. (2000). Inquiry and the national science educationstandards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National AcademyPress.
NSDC [National Staff Development Council]. (2003). NSDC standards. RetrievedApril 10, 2003, from www.nsde.org/educatorindex.htm
Rutherford, F. J., & Ahlgren, A. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.
Trowbridge, L. W., Bybee, R. W., & Powell, J. C. (2000). Teaching secondary schoolscience: Strategies for developing scientific literacy. Upper Saddle River, NJ:Merrill.
USDOE [U. S. Department of Education]. (2000). Before it’s too late: A report to thenation from The National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching forthe 21st Century. Washington, DC: Author.
Vineyard, R. N. (1997). From traditional approaches toward innovation. The SCSTMonograph Series, 73-77.
18 TYPE II USES OF TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Pr
ince
Edw
ard
Isla
nd]
at 2
3:54
19
Nov
embe
r 20
14
